Pancreatic Islet Cell Transplantation Act of 2004

Mr. President, while Congress was in recess, the news media have reported several important studies in the field of wellness and disease prevention. Collectively, these studies are another loud wake-up call. It is time for fundamental change in our approach to health care in the United States.

I have been saying for years that currently we have a sick care system, not a health care system. We have a system that, if you get sick, you get care.

But there is precious little support, incentives or otherwise, to keep you healthy in the first place. We are paying very dearly for this foolish choice of having a sick care system rather than a health care system.

The latest evidence comes from a new study by health economist Kenneth Thorpe. Mr. Thorpe found it cost $200 billion more in 2000 to treat diseases and conditions in this country than it did in 1987. Just 15 health conditions accounted for a whopping 56 percent of the growth in spending between 1987 and 2000. Indeed, a closer look shows that just five conditions accounted for one-third of the $200 billion increase: heart disease, pulmonary conditions, mental disorders, cancer, and hypertension. What do all these conditions have in common? In many if not most cases, these conditions are preventable. The Thorpe study also confirmed that chronic conditions, which are responsible for more than 75 percent of all health care expenditures, cost tens of billions of dollars more than just two decades ago.

Diabetes is one of those chronic conditions responsible for the explosion in health care costs. Yet experts agree that the impact of diabetes can be dramatically reduced by encouraging treatment guidelines on diet, exercise, and other preventive measures. The same is true for other chronic conditions. By emphasizing prevention and by following best practices guidelines, we can dramatically reduce health spending.

It is alarming to me that many health experts now predict that the generation of kids growing up today will be the first that does not live longer than their parents' generation. Let me repeat that. Health experts now predict that the generation of kids growing up today will be the first generation that does not live longer than their parents' generation.

As many children return to school this month, there is fresh evidence that we are failing them in terms of wellness and disease prevention. Consider a study released this week by the National Institute for Health Care Research and Educational Foundation. The study found that only 16 percent of kindergarten programs meet recommendations of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for daily physical education. Instead, about 60 percent of kindergarten programs offer physical education less than twice a week; 13 percent offer physical education less than once a week. On average, grade school kids spend less than an hour a week in PE classes.

As many of my colleagues know, because of the No Child Left Behind Act and its obsession with testing and preparing for tests, many schools are eliminating recess in the elementary years and further neglecting PE in the middle and senior high school years. Some new elementary schools are being built without playgrounds. Make no mistake; this neglect of physical education has severe consequences. Obesity has nearly tripled since 1970, and about 16 percent of children are now overweight. However, the study I just mentioned suggested that adding 1 hour of physical education per week could decrease the occurrence of overweight by as much as 10 percent. The study also found that schools with low-income or minority students have a greater likelihood than their peers to have no physical education in kindergarten. This is deeply troubling as these groups are especially at risk for obesity.

On a related note, we received further evidence last month about the potential risk of diabetes and obesity associated with soft drink consumption. A study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association shows that women who drink at least one serving of nondiet soda or fruit punch per day have a greater risk of gaining weight and developing type 2 diabetes than women who do not. Women who consume one or more sweetened drinks per day are 83 percent more likely to develop diabetes than those who drink less than one serving per month. During the period of the study, women who drank at least one serving of sweetened drinks per day gained an average of 17 pounds, compared with an increase of only 6 pounds for women who drank less than one serving per month.

So why in the world are we allowing the proliferation of vending machines filled with unhealthy foods and soft drinks in our schools? We are sending all the wrong signals to our kids. We put in all these vending machines with soft drinks up and down the hallways in our schools. It is saying to our kids, not only is that allowable, it is acceptable, it is encouraged that you have a soft drink during the day.

How many parents know--how many people know? Not even parents, how many young people know that one 20-ounce soft drink, sweetened soft drink, Coke, Pepsi, RC, whatever, one 20-ounce drink--that is what you get out of the vending machines now--contains the equivalent of 16 teaspoons of sugar?

I asked someone, you get a 20-ounce Coke or Pepsi--I don't mean to pick on one or the other, but when you get a 20-ounce Coke, you think nothing about drinking it. What if someone measured out 16 teaspoons of sugar into a cup and said: Here, eat this. You would think they were crazy. But they will drink a 20-ounce soft drink that has the same thing in it. And you wonder why people are getting diabetes.

The good news this month is that an additional four States will be offering the Free Fruit and Vegetable Program I started in the farm bill in order to encourage healthier eating habits at the earliest possible age. The bad news is that thousands of schools are continuing to make room for vending machines selling candy, soda pop, and other junk food on school grounds.

We are missing a prime opportunity to reduce the health risks facing our children by not emphasizing prevention, healthy lifestyles. A new study published in the Pediatric Journal found that 10 percent of pediatric patients were obese; however, only half of those patients were noted by the physician to be obese. What this means is we are missing a critical opportunity to diagnose obesity and intervene at the earliest stage--during childhood--when lifestyle changes can be easier to make.

