Jack Reed

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Madam President, I rise today to recognize the Army Aviation Association's top National Guard aviation unit for 2005. Since 1969, the Army Aviation Association has presented this award to the best Army National Guard aviation unit. Indeed, it is a great honor to represent the State of this year's winner, the 1st Battalion, 126th Aviation Regiment of the Rhode Island Army National Guard. The 1st of the 126th has a long and distinguished history. Tracing its roots back to 1930 and the 68th Field Artillery Brigade, the 1st of the 126th was founded as a field artillery unit and later transitioned to medical care specialists. But in the 1960s, the unit was reorganized into an aviation unit. Since that time, it has performed with extraordinary professionalism and skill in its role as an aviation unit. Deployed to Iraq from January to December of 2005, the 1st of the 126th served as the core of Task Force Dragonwing during Operation Iraqi Freedom. Task Force Dragonwing, based out of Balad Airbase north of Baghdad, was the lead force responsible for conducting combat support aviation operations through the entire Iraqi theater. They accumulated over 16,000 hours of combat mission flight hours during nearly 2,000 missions while transporting 66,000 passengers and 5,000 tons of cargo. During their tour, they flew 46 missions in direct action against known or suspected anti-Iraqi forces, and 22 missions were subjected to known surface-to-air fire, with 7 aircraft receiving battle damage. Throughout the professional performance of their duties, no members of the unit were killed or seriously injured. The 1st of the 126th is comprised of 457 soldiers who man and maintain 24 UH-60 Black Hawk helicopters and 12 CH-47 Chinook helicopters. Their mission is to perform air assault and movement operations and to provide command, control, supervision, staff planning, and logistical support to all units affiliated with the battalion. During one of my visits to Iraq, I had the great honor and opportunity to fly with them, to observe their unit firsthand. In fact, I was honored to be accompanied by GEN John Abizaid, whose comments about their skill and professionalism brought great pride to me and all Rhode Islanders. This unit was ably commanded by COL Chris Callahan and was led by soldiers, pilots, and crew members with great skill and courage and professionalism. I was, indeed, honored and thrilled to be with them in Iraq, to see their operation, to see the contribution they made to our effort in Iraq. The 1st of the 126th has proven itself an exceptional unit and deserves to be selected by the Army Aviation Association as the top aviation unit for 2005. They have served their country with honor. We are all proud of their service, in the State of Rhode Island and throughout the Nation. Indeed, it is heartwarming to see them being recognized nationally for their great success, their great service to the Nation, and their great professionalism. I commend Colonel Callahan and all the officers and personnel of that unit for their service, for their sacrifice, for their dedication to our country.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Madam President, I rise in opposition to this tax reconciliation conference report. At a time when we are all already shouldering a large budget deficit and fighting a war, this is an irresponsible fiscal policy. At a time when economic growth is mainly showing up in the bottom lines of companies, ordinary Americans are struggling with stagnating real wages and incomes. This is not the approach to take. Yet, we are debating a tax cut whose benefits go overwhelmingly to those who are so well off that they don't have to worry, as ordinary people do, about what they will have to give up to pay for the next tank of gas or to heat their homes. Supporters of the tax cut in this reconciliation package, including the President, argue that those tax cuts have produced a robust economic recovery and extending them is necessary to keep the economy growing. Some of them even claim that the tax revenues bring in enough revenue to pay for themselves. These arguments are self-contradictory, where they are not downright wrong. At the time the tax cuts in this package were originally passed, the economy was mired in an economic slump and they were sold as a means to jump-start the economy. If the administration is right that the economy is now growing strongly, extending them is unnecessary. If those of us who believe there are still problems with this economic recovery are right, we would be throwing good money after bad to extend tax cuts that have been ineffective. Responsible economists, at the time of these original tax cuts, pointed out that these particular tax cuts were very poorly designed to produce the job-creating stimulus the economy needed in the short run, and that they would be harmful in the long run by adding to the budget deficit. They were right. Economic growth, job creation, and investment have been weak by the standards of past recoveries. At this point in the recovery from the 1990-1991 recession, the economy had created 4.8 million more jobs than have been created in this recovery. Make no mistake, this tax cut will be paid for by borrowing and adding to the long-run structural budget deficit, and it will depress the growth in the American standard of living. If the tax cuts pay for themselves, where are the revenues? Federal tax revenues as a share of the economy declined in each of the first 4 years of this administration, reaching a 45-year low in 2004. As the economy recovered, it was natural for revenues to rise. But despite that growth, Federal revenues were still below their historical average level last year. Some have pointed to the higher than expected capital gains realization as evidence that the tax cuts pay for themselves. Yet, in a recent letter to Finance Committee Chairman Grassley, the CBO concluded: ``After examining the historical record, including that for 2004, we cannot conclude that the unexplained increase (in capital gains realizations) is attributable to the change in the capital gains tax rates. Volatility in gains can stem from other factors, such as changes in asset values, investor decisions, or broader economic trends.'' Past history suggests that the timing of capital gains realization does respond to tax rates. We saw this in 1986 when realizations doubled from the previous year as investors took advantage of lower tax rates. Today, many investors are choosing to realize gains now while tax rates are low. This increases revenues today, but this is just tax revenue borrowed from the future. In recent testimony before the Joint Economic Committee, Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke noted: There are a lot of factors affecting both the increase in the stock market and realizations. And one of the issues here is the question as to whether or not some realizations are taking place today which otherwise might have taken place in the future. And so, in that sense, the increase in tax revenue is reflecting a one-time gain, as opposed to a permanent gain. It is clear that over the long term tax cuts do not pay for themselves. Former Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan said in testimony before the House Budget Committee: It is very rare and few economists believe that you can cut taxes and you will get the same amount of revenue. . . . When you cut taxes, you gain some revenue back. We don't know exactly what this is, but it's not small, but it's also not 70 percent or anything like that. Former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, Gregory Mankiw, wrote in his macroeconomic textbook that there is ``no credible evidence'' that tax cuts pay for themselves, and that an economist who makes such a claim is a ``snake oil salesman who is trying to sell a miracle cure.'' I believe he was an adviser to the Republican President. The reconciliation bill is full of one-time gimmicks that take money from the future and leave major issues unaddressed. The one-year AMT fix costs $33 billion, but we will be back here next year to pass another fix that could cost an additional $40 billion for another 1-year solution. The AMT is a trillion dollar problem that the administration refuses to permanently correct. The IRA provision is another gimmick that raises revenues now at the cost of greater revenue losses in the future. Why provide another tax- favored saving opportunity to the well off who are already able to save on their own? With all the gimmicks and front loading of future revenues, we should rename this bill ``the future tax increase for working Americans reconciliation act,'' because that is what we will need to happen to pay for these tax cuts for the wealthy. Reconciliation was designed to enforce fiscal responsibility. It was designed to force us to make tough