Psychiatric and Psychological Examinations Act of 2003

Mr. President, I am reintroducing legislation today that would direct the Secretary of the Army to determine whether certain nationals of the Philippine Islands performed military service on behalf of the United States during World War II.

Our Filipino veterans fought side by side and sacrificed their lives on behalf of the United States. This legislation would confirm the validity of their claims and further allow qualified individuals the opportunity to apply for military and veterans benefits that, I believe, they are entitled to. As this population becomes older, it is important for our nation to extend its firm commitment to the Filipino veterans and their families who participated in making us the great nation that we are today.

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

Mr. President, in our efforts to accommodate many Americans by making Memorial Day the last Monday in May, we have lost sight of the significance of this day to our Nation. My bill would restore Memorial Day to May 30 and authorize our flag to fly at half mast on that day. In addition, this legislation would authorize the President to issue a proclamation designating Memorial Day and Veterans Day as days for prayer and ceremonies. This legislation would help restore the recognition our veterans deserve for the sacrifices they have made on behalf of our Nation

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to amend the Public Health Service Act for the establishment of a National Center for Social Work Research.

Social workers provide a multitude of health care delivery services throughout America to our children, families, the elderly, and persons suffering from various forms of abuse and neglect.

The purpose of this center is to support and disseminate information about basic and clinical social work research, and training, with an emphasis on service to underserved and rural populations.

While the Federal Government provides funding for various social work research activities through the National Institutes of Health and other federal agencies, there presently is no coordination or direction of these critical activities and no overall assessment of needs and opportunities for empirical knowledge development. The establishment of a Center for Social Work Research would result in improved behavioral and mental health care outcomes for our nation's children, families, the elderly, and others.

In order to meet the increasing challenges of bringing cost- effective, research-based, quality health care to all Americans, we must recognize the important contributions of social work researchers to health care delivery and the central role that the Center for Social Work can provide in facilitating their work.

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

Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation today to modify Title VII of the U.S. Public Health Service Act in order to provide students enrolled in graduate psychology programs with the opportunity to participate in various health professions loan programs.

Providing students enrolled in graduate psychology programs with eligibility for financial assistance in the form of loans, loan guarantees, and scholarships will facilitate a much-needed infusion of behavioral science expertise into our community of public health providers. There is a growing recognition of the valuable contribution being made by psychologists toward solving some of our Nation's most distressing problems.

The participation of students from all backgrounds and clinical disciplines is vital to the success of health care training. The Title VII programs play a significant role in providing financial support for the recruitment of minorities, women, and individuals from economically disadvantaged backgrounds. Minority therapists have an advantage in the provision of critical services to minority populations because often they can communicate with clients in their own language and cultural framework. Minority therapists are more likely to work in community settings where ethnic minority and economically disadvantaged individuals are most likely to seek care. It is critical that continued support be provided for the training of individuals who provide health care services to underserved communities.

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

Mr. President, today I introduce legislation on the Rural Preventive Health Care Training Act of 2003, a bill that responds to the dire need of our rural communities for quality health care and disease prevention programs.

Almost one fourth of Americans live in rural areas and frequently lack access to adequate physical and mental health care. As many as 21 million of the 34 million people living in underserved rural areas are without access to a primary care provider. Even in areas where providers do exist, there are numerous limits to access, such as geographical barriers lack of transportation, and lack of knowledge about available resources. Due to the diversity of rural populations, language and cultural obstacles are often a factor in the access to medical care.

Compound these problems with limited financial resources, and the result is that many Americans living in rural communities go without vital health care, especially preventive care. Children fail to receive immunizations and routine checkups. Preventable illnesses and injuries occur needlessly, and lead to expensive hospitalizations. Early symptoms of emotional problems and substance abuse go undetected, and often develop into full-blown disorders.

An Institute of Medicine, IOM, report entitled, ``Reducing Risks for Mental Disorders: Frontiers for Preventive

Intervention Research,'' highlights the benefits of preventive care for all health problems. The training of health care providers in prevention is crucial in order to meet the demand for care in underserved areas. Currently, rural health care providers lack preventive care training opportunities.

Interdisciplinary preventive training of rural health care providers must be encouraged. Through such training programs, rural health care providers can build a strong educational foundation in the behavioral, biological, and psychological sciences. Interdisciplinary team prevention training will also facilitate operations at sites with both health and mental health clinics by facilitating routine consultation between groups. Emphasizing the mental health disciplines and their services as part of the health care team will contribute to the overall health of rural communities.

The Rural Preventive Health Care Training Act of 2003 would implement the risk-reduction model described in the IOM study. This model is based on the identification of risk factors and targets specific interventions for those risk factors.

The human suffering caused by poor health is immeasurable, and places a huge financial burden on communities, families, and individuals. By implementing preventive measures to reduce this suffering, the potential overall health and financial savings are enormous.

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

Mr. President, on behalf of our Nation's clinical social workers, I am introducing legislation to amend the Public Health Service Act. This legislation would: 1. establish a new social work training program, 2. ensure that social work students are eligible for support under the Health Careers Opportunity Program, 3. provide social work schools with eligibility for support under the Minority Centers of Excellence programs, 4. permit schools offering degrees in social work to obtain grants for training projects in geriatrics, and 5. ensure that social work is recognized as a profession under the Public Health Maintenance Organization Act.

Despite the impressive range of services social workers provide to people of this Nation, few Federal programs exist to provide opportunities for social work training in health and mental health care.

Social workers have long provided quality mental health services to our citizens and continue to be at the forefront of establishing innovative programs to serve our disadvantaged populations. I believe it is important to ensure that the special expertise social workers possess continues to be available to the citizens of this Nation. This bill, by providing financial assistance to schools of social work and social work students, acknowledges the long history and critical importance of the services provided by social work professionals. I believe it is time to provide them with the recognition the deserve.

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

Mr. President, today I introduce legislation to amend Chapter 74 of Title 38, United States Code, to revise certain provisions relating to the appointment of clinical and professional psychologists in the Veterans Health Administration, VHA. The VHA has a long history of maintaining a staff of the very best health care professionals to provide care to those men and women who have served our country in the Armed Forces.

Recently, a distressing situation regarding the care of our veterans has come to my attention: the recruitment and retention of psychologists in the VHA of the Department of Veterans Affairs has become a significant problem.

The Congress has recognized the important contribution of the behavioral sciences in the treatment of several conditions afflicting a significant portion of our veterans. Programs related to homelessness, substance abuse, and post traumatic stress disorder have received funding from the Congress in recent years.

Psychologists, as behavioral science experts, are essential to the successful implementation of these programs. Consequently, the high vacancy and turnover rates for psychologists in the VHA might seriously jeopardize these programs and will negatively impact overall patient care in the VHA.

Recruitment of psychologists by the VHA is hindered by a number of factors including a pay scale that is not commensurate with private sector rates together with a low number of clinical and professional psychologists appearing on the register of the Office of Personnel Management, OPM. Most new hires have no post-doctoral experience, and are hired immediately after a VHA internship. Recruitment, when successful, takes up to six months or longer.

Retention of psychologists in the VHA system poses an even more significant problem. I have been informed that almost 40 percent of VHA psychologists have five years or less of post-doctoral experience. Psychologists leave the VHA system after five years because they have almost reached peak levels for salary and professional advancement. Under the present system, psychologists cannot be recognized, or appropriately compensated, for excellence or for taking on additional responsibilities such as running treatment programs.

In effect, the current system for hiring psychologists in the VHA supports mediocrity, not excellence and mastery. Our veterans with behavioral and mental health disorders deserve better psychological care from more experienced professionals than they are now receiving.

