Hillary Clinton

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I was pleased today to vote in support of the Edwards-Lieberman amendment, which I was proud to cosponsor with my colleague Senator Jeffords and others. Unfortunately, this effort to temporarily halt the Bush administration's weakening of the Clean Air Act was narrowly defeated. Although we were simply trying to obtain an independent, scientific analysis of the impact of these Clean Air Act changes before they went into effect, rather than after, the amendment was opposed by half of the Senate. Just shy of passage, this vote was a very strong showing of bipartisan support of protecting clean air and ensuring healthy communities, and against any backsliding on the Clean Air Act. And it was not by any means the end of this debate. We will not give up this fight to stop any weakening of existing Clean Air Act protections and to ensure that all Americans have clean, healthy air to breathe. Many believe that the Clean Air Act changes the Bush administration has made, and which go into effect in less than 6 weeks, will allow more pollution into our air, not less. More pollution that is known, scientifically and medically proven, to cause or contribute to asthma attacks, heart attacks, cardiopulmonary disease, cancer, and even premature death. More pollution that is making people sick, especially children and the elderly. That is why my colleagues and I were seeking 6 months for the National Academy of Sciences to conduct an independent, scientific analysis of the Bush administration's changes to the New Source Review, NSR, provisions of the Clean Air Act before they went into effect, to ensure that they would not negatively impact air quality or public health. The reason we are seeking such a study is simple, it's a matter of public health and, in some cases, life and death. Just last week, The New York Times reported the findings of a study by scientists at Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health. The study, to be published next month in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives, finds that ``pollutants in the air in Upper Manhattan and the South Bronx have been linked to lower birth weights and smaller skulls in African-American babies.'' The study's findings are particularly troubling because lower birth weights and smaller skulls have been linked to poor physical and mental health later in life, including lower IQs and poor cognitive function. This particular study is being conducted at the Center for Children's Environmental Health, which is currently being funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. Unfortunately, the EPA wants to reduce funding for these Children's Environmental Health Centers around the country. But that is another matter. The point is that air pollution is scientifically proven to have negative health impacts--particularly on children. Other studies show that children who play sports in communities with high average air pollution levels have a higher risk of developing respiratory illness, and that children who live in polluted areas have a 10 percent lower lung function growth rate compared to those who live in less polluted areas. Pound for pound, children breathe more air than adults, which makes them more susceptible to air pollution. But we are all at risk. That is why we need to be doing more--not less--to clean up our air, protect children's health, and provide for safe and health communities. Today, about 175 million Americans live in areas violating health standards for smog or soot. That is unacceptable. And that is why we need to be applying the Clean Air Act to its utmost and keeping it as strong an environmental statute as possible. We offered this amendment today because we are concerned that the changes the Administration has made to the NSR provisions of the Clean Air Act will do the exact opposite. We believe, as do many others, that these changes will allow more pollution into our air, not less. That is why 1,000 doctors, nurses, and public health professional from all over the country wrote to John Graham, Director of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the White House, last September to ask him to block these changes that they believed would weaken the Clean Air Act. In their letter, these health professionals said, ``Pollution . . . regulated under NSR touches the lives of millions of Americans across the Nation. This pollution is harmful to human health and sends thousands of individuals to hospital emergency rooms each month. Study after study shows a link between exposure to air pollution and health conditions such as respiratory diseases, asthma attacks, cardiopulmanory disease, cancer, and even death. No changes to NSR should occur without the public being provided with a comprehensive analysis demonstrating that the proposed changes to NSR will improve air quality and human health.'' That is essentially what this amendment called for--an independent, scientific study by the National Academy of Sciences to determine whether the Administration's changes to NSR could result in any increase in air pollution or any adverse effect on human health. By waiting just a few months, we could make certain that these rule changes would not increase pollution or negatively impact human health. We are saying, ``Don't take us at our word. Don't take the words of these thousand health care providers. Let's let the scientists tell us what the impacts of these changes will be.'' Unfortunately, some of our colleagues would rather allow the Bush Administration changes to go forward, and then do the study after the fact to see what impacts we experience on air quality and human health. If there are negative impacts, which we think there will be, we may be able to pull back the rule at a later date. But we will not be able to pull back any air pollution that is released, or any hospitalizations, asthma attacks, heart attacks, or other health impacts that occur as a result. This is not the way the process is supposed to work. We are supposed to know, before we go forward with any rulemaking, what the impacts of that rulemaking will be. And we have asked, repeatedly, for such information from the administration, to no avail. Which is why we offered this amendment today. When the Congress passed the Clean Air Act and President Nixon signed the Act into law back in 1970, the intent was to reduce air pollution and protect public health. As section 101(b) of the Clean Air Act states, one of the purposes of the Act is ``to protect and enhance the quality of the Nation's air resources so as to promote the public health and welfare.'' All we were trying to do today, and what we will be continuing to fight for, is to ensure that the purpose of the Clean Air Act is upheld. I don't think this is too much to ask. Especially when in testimony before the Senate, former EPA Administrator Carol Browner stated, ``There is no guarantee, and more importantly, no evidence or disclosure demonstrating that the administration's announced final or proposed changes will make the air cleaner. In fact they will allow the air to become dirtier.'' Especially when EPA, in its own Supplemental Analysis of the Environmental Impact of the 2002 Final NSR Improvement Rules, dated November 21, 2002, states ``. . . the EPA cannot quantify with specificity the emissions changes for a given pollutant or pollutants, if any, that result from the NSR rule changes now being adopted, nor can we reliably determine the anticipated locations of any emissions changes.'' Especially when, despite numerous requests from the Environment and Public Works Committee, and from more than 40 of our colleagues in the Senate, the EPA has failed to provide us with definitive evidence that shows that these final changes to the NSR provisions of the Clean Air Act will not have a negative impact on air quality or on human health. A few months for independent, scientific certainty that these rule changes will improve air quality and not adversely effect human health. It is not too much to ask. In fact, just last week, the State and Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators and the Association of Local Air Pollution Control Officials wrote to EPA Administrator Whitman and asked that the effective date of the final NSR rule revision be delayed by a whole year. Their letter reads, ``As you are aware, the State and Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators, STAPPA, and the Association of Local Air Pollution Control Officials, ALAPCO, have serious concerns with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's, EPA's, recently promulgated final rule affecting changes to the New Source Review, NSR, program, 67 Federal Register 80186, and with the adverse impact these changes would likely have on the ability of States and localities to achieve and sustain clean, healthful air. These concerns are further compounded by the fact that, for a number of States across the country, the revised NSR program is scheduled to take effect on March 3, 2003. Accordingly, we write to you today, on behalf of STAPPA and ALAPCO, to request that EPA extend by 1 year the effective date of the final NSR rule revisions.'' These same State, territorial, and local air officials, which have gone on record in support of changes to NSR, believe that ``the administration has gone too far in revamping the program'' and that ``because the reforms are mandatory, they will impede, or even preclude, the ability of States and localities all across the country to retain or adopt programs that are more protective than the Federal requirements.'' That is in part why the Attorneys General from nine States are suing the Federal Government over these changes. Whereas the existing NSR program was the foundation for a series of lawsuits brought by the States, the Federal Government and environment groups against dozens of old, coal-fired powerplants and other industrial sources, the tables are now turned. Now, the Attorneys General from nine States, New York, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Vermont, have had to file a lawsuit against the Federal Government, challenging these new regulations. The very regulations that the States had been using in conjunction with the Federal Government to go after bad actors and improve air quality. Some of us will join in that lawsuit, because we, too, are convinced that the Bush administration is violating the Clean Air Act and going against the intent of Congress. But again, that is a separate matter. Again, as I already stated, this vote was a very strong showing of bipartisan support for protecting clean air and ensuring healthy communities, and against any backsliding on the Clean Air Act. And it was by no means the end of this debate. We will not give up this fight to stop any weakening of existing Clean Air Act protections and to ensure that all Americans have clean, healthy air to breathe.