choices that emphasize our national priorities. Instead, what we now have is an unprecedented bifurcation of the reconciliation process that is full of gimmicks to pay for unwise tax cuts for those who need it the least, and poor decisions that ignore our needs to invest more in hard-working families. The bill before us today has made an utter mockery out of the budget process and has turned it on its head. Once again, the legislation before us is about choices and missed opportunities. We have real crises and issues that we must confront as a nation, and we are again missing the opportunity of addressing them by squandering millions of dollars on cuts that are unnecessary. It is critical that we deal with energy, and it should be at the top of our agenda. The fiscal strains caused by record high gas prices hurt workers and the economy. The average household will spend 75 percent more in gasoline costs this year than in 2001 and yet this tax reconciliation bill continues to give more tax breaks to large oil companies that have reported record profits in the past year, at the expense of Americans everywhere. In March of this year, Lee Raymond, CEO of Exxon, testified before the Judiciary Committee that they didn't need the recent tax cuts provided in the Energy Policy Act of the 2005. When the most profitable companies in the world tell you they don't need tax cuts and you have more than a dozen tax cuts that have expired for millions of teachers, working families, and students, I believe the right decision is to help those who are in need and not these huge companies. Last November, the Senate passed a tax reconciliation bill which scaled back some of the tax incentives for the major oil and gas companies. Many in the industry noted that these provisions would have little, if any, impact on supply and demand. In essence, the bill took back some revenue from unnecessary tax cuts for the most profitable companies. However, these reasonable proposals were eliminated from the conference report before us today. Why was that done? Because, of all the provisions in this bill, President Bush threatened to veto this entire bill if it included the LIFO revenue raiser, which is a provision that would have eliminated for one year a favorable method of accounting for the big oil companies. When it comes to making the most profitable companies pay their fair share, the administration threatens to veto the legislation. These specific oil and gas provisions which were included in the Senate-passed tax reconciliation would have raised $5 billion. This money could have been invested in fully funding energy efficiency and renewable energy programs in the Energy Policy Act. The money could have also been better invested in programs such as LIHEAP and the Weatherization Assistance Program to help reduce the energy burden of working families who are disproportionately impacted by these rising prices. These are the first steps in reducing our demand for fossil fuels and are currently our Nation's best means of addressing a secure energy future. Ultimately, this bill will be a drain on national savings, and our children and grandchildren will pay the price. These tax cuts have not contributed to raising national savings. The personal savings rate which these tax cuts were presumably designed to stimulate has been going down and is now negative. On average, people are spending more than their current income. To be sure, soaring corporate profits and retained earnings have boosted the business part of private savings, but this is offset by budget deficits which these tax cuts will only increase. We no longer have the fiscal discipline we had in the 1990s which allowed for a monetary policy that encouraged investment and long-term growth. The President's large and persistent budget deficits have led to an ever-widening trade deficit that forces us to borrow vast amounts from abroad and puts us at risk of a major financial collapse if foreign lenders suddenly stop accepting our IOUs. Even assuming we can avoid an international financial crisis, continued budget and trade deficits will be a drag on the growth of our standard of living and leave us ill-prepared to deal with the effects of the retirement of the baby boom generation. Strong investment, financed by our own national savings, not foreign borrowing, is the foundation for strong and sustained economic growth and rising living standards. We desperately need to bring our fiscal house in order, and today's bill only takes us further away from meeting that goal. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I would like to comment on the legislation the majority has brought forward during what it has dubbed Health Week and on health care more broadly. While I do not support this legislation as drafted, I commend Senator Enzi for attempting to address the important issue of health insurance for small businesses. As of 2004, over 45 million Americans were uninsured. Unfortunately, these numbers continue to rise with each passing year as more and more employers cease offering coverage to their employees. In Rhode Island, the percentage of companies offering health insurance coverage declined from 80 percent in 1999 to 68 percent in 2005. In my State, a small business is more likely to drop coverage because of the prohibitive cost. While some employers have stopped offering coverage altogether, others have struggled to keep up with escalating costs. Since 2000, premiums for family coverage have increased by 73 percent compared to an inflation growth of 14 percent and a wage growth of 15 percent over the same period. Health insurance affordability not only affects employee satisfaction, it also has a direct impact on a company's competitiveness. We need to address these issues, but S. 1955 is not the answer. It decreases cost by changing rating structures, allowing cherry-picking of healthy individuals, and offering plans with very few benefits. S. 1955 would amend the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) to allow for the creation of small business health plans, SBHPs, sponsored by business or trade associations that would, like self-insured plans, be exempt from State laws. As was the case with legislation proposing the creation of association health plans, AHPs, a considerable number of health care experts have expressed concerns that this legislation would exempt SBHPs from important State regulations that protect consumers, guarantee access to coverage and treatment, and ensure financial solvency. Millions of Americans could lose coverage for such important care as screening for breast, cervical, colorectal, and prostate cancer; well-child care and immunizations; emergency services; mental health; and diabetes supplies and education. I have serious concerns that this legislation could weaken the already fragile insurance market we currently have in the United States. States have worked diligently to craft insurance regulations that reflect their individual needs. They have developed rating systems and mandated benefits to best protect their citizens. This bill will affect not only health insurance for small businesses but also health insurance for all markets. In a letter to the chairman and ranking member of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions HELP Committee, the Rhode Island health insurance commissioner expressed his strong concerns about how S. 1955 would affect the State's health insurance regulatory system, its ability to hold health plans accountable, and develop solutions particular to our Sate. I will ask that the text of this letter be printed in the Record. I have serious concerns about the health insurance that would be offered under this legislation. If insurance does not offer adequate coverage, it is insurance in name only. It is of little use if you can't afford it or access it when you need it. A recent program on PBS' NOW focused on what it termed ``junk insurance plans'' and profiled two particular cases where the insurance was really no insurance at all, leaving couples who had faithfully paid premiums with astronomical medical bills. In one case, the insurance plan sold was marketed through an association for the self-employed. It is important to try to address the problem of the uninsured, but we need to be sure that it is being done in a sensible and thoughtful manner. While Senator Enzi has taken a great deal of time to meet with a variety of stakeholders in drafting this legislation, there have been no hearings on the bill, even though my colleagues and I on the HELP Committee requested such hearings. Moreover, 41 attorneys general have signed a letter in opposition to S. 1955; 19 State insurance commissioners and State departments responsible for insurance regulation have written letters opposing this legislation. There are better options. The Lincoln-Durbin proposal would be more effective in curbing health care costs and expanding