[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 76 (Wednesday, May 21, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6864-S6868]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. Smith, Mr. Daschle, Mr. 
        Jeffords, Mr. Kennedy, Ms. Collins, Ms. Landrieu, Mrs. 
        Hutchison, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Corzine, Mrs. Lincoln, Ms. 
        Cantwell, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Lautenberg, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Dodd, 
        Mrs. Boxer, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Nelson of Florida, Mr. Schumer, 
        Mr. Hollings, Mr. Reed, Mr. Kerry, Ms. Mikulski, and Mr. 
        Leahy):
  S. 1101. A bill to provide for a comprehensive Federal effort 
relating to early detection of, treatments for, and the prevention of 
cancer, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, 
Labor, and Pensions.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the National 
Cancer Act of 2003. I am pleased to have the support of Senators Smith, 
Daschle, Jeffords, Kennedy, Collins, Landrieu, Hutchison, Johnson, 
Corzine, Lincoln, Clinton, Cantwell, Lautenberg, Murray, Dodd, Boxer, 
Stabenow, Bill Nelson, Schumer, Hollings, Reed, Kerry, Mikulski, and 
Leahy on this important piece of legislation.
  Today, cancer is the Nation's second cause of death, trailing heart 
disease. Over the next 30 years, however, cancer will surpass heart 
disease and become the leading cause of death as the Baby Boomers age.
  This bill represents a comprehensive national battle plan to re-
energize the Nation's war on cancer, a war that began on January 22, 
1971 when President Richard Nixon proposed to Congress that we launch a 
war on cancer.
  That commitment marked a critical first step. But it is clear that we 
must take further steps to address the scourge of cancer in every 
respect.
  I am the Vice-Chair of the National Dialogue on Cancer--and in 
discussions with cancer experts from this group, it became clear to me 
that the National Cancer Act of 1971 was out of date.
  We are now in the genomic era, on the cusp of discoveries and cures 
that we could only have dreamed about in 1971. The science of cancer 
has advanced dramatically with the revolution in molecular and cellular 
biology creating unprecedented opportunities for understanding how 
genetics relate to cancer.
  The explosion in knowledge about the human genome and molecular 
biology will enable scientists to better target cancer drugs.
  I believe that if we work smart we could find a cure for cancer in my 
lifetime.
  Given these advances, I strongly believe that it is time to update 
the National Cancer Act of 1971, to reflect these breakthroughs. At the 
same time, I wanted to get input from some of the nation's foremost 
cancer experts.
  To that end, I asked John Seffrin, CEO of the American Cancer 
Society, and Dr. Vincent DeVita, Director of the Yale Cancer Center, to 
form a special committee of cancer experts to provide recommendations 
on a national battle plan to conquer cancer.
  The committee produced an ambitious plan, and what I have tried to do 
is take the most important components, in light of the current budget

[[Page S6865]]

situation, and develop a piece of legislation that could pass the 
Senate.
  On November 7, 2001, President George W. Bush commended the work of 
the Committee when he wrote, ``The journey ahead will not be easy. But 
30 years ago, no one would have imagined coming as far as we have. 
Working together, we will take the next steps necessary to defeat this 
deadly disease.''
  Today, I invite the President to join me again in taking these steps 
by supporting this legislation.
  Finding a cure for cancer is a very personal goal. I lost both my 
father and my husband to cancer. I saw its ravages firsthand, and I 
experienced the frustrations, the difficulties, and the loneliness that 
people suffer when a loved-one has cancer. I determined that I would do 
all I could to reduce the number of people who go through this 
devastating experience.
  And it is my great hope that this legislation will help do just that, 
and enable us to find a cure for cancer in my lifetime.
  This may in fact be the most important thing I do during my time in 
the Senate.
  And I believe that this legislation addresses the issue in the right 
way, and I hope that my colleagues will agree.
  The National Cancer Act of 2003 takes a multi-pronged approach to 
winning the war against cancer. Here's what the bill will do: 1. 
Accelerate Scientific Discovery. The advances in science that I spoke 
of earlier, regarding the human genome and molecular biology, have 
produced medications that can target the unhealthy cancer cells and 
leave healthy cells intact.
