Hillary Clinton

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. The bottom line is that this process, which holds such promise to make sure we have the right mix of services for our veterans, is seriously flawed. On Sunday, I was with a group of veterans served by the Manhattan VA. Their concerns range from the blinded veteran who suffered a service- connected loss of hearing and sight in the Vietnam war, who cannot possibly get to any other VA because of transportation problems, to the closure of important research that is being done on that campus in conjunction with the New York University Medical School, to the very serious problems raised by veterans who are getting superb mental health services and cannot get them anywhere else if these facilities are closed or the services reduced. I wish the VA would hear us on this. I know they are opposed to it. I know they are concerned about it. But the exclusion of factors affecting mental health and long-term care is absolutely unacceptable. In fact, the VA has told us that next year in the strategic plan, they will get to those important services. How can we be closing facilities and not having taken into account those services? I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a letter of support from the Vietnam Veterans of America and the American Federation of Government Employees.

Mrs. CLINTON. Madam President, my cosponsor and I, Senator Enzi of Wyoming, are offering this amendment today, which is a bipartisan amendment. The sponsors include Senators Murray, Grassley, Cantwell, Smith, Wyden, Schumer, Harkin, Stabenow, Kerry, Dodd, Lieberman, and Levin. Our amendment would prevent any spending directed toward closing or reducing services under the so-called CARES plan until this plan considers long-term care, domiciliary care, and mental health care, as well as rural health care issues. It would also offer veterans, many of whom have not been able to offer their views, a meaningful opportunity to participate in the CARES process. This amendment is supported by the American Legion, the Eastern Paralyzed Veterans, the Vietnam Veterans of America, and the American Federation of Government Employees. I want to be absolutely clear, this amendment does not affect, in any way, the CARES Commission or the VA moving forward on enhancing or increasing services for our veterans. It contains explicit language that allows enhancements under CARES to go forward. I know the Secretary of the Veterans' Administration, a very distinguished gentleman, certainly has made the case strongly to veterans service organizations and to my colleagues that this amendment would stop enhancements. It absolutely does not. The clear language makes it absolutely positive that we are not stopping enhancements. But what we are doing is saying: Wait a minute. The process that has ended up with recommending the closure of many of our VA hospitals, three of them in the State of New York alone, and the fact that in testifying, as my colleague Senator Schumer and I did before the CARES commission in Canandaigua, one of the hospitals that is on the target list to be closed, the commissioners had to admit they did not take into account mental health services, domiciliary services, and long-term services. I am hoping this amendment will help us get a handle on some of these decisions that appear to be ill-advised and not part of a larger plan aimed at helping our veterans and that, in fact, the Department would go back to the drawing board to develop a plan through a fair process that would explicitly take into account mental health, domiciliary, and long-term care. There is much to be said about this important amendment. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a letter of support from the American Legion.

