Hillary Clinton

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I thank the ranking member of the EPW Committee, my friend and colleague, Senator Jeffords, for his leadership on these environmental issues that we are considering today. I am also very appreciative of the opportunity to speak to the nomination of Governor Leavitt to be the Administrator of the EPA on a particular issue of grave concern to me and to my constituents. On August 21, 2003, the inspector general of the EPA issued a report which raised serious questions about the EPA's response to the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings on September 11. In that report--I have a copy here--the EPA IG concluded that the White House had modified several EPA press releases regarding air quality in New York that made them overly reassuring to the public. Second, the IG raised a number of questions about the adequacy of the EPA's testing and cleanup program to address indoor air quality concerns in New York. These findings, as my colleagues know, were very disturbing to New Yorkers, the people I represent, who went through so much on September 11 and performed so magnificently, not only in the heroic responses by our firefighters, our police, our EMTs, and others, but also in the resilience and the extraordinary reactions of so many citizens--the construction workers who dropped their tools in one borough in uptown Manhattan to rush down to help, the utility workers, the volunteers, the transit workers, the people who got the stock exchange up and going. It was just an extraordinary demonstration of the spirit and courage of the people of New York and America. So it was troubling when New Yorkers had to ask themselves: Can we trust our Government? Can we rely on the information we are given when it comes to matters of such critical importance as the air we breathe? It was especially troubling because we already knew that hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of the first responders who came to the Towers, who stayed at the pile, who worked day after day, were suffering from what was called the World Trade Center cough, which really was asthma or bronchial problems or pulmonary distress or RADS, which is the reactive air disorder syndrome. Then we began hearing about people who had gone back to work and people who had returned to their homes in the affected area who were similarly suffering. So it was a very troubling report. It raised a number of questions to which I and others sought answers. So on August 26 I wrote to the President, along with my colleague, Senator Lieberman, because Senator Lieberman had been the chairman of the appropriate subcommittee of the environment committee that permitted us to hold a hearing in lower Manhattan in February of 2002 to try to begin to get answers to these issues long before the inspector general talked about them. Senator Lieberman and I joined together to write a letter to the President, asking for answers to the questions raised by the IG report. In particular, we wanted more details about what was claimed in the IG report to constitute interference by the White House with the EPA over the public information that was made available to the people of New York and the surrounding area. We also wanted some reaction about the recommendations the IG made. For people who are watching at home, IG stands for inspector general. Government departments have these offices. They are independent of whatever political administration is in power at the time, and they are supposed to look after the public interest and keep an eye on the people who are in government positions. So the EPA Inspector General had raised all of these questions about the adequacy of the cleanup which the EPA had carried out, and, frankly, recommended some additional steps be taken. On September 5, I received a reply from the EPA acting administrator. Frankly, it did not respond to the concerns we raised. It was quite defensive in tone, which I regretted because I think we are all in this together, trying to figure out how we get the best information to take the most appropriate actions to protect the health of people. The letter on September 5 was basically a recitation of all the positive actions the EPA had taken, many of which I agree were positive actions. But that was not what was at issue. On September 5 of last month, we got that response. Then we quickly wrote again to the President, reiterating the demand for answers and actions. But still we got no response. I regretted that because I think this is an issue larger than even the horrors of September 11 and the aftermath. It really went to the heart of how we can trust the information and the reliability of the information we receive from our Government, especially in times of crisis. When Governor Leavitt was nominated for the position of Administrator of the EPA, I made it clear to Governor Leavitt, to my colleagues on the Environment and Public Works Committee, and to the public I would put a hold on Governor Leavitt's nomination. At that moment it was the only means available to a single Senator to get the attention of the White House and to demonstrate the seriousness I believed these issues demanded. I met privately with Governor Leavitt, whom I have known for quite some time. I have a high regard for him. I have known both the Governor and his wife Jackie for a number of years. I knew from my conversations with him that he listened very carefully and was quite sympathetic with the concerns I was raising. Obviously, as a nominee he had no authority to commit the administration to doing anything. But I did believe he was open to the arguments I was making and the findings of the inspector general. Because of the hold I placed on Governor Leavitt, and the conversations I had with the Governor and the White House personnel assigned to shepherd his nomination through the Senate, I began negotiations with the White House Council on Environmental Quality. CEQ it is called. CEQ is the office within the White House that tries to ride herd over environmental policies, to advise the President on these issues, and to work with the EPA. We learned because of some documents requested by Senator Jeffords that it was the CEQ, the White House Council on Environmental Quality, which had indeed made the recommendations and issued the orders to the EPA to change their press releases in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. That was the entity within the White House that made those determinations. I appreciate Senator Jeffords' efforts to obtain those documents because they answered my questions. I didn't get answers from the EPA or the White House directly, but indirectly because of the excellent work of Senator Jeffords and his staff I did get my questions answered. It is very clear there were some quite tense conversations, including some real shouting matches between the CEQ White House personnel and the EPA personnel over what should or shouldn't be in those press releases. When I met with the head of the Council on Environmental Quality, a gentleman by the name of Jim Connaughton, I raised my concerns about the process that was underway in the aftermath of 9/11, that we needed to learn some lessons from that process; it didn't work; and I understand very well how there can be competing tensions between the White House and a government agency, but I think we need to learn from that. I was heartened by Mr. Connaughton's openness and his willingness to frankly admit this was unprecedented. We didn't know how we were going to behave in the face of such a horrific attack. Thankfully, it never happened again, and we hope it will never, ever again. But we have to be better prepared. To the first part of my inquiry about answers I wanted about who in the White House did this and how it all unfolded, we were able to obtain quite a bit of information. Clearly the Council on Environmental Quality, working with the National Security Council and others in the White House, made some calls that may not have been the best judgment calls. But now we can take a look at those in sort of a calmness of some distance and realize we have to change that process. We should not be interfering with information that goes directly to the public and which will enable members of the public to make decisions that are right for them. The answer part of who did what and how this all happened we began to be able to piece together. We also started discussions with the White House concerning the additional steps that need to be taken. Here we wanted to try to get a process started that would look at the inspector general's recommendations and implement them, and go even further to try to determine what we know, what we don't know, and what actions we should take to get to the bottom of this very thorny question of indoor air contamination. This is a new issue for most of us. We have been focusing on cleaning up the air on the outside. But increasingly what I am hearing from so many people in New York and around the country is we have to do more on indoor air. What happened after 9/11 is the EPA originally said, This is not within our responsibility. We are not responsible for following up on indoor air. That is the city's responsibility. The city of New York said they did not know what they were supposed to do on indoor air. In fact, before the hearing Senator Lieberman and I held in February of 2002, a witness appeared from the city who was very candid, and said, We were given this responsibility for indoor air. We don't do indoor air. Through a long process of negotiations, finally in June of 2002 the EPA took responsibility for running the testing to determine if there was continuing contamination of the indoor air in residences and workplaces. Unfortunately, because this had never been done before, there were a lot of holes in the process. There were a lot of missteps in the process. Again, I think that is something we should learn from. I give great credit to my colleagues who represent Lower Manhattan--Congressman Jerry Nadler, who was just absolutely focused day in and day out in trying to get the EPA first to do this indoor air testing and then to do it right. All along Congressman Nadler said this is not being done right. We are going to find out after they go home and they say they have done what they are supposed to do that there are still all kinds of contamination that have been left and that is going to have an increasing impact on people who live and work in these buildings. Sure enough, the testing that went on demonstrated the cleanup was not adequate and, unfortunately, because it was sort of haphazard and random, one apartment would be cleaned up but the apartment next door wouldn't be, or the apartments would be cleaned up in the building but the heating and air conditioning wouldn't be. So it never really got the attention and the standardization that it needed. That is why the inspector general recommended a number of additional steps to be taken. So we began this process of negotiating with the White House over what would or should be done, and I must say it was a very positive process. My staff, Senator Lieberman's staff, the White House Council on Environmental Quality, the EPA, and others have been working together now for several weeks.

Mrs. CLINTON. I will end my remarks so that the Senator from Utah will have 6 minutes prior to the 5:30 vote.

