Consumer Assurance of Radiologic Excellence Act of 2003

Mr. President, in June 1999, the United States Supreme Court issued a pair of decisions that altered the legal landscape with respect to intellectual property. I am referring to Florida Prepaid v. College Savings Bank and its companion case, College Savings Bank v. Florida Prepaid. The Court ruled in these cases that States and their institutions cannot be held liable for damages for patent infringement and other violations of the Federal intellectual property laws, even though they can and do enjoy the full protection of those laws for themselves.

Both Florida Prepaid and College Savings Bank were decided by the same five-to-four majority of the justices. This slim majority of the Court threw out three Federal statutes that Congress passed, unanimously, in the early 1990s, to reaffirm that the Federal patent, copyright, and trademark laws apply to everyone, including the States.

I believe that there is an urgent need for Congress to respond to the Florida Prepaid decisions, for two reasons.

First, the decisions opened up a huge loophole in our Federal intellectual property laws. If we truly believe in fairness, we cannot tolerate a situation in which some participants in the intellectual property system get legal

protection but need not adhere to the law themselves. If we truly believe in the free market, we cannot tolerate a situation where one class of market participants have to play by the rules and others do not. As Senator Specter said in August 1999, in a floor statement that was highly critical of the Florida Prepaid decisions, they ``leave us with an absurd and untenable state of affairs,'' where ``States will enjoy an enormous advantage over their private sector competitors.''

The second reason why Congress should respond to the Florida Prepaid decisions is that they raise broader concerns about the roles of Congress and the Court. Over the past decade, in a series of five-to- four decisions that might be called examples of ``judicial activism,'' the current Supreme Court majority has overturned Federal legislation with a frequency unprecedented in American constitutional history. In doing so, the Court has more often than not relied on notions of State sovereign immunity that have little if anything to do with the text of the Constitution.

Some of us have liked some of the results; others have liked others; but that is not the point. This activist Court has been whittling away at the legitimate constitutional authority of the federal government. At the risk of sounding alarmist, this is the fact of the matter: We are faced with a choice. We can respond--in a careful and measured way--by reinstating our democratic policy choices in legislation that is crafted to meet the Court's stated objections. Or we can run away, abdicate our democratic policy-making duties to the unelected Court, and go down in history as the incredible shrinking Congress.

About four months after the Florida Prepaid decisions issued, I introduced a bill that responded to those decisions. The Intellectual Property Protection Restoration Act of 1999 was designed to restore Federal remedies for violations of intellectual property rights by states. I have continued to refine this legislation over the years, and in February 2002, as Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I held the Committee's first hearing on the issue of sovereign immunity and the protection of intellectual property.

Today, I am pleased to be introducing the Intellectual Property Protection Restoration Act of 2003, which builds on my earlier proposals and on the helpful comments I have received on those proposals from legal experts across the country. I am proud to have the House leaders on intellectual property issues, Representatives Smith and Berman, as the principal sponsors of the House companion bill.

This bill has the same common-sense goal as the three statutes that the Supreme Court's decisions invalidated: To protect intellectual property rights fully and fairly. But the legislation has been re- engineered, after extensive consultation with constitutional and intellectual property experts, to ensure full compliance with the Court's new jurisprudential requirements. As a result, the bill has earned the strong support of the U.S. Copyright Office and the endorsements of a broad range of organizations including the American Bar Association, the American Intellectual Property Law Association, the Business Software Alliance, the Intellectual Property Owners Association, the International Trademark Association, the Motion Picture Association of America, the Professional Photographers of America Association, and the Chamber of Commerce.

In essence, our bill presents States with a choice. It creates reasonable incentives for States to waive their immunity in intellectual property cases, but it does not oblige them to do so. States that choose not to waive their immunity within two years after enactment of the bill would continue to enjoy many of the benefits of the Federal intellectual property system; however, like private parties that sue States for infringement, States that sue private parties for infringement could not recover any money damages unless they had waived their immunity from liability in intellectual property cases.

This arrangement is clearly constitutional. Congress may attach conditions to a State's receipt of Federal intellectual property protection under its Article I intellectual property power just as Congress may attach conditions on a State's receipt of federal funds under its Article I spending power. Either way, the power to attach conditions to the federal benefit is part of the greater power to deny the benefit altogether. And no condition could be more reasonable or proportionate than the condition that in order to obtain full protection for your federal intellectual property rights, you must respect those of others.

