Pancreatic Islet Cell Transplantation Act of 2004

Mr. President, I am proud to introduce the Lifespan Respite Care Act of 2003 today, a bill to establish the availability of respite services for our family caregivers, and to increase coordination of these programs so that caregivers will be better able to access them.

As a nation, we rely on family caregivers. Twenty-six million Americans care for an adult family member who is ill or disabled, Eighteen million children have a condition that place significant demands on their parental caregivers. Four million Americans with mental retardation or a developmental disability rely on family members for care and supervision. If services provided by family caregivers were replaced by paid services, it would cost nearly $200 billion annually.

But these are just numbers. Every member has a human face. Let me tell you about Heather Thoms-Chelsey. I met Heather last year at a press conference announcing the Lifespan Respite Care Act of 2002. At that press conference I also met Heather's then 4-year-old daughter, Victoria, who as Rett syndrome. Victoria is totally dependent on family caregivers for all basic living skills: dressing, feeding, bathing and toileting. She also engages in self-injurious behaviors, hand-biting, head banging, body slamming, hair pulling. She has to be monitored all the time for her protection. Heather says, ``I feel tired and exhausted after only less than 5 years, what will I be like in 15? Or even 20?''

Heather is very resourceful. She has managed to find some respite care--164 hours per year--through her State's department of hygiene and mental health. She used 4 hours of her allotted time to bring a respite care worker with her to the press conference so she could tell us her story. The State allows Heather a maximum payment of $7.50 per hour for respite services. It is difficult to find someone who can care for a child with such complicated needs for that. Most of the time, Heather uses the respite care dollars to hire someone to help her care for Victoria in the home or on an outing. Very rarely does Heather actually get to leave the house and take a real break. Some would say Heather is one of the lucky ones. She actually has some respite care. Many people have none.

Heather's story is repeated all across this country. Some people are caring for children or grandchildren with special needs and elderly parents at the same time. Some have called these people the ``sandwich'' generation, sandwiched between the caregiving demands of children or grandchildren and the caregiving demands of elderly parents.

Just because family caregiving is unpaid does not mean it is costless. Caregiving is certainly personally rewarding but it can also result in substantial emotional and physical strain and financial hardship. Many caregivers are exhausted and become sick themselves. Many give up jobs to care for loved ones, putting their own financial security in jeopardy.

I believe that our country is suffering not just from a budget deficit, but what Mona Harrington has called, ``a care deficit.'' Everywhere we look--nursing, childcare, teaching, long-term care--we see shortages and looming crises that threaten the provision of care on which our children, our parents, and our families all depend. Caregiving is undervalued, underfinanced, and too often uncompensated. Family caregiving seems almost ``invisible'' in our society, perhaps because it is work that women perform in the home.

It is time we recognize the heroic effort of our family caregivers and provide them the kind of support they need before their own health deteriorates. One way to do that is through respite care. Respite care provides a much needed break from the daily demands of caregiving for a few hours or a few days. These welcome breaks help protect the physical and mental health of the family caregiver, making it possible for the individual in need of care to remain in the home.

Unfortunately, respite care is hard to find. Many caregivers do not know how to find information about services available. Even when community respite care services exist, there are often long waiting lists. For example, the United Cerebral Palsy Association of Nassau County on Long Island, provides respite service to 70 people but they have had a 200-person waiting list since 1995. In the same community, the Association for the Help of Retarded Children serves 140 youngsters; 200 children are on their waiting list. Variety Preschoolers serves 150 toddlers with special needs; 120 children are on their waiting list. The list goes on and on.

But, this is not a problem isolated to Long Island, NY. It is happening all across the America. There are more caregivers in need of respite care than there are respite care resources available. Part of the problem is funding and part of the problem is staffing.

Children and adults with special needs require trained caregivers. Parents and spouses and other family caregivers are understandably hesitant to leave their loved ones with untrained staff. But training staff costs money and trained staff are going to be reluctant to work for as little as $7-8 an hour. Until we recognize the value of caregiving and pay for it as a valued service, we are going to continue to face shortages: shortages in respite care but also shortage in caregiving in a larger sense.

