Hillary Clinton

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, this next vote is to add $4 billion to the IDEA account. This amendment moves us closer to that mandate imposed upon school districts in 1975, a worthy and noble undertaking to ensure that every child be given an appropriate public school education. This amendment moves us closer to fulfilling what Congress said it would do: provide 40 percent of the funding for special education. This will help school districts lower property taxes. It is the kind of commitment we owe to children and their parents and to relieve the burdens of taxpayers. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my friend and colleague, Senator Kennedy, in offering an amendment to increase the maximum Pell grant award by $200. If approved, this amendment would result in a $4,250 maximum Pell grant--an amount well below what is needed, but still important in addressing the crisis of lack of college affordability. The College Board reports that students in the college class of 2010 will pay more, on average, for their post-secondary education than any other class in American history. The average 4-year private school now costs $21,235 each year and the average 4-year public institution costs $5,491 a year. And every year college costs are increasing at a rate faster than inflation. Last year the Consumer Price Index increased by 5.2 percent. But the cost of private 4-year schools went up 5.9 percent and public schools went up 7.1 percent. A Pell grant increase is a step in the right direction to make college more affordable. Over the last few decades, college financial aid simply hasn't kept up with the rising cost of attendance. Twenty years ago, in the 1985-1986 school year, the maximum Federal Pell grant covered nearly 60 percent of the cost of the tuition, fees, room, and board of a 4-year public university. Today the maximum Pell grant covers less than 40 percent of those costs. More students take out loans and more are falling into debt. Fifty percent of today's college students graduate in debt, owing an average of $15,500. Many students owe even more. At Pace University in New York, 55 percent of students graduate owing an average $28,695. At New York University the debtloads are alarmingly similar. And at Hartwick College, nestled in the foothills of the Catskills Mountains, 72 percent of students graduate owing an average of $31,206, the second heaviest student debt-burden of any liberal arts college in the Nation. Over the next 6 months, students in America's high school class of 2006 will decide whether or not to go to college. We need to make sure that students can afford college, not frighten them with a mountain of debt. More and more, a college degree is essential in our modern economy. And helping students pay for college pays for itself. According to the College Board, the average college graduate earns 73 percent more over his or her lifetime than the average high school graduate. College graduates pay 78 percent more in taxes to public coffers, and they are less likely to draw on public resources for programs like unemployment insurance, food stamps, and welfare. College graduates are less likely to be incarcerated, and more likely to volunteer in their communities, more likely to vote, more likely to raise kids ready for school, and more likely to start businesses that create jobs. We need to make sure every student who wants to go can afford college. It's good social policy to make higher education affordable, it's good economic policy, and it's good budgetary policy. Increasing the maximum Pell grant is an essential part of making college affordable. So, again, I want to thank Senator Kennedy for raising this critical issue and working with me to offer this amendment and I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of it.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President. On October 16, our Nation lost one of its finest defenders of freedom, Richard Penn Kemble. The central theme of Penn Kemble's activist youth and professional life was the promotion and strengthening of democracy. In the 1970s, he served on the Senate staff of my predecessor, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, and in the Clinton administration, he served as Deputy and Acting Director of the United States Information Agency, USIA. At USIA, Penn Kemble initiated Civitas, a multinational educational program. Under his leadership, USIA made educational reform, to strengthen both citizenship and the culture of democracy, one of its central interests. Through its partnership with the Center for Civic Education, it nurtured a worldwide civic education movement that began at its first meeting in Prague in June of 1995. I had the honor of addressing the third annual Civitas World Conference in 1999 in Palermo, Italy, which brought together political leaders and more than 350 civic educators from around the world. This international civic education movement continues today in no small measure because of the important work Penn Kemble began in 1995. He knew that even though the institutional machinery of democracy might be in place, it could not be sustained unless a culture of democracy was to take root. He knew that people could only become citizens when they understood and exercised the rights and responsibilities of self- government. He knew that it was in our Nation's best interest to support emerging democracies through citizen education and he used his intellect, boundless energy, and creativity to achieve that end. I am grateful for the work Penn Kemble began during my husband's Presidency, and I join his family and friends from all over the world in mourning his loss.