Jack Reed

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I introduce the Museum and Library Services Act of 2002. I am pleased to be joined by Senators Kennedy, Collins, Jeffords, Frist, Cochran, Levin, Chafee, Landrieu, and Dayton in introducing this legislation to strengthen museum and library services. Museums and libraries are rich centers of learning, woven into the fabric of our communities, big and small, urban and rural. Today's library is not simply a place where books are read and borrowed. It is a place where a love for reading is born and renewed again and again, and where information is sought and discovered. American libraries also coordinate and provide comprehensive services to meet the needs of their communities and people of all ages. They provide Internet access, family literacy classes, homework help, mentoring programs, English as A Second Language, ESL, classes, job training, and resume writing workshops. America's museums bring wonderment and joy to young and old alike, encouraging discovery and celebrating our heritage and our heroes. Today's museums bring everyday objects, art, music, science, technology, and much more to life. Museums help us preserve our past, understand our present, and plan our future. The Federal Government has a long history of supporting our Nation's libraries and museums, providing direct aid to public libraries since the adoption of the Library Services and Construction Act, LSCA, in 1956 and funding to museums since the enactment of the Museum Services Act in 1976. The Museum and Library Services Act was enacted in 1996, reauthorizing federal library and museum programs under a newly created, independent federal agency called the Institute for Museum and Library Services, IMLS. The Museum and Library Services Act consists of two main subtitles, the Library Services and Technology Act and the Museum Services Act. Senator Kennedy, Senator Jeffords, and my predecessor, former Senator Claiborne Pell, were instrumental in the development and enactment of this law. Under the Library Services and Technology Act, LSTA, IMLS funds four grant programs for libraries to improve access to information through technology, to ensure equity of access and to help bring resources to underserved audiences. These programs serve all types of our nation's 122,000 libraries: public, academic, research, school, and archive. In Rhode Island, LSTA funding allows libraries to provide summer reading programs for students and participate in the Rhode Island Family Literacy Initiative that helps families with limited English language skills. Last fall, the Providence Public Library was one of 6 museums and libraries recognized by IMLS with a National Award for Museum and Library Service. Under the Museum Service Act, IMLS provides funding and technical assistance to museums for preservation of museum collections, new technologies for exhibits, and general operations. Approximately 15,000 U.S. museums from aquariums to arboretums and botanical gardens, to art museums, to historic houses and sites, to nature centers, to science and technology centers, to zoological parks benefit from the IMLS's existence. Several Rhode Island museums have received IMLS funding, including the Children's Museum of Rhode Island, the Museum of Art at the Rhode Island School of Design, and the Slater Mill Historic Site in Pawtucket. The legislation we are introducing today is based on the testimony we heard at an April 10 hearing of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, which I chaired, as well as proposals that the museum and library communities each crafted using a cooperative and collaborative process. We are grateful for their efforts to come together on proposals so the law meets the future needs of museum and library users. The Museum and Library Services Act of 2002, which extends the authorization of museum and library services for six years, makes several important modifications to current law. The bill ensures that library activities are coordinated with the school library program I authored and contained within the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. It establishes a Museum and Library Services Board to advise the Director of IMLS, and it authorizes IMLS to award a National Award for Library Service as well as a National Award for Museum Service. The bill also ensures a portion of administrative funds are used to analyze annually the impact of museum and library services to identify needs and trends of services provided under museum and library programs, and it establishes a reservation of 1.75 percent of funds for museum services for Native Americans (a similar reservation is currently provided for library services under the Library Services and Technology subtitle). Lastly, the bill updates the uses of funds for library and museum programs, and it increases the authorization of LSTA from $150 million to $350 million and Museum Services from $28.7 million to $65 million. I want to specifically highlight one other provision in the legislation. The Museum and Library Services Act of 2002 doubles the minimum State allotment under the Library Services and Technology Act to $680,000. The minimum State allotment has remained flat at $340,000 since 1971, hampering the literacy and cultural efforts of our Nation's smaller states. An analysis prepared by the staff of the Joint Economic Committee shows that it would take $1.5 million for our small States to keep pace with inflation. The library community has instead suggested a modest, but essential doubling of the minimum State allotment to $680,000. This will enable every State to benefit and implement the valuable services and programs that larger States have been able to put in place. We heard about the importance of this change from David Macksam, Director of the Cranston Public Library, during the April 10 hearing. I will be fighting to retain this provision as we work with the House to put this legislation on the President's desk for his signature. The House Committee on Education and the Workforce has already taken action on a reauthorization bill. Last year, during the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), I was pleased to work with Senator Collins, Chairman Kennedy, and others to secure funding for school libraries for the first time in twenty years. I hope we can also move forward on a similar bipartisan basis on a swift reauthorization of the Museum and Library Services Act. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this important legislation and work for its passage. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I introduce the Museum and Library Services Act of 2002. I am pleased to be joined by Senators Kennedy, Collins, Jeffords, Frist, Cochran, Levin, Chafee, Landrieu, and Dayton in introducing this legislation to strengthen museum and library services. Museums and libraries are rich centers of learning, woven into the fabric of our communities, big and small, urban and rural. Today's library is not simply a place where books are read and borrowed. It is a place where a love for reading is born and renewed again and again, and where information is sought and discovered. American libraries also coordinate and provide comprehensive services to meet the needs of their communities and people of all ages. They provide Internet access, family literacy classes, homework help, mentoring programs, English as A Second Language, ESL, classes, job training, and resume writing workshops. America's museums bring wonderment and joy to young and old alike, encouraging discovery and celebrating our heritage and our heroes. Today's museums bring everyday objects, art, music, science, technology, and much more to life. Museums help us preserve our past, understand our present, and plan our future. The Federal Government has a long history of supporting our Nation's libraries and museums, providing direct aid to public libraries since the adoption of the Library Services and Construction Act, LSCA, in 1956 and funding to museums since the enactment of the Museum Services Act in 1976. The Museum and Library Services Act was enacted in 1996, reauthorizing federal library and museum programs under a newly created, independent federal agency called the Institute for Museum and Library Services, IMLS. The Museum and Library Services Act consists of two main subtitles, the Library Services and Technology Act and the Museum Services Act. Senator Kennedy, Senator Jeffords, and my predecessor, former Senator Claiborne Pell, were instrumental in the development and enactment of this law. Under the Library Services and Technology Act, LSTA, IMLS funds four grant programs for libraries to improve access to information through technology, to ensure equity of access and to help bring resources to underserved audiences. These programs serve all types of our nation's 122,000 libraries: public, academic, research, school, and archive. In Rhode Island, LSTA funding allows libraries to provide summer reading programs for students and participate in the Rhode Island Family Literacy Initiative that helps families with limited English language skills. Last fall, the Providence Public Library was one of 6 museums and libraries recognized by IMLS with a National Award for Museum and Library Service. Under the Museum Service Act, IMLS provides funding and technical assistance to museums for preservation of museum collections, new technologies for exhibits, and general operations. Approximately 15,000 U.S. museums from aquariums to arboretums and botanical gardens, to art museums, to historic houses and sites, to nature centers, to science and technology centers, to zoological parks benefit from the IMLS's existence. Several Rhode Island museums have received IMLS funding, including the Children's Museum of Rhode Island, the Museum of Art at the Rhode Island School of Design, and the Slater Mill Historic Site in Pawtucket. The legislation we are introducing today is based on the testimony we heard at an April 10 hearing of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, which I chaired, as well as proposals that the museum and library communities each crafted using a cooperative and collaborative process. We are grateful for their efforts to come together on proposals so the law meets the future needs of museum and library users. The Museum and Library Services Act of 2002, which extends the authorization of museum and library