Hillary Clinton

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to help parents protect their children against violent and sexual media. In rising, I stand with the parents and children of New York and of the Nation, all of whom are being victimized by a culture of violence. As parents, we monitor the kind of people who interact with our children. We attend parent night at school. We meet our children's teachers. We look over their textbooks to make sure they are installing our values and attitudes in our children. We meet our children's friends and their parents to make sure they are a positive source of influence. If somebody is exposing our children to material we find inappropriate, we remove our children from that person. If you hired a babysitter who exposed your children to violence and sexual material that you thought was inappropriate, what would you do? If you are like me, you would fire that babysitter and never invite him or her to come back. Yet our children spend more time consuming media than doing anything else but sleeping and attending school. Media culture is like having a stranger in your house, and it exerts a major influence over your children. It is this attack on the sensibilities of our children that is the subject of the bill I introduce today. It is a bill that I consider to be of tremendous importance to our families. This bill would take an important step towards helping parents protect their children against influences they often find to be inappropriate--violent and sexually explicit video games. Quite simply, the bill would put teeth into the video game industry's rating system, which specifies which video games are inappropriate for young people under 17. By fining retailers who do not abide by the ratings system, this bill sends a message that the ratings system is to be taken seriously. I know many of my colleagues, myself included, don't play video games and aren't aware of exactly what is contained in these games. So, I hope you will listen as I describe a few scenes so we know what is at issue here today. Consider the following scenario: You have been captured by a demented film-maker who drops you into a gang-infested slum. While the gangs think they are hunting you, they don't know the real plot: that you are hunting them, while the director records each act of murder on film. Since you are outnumbered and could easily be mobbed, you cannot just jump in and fight everyone. Rather, you must be silent and patient, tracking your prey so that you can strike from behind. You strangle a villain with a sharp wire, and a finely rendered mist of blood sprays from his severed carotid artery. . . . This is just one scene from one game. It happens not to be a game that has gotten a tremendous amount of attention lately. Frankly, I don't know if it's one of the most popular games out there or not. But I do know, if my daughter was still young, I wouldn't want her playing it. Here is another one: Carl Johnson long ago escaped the hardships of street life in San Andreas. Now his mother is murdered, his old buddies are in trouble, and Carl must come home to clean up the mess--San Andreas style. That means spraying people with uzi bullets, blowing them up, or sniper shooting them from the top of buildings. It also means killing police officers and visiting prostitutes. No one doubts that this material is inappropriate for children. The video game industry itself developed and implemented the ratings system that parents rely on today. They are responsible for developing the ``M'' for Mature or ``AO'' for Adults Only labels, which signal to parents that the content is too violent and/or sexually explicit for a child to play. Unfortunately, enforcement has been lax and minors can purchase Mature-rated games with relative ease. A 2001 study by the Federal Trade Commission showed that 85 percent of unaccompanied minors, ages 13 to 16, could purchase games rated Mature. A study by the National Institute on Media and the Family found that nearly half of children, as young as age 9, succeed in buying Mature-rated games. And close to a quarter of retailers did not understand the ratings system and half did not provide any training to their employees. This is a terrible problem that needs to be fixed. And this bill does just that. I want to be clear--this bill is not an attack on video games. Video games are a fun part of the lives of millions of Americans, young and old alike. They can teach coordination and strategy. They can introduce children to computer technology. They can provide practice in learning to problem solve and they can help children hone their fine motor and spatial skills. This bill is also not an attack on free and creative expression. Relying on the growing body of scientific evidence that demonstrates a causal link between exposure to these games and antisocial behavior in our children, this bill was carefully drafted to pass constitutional strict scrutiny. Furthermore, nothing in this bill limits the production or sale of these games beyond current practice. If retailers are following the rules--established voluntarily by the video game industry--then this bill will have absolutely no impact on them. And this bill does not overlook or undervalue the critical role parents play in protecting their children, and instilling in them, their own values. This bill is designed to buoy the efforts of parents, who too often feel like they are fighting an uphill battle against the violent and sexually explicit messages that are just a trip to the mall away. The unfortunate truth is there is a darkside to some video games, which has lead to a universal agreement--among parents, advocates, policymakers, and the gaming industry--that some games are not suitable for children. What we are seeking to do today is to ensure that that value judgment is meaningful. Much of the public concern about the exposure of children to M-rated games focuses on sexually explicit content. Parents are rightly worried about this content and we should come together to take steps to keep these games out of the hands of our kids. But let's not discount the awful effect of violence in the media because, frankly, the evidence on this point is overwhelming and deserves more of our attention. Consider the Joint Statement on the Impact of Entertainment Violence on Children from the Congressional Public Health Summit in July of 2000. I quote: ``Well over 1,000 studies--including reports from the Surgeon General's office, the National Institute of Mental Health, and numerous studies conducted by leading figures within our medical and public health organizations . . . point overwhelmingly to a causal connection between media violence and aggressive behavior in some children,'' states their report. The American Academy of Pediatrics stated, in a report entitled Media Exposure Feeding Children's Violent Acts, ``Playing violent video games is to an adolescent's violent behavior what smoking tobacco is to lung cancer.'' I ask to have printed in the Record a resolution adopted by the American Psychological Association about the effect of violence in video games and interactive media.