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I am delighted today to honor Mary Bourdette, a woman who has dedicated her working life to improving the lives of disadvantaged children and families. Over the past three decades, Mary has served as a tireless and extremely effective advocate for our Nation's most vulnerable children. Our country is in her debt, and for her passion, commitment, service, and good humor, she will be dearly missed when she retires. Early in her career, Mary worked in Washington, DC, with the Legal Services Corporation, an organization that provides high quality legal services to low-income people throughout the United States. She then went to work for the Child Welfare League of America, CWLA, as the director of public policy. In this role, Mary was a committed champion as she worked masterfully and persistently to seek and implement policy improvements for abused and neglected children. Mary then took her passion and talent to the Children's Defense Fund, CDF, where she served as a powerful ally to children for 8 years. I first got to know Mary at CDF where she worked to improve the Head Start program by increasing funds dedicated to strengthening the quality of Head Start and maintaining its comprehensive approach to helping our poorest children and families. Mary was the driving force behind the Act for Better Child Care and worked overtime to help build support for the Family and Medical Leave Act. I had the pleasure of continuing to work with Mary when she became Deputy Assistant Secretary for Legislation with the Health and Human Services office under Secretary Shalala. Mary was endlessly positive and always on the search for solutions. As she was always upbeat, it was a genuine pleasure to work with her. Mary seemed to wake up every day believing that it held an opportunity to make the world better for children. She played a critically important role in the enactment of the Adoption and Safe Families Act, which helped to realize the goals of safety, permanence and well-being for tens of thousands of children in the child welfare system. During the negotiation of this bill at the very end of the congressional session in 1996, Mary was the Clinton administration's lead diplomat on Capitol Hill. I was keenly interested in the passage of this legislation, and Mary worked diligently, keeping me informed every step of the way and late into the night, as was her usual style, to forge a bipartisan compromise. While serving as Deputy Assistant Secretary, Mary help lead the extraordinary effort to expand the child care and development block grant, CCDBG, ensuring that this bill included adequate funding for low-income families. She was also deeply involved in the dramatic expansion of the earned income tax credit, EITC, a credit that provides crucial income support to millions of low-income individuals and families. Since its inception, the EITC has been hailed as one of the most effective antipoverty policies ever created, and Mary was integral to its success. Most recently, I had the pleasure of partnering with Mary in her capacity as director of government relations for Parents Action for Children. Together we sought to highlight the dangers of exposure to violent and explicit video games to children. As she has been throughout her career, Mary was acutely focused on protecting children and empowering parents. I knew from working with Mary in the past that her involvement in this endeavor would not only ensure that it was done well but that working with her would be a real joy. Any one who has had the pleasure of working with her would agree that Mary is not only consistently creative but also proactive and determined to improve the lives of our Nation's young people. Mary has always been a pleasure to work with; her wonderful sense of humor and a reassuring smile encourages everyone in her presence. After she retires, those of us fortunate enough to have known and worked closely with Mary will dearly miss her keen understanding of policy, her gentle manner and, most importantly, her deep commitment to children. Millions more whose her work she has touched--though they may never know her name--will miss the rare combination of caring and talent that Mary brought to her hard work on their behalf. Long after her retirement, Mary will remain an inspiration for our efforts as we continue the fight for America's most vulnerable children.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize an outstanding leader in the field of long- term care and aging services. Dr. William T. Smith is the outgoing chair of the American Association of Homes and Services for the Aging, AAHSA, and I congratulate him on what has been accomplished during his 2-year term. AAHSA serves 2 million people every day through mission-driven, not- for-profit organizations dedicated to providing the services people need, when they need them, in the place they call home. AAHSA provides a continuum of aging services ranging from assisted living residences, continuing care retirement communities, and nursing homes to home and community based programs, and senior housing. AAHSA is committed to creating the future of aging services through high-quality people can trust. Under Dr. Smith's chairmanship, AAHSA has taken a leadership role in changing the culture of long-term care toward providing consumer oriented services in the most appropriate