Mrs. CLINTON. In summary, I am offering this amendment because I believe that the Draft National CARES Plan and the process used to develop it are deeply flawed. The Plan has not adequately taken into account the impact of these proposals on long term care, domiciliary care and mental health services. The Development of Veterans Affairs needs to go back to the drawing board and develop its plan through a fair process that takes into account all relevant factors and allows veterans to fully participate in the plan's development. At this time in our nation's history, with U.S. troops bravely serving in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere, it sends exactly the wrong message to propose such drastic changes in veterans' health care without proper throught and deliberation. Our troops are fighting overseas to defend our values and way of life. We owe it to our current and future veterans to make sure that we provide the best health care possible for them and not rush to implement recommendations that provide our veterans with less adequate health care. As a starting point, our bottom-line goal should be the delivery of high quality health care services to our veterans, delivered as efficiently as possible. Unfortunately, the hasty procedures that the Department of Veterans Affairs followed to develop these recommendations are fundamentally flawed. Veterans' health care is too important an issue to require an adherence to artificial deadlines and hasty recommendations. With literally the lives of veterans at stake, the Commission should not engage in a rush to judgment over closing VA facilities. failure to consider long term, domiciliary and mental health needs As a result of the flawed CARES process, several important factors that are critical to veterans' health care have been neglected. In this rushed process, the impact of the proposed changes to long-term care, domiciliary care and mental health needs were not considered. The exclusion of these important factors taints the recommendations of the draft national plan. For example, the Draft National CARES Plan states that its mental health outpatient psychiatric provisions are ``undergoing revision'' and ``should be available for next year's strategic planning cycle.'' As you can see from this panel, we found a speech on the VA web site in which then-Deputy Secretary Mackay admitted in April that ``As you are also aware, there have been aspects of care that have been left out of his CARES plan. Long-term care, domiciliary care, and outpatient mental health care were all determined to need more work before reliable forecasts could be made.'' Incredibly, despite this admission, the Draft National CARES Plan proposes reductions in beds in facilities that provide mental health services. Similarly, there is widely expected to be an increase in the demand for long term beds for veterans over the next 20 years. However, the Draft National Plan does not contain any analysis of how many long- term beds are needed in the coming decades and yet still recommends closing facilities with long-term beds. During a meeting between members of the New York delegation and VA Secretary Anthony Principi a few weeks ago, Secretary Principi acknowledged that a plan for long-term psychiatric needs has not yet been developed. With all due respect to Secretary Principi and the Commission, it seems to me that developing a Draft National Plan before developing a plan for mental health needs is getting it exactly backwards. A plan for addressing mental health care should have been developed before the Draft National Plan was released, not after. The Draft National Plan's failure to consider long-term mental health care has disastrous implications for veterans around the country, including thousands in New York. One of the facilities targeted by the CARES plan is the VA hospital in Canandaigua. I have visited the VA Hospital at Canandaigua and was greatly impressed by the quality of care provided at the facility as well as the overwhelming support that the VA hospital has in the community. And indeed, it is a cruel irony that Canandaigua has been recommended for closure in the same year that it received the highest facility rating in patient satisfaction in the country. The omission of mental health care needs from the Draft National Plan is particularly striking because of the effect that the closure of the Canandaigua VA will have on the veterans with mental health care needs who are currently receiving care at the facility. Veterans at Canandaigua receive a specialized level of treatment for mental health illness that is not readily available at other facilities. Further, if the Canandaigua VA were to close, many veterans would be forced to drive long distances for care. As my colleague Senator Enzi has pointed out, the CARES national plan has not adequately taken into account the impact of the recommendations on rural health care. The Draft National CARES Plan for VISN 3 recommends eliminating all inpatient services at Montrose VA hospital and transferring most of these services to the Castle Point VA hospital. A decision to follow through on this recommendation would be a serious blow to veterans who currently rely on the Montrose VA hospital for their care. As I mentioned previously, the need for long term beds has not been properly assessed and current projections forecast that there will be a significant increase in the need for psychiatry beds through 2012. In order to ensure adequate capacity to handle the projected case load, local veterans organizations support retaining all services at Montrose and Castle Point. Moving inpatient services from Montrose to Castle Point will require, by VA's own admission between $85 and $100 million and take at least 5 and maybe as many as 10 years to accomplish. However, the Draft National CARES plan provides no explanation for what will happen to services at Montrose in the meantime. Further, there is no analysis of how veterans will get services if future budgets do not include enough funds for the transition. The often substantial waiting periods that veterans living in this region already experience at the Montrose and Castle Point Campuses and their satellite facilities underline the strain the system is experiencing. The Draft National CARES Plan will also have a significant impact on the Castle Point VA. Wait times at Castle Point are already too long. With the closure of Montrose and the shifting of veterans to Castle Point, the wait times are likely to get even worse. In addition, many area veterans have questioned the adequacy of space available for expansion at Castle Point. The CARES Draft National Plan recommends developing ``a plan to consider the feasibility of consolidating inpatient care [from Manhattan] at Brooklyn.'' Yet, once again there is no requirement that the development of this ``plan'' solicit the input of veterans. Further, the proposal does not properly take into account how the consolidation of inpatient care in Brooklyn will impact the relationship between the New York University School of Medicine (NYU) and the Manhattan VA. The NYU-Manhattan VA relationship, and the high quality of care for veterans it produces, would be imperiled by the potential closure of the Manhattan VA. Finally, the practical matter of transportation deserves an important role in your deliberations. The high quality tertiary services at the Manhattan VA attract veterans from New York, and other states including New Jersey and Pennsylvania. One of the reasons the Manhattan VA is able to serve these veterans is its amazing accessibility, located, as it is, in the heart of Manhattan, at the center of a mass transit system that is unmatched anywhere else in the Nation. Since the release of the CARES Draft National Plan, a frequent complaint that I have heard from area veterans has been that the VA has not been listening to their concerns. Veterans who contributed to the VISN 2 market plan, which called for no closures in VISN 2, feel betrayed by the decision to overrule the market plan and call for this facility's closure. Further, the VA did not hold hearings near many facilities on the closure list around the nation. Our amendment would require new hearings within 30 miles of a facility where a reduction in services is proposed and require that veterans be allowed to testify. In meeting with the veterans of New York, I have learned a tremendous amount about the value of the New York VA facilities and the quality of health care that is delivered there. And as letters to my office from veterans who use the facility demonstrate, the veterans' community in New York is united behind keeping these facilities open. One veteran who wrote to me explained that he suffered a massive blow to the head while serving in the Marines and suffers from Organic Brain Syndrome and Organic Affective Disorder. He currently uses the Canandaigua VA's day treatment program. He wrote to me that ``I have a lot of difficulty with my short term memory and the thought of losing one of the places that I am most familiar with bother me. . . . [I]t has taken a long time but I have finally reached a little bit of independence. By losing this hospital, I will be losing that independence. Also, the place that I live is very rural and there are no other facilities in my area. The idea of sitting around the house day after day depresses me.'' Another veteran from Rockland County wrote to me about the potential closure in Montrose stating that ``I was wounded in 1944 during World War II by shrapnel in the mouth causing the loss of several teeth. In early 1945, I was captured by German soldiers and held as a POW until the end of World War II. . . if [Montrose] were to close, I would have to travel an additional 45 minutes to one hour depending on weather for treatment at Castle Point VA Hospital. I am 84 years old and transportation is getting more difficult for me. As you know there is no public transportation to this facility.'' Our Nation's veterans have served their country with distinction. Our nation made a pact with those who serve their country in the Armed Forces--a commitment that those who served would have access to quality health care through the VA hospital system. Yet this ill-considered and rushed Draft National CARES Plan threatens to undermine our commitment to our nation's veterans. That is we are this offering legislation in the Senate to halt any spending towards closure or reduction in services until long-term, domiciliary, mental health care and rural care are adequately considered and veterans are allowed to fully participate in the CARES process. If this amendment passes, the Department of Veterans Affairs and the CARES Commission can begin anew by taking into account the proper factors and input from veterans. I urge my colleagues to support the Clinton-Enzi amendment. I also ask unanimous consent to print the letter from the Eastern Paralyzed Veterans Association.

