THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO
Next Hit Forward Next Document New CR Search
Prev Hit Back Prev Document HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help
Doc Contents
The Pediatric Research Initiative would authorize $50 million annually for the next five years for the Office of the Director of NIH to conduct, coordinate, support, develop, and recognize pediatric research. By doing so, we will be able to ensure that researchers target and study child-specific diseases. With more than 20 Institutes and Centers and Offices within NIH that conduct, support, or develop pediatric research in some way, this investment would promote greater coordination and focus in children's health research and should encourage new initiatives and areas of research.
The ``Children's Public Health Act'' also would authorize funding through the National Institutes of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD)--for pediatric research training grants to support training for additional pediatric research scientists and would provide funding for loan forgiveness programs. Trained researchers are essential if we are to make significant advances in the study of pediatric health care, especially in light of the new and improved Food and Drug Administration (FDA) policies that encourage the testing of medications for use by children.
Additionally, the ``Children's Public Health Act'' includes the ``Children's Asthma Relief Act,'' which Senator DURBIN and I introduced last year. The sad reality for children is that asthma is becoming a far too common and chronic childhood illness. From 1979 to 1992, the hospitalization rates among children due to asthma increased 74 percent. Today, estimates show that more than seven percent of children now suffer from asthma. Nationwide, the most substantial prevalence rate increase for asthma occurred among children aged four and younger. Those four and younger also were hospitalized at the highest rate among all individuals with asthma.
According to 1998 data from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), my home state of Ohio ranks about 17th in the estimated prevalence rates for asthma. Based on a 1994 CDC National Health Interview Survey, an estimated 197,226 children under 18 years of age in Ohio suffer from asthma. This is a serious health concern among children--and we must address it.
The ``Children's Public Health Act'' would help ensure that children with asthma receive the care they need to live healthy lives. The bill would authorize $50 million annually for five years for the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to award grants to eligible entities to develop and expand projects that would provide asthma services to children. These grants also may be used to equip mobile health care clinics that provide asthma diagnosis and asthma-related health care services; educate families on asthma management; and identify and enroll uninsured children who are eligible for, but are not receiving health coverage under Medicaid or the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). The ability to identify and enroll children in these programs will ensure that children with asthma receive the care they need.
Since research shows that children living in urban areas suffer from asthma at such alarming rates and that allergens, such as cockroach waste, contribute to the onset of asthma, this bill also adds urban cockroach management to the current preventive health services block grant which currently can be used for rodent control.
To better coordinate federal activities related to asthma, the Secretary of HHS would be required to identify all federal programs that carry out asthma research and develop a federal plan for responding to asthma. To better monitor the prevalence of pediatric asthma and to determine which areas have the greatest incidences of children with asthma, this bill would require the CDC to conduct local asthma surveillance activities to collect data on the prevalence and severity of asthma and to publish data annually on the prevalence rates of asthma among children and on the childhood mortality rate. This surveillance data will help us better detect asthmatic conditions, so that we can treat more children and ensure that we are targeting our resources in an effective and efficient way to reverse the disturbing trend in the hospitalization and death rates of asthmatic children.
Finally, Mr. President, the bill we are introducing today includes language that I strongly support to re-authorize funding for children's hospitals' Graduate Medical Educati on (GME) p rograms for four additional years. Last year, as part of the ``Health Care Research and Quality Act,'' which was signed into law, we authorized funding for two years for children's hospitals' GME programs. The teaching mission of these hospitals is essential. Children's hospitals comprise less than one percent of all hospitals, yet they train five percent of all physicians, nearly 30 percent of all pediatricians, and almost 50 percent of all pediatric specialists. By providing our nation with highly qualified pediatricians, children's hospitals can offer children the best possible care and offer parents peace of mind. They serve as the health care safety net for low-income children in their respective communities and are often the sole regional providers of many critical pediatric services. These institutions also serve as centers of excellence for very sick children across the nation. Federal funding for GME in children's hospitals is a sound investment in children's health and provides stability for the future of the pediatric workforce.
Mr. President, as the father of eight children and the grandfather of five, I firmly believe that we must move forward to protect the interests--and especially the health--of all children. The ``Children's Public Health Act of 2000'' makes crucial investments in our country's future--investments that will yield great returns. If we focus on improving health care for all children today, we will have a generation of healthy adults tomorrow.
I urge my colleagues to support this vital children's health care bill.
By Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. HUTCHINSON, Mr. DASCHLE, Mr. BENNETT, Mr. LIEBERMAN, and Mr. SCHUMER):
S. 2869. A bill to protect religious liberty, and for other purposes; read the first time.
RELIGIOUS LAND USE AND INSTITUTIONALIZED PERSONS ACT OF 2000
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a narrowly focused bill that protects religious liberty from unnecessary governmental interference. It will provide protection for houses of worship and other religious assemblies from restrictive land use regulation that often prevents the practice of faith. This legislation also allows institutionalized persons to exercise their religion to the extent that it does not undermine the security, discipline, and order of their institutions.