settings. An important element has been the Quality First Initiative, under which AAHSA members commit to continuous quality improvement in clinical care, leadership, governance, accountability, and several other elements of quality care. Dr. Smith has overseen the appointment of an independent National Commission on Quality Long-Term Care, which will evaluate the quality of long-term care, identify factors influencing the ability to improve quality of care nationally, and make recommendations about national efforts for sustainable quality improvement. Dr. Smith's term as chair has also seen the development of the Center for Aging Services Technology, a major new initiative bringing together researchers from universities, technology companies, facility administrators and government representatives. The center focuses on the application of technology to provide aging services more effectively and affordably and to enable older Americans to maintain maximum independence, regardless of the setting in which they live. In addition to serving as AAHSA's chair, Dr. Smith is the president and chief executive officer of Aging in America, Inc., in Bronx, NY. Aging in America is the parent corporation of Aging in America Community Services, AIA Supportive Services, Hertlin House, Morningside at Home, and Morningside House Nursing Home, whose roots date back to the 1850s. Together, these facilities provide nursing, social services, adult day services, rehabilitation, pharmaceuticals, recreation, and pastoral care annually to over 5,000 seniors and their families. All are nonprofit, nonsectarian agencies. Aging in America is another example of the way in which the field of long-term care and aging services must both diversify and integrate to provide a seamless continuum of options to tomorrow's seniors. Dr. Smith has been in the field of social work since 1971, with the last 27 years dedicated to the field of gerontology. He is a licensed nursing home administrator, a certified social worker, and a certified retirement housing professional. He clearly has been recognized both locally and nationally as an expert on gerontological issues. Within the next decade, the baby boom generation will move into retirement and approach the ages at which older adults generally come to need assistance with health care, housing, and supportive services. Many baby boomers already face these issues as their parents age. Dr. Smith's years of experience and his leadership in and vision for the field of aging services will continue to serve seniors and policymakers well as we prepare for the future of aging in America. Again, I congratulate him on his many accomplishments as outgoing chair of the AAHSA.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for floor privileges for a fellow in my office, Chelsea Maughan.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I find it almost hard to believe that we are on the floor of the Senate arguing over the necessity for an increase in the minimum wage. I am strongly supportive of Senator Kennedy's amendment, and proud to cosponsor it. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote in favor of it and to oppose the second-degree amendment. This amendment does not go as far as I or Senator Kennedy and others would have preferred. It raises the minimum wage to $6.25 an hour, far short of the $7.25 an hour that Senator Kennedy and I and 48 other Senators proposed in March. But we could never get a vote on that. This amendment, however, should have even greater support than the 50 cosponsors we had last March. It should pass unanimously out of this body. Fifty Senators just last March supported an increase to $7.25. And now we have to cut the increase with a hope that we can get, No. 1, the vote we are hoping to get on this appropriations bill, and, No. 2, an overwhelmingly bipartisan passage. Since March, we have seen even more evidence as to why this is critical. At a time when working families are struggling to make ends meet, it is critically important that we do something. Senator Kennedy has called this amendment a downpayment on what is truly needed. Today, the Federal minimum wage is $5.15 an hour, an amount that has not been increased since 1997. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of the cost of living. Over the past 3 months, according to the Federal Department of Labor, inflation has increased more rapidly than any time since early in 1990. We also know the poverty rate is going back up. The fact is, there has not been one net new private-sector job created in the last 4\1/2\ years. This chart, which should be a rebuke to all of us, shows that we now have increased the number of people living in poverty. In 2000, we had 31.6 million people, which was far too many. Now we are up 5.4 million. Why? Because the economy is not creating jobs, and many of the jobs that are in the economy are no longer paying wages that families can live on and can work their way out of poverty. We know everything else has gone up. Across America, people are spending 74 percent more on gas than they did at the beginning of 2001. Heating oil prices are expected to rise by more than 50 percent this winter. Such rapid price increases will force consumers, especially poor working people, to cut spending on clothing, health care, and food so they can get to work and keep warm this winter. These rising costs and falling wages are illustrated in this chart. Where heating oil is going up dramatically, the buying power of the minimum wage is going down. Of course, we are in