I am encouraged by the Supreme Court's recent decision in Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs, which, although very narrow, suggests that certain Justices may be starting to realize that the Court has gone too far in sacrificing ordinary people's rights at the altar of sovereign immunity. By upholding the Family and Medical Leave Act as applied to the States, the Hibbs case also suggests that a very carefully crafted law, which simply does what is necessary to protect important rights, will be upheld.

I hope we can all agree on the need to protect the rights of intellectual property owners. A recent GAO study confirmed that, as the law now stands, owners of intellectual property have few or no alternatives or remedies available against State infringers--just a series of dead ends.

We need to assure American inventors and investors, and our foreign trading partners, that as State involvement in intellectual property becomes ever greater in the new information economy, U.S. intellectual property rights are backed by legal remedies. I want to emphasize the international ramifications here. American trading interests have been well served by our strong and consistent advocacy of effective intellectual property protections in treaty negotiations and other international fora. Those efforts could be jeopardized by the loophole in U.S. intellectual property enforcement that the Supreme Court has created.

Senator Brownback made this point at a Judiciary Committee hearing on February 27, 2002. He said, ``When states assert sovereign immunity for the purpose of infringing upon intellectual property rights, it damages the credibility of the United States internationally, and could possibly even lead to violations of our treaty obligations. Any decrease in the level of enforcement of intellectual property rights around the world is likely to harm American businesses, because of our position as international leaders in industries like pharmaceuticals, information technology, and biotechnology.''

The Intellectual Property Protection Restoration Act restores protection for violations of intellectual property rights that may, under current law, go unremedied. We unanimously passed more sweeping legislation in the early 1990s, but were thwarted by the Supreme Court's shifting jurisprudence. We should enact this legislation without further delay.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I have joined today with Senators DeWine, Grassley, Cantwell, and Domenici to introduce legislation that will help State and local governments reduce crime by providing more effective treatment for the mentally ill. All too often, people with mental illness rotate repeatedly between the criminal justice system and the streets of our communities, committing a series of minor offenses. Law enforcement officers' ever scarcer time is being occupied by these offenders, who divert them from their more urgent responsibilities. Meanwhile, offenders find themselves in prisons or jails, where little or no appropriate medical care is available for them. This bill give State and local governments the tools to break this cycle, for the good of law enforcement, corrections officers, the public's safety, and mentally ill offenders.

I held a Judiciary Committee hearing last June on the criminal justice system and mentally ill offenders. At that

hearing, we heard from State mental health officials, law enforcement officers, corrections officials, and the representative of counties around our Nation. All agreed that people with untreated mental illness are more likely to commit crimes, and that our State mental health systems, prisons and jails do not have the resources they need to treat the mentally ill, and prevent crime and recidivism. As this legislation's findings detail, more than 16 percent of adults incarcerated in U.S. jails and prisons have a mental illness, about 20 percent of youth in the juvenile justice system have serious mental health problems, and up to 40 percent of adults who suffer from a serious mental illness will come into contact with the American criminal justice system at some point in their lives. This is a serious problem that I hear about often when I talk with law enforcement officials and others in Vermont.

Under this bill, State and local governments can apply for funding to a. create or expand mental health courts or other court-based programs, which can divert qualified offenders from prison to receive treatment; b. create or expand programs to provide specialized training for criminal justice and mental health system personnel; c. create or expand local treatment programs that serve individuals with mental illness or co-occurring mental illness and substance abuse disorders; and d. promote and provide mental health treatment for those incarcerated in or released from a penal or correctional institution.

This legislation brings together law enforcement, corrections, and mental health professionals--indeed, officials from each of these fields in Vermont have offered their advice and support in drafting this bill. They know that the States have been dealing with the unique problems created by mentally ill offenders for many years, and that a Federal response is overdue. I look forward to working with them, and with Senator DeWine, Representative Ted Strickland, and other Members, to see this bill enacted this Congress.

Mr. President, imagine for a moment you have gone to the doctor to have a medical condition evaluated. Uncertain as to what your injury may be, your doctor sends you to a specialist for a medical imaging examination to determine the extent of your injury and the proper course of treatment for it.