  That is why this legislation establishes a grant program of $20 
million a year, specifically for research that focuses on the 
development of a molecularly-oriented knowledge-based approach to 
cancer drug discovery and development.
  It also includes a sense of the Senate to encourage the Federal 
Government to continue its investment in cancer research by staying on 
track to funding the NCI bypass budget.
  NCI now funds approximately 4,500 research project grants at nearly 
600 institutions every year. This represents 28 percent of the 16,000 
grant proposals NCI receives. NCI scientists think funding 40 percent 
will allow them to fund the most promising grants. Yet at 28 percent, 
it does not happen.
  Funding basic research marks a full frontal assault on cancer--an 
assault that will lead to more breakthroughs, more treatments, and 
ultimately, I believe, to a cure.
  We now have drugs, like Gleevec for Chronic Myeloid Leukemia and 
Herceptin for breast cancer, that can target and destroy cancer cells 
while leaving healthy cells unharmed.
  Patients, who were considered terminal, have taken Gleevec and were 
able to get out of their beds and leave the hospice within days of 
treatment. After one-year of clinical trials for Gleevec, 51 out of 54 
patients were still doing well. With 4,500 Americans diagnosed with 
Chronic Myeloid Leukemia a year, the potential for this drug is 
tremendous.
  From the Bench to the Bedside: Expanding Access to Clinical Trials. 
First, the bill will provide $100 million per year for new grants for 
what is called ``translational'' research, work that moves promising 
drugs from the ``bench to the bedside.''
  The purpose of this provision is to greatly accelerate the movement 
of basic research to the patient, from the ``bench to the bedside,'' so 
that we can conduct more clinical trials.
  Clinical trials test the safety and efficacy of drugs, devices or new 
medical techniques. They are required for FDA approval. These trials 
require thousands of participating people to help determine if drugs 
are safe and effective.
  The bill includes several steps to expand clinical trials, those 
research projects that require thousands of people to determine whether 
new drugs are safe and effective.
  Right now, there are many new drugs under development that are stuck, 
as if in a funnel, because we have not put the resources into having 
the people-based research to test those drugs. There are approximately 
400 new drugs that are held up in the development process because the 
resources are not available to fund clinical research to test those 
drugs.
  For every one drug approved, 5,000 to 10,000 were initially 
considered. The entire process can take as long as 15 years.
  Second, the bill will require insurers to pay the routine or non-
research costs for people to participate in clinical trials, while the 
drug sponsor would continue to pay the research costs. California 
already requires this coverage by private insurers.
  Third, the bill requires the National Cancer Institute to establish a 
program to recruit patients and doctors to participate in clinical 
trials. Dr. Robert Comis, President of the Coalition of National Cancer 
Cooperative Groups, has said that eight out of ten cancer patients do 
not consider participating in a clinical trial. They are unaware that 
they might have the option. He has found that physician involvement is 
key.
  This is why we must work to make both physicians and patients more 
aware of the importance of participating.
  Currently, only 4 to 5 percent of adult cancer patients participate 
in clinical cancer trials. But Research America polls found that 61 
percent of Americans would participate in a clinical trial if they 
could.
  We should heed the example of what is called the ``pediatric model.'' 
Over 60 percent of children with cancer participate in clinical trials. 
Children in these trials get optimal care, with an overall physician 
manager or ``quarterback.'' The five-year survival rates for children 
with cancer have increased significantly.
  In the 1960s, childhood leukemia could not be cured. It was a death 
sentence. Today, 70 percent of children with acute lymphoblastic 
leukemia enter remission. This is but one example of the power and 
importance of clinical trials. An investigational treatment yesterday 
is standard treatment today.
  Only by injecting new funding into cancer research will we enable 
cancer researchers to conduct the trials that are necessary to bring 
promising new drugs to market.
  3. Transforming Research Into Treatments. Scientists say we will stop 
defining cancer by body part, like breast cancer or prostate cancer. 
Because everyday we are understanding better the genetic basis of 
cancer and can focus drugs on molecular targets. For example, we may 
have 50 different kinds of breast cancer, defined by their genetic 
basis.
  As NCI's Dr. Rabson has said, ``As we've come to understand the 
molecular signatures of cancer cells, we can classify tumors according 
to their genetic characteristics.''