Mrs. CLINTON. I see my colleague and partner Senator Schumer. I yield to him such time as he needs.

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I appreciate greatly the understanding of my friend and colleague. I am somewhat concerned, however. We have many charts, but I will not go into them, under the circumstances. They are very clear that there has not been adequate conversation on mental health and the other needs. I respect what the Senator from Missouri said. If you look overall, there may not be a loss of services defined in a certain way, but that is not necessarily tied to where the veterans need the services, or where the high-quality services have historically been given. I also add that Senator Enzi, my esteemed cosponsor, is at this moment chairing a hearing. We were, obviously, unprepared to get this up and get it out. But he told us to go ahead. I would like the opportunity to discuss this with my cosponsor. I don't want to make a decision without his awareness of what the Senator's idea is.

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I suggest that we at least have an opportunity to discuss this with not only the prime cosponsor, but all the other cosponsors because many of us feel very strongly about the way this CARES process proceeds. Could the managers of the bill tell us what the plan is, and whether we are going to have votes on this bill when we finish the 30 hours? Where do we stand in the process? That would give me a better idea as to how to respond to the offer of the Senator from Maryland.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. One way that we might consider to help States provide the full range of adoption services is to tap into the pot of unspent funds in the Adoption Incentives Program. Last year $45 million was appropriated for the purpose of awarding bonuses, but only $18 million was actually awarded. I believe these funds have been retained by HHS for the purpose of awarding future bonuses, but with the great need for child welfare funds, I believe these funds would be better spent this year on post-adoption services or in bonuses for States that have increased the percentage of children adopted out of foster care.

Mrs. CLINTON. I thank Senator Grassley for his leadership and his commitment to America's most vulnerable children. I look forward to working with him in the future.

Mrs. CLINTON. I absolutely agree. And I would build on your remarks by adding that if States are not making the safety and well-being of the child paramount they are endangering their Title-IV-E funds, which is a much larger pot of money than the small amount they receive as a bonus under the Adoption Incentives Program. However, I would also add that it becomes increasingly difficult to guarantee the safety of each child under the care of the State when caseworkers are responsible for excessive caseloads and do not have the training to effectively serve the children in the child welfare system. I would also add that I believe the next important step we need to take to make all adoptions out of foster care successful is to dedicate more resources to post-adoption services, including respite care, mental healthcare, and educational services.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Before I yield, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to legislative session, the Finance Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 1853, a bill to extend unemployment insurance benefits for dislocated, displaced workers; that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration, the bill be read the third time and passed, and motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment that would provide education awards to all volunteers who are part of the VISTA-- Volunteers in Service to America--program, which is administered by the Corporation for National and Community Service. Before I begin, I want to thank Senator Bond and Senator Mikulski for all the hard work they have done to support national and community service. They have been real champions of this program. I would also like to thank Senators Snowe, Kennedy, Chafee, Harkin, Reed, Murray, and Dodd for co-sponsoring this amendment. This amendment that I rise to offer today is not a partisan amendment--I know that I have support on both sides of the aisle because the VISTA program has such deep, strong roots among many political leaders on both sides of the aisle. The VISTA program was first envisioned by President Kennedy soon after the Peace Corps was created. And in 1965, as part of President Johnson's War on Poverty, President Kennedy's dream was realized. VISTA, like Head Start and so many other lasting anti-poverty programs, was created to serve the needs of the poorest Americans. On December 12, 1964, just four months after the legislation was enacted, President and Lady Bird Johnson welcomed the first group of twenty VISTA volunteers with these remarks: Your pay will be low; the conditions of your labor often will be difficult. But you will have the satisfaction of leading a great national effort and you will have the ultimate reward which comes to those who serve their fellow man. When my husband championed the effort to dramatically expand national service and create AmeriCorps, he wanted to preserve this important part of President Kennedy and President Johnson's legacy. The VISTA program was authorized within the National and Community Service Trust Act and today it is administered by the Corporation for National and Community Service. A staple of the program since its inclusion within the National and Community Service Trust Act is that every member who signs up shall receive a choice--a scholarship toward their education or a cash stipend. In recent years, more than two-thirds of the individuals participating in the VISTA program have opted for the education scholarship instead of the cash stipend. In November of 2002, the Corporation for National and Community Service began denying new volunteers the option of receiving education awards. They were provided cash stipends, regardless of their preference. I began hearing from New Yorkers who were frustrated by the decision. They felt like they had been duped--given a bait and switch. Their morale dropped dramatically and some have resigned as a result. Many saw a fundamental problem of equity. Members were passed over for education and awards while those who enrolled just two months later received them. I'm sure we all agree that this is unfair. New Yorkers described to me the difference that VISTA has made in their life and in the lives of people they serve and expressed their frustration about what has happened to the program. Two New York VISTA members serving in West Seneca, New York developed a pilot program for ex-offenders, and I want to tell you a little bit about the first graduate: ``he got his driver's license and was getting things in order for this first apartment ever--he had been incarcerated for 28 years, since his youth. The joy on the guy's face was unbelievable and I was proud to know that two VISTA members had made it possible,'' said one of them. Across the country, at least 1,766 volunteers who were affected by this decision, according to the Corporation for National and Community Service. The organization established to support the VISTA program-- called Friends of Vista--estimates the impact at 3,200. I do not want to haggle over the numbers or argue about who's to blame. I simply want the problem addressed. This amendment is straightforward and simple. It says that VISTA volunteers shall be provided the option of receiving an education award or a cash stipend, consistent with the law and current practice. It does not have a cost associated with it, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and rectify this injustice.

