SBP Benefits Improvement Act of 2003

Mr. President, today I introduce the Federal Death Penalty Abolition Act of 2003. This bill would abolish the death penalty at the Federal level. It would put an immediate

halt to executions and forbid the imposition of the death penalty as a sentence for violations of Federal law.

Since 1976, when the death penalty was reinstated by the Supreme Court, there have been 830 executions across the country, including two at the Federal level. At the same time, 103 people on death row were later found innocent and released from death row. Exonerated inmates are not only removed from death row, but they are usually released from prison altogether. Apparently, these people never should have been convicted in the first place. While death penalty proponents claim that the death penalty is fair, efficient, and a deterrent, the fact remains that our criminal justice system has failed and has resulted in at least 103 very grave mistakes.

Eight hundred and thirty executions, and 103 exonerations. Those are not good odds. It is an embarrassing statistic, one that should have us all questioning the use of capital punishment in this country.

Since January 25, 2001, when I last introduced this bill, the Federal Government resumed executions for the first time in almost 40 years, and 138 people have been executed nationwide. In this new year, we have begun our use of capital punishment at an alarming pace. We are only in the second week of February, and there have already been 10 executions this year. And yet this one-to-eight error rate looms. Is it possible that those 10 people are representative of the one-to-eight error rate that has plagued the death penalty since it was reinstated in 1976? Is it possible that in the last six weeks, as we have debated a war in Iraq, funding levels for Federal programs, and judicial nominations, our nation has killed an innocent person?

It is a difficult question to ask, but an even more difficult one to ignore.

While executions continue and the death row population grows, the national debate on the death penalty continues and has become even more vigorous. The number of voices joining in to express doubt about the use of capital punishment in America is growing. As evidence of the flaws in our system mounts, it has created an awareness that has not escaped the attention of the American people. Layer after layer of confidence in the death penalty system has been gradually peeling away, and the voices of those questioning its fairness are growing louder and louder. Now they can be heard from college campuses and court rooms and podiums across the Nation, to the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing room, to the Supreme Court. We must not ignore them.

That our society relies on killing as punishment is disturbing enough. Even more disturbing, however, is that the States' and Federal Government's use of the death penalty is often not consistent with principles of due process, fairness, and justice. These principles are the foundation of our criminal justice system. It is more clear than ever before that we have put innocent people on death row. In addition, statistics show that those States that have the death penalty are more likely to put people to death for killing white victims than for killing black victims.

After the death penalty was reinstated in 1976, the Federal Government first resumed death penalty prosecutions after enactment of a 1988 Federal law that provided for the death penalty for murder in the course of a drug-kingpin conspiracy. The Federal death penalty was then expanded significantly in 1994, when the omnibus crime bill allowed its use to apply to a total of some 60 Federal offenses. Since 1994, Federal prosecutions seeking the death penalty have now accelerated.

A survey on the Federal death penalty system from 1988 to early 2000 was released by the U.S. Department of Justice in September 2000. That report showed troubling racial and geographic disparities in the federal government's administration of the death penalty. In other words, who lives and who dies in the Federal system appears to relate to the color of the defendant's skin or the region of the country where the defendant is prosecuted. Attorney General Janet Reno was so disturbed by the results of that report that she ordered a further, in- depth study of the results. Attorney General John Ashcroft pledged to continue that study, but we still await the results of that further study. The Federal Government should do all that it can to ensure that no person is ever subject to harsher penalties, most importantly that of capital punishment, because of the color of the defendant's skin.

I am certain that not one of my colleagues here in the Senate, not a single one, would defend racial discrimination in this ultimate punishment. The most fundamental guarantee of our Constitution is equal justice under law, and equal protection of the laws.

While the Federal death penalty system is clearly plagued by flaws, there are 38 States across our Nation that also authorize the use of capital punishment. And like the Federal system, those systems are not free from error.

Over three years ago, Governor George Ryan took the historic step of placing a moratorium on executions in Illinois and creating an independent, blue ribbon commission to review the State's death penalty system. The Commission conducted an extensive study of the death penalty in Illinois and released a report with 85 recommendations for reform of the death penalty system. The Commission concluded that the death penalty system is not fair, and that the risk of executing the innocent is alarming real. Governor Ryan recently pardoned four death row inmates and commuted the sentences of all remaining Illinois death row inmates, after the State legislature failed to enact even one of the Commission's recommendations.

Illinois is not alone. Two years ago, then Governor Parris Glendening learned of suspected racial disparities in the administration of the death penalty in Maryland. Governor Glendening did not look the other way. He commissioned the University of Maryland to conduct the most exhaustive study of Maryland's application of the death penalty in history. Then last year, faced with the rapid approach of a scheduled execution, Governor Glendening acknowledged that it was unacceptable to allow executions to take place while the study he had ordered was not yet complete. So, in May 2002, he placed a moratorium on executions.

That study was released in January and the findings should startle us all. The study found that blacks accused of killing whites are simply more likely to receive a death sentence than blacks who kill blacks, or than white killers. According to the report, black offenders who kill whites are four times as likely to be sentenced to death as blacks who kill blacks, and twice as likely to get a death sentence as whites who kill whites.