We also have new information from the American Cancer Society. More than a dozen cancers are linked with obesity, and the American Cancer Society estimates that of the 563,000 cancer deaths each year, excess weight is a factor in more than 16 percent of the cases. While overall cancer death rates have decreased over the last few years, we know now that obese men and women are at a major increased risk for colorectal cancer. A postmenopausal woman's risk of breast cancer increases by 30 percent if she is overweight and by 50 percent if she is obese.

We also have new information about high blood pressure, which is a major contributor to heart disease and stroke.

It has skyrocketed over the past decade with almost one-third of adults suffering from hypertension. From 1988 to 1994, there was a 30- percent increase in the incidence of high blood pressure. We know that much of this increase is due to the rise in obesity.

On a variety of fronts, August was not a month of progress for those of us who care about wellness and disease prevention. The various studies I have cited tell us that we are still heading in the wrong direction. Much work needs to be done to transform America's sick care system into a true health care system--a system that keeps us out of the hospital in the first place.

As I have said, again and again, it is time for a new paradigm in American health care, a prevention paradigm. Again, we have a sick care system in this country and we need a genuine health care system focused on wellness and prevention and keeping people out of the hospital in the first place.

To that end, I have introduced legislation, the Help America Act, also known as the Healthier Lifestyles and Prevention Act, S. 2158. And today the Labor, Health and Human Services Appropriations Subcommittee has reported our bill for fiscal year 2005. This year's bill has especially strong emphasis on wellness and prevention programs.

For example, we will be providing $440 million for research at the National Institutes of Health into the causes and cures of obesity. That is a 10-percent increase over last year.

We have included more than $50 million in grants to States to fund programs that address nutrition, physical activity, and obesity.

We will provide more than $114 million for tobacco prevention and cessation activities at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Tobacco use is the single most preventable cause of death and disease in our society today.

Our committee allocated $35 million for public health research at CDC. This year we are encouraging the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to pay particular attention to research on business-based wellness programs for employees. We want to identify and disseminate the best practices in this area, and we have asked the CDC to develop a model wellness program for businesses.

Our appropriations bill also includes $75 million for the Carol White Physical Education for Progress Program, otherwise known as the PEP Program. This provides grants to school districts to expand physical education opportunities for K-to-12 students. Again, bear in mind, as I said, the average public school student gets less than 1 hour of physical education per week, and many get none at all.

Our appropriations bill funds a new School Mental Health Services Program. This will train public school personnel to recognize early warning signs of mental illness, and it will expand student activity to high-quality mental health services.

I would like to add that the bill provides $2 million to support implementation of the YMCA's new Activate America initiative, which is encouraging cities to develop communitywide approaches to wellness and disease prevention. I am most grateful to the National YMCA for their great leadership in disease prevention, wellness, and health promotion. I am also pleased that our capital city of Des Moines, IA was selected as one of the first cities to participate in this program.

I also want to compliment and commend my chairman, Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, for his great leadership in getting our bill together and getting it through our subcommittee. All of the items I have mentioned that we are providing for wellness and prevention we have worked on together in a true bipartisan fashion. I thank Senator Specter for his leadership and for working to make sure we fund these programs for wellness and prevention.

To sum it up, we are making some progress in advancing a broad, comprehensive wellness agenda here in Congress. With all of the political bickering here on Capitol Hill people sometimes wonder if we are accomplishing anything. The Labor, Health and Human Services appropriations bill takes real, concrete steps to address problems such as obesity and chronic disease--problems that people care deeply about.

Again, I salute the hard work and leadership of Chairman Specter. He too cares passionately about issues of wellness and disease prevention. He too realizes that our current sick care system which gives short shrift to prevention is leading us off a cliff.

I am optimistic. I know we will not get everything done this year. But hopefully we will make progress and we will make more progress next year. What I sense is growing support from both sides of the aisle for a new emphasis on wellness and prevention. I am more and more confident about the prospects for passing the Help America Act in the next Congress.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 21, 2004, at 9:30 a.m., in open session to consider the following nominations:

1. Vice Admiral Timothy J. Keating, USN, for appointment to the grade of Admiral and to be Commander, United States Northern Command/ Commander, North American Aerospace Defense Command;

2. Lieutenant General Bantz J. Craddock, USA, for appointment to the grade of General and to be Commander, United States Southern Command;

3. Peter Cyril Wyche Flory to be Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy; and

4. Valerie Lynn Baldwin to be Assistant Secretary of the Army for Financial Management and Comptroller.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and

Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 21, 2004, at 10 a.m., to conduct an oversight hearing on ``Regulation N.M.S. and Developments in Market Structure.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session on Wednesday, July 21, 2004, at 10 a.m., to hear testimony on ``Bridging the Tax Gap.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 21, 2004 at 9:30 a.m. to hold a hearing on ``The Multilateral Development Banks.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Wednesday, July 21, 2004, at 10 a.m., to hold a business meeting to consider pending committee business.