Mrs. CLINTON. This letter, which does give us the basis for further efforts to try to get to the bottom of these issues concerning indoor air, is a very welcome step forward. Again, although it is not enough, it is not what the inspector general had in mind, it does give us that venue, that process, that opportunity to keep working together to get these answers. The reason this is so important goes far beyond my constituents in lower Manhattan. It goes to the heart and soul of what we can expect from our Government, how reliable the information is, and whether we are prepared to look at new problems caused by unforeseen, unprecedented events such as what occurred on 9/11. That is not the only area where we need to be focused on cleaning up indoor air and being conscious of continuing contamination. This morning I was in Endicott, NY, outside of Binghamton, where there was for many years a very large IBM plant, a very successful plant. In 1979, there was a spill, a toxic spill, 4,100 gallons, at least, that went into the aquifer and then went into the ground water. Now what we are finding is that this plume of toxic material in the water underneath this town, 350 acres through which it has spread--that the fumes from this plume are now seeping up through the ground into the residences of the people in Endicott, NY. So this indoor air issue is not just about post-9/11 and New York City. It is a new issue that we must face in this Congress because the vast majority of people are totally unable to figure out what to do about this issue. I am pleased that we have come to this point, that we have made this progress with the White House. I look forward to working with Governor Leavitt in trying to resolve these matters. I hope this spirit of cooperation is an indication of a new attitude in the administration toward the environment and toward working with us to try to solve the health and safety problems that affect our constituents.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Madam President, I rise to express my strong opposition to S. 3. This Senate is poised to criminalize a medical decision made between a woman and her physician. Despite claims to the contrary, the legislation before us today will ban many abortions routinely conducted in the second trimester because the simple truth is that ``partial- birth abortion'' is a political term, not a medical one. The conference report returned to us by the conferees is different from the legislation passed by the Senate back in March in one critical way--it is stripped of Senator Harkin's amendment affirming the law of the land--Roe v. Wade. This resolution made it clear that the policy of the Senate is for abortion to be legal, safe, and rare. And the conferees stripped out this language, making it clear that their true intent is to make abortion obsolete, regardless of the effects on women. I remain perplexed--as I was in March--that this has risen to the top of our priority list. Back in March, we were about to send our troops to battle in Iraq, we were losing hundreds of thousands of jobs a month and long-term unemployment was climbing to the highest level in decades. Well, the more things change the more they stay the same. Long-term unemployment is now at the highest level in 20 years. The number of Americans falling into poverty has increased for 2 straight years after a decade of decline. Six hundred thousand more people are unemployed than they were in March, and we have lost more than 200 U.S. soldiers since the war began. Yet, we have found time to ban what should be a private medical decision between a woman and her doctor. We also have to complete the most basic work of Congress--to pass the year's spending bills. At this point, we have considered Defense, Labor, HHS, Energy, Homeland Security and the Legislative Branch. But we still have left to consider Agriculture, Commerce-Justice-State, the District of Columbia, Foreign Operations, Transportation, and VA-HUD. We should bring these bills to the floor, debate them, modify them with amendments and then send them to conference. As we get closer and closer to our target adjournment date, I have to wonder why on earth we are not going full speed ahead to bring these bills to the floor? We also have a Medicare prescription drug bill pending in conference. This is an issue that all of us hear about every time we go home. It is one of the most important issues to the American public--and has been so for years. With so much uncertainty here at home, the Republican leadership has made the choice to debate how best to criminalize a medical procedure for women. I have to ask myself: Why was this moment chosen for this debate? Why aren't we debating the steps we could take to help the 8.4 million Americans who are out of work? Why aren't we debating how we can balance our Federal budget and begin to diminish these overwhelming deficits and this increasing debt load we will leave on the backs of our children? Why are we not debating the necessity of our paying our bills? Why are we not debating how to provide an affordable, meaningful prescription drug benefit for elder Americans? Why aren't we debating how to help the 34 million Americans living in poverty? As I travel around, talking with people in my State, that is what they talk to me about: What about this war, Senator Clinton? What about homeland security? Are we as safe as we need to be here at home? Senator, what can we do about the jobs that are disappearing in the stagnant economy? How on Earth can we deal with this overwhelming budget deficit? What about not funding No Child Left Behind and the burdens that are begin put on public education as a result? When are we going to get around to a prescription drug benefit for our seniors who are suffering and having to face these large bills? What are we doing to protect our environment? We are, after all, stewards of our natural environment for future generations. Those are the questions I am being asked. Not the ones posed by this legislation before us today. But nevertheless we are considering this bill and little doubt that it will be approved. So, let us be very clear on what it is we are about to pass. The way this bill is written, the choice of language eliminates the distinction of trimesters. The vagueness makes this bill applicable to many other procedures in addition to the ones explicitly named. This bill is extreme, deceptive, and unconstitutional. As my colleague from Pennsylvania stated back in March: This is the beginning of the end. And that is absolutely what he means. If this bill passes, it is the beginning of the end of Roe v. Wade. It is the beginning of the end of the right of women in this country to make the most personal and intimate decisions that any of us would ever be called upon to make. Why did we ever have to do Roe v. Wade to begin with? Some States like mine, let abortion, as long as it was done safely and legally, occur under certain circumstances before Roe. Why did we have to have a Supreme Court decision? We have to have it because in many parts of the country these kinds of decisions were not permitted to be made by individual women. Look at the progress we have made. The U.S. abortion rate is now at the lowest level it has been since 1974. When I was First Lady, I helped to launch the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy. We increased education and public awareness. And since 1991, teen pregnancy has also declined. We learned that prevention and education, teaching people to make good decisions, really did work. But that is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about those few rare cases. We are talking about those few rare cases when a doctor had to look across a desk at a woman and say, ``I hate to tell you this, but the baby you wanted, the baby you care so much about, that you are carrying, has a terrible abnormality.'' I have to ask myself, why do we, as government officials, expect we can make these decisions? We know that people of means will always be able to get any health care procedure they deem necessary. That is the way it was before Roe v. Wade. That is the way it will be after this passes the Senate. We are facing a moment of historic importance, but not about what we should be debating at this time in our history. I only wish this legislation were not before us. But now that it is, we have to educate the American public. I will end by referring again to the young woman, Mrs. Eisen, who was in my office back in March. She is about 25 years younger than I am. She said: I had no idea that the decision I made with my husband and my doctor to deal with this genetic abnormality was something I could have never had under the laws of where I lived before. And that if this passes, it will become illegal in the future. I said: Well, you didn't have to think about that. That was something that, thankfully, we took off the national agenda. But there are those who, from very deeply held beliefs, which I respect, would wish to substitute the Government's decision for what should be a difficult, painful, intimate, personal decision. This bill is not only ill-advised, it is also unconstitional. I understand what the other side wants to do. They are hoping to get somebody new on the Supreme Court and to turn the clock back completely, to overrule Roe v. Wade. Is this bill really about what the sponsors say, or is it, as they candidly admit, the beginning of the end--to go back in this country to back-alley abortions, to women dying from botched, illegal procedures? I think you can draw your own conclusions. It is up to the American public to determine whether they want medical decisions being criminalized by this Senate.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague, Senator Shelby, to submit a resolution to encourage the United States Postal Service Stamp Advisory Committee to issue the National Missing and Exploited Children's Postage Stamp. I am proud to join my colleague Congressman Boehlert, the champion of this legislation in the House, and am honored to be a part of this effort. We introduce this resolution today on the 14th anniversary of the abduction of Jacob Wetterling. Jacob was only 11 years old when he was kidnapped at gunpoint while riding his bike on his way home from a convenience store in St. Joseph, MN. Though he was taken from his family and friends on this day his memory is still alive. With support from his community, Jacob's parents established the Jacob Wetterling Foundation, which has successfully advocated for local and national legislation to help prevent future abductions and to protect thousands of children from sexual predators. There are 800,000 parents every year, like the Wetterlings, who endure the loss of a child and are struggling to come to terms with the helplessness, anger, and frustration that consume them during the ensuing weeks and months. Many of my colleagues know all too well the agony of losing a child. As parents, community members, legislators, we are all affected when a child goes missing. I want to take this opportunity to recognize the important work of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC). This organization was established by Congress in 1984 through the Missing Children's Assistance Act to carry out the mission of finding missing children, combating child sexual exploitation, and preventing child victimization. Through its partnership with 18,000 law enforcement agencies across the United States and abroad, NCMEC's is unparalleled in its commitment to this issue. Last year, I was proud to submit the Code Adam Act, a resolution encouraging public places to employ a Code Adam protocol to thwart child abductions in commercial establishments. The Code Adam protocol was named in memory