Maryland and Illinois are not exceptions to a rule, nor anomalies in an otherwise perfect system. In fact, since reinstatement of the modern death penalty, 81 percent of capital cases across the country have involved white victims, even though only 50 percent of murder victims are white. Nationwide, more than half of the death row inmates are African Americans or Hispanic Americans.

There is evidence of racial disparities, inadequate counsel, prosecutorial misconduct, and false scientific evidence in death penalty systems across the country. While the research done in Maryland and Illinois has yielded shocking results, there are 36 other States that authorize the use of the death penalty, most of them far more frequently. Twenty-one of the 38 States that authorize capital punishment have executed more inmates than Maryland, and 13 of those States have carried out more executions than Illinois. So while we are closer to uncovering the unthinkable truth about the flaws in the Maryland and Illinois death penalty systems, there are 36 other states with systems that are most likely plagued with the same flaws. And yet, the killing continues.

At the beginning of 2003, at the beginning of a new century and millennium with hopes for great progress, I cannot help but believe that our progress has been tarnished by our Nation's not only continuing, but increasing use of the death penalty. We are a Nation that prides itself on the fundamental principles of justice, liberty, equality and due process. We are a Nation that scrutinizes the human rights records of other nations. We are one of the first nations to speak out against torture and killings by foreign governments. We should hold our own system of justice to the highest standard.

Over the last two years, some prominent voices in our country have done

just that. And they are not just voices of liberals, or of the faith community. They are the voices of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, Reverend Pat Robertson, George Will, former FBI Director William Sessions, Republican Governor George Ryan, and Democratic Governor Parris Glending. The voices of those questioning our application of the death penalty are growing in number, and they are growing louder.

And while we examine the flaws in our death penalty system, we cannot help but note that our use of the death penalty stands in stark contrast to the majority of nations, which have abolished the death penalty in law or practice. There are now 111 countries that have abolished the death penalty in law or in practice. The European Union denies membership in the alliance to those nations that use the death penalty. In fact, it passed a resolution calling for the immediate and unconditional global abolition of the death penalty, and it specifically called on all states within the United States to abolish the death penalty. This is significant because it reflects the unanimous view of a group of nations with which the United States enjoys the closest of relationships.

On February 5, 2003, the International Court of Justice, ICJ, ruled unanimously that the United States must temporarily stay the execution of three Mexican citizens on death row in Texas and Oklahoma. There are currently 112 foreign nationals on death row in this country. Under Article 36 of the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, local authorities are required to notify all detained foreigners ``without delay'' of their right to have their consulate informed of their detention. In most cases, this international law is not being followed. In fact, only seven cases of 152 reported death sentences have been identified as meeting complete compliance with Article 36 requirements. The purpose of this law is to ensure that foreign nationals are allowed time to secure adequate counsel during the critical stages of their cases. The February ruling of the ICJ was based on the need for an investigation into whether the foreign nationals on death row were ever given their right to legal assistance from their home governments.

What is even more troubling in the international context is that the United States is now one of only seven countries that imposes the death penalty for crimes committed by juveniles. So, while a May 2002 Gallup poll found that 69 percent of Americans oppose the death penalty for those under the age of 18, we are one of only seven nations on this earth that puts to death people who were under 18 years of age when they committed their crimes. The other are Iran, the Democratic Republican of the Congo, Pakistan, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia and Yemen. In the last decade, the United States has executed more juvenile offenders than all other nations combined, and in the last three years, only four nations have executed juvenile offenders: Iran, the Congo, Pakistan, and the United States.

Iran, the Congo, and Pakistan are countries that are often criticized for human rights abuses. We should remove any grounds for charges that human rights violations are taking place on our own soil by halting the execution of people who were not even adults when they committed the crimes for which they were sentenced to die. No one can reasonably argue that executing child offenders is a normal or acceptable practice in the world community. And I do not think that we should be proud that the United States is the world leader in the execution of child offenders.

As we begin a new year and another Congress, our society is still far from fully just. The continued use of the death penalty shames us. The penalty is at odds with our best traditions. It is wrong and it is immoral. The adage ``two wrongs do not make a right,'' applies here. Our nation has long ago done away with other barbaric punishments like whipping and cutting off the ears of suspected criminals. Just as our nation did away with these punishments as contrary to our humanity and ideals, it is time to abolish the death penalty as we seek justice in this new century. And it's not just a matter of morality. The continued viability of our justice system as a truly just system requires that we do so. And our Nation's striving to remain the leader and defender of freedom, liberty and equality demands that we do so.

Abolishing the death penalty will not be an easy task. It will take patience, persistence, and courage. As we work to move forward in a rapidly changing world, let us leave this archaic practice behind.

I ask my colleagues to join me in taking the first step in abolishing the death penalty in our great Nation. I also call on each State that authorizes the use of the death penalty to cease this practice. Let us step away from the culture of violence and restore fairness and integrity to our criminal justice system.

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

Mr. President, I have previously given a statement and a speech on the floor of the Senate with regard to Mr. Estrada's nomination. I voted against him in the Judiciary Committee. The concerns I had included his not answering questions that were put to him, serious questions, in my judgment--issues about his record and his temperament.