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, today I rise in support of Senator Sarbane's resolution, which expressed the sense of the Senate that Section 8 housing vouchers are a critical resource and that the Department of Housing and Urban Development should ensure that all vouchers can be used by low-income families. I have joined many of my colleagues as an original cosponsor of this amendment and would like to thank both Senator Bond and Senator Mikulski for including it in the pending VA/HUD Appropriations bill. I would like to commend the Senators for their commitment to balancing the competing housing priorities we face given the constraints they were working under. The Senate provisions are a big improvement over the House bill and would greatly reduce the chances of cuts to this program. Earlier this year, I joined my colleagues in sending a letter to Secretary Martinez expressing our reservations and concerns about the President's proposal to block grant this critical program. Experience with block grants tells us that this plan could have actually undermined the program and reduced the number of families being served, so I was pleased that both the House and the Senate Committee rejected it. The fact is the gap between wages and housing costs is growing and is pushing affordable housing beyond the reach of an increasing number of working families. On average, a family in this country must earn $15.21 an hour to afford a modest two-bedroom apartment, which is almost three times the minimum wage. In my home State of New York, a minimum wage worker would have to work 147 hours a week to afford a two-bedroom apartment at fair market rent. Section 8 vouchers make housing affordable and are making a real difference in the lives of approximately 2 million elderly and disabled individuals as well as families with children across the Nation. We should expand the program so that more families can receive assistance they so desperately need, but if we cannot expand it we should preserve it to ensure that families receiving vouchers can continue to depend on the support they have been promised. New York's housing crisis is particularly alarming. In my State more than 500,000 renter households, roughly one-fourth of all renters, continue to pay more than half of their income in rent. These rents impose enormous pressures on them and add on to the financial burdens they already face. Many severely disadvantaged households find themselves unable to pay rent and meet their other basic needs. Some are forced to live on the street or in shelters. More than 38,000 homeless people sleep in New York City's shelter system each night, almost double the number of just 5 years ago and the largest annual increase since the Great Depression. The largest and fastest-growing segment of this homeless population is families with children. Section 8 housing vouchers provide a lifeline that helps these individuals make ends meet. We must help America afford safe and decent housing so that parents are not forced to choose between finding the money to pay for rent and putting food on the table. The Housing Choice Voucher program is more than just a housing program. We know that affordable housing helps families increase their employability, earnings, educational outcomes, and children's well being. In New York, Section 8 housing vouchers are assisting approximately 200,000 seniors, people with disabilities, and families with children. Under the House VA-HUD appropriations bill, New York could lose 6,020 vouchers, of which approximately 1,840 would go to working families, 1,020 to elderly households, 1,320 to disabled households, and 1,840 to other households. If the final VA-HUD conference report retains the Senate provisions referenced in the Sense of the Senate--directing HUD to fund these vouchers--then none of these vouchers would be lost and all of these families would be helped. As this bill moves forward during conference, I urge my colleagues to support this language. It sends a message to HUD that America is depending on housing vouchers to ensure that all of our families can afford a safe, decent and adequate place to live. Amendment No. 2184

