Dru's Law

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Trade Adjustment Assistance Equity for Service Workers Act.

Since 1962, Trade Adjustment Assistance--what we call ``TAA''--has provided retraining, income support, and other benefits so that workers who lose their jobs due to trade can make a new start.

The rationale for TAA is simple. When our government pursues trade liberalization, we create benefits for the economy as a whole. But there is always some dislocation from trade.

As President Kennedy said, ``those injured by . . . trade competition should not be required to bear the full brunt of the impact.'' ``There is an obligation,'' he said, for the Federal Government ``to render assistance to those who suffer as a result of national trade policy.'' We meet that obligation through TAA.

The TAA program has not been static over time. Several times, Congress has revised the program to meet new economic realities. In 1993, for example, Congress created a new TAA program targeted specifically at workers who might suffer dislocation as a result of the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Most recently, in the Trade Act of 2002, Congress completed the most comprehensive overhaul and expansion of the TAA program since its inception.

We expanded the program to cover workers affected by shifts in production, secondary workers, and farmers, ranchers, and fishermen. We extended income support to permit workers to complete needed training.

We added wage insurance and other incentives to employers to promote on-the-job training. And we added a health insurance tax credit, so that workers don't need to choose between needed retraining and health care for their families.

I am very proud to have played a leading role in passing this landmark legislation. But I am also the first to admit that our work is not done. Economic realities continue to change, and TAA must continue to change with them.

One fundamental aspect of TAA that has remained unchanged since 1962 is its focus on manufacturing. We only give TAA benefits to workers who make things. That means that the 80 percent or more of American workers in the service sector cannot access this program.

Excluding service workers from TAA may have made sense in 1962, when most non-farm jobs were in manufacturing and most services were not traded across national borders.

But today, most U.S. jobs are in the service sector. And the market for many services is becoming just as global as the market for manufactured goods.

In 2001, the service sector accounted for 81 percent of U.S. private sector gross domestic product and a similar percentage of total U.S. employment. Although trade in goods continues to dominate, cross-border services trade rose to 21 percent of the total value of U.S. trade in 2001.

Trade in services is a net plus for the U.S. economy. In fact, the service sector generated a trade surplus of nearly $74 billion in 2001.

Just as we have seen with trade in manufactured goods, however, trade in services will inevitably cost some workers their jobs.

Indeed, there have been some well-publicized examples in the papers. Software design. Technical support. Accounting and tax preparation services. Just recently, a group of call center workers in Kalispell, Montana saw their jobs move to Canada.

Examples abound of service-sector jobs--even high tech service jobs-- relocating overseas. Over the past three years, somewhere between a quarter and a half million service jobs have moved to other--mainly low-wage--countries.

The legislation that I am introducing today is a simple matter of equity. When a factory relocates to another country, those workers are eligible for TAA. When a call center moves to another country, those workers are not eligible for TAA. But they should be. And under this legislation they will.

This bill provides TAA benefits to three categories of trade-impacted service workers:

First, it covers workers who lose their jobs due to competition from imported services. For example, if a U.S. truck driver loses his job because his employer loses routes to a Mexican-domiciled trucking company, the U.S. driver would be eligible for TAA.

Second, it covers workers who lose their jobs when a service facility relocates overseas as, for example, in the case of a call center or software design operation.

These workers would be eligible if their employer opens an overseas facility, or--as is often the case--if the employer contracts out the jobs to a foreign service provider. This ``offshoring'' eligibility would apply to both private and public sector service workers whose jobs relocate overseas.

Third, the bill covers secondary service workers. Secondary workers are those who provide inputs to a primary firm where the workers are eligible for TAA.

Right now, workers who make parts for manufactured products are covered if they lose their jobs when the primary firm closes. But workers who supply services to a TAA-eligible firm do not. This bill corrects that inequity.

The benefits service workers will receive under this legislation would be exactly the same as those that trade-impacted manufacturing workers now receive. They include retraining, income support, job search and relocation allowances, and the health insurance tax credit.

The bill also expands the TAA for Firms program to cover services. The TAA for Firms program provides technical assistance to mostly small and medium-sized businesses that face layoffs due to import competition.

The program helps firms become more competitive so they can retain and expand employment. As with TAA for workers, there is no reason to exclude businesses that provide services from this program.

