Jack Reed

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, again, I am also operating on some knowledge, but not complete knowledge, of why this provision is in the managers' amendment. I am prepared to accept the underlying agreement; I just have this one question which I find, at this point, important with respect to this Compassionate Capital Fund. But as far as your assertions, which I appreciate, and the underlying legislation, I have no problem with this consent; it is just that one point about the managers' amendment. I don't know what you would like to do to try to resolve that, though.

Mr. REED. Further reserving my right to object, I notice that in the managers' amendment there is language with respect to the Compassionate Capital Fund, which is not a tax-financed provision. It essentially is authorizing a program that was begun in the appropriations bill a few years ago. Questions have been raised with the use of these funds, et cetera. I wonder, in order to expedite this, if that particular provision of the managers' amendment could be either deleted or it could be placed in a position where a possible amendment could be raised.

Mr. REED. If the majority leader would respond, we had the opportunity to talk about this particular piece of legislation. Senator Santorum has taken out elements of the legislation that do not apply to the tax rules. And we discussed, and I think reached an understanding, that those charitable choice items that would pose significant issues with respect to church and state have been eliminated from the underlying bill. The bill we will consider is from the Finance Committee with simple tax provisions. And I know that Senator Santorum has indicated he would use his efforts, and your efforts presumably, in the conference to prevent the addition of those elements to which we have objected. And I would assume that despite your best efforts, if such elements were included within the bill when it came back in the form of a conference report, this Senate would not take up such a conference report. Is that a fair understanding?

Mr. REED. Mr. President, reserving my right to object.

Mr. REED. If I may reclaim my time, again, both the leader and the Senator have been extremely cooperative and helpful in trying to reach this point. I understand that once this legislation is passed by the Senate, it will be placed on the desk, and there are procedural opportunities there, I believe, to try to address this at least to somehow get an opportunity to look at this measure. Also with the opportunity to look at this over the course of the next few days, my apprehensions might be misplaced and we can proceed forward. But I think, again, the intention and the understanding we had have been met. I am just surprised about the inclusion of this particular position in something like a technical managers' amendment. Given the commitment the majority leader has made, certainly, about the overall status of this legislation, should it return from the other body, then I would not object to the consent at this time. Hopefully, over the next few days we will learn a little bit more about this compassionate fund and perhaps even deal with it if it is a problem on Monday.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, once again, reserving my right to object, I think both the majority leader and the Senator from Pennsylvania have been operating completely in good faith, have made sincere efforts to respond to our concerns. At this juncture, I would hope we could work out, through an amendment to the consent, a provision at least to give us the opportunity to look at it. I, frankly, having just seen this, this evening, I don't know if this simply codifies what is already operating and is, in a sense, innocuous or something more. It is not my intention to try at this point to upset the agreement because I think it was reached after much effort on both sides. It is a good-faith agreement. I wonder if there is some way we can maintain the opportunity to look at this, agree to the consent this evening, look at it, and if it is something highly objectionable, at least have the opportunity to strike. I think the suggestion by the Senator from Nevada is a good one. Frankly, I must say I am not prepared at this moment to offer a conclusion as to whether this should be here or not. I am just surprised that a nontax item is included in the managers' amendment along with others that are relatively noncontroversial.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Breaux Federal homeland security responsibilities amendment. This amendment addresses a number of important homeland security needs that the administration has failed to adequately fund, and it deserves the support of this Senate. I particularly want to thank the author of this amendment for including specific resources to help protect our Nation's transit systems and the 14 million Americans who depend on them to get to work or elsewhere safely and securely every workday. In the 107th Congress, as the chairman of the Housing and Transportation Subcommittee, I chaired two hearings on the topic of transit security in the wake of September 11. At these hearings, we heard from transit operators and others that public transportation is regrettably a target for terrorists. Indeed, roughly one-third of terrorist attacks worldwide have occurred against transportation systems. One only needs to watch international news to see pictures of the devastation of suicide bombers on buses. Senator Sarbanes and I also requested a General Accounting Office report on transit security entitled ``Mass Transit: Federal Action Could Help Transit Agencies Address Security Challenges.'' The GAO found that the Federal Transit Administration and the Transportation Safety Administration were providing technical assistance and some training to transit systems, but that there are still many unmet needs. For example, when the GAO asked just eight transit systems how much they needed to address their security needs, the answer was over $700 million. Transit systems also expressed concern that there is often insufficient planning, communication and coordination with local, State and Federal law enforcement entities. The administration, which has embraced the Senate's efforts to improve aviation security, has unfortunately not shown the same level of commitment to our transit systems. It failed to request specific funding for transit security in either its fiscal year 2004 budget or its fiscal year 2003 supplemental request. The Breaux amendment would address this shortcoming by providing a down-payment for transit security improvements and send a strong signal to the millions of working men and women who ride our subways, buses, and commuter rail lines that their government is aggressively working to improve transit security. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the 182nd anniversary of Greek Independence that will be celebrated on Tuesday, March 25. It was on this day, March 25, 1821, that Greek patriots rose up against their Ottoman subjugators and began an 8-year struggle that culminated in a new Greek Republic in 1829. On this day, it is fitting that we reflect on the enormous contributions the Greek people have made to the modern world. The legacy of the ancient Greeks, in the fields of philosophy, literature, drama, sculpture, and architecture, continues to influence our beliefs, our values, and our concept of art. Our own democratic principles have their very foundation in the practices of the ancient Greece republic. Indeed, the ancient Greeks developed the concept of democracy, in which the supreme power to govern was vested in the people. Greek ideology also had a profound effect on our Founding Fathers, who modeled the American Government upon the principles of Greek democracy. Thomas Jefferson studied the Greek classics in his youth and was inspired by their philosophy throughout his life, most dramatically when he crafted the Declaration of Independence. When formulating his vision for this country, Jefferson specifically referred to the integrated assertions, theories, and aims of the classic Greek world. Our admiration for Greece continues into the modern day. Greece and the United States are at the forefront of the effort for freedom, democracy, peace, stability, and human rights, forging a close bond between the two Nations. We share a partnership with Greece in NATO, and our countries are linked forever by close family relationships between our peoples. Our Nation looks forward to working closely with Greece in the coming years as we examine ways to bring full peace, stability, and prosperity to all the nations of Europe and the world. As we celebrate Greek independence, we remember the history of those who sacrificed their lives to preserve freedom and democracy. We value our friendship and continuing partnership with the Government and people of Greece, and we commit to work together to provide greater opportunity and more freedoms for the citizens of the world. And we join the world in anticipating the momentous 2004 Summer Olympic Games, which will be held in Athens, the birthplace of the Olympic tradition. I am proud to join many of my colleagues as a cosponsor of Senate Resolution 214 which designates March 25, 2003 ``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, once again, America has placed its fate and its future in the hands of young American fighting men and fighting women. Both our future and our faith could not be in stronger, more decent, and more qualified hands. We are here today, united in our support for these extraordinary soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, and Coastguardsmen, all of them superbly trained, faithful to their uniforms, and also faithful