Today, I wish to talk about homeland security. First, I will talk about the serious shortcomings in the administration's response, and then I will talk about six bills I have introduced in this Congress to improve our homeland security, including a bill today to overhaul the way we do intelligence work here at home.

The first responsibility of any government is to protect its people. Yet we live in a time when Americans feel extraordinary insecurity. We are at an elevated level of threat warning. The CIA Director says al- Qaida is ``resuming the offensive.'' The FBI Director says there are ``al-Qaida cells in the United States that we have not yet been able to identify.''

In other words, al-Qaida cells are operating here, but we do not know who they are, where they are, or what they are doing.

Americans are buying plastic sheeting and duct tape in record amounts. While they are doing everything they can to protect themselves, they have a right to know that those of us in Government are doing everything we can to protect them, their homes, their families, and their children. This is a dangerous time.

But a dangerous time calls for an honest response: This President is failing the test on homeland security. Homeland security has yielded to chemical companies that are holding back commonsense steps to secure chemical plants against horrific explosions. Homeland security is yielding to bureaucratic inertia that is defending old and outworn ways of fighting terror.

Today there are huge holes in our borders--one guard for every 5 miles on the Canadian border. There are huge holes at our ports--we are still inspecting only a fraction of all shipments into the United States, shipments that could carry nuclear or biological weapons. There are huge holes in our hometowns--where cops and firefighters do not have the equipment or the training that they need.

For all these holes, this President has vetoed billions for homeland security, he is withholding funds that first responders need today, and he has proposed funding homeland security this year at a level that even Republican experts like Warren Rudman say is totally inadequate.

We cannot cover the holes in our borders with plastic sheeting. Our cops and firefighters need reinforcements and new gear, not canned goods.

In 2000, the President's team talked about the dangers of a hollow military. At a time when the greatest dangers we face are here at home, this administration risks creating a hollow homeland defense.

This is happening for a very simple reason. The bare minimum of homeland security improvements we need--$10 billion more this year-- costs less than half of President Bush's tax cut just for 226,000 millionaires.

I believe it is time to say to this President: Mr. President, please put our security first. Please set aside $20 billion in tax breaks for 226,000 millionaires, and put homeland security for 290 million Americans first.

Let me talk a little bit about my work on homeland security since Congress came back into session. Back in December, I laid out a comprehensive plan for strengthening our domestic security, from stopping ID fraud to sharing more information with local police to improving our cybersecurity. And in the 6 weeks Congress has been in session so far, I have introduced six bills to strengthen our homeland security. Each of these bills would make a concrete, tangible difference in people's lives.

Two bills are focused on empowering people to play a greater role in homeland security.

First, until this week, most Americans have no better idea how to respond to a terrorist attack than on September 11. Now the administration has begun giving out useful information, but we still don't have enough. We are not being told, for example, how to respond to chemical or biological attacks. In addition, there is still a serious question whether people will get the information they need when they need it, particularly when they are sleeping. Obviously TV and radio won't help if you are asleep. So I have a bill, which I wrote with Senator Fritz Hollings, that will create an emergency warning system to reach everyone--for example, using special phone rings that could wake people up in the middle of the night.

Second, we want to encourage more people to contribute. People want to serve, but they feel like they haven't been asked. We should ask. One way is through the Neighborhood Watch program. Neighborhood Watches help prevent both terrorism and ordinary crime. We are going to increase support for these, encourage folks to get involved, with the goal--the realistic goal--of tripling the number of neighborhood watches.

Next, I have introduced two bills focused on hardening vulnerable targets--in other words, taking those targets we know terrorists want to attack, and transforming them so they will be less vulnerable.

One bill is to do research to enhance building security, to improve the quality of private security guards and make buildings more resistant to attack. We know that at the Oklahoma City bombing, 85 percent of the lives might have been saved if the building had been built with better materials, in a better way. We are still learning about the World Trade Center collapse. We know we need better construction and better security around buildings across America.

A fourth bill would require the Government to improve its cybersecurity. A few weeks ago, we had an attack that crippled a lot of Government computer systems. There are simple tests we could be doing to block computer attacks that we are not doing: to ``patch'' holes in the systems. We need to make that happen.

Fifth, I have introduced a bill to help local law enforcement by requiring the Government to give security clearances to more police officers, firefighters, and health officials. They need information to keep us safe, but too often they are not getting it. This bill would help make sure they do.

Finally, there is the bill I have introduced today, and that I want to talk about in some detail. This bill will make fundamental changes in the way

we protect Americans against international terrorists operating within our borders. This bill takes away from the FBI the responsibility to collect intelligence on foreign terrorist groups operating in America. And this bill gives that responsibility to a new Homeland Intelligence Agency. I believe this agency will do a better job protecting our safety and our basic freedoms. Let me briefly explain why.

There is no question that the FBI is full of dedicated professionals who are patriots, who serve their country with courage and conviction, who do all of us proud.

But there is also no question that the FBI made many serious mistakes before September 11. There was the Phoenix memorandum, a memorandum about suspicious behavior at flight schools that the FBI did not follow up on. There was the Moussaoui case, where the FBI had in its possession a computer full of critical information, yet did not access the information there. There were even two hijackers who the FBI knew were threats but did not track and stop.

