A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to protect the rights of crime victims.

Madam President, it isn't always possible for us to schedule matters in the Senate in a convenient way. I am aware Senator Feinstein must leave to attend another meeting. It is my hope she will able to be here before we vote.

While she is still here, I must say I share her sentiment that some of the most gratifying work I have done in the Senate has been my work with Senator Feinstein and her good staff in putting together a constitutional amendment and working hard to try to get it passed and preparing for the hearings--speaking with the victims, meeting with the Justice Department--literally hundreds of hours of time we have spent together working on this issue. It has helped to foster a bond of trust and friendship between us that I think could be used as a template for our colleagues in this body to work together in a bipartisan way.

I can never thank Senator Feinstein enough for her work on this amendment. I know the many victims who are here in the gallery share that sentiment.

This legislation would not be before us today without Senator Feinstein. That is simply a fact. For all of the hard work we have put in with her cooperation and her commitment to this, I thank Senator Feinstein deeply. She knows that bond of trust will continue to exist between us.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Nickles and Inhofe be added as original cosponsors of the legislation.

Madam President, I join Senator Feinstein in supporting S. 2329, which is the statutory version of the constitutional amendment we have prepared and about which Senator Feinstein has spoken.

The legislation, as I will describe in a moment, will attempt to accomplish as much as possible the same goals the constitutional amendment which has been pending before us would have accomplished.

But before I discuss the details of that, there are several people I would like to thank. In addition to Senator Feinstein--again it is impossible to express my appreciation enough for all of the hard work she put into this effort. We simply couldn't be here, because in order to get things passed in the Senate it is critical there be a bipartisan consensus, especially so for something that requires a supermajority. Without Democrats and Republicans working together, we would have never gotten to this point. Certainly Senator Feinstein was largely responsible for the work on the Democratic side of the aisle.

I appreciate all of my colleagues' understanding and support on this as well.

Senator Frist, who is willing to trust us in scheduling this for time on the floor--and there is very little time to take up matters, as the Presiding Officer knows--understood this was a very important commitment we had made to the victims of crime. During Crime Victims' Rights Month was the time to try to accomplish this. I appreciate his support.

I appreciate the support of Senator Hatch who throughout the years has never stood in the way but always lent us a hand in setting up a hearing and getting a time and a room for markup on the constitutional amendment and supporting its passage.

Again, it is not easy to get a constitutional amendment through even the Judiciary Committee, let alone to get it adopted. But Senator Hatch was supportive of that effort. I very much appreciate his cosponsorship of the statutory version of this amendment, as well as the support of Senator Leahy.

I think I would be remiss if I didn't make the point that the first cosponsors of this legislation were Senator Feinstein, myself, and Senators Hatch and Leahy, chairman and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee.

Obviously this legislation has very strong support. We anticipate it will pass overwhelmingly and will be quickly sent to the House for action there, and hopefully to the President, who I am confident will be supportive of it and will sign it.

Let me at this point thank some of the victims' rights organizations. Again, they were responsible for bringing the issue to our attention and for providing a lot of the information we needed to be able to make the cases and for, frankly, the moral support to keep going. When Senator Feinstein and I would get discouraged, after meeting with victims' rights groups we were no longer discouraged; we were even more committed to pursue this head on. Some of them are headed by remarkable people. There is a whole page of groups I will thank.

Specifically, I thank Mothers Against Drunk Driving, the National Organization for Victim Assistance, Parents of Murdered Children, and Force 100, and especially Colleen Campbell for her leadership of Force 100. Senator Feinstein has already spoken of Colleen Campbell, and this pin in memory of Mickey Thompson speaks volumes about her leadership of this effort.

The fact this is Crime Victims' Rights Month and week I think is important. President Reagan actually had the first recognition of crime victims in a week that was designated for that purpose.

I think it is important at this time we especially recognize the victims of crime all over America; that with this year's memorial of victims' rights, America's values will be vindicated to some extent with the passage of this legislation.

It is especially poignant we would be waiting at this time to recognize these rights of victims of crime. Indeed, it is right to take up this issue. The right to fairness for crime victims and the right to notice and presence and participation are deeply rooted concepts in the United States of America. This country is all about fair play and giving power to the powerless in our society. It is about recognizing the values of liberty of the individuals against encroachments of the Government.

Fair play for crime victims, meaningful participation of crime victims in the justice system, protection against a government that would take from a crime victim the dignity of due process--these are consistent with the most basic values of due process in our society.

I was involved in Arizona issues for victims of crime even before I ever ran for the U.S. House of Representatives, so this was to some extent a cause for me before I became a public official. It was after I became a public official and people really came to me with these stories that I realized I had an opportunity to do more than the things I had done before. I have come to see the need for these protections as critical for our country.

While engaged in all of the other important activities, at bottom, it is a country about individuals who have inherent rights recognized and given to us by God. That is the basis for the creation of this country. Human dignity and the right that all people are made in God's image is such an important part of the foundation of our country that we would be remiss if we did not recognize that concept, that value, especially for those who have been victimized in our society because we could not as a government provide adequate protection for them.

I came to realize in many cases these victims were being victimized a second time because while we were asking them sometimes to come into court and testify against the perpetrators of the crime so they could be incarcerated or dealt with in an appropriate way for the further protection of society, we were not helping these victims at all. They were suffering through the trauma of the victimization and then being thrown into a system which they did not understand, which nobody was helping them with, and which literally prevented them from participation in any meaningful way. I came to realize there were literally millions of people out there being denied these basic rights, being victimized by our criminal justice system.

Let me mention two circumstances, but we will discuss all of the rights in a moment. The one circumstance that seemed to be the most frequent is: My mother was murdered, my daughter was murdered--whatever the situation--and I could not attend the trial. That is what our system says today.

While there are statutes in States and even some State constitutional provisions that purportedly guarantee a victim will not be denied access to the courtroom, it is still the case today that the victims, the victims' families, cannot even go into the courtroom. The defendant is there, the defendant's family is there seated in a reserved row seats, but the victim and the victim's family cannot be present. That is fundamentally wrong. We are not talking even about them saying anything. Obviously, everyone in the courtroom has to behave. The judge can throw anybody out if they do not behave or if they express emotions or try to communicate with the jury. That is not the issue.

They could not attend sometimes because the defendant's lawyer would say: It would be prejudicial to my client if the victims are seen in the courtroom. This was one of the circumstances that I could not believe our criminal justice system was imposing. It is one of those things that is fixed in this statute.

The other circumstance--and there is an especially telling, emotional case in Arizona I became familiar with which induced me to pursue this with all the vigor I could--is the circumstance where a crime has been committed, the perpetrator has been convicted and is in prison or jail, but unbeknown to the victim and the victim's family, the individual gets out of jail. The individual escapes, has some kind of a parole hearing or in some other way is able to leave before the sentence is up, and the victims are not even notified, let alone given an opportunity to appear before that parole board and say: Wait a minute, this person has a 15-year sentence and you are letting him out after 8 years. Let me tell you what he did to me.

Not to go into detail but to finish that story, in one of the Arizona cases with which I am familiar, the woman having been brutally raped and slashed and left to die recovered. Her perpetrator was convicted and put into prison. He had a parole hearing and the parole board decided to release him prematurely. She got no notice of that. She got no opportunity to be present.

By not quite coincidence but enormous alertness and compassion on the part of an individual in the Governor's office at the time routinely reading through the notices of the parole board, a staff person saw this and again almost coincidentally thought, Wait a minute, I don't think that is right under our law. He tracked down this individual who had by then moved to California and asked her if she would like an opportunity to appear before another parole board hearing if that could be arranged. She said yes. The parole board agreed to revisit the issue in a subsequent hearing and she testified. She told her story. After she told her story, the parole board reversed its opinion.

I asked her later: Were you afraid he would come after you if he were released? She said: No. My victimization was random. I was trying to hitchhike. I should never have done it.

He--and, by the way, his wife--picked her up and she was then brutalized as I described it. She said: It was random. I don't think he would come after me again. What I was concerned about was knowing the nature of the kind of individual that commits this kind of crime, he would do it again to somebody else. I didn't want him to have that opportunity to hurt somebody else like he hurt me.

That tells you about the motivation of these victims of crime who are willing, despite the hurt that it causes them, to participate in the criminal justice system--not just for themselves because they get nothing out of it--because they know what it is like and they want to prevent that harm to others.

Those are the kind of people whose portraits are behind me and who Senator Feinstein was talking about. That is why we are trying to do something about righting this wrong, about balancing the scales of justice. Rightly, defendants in this country are protected better than in any country in the world through constitutional amendments that give them rights. We are not trying to take one single right away from any defendant. That would be wrong under our system. But we do think it is time to balance the scales of justice. That was the motivation for Senator Feinstein and me.

Let me talk about some of these individuals. Senator Feinstein talked about Duane Lynn. Duane is from Arizona. I will not repeat the entire story, but he enjoyed the Navy as a young man. He performed in the military. He had a successful career as a highway patrolman upholding the laws of the State of Arizona. He and his wife Nila literally fell in love as teenagers and had been married 49 years and 9 months, just 3 months shy of their 50th anniversary when she was brutally murdered as Senator Feinstein talked about. They had left their home to attend this homeowners' meeting and just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time because the murderer, who was a disgruntled and enraged former resident of the community, burst into the room saying, I am going to kill you, and he started shooting.

As I said, Duane and Nila had been married not quite 50 years when she was brutally murdered. In anticipation of the golden anniversary of their parents, the Lynn children had secretly been saving money to throw a surprise anniversary party, and that money was used to pay for Nila's casket.

It is at this point that Duane's journey through the legal system really started. As Senator Feinstein recounted, he did not really understand what it meant to participate in the judicial system at that time but at least understood that he would have some voice in what happened.