to those who served before them--an unbroken legacy of courage and commitment to this Nation. I take a moment to recognize particularly those many individuals from my State of Rhode Island. First, the thousands who are serving on active duty in units in all of our services, and then, also, our National Guard and Reserve forces, because in this conflict the National Guard and Reserve are playing a critical role. Rhode Island has 648 Guard men and women and Reserve members who are stationed throughout the globe. Many members of the National Guard 143rd Airlift Wing Security Forces and Communications have been deployed to Southwest Asia. They have been joined by the Air National Guard's 281st Combat Communications Group, the Air National Guard's 282nd Combat Communications Squadron and the Air National Guard's 102nd Information Warfare Squadron. The Guard 143rd Airlift Wing Aerial Port Squadron is in Turkey and members of the Rhode Island Air National Guard headquarters are in Kyrgzstan and Turkey. Rhode Islanders are also protecting the homefront while war is waged in the Middle East. The Army National Guard's 1207th Transportation Company is at Fort Dix, New Jersey. The Army National Guard's 118th Military Police Battalion, 119th Military Police Company, and 115th Military Police Company are at Fort Drum, New York. And the Marine Reserves, General Support Motor Transport Company and the Army National Guard's 1st Battalion, 103rd Field Artillery Brigade are providing security in Rhode Island. All of these men and women have been called to the colors, have responded, and will serve magnificently. The battle has begun. The battle will be pursued vigorously to a complete victory. I have every confidence in that. Part of my confidence stems from the privilege of having served with the leaders of our Army who, today, are commanding the forces that are sent against Iraq. Both as classmates and contemporaries at West Point, I had the privilege of knowing GEN Chuck Swannack who commands the 82nd; Dave Petraeus, the 101st Commander; and also General Hagenbeck, who commanded the 10th so well in Afghanistan. I know because these men are superb professionals, because they are committed to getting the job done and making sure their soldiers come home. We will be successful. Today, we are united in our support and our admiration for the forces who serve this country so well. I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I want to voice my strong support for the Bond-Reid amendment to ensure that we invest in our transportation infrastructure. Time and again, in our daily lives and in the news we hear and see that our Nation's roads and transit systems are crowded. On our way to work or on our way to visit family, we spend countless hours stuck in traffic or waiting for a bus. But this congestion is more than just a personal inconvenience. Indeed, we know from studies by the Texas Transportation Institute and others that traffic congestion costs our economy $67.5 billion every year. That's billions in lost productivity. Sadly, the budget resolution before us fails to provide the resources needed to meet these demands. It even fails to meet the level of funding that the administration's own Department of Transportation believes are necessary if one reads the DoT's report on the conditions and performance of our Nation's highways and transit systems. Fortunately, the bipartisan amendment offered by the Senate's leaders on transportation policy would ensure that we have the resources to maintain and modernize our roads, bridges, and transit systems. By providing a total of $255 billion for highways and $56.5 billion for transit, this amendment makes sure we have the resources to repair aging bridges and improve transit service. Last year, as the chairman of the subcommittee with jurisdiction over our Nation's transit programs, we heard repeatedly from witnesses who represented transit systems of all sizes from all over the country about the success of TEA-21. When I asked why TEA-21 was successful, every witness had the same answer: resources. It was the resources that brought fast, environmentally sound transit to growing cities like Denver and helped transit attain the highest growth rate of any mode of transportation. This amendment will ensure that we continue this success. In addition, during a time of economic uncertainty, this amendment means jobs and a great stimulus to our economy. Indeed, an estimated 47,000 well-paying jobs are created for each $1 billion we invest in transportation. I want to thank my colleagues, Senators Bond, Reid, Shelby, and Sarbanes, for their leadership on this amendment. I look forward to its passage and preservation in conference with the House.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. I ask unanimous consent that a fellow in my office, Denis Borum, be granted the privilege of the floor for purposes of this debate.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Child Care Quality Incentive Act of 2003. This legislation seeks to address low child care payment or reimbursement rates. Payment rates determine the level at which States will reimburse child care providers who care for those low-income children who receive a subsidy. Low payment rates directly affect the kind of care children get and whether families can find quality child care in their communities. Low payment rates mean limited parental access to quality child care. Child care providers are also affected when rates are set below the market rate. Low payment rates force child care providers serving low- income children to cut corners in ways that lower the quality of child care such as reducing staff or decreasing salaries and benefits, eliminating professional development opportunities, and forgoing books and other literacy materials. Providers who avoid this route may simply not accept low-income children with subsidies or may even go out of business. These dilemmas can be avoided if we help states set payment rates that keep pace with the marketplace. Currently, the Child Care and Development Block Grant, CCDBG, requires States to ensure that their rates are sufficient to ``ensure equal access'' for eligible families to child care services comparable to those available to non-eligible families in the private market. CCDBG regulations require states to conduct market rate surveys every other year, but there is no requirement for states to actually use the market rate surveys to set payment rates. Unfortunately, more than half of the States do not make payment rates based on the 75th percentile, by which families could access care from 75 out of 100 local providers, of a current market survey. The need for quality child care has never been greater, as our welfare reform policy directs more of our low-income families to find work and our educational policy demands more of our students and schools. Yet, States, due to severe budget crunches, are cutting back on rates and other quality initiatives and restricting eligibility for subsidies. I am pleased to be joined by Senators Dodd, Kennedy, and Murray in once again introducing the Child Care Quality Incentive Act, which seeks to redouble our child care efforts and renew the child care partnership with the States by providing incentive funding to increase payment rates. Our legislation establishes a new, mandatory pool of funding under the Child Care and Development Block Grant, CCDBG. This new funding, coupled with mandatory, current market rate surveys, will form the foundation for significant increases in state payment rates for the provision of quality child care. We have received overwhelming support for this bill from the child care community, including endorsements from USA Child Care, Children's Defense Fund, Catholic Charities of USA, YMCA of USA, the National Child Care Association, and a host of organizations and agencies across the country. Children are the hope of America, and they need the best of America. We cannot ask working families to choose between paying the rent, buying food, and being able to afford the quality care their children need. We've made a lot of progress in improving the health, safety, and well-being of children in this country. If we are serious about putting parents to work and protecting children, we must invest more in child care help for families. This year, Congress is slated to reauthorize the Child Care and Development Block Grant. The time for action on rates is now. I urge my colleagues to join Senators Dodd, Kennedy, Murray, and me in this endeavor to improve the quality of child care by cosponsoring the Child Care Quality Incentive Act and working to include its provisions in the CCDBG reauthorization. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, the choice before us is very clear: Are we going to devote $8.9 billion to tax cuts, most of them favoring the very rich, or are we going to devote $8.9 billion to the children and the schools of America? The choice is much more clear since the No Child Left Behind Act was passed because we made significant commitments to improve the quality of education in the United States while imposing significant responsibilities on the schools. The schools are expecting this money. The suggestion that there is a lot of money in the pipeline is interesting, but I would be shocked because that suggests the Department of Education is inept in getting money that is there to the schools that desperately need it. There are 10,000 identified failing schools in this country. There are scores of children being taught by teachers without a college degree in their primary field of instruction. All of that needs remediation, help, and resources, but instead the budget before us provides billions in tax cuts when our schools desperately need that money. It is not a question of what we did last year, it is a question of what we will do this year. It is a question of whether we will meet the needs of the American students and whether we will keep the promises of the No Child Left Behind Act. We are not keeping those promises in the budget that is presented to us by the Budget Committee. We should keep those promises, and by doing so, we will do something I believe every American wants more than tax cuts that favor very wealthy Americans. We want to see every child in this country have a decent education, succeed, contribute, and be part of this great country. That is what the Murray amendment does. The choice before us is clear, compelling, emphatic: Put the money with the schools and the children, and our economy will be better, and our schools and students will be better. We can afford it because if we do not commit the funding to the children, it will go to tax cuts primarily to upper income Americans.