We don't have enough teachers. We don't have enough nurses. We don't have enough childcare workers. We don't have enough trained workers to care for our elderly. And we don't have enough trained staff to provide respite care.

It is time that we, as a nation, face this care deficit and do something about it.

Today, I, along with my colleagues, Senators Warner, Mikulski, Snowe, Breaux, Jeffords, Murray, Collins, Kennedy, and Smith, are introducing the Lifespan Respite Care Act of 2003. This bill would provide over $90 million in grants annually to develop a coordinated system of respite care services for family caregivers of individuals with special needs regardless of age. Funds could also be used to increase respite care services or to train respite care workers or volunteers.

Some of my colleagues have questioned the pricetag of this legislation. I ask them to do the math. With 26 million caregivers of adults and 18 million caregivers of children with special needs, $90 million dollars amounts to $2.05 per caregiver. If anything, we should be investing more in respite care, not less. Estimates place the cost of current family caregiving at $200 billion annually. We simply cannot afford to continue to ignore this issue.

I remain committed to the concerns of family caregivers and to their need for respite care in particular. Together, I believe we can pass respite care legislation.

But, our work cannot stop there. The need of family caregivers for respite care is just one important piece of a larger complex picture. I am asking you to join me in a longer term effort to put the care deficit--in childcare, in teaching, in nursing, in long-term care, as well as in family caregiving--on the national agenda.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Indian School Bus Route Safety Reauthorization Act of 2003. This bill continues an important Federal program begun in TEA-21 that addresses a unique problem with the roads in and around the Nation's single largest Indian reservation and the neighboring counties. Through this program, Navajo children who had been prevented from getting to school by frequently impassable roads are now traveling safely to and from their schools. Because of the unusual nature of this situation, I believe it must continue to be addressed at the Federal level.

I would like to begin with some statistics on this unique problem and why I believe a Federal solution continues to be necessary. The Navajo Nation is by far the Nation's largest Indian reservation, covering 25,000 square miles. Portions of the Navajo Nation are in three States: Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah. No other reservation comes anywhere close to the size of Navajo. To give you an idea of its size, the State of West Virginia is about 24,000 square miles. In fact, 10 States are smaller in size than the Navajo reservation.

According to the Bureau of Indian Affairs, about 9,800 miles of public roads serve the Navajo Nation. Only about one-fifth of these roads are paved. The remaining 7,600 miles, 78 percent, are dirt roads. Every day schoolbuses use nearly all of these roads to transport Navajo children to and from school.

About 6,400 miles of the roads on the Navajo reservation are BIA roads, and about 2,500 miles are State and county roads. All public roads within, adjacent to, or leading to the reservation, including BIA, State, and county roads are considered part of the Federal Indian reservation road system. However, only BIA roads are eligible for Federal maintenance funding from BIA. Moreover, construction funding and improvement funding from the Federal Lands Highways Program in TEA- 21 is generally applied only to BIA or tribal roads. Thus, the States and counties are responsible for maintenance and improvement of their 2,500 miles of roads that serve the reservation.

The counties in the three States that include the Navajo reservation are simply not in a position to maintain all of the roads on the reservation that carry children to and from school. Nearly all of the land area in these counties is under Federal or tribal jurisdiction.

For example, in my State of New Mexico, three-quarters of McKinley County is either tribal or Federal land, including BLM, Forest Service, and military land. The Indian land area alone comprises 61 percent of McKinley County. Consequently, the county can draw upon only a very limited tax base as a source of revenue for maintenance purposes. Of the nearly 600 miles of county-maintained roads in McKinley County, 512 miles serve Indian land.

In San Juan County, UT, the Navajo Nation comprises 40 percent of the land area. The county maintains 611 miles of roads on the Navajo Nation. Of these, 357 miles are dirt, 164 miles are gravel, and only 90 miles are paved. On the reservation, the county has three high schools, two elementary schools, two BIA boarding schools and four preschools.

