A bill to amend section 502(a)(5) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 regarding the definition of a Hispanic-serving institution.

Madam President, today I introduce legislation that would take one more step toward finding answers for veterans who may have been exposed to radiation, Agent Orange, or other hazards during their military service.

The last century saw the nature of war change forever. When mustard gas drifted across the trenches of World War I, troops learned that dangers less tangible, but no less deadly, than bullets might fill the air. Since then, many veterans have questioned whether health effects of the environmental hazards that they faced on and off the battlefield might appear years or even decades later.

Congress, VA, the military, and scores of independent researchers have struggled to answer those questions. Many veterans still wait for scientific evidence to fill the gaps. However, research in some areas has linked specific exposures to a risk of later disease, and we must respond to those new findings and encourage further investigation.

Peer-reviewed studies published in recent years suggest that veterans held prisoner during World War II, the Korean War, and in Vietnam suffer from some chronic diseases at a higher rate than expected. Scientists now report that the toll taken by malnutrition, long periods of forced confinement, and untreated infections appears to pose a lifelong risk. Based on these findings, I have introduced legislation that would add heart disease, strokes, and chronic liver diseases to the list of diseases that can be presumptively connected to service for certain former prisoners of war. This would allow eligible veterans with these conditions to seek VA benefits without having to prove that their illnesses resulted from deprivations suffered during captivity.

Other veterans who were exposed to large doses of ionizing radiation in post-war Japan or during nuclear tests, and who suffer from illnesses thought to be caused by radiation, can currently claim eligibility for VA benefits. However, some veterans who believe they received high doses of radiation have been frustrated to find that their military records do not reflect the same assumptions. Congress mandated nearly 20 years ago that veterans who suffer from diseases that they suspect might be linked to radiation exposure during service could request a dose reconstruction, or a scientific estimate of past exposure levels, to remedy this.

Many veterans felt that this method fell short of expectations, and Congress responded in 1998 by requiring an independent review of the Dose Reconstruction Program conducted by the Department of Defense. A panel of experts convened by the National Academy of Sciences reported recently that this contractor-operated program suffered from a shockingly cavalier approach to quality assurance, resulting in data that failed to meet the standards assumed by VA and veterans. This is not acceptable. Provisions introduced here would require the Secretaries of VA and Defense to establish permanent independent oversight of the Dose Reconstruction Program, and to create an advisory board to improve the program as necessary.

Our understanding of the consequences of exposure to the herbicides and dioxin in Agent Orange remains far from complete. It has been almost 25 years since Congress required the Air Force to conduct an epidemiologic study of the veterans of Operation Ranch Hand, the unit responsible for aerial spraying of herbicides during the Vietnam War. The last scheduled round of physical examinations took place just last month, and the fate of the millions of medical records and specimens remains undecided. Experts agree that both samples and data should be preserved for further research, but do not share an opinion on the best way to do so. The bill that I have introduced would task the National Academy of Sciences to develop research recommendations for extending the Air Force Health Study, or for preserving the samples and making them accessible to independent researchers as requested by many veterans' organizations.

Finally, the legislation that I have introduced would ensure that the scientific body charged with tracking veterans' and military health can continue its mission. The Medical Follow-Up Agency, MFUA, a board of the Institute of Medicine--the health agency of the National Academy of Sciences--was created at the end of World War II at the urging of the Army Surgeon General. For many years, it received funding only sporadically. In 1988, the now-defunct Office of Technology Assessment reported that MFUA's critical contribution to understanding military health issues was limited by a lack of consistent funding, which caused high staff turnover, incohesiveness in the research portfolio, and failure to maintain records.

Congress responded with Public Law 102-585, which required that VA and the military each contribute $250,000 in annual core funding to MFUA for 10 years. MFUA's staff uses this funding to update, maintain, and improve long-term epidemiological studies of military and veterans populations. Congress, VA, the military, and independent scientists have relied on these studies to evaluate whether specific exposures might have long-term health effects that suggest a need for benefits, new treatments, or further research. The legislation that I have introduced would extend MFUA's core funding for 10 more years.

This legislation would demonstrate to those who serve their nation now

that our commitment to them will not end with the wars that they fight. We must continue to seek remedies for the sometimes invisible wounds of the new battlefield, and ensure that those who have borne them receive the support that they need. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to join me in supporting this legislation.

