[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 3043-3047]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. DORGAN (for himself, Mr. Dayton, Mr. Coleman, and Mr. 
        Conrad):
  S. 2154. A bill to establish a National sex offender registration 
database, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. DORGAN. 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.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2154

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``National Sex Offender 
     Registry Act of 2004''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITION.

       In this Act:
       (1) Criminal offense against a victim who is a minor.--The 
     term ``criminal offense against a victim who is a minor'' has 
     the same meaning as in section 170101(a)(3) of the Jacob 
     Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent 
     Offender Registration Act (42 U.S.C. 14071(a)(3)).
       (2) Minimally sufficient sexual offender registration 
     program.--The term ``minimally sufficient sexual offender 
     registration program'' has the same meaning as in section 
     170102(a) of the Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and 
     Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act (42 U.S.C. 
     14072(a)).
       (3) Sexually violent offense.--The term ``sexually violent 
     offense'' has the same meaning as in section 170101(a)(3) of 
     the Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually 
     Violent Offender Registration Act (42 U.S.C. 14071(a)(3)).
       (4) Sexually violent predator.--The term ``sexually violent 
     predator'' has the same meaning as in section 170102(a) of 
     the Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually 
     Violent Offender Registration Act (42 U.S.C. 14072(a)).

     SEC. 3. ESTABLISHMENT OF DATABASE.

       (a) In General.--The Attorney General shall establish a 
     National sex offender registry that--
       (1) makes publicly available, via the Internet, all 
     information required to be submitted by States to the 
     Attorney General under subsection (b); and

[[Page 3044]]

       (2) allows for users of the registry to determine which 
     registered sex offenders are currently residing within a 
     radius, as specified by the user of the registry, of the 
     location indicated by the user of the registry.
       (b) Information from States.--
       (1) In general.--If any person convicted of a criminal 
     offense against a victim who is a minor or a sexually violent 
     offense, or any sexually violent predator, is required to 
     register with a minimally sufficient sexual offender 
     registration program within a State, including a program 
     established under section 170101 of the Jacob Wetterling 
     Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent Offender 
     Registration Act (42 U.S.C. 14017(b)), that State shall 
     submit to the Attorney General--
       (A) the name and any known aliases of the person;
       (B) the date of birth of the person;
       (C) the current address of the person and any subsequent 
     changes of that address;
       (D) a physical description and current photograph of the 
     person;
       (E) the nature of and date of commission of the offense by 
     the person; and
       (F) the date on which the person is released from prison, 
     or placed on parole, supervised release, or probation.
       (2) States without registration program.--The Federal 
     Bureau of Investigation shall collect from any person 
     required to register under section 170102(c) of the Jacob 
     Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent 
     Offender Registration Act (42 U.S.C. 14072(b)) the 
     information required under paragraph (1), and submit that 
     information to the Attorney General for inclusion in the 
     National sex offender registry established under section 2.

     SEC. 4. RELEASE OF HIGH RISK INMATES.

       (a) Civil Commitment Proceedings.--
       (1) In general.--Any State that provides for a civil 
     commitment proceeding, or any equivalent proceeding, shall 
     issue timely notice to the attorney general of that State of 
     the impending release of any person incarcerated by the State 
     who--
       (A) is a sexually violent predator; or
       (B) has been deemed by the State to be at high-risk for 
     recommitting any sexually violent offense or criminal offense 
     against a victim who is a minor.
       (2) Review.--Upon receiving notice under paragraph (1), the 
     State attorney general shall consider whether or not to 
     institute a civil commitment proceeding, or any equivalent 
     proceeding required under State law.
       (b) Monitoring of Released Persons.--
       (1) In general.--Each State shall intensively monitor, for 
     not less than 1 year, any person described under paragraph 
     (2) who--
       (A) has been unconditionally released from incarceration by 
     the State; and
       (B) has not been civilly committed pursuant to a civil 
     commitment proceeding, or any equivalent proceeding under 
     State law.
       (2) Applicability.--Paragraph (1) shall apply to--
       (A) any sexually violent predator; or
       (B) any person who has been deemed by the State to be at 
     high-risk for recommitting any sexually violent offense or 
     criminal offense against a victim who is a minor.

