Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to honor the Girl Scouts in Rhode Island who have received the Silver and Gold Awards for 2002.

I praise all of the hard work the girls have done throughout the year to receive their respective awards.

Mr. Girl Scout Gold Award is the highest and most prestigious award a girl can earn in girl scouting. A girl who has earned the Girl Scout Gold Award can look forward to greater access to college scholarships, paid internships, and community awards.

I ask that the list of the girls receiving the awards be printed in the Record.

The list follows.

Gold Award Recipients

Allison Arden, Erin Blackbird, Stephanie Bobola, Laura

Cochran, Rachel Cooper,

Marie De Noia, Jillian Dean, Kellie Deschene, Mary Dolan,

Feliscia Facenda, Amanda Fandetti, Sarah Gautreau, Milena

Gianfrancesco, and Melissa Gibb.

Allison Gibbs, Rachel Glidden, Heather Hopkins, Kimberly

McCarthy, Meghan McDermott, Maria Ousterhout, Jessica

Piemonte, Brittany Rousseau, Martha Seeger, Brittany Smith,

Meredith Uhl, Clara Weinstock, April Whiting, and Stacia

Wierzbicki.

Silver Award Recipients

Jenna Alessandro, Danielle Almeida, Ludovica Almeida,

Whitney Anderson, Heather Arzoomanian, Lauren Asermely,

Amanda Ayrassran, Ashley Badeau, Rebecca Bessette, Lauren

Bray, Caroline Canning, Sara Caron, Julie Correia, Gina

Cosimano, Meagan Covino, Kara Creelman, Katherine Crossley,

Amanda Crough, Shaina Curran, Jacqueline Cyr, Brenna De

Cotis, and Justine De Cotis.

Danielle Dube, Katie Flynn, Lauren Gainor, Sarah Gardner,

Christa Gignac, Julie Gillard, Kristen Girard, Jennifer

Gregson, Julie Hall, Rebecca Hamel, Nicole Henderson, Lee Ann

Hennessey, Hannah Hughes, Cailiin Humphreys, Alex Innocenti,

Meaghan Kennedy, Alexandra Klara, Keeley Klitz, Elizabeth

Kubiak, Emily Lonardo, Christina Lorenzo, and Sarah Lozy.

Jessica Martin, Lauren McCormick, Molly McKeen, Kasie

McMahon, Peggy McQuaid, Amanda Mitchell, Ashley Mitchell,

Ashley Mogayzel, Danielle Morin, Danielle Mott, Amy Mullen,

Miranda Nero, Shaina O'Malley, Diana Otto, Lauren Palmer,

Brianna Petty, Hanna Phelan, Ashley Pincins, Stephanie

Pitassi, Brittany Pope, Allison Powell, and Amanda Ricci.

Genie Rudolph, Lauren Ruggieri, Laura Saltzman, Kara

Schnabel, Amanda Shurtleff, Katelyn Singleton, Molly Smith,

Kirsten Stickel, Katherine Swiczewicz, Molly Tierney, Andrea

Tomasso, Lauren Turgeon, Marissa Varin, Kayla Wall, Christina

Washington, Kayla Wilcox, Katie Williams, Jessica

Woolmington, Taylor Woolmington, Amanda Wordell, Jessika

Wordell.

Mr. President, we are debating a bill called the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Tax Act of 2003. Two years ago this same month, we debated and passed a bill called the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001. Whatever these bills are called, they add to the deficits.

There is not an elected official in the United States who does not want to cut taxes. The good ones only do it responsibly.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined today by Senator Harry Reid and others in introducing the Breast Cancer and Environmental Research Act of 2003. This bill would establish research centers that would be the first in the Nation to specifically study the environmental factors that may be related to the development of breast cancer. The lack of agreement within the scientific community and among breast cancer advocates on this question highlights the need for further study.

It is generally believed that the environment plays some role in the development of breast cancer, but the extent of that role is not understood. The Breast Cancer and Environmental Research Act of 2003 will enable us to conduct more conclusive and comprehensive research to determine the impact of the environment on breast cancer. Before we can find the answers, we must determine the right questions we should be asking.

