Hillary Clinton

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from New Jersey for offering this amendment, which I am proud to cosponsor. This amendment will bar the use of funds to privatize the functions of the air traffic control system in the United States, which will ensure that air traffic control will remain a Government function under the control of the Federal Aviation Administration. I believe that there are few functions of Government more inherent to our responsibility than guaranteeing the safety and security of consumers of transportation in our country. Since September 11, 2001, we have worked to increase the Federal role in improving air security. Air traffic control is essential to our Nation's security and it is vital that we keep air traffic control within the Government's function in order to ensure a safe aviation system on a day-to-day basis. It is also vital in the case of a terrorist attack. This was demonstrated vividly on September 11, when central Government control of air traffic proved essential in quickly clearing our skies and possibly preventing further casualties. Furthermore, it is clear that the intention of those who oppose this amendment is to open the door for privatization of air traffic control. This would be a disaster. An extensive Columbia University study that looked at air traffic control privatization in other countries found that there are no operational or economic advantages to privatizing air traffic control. In fact, there is some evidence that suggests privatization can lead to an increase in incidents, as fewer controllers are used in an attempt to cut costs. For example, privatization in Canada has led to an operational irregularity rate twice ours despite the fact that their air system is 7 percent the size of ours. Privatization may also increase costs. The British Government has twice had to bail out its privatized system for $131 million, about two-thirds of what they originally sold it for. I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment in order to ensure the continued safety of our aviation system. Let us focus on how to improve our air traffic control system without compromising safety.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleague from New York in expressing my very strong support for the nomination of New York State Court of Appeals Judge Richard C. Wesley to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. A few weeks ago, I was honored to testify before the Judiciary Committee in support of this nominee because I believe then, as I do today, that he will make a fine addition to the Second Circuit and will serve that court with distinction. I was also pleased to see supporting Judge Wesley's nomination, his mother Beatrice, ``Betty'' Wesley and his children Sarah and Matthew. They and his wife Kathryn are all very proud of him, and have every reason to be so proud. The calls and letters of support I have received about Judge Wesley from a wide variety of distinguished members of the legal profession are a testament to his qualities of high intellect, judicial temperament, caring for the profession and, most importantly, commitment to justice. Having a significant public service record is not a requirement for serving on our Federal judiciary. But it is very significant to note that Judge Wesley has spent most of his career serving the public trying to make New York a better place for our children and families. He has had a distinguished academic career, graduating summa cum laude from Cornell University Law School. He did have the experience in private practice and in the legislative body, the New York State assembly. He has served on trial and appellate New York courts. In addition to performing his professional duties to the highest standards, he has taken an interest and taken the time to become involved in other significant pressing problems. As a trial court judge, Judge Wesley instituted a felony screening program in Monroe County that reduced the delays in processing felony cases by over 60 percent. The program proved so successful that it served as a model for judicial districts across our State. In 1993, he created the JUST Program, which for a decade has provided services to court and criminal justice agencies, again in Monroe County, to monitor preplea and presentence defendants and to provide alternatives, where appropriate, to incarceration. I am also very impressed that Judge Wesley has been a champion for victims of domestic violence. He has been in the forefront for years in providing shelters for victims of domestic violence, primarily women and their children. He has championed their rights in court and he has sought to help provide the resources that would give these victims another chance. After 7 years on the trial court, he was appointed to the appellate division and then to New York's highest appellate court, the New York State Court of Appeals. Judith Kaye, the Chief Judge of that court, cannot say enough about Judge Wesley's contributions. I am sure he will be greatly missed as he starts his new career on the Second Circuit. This is a very positive nomination. He will not only make his former colleagues proud and he will certainly make lawyers everywhere proud, but he will especially make Western New York proud because once confirmed, Judge Wesley will be the first Western New Yorker--for those who are not from New York, that includes places such as Rochester, Buffalo, and Jamestown, places on the other end of our very diverse, large State--to be confirmed as an associate judge of the Second Circuit since 1974. Although it is very clear that Judge Wesley and I do not agree on every policy or legal issue, and I have no way of knowing how Judge Wesley will vote when these important issues come before him, I have every confidence in his professional preparation, in his temperament and demeanor, in his commitment to justice. He may be a conservative Republican, but he is a judge and an American first. I join my colleague, the ranking member on the Judiciary Committee, in expressing the very strong wish that we could have more nominees like Judge Wesley, someone who comes from a Republican President, who is easily confirmed by a bipartisan majority, proceeded by a unanimous vote in the Judiciary Committee. I predict he will be confirmed on this floor unanimously. Why? Because although Judge Wesley is not of my party, he may not be of my judicial philosophy, he already in his judicial career decided cases differently than I would have, had I been sitting on that bench, he is a person whom we always know will put the interests of justice first, and will preside in a totally nonideological, nonpartisan manner. That is what every judge should be doing. It is certainly the responsibility of the Senate to advise and consent so that our Federal judiciary, which consists of lifetime appointments, will be filled by people of the caliber of Judge Wesley. I yield the floor.