of 6-year-old Adam Walsh, the son of John Walsh, co-founder of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children and host of ``America's Most Wanted.'' Adam was murdered after being kidnapped from a Florida shopping mall in 1981. The Code Adam Protocol requires store employees to announce a ``Code Adam'' alert over the public-address system when a customer reports a missing child. All designated employees receive a brief description of the child, immediately stop their normal work to search for that child, and monitor all exists to help prevent the child from leaving the store. The Code Adam Act was approved by Congress in April of this year as part of the PROTECT Act and was signed into law on April 30, 2003 by the President. It will undoubtedly play an important role in finding missing children and returning them safely to their homes. I was also a proud cosponsor of the National AMBER Alert Network Act of 2003. This Act brings critical financial assistance to States to help them implement AMBER plans. It also creates an AMBER coordinator within the Department of Justice. AMBER, which stands for America's Missing: Broadcast Emergency Response was created in 1996 after the abduction and murder of Amber Hagerman in Texas. It's an emergency alert plan like that used in storm warnings that alerts a community about the recent disappearance of a child. With the help of the National Center of Missing and Exploited Children, the broadcast community, and members of law enforcement, the AMBER Alert helped find 105 children across the country. Justice Department Statistics show that 74 percent of kidnapped children who are later found murdered are killed within the first 3 hours of their abduction. The National Amber Alert Network Act will help law enforcement, in those early critical hours, as they work hard to find a missing child. I am pleased that it was also approved by Congress and signed into law as part of the PROTECT Act. Ten years ago, on August 18, 1993, Sara Ann Woods, a child of Herkimer County, NY, was abducted as she was riding home from her father's church in Litchfield, NY. After 3 years her kidnapper confessed to her murder, leaving the town devastated. Sara's death has been and continues to be the inspiration behind this legislation. I also want to mention Marc Klaas and John Walsh, the honorary co- chairmen of the Missing Children's Stamp Committee in Mohawk Valley, NY, and Herkimer County Legislator John Brezinski, who has worked tirelessly on this effort. I am pleased to be joined in this effort with Senators Shelby, DeWine, Lincoln, Kennedy, Lautenberg, Hagel and Miller as original cosponsors. According to a poll by Zogby, more than two out of every three Americans support a National Missing and Exploited Children's Postage Stamp. This commemorative stamp will help raise awareness and honor these missing children and their families. This stamp will reach individuals across geographic and socioeconomic spectrums, and we know that when it comes to combating these terrible crimes, awareness is crucial. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. I believe that it will make a difference in protecting the lives of our children.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague, the Senator from New Jersey, for introducing this resolution in such a timely manner. I was proud to be an original cosponsor. I believe it is essential the Senate and our Congress be on record standing against hate and bias and discrimination, and particularly the kind of anti- Semitism that flowed at the meeting yesterday in Malaysia. I join with Senator Lautenberg in urging the President to raise this directly with the Malaysian Government and with the other participants in the APEC meeting. I appreciate the quick action of Senator Lautenberg in ensuring our Senate could go on record while this meeting is still occurring.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I echo the words of my colleagues who support this amendment. I really do see it as a way of getting it out of politics, of taking it away from partisanship. I could not agree more with the argument that something went wrong. We can pretend it did not or we can face up to the fact that it did. This is not just about the past. It is also about the present and the future. We face continuing threats. Those of us in this Chamber who have that intelligence information given to us know that, and we have to be as vigilant and well prepared as we possibly can. I do not ever want to have to face another constituent of mine and say, well, we missed it, we did not get it right. Yes, we do have to go forward with new plans. But how can we build a new intelligence system, with all due respect to the chairman and the ranking member, both of whom I hold in the highest regard, without having an honest and independent appraisal of what went wrong?

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, we have had a busy week as we have considered the $87 billion request from the administration. There has been a great deal of debate. A number of amendments and senses of the Senate have been voted on. In the end, we were faced with the difficult choice as to whether we would or would not support this request by the administration. I have the greatest respect for my colleagues who voted against this $87 billion. I listened with great interest and attention to my friend and colleague, Senator Leahy, as he laid out a compelling argument with a number of points concerning the reasons why he voted against the request for $87 billion. I know, from having heard the brief remarks of the Senator from Florida, that in a few minutes we will hear his usual thoughtful exposition as to why he, too, voted against the $87 billion. I think it is imperative we all agree that, whichever way one of us voted, for or against this funding, all of us are united in our support for our brave men and women who are literally risking, and all too tragically losing, their lives on a daily basis in Iraq. This was a very difficult vote for many of us. There are those of us, such as myself, who voted to give the President authority. We disagree with the way he used that authority. We have many questions, and still most are unanswered, about the choices the President and his team have made over the last year. But the idea of giving our President authority to act in the global war against terrorism, if necessary in his opinion, against Saddam Hussein, was one I could support and I did so. In the last year, however, I have been first perplexed, then surprised, then amazed, and even outraged and always frustrated by the implementation of the authority given the President by this Congress. One can agree on the goal that was adopted in 1998 for regime change. I, for one, am in the camp that believes the world is better off without Saddam Hussein at the helm of a dangerous, tyrannical regime. But it is not enough to say you support the goal. There are many different obstacles and difficulties and choices on the way to achieving that goal that have both intended and unintended consequences. A number of my colleagues have addressed the concerns arising out of the use and misuse of intelligence. I, for one, have said repeatedly the intelligence about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein had been consistent--consistent through three administrations: the first Bush administration, the Clinton administration, and now this administration. There was a consensus there had been and were continuing to be programs devoted to the creation of weapons of mass destruction. We certainly knew, as the world saw, that this man had no compunction about using them. Nevertheless, I think it is clear, and it is not just a mistake, it is not just a wrong assessment--I think now it is clear that, for a combination of reasons, the administration gilded the lily, engaged in hyperbole, took whatever small nugget of intelligence that existed and blew it up into a mountain, in order, I suppose, to make the case more strongly and convincingly to the American people. But at what a cost? The cost of our credibility, the cost of our national leadership, and even more so the cost of perhaps not being able to take actions in the future that are necessary to our well-being and our interests because we may look like the nation or at least the administration that cried wolf. It is a big price to pay. Yet continually, rather than saying what I think all of us would agree, the consensus turned out not to be right. There were some, such as my good friend from Florida, who at the time was serving as the chairman of the Intelligence Committee and was in a position to see all the different interlocking facts, who said: Wait a minute. We are heading off in the wrong direction. We are jumping on the wrong horse. But for many of us, looking at the intelligence, being briefed continually about what the threats were, being told by the highest levels of our Government in public and in private that we were facing an imminent threat, it certainly seemed like a bet on which nobody--at least speaking for myself--wished to be on the wrong side. I think there would be considerable understanding on the part not just of Members of Congress but of the American public if leading members of the administration would now come forward and say: You know, we may have gotten overly invested in the intelligence. We may have gotten a little ahead of the game. We may have seen more than there was, and we perhaps said a few things and made some claims that we can't support--whether it is uranium in Niger or links with al-Qaida by Saddam Hussein--but the fundamental fact remains that this man posed a threat to his neighbors. There is no doubt in anyone's mind--because we had already seen him use it--that he would have employed weapons of mass destruction at some future date. Although we may have gone a little too far, we believe we made the right decision. But you do not hear that from this administration. This administration never makes a mistake, in their own eyes. They are never willing to back off. They have the Vice President still going on national television shows repeating discredited intelligence. That is not free. That is costly. That sends a signal not just to those of us who serve and vote in this body, not just to the American public, but to the entire world that either there is an unwillingness to accept the evidence and the facts or there is a commitment on an ideological basis to a world view or a point of view that is wrong. Time and time again, the administration has had the opportunity to level with the American people. Unfortunately, they haven't been willing to do that. Among the many questions that I and others raised and the many criticisms we lodged against the use of the authority, which I and the majority of this body voted for, was the administration's aborting of the United Nations process and the inspections regime in order to launch military action. There was never any doubt in anyone's mind with any knowledge of the American military what the outcome would be. I, for one, knew there was no worry whatsoever; that we have the finest equipped, trained, and motivated military probably in the history of the world, and they would do the mission they were assigned. So they did. But all during the period from the voting on the authority to the end of organized major conflict, we kept asking questions: What are the plans once we know the military does the job it is sent to do? How many troops will we need? How long will they be there? What will this cost us in lives and treasure? Over and over, the answer we received from the administration was: We are ready; we are prepared. And oftentimes it came with an almost embarrassingly romantic view of this