While more research is being conducted into the relationship between breast cancer and the environment, there are still several issues that must be resolved to make this research more effective. They are as follows:

There is no known cause of breast cancer. There is little agreement in the scientific community on how the environment affects breast cancer. While studies have been conducted on the links between environmental factors like pesticides, diet, and electromagnetic fields, no consensus has been reached. There are other factors that have not yet been studied that could provide valuable information. While there is much speculation, it is clear that the relationship between environmental exposures and breast cancer is poorly understood.

There are challenges in conducting environmental research. Identifying linkages is difficult. Laboratory experiments and cluster analyses, such as those in Long Island, New York, cannot reveal whether an environmental exposure increases a woman's risk of breast cancer. Epidemiological studies must be designed carefully, because environmental exposures are difficult to measure.

Coordination between the National Institutes of Health, NIH, the National Cancer Institute, NCI, and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, NIEHS, needs to occur. NCI and NIEHS are the two institutes in the NIH that fund most of the research related to breast cancer and the environment; however, comprehensive information is not currently available.

This legislation would establish eight Centers of Excellence to study these potential links. These ``Breast Cancer Environmental Research Centers'' would provide for multi-disciplinary research among basic, clinical, epidemiological and behavioral scientists interested in establishing outstanding, state-of-the-art research programs addressing potential links between the environment and breast cancer. The NIEHS would award grants based on a competitive peer-review process. This legislation would require each Center to collaborate with community organizations in the area, including those that represent women with breast cancer. The bill would authorize $30 million for the next five years for these grants.

``Genetics loads the gun, the environment pulls the trigger,'' as Ken Olden, the Director of NIEHS, frequently says. Many scientists believe that certain groups of women have genetic variations that may make them more susceptible to adverse environmental exposures. We need to step back and gather evidence before we come to conclusions--that is the purpose of this bill. People are hungry for information, and there is a lot of inconclusive data out there, some of which has no scientific merit whatsoever. We have the opportunity through this legislation to gather legitimate and comprehensive data from premier research institutions across the nation.

According to the American Cancer Society, each year 800 women in Rhode Island are diagnosed with breast cancer, and 200 women in my state will die of this terrible disease this year. We owe it to these women who are diagnosed with this life-threatening disease to provide them with answers for the first time.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting and cosponsoring this important legislation, and ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined today by Senator Harry Reid and others in introducing the Breast Cancer and Environmental Research Act of 2003. This bill would establish research centers that would be the first in the Nation to specifically study the environmental factors that may be related to the development of breast cancer. The lack of agreement within the scientific community and among breast cancer advocates on this question highlights the need for further study.

It is generally believed that the environment plays some role in the development of breast cancer, but the extent of that role is not understood. The Breast Cancer and Environmental Research Act of 2003 will enable us to conduct more conclusive and comprehensive research to determine the impact of the environment on breast cancer. Before we can find the answers, we must determine the right questions we should be asking.

While more research is being conducted into the relationship between breast cancer and the environment, there are still several issues that must be resolved to make this research more effective. They are as follows:

There is no known cause of breast cancer. There is little agreement in the scientific community on how the environment affects breast cancer. While studies have been conducted on the links between environmental factors like pesticides, diet, and electromagnetic fields, no consensus has been reached. There are other factors that have not yet been studied that could provide valuable information. While there is much speculation, it is clear that the relationship between environmental exposures and breast cancer is poorly understood.

There are challenges in conducting environmental research. Identifying linkages is difficult. Laboratory experiments and cluster analyses, such as those in Long Island, New York, cannot reveal whether an environmental exposure increases a woman's risk of breast cancer. Epidemiological studies must be designed carefully, because environmental exposures are difficult to measure.

Coordination between the National Institutes of Health, NIH, the National Cancer Institute, NCI, and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, NIEHS, needs to occur. NCI and NIEHS are the two institutes in the NIH that fund most of the research related to breast cancer and the environment; however, comprehensive information is not currently available.