Currently, psychologists are the only doctoral level health care providers in the VHA who are not included in Title 38. This is without question a significant factor in the recruitment and retention difficulties that I have mentioned.

Title 38 appointment authority for psychologists would help ameliorate the recruitment and retention problems. The length of time needed to recruit psychologists could be shortened by eliminating the requirement for applicants to be rated by the OPM. This would also encourage the recruitment of applicants who are not recent VHA interns by reducing the amount of time between identifying a desirable applicant and being able to offer that applicant a position.

It is expected that problems in retention will be greatly alleviated by the implementation of a Title 38 system that offers financial incentives for psychologists to pursue professional development. Achievements that would merit salary increases include such activities as assuming supervisory responsibilities for clinical programs, implementing innovative clinical treatments that improve the effectiveness and efficiency of patient care, making significant contributions to the science of psychology, and becoming a Fellow of the American Psychological Association.

The addition of psychologists to Title 38, as proposed by this amendment, would provide relief for the retention and recruitment issues and enhance the quality of care for our veterans and their families.

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

Mr. President, today I introduce legislation to amend Title 18 of the United States Code to allow our Nation's clinical social workers to use their mental health expertise on behalf of the Federal judiciary by conducting psychological and psychiatric exams.

I feel that the time has come to allow our Nation's judicial system to have access to a wide range of behavioral science and mental health expertise. I am confident that the enactment of this legislation would be very much in our Nation's best interest.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that would provide a Federal charter for the National Academies of Practice. This organization represents outstanding medical professionals who have made significant contributions to the practice of applied psychology, medicine, dentistry, nursing, optometry, osteopathy, podiatry, social work, veterinary medicine, and pharmacy. When fully established, each of the ten academies will possess 100 distinguished practitioners selected by their peers. These academics will be able to provide the Congress of the United States and the executive branch with considerable health policy expertise, especially from the perspective of those individuals who are in the forefront of actually providing health care.

As we continue to grapple with the many complex issues surrounding the delivery of health care services, it is clearly in our best interest to ensure that the Congress has direct and immediate access to the recommendations of an interdisciplinary body of health care practitioners.

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

Mr. President, today I introduce the Clinical Social Workers' Recognition Act of 2003 to correct a continuing problem in the Federal Employees Compensation Act. This bill will also provide clinical social workers the recognition they deserve as independent providers of quality mental health care services.

Clinical social workers are authorized to independently diagnose and treat mental illnesses through public and private health insurance plans across the nation. However, Title V of the United States Code, does not permit the use of mental health evaluations conducted by clinical social workers for use as evidence in determining workers' compensation claims brought by federal employees. The bill I am introducing corrects this problem.

It is a sad irony that federal employees may select a clinical social worker through their health plans to provide mental health services, but may not go to this same professional for workers' compensation evaluations. The failure to recognize the validity of evaluations provided by clinical social workers unnecessarily limits Federal employees' selection of a provider to conduct the workers' compensation mental health evaluations. Lack of this recognition may well impose an undue burden on Federal employees where clinical social workers are the only available providers of mental health care.

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

Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that would exempt from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund excise taxes on air transportation by helicopters of individuals and cargo for the purpose of conducting removal and environmental restoration activities relating to unexploded ordnance on the Island of Kahoolawe.

The Kahoolawe Island Unexploded Ordnance Clearance and Environmental Restoration Project is authorized under Title X of the Fiscal Year 1994 Department of Defense Appropriations Act. The Island of Kahoolawe is uninhabited, and it served as a bombing range for the Department of Defense until 1990. The Department of Defense is currently in the process of cleaning up and restoring Kahoolawe for its eventual return to the State of Hawaii.

The Airport and Airway Trust Fund excise taxes help support our nation's air traffic systems and airport infrastructures. However, there are no airports or landing zones on Kahoolawe that receive benefits from the Trust Fund. In addition, the taxes place an undue burden on the air transportation services provided to the Kahoolawe Clearance Project. Compared to a normal airline whose aircraft make fewer trips per day over much longer distances, the services provided to the project are very frequent, with many trips over very short distances. I urge my colleagues to support this measure.

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

Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that would extend to qualified teaching hospital support organizations the existing debt-financed property rules that apply to tax-exempt educational organizations, pension funds, and investment consortia of qualified schools and funds.

In a June 21, 2002, article, the New York Times describes the financial straits that nonprofit hospitals now face. More and more people in our weakened economy are seeking medical care from nonprofit hospitals. As a condition for Federal tax exemption, nonprofit hospitals must provide significant charitable services. Fees from other patients, especially in orthopedics, cardiology, and oncology, have in the past, allowed nonprofit hospitals to cover the expense of caring for the poor.

For-profit entrepreneurs, however, are better positioned to win away these specialty care patients because they are not burdened by the same requirement to provide indigent care. Consequently, investors and lenders have readily funded for-profit health care ventures. This available capital allows profit-making companies to build the most up- to-date facilities in competing for the high-margin patient.

No doubt, for-profit operations do offer charity care, but their profit orientation limits the amount they will provide. For example, residency and fellowship programs to train our doctors are not profitable, and, therefore, as the New York Times points out, nearly all the postgraduate medical education in the United States is provided by the nonprofit hospitals.

Of course, rising costs, such as for wages, supplies, and insurance, further compound the problem of nonprofit hospitals of stretching their income to cover significant charitable services. In addition, many of these nonprofit hospitals cannot raise or borrow the capital to modernize. They cover operating costs by postponing hospital maintenance and deferring the purchase of new technology, exacerbating an already bad situation. Eventually, as the New York Times article documents, more and more nonprofit hospitals will be forced to sell their facilities to for-profit enterprises.

The Queen's Medical Center in Honolulu faces these very same financial difficulties. This 143-year-old nonprofit hospital system maintains the largest private, nonprofit hospital in my state. It is a teaching hospital that provides residency training in a number of areas, and it treated 18,000 inpatients and 200,000 outpatients in 2001. With the only accredited trauma center in Hawaii, it served over 40,000 individuals without regard to their ability to pay. Medicaid and Medicare patients comprise nearly 60 percent of all its admissions.

In addition, the Center directly, or through its affiliates, operates community clinics throughout the state, conducts professional training programs, offers home health services, maintains a medical library, in addition to running a rural hospital on the rural, economically depressed Island of Molokai. Like other nonprofit hospitals, the Center provides significant charitable care, with nearly $23 million in uncompensated services in 2002.

Further, like other nonprofit hospitals, it has grave problems raising the funds needed to support all these uncompensated services while at the same time renovating and expanding its treatment facilities. A recent report from the Healthcare Association of Hawaii estimated that the hospitals in my state, similar to hospitals nationwide, will face additional, major losses this year due to reduced reimbursements, higher costs, and greater demand for services.

In the past, Congress has allowed tax-exempt schools, colleges, universities, and pension funds to invest in real estate development so as to help meet these institutions' financial needs. Under the tax code these organizations can incur debt to develop their real estate holdings without triggering the tax on unrelated business activities. Our nonprofit teaching hospitals have equal if not more pressing needs and should have the same opportunity. Unless Congress wishes to assume responsibility for charitable health care, we must help our nonprofit hospitals, especially the teaching hospitals. My bill, which is identical to an amendment that the Senate had previously

adopted during the debate of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001, would allow support organizations for qualified nonprofit teaching hospital to engage in limited real estate activities. These nonprofit hospitals would thereby be able to supplement their investment income in order to meet the growing demand placed on them for more community service.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and the New York Times article be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise to submit S. Con. Res. 795, a Senate concurrent resolution calling upon the President to address Mexico's failure to fulfill its obligations under the U.S.-Mexico Extradition Treaty, which entered into force in January 1980. I am delighted that Senators Brownback, Bill Nelson, Hutchison, Bingaman, Domenici, Kyl, and Campbell join me in submitting this resolution.