services for six years, makes several important modifications to current law. The bill ensures that library activities are coordinated with the school library program I authored and contained within the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. It establishes a Museum and Library Services Board to advise the Director of IMLS, and it authorizes IMLS to award a National Award for Library Service as well as a National Award for Museum Service. The bill also ensures a portion of administrative funds are used to analyze annually the impact of museum and library services to identify needs and trends of services provided under museum and library programs, and it establishes a reservation of 1.75 percent of funds for museum services for Native Americans (a similar reservation is currently provided for library services under the Library Services and Technology subtitle). Lastly, the bill updates the uses of funds for library and museum programs, and it increases the authorization of LSTA from $150 million to $350 million and Museum Services from $28.7 million to $65 million. I want to specifically highlight one other provision in the legislation. The Museum and Library Services Act of 2002 doubles the minimum State allotment under the Library Services and Technology Act to $680,000. The minimum State allotment has remained flat at $340,000 since 1971, hampering the literacy and cultural efforts of our Nation's smaller states. An analysis prepared by the staff of the Joint Economic Committee shows that it would take $1.5 million for our small States to keep pace with inflation. The library community has instead suggested a modest, but essential doubling of the minimum State allotment to $680,000. This will enable every State to benefit and implement the valuable services and programs that larger States have been able to put in place. We heard about the importance of this change from David Macksam, Director of the Cranston Public Library, during the April 10 hearing. I will be fighting to retain this provision as we work with the House to put this legislation on the President's desk for his signature. The House Committee on Education and the Workforce has already taken action on a reauthorization bill. Last year, during the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), I was pleased to work with Senator Collins, Chairman Kennedy, and others to secure funding for school libraries for the first time in twenty years. I hope we can also move forward on a similar bipartisan basis on a swift reauthorization of the Museum and Library Services Act. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this important legislation and work for its passage. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to briefly describe an amendment that I filed to the fiscal year 2002 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill currently before the Senate. Simply, my amendment dealt with the Food and Drug Administration's `Pediatric Rule,' which the agency issued in 1999 to require that companies conduct clinical trials in which children are the subjects for drugs that may provide a health benefit for the pediatric population. After discussing my amendment with several colleagues, I have decided not to offer it at this time. I believe, however, that this is an important issue that must be settled this year. In 1999, FDA issued new regulations requiring pediatric studies of certain new and marketed pharmaceutical and biological products. The agency determined that most drugs had not been adequately tested in the pediatric population. The 1999 rule requires that manufacturers of certain products provide sufficient data and information to support the directions for pediatric use for claimed indications. The pediatric rule filled an important gap in FDA's regulation of drug and biologic products. I know that many of us have been concerned about the lack of important pediatric information on marketed drug products. The rule and the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act, which was enacted in January of this year, have different provisions, though they complement each other in important respects. The Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act provides incentives for companies to test products in children and provides them with six month pediatric marketing exclusivity for products approved for pediatric use. The statute does not require any pediatric testing. In addition, the rule includes biological products in its requirements whereas the statute does not. Many of the new products that may provide significant health benefits to the children of this country are biologics. And the statute only allows each product to be considered once in its lifecycle, which means that FDA cannot request information on any pediatric uses not anticipated at the beginning. I understand that the Secretary of Health and Human Services supports the continued enforcement of the pediatric rule and that he so stated in a Labor Health and Human Services Appropriations Subcommittee hearing earlier this week. Congressional action ensuring that the pediatric rule remains in effect for the foreseeable future is necessary and appropriate, and I look forward to working with my colleagues in the coming weeks on this issue.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I wish to briefly speak about the legislation before us and to lend my support to the supplemental appropriations bill. I commend Chairman Byrd and Senator Stevens for a job well done. They took extensive testimony in many hearings to determine the needs for homeland security, as well as many other needs, and they have incorporated those provisions in this bill. I also salute and commend my colleague from Washington State, Senator Murray, for giving an excellent discussion of the transportation aspects of this bill. She indicated the detailed and the careful deliberation that went into the crafting of this legislation and suggested also the reality that was confronted by the committee in hearing testimony from witnesses who indicated it might take up to 2 years to do a survey of a port when, in fact, the American people are demanding action immediately, not 2 years from now--when the threat is immediate, not hypothetical or 2 years removed. As a result, I find it ironic, to say the least, that opponents of this bill would simply say we will sacrifice all the needed expenses because the total that we recommend is higher than that recommended by the President of the United States. Frankly, if you asked most Americans, they would say we are not spending enough on homeland security. If you asked them how much they would want us to spend, it would be: Spend as much as you need to ensure not just one port or one airfield but every port and every airfield, and to ensure every community in America is protected. That is what this bill attempts to do. This is a downpayment on a much larger bill because the issues and threats we confront will not be banished within a few weeks or a few months. It is long term, ongoing, requiring a tremendous commitment of resources. This is a good downpayment and one that I support wholeheartedly. The legislation includes within its provisions $14 billion for the cost of our operations in Afghanistan. To delay this bill any longer because of some objections or some overall objection and compromise for delaying funds for Afghanistan, to me, is inconceivable. We have those resources which we must commit and we must spend immediately. The bill also includes $5.5 billion for the recovery of New York City--again, expenses that we cannot ignore, cannot defer. We have to respond. There is $4.4 billion for aviation security, once again, a critical aspect of our response to the very real threats we face today because of terrorist attacks on the United States. The bill contains $1.95 billion for international programs to aid the war on terrorism. These are important complements to our military operations. The administration speaks often, and correctly, about draining the swamp where the terrorists reside. That cannot be done by wishing it away. We have to have resources to deal with profound problems across the globe--inadequate education systems, the overall threat of poverty, lack of economic development--all of those factors that contribute directly sometimes, but certainly indirectly, to the atmosphere that encourages terrorism, encourages those who attack us. I just returned, with some of my colleagues, from a conference of defense ministers in Singapore. If we look across the globe, this threat is very real and very sobering. We need resources to mount a counteroffensive. Those resources are not just military, they also involve assistance to local governments that are assisting us by intelligence operations, by using their military forces and their intelligence apparatus to help us in this war on terror. For all these reasons, we need to pass this bill and do it promptly. One of the major provisions of the bill is $3 billion for homeland defense, and that incorporates many issues--first responders, police and fire--to make sure these very brave men and women have the materials and the know-how to confront a wholly different threat. I do not think anyone conceived even a year ago that our police and fire departments would be at the front lines of sophisticated attacks by terrorists against the United States, involving mass casualty operations and massive destruction, yet they are. We have to give them the tools to do the job, to protect themselves, and to protect the communities they serve so well. Those provisions are within this bill also. We have to protect our nuclear facilities. It was shocking to me--and again this goes to the credibility of the administration saying they oppose this bill because we are spending too much. It was reported recently in the press that the authorities responsible for protecting our nuclear facilities asked for considerably more money and were told by OMB: No, we cannot afford it. We are not going to accept that answer. We want those facilities protected. Where there are nuclear powerplants, where there are nuclear facilities of the Department of Energy throughout this country, we want those facilities guarded, protected to prevent a catastrophic terrorist attack. That is one aspect of this bill which is important also. We also have to recognize the issue of biological terror. We witnessed firsthand in this