It is true all this was before September 11. The other day, Director Mueller told me that my criticisms understated the extent of the FBI's reforms. Well, I respect Director Mueller, and I look forward to continuing to talk with him about FBI reform. I have only the best wishes for his reform efforts.

At the same time, it would be hard to understate the seriousness of the problems we have seen.

This is not just my view; it is the view of every objective panel to look at this issue. These panels have raised serious questions about the FBI's response to terrorism, and in some instances, about the FBI's capacity to respond to terrorism.

The Markle Task Force commented: ``. . . there is a resistance ingrained in the FBI ranks to sharing counter-terrorism information . . . the FBI has not prioritized intelligence analysis in the areas of counter-terrorism.''

The Joint Congressional Inquiry noted: The FBI has a ``history of repeated shortcomings within its current responsibility for domestic intelligence. . . .''

The Brookings Institution went further, stating that ``there are strong reasons to question whether the FBI is the right agency to conduct domestic intelligence collection and analysis.''

And finally, the Gilmore Commission recently said: ``the Bureau's long standing tradition and organizational culture persuade us that, even with the best of intentions, the FBI cannot soon be made over into an organization dedicated to detecting and preventing attacks rather than one dedicated to punishing them.''

I believe the Gilmore Commission reached the right conclusion.

Part of the problem is bureaucratic resistance at the FBI. The FBI is full of superb public servants. But the reality is that the FBI is also a bureaucracy, and it is the nature of a bureaucracy to resist change. That is just the reality. It was only in November that the New York Times reported the FBI's No. 2 official was ``amazed and astounded'' by the FBI's sluggish response to the terrorist threat.

Beyond the problem of bureaucratic resistance, there is a more fundamental problem with the FBI. That problem is the conflict at the base of the FBI's mission, which is a conflict between law enforcement and intelligence. These are fundamentally different functions.

Law enforcement is about building criminal cases and putting people in jail. Intelligence isn't about building a case; it is about gathering information and putting it together into a bigger picture.

The FBI has never been built for intelligence. It has always been an agency that hires people who want to be law enforcement officers, trains them to be law enforcement officers, and promotes them for succeeding as law enforcement officers.

Cases have been run by field offices with little of the central coordination that is essential to combat national networks of terrorists. The FBI has regularly kept intelligence within the agency's walls rather than sharing it with other key players.

Now, the FBI says all this is changing. But with all due respect, the FBI's reforms are too little and too late. They are not enough, and because of the nature of the FBI, they cannot ever be enough.

That is why I propose today to create a Homeland Intelligence Agency, one that would be responsible for collecting foreign intelligence inside the United States, analyzing that intelligence, and getting it to the policymakers or first responders who need it. This entity isn't in the new Department of Homeland Security. It isn't in the newly announced ``Terrorist Threat Integration Center.'' That's just about analysis. This is about collection, gathering the intelligence information to begin with.

I believe this agency will do a better job fighting terrorism because its sole focus will be intelligence gathering. The inherent conflict between law enforcement and intelligence will not get in the way of its work.

I also believe it will do a better job protecting our civil liberties. While we will not give the new agency any new authorities, we will place new checks on its ability to collect information about innocent people. Time and again, we have seen this administration overreach when it comes to civil liberties. That should stop, and this proposal will help stop it.

We will require judicial approval before the most secretive and invasive investigations of religious and political groups. We will require greater public reporting and more internal auditing. We will establish a new and independent office of civil liberties within the new agency that is dedicated to protecting the constitutional rights of innocent Americans. So at the end of the day, we will help to fulfill America's promise--that we are safe and free at the same time.

I believe this bill is an important step to making America safer, and I look forward to working on it with colleagues on both sides of the aisle in getting this legislation passed.

Madam President, I rise to introduce legislation that I believe will go a long way in helping to improve the safety and durability of the Nation's highway bridges. Today, with great pleasure I am introducing the Southwest Bridge Research Center Establishment Act of 2003.

The purpose of this bill is to authorize the Secretary of Transportation to establish a new University Transportation Center focused on the safety of highway bridges. The new Southwest Bridge Research Center is a cooperative effort between New Mexico State University and the Oklahoma Transportation Center, comprising the University of Oklahoma and Oklahoma State University. The new center will lead the Nation in the research and development of technologies for bridge testing and monitoring, procedures for ensuring bridge safety and security, and training in methods of bridge inspection.

Our highway network is a central component of our economy and fundamental to our freedom and quality of life. America's mobility is the engine of our free market system. Transportation via cars, buses, and trucks plays a central role in our basic quality of life. Much of the food we eat, the clothes we wear, the materials for our homes and offices, comes to us over the 4 million miles of our road network.

One critical element of our highway network is the highway bridges that span streams, rivers, and canyons of our cities and rural areas. Bridges also help traffic flow smoothly by carrying one road over another.

Most highway bridges are easy to overlook. Notable exceptions are New England's covered bridges, the well-known Golden Gate Bridge, and the spectacular Rio Grande Gorge Bridge near Taos, New Mexico. The fact is, according to the Federal Highway Administration, we have about 590,000 highway bridges in this country that are more than 20-feet long. The total bridge-deck area of these 590,000 bridges is an amazing 120 square miles, or slightly smaller in area than the entire city limits of Albuquerque, New Mexico, roughly twice the size of the entire District of Columbia, or five times the area of New York's Manhattan Island. The State of Texas leads

the Nation with over 48,000 bridges, about ten percent of the total. Ohio is second with about 28,000 highway bridges.