coverage, as well as help small businesses and their employees. It would create the Small Employers Health Benefits Program SEHBP and provide tax breaks for employers that offer financial assistance for insurance premiums to low-income employees. SEHBP is based on the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program and would extend the purchasing power of the Federal Government to small businesses that choose to participate. In addition, SEHBP enrollees in local plans would enjoy an array of coverage options, while at the same time benefiting from State consumer protections. I filed three straightforward, commonsense amendments to guarantee more comprehensive coverage, to preserve State authority, and to make sure SBHPs actually reduce costs. I first proposed these amendments during the HELP Committee consideration of this bill. The first amendment would create a commission to establish a Federal floor of benefit mandates in accordance with the laws adopted in a plurality of the States, which would preserve some of the critical benefits currently mandated by Rhode Island and other States. The second amendment would limit the preemption of State laws by clarifying that unless specifically provided for, nothing in S. 1955 would override any State or local law related to health insurance. The third amendment requires the Government Accountability Office GAO to evaluate the program 24 months after its implementation, and if there is no evidence of a decrease in cost or increase in access to health care, the program would be terminated. I am disappointed that the majority is not allowing us to engage in a full and fair debate on these and other amendments in the absence of a broad agreement on the bill. Earlier this year, we saw the implementation of another program that was not well thought out and was fraught with problems as a result. Many of the problems with the Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit could have been averted. This crisis was anticipated for some time by independent researchers and advocates for Medicare beneficiaries, yet the Republican-controlled Congress repeatedly blocked remedies and continues to do so. Working to improve the Medicare drug plan is not even on the agenda for Health Week. I did not support the Medicare Modernization Act because I felt the benefit was insufficient and the emphasis on a privately administered program made it excessively complex for beneficiaries. This plan imposes penalties for those enrolled to change plans but allows the plans to change the prescriptions they cover at will. Millions of retirees faced with choosing among a large number of private drug plans struggled with different rules, lists of covered drugs, and premiums. Many who are eligible to sign up have avoided doing so all together. The problems have been so widespread that more than 20 States, including Rhode Island, had to step in to pay drug claims that should have been paid by the Federal Medicare Program. At least two dozen States have taken emergency action to help low-income individuals who could not get their medications under the program, and States spent many millions of dollars on this assistance. Since its launch on January 1, doctors and pharmacists have complained that many drugs theoretically covered by the new Medicare drug benefit are not readily available due to the insurers' restrictions and requirements. Many pharmacists can't keep track of the plans' myriad policies and procedures and doctors say the diverse requirements are onerous and can delay or deny access to needed medications. The May 15 deadline for enrollment in Part D is looming. We should be taking action to extend the deadline and improve Part D during this sole week the majority has dedicated to so-called health care reform. Let's put America's Medicare beneficiaries first. Another issue that is imperative for us to address is stem cell research. Last May, the House passed the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, H.R. 810, by a wide margin. We heard Senator Frist last summer announce that he agrees with lifting the stem cell ban, but we have not seen any movement on this issue. President Bush's policy limits Federal funding of embryonic stem cell research in practice to 22 stem cell lines that have been in existence since 2001, and these lines are unsuitable for research. In recent years, we have seen amazing medical breakthroughs thanks to a dedication to research. HIV disease, which was a virtual death sentence just over a decade ago, has become for many a chronic disease. The 5- year survival rate for childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia is approximately 85 percent, a dramatic increase because of new lifesaving treatments. I hope to be able to stand on this Senate floor a few years from now asking for support for new research and highlighting the advancements that have been made in the treatment of spinal cord victims, children with diabetes, and those with Parkinson's because of embryonic stem cell research. The Senate should be marking the 1-year anniversary of the House passage of H.R. 810 by having a vote on the bill. We have an obligation not only to those stricken with these devastating conditions but to the family and friends who care for them. H.R. 810 opens the door to medical research that could unlock the mystery behind many of these devastating diseases while ensuring strong ethical and scientific oversight. I share Senator Enzi's desire to stem the rising costs of health insurance, which pose a challenge to many, including our Nation's small businesses and self-employed individuals. While Congress should certainly do more to address this matter and expand coverage to those who currently lack it, S. 1955 would have little impact on these crucial needs. There are other equally critical health issues facing millions of Americans. In addition to Medicare and stem cell research, we should be considering legislation to expand health insurance coverage to every child in this country, legislation to strengthen our public health system, and legislation to ensure an adequate number of nurses and other health professionals to care for our aging Nation. While the majority is stunting this week's debate, it is my hope that the Senate will actually take the time and find a way to work together to have a serious debate on important health care issues this year. I ask unanimous consent that the before-mentioned letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, two important lessons we learned from Hurricane Katrina are that our Nation's infrastructure to protect Americans from flooding and hurricanes is inadequate and upfront investment in this infrastructure can save lives and is a sound investment of taxpayers' money in order to prevent costly reconstruction. The Fox Point Hurricane Barrier in Providence, RI protects the city and adjoining communities from the catastrophic effects of hurricane storm surge in Narragansett Bay and torrential rains with the Providence River basin. Built in the 1960s, as a joint flood control project by the city and the Army Corps of Engineers, the barrier employs three 35-foot high gates, an electrically driven pumping station, and dikes to protect tens of thousands of people and approximately $5 billion worth of property. The hurricane barrier is a one-half mile long structure that extends from Allens Avenue to India Point Park. It was the first structure of its type in the United States to be approved for construction. The Hurricane of 1938 and Hurricane Carol in 1954 devastated communities in Rhode Island. The Hurricane of 1938 generated a storm surge of 16 feet that traveled up Narragansett Bay and flooded downtown Providence under 10 feet of water. Two hundred and seven Rhode Islanders were killed, and damage totaled $125 million--more than $1 billion in today's dollars. Hurricane Carol in 1954 flooded Providence, leaving the city under 8 feet of water and destroying 4,000 houses. The Corps and city built the Fox Point Hurricane Barrier to keep a storm surge from flowing into downtown Providence. Since its construction, sea levels have risen 9 to 10 inches. In addition, Rhode Island has lost wetlands and tidal flats that could help mitigate a storm surge. According to Jon Boothroyd, a geologist at the University of Rhode Island, the filled land will force water into a narrower area, causing a higher storm surge. The loss of marshes and fields behind the barrier will further exacerbate the problem as water could also move faster downstream to the barrier. For these reasons, it is imperative that the barrier and pumps work if and when they are needed. In recent years, the Army Corps of Engineers and the city of Providence have evaluated the barrier and determined that the electromechanical control system for the barrier's pumps must be replaced. The Corps has reported that during several inspections, the pump motors