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss a persistent, serious, and entirely preventable threat to our children's intelligence, behavior, and learning. Lead poisoning affects 300,000 children in our Nation between the ages of one and five, and has been linked with developmental disabilities, behavioral problems, and anemia. One recent study from the New England Journal of Medicine also found that children suffered up to a 7.4 percent decrease in IQ at lead levels that CDC considers safe. At very high levels, lead poisoning can cause seizures, coma, and even death. In New York State in 1999, over twelve thousand children suffered from lead poisoning, 9,533 of those children in New York City alone. In fact, we may even be underestimating the significance of this important public health problem. I am glad that the Secretary of Health and Human Services considers lead poisoning to be a priority, and established a national goal of ending childhood lead poisoning by 2010. However, federal programs only have resources to remove lead-based paint hazards from less than 0.1 percent of the twenty-five million housing units that have these hazards. At this pace, we will not be able to end childhood lead poisoning by 3010, let alone 2010. We will never stop childhood lead poisoning unless we get lead out of the buildings in which children live, work, and play. In Brooklyn, more than a third of the buildings in one community have a lead-based paint hazard. Parents of children with lead poisoning are being told that nothing can be done until their children's lead poisoning becomes worse. How can we ask children to watch and wait while their sons and daughters suffer from lead poisoning before we remove the lead from their homes? That is why today, I am proud to introduce the Home Lead Safety Tax Credit Act of 2003 with my colleague, Senator Mike DeWine. This legislation would provide a tax credit to aide and encourage homeowners in removing lead-based paint hazards in their homes. Specifically, it would provide a tax credit for owners of residential properties built before 1978 that pay for abatement performed by a certified lead abatement contractor. Owners would receive a maximum tax credit of 50 percent of the cost of the abatement, not to exceed $1,500 per dwelling unit. In Massachusetts, a similar tax credit helped reduce the number of new cases of childhood lead poisoning by almost two-thirds in a decade. The Home Lead Safety Tax Credit Act of 2003 would help homeowners make approximately 85,000 homes each year safe from lead, which is more than ten times the number of homes made lead safe by current Federal programs. It would greatly accelerate our progress in ridding our nation of the significant problem of childhood lead poisoning. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation, which will help us achieve our common goal of protecting children from threats in our environment. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss a rising epidemic that is preventing a growing number of children in our Nation from learning and contributing fully as members of our society. Twelve million children under the age of eighteen now suffer from a developmental, learning or behavioral disability. Since 1977, enrollment in special education programs for children with learning disabilities has doubled. In New York, there are 206,000 learning disabled children--this is fifty percent of the special education population in New York. While we know that developmental disabilities are affecting more children and costing us more money, we still know relatively little about the causes of developmental disabilities. A National Academy of Sciences study suggests that genetic factors explain only ten to twenty percent of developmental disabilities. Considerable research suggests that toxic chemicals such as mercury, pesticides, and dioxin contribute to these problems, but proving the exact role of environmental factors in these problems will take time and significant research dollars. We can simply not stand back and watch our children suffer from this increasing epidemic. That is why I have worked hard to develop the 2003 Act to Prevent Developmental Disabilities in Education, which I am proud to introduce today with my colleague, Senator Collins. It would help us lower the costs of developmental disabilities by identifying the preventable, non-genetic causes that are affecting so many children in our nation. Our legislation would require the Department of Education to coordinate with the CDC to improve data collection on environmental hazards that cause disabilities. At this time, the Department of Education collects information on the prevalence of disabilities among children in schools and the CDC collects information on environmental toxins, but the two data systems are not coordinated. If they were, policymakers and researchers could better identify where environmental hazards may be causing developmental disabilities and target resources to these areas for abatement. A National Academy of Sciences study suggests that 28 percent of developmental disabilities are due to environmental causes, and a recent study in the New England Journal of Medicine demonstrated that exposure to low levels of lead can result in a drop of 7.4 IQ points, which can turn a healthy child into one with a developmental disability. I am working to incorporate this legislation into the reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act because I believe so strongly that our children and families, indeed our entire society, benefits when we prevent developmental diseases rather than treating them after they occur. And thank you to my friend Senator Collins for her hard work and commitment to this important issue. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss a rising epidemic that is preventing a growing number of children in our Nation from learning and contributing fully as members of our society. Twelve million children under the age of eighteen now suffer from a developmental, learning or behavioral disability. Since 1977, enrollment in special education programs for children with learning disabilities has doubled. In New York, there are 206,000 learning disabled children--this is fifty percent of the special education population in New York. While we know that developmental disabilities are affecting more children and costing us more money, we still know relatively little about the causes of developmental disabilities. A National Academy of Sciences study suggests that genetic factors explain only ten to twenty percent of developmental disabilities. Considerable research suggests that toxic chemicals such as mercury, pesticides, and dioxin contribute to these problems, but proving the exact role of environmental factors in these problems will take time and significant research dollars. We can simply not stand back and watch our children suffer from this increasing epidemic. That is why I have worked hard to develop the 2003 Act to Prevent Developmental Disabilities in Education, which I am proud to introduce today with my colleague, Senator Collins. It would help us lower the costs of developmental disabilities by identifying the preventable, non-genetic causes that are affecting so many children in our nation. Our legislation would require the Department of Education to coordinate with the CDC to improve data collection on environmental hazards that cause disabilities. At this time, the Department of Education collects information on the prevalence of disabilities among children in schools and the CDC collects information on environmental toxins, but the two data systems are not coordinated. If they were, policymakers and researchers could better identify where environmental hazards may be causing developmental disabilities and target resources to these areas for abatement. A National Academy of Sciences study suggests that 28 percent of developmental disabilities are due to environmental causes, and a recent study in the New England Journal of Medicine demonstrated that exposure to low levels of lead can result in a drop of 7.4 IQ points, which can turn a healthy child into one with a developmental disability. I am working to incorporate this legislation into the reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act because I believe so strongly that our children and families, indeed our entire society, benefits when we prevent developmental diseases rather than treating them after they occur. And thank you to my friend Senator Collins for her hard work and commitment to this important issue. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss a persistent, serious, and entirely preventable threat to our children's intelligence, behavior, and learning. Lead poisoning affects 300,000 children in our Nation between the ages of one and five, and has been linked with developmental disabilities, behavioral problems, and anemia. One recent study from the New England Journal of Medicine also found that children suffered up to a 7.4 percent decrease in IQ at lead levels that CDC considers safe. At very high levels, lead poisoning can cause seizures, coma, and even death. In New York State in 1999, over twelve thousand children suffered from lead poisoning, 9,533 of those children in New York City alone. In fact, we may even be underestimating the significance of this important public health problem. I am glad that the Secretary of Health and Human Services considers lead poisoning to be a priority, and established a national goal of ending childhood lead poisoning by 2010. However, federal programs only have resources to remove lead-based paint hazards from less than 0.1 percent of the twenty-five million housing units that have these hazards. At this pace, we will not be able to end childhood lead poisoning by 3010, let alone 2010. We will never stop childhood lead poisoning unless we get lead out of the buildings in which children live, work, and play. In Brooklyn, more than a third of the buildings in one community have a lead-based paint hazard. Parents of children with lead poisoning are being told that nothing can be done until their children's lead poisoning becomes worse. How can we ask children to watch and wait while their sons and daughters suffer from lead poisoning before we remove the lead from their homes? That is why today, I am proud to introduce the Home Lead Safety Tax Credit Act of 2003 with my colleague, Senator Mike DeWine. This legislation would provide a tax credit to aide and encourage homeowners in removing lead-based paint hazards in their homes. Specifically, it would provide a tax credit for owners of residential properties built before 1978 that pay for abatement performed by a certified lead abatement contractor. Owners would receive a maximum tax credit of 50 percent of the cost of the abatement, not to exceed $1,500 per dwelling unit. In Massachusetts, a similar tax credit helped reduce the number of new cases of childhood lead poisoning by almost two-thirds in a decade. The Home Lead Safety Tax Credit Act of 2003 would help homeowners make approximately 85,000 homes each year safe from lead, which is more than ten times the number of homes made lead safe by current Federal programs. It would greatly accelerate our progress in ridding our nation of the significant problem of childhood lead poisoning. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation, which will help us achieve our common goal of protecting children from threats in our environment. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I also Unanimous Consent that the text of the bill, to identify certain sites as key resources for protection by the Directorate for Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection of the Department of Homeland Security, and for other purposes, be printed in the Record.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I would like to take a few minutes to address the Frist-Daschle amendment and the Energy bill in general. Now, do I think there is a way to soundly and responsibly increase our use of alternative fuels? Sure. Do I think that we should increase our use of alternative fuels? You bet. I am just not convinced that the provision we are considering today is the best way to make that happen. And I am not convinced that it is the best way to make that happen for a State such as New York. I think that an Energy bill has the potential to be a win for us not just on energy and the environment but also on economic development and job creation. An Energy bill could truly be an engine for developing new technologies, manufacturing new products, building new facilities, and with all of that--creating new jobs, while at the same time increasing our energy security and improving the quality of our environment. I commend my colleagues Senators Domenici and Bingaman, for their efforts in bringing this bill to the floor. They have worked arduously