A little known, and disturbing fact about these 590,000 highway bridges is that nearly 84,000, or 14 percent, are considered to be structurally deficient according to the most recent statistics from the FHWA. The percent of structurally deficient bridges varies widely among the 50 States. For example, this chart shows some of the States with some of the highest percentage of deficient bridges.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Percent of

Number of structurally

State Number of structurally deficient

bridges deficient bridges (in

bridges percent) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Oklahoma 22,708 7,605 33.5 Missouri 23,604 6,083 25.8 Rhode Island 749 187 25.0 Pennsylvania 22,092 5,418 24.5 South Dakota 6,001 1,398 23.3 Mississippi 16,825 3,694 22.0 Iowa 25,030 5,036 20.1 North Dakota 4,517 871 19.3 Michigan 10,631 2,012 18.9 Louisiana 13,426 2,425 18.1 Alabama 15,641 2,677 17.1 North Carolina 16,991 2,513 14.8 Kansas 25,638 3,465 13.5 Ohio 27,952 3,304 11.8 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Source: FHWA National Bridge Inventory (NBI) System, December 2001.

Structurally deficient bridges are a particular concern in rural areas of our country. According to FHWA's 2002 edition of its Conditions and Performance Report to Congress, 16 percent of rural bridges are structurally deficient compared to only 10 percent of urban bridges. The report estimates the average cost required to maintain the existing 590,000 highway bridges is $7.3 billion per year.

Another surprising fact about our Nation's highway bridges is their age. About one-third of all highway bridges are more than 50 years old, and an amazing 10,000 bridges are at least 100 years old. About 4,000 of these century-old bridges are currently rated as structurally deficient.

I do believe the number of deficient bridges in this country should be a concern to all Senators. Ensuring that States and local communities have the funds they need to help correct these deficient bridges will be one of my priorities when Congress reauthorizes TEA-21. However, because there may not be sufficient Federal and State funding to address all of the deficient bridges, it will be important to identify the bridges that are most in need of replacement or rehabilitation.

To ensure the most efficient use of limited resources, Congress should also address the need for new technologies to help States monitor the condition of the Nation's 590,000 highway bridges and determine priorities for repair or replacement. Such monitoring technologies, or ``smart bridges,'' should be quick, efficient, and not damage the bridge in any way. I am very pleased that New Mexico State University is one of the Nation's pioneers in the development of non- destructive methods of determining the physical condition of highway bridges. Such smart bridges can record and transmit information on their current structural condition as well as on the traffic crossing them.

In 1998, NMSU installed 67 fiber-optic sensors on an existing steel bridge on Interstate 10 in Las Cruces. This award-winning project was the first application of fiber-optic sensors to highway bridges. More recently, in 2000, sensors were incorporated directly in a concrete bridge during construction to monitor the curing of the concrete; the bridge crosses the Rio Puerco on Interstate 40, west of Albuquerque. NMSU has an actual 40-foot ``bridge'' in a laboratory on campus to allow studies of instrumentation and data collection.

I ask unanimous consent that two articles describing NMSU's accomplishments on smart bridge technology be printed in the Record, exhibits one and two.

NMSU is also a leader in other areas of bridge inspection. It has provided training for bridge inspectors for over 30 years. It has also developed expertise in using a virtual reality approach to document a bridge's physical condition.

At the same time, Oklahoma State University leads the Nation in the development of the Geothermal Smart Bridge System, which uses energy stored in the earth itself to help keep bridges free of ice and snow. OSU is also performing cutting edge research on high-performance structural materials frequently used in bridges including concrete, steel, and timber.

At the University of Oklahoma, a multidisciplinary team of researchers is working to develop a ``smart'' vehicle-bridge system that is expected to reduce the impact of moving trucks on bridge structures, thereby increasing the lifespan of highway bridges. The UO team is also expert in the development of high-performance concrete and of sensors for non-destructive testing.

Of course, the Oklahoma Transportation Center was also heavily involved last year in the rebuilding of the Interstate 40 bridge over the Arkansas River near Webbers Falls, OK, after it collapsed when struck by a barge. The bridge was reopened to traffic only 64 days after the accident.

This is just a glimpse at the high quality bridge research at these three universities. All three institutions are widely recognized as national leaders in all aspects of bridge research and technology. I believe it is fully appropriate for these three nationally recognized universities to collaborate in operating the Southwest Bridge Research Center.

The bill I am introducing today authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to establish and operate the Southwest Bridge Research Center at New Mexico State University in collaboration with the Oklahoma Transportation Center. I do believe the three universities have earned this honor. In fact, in some ways, Congress has already recognized their fine work of the three centers. For example, the University of Oklahoma was allotted $3.5 million in TEA-21 for research work on intelligent stiffeners for bridge stress reduction and Oklahoma State received $3.5 million for work on the geothermal heat pump smart bridge program.