Under the Arizona law and constitution, he had a right, for example, to make a recommendation to the judge when the judge sentenced the perpetrator. But despite having that right in the Arizona Constitution--and, by the way, Arizona judges are pretty good about enforcing these rights--he was denied the right to even appear at the time of sentencing to tell the judge the sentence he thought the perpetrator should get.

He lost an appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court and a petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court. They all told him his rights were unenforceable because for him to speak would violate the defendant's eighth amendment rights against cruel and unusual punishment.

Now, that is one of the reasons that Senator Feinstein and I believed that a constitutional amendment was necessary, because as long as the defendant's rights are always asserted as Federal constitutional rights, a mere statutory right, such as we are creating today, is going to be subservient to that. It will be very difficult for victims to win in cases where the defendant's right is asserted under the U.S. Constitution.

Even as a State constitutional right, Duane Lynn was denied the right to speak because the court perceived that the Federal eighth amendment superseded the Arizona State Constitution. So we may still have problems, even with the adoption of a statute here. But Senator Feinstein and I are committed to moving the cause forward, to see whether it is possible to make statutes work, so that we do not need a Federal constitutional amendment. If, as it turns out, we do, then we will revisit the issue, as she said. Hopefully, we will not need to do that.

Just a final I think paradoxical or ironic ending in the Duane Lynn matter. He wanted to speak at the time of sentencing, not to urge the court to impose the death sentence but to impose life without parole. That recommendation was denied because, as I said, the court held that the defendant's rights outweighed his rights.

Let me talk about some of the other victims. I just briefly want to mention Louarna Gillis, because John Gillis, her father, who was a Los Angeles police officer at the time, is now a very important person in our Government in protecting victims' rights because he heads up the Office for Victims of Crime in the Department of Justice.

One of the reasons the Attorney General and the President wanted him in that position is because he felt firsthand the sting of being a crime victim when his daughter was killed, picked out at random by a gang member because the gang member, to be initiated in the gang, had to kill the child of a cop. She just happened to be a child of a cop and she was killed.

John could not be here today, but his wife Patsy is in attendance. I commend her for her support of this effort as well.

Their family has suffered further tragedy in the very recent death of their only other child, their son John. So it reminds us that it is important not only for people to have rights as victims of crime, but to recognize that these very people are the people who are willing to take up the cause here to right this injustice.

By John Gillis' efforts, he literally became the person in charge of this issue in our Government. He is doing an incredibly great job. Part of this legislation is to give him some additional responsibility and a little bit more in the way of resources to see to it that our Federal Government, through the Department of Justice, the Attorney General, and the Office for Victims of Crime, can continue to support the effort of crime victims. I applaud John Gillis very much and appreciate his wife Patsy being with us today.

Let me mention three other people, because this legislation is named for five people--the two I mentioned and then the other three I will mention. Let me discuss each of them.

Roberta Roper is also in attendance. There is nobody who has pursued the cause for victims' rights more strongly than Roberta Roper. She has made numerous trips to Washington. She has testified before the Judiciary Committee in support of the constitutional amendment. She has given us incredible advice and strength. What she did, after her victimization, when her daughter Stephanie was murdered at the age of 22, was to start a foundation in her daughter's name, and that Stephanie Roper Foundation has been a tremendous asset in pursuing the cause of victims around the country.

Her daughter, on April 3, 1982, was kidnapped and raped, tortured and dismembered by two men. The killers had just come upon her when Stephanie's car had been disabled. They had kidnapped her and over a period of 5 hours had repeatedly tortured her. She tried to escape but was caught and killed in a most brutal manner.

Her parents were not even notified of the many continuances that were granted in this case. They were excluded from the courtroom for the entire first trial that occurred. They could not even go into the courtroom. In 1982, the defense convinced the court that the victims would be emotional, irrelevant, and probable cause for a reversal of an appeal. The court agreed and, therefore, denied Vince and Roberta Roper the right to be a voice for their daughter.

That is one of the things that will be corrected by this legislation. We hope a statutory correction will serve to be sufficient.

Roberta Roper is in attendance, and I thank her from the bottom of my heart. She and Collene Campbell--who I will mention next--have been two of the real troopers in this battle.

I also want to say, with regard to Collene Campbell, when Senator Feinstein discussed the death of her son Scott, it is unfortunately the case in many of these situations that more than once people are victimized. Collene and Gary Campbell have been victimized twice. Collene's brother was killed as well and that has been discussed as well.

One of the killers of their son Scott was released from prison. By the way, the circumstances of Scott's murder were especially gruesome. He met an individual who was going to fly him to North Dakota, and somewhere between Los Angeles and Catalina Island, Scott Campbell was killed. His body was literally thrown out of the airplane into the ocean and has never been located.

His parents were not permitted to enter the courtroom during the trials for the men who murdered their son. They were not even notified of a district court of appeals hearing. When one of the killers was released, as I said, the Campbell family was not notified. They only learned of the developments through the newspaper.

You can argue that a defendant might be prejudiced in certain situations by victims having certain rights, but to treat victims this way is not to treat them with the fairness and dignity any American deserves under our values as a nation. Even when these rights exist in statute, when they are not observed, it is time for the Congress to act. That is why we act here, so that no one else will have to suffer through this kind of unfair treatment.

Scott Campbell is shown in this picture. I mentioned Nila Lynn before, as shown in this picture. Roberta Roper's daughter Stephanie is this beautiful young lady shown in this picture right here. As I said, her mother is with us today.

I would also like to mention Robert Preston. In the case of Bob Preston's 22-year-old daughter, Wendy--the beautiful young lady shown in this picture right here--she was murdered in his home on June 23, 1977. She was killed when a man broke into the home to steal money to buy drugs. Her body was found 6 days later. Wendy's murderer was arrested and charged with first-degree murder. Her parents were told that the State of Florida was the victim in the case and they would be notified if and when they were called as witnesses. That was it.

After nearly 6 years, the murderer was allowed to plead to a second- degree murder charge, and he was sentenced to life in prison. In 1987, the Florida Supreme Court overturned the killer's conviction, and in the decision also held that the victims had no rights. This is the kind of example that needs to be brought to light so Americans can appreciate that it is time for Congress to act.

This is Wendy Preston, yet another example of victims being treated unfairly.

There are a lot of other cases we could talk about. Wendy Preston and Stephanie Roper, Scott Campbell, Mickey Thompson, Nila Lynn, and Louarna Gillis are the best of America. We owe them our best. Our best is to ensure the families of future victims will not suffer through the same indignity their families have had to endure.

That is why Senator Feinstein and I began the effort to try to persuade our colleagues a constitutional amendment was necessary to protect these rights, because the defendant's right was always constitutional. Unless we had an equal constitutional right, there was no chance in a conflict the court would ever afford the victim an equal right. That is why we still have reservations about a statutory remedy.

But a lot of our colleagues have said, try a statutory remedy and let's see if by bringing these situations to light, by providing incentives for States to follow the Federal example, by embodying these same rights that were in the constitutional proposal in a statute and giving the victims a right to sue, a remedy, a mandamus remedy, let's see if that can work.

After 8 years of work on the Federal constitutional amendment, supported by President Bush and the Attorney General, we were able to schedule, after we passed the bill through the Judiciary Committee, that constitutional amendment for floor action today. Knowing we would not have the 67 votes to pass it, we decided it was time to get something tangible in statute to protect the rights of victims, and accompanying it could be a modest appropriation of money to help actually support these victims in court when that was necessary and called for. We believed despite the potential that it would not serve adequately, it was time to try something, to be successful, and to at least move the ball forward.

As Senator Leahy said in a press conference we had earlier: The Judiciary Committee of the Senate will provide very strong oversight of implementation of this statute so we will know if it is not working. If it does not work, we will be able to come back and pursue the constitutional remedy. But we consulted with the victims' rights groups that have been most active in support of this. They concurred it was time to pursue the statutory remedy, if we could get some assurance we would be successful in that pursuit and that it would not be simply a fool's errand.

Through the significant help of an individual who I am sure all would acknowledge has been the national leader of this effort, Steve Twist, a lawyer from Phoenix, AZ, communicating with the various victims' rights groups, the consensus was reached it was time for us to convert the constitutional proposal into a statute. This occurred within the last 48 hours. Through the cooperation of Senator Leahy, Senator Hatch, staff, and several other Senators, but most importantly because of the very hard work done by Senator Feinstein's staff and mine, they were able to literally convert these rights in the constitutional proposal into the statutory proposal for submission. That is what is before us today and what we will be voting on.

These are the rights that are set forth in the new statute: That the victim would be reasonably protected from the accused; afforded reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any public proceedings involving the crime or any release or escape of the accused; included in public proceedings; ensured proceedings are free from unreasonable delay; that they could confer with the attorney for the government in the case; that they would be given a voice to be heard at any public proceeding involving release or plea or sentencing.

I ask unanimous consent to take time from the time under the control of Senator Feinstein.

I noted in a rather inaccurate Washington Post editorial of yesterday that somehow victims would have a right to speak to the jury. That is what the Washington Post thought. They were very wrong, as they were in other comments in the editorial. There is nothing in here about anything like that. It is only during the time of a release, like the parole hearing I talked about earlier, or sentencing or pleading there would be an opportunity to speak.

They would have a right to full and timely restitution in appropriate cases, and the right to be treated fairly, with respect for their dignity and privacy. Most importantly, they would be granted the right to enforce these rights. They would have legal standing to enforce their rights in court with the appropriate writ procedure to be able to take the court's decision to the higher court. That is one of the problems with existing Federal law which

the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals noted did not grant the victims the standing to sue. So that had to be corrected here.

Finally, we authorized an appropriation of funds to assure the proper oversight of these rights is exercised, that moneys would be made available to enhance the victim notification system, managed by the Department of Justice's Office for Victims of Crime, and the resources additionally to develop state-of-the-art systems for notifying crime victims of important states of development.