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to help parents protect their children against violent and sexual media. In rising, I stand with the parents and children of New York and of the Nation, all of whom are being victimized by a culture of violence. As parents, we monitor the kind of people who interact with our children. We attend parent night at school. We meet our children's teachers. We look over their textbooks to make sure they are installing our values and attitudes in our children. We meet our children's friends and their parents to make sure they are a positive source of influence. If somebody is exposing our children to material we find inappropriate, we remove our children from that person. If you hired a babysitter who exposed your children to violence and sexual material that you thought was inappropriate, what would you do? If you are like me, you would fire that babysitter and never invite him or her to come back. Yet our children spend more time consuming media than doing anything else but sleeping and attending school. Media culture is like having a stranger in your house, and it exerts a major influence over your children. It is this attack on the sensibilities of our children that is the subject of the bill I introduce today. It is a bill that I consider to be of tremendous importance to our families. This bill would take an important step towards helping parents protect their children against influences they often find to be inappropriate--violent and sexually explicit video games. Quite simply, the bill would put teeth into the video game industry's rating system, which specifies which video games are inappropriate for young people under 17. By fining retailers who do not abide by the ratings system, this bill sends a message that the ratings system is to be taken seriously. I know many of my colleagues, myself included, don't play video games and aren't aware of exactly what is contained in these games. So, I hope you will listen as I describe a few scenes so we know what is at issue here today. Consider the following scenario: You have been captured by a demented film-maker who drops you into a gang-infested slum. While the gangs think they are hunting you, they don't know the real plot: that you are hunting them, while the director records each act of murder on film. Since you are outnumbered and could easily be mobbed, you cannot just jump in and fight everyone. Rather, you must be silent and patient, tracking your prey so that you can strike from behind. You strangle a villain with a sharp wire, and a finely rendered mist of blood sprays from his severed carotid artery. . . . This is just one scene from one game. It happens not to be a game that has gotten a tremendous amount of attention lately. Frankly, I don't know if it's one of the most popular games out there or not. But I do know, if my daughter was still young, I wouldn't want her playing it. Here is another one: Carl Johnson long ago escaped the hardships of street life in San Andreas. Now his mother is murdered, his old buddies are in trouble, and Carl must come home to clean up the mess--San Andreas style. That means spraying people with uzi bullets, blowing them up, or sniper shooting them from the top of buildings. It also means killing police officers and visiting prostitutes. No one doubts that this material is inappropriate for children. The video game industry itself developed and implemented the ratings system that parents rely on today. They are responsible for developing the ``M'' for Mature or ``AO'' for Adults Only labels, which signal to parents that the content is too violent and/or sexually explicit for a child to play. Unfortunately, enforcement has been lax and minors can purchase Mature-rated games with relative ease. A 2001 study by the Federal Trade Commission showed that 85 percent of unaccompanied minors, ages 13 to 16, could purchase games rated Mature. A study by the National Institute on Media and the Family found that nearly half of children, as young as age 9, succeed in buying Mature-rated games. And close to a quarter of retailers did not understand the ratings system and half did not provide any training to their employees. This is a terrible problem that needs to be fixed. And this bill does just that. I want to be clear--this bill is not an attack on video games. Video games are a fun part of the lives of millions of Americans, young and old alike. They can teach coordination and strategy. They can introduce children to computer technology. They can provide practice in learning to problem solve and they can help children hone their fine motor and spatial skills. This bill is also not an attack on free and creative expression. Relying on the growing body of scientific evidence that demonstrates a causal link between exposure to these games and antisocial behavior in our children, this bill was carefully drafted to pass constitutional strict scrutiny. Furthermore, nothing in this bill limits the production or sale of these games beyond current practice. If retailers are following the rules--established voluntarily by the video game industry--then this bill will have absolutely no impact on them. And this bill does not overlook or undervalue the critical role parents play in protecting their children, and instilling in them, their own values. This bill is designed to buoy the efforts of parents, who too often feel like they are fighting an uphill battle against the violent and sexually explicit messages that are just a trip to the mall away. The unfortunate truth is there is a darkside to some video games, which has lead to a universal agreement--among parents, advocates, policymakers, and the gaming industry--that some games are not suitable for children. What we are seeking to do today is to ensure that that value judgment is meaningful. Much of the public concern about the exposure of children to M-rated games focuses on sexually explicit content. Parents are rightly worried about this content and we should come together to take steps to keep these games out of the hands of our kids. But let's not discount the awful effect of violence in the media because, frankly, the evidence on this point is overwhelming and deserves more of our attention. Consider the Joint Statement on the Impact of Entertainment Violence on Children from the Congressional Public Health Summit in July of 2000. I quote: ``Well over 1,000 studies--including reports from the Surgeon General's office, the National Institute of Mental Health, and numerous studies conducted by leading figures within our medical and public health organizations . . . point overwhelmingly to a causal connection between media violence and aggressive behavior in some children,'' states their report. The American Academy of Pediatrics stated, in a report entitled Media Exposure Feeding Children's Violent Acts, ``Playing violent video games is to an adolescent's violent behavior what smoking tobacco is to lung cancer.'' I ask to have printed in the Record a resolution adopted by the American Psychological Association about the effect of violence in video games and interactive media.