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of this amendment, which I am proud to cosponsor to provide an additional $300 million in Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program--or LIHEAP--funds for the current fiscal year. With unemployment rising, temperatures dropping, and energy prices projected to soar, New Yorkers and others around the country need access to energy assistance more than ever. Colder than normal temperatures in October, November, December, and January have boosted overall heating demands above previous expectations. In fact, conditions this winter are projected to be as much as 18 percent colder than last winter, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. People in my state know what cold means. Ask anyone who has been to Buffalo where it feels like zero degrees Fahrenheit today; Rochester where it feels like 6 degrees; Syracuse where it feels like 5 degrees; Binghamton where it feels like minus 2 degrees; Plattsburgh where it feels like minus 7 degrees; Albany where it feels like minus 2 degrees; or any town in New York State in the winter months. It's cold. Today, the National Weather Service has issued a hazardous weather outlook for western and north central New York. Very cold air will dominate the region overnight, with temperatures again falling into the single digits from the Finger Lakes west, and below zero to the east. According to the Weather Service, these temperatures will combine with winds to produce bitterly cold wind chills below minus 15 degrees in most areas, and below minus 20 degrees in the North Country. So far this year, it has snowed just about every day in Oswego County. Twice this month, lake-effect storms dumped several feet of snow on the county. In the city of Oswego, snow fell at a rate of 6 inches per hour for about 4 hours last Wednesday. So it's no surprise that applications for LIHEAP assistance in New York State are up from last year--by at least 9,000 households. That is why instead of proposing to cut this vital program by $300 million as the Bush Administration has done, we are here today offering an amendment to increase the funding for LIHEAP provided in this bill by $300 million. The $300 million cut proposed by the Bush administration would have forced the State of New York to ``freeze out'' an estimated 80,000 families who previously benefited from the vital LIHEAP program. Under this amendment, New York and other states will be able to help tens of thousands more families with home heating assistance, rather than leaving families--literally--out in the cold. The change in seasons needs to be accompanied by a change of heart--and that is why we are here today offering this amendment. An additional $60 million in LIHEAP funding that was released to New York State earlier this month received a warm welcome--particularly from the thousands of New York families that are now able to heat their hoes without having to forgo other, basic household expenses--like buying groceries. And this additional $300 million will receive an equally warm welcome. I want to commend our colleagues on the Senate Appropriations Committee who voted last year not to cut the LIHEAP program as was proposed by the administration, but rather to keep it at its previous level of $1.7 billion. Thankfully, the bill we are considering today contains approximately $1.6 billion in LIHEAP funding for the current fiscal year. But that is still not enough. Many of my colleagues and I have asked the administration to release the hundreds of millions of dollars in emergency funds that are still available in order to help low-income families and the elderly in New York and around the country pay their heating bills. With our economy in crisis, this is no time to be heaping additional financial burdens on our low income residents and forcing them to choose between paying for food and paying their energy bill. That is why we are offering this amendment today, to convert $300 million in already-appropriated emergency LIHEAP funds to regular program funds, so that these funds can be spent now to help families in need. Because for low-income families and the elderly in New York State and around the country who are having to choose between food and heating their homes, between prescription drugs and heating their homes--this is an emergency, not question about it. So I urge my colleagues to support this common sense amendment to provide an additional $300 million in regular program funding for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following letter to the President, regarding his Administration's decision to file a brief opposing the University of Michigan's use of affirmative action, be printed in the Record.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I commend my colleague from Rhode Island; he has done a superb job in his leadership of the Joint Economic Committee, following the economic trends and keeping track of all of the evidence that supports the remarks he has completed. I join the Senator and my other colleagues in sharing some of my own thoughts on this latest tax proposal outlined by the President. I will be sure not to call it a stimulus package because it is not. In fact, as I understand it, the President and his staff have recently been careful not to describe it as one either. Yet, again, the administration has opted to use our stumbling economy to stimulate budget-busting tax cuts, rather than to use common sense to stimulate the stumbling economy. There is a conventional wisdom developing in Washington. One can almost see it and one can certainly hear it as it emerges from the pages of our national newspapers and our television talk shows. That conventional wisdom proclaims the boldness of President Bush's economic strategy. ``In for a dime, in for a dollar,'' says one of our colleagues. ``Big steps get more followers,'' says a White House official. I am relatively new to the Senate but not to the work of public service. So I do have a healthy respect for conventional wisdom and the power that it has over how people think and even act about the issues. I also know enough to be weary of marching in lock step with the latest line. Far too often, what we collectively say and think today is proven to be wrong tomorrow. I will not deny that the President's plan is, as conventional wisdom holds, bold. I looked up the meaning of that word. There is nothing that equates ``bold'' with ``good'' or ``bold'' with ``right.'' We should not assume that the solution to our deficits or to our faltering economy is to in some way take bold action, even if it is wrong. We ought to be looking for the right action that will bring about the results that all agree are in our country's best interests. Winston Churchill once said: Never in the field of human conflict have so few given so much to so many. The Bush economic plan turns that saying on its head: Never in the field of economics have so few been given so much at the expense of so many. What is this really all about? I believe fundamentally it is a question of values. What do we as Americans value? Every discussion we make about our own private money or that we make as a society about tax or spending decisions is at bottom a decision about values. People who live for today because they will not plan for tomorrow are demonstrating their values. They are not willing to put away and save. They think somehow it will rain from heaven. We look at them and say they are irresponsible. Here, when we look at the tax decisions proposed by this administration, we have to ask ourselves, What are the values that are embedded in these proposals? I believe when it comes down to a choice about values, the American people expect us to be making choices that reflect their values. During the 1990s, we saw the creation of over 22 million new jobs. That reflected our value of work and the belief that a good job is by far the best kind of outcome for any economic or social policy. Over the last 2 years, we have seen what is called negative job growth. That means that people are losing jobs and are not able to find them. During the 1990s, real median family income grew by over $6,000 with double-digit income growth for all income brackets, and unemployment and welfare rolls hit their lowest level in 30 years. We ended the 1990s with the largest surplus and 3-year debt paydown in American history. Those reflected solid American values: Pay as you go; live within your means, the kind of values with which I was raised, the kind of values I think made America a very great nation. We are at this turning point. I think someone has to say that a strategy of ``in for a dime, in for a dollar'' is not the strategy for our Nation. Many Americans are counting their pennies. They are worried about where their next dollar is coming from. They should not feel the values they hold dear are being abrogated by irresponsible economic decisions made by their Government. Someone needs to point out that it is hard to be in for a dime and in for a dollar when what you are really doing is passing the buck. We are passing the buck right to our States and our cities. We are forcing them to make the hard decisions we are avoiding. Looking at a State such as New York, we are facing drastic cutbacks. When I talk about the services that will be cut, I am not talking about luxuries. I am talking about taking police off the street. I am talking about closing fire houses. I am talking about increasing tuition so much that some kids are going to have to drop out of college because they and their families will not be able to afford for them to stay. As we look at what the States and cities of our country are laboring under, how can we in good conscience turn our backs on them? How can we continue to talk about enormous tax cuts that will not stimulate anything except red ink, when we are on the brink of facing perhaps military actions that will require billions upon billions of our dollars? Our Governor in New York recently announced that the $2 billion deficit we face this year could grow to $10 billion next year. The President's tax package basically says: That is your problem, New York; not ours. In all of the counties