Voluntary Support for Reservists and National Guard Members Act

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Homeland Security Enhancement Act of 1003. Senator Miller and I have taken the lead in encouraging a culture of cooperation of all levels of immigration law enforcement--Federal, State, and local--and seek to build an immigration law enforcement system that uses unified

databases for information sharing from one level to another.

The subject matter of the bill introduced today is one I care very deeply about--the ability of State and local law enforcement to voluntarily aid the Federal Government in the Enforcement of immigration law. Let me be clear, this bill is not about the commandeering of State and local police forces or about forcing them to dedicate resources toward immigration law enforcement, it is simply about their authority to participate in immigration law enforcement if they so choose.

I am convinced that our ability to successfully enforce our immigration laws is a test of whether we will be a Nation governed by laws.

Many of the immigration reforms enacted by this Congress since 9/11 have been aimed at fixing the first half of our broken immigration system, the visa issuance process that allowed terrorists to enter our country under the guise of legality.

It is now time to look at the second half of our broken immigration system--the half that allows people to remain here illegally for indefinite time periods, regardless of how they came here.

We know that Americans strongly value our heritage as a Nation of immigrants. Americans openly welcome legal immigrants and new citizens with character, ability, decency, and a strong work ethic. However, it is also clear Americans do not feel the same way about illegal immigration. The fact is that a large majority of Americans feel that State and local governments should be aiding the Federal Government in stopping illegal immigration.

A RoperASW poll published in March of this year titled ``Americans Talk About Illegal Immigration'' found that 88 percent of Americans agree, and 68 percent ``strongly'' agree, that Congress should require State and local government agencies to notify the INS, now ICE, and their local law enforcement when they determine that a person is here illegally or has presented fraudulent documentation. Additionally, 85 percent of Americans agree, and 62 percent ``strongly'' agree that Congress should pass a law requiring State and local governments and law enforcement agencies, to apprehend and turn over to the INS, now ICE, illegal immigrants with whom they come in contact.

Those numbers speak volumes about the desires of the American population. It is important to note that those numbers were collected on requiring state and local action. It is very likely that a poll on this bill, a bill that is about volunteer State and local action would yield even stronger support.

America's strength is based on its commitment to the rule of law. Inscribed on the front of the Supreme Court Building just down the street are the words, ``Equal Justice Under Law.''

In the world of immigration laws, a facade of enforcement that holds no real consequences for law breakers is both dangerous and irresponsible. If the only real consequence of coming to this country illegally is a social label, then our immigration laws are but a brightly painted sepulcher full of dead bones, for it is impossible to be a Nation governed by the rule of law, if our laws have no real effect on the lives of the people they govern.

Our illegal alien population is at a record high. The lack of immigration enforcement in our country's interior has resulted in 8-10 million illegal aliens living in the U.S. with another estimated 800,000 illegal aliens joining them every year--that is on top of the more than 1 million that legally immigrate each year. These numbers make it easy for criminal aliens to disappear inside our borders.

Of the 8-10 million illegal aliens present today, the Department of Homeland Security has estimated that 450,000 are ``alien absconders''-- people that have been issued final deportation orders but have not shown up for their hearings.

An estimated 86,000 of them are criminal illegal aliens--people convicted of crimes they committed in the U.S. who should have been deported, but have slipped through the cracks and are still here.

The next number is perhaps the most concerning--3,000 of the ``alien absconders'' within our borders are from one of the countries that the State Department has designated to be a ``state sponsor of terrorism.''

The number of illegal aliens outweighs the number of federal agents whose job it is to find them within our borders by 5,000 to 1. The enforcement arm of the old INS, now called The Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has a mere 2,000 interior agents inside the borders. Leaving the job of interior immigration enforcement solely to them will guarantee failure.

State and local police, a force 650,000 strong, are the eyes and ears of our communities. They are sworn to uphold the law. They police our streets and neighborhoods every day. Their role is critical to the success of our immigration system.