conflict-- that we would be met by cheering and rose petals thrown in the streets, that we would be in and out quickly, that the oil would be flowing. It sounded fabulous. But that is what it turned out to be, a fabulous fantasy. It is hard for me to really understand how this administration, led by many--from the Vice President to the Secretary of Defense to others who have been committed to overturning the regime of Saddam Hussein since they made the mistake of not going to Baghdad in the first gulf war--could be so ill prepared. How on Earth? These people have spent 10 years obsessing over Saddam Hussein and Iraq. One would think they knew what they would do when they arrived. They would not answer our questions, and all too often they would punish representatives of our civilian and military leadership who did answer the questions--most famously General Shinseki who told the truth about the numbers of troops it would take, and the number of years it would take, and was largely ignored or pilloried by this administration. How could they not have been prepared? How could they have turned their backs on the most obvious kinds of planning? I know for a fact there were many from previous Republican administrations who came in over and over again and said: You are going to face a looting problem; You don't have enough troops for that; We have to be sure we can secure not just a couple of facilities but we need the troops to secure a number of the most important institutions-- somehow they were not hurt, to say nothing of those from former Democratic administrations who offered the same advice. We have the President land on the aircraft carrier, We have him declare the end to major conflict, and here we are months later losing on average a soldier a day, seeing the maiming and disabling of hundreds more, being asked to spend, last spring, $70 billion in a supplemental to sustain our military function and now being asked to spend $87 billion, $67 billion, approximately, for our military and $20 billion for necessary functions on reconstructing Iraq. Given the level of criticism that I and others feel about this venture and its failure, it is hard not to see this $87 billion as anything but a bill for failed leadership. Yet I, for one, believe this mission in Iraq is too important for failure. If we do not stabilize Iraq, if we do not protect our forces, if we do not clearly send a signal to the Iraqi people who are and certainly will be better off because of the removal of Saddam Hussein, we will not just have failed in this mission, we will have undermined our long-term stability and we will certainly have created a more dangerous world despite our efforts to avoid that. I understand very clearly the anger and frustration my constituents and Americans across the country feel about this $87 billion. I share it. It is really hard to vote for this money. It is hard because you wonder what is going to actually be accomplished with it given the poor track record of this administration. You wonder how you can justify it in the face of the irresponsible fiscal policies of this administration that has undermined our present obligations and our long-term economic security. You wonder how you can possibly support this request when you know you don't get the straight story out of this administration time and time again. Yet, at the same time, it is hard to walk away now. In fact, I don't think we can. Yes, we have not found the weapons of mass destruction, but we are there. No, we do not really have any links between al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein to be proven, but we are there. We have not stabilized the country and we have not even secured the weapon caches all over the country, but we are there. It is just hard to accept that we are there without an adequate plan and understanding of what it will take to be successful. The fact that the administration purposely left the impression that there would be a quick victory and our troops would be home in no time is very hard to accept for a lot of the husbands and wives and mothers and fathers and sons and daughters of the people serving. We have all read the story today from the interviews done by Stars and Stripes, the newspaper of the Army, reporting in great detail about the questions and concerns and poor morale of many of our soldiers and other forces in Iraq. I understand completely why people are frustrated and angry, but I don't think we can allow our frustration and anger with the administration to undermine our commitment to our country and our national security. So what is it we are called upon to do? For me, the choice as a member of the Armed Services Committee was to support the money for our troops, wondering, though, as I did, why so many of them still do not have the body armor they should have to protect themselves against Iraqi attacks and hoping they will shortly. We certainly put enough money into the defense budget in the last 2\1/2\ years to at least equip every one of our soldiers with adequate body armor. I also know that we do have to work to help reconstruct Iraq. We are the only people who can and will, in part because the administration has alienated those who would have been our natural allies. It is frustrating for many, but I don't think we can at this point fail to pay this bill of $87 billion for failed leadership. We have to put the administration on notice that this vote, 87 to 12, was a vote for our troops, a vote for our mission. Speaking as one of those who cast a yea vote, it was not a vote for our national leadership. We not only can but should expect more than we have been given. While we confront the reality of our present situation in Iraq, we cannot find ourselves in this position again. Many will no longer be able to support this administration if they do not start listening, occasionally even admitting when they make a mistake that has life-and- death consequences, reining in their most rabid neocon ideologues when they try to ``out'' CIA operatives or continue to claim nonexistent links between the global war on al-Qaida and everything else that happens in the world. I hope the administration understands the level of frustration and anger that is out there. It is not just Democratic frustration and anger, it is not just partisan, it is across the board, people wondering: Where are we going? How will we even know when we get there? Did we take on this incredible responsibility under false pretenses? I hope the administration will build on the vote in the United Nations that gives us at least the opportunity of lessening the burden and the costs by sharing it with others who should also have a stake in a free and functioning Iraq. I hope the administration will change course when it comes to working with the rest of the world and start acting more like allies instead of bullies. We cannot keep on this path and sustain the support of the American people. That is my most important point. I have had the great privilege of not just traveling around the country but spending a lot of time in every State in our Nation. Now I have the great honor of representing the most diverse place in America, the State of New York. Americans are not only patriotic in the best sense of the word but they are so compassionate and caring about other people. What other country would free a people from tyranny and then reach into their own pockets to help build schools and hospitals and roads and fix the electric grid? Americans do not begrudge that. But they want to feel they know where we are headed, that their Government is leveling with them. They also wonder and ask me, How come we are spending $5 billion to fix the electric grid in Iraq and we have not spent any money to fix our electric grid in the United States? We are building schools and we have schools falling down here. We are building hospitals and we have hospitals under all kinds of pressures here. Those are totally legitimate questions. They will not go away. One of the greatest issues for us to address is how we will provide for the needs of the American people while we spend this money abroad. Americans will stay with you, Americans will be with you and support you, if they understand where we are headed and why it is important to our future. On that count, this administration is losing the confidence of the American people even though the mission we face in Iraq is essential, in my view, to the long-term safety and security of our country and the leadership America should provide to the world. This is not just about money. It is not even, tragically, about the lives we lose and the issues we confront in trying to stabilize and build Iraq. It is about whether this administration can repair the trust it has lost with the American people. I hope it can because I don't think it is in anyone's interest to have the President of the United States and his top team viewed as having misled our Nation and having alienated the rest of the world. We are in for a long-term battle in the war against terrorism. I take it very seriously. We have determined and ruthless adversaries out to destroy our way of life, inflict violence on as many Americans as possible. I take a back seat to no one in my resolve to root out and destroy global terrorism. My question is, What is the right way to do it? And how do we prepare the American people to stay the course for what will be a long, protracted struggle? I worry deeply that this administration is undermining both our ability to win the global war on terrorism and the trust that is needed to keep the American people committed. So I cast a vote for this supplemental for our troops and for the work that has to be done in Iraq. But I cannot endorse this administration's plans and policies very much longer if they do not recognize the reality of what we confront, not just in Iraq but elsewhere in the world and here at home. The administration has forced false choices on this Congress and our country. It is very difficult for me, having represented New York during the horrors of 9/11, to realize that we had the will and good wishes and support of the rest of the world and we have dissipated that. We desperately need it in this war against terrorism. This may be reported as a resounding victory for the administration-- a large vote--but I do not think it was. I think this was, first of all, a vote for our troops, a vote to continue to provide the funding they need to protect themselves and to fulfill their mission. It was a vote to take responsibility for what does need to be done in Iraq. There is not, in my view, any doubt about that. But the debate in this body, and the frustration, and even anger across the country shows clearly that it was not a vote of confidence in the administration's leadership. That needs to be won back by their actions going forward. And it is essential that they attempt to do so. We cannot fail in Iraq. We cannot fail in the war against terrorism. Ultimately, we must not fail our own people. The American people deserve better. I hope the administration recognizes and accepts that. The last 2 years that I have had the privilege to serve in this body have been very emotional ones--the attacks of 9/11; the military action in Afghanistan; the action in Iraq; the destruction of our budget surplus and plunging our Nation into huge deficits and burgeoning national debt; the undermining of the future, in my view, of this generation. I come not as a partisan but as an American to say, we have to do better. I hope this administration will do so. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate passed the Harkin-Clinton amendment. The Constitution gives the responsibility for appropriating taxpayer funds to the Congress. Thus, Congress has a responsibility to ensure that the taxpayers' money is well spent. However, the size and scope of the administration's $87 billion request makes it harder for Congress to exercise its oversight responsibilities. Our amendment ensures that Congress will have the information that it needs to track expenditures and monitor the use of taxpayer funds. It would require the Comptroller General to conduct studies on the effectiveness and efficiency of the administration and performance of contracts in excess of $40 million that are paid out of this bill or the previous supplemental. The studies would specifically examine the profits, administrative overhead, management fees, and related expenditures for the management of subcontracts, and further subcontracting, under any such contract. The Comptroller General would be required to submit a report to Congress within 6 months that includes this evaluation and any recommendations for improving the contracting process. Thus, we will know if companies are making reasonable profits or are simply exploiting the situation for huge profits. In almost every major war in our country's history, there have been instances of war profiteering where companies take advantage of the rush to get the job done to gouge the taxpayer. Usually, instances of war profiteering are discovered after the war is over and the damage has already been done. Here is an opportunity to be ahead of the curve and ensure that this abuse does not take place at all. With the huge sums being expended in Iraq, we need to ensure that there is a level of accountability. As my colleague Senator Johnson pointed out, there are literally plane loads of cash being flown into Iraq. According to a Wall Street Journal story from August, the United States has already sent a billion dollars in cash to Iraq. As the story says, ``the U.S. has improvised a money pipeline that runs from a New Jersey warehouse, to a Maryland air base, down Baghdad's Ambush Alley, and even, at times, underneath the black burkas of two middle-age female accountants--until it ends up in the pockets of ordinary Iraqis.'' The story details how the United States is currently flying planes full of cash to Baghdad, and that these banknotes are ``seeping'' into the economy through cash payments to guards, pensioners, and other Iraqis. With an additional $87 billion being added to the mix, $20 billion of which will be spent on Iraq reconstruction, it is critical that we understand how these funds are being spent. Furthermore, we need to know how much of these taxpayer funds are actually going to rebuilding Iraq and how much is filling the coffers of U.S. contractors? I certainly hope that the General Accounting Office study called for in this amendment will reveal that contractors are not raking in outside profits or hiding profits in user and management fees. However, if we discover that there are abuses by contractors receiving taxpayer funds, it will be incumbent upon the Congress, which has the Constitutional authority to appropriate these funds, to take steps to prevent profiteering. This $87 billion appropriation is not the end of Congress's responsibilities to safeguard taxpayer funds, it is only the beginning. I thank my colleagues for supporting the Harkin-Clinton amendment.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I am an original cosponsor to the Bayh- Nelson amendment to this Supplemental Appropriations bill. This amendment would authorize the President to lend $10 billion in reconstruction funds to the Iraqi Governing Council or its recognized successor. These funds could be converted to grants provided that 90 percent of Iraq's pre-liberation bilateral debts are absolved, including loan forgiveness for any funds obligated as loans. It also provides the sense of the Senate that it is the strong preference of the United States that all countries forgive their pre-liberation bilateral debts owed by the Saddam regime and provide robust levels of reconstruction aid to post-liberation Iraq at the October 23 Madrid Donors Conference. The American people are being asked to contribute over $20 billion of their taxpayer dollars for the reconstruction of Iraq. Before the war against Iraq, the administration was vague about how much security and reconstruction funding would be needed in Iraq. Instead, Congress was told by administration officials, as my colleague Senator Dorgan has pointed out, that we could expect Iraqi oil revenues to pay for Iraqi reconstruction or that other nations would join us in shouldering the burden of rebuilding Iraq. Now the administration argues that it needs over $20 billion for Iraq's reconstruction. The administration argues that this money must be given as grants and not loans. However, once the money is used to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure and economy, the Iraqi government will then be obligated to pay back other nations who hold Iraqi debt. Nations like France and Russia, who loaned money to Saddam Hussein's regime, will receive debt payments off the backs of the U.S. taxpayer. This amendment directly addresses this problem by requiring 90 percent of Iraqi debt to be forgiven before $10 billion can be converted to grants. It gives an incentive to the administration to engage in diplomacy with nations that hold Iraqi debt in order to encourage them to forgive it. And it will ensure that other nations' taxpayers are not treated more generously than U.S. taxpayers. In these difficult economic times with U.S. deficits ballooning, the administration is asking the American people to increase the fiscal burden without any hope of recouping these funds. The American taxpayer should not be treated more shabbily than debtors from other nations and we should be encouraging other nations to help rebuild Iraq's economy. Taxpayers are concerned that we are simply passing on the bill for this and other problems to our children. They are concerned that this Congress can find the resources for Iraq, but at the same time can't find the resources for after-school programs, for prescription drug benefits, and for rebuilding the infrastructure here at home. We need to allay some of the very legitimate concerns of the American taxpayers. They are concerned about our ballooning debts and shrinking services while we send billions overseas. We need to address these concerns of every American. By ensuring that taxpayer funds are treated just as dearly as the debts owed to other nations, we can begin to address those concerns.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I come to the Senate in support of the Dorgan amendment to this supplemental appropriations. I come also having been the beneficiary of the week-long recess, traveling throughout my State talking to many people, hearing what is on their minds, trying to answer their questions and drawing some conclusions about where we stand in our country on the important issue concerning the mission in Iraq and the President's request for $87 billion. I talked with New Yorkers from Syracuse to Staten Island. At every stop, I had questions and concerns expressed about this request for $87 billion. New Yorkers are concerned that this money is being asked for and will be spent with no real plan for how we move toward the goal in Iraq to create an independent, functioning government that is able to stabilize the situation there with adequate security, begin providing services to the Iraqi people, and move toward self-sufficiency. I also was faced with many questions about how we intend to pay for our commitment to Iraq and to our military forces since we are faced with record deficits and increasing debt. Time and time again, I heard my constituents echo the concerns of the senior Senator from Florida, Mr. Graham, who pointed out eloquently in the Senate a short while ago how in effect we are asking our children and their generation to pay for the decisions we make today because we refuse to take responsibility for them. This is a difficult situation to describe and explain to my constituents. I am asked how we can ask our taxpayers to contribute over $20 billion for the reconstruction of Iraq when that was never presented to the American public or even to the Congress. Time and time again the Congress was told by administration officials that it would not cost very much money, it would not take very long, and besides, we could expect Iraqi oil revenues to pay for Iraqi reconstruction, and other nations would join us in shouldering the burden. Now, of course, we are told by the administration not to expect very much from anyone else, and we cannot even look to the Iraqi oil revenues at some point in the future. We should not be asking anything of the Iraqi people and their soon-to-be new government with respect to the American taxpayers and to the sacrifice that our American men and women in uniform have made for Iraq's freedom. The administration argues that this $20 billion must be given in grants and not loans. The logic escapes me. Part of this money will go to rebuild the oil industry of Iraq. There are estimates ranging from hundreds of billions of barrels of recoverable oil to a trillion. There is no doubt that if we get this oil industry up and going, Iraq stands to be one of the richest nations in the world. The per capita income can be expected to shoot past most of the rest of the inhabitants of this globe. And I am all for it. That is wonderful. But not at the expense of the American taxpayer and not at the expense of an increasing deficit and debt burden on our children. I am wondering how we can justify putting money in a grant to rebuild an oil industry that will start producing revenues that will then be used in part to pay back nations in the gulf and in Europe and elsewhere who have lent tens of billions of dollars to the former regime to do things like build palaces. Those who worked with, collaborated with, and supported the Saddam Hussein regime could conceivably be paid back from the fruits of the labor of American taxpayers who have gotten the oil flowing again. I, for one, cannot explain that in any audience I find myself. Some in the administration have argued our aid to Iraq is analogous to the Marshall plan. But, of course, we know it is not. That is a good rhetorical point to make, but it is not historically accurate. The U.S. did provide funds to both allies and enemies after World War II based on a matching program of contributions from those nations. We did not offer reconstruction funds without qualification. We required a commitment for some contribution from the receiving nation. I saw a list of talking points distributed by the administration, apparently out of the Pentagon, that listed all the reasons why loans were a bad idea: We would not want any other entity, such as the new Iraqi Government or the Coalition Provisional Authority, to be deciding where any of the money went; we would not want any, other than American, contractors to get any of the contracts; we would not want anybody to think we were in it just for the oil, which they might somehow believe if we had some responsible, mature relationship that expected some repayment. I read those talking points. I looked at those arguments, and, frankly, they are not very convincing. I am still having trouble trying to figure out how we went from a position in the spring where administration official after administration official would not tell us how much it was going to cost, would not tell us how long it was going to take, would not tell us how long we were going to be there, and always reassured us that it was going to be paid for with the revenues from Iraqi oil once it began flowing, to where we cannot even ask for any kind of repayment.

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute.