This legislation would establish eight Centers of Excellence to study these potential links. These ``Breast Cancer Environmental Research Centers'' would provide for multi-disciplinary research among basic, clinical, epidemiological and behavioral scientists interested in establishing outstanding, state-of-the-art research programs addressing potential links between the environment and breast cancer. The NIEHS would award grants based on a competitive peer-review process. This legislation would require each Center to collaborate with community organizations in the area, including those that represent women with breast cancer. The bill would authorize $30 million for the next five years for these grants.

``Genetics loads the gun, the environment pulls the trigger,'' as Ken Olden, the Director of NIEHS, frequently says. Many scientists believe that certain groups of women have genetic variations that may make them more susceptible to adverse environmental exposures. We need to step back and gather evidence before we come to conclusions--that is the purpose of this bill. People are hungry for information, and there is a lot of inconclusive data out there, some of which has no scientific merit whatsoever. We have the opportunity through this legislation to gather legitimate and comprehensive data from premier research institutions across the nation.

According to the American Cancer Society, each year 800 women in Rhode Island are diagnosed with breast cancer, and 200 women in my state will die of this terrible disease this year. We owe it to these women who are diagnosed with this life-threatening disease to provide them with answers for the first time.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting and cosponsoring this important legislation, and ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I want to pay tribute to Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a man for whom I had the utmost respect.

One of the first times I was presiding in the Senate, Senator Moynihan was speaking from the floor. What he had to say and the way he said it made a lasting impression on me. The next day I asked for a copy of the statement and have kept it in my desk ever since. Senator Moynihan began: ``Mr. President, it is agreed that I will begin these brief remarks in order that our chairman might conclude the debate and proceed to the vote which I think has every prospect of being prodigious in its majority.'' He continued to explain one of the most complicated and difficult issues that we will deal with here in the Senate in a clear and concise manner. ``In very short order, I would simply like to recapitulate the four simple steps which will put Social Security on an actuarially sound basis for the next 75 years. They are: 1. Provide for an accurate cost-of-living adjustment. In 1996, the Boskin Commission originally estimated that the CPI overstates changes in the cost-of-living by 1.1 percentage points; now they say it is 0.8 of a percentage point; 2. Normal taxation of benefits; 3. Extend coverage to all newly hired State and local workers; 4. Increase the length of the computation period from 35 to 38 years.''

I don't know if this is the answer, but I will always refer to it when the topic of Social Security comes up. He laid out a plan with professorial clarity and a complete grasp of the issue. Whether you agreed or disagreed with Senator Moynihan, you had to appreciate his style.

Although I did not have a close working relationship with Senator Moynihan, I am truly impressed with the depth and breadth of his career achievements. From his pioneering work on Social Security reform, his almost encyclopedic knowledge of fiscal policy, to his championing of environmental and transportation issues, Senator Moynihan was the kind of Senator worth emulating. I also admired his ability to always look at the long view of the steps taken today and their impact on future generations. Senator Moynihan had an unwavering commitment to care for all people in need and was willing to cross party lines to accomplish his goals. His work as advisor to Presidents of both parties is testament to the high regard that official Washington had for his intellect and integrity.

As a dear friend of my father's for over 25 years, my strongest sense of the Senator comes from hearing my dad speak of Senator Moynihan with reverence and true admiration. Upon my father's passing, Senator Moynihan included an excerpt from a wonderful poem by W.B. Yeats, ``The Municipal Gallery Revisited,'' in his tribute. Those kind words were a great comfort to our family.

In the words of another poem by the poet W.B. Yeats:

The man is gone guided ye, unweary, through the long bitter

way,

Ye by the waves that close in our sad nation,

Be full of sudden fears,

The man is gone who from this lonely station

--Has moulded the hard year . . .

Mourn--and then onward, there is no returning

He guides ye from the tomb;

His memory is a tall pillar, burning

Before the gloom

Our Nation will mourn, but Senator Moynihan would insist that we move on. On behalf of my mother and the Chafee family, we send our sincere condolences to Liz and all her family.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Carper today to introduce the Clean Air Planning Act of 2003. Congress needs to advance four-pollutant legislation that offers the best chance for broad bipartisan support, and I believe this bill meets that test. The testimony received through hearings in the Environment and Public Works Committee over the past several years has clearly outlined the need for controlling the major emissions from power plants--sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury and carbon dioxide--while at the same time recognizing the added costs of these new controls. We know through experience that we will only be successful at passing legislation if we find middle ground.