Specifically, this resolution calls upon President Bush to renegotiate the Extradition Treaty or take other actions to ensure that the U.S. can extradite serious criminals back to the U.S. for appropriate prosecution and punishment.

In my view, this treaty--at least as interpreted by Mexico--is simply not working as intended. While the U.S. is currently attempting to extradite hundreds of fugitives from Mexico, since 1996, Mexico has sent back only a relative handful every year. For example, in fiscal years 1996 through 2002, Mexico only extradited an average of 14 individuals to the U.S. each year. Even worse, Mexico's recent interpretation of this treaty has effectively eliminated our ability to extradite persons charged with serious crimes who flee to Mexico to avoid prosecution in the United States.

This interpretation has jeopardized the safety of both American and Mexican citizens, undermined the integrity of our criminal justice system, denied basic rights and closure to crime victims, and allowed serious felons to escape just punishment. The result is that Mexico is becoming a safe haven for hard-core criminals. If you steal a car in the U.S., Mexico will return you to face prosecution and punishment. If you kill the driver, Mexico will protect you.

The problem in a nutshell is that, since October 2001, Mexico has read the U.S.-Mexico Extradition Treaty as barring the extradition to the United States of anyone who faces a potential life term. In other words, if a person commits a serious crime in the U.S.--one that could subject them to a maximum life term--and heads south, Mexico will refuse to extradite that person to the U.S. to face prosecution and punishment in this country.

While it has been difficult to determine the full scope of the problem, I am informed by prosecutors in California that, as a result of Mexico's interpretation of the Extradition Treaty, there are as many as 350 people who have committed murder and other serious crimes in California who have either not been extradited or have been effectively rendered non-extraditable.

These 350 people have thus escaped appropriate prosecution and punishment under California law. Many of these people are living free and unpunished in Mexico. In some cases, we even know where they are.

Let me quote from a recent Santa Barbara News Press article: A half dozen people wanted in the slayings of Santa Barbara residents are believed to be living free in Mexico. Santa Barbara police detectives even know where three of them live. But there's not much they can do about it. ``If I had unfettered access to the proper investigative tools and contacts, we could have them in custody in a matter of days,'' said Detective Tim Roberts . . . ``But that's not the case.''

Let me give you an example of another especially heinous case.

On April 29, 2002, Armando Garcia, a Mexican national who had been previously charged in the U.S. with two counts of attempted murder, allegedly shot and killed, execution-style, 33-year-old Los Angeles County Deputy Sheriff David March during a routine traffic stop in Irwindale, CA. Garcia then fled to Mexico, where he remains a free man.

Los Angeles District Attorney Steve Cooley has not formally requested Garcia's extradition because he says that there is no point. Mexico will demand that Cooley promise that Garcia will not receive life in prison for his crime--a promise that cannot be made because in this country sentences are up to a judge to set, once a person has been convicted of a crime. The results is that Garcia remains at large in Mexico.

And earlier this year there was a horrific case in Santa Cruz implicating the Extradition Treaty. Miguel Ramirez Loza, 27 years old, allegedly attacked his 17-year-old girlfriend in an abandoned preschool building, slashing her throat and then spitting on her. As his girlfriend lay dying, he then raped the victim's 17-year-old friend. Loza's girlfriend was in a coma for months after the crime and just recently died.

Loza is now in Mexico and is apparently in a Mexican jail as a result of a stabbing in Mexico unrelated to the Santa Cruz incident. However, according to Santa Cruz District Attorney Bob Lee, Loza cannot be extradited for the murder and rape in California because of Mexico's interpretation of the Extradition Treaty.

It is true that Mexico does sometimes prosecute individuals in Mexico who committed crimes in the U.S. under Article IV of its Criminal Code. But often Mexico fails to do this. And, in any event, there is no substitute for extraditing the person to the United States.

There are credible reports that defendants in Mexico sometimes buy their acquittals. And, at least by U.S. standards, Mexican standards of justice can be quite low. Trials often take place with no testimony and no witnesses. Victims and their families are not invited or consulted. And sentences--often reduced on appeal--frequently bear little resemblance to those authorized by U.S. sentencing laws.

Not surprisingly, according to an article in the Las Vegas Review- Journal, ``More than a dozen prosecutors in Nevada, California and Arizona who were interviewed for this story criticized Article IV as an ineffectual alternative to extradition.'' One prosecutor, Jan Maurizi of the Los Angeles District Attorney's Office, stated that she ``sent demands to the Mexican government asking what happened to 97 Article IV cases that have seemingly disappeared from the justice system. Mexico . . . never responded. But from others we've talked to in unofficial channels, it's clear the vast majority of them are grossly inadequate sentences. Most of them, nothing happens.''

Another prosecutor, Val Jimenez, the special agent supervisor of the Foreign Prosecution Unit at the California Attorney General's Office, has mentioned one recent case where a defendant ``got 20 years for doing a homicide, appealed, and he was out in 18 months.'' And even if defendants were convicted, they may not serve real time. It was not until last year that Mexico finally tore down the infamous La Mesa State Penitentiary in Tijuana. La Mesa was a place where prisoners were free to purchase $25,000 townhomes with cell phones, tiled bathrooms, Jacuzzis, microwaves, computers, DVD players, and guard dogs such as Rottweilers. One murder in the prison was committed with a Uzi.

The U.S.-Mexico Extradition Treaty provides that neither country is bound to deliver up its nationals for extradition. It further provides that where the offense for which extradition is sought is punishable by death, a country may refuse to extradite unless the country seeking extradition assures that it will not impose the death penalty. Under the Treaty, the death penalty is the sole punishment for which assurances may be required. For decades, Mexico has extradited suspects to California and other states without inordinate problems. Then, in October 2001, the Mexican Supreme Court ruled that life imprisonment violates the Constitution of Mexico and extended this interpretation to the Extradition Treaty. Specifically, the Court decided that Mexico could no longer extradite a fugitive who is subject to life imprisonment with or without the possibility of parole, unless assurances are given that guarantee a determinate term of years.

Here is what the Mexican Supreme Court said in Opinion No. 125/2001, which is about a half-page long: [T]he punishment of life imprisonment is considered an unusual penalty and is prohibited by . . . article 22 of the [Mexican Constitution], inasmuch as it departs from the essential purpose of the penalty, which is the rehabilitation of the offender to incorporate him/her into society. It is, therefore, unquestionable that the requesting [i.e., extraditing] State must bind itself not to impose the penalty of life imprisonment, only another less serious punishment.

Article 22 of the Mexican Constitution prohibits ``[p]unishment by mutilation and extreme cruelty, branding, flogging, beating with sticks, torture of any kind, excessive fines, confiscation of property and any other unusual or extreme penalties. . . .''

In light of the fact that the Extradition Treaty prohibits Mexico from extraditing criminals to the U.S. unless the U.S. agrees to waive the death penalty, it is interesting to note that Article 22 of the Mexican Constitution specifically allows the death penalty for ``high treason committed during a foreign war; parricide; murder that is treacherous, premeditated, or committed for profit; arson; abduction; highway robbery; piracy; and grave military offenses.''

So, in other words, according to the Mexican Supreme Court, the Mexican Constitution allows the death penalty for highway robbery in Mexico but, should an American criminal murder a police officer in California and then flee to Mexico, Mexico will refuse to turn this person over to the U.S. if he would face either the death penalty or a possible life term.