  This means that we need to create incentives to encourage companies 
to make these targeted drugs, because as we redefine cancer, we will 
have smaller numbers of people who have that particular kind of breast 
cancer. Companies are often reluctant to make drugs for small patient 
populations.
  This legislation would expand the current definition of ``orphan 
drugs'' from ``disease and condition'' to include ``disease or 
condition or targets and mechanisms of pathogenesis of diseases'' that 
effect a small patient population, less than 200,000. Current tax and 
marketing incentives remain the same. With an expansion of the 
definition, however, more drugs could potentially qualify for this 
designation.
  Beginning with Gleevec and continuing into the future, drugs will 
target a narrow genetic or cellular mutation.
  While this holds great promise for patients, it also means that the 
number of treatments will proliferate, thereby segmenting cancer 
patients into smaller and smaller populations. In some cases, this will 
mean that pharmaceutical companies for strictly financial reasons may 
not want to produce a given drug.
  The impact: This will help to ensure that patients receive the 
highest quality care, even when the number of people faced with a 
particular type of cancer is small.
  4. Having Enough Scientists. The bill will also create a new 
initiative to train more cancer researchers. Specifically, it will: 1. 
Pay off the medical school loans of 100 physicians who commit to spend 
at least 3 years doing cancer research; and 2. Boost the salaries of 
postdoctoral fellows from $28,000 to $45,000 per year over 5 years.

[[Page S6866]]

  Every year, young physicians and researchers avoid the field of 
cancer research because, frankly, they feel they can make more money 
elsewhere. This provision will help reverse that trend and add 
thousands of men and women to the front lines of the fight.
  The physician-scientist is endangered and essential, concluded a 
January 1999 study, showing that the number of first-time M.D. 
applicants for NIH research projects has been declining. The study, 
published in Science, said, ``. . . fewer young M.D.'s are interested 
in (or perhaps prepared for) careers as independent NIH-supported 
investigators.''
  Simply put, young doctors and Ph.Ds do not want to go into cancer 
research because they can make more money elsewhere. Graduating 
physicians have medical school debt averaging $75,000 to $80,000. 
Because of the low pay to be a physician-scientist, these doctors 
cannot afford to go into research.
  Postdoctoral fellows, who conduct the bulk of day-to-day research, 
receive pay that is neither commensurate with their education and 
skills nor adequate. To attract the best and the brightest to the field 
of cancer research, we need to pay them more than $28,000 to start.
  The National Academy of Sciences in September 2000 called for 
increasing their compensation.
  5. Quality Cancer Care. All too often having cancer is a lonely and 
frightening experience. Cancer patients have a team of doctors, from 
the primary care physician to the radiologist to the oncologist. Yet 
patients need one doctor to be in charge.
  During a June 16, 1999 hearing, The Institute of Medicine told the 
Senate Cancer Coalition that the care that cancer patients get is all 
too often just a matter of circumstance: ``. . . for many Americans 
with cancer, there is a wide gulf between what could be construed as 
the ideal and the reality of [Americans'] experience with cancer care . 
. . The ad hoc and fragmented cancer care system does not ensure access 
to care, lacks coordination, and is inefficient in its use of 
resources.''
  The Institute of Medicine study on the uneven quality of health care 
says, ``Health care today is characterized by more to know, more to 
manage, more to watch, more to do, and more people involved in doing it 
than at any time in the nation's history.''
  The bill will require insurance plans to pay doctors, preferably 
oncologists, to become the overall managers of patients' care, what I 
call a ``quarterback physician,'' to be with the patient from diagnosis 
through treatment, to prevent the patient from being forced to navigate 
the medical system alone.
  I developed this concept after meeting Dr. Judy Schmidt, a solo-
practicing oncologist from Montana. Dr. Schmidt cares for her patients 
from diagnosis to treatment, and she is really a model for doctors 
across the Nation to emulate.
  This ``quarterback physician'' would provide overall management of 
the patient's care among all the providers. Someone would be in charge. 
This provision could save money because good coordination can reduce 
hospitalization costs.
  The bill authorizes grants to health centers for the development and 
operation of programs that assign patient navigators, nurses, social 
workers, cancer survivors and patient advocates, to individuals of 
health disparity populations, to assist in following-up on a cancer 
diagnosis and to help them find the appropriate services and follow-up 
care, which includes facilitating access to health care services.