Hard-working American service workers deserve this safety net. Despite what some opponents of TAA suggest, no worker would choose to lose his job so he can qualify for TAA. These benefits will always be second best to a job. But they can really make a difference in helping workers make a new start.

It is also critical to note that TAA can make an important difference in public attitudes. Surveys show that most Americans feel a lot more comfortable with globalization and with trade agreements when they know they will get help if their jobs are threatened.

That's why 66 percent of Americans responding to a recent poll agreed with the following statement: ``I favor free trade, and I believe that it is necessary for the government to have programs to help workers who lose their jobs.''

The world is changing and TAA must keep up with the times. This bill will

help our government to keep its promise to the American people to make trade work for everyone.

I want to thank my colleagues who have joined me in co-sponsoring this important legislation, particularly Senator Coleman. I've also been working closely with Members in the House, including Representatives Smith, Holden, Inslee, Rangel, and Levin.

I know they share my interest in seeing this bill move quickly through the legislative process and I thank them for their support. I plan to work hard this year to move this legislation.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to offer a bipartisan piece of legislation. As I will describe, this bill seeks to fill a gaping hole in our criminal justice system, made tragically evident by a recent tragedy in North Dakota.

Last November, Dru Sjodin, a student at the University of North Dakota, was abducted in the parking lot of a Grand Forks shopping mall. A suspect has been arrested, and there is significant evidence that he was responsible for Dru's abduction. Dru has not been found.

The tragedy of Dru's abduction is compounded by the fact that her alleged assailant, Alfonso Rodriguez, Jr., had been released from prison only six months earlier, having served a 23-year sentence for rape in Minnesota. And what's more, Minnesota authorities had known that he was at high risk of committing another sexual assault if released.

The Minnesota Department of Corrections had rated Rodriguez as a ``type 3'' offender--meaning that he was at the highest risk for reoffending. In an evaluation conducted in January 2003, a prison psychiatrist wrote that Rodriguez had demonstrated ``a willingness to use substantial force, including the use of a weapon, in order to gain compliance from his victims.''

Despite this determination, the Minnesota Department of Corrections released Rodriguez in May 2003, and essentially washed its hands of the case. Since Rodriguez had served the full term of his sentence, the Department of Corrections imposed no further supervision on him at all.

Now, the Minnesota Department of Corrections could have recommended that the State Attorney General seek what is known as a ``civil commitment.'' Under this procedure, a State court would have required Rodriguez to be confined as long as he posed a sufficient threat to the public, even if he had served his original sentence. But the State Attorney General was never notified that Rodriguez was getting out, and there was no chance for the Minnesota courts to consider the case.

So upon his release, Mr. Rodriguez went to live in Crookston, MN, completely unsupervised, a short distance from the Grand Forks shopping mall where Dru Sjodin was abducted.

To make matters worse, the North Dakota public had no way of knowing that Rodriguez had been released. There is currently no national sex offender registry. Each State has its own sex offender registry, which tracks only its own residents. So although Minnesota listed Rodriguez in its sex offender registry, residents of North Dakota checking their own State's sex offender registry would have no way of knowing this.

For all intents and purposes, Rodriguez was free to prey on nearby communities in North Dakota, without fear of recognition.

This situation is unacceptable. We must do better. A recent study found that 72 percent of ``highest risk'' sexual offenders reoffend within 6 years of being released. And the Bureau of Justice Statistics has determined that sex offenders released from prison are over ten times more likely to be arrested for a sexual crime than individuals who have no record of sexual assault. We cannot just release such individuals with no supervision whatsoever, and let them prey upon an unsuspecting public.

Today, I am offering legislation to that will hopefully ensure that these breakdowns in our criminal justice system do not reoccur, and that will give our citizens the tools to better protect themselves from sexual offenders.

This bill, which is co-sponsored by Senators Dayton, Coleman, and Conrad, does the following three things: First, it directs the Department of Justice to create and manage a national sex offender registry, which would be accessible to the general public through the Internet. This database would allow users of the registry to specify a search radius across State lines. This will give residents in the many states that have large population centers close to State lines, like North Dakota and Minnesota, a much more meaningful report on nearby sexual offenders.