have occasionally failed to start because of faulty relays or other related electrical problems. In a letter dated December 7, 2003, Richard C. Carlson with the New England Director of the Army Corps of Engineers stated that ``During the past several inspections the pump motors have occasionally failed to start because of faulty relays or other electrically related problems. This is symptomatic of the age and condition of the electrical components, most of which are original.'' The electromechanical control system has been in service for 40 years, and due to its age repair parts are nearly impossible to obtain. We have been lucky as New England has not had a strong hurricane in 50 years, but that could mean that our luck is running out. The city and I are concerned that failure of the system during an actual storm could result in the flooding of Providence's downtown business district and thousands of residences. The Fox Point Hurricane Barrier is a project authorized by the Water Resources Development Act, and the Federal Government should fulfill its obligation to provide a safe, structural sound barrier that operates when necessary. For this reason, I filed an amendment to the supplemental appropriations bill, H.R. 4939, to provide $1,055,000 to complete upgrades to the Fox Point Hurricane Barrier. I am pleased that the Senate accepted my amendment for this funding. Senator Chafee and I also sponsored an amendment to the bill to turn over responsibility for the annual operations and maintenance of the hurricane barrier to the Army Corps of Engineers. I am glad that the Senate also decided to accept this amendment. I will work with my colleagues to maintain these amendments as this bill moves through conference. Amendment No. 3592, as Modified

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I would like to engage in a colloquy with the distinguished chairman and ranking member of the Transportation, Treasury, Judiciary, and HUD Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations. As my colleagues know, rising home energy costs and high prices at the pump are draining dollars out of our communities and the pocketbooks of American families. This is money that could be spent on school supplies, food and medicine, and retirement savings. The burden of high energy prices is disproportionately felt by low-income and working class consumers, who do not have the disposal income to meet these expenses. The unanticipated increases in energy costs due to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita at the beginning of the 2005/2006 heating season have had a significant impact on the ability of local housing agencies to effectively manage their public and section 8 housing inventories. Nationwide, approximately 3 million families receive public housing or section 8 housing voucher assistance, which helps families pay for housing costs, including utilities. In Rhode Island, public housing provides homes for 16,000 households, 7,000 of whom are elderly or disabled and 9,000 family members. The section 8 voucher program serves an additional 16,000 residents, 3,300 who are elderly or disabled, and 12,173 family members. Public housing and the section 8 voucher programs are important assets to communities and residents in Rhode Island, making affordable housing available to many elderly, disabled, and working families. In 2004, the average rent for a two-bedroom apartment in the State was $1,121. The average income needed for this rent is $45,000 per year, or $16.25 per hour. Teachers and librarians earn only an average of $40,685 per year in Rhode Island. Half of all Rhode Island residents cannot afford the rent on the average two- bedroom apartment. The average hourly wage needed to afford a one- bedroom apartment in the State is $14.05. A minimum-wage employee, working full time, would be able to afford $351 in rent. Public housing agencies pay utility bills, and vouchers include an allowance for tenant-paid utilities. The Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) budget for fiscal year 2006 for both public housing and section 8 vouchers did not contemplate the growth in energy costs that we have seen since the gulf coast hurricanes of 2005. The 1.5-percent increase budgeted for utility payments is woefully inadequate this year. For approximately 80 percent of public housing units, the local housing agency pays directly for utilities. The local agency cannot pay increased utility bills by raising rents. In the remaining 20 percent of public housing units, local agencies assist families, elderly, and disabled persons to pay utility bills where these bills would tip housing costs over 30 percent of income. HUD's public housing operating fund budget, which pays for utilities, for fiscal year 2006 incorporated only a 1.5-percent increase for rising energy costs, a level not close to the utility rate hikes experienced by local agencies. In 2005, public housing agencies received just 89 percent of the amount necessary to cover basic maintenance and operations, and in fiscal year 2006, these agencies are expected to receive about 91 percent of necessary funding. Public housing agencies cannot absorb these increases within their budgets or reserves. Without supplemental funding, many agencies will be forced to again cut back on basic maintenance and vital services to the elderly, disabled, and working families they serve. The section 8 voucher program is experiencing similar problems. About 20 percent of assisted families have utilities included within their rental charges. For the remaining 80 percent, housing agencies provide the family with a standard utility allowance based on energy consumption for the housing unit where they live. HUD calculates the annual increases in voucher funding and the amount that agencies are permitted to pay on behalf of families for tenant-paid utilities based on area housing cost estimates. Again, these calculations were developed before' the recent increase in utilities. Housing agencies are required to recalculate and increase utility allowances for families whenever utility costs increase by 10 percent or more. However, under the current ``budget-based'' method of funding vouchers, no additional funding will be provided midyear to accommodate these increased costs. The failure to provide additional funding to local agencies for utility increases will create either greater rent burdens for low-income families or force agencies to reduce the number of families they assist within their limited budgets. An example from my home State of Rhode Island is illustrative of what public housing agencies are facing across the country. The Woonsocket Public Housing Authority serves 1,300 families in public housing, including 650 senior citizens. While the agency is authorized to serve 669 families with vouchers, the funding provided to the agency under the budget-based voucher formula limits them to serving only 639 families. Woonsocket has previously undertaken many energy-saving activities; however, utility costs for electricity increased 100 percent in November/December 2005 over the same months in 2004. Natural gas increased 37 percent for the last 3 months of 2005. Utilities costs, which were 30 percent of the operating costs, now have begun to approach 40 percent and could go to 50 percent. For this reason, I filed an amendment to H.R. 4939, the emergency supplemental appropriations bill, to provide $493 million to public housing agencies to address rising energy costs for the section 8 voucher program and public housing units. Unfortunately, the amendment is not germane postcloture and will not receive consideration. Local housing agencies are not able to absorb these costs and meet their mission to ensure safe, decent, and affordable housing. I am particularly worried that the problem will only be exacerbated as HUD's fiscal year 2007 budget projects a 1.8-percent decrease in utility costs. Rising energy costs will remain a pressing issue for American families and our local communities, and they need our assistance. I recognize the difficult budget constraints that the chairman and ranking member face this year as they begin the fiscal year 2007 appropriations process. I hope the chairman and ranking member can work with me to address the growing problem of rising energy costs on local housing agencies as they begin work on the fiscal year 2007 Transportation, Treasury, Judiciary, and HUD appropriations bill.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I would like to proceed in morning business on the Democratic time.