I am pleased to have also played a part. At my request, Congress provided $600,000 in 2001 for bridge research at New Mexico State University and an additional $250,000 in the current fiscal year.

The specific purpose of the Southwest Bridge Research Center will be to contribute to improving the performance of the nation's highway bridges. The center will emphasize five goals: 1. Increasing the number of skilled individuals entering the field of transportation; 2. improving the monitoring of the structural health of highway bridges; 3. developing innovative technologies for testing and assessment of bridges; 4. developing technologies and procedures for ensuring bridge safety, reliability, and security; and 5. providing training in the methods of bridge inspection and evaluation.

Building on the three universities' research work, the Southwest Bridge Research Center will develop a strong educational component, including degree opportunities in bridge engineering at both the undergraduate and graduate levels. In addition, the center will have a cooperative certificate program for training and professional development. Distance education technology and computer-based learning will allow programs to be offered at any of the universities.

The bill provides $3 million in funding from the Highway Trust Fund to operate the center.

New Mexico State University and the Oklahoma Transportation Center have applied their vast talents, tools, and techniques to solving technological problems with highway bridges for over 30 years. The team is well established and maintains cutting-edge expertise. The members of the team are recognized and respected at the national and international levels through accomplishments in bridge testing, monitoring, and evaluation.

I ask all senators to support the designation of a new Southwest Bridge Research Center. I look forward to working this year with the Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Inhofe, and Senator Jeffords, the ranking member, to incorporate this bill into the full 6-year reauthorization of the transportation bill.

I ask unanimous consent that a letter of support from the three universities and a letter from Rhonda Faught, the Secretary of New Mexico's State Highway and Transportation Department be printed in the Record. I also ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I join several of my colleagues today to introduce a series of bills related to the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act (HEA). These five bills emphasize a number of issues that are vital to higher education, including teacher quality; loan forgiveness for social workers, family lawyers, and early childhood teachers; and the reduction of drug use and underage drinking at our colleges and universities.

The quality of a student's education is the direct result of the quality of that student's teachers. If we don't have well trained teachers, then future generations of our children will not be well educated. That is why I am introducing a bill that would provide $200 million in grants to our schools of education to partner with local schools to ensure that our teachers are receiving the best, most extensive training available before they enter the classroom.

The Secretary of Education's annual report on teacher quality reported that a majority of graduates of schools of education believe that the traditional teacher preparation program left them ill prepared for the challenges and rigors of the classroom. Part of the responsibility for this lies in the hands of our schools of education. However, Congress also has a responsibility to give our schools of education the tools they need to make necessary improvements. This new bill would create a competitive grant program for schools of education, which partner with low-income schools to create clinical programs to train teachers. Additionally, it would require schools of education to make internal changes by working with other departments at the university to ensure that teachers are receiving the highest quality education in core academic subjects. Finally, it would require the college or university to demonstrate a commitment to improving their schools of education by providing matching funds.

Another complex issue affecting the teaching force is the high percentage of disillusioned beginning teachers who leave the field. Our bill would help combat this issue, as well. Schools of education receiving these grants would be responsible for following their graduates and continuing to provide assistance after they enter the classroom. The more we invest in the education of teachers--especially once they have entered the profession--the more likely they will remain in the classroom.

Today, I also would like to introduce, along with Senator Dodd, the Early Care and Education Loan Forgiveness Act. Our dear friend and colleague, Senator Wellstone, and I had included this legislation in the last higher education reauthorization bill. We had been working on this legislation together before Paul's tragic death. I know he cared deeply about this issue and about making sure that all children receive a quality education. He was passionate about that. And, in his memory, I would like to rename our bill the Paul Wellstone Early Educator Loan Forgiveness Act.

This bill would expand the loan forgiveness program so that it benefits not just childcare workers, but also early childhood educators. This loan forgiveness program would serve as an incentive to keep those educators in the field for longer periods of time.

Paul Wellstone knew how important early learning programs are in preparing our children for kindergarten and beyond. Research shows that children who attend quality early childcare programs when they were three or four years old scored better on math, language arts, and social skills in early elementary school than children who attended poor quality childcare programs. In short, children in early learning programs with high quality teachers--teachers with a bachelor's degree or an associate's degree or higher--do substantially better.

When we examine the number and recent growth of pre-primary education programs, it becomes difficult to differentiate between early education and childcare settings because they are so often intertwined-- especially considering that 11.9 million children younger than age five spend part of their time with a care provider other than a parent and that demand for quality childcare and education is growing as more mothers enter the workforce.

Because this bill targets loan forgiveness to those educators working in low-income schools or childcare settings, we can make significant strides toward providing high quality education for all of our young children, regardless of socioeconomic status. The bill would serve a twofold function. First, it would reward professionals for their training. Second, it would encourage professionals to remain in the profession over longer periods of time, since more time in the profession leads to higher percentages of loans forgiveness. The bill would result in more educated individuals with more teaching experience and lower turnover rates, each of which enhance student performance.

I encourage my colleagues to join me in this effort to ensure that truly no children--especially our youngest children--are left behind.

I also am working on two bills with my friend and colleague from West Virginia, Senator Jay Rockefeller. These bills would provide loan forgiveness to students who dedicate their careers to working in the realm of child welfare, including social workers, who work for child protective services, and family law experts.