the post-Katrina phase, which, lest we forget, demonstrated in stark terms how so many Americans live every day on the brink of economic disaster. Any setback becomes a major obstacle to being able to pay for gas, pay for food, pay for health care and prescription drugs, pay for tuition, pay for all of the necessities of life. It is hard to stand with this amendment before the Senate and not wonder, when will the majority stop giving privileges to the already privileged? At what point is it too much? Never has a political party given so much to so few who needed it so little. And it never ends. We are more than happy to continue to provide tax breaks for the wealthiest among us while we cut the social safety net, while we refuse to raise the minimum wage. Shame on us. At some point, there has to be a recognition that we are tilting the scales dramatically against average Americans. The middle-class wages are stagnant. Health care costs are going up. The number of the uninsured is going up because people who work hard for a living are no longer offered insurance or cannot afford to pay what it costs. Pensions and retirement security are at risk. There is something wrong with this picture. With all due respect to those who have a different economic philosophy, rich people did not make America great. I am all for rich people. Ever since my husband got out of office and got into the private sector, I think it is great. I never knew how much the President really liked us; he cannot give us enough tax cuts. I have nothing against rich people; that is part of the American dream. But with all due respect, it is not rich people who made America great. It is the vast American middle class. It is the upward mobility of people who thought they could do better than their parents. For more than 100 years, we have worked very hard to make sure the deck was not stacked against the average American. Teddy Roosevelt understood that if we did not have a fair playing field, if people were permitted to monopolize capital and abuse labor, a lot of people would get rich, but the vast majority of Americans would never get ahead. So he began to agitate for and accomplish making sure we had a fair economic system. As we moved through the 20th century, we saw adjustments made. Franklin Roosevelt understood that the hazards and vicissitudes of life strike any of us and that a fair and just society tries to provide a little help so that people overwhelmed by circumstances often beyond their control would be able to keep going, raise their children, and plan for the future. We put in a lot of Government programs to make sure we had a balance of power, a balance of power between capital and labor, between management and employees. And it worked very well. The history of the economic prosperity of the American middle class in the 20th century is the greatest example of what can happen in a democracy where people's energies are freed so they can compete for themselves but within a framework of rules. I am very proud of the progress we made in the 20th century, and I am particularly proud of the last 8 years of the 20th century where 22 million people were lifted out of poverty, where we raised the minimum wage, where we said to people: You have to work, but if you work, we will make sure you and your children have a fair chance. We have reversed that progress. It appears as though people are just sleepwalking through this Chamber and the Chamber on the other side of the Capitol. Don't we see what is happening before our very eyes? We are undermining the American dream. We are making it nearly impossible for people to believe that tomorrow will be better than today and yesterday. These numbers speak for themselves. Look at this. The minimum wage no longer even lifts a family out of poverty. You can go to work 40 hours a week, you can clean the rooms and the toilets in a motel, you can serve the food in a restaurant, you can work in a small factory, you can make that minimum wage, and you cannot even get your family out of poverty. What kind of message does that send? The whole idea of America is if you work hard and you play by the rules, you will be successful, you will have a chance to do better. Look at that chart. It speaks for itself. We have been on a steady slow decline. Even when we got a bipartisan agreement to raise it in 1997, we still did not get above the Federal poverty line. What message are we sending to millions of hard-working Americans? I represent a lot of them. I represent people who are working hard for a living. You see them on bicycles in Manhattan delivering food. You see them doing all the hard work, the janitorial services at night. In upstate New York, I see them as they get up every day and go to work and believe that they are doing what they should do. What message are we sending them? Too bad, keep working. Don't expect anything from us. We are too busy giving tax cuts to the wealthiest of Americans. That is a choice that will be made by this Senate. As far as I can tell, it will be a choice to vote against the minimum wage and to vote instead for the second-degree amendment which is designed not only to defeat Senator Kennedy's amendment but to do even more harm to the paychecks of working Americans. This is what I don't understand. The second-degree amendment denies more than 10 million workers the minimum wage, overtime, and equal pay rights by ending individual fair labor standards coverage and raising the threshold for which a business would be held accountable to 1 million from 500,000. In