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

Madam President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will ensure that America's veterans and their families have access to the funeral honors they have earned. The brave men and women who fought for our Nation are a population that is aging rapidly. In 2002, America

lost 646,264 veterans. Projections show that this rate will continue to climb through the year 2008, when the annual death of the World War II and Korea-era veterans will peak at 700,000.

By the end of 2004, only 64 of the 124 veterans national cemeteries will be available for both casketed and cremated remains. As cemetery service capabilities decrease, veterans in areas near those cemeteries that are at capacity may lose access to burial options located within a reasonable distance of their homes. In order to ensure that burial options are provided for veterans and their family members, we must develop new cemeteries and expand existing cemeteries. This process must start as soon as possible because the construction of a new cemetery takes an average of 7 years.

That is why I offer this bill today, which would authorize the construction of ten new national cemeteries and ensure that the burial needs of veterans and their family members will be met in the future.

In anticipation of veterans' future needs, the Department of Veterans Affairs conducted a study that identifies veteran population centers not served by an open national or state veterans cemetery. The report, ``Future Burial Needs,'' was initially released in May 2002 and has been recently revised using veteran population estimates from the 2000 census. My legislation would direct the Department of Veterans Affairs to establish ten new national veterans cemeteries in the top ten areas identified to be in the greatest need. These areas would include Sarasota, FL, Salem, OR, Birmingham, AL, St. Louis, MO, San Antonio, TX, Chesapeake, VA, Sumter, FL, Bakersfield, CA, Jacksonville, FL, and Philadelphia, PA.

We can not afford to wait any longer if we are to fulfill this commitment to our nation's veterans. Mr. President, I am proud to sponsor this important bill, and look forward to the support of my colleagues as we provide for our veterans who have given so much for our country. Thank you.

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

Madam President, the Department of Veterans Affairs, VA, is in the midst of determining how best to serve the millions of veterans who turn to the VA health care system for their care. This process--known as CARES or Capital Asset Realignment for Enhanced Services--will likely bring significant change to the VA system. Recommendations stemming from this process could lead to billions of dollars in new facilities construction, on the one hand, and possible closure of facilities and thousands of beds, on the other. Despite the magnitude of these possible changes, Congress has virtually no formal role in the process.

I introduce legislation today that would allow for Congressional review of the CARES recommendations that the Secretary of VA will begin to implement at the end of this year.

The CARES initiative has been ongoing since the Fall of 2002, tasking VA facilities with developing recommendations based on a review of population data; the conduct of market analyses of veterans' health care needs; the identification of planning initiatives for each market area; and most important, the significant involvement of stakeholders, including myriad public meetings. These so-called planning initiatives are ultimately slated to be passed on to the Secretary, who will then make the final decisions.

While an independent review led by a national CARES Commission is already planned, in addition to public hearings--which I fully support--I must reiterate that Congress has little, if any, role in the CARES effort outside of construction authorization and appropriation activities. Yet, all states and most health care facilities will be affected by the results. The legislation I introduce today would give Congress a 60-day period to review the CARES recommendations submitted by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs. During that time, VA would be prohibited from moving forward with any bed or facility closures.

This oversight is absolutely essential--particularly in light of recent events. Just last month, all VA health care networks submitted their plans to VA headquarters. These plans were developed following substantial analysis and thorough stakeholder involvement. While abiding by the criteria and process set forth by VA, facilities made their recommendations to the Under Secretary for Health. In a surprise move and an apparent manipulation of the process, VA instructed the network directors to re-evaluate the plans they had already submitted for 20 different VA facilities. They were told to ``evaluate a strategy to convert from a 24-hour operation to an 8 hour a day operation. This includes any inpatient care, including long term care.''

One of these hospitals is in Lake City, in my home State of Florida. Network 8, which has responsibility for Lake City, had previously recommended that no long-term care beds be deactivated at this facility, yet they were told to go back to the drawing board to develop a strategy to close nursing home beds there.