For that critical role to be effective, a few very important things need to happen: 1. State and local law enforcement need clear authority to voluntarily act; 2. the NCIC needs to contain critical immigration related information that can be accessed on the roadside; 3. Federal immigration officials have to take custody of illegal aliens apprehended by State officers, they can not continue to tell them to just let them go; 4. the Institutional Removal Program has to be expanded so that criminal aliens are detained after their State sentences until deportation, they can't be released back into the community just to be searched for by federal officials at a later date; and 5. critically needed federal bedspace has to be given to DHS for they can not guarantee effective removal without adequate detention space.

The Homeland Security Enhancement Act that Senator Miller and I are introducing today will do all of those things.

Let me tell you about a few of the problems in immigration enforcement that started my interest in this area and prompted me to author this bill.

A few years ago, police chiefs and sheriffs in Alabama began to tell me that they had been shut out of the system and felt powerless to do anything about Alabama's growing illegal immigrant population.

As I went to town hall meetings and conferences with police, I heard the same story--``we have given up calling the INS because INS tells us we have to have 15 or more illegal aliens in custody or they will not even come pick them up.''

Even worse is that Alabama police were told that the aliens could not be detained until the INS could manage to send someone. They were told they had to just let them go! They were being told this, even though I thought the legal authority of State and local officers to voluntarily act on violations of immigration law was clear. If there is any doubt that State and local officers have this authority, Congress needs to fix that, which is what this bill will do.

Only two circuits have expressly ruled on State and local law enforcement authority to make an arrest on an immigration law violation. In 1983, the Ninth Circuit, while not mentioning a preexisting general authority, held that nothing in federal law precludes the police from enforcing the criminal provisions of the Immigration and Naturalization Act. See Gonzales v. City of Peoria, 722 F.2d 468 (9th Cir. 1983).

The Tenth Circuit has reviewed this question on several occasions, concluding squarely that a ``State trooper has general investigatory authority to inquire into possible immigration violations.'' United States v. Salinas-Calderon, 728 f.2d 1298, 1301 n.3 (10th Cir. 1984).

As the Tenth Circuit has described it, there is a ``preexisting general authority of State or local police officers to investigate and make arrests for violations of federal law, including immigration laws.,'' United States v. Vasquez-Alvares, 176 F.3d 1294, 1295 (10th Cir. 1999). And again, in 2001, the Tenth Circuit reiterated that ``State and local police officers [have] implicit authority within their respective jurisdictions `to investigate and make arrests for violations of federal law, including immigration laws.' '' United States v. Santana-Garcia, 264 F.3d 1188, 1194 (citing United States v. Vasquez-Alvarez, 176 F.3d 1294, 1295).

None of these Tenth Circuit holdings drew any distinction between criminal violations of the INA and civil provisions that render an alien deportable.

It appears that the Ninth Circuit started the confusion regarding the distinction between civil and criminal violations in Gonzales v. City of Peoria by asserting in dicta that the civil provisions of the INA are a persuasive regulatory scheme, and therefore only the federal government has the power to enforce civil violations. See Gonzales v. City of Peoria, 722 F.2d 468 (9th Cir. 1983).

This confusion was, to some extent, fostered by an erroneous 1996 opinion of the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) of the department of Justice, the relevant part of which has since been withdrawn by OLC.

Why was the Federal agency responsible for immigration enforcement telling my police chiefs in Alabama to just let illegal aliens go?

To be fair, ICE probably does not have the manpower or detention space to take custody and detain all illegal aliens. With less than 20,000 appropriated detention beds, ICE tells my office that they do not have the bed space to detain all the illegal aliens that they apprehend; instead, they have to give first priority to detaining the worst of the worst--individuals such as convicted felon aliens.

It is shocking to me that even though we know that detention is a key element of effective removal, we do not even detail all illegal aliens that have been convicted of crimes, even convicted of felonies, before removal. Last February, in a report titled ``the Immigration and Naturalization Service's Removal of Aliens Issued Final Orders'' the Department of Justice Inspector General found that 87 percent of those not detained before removal never get deported. Even in high risk categories, the IG found that only fractions of non-detained violators are ever removed--35 percent of those with criminal records and 6 percent of those from ``state sponsors of terrorism.''