  This program is important because many people receive unequal access 
to care. The Institute of Medicine issued a report last year called 
Unequal Treatment: Confronting Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Health 
Care. This report emphasized the importance of ``providing advocates 
for patients who can assist them in asking the appropriate questions, 
and making the necessary inquiries as they access the health are system 
. . . ''
  Often these are patients without health insurance who are not fluent 
in English. Having a culturally appropriate ``navigator'' who will 
assist them in making appointments and understanding the services 
available to them could help improve quality of life for minorities.

  Lastly, the bill also authorizes grants through the Centers for 
Disease Control and the National Cancer Institute to monitor and 
evaluate quality cancer care, develop information concerning quality 
cancer care and monitor cancer survivorship.
  6. Coverage of Preventive Measures. People cannot get good health 
care if they have no way to pay for it, if insurance plans, public and 
private, do not cover the basics like screenings for cancer.
  My bill will require public plans, like Medicare and Medicaid, and 
private insurance plans to cover four services important to good cancer 
care: 1. Cancer screenings; 2. Genetic testing and counseling for 
people at risk; 3. Smoking cessation counseling; and 4. Nutrition 
counseling.
  Access to mammograms, pelvic exams, along with reducing fat in the 
diet and stopping smoking--all of which could be enhanced by this 
bill--can stop cancer before it is too late.
  Because too many Americans have no way to pay for their health care 
when cancer strikes and because seven percent of cancer patients are 
uninsured, the bill also requires the Institute of Medicine of the 
National Academy of Sciences to conduct a study of the feasibility and 
cost of providing Medicare coverage to individuals at any age who are 
diagnosed with cancer and have no other way to pay for their health 
care.
  Medicare already covers care for people of any age who have End Stage 
Renal Disease and Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis, Lou Gehrig's Disease. 
This study could provide helpful guidance to the Congress.
  Because no assault on cancer is complete without a strong cancer 
prevention component, the bill provides funds and requires the Centers 
for Disease Control and Prevention to prepare a model state cancer 
control and prevention program; expand the National Program of 
Comprehensive Cancer Control plans, and to assist every state to 
develop a cancer prevention and control program.
  The bill also authorizes $250 million to expand the Center for 
Disease Control and Prevention's breast and cervical cancer screening 
program and authorizes $50 million for CDC to begin screening programs 
for colorectal cancer.
  7. Bolstering the Number of Health Care Providers. Because of the 
aging of the American population, we face a virtual explosion of cancer 
in the coming 30 years. The number of cases will double. But the sad 
fact is that we do not have enough nurses and other health care 
professionals to take care of this expected rise in cancer patients.
  My bill will provide $100 million for loans, grants and fellowships 
to train for the full range of cancer care providers, including nurses 
for all settings, allied health professionals, and physicians. The bill 
requires that these applicants have the intention to get a certificate, 
degree, or license and demonstrate a commitment to working in cancer 
care.
  In nursing alone--those critical people on the front line of care--
many experts say we face a national nursing shortage in virtually every 
setting, which will peak in the next 10 to 15 years unless steps are 
taken. By 2020, the RN workforce will be 20 percent short of what will 
be needed. My home State of California ranks 50th among registered 
nurses per capita.
  And it's not just nurses. The Health Resources Services 
Administration says that the demand of health care professionals will 
grow at twice the rate of other occupations.
  Cancer is primarily a disease of aging. As the baby boomers age, 
there will be more cancer. Cancer care is becoming more and more 
complex as technology improves. Skilled providers, from the nurse 
assistant to the oncologist are needed to administer the complex 
therapies. This bill should provide some help.
  8. Cancer Survivorship. Thanks to advances in cancer detection and 
early diagnosis, more aggressive and effective treatments, and better 
screening tools, about 9 million Americans--nearly one in 30--can call 
themselves a cancer survivor. This represents 3 percent of the 
population.
  Thirty years ago a cancer diagnosis was a death sentence. That is not 
the case today. As a result, addressing a person's quality of life 
post-cancer is becoming increasingly important.
  To give you a snapshot picture of what a typical cancer survivor 
looks

[[Page S6867]]

like: about 59 percent of cancer survivors are over the age of 65; 3 
million (30 percent) were diagnosed between 5-15 years ago; and, 23 
percent are breast cancer survivors and 17 percent are prostate cancer 
survivors.