     SEC. 5. COMPLIANCE.

       (a) Compliance Date.--Each State shall have not more than 3 
     years from the date of enactment of this Act in which to 
     implement the requirements of sections 3 and 4.
       (b) Ineligibility for Funds.--A State that fails to submit 
     the information required under section 3(b) to the Attorney 
     General, or fails to implement the requirements of section 4, 
     shall not receive 25 percent of the funds that would 
     otherwise be allocated to the State under section 20106(b) of 
     the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 
     U.S.C. 13706(b)).
       (c) Reallocation of Funds.--Any funds that are not 
     allocated for failure to comply with this section shall be 
     reallocated to States that comply with sections 3 and 4.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE:
  S. 2156. A bill to amend title II of the Higher Education Act of 1965 
to enhance teacher training programs, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation, the 
``Community College Teacher Preparation Enhancement Act of 2004,'' 
which addresses two of the Nation's most pressing education needs: 
first, the projected demand for roughly 2.4 million new `highly 
qualified' teachers over the next decade, due to teacher attrition, 
teacher retirement, and a growing student population, and second, the 
requirement under the No Child Left Behind Act that all teachers be 
`highly qualified' by 2006. This is an enormous challenge for the 
Nation, but one that this legislation would take giant strides toward 
meeting.
  Our Nation's colleges and universities have done a wonderful job 
graduating highly qualified teachers. There is no question about this, 
but given the coming teacher shortages, it is unlikely that our four-
year colleges and universities, alone, will be sufficient to satisfy 
the rising demand for well-educated teachers. Certainly, and sadly, 
this will simply not be possible in the near term. Yet throughout the 
educational community, community colleges have come to be recognized 
for their potential to play a leading role in filling the looming 
teacher shortage. Community colleges are already a vital part of our 
higher education system, particularly in producing teachers. Nearly 
half of all of the country's undergraduates who enter post-secondary 
institutions began their studies at community colleges. Of the 
country's teachers, one in five began their education at a community 
college. Clearly, community colleges are already a great resource.
  In addition to their current role, community colleges have access to 
a vast population of students who could potentially become teachers, if 
given encouragement, opportunity and training. The Nation's 1200 
community colleges enroll more than 6 million students. Let me put that 
in perspective. That means that 44 percent of the Nation's 
undergraduates are enrolled in community colleges! It's not difficult 
to see that community colleges have the unique potential to assist the 
country in meeting its increased demand for high-quality teachers. Now 
let me tell you how this legislation would utilize this resource for 
the benefit of both our children and our future.
  This bill seeks to build strong teacher training networks by allowing 
us to tap the extraordinary resources and student pool at all post-
secondary levels to increase the number of teachers across the nation. 
This is accomplished through the establishment of a Department of 
Education grant program to award funding to applicants who will 
strengthen their teacher training systems.
  Four-year institutions can offer the community college population 
access to their established and recognized curriculum of teacher 
training courses. Four-year institutions that have already established 
relationships with schools can offer practical learning to community 
college students who are seeking a teaching degree, and can receive 
federal money to help implement these programs.
  Moreover, by promoting close collaboration between community colleges 
and four-year institutions, this legislation increases the opportunity 
for community college students to earn a baccalaureate degree in 
education. This would help the Nation keep pace with the demand for 
high-quality teachers that is due--in addition to the demographic 
changes I mentioned earlier--to requirements of the No Child Left 
Behind Act, most notably the mandate that all new teachers have at 
least a baccalaureate degree.
  While this legislation aims to prevent a shortage of teachers 
nationwide, it prioritizes teacher preparation in areas of extreme 
shortage, typically rural and urban areas. Further, it targets specific 
academic areas that face even greater shortages, such as mathematics, 
science, and special education.
  The Community College Teacher Preparation Enhancement Act also 
promotes teacher training and outreach to secondary schools to develop 
innovative approaches to attracting high school students into the 
teaching profession.
  Finally, recognizing that teacher shortage is not a regional problem, 
care will be taken to ensure that grants are distributed in a 
geographically diverse manner.
  This legislation addresses a pressing issue. School districts across 
the nation are struggling to meet the requirements of No Child Left 
Behind, and delaying assistance would only compound the problem as 
shortages of qualified teachers increase. This was not the intent of No 
Child Left Behind, but idleness on this issue will surely leave a 
devastating shortage of quality educators for our children. It is time 
to act, and this legislation offers us a tremendous opportunity to send 
a clear and overdue signal to states that we intend to be true to this 
landmark legislation's title.