throughout New York, as in States around the country, every dime of property tax raised in the counties of New York may very well end up going to pay for the Medicaid bills that we have. Unlike the Federal Government, States have to balance their budgets. They cannot just have a gigantic credit card that runs up the costs and does not really worry about tomorrow. Our States need help. That is one of the reasons why last year I fought for some assistance with the Federal Medicaid matches amounts and today I will again join Senator Rockefeller and Senator Collins in introducing a similar proposal that would bring an additional $20 billion in fiscal relief to States, including $2.6 billion for New York. Those are all stopgap measures, because if the President's proposal is enacted, it will have a dramatic ripple effect through the States, because most States tie their tax systems to the Federal system so when a change is made in Washington, where some kind of tax is cut, one can count on revenues being taken away from the States. The President's package was advertised as costing about $674 billion. The truer cost is closer to $900 billion and we are still trying to calculate the real cost. I am not going to, as some of my colleagues have, talk about the unfairness of the way this tax is configured. I think that pretty much speaks for itself. But I want to say a word about deficits. I realize there is a new economic team in town and the President's advisers do not think budget deficits are much of a problem. I have to respectfully disagree. I cannot understand how a tax cut that pushes us deeper into long-term debt and raises our current budget deficit is not a values choice. We are choosing to go into debt instead of providing help for the States. We are choosing to run up the deficit and therefore we cannot keep our promises to our children and our schools about funding the education reform we voted for. Where will we, for example, come up with the money for the promised prescription drug benefit? Where will we come up with the money to keep the lights and the heat on in homes that rely on the low income heating energy program? I do not understand how these are the choices that reflect the values of the vast majority of Americans, and today I raise these issues. I do not think we should shy away in this Chamber from saying that, yes, the proposal may be bold and it may be big but it is boldly wrong. It takes big steps in exactly the wrong direction from where our country should be headed. We will talk day after day about the real choices, trying to illustrate and contrast the value systems that underlie the economic policies chosen by this administration compared to those that were chosen by the previous administration, because it is imperative that the American public understands this is not just about photo ops. It is not just about speeches and rhetoric. It is not even just about charts. It is about the future of this country and it is about the billions of individual choices that Americans will be able to make as they seek to demonstrate their own responsible life choices, as they seek to acquire greater opportunity for themselves and their children, and as they seek to contribute to making our country richer, safer, stronger, and smarter in the future. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I am so pleased to join my colleague, Senator Allard from Colorado, today to introduce the Community Choice in Real Estate Act of 2003. This critically important piece of legislation would clarify Congressional intent, by preventing the Federal Reserve Board and the Treasury Department from issuing a regulation permitting banks and their affiliates from engaging in real estate management and brokerage activities, which are commercial--and not financial--in nature. The legislation that Senator Allard and I are introducing today recognizes the possible unintended consequences that implementation of such regulation could have on consumers and on the real estate industry. The powers afforded banks under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley act would give banks a considerable competitive advantage over brokers and service providers who lack access to customer financial information. I am concerned that this could force independent real estate brokers out of the market, and in turn lower the quality of service to consumers. Congress has armed regulators with the flexibility to adapt to changes in the marketplace. Indeed, in the coming years, I am confident the Federal Reserve Board and the Treasury Department will determine the effect that the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act is having on the financial market place and on consumers. As the effects are analyzed and changes considered, I urge that safeguards be included that ensure the protection of consumers and existing businesses as well as compliance with the intent of Congress. Until then, allowing banks in real estate could create inherent conflicts of interest for the lenders and brokers, and could place inevitable pressure on consumers and limit their choices in products and services. Last year, there was tremendous support for this legislation in the House and Senate, and I look forward to working with my colleagues again this year to ensure the Treasury Secretary hears loud and clear the intent of Congress to protect consumers, and to protect an industry from being put at a competitive disadvantage through executive action.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I am very concerned about the kind of economic policies we are pursuing because I believe in the absence of changing our economic policies we are not likely to get our economy growing again. It is important we do all we can to make the right decisions. I know the President was in Chicago today. He addressed his proposal for the economy. I understand it is a package of approximately $650 billion, most of which concern some provisions that will affect relatively affluent Americans. I look forward to seeing what else is in that package. We have to recognize the economic challenges we now confront are not just ones in Washington but are throughout our Nation, in the capitals of our States, and in our cities. In Washington, we have to be cognizant of the ripple effect on revenues to our States and cities by the decisions we make. In fact, one of the unintended consequences of many of the changes that were made at the beginning of the 107th Congress with respect to tax policy and that are embedded in what the President is proposing will mean further reduction of revenues for State governments, which cannot print money, which have to balance budgets, which have to live within their means, and the net effect will be either States having to raise their taxes, local communities having to raise their property taxes, or dramatic cuts in services. Among those services that we cannot as a Nation afford to cut are the ones that directly bear on homeland security: Our police and law enforcement officers, our firefighters, and our first responders. Today I am reintroducing the Homeland Security Block Grant Act that would provide direct funding to our local communities. For me, this is one of our first orders of business because our first responders are our first line of defense at home. Since September 11, 2001, cities, counties, and towns, large and small, urban and rural, have responded to the call to be more vigilant, to beef up our homeland defenses. They have invested more than $2.6 billion from their own budgets. They have purchased more equipment. They have provided training for emergency responders. They are doing the very best they can to deal with all of the new challenges and threats we face. I have met with mayors, fire commissioners, police chiefs, and other emergency workers who all tell me they do not have the resources they need in order to protect us. I have conducted a survey of towns, cities, and counties across New York. From Buffalo to the tip of Long Island, we have heard the same thing: Despite this body's passage of legislation creating a Homeland Security Department, they have yet to see any additional funding where they need it most, close to home. Most of the money that has been passed and sent to the States has not been addressed directly at beefing up local fire, police, and emergency responders but for a specialized purpose of confronting the challenge of bioterrorism. We have a declining economy, rising unemployment, terrible revenue problems in our cities and States, and our answer has been to create a new bureaucracy in Washington. I believe creating the new Homeland Security Department, without funding our first responders on the front lines, is like building a hospital without hiring doctors and nurses. We may have a good plan on paper, but we do not have the means to execute it. The bill I am introducing will give our first responders $3.5 billion to give them the resources they need to do what they know they must accomplish. We should not be determining in Washington how they spend this money. That should be done at the local level. What Buffalo needs may be different from Rochester which is different from Syracuse or Albany. It makes no sense to hold up this money any longer. We should disperse the money appropriated and we should funnel it, State to local communities, and we should be looking at what our unmet needs are. The Homeland Security Block Grant Act of 2003 will provide direct funding to our communities and first responders. That is where the money should go. I am delighted--my belief that this is the appropriate step to take is endorsed by the United States Conference of Mayors, the International Association of Fire Chiefs, the International Association of Firefighters, the Major Cities Police Chiefs Association, the National Association of Police Organizations, and the Police Executive Research Forum. We did well today to deal with part of our problem when it comes to the unemployed. I look forward to working with my colleagues to deal with the other part, which are those who are chronically unemployed, to come up with ways of helping them be able to make a transition or just hold their families together until the economy turns around. I also hope we will address homeland security in a way that gets the money where it needs to be, on the front lines of our cities, our towns, with our police and our firefighters and emergency responders. That would send a strong signal that homeland security is not just a slogan, it is a reality throughout America. I yield the floor.