short, and let's make no mistake about this, the second-degree amendment would be the end of the 40-hour workweek. So we can go right back to the end of the 19th century because that is where we are heading. There are those, bless their hearts, who believe America was better off at the end of the 19th century, when you were told what to do, and you had to do it, and you did not have much of a choice about it. I don't agree with that. I am proud of the progress we made in the 20th century, but I am absolutely convinced some people are trying to head us right back there. If it is the end of the 40-hour workweek and the end of the American weekend because there are no rules on overtime, that means a pay cut of $3,000 a year for the median-income earner and an $800 pay cut for those earning minimum wage. Now employees are already free to offer more flexible schedules under current law, but today if they come in and they tell an employee, ``Guess what, I need you this weekend, you are going to have to work'', they have to offer overtime when the work is more than 40 hours a week. The second-degree amendment would undermine that basic protection. So instead of making it easier for families to spend time together, we basically are going to tell workers that they have to do whatever they are told at risk of losing their job without any overtime pay or any other compensation. The second-degree amendment also prohibits States from providing stronger wage protections than the Federal standard for employees such as waiters and waitresses who rely on tips. The amendment removes agency discretion and creates a safe haven for violators of a broad range of consumer, environmental, and labor protections by prohibiting Federal agencies from assessing civil fines for most first-time reporting violations and preempts States' abilities to enforce these laws. In my State, we happen to think that some of those rules need to be enforced. James Madison said in the Federalist: If men were angels, there would be no need for a government. But we aren't, and we never will be, not on this Earth. The job of government is to help level that playing field, help right that balance. Otherwise, people are powerless to defend themselves, especially when they have to get up every day and go to work to keep body and soul together and food on the table, particularly if they are single parents trying to make do on minimum wage. It is disheartening. We could have had an up-or-down vote on the minimum wage. If you want to vote against the minimum wage, vote against the minimum wage. But to introduce a second-degree amendment loaded with poison pills that are against workers, that are against fairness, that speaks louder than any words I could say in this Senate. There will be a day of reckoning. We cannot continue to tilt the scales against the vast majority of Americans and not be held accountable in the political process. The mask has been ripped off of compassionate conservatism, and people see it for what it is--partisan politics to favor the rich. If that is what we are going to be fighting against in this Senate, I guess bring it on, because on that fight the vast majority of Americans, regardless of what party they claim, are on the same side. They want to make sure the deck is not stacked against them, that they have a fair chance to compete, and that their labor gets a fair return. I hope our colleagues will rally in support of Senator Kennedy's amendment and vote against the second-degree amendment. We should pass an increase in the minimum wage, and it should not come at the cost of denying basic rights to millions of Americans and turning the clock back to the 19th century, which is what it would do. I yield the floor.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Go home with nothing or go home with a bad deal.

Mrs. CLINTON. Finally, Mr. President, this is all being done in the name of the deficit. I know, I read the papers. We have a lot of people who have discovered the deficit up here.

Mrs. CLINTON. And a deal that has never been inflicted on any other city, State, or region in our country.

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, there has been a lot of activity on the floor over the last 24 hours. It has been focused on how best to help the people along the gulf coast who have been devastated by twin natural disasters, Katrina and Rita. There has been an ongoing debate that took up the night here in trying to determine how best to provide the funding that the cities and parishes in Louisiana and in Mississippi and Alabama and Texas need in order to begin to deal with their pressing, urgent needs. I rise because I well remember the feelings that I had on this floor in the aftermath of the attacks we suffered on September 11, 2001. It was an uncertain and tragic time in our country. We were attacked and we lost nearly 3,000 people. Eighteen acres were destroyed in the heart of the financial capital of the world. Hundreds of thousands of people lost their jobs. Businesses were shuttered, and there was great doubt as to how we were going to obtain the resources to begin the recovery process. I am grateful that in New York's hour of need, we had strong support in this Chamber. I am looking at my dear friend, the senior Senator from West Virginia, who came to our aid immediately. In fact, he said he would be the third Senator from New York.

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I have the deepest sympathy for my colleagues from Louisiana. They are between a rock and a hard place.