Second, to try to ensure that the highest risk sex offenders are not released at all, the bill requires that States provide automatic and timely notification to their States attorneys of the planned release of any ``high-risk'' sex offender, so that states attorneys can have a chance to determine whether to seek a civil commitment of that offender.

And third, the bill requires intensive State supervision of ``high- risk'' sex offenders released after serving their full sentence--that is, offenders who would otherwise go unsupervised--for a period of no less than one year.

The cost of these steps would be shared by the Federal Government and the States. The Federal Government would bear the cost of maintaining the national sex offender registry, and the States would bear the cost of supervising high risk offenders upon their release from prison.

To ensure compliance with these measures, the legislation would reduce Federal funding for prison construction by 25 percent for those states that did not comply, and would reallocate such funds to States that do comply with those provisions. This will be the ``stick'' that some States may need to ensure that they comply with these important protections.

Our thoughts and prayers go to Dru Sjodin's family. I cannot guarantee that that passage of the legislation we are introducing today will prevent such tragedies from ever occurring again. But I believe that it will be a significant step towards making our neighborhoods safer for our loved ones.

I look forward to working with my colleagues, on a bipartisan basis, to secure passage of this bill.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to offer a bipartisan piece of legislation. As I will describe, this bill seeks to fill a gaping hole in our criminal justice system, made tragically evident by a recent tragedy in North Dakota.

Last November, Dru Sjodin, a student at the University of North Dakota, was abducted in the parking lot of a Grand Forks shopping mall. A suspect has been arrested, and there is significant evidence that he was responsible for Dru's abduction. Dru has not been found.

The tragedy of Dru's abduction is compounded by the fact that her alleged assailant, Alfonso Rodriguez, Jr., had been released from prison only six months earlier, having served a 23-year sentence for rape in Minnesota. And what's more, Minnesota authorities had known that he was at high risk of committing another sexual assault if released.

The Minnesota Department of Corrections had rated Rodriguez as a ``type 3'' offender--meaning that he was at the highest risk for reoffending. In an evaluation conducted in January 2003, a prison psychiatrist wrote that Rodriguez had demonstrated ``a willingness to use substantial force, including the use of a weapon, in order to gain compliance from his victims.''

Despite this determination, the Minnesota Department of Corrections released Rodriguez in May 2003, and essentially washed its hands of the case. Since Rodriguez had served the full term of his sentence, the Department of Corrections imposed no further supervision on him at all.

Now, the Minnesota Department of Corrections could have recommended that the State Attorney General seek what is known as a ``civil commitment.'' Under this procedure, a State court would have required Rodriguez to be confined as long as he posed a sufficient threat to the public, even if he had served his original sentence. But the State Attorney General was never notified that Rodriguez was getting out, and there was no chance for the Minnesota courts to consider the case.

So upon his release, Mr. Rodriguez went to live in Crookston, MN, completely unsupervised, a short distance from the Grand Forks shopping mall where Dru Sjodin was abducted.

To make matters worse, the North Dakota public had no way of knowing that Rodriguez had been released. There is currently no national sex offender registry. Each State has its own sex offender registry, which tracks only its own residents. So although Minnesota listed Rodriguez in its sex offender registry, residents of North Dakota checking their own State's sex offender registry would have no way of knowing this.

For all intents and purposes, Rodriguez was free to prey on nearby communities in North Dakota, without fear of recognition.

This situation is unacceptable. We must do better. A recent study found that 72 percent of ``highest risk'' sexual offenders reoffend within 6 years of being released. And the Bureau of Justice Statistics has determined that sex offenders released from prison are over ten times more likely to be arrested for a sexual crime than individuals who have no record of sexual assault. We cannot just release such individuals with no supervision whatsoever, and let them prey upon an unsuspecting public.

Today, I am offering legislation to that will hopefully ensure that these breakdowns in our criminal justice system do not reoccur, and that will give our citizens the tools to better protect themselves from sexual offenders.

This bill, which is co-sponsored by Senators Dayton, Coleman, and Conrad, does the following three things: First, it directs the Department of Justice to create and manage a national sex offender registry, which would be accessible to the general public through the Internet. This database would allow users of the registry to specify a search radius across State lines. This will give residents in the many states that have large population centers close to State lines, like North Dakota and Minnesota, a much more meaningful report on nearby sexual offenders.