Or, imagine, having heard the dreaded diagnosis of cancer, going to the same facility for radiation therapy.

In either case, our sense of concern and anxiety about our medical condition will serve to focus our attention on ourselves, and not on the caregivers providing us with the treatment we need to recover, or in the case of cancer, to survive.

But, what would you say if you knew that the individual helping to direct your diagnosis or the one providing your course of treatment is someone who has done nothing more to earn his credentials than spend a few weeks getting some on the job training.

Imagine how you would feel and the level of trust you would have in a system that allowed such a thing to happen.

Unfortunately, that's an all too common occurrence with the present state of our health care system.

But, it is a problem that we can solve with the passage of legislation I am introducing today.

The Consumer Assurance of Radiological Excellence, RadCARE, Act will ensure that there are coherent standards in place for those who plan and deliver radiation therapy treatments. I am pleased to be joined by my distinguished colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, as well as Senators Daschle, Lautenberg, and Dorgan, in this effort, which will bring peace of mind and restore the confidence of the health consumer in the treatment they receive from those who perform radiologic procedures. It will also increase awareness of the skills of these health care professionals and raise the level of visibility their profession enjoys in the public eye.

It is important that we establish standards for personnel who perform radiologic procedures because physicians depend upon medical imaging examinations to diagnose disease and identify and treat injuries of all kinds. The quality of a radiologic procedure hinges upon the expertise of the professionals who assist in administering them.

Currently, 15 States as well as the District of Columbia do not regulate or register radiologic personnel.

To address that lack of attention, the RadCARE Act will strengthen the Consumer-Patient Radiation Health and Safety Act of 1981. The current law calls for States to establish voluntarily a set of educational and credentialing standards for radiologic and medical imaging personnel. Yet many States still do not have licensing laws in place that meet the standards recommended by the Federal Government. The RadCARE Act will require that radiologic and medical imaging personnel meet a minimum credentialing standard.

The RadCARE Act will not affect states that have a suitable licensing system or those that have mandated higher standards than required by Federal law. If a state has no meaningful

regulations or licensing system, however, then the Federal standards will apply. The RadCARE Act also has a provision to ensure access to quality healthcare in rural regions where a one-size-fits all approach may not be applicable. Enforcement of the RadCARE Act would be achieved by restricting Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement to facilities that employ personnel who meet the minimal federal standards.

The RedCARE Act will improve the safety of radiological procedures by reducing the risk of harmful overexposure to radiation. Healthcare costs will also be lowered by decreasing the number of repeated procedures due to personnel error. Additionally, the RadCARE Act will enable radiologists and other healthcare professionals to have access to quality information so that patients receive the best health care possible.

This legislation is supported by a variety of organizations concerned with the quality of these procedures, including the American Society of Radiologic Technologists, the Society of Nuclear Medicine Technologist Section, the American Association of Medical Dosimetrists, the Nuclear Medicine Technology Certification Board, the Association of Vascular and Interventional Radiographers, and the other members of the Alliance for Quality Medical Imaging and Radiation Therapy, which represents the more than 275,000 medical imaging and radiation therapy professionals in the United States.

When it comes right down to it, it's a big enough battle to fight the cancers or the injuries to our bodies that require such invasive treatments or diagnosis. We shouldn't have to worry about the level of competence of those who are providing us with the services we so desperately require for the maintenance of our health.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting and passing this much needed legislation. It respects the power of the states who have addressed this problem as it provides minimum standards for those who have not.

More importantly, its enactment into law will do a great deal to increase the level of confidence of the American health consumer in our healthcare system.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, one of the great benefits of the revolution in information technology has been its effect on education. With the information superhighway and the number of online research and information sources it has made available, modern technology and higher education have become inseparable.

The notion of distance learning and the access it provides to students--especially those in rural areas--could use a little more support, however, so that is why I am introducing the Distance Learning and Online Education Act of 2003.

This legislation builds on principles already found in the Higher Education Act to help reach populations that have traditionally been excluded from attending institutions of higher education.

Wyoming is a very rural State. There is only one four year school in the entire State, and there are only seven community colleges. If you include the University of Wyoming's satellite campuses, that adds up to nine institutions of higher education in an area of nearly one hundred thousand square miles. By contrast, there are one hundred twenty nine institutions of higher education in the State of Massachusetts, which makes up an area roughly one tenth the size of Wyoming. In fact, the only State that has fewer institutions of higher education is Alaska.