Senate a biological attack. It is expensive, and we simply cannot wait for the next attack. We have to anticipate and, through our wise preventive actions, we hope preclude any type of attack. But that is not the result of wishful thinking and hoping it will not happen. That is putting real resources into prevention, into response, into those things that will prepare us for any type of mass casualty attack--biological, nuclear, or even a conventional weapon that is deployed against our people. I believe the chairman, the ranking member, and the subcommittee chairmen and women and their counterparts, the ranking members, have done a very good job responding to the concerns. In the Appropriations Committee when I sat and listened to this testimony from the people who are responsible in the Federal Government, at the State level, and in the local communities, I did not hear: You are spending too much. I heard: We need more help; we have to be responsive. Their position is not sitting here in Washington, it is literally on the front lines of this war on terror. If we listened to the men and women who are directly responsible for protecting the American people from terrorist threats, I think they would say in a very strong and uniform chorus: Pass this bill now. It is not too expensive. In fact, it is simply a downpayment on significant costs we will face in the foreseeable future. Our enemies are implacable. They are determined. They are reorganizing to strike again, and if we do not seize the moment and put the resources into a concerted, deliberate, expeditious effort to protect the American people, we will regret it and the American people will suffer the consequences. I urge we pass this legislation as quickly as possible. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today along with my colleagues, Senators Collins, Sarbanes, Chafee, Schumer, Akaka, Carper, Dodd, and Corzine to introduce a piece of legislation we believe establishes a framework for ending long-term homelessness in the United States. There is a growing consensus around the country that fifteen years after the passage of the McKinney-Vento Act, we now know how to help communities break the cycle of repeated and prolonged homelessness. Federal dollars, combined with local efforts, can help bring an end to this problem. The Community Partnership to End Homelessness Act of 2002 is intended to realign the incentives in the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act so that communities are rewarded for initiatives that will prevent and end homelessness, instead of receiving Federal funding for programs that maintain the status quo. During the past year, the Urban Institute estimates that at least 2.3 million, and perhaps as many as 3.5 million people, have been homeless. On any given day in the United States, at least 800,000 people are homeless, including about 200,000 children. Homelessness has an especially devastating impact on these children. If they are able to go to school, it is well documented that homeless children face increased challenges, such as learning disabilities and emotional and behavioral problems. This year's U.S. Conference of Mayors report on ``Hunger and Homelessness in America's Cities'' finds that requests for emergency shelter by families increased by 22 percent. Unfortunately, over half of all these requests for housing assistance went unmet. In my State, the Rhode Island shelter system provided more nights of shelter this past year than at any point in its history. Locally and nationally, several trends seem clear. First, despite the economic boom in the 1990s, homelessness has increased. Second, increasing numbers of families with children are being forced into our emergency shelter system. In March of this year, the Washington Post, reported that there had been a 25 percent rise in homelessness in Fairfax County, Virginia during the past four years, and most of that increase consisted of homeless families. Third, a relatively small number of long-term homeless persons continue to utilize a disproportionate number of the bed nights in our Nation's shelters. When it was created in 1987, the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act was intended to be an emergency federal response to the ``crisis'' of homelessness. Instead, it has become a safety net for low-income households who are inadequately served by mainstream programs such as Section 8 and Medicaid. Too often, mainstream programs are shifting the cost and responsibility for housing and a variety of support services to emergency homeless assistance programs. To reverse this trend, the Community Partnership to End Homelessness Act of 2002 would focus federal funds on projects and programs that are helping to prevent and end homelessness. This legislation also would allow maximum local creativity in addressing homelessness by consolidating multiple HUD McKinney-Vento programs into one program with a list of eligible activities. Our bill would also provide incentives for communities to build permanent housing for the disabled and for non-disabled families. It would encourage the creation of homelessness prevention programs, and it would promote comprehensive and inclusive local planning. Finally, it would require greater program accountability through the use of outcome-based performance evaluations. The Community Partnership to End Homelessness Act of 2002 is endorsed by the National Alliance to End Homelessness, the Corporation for Supportive Housing, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the Local Initiatives Support Corporation, the National Equity Fund, Inc., the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, the McAuley Institute and the Enterprise Foundation. We need to find the will and the resources to eradicate homelessness in this country. The Community Partnership to End Homelessness Act is only the beginning. The needs of homeless individuals and families fall within the jurisdiction of many federal departments and congressional committees. Thus, I believe additional legislation is going to be necessary in order to require Federal agencies such as HHS and the Department of Veterans Affairs to work with HUD in a more coordinated manner towards achieving this goal. I am committed to addressing this crisis, and I hope my colleagues will join us in supporting this bill and other homeless prevention efforts. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Community Partnership to End Homelessness Act be printed in the Record.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Bengin Brain Tumor Cancer Registries Amendment Act. I am pleased to be joined by my colleagues, Senators Fitzgerald, Cantwell, and DeWine in this effort. This legislation seeks to ensure that all forms of brain tumors are accounted for under the National Program of Cancer Registries. While the distinction between benign and malignant is often the difference between life and death for many kinds of tumors, it is not so clear when it comes to tumors of the brain. Depending on location and size, a brain tumor that is classified as benign can be equally life threatening as a malignant brain tumor. It is estimated that benign brain tumors account for almost 40 percent of the 35,000 brain tumors diagnosed each year. Currently, 21 States, including my home State of Rhode Island, collect data on malignant as well as benign brain tumors. Yet, there is no mechanism in place to track the incidence of benign brain tumors at the Federal level. Moreover, variation exists in how different states have defined a benign brain tumor. This lack of consistent data on the incidence of benign brain tumors has hindered the ability of the scientific community to invest appropriate resources into brain tumor research. While our current data is insufficient, disturbing trends related to brain tumors are nevertheless beginning to emerge. Brain tumors are the second leading cause of cancer death for children and the third leading cause of cancer death in young adults ages 15-34. Since 1975, the incidence of brain tumors has increased 25 percent for reasons that remain unknown. Tragically, our limited scientific and medical understanding of brain tumors is related to their incredibly high mortality rates. Only 37 percent of males and 52 percent of females survive five-years following the diagnosis of a primary benign or malignant brain tumor. By incorporating the collection of benign brain tumor data into the National Program of Cancer Registries, we will take a crucial first step toward better understanding the possible causes of this affliction and enhancing the ability of the medical community to devise improved methods of diagnosis and treatment for all brain tumors. I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure swift consideration and passage of this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Bengin Brain Tumor Cancer Registries Amendment Act. I am pleased to be joined by my colleagues, Senators Fitzgerald, Cantwell, and DeWine in this effort. This legislation seeks to ensure that all forms of brain tumors are accounted for under the National Program of Cancer Registries. While the distinction between benign and malignant is often the difference between life and death for many kinds of tumors, it is not so clear when it comes to tumors of the brain. Depending on location and size, a brain tumor that is classified as benign can be equally life threatening as a malignant brain tumor. It is estimated that benign brain tumors account for almost 40 percent of the 35,000 brain tumors diagnosed each year. Currently, 21 States, including my home State of Rhode Island, collect data on malignant as well as benign brain tumors. Yet, there is no mechanism in place to track the incidence of benign brain tumors at the Federal level. Moreover, variation exists in how different states have defined a benign brain tumor. This lack of consistent data on the incidence of benign brain tumors has hindered the ability of the scientific community to invest appropriate resources into brain tumor research. While our current data is insufficient, disturbing trends related to brain tumors are nevertheless beginning to emerge. Brain tumors are the second leading cause of cancer death for children and the third leading cause of cancer death in young adults ages 15-34. Since 1975, the incidence of brain tumors has increased 25 percent for reasons that remain unknown. Tragically, our