Agenda

Legislation

1. S. 1230, a bill to provide for additional responsibilities for the Chief Information Officer of the Department of Homeland Security relating to geospatial information.

2. S. 2347, a bill to amend the District of Columbia Access Act of 1999 to permanently authorize the public school and private school tuition assistance programs established under the Act.

3. S. 2409, a bill to provide for continued health benefits coverage for certain federal employees.

4. S. 2628, a bill to amend chapter 23 of title 5, United States Code, to clarify the disclosures of information protected from prohibited personnel practices, require a statement in nondisclosure policies, forms, and agreements that such policies, forms, and agreements conform with certain disclosure protections, provide certain authority for the Special Counsel, and for other purposes.

5. S. 2536, the Homeland Security Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Protection Act of 2004.

6. S. 2635, a bill to establish an intergovernmental grant program to identify and develop homeland security information, equipment, capabilities, technologies, and services to further the homeland security needs of Federal, State, and local governments.

7. S. 2657, a bill to amend part III of title 5, United States Code, to provide for the establishment of programs under which supplemental dental and vision benefits are made available to Federal employees, retirees, and their dependents, to expand the contracting authority of the Office of Personnel Management, and for other purposes.

8. S. 2639, a bill to reauthorize the Congressional Award Act.

9. S. 2275, the High Risk Nonprofit Security Enhancement Act of 2004.

10. S. 593, Reservists Pay Security Act of 2003.

11. H.R. 3797, the 2004 District of Columbia Omnibus Authorization Act.

Post Office Naming Bills

1. S. 2501/H.R. 4427, a bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 73 South Euclid Avenue in Montauk, New York, as the ``Perry B. Duryea, Jr. Post Office''.

2. S. 2640, a bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 1050 North Hills Boulevard in Reno, Nevada, as the ``Guardians of Freedom Memorial Post Office Building'' and to authorize the installation of a plaque at such site, and for other purposes.

3. H.R. 3340, an act to redesignate the facilities of the United States Postal Service located at 7715 and 7748 S. Cottage Grove Avenue in Chicago, Illinois, as the ``James E. Worsham Post Office'' and the ``James E. Worsham Carrier Annex Building'', respectively, and for other purposes.

4. H.R. 4222, an act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 550 Nebraska Avenue in Kansas City, Kansas, as the ``Newell George Post Office Building''.

5. H.R. 4327, an act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 7450 Natural Bridge Road in St. Louis, Missouri, as the ``Vitilas `Veto' Reid Post Office Building''.

6. H.R. 4380, an act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 4737 Mile Stretch Drive in Holiday, Florida, as the ``Sergeant First Class Paul Ray Smith Post Office Building''.

Nominations

1. Neil McPhine to be Chairman, Merit Systems Protection Board.

2. Barbara J. Sapin to be a Member, Merit Systems Protection Board.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet in Executive Session during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 21, 2004.

Agenda

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet on Wednesday, July 21, 2004, at 2 p.m. in Room 216 of the Hart Senate Office Building to conduct an oversight hearing on pending legislation to reauthorize the Indian Health Care Improvement Act.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet on Wednesday, July 21, 2004, at 10 a.m. in Room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a business meeting on pending Committee matters, to be followed immediately by a hearing on S. 519, the Native American Capital Formation and Economic Development Act of 2003.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on Wednesday, July 21, 2004, at 10 a.m., on ``An Overview of the Radiation Exposure Compensation Program'' in the Dirksen Senate Office Building room 226.

Witness List

Panel I: Jeffrey S. Bucholtz, Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division, Department of Justice, Washington, DC.

Panel II: Helen Bandley Houghton, San Antonio, TX; Jeffrey Thompson, San Antonio, TX; Jeffrey Thompson, Jacksonville, AK; Rita Torres, Surprise, AZ.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, Subcommittee on Children and Families and Committee on Armed Services, Subcommittee on Personnel be authorized to meet for a joint hearing on The Needs of Military Families: How Are States and the Pentagon Responding, Especially for the Guard and Reservists? during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 21, 2004., at 2 p.m., in SD-430.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Personnel of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 21, 2004, at 2 p.m., in open session to receive testimony on how States have responded to military families' unique challenges during military deployments and what the Federal Government can do to support States in this important work.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 21, at 2:30 p.m.

The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on S. 738, to designate certain public lands in Humboldt, Del Norte, Mendocino, Lake, Napa, and Yolo counties in the State of California as wilderness, to designate certain segments of the Black Butte River in Mendocino County, California, as a wild or scenic river, and for other purposes; S. 1614, to designate a portion of White Salmon River as a component of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System; S. 2221, to authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to sell or exchange certain National Forest System land in the State of Oregon, and for other purposes; S. 2253, to permit young adults to perform projects to prevent fire and suppress fires, and provide disaster relief on public land through a Healthy Forest Youth Conservation Corps; S. 2334, to designate certain National Forest System Land in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico as components of the National Wilderness Preservation System; and S. 2408, to adjust the boundaries of the Helena, Lolo, and Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forests in the State of Montana.

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 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.