Expanding access to higher education for our rural communities has been a challenge for many years. Now, the Internet has made it possible for prospective students in rural communities, far removed from the university campus, to attend college online. They may now spend their time studying, rather than commuting back and forth between school.

At present, the most significant barriers that distance learners and online education programs must face are those that were created by the Higher Education Act. Under current law, students attending institutions that enroll more than half of their students in distance programs are ineligible for Federal student financial assistance. As a result, many of the communities that this assistance is designed to reach have been excluded from sharing in its benefits, including students from rural communities, single mothers, working professionals, and a range of others who are interested in attending college but who cannot afford to do so.

The legislation that I introduce today corrects this problem by creating an avenue for online and distance educators to reach out to rural communities and non-traditional students by making them eligible for federal student assistance. It creates an eligibility standard for these institutions that helps to ensure they will provide high quality education programs, while it also protects Federal funding from fraud and abuse.

The Distance Learning and Online Education Act ensures students will receive a high quality education by requiring online educators to become accredited by an agency that has an appropriate focus on distance education. As provided under current law, the accrediting body must also be recognized by the Secretary of Education as an agency that can determine the institution's eligibility under Title IV of the Higher Education Act. This is a slightly higher standard than is expected of the brick and mortar institutions that have been entrusted with Title IV funding since the Higher Education Act was originally passed.

My bill will also protect against any fraud and abuse of Title VI funds by requiring distance educators to demonstrate their financial responsibility. In addition to meeting the default rates already established in current law, institutions interested in becoming eligible must also have a record free from audit findings or program review findings resulting in significant penalties for a period of at least two years. Distance learning institutions must also show that they have not had their participation in Title IV limited, suspended or terminated during the previous five years, and they must create a system of assurances that the student participating in the program is the individual completing the work.

It is clear that the shape of higher education in this country is changing and it will never be the same again. We have an opportunity, through technology, to reach student populations that have been excluded from participation in higher education because they cannot afford to attend or travel to classrooms or campuses located many miles from their homes. We can change part of the equation by changing the way we view those programs that hold the greatest promise for non- traditional students. Making them eligible for federal student assistance will go a long way toward making a higher education available to everyone with

the interest in learning and the determination to get the job done. The Distance Learning and Online Education Act of 2003 will provide a hand up--not a hand out--to those whose interest in a higher education is limited only by their resources. By offering them a helping hand we can eliminate that obstacle and help a new generation achieve their goals and live their dreams.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today, along with Senators Domenici, Leahy, Grassley, and Cantwell, to introduce the ``Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Act of 2003.'' This bipartisan measure would, among other things, create a program of planning and implementation grants for communities so they may offer more treatment and other services to mentally ill offenders. Under this bill, programs receiving grant funds would be operated collaboratively by both a criminal justice agency and a mental health agency.

The mentally ill population poses a particularly difficult challenge for our criminal justice system. People afflicted with mental illness are incarcerated at significantly higher rates than the general population. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, while only about five percent of the American population has a mental illness, about 16 percent of the State prison population has such an illness. The Los Angeles County Jail, for example,

typically has more mentally ill inmates than any hospital in the country.

Unfortunately, however, the reality of our criminal justice system is that jails and prisons do not provide a therapeutic environment for the mentally ill and are unlikely to do so any time soon. Indeed, the mentally ill inmate often is preyed upon by other inmates or becomes even sicker in jail. Once released from jail or prison, many mentally ill people end up on the streets. With limited personal resources and little or no ability to handle their illness alone, they often commit further offenses resulting in their re-arrest and re-incarceration. This ``revolving door'' is costly and disruptive for all involved.

Although these problems tend to manifest themselves primarily within the prison system, the root cause of our current situation is found in the mental health system and its failure to provide sufficient community-based treatment solutions. Accordingly, the solution will necessarily involve collaboration between the mental health system and criminal justice system. In fact, it also will require greater collaboration between the substance abuse treatment and mental health treatment communities, because many mentally ill offenders have a drug or alcohol problem in addition to their mental illness.