Currently, Mr. President, there aren't enough social workers to fill available jobs in child welfare today. Furthermore, the number of social work job openings is expected to increase faster than the average for all occupations through 2010. The need for highly qualified social workers in the child protective services is reaching crisis level.

We also need more qualified individuals focusing on family law. The wonderful thing about family law is its focus on rehabilitation--that is the rehabilitation of families by helping them through life's transitions, whether it is a family going through a divorce, a family dealing with their troubled teenager in the juvenile system, or a child getting adopted and becoming a member of a new family.

Across the United States, family, juvenile, and domestic relations courts are experiencing a shortage of qualified attorneys. As many of my colleagues and I know, law school is an expensive

investment. In the last 20 years, tuition has increased more than 200 percent. Currently, the average rate of law school debt is about $80,000 per graduate. To be sure, few law school graduates can afford to work in the public sector because debts prevent even the most dedicated public service lawyer from being able to take these low- paying jobs. This results in a shortage of family lawyers.

The shortage of family law attorneys also disproportionately impacts juveniles. The lack of available representation causes children to spend more time in foster care because cases are adjourned or postponed when they simply cannot find an attorney to represent their rights or those of the parent or guardian. Furthermore, the number of children involved in the court system is sharply increasing. We need to ensure that the interests of these children are taken care of by making certain they have an advocate--someone working solely on their behalf. By offering loan forgiveness to those willing to pursue careers in the child welfare field, we can increase the number of highly qualified and dedicated individuals who work in the realm of child welfare and family law.

Finally, I am introducing a bill today with my friend and colleague from Connecticut, Senator Lieberman, that would help address an epidemic--the epidemic of underage drinking, binge drinking, and drug- related problems on college and university campuses across the United States. Our bill would provide grants to states to establish statewide partnerships among colleges and universities and the surrounding communities to work together to reduce underage and binge drinking and illicit drug use by students.

According to a study by Boston University, over 1,400 students aged 18-24 died in 1998 from alcohol-related injuries, more than 600,000 students were assaulted by another student, and another 500,000 were injured unintentionally while under the influence of alcohol. According to a 1999 Harvard University study, 40 percent of college students are binge drinkers and according to the Department of Health and Human Services, nearly 10.5 million current drinkers were under the legal age of 21, and of these, over 5 million were binge drinkers.

Currently, 28 States, including my home State of Ohio, have coalitions that deal specifically with the culture of alcohol and drug abuse on our nation's college campuses. They work with the surrounding communities, including local residents, bar, restaurant and shop owners, and law enforcement officials, toward a goal of changing the pervasive culture of drug and alcohol abuse. They provide alternative alcohol-free events, as well as support groups for those who choose not to drink. They also educate students about the dangers of alcohol and drug-use.

Furthermore, the coalitions recognize that while it is important to promote an alcohol aware and drug-free campus community, if the community surrounding the campus does not promote these initiatives, there will be no long-term solutions. Therefore, these coalitions also have worked to establish regulations both on and off campus, which will help our nation's youth to stay healthy, alive, and get the most out of their time at college. Some of these regulations include the registration of kegs. This provides accountability for both the store and the student. This is just an example of one step that colleges, local communities, and organizations can take.

To help start the expansion of these coalitions, our bill would provide $50 million in grants. This is an important demonstration project that would help lead to positive effects for our young people. It is up to us to change the culture, which has been perpetuated by years of complacency and a dismissal tone of--``that's just the way it is in college.'' We must protect the health and education of our young people by changing this culture of abuse--and that is exactly what this bill would do.

Next year when we consider the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, I encourage my colleagues to join in support of these initiatives.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bills be printing in the Record.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Gunsmith Excise Tax Simplification Act of 2003. This bill will protect funding for the Federal Aid to Wildlife Restoration Fund by simplifying administration and compliance with the excise tax by eliminating the assessment of the tax against custom gunsmiths.

The creation of the Federal Aid to Wildlife Restoration Fund is one of the great success stories of cooperation among America's sportsmen and women, state fish and wildlife agencies, and the sporting goods industry. Working together with Congress, Americans who enjoy the outdoors volunteered to pay an excise tax on sporting arms and ammunition to be used for hunter education programs, wildlife restoration, and habitat conservation.

Under the tax code, all manufacturers of firearms must pay an excise tax of 10 percent or 11 percent of the retail price, depending on the type of firearm. For more than 25 years custom gunsmiths have sought to clarify that they were not intended to be subject to this tax. Many custom gunsmiths do not actually make new guns, rather they remodel or refurbish existing firearms. The proposal establishes an exemption from the excise tax for manufacturers of fewer than 50 firearms per year.

This issue is important to individuals in Montana. Steven Dodd Hughes, a custom gunmaker in Livingston, MT, pays this tax. He has a sole proprietorship, a one man shop. Steven's business is generated from outside of Montana and brings in much needed revenue to his community. He agrees with the tax as it was intended, on manufacturers. It was not intended to be applied to one man operations such as his. The American Custom Gunmakers Guild and the NRA agree with Mr. Hughes.