In my view, this makes no sense. However, Mexico as a sovereign nation is free to interpret its domestic law as it sees fit. I do not quarrel with their interpretation of their own law. But I do question whether Mexico can unilaterally rewrite the U.S.-Mexican Extradition Treaty. And that is exactly the effect of its interpretation of the Treaty as barring extradition to the U.S. of any alleged criminal who faces a possible life term. In fact, Mexico's interpretation of the Treaty is unsupported by and inconsistent with the Treaty's language, purpose, structure, and history. It is also conflicts with the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which states that a treaty shall be interpreted ``in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in light of its object and purpose.''

As the U.S. State Department has made clear in a Protest Note to the Mexican Government after the October 2001 decision, [R]equiring assurances for a punishment other than the death penalty is unsupported by the Treaty, which provides the substantive extradition requirement. . . . To give [the Treaty] the reading Mexico has given it eviscerates the Treaty, for such a reading would disregard the substantive exceptions found in Articles 5 through 9, and would permit each Party to refuse each other's extradition requests based on its domestic law on sentencing, which could be changed unilaterally at any time, even if that change rendered the law inconsistent with the Treaty.

Moreover, Mexico's interpretation of the Treaty has made it effectively impossible to extradite from Mexico individuals who commit murder or other serious crimes in California and many other States. In California, for example, over 40 different crimes are punishable by possible life sentences and neither a judge nor a prosecutor can give assurances of a determinate term for these crimes. As a result, Mexico's policy encourages people committing serious crimes in California to flee to Mexico and escape just punishment. Indeed, individuals in the United States with a criminal history have a perverse incentive to kill an arresting police officer and head for Mexico rather than face possible prosecution and imprisonment in the United States.

Given Mexico's interpretation of the Treaty, the only way to extradite a Mexican national charged with a ``life'' crime is to seek extradition on reduced charges punishable by a determinate sentence. But this would mean treating more harshly those who commit a crime and remain in California than those who commit the same crime and flee to Mexico. This is not only unfair and a blow to the integrity of our criminal justice system. But it also just encourages criminals to flee to Mexico to reduce their potential punishment.

Moreover, it is unclear exactly what assurances will suffice. In at least one Federal major narcotics trafficking case, a Mexican court determined that a twenty-year sentence was ``cruel and unusual'' and thus unconstitutional. And some Mexican courts have ruled that only a judge can give sufficient assurances--a legal impossibility under California's judicial system.

Mexico's interpretation of the U.S.-Mexico Extradition Treaty has unquestionably had a particularly harmful effect on my home state of California. I would like to commend the Los Angeles District Attorney Steve Cooley and Deputy District Attorney Jan Maurizi for their work in identifying cases of individuals who have committed murder and other serious crimes in California who have either not been extradited or have been effectively rendered non-extraditable. As I noted before, there are at least 350 such cases just in my home state. Many district attorneys do not keep adequate records of which suspects fled to Mexico, which cases are potentially extraditable, and which cases have been or could be subject to Article IV prosecution.

In fact, when we asked the National Association of District Attorneys to conduct a survey of how many cases have been affected by Mexico's interpretation of the Treaty, it received responses from only 17 jurisdictions, and much of this information was anecdotal. This survey, though, does demonstrate that the problem caused by Mexico's interpretation of the Extradition Treaty also afflict a number of other states. Based on the information we received, there are at least 60 cases around the country outside of California--and this number probably grossly understates the problem. These cases are in Arizona, Florida, Hawaii, Nevada, New York, Oregon, Tennessee, Texas, and Washington. These numbers, though, do not tell whole story. In every case, there is a horrible crime, a victim, a shattered family, and a horrible injustice.

I have already discussed a couple of specific criminal cases implicating the U.S.-Mexico Extradition Treaty. But now I would like to talk about four more. In every case, the perpetrator of a heinous crime has escaped appropriate punishment because of Mexico's interpretation of the U.S.-Mexico Extradition Treaty.

In August of 1999, Daniel Perez, a Mexican national, was convicted in absentia in Los Angeles County by a jury for the crimes of attempted first degree murder, use of a firearm, espousal battery, kidnapping, false imprisonment and stalking his estranged wife.

Perez and the 21-year-old victim, Anabella Vera, were separated. They met at a pizza place. After kidnapping her at gunpoint and terrorizing her for two hours, Anabella finally convinced Perez that she would return home with him. Perez then drove Anabella to her car. After Anabella tried to drive away from him, Perez chased her in his car, ramming her vehicle and forcing her to run red lights. Ultimately, Anabella became stuck in traffic and, in a desperate bid to save her life, abandoned her car and tried to flee. Perez then caught Anabella at a gas station and shot her in the head. Miraculously, she survived.

During the trial and while out on bail, Perez drove to Fontana, CA to the home of Anabella's father, who had been a key witness against Perez. In front of Anabella's siblings, Perez shot and killed Anabella's father. Perez then allegedly fled to Mexico, where he is still at large.

Perez was sentenced in absentia in Los Angeles County for attempted murder to a term of 33 years to life, plus an additional life term. In addition, the San Bernardino County District Attorney's Office has charged Perez with the murder of the victim's father and the special circumstances of killing a witness. These charges carry a potential punishment of life in prison without the possibility of parole or, if it is not waived, the death penalty. Because Mexico does not recognize convictions in absentia, my understanding is that Mexico will neither extradite Perez for attempted murder nor prosecute him under Article IV of the Mexican Federal Penal Code.

Alvara Luna Jara has been charged with the special circumstances murder of 12-year-old Steven Morales and the attempted murder of three others. On August 29, 1998, Steven was playing with several other children in front of their apartment, near three members of a local sheet gang. As Jara drove by, he and the three gang members exchanged hand gestures. Jara then extended his arm out of the car window and fired three rounds into the crowd, killing Steven with a gunshot to the head. Jara then fled to Mexico. If convicted in the United States, Jara could face life without possibility of parole or, if it is not waived, the death penalty. However, while Jara is not a Mexican national, the Mexican government has refused to deport him because his parents are Mexican nationals. After this refusal, Los Angeles District Attorney Cooley began formal extradition proceedings. However, because of Mexico's interpretation of the October 2000 Mexican Supreme Court decision, Cooley never submitted the formal request.

On May 7, 1988, Father Nicholas Aguilar Rivera, a Catholic priest, was charged with 19 counts of child molestation. The day after he was charged, Father Rivera fled to Mexico. Although the case was supposed to be prosecuted promptly under Article IV, Mexican prosecutors failed to submit the case for prosecution until 1995. The Mexican court dismissed the matter as untimely and entered an acquittal. Now, both countries are barred from further prosecution.

On May 17, 1998, Ruben Hernandez Martinez and Luis Castanon allegedly broke into the Nashville apartment of Kelly Quinn and her roommate after waiting for Ms. Quinn to return home. They then attacked her, raping her continuously for hours. When they were done, they made Ms. Quinn shower to remove any DNA evidence. However, Ms. Quinn was able to conceal semen that was on her neck. Castanon was arrested and, on the basis of fingerprint and serology evidence, convicted of aggravated sexual assault. He was sentenced to 60 years. Martinez, whom Nashville police believe committed several other rapes as well, fled to Mexico. I am informed that, while Martinez has been in custody in a Mexico City jail for over a year, Mexico has still refused to make a decision as to whether they will extradite him.

The United States can and must retain discretion to prosecute and punish its most dangerous and violent offenders who commit crimes in the United States according to U.S. laws. Criminals should not be allowed to escape justice in the U.S. for the price of a bus ticket to Mexico.