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

Mrs. CLINTON. I strongly support the Dorgan amendment. I think it is the right thing for Iraq. I think it is the right thing for our country. It sets the right tone about how we are going to be dealing with this situation going forward. It lays down a marker that we are willing to shoulder this burden, but we expect at some point in the future for the American taxpayers of this or the next generation to be given some repayment opportunity from a new nation that we helped to create that, hopefully, will have the kind of future we are counting on and that many of us support. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, S. 1053 has the laudatory goal of prohibiting genetic discrimination. Genetic discrimination has many victims, and their stories are wrenching. There are those who cannot get coverage, as well those who lost job opportunities. But I want to make sure we don't forget another category of victims--those who forego important tests out of fear that they will be victimized. According to a recent JAMA article, 57 percent of patients at risk for breast and ovarian cancer declined a needed genetic test that could have guided prevention and treatment interventions. That is why our goal should have been jot just to pass a bill, but to pass a credible bill so that people have enough confidence in our work to go our and get the health services they need. Unfortunately, I am concerned that the enforcement provisions of S. 1053, particularly in health insurance, are not strong enough to accomplish the legislation's goal. Our Nation has made significant investments in genetic research. This research could one day lead to cures or preventions for diseases such as cancer. This investment in genetic research will prove futile if the result is not better health care. Individuals must participate in genetic research if this Nation is to reap the rewards of our investment and individuals must have confidence in the results of genetic research in order to address their personal health issues. However, as genetic information is increasingly revealed, great harm can occur. As President Bush acknowledged in his June 23, 2001 radio address: This knowledge of the code of life has the potential to be abused. Employers could be tempted to deny a job based on a person's genetic profile. Insurance companies might use that information to deny an application for coverage, or charge excessive premiums. Americans have already shown that they will not fully participate in genetic research or take advantage of genetic technologies until they believe that they are protected against genetic discrimination in health insurance and employment. Without protection, patients fear disclosing their family history, yet this hesitancy may impact the care that they and their families receive. As you recognize, genetic information is uniquely personal information. It is fundamentally different from other medical information. Because genetic information can be used against an individual and an entire family, it enables a new form of discrimination. It deserves strong enforcement and should not be treated the same as other information in a medical record. In order for S. 1053 to achieve its purpose, individuals must have confidence in its enforceability. That confidence will be difficult to instill without mechanisms such as access to a court or comparable forum to seek redress for violations of the statute. In addition, it is important that the public feel confident that violations are unlikely. This reassurance can only come from legislating strong enforcement and deterrence mechanisms. I would have liked to see the enforcement mechanisms and remedies in S. 1053 strengthened to provide for compensation for economic and non-economic damages and strong punitive provisions. If there is no redress for individual harm and if nominal fees are the only accountability mechanism in place, there is little to deter health insurers and employers from using genetic information in violation of the law. However, I believe that this bill does make a start in the direction of supporting the principle that advances in science should help move civilization forward, not to reverse our progress. Discrimination based on genetic information would be a step backward for civil rights and human dignity. That is why I support action today to begin addressing this issue, and hope that in the future we will reinforce today's action with improvements to secure justice and civil rights for all Americans.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I commend my friend and colleague from Wisconsin for a very straightforward and profoundly important summary of the reasons why we should in a bipartisan manner support the Biden amendment. The Senator from Wisconsin is an expert on the economy, on creating jobs, and on building businesses as well as public policy. He has the understanding that we have to look beyond the horizon if we are to be leaders to build a better America and a safer world for our children. I thank the Senator from Wisconsin. I, too, urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the Biden amendment. This is an issue of great importance we are debating. It is not only essential that we support our troops-- which we all do and feel strongly about--in a fiscally responsible manner so these young men and women who are fighting and dying in Iraq will be able to return to a country with a growing economy which is creating jobs and a responsible government. At the end of the day, as the Senator from Wisconsin just said, we are funding this war from our children's inheritance. It is wrong. I don't care what else you could say about it. That is fundamentally wrong. We have a chance to act responsibly. Unfortunately, the words ``fiscal responsibility'' and ``fiscal discipline'' apparently are not found in the current administration's dictionary. There is nothing responsible or fair about the decisions we are being asked to make. This administration hasn't really asked for sacrifice from anybody. But there are people who are sacrificing. First and foremost, our men and women in uniform, our active duty, our Reserve, our Guard, people who have now been deployed in Iraq or Afghanistan in our war against terror, people who have left their families and have been uprooted from their jobs, they are all sacrificing. And I am grateful and proud of the work and services they provide. But this President's budget also asks other Americans to sacrifice. It asks children and afterschool programs to sacrifice. It asks people who need job training and additional skills to be employable in this jobless economy to sacrifice. It asks people who need help with their heating and cooling bills to sacrifice. It asks those who need child care services to sacrifice. It asks so many Americans to sacrifice. Yet it does nothing to remove the burden from those people or our children. Amazingly enough, those of us who can afford to sacrifice for our national and international goals are not asked to sacrifice at all. In fact, it is just the opposite. We are given more and more and more tax cuts. What is the administration's policy except to further burden hard- working, middle-class Americans and future generations and not do anything to try to in a fiscally responsible way address our needs? Think about it. Just a few years ago we were in the midst of the longest string of budget surpluses since the 1920s. We were paying down our debt, we had historically low numbers of unemployed people, and we lifted millions of people out of poverty. President Bush said just 2 years ago the country would be virtually debt free by 2008. He said there would only be $36 billion of remaining debt. As we have seen in so many instances, the rhetoric does not match the reality. Today it is projected that our publicly held debt--and some may not want to hear, but the fact is by 2008 it will reach $6.2 trillion. We have done a tremendous reversal. Who will pay for it? The young people in this gallery who watch the proceedings in the Senate. They are the ones who will get the due bill for our profligacy, our refusal to act responsibly. The administration is denying the absolute reality that we are not paying as we go for a commitment on which we have to follow through. Here we are with a request for $87 billion. I was pleased to hear my colleague from Kansas on the other side of the aisle say they join in looking at some of the specifics because some of the specifics are outrageous. We now know from people coming back from Iraq that a lot of what the administration says they want to spend money on we can buy more cheaply than the no-bid contracts the administration favors with their friends. I was delighted to hear the Senator from Kansas say let's look at the specifics. But that still does not get us where we need to go in paying for this. There will be a big debate about how to pay for this. We can start by passing the Biden amendment, by being responsible. I also add, this is good for the economy. All this talk about the increase in the GDP on a monthly basis--look at the numbers carefully. A lot of it is driven by deficit spending and spending in Iraq. Nobody is arguing that is not a good thing that we are having to do what we said we would do and following on, but be honest and look at the numbers below the surface. As the Senator from Wisconsin said correctly, we are going to stall this economy dead in its tracks if it ever gets off the dime, if it ever begins to create jobs, because we cannot sustain private capital when we have so many demands growing from the Government. Furthermore, we are becoming even more dependent on foreign currencies, on foreign investors. I don't think that is good for our long-time security either. Instead of just pushing our country deeper in debt, let's think about our children, think about those young men and women serving this very moment in Iraq, and make sure we pay by asking those in the upper 1 percent of the income level in this country to do our fair share to make a sacrifice. It is a pittance when you think about it. What are we sacrificing? Instead of $690 billion in tax cuts, we give $600 billion in tax cuts. Do the right thing. It is good for our commitment in Iraq, good for our economy, and the very fairest thing we can do for our children.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I would like to take some time today to tell the Senate about a hero who made the ultimate sacrifice on behalf of his Nation--a young man who died in the Korean war. His name is Joseph De Pietro. He came from Broad Channel, NY. For those Senators who are not familiar with Broad Channel, it is a populated island in Jamaica Bay. It is part of Queens County, which is one of the boroughs of the City of New York. Cross Bay Boulevard connects Broad Channel to the Rockaways, which are a magnificent gateway to the Atlantic Ocean. The American Legion Broad Channel Memorial Post 1404 recently honored the memory of Joseph De Pietro, and four other young men from Broad Channel who died in the Korean war. The occasion for the ceremony was the 50th anniversary of the armistice in Korea, which was observed by American Legion Post 1404 as part of the 85th Annual Queens County Convention Parade. July 27, 1953 is the day in history when negotiators signed the armistice agreement at Panmunjom. The armistice led to a North Korean withdrawal across the 38th parallel, and the Republic of South Korea regained its status as a free and democratic nation. Korea was a critical battleground in the defense of liberty against the totalitarian ideologies of the 20th century. Joseph De Pietro left his home and traveled half a world away to the Korean Peninsula to defend freedom. Private De Pietro was a member of Company H, 2nd Battalion, 38th Infantry Regiment, 2nd Infantry Division. He was killed in action during an attack on Hill 905 along ``Heartbreak Ridge'' near Sanggonbae, North Korea on October 10, 1951, while assisting a wounded comrade. Private De Pietro was awarded the Purple Heart, the Combat Infantryman's Badge, the Korean Service Medal, the United Nations Service Medal, the National Defense Service Medal and the Korean War Service Medal. As our Nation's soldiers are once again fighting for the cause of freedom overseas, it is all the more important to remember those who helped protect America on the Korean Peninsula a half century ago. Joseph De Pietro, born August 3, 1932, killed in action October 10, 1951. His loved ones and comrades in arms are eternally proud of him. I honor his memory.