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I associate myself with the comments of the Senator from Massachusetts and underscore the importance of the points he was making about the need for us to be better prepared to compete in the global economy. I look forward to supporting the Senator's motion, and hopefully the conferees will pay heed to the Senator's strong admonition about what is in our Nation's best interest in terms of investments. I hope I may be added as a cosponsor of that very important effort. Mr. President, the holiday season is upon us, presenting an opportunity to give thanks for our blessings, reflect on the past year, and consider how we can better demonstrate goodwill to one another. That is the true spirit of this wonderful and blessed season. Sadly, the budget we are debating this week and, quite frankly, the work of the Congress this entire session has failed to keep faith with the spirit of the season or the priorities of the American people. We are not following through on the promise to rebuild New Orleans. We are not taking the necessary steps to reduce health care costs or make energy more affordable. We are not investing in education as we should to prepare the next generation. This entire legislative season has been about the misplaced priorities of the White House and the Republican majority in Congress who are unable or unwilling to recognize the realities facing America's families. Washington Republicans seem oblivious to the fact that 1.1 million more Americans fell into poverty last year for a total of 37 million of our fellow citizens, including 13 million children. In New York City, one in five residents lives below the poverty line. They have turned a blind eye to the fact that 45 million Americans are without health insurance, including almost 3 million New Yorkers. They have ignored the devastating effects of the job losses that workers at GM, Ford, and Delphi face and our huge and growing national debt, now $8.1 trillion, that threatens the future of our children. The Republican budget lays bear the priorities of Washington Republicans: Loopholes for oil companies instead of student loans for middle-class families; irresponsible tax breaks instead of affordable health care for the working poor. Now these are choices that would even give Ebenezer Scrooge pause--choices that not only ignore the challenges facing American families but make those challenges more difficult to overcome. Congress is on the verge of enacting a fatally flawed budget plan that finances further irresponsible tax breaks on the backs of Americans who struggle to pay college tuition, to provide health care coverage for their families, and keep their homes warm in winter. This budget plan is written in the full spirit of the ``Grinch Who Stole Christmas.'' But instead of taking away the presents and the Christmas decorations like the Grinch did, Congress is ringing in the holiday season by taking away Medicaid benefits, food stamps, child support enforcement, childcare programs, affordable housing grants, and student loan benefits. At the end of the story, the Grinch sees the error of his ways. I can only hope that the Members of this Chamber experience a similar revelation. We have been told that these steps are necessary to pay down the deficit. We have been told that the proposed additional cuts and tax breaks are the priorities of the American people necessary to continue economic growth. Cutting Medicaid, food stamps, childcare, affordable housing, and student loans is no way to balance the budget or secure our children's futures. It is not in the long-term interest of our country, and it is not in keeping with the values of the American people. What is more, under the Republican majority's budget proposals, the budget deficit would actually increase by anywhere from $10 billion to $20 billion. Democrats in the Congress know what real deficit reduction looks like. It involves difficult choices on both the revenue and spending side. During the Clinton administration, making the tough choices not only eliminated the deficit but produced the largest budget surpluses on record. If those in Congress who support this budget, the Grinch budget, were truly concerned about deficits, then they would not have opposed the restoration of the pay-go rule, a very simple rule which means you don't spend money you don't have. They certainly would not have approved an additional $70 billion in tax breaks along with the budget cuts, tax breaks skewed toward the most affluent among us that will worsen our Nation's growing fiscal imbalance. What this bill represents is not only an abandonment of our responsibility to middle-class and working families but the steady erosion of the work support programs that have enabled millions of Americans to find work, get off the welfare rolls, and rise above the poverty line. The right way to cut the deficit is clear. Instead of cutting programs that help working families get ahead, cut the subsidies flowing to corporate tax breaks, delay further tax cuts on capital gains and dividends while passing those cuts that benefit the middle class such as AMT reform. The tax cuts going already to the wealthiest in this country are nearly seven times larger than all of the proposed budget cuts in the House and Senate. Moreover, there are tax cuts not yet in effect, such as the repeal of the phaseout of personal exemptions and limitations on deductions that go into effect next year, which will cost over $27 billion in the next 5 years. We could also allow the Government to negotiate with drug companies to lower the cost of prescription drugs, which was prohibited in the flawed Medicare drug benefit. If Medicare were able to reap the kinds of savings we have seen through the VA system's negotiations, seniors could expect to save more than $100 billion over the next decade in drug costs. This alone is more than four times the savings achieved through the harsh budget cuts being proposed. We could establish a fund for alternative energy investments by requiring that oil companies, which as we know are experiencing amazing record profits this year, to invest in alternative energy. We could require that they help with people's heating bills this winter. We could bring in $20 billion a year with the right energy investments through the strategic energy fund that I have recommended that would have the benefit of making us less energy dependent on foreign oil. Of course, we could eliminate the $2.6 billion in new tax breaks that those same record profit-making oil companies lobbied for and won in this year's Energy bill. Why do we not take the oil companies off welfare? I think that is an idea we at least ought to debate in this Chamber. Unfortunately, the Republican majority and the administration have made their choice: Breaks for the special interests instead of compassion for common citizens who face new hardships. They must literally wake up each morning and ask, what are we going to do to help our friends today? Never has so much been done for so few who need it so little. Look at their plans for Medicaid. The Republican majority is recommending cuts of up to $11.4 billion over the next 5 years. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that these cuts will result in higher premiums and copays for over 7 million people, including 3.5 million children. Some 70,000 people may lose their health care altogether. A family just above the poverty line could see an increase of more than $1,000 annually to maintain their health care coverage. New York would bear a disproportionately high burden of these cuts, as we would stand to lose over $1.37 billion, putting at risk the more than 4 million New Yorkers who depend on Medicaid. Over 97,000 New York children and 12,400 New York seniors would lose a substantial portion of their services under the cuts being debated. Instead of closing tax loopholes, Washington Republicans are cutting health care. It is very difficult to understand how we could be doing this. If we took that $2.6 billion in new tax subsidies for oil companies that are having an aggregate year of profits of--give or take a billion or so--around $100 billion, with that $2.6 billion we could cover the health care costs of an additional 1.7 million children nationwide. Sadly, the majority has chosen health care cuts and Medicaid as the tip of the iceberg. We can take a look at other damage that will come to American families because of these misplaced priorities. Working parents struggling to pay for child care, health care, and housing will now have the added burden of losing their food payment assistance. Two hundred and twenty-five thousand people will see their food stamps vanish, including up to 14,000 New York residents and some 5,000 New York children. To put this in perspective, the Republican majority is proposing an approximately $700 million cut in food stamps. If we simply reinstated the Superfund polluter tax, which forces companies that pollute to bear the expense of cleaning up instead of passing it on to the average taxpayers to clean up their mess, that would generate $7.3 billion over the next 10 years, more than 10 times the cost of the food stamp cut. Additionally, children in households receiving food stamps are automatically eligible for school meals. The Republican bill in the House, while reducing the number of people who will receive food assistance, also eliminates the automatic link and makes it more difficult for hundreds of thousands of low-income children in New York State, as well as many more around the country, to qualify for free or reduced priced meals at school. The House budget is literally taking food from the mouths of children. Then, what are they thinking when it comes to child support enforcement? If there ever was a win-win program, it is this. It is designed to go after deadbeat parents, collect the money that is owed, which in turn can be provided to the families that are in need, helping lift those single-parent families out of poverty by requiring that their parents work and make regular payments to support their children. Well, no, that is going to be cut as well. Funding would be slashed by $16 billion. That means some $24 billion in child support payments would go uncollected. In the next 10 years, children in my State would stand to lose over $1.4 billion in child support payments. It is almost impossible to imagine this happening at any time but here we are in the Christmas season, and we are giving a boon to deadbeat parents, taking food out of the mouths of children, cutting people off of health care and, of course, under the radar screen, the Republican majority is trying to use this budget reconciliation process for a major overhaul of our Nation's welfare rules. I am very proud of welfare reform. In 1997, we created a welfare program that valued work, built around the notion that people should work and that people who do work should not still be poor after they have worked. And that work leads to dignity and self-sufficiency and provides strong role models for children. Back then--it was not so long ago--Republicans claimed to agree that we should support working families, but the policies they are pushing today will punish working parents. It will push those who are literally tottering on the brink of poverty over the edge. Under their proposal, 330,000 families would lose child care assistance and cities and towns throughout my State would be the ones that would have to provide some kind of help but not with Federal assistance because they would be required to eliminate subsidies for working families. They are the ones down at the local level who will see the results of these wrong-headed policies. As working families grapple with rising home prices, the Republican majority is trying to eliminate critical grants that create more affordable housing. These grants have been an invaluable source of funds, providing for the rehabilitation of homes that would otherwise be out of reach for low-income working families. Since 1995, New York has saved 1,746 units of housing as a result of this program; on the chopping block. Goodbye to help for housing. I do not know where the working families in my State or other States will end up living. A lot of them will end up being homeless. Then we come to a program that is about the future. It is particularly stunning--I am sure many in this Chamber and the House believe that a college education is certainly critical for their own children and grandchildren and is part of the route to success in today's competitive global economy. Well, one would not know by the budget numbers that are coming out of the Republican majority that they have any value for education at all because they are instituting an additional $14.3 billion in charges for student loan recipients, making an education even more difficult to finance. This would be the largest cut in student aid in the history of the loan program. So while with one hand we paint college education as the path to achievement, with the other we are erecting an even higher barrier for middle class families and working families, let alone poor families, who all of a sudden are going to be told they better try to get their kid to go to college, but tuition is rising so we know it is more and more expensive. Instead of giving more help as we used to do, we are going to make it harder to get the financial assistance that is needed to go to and complete college. An average student would be saddled with a lot more in costs. For example, if a student had $17,500 in student loans they might pay an additional $5,800 under the Republican plan. In my State, approximately 472,000 students would see an increase in their costs. I do not understand what we are trying to achieve. If we simply took the $18 billion revenue-raising package adopted by the Senate in its tax bill, which repeals among other loopholes another $4.3 billion tax giveaway to oil companies--honest to goodness, don't the oil companies ever get enough tax breaks? I mean, it