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I am pleased to offer an amendment to the Agriculture appropriations bill that will mean healthier food for school kids in New York and across the country. The amendment prohibits the use of funds from this bill for the purchase of chickens or products of chickens, unless the supplier provides certification that the supplier does not feed or administer fluoroquinolone to chickens produced by that supplier. This is a modest step forward in dealing with the growing problem of antibiotic resistance. The antibiotics we are dealing with in this amendment are called fluoroquinolones. Fluoroquinolones, a class of antibiotics that include Cipro, are the first choice in treating severe food poisoning and other diseases in humans. The Food and Drug Administration has determined that the use of fluoroquinolones in poultry contributes to increasing numbers of people becoming infected with antibiotic resistant Campylobacter, which causes severe abdominal pains, fever, and diarrhea. In essence, by using fluoroquinolones in our food, we are ensuring that more and more people will become resistant to certain infections, meaning more and more sick people. Corporate America is already responding to this pressing issue. The fast food chains McDonald's, Wendy's, and others have pledged not to use chicken that has been treated with fluoroquinolones in an effort to protect their customers. But the USDA continues to purchase chicken for the National School Lunch Program that has been treated with fluoroquinolones despite warnings about health risks and the availability of chickens that have not been treated with fluoroquinolones, and so do the schools that receive USDA money through the lunch program. The New York City Board of Education, for example, does not have a policy in place to ensure that chickens that New York City school kids eat have not been fed fluoroquinolones. And there are approximately 820,000 New York City school students and 1.4 million students across New York State that are in the School Lunch Program. Tyson, Gold Kist, and Purdue are all leading chicken producers that have committed to stop using fluoroquinolones in their chickens. The USDA and schools across the country could purchase chicken from these producers and others that do not use fluoroquinolones, without experiencing a negative economic impact. So this amendment says that no School Lunch Program funds can be used by the USDA or the schools to purchase chickens from suppliers that have not provided certification to the Secretary that they do not feed or administer fluoroquinolone to the chickens they produce. It is so important that we take this step. Children are at a greater risk to suffer from food borne illness and infections from antibiotic- resistant bacteria. Data from the Centers for Disease Control show that between 1990 and 1999 the number of food-borne illness outbreaks in schools rose 10 percent per year. Over this time period, 16,000 children have gotten sick from school outbreaks. All this amendment says is that children eating chicken provided by the School Lunch Program should be protected as much as customers at McDonald's and Wendy's. I am pleased that the Senate is taking a first step today to protect our school children from possible resistant infections by approving this amendment. I thank Senators Bennett and Kohl for their support, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that this provision is retained in conference.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. I strongly support the Senator's effort in this regard. As States and localities in rural parts of New York, Montana and across the country struggle to find sufficient funds to upgrade public safety radio and data systems, there are new opportunities to combine public safety needs with commercial efforts to deploy new wireless and broadband networks. These dual use networks also have the advantage of generating revenues which can be used to pay back loans under this section while bringing advanced voice and data capabilities to rural areas. As my colleague from Montana and I both know through our efforts with the Congressional E-911 Caucus, these funds would represent just a first step in the direction of ensuring deployment of a ubiquitous 911 system across our country.

Mrs. CLINTON. On September 14, I was pleased to have the opportunity to host our second annual Farm Day, an event that I derive great pleasure from. While showcasing agriculture, our State's No. 1 industry, my excitement was put in check by some visitors that stopped by my office before the festivities. Cherry growers from Wayne County had made the long trek down to Washington, not to partake in the fun of Farm Day, but to remind me, and the rest of our country, of the perils of their profession.

Mrs. CLINTON. I am pleased to join the Senator from Montana in this initiative. Last week the Federal Communications Commission held a two day meeting on their E-911 Initiative. One issue that requires both attention and resources is access to modern emergency communications in rural areas. I was pleased that Ed Cameron represented the Rural Utilities Service at that meeting and reminded the participants of the long partnership the agency has had with rural telephone consumers and carriers and the commitment Administrator Hilda Gay Legg has to improving safety in rural areas.

Mrs. CLINTON. It is our intent that this funding flexibility not come at the expense of other worthy RUS loan or grant programs.

Mrs. CLINTON. That is correct. We depend on farmers for the food on our tables but rarely do we contemplate the vital part farmers and growers play in our local and State economies. On April 3, 2003, Mother Nature dealt our New York cherry growers an unbearable hardship. Seventy-five percent of our cherry orchards and 20 percent of our peach orchards were destroyed by an atypically severe ice storm. Today, I strongly believe that we as a country have an obligation to specialty crop producers. New York State growers have historically been self-sufficient, asking for little and receiving next to nothing in comparison to large staple crop producers. Ineligible for the crop insurance that many other farmers benefit from, fruit growers' need for direct assistance from the Federal Government is all the more imperative during times of natural disaster.

Mrs. CLINTON. As I explained in my letter to the Committee dated April 16, 2003, without our help in funding the Tree Assistance Program (TAP), most, if not all cherry growers will not be able to afford the costs of replanting on top of the estimated 20 percent annual income loss they will incur over the next 7 to 10 years while new cherry trees mature to regular production capacity. Wayne County farmers cannot bear this and neither can the economy of New York, a State that ranks second only to Michigan in tart cherry production. I respectfully ask that you recede to the House on this measure in conference.

Mrs. CLINTON. I would like to ask today that Senator Kohl and other members of the Appropriations Committee give consideration to a matter of great importance to me. Few would disagree that we are living in an increasingly complex world. It is a world dominated by technological innovation but still ruled by the most basic of needs. Two years ago, New York was chosen for a special pilot program related to the Food Stamp Program. Since the food stamp program changed to the debit card system, farmers' markets across the country have been left out of the food stamp program. Lacking electricity or the necessary phone lines to hard wire the terminals needed to process the new food stamp cards, farmers' markets have been forced to refuse business, while food stamp recipients have been denied the opportunity to patronize local fresh markets.