[[Page 3045]]

  I look forward to working on this issue and urge my colleagues to 
join me in this effort.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BAUCUS (for himself, Mr. Coleman, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Wyden, 
        Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Carper, Mr. 
        Bingaman, Mr. Corzine, Mr. Bayh, Mrs. Clinton, Ms. Landrieu, 
        Mrs. Murray, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Biden, Mrs. Boxer, and Mr. 
        Reid):
  S. 2157. A bill to amend the Trade Act of 1974 to extend the trade 
adjustment assistance program to the services sector, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Trade 
Adjustment Assistance Equity for Service Workers Act.
  Since 1962, Trade Adjustment Assistance--what we call ``TAA''--has 
provided retraining, income support, and other benefits so that workers 
who lose their jobs due to trade can make a new start.
  The rationale for TAA is simple. When our government pursues trade 
liberalization, we create benefits for the economy as a whole. But 
there is always some dislocation from trade.
  As President Kennedy said, ``those injured by . . . trade competition 
should not be required to bear the full brunt of the impact.'' ``There 
is an obligation,'' he said, for the Federal Government ``to render 
assistance to those who suffer as a result of national trade policy.'' 
We meet that obligation through TAA.
  The TAA program has not been static over time. Several times, 
Congress has revised the program to meet new economic realities. In 
1993, for example, Congress created a new TAA program targeted 
specifically at workers who might suffer dislocation as a result of the 
North American Free Trade Agreement.
  Most recently, in the Trade Act of 2002, Congress completed the most 
comprehensive overhaul and expansion of the TAA program since its 
inception.
  We expanded the program to cover workers affected by shifts in 
production, secondary workers, and farmers, ranchers, and fishermen. We 
extended income support to permit workers to complete needed training.
  We added wage insurance and other incentives to employers to promote 
on-the-job training. And we added a health insurance tax credit, so 
that workers don't need to choose between needed retraining and health 
care for their families.
  I am very proud to have played a leading role in passing this 
landmark legislation. But I am also the first to admit that our work is 
not done. Economic realities continue to change, and TAA must continue 
to change with them.
  One fundamental aspect of TAA that has remained unchanged since 1962 
is its focus on manufacturing. We only give TAA benefits to workers who 
make things. That means that the 80 percent or more of American workers 
in the service sector cannot access this program.
  Excluding service workers from TAA may have made sense in 1962, when 
most non-farm jobs were in manufacturing and most services were not 
traded across national borders.
  But today, most U.S. jobs are in the service sector. And the market 
for many services is becoming just as global as the market for 
manufactured goods.
  In 2001, the service sector accounted for 81 percent of U.S. private 
sector gross domestic product and a similar percentage of total U.S. 
employment. Although trade in goods continues to dominate, cross-border 
services trade rose to 21 percent of the total value of U.S. trade in 
2001.
  Trade in services is a net plus for the U.S. economy. In fact, the 
service sector generated a trade surplus of nearly $74 billion in 2001.
  Just as we have seen with trade in manufactured goods, however, trade 
in services will inevitably cost some workers their jobs.
  Indeed, there have been some well-publicized examples in the papers. 
Software design. Technical support. Accounting and tax preparation 
services. Just recently, a group of call center workers in Kalispell, 
Montana saw their jobs move to Canada.
  Examples abound of service-sector jobs--even high tech service jobs--
relocating overseas. Over the past three years, somewhere between a 