To pursue that a moment, all courts notify attorneys for the defendant, the prosecutor's office, and it is a relatively simple matter to add another name and telephone number or address to that list. That is what we are talking about here. It is now being done electronically. It is very easy. So the notice to victims of crime is not something that should be seen as an impediment.

I would like to conclude by thanking some people. Since I know Senator Feinstein did have to attend another meeting, let me thank some folks. Before I do that, I ask unanimous consent to add Senators Lott and Nickles as original cosponsors.

As soon as Senator Leahy is here, I will relinquish the floor to him.

I do want to thank President Bush and Attorney General Ashcroft; the Office for Victims of Crime Director John Gillis and the administration for their help; Colleen Campbell and her husband Gary; Roberta Roper; Bob Preston; Duane Lynn; Earlene Eason from Indiana, whose son Christopher was murdered; Sally Goelzer from Arizona, whose brother was murdered; Myssey Hartley from Arkansas, whose brother was murdered; Dee Engles, also from Arkansas, a family member murdered; the National Organization for Victim Assistance, especially Beth Rossman, president, Marlene Young, executive director, and John Stein, deputy director, who has been a tremendous help; the National Organization of Parents of Murdered Children, Nancy Ruhe-Munch, executive director; Mothers Against Drunk Driving, Wendy Hamilton, president, and Stephanie Manning; Professor Douglas Beloof, director of the National Crime Victim Law Institute, one of the entities integral to ensuring these rights are enforced--he has done a tremendous job in Oregon in setting up the programs and the lawyers who can defend victims' rights-- Attorney Meg Garvin, lead staff attorney at NCVLI; Attorney General Jane Brady and the National Association of Attorneys General--this has been a bipartisan effort and almost every attorney general in the country has signed on; the National District Attorneys Association; the Fraternal Order of Police, strongly in support of what we are doing; the International Association of Chiefs of Police; the National Restaurant Association; U.S. Chamber of Commerce; Maricopa County attorney Rick Romely and county attorney Barbara LaWall in Arizona, who have helped me a lot in this effort; District Attorney Josh Marquis; the Arizona Voice for Crime Victims.

On Senator Hatch's staff, I thank Grace Becker, and on Senator Cornyn's staff, Jim Ho. On Senator Feinstein's staff, I can't thank enough Steve Cash and David Hantman who have been tremendously helpful in providing great advice and counsel, particularly in the last 3 or 4 days, helping us to convert the amendment to a statutory provision and in working on the Democratic side to make this a truly bipartisan process.

Without their assistance, we would not have the statute before the body either.

I have a couple legal interns, Tom Stack and Kevin Wilson, who provided tremendous help to me, and finally I wish to thank my chief person on my staff, Stephen Higgins and I mentioned Steve Twist.

All of these organizations and individuals have been of tremendous help in getting to this point and ensuring we will be able to get this statutory provision passed and sent over to the House for action.

Madam President, I am going to conclude with a couple of points. As soon as Senator Leahy arrives, I am going to relinquish the floor to him because Senator Feinstein has the remainder of the time, and I advise colleagues, if anyone wishes to speak, they should do so right away because I suspect at the conclusion of Senator Leahy's remarks and anything Senator Hatch and Senator Feinstein wish to say, we will proceed to the final passage vote.

The act before us, in addition to setting forth the rights and providing a remedy for the victims of crime, has an authorization of funding. Let me describe that authorization.

In the first year, fiscal year 2005, $16.3 million will be available to the U.S. Attorney's Victims Witness Office for the Victims of Crime Office in the Department of Justice; $300,000 is for the Office of Victims of Crime to administer these new rights; $7 million to the Office of Victims of Crime for the National Crime Victim Law Institute to provide grants and assistance to lawyers to help victims of crime in court. It is the only entity in the country that provides lawyers for victims in criminal cases, and it will provide for two new regional offices and nine specific clinics. Finally, borrowing a provision from a bill Senator Leahy had earlier, there is $5 million for grants to States to develop and implement state-of-the-art victim notification systems.

In the following 4 years, there will be each year authorized an appropriation of $26.5 million generally to the same entities and offices to ensure that these programs are carried out, that victims will have the support they need, and that the notice that is guaranteed in the legislation will be provided. Those are the authorizations for the funding. That is a description of the legislation.

I will close by again referring to the people who have driven this effort, the people who represent the families and who are themselves victims of crime, who did not simply retreat into a shell following the tragedy that befell them but who were willing to muster the courage and the strength to do something about the issue, not necessarily so that they could receive any particular kind of vindication, but so future victims would not have to suffer through the same kind of problems and the same indignities they did.

This is the real spirit of great people, of leaders, and it is the spirit of America. I commend all of these victims for the leadership role they have played in being willing to step out in very difficult circumstances to prod those of us in the legislative body to move this process forward and to get this legislation adopted. They are the ones who deserve the primary thanks today.

The victory, when we pass this legislation, will be largely a victory for them and all of the future victims who will never have to suffer the same kind of indignities that they did.

Mr. President, as the sponsor of this bill, I would like to enter into a colloquy with the Senator from California. She is the primary cosponsor of this bill. After extensive consultation with our colleagues, we have drafted a bill with a broad bipartisan consensus. It is not the intent of this bill to limit any laws in favor of crime victims that may currently exist, whether these laws are statutory, regulatory, or found in case law. I ask Senator Feinstein if she agrees.

I would like to address the notice provisions of section 2, (a)(2). The notice provisions are important because if a victim fails to receive notice of a public proceeding in the criminal case at which the victim's right could otherwise have been exercised, that right has effectively been denied. Public proceedings include both trial level and appellate level court proceedings. It does not make sense to enact victims' rights that are rendered useless because the victim never knew of the proceeding at which the right had to be asserted. Simply put, a failure to provide notice of proceedings at which a right can be asserted is equivalent to a violation of the right itself.

Equally important to this right to notice of public proceedings contained in this subsection is the right to notice of the escape or release of the accused. This provision helps to protect crime victims by notifying them that the accused is out on the streets.

For these rights to notice to be effective, notice must be sufficiently given in advance of a proceeding to give the crime victim the opportunity to arrange his or her affairs in order to be able to attend that proceeding and any scheduling of proceedings should take into account the victim's schedule to facilitate effective notice.

Restrictions on public proceedings are in 28 CFR Sec. 50.9, and it is not the intent here today to alter the meaning of that provision.

I ask Senator Feinstein, if she can comment on her understanding of section (a)(2)?

Yes. That it is my understanding as well. There may be organized crime cases or cases involving national security that require procedures that necessarily deny a crime victim the right not to be excluded that would otherwise be provided under this section. This is as it should be. National security matters and organized crime cases are especially challenging, and there are times when there is a vital need for closed proceedings. In such cases, the proceedings are not intended to be interpreted as ``public proceedings'' under this bill. In this regard, it is not our intent to alter 28 CFR Sec. 50.9 in any respect.

Despite these limitations, this bill allows crime victims, in the vast majority of cases, to attend the hearings and trial of the case involving their victimization. This is so important because crime victims share an interest with the government in seeing that justice is done in a criminal case and this interest supports the idea that victims should not be excluded from public criminal proceedings, whether these are pretrial, trial, or post-trial proceedings.

This right of crime victims not to be excluded from the proceedings provides a foundation for the next section, section 2, (a)(4), which provides victims the right to reasonably be heard at any public proceeding involving release, plea, or sentencing. This provision is intended to allow crime victims to directly address the court in person. It is not necessary for the victim to obtain the permission of either party to do so. This right is a right independent of the Government or the defendant that allows the victim to address the court. To the extent the victim has the right to independently address the court, the victim acts as an independent participant in the proceedings. When a victim invokes this right during plea and sentencing proceedings, it is intended that the he or she be allowed to provide all three types of victim impact--the character of the victim, the impact of the crime on the victim, the victims' family and the community, and sentencing recommendations. Of course, the victim may use a lawyer, at their own expense, to assist in the exercise of this right. This bill does not provide victims with a right to counsel but recognizes that a victim may enlist counsel on their own.

It is not the intent of the term ``reasonably'' in the phrase ``to be reasonably heard'' to provide any excuse for denying a victim the right to appear in person and directly address the court. Indeed, the very purpose of this section is to allow the victim to appear personally and directly address the court. This section would fail in its intent if courts determined that written, rather than oral communication, could generally satisfy this right. On the other hand, the term ``reasonably'' is meant to allow for alternative methods of communicating a victim's views to the court when the victim is unable to attend the proceedings. Such circumstances might arise, for example, if the victim is incarcerated on unrelated matters at the time of the proceedings or if a victim cannot afford to travel to a courthouse. In such cases, communication by the victim to the court is permitted by other reasonable means. Is this the understanding of the Senator of this provision?

Yes. The intent of this section is just as the Senator says. This right to confer does not give the crime victim any right to direct the prosecution. Prosecutors should consider it part of their profession to be available to consult with crime victims about concerns the victims may have which are pertinent to the case, case proceedings or dispositions. Under this provision, victims are able to confer with the Government's attorney about proceedings after charging.

I would like to turn now to the section on restitution, section 2, (a)(6). This section provides the right to full and timely restitution as provided in law. This right, together with the other rights in the act to be heard and confer with the Government's attorney in this act, means that existing restitution laws will be more effective.

I am interested in the Senator's views of this restitution provision.

I concur in the Senator's comments. I would add that the delays in criminal proceedings are among the most chronic problems faced by victims. Whatever peace of mind a victim might achieve after a crime is too often inexcusably postponed by unreasonable delays in the criminal case. A central reason for these rights is to force a change in a criminal justice culture which has failed to focus on the legitimate interests of crime victims, a new focus on limiting unreasonable delays in the criminal process to accommodate the victim is a positive start.