The purpose of the ``Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Act'' is to foster exactly this type of collaboration at the Federal, State, and local levels. The bill provides incentives for the criminal justice, juvenile justice, mental health, and substance abuse treatment systems to work together at each level of government to establish a network of services for offenders with mental illness. The bill's approach is unique, in that it not only would promote public safety by helping curb the incidence of repeat offenders, but it also would promote public health, by ensuring that those with a serious mental illness are treated as soon as possible and as efficiently and effectively as possible.

Among its major provisions, this legislation calls for the establishment of a new competitive grant program, which would be housed at the U.S. Department of Justice, but administered by the Attorney General with the active involvement of the Secretary of Health and Human Services. To ensure that collaboration occurs at the local level, the bill would require that two entities jointly submit a single grant application on behalf of a community.

Applications demonstrating the greatest commitment to collaboration would receive priority for grant funds. If applicants can show that grant funds would be used to promote public health, as well as public safety, and if the program they propose would have the active participation of each joint applicant, and if their grant application has the support of both the Attorney General and the Secretary of Health and Human Services, then it would receive priority for funding.

Additionally, the bill would permit grant funds to be used for a variety of purposes, each of which embodies the goal of collaboration. First, grant funds may be used to provide courts with more options, such as specialized dockets, for dealing with the non-violent offender who has a serious mental illness or a co-occurring mental illness and drug or alcohol problem. Second, grant funds could be used to enhance training of mental health and criminal justice system personnel, who must know how to deal appropriately with the mentally ill offender. Third, grant funds could be devoted to programs that divert the criminal justice system into treatment those non-violent offenders with severe and persistent mental illness. Finally, correctional facilities may use grant funds to promote the treatment of inmates and ease their transition back into the community upon release from jail or prison.

In specifically authorizing grant funds to be used to promote more options for courts to deal with mentally ill offenders, this bill builds on legislation that I introduced two years ago with my colleague from Ohio, Congressman Ted Strickland. That measure, which became law, authorized $10 million per year for the establishment of more mental health courts. I have long supported mental health courts, which enable the criminal justice system to provide an individualized treatment solution for a mentally ill offender, while also requiring accountability of the offender. The legislation we are introducing today would make possible the creation or expansion of more mental health courts, and it also would promote the funding of treatment services that support such courts.

In addition to making planning and implementation grants available to communities, the ``Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Act'' also calls for an Interagency Task Force to be established at the federal level. This Task Force would include the Attorney General and the Secretary of Health and Human Services, as well as the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Education, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, and the Commissioner of Social Security. The Task Force would be charged with identifying new ways that federal departments can work together to reduce recidivism among mentally ill adults and juveniles.

Finally, the bill would direct the Attorney General and Secretary of Health and Human Services to develop a list of ``best practices'' for criminal justice personnel to use when diverting mentally ill offenders from the criminal justice system.

Ultimately, this is a good bill and one that is long overdue. I encourage my colleagues to support this important legislative measure.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am happy to be joining my colleague Senator Lindsey Graham in introducing the YMCA Healthy Teen Act. Senator Graham and I are introducing this bill along with Senators Bunning, Corzine, Daschle, DeWine, Durbin, Landrieu, Lincoln, Murray, Roberts, and Smith. This bipartisan legislation will address a critical issue for our Nation's future: the health of our children.

Unfortunately, there has been an alarming trend in recent years towards increased obesity in our Nation's youth. On average, America's young people spend 4 hours a day watching television, 1 and \1/2\ hours a day listening to music, 30 minutes watching videos, and 20 minutes playing video games. Only 13 percent of students walk or bike to school. Only one State, Illinois, requires daily physical education in schools. The Surgeon General has reported that 13 percent of children and adolescents are overweight, more than double the number who were overweight in 1970.

We are rapidly becoming a country of the unfit, the inactive, and the unhealthy--and our young people are suffering the consequences of a sedentary lifestyle. If ignored, obesity in children leads to obesity in adulthood--and the numerous health problems that come with it including diabetes, heart disease, stroke, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and cancer. These five diseases alone account for more than two-thirds of all deaths in the United States, and caring for them comes at a tremendous cost to society--close to $117 billion annually.