I would now like read a letter I received from a youngster in California about this problem. Here is what he says:

My mom is a deputy sheriff for Los Angeles. Every night she

goes to work. I say a prayer for her she will come home

safely. So far she has. Deputy March was not so lucky. I

wonder how his kids must feel not having a dad any longer.

Could you please help catch the man that killed Deputy March.

I listen to the radio a lot and they said the bad man that

did this is in Mexico and he is not in jail. Could you please

get him back here so my mom will be safer when she goes to

work.

Thank you.

It is unfortunate that we live in a country where we cannot assure a youngster that the man who killed his mom's colleague won't come back and hurt her too. That is why we need to pass this resolution now. That is why we need the President to act.

I ask my colleagues for their support.

I also ask unanimous consent that an October 24, 2003 Resolution of the International Association of Chiefs of Police be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleague from Louisiana, Senator Landrieu, in introducing the Access to Affordable Health Care Act, a comprehensive, seven-point plan that builds on the strengths of our current public programs and private health care system to make quality, affordable health care available to millions more Americans.

One of my top priorities in the Senate has been to expand access to affordable health care for all Americans. There are still far too many Americans without health insurance or with woefully inadequate coverage. More than 41 million Americans do not have health care coverage, including more than 150,000 in Maine.

Health insurance matters. The simple fact is that people with health insurance are healthier than those who are uninsured. People without health insurance are less likely to seek care when they need it, and to forgo services such as periodic check-ups and preventive services. As a consequence, they are more likely to be hospitalized or require costly medical attention for conditions that could have been prevented or treated at a curable stage. Not only does this put the health of these individuals at greater risk, but it also puts additional pressure on our hospitals and emergency rooms, many of them already financially challenged.

Compared with people who have health coverage, uninsured adults are four times, and uninsured children five times, more likely to use the emergency rooms. The costs of care for these individuals are often absorbed by providers and passed on to the covered population through increased fees and insurance premiums.

Maine is in the midst of a growing health insurance crisis, with insurance premiums rising at alarming rates. Whether I am talking to a self-employed fisherman, the owner of a struggling small businesses, or the human resource manager of a large company, the soaring costs of health insurance is a common concern.

Maine's employers are currently facing premium increases of as much as 40 percent a year. These premium increases have been particularly burdensome for small businesses, the backbone of the Maine economy. Many small business owners are caught in a cost squeeze: they know that if they pass on the premium increases to their employees, more of them will decline coverage. Yet, these small businesses simply cannot afford to absorb double-digit increases of 20, 30 or 40 percent, year after year.

The problem of rising costs is even more acute for individuals and families who must purchase health insurance on their own. Monthly insurance premiums often exceed a family's mortgage payment. Clearly, we must do more to make health insurance more available and affordable.

The Access to Affordable Health Care Act, which we are introducing today, it a seven-point plan that combines a variety of public and private approaches to make quality health care coverage more affordable and available. The legislation's seven goals are: One, to expand access to affordable health care for small businesses; two, to make health insurance more affordable for individuals and families purchasing coverage on their own; three, to strengthen the health care safety net for those without coverage; four, to expand access to care in rural and underserved areas; five, to increase access to affordable long-term care; six, to promote healthier lifestyles; and seven, to provide more equitable Medicare payments to Maine providers to reduce the Medicare shortfall, which has forced hospitals, physicians and other providers to shift costs onto other payers in the form of higher charges, which, in turn drives up health care premiums.

Let me discuss each of these seven points in more detail.

First, our legislation will help small employers cope with rising health care costs.

Since most Americans get their health insurance through the workplace, it is a common assumption that people without health insurance are unemployed. The fact is, however, that most uninsured Americans are members of families with at least one full- time worker. As many as 82 percent of Americans who do not have health insurance are in a family with a worker.

Uninsured working Americans are most often employees of small businesses. In fact, some 60 percent of uninsured workers are employed by small firms. Smaller firms generally face higher costs for health insurance than larger firms, which makes them less likely to offer coverage. Small businesses want to provide health insurance for their employees, but the cost is often just too high.

The legislation we are introducing today will help small employers cope with rising costs, by providing new tax credits for small businesses to help make health insurance more affordable. It will encourage those small businesses that do not currently offer health insurance to do so and will help employers that do offer insurance to continue coverage for their employees even in the face of rising costs.

Our legislation will also help increase the clout of small businesses in negotiating with insurers. Premiums are generally higher for small businesses because they do not have as much purchasing power as large companies, which limits their ability to bargain for lower rates. They also have higher administrative costs because they have fewer employees among whom to spread the fixed cost of a health benefits plan. Moreover, they are not as able to spread the risks of medical claims over as many employees as large firms.

Our legislation will help address these problems by authorizing federal grants to provide start-up funding to States to assist them with the planning, development, and operation of small employer purchasing cooperatives. These cooperatives will help to reduce health care costs for small employers by allowing them to band together to purchase health insurance jointly. Group purchasing cooperatives have a number of advantages for small employers. For example, the increased numbers of participants in the group help to lower the premium costs for all. Moreover, they decrease the risk of adverse selection and spread the cost of health care over a broader group.

The legislation would also authorize a Small Business Administration grant program for States, local governments and non-profit organizations to provide information about the benefits of health insurance to small employers, including tax benefits, increased productivity of employees, and decreased turnover. These grants would also be used to make employers aware of their current rights under State and Federal laws. While costs are clearly a problem, many small employers are not fully aware of the laws that have already been enacted by both States and the Federal Government to make health insurance more affordable. For example, in one survey, 57 percent of small employers did not know that they could deduct 100 percent of their health insurance premiums as a business expense.

The legislation would also create a new program to encourage innovation by awarding demonstration grants in up to 10 states conducting innovative coverage expansions, such as alternative group purchasing or pooling arrangements, individual or small group market reforms, or subsidies to employers or individuals purchasing coverage. The States have long been laboratories for reform, and they should be encouraged in the development of innovative programs that can serve as models for the nation.

The Access of Affordable Health Care Act will also expand access to affordable health are for individuals and families.

One of the first bills I cosponsored as a Senator was legislation to establish the State Children's Health Insurance Program, S-CHIP, which provides insurance for the children of low-income

parents who cannot afford health insurance, yet make too much money to qualify for Medicaid. This important program has provided affordable health insurance coverage to over four million children nationwide, including over 12,000 who are currently enrolled in the MaineCare program. Even so, nationwide, hundreds of thousands of qualified children have yet to be enrolled in this program, many because their parents simply don't know that they are eligible for the assistance.

Our legislation builds on the success of this program and gives States a number of new tools to increase participation. For example, the bill gives States the option of covering the parents of the children who are enrolled in programs like MaineCare. States could also use funds provided through this program to help eligible working families pay their share of an employer-based health insurance plan. In short, the legislation will help ensure that the entire family receives the health care they need.

The legislation will also allow States to expand coverage to eligible legal immigrants through Medicaid and SCHIP. Maine is one of a number of states that is currently covering eligible legal immigrant pregnant women and children under Medicaid using 100 percent state dollars. Giving States the option of covering these children and families under Medicaid will enable them to receive matching federal funds, and will help relieve the pressure that most a State budgets are currently experiencing due to the economic downturn and rising Medicaid costs.

Many people with serious health problems encounter difficulties in finding a company that is willing to insure them. To address this problem, the Access to Affordable Health Care Act authorizes Federal grants to provide money for states to create high-risk pools through which individuals who have pre-existing health conditions can obtain affordable health can obtain affordable health insurance.