quarter and a half million service jobs have moved to other--mainly 
low-wage--countries.
  The legislation that I am introducing today is a simple matter of 
equity. When a factory relocates to another country, those workers are 
eligible for TAA. When a call center moves to another country, those 
workers are not eligible for TAA. But they should be. And under this 
legislation they will.
  This bill provides TAA benefits to three categories of trade-impacted 
service workers:
  First, it covers workers who lose their jobs due to competition from 
imported services. For example, if a U.S. truck driver loses his job 
because his employer loses routes to a Mexican-domiciled trucking 
company, the U.S. driver would be eligible for TAA.
  Second, it covers workers who lose their jobs when a service facility 
relocates overseas as, for example, in the case of a call center or 
software design operation.
  These workers would be eligible if their employer opens an overseas 
facility, or--as is often the case--if the employer contracts out the 
jobs to a foreign service provider. This ``offshoring'' eligibility 
would apply to both private and public sector service workers whose 
jobs relocate overseas.
  Third, the bill covers secondary service workers. Secondary workers 
are those who provide inputs to a primary firm where the workers are 
eligible for TAA.
  Right now, workers who make parts for manufactured products are 
covered if they lose their jobs when the primary firm closes. But 
workers who supply services to a TAA-eligible firm do not. This bill 
corrects that inequity.
  The benefits service workers will receive under this legislation 
would be exactly the same as those that trade-impacted manufacturing 
workers now receive. They include retraining, income support, job 
search and relocation allowances, and the health insurance tax credit.
  The bill also expands the TAA for Firms program to cover services. 
The TAA for Firms program provides technical assistance to mostly small 
and medium-sized businesses that face layoffs due to import 
competition.
  The program helps firms become more competitive so they can retain 
and expand employment. As with TAA for workers, there is no reason to 
exclude businesses that provide services from this program.
  Hard-working American service workers deserve this safety net. 
Despite what some opponents of TAA suggest, no worker would choose to 
lose his job so he can qualify for TAA. These benefits will always be 
second best to a job. But they can really make a difference in helping 
workers make a new start.
  It is also critical to note that TAA can make an important difference 
in public attitudes. Surveys show that most Americans feel a lot more 
comfortable with globalization and with trade agreements when they know 
they will get help if their jobs are threatened.
  That's why 66 percent of Americans responding to a recent poll agreed 
with the following statement: ``I favor free trade, and I believe that 
it is necessary for the government to have programs to help workers who 
lose their jobs.''
  The world is changing and TAA must keep up with the times. This bill 
will help our government to keep its promise to the American people to 
make trade work for everyone.
  I want to thank my colleagues who have joined me in co-sponsoring 
this important legislation, particularly Senator Coleman. I've also 
been working closely with Members in the House, including 
Representatives Smith, Holden, Inslee, Rangel, and Levin.
  I know they share my interest in seeing this bill move quickly 
through the legislative process and I thank them

[[Page 3046]]

for their support. I plan to work hard this year to move this 
legislation.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2157

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Trade Adjustment Assistance 
     Equity For Service Workers Act of 2004''.

     SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF TRADE ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE TO SERVICES 
                   SECTOR.