The parameters of this debate have been established. Some will say this bill doesn't go far enough in some respects. Others will say the legislation goes too far, especially as it pertains to the mandatory control of carbon dioxide emissions. However, the relationship of fossil fuels to global warming is clear and scientifically validated. The ``U.S. Climate Action Report 2002'' released by the administration last May tells us we need to take real actions to address the problem. The longer we wait, the harder this problem will be to solve. The Rio Convention is a perfect example of why waiting is not reasonable. In 1992, we agreed to voluntarily reduce harmful emissions to 1990 levels. It didn't happen. Now, in 2003 we are told that reductions to 1990 levels will stall the economy. If we wait much longer before taking any action, imagine how much harder it will be to achieve real reductions without harming the economy.

The legislation we are introducing today would achieve significant reductions in a more cost effective way than other proposals. For sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, and mercury, we will establish emissions caps that are superior to reductions that will be achieved under the existing Clean Air Act. In addition, for the first time, we will ensure real reductions of carbon dioxide emissions are achieved. By 2013, the utility sector will be required to reduce carbon dioxide emissions to 2001 levels. This proposal will allow the United States to address carbon pollution for the first time and, when compared to a three-pollutant bill, at very small incremental costs.

I believe that the Carper-Chafee bill offers a real opportunity to break the stalemate that exists today and begin an honest debate that will eventually lead to enactment of strong legislation. I look forward to working with all of my colleagues as we move forward to pass a bill that enjoys the broadest support and adequately addresses the serious health, environmental, and economic issues facing the Nation.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Carper today to introduce the Clean Air Planning Act of 2003. Congress needs to advance four-pollutant legislation that offers the best chance for broad bipartisan support, and I believe this bill meets that test. The testimony received through hearings in the Environment and Public Works Committee over the past several years has clearly outlined the need for controlling the major emissions from power plants--sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury and carbon dioxide--while at the same time recognizing the added costs of these new controls. We know through experience that we will only be successful at passing legislation if we find middle ground.

The parameters of this debate have been established. Some will say this bill doesn't go far enough in some respects. Others will say the legislation goes too far, especially as it pertains to the mandatory control of carbon dioxide emissions. However, the relationship of fossil fuels to global warming is clear and scientifically validated. The ``U.S. Climate Action Report 2002'' released by the administration last May tells us we need to take real actions to address the problem. The longer we wait, the harder this problem will be to solve. The Rio Convention is a perfect example of why waiting is not reasonable. In 1992, we agreed to voluntarily reduce harmful emissions to 1990 levels. It didn't happen. Now, in 2003 we are told that reductions to 1990 levels will stall the economy. If we wait much longer before taking any action, imagine how much harder it will be to achieve real reductions without harming the economy.

The legislation we are introducing today would achieve significant reductions in a more cost effective way than other proposals. For sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, and mercury, we will establish emissions caps that are superior to reductions that will be achieved under the existing Clean Air Act. In addition, for the first time, we will ensure real reductions of carbon dioxide emissions are achieved. By 2013, the utility sector will be required to reduce carbon dioxide emissions to 2001 levels. This proposal will allow the United States to address carbon pollution for the first time and, when compared to a three-pollutant bill, at very small incremental costs.

I believe that the Carper-Chafee bill offers a real opportunity to break the stalemate that exists today and begin an honest debate that will eventually lead to enactment of strong legislation. I look forward to working with all of my colleagues as we move forward to pass a bill that enjoys the broadest support and adequately addresses the serious health, environmental, and economic issues facing the Nation.

Madam President, I accepted an offer last August to go to ANWR, to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Since I have been here for 3 years, I have heard a lot of debate about it, and I assumed I heard a lot of exaggeration also. I wanted to go myself and so I accepted the invitation.

I took a bush plane from Fairbanks over the Brooks Range, as you see here. The Brooks Range is very desolate, almost devoid of any sign of life, any sign of vegetation. It is quite a trip over the Brooks Range. As we cleared that mountainous terrain, stretching out before the Arctic Ocean, the Beaufort Sea, was the most gorgeous grasslands, the last thing I expected to see that far north.