These percentages have not changed substantially since 1996, when the last IG report issued on the ability to remove aliens found that 89 percent of aliens with final deportation orders that are not detained are never removed.

But we cannot lay all the blame on DHS--they can only detain illegal aliens that they have space to detain. They are using all of the bedspace that they have and are releasing people that should be detained because there is no more room. The Homeland Security Enhancement Act would add the critical bedspace DHS needs to fulfill its mission of interior enforcement.

The third problem that has been brought to my attention is the inadequate way we share immigration information with State and local police. We have databases full or information on criminal aliens and aliens with final deportation orders, but that information is not directly available to state and local police. They have to make a special second inquiry to the immigration center in Vermont just to see if an illegal alien is a wanted by DHS.

Without easy access to immigration database information, and with ICE unwilling to come and identify every suspected illegal alien, State and local police cannot quickly and accurately identify who they have detained and who they will be releasing back into the community if they follow ICE's instruction to ``just let them go.''

State and local police are accustomed to checking for criminal information in the NCIC (National Crime Information Center) database, which is maintained by the FBI. They can and routinely do access the NCIC on the roadside when they pull over a car or stop a suspect.

An NCIC check, which takes just minutes, includes information about individuals with outstanding warrants. Even fugitives that use false identification can be identified on the roadside through use of the NCIC when, as is often the case, a police officer has access to an instant fingerprint scanner in his car.

Separately, ICE operates the Law Enforcement Support Center, which makes immigration information available to State and local police, but requires a second additional check after NCIC that most State and local police either don't know about or don't have the time to perform.

The Hart Rudman Report, ``America Still Unprepared--America Still In Danger,'' found that one problem America still confronts is ``650,000 local and State police officials continue to operate in a virtual intelligence vacuum, without access to terrorist watchlists.'' The first recommendation of the report was to ``tap the eyes and ears of local and State law enforcement officers in preventing attacks.'' On page 19, the report specifically cited the burden of finding hundreds of thousands of fugitive aliens living among the population of more than 8.5 million illegal aliens living in the U.S. and suggested that the burden could and should be shared with 650,000 local, county, and State law enforcement officers if they could be brought out of the information void.

If State and local police are not accessing the immigration information we have worked hard to make available, we must find a way to get the information to them, through systems that are used to using. Our bill will get information to them through the system that are already using--the NCIC.

As part of its Alien Absconder Initiative, ICE tells us that it is in the process of entering information on the estimated 450,000 alien absconders into NCIC. As of October 31, only information on 15,200 alien absconders had been entered into NCIC. That number is totally unacceptable and is shocking to me.

This should only be the beginning. At the least, the NCIC should contain information on all illegal aliens who have received final orders of departure and all illegal aliens who have signed voluntary departure agreements. In truth, the NCIC should contain information on all violations of law.

Our bill will ensure that when a NCIC roadside check is done on an individual pulled over for speeding, police will know immediately if the individual has already been ordered to leave the country, has signed a legal document promising to leave, or has overstayed their visa.

Understanding the value of getting immigration information to State and local police comes from understanding that they are the ones who will come into contact with the dangerous illegal aliens on a day-to- day basis.

Three 9/11 hijackers were stopped by State and local police in the weeks proceeding 9/11. Hijacker Mohammad Atta, believed to have piloted American Airlines Flight 77 into the World Trade Center's north tower, was stopped twice by police in Florida, Hijacker Ziad S. Jarrah was stopped for speeding by Maryland State Police two days before 9/11. And, Hani Hanjour, who was on the flight that crashed into the Pentagon, was stopped for speeding by police in Arlington, VA. Local police can be our most powerful tool in the war against terrorism.