In summary, the Gunsmith Excise Tax Simplification Act of 2003 would accomplish two worthy objectives. First, this proposal will eliminate the assessment of the excise tax on custom gunmakers, which is fair. Second it eliminates the significant administrative burden placed on small businesses, such as determining who the manufacturer is and who is going to assess and collect the tax. These custom gunmakers rebuild and update the firearms, they don't administer tax laws. Last year, the Joint Committee on Taxation estimated the proposal will decrease revenues by less than $10 million over ten years, resulting in minimal reduction of the Federal Aid to Wildlife Restoration Fund.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill entitled ``The Gunsmith Excise Tax Simplification Act of 2003'' be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I rise today to introduce the Free Trade with Cuba Act of 2003. This legislation presents an important step toward normalizing United States economic relations with Cuba and opening a dialog between our two nations. Perhaps more importantly, the bill promotes human rights and democracy in a nation that has suffered under totalitarian rule for more than 4 decades, an objective central to the same democratic principles that have driven our foreign policy since the end of the Second World War.

The Free Trade with Cuba Act contains three essential components. First, it lifts the trade embargo against Cuba and eliminates the travel ban that accompanies the embargo. Second, it graduates Cuba from Jackson-Vanik and authorizes the President to extend nondiscriminatory trade treatment to Cuba. Finally, it removes the restrictions on travel between our two countries.

This legislation is similar to the legislation I introduced in the last Congress, S. 400 and S. 401. That legislation was referred to the Finance Committee. I am hopeful the committee can pass favorably on this legislation quickly so we can bring it to the floor and pass it.

This legislation is long overdue. In 1962, the United States embargoed virtually all trade with Cuba as a response to the rise of the totalitarian regime and seizure of American property. Over the years, U.S. sanctions against Cuba were further tightened, culminating with restrictions on the rights of Americans to visit Cuba.

Within the context of the cold war, many of these sanctions seemed to make sense. Yet throughout that time the embargo appeared to have little, if any, effect on the Castro regime. Forty years of the embargo, 4 decades of disengagement, have simply not worked. It is time to try a new approach. It is time for engagement.

Supporters of the embargo throw out many arguments against the legislation. First, they will say that private property of U.S. citizens that was taken in the early days of the Castro regime compels us to refuse trade with Cuba until we get the property back. They point out horrendous treatment of Cuban citizens by Castro and denial of the most basic human rights is also a reason. Let us be clear. These are problems and they must be resolved. Yet, the debate is not whether these problems exist. They do exist, of course, they exist. That is not the issue. We all know that.

The question, rather, is how to solve it. Forty years of embargo have done nothing to regain private assets taken so long ago by Castro and 40 years of embargo have done nothing to improve the living conditions and prospects for democratic reform in Cuba.

I have been to Cuba and visited Cuba. The people are in terrible shape. If anything, the embargo has lessened the prospects for reform by giving Castro someone else to blame for the terrible economic plight of his people. This embargo, frankly, is something Castro loves. It is a foil. He can blame the United States for some of the ills of his citizens. It is working in the opposite direction. In other words, while the problems may seem complicated, the one thing we can say we do know for certain is this: Current policy is not the answer; the current policy is a failure.

We must look to alternatives. How would this legislation resolve these problems? First, as to expropriation, the legislation I am proposing today calls for the President to undertake negotiations with the government of Cuba to settle this issue and make sure those harmed by this expropriation are fairly compensated. Second, as to the crucial issues of human rights and democratic reform, the legislation simply reflects the commonsense truth that engagement between the American and Cuban peoples will do much more to open Cuban society and help Cuban people, as it has around the world for 200 years, than silence and neglect--so similar to the question we had of China not too many years ago.

What did we do with China? The answer was very simple: We engaged. We

engaged without losing. China is a country. We are a country. Let's engage again. The same is true for Cuba: They are a country, we are a country, let's start talking and figure out how to solve things.

We should not delude ourselves. Embargo is a word for neglect. By not engaging the Cuban people and opening our world and tradition to them, we are neglecting them.

Last year we worked hard to further trade liberalization, passing the Trade Act of 2002. When the President signed that bill he said this:

Free trade is also a proven strategy for building global

prosperity and adding to the momentum of political freedom.

Greater freedom for commerce across the borders eventually

leads to greater freedom for citizens within the borders.

I agree. This statement is as true for Cuba as it is for any other country.

Third, on the economics of this, sure, we are in tough times. The economy is flat. Our farmers and workers are hurting, but there is a market worth up to $1 billion a year we are shutting ourselves out, denying ourselves. It makes no sense. The embargo against Cuba accomplishes nothing, and hurts our farmers and workers and companies by excluding them from a great potential market. Meanwhile, the European Union, Japan, Mexico, Canada, dozens of other countries, are busy selling goods and building commercial relations in Cuba. We are not. They are. Ask me the rationale of that.

There is a final point regarding the basic rights of freedoms of the American people. It is a fundamental violation of the spirit of our democratic principles to tell the American people they cannot travel to Cuba. What a sad irony is trying to promote freedom and democracy in another country by restricting it in our own. It is time to get real about this. It is time to get real about promoting freedom and democracy, it is time to get real regarding economic expansion, and it is time to end the embargo.