We banked around with our bush plane and you can see here where we landed. As we banked in for a landing, scurrying through the brush was a big, brown, cinnamon-colored beast, a grizzly bear.

We got out of our plane and immediately were covered with tremendous amounts of mosquitoes. It was quite an experience. We pulled the nets on our hats over our heads and set up our tents, which we can see here. We had some chow and then that night it snowed. We came on the Brooks Range earlier, and they had no snow on them, but the snow came that night. Thankfully, we never saw another mosquito, so we had the great experience of having mosquitoes but then had 2 days--3 days in order to hike around the area. Every day we would hike for as much as 4 or 5 hours, then come in for lunch, and go out and hike for the afternoon another 4 or 5 hours.

In August, it is just as light at 3 in the afternoon as it is at 3 in the morning, so it is quite an experience that far up.

I will have to say, Senator Stevens, this is the most beautiful place. I have been in 49 out of 50 States. The only one I have not been in is Hawaii. This is the most beautiful place I have ever been.

Yes. I will conclude in that direction. Not only did we see the grizzly bears and one caribou--the caribou migration had gone through, but we did see one caribou--but we saw all kinds of life: Ground squirrels, prairie chickens--I think they call them ptarmigan. We also saw all sorts of birds and saw also the signs of life--musk ox droppings. We didn't see musk ox, but we saw the droppings all over the place. So obviously they had been there. All kinds of caribou droppings were everywhere you went.

What a surprise it was to go this far north and see such beautiful country. It is like the plains of Wyoming or Montana. And it was a great surprise to me.

So all the environmentalists who talk about it being the Serengeti of America, they are right. This is unique. It is special. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment for that reason.

On the trip, we then had an opportunity to go to Prudhoe Bay. And what a change it is, as you go west from the 1002 area, which is where we were camping, to Prudhoe Bay. Before we leave the 1002 area, here we are, as shown on this picture. There I am, my wife Stephanie, the small band of us up there braving the elements, experiencing the 1002 area.

When we went to Prudhoe Bay, it was a change in the topography. It gets much more pockmarked with water. It is a lot different from what we saw here in ANWR. And it seems more suitable for man's incursion and for drilling as you get closer to Prudhoe Bay.

We landed in Prudhoe Bay. We went to the hotel, which was a collection,

really, of trailers put together. And the proprietor of the hotel at Prudhoe Bay said: Be careful. There is a grizzly bear in town. His name is Toby. When you walk around, just be careful. You never know. You don't want to surprise him and have him attack you. So just keep your wits about you.

We had a great tour of Prudhoe Bay. And after we left and came back to the States, about 2 months later, I saw, in the New York Times, a little filler article, that Toby was getting into the inn where we were staying and they had to put him down. So it made the New York Times, Toby getting into the inn and having to be put down.

But the point is, there should be places for the Tobys of the world. And then there are other places where we should drill. And, obviously, they are incompatible. No one wanted to harm Toby, but it just came to that.

I thank the Senator.

Madam President, that is the point. There should be areas of the world for man and drilling, and then there should be areas of the world for the Tobys of the world. And if we are going to proceed with drilling in ANWR, absent any effort at conservation--and many of the Senators who are going to vote in favor of drilling in ANWR did not vote for raising the CAFE standards that would save much more of our resources in natural fuels--that is a bad policy and a wrong direction to go.

Yes, I can.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined today by Senators Bob Graham, DeWine, Feinstein, Warner, Cantwell, Smith, Clinton, Bunning, Rockefeller, Murray, Kennedy, Landrieu, Kerry, and Hutchison in introducing the Access to Hospitals Act of 2003. This legislation will freeze Medicaid Disproportionate Share Hospital, DSH, reductions at Fiscal Year 2002 levels, thereby eliminating the scheduled Fiscal Year 2003 drop-off in Federal Medicaid DSH funding. This bill will also provide a growth rate adjustment to help compensate for the increases in the cost of providing care to the most needy and indigent patients.