Another facility tasked with re-examining their plan is Bedford, Massachusetts. In their network's plan, submitted to the Under Secretary, officials stated that they had in fact considered ``alternatives to consolidate Long Term Care, LTC, including the Alzheimer's and SCI Units, and Psychiatry inpatient beds from the Bedford to Brockton facilities'' yet, ``as final projections are not available for LTC inpatient beds and earlier projections indicated a substantial increase in LTC beds, it was determined to utilize current capacities.'' Despite these assessments to the contrary, VA has asked

that they instead plan to convert these facilities to outpatient operations only.

Yet one more example of this apparent manipulation involves another facility now slated for bed closures, the Leavenworth VA Medical Center in Kansas. The network plan concluded that ``[r]ealignment of workload from Leavenworth to Kansas City would exceed current capacity. . . . Elimination of inpatient and outpatient primary care capabilities at Leavenworth would seriously undermine continuity of care for the remaining long-term care patients, reduce timely access to care, hinder its ability to provide ongoing support to the DoD facility located at Ft. Leavenworth . . . '' . Again, analysis conducted at the regional level resulted in a recommendation that VA is now directing be reconsidered.

The VA facility in Knoxville, IA, is being targeted for significant changes as well. The current proposal is to move all of the beds from Knoxville to Des Moines. The Knoxville facility has more than 226 long- term care beds, 40 domiciliary beds, and 34 inpatient psychiatric beds. We need to take a look at this proposal and the many others that will affect veterans all across the country.

Other facilities asked to re-evaluate are: Batavia, Lyons, St. Albans, Montrose, Pittsburgh at Highland Drive, Augusta, Dublin, Lexington, Brecksville, Gulfport, Marlin/Waco, Vancouver, Livermore, and Hot Springs.

While VA intends to present a five-year capital plan to Congress, there is nothing that requires VA to inform Members about possible reductions, closures, and other decisions that would have a deleterious effect on VA health care services and our veterans. This is unacceptable. Congress' role should not be limited to merely funding the implementation of these decisions; rather, we should be involved in a process that could result in the significant loss of inpatient, long- term care, and domiciliary capacity at VA health care facilities nationwide. We can rectify this problem very easily, however, by enacting the legislation I propose today.

In an internal VA memo, Secretary Principi stated that ``the CARES process may be one of the most important activities undertaken by VA this decade. The outcome of this process will construct the foundation for, and set the course of, our health care system for the first half of the 21st century.'' In light of the great impact of this initiative on VA health care services, as well as recent actions that threaten the integrity of the process, it is imperative that Congress be granted a mere 60 days to review VA's proposals. I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort to secure the future of health care for our nation's veterans.

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

Madam President, I rise today to introduce the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2003, legislation that makes the reforms necessary for the Postal Service to thrive in the 21st Century and to better serve the American people.

The Postal Service has, for the most part, operated in the same manner for more than thirty years. In the early 1970s, Senator Stevens and others led the effort in the Senate to create the Postal Service out of the failing Post Office Department. At the time, the Post Office Department received about 20 percent of its revenue from taxpayer subsidies. The service it provided was suffering and there was little money available to expand. By all accounts, the product of Senator Stevens' labors, the Postal Reorganization Act signed into law by President Nixon in 1971, has been a phenomenal success. The Postal Service today receives virtually no taxpayer support and the service its hundreds of thousands of employees provide to every American, every day is second to none. More than thirty years later, the Postal Service now delivers to 141 million addresses each day and is the anchor of a $900 billion mailing industry.

All that said, the Postal Service is clearly in need of modernization once again. When it started out in 1971, nobody had access to fax machines, cell phones and pagers and nobody imagined that we would ever enjoy conveniences like e-mail and electronic bill pay. After decades of success, electronic diversion of mail volume coupled with economic recession and terrorism have made for some rough going at the Postal Service in recent years. In 2001, as Postmaster General Potter assumed his position, the Postal Service was projecting its third consecutive year of deficits. They lost $199 million in fiscal year 2000 and $1.68 billion in fiscal year 2001. They were projecting losses of up to $4 billion in fiscal year 2002. Mail volume was falling, revenues were below projections and the Postal Service was estimating that it needed to spend $4 billion on security enhancements in order to prevent a repeat of the tragic anthrax attacks that took several lives. The Postal Service was also perilously close to its $15 billion debt ceiling and had been forced to raise rates three times in less than two years in order to pay for its operations, further eroding mail volume.