The D.C. Snipers were caught because of the fingerprint collected by local police. John Lee Malvo was identified when the fingerprint collected from a magazine at the scene of the liquor store murder and robbery in Montgomery, Alabama matched with the fingerprints collected by INS agents in Washington State. Had both law enforcement entities not done their job by taking prints, it is possible that the identity of John Lee Malvo could have been a mystery for weeks longer.

In February, a 42-year-old woman sitting on a park bench in New York with her boyfriend was dragged away and gang-raped by five deportable illegal immigrants. Although 4 of the 5 had State criminal convictions and 2 had served jail time, the INS claims they were never told about them--thus, they were not deported as the law requires.

Fifty-six illegal aliens were caught by State and local police, and convicted of molestation and child abuse, long before ICE's ``Operation Predator'' found them a few weeks ago living in New York and Northern New Jersey after they should have been deported. Of the 56 arrested, one had raped his 10-year-old niece; another has sexually assaulted a 6-year-old boy; one had raped his 7-year-old niece; and another has sexually assaulted a 2-year-old.

The 9/11 hijacker cases, the D.C. sniper cases, and a multitude of criminal alien cases clearly illustrate that our State and local police are on the front lines in combating alien crime. To cut them out of the system, as we do now, whether intentionally or unintentionally, is to eliminate our most effective weapon against criminal and terrorist aliens.

The opponents of this bill will say that we don't want immigrants to succeed and that we don't want people to

come here. That is absolutely not true. We believe in the rule of law. We believe that people should come here to be citizens of this country under the color of law. We want people to come here and reach their fullest potential. But, we believe that a Nation has the right to set the standards by which it accepts people, and if it sets those standards it ought to create a legal system to enforce those standards. This bill will work to enforce the immigration standards our Nation has created.

The opposition will say that State and local police can not adequately respect the civil rights of illegal aliens, and that enforcement will cost too much and will discourage the reporting of crimes. It is curious logic to say that we trust our police to enforce laws against citizens but not against non-citizens here illegally.

I know that State and local police are trained to protect the civil rights of all types of suspects and defendants and that they do so every day in this country. In Alabama, State troopers receive annual training on racial profiling. In New York, the NYC Police Department operations order #11 strictly prohibits racial profiling in law enforcement actions. If Alabama and New York are consistent in how they instruct and train their State and local police with regards to racial profiling, it is safe to assume that the rest of the Nation does as well.

Under this bill, State and local police will have to respect the civil rights of illegal aliens the same way they respect the civil rights of all people against whom they enforce the law. State and local police will continue to be held responsible for violations of civil rights; this bill does not change that fact.

The opposition will say that this bill is expensive; that it costs too much. It is always expensive to enforce the law. I do not think this bill is overly expensive. We have made it as cost affordable as we can by electing to efficiently use resources already available to us. Law enforcement is not an area where it pays to pinch pennies. In immigration enforcement, I believe that it costs us too much not to enforce the law. I believe it is time that Congress take responsibility for providing DHS with the resources they need to do the job we have given them.

When it comes to immigration enforcement in America, the rule of law is not prevailing. If we are serious about securing the homeland, we simply must get serious about immigration enforcement.

It is time to talk about the big picture--time to be honest about what it will really take to fix our broken immigration system. In most cases, we don't need tougher immigration laws, we just need to utilize our existing resources and use some new resources to enforce the laws we already have.

If State and local police are confused about their authority to enforce immigration laws, that authority needs to be clarified. This bill will do that. If State and local police can not access immigration background information on individuals quickly enough, we should change that. This bill makes that information more accessible. If DHS is not taking custody of the illegal aliens being apprehended by State and local police, we need to make it possible for them to do so. This bill will address the practice of ``catching and releasing'' illegal aliens. If we do not have enough detection space to hold people that break the law, then we need more detention space. This bill gives DHS 50 percent more bedspace to use in immigration enforcement. If illegal aliens are being released back into the community after their prison sentences instead of being deported, we need to fix the system that releases them. This bill will extend the Institutional Removal Program to ensure that custody is transferred from the state prison to federal officials at the end of the alien's prison sentence.