Mrs. CLINTON. USDA grants have paid for the purchase of over 50 electronic benefit transfer machines. Now it is up to us to make sure this investment proves to be a worthwhile one. Though there are already positive reports about the use of this new technology in New York farmers' markets, we have an obligation to insure that in the upcoming fiscal year the necessary funds are made available to facilitate the integration of this new equipment, in such a way that we may have an accurate picture of the viability of EBT nationwide. To do anything less is illogical and unfair to the many communities that have openly embraced this pilot program. I therefore request that you support the House language continuing the electronic benefit transfer grant program in conference.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I support the effort spearheaded by my colleagues, Senator Burns and Senator Dorgan, and have serious objections to the Bush administration's proposal to gut the only national program we've ever enacted to get broadband high speed Internet connectivity deployed across our country. It was just last year that Congress passed, as part of the farm bill, the only national broadband deployment incentive I am aware of that has been enacted by the Federal Government--a program that was supposed to provide over $700 million in loans a year to help get broadband to all parts of the country--$700 million in loans a year to help create and bring jobs to rural parts of the country--$700 million a year to help improve health care and education delivery to places like Upstate New York, rural Montana, North Dakota, Alaska, Iowa, and all across the country--$700 million a year to help improve emergency communications systems so that our first responders can actually receive those calls for help. From a fiscal perspective, you couldn't ask for a better deal. It takes just $20 million in Federal resources to leverage over $700 million in loans--$700 million in loans plus at least another 20 percent in investment from the private sector. Has the program been popular? You better believe it has. In just 9 months since the Rural Utilities Service published regulations for the broadband loan program, the RUS has received applications that total over $1 billion. Our rural communities across the country recognize the promise of new telecommunications technologies. Our rural communities and the coalition of Members from Congress that helped create the RUS broadband loan program in last year's farm bill aren't the only ones who recognize the promise of broadband. Look what other countries are doing. A recent study by the International Telecommunications Union, the UN's telecommunications agency, confirmed what many of us already know. South Korea is leading the world in numbers of high-speed Internet connections per capita, with Hong Kong and Canada coming in at second and third. Where is the U.S. a distant 11th. And these other countries are outspending us on broadband infrastructure. Sweden has set aside some $800 million on broadband deployment in rural areas of the country. France is following suit, having announced not long ago its plans to invest $1.5 billion on broadband infrastructure over 5 years. In Japan, through the majority government owned Nippon Telegraph and Telephone, the country is in the middle of a huge fiber-to-the-home project across the country. In Korea, the government is laying out some $15 billion to provide an optical fiber connection to 84 percent of homes by 2005. We are falling behind. I don't know about the rest of my colleagues, but I think that's a huge problem. People in upstate New York know it's a huge problem. There is little disputing that a nation with ubiquitous broadband will be more efficient and productive than a nation without it. Just a couple weeks ago, the Wall Street Journal had a story titled, What's Slowing Us Down?, with the byline, ``Broadband is seen as a critical part of the national economy. Yet the U.S. lags behind other countries.'' The Wall Street Journal piece points out that, ``Rising rates of high-speed Internet access are expected to trigger everything from increased sales of new computers to a massive rise in worker productivity.'' A recent Brookings Institution study found that universal broadband access could add $300 billion a year to the U.S. economy. Forgoing a major broadband rollout, the Wall Street Journal notes, might not only hinder economic growth, but also worsen an already bleak picture for battered telecommunications and high-tech industries. That explains the letter that a host of companies and high-tech associations have sent to Senators Bennett and Kohl, the managers on this important bill. This letter pleading to restore funding of the RUS broadband loan program is signed by 3M, Alcatel, Cisco Systems, Corning, Intel, Nortel Networks, Siemens, and so many others who recognize the importance of this modest investment. But they are not the only ones we're hearing from. I am hearing from small carriers across New York who need assistance to get broadband deployed to their rural areas--companies like Castle Cable Television in Alexandria Bay, NY who want to do the right thing--who recognize the potential of broadband to bring jobs and better services to their communities. So what is our plan, our national strategy to help ensure broadband gets deployed across America? What is our plan to ensure America's competitiveness? Well, the administration's plan and the one that's come out of committee in the Senate is to crush the one permanent broadband deployment program the Federal government has ever enacted. I understand that we have replaced $10 million that would leverage over $350 million in broadband loans with $10 million in grants. That doesn't make any sense. I am not suggesting we not do grants--but it doesn't make fiscal sense to saw off $10 million that will leverage over $350 million in loans for a simple $10 million in grants. And it certainly doesn't make sense to take away the Rural Utilities Service's administrative funding and capacity to process and review the pending applications. Rural communities across the country, like Alex Bay in New York, need these resources to create and attract jobs. And our country needs to make these investments if we're to stay ahead of-- or at least competitive with--South Korea, Hong Kong, Japan, and our neighbors to the north, Canada, who are making the investments in broadband to move ahead. I commend my colleagues, Senators Burns and Dorgan, for their leadership in helping restore the full funding level for the RUS broadband loan program, and I ask the managers of this bill and for the administration to join in what should be a national strategy to deploy broadband across America.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. I thank the Senator very much. I am proud to rise in support of the bipartisan climate change legislation offered by Senators Lieberman and McCain. I will be brief in my remarks, because I believe that the sponsors of the amendment have eloquently made the full case for the legislation. But this is a very important issue, and I did not want to miss the opportunity to voice my support. Climate change is greatest environmental challenge that we face. Its effects will unfold over decades and will touch every corner of the globe. I think the time to act is now. First, I want to briefly touch on the science. Many of the details remain to be filled in, and I support further climate research so we can refine our understanding of how human activities are affecting the climate system. But there is already a strong scientific consensus that supports action now. The most definitive recent reports were issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the National Research Council in 2001. In brief, the findings of those reports include the following: No. 1, anthropogenic climate change, driven by emissions of greenhouse gases, is already underway and likely responsible for most of the observed warming over the last 50 years--the largest warming that has occurred in the Northern Hemisphere during at least the past 1,000 years; No. 2, over the course of this century the Earth is expected to warm an additional 2.5 to 10.5 deg.F, depending on future emissions levels and on the climate sensitivity--a sustained global rate of change exceeding any in the last 10,000 years; No. 3, temperature increases in most areas of the United States are expected to be considerably higher than these global means because of our Nation's northerly location and large average distance from the oceans; No. 4, even under mid-range emissions assumptions, the projected warming could cause substantial impacts in different regions of the United States, including an increased likelihood of heavy and extreme precipitation events, exacerbated drought, and sea level rise; No. 5, almost all plausible emissions scenarios result in projected temperatures that continue to increase well beyond the end of this century; and No. 6, due to the long lifetimes of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the longer emissions increase, the faster they