Second, to try to ensure that the highest risk sex offenders are not released at all, the bill requires that States provide automatic and timely notification to their States attorneys of the planned release of any ``high-risk'' sex offender, so that states attorneys can have a chance to determine whether to seek a civil commitment of that offender.

And third, the bill requires intensive State supervision of ``high- risk'' sex offenders released after serving their full sentence--that is, offenders who would otherwise go unsupervised--for a period of no less than one year.

The cost of these steps would be shared by the Federal Government and the States. The Federal Government would bear the cost of maintaining the national sex offender registry, and the States would bear the cost of supervising high risk offenders upon their release from prison.

To ensure compliance with these measures, the legislation would reduce Federal funding for prison construction by 25 percent for those states that did not comply, and would reallocate such funds to States that do comply with those provisions. This will be the ``stick'' that some States may need to ensure that they comply with these important protections.

Our thoughts and prayers go to Dru Sjodin's family. I cannot guarantee that that passage of the legislation we are introducing today will prevent such tragedies from ever occurring again. But I believe that it will be a significant step towards making our neighborhoods safer for our loved ones.

I look forward to working with my colleagues, on a bipartisan basis, to secure passage of this bill.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague from Washington, Senator Patty Murray, in introducing the Pancreatic Islet Cell Transplantation Act of 2004, which will help to advance tremendously important research that holds the promise of a cure for the more than one million Americans with Type 1, or juvenile diabetes. The legislation is similar to the bipartisan bill, S. 518, which we introduced last year and which attracted 52 cosponsors.

As the founder and co-chair of the Senate Diabetes Caucus, I have learned a great deal about this serious disease and the difficulties and heartbreak that it causes for so many Americans and their families as they await a cure. The burden of juvenile diabetes is particularly heavy for children and young people. It is the second most common disease affecting children. Moreover, it is one that they never outgrow.

In individuals with juvenile diabetes, the body's own immune system attacks the pancreas and destroys the islet cells that produce insulin. As a consequence, people with juvenile diabetes require daily insulin injections for survival. While the discovery of insulin was a landmark breakthrough in the treatment of people with diabetes, it is not a cure. People with juvenile diabetes face the constant threat of developing devastating, life-threatening conditions such as kidney failure, blindness or amputation, as well as a dramatic reduction in their quality of life.

Thankfully, there is good news for people with diabetes. We have seen some tremendous breakthroughs in diabetes research in recent years, and I am convinced that diabetes is a disease that can be cured, and will be cured in the near future.

We were all encouraged by the development of the ``Edmonton Protocol,'' an experimental treatment developed at the University of Alberta involving the transplantation of insulin-producing pancreatic islet cells, which has been hailed as the most important advance in diabetes research since the discovery of insulin in 1920. Pancreatic islet cell transplantation has been performed on nearly 300 individuals to date, and the majority of them no longer need to take insulin to stay alive. Significant research questions, however, remain to be answered if we are to make certain that the procedure is appropriate for everyone who suffers from juvenile diabetes.

There are also non-scientific barriers to expanding islet cell transplantation, and the Pancreatic Islet Cell Transplantation Act of 2004 addresses some of them. We were extremely pleased that a key component of S. 518 was included in the Medicare reform bill signed into law last year. That provision authorized a Medicare demonstration project to test the efficacy of pancreatic islet cell transplants for individuals with juvenile diabetes who are eligible for Medicare because they have end-stage renal disease.

The legislation we are introducing today includes the remaining two provisions from last year's legislation that were not included in the Medicare bill. These two provisions are intended to increase the supply of pancreata for islet cell transplantation and to improve the coordination of federal efforts and information regarding islet cell transplantation.

There currently are only about 2,000 pancreases donated annually, and, of these only about 500 are available each year for islet cell transplants. Moreover, most patients require islet cells from two pancreases for the procedure to work effectively. To increase the supply of available pancreases, our legislation will direct the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to grant credit to organ procurement organizations (OPOs)--for the purposes of their certification--for pancreases harvested and used for islet cell transplantation and research. While CMS considers a pancreas to have been procured for transplantation if it is used for a whole organ transplant, the OPO receives no credit towards its certification if the pancreas is procured and used for islet cell transplantation or research. Our legislation will therefore give the OPOs an incentive to step up their efforts to increase the supply of pancreases donated for this purpose.

