A bill to protect States and Federal judges by clarifying that Federal judicial immunity covers all acts undertaken by judges pursuant to legal authority.

Mr. President, today, I am joined by Senators Leahy, Kennedy, and Feingold in introducing the American Neighborhoods Taking the Initiative Guarding Against Neighborhood Gangs (ANTI-GANG) Act, which is a comprehensive bill that will help State and local prosecutors prevent, investigate, and prosecute gang crimes.

Gang violence is a serious, nationwide program. The National Youth Gang Survey estimated that in 2002 there were 21,500 gangs comprised of 731,500 members in the United States. The FBI has noted that ``[s]treet gangs and other loosely knit groups are responsible for a substantial portion of the increase in violent crime in the United States.'' The problem is clearly felt in Chicago, IL, where over 40 percent of the homicides last year were gang-related. The Chicago Police Department is currently tracking 68 identified gangs, with an estimated 68,000 members.

I would like to commend the State and local prosecutors and law enforcement agencies for their work in fighting this problem. The ANTI- GANG Act would authorize $862.5 million in grants over the next five years to provide them with the tools they need and have

specifically requested of Congress to combat violent gangs.

For example, the National District Attorneys Association (NDAA) wrote the following: ``We must find new methods of protecting those individuals brave enough to come forward as witnesses. Our biggest problem is getting the financial help to establish, and run, meaningful witness protection programs.'' The National Alliance of Gang Investigators (NAGI) also has identified a trend in witness intimidation that is ``dramatically affecting the prosecution of violent gang offenders.'' The ANTI-GANG Act responds by authorizing $300 million over five years for the protection of witnesses and victims of gang crimes. This bill also would allow the Attorney General to provide for the relocation and protection of witnesses in state gang, drug, and homicide cases, and it would allow States to obtain the temporary protection of witnesses in State gang cases through the Federal witness relocation and protection program, without any requirement of reimbursement for those temporary services.

The ANTI-GANG Act also authorizes $250 million over five years for grants to develop gang prevention, research, and intervention services. However, these grants should not be limited to those areas already identified as ``high intensity'' interstate gang activity areas. The NAGI also has identified a trend of gangs migrating from larger cities to smaller communities, which is fueled in large part by an increase in gang involvement in drug trafficking. This may be related to the spread of methamphetamine, which is the fastest-growing drug in the United States and, according to Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan, the ``single-greatest threat to rural America today.'' In response to these trends, the ANTI-GANG Act would allow rural communities and other jurisdictions to apply for these grants, to prevent gang violence from occurring in the first place. The ANTI-GANG Act also authorizes $262.5 million over five years for the cooperative prevention, investigation, and prosecution of gang crimes. Most of this funding would be for criminal street gang enforcement teams made up of local, State, and Federal law enforcement authorities that would investigate and prosecute criminal street gangs in high intensity interstate gang activity areas (HIIGAAs). Importantly, this bill would allow HIIGAAs to be integrated with High Intensity Interstate Drug Trafficking Areas (HIIDTAs), to avoid conflicts in those areas where the two entities would coexist.

The ANTI-GANG Act also authorizes $50 million over five years for technology, equipment, and training to identify gang members and violent offenders and to maintain databases to facilitate coordination among law enforcement and prosecutors;

In addition to these new resources, the ANTI-GANG Act will effectively strengthen the ability of prosecutors to prosecute violent street gangs, by creating a stronger Federal criminal gang prosecution offense. This new offense criminalizes participation in criminal street gangs, recruitment and retention of gang members, and witness intimidation. At the same time, it responds to concerns raised by the NDAA regarding potential conflicts with local investigation and prosecution efforts, by requiring certification by the Department of Justice before any prosecution under this bill could be undertaken in Federal court.

The ANTI-GANG Act also promotes the recruitment and retention of highly-qualified prosecutors and public defenders by establishing a student loan forgiveness program modeled after the current program for Federal employees. Almost a third of prosecutors' offices across the country have problems with recruiting or retaining staff attorneys, and low salaries were cited as the primary reason for recruitment and retention problems. This proposed loan forgiveness program is supported by the American Bar Association, the NDAA, the National Association of Prosecutor Coordinators, the National Legal Aid and Defender Association, and the American Council of Chief Defenders.