And finally, to help make health coverage more affordable for low and middle-income individuals and families who do not have employer- provided coverage and who are not eligible for the expanded public programs, our legislation would provide an advanceable, refundable tax credit of up to $1,000 for individuals earning up to $30,000 and up to $3,000 for families earning up to $60,000. This could provide coverage for up to 6 million Americans who would otherwise be uninsured for one or more months, and will help many more working lower-income families who currently purchase private health insurance with little or no government help.

The Access to Affordable Health Insurance Act will also help to strengthen our nation's health care safety net by doubling funding over five years for the Consolidated Health Centers program, which includes community, migrant, public housing and homeless health centers. These centers, which operate in underserved rural and urban communities, provide critical primaary care services to millions of Americans regardless of their ability to pay. About 20 percent of the patients treated at Maine's community health centers have no insurance coverage and many more have inadequate coverage, so these centers are a critical part of our Nation's health care safety net.

The problem of access to affordable health care services is not limited to the uninsured, but it also shared by many Americans living in rural and underserved areas where there is a serious shortage of health care providers. The Access to Affordable Health Care Act therefore includes a number of provisions to strengthen the National Health Service Corps, which supports doctors, dentists, and other clinicians who serve in rural and inner city areas.

For example, taxing students adversely affects their financial incentive to participate in the National Health Services Corps and provide health care services in underserved communities. The tax bill passed by the last Congress provided a tax deduction for National Health Service Corps scholarship recipients to deduct all tuition, fees and related educational expenses from their income taxes. The deduction did not extend to loan repayment recipients however, so loan repayment amounts are still taxed as income. Participants in the loan repayment program are actually given extra payment amounts to help them cover their tax liability which, frankly, is a little ridiculous. It makes much more sense to simply exempt them from taxation in the first place.

In addition, the legislation will allow National Health Service Corps participants to fulfill their commitment on a part-time basis. Current law requires all National Health Service Corps participants to serve full time. Many rural communities, however, simply do not have enough volume to support a full-time health care practitioner. Moreover, some sites may not need a particular type of provider, for example, a dentist, on a full-time basis. Some practitioners may also find part- time service more attractive, which, in turn, could improve recruitment and retention. Our bill will therefore give the program additional flexibility to meet community needs.

Long-term care is the major catastrophic health care expense faced by older Americans today, and these costs will only increase with the aging of the baby boomers. Most Americans mistakenly believe that Medicare or their private health insurance policies will cover the costs of long-term care should they develop a chronic illness or cognitive impairment like Alzheimer's Disease. Unfortunately, far too many do not discover that they do not have coverage until they are confronted with the difficult decision of placing a much-loved parent or spouse in long-term care and facing the shocking realization that they will have to cover the costs themselves.

The Access to Affordable Health Care Act will provide a tax credit for long-term care expenses of up to $3,000 to provide some help to those families struggling to provide long-term care to a loved one. It will also encourage more Americans to plan for their future long-term care needs by providing a tax deduction to help them purchase private long-term care insurance.

Health insurance alone is not going to ensure good health. As noted author and physician Dr. Michael Crichton has observed, ``the future of medicine lies not in treating illness, but preventing it.'' Many of our most serious health problems are directly related to unhealthy behaviors, smoking, lack of regular exercise and poor diet. These three major risk factors alone have made Maine the state with the fourth highest death rate due to four largely preventable diseases: cardiovascular disease, cancer, chronic lung disease and diabetes. These four chronic diseases are responsible for 70 percent of the health care problems in Maine.

Our bill therefore contains a number of provisions designed to promote health lifestyles. An ever-expanding body of evidence shows that these kinds of investments in health promotion and prevention offer returns not only in reduced health care bills, but in longer life and increased productivity. The legislation will provide grants to States to assist small businesses wishing to establish ``worksite wellness'' programs for their employees. It would also authorize a grant program to support new and existing ``community partnerships,'' such as the Healthy Community Coalition in Franklin County, to promote healthy lifestyles among hospitals, employers, schools and community organizations. And, it would provide funds for States to establish or expand comprehensive school health education, including, for example, physical education programs that promote lifelong physical activity, healthy food service selections and programs that promote a healthy and safe school environment.

And finally, the Access to Affordable Health Care Act would promote equity in Medicare payments and help to ensure that the Medicare system rewards rather than punishes states like Maine that deliver high- quality, cost effective Medicare services to our elderly and disabled citizens.

According to a recent study in the Journal of the American Medical Association, Maine ranks third in the nation when it comes to the quality of care delivered to our Medicare beneficiaries. Yet we are 11th from the bottom when it comes to per-beneficiary Medicare spending.

The fact is that Maine's Medicare dollars are being used to subsidize higher reimbursements in other parts of the country. This simply is not fair. Medicare's reimbursement systems have historically tended to favor urban

areas and failed to take the special needs of rural states into account. Ironically, Maine's low payment rates are also the result of its long history of providing high-quality, cost-effective care. In the early 1980s, Maine's lower than average costs were used to justify lower payment rates. Since then, Medicare's payment policies have only served to widen the gap between low and high-cost states.

As a consequence, Maine's hospitals, physicians and other providers have experienced a serious Medicare shortfall, which has forced them to shift costs on to other payers in the form of higher charges. The Medicare shortfall is one of the reasons that Maine has among the highest health insurance premiums in the nation. The provisions in the Access to Affordable Health Care Act provide a complement to legislation that I introduced in the last Congress with Senator Russ Feingold to promote greater fairness in Medicare payments to physicians and other health professionals by eliminating outdated geographic adjustment factors that discriminate against rural areas.

The Access to Affordable Health Care Act outlines a blueprint for reform based upon principles upon which I believe a bipartisan majority in Congress could agree. The plan takes significant strides toward the goal of universal health care coverage by bringing millions more Americans into the insurance system, by strengthening the health care safety net, and by addressing the inequities in the Medicare system.

Mr. President, I join my good friend, Senator Kyl, in introducing S.J. Res, 1, the Victims' Rights Amendment.

Two years ago, the Senate debated a proposed constitutional amendment drafted by Senator Kyl and me to protect the rights of victims of violent crime. The amendment had been reported out of the Senate Judiciary Committee on a strong bipartisan vote of 12 to 5. After 82 Senators voted to proceed to consideration of the amendment, there was a vigorous debate on the floor of the Senate. Some Senators raised concerns about the amendment, saying that it was too long or that it read too much like a statute.

Ultimately, in the face of a threatened filibuster, Senator Kyl and I decided to withdraw the amendment. We then hunkered down with constitutional experts, such as Professor Larry Tribe of Harvard Law School, to see if we could revise the amendment to meet Senators' concerns. We also worked with constitutional experts at the Department of Justice and the White House, and we came up with a new and improved draft of the amendment. This new amendment provides many of the same rights as the old amendment.

Specifically, the amendment would give crime victims the rights to be notified, present, and heard at critical stages throughout their case. It would ensure that their views are considered and they are treated fairly. It would ensure that their interest in a speedy resolution of the case, safety, and claims for restitution are not ignored. And it would do so in a way that would not abridge the rights of defendants or offenders, or otherwise disrupt the delicate balance of our Constitution.

We had a hearing in the Constitution Subcommittee. Unfortunately, the Judiciary Committee did not act on the amendment. There are many reasons why we need a constitutional amendment.

First, a constitutional amendment will balance the scales of justice. Currently, while criminal defendants have almost two dozen separate constitutional rights, fifteen of them provided by amendments to the U.S. Constitution, there is not a single word in the Constitution about crime victims. These rights trump the statutory and State constitutional rights of crime victims because the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land. To level the playing field, crime victims need rights in the U.S. Constitution. In the event of a conflict between a victim's and a defendant's rights, the court will be able to balance those rights and determine which party has the most compelling argument.