will ultimately have to be decreased in order to avoid dangerous interference with the climate system. These are disturbing findings from the most authoritative scientific sources we have. And the findings are further bolstered by an October 1, 2003, letter to the U.S. Senate signed by over 1,000 leading scientists. So opponents who argue that we need more study before we act are simply wrong. We need to know more, but we already know enough to take initial steps to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that are causing climate change. I would add that we are already seeing the effects of climate change. Glaciers are retreating all over the world. In March 2002 the Larsen Ice Shelf on the Antarctic peninsula completely broke off and broke up. The glaciers in the mountains in the tropics are rapidly melting; e.g., the snows of Kilimanjaro will be gone by 2015. One of my staff members took a photo of himself on the summit in 1970 next to a 20 foot high glacier at Uhuru Point; 29 years later his daughter was at the same Uhuru Point and only a trace of ice was left. We are already feeling the effects of climate change. And the scientific consensus is that unless we act to reduce emissions, the planet will continue to warm over the next century, with widespread and potentially devastating effects. These potential effects include more frequent extreme weather events, the wider spread of diseases such as West Nile, Eastern Equine Encephalitis, and malaria. As a Senator from New York, I am concerned about coastal flooding if sea levels were to rise, and how that would affect communities on Long Island. I am concerned about how warming will affect the Adirondacks, where tourism and a way of life depend on cold and snow in the winter. I am concerned about impacts on New York farmers. But I am also concerned about impacts in other parts of the country and around the world. I am in wholehearted support of the effort undertaken by Senators Lieberman and McCain to address this issue of climate change. I have to say I find it somewhat bewildering, this note of fatalism, this sense of pessimism, this defeatism I am hearing from the other side of the aisle. No. 1, it is a real problem. You can say that it isn't. You can say it over and over again. It is a real problem, and it is a problem that is getting worse because we failed to attend to it. But what bothers me is this idea that somehow America--the most innovative, creative nation the world has ever seen--cannot cope with this problem. This defeatism, this pessimism, this fatalism that I hear from the opponents is fundamentally un-American. We have a problem. We should get about the business of addressing the problem. What Senators McCain and Lieberman have done is to give us a roadmap to doing that. It may not be everything that many advocates would wish for, but it lays out a marker, and, more than that, it fulfills for me the traditional sense of how Americans respond in the face of a difficulty. This legislation is not only necessary but I think it provides an opportunity. Yes, in the short run there may be some adjustments that are needed, just as there always are when we have to face inevitable or necessary change. We are confronting the greatest environmental challenge when we talk about global climate change. There can only be one conclusion: Because of human activity, we are warming the Earth. Some might say, ``Well, it doesn't seem that bad to me,'' or, ``The consequences don't seem that dire.'' But I believe we have disturbing findings from the most authoritative scientific sources that argue otherwise. The most definitive recent reports were issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and by the National Research Council in 2001. I remind my colleagues that the National Research Council study was requested by the Bush administration. And it fundamentally confirms the results of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. What was the response of the administration? Kill the messenger. Hide the findings. Order EPA to take the information about global climate change out of its review of the status of the environment. You can deny a problem, you can ignore it, and you can delude yourself that it is not an issue. But I don't think that any longer is sustainable. It is not intellectually honest, and it is not politically defensible. Opponents who argue that we need more study before we act are simply wrong. Yes, we need to know more, but we already know enough to take initial steps to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that are causing climate change. That is what this legislation proposes to do. There are so many facts that support the evidence of climate change-- whether we talk about the Larsen Ice Shelf on the Antarctic peninsula breaking off and breaking up or whether we talk about the snow at Kilimanjaro. I want to show this one picture because it is so telling. It comes from the personal experience of one of my fellows who is working with me on my staff. He took a photo of himself on the summit of Kilimanjaro in 1970 next to a 20-foot-high glacier at Uhuru Point. And 29 years later, his daughter was at the same point and there was only a trace of ice left. Maybe people climbed up there and carted the ice off. I don't know. Maybe that became some kind of economic activity that the folks in Tanzania decided to pursue. That is not what happened. I think what happened is we have evidence in the most dramatic way possible of the effects of 29 years of global warming. The scientific consensus is clear: That unless we act to reduce emissions, the planet will continue to warm over the next century, with widespread and potentially devastating effects. We have heard some of those mentioned already. I listened carefully to the Senator from Maine talking about the change in everything from sugar maple to the potato crop in her State. I listened to my colleague from Hawaii, where we really began to acquire the evidence and understanding of global climate change. I worry about disease. I think it is indisputable that we are seeing disease move up in latitude. Diseases such as West Nile, eastern equine encephalitis, and malaria are now found at latitudes that they have never been before. As a Senator from New York, I am concerned about coastal flooding, if sea levels were to rise, and how it would affect the communities I represent and that my colleague from Connecticut represents at Long Island Sound and along the ocean. I am concerned about the warming effects on the Adirondacks; I am concerned about the effects on New York farmers; I am concerned about the economy, if we do not act. What is clear to me is that we have extraordinary economic opportunity. Since when did Americans say in the face of a challenge, Oh, my goodness, we can't admit it, we can't confront it, because we don't know how to deal with it economically? We could be making money and creating jobs if we took seriously the opportunities for alternative energy and conservation. The fact that we do not is because of the stranglehold special interests who are committed to always producing energy have on this body and on the administration. Let's be clear, we put out most of the greenhouse gasses from our country and we have the technological know-how, we have the understanding that would enable us to be the leaders in addressing this issue. That is why the bill offered by Senators McCain and Lieberman is so timely. Simply put, we would stabilize greenhouse gas emissions at 2000 levels by 2010. Think of the energy we would unleash among our entrepreneurs if they got the go-ahead to deal with this challenge. A market-driven system of greenhouse gas tradable allowances would exempt farmers, residences, and auto manufacturers, and that would give us a chance to go forward to try to find solutions to the challenge of addressing greenhouse emissions. We know this cap-and-trade approach can enable cost- effective reductions in emissions. We have seen it in the implementation of the acid rain provisions of the 1990 Clean Air Act. We know that has worked. Why do we turn our backs on what we know works? It is amazing to me how often the Congress, Capitol Hill, and Washington end up becoming evidence-free zones because people do not want to deal with what the evidence demonstrates. We know the cost for this would be minimal. Let's be honest. The science is clear. The opportunities are clear. This bill represents a modest and flexible first step. Despite the assertions of opponents, compliance costs will be minimal. The United States needs to regain leadership. We need to take responsibility. It gives a chance, then, to go to the rest of the world to try to build an international consensus. In the absence of some kind of protocol or treaty, we will be choking to death on the emissions from countries such as China and India as their standard of living rises. Now is the time to act. We owe it to our children and our grandchildren and generations beyond. I thank the two sponsors for giving us the opportunity to go on record on the right side of history.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Yes.