I would like to turn to section 2, (a)(8). This provision contains a number of rights. The broad rights articulated in this section are meant to be rights themselves and are not intended to just be aspirational. One of these rights is the right to be treated with fairness. Of course, fairness includes the notion of due process. Too often victims of crime experience a secondary victimization at the hands of the criminal justice system. This provision is intended to direct Government agencies and employees, whether they are in executive or judiciary branches, to treat victims of crime with the respect they deserve.

Does the Senator agree?

Yes, it is.

Turning briefly to section 2, (c), there are several important things to point out in this subsection. First, where there is a material conflict between the Government's attorney and the crime victim, this provision protects crime victims' rights. This means that if Government lawyers interpret a right differently from a victim, urge a very narrow interpretation of a right, or do not believe a right should be asserted, they are in conflict with the victim and this provision requires that they inform the victim of this and direct the victim to independent counsel, such as the legal clinics for crime victims contemplated under this law. This is an important protection for crime victims because it ensures the independent and individual nature of their rights. Second, the notice section immediately following limits the right to notice of release where such notice may endanger the safety of the person being released. There are cases, particularly in domestic violence cases, where there is danger posed by an intimate partner if the intimate partner is released. Such circumstances are not the norm, even in domestic violence cases as a category of cases. This exception should not be relied upon as an excuse to avoid notifying most victims.

Is that the Senator's understanding of this section?

Absolutely. The enforcement provision the Senator addressed is critical to this bill. Without the ability to enforce the rights in the criminal trial and appellate courts of this country any rights afforded are, at best, rhetoric. We are far past the point where lip service to victims' rights is acceptable. The enforcement provisions of this bill ensure that never again are victim's rights provided in word but not in reality.

I want to turn to section 2, subsection (d)(2) because it is an unfortunate reality that in today's world there are crimes that result in multiple victims. The reality of those situations is that a court may find that the sheer number of victims is so large that it is impracticable to accord each victim the rights in this bill. The bill allows that when the court makes that finding on the record the court must then fashion a procedure that still gives effect to the bill and yet takes into account the impracticability. For instance, in the Oklahoma City bombing case the number of victims was tremendous and attendance at any one proceeding by all of them was impracticable so the court fashioned a procedure that allowed victims to attend the proceedings by close circuit television. This is merely one example. Another may be to allow victims with a right to speak to be heard in writing or through

other methods. Importantly, courts must seek to identify methods that fit the case before that to ensure that despite numerosity of crime victims, the rights in this bill are given effect.

Does the Senator agree with this reading of the bill?

Absolutely. Without the right to seek appellate review and a guarantee that the appellate court will hear the appeal and order relief, a victim is left to the mercy of the very trial court that may have erred. This country's appellate courts are designed to remedy errors of lower courts and this provision requires them to do so for victim's rights. For a victim's right to truly be honored, a victim must be able to assert the rights in trial courts, to then be able to have denials of those rights reviewed at the appellate level, and to have the appellate court take the appeal and order relief. By providing for all of this, this bill ensures that victims' rights will have meaning.

I would like to turn our attention to section 2, subsection (d)(4) because that also provides an enforcement mechanism. This section provides that in any appeal, regardless of the party initiating the appeal, the government can assert as error the district court's denial of a crime victim's right. This subsection is important for a couple of reasons. First, it allows the Government to assert a victim's right on appeal even when it is the defendant who seeks appeal of his or her conviction. This ensures that victims' rights are protected throughout the criminal justice process and that they do not fall by the wayside during what can often be an extended appeal that the victim is not a party to.

Is that the Senator's understanding of the bill?

Yes, it is. We have, over the years, tried to reassure those that oppose victims' rights that they are not an attempt to undermine defendants' rights. This provision reiterates that. It is important for victims' rights to be asserted and protected throughout the criminal justice process, and for courts to have the authority to redo proceedings other than the trial such as release hearings, pleas, and sentencings where victims' rights are abridged, but to not tread upon defendant's rights against double jeopardy in the process. Victims' rights are about a fair and balanced criminal justice system--one that considers defendant's rights as well as victims' rights. This provision protects that careful balance.

I want to turn to the definitions in the bill, contained in section 2, subsection (e). There are a couple of key points to be made about the definitions. A ``crime victim'' is defined as a person directly and proximately harmed as a result of any offense, felony or misdemeanor. This is an intentionally broad definition because all victims of crime deserve to have their rights protected, whether or not they are the victim of the count charged. Additionally, crime victims may, for any number of reasons, want to employ an attorney to represent them in court. This definition of crime victim allows crime victims to do that. It also assures that when, for any reason, crime victims are unable to assert rights on their own, those rights will still be protected.

Is that the Senator's understanding of the bill as well?

Yes.

Let me comment briefly on section 4, Reports. Subsection (a) requires the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts to report annually the number of times a right asserted in a criminal case is denied the relief requested, and the reasons therefore, as well as the number of times a mandamus action was brought and the result of that mandamus.

Such reporting is the only way we in the Congress and other interested parties can observe whether reforms we mandate are being carried out. No one doubts the difficulty of obtaining case-by-case information of this nature. Yes, this information is critical to understanding whether Federal statutes really can effectively protect victims' rights or whether a constitutional amendment is necessary. We are certain that affected executive and judicial agencies can work together to implement effective administrative tools to record and amass this data. We would certainly encourage the National Institute of Justice to support any needed research to get this system in place.

Is this Senator Feinstein's understanding?

Yes, that it is my understanding.

Mr. President, I anticipate Senator Leahy's arrival. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

I ask unanimous consent Senator Kohl be added as a cosponsor to the legislation pending.

Mr. President, notwithstanding the previous order, I ask the technical amendment which is at the desk be considered and agreed to and--I withhold on that request for a moment.

I withdraw the request until it is clear.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Notwithstanding the previous order, I ask the technical amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Shelby be added as a cosponsor of the legislation.

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Hatch, I yield back the time that he has remaining.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Absolutely.

Mr. President, 8 years ago the Senator from Arizona asked me if I would join with him in a pursuit to give victims basic rights under the Constitution of the United States. It was something I knew a little bit about and I was delighted to do it. What I didn't know a lot about was the drafting of a constitutional amendment and how difficult it was. The next 8 years actually proved to be one of the most rewarding times of my Senate experience.

First, I thank the Senator from Arizona for his collegiality, for the ease with which we have been able to work together, and for his leadership on this issue, which has been absolutely 100 percent unrelenting.

In a time of increasing partisan separation in this body, the friendship, the collegiality, and the leadership has been so appreciated by me. It has been one of the bright spots in my Senate career. I want him to know how much I appreciate it.

I also thank victims, about 30 or 40 of whom are present in the gallery. These are victims who have had terrible things happen to them, but rather than sink back into the depths of despair, have decided they would fight for something so that anyone who had similar things happen to them could have a part in the criminal justice system. Particularly, I would like to acknowledge a few of those victims.

The first is Colleen Campbell. Colleen Campbell has lost two members of her family as a product of murder. Senator Kyl, in his remarks, will make that clear. She has become an ardent supporter of our efforts, and a small pin that Senator Kyl and I are wearing today is the pin which represents a group called ``Force 100.'' These are victims who have been asking Congress to take this action. The pin depicts an angel holding a checkered flag. Her brother, Mickey Thompson, who was murdered, was a race car driver, and therefore the checkered flag. Her son, Scott Campbell, was also murdered. Colleen, a brilliant leader and a wonderful woman, has lost two members of her family--her son and her brother--to murder.

The other was Roberta Roper. Roberta is one of the first people I met. She hails from Maryland. Again, Senator Kyl will say more about the circumstances of that crime.

The third is Steve Twist, who has represented the victims with integrity and steadfastness over these past 8 years, to try to get for them as much as could be possible in the recognition of their rights.

Essentially, bottom line, what we have found after numerous Judiciary Committee subcommittee hearings, committee hearings, markups, putting the victims' rights constitutional amendment out on the Senate floor in a prior session, taking it down because we didn't have the votes, beginning anew in this session, going through the processes in committee, and recognizing that we didn't have the 67 votes necessary for a constitutional amendment--both Senator Kyl and I, as well as the victims and their advocates, decided that we should compromise. There are Members of this body who very much want a statute. There are Members of this body who very much want a constitutional amendment. We have drafted a statute which we believe is broad and encompassing, which provides enforcement rights for victims, provides funding for the Department of Justice victims' rights programs, for legal clinics, for enforcement to carry out this law federally and also to spread the word to local and State jurisdictions to enact similar laws.

We basically provide a set of eight rights:

The right to be reasonably protected from the accused; the right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of public proceedings so that you know what is happening as well as notice if the accused is released or escapes from custody--

I can't tell you how many victims who may have testified against their assailant live in dread of the fact that an assailant will be released, they won't know it, they won't be able to protect themselves, and the assailant will come after them. That is not theory. It has happened over and over again. There are cases of that, with which I am intimately, unfortunately, knowledgeable--

The right to be present at public proceedings, not to be barred from a court hearing, not to be barred by a public proceeding involving a plea agreement;

The right to be reasonably heard at critical steps in the process, those involving release, plea, or sentencing; the right to confer with the prosecutor;

The right to full and timely restitution, as provided by law;

The right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay;

And the right to be treated with fairness and with respect for the victim's dignity and privacy.

At one time the system of criminal justice in the United States of America provided these rights. Victims had rights until about the mid- 19th century, the 1850s, when the concept of the public prosecutor was developed in our Nation. Up to that time, victims brought cases. Victims hired lawyers. Victims even hired sheriffs to prosecute cases. That changed in the mid-19th century, and in that change the victim became left out of the process.

Nowhere was the need for this legislation made more clear than during the trials over the Oklahoma City bombing.