The situation is similar in neighboring San Juan County, NM, as well, Apache, Navajo, and Coconino Counties, AZ. In light of the counties' limited resources, I do believe the Federal

Government is asking the States and counties to bear too large a burden for road maintenance in this unique situation.

Families living in and around the reservation are no different from families anywhere else; their children are entitled to the same opportunity to get to school safely and to get a good education. However, the many miles of unpaved and deficient roads on the reservation are frequently impassable, especially when they are wet, muddy, or snowy. If the schoolbuses don't get through, the kids simply cannot get to school.

These children are literally being left behind.

Because of the vast size of the Navajo reservation, the cost of maintaining the county roads used by the school buses is more than the counties can bear without Federal assistance. I believe it is essential that the Federal Government help these counties deal with this one-of- a-kind situation.

In response to this unique situation, in 1998 Congress began providing direct annual funding to the counties that contain the Navajo reservation to help ensure that children on the reservation can get to and from their public schools. The funding was included at my request in section 1214(d) of TEA-21. Under this provision, $1.5 million is made available each year to be shared equally among the three States. The funding is provided directly to the counties in Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah that contain the Navajo reservation. I want to be very clear: these Federal funds can be used only on roads that are located within or that lead to a reservation, that are on the State or county maintenance system, and that serve as schoolbus routes.

This program has been very successful. For the last 6 years, the counties have used the annual funding to help maintain the routes used by school-buses to carry children to school and to Head Start programs. I had an opportunity in 1998 to see first hand the importance of this funding when I rode in a schoolbus over some of the roads that are maintained using funds from this program.

The bill I am introducing today provides a simple 6-year reauthorization of that program, with a modest increase in the annual funding to allow for inflation and for additional roads to be maintained in each of the three States.

I believe that continuing this program for 6 more years is fully justified because of the vast area of the Navajo reservation--by far the Nation's largest--and the unique nature of this need that only the Federal Government can deal with effectively.

I don't believe any child wanting to get to and from school safely should have to risk or tolerate unsafe roads. Kids today, particularly in rural and remote areas, face enough barriers to getting a good education. I ask all Senators to join me in assuring that Navajo schoolchildren at least have a chance to get to school safely and get an education.

My bill has the support of the Southeastern Utah Association of Local Governments and the Tri-State County Association of New Mexico, Arizona, and Utah. I ask unanimous consent that letters and resolutions from New Mexico, Arizona, and Utah be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

I am pleased that Congressmen Tom Udall of New Mexcio, Rick Renzi of Arizona, and James David Matheson of Utah are introducing a companion bill today in the House. I look forward to working with them this year and with the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Inhofe, and Senator Jeffords, the ranking member, to incorporate this legislation once again into the comprehensive 6-year reauthorization of the surface transportation bill.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Native American Capital Formation and Economic Development Act of 2003.

Before the Europeans landed on these shores, Indian nations were vigorous and vital: tribal governments functioned well; tribal cultures and religions flourished; and tribal economies were strong.

Over time tribal institutions failed when the independence they had known were stifled by the Federal Government.

Since 1970, Indian self-determination has assisted the tribes in rebuilding their governments and resurrecting their economies.

The bill I am introducing today will foster real self-determination and create a Native-capitalized development assistance corporation.

If enacted, the tribes themselves will be the financiers and shareholders of the Native American Capital Development Corporation which will focus on mortgage lending and Indian home ownership; provide assistance to Native financial institutions; and work to create a secondary market in Indian mortgages.

The corporation will include the Native American Economies Diagnostic Studies Fund to partner with tribes to conduct diagnostic studies of their economies and identify the inhibitors to greater levels of private sector investment and job creation. Ultimately the corporation and the tribes will work to remove those inhibitors.

The corporation's Native American Economic Incubation Center Fund will work with participating tribes to channel development assistance to those tribes with a demonstrated commitment to sound economic and political policies; good governance; and practices that create increased levels of economic growth and job creation.

It is my expectation that there will be much debate generated by this legislation which I consider a good thing. I expect to hold hearings on this important legislation in the weeks ahead.

I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this important bill.