Mrs. CLINTON. I have never forgotten that. I am so grateful because he helped to shepherd through the Congress the money that New York needed immediately to meet its needs. I am someone who believes that in a time of natural or manmade disaster, Americans rally around each other. We take care of each other. We provided funds from all over the country to help New York rebuild, just as we did after the Northridge earthquake in California, just as we did after hurricanes in Florida, just as we did after forest fires in the West, just as we did after the great floods in the Middle West. There has never been a disaster of the dimension of what we are facing along the gulf coast. I believe I have a small bit of understanding and empathy because of what we went through in New York for what my colleagues, Senator Vitter and Senator Landrieu, are facing. But what is becoming clear to me is that there is an effort underway to make the recovery along the gulf coast much more difficult than it needs to be. I have been stunned at some of the demands that I hear coming from some of those in the Congress about what is expected from the people along the gulf coast and what kinds of funds can be made available to them. Like many people, I have been touched, moved, and impressed by the passion and eloquence of my friend and colleague, the senior Senator from Louisiana, Ms. Landrieu. She has valiantly fought for the people who placed their trust in her to come to this Capitol and represent them in good times and bad. We are in a bad time. The people in Louisiana and along the gulf coast need champions. But no matter how eloquent a single Senator is or two Senators might be from a single State, they need support on both sides of the aisle and on both ends of the Capitol. We are about to be presented with legislation that for the life of me I cannot understand. This legislation in law discriminates against the gulf coast. It says, for the first time ever, we will put conditions on the Federal money that goes through FEMA to the people and businesses of the gulf coast.

Mrs. CLINTON. I came from a meeting where a number of business executives along the gulf coast are desperately trying to figure out what they are going to do. Entergy in New Orleans has just taken bankruptcy. They said if they have to put the costs they are accruing into the rate base--which they have to do under these circumstances-- rates are going to rise 200 percent. What are people with no jobs and no businesses--and we will not even give them an unemployment compensation extension, we will not pass the Medicaid emergency application process which we used in New York--going to do? We had a one-page Medicaid eligibility program that got people back into a position where they could get their health needs met. We are not doing any of that for people along the gulf.

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, together we can do better than this. A strong America begins at home.

Mrs. CLINTON. We will require that the money be repaid. As Senator Landrieu has said in this Chamber: It is a little bit of a catch-22, isn't it? You say to hard-pressed sheriffs offices in parishes, to municipal governments in towns and in New Orleans and along the gulf coast, you say to them: You must repay this money. So before you borrow it to keep your police and your fire departments up and going, before you borrow it to have your public utility departments begin to do the work they need to to get the reimbursement they require, you must have a plan in place to repay it.

Mrs. CLINTON. I am bewildered. I don't understand why we are turning the people of the gulf coast into second-class citizens. After 9/11, in addition to the normal disaster relief funds provided in the wake of that tragedy, the Federal Government designated $20 billion to assist the New York City area. This was the first time FEMA received authority of this type to reimburse the city and the State for associated costs that could not otherwise have received money under the Stafford Act. This was an unusual action taken at an unusual time. We had the strong support of then-chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Jeffords, because 9/11 happened in that window when the Democrats were in the majority in the Senate. Chairman Jeffords stood with us to make sure we got what we needed without discriminating against New York City, without telling New Yorkers: You are just going to have to figure out how you are going to repay it, when you are not even sure there is another attack coming or what is going to be occurring in the future. Mr. President, we are again facing an unusual time. Hurricane Katrina, and then, of course, Hurricane Rita, devastated New Orleans and the surrounding areas. The people of this region deserve our full support. Instead of providing that support and helping these communities meet their needs, the proposal before us actually restricts their access to funds by preventing them from using principal forgiveness authorities that are part of current law. I know this has been presented apparently by the leadership in the House as a take-it-or-leave-it deal. I know what a difficult position that puts our two Senators from Louisiana in because they are basically being told you can leave here with $750 million with discriminatory conditions on it that make your people second-class citizens compared to everybody else, or you can leave with nothing. Well, that is a Hobson's choice if there ever was one.

Mrs. CLINTON. There are a lot of other alternatives than imposing discriminatory conditions on the American people--the American people along the gulf coast.