Once again I would like to thank Senator Miller for joining with me to introduce this legislation. It is imperative that we take critical steps toward regaining control of our out-of-control immigration system. This bill is a critical step in the right direction. I encourage my colleagues to study this bill and to join Senator Miller and I as we work to pass the Homeland Security Act of 2003.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``United States-Africa Partnership Act.'' This bill builds on the important trade and investment initiatives that were contained in the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) passed in 2000.

The original African Growth and Opportunity Act and the expansion of AGOA that I am introducing today emphasize the need to elevate the African private sector. The AGOA legislation offers enhanced trade benefits, more U.S. private sector investment, and a higher level dialogue with African governments. It envisions a new economic partnership between the United States and African nations.

To gain these benefits, African countries are expected to undertake sustained economic reform, abide by international human rights practices, and strengthen good goverance. These standards have been used by the U.S. to stimulate reforms in Asia, Latin America, Eastern Europe and elsewhere. There is no reason to expect that they will not be successful in Africa as well.

Private investment tends to follow good governance and economic reform, but the private sector takes cues from government policies and involvement. It is very much in our interest to play a constructive role in the evolving political and economic transition in Africa. A stable and prosperous Africa will be better equipped to cooperate on a range of shared global problems such as weapons proliferation, terrorism, narcotics, the environment and contagious diseases. African economic success also can create new markets for American exports. If jobs are created and foreign exchange is earned through enhanced exports, Africa will have greater capacity to buy goods and services from abroad. They will likely purchase machinery, electronics, financial services, agricultural products, and many other goods and services from U.S. suppliers.

If we had ignored Taiwan and Korea in the 1960s when they were at stages of economic development comparable to many African societies today, we would have missed out on enormous opportunities in East Asia. Years from now, I hope we can look back and say that we were present at a crucial juncture in Africa's growth and development and that we played a constructive role in that change.

In an effort to reverse the persistent under-performance by African economies and to stimulate American involvement in Africa, I introduced the African Growth and Opportunity Act in the United States Senate in 1999. Since its enactment in 2000, AGOA has been a positive economic force in Africa. In 2002, 94 percent of U.S. imports from AGOA-eligible countries entered duty-free. The United States imported $9 billion in merchandise duty-free under AGOA in 2002, a 10 percent increase from 2001.

Imports from African countries, not counting oil, jumped 50 percent last year. In South Africa, sub-Sahara's most important economy, exports of automobiles have increased sixteen-fold in the past two years. The tiny country of Lesotho, population 2.2 million, generated $318 million in AGOA exports in 2002. New export-oriented garment factories have created 25,000 jobs. For the first time in its history, private sector manufacturing employment--thanks to trade--exceeds government employment.

Performances like this, which occurred despite the recent slowdown in world trade, are the direct result of AGOA. The legislation lets African countries export some 1,800 products duty-free, without quotas, to the United States. It is a direct response to developing countries' long-time plea; trade, not aid, is the real key to ending poverty and bringing about sustainable, long term economic growth.

Despite these signs of progress, many Africa economies remain in bad shape. Of the 64 least developed countries in the world, 38 are in Africa. Per capita output of goods and services actually dropped during the 1990s, according to the World Bank, and with only 1.4 percent of world trade in 2001, sub-Saharan Africa has been falling behind the rest of the world. During the 1990s,

global gross domestic product grew a robust 44 percent; the figure for Africa was only 8.5 percent. From 1990 to 2001, gross national income per capita in sub-Saharan Africa actually declined by .2 percent.

Africa is in need of help, and expanding AGOA should be a part of the development strategy for the continent. The experience of AGOA has taught us valuable lessons about the path to enhanced investment and economic development and has confirmed some of the key principles that proponents of market-based development have used to guide policy. First, AGOA has demonstrated that a commitment to good governance and a positive investment climate is important to economic growth. Countries such as Lesotho, which has made significant efforts in recent years to promote economic reform and stable democracy, have derived the most benefit from the AGOA provisions. Second, the experience of AGOA has demonstrated that regional integration is as essential to development as access to the U.S. and other foreign markets. Using the infrastructure and economic stability of South Africa as a base, neighboring southern African countries have worked together to take advantage of the benefits under AGOA.