Second, a constitutional amendment will fix the patchwork of victims' rights laws. Eighteen States lack state constitutional victim's rights amendment, and the 32 existing State victims' rights amendments differ from each other. Also, virtually every State has statutory protections for victims, but these vary considerably across the country. Only a Federal constitutional amendment can ensure a uniform national floor for victims' rights.

Third, a constitutional amendment will restore rights that existed when the Constitution was written. It is a little known fact that at the time the Constitution was drafted, it was standard practice for victims, not public prosecutors, to prosecute criminal cases. Because victims were parties to most criminal cases, they enjoyed the basic rights to notice, to be present, and be heard. Hence, it is not surprising that the Constitution does not mention victims.

Now, of course, it is extremely rare for a victim to undertake a criminal prosecution. Thus, victims have none of the basic procedural rights they used to enjoy. Victims should receive some of the modest notice and participation rights they enjoyed at the time that the Constitution was drafted.

Fourth, a constitutional amendment is necessary because mere State law is insufficient. State victims' rights laws lacking the force of Federal constitutional law are often given short shrift. A Justice Department-sponsored study and other studies have found that, even

in States with strong legal protections for victims' rights, many victims are denied those rights. The studies have also found that statutes are insufficient to guarantee victims' rights. Only a Federal constitutional amendment can ensure that crime victims receive the rights they are due.

Fifth, a constitutional amendment is necessary because Federal statutory law is insufficient. The leading statutory alternative to the Victims' Rights Amendment would only directly cover certain violent crimes prosecuted in Federal court. Thus, it would slight more than 99 percent of victims of violent crime. We should acknowledge that Federal statutes have been tried and found wanting. It is time for us to amend the U.S. Constitution.

The Oklahoma City bombing case offers another reason why we need a constitutional amendment. This case shows how even the strongest Federal statute is too weak to protect victims in the face of a defendant's constitutional rights. In that case, two Federal victims' rights statutes were not enough to give victims of the bombing a clear right to watch the trial and still testify at the sentencing, even though one of the statutes was passed with the specific purpose of allowing the victims to do just that.

Let me quote from the first of these statutes: the Victims of Crime Bill of Rights, passed in 1990. That Bill of Rights provides in part that:

A crime victim has the following rights: The right to be present at all public court proceedings related to the offense, unless that court determines that testimony by the victim would be materially affected if the victim heard other testimony at trial.

That statute further states that Federal Government officers and employees ``engaged in the detection, investigation, or prosecution of crime shall make their best efforts to see that victims of crime are accorded the[se] rights.''

The law also provides that ``[t]his section does not create a cause of action or defense in favor of any person arising out of the failure to accord to a victim the[se] rights.''

In spite of the law, the judge in the Oklahoma City bombing case ruled, without any request from Timothy McVeigh's attorneys, that no victim who saw any portion of the case could testify about the bombing's impact at a possible sentencing hearing:

The Justice Department asked the judge to exempt victims who would not be ``factual witnesses at trial'' but who might testify at a sentencing hearing about the impact of the bombing on their lives. The judge denied the motion. The victims were then given until the lunchbreak to decide whether to watch the proceedings or remain eligible to testify at a sentencing hearing. In the hour that they had, some of the victims opted to watch the proceedings; other decided to leave to remain eligible to testify at the sentencing hearing.

Subsequently, the Justice Department asked the court to reconsider its order in light of the 1990 Victims' Bill of Rights. Bombing victims then filed their own motion to raise their rights under the Victims' Bill of Rights. The court denied both motions. With regard to the victims' motion, the judge held that the victims lacked standing. The judge stated that the victims would not be able to separate the ``experience of trial'' from the ``experience of loss from the conduct in question.'' The judge also alluded to concerns about the defendants' constitutional rights, the common law, and rules of evidence.

The victims and DOJ separately appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. That court ruled that the victims lacked standing under Article III of the Constitution because they had no ``legally protected interest'' to be present at trial and thus had suffered no ``injury in fact'' from their exclusion. The victims and DOJ then asked the entire Tenth Circuit to review that decision. Forty-nine members of Congress, all six attorneys general in the Tenth Circuit, and many of the leading crime victims' organizations filed briefs in support of the victims. All to no avail.

The Victims' Clarification Act of 1997 when then introduced in Congress. That act provided that watching a trial does not constitute grounds for denying victims the chance to provide an impact statement. This bill passed the House 414 to 13 and the Senate by unanimous consent. Two days later, President Clinton signed into law, explaining that ``when someone is a victim, he or she should be at the center of the criminal justice process, not on the outside looking in.''

The victims then filed a motion asserting a right to attend the trial under the new law. However, the judge declined to apply the law as written. He concluded that ``any motions raising constitutional questions about this legislation would be premature and would present questions issues that are not now ripe for decision.'' Moreover, he held that it could address issues of possible prejudicial impact from attending the trial by interviewing the witnesses after the trial.

The judge also refused to grant the victims a hearing on the application of the new law, concluding that his ruling rendered their request ``moot.'' The victims then faced a painful decision: watch the trial or preserve their right to testify at the sentencing hearing. Many victims gave up their right to watch the trial as a result.

A constitutional amendment would help ensure that victims of a domestic terrorist attack such as the Oklahoma City bombing have standing and that their arguments for a right to be present are not dismissed as ``unripe.'' A constitutional amendment would give victims of violent crime an unambiguous right to watch a trial and still testify at sentencing.

There is strong and wide support for a constitutional amendment. I am pleased that President Bush and Attorney General Ashcroft have endorsed the amendment. As the President put it last year, ``The Feinstein-Kyl amendment was written with care, and strikes a proper balance. Our legal system properly protects the rights of the accused in the Constitution, but it does not provide similar protection for the rights of victims, and that must change. The protection of victims' rights is one of those rare instances when amending the Constitution is the right thing to do. And the Feinstein-Kyl crime victims' rights amendment is the right way to do it.''

I greatly appreciate their support. And I am also pleased that both former President Clinton and former Vice President Gore have all expressed support for a constitutional amendment on victim's right. Moreover, in the last Congress, the Victims' Rights Amendment was cosponsored by a bipartisan group of 28 Senators. I have spoken to many of my colleagues about the amendment we introduce today and I am hopeful that it will receive even more support in this Congress. In addition I would vote the following:

Both the Democratic and Republican Party Platforms call for a victims' rights amendment. Governors in 49 out of 50 States have called for an amendment. Four former U.S. Attorneys General, including Attorney General Reno, support an amendment. Attorney General Ashcroft support an amendment. Forty State attorneys general support an amendment.

Major national victims' rights groups--including Parents of Murdered Children, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, MADD, and the National Organization for Victim Assistance, support the amendment. Many law enforcement groups, including the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the Nation Troops' Coalition, the International Union of Police Associations AFL-CIO, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, and the California District Attorneys Association support an amendment. Constitutional scholars, such as Harvard Law School Professor Larry Tribe, support an amendment.

The amendment has received strong support around the country. Thirty- two States have passed similar measures--by an average popular vote of almost 80 percent.

I am delighted to join my good friend Senator Jon Kyl in sponsoring the victims' rights amendment, and I look forward to its adoption by this Congress.

I ask unanimous consent that a copy of a letter dated April 15, 2002 from Harvard Law School Professor Larry Tribe be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Crime Victims' Rights Amendment.

The scales of justice are imbalanced. The U.S. Constitution, mainly through amendments, grants those accused of crime many constitutional rights, such as a speedy trial, a jury trial, counsel, the right against self-incrimination, the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, the right to subpoena witnesses, the right to confront witnesses, and the right to due process under the law.