Mrs. CLINTON. And we should owe our highest allegiance to the people who are in this country. And before we extend 100 billion more dollars in tax cuts, and before we continue to run up this deficit by funding the war and all of the other associated expenses, let's get some responsibility back here and let's treat the people of the gulf coast with the respect and dignity they deserve. I yield the floor.

Mrs. CLINTON. Bring nothing home or bring something that is not going to help your hospitals, is not available to many communities because they are not going to be able to borrow it in the first place because they cannot repay it.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise today to applaud my Senate colleagues for unanimously passing legislation to protect American women from domestic violence. The Violence Against Women Act expired this past Saturday, October 1. I cosponsored the renewal of this vital legislation because it strengthens Federal and State efforts to prevent domestic violence and assist victims of domestic violence. It focuses resources and attention on some of the most vulnerable women in our society--women who too often suffer in silence. I am so pleased that by passing this bill the Senate has reaffirmed its commitment to helping women, men, and children prevent and cope with domestic abuse. The Violence Against Women Act responds to an ongoing crisis within many American families. Too many of our grandmothers, mothers, and daughters, and too many of our grandfathers, fathers, and sons are abused at home by a partner or family member. Every day in America some women and men, some elderly, are beaten, have objects thrown at them, suffer emotional and verbal abuse. Teenagers suffer abusive dating relationships. Many victims of domestic violence feel trapped and need support and assistance to leave their abusers and start violence-free lives. The image of a severely battered woman spurs many of us to stop domestic violence, but what is also disturbing is the prevalence of domestic violence. Domestic abuse is the common cold of violence. According to the Journal of the American Medical Women's Association, nearly one in every three women will experience a physical assault by a romantic partner. And of this group, one in three will experience a severe physical assault. Every day more than three women in this country are murdered by their husbands and boyfriends. Children also suffer. Half of women who report rape are under the age of 18. Shockingly, 22 percent are under the age of 12. And I know that violence against the elderly is a serious and growing problem. For the past decade, the Violence Against Women Act has provided crucial aid to women, men, and children experiencing violence. Between 1994 and 2000, Congress distributed over $3.8 billion to States and local communities to train and support police, lawyers, judges, nurses, shelter directors and advocates to end domestic violence and sexual assault. Our efforts contributed to almost a 50 percent drop in domestic violence. The Violence Against Women Act of 2005 renews several successful programs and provides funding for training, education and outreach to protect women. It encourages collaboration among law enforcement, the courts, and public and private services providers to victims of domestic and sexual violence. It stiffens criminal penalties for repeat Federal domestic violence offenders, and updates the criminal law on stalking to incorporate new surveillance technology like global positioning systems. It incorporates prevention strategies targeted at men and boys. And it strengthens rape crisis centers and the health care system's response to family violence. The bill also addresses the special needs of victims who are elderly, disabled, children, immigrants, residents of rural communities, and members of ethnic and racial communities. It provides emergency leave and long-term transitional housing for victims. The Violence Against Women Act of 2005 will save lives. It also will save money. A 2002 university study found that money spent to reduce domestic violence saved nearly ten times the potential costs incurred between 1995 and 2000 for medical, legal, and other victimization costs. On an individual level, the bill costs roughly $15.50 per woman in the United States and saves an estimated $159 per woman. Despite the funding provided by the Violence Against Women Act, I believe that reducing the scale and alleviating the human toll of domestic violence requires stronger Federal support. In my own State of New York, in Albany, an award-winning organization dedicated to providing legal assistance to victims of domestic violence and sexual assault faces the possibility of shutting down. Just this past September, the Department of Justice informed the group, The Capital District Women's Bar Association Legal Project, that its application for continued funding had been denied. The Department of Justice has supported the CDWBA Legal Project's efforts on behalf of battered women for nearly a decade. With this financial assistance, the group has provided critical services for more than 4,000 poor, battered women and their children since 1996. The program has been so successful that the United States Office of Justice Programs identified it in 2003 as a ``best practices program'' as a model for communities striving to better serve and protect victims of domestic violence and sexual assault. Yet this program and, Director Lisa Frisch told me, other programs like it, are losing their funding and ability to prevent abuse and assist victims. We critically need to provide this funding--to stop domestic violence, and aid its victims. Domestic abuse is an ongoing crisis for many American families. It is the common cold of violence for Americans today. But working together, as Federal, State, and local officials, as governmental and nongovernmental organizations, as individuals, we can reduce the severity and the prevalence of domestic violence. We can protect the most vulnerable members of our society women, the elderly, children. I applaud Senators Biden, Hatch, and Specter who introduced the Violence Against Women Act of 2005 in June, and the nearly 60 Senators who cosponsored the legislation, Members on both sides of the aisle. Their hard work helps to strengthen American families.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, in accordance with rule V of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby give notice in writing that it is my intention to move to suspend paragraph 4 of rule XVI for the purpose of proposing to the bill, H.R. 2863, a bill making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes: amendment No. 2040. (The amendment is printed in the Record of Tuesday, October 4, 2005 under ``Text of Amendments.'')