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I would like to take some time today to tell the Senate about a hero who made the ultimate sacrifice on behalf of his Nation--a young man who died in the Korean war. His name is James F. Farrell. He came from Broad Channel, NY. For those Senators who are not familiar with Broad Channel, it is a populated island in Jamaica Bay. It is part of Queens County, which is one of the boroughs of the City of New York. Cross Bay Boulevard connects Broad Channel to the Rockaways, which are a magnificent gateway to the Atlantic Ocean. The American Legion Broad Channel Memorial Post 1404 recently honored the memory of James Farrell, and four other young men from Broad Channel who died in the Korean war. The occasion for the ceremony was the 50th anniversary of the armistice in Korea, which was observed by American Legion Post 1404 as part of the 85th Annual Queens County Convention Parade. July 27, 1953, is the day in history when negotiators signed the armistice agreement at Panmunjom. The armistice led to a North Korean withdrawal across the 38th parallel, and the Republic of South Korea regained its status as a free and democratic nation. Korea was a critical battleground in the defense of liberty against the totalitarian ideologies of the 20th century. James Farrell left his home and traveled half a world away to the Korean Peninsula to defend freedom. Private First Class Farrell was a member of Company K, 3rd Battalion, 9th Infantry Regiment, 2nd Infantry Division. On November 10, 1952, he was defending ``Old Baldy'' in North Korea when he was struck by enemy artillery fire. Private First Class Farrell was awarded the Purple Heart, the Combat Infantryman's Badge, the Korean Service Medal the United Nations Service Medal, the National Defense Service Medal and the Korean War Service Medal. As our Nation's soldiers are once again fighting for the cause of freedom overseas, it is all the more important to remember those who helped protect America on the Korean Peninsula a half century ago. James Farrell, born August 7, 1933; killed in action November 10, 1952. Mr. President, his loved ones and comrades in arms are eternally proud of him. I honor his memory.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I would like to take some time today to tell the Senate about a hero who made the ultimate sacrifice on behalf of his Nation--a young man who died in the Korean war. His name is Thomas W. August. He came from Broad Channel, NY. For those Senators who are not familiar with Broad Channel, it is a populated island in Jamaica Bay. It is part of Queens County, which is one of the boroughs of the City of New York. Cross Bay Boulevard connects Broad Channel to the Rockaways, which are a magnificent gateway to the Atlantic Ocean. The American Legion Broad Channel Memorial Post 1404 recently honored the memory of Thomas August, and four other young men from Broad Channel who died in the Korean war. The occasion for the ceremony was the 50th anniversary of the armistice in Korea, which was observed by American Legion Post 1404 as part of the 85th Annual Queens County Convention Parade. July 27, 1953 is the day in history when negotiators signed the armistice agreement at Panmunjom. The armistice led to a North Korean withdrawal across the 38th parallel, and the Republic of South Korea regained its status as a free and democratic nation. Korea was a critical battleground in the defense of liberty against the totalitarian ideologists of the 20th century. Thomas August left his home and traveled half a world away to the Korean peninsula to defend freedom. Private First Class August was a member of the 224th Infantry Regiment, 40th Infantry Division. He was killed in action while fighting the enemy near Satae-ri, North Korea on November 17, 1952. Private First Class August was awarded the Purple Heart, the Combat Infantryman's Badge, the Korean Service Medal, the United Nations Service Medal, the National Defense Service Medal and the Korean War Service Medal. As our Nation's soldiers are once again fighting for the cause of freedom overseas, it is all the more important to remember those who helped protect America on the Korean peninsula a half century ago. Thomas August born February 13, 1932, killed in action November 17, 1952. His loved ones and comrades in arms are eternally proud of him. I honor his memory.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I take time today to tell the Senate about a hero who made the ultimate sacrifice on behalf of his Nation--a young man who died in the Korean war. His name is Walter Francis Gross. He came from Broad Channel, NY. For those Senators who are not familiar with Broad Channel, it is a populated island in Jamaica Bay. It is part of Queens County, which is one of the boroughs of the City of New York. Cross Bay Boulevard connects Broad Channel to the Rockaways, which are a magnificent gateway to the Atlantic Ocean. The American Legion Broad Channel Memorial Post 1404 recently honored the memory of Walter Gross, and four other young men from Broad Channel who died in the Korean War. The occasion for the ceremony was the 50th anniversary of the armistice in Korea, which was observed by American Legion Post 1404 as part of the 85th Annual Queens County Convention Parade. Mr. President, July 27, 1953 is the day in history when negotiators signed the armistice agreement at Panmunjom. The armistice led to a North Korean withdrawal across the 38th parallel, and the Republic of South Korea regained its status as a free and democratic nation. Korea was a critical battleground in the defense of liberty against the totalitarian ideologies of the 20th century. Walter Gross left his home and traveled half a world away to the Korean Peninsula to defend freedom. Private First Class Gross was a member of Company C, 1st Battalion, 19th Infantry Regiment, 24th Infantry Division. He was taken Prisoner of War while fighting the enemy in South Korea on January 1, 1951 and died while a prisoner on July 31, 1951 at POW Camp 12 near Pyektong, North Korea. Private First Class Gross was awarded the Prisoner of War Medal, the Combat Infantryman's Badge, the Korean Service Medal, the United Nations Service Medal, the National Defense Service Medal and the Korean War Service Medal. As our Nation's soldiers are once again fighting for the cause of freedom overseas, it is all the more important to remember those who helped protect America on the Korean Peninsula a half century ago. Walter Gross, born May 13, 1928, died while a prisoner of war, July 31, 1951. Mr. President, his loved ones and comrades in arms are eternally proud of him. I honor his memory.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I take time today to tell the Senate about a hero who made the ultimate sacrifice on behalf of his Nation--a young man who died in the Korean war. His name is Ralph Ray Mitola. He came from Broad Channel, NY. For those Senators who are not familiar with Broad Channel, it is a populated island in Jamaica Bay. It is part of Queens County, which is one of the boroughs of the City of New York. Cross Bay Boulevard connects Broad Channel to the Rockaways, which are a magnificent gateway to the Atlantic Ocean. The American Legion Broad Channel Memorial Post 1404 recently honored the memory of Ralph Mitola, and four other young men from Broad Channel who died in the Korean war. The occasion for the ceremony was the 50th anniversary of the armistice in Korea, which was observed by American Legion Post 1404 as part of the 85th Annual Queens County Convention Parade. Mr. President, July 27, 1953 is the day in history when negotiators signed the armistice agreement at Panmunjom. The armistice led to a North Korean withdrawal across the 38th parallel, and the Republic of South Korea regained its status as a free and democratic nation. Korea was a critical battleground in the defense of liberty against the totalitarian ideologies of the 20th century. Ralph Mitola left his home and traveled half a world away to the Korean Peninsula to defend freedom. Corporal Mitola was a member of Company C, 1st Battalion, 23d Infantry Regiment, 2d Infantry Division. On August 1, 1952, during a night attack on ``Old Baldy'' in North Korea, he was killed by small arms fire. Corporal Mitola was awarded the Purple Heart, the Combat Infantryman's Badge, the Korean Service Medal, the United Nations Service Medal, the National Defense Service Medal and the Korean War Service Medal. As our Nation's soldiers are once again fighting for the cause of freedom overseas, it is all the more important to remember those who helped protect America on the Korean Peninsula a half century ago. Ralph Mitola, born April 10, 1931, killed in action, August 1, 1952. Mr. President, his loved ones and comrades in arms are eternally proud of him. I honor his memory.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I want to think you Len Roberts and the people of United Way for making this day possible. The tremendous board members, including Brian Gallagher and Dr. Johnnetta Cole. And Paul Thornell and Bridget Gavaghan, of the staff. I also want to thank Senator Dole for working with me on this project. Because of her long history with the Red Cross, she understands the important of 2-1-1, and I am so pleased to be working with her to champion the Calling for 2-1-1 Act. I know that she will be a tremendous help in getting this legislation passed into law. Representatives Richard Burr and Anna Eshoo are leading this effort in the House and I appreciate their efforts. I also want to thank you Major Dennis E. Fowler who was here this morning from Florida to share his perspective on the value of 2-1-1. And of course, I have to mention George Clooney who is on the board of United Way and came to a press conference this morning to help publicize this legislation. I am always happy to thank people who take time away from K Street to help Main Street. This is a piece of legislation whose time has come. As you all know, I represent a State that experienced a horrible tragedy on September 11. The silver lining in that tragedy was the tremendous outgrowth of volunteerism. We saw thousands of individuals-- people from all over the country--who came to New York just to lend a hand. But the biggest challenge the city experienced was coordinating those efforts. Making sure we knew exactly how many people were needed to heal the wounded, clean up debris at the site, donate blood, bring food and coffee to the firefighters and police officers who were working round the clock, and so much more. The needs were great and the people of America rose to the challenge. But our infrastructure struggled to keep up. As time wore on, the economic repercussions of the disaster became more and more apparent. More than 100,000 people lost their jobs. Close to 2,000 families applied for housing assistance because they couldn't pay their rent or mortgage. Ninety thousand people developed symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder or clinical depression within 8 weeks of the attacks. Another 34,000 people met the criteria for both diagnoses. Again, our communities rose to the challenge. Philanthropic organizations like United Way, along with corporations, foundations, and community organizations raise more than $1 billion to help the victims. But our government did not have the infrastructure to handle the outpouring of support. In a study of the aftermath of September 11, the Brookings Institution and Urban Institute found that as the dislocated workers struggled to obtain assistance. people ``found it difficult to connect with resources due to a social-services infrastructure that does not support a simple and deficient method for people to learn about and access services and for agencies to coordinate their activities.'' That's what 2-1-1 is all about. It provides a single, efficient, coordinated way for people who need help to connect with those who can provide it. The Federal Communications Commission land the groundwork for a 2-1-1 number in 2000 when it directed the telephone number to be reserved for information and referral to social- and human-services agencies. The 2- 1-1 system opens the way to a user-friendly social-services network, by providing an easy-to-remember and universally available phone number that links individuals and families in need to the appropriate non- profit and government agencies. Where 2-1-1 is now active, it has done just that. 2-1-1 is helping our youth to navigate through difficult situations like exiting a gang, assisting a suicidal friend, and rejecting illegal drugs. 