Because we got involved, the Senate and the House, because victims were not being given the rights afforded to them by prior legislation, victims then went to a district court of appeals and victims were then subsequently still told that they had no standing.

A brief account of the trial in the Oklahoma City bombing case illustrates this point:

During pre-trial conference in the case against Timothy McVeigh, the District Court issued a ruling to preclude any victim who wished to provide victim impact testimony at sentencing from observing any proceeding in the case.

In a hearing to reconsider the issue of excluding victim witnesses, the trial court denied the victims' motion asserting standing to present their claims and denied the motion for reconsideration.

Three months later in February 1997, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, rejected, without oral argument, the victims' claims on jurisdictional grounds finding they had no ``legally protected interest'' to be present at the trial and had suffered no ``injury in fact.''

Congress reacted the next month by overwhelmingly passing the Victims' Rights Clarification Act of 1997, which provided that watching a trial does not constitute grounds for denying the chance to provide a victim impact statement at sentencing. President Clinton signed the bill into law on March 20, 1997.

When the victims filed a motion with the District Court seeking a hearing to assert their rights under the new law, the District Court concluded ``any motions raising constitutional questions about this legislation would be premature and would present issues that are not now ripe for decision.''

The court then entered a new order on victim-impact witness sequestration, and refused to grant the victims a hearing on the application of the new law, stating that its ruling rendered the request ``moot.''

I believe the result would be different if the bill we are considering today was law then. The victims and the families would have had standing, and would have been able to avail themselves of the mandamus proceeding to get a timely ruling on the merits from the Court of Appeals. Perhaps that would not have been necessary--the District Court judge, armed with the standing provision of this bill, perhaps would have reached a different result during the trial.

We have written a bill that we believe is broad. We have written a bill that provides an enforcement remedy; namely, the writ of mandamus.

This part of the bill is what makes this legislation so important, and different from earlier legislation: It provides mechanisms to enforce the set of rights provided to victims of crime.

These mechanisms fall into four categories:

A direction to our courts that they ``shall ensure that the crime victim is afforded the rights described in the law.''

A direction to the Attorney General of the United States to take steps to ensure that our Federal prosecutors ``make their best efforts'' to see that crime victims are aware of, and can exercise these rights.

A specific statement that the victim of a crime, or their representative, may assert these rights; the result is that, for the first time victims will have clear standing to ask our courts to enforce their rights.

And a new use of a very old procedure, the writ of mandamus. This provision will establish a procedure where a crime victim can, in essence, immediately appeal a denial of their rights by a trial court to the court of appeals, which must rule ``forthwith.'' Simply put, the mandamus procedure allows an appellate court to take timely action to ensure that the trial court follows the rule of law set out in this statute.

These procedures, taken together, will ensure that the rights defined in the first section are not simply words on paper, but are meaningful and functional.

The bill also has two separate resource provisions, which together will authorize the appropriation of $76 million over the next five years to ensure that the federal government assist crime victims in asserting these rights, and to encourage states to do the same: The bill authorizes a total of $51 million over five years for crime victim assistance grants administered by the Department of Justice to establish and maintain legal assistance programs throughout the nation.

These institutions are key to the success of this legislation, for this is how victims' rights will be really asserted and defended--by lawyers, standing up in court, and explaining to judges and prosecutors what the law means, and how it applies in the case at hand. Rights and remedies need articulation to work, and this money will help make that happen.

These grants, championed by my colleague Senator Leahy, provide a total of $25 million over five years for a specific, and critical, purpose: to ``develop and implement'' the type of notification systems that take full advantage of modern technology.

Computers, linked to sophisticated telephone or automatic mailing systems, can help us ensure that the right to notice, set out in the first section of this bill, is not simply abstract, but is made real by a notification system that can provide ``accurate, and timely'' notice to victims' of crime and their families.

This act, of course, binds only the federal system, but is designed to affect the states also. First it is hoped that states will look to this law as a model and incorporate it into their own systems. This law encourages that by allowing both types of grants--legal assistance and victim notification--to be provided to state entities, and for use in state systems, where the state has in place ``laws substantially equivalent'' to this act.

Never before have these three critical components, rights, remedies and resources, been brought together. It has been said ``a right without a remedy is no right at all,'' and this law would couple victims' rights with victims' remedies in a way that has never been done before in the federal system. I believe that taken together we have a formula for success, and this law will work, and hopefully become the model for our States.

So why is the law needed?

Senator Kyl and I have been working on this issue for the past 8 years. We offer this legislation because the scales of justice are out of balance--while criminal defendants have an array of rights under law, crime victims have few meaningful rights.

In case after case we found victims, and their families, were ignored, cast aside, and treated as non-participants in a critical event in their lives. They were kept in the dark by prosecutors to busy to care enough, by judges focused on defendant's rights, and by a court system that simply did not have a place for them.

The result was terrible--often the experience of the criminal justice system left crime victims and their families victimized yet again.

Let me be clear. I am not talking about the necessary emotional and psychological difficulties which are almost inevitable in our adversary system. Cross examination can be hard. The legal system sometimes must seem complex and irrational to those who do not work in it. Sometimes judges and juries make decisions that victims of crime do not like. But that is not the problem that this law addresses.

That problem is one of process and fairness. The rights I have spoken about are basic, and do not come at the expense of defendant's rights.

Boiled down, they involve the simple right to know what is going on, to participate in the process where the information that victim's and their families can provide may be material and relevant, and the right to be safe from violence.

I mentioned earlier the dramatic disparity between the rights of defendants in our constitution and laws, and the rights of crime victims and their families. My point is to illustrate that our government, and our criminal justice system, can and should care about both the rights of accused and the rights of victims. That is what this law addresses.

Some have said that current law is adequate. For instance, the Victim of Crime Act of 1984 sets out rights for victims--in fact the bill before us restates many of those rights. But prior laws did not have the critical combination of rights and remedies that we now offer.

In fact, a number of victims' rights laws have been passed:

1982, the Victim and Witness Protection Act, mentioned before, which provided for victim restitution and the use of victim impact statements at sentencing in federal cases;

1984, the Victims of Crime Act, which encouraged the States to maintain programs that serve victims of crime, and established a Crime Victims' Fund, which now matches up to 60 percent of the money paid by States for victim compensation awards;

1990, the Victims' Rights and Restitution Act, which increased funding for victim compensation and assistance, and codified a victims' Bill of Rights in the federal justice system;

1994, the Violence Against Women Act, which authorized over $1.6 billion over six years to assist victims of violence and prevent violence against women and children;

1996, the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act, which required courts to order restitution when sentencing defendants for certain offenses;

1996, the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act, which appropriated funds to assist and compensate victims of terrorism and mass violence;

And 1997, the Victim Rights Clarification Act, which reversed a presumption against crime victims observing any part of the trial proceedings if they were likely to testify during the sentencing hearing, an issue which developed during the Oklahoma City bombing case. Specifically, this legislation prohibited courts from (1) excluding a victim from the trial on the ground that he or she might be called to provide a victim impact statement at sentencing, and (2) excluding a victim impact statement on the ground that the victim had observed the trial.

All of these laws represent a step in the right direction. But they are not enough. They don't really work to protect victims' many had hoped. Why is this? I believe it because they fail to provide an effective procedure for victims to assert standing and vindicate their rights. The bill before us builds on these earlier attempts, and goes one very important step farther--linking rights to remedies, and, I hope, fixing the problem with these earlier laws.

Some have asked--why proceed with a statute, rather than a Consitutional amendment? Why a law and not a constitutional amendment?

Senator Kyl and I have been working for many years towards a constitutional amendment to establish these rights. I have always believed that amending the Constitution is the best way to ensure victims' rights are protected in the criminal justice process. But many have disagreed, arguing that we should try, once again, a legislative approach.

It is clear to me that passage of a Constitutional amendment is impossible at this time. If we tried, and failed, it could be years before we could try again. Victims of crime have waited years for progress, and a compromise approach, resulting in the bill now under consideration, will result in meaningful progress.

Will it work? I hope so. The bill before us is a new and bolder approach, than has ever been tried before in our Federal system.

The standing provision, coupled with the mandamus provision, may have the desired effect. This will be a test, and I, for one, will be watching it closely.

I think for both Senator Kyl, and now for Senator Hatch, the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and Senator Leahy, the distinguished ranking member, who join us as major cosponsors of this bill, that we will follow this bill carefully and we will see whether the enforcement rights contained in this bill are adequate. If not, you can be sure as the Sun will rise tomorrow, we will be back with a constitutional amendment.

This bill is named after some of the victims. Both Senator Kyl and I briefly want to state the story of the victims after whom the bill is named. I would like to tell the Senate a little bit about Louarna Gillis, who was 22 years old when she was slain on January 17, 1979, as part of a gang initiation. Her murderer wanted to enter the world of narcotics as part of the Mexican Mafia and was told the quickest way to do so was to murder the daughter of a Los Angeles Police Department officer. Can you believe it? It is true.

Louarna Gillis was targeted by the killer. He knew her in high school. That was the reason he targeted her. The murderer picked her up a few blocks from her home, drove her to an alley in East Los Angeles where he shot her in the head as she sat in the car. He pushed her into the alley and fired additional shots into her back.

Louarna's murderer was apprehended 6 months later. He had a long history of violence, including felony convictions.

Louarna's family was not notified of the arraignment, nor were they notified of other critical proceedings in this case. Her family's rights were largely ignored. The first trial resulted in a hung jury, 11 for first-degree murder, 1 not guilty. Louarna's father, John Gillis, was not allowed in the courtroom.

At the second trial, the murderer pled guilty to second-degree murder to avoid the death penalty. He was sentenced to 17 years to life. Parole for Louarna's murderer has successfully been blocked by her family to this day. He will be eligible for parole again in the next 6 to 8 months. Louarna's father, a former homicide detective with LAPD, had just left an intelligence assignment working against street gangs and the Mexican Mafia at the time of her murder. Can you imagine?