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I am introducing the Small Employer Tax Assistance for Health Care Act of 2003, SETAH, a bill to provide tax subsidy to small employers to help them provide health coverage to their workers. The problem of the uninsured is a problem of working families, but 7 out of 10 workers without coverage are not even offered coverage through their employers. This bill provides assistance and incentives for those employers who are least likely and least able to afford coverage for their workers, small, low-wage firms. Statistics show that small firms are half as likely to offer coverage as large firms, while the offer rate for small low-wage firms is cut 50 percent further, compared to small high-wage firms. This legislation will offer a significant tax break to those businesses in order to subsidize their purchase of health insurance. The credit is designed sensibly, so that rates adjust slowly as firm size and average wage increase. Tax credits can unintentionally penalize firms that grow beyond the eligibility limitation. For instance, a tax credit for firms smaller than 20 means a firm's decision to add the 21st worker could add thousands to their tax bill. Tax credits should help businesses and their workers prosper, and not unintentionally discourage business growth. The bill would contain the following elements: 50 Percent Credit to Help Workers at Smallest and Lowest-Wage firms. All firms smaller than 10, whose average worker earns minimum wage, are the ones who have the lowest insurance offer rates. These firms will receive a 50 percent tax credit up to $2000 per individual policy, and $5000 per family. Double Phase-Out. Tax credits can unintentionally penalize firms that grow beyond the eligibility limitation. Using a ``double phase-out'' so that the tax credit diminishes gradually as firm size and average wage increase, eliminating the ``cliff effect'' that would otherwise discourage firms from adding employees or increasing wages. 5 Percent Floor. All firms under 50 workers, with average wages under $30,000, would be protected by a 5 percent floor. Simplified Eligibility for All Small Low-Wage Firms. Restricting tax credits to only those firms who did not previously offer can unintentionally give small businesses starting out an incentive not to offer health insurance. By contract, the SETAH credit will be available to all small, low-wage firms, defined as smaller than 50 employees, and under $30,000 in average wages, that quality, regardless of whether they have offered coverage before. This helps employers who are doing the right thing and encourages others to follow their example by offering coverage. Fiscally Prudent Targeting. Because the credit is well-targeted to firms who are unlikely to offer anyway, the credit remains less duplicative and more efficient than other credits. At an overall cost of $6 to $7 billion annually, the SETAH credit covers 3.3 million new individuals for roughly $2000 per newly insured individual, which is crucial in an era of fiscal prudence.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I thank the majority leader for bringing this very important matter to the floor so early in our session. I also thank my colleague from Oklahoma, Senator Nickles, for working with me and others over the last week to try to reach consensus. While I do not object at all to this final bill--in fact, I am a lead Democratic sponsor--I would point out that passage of this bill, as important as it is, will leave many, many people without any means of support, and I think that we must turn our attention to these people who have exhausted their benefits. I look forward to working with the majority and minority leader in doing so.

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be one amendment in order which would provide benefits for those who have previously exhausted their Federal unemployment benefits--approximately 1 million Americans and over 150,000 New Yorkers--that there be a time limitation on the amendment of 30 minutes for debate, equally divided in the usual form, and that no other amendments or motions be in order to the bill.

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, reserving the right to object----

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I associate myself with the remarks of the Senator from North Dakota who has, once again, eloquently put this issue into a much larger context, a context that concerns the economic and tax policies of our country. Today I have introduced a bill to help those who have exhausted their unemployment benefits, the nearly 1 million Americans we have heard spoken about from so many of my colleagues from Washington to North Dakota to Rhode Island, who have just run out of time and run out of money. They were eligible for the programs that each State administers, as it should be, because in many of our States we have had an increase in unemployment over the last year. We now have a 6 to 6.5-percent unemployment rate in many parts of the country. In New York City, which is still dealing with the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, we have an 8-percent unemployment rate. Many of these people who lost their jobs have been working all their lives. When something happened--a layoff, a bankruptcy, a terrorist attack--and many of them have spent month after month looking for work and not finding it. In an economy such as we have now, which is not producing jobs, many people for the first time ever, especially given what we enjoyed during the 1990s, are finding it impossible, not just to find a job that paid what they were used to receiving through their job, but paying anything. I recently had a number of such New Yorkers to my office in New York City shortly before the December 28 cutoff of unemployment benefits. I wish they could be here in the Chamber. I wish that all of my colleagues could speak with the man who had worked on the Windows of the World restaurant at the top of the World Trade Center for more than 20 years, a manual laborer but a good hearted, decent American who, year after year, showed up, did what he was supposed to do, and luckily for him and his family was not at work on the morning of September 11, but unluckily for him and his four children, he no longer has any work. He has gone from place to place. I wish my colleagues could meet the woman from Queens who was widowed when her husband died 3 years ago, had worked in the same business for many years, and now has lost her job and no longer has unemployment benefits. What are we supposed to tell these people? We ended welfare as we knew it because we did not want anyone to be dependent, to produce generational dependency, and I supported that. There is not any better social program than a job. But when we do not produce jobs in the economy for decent, hard-working Americans, what do we expect to happen? Some of the things that are happening: In many States, after being in decline for years, welfare rolls are climbing. In many States, homelessness is increasing, and it is homelessness of families with children. Bankruptcies are growing. Individuals who are chronically unemployed are going on Social Security disability in order to have some kind of income, one of the fastest growing programs in our country. When we first started talking about extending unemployment benefits-- I introduced a bill last July--we did not get to first base. We did not even get out of the dugout. We would raise it time and again. My wonderful friend, our late colleague, Senator Wellstone from Minnesota, used to be at that desk. He would never be in the chair but would be pacing about. Before his tragic accident, every day he came to the floor asking that we extend unemployment benefits. We often harkened back to the situation during the recession of the early 1990s when unemployment benefits were extended five times and signed into law by the first President Bush, as well as President Clinton. Finally, the Senate passed a measure. I appreciated greatly working with my colleague, Senator Nickles from Oklahoma, to get that done last year. We could not get it through the House. We did not have the support of the administration. But today, we have done the right thing, at least half the right thing. I am very grateful for that. I thank the President for his support. I thank the Republican leadership in the House for their support, but I mostly thank my colleagues and our new majority leader, Senator Frist, for making sure this was the first order of business for this 108th Congress. What we did today to help the nearly 800,000 Americans who watched their unemployment benefits disappear at the stroke of midnight on Saturday, December 28, to make sure the program will be there for those who are unfortunately coming on to the unemployment rolls was important, but it was not enough. We have to do more. We have to recognize the people who have exhausted their benefits, who are working as hard as they can to get work, who are found throughout our country, in every walk of life, doing every kind of job with every sort of challenge one could imagine. But what are we going to say to them? We have a big task ahead of us to try to get our economy growing again, create jobs, move our Nation in the right direction. This new problem in the 21st century--new in the wake of the economic boom of the 1990s, that we have tens of thousands of Americans who want to work but cannot find a job--will have to be addressed. Mr. President, I would now like to discuss a bill I am introducing. THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized.