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

Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Indian Land Leasing Act of 2003 to make routine changes to title 25 of the United States Code and to assist economic activity on Indian lands by liberalizing the Indian land leasing process.

Federal law requires tribal landowners to seek the approval of the Secretary of the Interior to lease their lands and further restricts the lease term to a period of 25 years.

This legal framework is an obstacle in the path of the tribes and their members, and year after year Indian tribes are forced to seek the Committee on Indian Affairs' assistance in extending the lease term to 99 years.

Over the years not fewer than 38 tribes have come to Congress and secured 99-year lease authority.

At the tribes' request, this bill will extend 99-year lease authority to the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Reservation, the Yavapai- Prescott Tribe, the Yurok Tribe, and the Hopland Band of Pomo Indians to the long list of tribes that have already secured similar extensions.

The bill also provides 99-year lease authority for tribes that wish to do so without the prior approval of the Secretary.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this modest but important legislation.

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

Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Native American Energy Development and Self-Determination Act of 2003.

Our Nation is about to be embroiled in war in the Middle East and the markets are anxious about the military action. As a result, world oil prices are soaring and now are nearly $40 per barrel.

The economic repercussions to everyday Americans of high oil prices cannot be overlooked. Industries reliant on cheap energy will contract and people will lose their jobs.

The single working mom who commutes and delivers her child to daycare will be paying much higher prices at the pump. Shoes for her kids and payments into the college fund will have to wait.

The family-owned construction firm will be forced to let people go. Families will be disrupted.

One obvious answer to our energy future is in more vigorous domestic production.

For far too long Indian-owned energy resources have been overlooked and untapped.

There are nearly 90 tribes that own significant energy resources-- both renewable and nonrenewable--and with rare exception these tribes want to develop them.

The Interior Department estimates that 25 percent of oil and less than 20 percent of natural gas reserves on Indian land have been developed.

The bill I am introducing will provide financial assistance, technical expertise, and regulatory relief to the tribes in their efforts to manage and market their resources.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Indian Technical Corrections Act of 2003 to provide routine and noncontroversial amendments to Federal statutes affecting Indian tribes and Indian people.

The vast majority of these amendments were included in legislation in the last session of Congress that failed to be enacted.

Though modest, this bill provides real relief to the many tribes that seek Congress' assistance.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Fallen Law Enforcement Officers and Firefighters Flag Memorial Act of 2003.

This bill would help honor the sacrifice of the men and women who lost their lives in the line of duty by providing Capitol-flown flags to the families of deceased law enforcement officers and firefighters.

Under this legislation, the family of a deceased law enforcement officer can request from the Attorney General that a flag be flown over the U.S. Capitol in honor of the slain officer. The Department of Justice shall pay the cost of the flags, including shipping, out of discretionary grant funds, and provide them to the victim's family.

As a former deputy sheriff, I know firsthand the risks which law enforcement officers face every day on the frontlines protecting our communities. I also have great appreciation, as the cochair of the Congressional Fire Caucus, for the service that our Nation's firefighters provide, day in and day out, and that all too often, they end up sacrificing their lives while saving others.

I believe providing a Capitol-flown flag is a fitting way to show our appreciation for fallen officers and firefighters who make the ultimate sacrifice. It also lets their families know that Congress and the Nation are grateful for their loved one's service.

I ask unanimous consent that the Fallen Law Enforcement Officers and Firefighters Flag Memorial Act of 2003 be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Craig Thomas to introduce legislation that would exclude loan repayments made through the National Health Service Corps from taxable income. I am pleased that Senators Leahy, Smith, Wyden, Snowe, Durbin, Hagel, Roberts, and Chambliss are also cosponsoring this important legislation.

There have been many developments in the area of health care in the last few years from managed care reform, to increases in biomedical research, the mapping of the human genome, and the use of exciting new technologies in both rural and urban areas such as telemedicine. In fact, it seems that almost every day we hear of astounding new scientific breakthroughs. But unfortunately, while we are making great

strides in the quality of health care, we are losing ground on the access to health care for so many.