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the accomplishments of LTG William J. Lennox, United States Army, Superintendent of the United States Military Academy at West Point. General Lennox is retiring on the June 30, after 35 years of active military service. I have known General Lennox for many years. His military career exemplifies a soldier who always sought and achieved excellence. After graduating from West Point in 1971, General Lennox served in a wide variety of assignments in the field artillery. He served as a Forward Observer, Executive Officer, and Fire Support Officer in the 1st Battalion, 29th Field Artillery, and as Commander, Battery B, 2d Battalion, 20th Field Artillery, in the 4th Infantry Division at Fort Carson, CO. He was the Operations Officer and Executive Officer for the 2d Battalion, 41st Field Artillery, in the 3d Infantry Division in Germany. He returned to Fort Carson to command the 5th Battalion, 29th Field Artillery, in the 4th Infantry Division and also commanded the Division Artillery in the 24th Infantry Division at Fort Stewart, GA. General Lennox also served in a number of staff positions including a White House Fellowship, as the Special Assistant to the Secretary of the Army, and as the Executive Officer for the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans. Additionally, General Lennox served as the Deputy Commanding General and Assistant Commandant of the U.S. Army Field Artillery Center; the Chief of Staff for III Corps and Fort Hood; the Assistant Chief of Staff, CJ-3, at Combined Forces Command/United States Forces Korea; the Deputy Commanding General, Eighth United States Army and Chief of Legislative Liaison. General Lennox is not only a soldier, however, he is also a scholar. After West Point, he continued his education at Princeton University, receiving a master's degree and a doctorate in literature. He was first in his class at Fort Leavenworth's Command and General Officer's School. He also completed the Senior Service College Fellowship at Harvard University. In June 2001, General Lennox became the Superintendent of the U.S. Military Academy, and took the helm of one of the Nation's premier institutions of higher learning. Managing 7,000 people and $250 million budget per year on the 16,000-acre campus, he provided strategic direction for the academic, military, athletic and values programs. During his tenure, his key accomplishments not only preserved but even enhanced the prestige of the Military Academy. General Lennox oversaw upgrades to the core liberal arts program while sustaining the fourth-ranked undergraduate engineering program in the country. Today, only Harvard, Princeton, and Yale produce more Rhodes scholars than West Point. General Lennox has implemented and intensified opportunities for cultural exposure and expanded semesters abroad to countries such as China, Russia, Spain, and Chile. In the summer of 2005, he himself traveled to the People's Republic of China to strengthen ties with educators and government officials and improve the opportunities for exchanges. His has increased the number of foreign students by 74 percent, an initiative that promises to build language and cultural skills, as well as lasting relationships with our allies across the globe. General Lennox also realized the importance of the physical infrastructure of the Academy to the ultimate success of the cadets. His capital improvements have changed the face of the historic post for the better. He planned and began building a $120 million library learning center and science complex that is architecturally compatible with the granite buildings from previous centuries, and he completed construction of the $95 million physical development center. To provide the margin of excellence necessary to maintain the U.S. Military Academy's status as a tier I university, LTG Lennox completed a $150 million fund raising campaign with over $220 million. The funds from private sources enabled further improvements in the academic, athletic and military programs. General Lennox also recognized that the United States Military Academy was part of a larger community. From the outset of his tenure, he sought the comments and insights of graduates, the Academy, and the members of the surrounding neighborhood, whenever appropriate, to give them a closer identification with and support for the institution and ultimately its decisions. LTG Lennox leaves a notably improved Academy in terms of leadership, facilities, and finances. The military, academic, physical and moral/ ethical development programs at the Academy have never been stronger and more connected to the Army. General Lennox has set the course for officer education into the first half of the new century. Bill Lennox is an extraordinary soldier. He combines great intellect, great character and great dedication. He is also an extraordinary man. Together with his wife, Anne, he has raised three sons, Andrew, Matthew, and Jonathan, who have continued the Lennox tradition of service. He and Anne have been a remarkable example of husband and wife in service to the Army and in service to the Nation. And anyone who has enjoyed the warm embrace of their friendship, treasures their company and their kindness. The motto of West Point is ``Duty, Honor, Country.'' Throughout its history, West Point has been guided by leaders who exemplify and live out that great credo. LTG William Lennox is such a leader. He leaves a proud and enduring legacy as the 56th Superintendant of the United States Military Academy. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a fellow in my office, Jason Schneider, be granted the privilege of the floor for the duration of my remarks.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, on behalf of my fellow Rhode Islanders, I wish to recognize the 2550th anniversary of the Buddha, the Khmer New Year. This cultural celebration highlights the rich heritage of Cambodian Americans, while recognizing contemporary Khmerian accomplishments. Ancient dance, music, and religious traditions of the Cambodian community are the focus of the holiday. The festivity, celebrated in the reprieve between the harvest and the weeks referred to as the ``rainy season,'' is an occasion for Cambodian Americans to pass their customs to future generations while simultaneously allowing all Cambodians to share their culture with other Americans. Traditionally, the anniversary of the Buddha affords Cambodians a chance to give thanks, reflect, and welcome the spirit Tevada Chhnam Thmey. Also, in accordance with tradition, scores of Cambodian Americans will gather with family and friends to visit the wat, the local spiritual center, to offer food to their clergymen, pray for ancestors, give charity to the less fortunate, forgive the misdeeds of others, and thank elders for their knowledge and care. The Khmerian New Year ceremonies and activities demonstrate that each year brings new opportunities for charity, peace, and happiness. As we commemorate this important time, let us reflect on our Nation's continued efforts to promote universal human rights and democratic principles. Let us also take this opportunity to honor the Cambodian Americans currently serving in the U.S. armed services, for their daily sacrifice in protecting our freedom. Finally, I would like to wish all Cambodian Americans happiness, prosperity, and good health in this, the Year of the Dog.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, on behalf of the Armenian population of Rhode Island and Armenians around the world, I want to recognize the 91st anniversary of the Armenian genocide. Ninety-one years ago today, April 24, the Young Turk leaders of the Ottoman Empire summoned and executed over 200 Armenian community leaders. By 1923, an estimated 1.5 million Armenians were murdered, and another one half million were exiled, affecting the lives of every Armenian in Asia Minor. Author John Minassian, a survivor of the 1915 Armenian genocide, tells of his experience. ``These fine people were now being made into refugees only because they had clung to their ancient beliefs and the faith of their ancestors. They marched proudly under a yoke of hatred, prejudice and bigotry, their morale high, their spirit as yet unbroken. They knew that their only `crime' was being Armenian.'' The Armenian genocide was condemned at the time by representatives of the British, French, Russian, German, and Austrian Governments, both foes and allies of the Ottoman Empire. Today, as a cosponsor of S. Res. 320, I call on the President to ensure that the foreign policy of the United States reflects appropriate understanding and sensitivity concerning issues related to human rights, ethnic cleansing, and genocide documented in the record of the United States relating to the Armenian genocide. Armenian soldiers have supported Operation Iraqi Freedom as part of the Polish-led multinational division in south-central Iraq. Working as truck drivers, bomb detonators, and doctors, Armenia has not allowed others to be left helpless as they were nearly a century ago. The United States is proud to have Armenia as an ally in the rebuilding and reconstruction of Iraq. So as history does not repeat itself, we must study and remember the events of our past. In instances such as the Armenian genocide, all nations must educate their youth in the hatred, the wrongdoing, and the oppression to deter future atrocities against humanity. Not more that two decades after the Armenian genocide, Hitler said to his generals on the eve of sending his death squads into Poland, ``Go, kill without mercy . . . who today remembers the annihilation of the Armenians.'' We remember the Armenians. Menk panav chenk mornar. We will never forget.