       (a) Adjustment Assistance for Workers.--Section 
     221(a)(1)(A) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 
     2271(a)(1)(A)) is amended by striking ``firm)'' and inserting 
     ``firm, and workers in a service sector firm or subdivision 
     of a service sector firm or public agency)''.
       (b) Group Eligibility Requirements.--Section 222 of the 
     Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2272) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking 
     ``agricultural firm)'' and inserting ``agricultural firm, and 
     workers in a service sector firm or subdivision of a service 
     sector firm or public agency)'';
       (B) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``or public agency'' 
     after ``of the firm''; and
       (C) in paragraph (2)--
       (i) in subparagraph (A)(ii), by striking ``like or directly 
     competitive with articles produced'' and inserting ``or 
     services like or directly competitive with articles produced 
     or services provided'';
       (ii) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (B) 
     and inserting ``; or''; and
       (iii) by adding after subparagraph (B) the following:
       ``(C)(i) there has been a shift, by such workers' firm, 
     subdivision, or public agency to a foreign country, in 
     provision of services, like or directly competitive with 
     services which are provided by such firm, subdivision, or 
     public agency; or
       ``(ii) such workers' firm, subdivision, or public agency 
     has obtained or is likely to obtain such services from a 
     foreign country.'';
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking 
     ``agricultural firm)'' and inserting ``agricultural firm, and 
     workers in a service sector firm or subdivision of a service 
     sector firm or public agency)'';
       (B) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``or service'' after 
     ``related to the article''; and
       (C) in paragraph (3)(A), by inserting ``or services'' after 
     ``component parts'';
       (3) in subsection (c)--
       (A) in paragraph (3)--
       (i) by inserting ``or services'' after ``value-added 
     production processes'';
       (ii) by striking ``or finishing'' and inserting ``, 
     finishing, or testing'';
       (iii) by inserting ``or services'' after ``for articles''; 
     and
       (iv) by inserting ``(or subdivision)'' after ``such other 
     firm''; and
       (B) in paragraph (4)--
       (i) by striking ``for articles'' and inserting ``, or 
     services, for articles or services, used in the production of 
     articles or in the provision of services''; and
       (ii) by inserting ``(or subdivision)'' after ``such other 
     firm''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(d) Basis for Secretary's Determinations.--
       ``(1) Increased imports.--For purposes of subsection 
     (a)(2)(A)(ii), the Secretary may determine that increased 
     imports of like or directly competitive services exist if the 
     workers' firm or subdivision or customers of the workers' 
     firm or subdivision accounting for not less than 20 percent 
     of the sales of the workers' firm or subdivision certify to 
     the Secretary that they are obtaining such articles or 
     services from a foreign country.
       ``(2) Obtaining services abroad.--For purposes of 
     subsection (a)(2)(C)(ii), the Secretary may determine that 
     the workers' firm, subdivision, or public agency has obtained 
     or is likely to obtain like or directly competitive services 
     from a foreign country based on a certification thereof from 
     the workers' firm, subdivision, or public agency.
       ``(3) Authority of the secretary.--The Secretary may obtain 
     the certifications under paragraphs (1) and (2) through 
     questionnaires or in such other manner as the Secretary 
     determines is appropriate.''.
       (c) Training.--Section 236(a)(2)(A) of the Trade Act of 
     1974 (19 U.S.C. 2296(a)(2)(A)) is amended by striking 
     ``$220,000,000'' and inserting ``$440,000,000''.
       (d) Definitions.--Section 247 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 
     U.S.C. 2319) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) by inserting ``or public agency'' after ``of a firm''; 
     and
       (B) by inserting ``or public agency'' after ``or 
     subdivision'';
       (2) in paragraph (2)(B), by inserting ``or public agency'' 
     after ``the firm'';
       (3) by redesignating paragraphs (8) through (17) as 
     paragraphs (9) through (18), respectively; and
       (4) by inserting after paragraph (6) the following:
       ``(7) The term `public agency' means a department or agency 
     of a State or local government or of the Federal Government.
       ``(8) The term `service sector firm' means an entity 
     engaged in the business of providing services.''.
       (e) Technical Amendment.--Section 245(a) of the Trade Act 
     of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2317(a)) is amended by striking ``, other 
     than subchapter D''.

     SEC. 3. TRADE ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE FOR FIRMS AND INDUSTRIES.