The ANTI-GANG Act will effectively strengthen the ability of prosecutors at the local, State, and Federal level to prosecute violent street gangs, and it will give State and local governments the resources they need to protect witnesses and prevent youth from joining gangs in the first place. This bill achieves these important goals without increasing any mandatory minimum sentences, which conservative jurists such as Justice Anthony Kennedy have criticized as ``unfair, unjust, unwise.'' It also does not unnecessarily expand the Federal death penalty--a measure which has been included in other Federal gang legislation but is opposed by the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, NAACP, ACLU, and National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

Finally, the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Coalition has raised the following concerns regarding Federal gang legislation that would allow more juveniles to be prosecuted as adults in the Federal system: ``[T]he fact remains that transfer of youth to the adult system, simply put, is a failed public policy. Comprehensive national research on the practice of prosecuting youth in the adult system has shown conclusively that transferring youth to the adult criminal justice system does nothing to reduce crime and actually has the opposite effect. In fact, study after study has shown that youth transferred to the adult criminal justice system are more likely to re- offend and to commit more serious crimes upon release than youth who were charged with similar offenses and had similar offense histories but remained in the juvenile justice system. Moreover, national data show that young people incarcerated with adults are five times as likely to report being a victim of rape, twice as likely to be beaten by staff and 50 percent more likely to be assaulted with a weapon than youth held in juvenile facilities. A Justice Department report also found that youth confined in adult facilities are nearly eight times more likely to commit suicide than youth in juvenile facilities.''

In light of these concerns, the ANTI-GANG Act provides Congress with the necessary data to decide whether to expand the Federal role in prosecuting juvenile offenders, by requiring a comprehensive report on the current treatment of juveniles by the States and the capability of the Federal criminal justice system to take on these additional cases and house additional prisoners. The American Bar Association has written that this study is ``the more prudent course of action at this time.''

The ANTI-GANG Act is a comprehensive, common-sense approach to fight gang violence. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this important legislation.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce important legislation to protect State and Federal judges against civil lawsuits, by clarifying that Federal judicial immunity covers all acts undertaken by judges pursuant to legal authority.

To put it mildly, these are not easy days for members of the State and Federal judiciary. I am unaware of any member of this body who has not, at one time or another, criticized a member of the State or Federal judiciary for issuing one ruling or another--including the numerous controversial rulings that have captured the Nation's attention in recent years. Indeed, in each of the two previous Congresses, the Senate unanimously approved strongly worded resolutions ``strongly disapprov[ing]'' the infamous decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit striking down the voluntary recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools. See S. Res. 71 (108th Cong.) and S. Res. 292 (107th Cong.).

To be sure, judges are supposed to follow and apply the law--not legislate from the bench. On numerous occasions, I have spoken out against instances of judicial activism. But there are appropriate and inappropriate ways to register one's disapproval and disagreement.

The First Amendment guarantees every American the right to express disagreement with government officials--including State and Federal judges. There is certainly nothing inappropriate about criticizing judicial rulings with which one sharply disagrees. But it is entirely inappropriate to threaten the impeachment and removal of judges simply for issuing rulings with which one disagrees. It is inappropriate to file lawsuits against judges in the hope of pestering or bankrupting them in retaliation for judicial actions one does not like. And it is absolutely deplorable for any person to undertake violence, threats of violence, or other illegal acts against judges.

As a former State trial judge and State supreme court justice of 13 years, who has a number of close personal friends who still serve on the bench today, I am outraged by recent acts of courthouse violence. I personally know judges and their families who have been victims of violence. I have grieved with those families. And during the Easter recess earlier this year, I met with an old friend, a Federal judge in Texas, to make sure that we are doing everything that we can to protect our judges and courthouse personnel against further acts of violence. So I look forward to legislation that will soon be introduced to strengthen courthouse security and to otherwise bolster protections against violence for judges, their staff, and their families.

Today I would like to introduce legislation to protect State and Federal judges against a different kind of threat--a lesser threat than violence to be sure, but an important one nonetheless: the threat of civil litigation in retaliation for unpopular judicial actions. For centuries, our common law

has protected judges against civil litigation by conferring upon them courtroom immunity. It has long been understood that judicial immunity is an essential element of protecting judicial independence and ensuring that judges have the ability and freedom to do their jobs. As the Senate Judiciary Committee noted less than a decade ago: ``Even when cases are routinely dismissed, the very process of defending against those actions is vexatious and subjects judges to undue expense. More importantly, the risk to judges of burdensome litigation creates a chilling effect that threatens judicial independence and may impair the day-to-day decisions of the judiciary in close or controversial cases.'' Federal Courts Improvement Act of 1996--S. 1887, S. Rep. No. 104-366 at 37 (1996).