Seven years ago, recognizing the need to strengthen the fundamental right of religious liberty, Congress overwhelmingly passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). Unfortunately, in 1997, in the case of City of Boerne v. Flores, the Supreme Court held that Congress lacked the authority to enact RFRA as applied to state and local governments. In an attempt to respond to the Boerne decision, I introduced S. 2081 earlier this year. Legislation similar to S. 2081 passed the
[Page: S6688] GPO's PDF
The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 provides limited federal remedies for violations of religious liberty in: (1) the land use regulation of churches and synagogues; and (2) prisons and mental hospitals.
LAND USE REGULATION
At the core of religious freedom is the ability for assemblies to gather and worship together. Finding a location to do so, however, can be quite difficult when faced with pervasive land use regulations. As was seen during congressional hearings in both the House and Senate, land use regulations, either by design or neutral application, often prevent religious assemblies and institutions from obtaining access to a place of worship. Under current law, an assembly whose religious practice is burdened by an otherwise ``generally applicable'' and ``neutral'' law can obtain relief only by carrying the heavy burden of proving that there is an unconstitutional motivation behind a law, and thus, that it is not truly neutral or generally applicable. Such a standard places a seemingly insurmountable barrier between the religious assemblies of our country and their right to worship freely.
An example of this was seen recently when a city refused to allow the LDS Church to construct a temple simply because it was not in the ``aesthetic'' interests of the community as set forth in a ``generally applicable'' statute. Another example includes an effort to suspend the operation of a religious mission for the homeless operated by the late Mother Teresa's order because it was located on the second floor of a building without an elevator.
The land use section of the bill prohibits discrimination against religious assemblies and institutions, and prohibits the total exclusion of religious assemblies from a jurisdiction. The section also prohibits unreasonable limits on religious assemblies and institutions and requires that land use regulations that substantially burden the exercise of religion be justified by a compelling governmental interest.
It is important to note that this legislation does not provide a religious assembly with immunity from zoning regulation. If the religious claimant cannot demonstrate that the regulation places a substantial burden on sincere religious exercise, then the claim fails without further consideration. If the claimant is successful in demonstrating a substantial burden, the government will still prevail if it can show that the burden is an unavoidable result of its pursuit of a compelling governmental objective.
INSTITUTIONALIZED PERSONS
Our bill also provides that substantial burdens on the religious exercise of institutionalized persons must be justified by a compelling interest. Congressional witnesses have testified that institutionalized persons have been prevented from practicing their faith. For example, some Jewish prisoners have been denied matzo, the unleavened bread Jews are required to consume during Passover, even though Jewish organizations have offered to provide it to inmates at no cost to the government. While this legislation seeks to improve the ability of institutionalized persons to practice their religion, it remains under the complete application of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995.
Both sections are based firmly on constitutional principles that grant Congress its authority. Thus, today's legislation should withstand the scrutiny that has thwarted our efforts in the past.
As we begin in this effort, it is worth pondering just why America is, worldwide, the most successful multi-faith country in all recorded history. The answer is to be found, I submit, in both components of the phase ``religious liberty.'' Surely, it is because of our Constitution's zealous protection of liberty that so many religions have flourished and so many faiths have worshiped on our soil.
Our country has achieved its greatness because, with its respectful distance from our private lives, our government has allowed all its citizens their own forms of ``internal governance,'' that is, those religious and moral tenets that make a free society possible. Our country has allowed people to answer for themselves, and without interference, those questions that are most fundamental to humankind. And it is in the way that religion informs our answers to these questions, that we not only survive, but thrive as human beings.
While this bill provides much needed preservation of our religious liberty, I personally would have preferred a broader approach. I recognize, however, in this shortened legislative year, the long list of items before the congressional leadership that require their attention. In order to ensure enactment of a measure this year, I think all advocates of a broader approach took a prudent step in embracing a more targeted, consensus bill.
With the help of Senator KENNEDY, Congressman CANADY, and others, I hope this legislation will move swiftly through the Congress. We look forward to welcoming others to our modest, yet important, effort to enact this legislation.
Mr. KENNEDY. Religious freedom is a bedrock principle in our nation. The bill we are introducing today reflects our commitment to protect religious freedom and our belief that Congress still has the power to enact legislation to enhance that freedom, even after the Supreme Court's decision in 1997 to strike down the broader Religious Freedom Restoration Act that 97 Senators joined in passing in 1993.