  Current statistics suggest that for individuals who receive a 
diagnosis today, 60 percent can expect to be alive in 5 years. The 5-
year survival rate for children is even higher--almost 75 percent.
  What this means is that more than half of all people, children or 
adults, diagnosed with cancer today, will become cancer survivors.
  We've come a long way. And the survival rate for cancer will only get 
better as we continue to make improvements in screenings, detection, 
diagnosis and treatment.
  But now we face new challenges. We need to better understand what 
services are necessary to help address the needs of people who are 
surviving cancer.
  This bill would do several things to help support cancer survivors.
  First, it would codify an Office of Cancer Survivorship at NCI. Since 
1999, such an Office has been in existence but it has not been 
officially recognized by Congress or received it's own budget.
  This Office is crucial because it sets the research agenda at NCI on 
survivorship-related issues.
  The National Cancer Institute found in 1999 that ``surviving cancer 
can leave a host of problems in its wake. Physical, emotional, and 
financial hardships often persist for years after initial diagnosis and 
treatment. Many survivors suffer decreased quality of life following 
treatment, leading one cancer activist and survivor to say, `surviving 
is not just about a cure, but about living the rest of our lives.' ''
  For some, long-term health problems result, for example, because a 
surgery to remove a cancer tumor has impaired nearby organs which could 
cause additional health problems.
  Additionally, patients who survive one cancer have almost twice the 
risk of developing a second cancer as the general population. Almost 
100,000 people are diagnosed each year with ``second cancers.'' What 
can be done to reduce the chance of a second diagnosis of cancer?
  And the bill also authorizes grants through the Centers for Disease 
Control for activities including the development of a cancer 
surveillance system to track the health status of cancer survivors, and 
the development of a national cancer survivorship action plan.
  For 9 years I have co-chaired the Senate Cancer Coalition. We have 
held ten hearings on cancer. With each hearing, I become more and more 
convinced that we can conquer cancer in my lifetime. These are the 
highlights of the cancer battle plan.
  It is my hope that this legislation will become the rallying cry for 
the Cancer community.
  Polls by Research America show that the public wants their tax 
dollars spent on medical research and that in fact people will pay more 
in taxes for more medical research.
  Cancer impacts everyone. Everyone knows someone who has had cancer or 
will have cancer.
  I am thoroughly convinced that if we just marshal the resources, we 
can conquer cancer in the 21st century. Let's begin. The road ahead is 
long and treacherous. But if we all work together, I honestly believe 
we can do it.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the 
National Cancer Act of 2003. This bill represents the way ahead in the 
battle against cancer, and I am proud to co-sponsor it again in the 
108th Congress.
  Like many Americans, I have seen the battle for cancer first hand. I 
support this important legislation for the millions of Americans who 
have been diagnosed with cancer and their family members. I do so also 
in honor of my mother, whom I lost to cancer in October, 2001.
  The statistics for cancer victims can be so numbing that they lose 
their effect over time, but behind every number is a face and a family. 
And while Oregon is a small state, the pain experienced by cancer 
sufferers and their families is the same regardless of where they live.
  Cancer kills more people in my home State of Oregon than any other 
condition except heart disease, and as the population ages, it will 
surpass heart disease to become the number one killer. Each year, more 
than 18,000 new cases of cancer are diagnosed among Oregonians--about 
50 every day. On average, 19 Oregonians die of cancer every day.
  Breast cancer is the most often diagnosed cancer in Oregon. Nine 
women every day hear the words, ``You have breast cancer,'' and every 
day, one family in Oregon will lose a family member to breast cancer. 
Every three days, one child in Oregon will be diagnosed with cancer.
  I could continue to cite statistics, but the message is clear: we 
have worked hard to eradicate cancer, but we must do more. While little 
progress has been made in reducing the incidence of cancer, advances 
from research are producing more effective treatments, allowing us to 
improve mortality rates. The National Cancer Act of 2003 is designed to 
do just that. It represents a comprehensive plan to speed the discovery 
and application of new cancer treatments to find cures for--and to 
prevent--cancer.