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I stand to support the position of Senator Levin with respect to the nomination of Dorrance Smith to be Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs. I, too, participated in his hearings. I listened to Mr. Smith, and I think he lacks the judgment necessary to be the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs. Senator Levin has quoted the Wall Street Journal op-ed piece. This was not the example of making an offhand statement. This is not the situation where someone was being quizzed and extemporaneously suggested something that later one regrets. This was a very carefully crafted editorial which was sent to the Wall Street Journal for publication. In it, Mr. Smith says: Osama bin Laden, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, and al Qaeda have a partner in al-Jazeera and, by extension, most networks in the

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. I do not intend to take all that time, but I yield myself 5 minutes.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. REED. Mr. President, there are two issues with respect to Mr. Flory. The first is access to documents which are necessary for the Senate to do its job. We can't formulate policy, we can't draft legislation, we can't properly review the activities of the Department of Defense if we are denied critical information. This Defense Department persistently, constantly denies information of that sort. This is something about which Senator Levin has made the point very well, made the point about his attempts to get information with respect to issues that touch on the activities of Mr. Flory and the activities of others. Senator Levin has been denied. Without any justification, without any legal precedent, they simply said we are not giving it to you--and that is outrageous. Frankly, because we have acquiesced in this policy over many years, we have not done our job in the Senate. We allowed this Defense Department to take military forces to war without a plan for occupation because we didn't ask--demand that they give us the information in that plan. We have done this repeatedly. It has to stop because it has real consequences in the activities of our military and the effect on these young men and women across the globe. We have to do our job. Our job begins with getting this type of information. It is outrageous that we continue to sit here and literally beg the Defense Department to give us information that is rightfully ours because of our responsibilities under the Constitution to supervise the activities of the Department of Defense. That is point No. 1. Point No. 2 is Mr. Flory, by his own job description, was involved with the formulation and coordination of international security strategy and policy for several areas including the Middle East in 2001. As Senator Levin pointed out, he was part of this team that developed this alternate intelligence view--alternate in the sense that it was inaccurate, grossly inaccurate. Now we propose to promote him. There are millions of Americans who are wondering who planned this operation in Iraq so poorly. And if they find out, it is not to give these individuals a promotion. There is real responsibility here and that is the other point I find very difficult to accept. No one seems to be accountable for palpable mistakes that have been made by the Department of Defense in the conduct of these operations--not the Secretary of Defense, not the new Secretary of State, who was the National Security Advisor--and now we are promoting someone who is deeply involved in the Feith operation that created the alternate intelligence view that was at dramatic odds with the intelligence community, with the suggestion that there were serious links between Saddam Hussein, al-Qaida, and other terrorist groups. I think on both these points we should not proceed to this nomination. We have to have the information necessary to do our jobs. If we do not, we are not doing our jobs. We are not doing our duty. Today I hope is an opportunity to focus attention on, No. 1, the fact we need the information from the Department of Defense, and also I think it is about time someone is held in some degree responsible for errors that have been made by the Department of Defense. I yield my time.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3074.

Mr. REED. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, my amendment is straightforward. It would increase funding for the LIHEAP program, the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, by $3.318 billion. It is paid for fully by the closing of corporate tax loopholes and is cosponsored by Senators Kennedy, Kerry, Clinton, Lieberman, Rockefeller, Dorgan, Levin, Dayton, Schumer, Kohl, Bayh, Johnson, Leahy, Menendez, and Harkin. The President's budget request and the level of funding assumed in this budget resolution for LIHEAP is $1.782 billion. That represents a $379 million cut from the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. Last week we were struggling to pass an additional $1 billion. The question before us is, are we going to accept this inadequate funding knowing full well it is inadequate today. I hope we don't do that. My amendment, the increase of $3.318 billion, would reach the authorized level of $5.1 billion set by the Energy Policy Act of 2005. On five separate occasions during the course of the debate over LIHEAP in the last 6 months, the majority of the Senate has voted for this full funding level. I call upon all of those Members to join me today to ensure we have full funding. We understand this year we are short of money. The President's budget starts us off with even less. This year we benefited from unusually warm temperatures. I don't think anyone would bet that next winter's heating season will be as mild and as forgiving as this season's. With higher energy prices--and we know they are going up--with probably lower temperatures, we are going to be in a very serious position unless we adopt this amendment. In the course of the debate about LIHEAP, many of our colleagues from warmer States pointed out that they are not getting as much as they should. If we get to the $5.1 billion level, this will truly be a national program. Warmer weather States will have the money in the hot season where they need air conditioning to help low-income people. I hope we can do so. For example, Alabama will receive $15 million from the block grant formula under the President's budget. It would receive $87.2 million under my amendment, a 479-percent increase, and so on throughout the country. I hope we can pass this amendment. I hope we can have the foresight to recognize that we can't start off in the hole. We cannot expect warm temperatures this next heating season. We have to do more for the most vulnerable. I yield whatever remaining time I have back to the Senator from North Dakota. Amendment No. 3136

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, this amendment would raise the allocation for LIHEAP to the statutorily authorized $5.1 billion. It recognizes the fact that energy prices have been going up and that we are likely not to see a mild winter again next year; that we can expect right now to need more resources. Just a few weeks ago, we were on the floor of the Senate trying to raise the emergency funding for LIHEAP because of the intersection of cold temperatures and the increased cost of fuel. If we do pass this amendment, it will increase the allocation of resources not just to the cold States but to the warm States. This will provide significant resources for those States such as Alabama, Louisiana, and Nevada that need the assistance in the summertime for air-conditioning. I urge my colleagues to pass my amendment. We know it is going to be a problem next year. The funds in the President's budget are insufficient. We have to stand up and make sure we take care of the vulnerable people.