limited scientific and medical understanding of brain tumors is related to their incredibly high mortality rates. Only 37 percent of males and 52 percent of females survive five-years following the diagnosis of a primary benign or malignant brain tumor. By incorporating the collection of benign brain tumor data into the National Program of Cancer Registries, we will take a crucial first step toward better understanding the possible causes of this affliction and enhancing the ability of the medical community to devise improved methods of diagnosis and treatment for all brain tumors. I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure swift consideration and passage of this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today along with my colleagues, Senators Collins, Sarbanes, Chafee, Schumer, Akaka, Carper, Dodd, and Corzine to introduce a piece of legislation we believe establishes a framework for ending long-term homelessness in the United States. There is a growing consensus around the country that fifteen years after the passage of the McKinney-Vento Act, we now know how to help communities break the cycle of repeated and prolonged homelessness. Federal dollars, combined with local efforts, can help bring an end to this problem. The Community Partnership to End Homelessness Act of 2002 is intended to realign the incentives in the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act so that communities are rewarded for initiatives that will prevent and end homelessness, instead of receiving Federal funding for programs that maintain the status quo. During the past year, the Urban Institute estimates that at least 2.3 million, and perhaps as many as 3.5 million people, have been homeless. On any given day in the United States, at least 800,000 people are homeless, including about 200,000 children. Homelessness has an especially devastating impact on these children. If they are able to go to school, it is well documented that homeless children face increased challenges, such as learning disabilities and emotional and behavioral problems. This year's U.S. Conference of Mayors report on ``Hunger and Homelessness in America's Cities'' finds that requests for emergency shelter by families increased by 22 percent. Unfortunately, over half of all these requests for housing assistance went unmet. In my State, the Rhode Island shelter system provided more nights of shelter this past year than at any point in its history. Locally and nationally, several trends seem clear. First, despite the economic boom in the 1990s, homelessness has increased. Second, increasing numbers of families with children are being forced into our emergency shelter system. In March of this year, the Washington Post, reported that there had been a 25 percent rise in homelessness in Fairfax County, Virginia during the past four years, and most of that increase consisted of homeless families. Third, a relatively small number of long-term homeless persons continue to utilize a disproportionate number of the bed nights in our Nation's shelters. When it was created in 1987, the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act was intended to be an emergency federal response to the ``crisis'' of homelessness. Instead, it has become a safety net for low-income households who are inadequately served by mainstream programs such as Section 8 and Medicaid. Too often, mainstream programs are shifting the cost and responsibility for housing and a variety of support services to emergency homeless assistance programs. To reverse this trend, the Community Partnership to End Homelessness Act of 2002 would focus federal funds on projects and programs that are helping to prevent and end homelessness. This legislation also would allow maximum local creativity in addressing homelessness by consolidating multiple HUD McKinney-Vento programs into one program with a list of eligible activities. Our bill would also provide incentives for communities to build permanent housing for the disabled and for non-disabled families. It would encourage the creation of homelessness prevention programs, and it would promote comprehensive and inclusive local planning. Finally, it would require greater program accountability through the use of outcome-based performance evaluations. The Community Partnership to End Homelessness Act of 2002 is endorsed by the National Alliance to End Homelessness, the Corporation for Supportive Housing, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the Local Initiatives Support Corporation, the National Equity Fund, Inc., the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, the McAuley Institute and the Enterprise Foundation. We need to find the will and the resources to eradicate homelessness in this country. The Community Partnership to End Homelessness Act is only the beginning. The needs of homeless individuals and families fall within the jurisdiction of many federal departments and congressional committees. Thus, I believe additional legislation is going to be necessary in order to require Federal agencies such as HHS and the Department of Veterans Affairs to work with HUD in a more coordinated manner towards achieving this goal. I am committed to addressing this crisis, and I hope my colleagues will join us in supporting this bill and other homeless prevention efforts. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Community Partnership to End Homelessness Act be printed in the Record.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, it had been my hope that the Senate would vote today on my amendment to the Baucus substitute amendment No. 3401 to the trade bill, H.R. 3009. Sadly, that will not be the case because of procedural roadblocks that foreshadow the kinds of obstacles that passage of the underlying bill will raise when we consider future trade agreements in the Senate. My amendment is about fairness for secondary workers who I believe are being treated unfairly. This is why I voted against cloture for the underlying substitute, and one of the reasons why I will vote against the bill on final passage. Nonetheless, I want to take a few moments to point out the plight of secondary workers, and urge my colleagues to pay close attention to the issue as it continues to develop after we pass this bill later today. Several things have been said on the Senate floor about trade adjustment assistance, TAA, and secondary workers during the length of this discourse on trade, and I think it is important to go back and highlight some of them and reiterate what the truth is in this debate. Most importantly, I think it is imperative that we realize that however many jobs we may create through export-related activities, we may lose many more due to the impact of imports. The choice before us is, how do we treat those workers adversely impacted by trade agreements in the future? Is it not fair to try to change the rules governing our trade policy to make a more fair and equitable distribution of benefits to those harmed? If my colleagues believe that is the case for some workers, as demonstrated by the support for TAA in NAFTA and the reauthorization of the program in the legislation before us, then it should be the case for all workers. It continues that this should mean that TAA is available for a particular worker whether they are employed by a factory that is directly shut down by trade, or if they work for a company that supplied parts to that first factory, only if that particular worker has become unemployed due to the effects of trade. I mentioned in my earlier remarks that the TAA Program has been a successful one since its inception, and I want to reiterate that. In fact, since April 1975 through December 2001, almost 3 million workers were certified as TAA eligible. However, almost 2.5 million workers were also denied certification. This demonstrates the demand for this important program, but also reflects the fact that it is a difficult process--something that would not be altered should we allow secondary workers to be a part of it. Another point I would like to reiterate from my earlier remarks is the fact that since the ratification of NAFTA, TAA has applied to secondary workers that lose their jobs as a result of the NAFTA trade agreement. In fact, a total of almost 700,000 workers applied for NAFTA-TAA certification from January 1994 through December 2001, and over 400,000 were granted certification. Although the exact numbers of how many of those beneficiaries were secondary workers are unknown, the fact remains that they have the right to apply for eligibility. Unfortunately, under the pending bill, secondary workers whose jobs have been lost due to a possible trade agreement with Chile, or Singapore, or any other country, will not be eligible to even apply for certification under TAA. Now let me relay some facts about secondary workers and TAA. A GAO report from October 2000 estimated that there could be from 34,000 to 211,000 secondary workers annually who could potentially apply for TAA benefits. This reflects the depth and reach of trade's effects on the livelihoods of American workers. Another GAO report from July 2001 showed that $494 million was expended on re-training for about 170,000 workers under TAA. This breaks down to less than $3,000 per worker. I think many would agree that is a small sum comparatively speaking, particularly when one considers the amount of training or schooling an individual can gain from that amount of money. It is precisely these kinds of workers that so need this type of investment in training and schooling. The GAO reports I earlier referenced cited the fact that about 80 percent of workers using TAA benefits in fiscal years 1999 and 2000 had a high school education or less, compared to 42 percent in the labor force as a whole. In other words, this is a modest increase in funds for TAA benefits that will go a long way toward a worker's developments of new skills, and reentry into the workforce to be a productive citizen once again. It is not an excuse to claim that the Department of Labor does not have adequate resources and staffing to deal with an expansion of the TAA Program to secondary workers. First of all, the Department has the experience in dealing with this issue, since it already decides on certification for secondary workers under NAFTA. Second, I believe we have a responsibility to add funding for the Department of Labor in order for it to be able to deal with a potentially larger increase in its workload. This issue is part of our choice here--do we discount these workers who have added to the economy, who pay taxes, and who provide for their family, just because they do not happen to be directly employed by a particular firm that was shut down by trade? Again, this is unfair treatment to a segment of our population that deserves our help. I thank the Chair.