In recent months, however, the Postal Service's short-term financial outlook has improved. Under General Potter's strong leadership, Postal Service management cut a total of $2.9 billion in costs fiscal year 2002. They did this mostly by eliminating 23,000 positions, mostly through attrition. This included 800 management positions at postal headquarters in Washington and 2,000 administrative positions in regional offices. They also continued their drive to further automate their processing operations, most notably in the area of flats processing. They have continued their construction freeze and ended their self-imposed ban on post office closings, resulting in the closing of dozens of post offices across the country.

Most dramatically, the Postal Service learned in 2002 that an unfunded pension liability they once believed was as high as $32 billion was actually $5 billion. My friend from Maine, Ms. Collins, and I responded with legislation, the Postal Civil Service Retirement System Funding Reform Act, signed into law by President Bush last month, which cuts the amount the Postal Service must pay into the Civil Service Retirement System each year by nearly $3 billion. This will free up money for debt reduction and prevent the need for another rate increase until at least 2006.

Aggressive cost cutting and the lower pension payment, then, have put off the emergency that would have come if the Postal Service had reached their debt limit. Cost cutting can only go so far, however, and will not solve the Postal Service's long-term problems. It could actually hurt service. The Postal Service continues to add about 1.7 million new delivery points each year, creating the need for thousands of new routes and thousands of new letter carriers to work them. In addition, faster-

growing parts of the country will need new or expanded postal facilities in the coming years. Even if the economy recovers soon and the Postal Service begins to see volume and revenues improve, we will still need to make the fundamental reforms necessary to make the Postal Service as successful in the 21st Century as it was in the 20th Century.

As more and more customers turn to electronic forms of communication, letter carriers are bringing fewer and fewer pieces of mail to each address they serve. The rate increases that will be needed to maintain the Postal Service's current infrastructure, finance retirement obligations to its current employees, pay for new letter carriers and build facilities in growing parts of the country will only further erode mail volume. The Postal Service has been trying to improve on its own. They are making progress, but there is only so much they can do on their own.

That is where my bill comes in. First, the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act begins the process of developing a modern rate system for pricing Postal Service products. The new rate system, to be developed by a strengthened Postal Rate Commission, re-named the Postal Regulatory Commission, would allow retained earnings, provide the Postal Service more flexibility in setting prices and streamline today's burdensome ratemaking process. It would also allow rates to be increased on an expedited basis during crises like a sharp spike in fuel prices and require that the Regulatory Commission develop a ``phased rate'' schedule whereby rate increases would be phased in gradually over a period of time.

In addition, the new rate system authorized through my bill will allow the Postal Service to negotiate service agreements with individual mailers. The Postal Rate Commission recently approved a service agreement the Postal Service negotiated with Capital One, but the process for considering the agreement took almost a year and the Postal Service's authority to enter into agreements is not clearly spelled out in law. The Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act allows the Postal Service to enter into agreements if the revenue generated from them covers all costs attributable to the Postal Service and results in a greater contribution to the Postal Service's institutional costs. No agreement would be permitted if it resulted in higher rates for any other mailer or prohibited any similarly situated mailer from negotiating a similar agreement.

Second, the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act requires the Postal Regulatory Commission to set strong service standards for the Postal Service's Market Dominant products, a category made up mostly of those products, like First Class Mail, that are part of the postal monopoly. The Postal Service currently sets its own service standards, which allows them to pursue efforts like the elimination of Saturday delivery, a proposal floated two years ago. The new standards set by the Commission will aim to improve service and will be used by the Postal Service to establish performance goals and to rationalize their physical infrastructure. Once the standards are established, the Postal Service will recommend a list of facilities that can be closed or consolidated without hindering their ability to meet the standards. A new commission, called the Postal Network Modernization Commission, would then study the Postal Service's recommendations. The closings and consolidations recommended by this commission would be carried out, subject to approval by the President, unless Congress passed a resolution disapproving them.

Third, the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act ensures that the Postal Service competes fairly. The bill prohibits the Postal Service from issuing anti-competitive regulations and makes the State Department, instead of the Postal Service, responsible for setting U.S. foreign policy on mailing issues. It also subjects the Postal Service to State zoning, planning and land use laws, requires them to pay an assumed Federal income tax on products like packages and Express Mail that private firms also offer and requires that these products as a whole pay their share of the Postal Service's institutional costs.