The sad truth is that there are currently 38.7 million Americans without health insurance coverage--9.2 million of whom are children. In Washington, before the recession, 13.3 percent of the population, and 155,000 children, lacked health insurance. That is undoubtedly higher today.

Access to health insurance for the uninsured is of the utmost importance--we know that at the very least, health insurance means the difference between timely and delayed treatment and at worst between life and death. In fact, the uninsured are four times as likely as the insured to delay or forego needed care--and uninsured children are six times as likely as insured children to go without needed medical care.

But even insurance isn't enough if there are no available providers. Hospitals and other health care providers across the country are facing an increasingly uncertain future. The sad truth is that it is increasingly more difficult to recruit health care providers to work with underserved communities--especially in rural areas. In addition to economic pressures, rural areas must overcome the environmental issues involved with recruiting a doctor who may have been raised, educated, and trained in an urban setting.

The National Health Service Corps was created in 1970 by Senator Warren Magnuson, one of the most distinguished Senators to come from Washington State. He saw the need to put primary care clinicians in rural communities and inner-city neighborhoods, and developed this program to fill that need.

Since then, the Corps has placed over 22,000 health professionals in rural or urban health professions shortage areas. There is no doubt that National Health Service Corps has been extremely successful. In fact, the most recent available data show that more than 70 percent of providers continued to provide services to underserved communities after their Corps obligation was fulfilled--80 percent of these health care providers stayed in the community in which they had originally been placed.

During the last August recess, I had the opportunity to travel throughout Washington State and held 15 community discussions on health care. I met patients who would not have access to health services but for the providers there through the Corps and I met many doctors who have been living in our rural communities for years because of their Corps' placements. And because it has been so successful--right now in Washington State there are 75 physicians or other health professionals working in underserved areas that would not otherwise be here--we must do everything possible to support this program.

Under current law, the National Health Service Corps provides scholarships, loan repayments, and stipends for clinicians who agree to serve in urban and rural communities with severe shortages of health care providers. In 1986 the IRS ruled that all payments made under the program are considered taxable income. Understanding the immediate detriment to scholarship recipients, who were forced to pay the tax out of their own pockets, Congress eliminated the scholarship tax in 2001. And while the scholarship program is now not considered taxable income to the IRS, the loan repayments and stipends are.

By statute, the current loan program awards also include a tax assistance payment equal to 39 percent of the loan repayment amount, which is to be used by the recipient offset his or tax liability resulting from the loan repayment ``income.'' This means that nearly 40 percent of the Federal loan repayment budget goes to pay taxes on the loan repayment ``income'' alone. If these Federal payments were not taxed, and the funding was freed up, more health professions students could take advantage of the loan repayment program, and could be placed in shortage areas, thereby increasing access to health care in both urban and rural areas.

This is not a new problem. The tax burden that accompanies the National Health Service Corps loan payments is a significant deterrent to increasing the number of clinicians enrolling in the Corps. I do not want to see a situation where, as happened several years ago, over 300 applicants actually left underserved areas because the Corps could not fully fund the loan repayment program.

The legislation we are introducing today, the National Health Service Corps Loan Repayment Act, would address this disincentive, making the Corps available to more medical and health professionals, and thereby bringing more providers into underserved areas. If loan repayments are excluded from taxation, the National Health Service Corps will have greater resources to provide aid to health professionals seeking loan repayment, and will be able to increase the number of providers in underserved areas.

There is no doubt that strengthening the National Health Service Corps is a win-win situation. Corps scholarships help finance education for future primary care providers interested in serving the underserved. In return, graduates serve those communities where the need for primary health care is greatest.

The bill is supported by over 20 national organizations including the National Rural Health Association, the National Association of Community Health Centers, the Association of American Medical Colleges, and the American Medical Student Association. I am especially pleased that the Washington State Medical Association is supporting this bill. I ask unanimous consent that the complete list be included in the Record after my statement.

I understand that there are no easy solutions to the health care problems we are facing right now. But we need to do something--even if it is taking small steps forward, and come in at this problem from many different angles.

I urge my colleagues to look at this bill and to join us in expanding this vitally important and immediately successful program.

Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues Senator Warner, Senator Hollings, Senator Reed, Senator Daschle, Senator Lieberman, Senator Clinton, Senator Sarbanes, and Senator Landrieu to introduce the Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response, SAFER, Act. This legislation will help to remedy a critical shortage in the fire service and help ensure that America's firefighters have the staffing they need to safely do their jobs.

Every day approximately one million firefighters put their lives on the line to protect the people of our great Nation. I firmly believe that in recognition of that fact, our Nation has an obligation to ensure that the brave men and women of the fire service have the tools, the training, and the staffing they need to do their jobs safely.

In recent years, the Federal Government has recognized that it can and should be a better partner with local firefighters. In 2000, Senator DeWine, Senator Levin, Senator Warner, and I worked successfully to help create the FIRE Act. This law stood as the first Federal grant program explicitly designed to help fire departments throughout America obtain better equipment, improved training, and needed personnel. Since September 11, 2001, Congress and the administration have provided billions of dollars to help local firefighters purchase equipment and training to respond to acts of terrorism, accidental fires, chemical spills, and natural disasters. Over the last 2 years, the Federal FIRE Act grant initiative has provided nearly half a billion dollars in direct assistance to local fire departments across the country and the FIRE Act will provide another $750 million this year. We are beginning to significantly improve the quality of the equipment available to firefighters in every State and in communities large and small. Unfortunately, the FIRE Act has not improved staffing conditions for America's fire service. Severe staffing shortages still plague departments across the country.

Currently two-thirds of all fire departments operate with inadequate staffing. And the consequences are often tragic. According to testimony by Harold Schaitberger, General President of the International Association of Firefighters, presented before the

Senate Science, Technology and Space Subcommittee on October 11, 2001, understaffing has caused or contributed to firefighter deaths in Memphis, Tennessee; Worcester, Massachusetts; Keokuk, Iowa; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Chesapeake, Virginia; Stockton, California; Lexington, Kentucky; Buffalo, New York; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and Washington, D.C. In each case, firefighters went into dangerous situations without the support they needed and they paid the ultimate price.

The unfortunate reality is that our local communities have not been able to maintain the level of staffing necessary to ensure the safety of our firefighters or the public. Since 1970, the number of firefighters as a percentage of the U.S. workforce has steadily declined and the budget crises that our state and local governments are enduring has made matters worse. Across the country today, firefighter staffing is being cut and fire stations are even being closed because of state and local budget shortfalls. All of this at a time when the threats of terrorism are placing unprecedented demands on our fire service.

According to a ``Needs Assessment Study'' recently released by the U.S. Fire Administration, USFA, and the National Fire Protection Association, NFPA, understaffing contributes to enormous problems. For example, USFA and NFPA have found that only 11% of our Nation's fire departments have the personnel and equipment they need to respond to a building collapse involving 50 or more occupants. The USFA and NFPA also found that there are routine problems that threaten the health and safety of our first responders. In small and medium-sized cities, firefighters are too often compelled to respond to emergencies without sufficient manpower to protect those on the ground. More often than not, firefighters in too many of our communities respond to fires with fewer than the four firefighters per truck that is considered to be the minimum to ensure firefighter safety.

The USFA/NFPA study also suggests that shortages of personnel prevent many firefighters from taking time off to receive training and too few departments can afford to hire dedicated training staff. As a result, nearly three-quarters of all fire departments cannot comply with EPA and OSHA regulations that require formal hazardous materials response training for front-line firefighters.

The SAFER Act is a national commitment to hire the firefighters necessary to protect the American people from the consequences of terrorist attacks and from more ordinary, but often equally devastating, events. This legislation will put 75,000 new firefighters on America's streets over the next 7 years and will help provide Americans with the level of protection they need and deserve.

As I have said before, just as we have called up the National Guard to meet the increased need for more manpower in the military, we need to make a national commitment to hire firefighters to protect the American people here at home. In these difficult times, it is both necessary and proper for us to send for reinforcements for our domestic defenders. The SAFER Act will make that commitment.