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Child Care Quality Incentive Act of 2003. This legislation seeks to address low child care payment or reimbursement rates. Payment rates determine the level at which States will reimburse child care providers who care for those low-income children who receive a subsidy. Low payment rates directly affect the kind of care children get and whether families can find quality child care in their communities. Low payment rates mean limited parental access to quality child care. Child care providers are also affected when rates are set below the market rate. Low payment rates force child care providers serving low- income children to cut corners in ways that lower the quality of child care such as reducing staff or decreasing salaries and benefits, eliminating professional development opportunities, and forgoing books and other literacy materials. Providers who avoid this route may simply not accept low-income children with subsidies or may even go out of business. These dilemmas can be avoided if we help states set payment rates that keep pace with the marketplace. Currently, the Child Care and Development Block Grant, CCDBG, requires States to ensure that their rates are sufficient to ``ensure equal access'' for eligible families to child care services comparable to those available to non-eligible families in the private market. CCDBG regulations require states to conduct market rate surveys every other year, but there is no requirement for states to actually use the market rate surveys to set payment rates. Unfortunately, more than half of the States do not make payment rates based on the 75th percentile, by which families could access care from 75 out of 100 local providers, of a current market survey. The need for quality child care has never been greater, as our welfare reform policy directs more of our low-income families to find work and our educational policy demands more of our students and schools. Yet, States, due to severe budget crunches, are cutting back on rates and other quality initiatives and restricting eligibility for subsidies. I am pleased to be joined by Senators Dodd, Kennedy, and Murray in once again introducing the Child Care Quality Incentive Act, which seeks to redouble our child care efforts and renew the child care partnership with the States by providing incentive funding to increase payment rates. Our legislation establishes a new, mandatory pool of funding under the Child Care and Development Block Grant, CCDBG. This new funding, coupled with mandatory, current market rate surveys, will form the foundation for significant increases in state payment rates for the provision of quality child care. We have received overwhelming support for this bill from the child care community, including endorsements from USA Child Care, Children's Defense Fund, Catholic Charities of USA, YMCA of USA, the National Child Care Association, and a host of organizations and agencies across the country. Children are the hope of America, and they need the best of America. We cannot ask working families to choose between paying the rent, buying food, and being able to afford the quality care their children need. We've made a lot of progress in improving the health, safety, and well-being of children in this country. If we are serious about putting parents to work and protecting children, we must invest more in child care help for families. This year, Congress is slated to reauthorize the Child Care and Development Block Grant. The time for action on rates is now. I urge my colleagues to join Senators Dodd, Kennedy, Murray, and me in this endeavor to improve the quality of child care by cosponsoring the Child Care Quality Incentive Act and working to include its provisions in the CCDBG reauthorization. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I am pleased to reintroduce the Pharmacy Education Aid Act along with my colleagues, Senator Enzi, Senator Johnson and others. Last year, the Senate recognized and acted to address the growing, nationwide shortage of pharmacists, by creating a demonstration program under the National Health Service Corps whereby pharmacists agree to serve in rural and medically underserved areas in exchange for partial loan repayment. I commend my colleagues for responding in such a strong, bipartisan way to this critically important health care issue. The bill I am introducing today, the Pharmacy Education Aid Act seeks to build on that bipartisan step while taking a multi-faceted approach to the problem of workforce shortages in the pharmacy sector. The December 2000 Health Resources and Services Administration, HRSA, report, ``The Pharmacist Workforce: A Study of the Supply and Demand for Pharmacists'' concluded that due to the rapid increase in demand for pharmacists and our limited ability to expand the number pharmacy education programs to train more pharmacists, the shortage was unlikely to abate without significant changes to the current system. Pharmacists represent the third largest and most trusted health professional group in the United States. In 2000, 190,000 pharmacists were in practice. While this figure is expected to grow to 224,500 by 2010, demand for pharmacists is expected to continue to outpace supply. These shortages, while particularly acute in rural and medically underserved areas, are felt throughout of health care system. A November 2001 GAO report found that, on average, hospitals report 21 percent of their pharmacist positions are currently unfilled. Vacancy rates are even higher in federal health systems, such as the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Department of Defense and the Indian Health Service. The Pharmacy Education Act seeks to address these chronic shortfalls in the supply and distribution of pharmacists by building upon Title VII of the Public Health Service Act, with particular emphasis on students with the greatest financial need. In addition to enhancing students' opportunities to pursue an education in pharmacy, the bill also makes available much needed resources to Colleges of Pharmacy to upgrade and expand facilities and laboratory space as well as to recruit and retain talented faculty to educate future generations of pharmacists. As Congress works to provide a Medicare prescription drug benefit, the need for more pharmacist involvement in health care decision making, including medication therapy management, formulary development and drug utilization review, will be essential to its long-term success. We must address the pharmacist shortage now. As such, I look forward to working with my colleagues towards expeditious consideration and passage of this timely and important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that a letter of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I am pleased to reintroduce the Pharmacy Education Aid Act along with my colleagues, Senator Enzi, Senator Johnson and others. Last year, the Senate recognized and acted to address the growing, nationwide shortage of pharmacists, by creating a demonstration program under the National Health Service Corps whereby pharmacists agree to serve in rural and medically underserved areas in exchange for partial loan repayment. I commend my colleagues for responding in such a strong, bipartisan way to this critically important health care issue. The bill I am introducing today, the Pharmacy Education Aid Act seeks to build on that bipartisan step while taking a multi-faceted approach to the problem of workforce shortages in the pharmacy sector. The December 2000 Health Resources and Services Administration, HRSA, report, ``The Pharmacist Workforce: A Study of the Supply and Demand for Pharmacists'' concluded that due to the rapid increase in demand for pharmacists and our limited ability to expand the number pharmacy education programs to train more pharmacists, the shortage was unlikely to abate without significant changes to the current system. Pharmacists represent the third largest and most trusted health professional group in the United States. In 2000, 190,000 pharmacists were in practice. While this figure is expected to grow to 224,500 by 2010, demand for pharmacists is expected to continue to outpace supply. These shortages, while particularly acute in rural and medically underserved areas, are felt throughout of health care system. A November 2001 GAO report found that, on average, hospitals report 21 percent of their pharmacist positions are currently unfilled. Vacancy rates are even higher in federal health systems, such as the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Department of Defense and the Indian Health Service. The Pharmacy Education Act seeks to address these chronic shortfalls in the supply and distribution of pharmacists by building upon Title VII of the Public