Mrs. CLINTON. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mrs. Clinton pertaining to the introduction of S. 87 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Madam President, in the months following September 11, a new reality took hold in every corner of our country. We saw the National Guard standing guard at our airports and in front of Government buildings. Bioterrorism and border security were discussed every day. The skies over New York and Washington, DC were patrolled by our military. And every American believed that these new measures made our Nation stronger and protected us against terrorist attacks. But time has passed and that vigilance has faded. Not by our police officers, firefighters, or emergency response personnel. Not by the brave men and women who are serving in Afghanistan. Not by the workers along our borders and in our ports. But by the Federal Government. We have slipped into an almost piecemeal approach to Homeland Security and that has to change, starting today. ``Are we safer today than we were on the morning of September 11, 2001?'' The answer is only marginally, because somewhere along the line, we lost our way. Those individuals who are sacrificing and working to do their best and secure our country want to do more. But each day, despite some of our efforts, we do less and less for them. We issue warnings about new threats. We expect people and cities and towns to react accordingly, but we do not provide enough funding, support, or guidance for them to do their jobs. We need to redefine our focus on Homeland Security, and one way to do that is to reorganize the way our Government works. The votes we cast today for the creation of a new Homeland Security Department are just that-votes for the creation of a department. Our Nation and particularly the people I represent in New York, learned the hard way on September 11, 2001--the status quo is unacceptable. My hope is that approval of this bill sets in motion a necessary reorganization process that will ultimately result in improved coordination, information sharing, and a stronger and safer America. We need to send a clear message that our Government is doing more than simply talking about strengthening our homeland security; that we are once again focused on concrete steps that will defeat the terrorists and protect our people. But we must be clear about what we are voting on today--this bill has much to do with structural reorganization and very little to do with enacting real steps that will protect our Nation against terrorist attacks. There are many things in this bill that should not be; and there are many things that should be in this bill that are not. I am concerned that the American people will think that simply because we have passed this bill that our Nation is safer. They need to know that this measure does not increase patrols along our northern borders. It does not give our firefighters, police officers, and emergency personnel the resources, training, and equipment they need to protect our frontlines at home. It does not increase security measures at our ports, along our railroads, and public transportation systems. It does not increase our capabilities of detecting biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons. What this bill does is it falls short on many counts, especially when it comes to real measures that would improve our security. We had the opportunity to do this right. We had the opportunity to do more than create a department, but we missed it. The Senate's original bill included critical measures that would make our country safer today than it was yesterday. But in the end, this Congress failed to put safety first and special interests last. There is a lot in this bill that secures the future for the special interests and very little that secures our country. Those who are using this legislation--this legislation that's about the security of our Nation--as a vehicle for the special interests have done this country a great disservice. That is why Congress must not, cannot, stop here. Our job is far from over. We must continue to fight to make sure that every substantive part of the old bill that increased our security gets passed in the next Congress. Let's start with the obvious-supporting our first responders. They are a critical part of our Homeland Security. Our firefighters, police officers, and emergency personnel need direct funding, training, and additional equipment to keep our Nation safe. When it comes to Homeland Security, we need to listen to the experts--our mayors, police commissioners, fire chiefs, and our public health workers. They continue to ask for direct funding, and that is why I proposed legislation that would provide direct funding to local communities, the Homeland Security Block Grant Act. Since we began the war on terrorism, we have done everything to ensure that our men and women in the military have the resources, equipment and training they need to fight the war on terrorism, and that's how it should be. But we are not doing the same at home. It is unconscionable to me that a Homeland Security Bill such as this one would not include support for our Nation's frontline defenders. At the end of October, Senators Hart and Rudman released the Terrorism Panel's report that clearly states that we are not doing enough to support our first responders and keep our country safe. They expressed grave concern that 650,000 local and state police officers still operate without adequate US Intelligence information to combat terrorists. We haven't done enough to help local and State officials detect and respond to a biological attack. The report expressed concern that our firefighters and local law enforcement agencies still do not have the proper equipment to respond to a chemical and biological attack. Their radios are outdated and do not allow them to communicate in an emergency. What kind of tribute is this to the heroes who lost their lives in last September? What would the firefighters, police officers, and emergency response workers who did not think twice about rushing to Ground Zero to save lives say about the lack of progress that's been made? Additionally, the SAFER Act, a provision that allows our country to hire 25,000 firefighters over the next couple of years has been eliminated from this bill. This is the time for us to do more for our first responders, not less. They are the most important link in our Homeland defense, and to shortchange them in these difficult times is incredibly shortsighted. We must also act to better secure our Nation's nuclear power infrastructure. While the Homeland Security Bill will create a new department, it does not adequately address the very real threat of terrorists' capabilities and desire to destroy our nuclear power plants. Our efforts to protect our infrastructure is moving much too slow. Last year, Senators Jeffords, Reid, and I introduced the Nuclear Security Act. This summer, we succeeded in moving the Act through Committee. It is a shame that the Homeland Security Bill does not address nuclear security and it should. These protections should be included in this discussion, and the new Congress must work together to pass the Nuclear Security Act promptly. We must also better protect ourselves against the very real threat of terrorists detonating a dirty bomb in our country. It is imperative that we better secure our domestic radioactive materials. Every year, highly active sources used in industrial, medical and research applications are lost or stolen in America. This is why I introduced the Dirty Bomb Act to strengthen these security measures and enhance our security. And, while we work in the Congress to pass security measures like these, we will have to also work to get rid of provisions that do not belong here. As I described on the Senate floor and in a press conference last week, this bill includes unrelated vaccine liability provisions. Protecting manufacturers from liability can be appropriate as part of a comprehensive vaccine bill that addresses a balanced range of important goals, including strengthening vaccine supply and addressing families' interest in compensation. But plucking out industry liability protections and addressing only that side of the issue clearly prioritizes manufacturers over families, and puts politics ahead of homeland security. The provisions protect one particular manufacturer by dismissing existing lawsuits brought by parents of autistic children who believe there may be some connection between the mercury-based preservative and their child's illness. There may or may not be a connection, and the tort system may or may not be the right solution. However, enacting only provisions that help manufacturers, while ignoring families concerns for compensation, and children's needs for a strong vaccine supply not only fail to protect homeland security, they fail to adequately protect children from preventable disease. All they do is protect vaccine manufacturers against lawsuits and undermine our bipartisan efforts to assure that every child is vaccinated safely. While I believe the Congress should debate issues of tort reform and reasonable arguments have been made, I am also concerned that some of the tort provisions included in this legislation have nothing to do with homeland security and have not been debated by the Senate. One provision is the ``Support Anti-Terrorism by Fostering Effective Technologies Act of 2002,'' ironically named the ``SAFETY Act.'' This measure lowers standards by giving manufacturers immunity from liability for the products they make that our first responders will use. How will this help America build a stronger homeland defense? It doesn't--it just makes it easier for manufacturers to get away with indefensible actions. There is a provision in this bill that upsets the balance between the public's right to know and the Government's responsibility to protect certain information so that it can better secure our country. The House-passed bill contains significant loopholes that would provide protections for certain information by limiting access, prohibiting its use in court, and even making it a crime to make such information available. It appears that the bill may even allow companies to decide for themselves what information should be afforded such protections. This means certain protections could potentially be extended to information that doesn't even have anything to do with security, thereby shielding potentially damaging information from the public and the courts. While private entities should be encouraged to provide critical infrastructure information to the Government in order to help assess and address vulnerabilities to future terrorist attacks, it should not come at the expense of the public's right to know. I am also troubled by the so-called compromise over the civil service and labor provisions in the new bill. The bill gives the President the authority to waive civil service protections in six key areas including rules for labor-management relations and appeals to the Merit Systems Protection Board. I am concerned that this will hinder the ability of the new department to recruit and retain civil service employees who have expertise in the agencies that will be shifted to the new Department. This shortchanges the workers and shortchanges all Americans who believe we should have the most qualified individuals working in this new department. The bill will also allow the Administration to strip workers of their collective bargaining rights through a waiver authority. I must say that we have every reason to believe that this Administration will take advantage of this