In striking down the Religious Freedom Restoration Act on constitutional grounds, the Court clearly made the task of passing effective legislation to protect religious liberties more difficult. But too often in our society today, thoughtless and insensitive actions by governments at every level interferes with individual religious freedoms, even though no valid public purpose is served by the governmental action.
Our goal in proposing this legislation is to reach a reasonable and constitutionally sound balance between respecting the compelling interests of government and protecting the ability of people freely to exercise their religion. We believe that the legislation being introduced today accomplishes this goal in two areas where infringement of this right has frequently occurred--the application of land use laws, and treatment of persons who are institutionalized. In both of these areas, our bill will protect the Constitutional right to worship, free from unnecessary government interference.
After numerous Congressional hearings on religious liberties, the evidence is clear that local land use laws often have the discriminatory effect of burdening the free exercise of religion. It is also clear that institutionalized persons are often unreasonably denied the opportunity to practice their religion, even when their observance would not undermine discipline, order, or safety in the facilities.
Relying upon the findings from Congressional hearings, we have developed a bill--based upon well-established constitutional authority--that will protect the free exercise of religion in these two important areas. Our bill has the support of the Free Exercise Coalition, which represents over 50 diverse and respected groups, including the Family Research Council, Christian Legal Society, American Civil Liberties Union, and People for the American Way. The bill also has the endorsement of the Leadership Conference for Civil Rights.
The broad support that this bill enjoys among religious groups and the civil rights community is the result of many months of difficult, but important negotiations. We carefully considered ways to strengthen religious liberties in other ways in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision. We were mindful of not undermining existing laws intended to protect other important civil rights and civil liberties. It would have been counterproductive if this effort to protect religious liberties led to confrontation and conflict between the civil rights community and the religious community, or to a further court decision striking down the new law. We believe that our bill succeeds in avoiding these difficulties by addressing the most obvious threats to
[Page: S6689] GPO's PDF
The land use provision covers regulations defined as ``zoning and landmarking'' laws. Under this provision, if a zoning or landmarking law substantially burdens a person's free exercise of religion, the government involved must demonstrate that the particular law is the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental interest. This provision is based upon the constitutional authority of Congress under Section 5 of the 14th Amendment, as well as the Commerce and Spending powers of Congress. The institutionalized persons section applies the strict scrutiny standard to cases in which the free exercise rights of such persons are substantially burdened. This provision is based upon Congress's constitutional authority under the Spending and Commerce powers.
Applying a strict scrutiny standard to prison regulations would not lead, as some have suggested, to a flood of frivolous lawsuits by prisoners, and it will not undermine safety, order, or discipline in correctional facilities. Arguments opposing this provision have been made in the past, but they were based on speculation. Now, the arguments can be proven demonstrably false by the facts.
Since the Religious Freedom Restoration Act was enacted in 1993, strict scrutiny has been the applicable standard in religious liberties case brought by inmates in federal prisons. Yet, according to the Department of Justice, among the 96 federally run facilities, housing over 140,000 inmates, less than 75 cases have ever been brought under the Act--most of which have never gone to trial. On average, over seven years, that's less than 1 case in each federal facility. It's hardly a flood of litigation or a reason to deny this protection to prisoners.
Following the enactment of the 1993 Act, Congress also passed the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which includes a number of procedural rules to limit frivolous prisoner litigation. Those procedural rules will apply in cases brought under the bill we are introducing today. Based upon these protections and the data on prison litigation, it is clear that this provision in our bill will not lead to a flood of frivolous lawsuits or threaten the safety, order, or discipline in correctional facilities. Sincere faith and worship can be an indispensable part of rehabilitation, and these protections should be an important part of that process.
In sum, our bill is an important step forward in protecting religious liberty in America. It reflects the Senate's long tradition of bipartisan support for the Constitution and the nation's fundamental freedoms, and I urge the Senate to approve it.
EXAMPLES OF LAND USE RESTRICTIONS ON RELIGIOUS LIBERTY
In February 2000, a city official in Portland, Oregon ordered a local United Methodist Church to limit attendance at its services to 70 worshipers and shut down a meals program for the homeless and the working poor that the church had been operating for sixteen years. The church can hold up to 500 persons. The land use official announced that her job was ``quasi-judicial,'' and that ``she was not required to explain decisions.'' After a public outcry, the Portland City Council unanimously rejected the attendance cap and voted to allow church programs to continue, contingent on an agreement being reached among neighbors, neighborhood businesses and the city about the management of the church programs. (``Church ordered to limit attendance,'' Washington Times, February 18, 2000: ``Church wins on attendance,'' The Oregonian, March 2, 2000).
THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO
Next Hit Forward Next Document New CR Search
Prev Hit Back Prev Document HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help
Doc Contents