Health Service Act, with particular emphasis on students with the greatest financial need. In addition to enhancing students' opportunities to pursue an education in pharmacy, the bill also makes available much needed resources to Colleges of Pharmacy to upgrade and expand facilities and laboratory space as well as to recruit and retain talented faculty to educate future generations of pharmacists. As Congress works to provide a Medicare prescription drug benefit, the need for more pharmacist involvement in health care decision making, including medication therapy management, formulary development and drug utilization review, will be essential to its long-term success. We must address the pharmacist shortage now. As such, I look forward to working with my colleagues towards expeditious consideration and passage of this timely and important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that a letter of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to an outstanding Rhode Islander, Jimmy McDonnell, who is celebrating his retirement from the Biltmore Hotel after 45 years of dedicated service. Since his earnest beginnings in 1948 as a busboy in the Town Room Restaurant, Jimmy McDonnell has exemplified great professionalism, boundless enthusiasm, and is today an institution in Rhode Island's hospitality industry. Jimmy McDonnell is synonymous with the Biltmore Hotel, located in the heart of the capital city of Providence. As a waiter, manager, and director of catering service at the Biltmore Hotel for over five decades, he has become a hallmark of one of Rhode Island's finest institutions. Over his long and industrious career Jimmy McDonnell has attended to the needs of people from all walks of life--from Presidents and foreign heads of state, to CEOs and politicians, to television and movie celebrities and even to rock stars. Jimmy has been in the center of the Rhode Island restaurant and hotel industry and is well known to our community's most distinguished residents and visitors. Synonymous with the finest in service, Jimmy has, through his professionalism, skills and graciousness, always put Rhode Island's best foot forward and illuminated the kindness and generosity of our great State. In addition to celebrities, he has touched the lives of virtually hundreds of Rhode Islanders and their families. He oversaw countless social events and charitable endeavors and he was ``the person'' to whom you entrusted the details of your son's bar mitzvah or who made sure your daughter's wedding went according to plan. He helped make cherished memories for so many, and his good heart and hard work footnoted many special events in our State and in our lives. His exemplary legacy of service leaves many Rhode Islanders with fond memories and stories of the man they knew as ``Mr. Biltmore.'' His presence at the Biltmore will indeed be sorely missed. I ask my colleagues to join me in commending Jimmy McDonnell for his many years of service at the Biltmore Hotel, and to the hospitality industry which makes Rhode Island such a special place to live, work, and visit.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, yesterday the House passed H. Con. Res.85, a resolution paying respect to the victims of the tragic nightclub fire on February 20, 2003 in West Warwick, RI, and expressing the sense of Congress regarding the need for improved fire safety in buildings used by the public. I thank my colleagues for expediting consideration of this important resolution in the Senate today. The West Warwick fire is a devastating loss that has affected the lives of thousands of Rhode Islanders. Mr. President, 99 people have died, and nearly 190 people were injured, many of whom are still in hospitals in critical condition. In the first minutes and hours of this tragedy, our firefighters, police, and emergency medical personnel performed heroically under horrific circumstances, as did many of the patrons who were at the scene and helped to save others. I want to express my heartfelt condolences to the many families of those who perished in the West Warwick fire, and to let them know that our thoughts and prayers are with them and with the survivors who will struggle with the physical and mental toll of this horrible event for the rest of their lives. This was a catastrophe brought on by a series of bad decisions. Fault will be sorted out in time, but there are already lessons learned. State and local officials across the country are, and should be, reexamining their fire and building codes and stepping up enforcement of safety practices in public buildings to make sure that a tragedy like this does not happen again. Congress should do everything it can to support this effort and to encourage both state and local governments and federal agencies to adopt and strictly enforce the most current fire and building consensus codes. In addition, as our nation continues to fight the war on terror, the response to the West Warwick fire provides a good illustration of how far we've come--and how far we have to go--in improving our emergency management capabilities. Local first responders were on the scene within minutes to help rescue victims, treat the injured, and fight the tremendous blaze that consumed the Station nightclub. As casualties continued to mount, the Rhode Island Emergency Management Agency coordinated the massive rescue and recovery efforts by state and local agencies from Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and Connecticut. Several hospitals in Rhode Island and Massachusetts received scores of victims suffering from severe burns and smoke inhalation, many of whom remain in critical condition today. There is no question that the response to the West Warwick fire was better than it would have been before September 11, 2001, thanks to our state's efforts over the past 18 months to strengthen emergency preparedness. Federal assistance in this regard has helped, including equipment and training grants from the Department of Justice's Office of Domestic Preparedness, FIRE Grants from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and bioterror preparedness grants from the Department of Health and Human Services, which included funding to create regional hospital plans to respond to terrorism. But we can do better. As tragic as the West Warwick fire was, it was a localized event involving deaths and injuries in the hundreds rather than thousands, yet it overwhelmed our state's emergency response systems and hospital emergency room capacity. Assistance from surrounding states and Federal agencies was required to manage the immense tasks of emergency response, medical care, and identifying scores of bodies. Rhode Island and other states, with the support of the Federal Government, will continue our efforts to strengthen the security of our homeland, and we will apply the hard lessons learned in West Warwick about safety in public buildings. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for supporting this important resolution to urge state and local officials and owners of entertainment facilities to examine their safety practices, fire codes, and enforcement capabilities to ensure that such a tragedy never befalls any community again.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Personnel Excellence for Children with Disabilities Act of 2003 to ensure high quality personnel to serve students with disabilities. I have long worked to improve the quality of teaching in America's classrooms for the simple reason that well-trained and well-prepared teachers, faculty, principals and administrators are critical to improving the educational performance and achievement of students. As Congress turns to the reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA, the focus shifts to increasing support for both new and veteran special education teachers, school principals, and the higher education faculty who train prospective special education teachers. There are currently an estimated 6 million children who receive special education services. Yet, there are about 70,000 special education teaching vacancies in schools nationwide. The President's 2002 Commission on Excellence in Special Education report stated that ``the growing shortage of special education teachers alarms this Commission.'' Moreover, an estimated 600,000 IDEA students are taught by unqualified or underqualified teachers nationwide. In some urban and rural areas, close to half of special education teachers are unqualified. I am joined by Senator Kennedy, a leader in improving education for all children, in introducing legislation today which would address and improve current conditions by enhancing personnel preparation, recruitment and retention, support and training for beginning special educators, as well as professional development for special educators, general educators, principals, paraprofessionals, and related services personnel. The Personnel Excellence for Children with Disabilities Act modifies and strengthens the current State Improvement Grant program to focus solely on personnel and professional development, including support to school districts to meet the personnel requirements under IDEA. Our legislation also establishes two grant programs. One would fund partnerships of school districts, institutions of higher education, and elementary and secondary schools that focus on meeting the needs of beginning special educators, through an additional 5th year clinical learning opportunity or the creation or support of professional development schools. Professional development schools seek to improve the professional status of teaching through a renewal of schools and preservice teacher education, in-service education of veteran teachers, and research to add to the knowledge base. The other grant