to tackle many complicated and controversial issues. But with all due respect to my colleagues, in many cases, I am afraid that this bill unfortunately still falls far short--in terms of energy policy, environmental policy, and economic policy. We need a comprehensive and balanced energy policy that strengthens our energy security, safeguards consumers, protects the environment, spurs economic development, and create jobs. Yet this bill does not truly harness our potential for greater energy efficiency and for newer, cleaner sources of energy. It too often looks to the past to try to solve the energy challenges of the present and turns a blind eye to all that our energy future could be. For example, it looks to possible oil and gas resources on the Outer Continental Shelf--areas of the ocean that have been under drilling moratoria for years in an effort to preserve precious ocean and coastal resources and the coastal tourism economies of a number of our States. It also apparently requires an inventory of oil and gas resources on Federal lands, as well as an inventory of restrictions or impediments to development of those resources. Now my colleagues in New York and I have been fighting for years to protect the Finger Lakes National Forest from drilling, and so I have a difficult time with provisions like this. The bill permanently extends the authority of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to indemnify nuclear powerplants against liability for nuclear accidents under the Price-Anderson Act, and provides other substantial subsidies to the nuclear power industry. Yet the bill does not do enough to increase the diversity of our energy supply, which would also create new business and economic growth opportunities. I am pleased that the bill contains provisions related to the increased use of fuel cells and hydrogen fuel because this is a key example of how we can be working to increase our energy security, while also improving the environment and creating jobs. And it is places like Upstate New York, where we have many companies and universities doing exciting work in this area, which will emerge as world leaders in his technology. That is why I have joined with Senator Dorgan, Senator Lieberman, and others in supporting legislation that would go even further than the bill we are currently debating in supporting fuel cells. And that is in part why, when we debated the renewable fuel provisions in the Senate Environmental and Public Works Committee, Senator Boxer and I fought to include provisions that would provide Federal support for the construction of waste-to-ethanol plants and other cellulosic biomass ethanol production facilities. Because these projects would help States such as ours produce more renewable fuel--produce fuel from waste products, which would therefore also help the environment--and at the same time produce more jobs as well. We are grateful for the committee's support for our amendments, and we are pleased that these provisions remain in the amendment that is before us today. But many of my colleagues and I still have reservations with respect to this amendment. That is why some have pushed to have their States exempted entirely from the renewable fuels requirements in this amendment, while many others have voted to require States to proactively opt-in to the renewable fuels program. Despite the many outstanding questions regarding the renewable fuels requirements in this amendment--whether it is transportation or storage or other infrastructure issues, market concentration concerns, impacts on gasoline prices for consumers at the pump, air quality impacts, you name it--there is a seeming unwillingness to consider even the slightest changes to the provisions before us--at least for some States. While certain States are exempted all together, other States that have special considerations, such as my State of New York which has a State ban of MTBE that goes into effect in just a few months, which has certain air quality issues, and very little existing ability to produce significant quantities of renewable fuel--our special needs go unmet. With all of the concerns I have regarding the amendment before us, I have even more concerns about the provisions passed by the House, which I believe in many respects are greatly inferior to the provisions we are considering here today. So that gives me even further pause in taking up this issue. For example, whereas the amendment before us contains a welcome and long-awaited Federal phase-out of the use of MTBE over the next 4 years, the House bill does not phase out MTBE at all. Even more disturbing, it includes a liability safe harbor for MTBE. Now, there is no question that the time has come to take action at the Federal level on MTBE. New York is on the front lines of this battle. We have banned MTBE use in the State as of January 1, 2004. There are a number of other States that have taken action to phase out or limit the use of MTBE as well, including: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, South Dakota, and Washington. Now, those are the States that have actually passed State laws. But here are a number of other States that have tried to pass laws and are still trying to pass laws to phase out or ban MTBE. In the absence of any Federal action, States have been forced to take action on their own to limit MTBE use in motor vehicle fuel because it has wreaked havoc on the environment--in particular, on drinking water sources. Unfortunately, those State actions are now being challenged in court. Yet the States are acting for good reason. New York has experienced first-hand the impact of MTBE contamination on our drinking water-- particularly on Long Island. According to testimony before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee offered recently by Mr. Paul Granger, superintendent of the Plainview Water District on Long Island, ``New York has identified some 1970 MTBE spill sites with 430 of them on Long Island alone.'' That is why New York, once again out in front on the issue of MTBE, has probably the toughest standard in the Nation for the amount of MTBE allowed in surface and ground water--10 parts per billion. But according to Mr. Granger's testimony, ``At least 21 states have reported well closures due to MTBE groundwater contamination.'' It is estimated that more than 500 public drinking water wells and 45,000 private wells throughout the country are contaminated by MTBE. According to testimony recently offered by the American Lung Association before the Environment and Public Works Committee, millions of Americans are being served by drinking water sources