Finally, to provide a more focused effort in the are of islet cell transplantation, our legislation requires the Diabetes Mellitus Interagency Coordinating Committee at the National Institutes of Health to include in its annual report an assessment of the Federal activities and programs related to islet cell transplantation and to make recommendations for legislative or administrative actions that might increase the supply of pancreases available for islet cell transplantation.

Islet cell transplantation offers real hope for people with diabetes. Our legislation, which is strongly supported by the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation (JDRF), addresses some of the specific obstacles to moving this research forward as rapidly as possible, and I urge all of my colleagues to sign on as cosponsors.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation, the ``Community College Teacher Preparation Enhancement Act of 2004,'' which addresses two of the Nation's most pressing education needs: first, the projected demand for roughly 2.4 million new `highly qualified' teachers over the next decade, due to teacher attrition, teacher retirement, and a growing student population, and second, the requirement under the No Child Left Behind Act that all teachers be `highly qualified' by 2006. This is an enormous challenge for the Nation, but one that this legislation would take giant strides toward meeting.

Our Nation's colleges and universities have done a wonderful job graduating highly qualified teachers. There is no question about this, but given the coming teacher shortages, it is unlikely that our four- year colleges and universities, alone, will be sufficient to satisfy the rising demand for well-educated teachers. Certainly, and sadly, this will simply not be possible in the near term. Yet throughout the educational community, community colleges have come to be recognized for their potential to play a leading role in filling the looming teacher shortage. Community colleges are already a vital part of our higher education system, particularly in producing teachers. Nearly half of all of the country's undergraduates who enter post-secondary institutions began their studies at community colleges. Of the country's teachers, one in five began their education at a community college. Clearly, community colleges are already a great resource.

In addition to their current role, community colleges have access to a vast population of students who could potentially become teachers, if given encouragement, opportunity and training. The Nation's 1200 community colleges enroll more than 6 million students. Let me put that in perspective. That means that 44 percent of the Nation's undergraduates are enrolled in community colleges! It's not difficult to see that community colleges have the unique potential to assist the country in meeting its increased demand for high-quality teachers. Now let me tell you how this legislation would utilize this resource for the benefit of both our children and our future.

This bill seeks to build strong teacher training networks by allowing us to tap the extraordinary resources and student pool at all post- secondary levels to increase the number of teachers across the nation. This is accomplished through the establishment of a Department of Education grant program to award funding to applicants who will strengthen their teacher training systems.

Four-year institutions can offer the community college population access to their established and recognized curriculum of teacher training courses. Four-year institutions that have already established relationships with schools can offer practical learning to community college students who are seeking a teaching degree, and can receive federal money to help implement these programs.

Moreover, by promoting close collaboration between community colleges and four-year institutions, this legislation increases the opportunity for community college students to earn a baccalaureate degree in education. This would help the Nation keep pace with the demand for high-quality teachers that is due--in addition to the demographic changes I mentioned earlier--to requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act, most notably the mandate that all new teachers have at least a baccalaureate degree.

While this legislation aims to prevent a shortage of teachers nationwide, it prioritizes teacher preparation in areas of extreme shortage, typically rural and urban areas. Further, it targets specific academic areas that face even greater shortages, such as mathematics, science, and special education.

The Community College Teacher Preparation Enhancement Act also promotes teacher training and outreach to secondary schools to develop innovative approaches to attracting

high school students into the teaching profession.

Finally, recognizing that teacher shortage is not a regional problem, care will be taken to ensure that grants are distributed in a geographically diverse manner.

This legislation addresses a pressing issue. School districts across the nation are struggling to meet the requirements of No Child Left Behind, and delaying assistance would only compound the problem as shortages of qualified teachers increase. This was not the intent of No Child Left Behind, but idleness on this issue will surely leave a devastating shortage of quality educators for our children. It is time to act, and this legislation offers us a tremendous opportunity to send a clear and overdue signal to states that we intend to be true to this landmark legislation's title.

I look forward to working on this issue and urge my colleagues to join me in this effort.