       (a) Firms.--
       (1) Assistance.--Section 251 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 
     U.S.C. 2341) is amended--
       (A) in subsection (a), by inserting ``or service sector 
     firm'' after ``(including any agricultural firm'';
       (B) in subsection (c)(1)--
       (i) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by inserting 
     ``or service sector firm'' after ``any agricultural firm'';
       (ii) in subparagraph (B)(ii), by inserting ``or service'' 
     after ``of an article''; and
       (iii) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``articles like or 
     directly competitive with articles which are produced'' and 
     inserting ``articles or services like or directly competitive 
     with articles or services which are produced or provided''; 
     and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(e) Basis for Secretary Determination.--
       ``(1) Increased imports.--For purposes of subsection 
     (c)(1)(C), the Secretary may determine that increases of 
     imports of like or directly competitive services exist if 
     customers of the firm accounting for not less than 20 percent 
     of the sales of the firm certify to the Secretary that they 
     are obtaining such articles or services from a foreign 
     country.
       ``(2) Authority of the secretary.--The Secretary may obtain 
     the certifications under paragraph (1) through questionnaires 
     or in such other manner as the Secretary determines is 
     appropriate. The subpoena power described in section 249 
     shall be extended to the Secretary of Commerce for purposes 
     of carrying out this subsection.''.
       (2) Authorization of appropriations.--Section 256(b) of the 
     Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2346(b)) is amended by striking 
     ``$16,000,000'' and inserting ``$32,000,000''.
       (3) Definition.--Section 261 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 
     U.S.C. 2351) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``For purposes of'' and inserting ``(a) 
     Firm.--For purposes of''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) Service Sector Firm.--For purposes of this chapter, 
     the term `service sector firm' means a firm engaged in the 
     business of providing services.''.
       (b) Industries.--Section 265(a) of the Trade Act of 1974 
     (19 U.S.C. 2355(a)) is amended by inserting ``or service'' 
     after ``new product''.
       (c) Technical Amendments.--Section 249 of the Trade Act of 
     1974 (19 U.S.C. 2321) is amended by striking ``subpena'' and 
     inserting ``subpoena'' each place it appears in the heading 
     and the text.

     SEC. 4. MONITORING AND REPORTING.

       Section 282 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2393) is 
     amended--
       (1) in the first sentence--
       (A) by striking ``The Secretary'' and inserting ``(a) 
     Monitoring Programs.--The Secretary'';
       (B) by inserting ``and services'' after ``imports of 
     articles'';
       (C) by inserting ``and domestic provision of services'' 
     after ``domestic production'';
       (D) by inserting ``or providing services'' after 
     ``producing articles''; and
       (E) by inserting ``, or provision of services,'' after 
     ``changes in production''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) Collection of Data and Reports on Services Sector.--
       ``(1) Secretary of labor.--Not later than 3 months after 
     the date of the enactment of the Trade Adjustment Assistance 
     Equity for Service Workers Act of 2004, the Secretary of 
     Labor shall implement a system to collect data on adversely 
     affected service workers that includes the number of workers 
     by State, industry, and cause of dislocation of each worker.
       ``(2) Secretary of commerce.--Not later than 6 months after 
     such date of enactment, the Secretary of Commerce shall, in 
     consultation with the Secretary of Labor, conduct a study and 
     report to the Congress on ways to improve the timeliness and 
     coverage of data on trade in services, including methods to 
     identify increased imports due to the relocation of United 
     States firms to foreign countries, and increased imports due 
     to United States firms obtaining services from firms in 
     foreign countries.''.
                                 ______
                                 

      By Ms. COLLINS (for herself, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Warner, Mr. 
        Bingaman, Mr. Allen, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Lautenberg, 
        Mr. Hagel, Mr. Reed, Mr. Smith, Mr. Ensign, and Mr. DeWine):
  S. 2158. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to increase 
the supply of pancreatic islet cells for research, and to provide for 
better coordination of Federal efforts and information on islet cell 
transplantation; to

[[Page 3047]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                          ____________________