Mr. Gillis was later appointed by President George W. Bush as the Director of the Justice Department's Office for Victims of Crime. He testified before Congress on July 17, 2002. I said:

I know firsthand the personal, financial, and emotional

devastation that violent crime exacts on its victims. As a

survivor of a homicide victim, I testify . . . with the

unique advantage of understanding the plight that victims and

their families face in the criminal justice system . . . When

a person is victimized by crime, he or she is thrust into a

whole new world in which the State's or the government's

needs take priority.

This is the most devastating time in a person's life, when

they have lost a loved one to homicide or violent crime; they

need protection.

They need to let the court know how this crime has impacted

their lives, because it will have a long-lasting, traumatic

impact in their lives. It's important that they have the

opportunity to say something to defend their loved one.

This terrible story took place in my home State of California. This bill will help fathers like Mr. Gillis: he would be notified of key proceedings, and be able to participate in a meaningful way.

I would like to tell you about Nila Ruth Lynn. Here is her picture. She was 69 years old. She was murdered at a homeowners association meeting on April 19, 2000, when an angry man stormed into the meeting and announced: ``I'm going to kill you.''

He was unhappy with the way the association had trimmed the bushes in his yard the previous month. Nila and another woman were killed and several other men were injured during the rampage. She died on the floor in the arms of her husband Duane. They had been married 49 years and 9 months. Nila left behind Duane and six children. The money the children had been saving for a 50th wedding anniversary gift was instead used to pay for her casket.

Duane Lynn suffered through long delays and continuances in this case. Despite clear State constitutional and statutory rights, Duane was not allowed to make a sentencing recommendation for his wife's murderer. Nila's killer was sentenced to death. Duane wanted the defendant to be sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, rather than deal with the continuing appeals involving the death sentence.

The U.S. Supreme Court has denied its petition for a review of the Arizona Supreme Court's refusal to protect the right. He testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on April 8. Here is what he said:

We, as a family of the victim, which was my wife, my love,

the person I still expect to walk through my front door every

day--she was a real person, not just a name and a number on a

document. We could say nothing about the consequences of that

man who took all this away from me. You have no idea what

this feels like. The evil done by a murderer inflicts

tragedy, and that is bad enough. But injuries inflicted by

our legal system are even harder to take. I felt kicked

around and ignored by the very system the government has in

place to protect law-abiding citizens.

This is not the way criminal justice should be practiced in the United States of America. The time has come to give victims of crime the right to participate in the system, the right to notice of a public hearing, the right to be present at that public proceeding, the right to make a statement when appropriate, the right to have restitution, if ordered by a judge, the right to know when your assailant or attacker is released from prison, and the right to be treated by our prosecutors and by our criminal justice system with respect and dignity. That is not too much for the Congress of the United States to strive energetically to achieve for the 22 million victims in this country.

It is with great pleasure that over the years I have worked with Senator Kyl to achieve this. Once again, I cannot thank him too much.

I thank the Chair. I yield the remainder of my time to the distinguished Senator from Arizona.

Madam President, I thank the Senator. I do appreciate those words. They mean a great deal to me.

If I might, I ask unanimous consent to add the Senator from Maryland, Senator Mikulski, as a cosponsor of the bill.

Madam President, I would like to retain the remainder of my time.

Yes, it is not our intent to restrict victims' rights or accommodations found in other laws. I would like to turn to the bill itself and address the first section, (a)(1), the right of the crime victim to be reasonably protected. Of course, the Government cannot protect the crime victim in all circumstances. However, where reasonable, the crime victim should be provided accommodations such as a secure waiting area, away from the defendant before and after and during breaks in the proceedings.

My understanding of this subsection is the same the Senator's. Too often crime victims have been unable to exercise their rights because they were not informed of the proceedings. Pleas and sentencings have all too frequently occurred without the victim ever knowing that they were taking place. Victims are the persons who are directly harmed by the crime and they have a stake in the criminal process because of that harm. Their lives are significantly altered by the crime and they have to live with the consequences for the rest of their lives. To deny them the opportunity to know of and be present at proceedings is counter to the fundamental principles of this country. It is simply wrong. Moreover, victim safety requires that notice of the release or escape of an accused from custody be made in a timely manner to allow the victim to make informed choices about his or her own safety. This provision ensures that takes place.

I would like to turn to section 2, (a)(3) of the bill, which provides that the crime victim has the right not to be excluded from any public proceedings. This language was drafted in a way to ensure that the government would not be responsible for paying for the victim's travel and lodging to a place where they could attend the proceedings.

In all other respects, this section is intended to grant victims the right to attend and be present throughout all public proceedings.

This right is limited in two respects. First, the right is limited to public proceedings, thus grand jury proceedings are excluded from the right. Second, the Government or the defendant can request, and the court can order, judicial proceedings to be closed under existing laws. This provision is not intended to alter those laws or their procedures in any way. I ask the Senator is that is his understanding of this section.

Yes. That is my understanding as well. The victim of crime, or their counsel, should be able to provide any information, as well as their opinion, directly to the court concerning the release, plea, or sentencing of the accused. This bill intends for this right to be heard to be an independent right of the victim, and thus cannot prevent the victim from being heard.

It is important that the ``reasonably be heard'' language not be an excuse for minimizing the victim's opportunity to be heard. Only if it is not practical for the victim to speak in person or if the victim wishes to be heard by the court in a different fashion should this provision mean anything other than an in-person right to be heard.

Of course, in providing victim information or opinion it is important that the victim be able to confer with the prosecutor concerning a variety of matters and proceedings. Section 2, (a)(5) provides a right to confer with the attorney for the Government in the case. This right is intended to be expansive. For example, the victim has the right to confer with the Government concerning any critical stage or disposition of the case. The right, however, is not limited to these examples. I ask the Senator if he concurs in this intent.

I thank the Senator. I join his comments.

I would like to move on to section 2, (a)(7), which provides crime victims with a right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay. This provision does not curtail the Government's need for reasonable time to organize and prosecute its case. Nor is the provision intended to infringe on the defendant's due process right to prepare a defense.

Too often, however, delays in criminal proceedings occur for the mere convenience of the parties and those delays reach beyond the time needed for defendant's due process or the Government's need to prepare. The result of such delays is that victims cannot begin to put the crime behind them and they continue to be victimized. It is not right to hold crime victims under the stress and pressure of future court proceedings merely because it is convenient for the parties or the court.

This provision should be interpreted so that any decision to continue a criminal case should include reasonable consideration of the rights under this section.

I am eager to hear the Senator's view on this.

Yes.

It is not the intent of this bill that its significance be whittled down or marginalized by the courts or the executive branch. This legislation is meant to correct, not continue, the legacy of the poor treatment of crime victims in the criminal process. This legislation is meant to ensure that cases like the McVeigh case, where victims of the Oklahoma City bombing were effectively denied the right to attend the trial and to avoid federal appeals courts from determining, as the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals did, that victims had no standing to seek review of their right to attend the trial under the former victims' law that this bill replaces.

I would also like to comment on section 2, (b), which directs courts to ensure that the rights in this law be afforded and to record, on the record, any reason for denying relief of an assertion of a crime victim. This provision is critical because it is in the courts of this country that these rights will be asserted and it is the courts that will be responsible for enforcing them. Further, requiring a court to provide the reasons for denial of relief is necessary for effective appeal of such denial.

Is that the understanding of the Senator?

Yes.

I would now like to address the enforcement provisions of the bill, specifically section 2, subsection (d)(1). This provision allows a crime victim to enter the criminal trial court during proceedings involving the crime against the victim and assert the rights provided by this bill. This provision ensures that crime victims have standing to be heard in trial courts so that they are heard at the very moment when their rights are at stake and this, in turn, forces the criminal justice system to be responsive to a victim's rights in a timely way. Importantly, however, the bill does not allow the defendant in the case to assert any of the victim's rights to obtain relief. This prohibition prevents the individual accused of the crime from distorting a right intended for the benefit of the individual victim into a weapon against justice.

The provision allows the crime victim's representative and the attorney for the Government to go into a criminal trial court and assert the crime victim's rights. The inclusions of representatives and the Government's attorney in the provision are important for a number of reasons. First, allowing a representative to assert a crime victim's rights ensures that where a crime victim is unable to assert the rights on his or her own for any reason, including incapacity, incompetence, minority, or death, those rights are not lost. The representative for the crime victim can assert the rights.

Second, a crime victim may choose to enlist a private attorney to represent him or her in the criminal case--this provision allows that attorney to enter an appearance on behalf of the victim in the criminal trial court and assert the victim's rights. The provision also recognizes that, at times, the Government's attorney may be best situated to assert a crime victim's rights either because the crime victim is not available at a particular point in the trial or because, at times, the crime victim's interests coincide with those of the Government and it makes sense for a single person to express those joined interests. Importantly, however, the provision does not mean that the Government's attorney has the authority to compromise or co- opt a victim's right. Nor does the provision mean that by not asserting a victim's right the Government's attorney has waived that right. The rights provided in this bill are personal to the individual crime victim and it is that crime victim that has the final word regarding which of the specific rights to assert and when. Waiver of any of the individual rights provided can only happen by the victim's affirmative waiver of that specific right.

Does all of this correspond with Senator Kyl's understanding of the bill?

Absolutely. It is a tragic reality that cases may involve multiple victims and yet that fact is not grounds for eviscerating the rights in this bill. Rather, that fact is grounds for the court to find an alternative procedure to give effect to this bill.