is not enough that we are paying so much money to them out of our daily paychecks, now they are going to ask us to pay it out of our tax payments--more and more and more subsidies to companies that are making tens of billions of dollars in profits. It doesn't add up to me. But if we took away those $4.3 billion in new tax giveaways to oil companies and we cracked down on abusive corporate tax transactions such as setting up offshore tax havens in places such as Bermuda to avoid paying United States taxes, we would not have to make it more painful and costly for students to go to college. So what is the tradeoff here? More subsidies for the oil companies, more offshore tax havens for companies that call themselves American but are not willing to pay their fair share to fund our young men and women in uniform, to help pay for the victims of Katrina or literally anything else? We could keep doing that. I guess that is the Republican philosophy. Or, we can say: Wait. Enough is enough. We don't have to give the oil companies any more tax breaks and let's close these loopholes. It is unpatriotic for these companies to pay not one penny in taxes to this Government, to our national defense, for the blessings that make it possible for them to do business and have a good standard of living. It is wrong. Apparently that is not the way the Republican majority sees it. What they say is that these spending and tax cuts are progrowth. They are right about that. They are progrowth for the oil companies. They are progrowth for the tax haven companies. But they are sure not progrowth for somebody trying to get through college or some working mom who needs to collect child support from an ex-husband. I do not see anything progrowth about that for them. They do not even make economic sense. You know, we know how to do the economy right. We did it in the 1990s. We not only balanced the budget and created a surplus but helped to create 22 million new jobs and lifted millions and millions of people out of poverty. We enjoyed a long period of sustained economic growth. We took on the challenges of the day and we tried to prepare for the future. That is not what is happening in Washington today, and I am deeply troubled and regretful about the choices that are being made on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. I have spent many years working on behalf of children in foster care. They are probably the most vulnerable of all of our children, the poorest of the poor--abused, neglected, children who get taken away from their families because their families are unable or unwilling to care for them. When they are taken away by the police or by a court or social worker--maybe they are turned in by a neighbor or relative--they become our children. They become the responsibility of every single one of us and we have to work very hard to try to get them reunited with families, to try to find a relative who will love and care for them; absent that, to try to make sure they are safe and secure in foster care while hopefully we try to find a permanent, loving family for them. It is going to be a lot harder because the Republicans are choosing corporate tax breaks instead of foster care. They are going to slash $600 million from foster care support. I grew up loving the Christmas season, telling the story over and over again about how Mary and Joseph found themselves with no place to stay and how Jesus was born in the manger. Many people say: Look, they were shut out, left behind. We are shutting out and leaving behind a lot of our children with these budget decisions. It is wrong. It is wrong to reward special interests who can do perfectly fine for themselves and slam the door on foster children who need all kinds of help to even have a chance in life. It is wrong to give more tax breaks to oil companies and not be sure we are going to have enough money to help families pay their heating bills this winter. It is wrong that we are using Orwellian language to call a budget bill that actually raises the deficit a deficit reduction bill. It may be clever. You might fool some of the people but not for long. The deficit will continue to be a drag on our economy and a burden for future generations. The American people, and particularly our children, deserve better. The Republican majority's proposals for this budget are not in the best interests of America. They will undermine the hopes and dreams of a lot of hard-working people, people who took us at our word 8 years ago. They got off welfare and they are working now. I see them every day. I go into offices or restaurants all over New York and somebody will come up to me and they will say: Senator, I used to be on welfare, but I am working now and my children are so proud. Thank you. Tell your husband thank you. I always say: Well, God bless you, take care of those children. Now what are we doing? We are going to cut the childcare that people need to help take care of their children while they are at work. We are going to cut the housing assistance that people need in order to be able to afford a house or an apartment in most places of which I am aware. We may be cutting their children off Medicaid with all these cuts in Medicaid, so that little girl who needs that expensive asthma medicine in order to keep going to school may be out of luck. We are going to be cutting child support so we are not going after those deadbeat parents to collect money that will help that family stay on the right path, stay out of poverty. It doesn't make any sense to me, but those are the choices that the elected representatives of the people of this country are about to make. It is time that we go back to arithmetic and reality; we go back to a conservative fiscal policy that pays as you go, doesn't spend what you don't have, produces balanced budgets and surpluses, and takes care of people who are working as hard as they can or who are vulnerable and need our help. There is a lot of talk about family values. Well, let's value families and let's do it, not just with rhetoric, but with money, decisions, budgets that show what our values are. So in the spirit of this holiday season I call on the Members of this body to reflect on the choices they will be making in the next few days. These choices are going to have a profound impact on millions of people, less fortunate than we are, but there but for the grace of God go any of us. It will not just be for a holiday season, it will be for years to come. I think we can do better. I know America deserves better. We can get back on the right path of fiscal responsibility and moral decisionmaking that takes into account the needs of the least among us. We can build a nation that reflects the best of what we can and should be. I hope we will take this opportunity to do so. If we do not, there will be consequences, and they will reflect badly on our Government. Let us have a happy ending to the story. The Grinch had an epiphany. The Grinch came back and said: I don't want to be a bad guy. I want to share in the Christmas spirit. So let us replace this ``Grinch budget'' with an American budget that does what it should do for all the people of our country. I thank the Chair. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss a serious, persistent, and entirely preventable threat to the health and well- being of our children. Lead is highly toxic and continues to be a major environmental health problem in the United States, especially for infants, children, and pregnant women. A CDC survey conducted between 1999-2002, estimated that 310,000 American children under 6 were at risk for exposure to harmful lead levels in United States. Childhood lead poisoning has been linked to impaired growth and function of vital organs and problems with intellectual and behavioral development. A study from the New England Journal of Medicine also found that children suffered up to a 7.4-percent decrease in IQ at lead levels that CDC considers safe. At very high levels, lead poisoning can cause seizures, coma, and even death. The most common source of lead exposure for children today is lead paint in older housing and the contaminated lead dust it generates. Despite a ban on lead paint in 1978, there are still over 24 million housing units in the United States that have lead paint hazards, with about 1.2 million in New York State alone. According to 2000 census data, New York State has over 37 percent of homes that were built prior to 1950 and more pre-1950 housing units available for occupancy than any other State. Though New York State has made considerable progress in prevention and early identification of childhood lead poisoning, more needs to be done to minimize the risk of lead exposure in the home, by our kids. About 5 percent of New York children screened for lead poisoning at age 2 were found to have elevated levels of lead in the blood, more than twice the national average. Minority and poor children are disproportionately at risk, as these groups are more likely to live in older housing with poor building maintenance, where the risk of lead paint hazards are greater. Low-income children are eight times more likely to develop lead poisoning than more affluent children, and African-American and Mexican-American children are five and two times more likely, respectively, to have toxic blood lead levels than white children. In New York City, about 95 percent of children with elevated blood levels were African American, Hispanic or Asian. I am glad that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services considers lead poisoning to be a priority, and established a national goal of ending childhood lead poisoning by 2010. However, Federal programs only have resources to remove lead-based paint hazards from less than 0.1 percent of the 24 million housing units that have these hazards. At this pace, we will not be able to end childhood lead poisoning by 3010, let alone 2010. We will never stop childhood lead poisoning unless we get lead out of the buildings in which children live, work, and play. In Brooklyn, more than a third of the buildings in one community have a lead-based paint hazard. Parents of children with lead poisoning are being told that nothing can be done until their children's lead poisoning becomes worse. How can we ask parents to watch and wait while their sons and daughters suffer from lead poisoning before we remove the lead from their homes? That is why today, I am proud to introduce the Home Lead Safety Tax Credit Act of 2005 with my colleagues, Senators DeWine, Obama, and Smith. This legislation would provide a tax credit to aide and encourage homeowners and landlords to engage in the safe removal of lead-based paint hazards from their homes and rental units. Specifically, it would change the IRS Code of 1986 to provide a tax credit for 50 percent of the allowable costs paid by the taxpayer, up to a maximum of $3000 and $1000 for lead abatement and interim control measures, respectively. Interim control measures, which can include replacement of windows, specialized maintenance, safe repainting and renovation work practices to eliminate lead hazards, are a cost- effective means of protecting the largest number of children in the near term. While total elimination of lead paint in housing is the most desirable, interim control measures typically cost three to nine times less and can be equally effective at removing the lead hazard. The credit is targeted to homes that contain children less than 6 years of age or a woman of childbearing age, low-income residents, and to buildings built before 1960, as these include more than 96 percent of all units where lead-based paint is prevalent. In Massachusetts, a similar tax credit helped reduce the number of new cases of childhood lead poisoning by almost two-thirds in a decade. The Home Lead Safety Tax Credit Act of 2005 would help homeowners make over 80,000 homes each year safe from lead, which is more than 10 times the number of homes made lead safe by current Federal programs. It would greatly accelerate our progress in ridding our Nation of the significant problem of childhood lead poisoning. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation, which will provide needed incentives for property owners to ensure that our homes are safeguarded against environmental hazards that detrimentally affect the health and safety of our children. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss a serious, persistent, and entirely preventable threat to the health and well- being of our children. Lead is highly toxic and continues to be a major environmental health problem in the United States, especially for infants, children, and pregnant women. A CDC survey conducted between 1999-2002, estimated that 310,000 American children under 6 were at risk for exposure to harmful lead levels in United States. Childhood lead poisoning has been linked to impaired growth and function of vital organs and problems with intellectual and behavioral development. A study from the New England Journal of Medicine also found that children suffered up to a 7.4-percent decrease in IQ at lead levels that CDC considers safe. At very high levels, lead poisoning can cause seizures, coma, and even death. The most common source of lead exposure for children today is lead paint in older housing and the contaminated lead dust it generates. Despite a ban on lead paint in 1978, there are still over 24 million housing units in the United States that have lead paint hazards, with about 1.2 million in New York State alone. According to 2000 census data, New York State has over 37 percent of homes that were built prior to 1950 and more pre-1950 housing units available for occupancy than any other State. Though New York State has made considerable progress in prevention and early identification of childhood lead poisoning, more needs to be done to minimize the risk of lead exposure in the home, by our kids. About 5 percent of New York children screened for lead poisoning at age 2 were found to have elevated levels of lead in the blood, more than twice the national average. Minority and poor children are disproportionately at risk, as these