program seeks to ensure that general educators, including principals and administrators, have the skills, knowledge, and leadership training to improve results for children with disabilities in their schools and classrooms. Currently, approximately half of students with disabilities spend 79 percent or more of their time in regular classes, according to the Department of Education's Annual Report to Congress for 2001. Only 20 percent are served outside of regular classes for 60 percent or more of the time. Lastly, our legislation enhances the personnel preparation programs under the current IDEA Section 673. These programs provide grants to institutions of higher education to enhance the preparation of special educators. In sum, the Personnel Excellence for Children with Disabilities Act seeks to enhance: the teaching skills of special educators, general educators, early intervention personnel, paraprofessionals and related services personnel; the leadership skills of principals; collaboration among special educators, general educators, and other personnel; mentoring and other induction support for beginning special educators; and training programs at institutions of higher education. The Act would also boost the ability of educators and personnel to: involve and work with parents, implement positive behavioral interventions; improve early intervention services for infants, toddlers, and preschoolers; and provide transition services and postsecondary opportunities. It would also improve their ability to: use classroom-based techniques to identify student potentially eligible for services; use technology to enhance learning of children with disabilities and communicate with parents; and ensure an effective IEP process. The time for action is now because 98 percent of school districts report that meeting the growing demand for special education teachers is a top priority. Annual attrition rates for special education teachers are over 13 percent: 6 percent for those who leave the field entirely; and an additional 7.4 percent who transfer to general education. More than 200,000 new special education teachers will be needed in the next five years, according to U.S. Department of Education estimates. Investing in personnel preparation is critical for addressing these needs which, in turn, will improve outcomes and results for children with disabilities. I urge my colleagues to join us in this essential endeavor by cosponsoring this legislation and working for its inclusion in the reauthorization of the IDEA. Mr. President, 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 introduce the Personnel Excellence for Children with Disabilities Act of 2003 to ensure high quality personnel to serve students with disabilities. I have long worked to improve the quality of teaching in America's classrooms for the simple reason that well-trained and well-prepared teachers, faculty, principals and administrators are critical to improving the educational performance and achievement of students. As Congress turns to the reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA, the focus shifts to increasing support for both new and veteran special education teachers, school principals, and the higher education faculty who train prospective special education teachers. There are currently an estimated 6 million children who receive special education services. Yet, there are about 70,000 special education teaching vacancies in schools nationwide. The President's 2002 Commission on Excellence in Special Education report stated that ``the growing shortage of special education teachers alarms this Commission.'' Moreover, an estimated 600,000 IDEA students are taught by unqualified or underqualified teachers nationwide. In some urban and rural areas, close to half of special education teachers are unqualified. I am joined by Senator Kennedy, a leader in improving education for all children, in introducing legislation today which would address and improve current conditions by enhancing personnel preparation, recruitment and retention, support and training for beginning special educators, as well as professional development for special educators, general educators, principals, paraprofessionals, and related services personnel. The Personnel Excellence for Children with Disabilities Act modifies and strengthens the current State Improvement Grant program to focus solely on personnel and professional development, including support to school districts to meet the personnel requirements under IDEA. Our legislation also establishes two grant programs. One would fund partnerships of school districts, institutions of higher education, and elementary and secondary schools that focus on meeting the needs of beginning special educators, through an additional 5th year clinical learning opportunity or the creation or support of professional development schools. Professional development schools seek to improve the professional status of teaching through a renewal of schools and preservice teacher education, in-service education of veteran teachers, and research to add to the knowledge base. The other grant program seeks to ensure that general educators, including principals and administrators, have the skills, knowledge, and leadership training to improve results for children with disabilities in their schools and classrooms. Currently, approximately half of students with disabilities spend 79 percent or more of their time in regular classes, according to the Department of Education's Annual Report to Congress for 2001. Only 20 percent are served outside of regular classes for 60 percent or more of the time. Lastly, our legislation enhances the personnel preparation programs under the current IDEA Section 673. These programs provide grants to institutions of higher education to enhance the preparation of special educators. In sum, the Personnel Excellence for Children with Disabilities Act seeks to enhance: the teaching skills of special educators, general educators, early intervention personnel, paraprofessionals and related services personnel; the leadership skills of principals; collaboration among special educators, general educators, and other personnel; mentoring and other induction support for beginning special educators; and training programs at institutions of higher education. The Act would also boost the ability of educators and personnel to: involve and work with parents, implement positive behavioral interventions; improve early intervention services for infants, toddlers, and preschoolers; and provide transition services and postsecondary opportunities. It would also improve their ability to: use classroom-based techniques to identify student potentially eligible for services; use technology to enhance learning of children with disabilities and communicate with parents; and ensure an effective IEP process. The time for action is now because 98 percent of school districts report that meeting the growing demand for special education teachers is a top priority. Annual attrition rates for special education teachers are over 13 percent: 6 percent for those who leave the field entirely; and an additional 7.4 percent who transfer to general education. More than 200,000 new special education teachers will be needed in the next five years, according to U.S. Department of Education estimates. Investing in personnel preparation is critical for addressing these needs which, in turn, will improve outcomes and results for children with disabilities. I urge my colleagues to join us in this essential endeavor by cosponsoring this legislation and working for its inclusion in the reauthorization of the IDEA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Madam President, I rise to express my support for the Strategic Offensive Reduction Treaty, otherwise known as the Moscow Treaty, which was signed by President Bush and President Putin on May 24, 2002. This treaty is important because it signifies that Russia and the United States are committed to and cooperating on the reduction of nuclear weapons. It carries the weight of law and will remain in force for a decade. It is also important because it binds the United States and the Russian Federation to each reduce the number of operationally deployed strategic weapons to between 1,700 and 2,200 by the end of 2012. Presently, the United States has approximately 6,000 nuclear weapons and the Russian Federation has almost 5,500 nuclear weapons. The Moscow Treaty is a step forward, reducing the danger of large numbers of operationally deployed nuclear weapons. This treaty is a good step, but it is only a small step. Much more must be done. Russia entered into negotiations seeking a legally binding document that would limit strategic nuclear warheads, and in their words ``provide transparency and predictability'' by containing definitions, and counting and elimination rules that resembled those in the START Treaties. Ultimately, Russia wanted to ensure that this process would be irreversible; in their words, that it would ensure the ``irreversibility of the reduction of nuclear forces.'' This administration, however, had different goals. Russia had to convince the United States to sign a legally binding document rather than a less formal exchange of letters. The United States rejected any limits and counting rules that would have required the elimination of delivery vehicles and warheads, stating that it wanted flexibility to reduce its forces at its own pace and to restore warheads to deployed forces if conditions warranted. So while this treaty changes the status of some operationally deployed warheads, it does not require the dismantling of a single weapon. Once this treaty is fully implemented, the United States will still have approximately 6,000 nuclear weapons. There