In closing let me say that this legislation honors America's firefighters. It acknowledges the men and women who charge up the stairs while everybody else is running down them. But it does more than that. This legislation is an investment in America's security, an investment to ensure the safety of our firefighter as well as American families and their homes and businesses.

Both the International Association of Firefighters and the International Association of Fire Chiefs have expressed their strong support for this legislation. I urge my colleagues to join those of us who have introduced this measure today.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill of critical importance to our Nation's economic well-being and the security of our borders: the Border Infrastructure and Technology Modernization Act.

No American border has under gone a comprehensive infrastructure overhaul since 1986, when Senator Dennis DeConcini of Arizona and I put forth a $357 million effort to modernize the southwest border. That bill pertained only to the southwest border, and a great deal was change since 1986.

More importantly, much has changed since September 11, 2001. It is now critical that we look at the big picture and give our northern and southwestern borders the resources they need to address security vulnerabilities and facilitate the flow of trade.

Two years ago, the General Services Administration completed a comprehensive assessment of infrastructure needs on the southwestern and northern borders of the United States. This assessment found that overhauling both borders would require $784 million.

Since the publication of that assessment in February 2001, many of the needs identified remain outstanding. Many have grown, and new needs have

arisen as the task of making border trade flow faster has become more complicated in the face of unprecedented security concerns.

In response to our Nation's heightened security concerns, we created the Department of Homeland Security, an agency affecting virtually every Federal entity involved in border operations. Congress must give this new Department adequate resources and tools to achieve the necessary balance between security and trade considerations. The Border Infrastructure and Technology Modernization Act proposes a number of measures meant to increase the speed at which trade crosses the border as well as beefing up security at vulnerable points on our land borders.

In the recently passed omnibus appropriations bill, I secured legislative language asking the General Services Administration, in cooperation with the other border agencies involved, to complete an updated assessment of needs on our borders. The information contained in this assessment will provide a blueprint for comprehensive, targeted improvements to border infrastructure and technology. The bill I am introducing today provides $100 million per year for 5 years to implement these improvements.

Congress has already passed legislation to improve security at airports and seaports, but we have not yet addressed the needs of our busiest ports, located on the United States' northern and southwestern land borders. Traditionally, tighter security requirements have come at the expense of efficient commerce across our borders. With the improvements we are proposing today, we mean to move toward a day when we can say that higher security does not penalize trade.

America's two biggest trading partners are not across an ocean--they lie to the north and south of our country. In the past decade, U.S.- Canada trade has doubled, and in the same time period, trade between the United States and Mexico tripled. At the same time, our infrastructure is weakest on our land borders, and we must act quickly and decisively to prevent terrorists from exploiting this weakness.

To address this threat, the Border Infrastructure and Technology Modernization Act provides for a coordinated Land Border Security Plan, including cooperation between Federal State and local entities involved at our borders, as well as the private sector.

When it comes to security, everybody has a role to play, not just the government. We must enlist the help of the private sector to address security concerns on our borders. Trade and industry have made this country the economic powerhouse it is today, and we must fully involve them in protecting our country through government trade and industry partnership programs.

The U.S. Customs Service has already started this process. I commend them for their quick action after the September 11 terrorist attacks in enlisting the support of private industry by quickly developing the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism, C-TPAT. We need to expand these programs, especially along the northern and southwestern borders. This bill authorizes an additional $30 million and additional staff to accomplish this task.

Finally, equipment and technology alone will not solve the trade and security problems on our borders. The border agencies of the Department of Homeland Security need sufficient personnel levels, and training to ensure the implementation and use of modern technology. I am pleased that the administration has taken the first step to meet this objective by announcing that they will add 1,700 new inspectors to the Bureau of Customs and Border Security of the Department of Homeland Security.

The Border Infrastructure and Technology Modernization Act increases the number of inspectors and support staff in this bureau by an additional 200 each year for 5 years. This bill also adds 100 more special agents and support staff each year for 5 years to the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the investigative arm of the Department of Homeland Security.