2-1-1 was already operating in Connecticut during September 11 and it was critical in helping identify the whereabouts of victims, connecting frightened children with their parents, providing information on terrorist suspects, and linking ready volunteers with coordinated efforts and victims with necessary mental and physical health services. 2-1-1 provided locations of vigils and support groups, and information on bioterrorism. I want those services to be available to New Yorkers who continue to need services in the recovery process. Some have mental health problems. Other are still out of work. Others need legal and financial advice. Whatever the need, 2-1-1 can help. So I am thrilled to announce today that I am introducing the Calling for 2-1-1 Act. I hope that we soon reach a day when all Americans have the 4-1-1 on 2-1-1 so it can help them through life's toughest challenges. Thank you.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I want to think you Len Roberts and the people of United Way for making this day possible. The tremendous board members, including Brian Gallagher and Dr. Johnnetta Cole. And Paul Thornell and Bridget Gavaghan, of the staff. I also want to thank Senator Dole for working with me on this project. Because of her long history with the Red Cross, she understands the important of 2-1-1, and I am so pleased to be working with her to champion the Calling for 2-1-1 Act. I know that she will be a tremendous help in getting this legislation passed into law. Representatives Richard Burr and Anna Eshoo are leading this effort in the House and I appreciate their efforts. I also want to thank you Major Dennis E. Fowler who was here this morning from Florida to share his perspective on the value of 2-1-1. And of course, I have to mention George Clooney who is on the board of United Way and came to a press conference this morning to help publicize this legislation. I am always happy to thank people who take time away from K Street to help Main Street. This is a piece of legislation whose time has come. As you all know, I represent a State that experienced a horrible tragedy on September 11. The silver lining in that tragedy was the tremendous outgrowth of volunteerism. We saw thousands of individuals-- people from all over the country--who came to New York just to lend a hand. But the biggest challenge the city experienced was coordinating those efforts. Making sure we knew exactly how many people were needed to heal the wounded, clean up debris at the site, donate blood, bring food and coffee to the firefighters and police officers who were working round the clock, and so much more. The needs were great and the people of America rose to the challenge. But our infrastructure struggled to keep up. As time wore on, the economic repercussions of the disaster became more and more apparent. More than 100,000 people lost their jobs. Close to 2,000 families applied for housing assistance because they couldn't pay their rent or mortgage. Ninety thousand people developed symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder or clinical depression within 8 weeks of the attacks. Another 34,000 people met the criteria for both diagnoses. Again, our communities rose to the challenge. Philanthropic organizations like United Way, along with corporations, foundations, and community organizations raise more than $1 billion to help the victims. But our government did not have the infrastructure to handle the outpouring of support. In a study of the aftermath of September 11, the Brookings Institution and Urban Institute found that as the dislocated workers struggled to obtain assistance. people ``found it difficult to connect with resources due to a social-services infrastructure that does not support a simple and deficient method for people to learn about and access services and for agencies to coordinate their activities.'' That's what 2-1-1 is all about. It provides a single, efficient, coordinated way for people who need help to connect with those who can provide it. The Federal Communications Commission land the groundwork for a 2-1-1 number in 2000 when it directed the telephone number to be reserved for information and referral to social- and human-services agencies. The 2- 1-1 system opens the way to a user-friendly social-services network, by providing an easy-to-remember and universally available phone number that links individuals and families in need to the appropriate non- profit and government agencies. Where 2-1-1 is now active, it has done just that. 2-1-1 is helping our youth to navigate through difficult situations like exiting a gang, assisting a suicidal friend, and rejecting illegal drugs. 2-1-1 was already operating in Connecticut during September 11 and it was critical in helping identify the whereabouts of victims, connecting frightened children with their parents, providing information on terrorist suspects, and linking ready volunteers with coordinated efforts and victims with necessary mental and physical health services. 2-1-1 provided locations of vigils and support groups, and information on bioterrorism. I want those services to be available to New Yorkers who continue to need services in the recovery process. Some have mental health problems. Other are still out of work. Others need legal and financial advice. Whatever the need, 2-1-1 can help. So I am thrilled to announce today that I am introducing the Calling for 2-1-1 Act. I hope that we soon reach a day when all Americans have the 4-1-1 on 2-1-1 so it can help them through life's toughest challenges. Thank you.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Reid Hispanic educational opportunities amendment. My Democratic colleagues and I have held roundtables with Hispanic leaders across the Nation and members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus that have allowed us to share ideas and develop an agenda that addresses the issues that matter most to the Hispanic community. We know how important education is to Hispanics and will continue to ensure that it remains a top priority for the Democratic caucus. Unfortunately, the Senate Appropriations Committee-approved bill eliminated or significantly underfunded programs with a clear record of improving educational opportunities for Hispanic children. Unless we restore and expand these funds, millions of Hispanic students will be denied the opportunity to achieve the American dream. The fact is, Latino children are among the most educationally disadvantaged students in our Nation. They have the highest dropout rate in the entire country, the lowest college attendance rates, the lowest college graduation rates, and are more likely to attend underfunded schools in low-income areas. Hispanic children make up 17 percent of the total school age population in the country and recent trends indicate that the number of Latino children attending our Nation's schools is increasing. This amendment would help ensure that millions of Latino children get the quality education they need and deserve. It would restore and expand funds to programs with a proven record of improving achievement among Latinos. New York's schools serve a large and growing number of Latino students and the rate of enrollment for limited English proficient students has grown by 44 percent since 1990. Resources provided under title III of the NCLB help school districts in my State provide English language instruction to over 300,000 limited English proficient children and nearly 120,000 immigrant children. Yet this appropriations bill cuts title III of the NCLB by $20 million. Restoring this funding will help States, local schools, and colleges build their capacity to teach limited English proficient students effectively. This appropriations bill also provides inadequate funding to serve the children of migrant and seasonal farmworkers. Often called ``children of the road,'' these children face many obstacles in their lives, including extreme poverty, geographic and cultural isolation, discrimination based on race or ethnic status, language minority status, and, most important, mobility. Currently, only 664 of 1,177 eligible migrant children are being served in migrant and seasonal Head Start centers across New York. This amendment will take an additional 150 migrant children in New York out of the fields where they are put at risk of exposure to harmful toxins and pesticides and into quality head start classrooms where they can receive the social, behavioral, and cognitive skills they need to help prepare them for school. As they continue on their journey through the education pipeline, programs like the High School Equivalency Program, HEP, and College Assistance Migrant Program, CMP, help these students beat the odds. The HEP and CAMP programs are both very important to New York as well as other states in the Northeast. The HEP program helps migrant students who have dropped out of high school get their GED, and CAMP assists migrant students in their first year of college with both counseling and stipends. At the State University of New York at Oneonta, Luis Gonzalez, a New Yorker and former HEP and CAMP student will be entering as a sophomore. Luis' experience as a migrant youth is shared by countless other children of migrant and seasonal farm workers. For Luis, it resulted in a pattern of repeating grades until he quit school to work with his father in the vineyards of Western New York. A year later, he learned about HEP and earned his GED. He then applied to college and was admitted as a freshman to SUNY last year. As a CAMP student, Luis received vital academic, social, and financial support during his first year of college, the most critical year for most first-generation college students. Luis now mentors other HEP students, is a member of the AmeriCorps program and has maintained a cumulative GPA of 3.04. Securing additional resources for HEP and CAMP will help ensure the dreams of students like Luis become reality. Many Hispanic students like Luis choose to move on to Hispanic serving institutions, HSIs. These schools, including New York's 12 HSIs, serve a large and growing number of Hispanic students. By supporting these institutions we are recognizing the large contribution they make to increasing access to higher education. Failure to increase funding for these programs will not only hurt individual Hispanic children. Unless we provide Latino children today with the education they need to learn the skills necessary for a wide range of jobs, we risk having a shortage of qualified workers in the future. We need a highly skilled workforce to compete in this global economy and investing in the education and training of our Hispanic population will help our Nation meet this challenge. I strongly urge my colleagues to support the Hispanic educational opportunities amendment.

Mrs. CLINTON. The administration plans to provide $124 million in fiscal year 2004 so that it can store a 6-month supply of childhood vaccines by 2006. I thank Senators Specter and Harkin for affirming the administration's commitment to prevent further vaccine shortages by stockpiling a 6-month supply of childhood vaccines. Senators DeWine and Reed and I introduced the Childhood Vaccine Supply Act along with to strengthen and support the administration's authority in these efforts and assure that the stockpile includes adults as well as all children, who were affected by the tetanus-diphtheria toxoid shortage last year. Senator DeWine, is a vaccine stockpile sufficient to prevent future shortages?