authority. It has already taken away these rights from secretaries at the U.S. Attorney's offices. And I fully expect that it will use this authority, if it is granted, to strip away the rights from the more than 50,000 workers who will make up the newly formed Department of Homeland Security. As a Senator from New York, I have a particular interest in this new department and have some specific concerns on behalf of my State. When it comes to protecting New York and New York City, I do not believe that this bill goes far enough and I will work to fix these provisions so that they do. The bill ensures a special coordinator of homeland security in the Capitol Region, DC, Maryland and Virginia, but does not establish a similar coordinator for New York City's metropolitan region. Intelligence reports indicate that like Washington, DC, New York City is a high-risk area, still a target for terrorists and a symbol of our Nation. Even as we recover, we are still vulnerable, and the New York region needs its own coordinator. In the aftermath of September 11, FEMA was able to respond to an unprecedented kind of disaster, precisely because it was a highly functioning, well-run agency. All of us in New York are indebted to Director Allbaugh and his staff for their good work. I am concerned that transferring FEMA into the new department could force a highly competent independent agency into a new bureaucracy that will have challenging integration issues and thus diminish the effectiveness of FEMA's ability to respond to crises of all kinds. I also oppose moving Plum Island from the Department of Agriculture into the new Department. Also, I fear that this move could be a precursor to raising the biosafety level at the Plum Island facility. This would allow research on life-threatening exotic animal diseases and these harmful materials could be transmitted through the air. This would pose too many risks to those in my State who live near the facility, and I will strongly oppose any efforts to raise the biosafety level at Plum Island. As I have said throughout the last fourteen months, we need this new department to better coordinate and share information. There is no question we must change the way things work in Washington so that we adapt to the post 9/11 world. There are many problems with this bill, some of which I have outlined here. These problems will need to be addressed in the months and years ahead. Today, the Senate will also vote on a continuing resolution to fund the Government at last year's funding levels from now through January 11th. While it is imperative we keep the Government running, it is shameful, not to mention ironic, that we will depart without ensuring that we fund homeland security. It is not enough to create a new Department without investing in the necessary funding to protect against bioterrorism, increase our port inspections, secure our Nation's nuclear weapons plants, invest in technology so that our first responders can communicate in a disaster. At best, we are sending mixed messages to the American people about our priorities; even more troubling is that these actions reflect what actually are the Government's present priorities. But at the end of the day, we must move forward with this bill. Hopefully, it will spur us to focus once again with the same commitment and vigilance we had in those weeks and months after that tragic day in September. The threats continue to come in. Attacks occurred in Bali, Yemen, and in Kuwait. A new tape reveals that Osama Bin Laden is most likely alive. And al-Qaida is plotting all the while. We do not have the time or the luxury to remain in this status quo. This bill is the smallest step forward we can take, but it is a step forward nonetheless and that is why I support it. On its own, it will not make us safer but it pulls us out of this piecemeal approach to Homeland Security and directs our Government to pursue one fundamental goal--to make sure that we do everything in our power to make America stronger and safer so that no other American life is taken by the hands of a murderous few.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I would like to express my disappointment at the delay in providing crop disaster relief to farmers across the country. Mother Nature has not been kind this year, dealing farmers weather that has devastated their crops and threatened the survival of family farms. In New York State crop damage has not come solely from drought. Unseasonably high temperatures in the spring followed by frost and hailstorms have devastated specialty crops such as apples, peaches, pears, grapes, strawberries, stone fruits, onions, and cherries. The unfortunate result of this disastrous weather is that a large percentage of these fruit farmers are bordering on financial ruin. I have met with the farmers and growers of New York, and their stories are heartbreaking as they talk about bankruptcy and selling off their family's farm. Crop disaster relief is truly needed to keep these farms going as well as the rural economies that they support. In order to provide this much needed assistance, I have worked with my colleagues to pass legislation that would provide financial relief to farmers who have suffered losses due to natural disaster aid. I cosponsored S. 2800, a bill that would provide emergency disaster assistance to agricultural producers. I cosponsored the crop disaster amendment to the Interior appropriations that passed with 79 votes. And I support Senator Baucus today in his continued efforts on behalf of this Nation's farmers and our rural communities. This year has been a true disaster for so many farmers. On behalf of farmers and growers from the State of New York, I will continue to support crop disaster relief, particularly for specialty crop producers. I urge my colleagues to support these efforts to provide assistance.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Madam President, in the months following September 11, a new reality took hold in every corner of our country. We saw the National Guard standing guard at our airports and in front of Government buildings. Bioterrorism and border security were discussed every day. The skies over New York and Washington, DC were patrolled by our military. And every American believed that these new measures made our Nation stronger and protected us against terrorist attacks. But time has passed and that vigilance has faded. Not by our police officers, firefighters, or emergency response personnel. Not by the brave men and women who are serving in Afghanistan. Not by the workers along our borders and in our ports. But by the Federal Government. We have slipped into an almost piecemeal approach to Homeland Security and that has to change, starting today. ``Are we safer today than we were on the morning of September 11, 2001?'' The answer is only marginally, because somewhere along the line, we lost our way. Those individuals who are sacrificing and working to do their best and secure our country want to do more. But each day, despite some of our efforts, we do less and less for them. We issue warnings about new threats. We expect people and cities and towns to react accordingly, but we do not provide enough funding, support, or guidance for them to do their jobs. We need to redefine our focus on Homeland Security, and one way to do that is to reorganize the way our Government works. The votes we cast today for the creation of a new Homeland Security Department are just that-votes for the creation of a department. Our Nation and particularly the people I represent in New York, learned the hard way on September 11, 2001--the status quo is unacceptable. My hope is that approval of this bill sets in motion a necessary reorganization process that will ultimately result in improved coordination, information sharing, and a stronger and safer America. We need to send a clear message that our Government is doing more than simply talking about strengthening our homeland security; that we are once again focused on concrete steps that will defeat the terrorists and protect our people. But we must be clear about what we are voting on today--this bill has much to do with structural reorganization and very little to do with enacting real steps that will protect our Nation against terrorist attacks. There are many things in this bill that should not be; and there are many things that should be in this bill that are not. I am concerned that the American people will think that simply because we have passed this bill that our Nation is safer. They need to know that this measure does not increase patrols along our northern borders. It does not give our firefighters, police officers, and emergency personnel the resources, training, and equipment they need to protect our frontlines at home. It does not increase security measures at our ports, along our railroads, and public transportation systems. It does not increase our capabilities of detecting biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons. What this bill does is it falls short on many counts, especially when it comes to real measures that would improve our security. We had the opportunity to do this right. We had the opportunity to do more than create a department, but we missed it. The Senate's original bill included critical measures that would make our country safer today than it was yesterday. But in the end, this Congress failed to put safety first and special interests last. There is a lot in this bill that secures the future for the special interests and very little that secures our country. Those who are using this legislation--this legislation that's about the security of our Nation--as a vehicle for the special interests have done this country a great disservice. That is why Congress must not, cannot, stop here. Our job is far from over. We must continue to fight to make sure that every substantive part of the old bill that increased our security gets passed in the next Congress. Let's start with the obvious-supporting our first responders. They are a critical part of our Homeland Security. Our firefighters, police officers, and emergency personnel need direct funding, training, and additional equipment to keep our Nation safe. When it comes to Homeland Security, we need to listen to the experts--our mayors, police commissioners, fire chiefs, and our public health workers. They continue to ask for direct funding, and that is why I proposed legislation that would provide direct funding to local communities, the Homeland Security Block Grant Act. Since we began the war on terrorism, we have done everything to ensure that our men and women in the military have the resources, equipment and training they need to fight the war on terrorism, and that's how it should be. But we are not doing the same at home. It is unconscionable to me that a Homeland Security Bill such as this one would not include support for our Nation's frontline defenders. At the end of October, Senators Hart and Rudman released the Terrorism Panel's report that clearly states that we are not doing enough to support our first responders and keep our country safe. They expressed grave concern that 650,000 local and state police officers still operate without adequate US Intelligence information to combat terrorists. We haven't done enough to help local and State officials detect and respond to a biological attack. The report expressed concern that our firefighters and local law enforcement agencies still do not have the proper equipment to respond to a chemical and biological attack. Their radios are outdated and do not allow them to communicate in an emergency. What kind of tribute is this to the