I am pleased to introduced this bill today to devote greater resources to maximizing the economic possibilities of the trade flowing across our borders, while addressing the security vulnerabilities on our land borders. I am convinced that these goals are not mutually exclusive, but instead must be realized in concert.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Social Security Benefits Tax Relief Act of 2003. This is a simple bill that would repeal the income tax increase on Social Security benefits that went into effect in 1993.

When the Social Security system was created, beneficiaries did not pay Federal income tax on their benefits. However, in 1983, Congress passed legislation that changed all this. The 1983 law requires that 50 percent of Social Security benefits be taxed for senior whose incomes reached a certain level. The revenue this tax generated was then credited to the Social Security trust funds. Although I wasn't in Congress back in 1983, some argued that these changes were necessary because it kept Social Security taxes more in line with taxes on private pensions and because it shored up the Social Security system.

In 1993, President Clinton proposed that 85 percent of Social Security benefits be taxable for seniors meeting certain income thresholds, and that this additional money be allocated for the Medicare Program. Unfortunately, Congress passes this provision as part of a larger bill, which President Clinton then signed into law.

I was a Member of the House of Representatives at this time. I voted against this bill and didn't support this provision. This tax is unfair to our senior citizens who worked year, after year, after year, paying into Social Security, only to be faced with higher taxed once they retired.

The bill I am introducing would repeal the 85 percent tax, and would replace the funding that has been going to the Medicare Program with general funds. This tax was unfair when it was implemented in 1993, and it is unfair today. I hope my Senate colleagues can support this legislation to remove this burdensome tax on our seniors.

Mr. President, I rise today with several of my senate colleagues to introduce the Arming Cargo Pilots Against Terrorism Act. This bill closes a loophole to better protect the homeland against terrorists.

As a result of the airplane hijackings on September 11, 2001, Congress took the appropriate action to prevent from ever happening again the use of an airliner as a missile and weapon of mass destruction and murder. Last year, large majorities of the Senate and House of Representatives voted to arm both cargo and passenger pilots who volunteered for a stringent training proram as part of the homeland security bill.

Arming these pilots served to protect the pilots and aircrew, passengers and those on the ground from ever being victims of another airline hijacking. It was the right thing to do. However, during conference of the homeland security bill the cargo pilots were yanked from the bill. This bill we introduce today will arm cargo pilots and close the loophole created when they were left out last year.

It is true that cargo airlines rarely have passengers, but that is no reason to disregard and ignore the safety of those cargo pilots and the aircrafts they control. Indeed, on occasions they do carry passengers, and sometimes they transport couriers and guards of some of the cargo being transported. Too many times these couriers and guards are armed while the pilots are unarmed. After September 11, that simply does not make sense.

As well, physical security around too many of our air cargo facilities and terminals is not up to the standard it should be. This lax in security has allowed stowaways a free pass in climbing aboard cargo airplanes for a free ride. Just a few months ago a woman in Fargo, ND, rushed onto a United Parcel Service plane trying to get to California. Fortunately she was caught. I guarantee that many have successfully sneaked onto cargo airplanes. And many more will continue to try. This is further evidence as to why we need to act to allow these cargo pilots to defend themselves and the cockpit.

Cargo pilots are not armed and they will never have Federal air marshals. Cargo planes do not have trained flight attendants or alert passengers to fend off hijackers. Cargo planes do not have reinforced cockpit doors, and some do not have any doors at all. Cargo areas of airports are not as secure as a passenger areas, and thousands of personnel have access to the aircraft. Finally, stowaways sometimes find their way aboard cargo aircraft. And in the future one might be a terrorist.

There are no logical reasons to exclude cargo pilots. Simply saying that since they carry no passengers unlike a passenger airliner is not a good enough reason. Cargo planes are just as big as--if not bigger than--passenger planes. They can carry larger loads of fuel and frequently carry hazardous materials, including chemicals and biological products. A cargo airplane causes just as much damage when used as a weapon as did the passenger planes hijacked on September 11.

We cannot allow what happened on September 11 to ever happen again. This loophole of excluding cargo pilots from being able to protect themselves and their aircraft and the public must be removed. This is the right thing to do, and I ask my Senate colleagues for their support.

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