will just be more weapons in storage. And similarly, the Russians could have approximately 5,500 nuclear weapons, but they would be nonoperational according to the lines of this treaty. The treaty does not bind either party to any schedule for deactivation. It only requires that cuts be completed by December 31, 2012, the day the treaty expires. This means that either side can stop or even reverse the reduction process over the decade as long as both parties comply by the final date of the treaty. The treaty does not specifically address the problems of tactical nuclear weapons or MIRV'd ICBMs. The number of Russian tactical nuclear weapons is believed to be between 8,000 and 15,000, while the United States has approximately 2,000. Russian tactical nuclear weapons are subject to fewer safeguards and are more prone to theft and proliferation. These are the proverbial suitcase weapons, often discussed in the press, which are the ones that are most mobile, most difficult to trace and detect. And the treaty does not deal with these weapons at all. In addition, the Moscow Treaty effectively ends START II, which I will discuss in more detail later, which means that Russia will likely keep its weapons MIRV'd, meaning they will have multiple warheads on their weapons. Since MIRV'd weapons are fewer and more vulnerable, it increases the perceived need for a first strike. Another shortcoming of the Moscow Treaty is that it includes no verification procedures. START I verification procedures will remain in place until 2009. But there was never agreement between the parties about which, if any, procedures could be used in the Moscow Treaty. Discussion of verification procedures is supposed to continue, but the administration recently stated: We have determined that specific additional transparency measures are not needed and will not be sought at this time. I also believe the treaty withdrawal provisions are too lax. Parties can withdraw from the Moscow Treaty with 3-months notice without giving any reason. This means a party needs no compelling reason to stop complying with the terms of this treaty. Finally, the terms of this treaty must be met by December 31, 2012, but that is the day the treaty expires. It is possible that it could be extended, but another agreement would have to be reached to do that. On the other hand, it could also lapse so the parties could raise the numbers of operationally deployed warheads above 2,200 on January 1, 2013. In effect, they could go through the term of the treaty without significant reductions, let the treaty lapse, and nothing would have been affected by the treaty. I hope certainly that doesn't happen. I commend my colleagues on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Lugar and Senator Biden. They have done a remarkable job of adding some detail to the treaty. The resolution we are considering today contains two important conditions. The first condition requires a report and recommendation on how cooperative threat reduction assistance to the Russian Federation can best contribute to the efficient implementation of the treaty and maintain the security and accurate accounting of Russia's nuclear weapons and materiel. As I will discuss in detail later, the CTR program is the most effective tool to counter proliferation, and we must do all we can to maintain it. Secondly, the resolution requires an annual implementation report which will include, among other items, a listing of strategic nuclear weapons force levels for both parties, a detailed description on strategic offensive reductions planned by each party for the current year, and how these reductions will be achieved, verification and transparency measures taken or proposed by each party, and actions taken or proposed to improve the implementation and effectiveness of the treaty. There are also several nonbinding declarations, most of which request reports to Congress and encourage the President to continue to work to reduce nuclear weapons. These conditions and declarations make the treaty more substantial and, I believe, more effective. I will support this treaty strengthened by this resolution. I want to say to the administration, however, that this is simply not enough. The rise of rogue nations and rogue nonstate actors, has made the threat of proliferation even more urgent. One of the legacies of the cold war is the abundance of nuclear weapons and fissionable material that is no longer under the clear control of the Russian Federation or other former states of the Soviet Union. Moreover, many of these nuclear weapons are housed in nations which are struggling economically and are susceptible to offers from rogue actors to acquire these materials. As Graham Allison of Harvard, former dean at the Kennedy School, stated: The single largest threat to American lives and liberties going forward for the next decade is terrorism, particularly terrorism with weapons of mass destruction. The one that I have been most concerned about is loose nukes. We must do everything possible to counter proliferation through protection, containment, and interdiction. In 1991, former Senator Sam Nunn and Chairman Richard Lugar recognized the risk presented by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. They created--history will record this--one of the most important initiatives that has been seen in this Senate, in this country in many years; that is, the counterproliferation program, the cooperative threat reduction program. The programs they established in the Department of State, the Department of Energy, and the Department of Defense, have had significant success in preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Through these programs, the United States has secured tons of nuclear materials in the former Soviet Union; helped deactivate, dismantle, or destroy thousands of Russian nuclear weapons and delivery systems; and helped provide employment for hundreds of Russian scientists and engineers with expertise in building nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons, who otherwise might be tempted to sell their expertise to unfriendly nations or terrorist organizations. This is an extraordinary accomplishment, but so much needs to be done in addition. Even though only about $1 billion of the $400 billion defense budget is annually allocated to support these programs, they have been among the most successful of all nonproliferation efforts undertaken by this country. Given the success of the programs, it is difficult to understand why securing adequate funding has been a significant challenge in the Bush administration. I also want to add my voice to those of my many colleagues who believe the United States and the international community are capable of doing, and must do, much more in this regard. Let me quote once again from the expert, Senator Lugar, who in his article in the December 2002 issue of Arms Control Today, said: It is critical that the United States lead in establishing a global coalition capable of exerting pressure on states to cooperate with the safeguarding, accounting, and (where possible) destruction of weapons and materials of mass destruction. Given that a war is being contemplated with Iraq over the question of their weapons programs, it is reasonable to ask why more is not being done on a global scale to control other proliferation risks. I agree with the chairman. I also agree with his statement: We must not only accelerate dismantlement efforts in Russia, we must broaden our capability to address proliferation risks elsewhere and build a global coalition to support such efforts. Clearly, undeniably, there is a lot of work to be done in these programs, not the least of which is to make up for time lost to these programs over the past 2 years. The Bush administration put most of the nonproliferation programs on hold during fiscal year 2001, in order to conduct a review to determine the validity of the programs. Luckily, most of the programs survived the review, and some were even strengthened; but little progress was made as very little work was done during this yearlong review. Then, at the completion of the review, the fiscal year 2002, and all previous years, funds for the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Program were frozen for over a year because the Bush administration failed to make the required certification to spend the money. Just recently, these funds have been released as a result of waiver authority included in the fiscal year 2003 Defense Authorization Act. This is waiver authority that the Republicans in the other body wanted to severely restrict and limit to 1 year, but luckily, in the end, the Senate was able to prevail and provide an unrestricted waiver for 3 years. These two events, the program review and the inability to certify, effectively stopped the Nunn-Lugar programs for approximately 2 years. The effectiveness of some of these programs has clearly been inhibited, if not damaged. The challenge now is to work to regain and then increase their effectiveness. The sheer magnitude of the problem of proliferation dictates that we must find an international consensus and work through multilateral arrangements. Despite the bureaucracy and delay that accompanies international cooperation, I believe it is necessary, especially in the area of arms control regimes, to have a multilateral approach. A report by the Rand Corporation to the then-President-elect Bush pointed out: Without our democratic allies, many emerging global issues will likely prove to be beyond our ability to manage, but together with them, the United States will gain unparalleled ability to respond to tomorrow's demands and shape the future. Regrettably, the Bush administration has demonstrated a distrust of international