This legislation is necessary because the Medicaid DSH provision included in the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Benefits Improvement and Protection Act of 2000, BIPA, expired on October 1, 2002. This provision provided crucial, but temporary, relief from the deep reductions in State Medicaid allotments that were contained in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, BBA. With the BIPA provision, Congress recognized that the funding cuts in the BBA could severely undermine health care safety net services throughout our Nation. These payments help reimburse hospitals' costs of treating Medicaid patients, particularly those with complex medical needs, and make it possible for communities to care for those who lack

health coverage. At a time when our Nation's uninsured rate continues to climb above 40 million, it makes little sense to be reducing much needed Medicaid DSH payments to safety net hospitals.

Hospitals in Rhode Island will absorb approximately $400 million in reductions as a result of changes made to the Medicare and Medicaid programs in the BBA. Nine out of fifteen hospitals in my State had operating loses in Fiscal Year 2002. After the BBA was enacted, it was predicted that cuts in Federal Medicare and Medicaid payments would cost hospitals in Rhode Island $220 million over five years; however, this estimate has proven to be about $180 million off the mark. Every other State is experiencing similar problems. According to the American Hospital Association, hospitals lost almost $10 million on Medicaid and uninsured patients in 2000. This translates into an estimated loss of more than $42 million over five years. Clearly, more needs to be done to keep our vulnerable safety net hospitals from continuing on this downward spiral.

This legislation represents a common-sense approach that will help prevent the further weakening of our Nation's safety net hospitals and the long-term viability of our health care system.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation, and ask unanimous consent that the text of legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined today by Senators Bob Graham, DeWine, Feinstein, Warner, Cantwell, Smith, Clinton, Bunning, Rockefeller, Murray, Kennedy, Landrieu, Kerry, and Hutchison in introducing the Access to Hospitals Act of 2003. This legislation will freeze Medicaid Disproportionate Share Hospital, DSH, reductions at Fiscal Year 2002 levels, thereby eliminating the scheduled Fiscal Year 2003 drop-off in Federal Medicaid DSH funding. This bill will also provide a growth rate adjustment to help compensate for the increases in the cost of providing care to the most needy and indigent patients.

This legislation is necessary because the Medicaid DSH provision included in the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Benefits Improvement and Protection Act of 2000, BIPA, expired on October 1, 2002. This provision provided crucial, but temporary, relief from the deep reductions in State Medicaid allotments that were contained in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, BBA. With the BIPA provision, Congress recognized that the funding cuts in the BBA could severely undermine health care safety net services throughout our Nation. These payments help reimburse hospitals' costs of treating Medicaid patients, particularly those with complex medical needs, and make it possible for communities to care for those who lack

health coverage. At a time when our Nation's uninsured rate continues to climb above 40 million, it makes little sense to be reducing much needed Medicaid DSH payments to safety net hospitals.

Hospitals in Rhode Island will absorb approximately $400 million in reductions as a result of changes made to the Medicare and Medicaid programs in the BBA. Nine out of fifteen hospitals in my State had operating loses in Fiscal Year 2002. After the BBA was enacted, it was predicted that cuts in Federal Medicare and Medicaid payments would cost hospitals in Rhode Island $220 million over five years; however, this estimate has proven to be about $180 million off the mark. Every other State is experiencing similar problems. According to the American Hospital Association, hospitals lost almost $10 million on Medicaid and uninsured patients in 2000. This translates into an estimated loss of more than $42 million over five years. Clearly, more needs to be done to keep our vulnerable safety net hospitals from continuing on this downward spiral.

This legislation represents a common-sense approach that will help prevent the further weakening of our Nation's safety net hospitals and the long-term viability of our health care system.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation, and ask unanimous consent that the text of legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, 3 weeks ago--on a cold winter evening-- several hundred people gathered at the Station nightclub, a popular venue for live bands in West Warwick, RI. They had come to spend time with friends and to listen to music. Too quickly, this festive occasion turned to horror.

A local television cameraman--who ironically was there to shoot footage for a news story on nightclub safety--captured the scene in an extraordinary piece of video that will haunt Rhode Islanders for many years. A pyrotechnic display on stage ignited nearby soundproofing material, and the flames spread through the nightclub with shocking speed. By most estimates, it took only 2 minutes--2 minutes--from the moment that soundproofing caught fire, until the building was engulfed in flames and filled with superheated, toxic, black smoke.