contaminated by MTBE. As we are far too familiar now, the cost of cleaning up this MTBE contamination are significant. According to the testimony of Mr. Craig Perkins, director of Environment and Public Works for the city of Santa Monica, CA, ``Current estimates for the total cost of nationwide MTBE clean-up are $30 billion and counting.'' That is why we have lawsuits pending in New York regarding MTBE contamination of ground water, because these communities, these water suppliers, and ultimately their customers, cannot meet the financial burden of these cleanups. So while having clean air to breathe is important, so is having clean water to drink. We should not have to trade one for the other. Phasing out the use of MTBE as a fuel additive is the right thing to do from a drinking water perspective, from an overall environmental and public health perspective, and from a fuels perspective. That is why such a phase-out of MTBE was recommended over 3 years ago by the EPA Blue Ribbon Panel on Oxygenates in Gasoline. The State-by-State approach to MTBE that we are currently operating under does not work. It does not work for the markets, the refiners, or the distributors to have this patchwork of States that do or do not allow the addition of MTBE to gasoline. I am very pleased that the Frist-Daschle amendment includes such a phase-out but I am concerned about other provisions of this amendment pertaining to renewable fuels, including the safe harbor provisions. I am deeply concerned that the House bill does not include a phase-out of MTBE but does provide a liability safe harbor for MTBE. The reality is that we can phase out MTBE and repeal the existing 2 percent oxygenate requirement under the Clean Air Act while still ensuring that we meet current clean air standards. And I support legislation that will do these three things. After banning MTBE and removing the oxygenate requirement, there would still be an increase in the use of ethanol in this country--with or without the mandate we are contemplating here today.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, today I join my colleagues in support of the Holocaust Victims' Assets, Restitution Policy, and Remembrance Act. We are motivated by a desire to achieve justice for Holocaust victims and their families, and we recognize that if such justice is to be attained, the United States must continue to lead the world by example. The United States has provided leadership in this area ever since American troops liberated the death camps. Most recently, the United States has been the driving force behind international settlements with foreign governments, the Swiss banks, the European insurance companies, and German corporations that benefited from slave labor. This legislation recognizes that the struggle for justice requires continued American leadership and that the foundation is the appropriate mechanism for that leadership. Justice is timeless, and it is time for us to take the necessary steps and help Holocaust survivors reunite with their assets and belongings. For many survivors and family members, a painting, a piece of furniture, or a family heirloom is the only remaining connection between them and their loved ones who died in the Holocaust. This legislation is long overdue. I hope that it reunites many victims and families with those items that have been missing for too many years, and a reunion like that would be a bittersweet kind of justice. The purpose of this act is to create a public/private foundation to integrate research that has been conducted by 23 international commissions in the area of Holocaust-era assets, to complete the research agenda that arises from that synthesis, and stimulate the transition to a contemporary restitution policy. The foundation will be the single most effective facilitator of the identification and return of Holocaust-era asserts to their rightful owners and heirs ever supported by the U.S. Government. If the nations of the world are to be convinced of our lasting commitment to justice for Holocaust victims and if continued work on Holocaust assets issues is to be truly effective, the foundation must have the stamp of the Federal Government. But the Federal Government cannot, and should not, perform these tasks by itself. It will coordinate the efforts of the Federal Government, State governments, the private sector, and individuals here, and abroad, to help people locate and identify assets who would otherwise have no ability to do so. It will encourage policymakers to deal with contemporary restitution issues, including how best to treat unclaimed assets. The foundation is authorized for 10 years, after which it will sunset and ``spin off'' its research results and materials to other appropriate public and private entities. It is able to accept private funds as well as public dollars. The commission identified a number of policy initiatives that require U.S. leadership. These initiatives included, but are not limited to the need to: compile a report that integrates, synthesizes, and supplements the research on Holocaust-era assets that has been conducted around the world; review the degree to which other nations have implemented the principles adopted at various international conferences; work with organizations to provide for the coordinated and centralized dissemination of information about restitution programs; encourage the creation and expansion of mechanisms, including Alternative Dispute Resolution options, to assist claimants in obtaining the speedy resolution of their claims; and, support the establishment and maintenance of a computerized and searchable database of Holocaust victims' claims for the restitution of personal property. The foundation will also encourage, and support, the efforts of State governments to facilitate the cross match of unclaimed property records with lists of Holocaust victims. It will work with the museum community to further stimulate provenance research into European paintings and Judaica. It will promote and monitor the implementation by major banking institutions of the agreement developed in conjunction with the New York Bankers Association. Finally, it will work with the private sector to develop and promote common standards and best practices for research on Holocaust-era assets. The impetus for the foundation comes from the work of the Presidential Advisory Commission on Holocaust Assets in the United States chaired by Edgar M. Bronfman, Sr. The commission report, ``Plunder and Restitution: The U.S. and Holocaust Victims' Assets,'' was the most comprehensive examination ever conducted into how the Federal Government handled the assets of Holocaust victims that came into its possession or control. The Congress has dealt with Holocaust issues on a nonpartisan basis, and I am confident it will consider this bill in the same spirit. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor it and look forward to its prompt adoption.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, today, I offer my support of the Dorgan amendment and oppose the base closing round scheduled for 2005. The world has changed since this legislation was voted on in 2001. I opposed it then and I oppose it now because we must complete an evaluation of our basing needs for the 21st century. And this argument carries more weight in this post-September 11 world. Since we passed the base closing legislation in 2001, we have had the September 11 attacks, the war in Afghanistan, and the war in Iraq. Our men and women in uniform are operating under a tremendously demanding operations tempo. Until we are able to evaluate the lessons of these conflicts and how they should impact our base structure, it seems foolish to rush ahead to a base closing round that was conceived prior to September 11. A number of New York installations have played a vital role in our homeland security as well as military action in Iraq and Afghanistan. As we know, troops from the 10th Mountain Division, Light Infantry, from Fort Drum fought in Operation Anaconda in Afghanistan and also contributed troops to Operation Iraqi Freedom. New York's Air National Guard units in Niagara Falls, Syracuse, Newburgh, Scotia, and Long Island have all contributed to homeland security or important missions abroad. And New York has numerous other installations that play an important role in our national defense and homeland security. Because our security needs have grown so much at home and abroad, we need to conduct a full evaluation of how our military bases fit into our homeland security structure before we push ahead with another base closing round. Our troops need to know that we support them in their efforts. And standing by a bill that was passed in the months before September 11 does a disservice to them. It places communities under tremendous stress to have to prepare for a base closing round. As Senator Dorgan points out, it seems wasteful to ask communities in this economic climate to devote scarce resources to prepare for this round of base closures. And New York is no exception. Until we can have a full debate on what form our post-9/11 military base structure should take, I will support the Dorgan amendment and oppose a 2005 base closing round.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about a frightening epidemic in our Nation. A staggering 61 percent of adults and 13 percent of children and adolescents in our Nation are overweight or obese. The number of overweight children has doubled and the number of overweight adolescents has tripled since 1980, according to the Surgeon General. The estimated direct and indirect annual cost of obesity in the United States is $117,000,000,000, exceeding even smoking-related illnesses. That is why I am pleased to join Senators Frist, Bingaman, Dodd and others in introducing the Improved Nutrition and Physical Activity Act of 2003. This bill takes important steps to fund programs that ensure healthy eating behaviors and improved physical activity. Funding this program will save Americans vastly more in lower health care costs. The bill also takes critical steps to educate health professionals to help us fight this epidemic. With smoking, we learned that a simple recommendation from a health professional to stop could have a dramatic impact in reducing smoking. It is just as important to make sure our health care providers are equipped to help mold healthy behaviors in our fight against obesity. I also appreciate Senator Frist's willingness to incorporate important provisions from my Promoting Healthy Eating Behaviors in Youth Act of 2002. While it is so important to fight the obesity epidemic, we should not inadvertently send the wrong message by telling our children and adults simply to eat less and exercise. Unfortunately, many adolescents misinterpret this as a message that they should eat to achieve the body of a runway model. Anorexia and bulimia are increasingingly common among our Nation's youth. Recent data from the 1999 Youth Risk Behavior Survey indicated that 7 percent of young women who were very thin (body mass index less than 15 percentile) reported taking laxatives or vomiting to lose weight or to avoid gaining weight. An even larger percentage 9 percent of these very thin young women reported using diet pills. While it is important to prevent diabetes and heart disease that may result from obesity, eating disorders also have their own very serious consequences. Anorexia nervosa, which will affect 3.7 percent of American women sometime in their lifetime, leads to heart failure, kidney failure, and osteoporosis. In fact, a young woman is 12 times more likely to die than other women her age without anorexia. Poor eating habits have also led to a ``calcium crisis'' among American youth. Very few adolescent girls (14 percent get the recommended daily amount of calcium, placing them at serious risk for osteoporosis and other bone diseases. Because nearly 90 percent of adult bone mass is established by the end of adolescent growth period, the Nation's youth's insufficient calcium intake is truly a calcium crisis. The consequence of this crisis will be seen years later, when we are likely to face an unprecedented incidence of osteoporosis in women. That is why I am especially grateful to see the use of a balanced ``healthy eating behavior'' definition in the bill, and to see that a portion of the grants in the bill are set aside for eating disorders education programs. While we certainly need to focus on exercise and appropriate nutritional behavior, it is certainly just as important to teach our children and adults how to engage in regular physical exercise and lose weight in a healthy way. I am proud to join Senators Frist, Bingaman, Dodd, Warner, DeWine, Murray, Lugar, and Landrieu in this important legislative initiative, and eagerly anticipate its progress as we fight a significant public health epidemic.