The Constitution, however, guarantees no rights to crime victims. For example, victims have no right to be present, no right to be informed of hearings, no right to be heard at sentencing or at a parole hearing, no right to insist on reasonable conditions of release to protect the victim, no right to restitution, no right to challenge unending delays in the disposition of their case, and no right to be told if they might be in danger from release or escape of their attacker. This lack of rights for crime victims has caused many victims and their families to suffer twice, once at the hands of the criminal, and again at the hands of a justice system that fails to protect them. The Crime Victims' Rights Amendment would bring balance to the judicial system by giving victims of violent crime the rights to be informed, present, and heard at critical stages throughout their ordeal.

The amendment gives victims of violent crime the right: to reasonable and timely notice of any public proceeding involving the crime and of any release or escape of the accused; not to be excluded from such public proceeding; reasonably to be heard at public release, plea, sentencing, reprieve, and pardon proceedings; and to adjudicative decisions that duly consider the victim's safety, interest in avoiding unreasonable delay, and just and timely claims to restitution from the offender.

These rights have been at the core of the amendment since 1996, when Senator Feinstein and I first introduced the Crime Victims' Rights Amendment. The amendment is the product of extended discussions with the White House, the Department of Justice, Representative Steve Chabot, Senators Hatch and Biden, law enforcement officials, major victims' rights groups, and such diverse scholars as Professor Larry Tribe and then-Professor Paul Cassell. The current version is similar to the version in the 107th Congress. As President Bush stated when announcing his support for the language of the amendment, the amendment was ``written with care, and strikes a proper balance.'' http:// www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/04/20020416-1.html. One of the nation's leading constitutional scholars, Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe, who is on the opposite end of the ideological spectrum from President Bush, concurred. Professor Tribe praised the Amendment's ``brevity and clarity'' and commented, ``That you achieved such conciseness while fully protecting defendants' rights and accommodating the legitimate concerns that have been voiced about prosecutorial power and presidential authority is no mean feat. . . . I think you have done a splendid job at distilling the prior versions of the Victims' Rights Amendment into a form that would be worthy of a constitutional amendment.'' Letter of April 15, 2002.

If reform is to be meaningful, it must be in the U.S. Constitution. Since 1982, when the need for a constitutional amendment was first recognized by President Reagan's Task Force on Victims of Crime, 32 states have passed similar measures, by an average popular vote of about 80 percent. These state measures have helped protect crime victims; but they are inadequate for two reasons. First, each amendment is different, and not all States have provided protection to victims; a Federal amendment would establish a basic floor of crime victims' rights for all Americans, just as the federal Constitution provides for the accused. Second, statutory and state constitutional provisions are always subservient to the federal constitution; so, in cases of conflict, the defendants' rights, which are already in the U.S. Constitution, will always prevail. The Crime Victims' Rights Amendment would correct this imbalance.

It is important to note that the number one recommendation in a 400 page report by the Department of Justice on victims rights and services was that ``the U.S. Constitution should be amended to guarantee fundamental rights for victims of crime.'' U.S. Department of Justice, Office for Victims of Crime, New Directions from the Field: Victims' Rights and Services for the 21st Century 9, 1998. The report continued: ``A victims' rights constitutional amendment is the only legal measure strong enough to rectify the current inconsistencies in victims' rights laws that vary significantly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction on the state and federal levels.'' Id. at 10. Further: ``Granting victims of crime the ability to participate in the justice system is exactly the type of participatory right the Constitution is designed to protect and has been amended to permanently ensure. Such rights include the right to vote on an equal basis and the right to be heard when the government deprives one of life, liberty, or property.'' Id.

Some may say, ``I'm all for victims' rights but they don't need to be in the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution is too hard to change.'' But the history of our country teaches us that constitutional protections are needed to protect the basic rights of the people. Our criminal justice system needs the kind of fundamental reform that can only be accomplished through changes in our fundamental law, the Constitution. Attempts to establish rights by Federal or State statute, or even State constitutional amendment, have proven inadequate, after more than twenty years of trying. Then-Attorney General Reno has confirmed the point, noting that, ``unless the Constitution is amended to ensure basic rights to crime victims, we will never correct the existing imbalance in this country between defendants' constitutional rights and the haphazard patchwork of victims' rights.'' Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing, April 16, 1997, statement of Attorney General Janet Reno, at 41.

On behalf of the Department of Justice, Ray Fisher, then Associate Attorney General, now a judge on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, testified that ``the state legislative route to change has proven less than adequate in according victims their rights. Rather than form a minimum baseline of protections, the state provisions have produced a hodgepodge of rights that vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Rights that are guaranteed by the Constitution will receive greater recognition and respect, and will provide a national baseline.'' Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing, April 28, 1998, statement of Associate Attorney General Ray Fisher, at 9.

A number of legal commentators have reached similar conclusions. Harvard Professor of Law Laurence Tribe has explained that the existing statutes and state amendments ``are likely, as experience to date sadly shows, to provide too little real protection whenever they come into conflict with bureaucratic habit, traditional indifference, sheer inertia, or any mention of an accused's rights regardless of whether those rights are genuinely threatened.'' Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing, March 24, 1999, statement of Laurence Tribe, at 6. He also stated, ``there appears to be a considerable body of evidence showing that, even where statutory or regulatory or judge-made rules exist to protect the participatory rights of victims, such rights often tend to be honored in the breach . . . .'' Id. at 7. Indeed, according to a report by the National Institute of Justice, even in states that gave ``strong protection'' to victims rights, fewer than 60 percent of the victims were notified of the sentencing hearing and fewer than 40 percent were notified of the pretrial release of the defendant. National Institute of Justice, Research

in Brief, ``The Rights of Crime Victims--Does Legal Protection Make a Difference?'' at 4 (Dec. 1998).

If crime victims are to have meaningful rights, those rights must be in the U.S. Constitution. As President Bush has stated, ``The protection of victims' rights is one of those rare instances when amending the Constitution is the right thing to do. And . . . the Crime Victims' Rights Amendment is the right way to do it.'' http:// www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/04/20020416-1.html.

The Crime Victims' Rights Amendment has strong bipartisan support in the House and Senate. Senator Feinstein is the lead Democratic sponsor. I would like to thank her for her tireless efforts on behalf of crime victims and for her hard and very valuable work on the language. Also, a bipartisan group of 39 State Attorneys General has signed a letter expressing their ``strong and unequivocal support'' for an amendment. In January 1997, the National Governors' Association voted in favor of an amendment. In 1996 and 2000, both the Republican and Democratic Party Platforms called for a crime victims' rights amendment. Additionally, the amendment is supported by the International Association of Chiefs of Police and major national victims' rights groups, including Parents of Murdered Children, the National Organization for Victim Assistance, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, MADD, the Maryland Crime Victims' Resource Center, Arizona Voice for Crime Victims, Crime Victims United, and, Memory of Victims Everywhere.

The amendment has received strong support around the country. As I mentioned earlier, 32 states have passed similar measures--by an average popular vote of almost 80 percent.

Since we first introduced the amendment in 1996, Nila Lynn has been murdered in my home State of Arizona. Nila and her husband Duane were three months short of their 50th wedding anniversary. Nila was shot in the back by Richard Glassel and died in Duane's arms. Despite the fact that Duane had a State constitutional right to be heard at Glassel's sentencing and despite the fact that Glassel was afforded the right to make a sentencing recommendation to the jury, Duane's voice was silenced because he had no U.S. Constitutional right to make a similar sentencing recommendation.

For far too long, the criminal justice system has ignored crime victims who deserve to be treated with fairness, dignity, and respect. Our criminal justice system will never be truly just as long as criminals have rights and victims have none.

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