Fourth, the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act improves Postal Service accountability, mostly by strengthening oversight. Qualifications for membership on the Regulatory Commission would be stronger than those for the Rate Commission so that Commissioners would have a background in finance or economics. Commissioners would also have the power to demand information from the Postal Service, including by subpoena, and have the power to punish them for violating rate and service regulations. In addition, the Commission will make an annual determination as to whether the Postal Service is in compliance with rate law and meeting service standards and will have the power to punish them for any transgressions.

Finally, and most importantly, the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act preserves universal service and forces the Postal Service to concentrate solely on what they do best--processing and delivering the mail to all Americans. The bill for the first time limits the Postal Service to providing ``postal services,'' meaning they would be prohibited from engaging in other lines of business, such as e-commerce, that draw time and resources away from letter and package delivery. It also explicitly preserves the requirement that the Postal Service ``bind the Nation together through the mail'' and serve all parts of the country, urban, suburban and rural, in a non- discriminatory fashion. Any service standards established by the Postal Regulatory Commission will continue to ensure delivery to every address, every day. In addition, the bill maintains the prohibition on closing post offices solely because they operate at a deficit, ensuring that rural and urban customers continue to enjoy full access to retail postal services.

One thing the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act does not do, is blame postal employees for the Postal Service's problems. The bill preserves collective bargaining and does nothing that would harm postal employees' pay or benefits.

Another thing the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act does not do is privatize or downsize the Postal Service. The bill preserves the Postal Service's monopoly along with its sole access to the mailbox. While it could result in the closing of some postal facilities, the process I have laid out in the bill is completely driven by the service standards established by the Postal Regulatory Commission. Nothing will be closed for the sake of being closed. Instead, the bill encourages the Postal Service to find ways to improve customer access to retail services through things like vending machines or post offices located in grocery stores or pharmacies.

As my colleagues are aware, President Bush last year announced the creation of the President's Commission on the United States Postal Service, which is expected to release a set of postal reform proposals this summer that I hope will offer some fair, balanced recommendations. It is also my hope, however, that the President's Commission look to the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act as a touchstone as they complete their work. The bill is the product of nearly a decade's worth of work on postal reform in the House of Representatives led by Congressman John McHugh from New York and is based in large part on legislation Congressman McHugh introduced towards the end of the 107th Congress. While I cannot claim that the McHugh bill had unanimous support, it did draw the support of most postal employees, much of the mailing industry and the Postal Service's Board of Governors.

When Treasury Department Under Secretary Peter Fisher addressed the President's Commission at its first meeting, he stated that everything was on the table and that the Commission's findings were not predetermined. I know there is some concern that the Commission will recommend privatization, and that this was the idea from the beginning. I will admit that I initially shared these feelings but, based on what I have heard about the Commission's deliberations, they appear on track to develop a reasonable set of recommendations. That said, I urge them to take careful consideration of the work Congress has done on postal reform in the past. Radical reforms undertaken at a number of foreign posts in recent years should teach us a lesson

about going too far. When the British deregulated Royal Mail, service began to suffer dramatically. When the New Zealand Post Office was privatized, universal service was eliminated and customers in rural areas were forced to pay for delivery. When Argentina privatized its Postal Authority, the new private entity went bankrupt even before the country's economic crisis began. We cannot afford to gamble with similar reforms at the Postal Service.

I look forward to working with Chairman Collins, the Governmental Affairs Committee and all of my colleagues in passing comprehensive postal reform this year.

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

Madam President, today I am introducing the Seniors Safety Act of 2003, a bill to protect older Americans from crime. I am pleased to have Senators Daschle, Kennedy, Feingold, and Bingaman as cosponsors for this anti-crime bill.

The Seniors Safety Act is a comprehensive bill that addresses the most prevalent crimes perpetrated against seniors, including health care fraud, nursing home abuse, telemarketing fraud--and bribery, graft and fraud in pension and employee benefit plans. In addition, this legislation would help seniors obtain restitution if their pension plans are defrauded.

Older Americans are the most rapidly growing population group in our society, making them an even more attractive target for criminals. The Department of Health and Human Services has predicted that the number of older Americans will grow from 13 percent of the U.S. population in 2000 to 20 percent by 2030. In Vermont, seniors comprise about 12 percent of the population, a number that is expected to increase to 20 percent by 2025.