Throughout its legal existence, judicial immunity has been for the most part a creature of the common law. But there have been times when Congress has seen fit to step in and to strengthen judicial immunity-- particularly when the courts have undertaken an unduly narrow view. In 1996, for example, Congress enacted the Federal Courts Improvement Act--important legislation that included a provision reversing a U.S. Supreme Court decision in order to expand the protections of judicial immunity.

It is appropriate for Congress once again to consider legislation to strengthen judicial immunity. This time, I hope Congress will respond to a recent decision by a Federal district court in Fort Worth, TX. That decision applied recent Supreme Court precedents in good faith, but in a manner that leaves judges potentially exposed to vexatious civil litigation. In Alexander v. Tarrant County, the Federal district court held that traditional judicial immunity does not protect State judges acting in their administrative capacities. Specifically, the court held that State judges authorized under State law to supervise local correctional facilities could not claim judicial immunity against suit. As a recent news report and editorial by the San Antonio Express- News make clear, that decision has left judges throughout the State of Texas in a state of uncertainty and anxiety about their exposure to lawsuits and liability. As the editorial rightly argues, the Alexander ruling, and I quote, ``has sent shock waves through the judiciary. . . . Judges have a tough job. They should not be burdened with defending themselves for the administrative duties they perform.'' I ask unanimous consent that a copy of those articles be printed in the Record at the close of my remarks.

The legislation I introduce today is simple and straightforward. It protects State and Federal judges against civil lawsuits, by clarifying that Federal judicial immunity covers all acts undertaken by judges pursuant to legal authority. Specifically, it provides that State and Federal judges shall be immune against any Federal civil cause of action respecting the discharge of any legislatively or constitutionally authorized duty, except for actions involving malice. The legislation would not preempt any judicial immunity that already exists under current law.

This legislation was drafted with the support of two Texas State judges--the Honorable Dean Rucker, who presides over the 318th District Court in MidIand, and who chairs the Judicial Section of the State Bar of Texas, and the former chairman, the Honorable Mark Atkinson of the Harris County Criminal Court. I want to thank them both for their service to Texas and for their help with this legislation, and I ask unanimous consent that their letter of support be printed in the Record at the close of my remarks. I am also grateful for the technical assistance provided by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, as well as by the office of Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, which has been intimately involved in the defense State judges against vexatious litigation. Finally, I am especially grateful for the support of the Chief Justice of the Texas Supreme Court, Wallace Jefferson, and I ask unanimous consent that his letter of support likewise be printed in the Record at the close of my remarks.

I hope that legislation to protect judges against deplorable acts and threats of violence will soon be introduced and quickly be enacted, and I hope that the legislation I introduce today to protect judges against vexatious litigation will likewise be considered favorably by my colleagues.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce important legislation to protect State and Federal judges against civil lawsuits, by clarifying that Federal judicial immunity covers all acts undertaken by judges pursuant to legal authority.

To put it mildly, these are not easy days for members of the State and Federal judiciary. I am unaware of any member of this body who has not, at one time or another, criticized a member of the State or Federal judiciary for issuing one ruling or another--including the numerous controversial rulings that have captured the Nation's attention in recent years. Indeed, in each of the two previous Congresses, the Senate unanimously approved strongly worded resolutions ``strongly disapprov[ing]'' the infamous decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit striking down the voluntary recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools. See S. Res. 71 (108th Cong.) and S. Res. 292 (107th Cong.).

To be sure, judges are supposed to follow and apply the law--not legislate from the bench. On numerous occasions, I have spoken out against instances of judicial activism. But there are appropriate and inappropriate ways to register one's disapproval and disagreement.

The First Amendment guarantees every American the right to express disagreement with government officials--including State and Federal judges. There is certainly nothing inappropriate about criticizing judicial rulings with which one sharply disagrees. But it is entirely inappropriate to threaten the impeachment and removal of judges simply for issuing rulings with which one disagrees. It is inappropriate to file lawsuits against judges in the hope of pestering or bankrupting them in retaliation for judicial actions one does not like. And it is absolutely deplorable for any person to undertake violence, threats of violence, or other illegal acts against judges.