organizations. Since President Bush took office, the administration has withdrawn from the ABM Treaty and walked away from meaningful negotiations concerning START II. Indeed, in the preamble and article 2 of the Moscow Treaty, the first Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty is referred to as START, not START I. START II is evident only in its absence from this treaty. Assistant Secretary of Defense J. D. Crouch has said: I think we have sort of moved beyond START II. Many Russian officials have recognized what appears to be the inevitability of this and indicated they are considering START II dead--meaning that Russia is no longer obligated to eliminate its MIRV'd ICBMs. We must recognize that in many areas, including arms control, the United States cannot go it alone, and we have to not only encourage but actively work to create an international coalition, particularly with respect to proliferation of these weapons and nuclear materials. I am also concerned that recent actions by the United States seems to indicate that while we talk about nonproliferation in principle, in practice we seem to be somewhat ambivalent. This is exacerbated when it appears that the U.S. is increasing the importance of nuclear weapons in our defense policy. While the nonproliferation programs were being held up, the administration was working on a new nuclear posture review that would put more emphasis on nuclear weapons. The December 2001 Nuclear Posture Review laid out a framework which includes maintaining the current size of the nuclear weapons stockpile, not reducing it; blurring the distinction between nuclear offensive strike and conventional offensive strike; introducing the notion that new nuclear weapons might be needed to meet changing security requirements; holding open the possibility of resuming nuclear weapons testing, either to develop nuclear weapons, or to maintain the current stockpile; supporting a robust nuclear weapons complex, not just to implement the stockpile stewardship program, but to manufacture hundreds of new plutonium pits per year, and to be able to design a new weapon if needed; and increase ``test readiness''--the level of readiness to conduct a nuclear weapons test, reducing that time period from 36 months to 18 months, essentially leaning further forward to the possibility of resuming nuclear tests. In addition, the Bush administration sought $15.5 million in its fiscal year 2003 request for a robust nuclear earth penetrator to use against hardened and deeply buried targets. This RNEP would modify an existing nuclear weapon with yields up to a megaton. Despite the fact that the fiscal year 2003 National Defense Authorization Act requires a report of the plan for this weapon before funds are released, there is an additional $15 million requested for this program in the fiscal year 2004 budget, indicating that the administration is still determined to try to develop this new variety of nuclear weapon. There has also been a renewed interest in the development of small nuclear weapons. Even though there is clearly no military requirement for such a weapon, again in its fiscal year 2004 legislative proposal, the Department of Defense seeks the total repeal of a current ban on research and development that could lead to production of a low-yield nuclear weapon. DOD states that this law, in their words, ``has negatively affected U.S. Government efforts to support the national strategy to counter weapons of mass destruction and undercuts efforts that could strengthen our ability to deter, or respond to, new or emerging threats.'' Frankly, this adds up to a very disturbing path of legitimizing the use of nuclear weapons in a world in which we are dramatically concerned with the possibility that Iraq is attempting to obtain nuclear weapons, a world in which the North Koreans are beginning to flaunt their ability to produce nuclear weapons, in which India and Pakistan are on the brink of conflict with nuclear weapons. The idea that we are lowering our own threshold to deploy, to use, to consider in our doctrine the use of nuclear weapons is, I think, an unfortunate and very dangerous approach. These continued efforts, both in the posture review, in requests for new weapons, in requests to investigate and do research on new types of nuclear weapons, and this legitimacy for the use of nuclear weapons, will have profound and detrimental consequences throughout the world. It is extraordinarily difficult, if not impossible, to urge other nations to forswear the development and use of nuclear weapons if we are so routinely talking about the development and use of nuclear weapons. This is a very disturbing development. We have to look at nonproliferation as part of our overall defense policy. Advocating new or usable nuclear weapons destroys, inhibits, and damages the credibility of the United States as we seek to restrain the development and deployment of nuclear weapons. I hope that message comes through in not only today's discussions, but in this treaty. I am also concerned with another aspect of the current situation. We are talking about our approach to Iraq as a need to disarm Saddam before he acquires nuclear weapons. Yet we have moved rather gingerly and pushed over to the United Nations the problem of North Korea which is on the verge of beginning to operate its reprocessing facilities, with the capability of building nuclear devices within months, if not weeks. I think this leads many people, and not just those who follow these policy debates but most ordinary Americans, to wonder what is the difference. Why is the situation in Iraq so compelling, even though there is little evidence that Saddam is on the verge of producing a nuclear weapon, that we engage in a military conflict, while, on the other hand, when there is glaring evidence of the ability of the North Koreans to produce such a weapon, we have moved this along into the category of not a crisis, something the U.N. can handle? That intellectual dilemma is puzzling many people throughout this country. I believe there is a crisis in North Korea, and I believe it is a crisis that requires the prompt attention of the President. If one looks at the strategic vision we have to embrace, it can perhaps be divided into several major tasks. The first is to preempt terrorists and, indeed, we saw this week an effective use of our military and intelligence forces and our allies in Pakistan. Then we have to interdict, contain, and stop the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The North Koreans, in my mind, pose a much more difficult challenge to us than the Iraqis at the moment. Not only are they on the verge of producing a nuclear weapon because they have the nuclear material, they also have a history of selling anything to anyone because their major cash crop is selling weapons to anyone who will buy them. We are here today to conclude a very small but a very important step forward with the support of the Moscow Treaty, but we have much more to do when it comes to particularly supporting efforts by our country in an international coalition to preempt, to interdict, to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction, and I think to reexamine carefully and thoroughly the new emphasis we are putting on the development and use of nuclear weapons in our inventory. I believe we will regret the day we give legitimacy to the potential use of nuclear weapons by any power, including the United States. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Madam President, I wish to recognize and pay tribute to LTC Edward B. ``Ted'' Pusey, Liaison Officer in the Army's Office of the Chief of Legislative Liaison, who retired February 28. Colonel Pusey's career spans 27 years of Army service during which he has distinguished himself as a soldier, leader and friend of the United States Senate. Born in Washington, DC in 1953, Lieutenant Colonel Pusey graduated from Wofford College in 1976 and was commissioned as a lieutenant in the Armor Branch of the US Army. During his career, he commanded at many levels and served in staff positions at the highest levels of the Army, always ably leading and training America's soldiers at home and overseas. His duty locations over the years included Fort Riley, KS; Mainz, Germany; Fort Leavenworth, KS, as the Executive officer for the Army's School of Advanced Military Studies; Fort Stewart, GA, with the 24th Mechanized Division as both a Battalion and Brigade Operations Officer, as a Battalion Executive Officer and as a Brigade Adjutant during Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm ; and, finally, in the Pentagon and Senate in the Office of Legislative Liaison. Lieutenant Colonel Pusey also served as a Tactics instructor at the Royal Armoured Corps Centre in Bovington Camp, England. He has always been placed in positions of responsibility throughout his Army career. Since October 1995, Ted Pusey has served with distinction in the Army's Office of Legislative Liaison where he has superbly represented the Army Chief of Staff and Secretary and promoted the interests of soldiers and civilians of the Army. His professionalism, mature judgment and inter-personal skills earned him the respect and confidence of the Members of Congress and Congressional staff with whom he worked. In over 8 years on Capitol Hill, Ted Pusey has been a true friend of not only the Army he loves, but also of the United States Senate and the Congress. Serving as the primary point of contact for all Senators, their staffs, and committees, he helped Congress understand Army policies, actions, operations and requirements in a prompt, coordinated and factual manner. Additionally, he provided invaluable assistance to Members and their staffs while planning, coordinating and accompanying Senate delegations traveling worldwide. His substantive knowledge of the key issues, insight, and ability to effectively advise senior members of the Army leadership directly contributed to the successful representation of the Army's interests before Congress. Throughout his career, Ted Pusey has demonstrated his profound commitment to our Nation, his selfless service to the Army, and a deep concern for soldiers and their families. Committed to excellence, he has been a consummate professional who, in over 27 years of service, has personified those traits of courage, competency and integrity that our Nation has come to expect from its professional Army officers. I ask that my colleagues join me in thanking LTC Ted Pusey for his honorable service to the Army of the United States. We wish him and his family all the best in the future.