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I have an amendment that is now pending that, prior to the cloture vote, would have been in order for consideration, but after cloture, at this point I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to substitute another amendment which is in order for consideration if accepted by the body.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I appreciate the point that has just been made. My amendment, if I was allowed to proceed, would have dealt with the issue of secondary workers, providing them the same types of protections which are available to workers in facilities that are directly affected by trade actions. This is an amendment that is cosponsored by Senator Bingaman, the Presiding Officer, Senator Corzine, and others. It comes directly from the original legislation that Senator Bingaman submitted, S. 1209, which recognizes that the effects of trade are not discretely limited to individual companies but also affect those vendors, suppliers, and workers who support that company. I think that is a principle that is beyond debate. When a factory closes, it is not just the factory workers, it is the truckers, it is the tradesmen who work in that facility who very often see their livelihoods completely exhausted by the effects of trade. As a result, this legislation was originally proposed by Senator Bingaman. It was part of the proposal Senator Daschle made. It was part of the discussions. Unfortunately, regretfully, and I think unfairly, it was deleted from the provision which is in the underlying bill. As a result, I would have offered either the substitute amendment or, indeed, would offer the amendment now which would have included the effects of the trade adjustment benefits for those secondary workers. Again, I think it makes quite a bit of sense. Our definition of a secondary worker is someone who must have supplied a service or contract to the firm that has been certified as going out of business due to the direct effect of international trade. Perhaps the most compelling examples are those individual teamsters who service businesses that might, in fact, go out of business because of trade. They, too, lose their livelihood. I know my colleague, Senator Boxer of California, has offered an amendment that deals directly with the issue of truckers and teamsters. My amendment would apply to any worker who could validly make the claim of being, as I said, by contract or some relationship, related to a factory that is being closed down. The point I should also make is this provision would only give the workers or their representatives the opportunity to apply for these benefits because they have to be certified. It has to be shown that they have lost their job because of the effects of trade. The certification process, as we all know, is a rather difficult one. It is not presumed. It has to be proven. In this context, we are not opening up the floodgates. We are merely giving people who have lost their livelihood because of trade a fair chance. The most compelling point I urge in this whole area is we did precisely this under the NAFTA agreement. We provided for TAA benefits for workers, secondary workers, who were affected by the NAFTA agreement. So I urge very strongly that we overlook any of the procedural impediments and go to the heart of this matter. Give secondary workers the same rights as those factory workers who might lose their jobs because of the adverse effect of trade. We can do that by accepting the Reed-Bingaman-Corzine amendment. We can do that as we did in NAFTA and give all workers who have lost their jobs because of trade the benefits of the TAA assistance that has been provided on a limited basis in the underlying agreement. I urge my colleagues to support this effort. At this time I retain the remainder of my time and yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to recognize the new nation of East Timor. I want to congratulate and honor the people of East Timor for their perseverance and triumph of freedom in the face of tremendous odds. However, while we celebrate this victory we also must remember the long and arduous road by which they arrived here and recognize the challenging road which lies ahead. East Timor's road to independence-- achieved on May 20, 2002--has been marked by years of suffering. Indonesia invaded East Timor shortly after Portugal withdrew in 1975 and forcefully tried to subdue a resentful people. Many suffered and died during Indonesia's 25-year occupation which ended in 1999. Indonesia finally agreed 2 years ago to a referendum on independence for the East Timorese people. When the referendum showed overwhelming support for independence, Indonesian loyalists murdered hundreds and reduced towns to ruins. An international peacekeeping force halted the mayhem and paved the way for the United Nations to help East Timor back onto its feet. With U.N. assistance, the East Timorese have been rebuilding their nation. They have held their first democratic election, drafted and adopted their country's first constitution, and adopted their national flag and national anthem. On May 20, 2002, the United Nations handed over the reins to the newly established democratic government, and East Timor stands on its feet as the first new, free nation of the millennium. Although the rebuilding of East Timor has been one of the U.N.'s more successful stories, East Timor is expected to remain reliant on outside help for many years since its poor infrastructure has been destroyed and it is drought-prone. According to a recent report, 41 percent of East Timorese live in poverty and 48 percent are illiterate. East Timor also faces the challenge of repatriating a large refugee population-- approximately 55,000 East Timorese refugees continue to live in deplorable conditions in an environment of intimidation in Indonesia. With this situation in mind, the world community's support for East Timor's future is critical over the next several years. The U.S. should work with the U.N. and its members to make sure the job of preparing East Timor for self-rule is completed. The U.S. and the world should ensure that children receive a quality education, adequate healthcare and shelter, and that other needs for a decent standard of living are met. This is especially crucial in light of the recently released UNDP report that classified East Timor as one of the 20 poorest countries in the world and the poorest in Asia. It is equally important though, for East Timor to focus on the future. Now that the East Timorese people have their own independent nation they will need peaceful and constructive relations with their neighbor Indonesia and the international family of peaceful nations. I wish their new president, Mr. Xanana Gusmao, well as he continues to advocate a policy of reconciliation with Indonesia. He has said that his country must move on from the past and focus on issues such as education and healthcare. Mr. Gusmao's vision and the will of the East Timorese people provide great hope and potential for East Timor as it faces these challenges. And as they do, let them know that the U.S. and other free, democratic nations will continue to offer our friendship and steadfast support. So it is with great pride and honor that I recognize the dogged determination and perseverance of the East Timorese people, congratulate them on the birth of their free and democratic nation--the first new nation of this new millennium, and welcome them into the family of peaceful nations.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise in recognition of the students of West Warwick Senior High School for representing the State of Rhode Island in the national competition for the We the People . . . The Citizen and the Constitution program. This year's national competition took place on May 4 to 6, 2002. The We the People program and the competition is administered by the Center for Civic Education. The competition is modeled after hearings in the U.S. Congress and consists of oral presentations by high school students before a panel of adult judges on constitutional topics. The students' testimony is followed by a period of questioning by the judges who probe their depth of understanding and ability to apply their constitutional knowledge. It is inspiring to see these young people advocate the fundamental ideals and principles of our government. These are the ideals that bind us together as a nation. It is important for our next generation to understand these values and principles which we hold as standards in our endeavor to preserve and realize the promise of our constitutional democracy. On behalf of all Rhode Islanders, I would like to congratulate Najiya Abdul-Hakim, Janice Abueg, Peter Calci III, Kristin Capaldo, Elizabeth Champagne, Tara Cooney, Tara Czop, Paul DiMartino, Thomas Driscoll, Christopher Ellis, Tinisha Goldson, Kenneth Halpern, Sarah Johnson, Alyssa Lavallee, Robert Martin, Michael Muschiano, Lindsay Nagel, Michael Ouellette, Anthony Politelli, Michael Ryan, Kendall Silva, Sarah Smith, Corey St. Sauveur, Kate Studley, Erin Watson, Shane Wilcox, and their teacher Marc Leblanc. I would also like to acknowledge Rhode Island State Coordinator Henry Cote and District Coordinators Carlo Gamba and Michael Trofi for their dedication to this program over the years. These students truly represent the future leaders of our Nation.