I now want to turn to another critical aspect of enforcement of victims' rights, section 2, subsection (d)(3). This subsection provides that a crime victim who is denied any of his or her rights as a crime victim has standing to appellate review of that denial. Specifically, the provision allows a crime victim to apply for a writ of mandamus to the appropriate appellate court. The provision provides that court shall take the writ and shall order the relief necessary to protect the crime victim's right. This provision is critical for a couple of reasons. First, it gives the victim standing to appear before the appellate courts of this country and ask for review of a possible error below. Second, while mandamus is generally discretionary, this provision means that courts must review these cases. Appellate review of denials of victims' rights is just as important as the initial assertion of a victim's right. This provision ensures review and encourages courts to broadly defend the victims' rights.

Mr. President, does Senator Kyl agree?

Yes.

I would like to turn to the next provision, section 2, subsection (d)(5). This subsection provides that a failure to afford a right under the act does not provide grounds for a new trial. This provision demonstrates that victim's rights are not intended to be, nor are they, an attack on defendants' protections against double jeopardy. This provision is not intended to prevent courts from vacating decisions in nontrial proceedings in which victims' rights were not protected and ordering those proceedings to be redone. It simply assures that a trial will not be redone. Thus, defendants' and victims' rights are both protected.

Is that the Senator's understanding?

It is.

Now I would like to turn to the portion of the bill concerning administrative compliance with victims' rights, section 2, subsection (f). The provisions of this subsection are relatively self-explanatory, but it important to point out that these procedures are completely separate from and in no way limit the victim's rights in the previous section.

Is that Senator Kyl's understanding?

Yes.

One final point. Throughout this act, reference is made to the ``accused.'' Would the Senator also agree that it is our intention to use this word in the broadest sense to include both those charged and convicted so that the rights we establish apply throughout the criminal justice system?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from New Mexico, Senator Domenici, be added as a cosponsor of the legislation before us.

Mr. President, I will say a few words in conclusion to my remarks.

I believe the Senator from Arizona, Senator Kyl, will be coming back to the floor to make a small technical modification to the amendment since questions have been developed and they can be easily taken care of. I believe he will do that. Otherwise, I think everyone who is going to speak on this has spoken.

I would like to end by saying how grateful I am for this day. This is an important day for many of us who care about victims' rights--I think every Member of this Senate--because for the first time we have a strong and comprehensive measure to be able to achieve a compendium of victims' rights. That compendium will give victims access to the criminal justice system so they may retain their dignity; so they have an opportunity to know when there is a trial and be present at the trial; to make statements if there is a public proceeding with respect to a plea bargain; to be there to make a statement; to receive restitution, if offered by a judge; to know when their attacker is released from jail or prison--not too much, but certain basic, elemental rights for anyone who has either been the victim of or has been dramatically affected by a crime.

I am very proud of the work on this. I have worked with Senator Kyl for a long time, and now with Senators Hatch and Leahy as well.

I thank everybody who has been involved.

I particularly would like to thank my staff, Steven Cash and Dave Hantman, who over the years I think have grown more determined to get this job done.

I am hopeful we will have a unanimous vote in this body, that the bill will be accepted by the House, and we will be able to say to victims all across this country there is a Federal statute with a remedy and a method of enforcement that will guarantee the very basic rights in Federal crimes; and also the funding to be able to go out and secure some of those same rights under State law.

I thank everybody. I yield the remainder of my time.

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, Republican partisans are acting as if Senate Democrats were treating President Bush's judicial nominees the way Republicans treated President Clinton's. That is not the case. We have worked hard to repair much of the damage of Republican mistreatment of President Clinton's nominees. When we led the Senate we moved forward at twice the rate that Republicans had and during our leadership 100 of President Bush's judicial nominees were confirmed. This year we have proceeded to consider and confirm another 25 lifetime judicial appointments. I would understand the partisanship if Democrats had held up consideration of 125 judicial nominees and the Senate had only confirmed two, but just the opposite is true.

I understand the frustration that Senator Frist feels regarding the continuing impasse over the nominations of Mr. Estrada and Judge Owen. I am sorry that the White House has chosen confrontation over cooperation with the Senate on these matters. It is too bad that this White House will not work with us, as Senator Bennett and others have indicated was reasonable, in order to provide access to the materials we requested from Mr. Estrada and the Justice Department one year ago today. With respect to the renomination of Judge Owen, I have said that unprecedented renomination of a judicial nominee rejected after a hearing and a fair debate and vote before the Judiciary Committee was ill advised. It remains so.

Along with the other members of the Judiciary Committee, I have voted on the Estrada and Owen nominations. We have not taken the course of prior Republican leadership in which any Senator was allowed to block President Clinton's judicial nominees by use of a secret, anonymous hold. Instead, Democrats acted over the last few years to reform the confirmation process. We have added openness and accountability. What we have not been able to do is obtain a fair level of consultation and cooperation from this White House. We made home State Senators' ``blue slips'' matters of public record. When Republican Senators stymied Judiciary Committee consideration of President Clinton's judicial nominations, they were permitted to do so under the cloak of confidentiality. I changed that in 2001.

The Republican myth of a ``crisis'' in the Senate is punctured by the facts, which show the lowest judicial vacancy rate in 13 years--lower than the national jobless rate of 6 percent.

Court-packing by Presidents of either party is harmful, and I have spoken out often about the need to preserve the independence of our Federal judiciary. The world's emerging democracies envy the judicial independence in the American system, and we should make every effort to defend it, not to undermine it, as the escalating tactics of this administration would do. Just last month the administration and congressional Republicans turned a deaf ear when Chief Justice Rehnquist warned against the assault on the independence of the judiciary when so-called sentencing ``reforms'' were tacked on to a popular bill without hearings or careful consideration.

The White House says it opposes judicial activism, but the President sends the Senate activist nominees. The White House itself pushes results-oriented changes in the rules of the Senate, which is a separate branch of Government. This White House is not satisfied with its subjugation of the House and Senate to its will and removing Congress as a check on the Executive. They also want to pack the independent Federal courts. Republicans are not satisfied with means undermining the independence of the Senate, they are embarked on a course to undermine the independence of the Federal judiciary, as well. They already have convinced Senate Republicans to bend and even break the Judiciary Committee's rules in the handling of judicial nominees. Now they want to change the rules of the Senate itself in a raw bid for unitary government, directed by the White House. The American people and their representatives in the Senate should not let the Senate or the Federal judiciary become mere arms of any political party or any President.

The President's charges about obstruction would be easier to understand if the numbers themselves did not disprove them. The President and some Republicans in the Senate seem to be suffering from confirmation amnesia. The Democratic-led Senate confirmed 100 of his judicial nominees, acting far faster than Republicans did with President Clinton's nominees. We have confirmed another 24 this year for a total so far of 125 and achieved the lowest judicial vacancy rate in 13 years. The vacancy rate on the Federal bench today is 5.3 percent, which is lower than the national jobless rate of 6 percent. Unemployment has soared, the deficit has soared, crime is on the rise for the first time in a decade--about the only thing that has gone down significantly over the last 2 years is Federal judicial vacancies. Yet the White House complains that it has not been able to bully the Senate into rubber-stamping every one of the White House's ideological choices. Democratic Senators have cooperated to improve the process so that it has worked much more smoothly for President Bush's nominees than Republicans allowed for President Clinton's nominees.

The fact is that 125 have been confirmed, and two have been held back. You would not know that by listening to the President's remarks last Friday or to Republican talking points or various attack ads now being broadcast around the country in a partisan effort to intimidate Senators.

Democrats held hearings on more nominees faster than Republicans had and proceeded on controversial nominations. We have cooperated this year in bringing many controversial nominations to the floor for votes. When Republicans controlled the Senate during the last Democratic administration, they blocked more than 60 judicial nominees. And they were blocked not with cloture votes in the light of day, but sometimes by a single, anonymous Republican objection. And yes, there were also Republican filibusters of President Clinton's nominees.

The answer for handling the remaining controversial nominees is not reckless rhetoric or undermining the Senate's independence by changing its rules so that the independence of the Federal judiciary can become a victim to partisan court-packing. The answer has to start with the President, where the process begins. Despite his earlier promises, the President has been a divider and not a uniter in choosing many of his nominees, who would roll back the hard-won rights of workers, women, minorities and consumers, and who would side with the big polluters over communities when it comes to clean air and water. Several of his choices have divided the American people, and they have divided the Senate. We have drawn a line with a few of his most extreme choices. Drawing that line has been the responsible response to this President's divisive nominations for lifetime positions on the Federal courts.

This President campaigned saying he wanted to change the tone in Washington. He has--for the worse. The White House has adopted the rabid partisanship of House Republicans. The President of the United States has sunk to name-calling, extreme rhetoric and partisan campaigning against the Senate and individual Senators, which is not helpful to the process or to the institutions of our government.

The answer is for the administration to work with the Senate, as earlier Presidents have done. The process starts with the President, and the buck stops with the President.

Here on the Senate floor, when Senators have opposed the most divisive of the President's nominees with whom he is seeking to pack the courts and ideologically tilt them, we have done so on the record. We have debated and put forth the considerations and reasons. That, too, was something all too often missing from the years in which Republicans defeated judicial nominees through stealth tactics. We have voted on the record in vote after vote required by Republican cloture petitions.

Unfortunately, in the case of Mr. Estrada, the administration has made no effort to work with us and resolve the impasse. Instead, there has been a series of votes on cloture petitions in which the opposition has grown and from time to time the support has waned. Recently, there have been press reports indicating that Mr. Estrada had asked the White House months ago to withdraw his nomination. I understand his frustration. If this administration is not going to follow the practice of every other administration and share with the Senate the government work papers of the nominee--the very practice this administration followed with an EPA nominee in 2001--then I can understand him not wanting to be used as a political pawn by the administration to score partisan, political points. That the administration has not acceded to his reported request but has plowed ahead to force a succession of unsuccessful cloture votes and to foment division in our Hispanic community for partisan gain is another example of how far this administration is willing to go to politicize the process at the expense of its own nominees.