As this disaster unfolded, heroic emergency personnel rushed to the rescue, placing their own lives in jeopardy. Eyewitness accounts described amazing acts of bravery at the scene. Firefighters saved dozens of men and women, whom they pulled from the doorways and windows of the burning building. Meanwhile, EMTs did their best to stabilize those who were gravely injured and worked with the police to help bring order to the prevailing chaos.

Rhode Island is blessed with a network of fine hospitals, several of which have received national recognition for the quality of their care. On that night, medical teams provided the best treatment for the injured, many of whom have a long recovery ahead. At Rhode Island Hospital--which received 65 fire victims, nearly all at once--an entire floor was converted into a burn unit overnight. Surgeons, nurses, technicians and other support staff must have been overwhelmed by the trauma, but they persevered.

Rhode Island's new Governor, Don Carcieri has been brilliant in managing the State's response to this crisis. Less than 2 months after taking office, Governor Carcieri has demonstrated remarkable leadership abilities in the aftermath of the fire. His efforts came at a critical time and helped ensure that every public official delivered a consistent, productive message.

Whether speaking to all Rhode Islanders at a televised press conference or visiting quietly with grieving families, Governor Carcieri has emerged as a strong, reassuring presence during a very difficult time for Rhode Island. He has expressed our anger at what when wrong, and our compassion for the victims and their loved ones.

Federal agencies also responded immediately to this enormous tragedy. I am grateful for all of the assistance that Rhode Island has received thus far: from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Small Business Administration.

My family and I extend our heartfelt sympathy to the families at this time of great sadness. I hope they will take some comfort in knowing that even with a population of more than 1 million people, Rhode Island is small enough that its citizens consider one another as neighbors. That sense of closeness--developed over decades of shared experiences, both joyful and sorrowful--binds us together and is part of what makes Rhode Island unique among the States.

Those connections are especially strongly felt in small towns and villages, such as Potowomut, where my

family has made its home for many years. Potowomut is a close-knit community, somewhat isolated from the rest of the city of Warwick and Rhode Island--on a peninsula that juts out into Narragansett Bay. Sadly, a fellow Potowomut resident, Tracy King, was among those who perished in the fire.

Tracy was working at the Station nightclub on the night of the fire, and as least initially, managed to escape the blaze. Once outside, however, he rushed back into the building to help others scramble to safety. Tracy was a tall, powerful man--always bursting with energy-- and I am certain that he helped save some lives. I share in the heartbreak that all of Tracy's friends feel, knowing that he did not make it back out in time.

In recent years, Tracy had achieved a measure of fame in Rhode Island, as he had an unusual talent for balancing large, heavy objects on his chin--Christmas trees, ladders, desks--even a refrigerator--all balanced perfectly on his chin.

In 1993, he appeared on ``The Late Show with David Letterman,'' and balanced a 17-foot canoe. Imagine that--a 17-foot canoe, straight up in the air! Tracy was a wonderful entertainer, and he especially enjoyed performing for groups of children. He generously shared his talent at local festivals, schools, and hospitals--everyone delighted in seeing him in action.

Tracy King leaves behind his wife, Evelyn, and three sons--Joshua, Jacob, and Jordan. I ask my colleagues to remember the King family in their prayers.

We also remember that there are many other families in Rhode Island, and across the State line in Massachusetts, that are still coping with this sudden, traumatic loss. In the days following the fire, survivors and family members of those who had died or been injured gathered together to mourn, to ask questions, and to share their stories. May they continue to draw strength from one another, and be sustained by the enduring support of their community.

The Senate is considering this concurrent resolution recently approved in the House, cosponsored by my colleagues in the Rhode Island delegation, expressing the importance of improved fire safety in nonresidential buildings in the aftermath of this tragic fire. I urge adoption of the resolution.

I have been working for the last several months with a bipartisan group of Members from both the House and Senate to protect funding for the S-CHIP program, which provides critical health care to millions of our children. In my State, over 12,000 children participate in this program. There is strong, bipartisan support for a 2-year S- CHIP proposal developed last fall that would preserve $2.7 billion in Federal S-CHIP funds that either expired at the end of fiscal year 2002 or will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. Our proposal also establishes a redistribution formula for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to use to quickly redistribute unspent fiscal year 2000 funds to those States that have exhausted their allotments and need additional funds.