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, the Humphrey Hawkins Act of 1978 specifies that time should be set aside in the consideration of the budget resolution for debate on economic goals and policies. As the ranking member of the Joint Economic Committee, I rise today to talk about how the budget submitted by President Bush and the version of that budget which we are debating this week in the Senate embody the wrong goals and policies to address the challenges facing the American economy. If you listen to the President and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, you would get the impression that the economy is in good shape and that their policies have been successful. But if you listen to the American people you know that there is considerable anxiety about the economy and considerable disapproval about how the other side has managed economic policy. The American people are right. All is not well with the Bush economy and the President's economic policies. President Bush likes to cite statistics on how fast the economy is growing and how much productivity--the output a worker produces in an hour--has increased. What he doesn't mention is that on his watch the economy went through the most protracted jobs slump in decades; that there is still considerable evidence of lagging labor force participation and hidden unemployment; and that the benefits of productivity growth have been showing up in the bottom lines of companies rather than in the paychecks of workers. The President doesn't mention that disparities in wages and incomes are growing wider. Those who are already well-to-do are continuing to do very well. But the typical American family is struggling to make ends meet in the face of rising costs for energy, health care, and a college education for their children. The administration and its supporters will not take responsibility for the failure of their policies. They say that their tax cuts are working and that all the American economy needs is more tax cuts. But the Bush tax cuts have not created an economy that works for ordinary Americans and they have mortgaged our future. Responsible analysts have shown that the President's tax cuts for the rich were poorly designed for generating jobs and putting people back to work in the wake of the 2001 recession. They had very low ``bang-for-the-buck'' in terms of job stimulus in the short run, but they were so massive that they created a legacy of large budget deficits and mounting debt that will be a drag on the economy in the long run. President Bush has squandered the hard-won fiscal discipline achieved in the 1990s. He inherited a 10-year budget surplus of $5.6 trillion and turned it into a stream of deficits. This year's budget gives the illusion that we will be making substantial progress in reducing the deficit over the next few years. But that is not what responsible analysts say. They point out that a realistic budget assessment shows continuing structural deficits over the next several years and a potential explosion of the deficit once the costs of the baby-boom generation's retirement kick in fully. With a $5.6 trillion 10-year budget surplus now a deficit of at least $2.7 trillion, this administration has turned us into a nation of debtors, relying on the rest of the world to finance our budget deficits and the rest of our excessive spending. Yesterday we learned that the current account deficit--the broadest measure of our international payments imbalance--was $805 billion last year, an amount equal to 6.4 percent of GDP. That is a record both in dollar terms and as a share of GDP. The ballooning international trade and budget deficits dramatize the misplaced fiscal priorities of the President and the Republican Congress. The administration's large Federal budget deficits and mounting Federal debt are putting enormous pressure on the trade deficit and the dollar. We are mortgaging our future to foreign investors and foreign governments instead of getting our fiscal house in order and boosting our own national saving. And we are not investing in people here at home the way we should be. A new analysis of the President's budget by the Democratic staff of the Joint Economic Committee shows that the President's policies would add to the deficit and reduce investments that aid moderate- and lower- income families in order to pay part of the cost of tax cuts going disproportionately to those with very high incomes. The JEC Democratic staff analysis shows that the burden of cuts in those programs that provide benefits to individuals would be borne disproportionately by families in the bottom 40 percent of the income distribution. The share of spending cuts borne by those families would be disproportionate to their share of aggregate family income and to the share of any benefits they could expect to receive from the President's proposed tax cuts. Families in the bottom 20 percent of the income distribution would absorb 32 percent of the cuts in payments for individuals, even though their share of aggregate family income is only 3 percent. Families in the next lowest fifth of the income distribution, with 8 percent of aggregate family income, would bear 23 percent of the budget cuts in payments for individuals. Disparities in the impact of the President's budget proposals on families in different parts of the income distribution are even more pronounced when the tax cuts are taken into account. Families in the bottom 40 percent of the income distribution would receive only 6 percent of the benefits from tax cuts while bearing over half the burden of the spending cuts. In contrast, families in the top 20 percent of the income distribution would receive over 70 percent of the benefits of the tax cuts while bearing only 14 percent of the burden of the spending cuts. The net impact of those cuts would leave families at the bottom of the income distribution shouldering nearly all of the pain while families at the top of the income distribution would reap nearly all of the net benefits. A budget resolution that echoes the President's budget neither meets the pressing needs of the American people nor addresses the long-term challenges that lie ahead. Clearly, we're in for another year of policies that do little to help the average family or bring down the deficit. A long-term budget and economic disaster looms if we don't restore fiscal discipline. The President's large and growing Federal budget deficits leave us increasingly hampered in our ability to deal with the host of challenges we face. We need policies that address the problems facing the country's most disadvantaged citizens and help ordinary working families deal with job and retirement insecurity and the rising costs of energy, health care, and education for their children. We can and should do better.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I recognize the 185th anniversary of Greek independence, which will be celebrated on Saturday, March 25. As the Greek philosopher Plato said ``The beginning is the most important part of the work.'' After centuries of unsuccessful uprisings and failure of the Ottoman Empire to assimilate and convert the Greeks, the War of Independence began on this day, March 25 in 1821. This was the beginning of the end of 400 years of occupation and oppression by the Ottoman Turks. During the dark years of the Ottoman occupation, thousands were killed and tortured for participating in religious activities or teaching their children culture, history, and language. The steadfast resolve displayed by the Greeks helped secure their independence and recognition as a sovereign power nearly 11 years later with the signing of the Treaty of Constantinople. This struggle for Greek independence was recognized the world over and was supported abroad by prominent world figures including Lord Byron of England, and Daniel Webster and Dr. Samuel Gridley Howe of the United States. As we fight today's Long War on Terror, the Greeks stand by our side. A highlight of the Greek military's continuing contributions to the International Coalition was the deployment of the 229th Mobile Field Surgical Hospital deployed to Afghanistan. At full operational status within 3 days, medical experts and officials believe the 229th is one of the best medical facilities that has ever operated in Afghanistan. A Greek proverb says, ``Success isn't how far you got, but the distance you traveled from where you started.'' Still alive and well in our own society today are the principles and ideas of ancient Greece. When we commemorate the heroism exhibited by the Greeks, we cannot help but to think of our Founding Fathers. Then and now, Greece and the United States share an absolute commitment to democracy, justice, and freedom. In history the Greeks have inspired, and in the present they have enlivened our great Nation. It gives me great pleasure and pride to cosponsor the Senate Resolution 399 designating March 25, 2006, as Greek Independence Day: A National Day of Celebration of Greek and American Democracy. I send all Greek-Americans in Rhode Island and around the country my best wishes as they celebrate their ancestral homeland's independence.