AGOA should not be seen as an end in itself. Rather, it is an initial step designed to expand development and decrease poverty by promoting greater integration of Africa into the global trading community. Achieving these goals will require both enhancements to the AGOA framework and additional steps to address the compelling problems facing Africa. Our trade efforts must be part of a broader American partnership with the often-neglected countries of Africa.

This partnership starts with three issues. First, we must help address the HIV/AIDS crisis in Africa. In addition to the human tragedy that HIV/AIDS has created in Africa, the epidemic severely limits the economic growth that would reduce Africa's poverty. When workers are forced to call in sick more days than they are able to work, when government positions are experiencing regular turnover, and when scarce capital must be diverted from investment to dealing with the AIDS crisis, it is nearly impossible to build a stable economy.

Earlier this year, Congress passed legislation establishing a program under which the United States will contribute $15 billion over the next 5 years to address the HIV/AIDS crisis in Africa. The President signed this bill into law and has placed his prestige behind its effective implementation. It is my hope that this leadership and much needed funding will start to turn the tide in the fight against the HIV/AIDS epidemic.

Second, we have begun an effort to rethink the way that aid is delivered to the world's poorest countries, most of which are in Africa. Earlier this year, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee took action on the President's Millennium Challenge Corporation initiative. This initiative would deliver up to $8 billion over the next three years to the world's poorest countries, and it would condition that aid on the development of policies by the recipient countries that will make that aid more effective. These policies include a commitment to just and democratic governance and economic freedom. The Millennium Challenge Corporation would build on the lessons of AGOA, which has demonstrated that private investment will flow to countries that build a stable, predictable investment climate. The incentives provided by Millennium Challenge Corporation dollars would help to establish conditions that will cause private investment dollars to flow to the poorest countries.

Third, we need to move forward with enhancements to AGOA itself. That is my purpose in introducing the United States Africa Partnership Act (USAPA)--also known as ``AGAO III.''' The current AGOA expires in 2008. My bill would extend AGOA benefits until 2015. This coincides with the goal of the World Trade Organizations to have a ``tariff free world'' by 2015. We should take action on this extension soon so that investors will have the certainty they need when making investment decisions involving Africa.

AGOA contains a provision that allows least developed countries (LDCs) to export capped quantities of apparel made from third country fabric to the U.S. duty free. All other countries must use U.S. or African fabric inputs in order to receive duty-free treatment. This ``special rule'' for LDCs expires on September 30, 2004. USAPA would extend this provision for four additional years until September 30, 2008.

It also would eliminate the import sensitivity test with respect to African products and nuisance provisions in the rule of origin for apparel. The AGOA rule of origin is modified so that it applies only to the essential components of apparel. USAPA also clarifies the definitions of certain fabrics for customs purposes, including hand- loomed folklore articles.

USAPA would develop initiatives to provide technical and capacity building experience. In the area of agriculture, it directs the Secretary of Agriculture to develop a comprehensive plan to increase import and export abilities in agricultural trade. It also provides that 20 full-time personnel of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service be stationed in at least 10 AGOA eligible countries to provide technical assistance in meeting U.S. import requirements and trade capacity building.

In an effort to stimulate business partnerships, the bill I introduce today also addresses investment incentives and encourages the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, the Export-Import Bank, and the Foreign Agricultural Service to facilitate investment in AGOA eligible countries. It directs the Secretary of the Treasury to seek negotiations regarding tax treaties with eligible countries.

In addition, it encourages U.S. private investment in African transportation, energy and telecommunications and increases coordination between U.S. and African transportation entities to reduce transit times and costs between the United States and Africa.

Finally, the bill grants funding for the continuation of the AGOA forums and establishes an AGOA task force to facilitate the goals of the Act.