groups are more likely to live in older housing with poor building maintenance, where the risk of lead paint hazards are greater. Low-income children are eight times more likely to develop lead poisoning than more affluent children, and African-American and Mexican-American children are five and two times more likely, respectively, to have toxic blood lead levels than white children. In New York City, about 95 percent of children with elevated blood levels were African American, Hispanic or Asian. I am glad that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services considers lead poisoning to be a priority, and established a national goal of ending childhood lead poisoning by 2010. However, Federal programs only have resources to remove lead-based paint hazards from less than 0.1 percent of the 24 million housing units that have these hazards. At this pace, we will not be able to end childhood lead poisoning by 3010, let alone 2010. We will never stop childhood lead poisoning unless we get lead out of the buildings in which children live, work, and play. In Brooklyn, more than a third of the buildings in one community have a lead-based paint hazard. Parents of children with lead poisoning are being told that nothing can be done until their children's lead poisoning becomes worse. How can we ask parents to watch and wait while their sons and daughters suffer from lead poisoning before we remove the lead from their homes? That is why today, I am proud to introduce the Home Lead Safety Tax Credit Act of 2005 with my colleagues, Senators DeWine, Obama, and Smith. This legislation would provide a tax credit to aide and encourage homeowners and landlords to engage in the safe removal of lead-based paint hazards from their homes and rental units. Specifically, it would change the IRS Code of 1986 to provide a tax credit for 50 percent of the allowable costs paid by the taxpayer, up to a maximum of $3000 and $1000 for lead abatement and interim control measures, respectively. Interim control measures, which can include replacement of windows, specialized maintenance, safe repainting and renovation work practices to eliminate lead hazards, are a cost- effective means of protecting the largest number of children in the near term. While total elimination of lead paint in housing is the most desirable, interim control measures typically cost three to nine times less and can be equally effective at removing the lead hazard. The credit is targeted to homes that contain children less than 6 years of age or a woman of childbearing age, low-income residents, and to buildings built before 1960, as these include more than 96 percent of all units where lead-based paint is prevalent. In Massachusetts, a similar tax credit helped reduce the number of new cases of childhood lead poisoning by almost two-thirds in a decade. The Home Lead Safety Tax Credit Act of 2005 would help homeowners make over 80,000 homes each year safe from lead, which is more than 10 times the number of homes made lead safe by current Federal programs. It would greatly accelerate our progress in ridding our Nation of the significant problem of childhood lead poisoning. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation, which will provide needed incentives for property owners to ensure that our homes are safeguarded against environmental hazards that detrimentally affect the health and safety of our children. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation co-sponsored with Senator Harkin that would begin to rebuild America's schools. If approved, the Investing for Tomorrow's Schools Act would enable states to develop State Infrastructure Banks--a flexible and inexpensive way to finance school construction and renovation. This approach offers an innovative solution to the urgent problem of fixing deteriorating schools. Every dollar invested to create State Infrastructure Banks would be reused to support project after project in the form of loans and credit support. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, three in four schools in America need assistance to come into ``good overall condition.'' Repairs and modernizations will cost, according to the National Education Association, $322 billion. New York State has a greater need than any other state--estimated at $51 billion. Just in New York City, schools are estimated to need $21 billion. The city's schools are so old that they would nearly qualify for social security, averaging 61-years-old. Acute need for school repair and modernization exists nationwide. Need is estimated at $33 billion in California, $25 billion in Ohio, $22 billion in New Jersey, $13 billion in Texas, and $10 billion each in Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Utah. Nation- wide costs add up to $322 billion. In 2005, an estimated $19.6 billion was spent nation-wide on school construction. At that rate, it will take more than 16 years to modernize school buildings. Last year in New York, $984 million was spent on school construction. At that rate, it will take more than 50 years to modernize New York's schools--and that's assuming that in the meantime we don't need to build more new schools and that no schools fall apart! When students attend schools in disrepair, the consequences are all too clear. An article from 2004 in the Poughkeepsie Journal described how, in Hyde Park, New York along the Hudson River, ventilation problems at the 45-year-old Franklin D. Roosevelt High School sickened students and staff causing watery eyes, headaches, nausea, and dizziness. I would like to include this article in the Congressional Record. State Infrastructure Banks would make funding available to address environmental hazards including poor ventilation and bad air quality. They would help more schools become healthy and high-performing. An article in Newsday newspaper described how, in Hempstead New York, on Long Island, Prospect Elementary, a 100-year-old school, was closed in the fall of 2003 after administrators discovered a rodent problem, mold in the cafeteria, and a crumbling chimney in a classroom. The Marguerite Golden Rhodes Elementary School was closed after state education officials found a gap between where the paint on the walls ended and where the ceiling began--an indication that either the wall or the ceiling was moving. Hempstead High School was closed for a week, after a blackboard fell off a wall exposing asbestos left over from a botched cleanup in 1990. 