heroes who lost their lives in last September? What would the firefighters, police officers, and emergency response workers who did not think twice about rushing to Ground Zero to save lives say about the lack of progress that's been made? Additionally, the SAFER Act, a provision that allows our country to hire 25,000 firefighters over the next couple of years has been eliminated from this bill. This is the time for us to do more for our first responders, not less. They are the most important link in our Homeland defense, and to shortchange them in these difficult times is incredibly shortsighted. We must also act to better secure our Nation's nuclear power infrastructure. While the Homeland Security Bill will create a new department, it does not adequately address the very real threat of terrorists' capabilities and desire to destroy our nuclear power plants. Our efforts to protect our infrastructure is moving much too slow. Last year, Senators Jeffords, Reid, and I introduced the Nuclear Security Act. This summer, we succeeded in moving the Act through Committee. It is a shame that the Homeland Security Bill does not address nuclear security and it should. These protections should be included in this discussion, and the new Congress must work together to pass the Nuclear Security Act promptly. We must also better protect ourselves against the very real threat of terrorists detonating a dirty bomb in our country. It is imperative that we better secure our domestic radioactive materials. Every year, highly active sources used in industrial, medical and research applications are lost or stolen in America. This is why I introduced the Dirty Bomb Act to strengthen these security measures and enhance our security. And, while we work in the Congress to pass security measures like these, we will have to also work to get rid of provisions that do not belong here. As I described on the Senate floor and in a press conference last week, this bill includes unrelated vaccine liability provisions. Protecting manufacturers from liability can be appropriate as part of a comprehensive vaccine bill that addresses a balanced range of important goals, including strengthening vaccine supply and addressing families' interest in compensation. But plucking out industry liability protections and addressing only that side of the issue clearly prioritizes manufacturers over families, and puts politics ahead of homeland security. The provisions protect one particular manufacturer by dismissing existing lawsuits brought by parents of autistic children who believe there may be some connection between the mercury-based preservative and their child's illness. There may or may not be a connection, and the tort system may or may not be the right solution. However, enacting only provisions that help manufacturers, while ignoring families concerns for compensation, and children's needs for a strong vaccine supply not only fail to protect homeland security, they fail to adequately protect children from preventable disease. All they do is protect vaccine manufacturers against lawsuits and undermine our bipartisan efforts to assure that every child is vaccinated safely. While I believe the Congress should debate issues of tort reform and reasonable arguments have been made, I am also concerned that some of the tort provisions included in this legislation have nothing to do with homeland security and have not been debated by the Senate. One provision is the ``Support Anti-Terrorism by Fostering Effective Technologies Act of 2002,'' ironically named the ``SAFETY Act.'' This measure lowers standards by giving manufacturers immunity from liability for the products they make that our first responders will use. How will this help America build a stronger homeland defense? It doesn't--it just makes it easier for manufacturers to get away with indefensible actions. There is a provision in this bill that upsets the balance between the public's right to know and the Government's responsibility to protect certain information so that it can better secure our country. The House-passed bill contains significant loopholes that would provide protections for certain information by limiting access, prohibiting its use in court, and even making it a crime to make such information available. It appears that the bill may even allow companies to decide for themselves what information should be afforded such protections. This means certain protections could potentially be extended to information that doesn't even have anything to do with security, thereby shielding potentially damaging information from the public and the courts. While private entities should be encouraged to provide critical infrastructure information to the Government in order to help assess and address vulnerabilities to future terrorist attacks, it should not come at the expense of the public's right to know. I am also troubled by the so-called compromise over the civil service and labor provisions in the new bill. The bill gives the President the authority to waive civil service protections in six key areas including rules for labor-management relations and appeals to the Merit Systems Protection Board. I am concerned that this will hinder the ability of the new department to recruit and retain civil service employees who have expertise in the agencies that will be shifted to the new Department. This shortchanges the workers and shortchanges all Americans who believe we should have the most qualified individuals working in this new department. The bill will also allow the Administration to strip workers of their collective bargaining rights through a waiver authority. I must say that we have every reason to believe that this Administration will take advantage of this authority. It has already taken away these rights from secretaries at the U.S. Attorney's offices. And I fully expect that it will use this authority, if it is granted, to strip away the rights from the more than 50,000 workers who will make up the newly formed Department of Homeland Security. As a Senator from New York, I have a particular interest in this new department and have some specific concerns on behalf of my State. When it comes to protecting New York and New York City, I do not believe that this bill goes far enough and I will work to fix these provisions so that they do. The bill ensures a special coordinator of homeland security in the Capitol Region, DC, Maryland and Virginia, but does not establish a similar coordinator for New York City's metropolitan region. Intelligence reports indicate that like Washington, DC, New York City is a high-risk area, still a target for terrorists and a symbol of our Nation. Even as we recover, we are still vulnerable, and the New York region needs its own coordinator. In the aftermath of September 11, FEMA was able to respond to an unprecedented kind of disaster, precisely because it was a highly functioning, well-run agency. All of us in New York are indebted to Director Allbaugh and his staff for their good work. I am concerned that transferring FEMA into the new department could force a highly competent independent agency into a new bureaucracy that will have challenging integration issues and thus diminish the effectiveness of FEMA's ability to respond to crises of all kinds. I also oppose moving Plum Island from the Department of Agriculture into the new Department. Also, I fear that this move could be a precursor to raising the biosafety level at the Plum Island facility. This would allow research on life-threatening exotic animal diseases and these harmful materials could be transmitted through the air. This would pose too many risks to those in my State who live near the facility, and I will strongly oppose any efforts to raise the biosafety level at Plum Island. As I have said throughout the last fourteen months, we need this new department to better coordinate and share information. There is no question we must change the way things work in Washington so that we adapt to the post 9/11 world. There are many problems with this bill, some of which I have outlined here. These problems will need to be addressed in the months and years ahead. Today, the Senate will also vote on a continuing resolution to fund the Government at last year's funding levels from now through January 11th. While it is imperative we keep the Government running, it is shameful, not to mention ironic, that we will depart without ensuring that we fund homeland security. It is not enough to create a new Department without investing in the necessary funding to protect against bioterrorism, increase our port inspections, secure our Nation's nuclear weapons plants, invest in technology so that our first responders can communicate in a disaster. At best, we are sending mixed messages to the American people about our priorities; even more troubling is that these actions reflect what actually are the Government's present priorities. But at the end of the day, we must move forward with this bill. Hopefully, it will spur us to focus once again with the same commitment and vigilance we had in those weeks and months after that tragic day in September. The threats continue to come in. Attacks occurred in Bali, Yemen, and in Kuwait. A new tape reveals that Osama Bin Laden is most likely alive. And al-Qaida is plotting all the while. We do not have the time or the luxury to remain in this status quo. This bill is the smallest step forward we can take, but it is a step forward nonetheless and that is why I support it. On its own, it will not make us safer but it pulls us out of this piecemeal approach to Homeland Security and directs our Government to pursue one fundamental goal--to make sure that we do everything in our power to make America stronger and safer so that no other American life is taken by the hands of a murderous few.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I would like to express my disappointment at the delay in providing crop disaster relief to farmers across the country. Mother Nature has not been kind this year, dealing farmers weather that has devastated their crops and threatened the survival of family farms. In New York State crop damage has not come solely from drought. Unseasonably high temperatures in the spring followed by frost and hailstorms have devastated specialty crops such as apples, peaches, pears, grapes, strawberries, stone fruits, onions, and cherries. The unfortunate result of this disastrous weather is that a large percentage of these fruit farmers are bordering on financial ruin. I have met with the farmers and growers of New York, and their stories are heartbreaking as they talk about bankruptcy and selling off their family's farm. Crop disaster relief is truly needed to keep these farms going as well as the rural economies that they support. In order to provide this much needed assistance, I have worked with my colleagues to pass legislation that would provide financial relief to farmers who have suffered losses due to natural disaster aid. I cosponsored S. 2800, a bill that would provide emergency disaster assistance to agricultural producers. I cosponsored the crop disaster amendment to the Interior appropriations that passed with 79 votes. And I support Senator Baucus today in his continued efforts on behalf of this Nation's farmers and our rural communities. This year has been a true disaster for so many farmers. On behalf of farmers and growers from the State of New York, I will continue to support crop disaster relief, particularly for specialty crop producers. I urge my colleagues to support these efforts to provide assistance.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 308, H.R. 3529.