On top of the need for increased physical activity and healthier lifestyles, the evidence is all around us that our young people today also need some extra care and support. Kids today face challenges and obstacles that I never dreamed about when I was growing up in Regent. Although recent promising evidence show that rates of smoking, drinking and the use of illegal drugs among 8th, 10th, and 12th graders fell simultaneously in 2002, still half of all high school seniors have reported using illicit drugs at least once in their lifetime.

These challenges arise in part from the temptations kids face when they have too much idle time on their own. Every day, millions of American teens are left unsupervised after school. Studies have shown that teens left unsupervised during those hours are more likely to smoke, drink alcohol, engage in sexual activity, and become involved in delinquent behavior than teens who participate in structured, supervised afterschool activities. Also, nearly 80 percent of teens who are involved in afterschool activities are A or B students, while only half of those who are not involved earn those grades.

To address these crucial issues facing America's youth, I propose we turn to an exemplary organization dedicated to improving kids' lives, the YMCA. Nearly 2.4 million teenagers--1 out of every 10--are involved in a program offered by their local YMCA. In 2001, total membership rolls reached their highest level in history, with 18.3 million men, women, and children--half of them under 18--receiving a vast range of services from their local YMCAs.

In the past year and a half, I visited three of the six YMCAs that serve

North Dakota teens. Through programs focused on education, healthy lifestyles, physical activity, leadership, and service learning, these North Dakota YMCAs helped 12,500 teens in my State develop character, build confidence, and become healthier within the last year alone.

I have seen firsthand what a difference a safe, structured, and healthy afterschool environment can make for our youth. In those communities in North Dakota and across the country, the YMCA is a place to learn, a place to play sports, a place to meet friends, and a place to simply shed the problems that youths face every day in school and at home and just have some fun. North Dakota teens embrace the countless opportunities presented to them at their YMCAs with enthusiasm, and I have no doubt they are not alone.

While the YMCA is national in scope, they are local in control and every program is designed and evaluated to meet the communities' unique needs. I am confident that this bill will help the YMCA to reach more teens and continue to provide successful solutions for our Nation's teens and families.

To serve more teens in need of healthier lifestyles and safe and structured afterschool programs, the YMCA has set the goal of doubling the number of teens served to one in five teens by 2005. This ambitious campaign is called the Teen Action Agenda.

The bill that Senator Graham and I offer today provides funding to help the YMCA reach teens who need safe and structured activities that will promote physical activity and healthy lifestyles. This piece of legislation authorizes Federal appropriations of $20 million per year for fiscal years 2004 through 2008 for the YMCA to implement its Teen Action Agenda. This funding would in turn be distributed to local YMCAs that are located in all 50 States and the District of Columbia. Similar legislation was passed in the 105th Congress for the Boys and Girls Club and in the 106th Congress for the Police Athletic League to aid in their efforts to reach out to youth.

Each program funded through this initiative would include physical activity and nutritional education components, and could also focus on other health risks faced by teenage youths, such as tobacco, drugs, and risky behaviors that lead to injury and violence.

This bill will encourage public-private partnerships and leverage additional funding for teen programs. It contains a matching component that will be met by the YMCA through local and private support. The YMCA in 2001 raised $777 million in public contributions, double the annual contribution levels of a decade ago, and continues to grow and gain support from communities for its work. The matching component, along with the support the YMCA programs receive from national corporate sponsors, will turn $20 million in Federal funds into $50 million that will be invested in proven programs that serve teens who are most in need.

Adolescence is an opportune time to instill in children positive eating habits and exercise routines that will carry over into adulthood. The YMCA is an established and proven organization that is in the position to reach out and influence thousands of teenagers. This legislation is an opportunity for us to do something for the health of our Nation's teenagers, when they now face greater risks and challenges than ever before. Again, for the sake of our children's future, I urge my Senate colleagues to join Senator Graham and me in cosponsoring this piece of legislation.

Mr. President, I am proud to join with Senator DeWine and Senator Patrick Leahy along with Senators Grassley and Domenici in cosponsoring this important legislation. This bill will take steps to reduce the prevalence of the mentally ill in the criminal justice system by providing more effective treatment. Forty percent of the mentally ill in this country come in contact with the criminal justice system, many for minor but repeated offenses. This wastes tremendous law enforcement resources that can be better focused on more urgent responsibilities and results in many of the mentally ill sitting in jail cells where little treatment is available to them. My State has already taken some forward looking action in this area, and this legislation is an important next step.