  The bill's special provisions for additional research dollars for 
targeted cancer drugs will directly impact the work of Brian Druker, a 
researcher at Oregon Health and Sciences University who has worked to 
develop a cancer treatment and prevention drug called Gleevac. Gleevac 
is a promising new oral treatment for patients with chronic myeloid 
leukemia, CML--a rare, life-threatening form of cancer.
  The National Cancer Act will help ensure that new and groundbreaking 
cancer treatments like Gleevac make their way from the research bench 
to the patient's bedside table faster. Currently, there are many 
promising new drugs awaiting clinical trial. Although 60 percent of 
children with cancer are currently participating in clinical drug 
trials, only 4-5 percent of adult patients do the same. In order to 
save lives, new cancer drugs must be tested and perfected.
  The National Cancer Act will also authorize a program to help 
attract, train, and retrain health care professionals who provide 
cancer care. By offering tuition assistance in exchange for cancer 
patient care, the National Cancer Act makes a decisive step in 
lessening a Nation-wide cancer-care workforce crisis.
  The National Cancer Act also aims to stop cancer before it starts by 
allocating significant funds to early prevention and detection efforts. 
The bill would require that insurers pay for cancer screenings, smoking 
cessation, nutritional counseling and other preventive measures. 
Additionally, Medicare and Medicaid would be authorized to make 
payments to cancer specialists who coordinate their patients' cancer 
care. Coordinated care will, in turn, improve the health outcomes for 
cancer patients.
  I am also pleased that this year the bill adds a new provision 
authorizing the creation of a permanent office of Cancer Survivorship 
to focus research on the issues of cancer survivors. By developing a 
new cancer surveillance system and a national cancer survivorship 
action plan, we will be better able to address the challenges affecting 
those in recovery.
  Cancer is not a partisan disease and we can, and should, do more to 
treat and prevent it. I am proud to sponsor the National Cancer Act of 
2003 as a Republican, an American, and a member of the human family.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Prevention and 
Recovery of Missing Children's Act. I especially want to commend my 
colleagues Senator Dodd and Senator Collins for their hard work on this 
important legislation.
  Sex offenders prey upon the weakest and most innocent in our 
society--our youth--and in astonishing numbers. According to the 
National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, 3.9 million of the 
Nation's 22.3 million children between the ages of 12 and 17 have been 
seriously physically assaulted, and one in three girls and one in five 
boys are sexually abused before the age of 18. Even more troubling is 
the fact that most sex offenders are not in our prisons. Instead, they 
remain in our communities, often targeting their next victim. To 
illustrate, among the Federal Bureau of Investigation's `Most Wanted 
Fugitives' is a sex offender who allegedly sexually abused a 12-year 
old boy over a 6-year period

[[Page S6868]]

after he was released from prison for previous acts of sexual abuse.
  Time and again we see convicted pedophiles kidnapping, brutally 
raping, and in some cases, murdering young children. Too often we are 
unable to thwart such heinous acts because recidivists succeed in 
evading State registration requirements after they have been convicted 
and released from prison. We have a duty to our children to ensure that 
we know where convicted sex offenders are at all times. We also have a 
duty to take every step to find our missing and exploited children 
promptly.
  The Prevention and Recovery of Missing Children Act of 2003 will 
enhance our ability to track recidivists and find child victims by 
strengthening sexual offender registration laws and missing children 
reporting requirements. This legislation (1) requires States to 
register sexual offenders prior to their release from prison to ensure 
that they comply with sex registration requirements; (2) requires 
States to obtain a DNA sample, as well as a photo and fingerprints, 
from convicted sexual offenders; (3) requires convicted sexual 
offenders to obtain a driver's license or State identification card as 
an additional means of identification; (4) requires convicted sexual 
offenders to report any change in registration within 10 days; (5) 
requires convicted sexual offenders to verify their registration 
information every 90 days; (6) makes it a felony offense to fail to 
comply with any sexual registration requirement; and (7) strengthens 
the missing children reporting requirements that are imposed on States.
  It is critical that the law enforcement community be able to track 
down known child predators and to find our missing and exploited 
children promptly. This legislation provides law enforcement with the 
tools they need to achieve these goals. I am committed to working with 
Senator Dodd and Senator Collins to enhance this valuable legislation 
even further.
                                 ______