Crime against seniors has remained stubbornly resistant over the last decade. According to a 2000 Justice Department study, more than 90 percent of crimes committed against older Americans were property crimes, with theft the most common. As our Nation addressed our violent crime problem, we did not take a comprehensive approach to deterring the crimes that so affect the elderly, like telemarketing fraud, health care fraud, and pension fraud. The Seniors Safety Act provides such a comprehensive approach, and I urge the Senate to pass it.

The Seniors Safety Act instructs the U.S. Sentencing Commission to review current sentencing guidelines and, if appropriate, amend the guidelines to include the age of a crime victim as a criteria for determining whether a sentencing enhancement is proper. The bill also requires the Commission to review sentencing guidelines for health care benefit fraud, increases statutory penalties both for fraud resulting in serious injury or death and for bribery

and graft in connection with employee benefit plans, and increases criminal and civil penalties for defrauding pension plans.

Telemarketing fraud is one crime that disproportionately harms Americans over age 50. The Seniors Safety Act seeks to fight the perpetrators of fraud--schemes that often succeed in swindling seniors of their life savings. Some of these schemes are directed from outside the United States, making criminal prosecution more difficult.

The Act would provide the Attorney General with a new and substantial tool to prevent telemarketing fraud the power to block or terminate service to telephone facilities that are being used to defraud innocent people. The Justice Department could use this authority to disrupt telemarketing fraud schemes directed from foreign sources by cutting off the swindlers' telephone service. Even if the criminals acquire a new telephone number, temporary interruptions will prevent some seniors from being victimized.

The bill also establishes a ``Better Business Bureau''-style clearinghouse at the Federal Trade Commission to provide seniors, their families, and others who may be concerned about a telemarketer with information about prior law enforcement actions against the particular company. In addition, the FTC would refer seniors and other consumers who believe they have been swindled to the appropriate law enforcement authorities.

Criminal activity that undermines the safety and integrity of pension plans and health benefit programs threatens all Americans, but most especially those seniors who have relied on promised benefits in planning their retirements. Seniors who have worked faithfully and honestly for years should not reach their retirement years only to find that the funds they relied upon were stolen.

The Seniors Safety Act would add to the arsenal that federal prosecutors can draw upon to prevent and punish fraud against retirement plans. Specifically, the Act would create new criminal and civil penalties for defrauding pension plans or obtaining money or property from such plans by means of false or fraudulent pretenses. In addition, the Act would enhance penalties for bribery and graft in connection with employee benefit plans. The only people enjoying the benefits of pension plans should be the people who have worked hard to fund those plans, not crooks who get the money by fraud.

Health care spending consists of about 15 percent of the gross national product, or more than $1 trillion each year. Estimated losses due to fraud and abuse are astronomical. A December 1998 report by the National Institute of Justice, NIJ, states that these losses ``may exceed 10 percent of annual health care spending, or $100 billion per year.''

As more health care claims are processed electronically, more sophisticated computer-generated fraud schemes are surfacing. Some of these schemes generate thousands of false claims designed to pass through automated claims processing to payment, and result in the theft of millions of dollars from federal and private health care programs. Fraud against Medicare, Medicaid and private health plans increases the financial burden on taxpayers and beneficiaries alike. In addition, some forms of fraud may result in inadequate medical care, harming patients' health as well. Unfortunately, the NIJ reports that many health care fraud schemes ``deliberately target vulnerable populations, such as the elderly or Alzheimer's patients, who are less willing or able to complain or alert law enforcement.''

We saw a dramatic increase in criminal convictions for health care fraud cases during the 1990s. These cases included convictions for submitting false claims to Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurance plans; fraudulent billings by foreign doctors; and needless prescriptions for durable medical equipment by doctors in exchange for kickbacks from manufacturers.

We can and must do more. The Seniors Safety Act would allow the Attorney General to bring injunctive actions to stop false claims and illegal kickback schemes involving federal health care programs. The bill would also provide law enforcement authorities with additional investigatory tools to uncover, investigate, and prosecute health care offenses in both criminal and civil proceedings.