The Mentally Ill Crime Reduction Act of 2003 funds new grants that will give States the tools they need to work collaboratively to break the cycle of mentally ill people repeatedly moving through the corrections system. This legislation will allow more jurisdictions to follow Seattle's lead in creating mental health courts that monitor individuals to keep them in treatment and out of jail. It will provide much needed funding to mental health and substance abuse programs, and it will provide critical dollars for treatment of those incarcerated in or released from prisons. The legislation has the support of Washington State Corrections Director Joe Lehman and the Washington Department of Social and Health Services as well as the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill and the Council of State Governments. I'd like to especially thank the Bazelon Center for its work in this area.

Last year, the Council on State Governments Criminal Justice/Mental Health Consensus Project issued a report that detailed the imbalance of the mentally ill in the criminal justice system. The Project found that, while those suffering from serious mental illness represent approximately five percent of the population of this country, they represent over 16 percent of the prison population. Of that 16 percent, nearly three-quarters also have a substance abuse problem, and nearly half were incarcerated for committing a nonviolent crime. In some jurisdictions recidivism rates for mentally ill inmates can reach over 70 percent. Police, judges and prosecutors are usually without options of what to do with mentally ill patients, given the lack of health services, and thus many end up in jail for minor crimes. The Los Angeles County Jail alone holds as many as 3,300 individuals with mental illness, more than any state hospital or mental health institution in the United States.

Each time a mentally ill individual is incarcerated, his or her mental condition will likely worsen. Once incarcerated, people with mental illness are particularly susceptible to harming themselves or others. This environment exacerbates their mental illness, yet access to effective counseling or medication is severely limited. This in turn brings on depression or delusions that immobilize them; many have spent years trying to mask torments or hallucinations with alcohol or drugs and on average spend more time in prisons.

This problem is particularly acute in the area of juvenile offenders. The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention reports that over 20 percent of children in the juvenile justice system, over 155,000, have serious mental health problems. This bill creates specialized training programs for juvenile and criminal justice agency personnel in identifying symptoms of mentally ill individuals that will help identify and treat juveniles at an earlier stage.

The prevalence of people with mentally illness in the criminal justice system comes at a high price to taxpayers. In King County, WA, officials identified 20 people who had been repeatedly hospitalized, jailed or admitted to detoxification centers. These emergency services cost the county approximately $1.1 million in a single year. In contrast, an Illinois Cooperative Program which brought criminal justice and mental health service personnel together to provide services to those mentally ill patients released from jail calculated that the 30 individuals in the study spend approximately 2,200 days less in jail, and 2,100 fewer days, in hospitals than they had the previous year, for a savings of $1.2 million dollars.

In 1997, Seattle Fire Department Captain Stanley Stevenson was murdered by an individual who had been found incompetent by the local municipal court but was released because of the lack of alternative options. This murder was the impetus for the creation of a Task Force that led directly to the formation of the King County Mental Health Court in 1999. The primary reason why this Court has been growing more effective in dealing with mentally ill offenders is that it has increased cooperation between the mental health and criminal justice systems, institutions that have traditionally not worked closely together. Building on the model of the drug court, the mental health court closely monitors compliance with treatment regimens by assembling a team proficient in dealing with the mentally ill and at using the stick of the criminal justice system to make that treatment work. The vast majority of these mentally ill individuals are responsive to treatment.

This program has progressed well and is becoming an effective means of helping mentally ill offenders, assuring public safety, and running a more cost efficient system. Yet to allow this system to continue to expand in Seattle and other communities in Washington State, as well as to allow other States to begin using these types of programs, federal grant funding is critical. That is what this bill provides.

Collaboration between mental health, substance abuse, law enforcement, judicial, and other criminal justice personnel is also critical to the success of our mental health court program in Seattle. It is only through full coordination between the criminal justice and the mental health treatment community at the Federal and the local level that these efforts will be successful.

Similarly, only through full coordination at the Federal and local level will this bill be able to make a critical difference. I believe that some additional improvements can be made to strengthen that critical coordination and I look forward to working with Senator DeWine and Senator Leahy to accomplish that goal. I welcome the introduction of this legislation and look forward to working with my cosponsors to make this bill law in the next Congress.