As a former State trial judge and State supreme court justice of 13 years, who has a number of close personal friends who still serve on the bench today, I am outraged by recent acts of courthouse violence. I personally know judges and their families who have been victims of violence. I have grieved with those families. And during the Easter recess earlier this year, I met with an old friend, a Federal judge in Texas, to make sure that we are doing everything that we can to protect our judges and courthouse personnel against further acts of violence. So I look forward to legislation that will soon be introduced to strengthen courthouse security and to otherwise bolster protections against violence for judges, their staff, and their families.

Today I would like to introduce legislation to protect State and Federal judges against a different kind of threat--a lesser threat than violence to be sure, but an important one nonetheless: the threat of civil litigation in retaliation for unpopular judicial actions. For centuries, our common law

has protected judges against civil litigation by conferring upon them courtroom immunity. It has long been understood that judicial immunity is an essential element of protecting judicial independence and ensuring that judges have the ability and freedom to do their jobs. As the Senate Judiciary Committee noted less than a decade ago: ``Even when cases are routinely dismissed, the very process of defending against those actions is vexatious and subjects judges to undue expense. More importantly, the risk to judges of burdensome litigation creates a chilling effect that threatens judicial independence and may impair the day-to-day decisions of the judiciary in close or controversial cases.'' Federal Courts Improvement Act of 1996--S. 1887, S. Rep. No. 104-366 at 37 (1996).

Throughout its legal existence, judicial immunity has been for the most part a creature of the common law. But there have been times when Congress has seen fit to step in and to strengthen judicial immunity-- particularly when the courts have undertaken an unduly narrow view. In 1996, for example, Congress enacted the Federal Courts Improvement Act--important legislation that included a provision reversing a U.S. Supreme Court decision in order to expand the protections of judicial immunity.

It is appropriate for Congress once again to consider legislation to strengthen judicial immunity. This time, I hope Congress will respond to a recent decision by a Federal district court in Fort Worth, TX. That decision applied recent Supreme Court precedents in good faith, but in a manner that leaves judges potentially exposed to vexatious civil litigation. In Alexander v. Tarrant County, the Federal district court held that traditional judicial immunity does not protect State judges acting in their administrative capacities. Specifically, the court held that State judges authorized under State law to supervise local correctional facilities could not claim judicial immunity against suit. As a recent news report and editorial by the San Antonio Express- News make clear, that decision has left judges throughout the State of Texas in a state of uncertainty and anxiety about their exposure to lawsuits and liability. As the editorial rightly argues, the Alexander ruling, and I quote, ``has sent shock waves through the judiciary. . . . Judges have a tough job. They should not be burdened with defending themselves for the administrative duties they perform.'' I ask unanimous consent that a copy of those articles be printed in the Record at the close of my remarks.

The legislation I introduce today is simple and straightforward. It protects State and Federal judges against civil lawsuits, by clarifying that Federal judicial immunity covers all acts undertaken by judges pursuant to legal authority. Specifically, it provides that State and Federal judges shall be immune against any Federal civil cause of action respecting the discharge of any legislatively or constitutionally authorized duty, except for actions involving malice. The legislation would not preempt any judicial immunity that already exists under current law.

This legislation was drafted with the support of two Texas State judges--the Honorable Dean Rucker, who presides over the 318th District Court in MidIand, and who chairs the Judicial Section of the State Bar of Texas, and the former chairman, the Honorable Mark Atkinson of the Harris County Criminal Court. I want to thank them both for their service to Texas and for their help with this legislation, and I ask unanimous consent that their letter of support be printed in the Record at the close of my remarks. I am also grateful for the technical assistance provided by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, as well as by the office of Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, which has been intimately involved in the defense State judges against vexatious litigation. Finally, I am especially grateful for the support of the Chief Justice of the Texas Supreme Court, Wallace Jefferson, and I ask unanimous consent that his letter of support likewise be printed in the Record at the close of my remarks.

I hope that legislation to protect judges against deplorable acts and threats of violence will soon be introduced and quickly be enacted, and I hope that the legislation I introduce today to protect judges against vexatious litigation will likewise be considered favorably by my colleagues.

Mr. President, I am pleased to co-sponsor the introduction of the ANTI-Gang Act with my good friends on the Judiciary Committee, Senators Durbin, Kennedy and Feingold.

The American Neighborhoods Taking the Initiative-Guarding Against Neighborhood Gangs Act of 2005 is a bill carefully crafted to target violent criminal street gangs whose activities extend beyond the neighborhood and have a substantial impact on Federal interests.