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I am proud to pay tribute to Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, Incorporated, America's first Greek-letter organization established by black college women. On Thursday, September 22, 2005, I had the pleasure of spending time with nearly one hundred members of this remarkable organization, including Representative Sheila Jackson Lee and AKA's International President, Linda White. I have long been aware of the rich history and tremendous contributions made to our Nation by Alpha Kappa Alpha and the other eight Black Greek Letter Organizations and I was particularly delighted to participate in AKA's event entitled ``The Spirit, Let's Share it and Connect,'' which focused on the many ways in which AKA contributes to our communities. In 1908, Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority was founded at Howard University in Washington, DC, by Ethel Hedgeman Lyle, who envisioned AKA as a source of social and intellectual enrichment for its members. Over the past century, AKA has evolved into a nationwide organization of college-trained women working to improve the socioeconomic conditions in their cities, States and countries throughout the world. Alpha Kappa Alpha's achievements are the result of volunteer service that captures the organization's core values. Each year, a National Program theme is constructed around one of AKA's five ``targets'': Education, the Black Family, Health, Economics and the Arts. This year's target is Education, with the Signature Program of the administration being ``The Ivy Reading AKAdemy,'' a reading initiative focused on early learning and mastery of basic reading skills by the end of third grade. All AKA chapters are required to implement an after school reading initiative for students in kindergarten through third grade. Across the United States there are nine such federally funded demonstration sites in low-performing, economically deprived, innercity schools. AKA has made several significant contributions to the black community and to American society over all over the past century. These efforts have included a wide range of issues, including among them election reform and health care and education initiatives. For example, in 1983 AKA launched a massive registration drive designed to increase black voter registration by 25 percent by the November 1984 elections. In 1999, AKA was awarded a $50,000 grant from the United States Department of Transportation to promote increased seatbelt use and vehicle passenger safety in the minority community. That same year, AKA established a funded partnership with the United States Department of Health and Human Services to promote women's health. Just 4 years ago, AKA raised over $25,000 for sickle cell anemia. In 2002, AKA built and dedicated nine AKAdemies in South Africa and contributed $25,000 to the National Council of Negro Women's Mortgage Liquidation Fund. In addition to advancing these services, AKA maintains a focus on improving the quality of life for its members. AKA cultivates and encourages high scholastic and ethical standards; promotes unity and friendship among college women; alleviates problems facing girls and women; maintains a progressive interest in college life and serves over 170,000 women in the United States, the Caribbean, Europe, and Africa. Its distinguished alumni include national civic leaders such as astronaut Mae Jamison, author Toni Morrison, poet Maya Angelou, Coretta Scott King, Rosa Parks, and the late Judge Constance Baker Motley. I was deeply saddened to learn of the death of Judge Constance Baker Motley earlier this week. A champion of civil rights and a giant of the legal profession, she will be remembered for her lasting contributions to American jurisprudence and to our larger society. I am certain that the women of AKA join me in mourning her passing, grateful and heartened by the fact that the civil rights movement existed in large part because of the efforts of their friend in sisterhood. I am privileged and proud to have a special bond with the remarkable women of Alpha Kappa Alpha, Incorporated and am honored to share with my colleagues the many reasons we should all admire and thank the members of this organization for their long-lasting and unwavering commitment to improving the lives of so many.