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues and the country in remembering the seven brave crewmembers of the Space Shuttle Columbia who tragically lost their lives last Saturday morning, February 1, 2003. Rick Husband, William McCool, Michael Anderson, Kalpana Chawla, David M. Brown, Laurel Blair Salton Clark, and Ilan Ramon gave their lives trying to expand our knowledge of science, advance our technology, and broaden the limits of our universe. These seven courageous astronauts sacrificed their lives for our future. While this is a time of great sadness, it is also a time to take great pride in their achievements, their dedication, and their service to the Nation and to the world. They were seven different people with various skills, many talents, and different backgrounds, and they all came to work together as a team. That is what most people believe America should be like: working together as a team to accomplish something greater than themselves. They could have had very comfortable jobs somewhere else, but they chose to risk their lives for the country. They have not only found a place in our hearts, but they have found a place in our imagination also because, for me, they represent what this country is all about. They came together. They came from modest circumstances. They used the power of education to prepare themselves not just for personal success but to contribute to the Nation and to contribute to the world. They exemplify the best of this Nation. They understood that great accomplishment and great achievement bring great risk. They knew this, yet they valiantly accepted, in the name of science and exploration, all the risks. It is important we pay tribute to them and acknowledge the risks our astronauts take with every mission. We tend to take these risks for granted and forget the extreme conditions and pressures these brave men and women face and will face in the future. In honor of the crew of Columbia, we must not take these risks for granted any longer. In their honor, we must pledge to continue the peaceful exploration of space. We have forged international partnerships. We have been able to share the pride of an international space station. We must continue to fund NASA, continue our space programs, and continue in the tradition of American and human accomplishment. Later this year, we will celebrate the 100th anniversary of the Wright brothers' monumental 59-second flight on December 17, 1903. That flight forever changed the world. Fifty-four years later, we were able to put a man in space. The process of innovation and exploration must go on, and America must play its traditional significant, historic role. We have in our process from the sands of Kitty Hawk to the stretches of the Moon experienced powerful joy and monumental success, and yet we have faced tremendous setbacks and extreme sorrow. But we have persevered, and we have continued our missions into the heavens. From our colleague John Glenn and Allan Shepherd to Neil Armstrong to an international space station, and from the crew of Challenger and the crew of Columbia, we must continue to challenge ourselves as they challenged themselves. We must continue to better ourselves as a nation and continue to grow. President Kennedy challenged America to send a man to the Moon. We have met that challenge and have gone far beyond. As we continue with future missions, we must never forget these seven brave souls. They gave the ultimate sacrifice for a noble cause. My deepest condolences go out to their families and the Nation that mourns them and the country of Israel that mourns its lost astronaut. This is a time for mourning, but we must shortly move on and continue to run the great risks they took, in their memory, so we can build upon their sacrifice, so we continue to reach for the heavens and beyond. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce that Museum and Library Services Act of 2003. I am pleased to be joined by Senators Kennedy, Cochran, Collins, Snowe, Smith, Daschle, Jeffords, Dodd, Harkin, Clinton, Sarbanes, Levin, Leahy, Corzine, Landrieu, and Baucus in introducing this legislature to strengthen museum and library services. 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. As a result of this support, our lives and culture have been enriched. My predecessor, Senator Claiborne Pell, was instrumental in the creation of the Museum Services Act, as well as the development and enactment of the Museum and Library Services Act in 1996. This law reauthorized Federal library and museum programs under a newly created independent Federal agency called the Institute for Museum and Library Services, IMLS. I am proud to continue Senator Pell's tradition of supporting libraries and museums by introducing this legislation to day to extend the authorization of museum and library services through fiscal year 2009 and to make several important modifications to current law. The bill ensures that library activities are coordinated with the school library program I authored, which is now part of 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 issue a National Award for Library Service as well as a National Award for Museum Service. The bill also ensures that a portion of administrative funds is used to analyze annually the impact of museum and library services to identify needs and trends of services provided under museum and library programs. Our bill also 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 increases the authorization under the Library Services and Technology Act, LSTA, from $150 million to $350 million and the Museum Services Act 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 2003 doubles the minimum State allotment under the LSTA 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 approximately $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 a Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee hearing that I chaired last April. Last year, efforts to move this legislation were stymied over concerns about certain IMLS grants and how much funding should be authorized for library and museum programs. The President's forthcoming fiscal year 2004 budget will contain a modest, although record, increase in funding for these programs, which I hope will alleviate these concerns. As such, I hope we can move forward early in this session of Congress on a 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 rise to introduce that Museum and Library Services Act of 2003. I am pleased to be joined by Senators Kennedy, Cochran, Collins, Snowe, Smith, Daschle, Jeffords, Dodd, Harkin, Clinton, Sarbanes, Levin, Leahy, Corzine, Landrieu, and Baucus in introducing this legislature to strengthen museum and library services. 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. As a result of this support, our lives and culture have been enriched. My predecessor, Senator Claiborne Pell, was instrumental in the creation of the Museum Services Act, as well as the development and enactment of the Museum and Library Services Act in 1996. This law reauthorized Federal library and museum programs under a newly created independent Federal agency called the Institute for Museum and Library Services, IMLS. I am proud to continue Senator Pell's tradition of supporting libraries and museums by introducing this legislation to day to extend the authorization of museum and library services through fiscal year 2009 and to make several important modifications to current law. The bill ensures that library activities are coordinated with the school library program I authored, which is now part of 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 issue a National Award for Library Service as well as a National Award for Museum Service. The bill also ensures that a portion of administrative funds is used to analyze annually the impact of museum and library services to identify needs and trends of services provided under museum and library programs. Our bill also 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 increases the authorization under the Library Services and Technology Act, LSTA, from $150 million to $350 million and the Museum Services Act 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 2003 doubles the minimum State allotment under the LSTA 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 approximately $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 a Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee hearing that I chaired last April. Last year, efforts to move this legislation were stymied over concerns about certain IMLS grants and how much funding should be authorized for library and museum programs. The President's forthcoming fiscal year 2004 budget will contain a modest, although record, increase in funding for these programs, which I hope will alleviate these concerns. As such, I hope we can move forward early in this session of Congress on a 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.