Mrs. CLINTON. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, over the last several weeks we have been in negotiations with the White House over the serious matters concerning the cleanup and the continuing threat of contamination in residences and workplaces in Lower Manhattan. Today, we have reached an agreement and I have received a commitment to action from the White House to address these indoor air quality concerns. Now, this is not everything I would have wished for. It is not exactly what the inspector general has recommended. And I will continue to work with the White House and the EPA to make sure we go wherever the evidence leads us and that we have independent, outside validation of whatever it is the EPA does. But we have reached agreement with the White House for additional testing to verify that residences that have been cleaned have not been recontaminated. In addition, the White House has committed to forming an expert panel consisting of both Government experts and outside experts to reevaluate a range of issues raised by the inspector general's report. I believe this is an important step forward in addressing the concerns raised by New Yorkers about the safety of the air we breathe. It is not enough--I want to make that absolutely clear--it is not enough, but it is a step forward, and I believe it will provide a venue in which all of our concerns can be addressed. In the spirit that led us to this agreement reached by my office with the White House Council on Environmental Quality, I will be voting for Governor Leavitt when his nomination comes before the Senate because I intend to work closely with him as we implement this agreement on which the White House has signed off. I know there are many who will say: but it is not everything we should have gotten. And I agree with that absolutely. If I could have written it myself, I would have adopted all of the inspector general's recommendations. But on the other hand, we now have a process and a venue in which to discuss these matters and to try to make progress together. I thank Senator Lieberman for working with me on this effort. I also thank Senator Voinovich for being very understanding and sympathetic about this issue and working with me on important legislation that, under our chairman, the Senator from Oklahoma, we have passed out of the committee which I hope will receive favorable floor action sometime in the next several weeks because it will help to avoid these problems in the future. One of our big problems was nobody was quite sure who was in charge of indoor air. There had been an Executive order signed a couple years before which seemed to suggest the EPA was, but that was not statutorily clear. We needed to figure out where the State and the city fit. So what Senator Voinovich and I have done is to put together, in legislation, the authority for the President to make these decisions, and to be clear about them, so we do not end up with all of these concerns about who is responsible and who have to be the front people and who does the testing. We should put that behind us. I hope we can act on the legislation Senator Voinovich and I have put forward. I also thank Senator Reid, who is a long-time friend of the Leavitt family and who shares my hope that Governor Leavitt will be the kind of Administrator of EPA with whom all of us on both sides of the aisle can work, and that we will see the EPA once again being the agency in the Government that sets and implements environmental policy. Again, I thank Senator Jeffords for his leadership and his deep concern about these issues. I also thank my colleague, Congressman Jerry Nadler, for his vigorous advocacy on behalf of New Yorkers and on making it clear every step of the way what the shortfalls and the inadequacies in the process adopted by the EPA turned out to be. Congressman Nadler has been a very staunch ally in this effort to get to this point. Just a few minutes before I came to the floor, I received a letter from the Executive Office of the President, Council on Environmental Quality, signed by James L. Connaughton. I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record, Mr. President.