As a former county prosecutor, I have long expressed concern about making Federal crimes out of every offense that comes to the attention of Congress. I know that States have competent and able police departments, county sheriffs' offices, prosecutors and judges. Gangs are, more often than not, locally-based, geographically-oriented criminal associations, and our local communities are on the front lines of the fight against gang violence. We should be supplementing the work of our State and local law enforcement officers, not usurping them. This is why this bill specifically targets only those gangs where there is a provable Federal interest. This is why this bill requires consultation with our State and local counterparts before embarking on a Federal prosecution of historically State crimes. And this is why major provisions of the bill are directed toward helping State and local law enforcement officers prevent, investigate, and prosecute gang crimes in their own neighborhoods.

There are four major sections of the bill: first, the bill gives State and local prosecutors financial resources to guard against neighborhood gangs by authorizing $62.5 million for the cooperative prevention, investigation, and prosecution of gang crimes; $50 million for grants to develop gang prevention, research, and intervention services; and $60 million for the protection of witnesses and victims of gang crimes. Federal funds are provided for hiring new Assistant U.S. Attorneys and to fund technology, equipment and training grants to increase accurate identification of gang members and violent offenders and to maintain databases with such information to facilitate state and federal coordination.

The first defense in protecting our youth against gang influence is a good offense. I have long thought that programs aimed at combating gang activity must incorporate gang prevention and education--programs that would examine why our youth choose to associate in gangs and prey on others--to be effective. When Senator Hatch appropriately targeted gang violence as a subject for a full Judiciary Committee hearing in 2003, all agreed that we should be doing more to deter our youth from joining gangs in the first place. This bill heeds that call.

Another unifying theme of the expert witnesses at the Committee's hearing was the serious need for Federal assistance in protecting witnesses who will provide information about and testify against gangs from intimidation. Our bill not only provides funding to help protect witnesses, it also makes it a Federal crime to intimidate witnesses in certain State prosecutions involving gang activity.

Second, the bill defines a Federal criminal street gang by using well-established legal principles and providing recognizable limits. Rather than create yet another cumbersome and broad-reaching Federal crime that overlaps with numerous existing Federal statutes, this bill actually targets the problem that needs to be addressed: violent criminal street gangs. It recognizes that gangs are ongoing entities whose members commit crimes more easily simply because of their association with one another. Gangs prove the old adage: there is safety in numbers. Gang members can be sheep-like in their loyalty and allegiance to the gang. In this regard, the bill also explicitly and evenhandedly addresses the evidentiary significance of gang symbolism in gang prosecutions

In addition to witness intimidation, other important crimes established by this bill include: 1. participation in criminal street gangs by any act that is intended to effect the criminal activities of the gang; 2. participation by committing a crime in furtherance of or for the benefit of the gang, and 3. recruitment and retention of gang members. There are increased penalties for those who target minors for recruitment in a criminal street gang.

Third, the bill requires a comprehensive report on the current treatment of juveniles by the States, and the capability of the Federal criminal justice system to take on these additional cases and house additional prisoners, so that Congress can make an informed decision about whether or not to expand the Federal role in prosecuting juvenile offenders.

Some have suggested that the Federal Government has been unable to proceed effectively against gang crime because of Federal law's protections for juvenile offenders. I have not seen sufficient evidence to support this claim, but I think that Congressional consideration of this issue would benefit greatly from a comprehensive General Accounting Office study on this topic. We need to know both whether justice would be served by increasing the Federal role, and whether the Federal system--including both our prosecutors and the Bureau of Prisons--is prepared for such a step.

Fourth, the bill promotes the recruitment and retention of highly- qualified State and local prosecutors and public defenders by establishing a student loan forgiveness program modeled after the current program for Federal employees.

We have worked very hard in crafting this legislation not to further blur the lines between Federal and State law enforcement responsibilities or to add more burdens to the FBI as the primary Federal investigative agency. Federal law enforcement has been faced with a unique challenge since the September 11 attacks. The FBI is no longer just an enforcement agency, but also has a critical terrorism prevention mission. This mission is a daunting one, and our Federal law enforcement resources are not limitless. I, for one, do not want the FBI or U.S. Attorneys to focus these limited resources on cases that are best handled at the local level.

Combating gang violence should not be a partisan battle. The tragedy of gang violence affects too many. No community can afford to lose a single youth to the arms of a waiting gang. No gang should be allowed to flourish without consequence in our communities. I urge the Senate's support for this important bill.