The frustration with these two difficult nominations should not obscure the work that the Senate leadership has done to correct some of the abuses of power earlier this year and pave the way for votes on the nominations of Jeffrey Sutton and Judge Cook to the Sixth Circuit and John Roberts to the DC Circuit. There were more votes against the Sutton nomination than the number required for a filibuster, but there was no filibuster of that nomination. Just as there was no filibuster of the controversial nomination of Mr. Tymkovich to the Tenth Circuit or of the controversial nomination of Judge Dennis Shedd to the Fourth Circuit. All three of these circuit court nominations were controversial and opposed by many Americans and many Senators.

The President's recent comments took the Republican Chairman of the Judiciary Committee to task for, among other things, not holding a hearing on the nomination of Judge Terry Boyle. I understand that Chairman Hatch is following a longstanding tradition of the Senate in not proceeding with a nomination that is opposed by a home State Senator. After all, it was Senator Helms' opposition to Judge Beaty and Judge Wynn, as well as to Roger Gregory and a number of others, that has led to there being numerous vacancies on the Fourth Circuit. Having honored Senator Helms' objections, Chairman Hatch would be seen as hypocritical and partisan if he were to ignore the concerns of Democratic home State Senators. Among the difficulties the chairman of the Judiciary Committee has faced since 2001 are the high number of judicial nominees of this White House that do not have home State Senator support. So when the President attacks the Senate for not having acted on nominations that the White House knows does not have the support of home State Senators, he is not being fair to the Senate, to the chairman or to the nominees. The White House knows that judicial nominations do not proceed without the support of home State Senators. Yet this administration continues to belittle the role of home State Senators in the advice and consent process and ignore the important role they have long played in Senate consideration of judicial nominees.

Another example is the nomination of Judge Carolyn Kuhl to the Ninth Circuit. This is a nomination that is opposed by both home State Senators. Proceeding on such a nomination is unprecedented. Yet Senate Republicans have forced the nomination out of the Judiciary Committee on a party-line vote after knowing that Senator Feinstein and Senator Boxer both oppose confirmation.

The last time the Senate voted on a nomination opposed by both home State Senators was only because the Republican caucus ambushed the nomination of Judge Ronnie White of Missouri on the Senate floor in 1999 after one of the Missouri Senators switched from supporting the nomination to opposing it the day of the vote. They proceeded without telling the administration, Senate Democrats or the nominee of the change of position and a number of Republican Senators who had previously voted in favor of the nomination changed their positions, as well, and the nomination was defeated on the only party-line vote to defeat a judicial nominee in Senate history of which I am aware.

With respect to Senator Frist's resolution, S. Res. 138, I look forward to the work of the Rules Committee on this proposal. Initially, I would observe that voting on judicial nominations is unlike Senate consideration of legislation in the way that imposing capital punishment is unlike any other criminal sentence. It is final and irrevocable. A bad statute once enacted can be amended or repealed. A bad judge is on the bench for life and will continue to affect American's rights, our freedoms and our environment in case after case for decades to come, long after the President who appointed that judge is gone. Given that dimension, I believe Senator Frist got his proposal upside down by seeking to exempt judicial nominations from Senate debate rules. It is more important that there be a higher level of confidence and certainty that a judicial nomination being considered for a lifetime appointment be the right person for the job, be a person of fairness, impartiality, judgment and someone committed to our constitutional values. The rights of women, minorities, consumers, workers and those concerned about the environment should not be sacrificed to political expediency and the independence of our federal courts should not be lost to ideological court packing by this administration.

Others will no doubt point out that Senator Frist voted against a proposal in 1995 to revise the Senate filibuster rules. I have pointed out in other statements how many Republicans supported the filibusters against President Clinton's executive calendar nominees, including the judicial nominations of Judge Marsha Berzon and Judge Richard Paez, the last most recent double filibuster in 2000, and the nominations of Judge Rosemary Barkett and Judge H. Lee Sarokin. In addition, recent Republican filibusters succeeded in defeating the nominations of Dr. Henry Foster to be Surgeon General and Sam Brown to be an ambassador. Republicans have not been shy about using filibusters to defeat the nominees of the most recent Democratic President or stall legislation some of them oppose. Just last year, in their tributes to Senator Thurmond, Republicans extolled his use of the filibuster and his setting a record for the longest individual filibuster in Senate history. What they left out of their tributes was the fact that Senator Thurmond had filibustered civil rights legislation.

Others may also point out how many Republicans have proposed supermajority requirements. Not only have Republicans abandoned their commitment to fiscal responsibility and their call for a balanced budget, they have forgotten that they insisted in recent years on three-fifths requirements to raise the debt ceiling or have taxes apply retroactively. Senator Craig and Senator Miller currently support a proposal, S.J. Res. 2, to require a balanced Federal budget that includes a three-fifths rollcall vote of each chamber to increase the debt limit. Last year Senator Sessions introduced a measure, S.J. Res. 11, cosponsored by Senators Crapo, Kyl, Fitzgerald, Hagel, Inhofe and Shelby to require a two-thirds vote of each House in order to increase any tax. Of course, in the 105th Congress, along with former Senators Ashcroft and Abraham, who are now Cabinet secretaries in this administration, Senators Allard, Bennett, Bond, Brownback, Burns, Campbell, Cochran, Collins, Craig, DeWine, Domenici, Enzi, Frist, Grassley, Gregg, Hagel, Hutchison, Inhofe, Kyl, Lott, Lugar, McCain, McConnell, Nickles, Roberts, Santorum, Sessions, Shelby, Smith, Snowe, Specter, Stevens, Thomas and Warner all cosponsored S.J. Res. 1 which would have required a three-fifths majority requirement to raise the debt ceiling.

The Senate was not designed by the founders or the Constitution to be a strictly majoritarian institution. To the contrary, the genius of the Framers at the Constitutional Convention was to construct a House of Representatives, structured on majoritarian principles with representatives voting on behalf of relatively equal numbers of constituents, and the Senate using different principles. The Senate has always had two Senators for each State regardless of size. Thus, small States like Vermont and Rhode Island and less populous States like Wyoming, Idaho and Alaska each have equal representation with California, Texas and New York. The Senate and the House are not the same and were not intended to be the same. They were designed to be complimentary institutions of government to form a balanced legislature. I understand why proposals like S. Res. 138 might appeal to newer Republican Senators and to former House Members who are now Republican in the Senate but I fear it would represent another ill- advised step to change the Senate into a second House of Representatives. The Constitution did not assign the advice and consent role to the House but to our distinctive body, the Senate. The Senate has many distinctive traditions including, to me, one of the most significant--that smaller States have a larger role to play in the Senate than in the House.

It is a bit ironic, to say the least, that an administration that was selected with less popular vote than the Democratic Presidential candidate because of a court decision and the workings of the electoral college is now pressing so vociferously to change the Senate rules and allow judicial and executive branch confirmations approved by the barest of ``majorities''--of only those Senators present and voting at the time the Republican Senate majority chooses to call the vote.

In addition, given the Senate's structure, the administration's pretense that somehow the votes of a majority of Senators shows that a majority of Americans favor a nomination may not be factually accurate. For example, Senate Republicans have complained bitterly and resentfully about the Senate's failure to end debate on the nomination of Judge Owen. But the Senators who have voted to end debate represent less than 50 percent of the population of the United States and the Senators who have voted not to end

that debate represent the majority of the American population. Now, put that way, the decision of the Senate on this controversial nominee hardly seem anti-democratic.

I respect the role of the Senate and the ways in which it has traditionally functioned on behalf of the American people. Any rule or practice can be used for ill, of course. For instance, the Senate grants significant authority to committees and to chairs of committees to determine the Senate's agenda and business. Traditionally, when a committee votes down a nominee, that nomination does not go forward. We have made one recent exception for the nomination of Judge Bork to the Supreme Court. That led to a heated battle on the Senate floor that resulted in that nomination ultimately being rejected by the Senate. Never in our history has the Senate or an administration simply overridden the judgment of the Judiciary Committee. That is what this administration chose to do when it renominated Judge Owen after her nomination had been thoroughly and fairly considered last year.

Finally, I am troubled that the administration and Senate Republicans are so intent on changing the rules and procedures and practices of the Senate in so many ways to gerryrig the process in favor of the administration's most extreme, divisive and controversial nominees. That was not the motivation behind the amendment of rule 22 in 1975 that I supported. It used to be rare that judicial nominees would receive so many negative votes and engender so much opposition. In accordance with the consultation and cooperation that prevailed between administrations before this one and Senators from both parties, it was a rarity to have a contested nomination or to have close votes. That this administration is so fixated on forcing through the Senate nominees that do not have the support of more Senators is alarming in itself.

Consensus, mainstream, qualified nominees will get the support of not just a bare majority of Senators voting but the overwhelming majority of Senators. Thus, Judge Prado, and Judge Gregory, and Judge Raggi were confirmed with overwhelming bipartisan support. So, too, I am confident that Judge Consuelo Callahan will be the second Hispanic nominee of this administration to a circuit court to receive the strong support of Democratic Senators, when the leadership decides to schedule a vote on her confirmation. The 125 judicial confirmations to date are by and large conservative nominees but many enjoyed the strong bipartisan vote of Senators from both parties.

Yet Senate Republicans at the behest of the administration want to grant even more power to the administration by encouraging the President to nominate more controversial nominees. I respectfully suggest that the better way to proceed would be for the White House to work more closely with Democrats and Republicans in the Senate to identify consensus nominees who will not generate a close vote and do not need special rules in order to be considered.

I thank the majority leader for working with the Democratic leader and assistant leader to make what he himself recognized as progress over the last weeks. With some cooperation and consideration from the administration we could accomplish so much more.

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.