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to honor Eleanor Slater, an extraordinary woman and leader who did so much for the State of Rhode Island and the country. Her passing is a great loss to her family and to Rhode Islanders. Not only did I have the privilege of knowing her throughout my political life, she was an ally, a mentor, an exemplar, and trustworthy friend. Born in 1908, Eleanor entered the political arena by winning election to the Rhode Island General Assembly at the spry age of 50. During the career that followed, she was widely known for fighting for the individuals and causes that are so often marginalized by our society. One of her greatest contributions, and there were many in her political career, was passage in the Rhode Island General Assembly of the Nation's very first fair housing legislation. The Slater Act of 1968 made it illegal to discriminate when selling or renting real estate property. This sorely needed law, which she had long championed to help bring greater equality to housing in Rhode Island, set a precedent for the entire country. Her determination remained a key characteristic throughout her political career. As a delegate to the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago, Eleanor refused to succumb to the pressures of her peers to support President Johnson's strategy for the Vietnam War. She held steadfastly to her own opposing point of view and never compromised her values or beliefs. Eleanor joined the political fray at a time when women were largely left out of the inner political processes, and she is credited with getting women involved in Democratic politics in Rhode Island. As a standout member of a predominately male legislature, she actively encouraged other woman to run for political office and became the vice chairwoman of the Democratic State Committee in 1958. Upon leaving the Rhode Island State Senate, she served as the first chief of the Division of Aging. Then, recognizing the importance of education, she fulfilled her longtime goal and desire of completing her studies, obtaining a bachelor's degree in political science at age 70 from the University of Rhode Island, URI. She continued to contribute to the community as an adjunct professor and guest lecturer on aging at URI, receiving an honorary Ph.D. in 1980. So today I honor Rhode Islander Eleanor Slater for her lifetime of passion and commitment, and I thank her for her friendship and inspiration. She will be sorely missed by those who knew her and those that have benefited from her unwavering efforts.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I join my colleague, Senator Coleman, in introducing the Conquer Childhood Cancer Act. I would also like to recognize Senators Talent, Isakson, Cochran, Bunning, Murkowski, Lieberman, Carper, Landrieu, and Lautenberg who have all joined as original cosponsors of the bill. This bipartisan legislation seeks to achieve several important goals in our battle against childhood cancer. Specifically, it will expand support for pediatric cancer research, foster the career development of more pediatric oncologists, and provide essential information and support to help families deal with this devastating disease. Childhood cancer impacts thousands of children and their families each year. While we have made great steps in treating cancer, we have made relatively little progress in advancing our understanding of the most common forms of pediatric cancer. This legislation will help to provide resources to hopefully one day find a cure. Each year, more than 12,000 children are diagnosed with cancer, and more than 2,000 of them lose their courageous battle with the disease. Pediatric cancer not only takes a toll on the child, it affects the entire family--the parents, siblings, friends, and extended family all suffer when a child has cancer. I have had the honor of meeting one such family from Warwick, Rhode Island who has taken the pain and devastation of losing their young son to neuroblastoma, a very aggressive childhood cancer, and turned their tragedy into a message of hope. The Haight family is committed, in memory of their nine year old son Ben, to education, advocacy, and lending support to other families going through a similar struggle with pediatric cancer. I never had a chance to meet Ben Haight but his mother Nancy has told me of his tremendous strength and courage. Ben fought every day during his four and a half year battle with this disease and his tragic story highlights the importance of this legislation. It is my hope that the bill we are introducing today will help to step up our efforts with regard to childhood cancer so that one day Ben's story, and thousands of other children like him, will be one of survival. In Rhode Island alone, a dozen children each year succumb to various forms of childhood cancer. Each of these children had hopes, dreams, and desires that will never be fulfilled and one cannot quantify the impact each of these children could have had on their communities and on society as a whole. We need to be doing more to give these children a chance to grow up and reach their full potential. The Conquer Childhood Cancer Act will enhance federal efforts in the fight against childhood cancer and will also complement the incredible work of private organizations dedicated to the prevention and cure of pediatric cancer. I would like to commend the CureSearch National Childhood Cancer Foundation for its work in this area. CureSearch brings together academic and research institutions, medical professionals with expertise in pediatric cancer, and children and families afflicted with the disease, to form a national network committed to research, treatment, and cures for childhood cancer. Thank you, Mr. President. I look forward to working with my colleagues toward swift passage of this important legislation.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I join my colleague, Senator Coleman, in introducing the Conquer Childhood Cancer Act. I would also like to recognize Senators Talent, Isakson, Cochran, Bunning, Murkowski, Lieberman, Carper, Landrieu, and Lautenberg who have all joined as original cosponsors of the bill. This bipartisan legislation seeks to achieve several important goals in our battle against childhood cancer. Specifically, it will expand support for pediatric cancer research, foster the career development of more pediatric oncologists, and provide essential information and support to help families deal with this devastating disease. Childhood cancer impacts thousands of children and their families each year. While we have made great steps in treating cancer, we have made relatively little progress in advancing our understanding of the most common forms of pediatric cancer. This legislation will help to provide resources to hopefully one day find a cure. Each year, more than 12,000 children are diagnosed with cancer, and more than 2,000 of them lose their courageous battle with the disease. Pediatric cancer not only takes a toll on the child, it affects the entire family--the parents, siblings, friends, and extended family all suffer when a child has cancer. I have had the honor of meeting one such family from Warwick, Rhode Island who has taken the pain and devastation of losing their young son to neuroblastoma, a very aggressive childhood cancer, and turned their tragedy into a message of hope. The Haight family is committed, in memory of their nine year old son Ben, to education, advocacy, and lending support to other families going through a similar struggle with pediatric cancer. I never had a chance to meet Ben Haight but his mother Nancy has told me of his tremendous strength and courage. Ben fought every day during his four and a half year battle with this disease and his tragic story highlights the importance of this legislation. It is my hope that the bill we are introducing today will help to step up our efforts with regard to childhood cancer so that one day Ben's story, and thousands of other children like him, will be one of survival. In Rhode Island alone, a dozen children each year succumb to various forms of childhood cancer. Each of these children had hopes, dreams, and desires that will never be fulfilled and one cannot quantify the impact each of these children could have had on their communities and on society as a whole. We need to be doing more to give these children a chance to grow up and reach their full potential. The Conquer Childhood Cancer Act will enhance federal efforts in the fight against childhood cancer and will also complement the incredible work of private organizations dedicated to the prevention and cure of pediatric cancer. I would like to commend the CureSearch National Childhood Cancer Foundation for its work in this area. CureSearch brings together academic and research institutions, medical professionals with expertise in pediatric cancer, and children and families afflicted with the disease, to form a national network committed to research, treatment, and cures for childhood cancer. Thank you, Mr. President. I look forward to working with my colleagues toward swift passage of this important legislation.