Mr. President, I am proud to reintroduce the Improved Nutrition and Physical Activity Act or the IMPACT Act today with my colleagues Senators Frist, Bingaman, and Dodd. This legislation would take several important steps toward promoting healthy eating and physical activity and combating obesity and eating disorders. Eating disorders and obesity have become serious and 2 growing public health concerns in our country. Childhood obesity has emerged as an important issue in the public, as we have seen a significant increase in the number of Americans who are overweight or obese. Today, more than 15 percent of children and adolescents are considered seriously overweight. We know that obesity and the lack of exercise are directly linked with a broad array of health problems, including heart disease, high blood pressure, diabetes, arthritis-related disabilities, depression and some cancers.

In New York State alone, almost 60 percent of adults are overweight or obese, while 43 percent of the children in New York City's public elementary schools are overweight and a quarter qualify as obese. Obese adults incur significantly higher annual medical expenditures than those of normal weight adults. The cost now rivals that attributable to smoking. I believe that while nutrition education is one part of the solution to the obesity problem facing our youth, it is not enough to simply say that childhood obesity is caused by eating too much junk food. Instead, we must be aware of the complex environmental, genetic, and behavioral factors that have influenced the epidemic.

Included among the factors that affect children's eating habits and activity levels are increased hours in front of the TV or computer, working parents spending more hours at the office trying to make ends meet, deteriorating healthfulness or foods available in schools, reduced access to recess and physical education in schools, changes in the physical design of neighborhoods and communities, and low self esteem. And sadly, as the number of people battling obesity has increased, eating disorders have also reached epidemic proportions in the United States. It is estimated that between 8 and 10 million people experience an eating disorder, with millions of new cases being diagnosed each year. Eating disorders do not discriminate--they affect men and women or all ages, racial and ethnic backgrounds, socioeconomic classes, and religions.

Eating disorders are linked to a variety of health problems including heart failure, kidney failure, osteoporosis, gastric ruptures, and death. Eating disorders are also often associated with a variety of mental health problems including depression, substance abuse, and suicide. The age of onset for these disorders is getting younger and younger. According to the Center for Mental Health Services, 90 percent of those who have an eating disorder are women between the ages of 12 and 25.

Research indicates that 50 percent of females between the ages of 11 and 13 see themselves as overweight, and by the age of 13, eighty percent have attempted to lose weight. We know that the most common behavior that will lead to an eating disorder is dieting. In fact, 51 percent of 9 and 10 year old

girls report feeling better about themselves when they are on a diet. It is estimated that currently as many as 17 percent of high school students have been diagnosed with an eating disorder. Our youth today are striving to reach an unrealistic body ideal. Fears of falling short of this ideal are leading to dire consequences. That is why I am proud to co-sponsor of the IMPACT Act.

This legislation would take several important steps toward promoting healthy eating and physical activity to combat obesity and eating disorders. This legislation addresses the growing public health problems of increasing rates of obesity and eating disorders by: training students and health professionals to diagnose, treat and prevent obesity, overweight, and eating disorders; funding demonstration programs that promote healthy eating behaviors and physical activity to prevent eating disorders, obesity and being overweight, and related serious and chronic medical conditions; directing the Center for Disease Control to collect information regarding fitness levels and energy expenditure among children; authorizing the Director of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality to review all research carried out under this act and include such information, where it is relevant, in its health disparities report; allowing states to use their Preventive Services Block Grant money to address and prevent overweight, obesity, and eating disorders; mandating a report on obesity and eating disorders research; authorizing a report on the effectiveness of a National Public Education Campaign on changing children's behaviors and reducing obesity.

Each of these steps is needed to address our country's growing problems of obesity and eating disorders. Any comprehensive approach to promote healthy lifestyles and prevent disordered eating in our youth must be multifaceted. It must include education about nutrition and physical activity, and most importantly, it must encourage open communication about body image and self esteem. Such an effort will require the leadership and resources of healthcare providers, local communities, advocacy organizations, parents and families, and schools.

It is time that we promote and celebrate healthy bodies and healthy lifestyles regardless of size, weight indexes, or arbitrary numbers on a scale. This is a delicate task and we must make sure not to let an unhealthy emphasis on thinness jeopardize the health of our children. I look forward to working with all of my Senate colleagues to promote healthy lifestyles across the lifespan.