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues, Senator Kennedy of Massachusetts and Senator Bingaman of New Mexico, in introducing this timely and important legislation. The Preservation of Antibiotics for Human Treatment Act of 2002 will address a critical public health concern facing our nation. There has been mounting scientific evidence that the overuse in animal husbandry of certain antibiotics is increasing the resistance to those antibiotics of bacteria that cause human disease. In farming, the drugs are often added to the feed of healthy animals to promote growth and productivity. In 1997 and again in 2000, the World Health Organization recommended that antibiotics used to treat humans should not be used to promote animal growth, though the drugs could still be used to treat sick animals. Most developed countries, other than the United States and Canada, restrict the use of antimicrobials in growth promotion. In July 1998, the National Academy of Sciences concluded in a report that there is a link among the use of antibiotics in food animals, the development of bacterial resistance to these drugs and human disease. Our legislation will require that an animal drug in the fluoroquinolone class of antibiotics, such as ciprofloxacin, and an other critical drug, such as penicillin and tetracycline, will be considered unsafe as an additive in animal feed unless the drug's manufacturer can demonstrate that use in animal feed of the drug does not pose a harm to human health. In addition, the legislation will require that the Food and Drug Administration refuse to approve a veterinary drug application for any antimicrobial drug critical to human health care. For drugs that are currently added to animal feed, the legislation will require that the drug's use be phased out over the next two years. It should be noted that three large commercial poultry producers have recently volunteered to significantly reduce or stop the use of antibiotics in their healthy chickens. In addition, the New York Times reported in February that the industry is stopping the use of a particular drug that is related to Cipro, which is used to treat anthrax in humans. The Times reported as well that some corporate consumers including McDonalds, Wendy's and Popeye's are refusing to buy chicken treated with that drug. Some will be concerned that our legislation may impose a heavy burden on family farmers. As a means to reduce any burden, the legislation will also authorize payment to producers of livestock or poultry that substantially reduce there nontherapeutic use of antimicrobials in animal feed. Family-owned and family-operated farms or ranches will get priority in the awarding of these payments. And while we understand the concerns of those farmers, we anticipate that the legislation will be a significant step in helping the public health system maintain an effective arsenal against serious diseases, including anthrax, sepsis, strep and salmonella, many of which result in serious illness or death in both children and adults.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues, Senator Kennedy of Massachusetts and Senator Bingaman of New Mexico, in introducing this timely and important legislation. The Preservation of Antibiotics for Human Treatment Act of 2002 will address a critical public health concern facing our nation. There has been mounting scientific evidence that the overuse in animal husbandry of certain antibiotics is increasing the resistance to those antibiotics of bacteria that cause human disease. In farming, the drugs are often added to the feed of healthy animals to promote growth and productivity. In 1997 and again in 2000, the World Health Organization recommended that antibiotics used to treat humans should not be used to promote animal growth, though the drugs could still be used to treat sick animals. Most developed countries, other than the United States and Canada, restrict the use of antimicrobials in growth promotion. In July 1998, the National Academy of Sciences concluded in a report that there is a link among the use of antibiotics in food animals, the development of bacterial resistance to these drugs and human disease. Our legislation will require that an animal drug in the fluoroquinolone class of antibiotics, such as ciprofloxacin, and an other critical drug, such as penicillin and tetracycline, will be considered unsafe as an additive in animal feed unless the drug's manufacturer can demonstrate that use in animal feed of the drug does not pose a harm to human health. In addition, the legislation will require that the Food and Drug Administration refuse to approve a veterinary drug application for any antimicrobial drug critical to human health care. For drugs that are currently added to animal feed, the legislation will require that the drug's use be phased out over the next two years. It should be noted that three large commercial poultry producers have recently volunteered to significantly reduce or stop the use of antibiotics in their healthy chickens. In addition, the New York Times reported in February that the industry is stopping the use of a particular drug that is related to Cipro, which is used to treat anthrax in humans. The Times reported as well that some corporate consumers including McDonalds, Wendy's and Popeye's are refusing to buy chicken treated with that drug. Some will be concerned that our legislation may impose a heavy burden on family farmers. As a means to reduce any burden, the legislation will also authorize payment to producers of livestock or poultry that substantially reduce there nontherapeutic use of antimicrobials in animal feed. Family-owned and family-operated farms or ranches will get priority in the awarding of these payments. And while we understand the concerns of those farmers, we anticipate that the legislation will be a significant step in helping the public health system maintain an effective arsenal against serious diseases, including anthrax, sepsis, strep and salmonella, many of which result in serious illness or death in both children and adults.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise in recognition of the 90th Anniversary of the Girl Scouts of America. The Girl Scout tradition began on March 12, 1912, when founder Juliette Gordon Low assembled 18 girls in Savannah, GA for the first-ever Girl Scout meeting. Today, the organization offers girls of all races, ages, ethnicities, socioeconomic backgrounds, and abilities the chance to thrive by building the real- life skills they will need as adults. I am especially honored to acknowledge the activities of the Girl Scouts of Rhode Island, which currently serves over 13,700 girls in my home State and several bordering towns of Massachusetts and Connecticut. The Girl Scouts of Rhode Island has created several enriching programs and activities over the years that truly help girls grow strong. One such programs is Girls on the Go, which serves low- income girls at free lunch sites throughout the State during the summer months, allowing them to participate in Girl Scout activities. Other examples include the City Summer Camps program in both Providence and Central Falls which provides 6 weeks of training and recreational activities, and the Girls at the Center program which has provided numerous scouts and adults with opportunities to explore science and technology. I am truly proud of the achievements of the Rhode Island Girl Scouts and their mission to help young women achieve high ideals of character, conduct, patriotism and service. I wish them continued success in the future.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Madam President, I rise to join my colleagues, my fellow Rhode Islanders and our Armenian American community in observing the 87th Anniversary of the Armenian Genocide. Although some in the world still want to convince themselves, as well as others, that the deaths of so many Armenians was simply a product of a civil war, the facts are undeniable: from 1915 to 1923 1,500,000 Armenians died, and 500,000 refugees were forced to flee. These facts must continue to be affirmed. To ignore the Armenian Genocide would be to ignore history and therefore allow the preconditions to exist for another radical leader to rise and legitimize the future genocide of another of the world's people. Let anyone ask: ``who remembers the Armenians?'' and the answer would be: Millions in the United States and around the world. Today, Rhode Island is among 31 States which have, by either resolution or proclamation, recognized the Armenian Genocide. At the time of the Armenian Genocide, Europe and the United States were too embroiled in the First World War to understand the magnitude and consequences of the atrocities being committed and therefore did little more than protest by correspondence. Understanding and remembrance today ensures that the world will respond appropriately to avert these tragedies tomorrow. As proof, we need only look to NATO's quick and decisive action to quell the Kosovo crisis. We must also recognize that, in addition to the tragedies of the past, Armenians continue to suffer from the economic effects of natural disaster and the dispute over Nagorno Karabagh. Yet amidst this suffering the Armenian people continue to strive to build an independent democratic nation of peace in the Caucasus region. So, despite crisis elsewhere in the world, we must remain attentive to Armenia and the people of Nagorno Karabagh and recognize that significant economic assistance now will prove to be an investment with long term reward in a region of strategic significance to the United States. Today while we solemnly commemorate the tragedy of the past, let us rededicate ourselves to building a strong and vibrant Armenia for the future.