In addition, whistle-blowers who tip off law enforcement officers about health care fraud would be authorized under the Seniors Safety Act to seek court permission to review information obtained by the government to enhance their assistance in False Claims Act lawsuits. Such qui tam, or whistle-blower, suits have dramatically enhanced the government's ability to uncover health care fraud. The Act would allow whistle-blowers and their qui tam suits to become even more effective.

Finally, the Act would extend anti-fraud and anti-kickback safeguards to the Federal Employees Health Benefits program. These are all important steps that will help cut down on the enormous health care fraud losses.

As life expectancies continue to increase, long-term care planning specialists estimate that over 40 percent of those turning 65 eventually will need nursing home care, and that 20 percent of those seniors will spend five years or more in homes. Indeed, many of us already have experienced having our parents, family members or other loved ones spend time in a nursing home. We owe it to them and to ourselves to give the residents of nursing homes the best and safest care they can get.

The Justice Department has cited egregious examples of nursing homes that pocketed Medicare funds instead of providing residents with adequate care. In one case, five patients died as a result of the inadequate provision of nutrition, wound care and diabetes management by three Pennsylvania nursing homes. Yet another death occurred when a patient, who was unable to speak, was placed in a scalding tub of 138- degree water.

This Act provides additional peace of mind to nursing home residents and their families by providing federal law enforcement with the authority to investigate and prosecute operators of nursing homes for willfully engaging in patterns of health and safety violations in the care of nursing home residents. The Act also protects whistle-blowers from retaliation for reporting such violations.

This title of the Seniors Safety Act would authorize the Attorney General to use forfeited funds to pay restitution to victims of fraudulent activity, and authorize the courts to require the forfeiture of proceeds from retirement-related offenses. In addition, it would exempt false claims actions from being stayed in bankruptcy proceedings and ensure that debts due to the United States from false claims actions are not dischargeable in bankruptcy.

We all deserve to age with dignity and free of the threat of abuse or fraud. No one can guarantee that this will happen, but the Senior Safety Act can be a powerful new tool to help crack down on those who prey upon older Americans. This effort is about all of us and our families.

These are problems that have persisted too long. It is past the time for the Senate to act. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Law Enforcement Discipline, Accountability, and Due Process Act of 2003, along with the Chairman of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Corrections and Victims' Rights Senator Graham, Senator McConnell and Senator Bunning.

These are trying times for the men and women on our front lines providing domestic security, our Nation's law enforcement personnel. State and local fiscal problems are forcing many communities to cut their police budgets. Each change in the Nation's homeland security alert level results in increased overtime and other costs for local law enforcement. Just yesterday, the FBI reported that the number of murders and rapes was up across the country in 2002. And this Administration is determined to dramatically scale back Federal crime- fighting initiatives like the COPS program, a proven initiative that has been hailed as one of the keys to the crime-drop of the nineties.

At the same time, the men and women of law enforcement work in extremely dangerous environments. An average of 165 police officers are killed in the line of duty every year. And at times, internal police investigations and administrative hearings do not provide officers with basic protections. According to the National Association of Police Organizations, ``[i]n roughly half of the states in this country, officers enjoy some legal protections against false accusations and abusive conduct, but hundreds of thousands of officers have very limited due process rights and confront limitations on their exercise of other rights, such as the right to engage in political activities.'' The Fraternal Order of Police notes that, ``[i]n a startling number of jurisdictions throughout this country, law enforcement officers have no procedural or administrative protections whatsoever; in fact, they can be, and frequently are, summarily dismissed from their jobs without explanation. Officers who lose their careers due to administrative or political expediency almost always find it impossible to find new employment in public safety. An officer's reputation, once tarnished by accusation, is almost impossible to restore.''

This legislation we introduce today seeks to provide officers with certain basic protections in those jurisdictions where such workplace protections are not currently provided. This bill allows law enforcement officials to engage in political activities. It provides standards and procedures to guide State and local law enforcement agencies during internal investigations, interrogations, and administrative disciplinary hearings of law enforcement officers, and it calls upon States to develop and enforce these disciplinary procedures. The bill would preempt State laws which confer fewer rights than those provided for in the legislation, but it would not preempt any State or local laws that confer rights or protections that are equal to or exceed the rights and protections afforded in the bill. My own State of Delaware has its own law enforcement officers' bill of rights, and as such Delaware would not be impacted by the provisions of this bill. I am pleased that the bill has earned the endorsement of the Fraternal Order of Police and of the National Association of Police Organizations.