The original African Growth and Opportunity Act launched an effort to formulate a new American strategy towards Africa. It sought to establish the foundation for a more mature economic relationship with those countries in Africa that undertake serious economic and political reforms. That effort was supported by virtually all sub-Saharan African nations, and it had wide support among American businesses and non- governmental organizations. We should now seize the opportunity to further integrate African countries into the world economy.

The United States-Africa Partnership Act that I introduce today recognizes the enormous potential for economic growth and development in sub-Saharan Africa. It embraces the vast diversity of people, cultures, economies, and potential among forty-eight countries and nearly 700 million people. A stable and economically prosperous Africa can provide new partnerships that will contribute greatly to our commercial and security interests. I urge all members to support the United States-Africa Partnership Act so that we can achieve the mutual long-term benefits that it would bring to Africa and to our country.

Mr. President, ours is a remarkable Nation.

America is the home to 90 of the top 100 universities. Americans work an average of 300 hours more per year than our friends in Europe. More patents are applied for in this Nation each year than in all of the EU member states combined. We lead the world in research and development. Perhaps the area in which our labor and investment will have the most profound impact, is in field of the life sciences.

This year our Nation met a remarkable goal. In the span of the last 5 years we have doubled our financial commitment to basic health research funding. Those funds will go toward saving and extending the lives of, and improving the quality of life for, people around the world.

Our history has proven that when this Nation is resolute and determined, we can achieve remarkable things.

In 1939, the United States was producing 800 military airplanes per year. At the onset of World War II, President Roosevelt challenged the Nation to increase manufacturing to 4,000 planes per month. By the end of 1943, in perhaps the greatest industrial feat in history, the United States was producing 8,000 military aircraft per month.

On May 5, 1961, the United States launched Mercury 3 and Alan Shepard became the first American in space, spending a total of 15 minutes and 28 seconds in sub-orbit. Twenty days later President Kennedy addressed a joint session of Congress and proposed that our Nation land a man on the moon before the end of the decade. Only July 29, 1969, four days after leaving the launch pad, Neil Armstrong stepped from the lunar module to the surface of the moon in perhaps the greatest engineering and technological feat in history.

Between 1996 and 1997, for the first time, the total number of cancer deaths in the United States did not rise. That trend has continued to this very day. Today, there are at least 50 compounds under investigation for efficacy as cancer preventives and untold research is being performed in search of new cures and treatments for cancer. This is the time for our Nation to become resolute and determined to achieve what may be the greatest scientific feat in history--to win the war on cancer.

Our Nation began its commitment to the War on Cancer with the passage of the National Cancer Institute Act of 1937. In 1971, Congress committed itself to win the war with the passage of the National Cancer Act. Today, I am joined by the Chairman of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee Judd Gregg in beginning the next campaign of this war, with the introduction of the National Cancer Act of 2003. With this bill we renew our commitment to the fight, and join NCI Director Dr. Andrew Von Eshenbach in his commitment to make cancer survivorship the rule and cancer deaths rare by 2015.

Major provisions within the legislation include: Enhancing our current cancer registry system; enhancing our existing screening mechanisms; creating a new Patient Education Program; enhancing NCI Designated Comprehensive Cancer Centers; elevating the importance of pain management and survivorship throughout the nation's cancer programs; authorizing the Office of Survivorship within NCI; freeing the NCI to engage private entities to further cancer research; and providing patients with greater access to experimental therapies.

In the coming months, I look forward to working with the Chairman, the Administration and other members interested committed to winning the War on Cancer, to get this bill to markup, to the floor and to the President's desk.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill that will have a profound effect on the retention of teachers, administrators, and other school staff in remote and rural areas of Alaska. I am pleased to have Mr. Campbell join me in introducing this bill.

In rural areas of Alaska, school districts face the challenge of recruiting and retaining teachers, administrators and other school staff due to the lack of housing. In the Lower Kuskokwim School District in western Alaska, they hire one teacher for every six who decide not to accept job offers. Half of the applicants not accepting a teaching position in that district indicated that their decision as related to the lack of housing.