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, my colleague, Senator Collins, and I would like to engage in a colloquy regarding the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, or LIHEAP. The Northeast-Midwest Senate Coalition, which I chair with Senator Collins, is a bipartisan coalition of Senators from the Northeast, Midwest and Mid-Atlantic dedicated to improving the environmental quality and economic vitality of the region. The Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program is a vital program to our region. LIHEAP provides home energy assistance to some of our Nation's most vulnerable citizens, including families with children, the elderly, and disabled individuals. People in our region know that cold weather kills. Mr. President, the facts speak for themselves. According to the Centers for Disease Control, between 1979 and 1998, hypothermia claimed the lives of over 13,000 Americans, twice as many Americans than died due to excessive heat. Residential energy costs in the Northeast and Midwest are more expensive which means that families in the region spend a greater amount of their incomes on home heating. It also requires more energy to heat a home than to cool one. LIHEAP households in our region spend over twice as much to heat their homes in the winter than it costs to cool a home in the south in the summer. According to the Department of Health and Human Services, during the peak winter heating season, energy bills can frequently reach up to 30 percent of a low-income family's income, especially if they live in substandard housing. This winter, the average temperature in Rhode Island was in the low- 30s. Without heat, these temperatures are life-threatening. In my State, sweaters and blankets are not enough to keep you warm. If heating assistance is not available, low-income families, senior citizens and disable individuals living on fixed incomes make drastic choices, they go without food, prescription drugs and other basic necessities in order to maintain heat in their homes. On average, it cost $1,200 to heat a home in Rhode Island last year. Low-income families cannot afford these costs. LIHEAP provides vital assistance to keep the heat on for these households. In February, my home State of Rhode Island ran out of LIHEAP funding and had to close its program. I received phone calls from a number of senior citizens who were unable to heat their homes because they ran out of heating oil. To help low-income families address the runaway costs of home energy bills, we need greater funding for this program. This year, Senator Collins and I lead a bi-partisan letter supported by 37 Senators that requested $3 billion for the LIHEAP program in fiscal 2003. I will ask unanimous consent to print a copy of the letter in the Record, and I want to thank Senators Harkin and Specter for their strong and consistent support of this program. Senators Harkin and Specter increased LIHEAP funding by $300 million in fiscal year 2002. Unfortunately this was not enough to help States address the unmet need. During the winter of 2000/2001, the Nation experienced extraordinarily and unprecedented levels in energy costs along with colder winter temperatures. Many low-income families and senior citizens are still trying to pay off from the energy debt they incurred last winter. While energy prices are lower this year, they are not low by historic standards and the prices for natural gas and home heating oil remain at significant costs for many Americans. The recession is also an increasing need for assistance. There is something that President Bush can do immediately to help low-income households meet their energy needs. Congress appropriated $300 million in the FY2001 Supplemental Appropriations bill for emergency LIHEAP assistance. For incomprehensible reasons, the President has chosen not to release the emergency LIHEAP funding. And, the President's budget inexplicably requests $300 million less for this program in 2003. Leadership and action are urgently needed to help low- income working families and senior citizens, and I hope the President will take action to release the emergency funds. Next year, the Health, Education and Labor and Pensions Committee will begin reauthorizing the LIHEAP program. I want to thank Senator Kennedy for his support of this program. I look forward to working with him and my colleagues to improve the LIHEAP program and increase funding.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the letter to which I referred be printed in the Record.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I would like to bring to the attention of my colleagues the important role that oncology nurses play in the care of patients diagnosed with cancer. This year alone 1,284,900 Americans will hear the words ``You have cancer''. Everyday, oncology nurses see the pain and suffering caused by cancer and understand the physical, emotional, and financial challenges that people with cancer face throughout their diagnosis and treatment. Cancer is a complex, multifaceted, and chronic disease, and people with cancer are best served by a multidisciplinary health care team specialized in oncology care, including nurses who are certified in that specialty. Oncology nurses play a central role in the provision of quality cancer care as they are principally involved in the administration and monitoring of chemotherapy and the associated side- effects patients may experience. As anyone ever treated for cancer will tell you, oncology nurses are intelligent, well-trained, highly skilled, kind-hearted angels who provide quality clinical, psychosocial, and supportive care to patients and their families. In short, they are integral to our nation's cancer care delivery system. The Oncology Nursing Society, ONS, is the largest organization of oncology health professionals in the world with more than 30,000 registered nurses and other health care professionals. Since 1975, the Oncology Nursing Society has been dedicated to excellence in patient care, teaching, research, administration and education in the field of oncology. The Society's mission is to promote excellence in oncology nursing and quality cancer care. To that end, ONS honors and maintains nursing's historical and essential commitment to advocacy for the public good by providing nurses and healthcare professionals with access to the highest quality educational programs, cancer-care resources, research opportunities, and networks for peer support. The ONS has a chapter that serves the state of Rhode Island and the southeastern Massachusetts areas. This chapter helps them to continue to provide high quality cancer care to those patients and their families. On behalf of the people of Rhode Island, I want to express my appreciation for all that these amazing nurses do to advance the health and well-being of people with cancer and to further the practice of oncology nursing. Despite significant breakthroughs in the treatment, early detection, and prevention of cancer, two-thirds of new cancer cases strike people over the age of 65 and the number of new cancer cases diagnosed among the elderly is projected to more than double by 2030 as the Baby Boom generation ages. The impact that cancer has on our nation, especially on the Medicare Program, cannot be underestimated or overlooked. In addition, more than 115,000 nursing positions will go unfilled by the year 2015--a factor which--taken with eroding Medicare payment for outpatient cancer care--further exacerbates the challenge of a growing number of cancer cases. This week more than 5,000 oncology nurses from around the country have traveled to Washington, DC to attend the Oncology Nursing Society's 27th Annual Congress. This year's theme is aptly titled ``The Many Faces of Oncology Nursing.'' The attendees will increase their knowledge of the newest cancer treatments, learn the latest developments in cancer nursing research, and enhance their clinical skills and contribute to their professional development. In addition, approximately 550 of these nurses--representing 49 states--will come to Capitol Hill to discuss issues. I would like to commend the Oncology Nursing Society for all of its efforts over the last 27 years and to thank the Society and its members for their ongoing commitment to improving and assuring access to quality cancer care for all cancer patients and their families.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, it gives me great pleasure to recognize an outstanding Rhode Islander, Stephen J. Anderson. Steve has distinguished himself with a rewarding career as a public school teacher and as an accomplished State Representative in the Rhode Island General Assembly. In 1972, Steve began his teaching career in the Exeter West Greenwich School System where he has taught Social Studies, History and Geography. Even as a young child, Steve dreamed of being a teacher, and his enthusiasm, dedication and professionalism over the past three decades has had a profound effect on our community and in the lives of generations of young people. Steve is described as a hardworking and imaginative teacher who has a special gift for relating to his students. He is modest, friendly and witty and easily earns their respect and admiration. He has a deep belief that every student can learn and that each has contribution to make. Moreover, Steve has been a leader in the School Department and has chaired the school improvement team and coordinated its professional development plan. He can be credited with bringing standards-based training to the school and has worked to provide graduate course work in support of these efforts. In addition to his classroom duties, Steve also devotes his time and talents as the Coach of the Jr. High Soccer Team and the Cross Country Team. In 2000, Steve Anderson was honored as the recipient of both the Charles B. Willard Achievement Award and the Alumni Service Award from his alma mater Rhode Island College. The Charles B. Willard Award is presented to graduates who have brought honor to the College by distinguished service in their field. Additionally, the Alumni Service Award honors those who have made a contribution to the College by unselfishly devoting their time, talents and resources or to an individual who has made a contribution to the state or nation which reflects ideals of service to the community. Indeed, Steve Anderson epitomizes the spirit of both these coveted awards. In the General Assembly, Steve has been a leader on education issues and successfully sought funding for National Board Certification for Professional Teaching Standards in Rhode Island, for innovative reading programs for pre-school children and for the Rhode Island Geographic Alliance. I ask my colleagues to join me in commending Stephen J. Anderson for his commitment to education and public service. He inspires us with his example of leadership, and I join with a grateful community in commending him for his efforts in the classroom, as a policy maker and as outstanding Rhode Island citizen.