Beyond benefiting those on the front lines of local law enforcement, this bill would enhance the ability of our citizens to hold their local police accountable if they do transgress while on the job. The legislation includes provisions that will ensure citizen complaints against police officers are investigated, and that citizens are informed of the outcome of these investigations. The bill balances the rights of police officers with the rights of citizens to raise valid concerns about the conduct of some of these officers. In addition, I have consulted with constitutional experts who have opined that the bill is consistent with Congress' powers under the Commerce Clause and that it does not run afoul of the Supreme Court's Tenth Amendment jurisprudence.

While I believe that the bill we introduce today takes the right approach, I want to note the International Association of Chiefs of Police's opposition to this measure. In April of this year I met with Richmond, California Chief of Police Joseph Samuels, the president of the IACP. Chief Samuels and I acknowledged that we disagreed on this bill, but I pledged to him that their concerns would be heard and taken into consideration as the bill we introduce today is debated in Congress. It is my view that without a meeting of the minds between police management and union officials on this issue, enactment of a meaningful law enforcement officers' bill of rights will be difficult. It is my hope that the newly-constituted Subcommittee on Crime, Corrections and Victims' Rights, on which I serve as ranking member, will hold a hearing on this measure. That subcommittee is the proper forum in which to debate the merits of our approach to guaranteeing basic procedural safeguards to the men and women of law enforcement.

I urge my colleagues to join Senators Graham, McConnell, Bunning and me in providing all of the Nation's law enforcement officers with the basic rights they deserve.

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

Madam President, I rise today to introduce a bill that will amend Title V of the Higher Education Act. Specifically, this bill will eliminate the ``50 percent'' low-income assurance constraint currently required for Hispanic Serving Institutions to be eligible for grants under Title V of the Higher Education Act.

Title V of the Higher Education Act is the primary vehicle used to target urgently needed funds to Hispanic Serving Institutions so that they can strengthen and expand their institutional capacity. Grants under this section can be used by higher education institutions to improve academic quality, institutional management, and financial stability. These grants are essential to institutions that provide and increase the number of educational opportunities available to Hispanic students.

Under current guidelines, in order to qualify for a grant under Title V, an institution must have at least 25 percent full time, Hispanic undergraduate student enrollment, and not less than 50 percent of its Hispanic student population must be low income. Title V grants are awarded for 5 years, with a minimum two year wait out period after the termination of a grant period before eligibility to apply for another grant. During fiscal year 2002, 191 institutions were awarded grants.

Title V's current ``50 percent'' low-income assurance requirement is an unnecessary bureaucratic regulation that constrains Hispanic Serving Institutions abilities to implement programs designed to provide long range solutions to Hispanic higher education challenges. Currently, there are no government authorized means to collect student financial data, and, although some information can be extrapolated from student financial aid forms, it is not enough information to complete the Title V forms.

The bill I am introducing today will improve the HSI eligibility requirements by allowing applicants for Title V funding to satisfy the 50 percent low-income Hispanic student population criterion with appropriate evidence of student eligibility for Title IV, need-based, aid. The revised Title V section will retain the requirement that to be eligible for title V funds, an institution must have an enrollment of needy students. However, rather than conditioning grant qualification upon the cumbersome requirement that institutions prove 50 percent of their Hispanic students are low income, it will allow institutions to qualify for Title V money if 50 percent of the students are receiving need-based assistance under title IV or a substantial percentage of the students are receiving Pell Grants.

The Higher Education Act of 1965 was signed into law for the purpose of increasing access to higher education for all citizens of the United States and of strengthening the capacity of higher education institutions to better serve their communities. The reauthorization of the Higher Education Act during the 108th Congress presents a powerful opportunity for the nation to address the higher education needs of the nation's Hispanic-Serving Institutions, which serve the largest concentrations of Hispanic higher education students in the United States.

Hispanic Serving Institutions provide the quality education essential to full participation in today's society. Many students in my home state of New Mexico have benefited from the academic excellence that Hispanic Serving Institutions seek to provide. Title V grants are intended to provide assistance to these less advantaged, developing institutions. However, by convoluting the application process, Congress is preventing these institutions from applying for grants and obstructing their development.

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