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, the process of using the arts therapeutically to assist victims of illness, trauma, disability and other personal challenges, has historically been underrecognized as a valuable treatment, yet the benefits of this treatment are far reaching. The creative arts therapies, comprising the fields of art therapy, dance/movement therapy, drama therapy, music therapy, poetry therapy and psychodrama, are disciplines that foster creative expression to promote health, communication, self-awareness, emotional, social and cognitive functioning. I rise today, to proclaim National Creative Arts Therapies Week, June 1-7, 2003 as a time to recognize this unique service. Creative arts therapies have been practiced in the United States for over 50 years with people of all ages and problems. Such therapists work in medical hospitals, rehabilitation centers, mental health facilities, day treatment centers, nursing homes, schools, homeless shelters, correctional settings, and in private practice. Creative arts therapists have helped people who have undergone trauma, loss, acute physical and chronic illness, emotional disturbance, or struggle with depression, retardation, development disabilities and addictions. The contribution of creative arts therapists in the aftermath of 9/11, assisting victims and the bereaved through trauma treatment and the alleviation of post-traumatic stress, were invaluable. I want to recognize and thank creative arts therapists in America who are assisting the most vulnerable in our society with valuable therapeutic intervention. There are over 15,000 licensed clinicians who meet high quality standards of graduate education and practice. Various States, including New York, have additional licensure requirements, which protect patients from fraudulent practitioners and maintain the quality of care at the highest standard. These credentialed clinicians constitute a vital force of mental health professionals in our country. However, many Americans are unable to access such services because awareness about their effectiveness and employment of such therapists is not sufficiently widespread. The National Coalition of Creative Arts Therapies Associations is collectively celebrating the history and status of their profession. They will be showcasing workshops, presentations and exhibits throughout the United States to inform the public, health care practitioners, insurers and legislators about therapeutic value and significance of this discipline. I therefore proclaim National Creative Arts Therapies Week, June 1-7, 2003 as a time to recognize the unique service provided by these clinicians. Further, I encourage my colleagues in Congress to support the creative arts therapies fields and expand awareness of this form of treatment. At this time of heightened sensitivity to maintaining mental health, we should recognize the creative arts therapies as a way to help those in distress through the power of the arts to heal. (At the request of Mr. Daschle, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about a frightening epidemic in our Nation. A staggering 61 percent of adults and 13 percent of children and adolescents in our Nation are overweight or obese. The number of overweight children has doubled and the number of overweight adolescents has tripled since 1980, according to the Surgeon General. The estimated direct and indirect annual cost of obesity in the United States is $117,000,000,000, exceeding even smoking-related illnesses. That is why I am pleased to join Senators Frist, Bingaman, Dodd and others in introducing the Improved Nutrition and Physical Activity Act of 2003. This bill takes important steps to fund programs that ensure healthy eating behaviors and improved physical activity. Funding this program will save Americans vastly more in lower health care costs. The bill also takes critical steps to educate health professionals to help us fight this epidemic. With smoking, we learned that a simple recommendation from a health professional to stop could have a dramatic impact in reducing smoking. It is just as important to make sure our health care providers are equipped to help mold healthy behaviors in our fight against obesity. I also appreciate Senator Frist's willingness to incorporate important provisions from my Promoting Healthy Eating Behaviors in Youth Act of 2002. While it is so important to fight the obesity epidemic, we should not inadvertently send the wrong message by telling our children and adults simply to eat less and exercise. Unfortunately, many adolescents misinterpret this as a message that they should eat to achieve the body of a runway model. Anorexia and bulimia are increasingingly common among our Nation's youth. Recent data from the 1999 Youth Risk Behavior Survey indicated that 7 percent of young women who were very thin (body mass index less than 15 percentile) reported taking laxatives or vomiting to lose weight or to avoid gaining weight. An even larger percentage 9 percent of these very thin young women reported using diet pills. While it is important to prevent diabetes and heart disease that may result from obesity, eating disorders also have their own very serious consequences. Anorexia nervosa, which will affect 3.7 percent of American women sometime in their lifetime, leads to heart failure, kidney failure, and osteoporosis. In fact, a young woman is 12 times more likely to die than other women her age without anorexia. Poor eating habits have also led to a ``calcium crisis'' among American youth. Very few adolescent girls (14 percent get the recommended daily amount of calcium, placing them at serious risk for osteoporosis and other bone diseases. Because nearly 90 percent of adult bone mass is established by the end of adolescent growth period, the Nation's youth's insufficient calcium intake is truly a calcium crisis. The consequence of this crisis will be seen years later, when we are likely to face an unprecedented incidence of osteoporosis in women. That is why I am especially grateful to see the use of a balanced ``healthy eating behavior'' definition in the bill, and to see that a portion of the grants in the bill are set aside for eating disorders education programs. While we certainly need to focus on exercise and appropriate nutritional behavior, it is certainly just as important to teach our children and adults how to engage in regular physical exercise and lose weight in a healthy way. I am proud to join Senators Frist, Bingaman, Dodd, Warner, DeWine, Murray, Lugar, and Landrieu in this important legislative initiative, and eagerly anticipate its progress as we fight a significant public health epidemic.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Madam President, if I can continue in this line of questioning with the Senator from Maryland. Is the Senator from Maryland aware that in the year 2000, there were approximately 176,000 long-term unemployed parents but that last month there were 607,000?