Under Federal law, CMS is required to redistribute all unspent 2000 funds this year, but there is no Federal requirement on what formula it is to use. CMS is currently holding off redistributing unspent 2000 funds because it is awaiting congressional action. However, a few States, including my own State of Rhode Island, need the redistribution of 2000 funds as soon as possible so they have sufficient funds for the rest of the year to maintain services to the children currently on S-

I believe it would be about 10 minutes.

Mr. President, I have been working for the last several months with a bipartisan group of Members from the House and Senate to protect funding for the State Children's Health Insurance Program, also known as S-CHIP, which provides critical health care to millions of children. In Rhode Island, over 12,000 children participate in this program. There is strong, bipartisan support for a 2-year S-CHIP proposal developed last fall that would preserve $2.7 billion in Federal S-CHIP funds that either expired at the end of fiscal year 2002 or will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. Our proposal also establishes a redistribution formula for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to use to quickly redistribute unspent fiscal year 2000 funds to those states that have exhausted their allotments and need additional funds.

Under Federal law, CMS is required to redistribute all unspent 2000 funds this year, but there is no Federal requirement on what formula it should use. CMS is currently holding off redistributing unspent 2000 funds because it is awaiting Congressional action. However, a few States, including Rhode Island, need the redistribution of 2000 funds as soon as possible so they have sufficient funds for the rest of the year to maintain services to the children currently enrolled in S-CHIP.

This S-CHIP issue is very time-sensitive. If we do not remedy this situation soon, some States may scale back S-CHIP eligibility because they will assume they will have far less in Federal funds available than previously expected.

Unfortunately, it appears that we cannot address this issue in the omnibus appropriations bill. I appreciate the willingness of the chairman of the Finance and budget Committees, Senators Grassley and Nickles, to work with us to address this issue in both the fiscal year 2004 budget resolution and then to move this legislation quickly in the Finance Committee.

I also think it is imperative for us to work with CMS so that they can move forward to begin to redistribute some of the unspent 2000 funds to States like mine that are facing a serious S-CHIP funding problem. As Congress moves ahead to complete action on this proposal, CMS should move forward on the immediate redistribution of these funds.

Included within Senate Report 107-219, and repeated in Chairman Stevens' Overview and Summary of his amendment to H.J. Res. 2, the Omnibus Appropriations Bill, is report language stating the Appropriations Committee's strong support for the Clean Water for the Americas Partnership. Does the Chairman of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee share my expectation that the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) will fund the Clean Water for the Americas Partnership at $10 million for fiscal year 2003?

Mr. President, as we move forward on this measure, I noted in the Senate Report accompanying the FY 2003 Commerce, Justice, State, and the Judiciary Appropriations bill that the Appropriations Committee urged the Economic Development Administration (EDA) to evaluate several worthwhile proposals for projects which may be eligible for funding under the various EDA programs.

I would like to make the Senator from New Hampshire, the Chairman of the Commerce Appropriations Subcommittee, aware of a strong economic development proposal from my home state of Rhode Island.

The proposal focuses on the renovation of the restored historic theater at the Providence Performing Arts Center, PPAC, in our capital city of Providence. Listed on the National Register of Historic Places, the facility was recently named an Official Project of the Save America's Treasures program directed by the National Trust for Historic Preservation and the White House Millennium Council. The full renovation of the theater, both structural and mechanical, is the ultimate goal of the non-profit entity that operates the center. A renovated PPAC has the potential to be one of the major economic development stimulants in the old downtown. I know from my membership on the Environment and Public Works Committee, which has authorizing jurisdiction over the EDA, that this project is very similar to others funded by the agency.

I ask the chairman if the Providence initiative is in keeping with the projects recommended by the committee and listed in the report?

That being so, I ask the chairman if he would deem the Providence project part of the committee's recommendation to the EDA.

I thank the Senator and look forward to working with the committee and EDA to generate positive economic development in downtown Providence.