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the 181st anniversary of Greek Independence that will be celebrated Monday, March 25. Not unlike our founding fathers who sowed the seeds of the American revolution by forming the underground society, the ``Sons of Liberty,'' Greek patriots seeking democracy established the ``Friendly Society'' in Odessa in 1814. Their ideals spread and the Greek people eventually rose up on March 25, 1821. This day would mark the beginning of an 8 year struggle against the might of the Ottoman Empire which had ruled Greece for 400 years. In 1829, the Greeks were the first to win their independence from the Ottoman Empire, and were formally recognized in 1832. Their success spurred on other groups. But this 19th century revolution was not the first time the Greeks had contributed greatly to our world. In ancient times, Greek civilization established traditions of democracy, society and culture that resonate today. These Greek cultural accomplishments deeply influenced thinkers, writers and artists, especially those in ancient Rome, Medieval Arabia, and Renaissance Europe. Modern democratic nations owe their fundamental political principles to ancient Greece. Because of the enduring influence of its ideas, ancient Greece is known as the cradle of Western civilization. In fact, Greeks invented the idea of the West as a distinct region because they lived west of the powerful civilizations of Egypt, Babylonia, and Phoenicia. Today we continue to marvel at their advances in philosophy, architecture, drama, government, and science, with people worldwide enjoying ancient Greek plays, studying the ideas of ancient Greek philosophers, and incorporating elements of ancient Greek architecture into the designs of new buildings. So I am proud to recognize the continued contributions of today's Greek-Americans to our country and my home State of Rhode Island. Although the earliest Greeks to come to America were men of the sea, sailing with Christopher Columbus, Ferdinand Magellan and other Spanish expeditions to the New World, today's Greek Americans are involved in all aspects of American business and society, contributing with their hard work and active citizenship. I would also note that the Greece-US relationship has deepened over the years and there are extraordinary opportunities to strengthen it even more. We share mutual concern for greater security, stability and prosperity in the Mediterranean, Southeastern Europe, and the Caucasus. The Greeks have traditionally been active as well as a force of progress in these regions and their experiences will help the United States as the two countries partner to face the challenges of the new century. I am proud to join many of my colleagues as a co-sponsor of Senate Resolution 214 which designated March 25, 2002 ``Greek Independence Day: A National Day of Celebration of Greek and American Democracy.'' I give Greek Americans my best wishes as they celebrate Greece's independence.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to an outstanding public servant in Rhode Island, Barbara F. Weaver, who is retiring from her position as Chief Information Officer for Rhode Island's Office of Library Services after a long and distinguished career. With an impressive background in libraries and government, Barbara came to Rhode Island as the new Director of the Department of State Library Services in 1991. During her tenure she has made a significant contribution. She is credited with expanding the information role of the Department into the Office of Library and Information Services, and with the creation of that office, she has the distinction of becoming Rhode Island's first Chief Information Officer. A leader in the library and information management worlds, Barbara has been responsible for coordinating the state's management information systems and coordinating library services to state government and to libraries throughout the state. She is credited with the creation of RI.gov, the state's World Wide web portal, and setting the stage for e-government in Rhode Island. She successfully brought Rhode Island through the y2k phenomenon without incident and has efficiently and effectively been in the forefront of new technologies. Barbara has also been active nationally as evidenced through her work with organizations like the Chief Officers of State Library Agencies and the National Association of Chief Information Officers. Her vision, initiative and professionalism are indeed noteworthy, and I have been proud to work closely with this outstanding professional on legislative initiatives geared to enhancing literacy, technology and accessibility. Rhode Islanders have been fortunate to have Barbara Weaver devote nearly a decade of service to our community. She has increased public and government awareness of the value of library services and leaves a lasting legacy of significant achievements which have brought library and information policy boldly into the new century. I ask my colleagues to join me in commending Barbara Weaver for her professionalism, unwavering commitment, and inspired vision. I am honored to join others in my state in offering praise and admiration of a grateful community for all her great work. We wish her much fulfillment and continued success.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Madam President, as we conclude Black History Month, I rise to join in the celebration of the achievements of African Americans throughout our Nation's history, and especially in my home State of Rhode Island. Indeed, African Americans have contributed a great deal to my State, and I am honored to be able to acknowledge two such individuals today, the late Reverend Mahlon Van Horne of Newport, and the late John Hope of Brown University. Reverend Van Horne was one of Newport's most prominent African Americans in the late 1800's. He was an avid civil rights activist, a three term State representative, and was also one of the Nations first black diplomats. Reverend Van Horne came to Newport, RI, in 1868 after being ordained, and graduating from Lincoln University in Pennsylvania. He began his ministry in Rhode Island as the Acting Pastor of the Colored Union Congregational Church of Newport. Despite the times in which he lived, due to his charismatic leadership and scholarly sermons, his congregation was made up of both black and white Rhode Islanders, and the many black professionals from New York, Washington, D.C., and Philadelphia who would come to Newport during the summer months. By 1871, his congregation had grown to the point where they had to tear down the old church to make way for a larger building which was renamed the Union Congregational Church. Despite his success as a minister, Reverend Van Horne did not stop there, in 1871 he was able to successfully draw votes from both blacks and whites to win election to the Newport School Committee, the first African American ever to serve in this capacity. As a member of the school committee, he used his position to continue his civil rights movement and pressed for integration and better education for Newport's black children. In 1885, he was elected to the Rhode Island General Assembly, becoming the first African American to ever serve in the State legislature. He was re- elected in 1886, and 1887, and after his last term he continued in his role as pastor of the Union Congregational Church. His service did not end there. In 1896, President William McKinley appointed Reverend Van Horne as the United States Counsel to the Danish West Indies, in where he served his Nation honorably for 12 more years. Another great Rhode Islander that I would like to bring attention to was a champion of education; John Hope. Mr. Hope first came to Rhode Island in 1890 when he enrolled as a freshmen at Brown. While in school he became very involved in the African-American community, and later joined the Second Free Will Baptist Church in Providence. While a member of the Church, he started a literary club with the help of other prominent African Americans in the community. In honor of his work in Providence, in 1944, the community center on Burgess street was renamed the John Hope Settlement House and continues to be a vital resource for many of the residents of Providence today. In addition to his community involvement and dedication to the education of blacks in Providence, John Hope was a founding editorial board member of the Daily Herald and a campus correspondent for the New York Tribune, and wrote many articles for the Providence Journal and the Chicago Tribune. After his graduation from Brown, John Hope continued his mission of improving educational opportunities for blacks by taking a position teaching Greek and Latin at the Roger Williams University in Nashville, Tennessee an all black institution. From there, he moved on to become the President of one of the most prestigious historically black institutions of higher education Morehouse College, from 1906 to 1929. He culminated his career in education as the President of Atlanta University, which was the only black graduate school in the Nation at the time, where he served until his death in 1936. John Hope's vision that education is the key to improving the quality of life for not only African Americans, but for all Americans, is one I share. It is truly my honor and privilege to acknowledge such great Rhode Islander's during Black History Month, and it is my hope that these and other African American leaders from both past and present will continue to inspire our Nation's youth.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Madam President, I rise to salute Senator Ted Kennedy on his 70th birthday and to state something that is obvious to everyone: In the course of this country and this Senate, hundreds of men and women have served, but only a handful are truly great Senators. Senator Ted Kennedy is one of those great Senators. His greatness is measured by his vision, by his compassion, and by his effectiveness. He is the architect of so much that has improved the lives of so many Americans--health care, education, foreign policy, so many things that have made the lives of so many people better. Indeed, the measurement of his greatness is not the votes on this floor or his elections in Massachusetts, but it is in the lives of countless children throughout this country and seniors and working men and women, disadvantaged Americans, dispossessed Americans whose lives are better, indeed, who cherish hope because Ted Kennedy served in this body. Ultimately, his great reward and tribute will not come from us but will come years from now, when a child or a senior or a working American, not knowing from whence a law evolved but knowing that it has made their life a little better and given them more opportunity, will say ``thank you,'' and that thanks will be to Ted Kennedy. I had the privilege of serving with his son Patrick. I know that his passion, his devotion to duty is not exclusive to him alone but is shared immensely by his son, my friend, and colleague from Rhode Island. I say to Senator Kennedy, thank you.