Mrs. CLINTON. Will the Senator from Maryland yield for an additional question?

Mrs. CLINTON. As I look at the proposal of the Senator from Massachusetts and the specific financial hardships of unemployment, is it the position of the Senator from Maryland that in the absence of extending unemployment benefits to those who have already exhausted their benefits, there is no opportunity on the horizon for them to have income because the jobs are just not there?

Mrs. CLINTON. Does the Senator from Maryland have any idea how many of the people who have exhausted their benefits have children in their homes?

Mrs. CLINTON. Would it surprise the Senator from Maryland that the number of parents who have been unemployed for 6 months or longer has increased 245 percent?

Mrs. CLINTON. Is it correct that the Senator from Massachusetts----

Mrs. CLINTON. Madam President, a further question to the Senator from Maryland: Is it correct that in previous years with previous Presidents and Congresses, the concern about long-term unemployment has let us, as a nation, provide benefits for those people who have exhausted their source of income and cannot find a job?

Mrs. CLINTON. Finally, Madam President, to the Senator from Maryland, is the Senator from Maryland aware that the rate at which people are exhausting their unemployment benefits, without finding a job in this jobless economy that we are currently experiencing, was at its highest level ever recorded in February and its second highest level ever recorded in March, and that for 23 straight months the private sector has lost jobs, the longest stretch since World War II; is the Senator from Maryland aware of that?

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I wanted to ask my friend from Oklahoma to yield to me, but he yielded the floor. The dilemma, of course, is one that is very difficult for us to confront. I appreciate greatly the wonderful cooperation that I received in working out the extension of unemployment compensation for those who needed to complete their 13 weeks who were unemployed, and for those who were going onto unemployment for the first time. Our problem is--and this is where I think the nub of our difference is--we have this growing number of literally millions of people who have exhausted their benefits and are looking for work and cannot find it. I understand and I respect the argument from the other side, although I disagree that the tax package that is about to be passed today or tomorrow is going to generate jobs and economic growth. I do not think it will. I think it will, in fact, make our economic situation worse and continue to put people out of work. But we will get a chance to find out who is right about that. But, unfortunately, there are a lot of innocent people caught in the middle of this debate, people who are not sitting here on the floor of the Senate, people who are not going to get a big tax break, people who are out of work and cannot find a job in this economy. At some point we have to take responsibility for these people. I appreciate the author on the other side. And I appreciate the good work of the Senator from Alaska to have a straight extension, but we did not have a vote on that specifically. We had votes attached to other items--appropriations, tax cuts, et cetera. At some point, we are going to have to face the reality that this economy is losing private sector jobs at the fastest rate in our history. At some point, we have to take responsibility for these people. We reformed welfare, which I supported. We said to people, go out and get a job; support yourself and your children because we expected that we would have a good economy, because we would have good, sensible, responsible, fiscally sound policies at the Federal level that would, hand in hand, help the private sector create those jobs. That is not happening, for a lot of reasons. The economy continues to get worse. We have lost half a million jobs in the last 3 months alone. So I simply ask my friends, my colleagues on the other side: If not now, when? When do we take responsibility, as previous administrations--Republican and Democrat--previous Congresses-- Republican and Democrat--did in previous recessions? At some point, we cannot any longer pretend that the economy is going to generate the jobs that all of those unemployed people who have no means of support are desperate to have. So I hope we will get to that point sooner than later because I have thousands and thousands of these people--some of whom have been out of work since 9/11, 2001--and I believe we should help them. And it is good for the economy. We ought to take that action as soon as possible. I yield the floor.

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise to ask unanimous consent to provide help for 3.2 million Americans who are out of work and need Congress to extend unemployment insurance. Soon the checks will no longer be in the mail for millions of Americans and New Yorkers who depend on unemployment benefits to provide for their families at this time. In New York alone, over 100,000 people have exhausted their unemployment insurance benefits and are still without a job. Starting on May 31, unless we act, more than 80,000 Americans will begin exhausting their unemployment every single week. These Americans and New Yorkers need and deserve our action. We knew we had to take steps at the beginning of this year to extend unemployment compensation. We need to do it again. I hope none of us will turn our back on these hard-working, struggling Americans--people who have mortgages to pay, people who have car payments to make, people who have children to raise. In April 2000, there were 176,000 long-term unemployed parents. Last month, there were 607,000 long-term unemployed parents, an increase of 245 percent. I ask unanimous consent that the Finance Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 923, a bill to provide a 6-month extension of unemployment compensation, including 13 weeks of benefits for the long-term unemployed--exhaustees--and that the Senate then proceed with its immediate consideration; that an amendment at the desk to remove the ``Temporary Enhanced Regular Unemployment Compensation'' provisions be considered and agreed to; that the bill be read three times, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, without intervening action or debate.

Mrs. CLINTON. Yes. I think the Senator from Massachusetts--