Earlier this year, I traveled through rural Alaska with Education Secretary Rod Paige. I wanted him to see the challenges of educating children in such a remote and rural environment. At the village school in Savoonga, the principal slept in a broom closet in the school due to the lack of housing in that village. The special education teacher slept in her classroom, bringing a mattress out each evening to sleep on the floor. The other teachers shared housing in a single home. Needless to say, there is not enough room for the teachers' spouses. Unfortunately, Savoonga is not an isolated example of the teacher housing situation in rural Alaska.

Rural Alaskan school districts experience a high rate of teacher turnover due to the lack of housing. Turnover is as high as 30 percent each year in some rural areas with housing issues being a major factor. How can we expect our children to receive a quality education when the good teachers don't stay? How can we meet the mandates of No Child Left Behind in such an educational environment? Clearly, the lack of teacher housing in rural Alaska is an issue that must be addressed in order to ensure that children in rural Alaska receive the same level of education as their peers in more urban settings.

My bill authorizes the Department of Housing and Urban Development to provide teacher housing funds to the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation, which is a State agency. In turn, the corporation is authorized to provide grant and loan funds to rural school districts in Alaska for teacher housing projects.

This legislation will allow school districts in rural Alaska to address the housing shortage in the following ways: construct housing units; purchase housing units; lease housing units; rehabilitate housing units; purchase or lease property on which housing units will be constructed, purchased or rehabilitated; repay loans secured for teacher housing projects; provide funding to fill any gaps not previously funded by loans or other forms of financing; and conduct any other activities normally related to the construction, purchase, or rehabilitation of teacher housing projects.

Eligible school districts that accept funds under this legislation will be required to provide the housing to teachers, administrators, other school staff, and members of their households.

It is imperative that we address this important issue immediately and allow the flexibility for the disbursement of funds to be handled at the local level. The quality of education of our rural students is at stake.

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

Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to join my colleague Senator Reed of Rhode Island to introduce the National Commission on Digestive Diseases Act.

Each year, more than 62 million Americans are diagnosed with digestive diseases and disorders. These conditions, such as colorectal, liver and pancreatic cancers, inflammatory bowel disease, irritable bowel syndrome, gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and chronic hepatitis C require patients to undergo rigorous courses of medical therapies and treatment. As Chairman of the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations Subcommittee, I am acutely aware that while promising research developments have been made in these areas, the causes of many of these diseases are unknown and their incidence is on the rise.

In 2001, the Lewin Group conducted a study of the economic burden to our society resulting from the direct and indirect costs associated with just 17 of the over several hundred digestive diseases. The results of this study revealed that the total costs associated with physician care, inpatient and outpatient hospital care as well as loss of work for patients with digestive disorders was $42 billion in the year 2000. It is clear from this study and the findings of digestive disease specialists around the country that these disorders represent enormous health and economic consequences for the nation.

The National Commission on Digestive Diseases Act would address the burden of digestive diseases in a comprehensive and coordinated manner. This legislation would create a panel of scientists in the relevant disciplines, patient representatives, employers and other appropriate experts to conduct a comprehensive study on the current state of scientific and clinical knowledge in digestive diseases. The commission would then be charged with evaluating the resources necessary to expedite the discovery of treatments and cures for patients with these diseases and develop a 5-10 year long-range plan for effectively addressing these needs.

In 1976, Congress created a Commission on Digestive Diseases Research which serves as the successful model for this new initiative. Following 18 months of deliberations, the 1970s commission created a long-range plan and recommendations that laid the groundwork for significant progress in the area of digestive diseases research. The state of scientific knowledge has changed substantially since the late 1970s, however, and the advent of genetics and genomics research, as well as the discovery of additional digestive diseases, compels us to look anew at the challenges that digestive diseases present to patients and those who care for them.

It is my hope that this legislation will advance our understanding of the causes, effective treatments, possible prevention, and cures for digestive diseases. I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact this important bipartisan legislation.