Mrs. CLINTON. Madam President, before formally making the unanimous consent request, I wish to thank Senator Nickles for his understanding and cooperation in reaching this point this evening. I very much appreciate his willingness, and that of his staff, to work with us throughout today. And I am very personally grateful for his leadership and good advice and counsel. This unemployment insurance extension is being sponsored, in addition to myself, by the Presiding Officer, the Senator from Washington, who has been a tremendous advocate, by Senator Fitzgerald of Illinois, and Senator Specter of Pennsylvania. The commitment of all of the sponsors, and others, have made it possible for us to agree this evening to pass a bill that will be extremely welcomed by about 2.1 million Americans who will be able to take advantage of this extension that runs through the end of March. This will also specifically help approximately 177,000 New Yorkers as they enter the holiday season. Obviously, this is not all that the Presiding Officer and I would have wanted. Perhaps it is more than some would have thought we should do. But I think it works out to be an acceptable compromise in bringing this about at this time. Again, I personally thank Senator Nickles for his extraordinary assistance. So, Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the substitute amendment at the desk be agreed to, the act, as amended, be read a third time, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate; and that any statements related thereto be printed in the Record.

Mrs. CLINTON. As I was listening to the Senator from Oklahoma explain why this makes sense, and particularly to eliminate the cliff that, frankly, people would have fallen off at the end of the year, right at the beginning of a new year--and hopefully providing new hope for people--I could not help but think of our colleague, Paul Wellstone. I think he is smiling down on us. I think he is up there waving his arms, pacing around, and saying, good work, and thanks for doing that. To me, this is tremendous evidence of the kind of cooperation that can come about to bring us together to help people. Again, I thank my friend from Oklahoma. I yield the floor.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Madam President, after reading an article in The Saturday Evening Post about the Germans training dogs to aid veterans blinded during World War I, a blind man living in Tennessee named Morris Frank wrote to the author, ``Thousands of blind like me abhor being dependent on others. Help me and I will help them. Train me and I will bring back my dog and show people here how a blind man can be absolutely on his own.'' The author, Dorothy Harrison Eustis agreed to Mr. Frank's request, and Mr. Frank's dog Buddy became the first guide dog in America. That was 1929 and today, there are more than 7,000 guide dogs serving in America, and two performed miracles in New York on September 11. That morning, Roselle, a yellow Labrador Retriever and her owner, Michael Hingson, went to the office on the 78th floor of the World Trade Center. While Mr. Hingson worked, Roselle slept underneath his desk. Then the plane hit the South Tower, and what she did next was nothing short of heroic. She guided Mr. Hingson through the smoke and to the stairwell. Not only did Roselle help Mr. Hingson down 78 flights of stairs, but another woman who had been blinded by debris clutched Roselle's harness until they reached safety. There was another yellow lab in the World Trade Center named Salty. His owner, Omar Rivera, worked on the 71st floor of the Port Authority. After the planes hit, Salty refused to leave Omar's side and walked through the smoke-filled stairway, broken glass and debris to get Mr. Rivera and a co-worker to safety. Even as the North Tower collapsed and the debris cloud filled the streets, Salty remained calm, loyal, and focused on guiding Mr. Rivera to a place free from danger. These two guide dogs performed their jobs under the most extreme circumstances. But what they did that day reinforced what guide dogs do every day--they provide independence to individuals who are blind and visually impaired so that they can live their life free from constraints. To serve as another's set of eyes, to navigate busy city streets, and to keep their owners from harm's way is a responsibility that only a loyal dog would welcome with no questions asked. Thorughout the United States and around the world, Guide Dog Schools have given more than one hundred thousand people the chance to move about the world with freedom and dignity. Each school offers their guide dogs at no cost to the owners. All they have to do is apply, attend training, and promise to care for their dog for the rest of his or her life. The success of each school is dependent upon thousands of staff, volunteers, and generous supporters. Many people volunteer to raise puppies, socialize them and then give them up at the end of the year. And we see these dogs every day sitting patiently on the subway, stopping at walk lights, and maneuvering people around hazards that prevent a safe, straight path. They wear bright colored vests that read ``Guide Dog in Training.'' Not only did Morris Frank bring the first guide dog to America, he opened the first school in 1929, The Seeing Eye. Now in every State, guide dog schools provide an invaluable service. In California, The Guide Dog School just celebrated its 60th Anniversary, and in New York, The Guide Dog Foundation in Smithtown, has assisted New Yorkers and others from around the world since 1946. And Guiding Eyes for the Blind in Yorktown Heights has graduated more than 5,000 dogs and owners since 1954. Each success story is testament that one good idea can transform the lives of many. But the success of the guide dog schools would not have occurred without two key components: those who believed that the blind and visually impaired could lead more independent lives with the right kind of help, and the dogs, the Labrador Retrievers, the Golden Retrievers, the German Shepherds, and other breeds that are ready, willing, and able to guide their owners through the world. Every day, thousands of people grab on to the harness and place their trust in their companion. Some have acted with remarkable heroism like those on September 11, and we have all heard the stories about guide dogs waking their owners in the event of a fire and blocking them from the path of a speeding car. But most go through their days with quiet dignity and they deserve our utmost respect. Whether they are named Roselle or Salty or Buddy, they all respond in the same way. That harness goes on, their eyes open, and they show us that it is possible to walk through this world with a profound desire to help another so that life is limitless.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Yes.

Mrs. CLINTON. The answer is the bill does not provide for those first coming into the system 26 weeks. It does provide an additional 13 weeks so that those who have exhausted their first 13 weeks can have 26 weeks.

Mrs. CLINTON. I yield to the Senator from Maryland.

Mrs. CLINTON. I thank the Senator.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that a fellow in my office, Dr. Leo Tressande, be given floor privileges.