1'd like to include this article in the Congressional Record. The school closures worsened overcrowding, as parents Celia Ridely and Olive Warner pointed out to Newsday and the New York Times. With schools in such poor condition, is it surprising that just 38 percent of students in Hempstead graduate from high school? In Washingtonville, 54 miles north of New York City, the roof over a classroom in 44-year-old Taft Elementary collapsed. Fortunately the catastrophic collapse occurred in August of 2004, before the school year began, and no one was injured. Unfortunately, the U-shaped joist which contributed to the collapse was popular in school construction across New York and throughout America from 1900 to the early 1970s. Many of these schools are still in operation. New York's Department of Education took the precaution of advising school districts to check similar joists to make sure they are in good condition. The lack of funding for school construction can lead school districts to put off maintenance. Paul Abramson, a consultant based in Westchester County, New York told a school construction website, ``What happens, unfortunately, is [that] school districts cut down on maintenance.'' Barbara Knisely-Michelman of the American Association of School Administrators said, ``It comes down to the issue of resource. If school administrators had unlimited resources, [maintenance] would be at the top of the agenda.'' We can do better. Schoolchildren should not have to contend with falling-down schools. The lack of adequate school buildings hampers today' s most promising and innovative efforts to boost student achievement. Charter schools hold the promise of expanding the supply of high- quality public schools, especially in disadvantaged communities. But most charter schools have limited credit histories and lack access to public school facilities or traditional funding streams such as bonds. One in three charter school operators report that school construction costs are a major obstacle to their schools' success. The No Child Left Behind Act promised that children in underperforming schools would have the opportunity to transfer to better public schools. But in many communities, more students seek transfers than are spaces available. In New York City last year, 33,000 students applied to transfer out of underperforming schools but only 7,000 could be accommodated. Charter school operators should have access to affordable financing for school construction. Schoolchildren promised public school choice should be able to exercise that right. Innovative reforms should not be blocked by inadequate school buildings. In 2004, an editorialist for Newsday newspaper on Long Island wrote, ``School construction is one area where the federal government could do more. Little . . . has been heard on the subject since the late 90s-- that's a shame. . . . Money must be found to keep schools safe, functional, and welcoming places.'' Senator Harkin and I agree. That's why today we are introducing the Investing for Tomorrow's Schools Act. At the heart of our proposal is the creation of State Infrastructure Banks, which would improve financing for school construction. This financing mechanism has been used since the Reagan Administration to help local communities fund water treatment and clean water facilities and transportation projects. For example, my own State of New York received $2.48 billion in Federal support for its Clean Water State Revolving Fund between 1989 and 2004. It leveraged that money into more than $10 billion of loans to local communities. For example, State Infrastructure Banks would offer school districts a flexible menu of loan and credit enhancement assistance, such as low interest loans, bond-financing security, loan guarantees, and credit support for financing projects, which result in lower interest rates. State Infrastructure Banks would not strain Federal Treasury or the American taxpayer. After initial funding, they would require no ongoing federal appropriations. As each loan is repaid, the money can be offered as a new loan. Passage of this bill would lay the groundwork for a robust system of State Infrastructure Banks that provide immediate aid to the neediest schools and help local communities fund affordable construction far into the future. This modest proposal is one piece of the school construction solution. I ask my Senate colleagues to join me today to pass this legislation without delay. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 2 articles be printed in the Record.

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

Mrs. CLINTON

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

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation co-sponsored with Senator Harkin that would begin to rebuild America's schools. If approved, the Investing for Tomorrow's Schools Act would enable states to develop State Infrastructure Banks--a flexible and inexpensive way to finance school construction and renovation. This approach offers an innovative solution to the urgent problem of fixing deteriorating schools. Every dollar invested to create State Infrastructure Banks would be reused to support project after project in the form of loans and credit support. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, three in four schools in America need assistance to come into ``good overall condition.'' Repairs and modernizations will cost, according to the National Education Association, $322 billion. New York State has a greater need than any other state--estimated at $51 billion. Just in New York City, schools are estimated to need $21 billion. The city's schools are so old that they would nearly qualify for social security, averaging 61-years-old. Acute need for school repair and modernization exists nationwide. Need is estimated at $33 billion in California, $25 billion in Ohio, $22 billion in New Jersey, $13 billion in Texas, and $10 billion each in Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Utah. Nation- wide costs add up to $322 billion. In 2005, an estimated $19.6 billion was spent nation-wide on school construction. At that rate, it will take more than 16 years to modernize school buildings. Last year in New York, $984 million was spent on school construction. At that rate, it will take more than 50 years to modernize New York's schools--and that's assuming that in the meantime we don't need to build more new schools and that no schools fall apart! When students attend schools in disrepair, the consequences are all too clear. An article from 2004 in the Poughkeepsie Journal described how, in Hyde Park, New York along the Hudson River, ventilation problems at the 45-year-old Franklin D. Roosevelt High School sickened students and staff causing watery eyes, headaches, nausea, and dizziness. I would like to include this article in the Congressional Record. State Infrastructure Banks would make funding available to address environmental hazards including poor ventilation and bad air quality. They would help more schools become healthy and high-performing. An article in Newsday newspaper described how, in Hempstead New York, on Long Island, Prospect Elementary, a 100-year-old school, was closed in the fall of 2003 after administrators discovered a rodent problem, mold in the cafeteria, and a crumbling chimney in a classroom. The Marguerite Golden Rhodes Elementary School was closed after state education officials found a gap between where the paint on the walls ended and where the ceiling began--an indication that either the wall or the ceiling was moving. Hempstead High School was closed for a week, after a blackboard fell off a wall exposing asbestos left over from a botched cleanup in 1990. 1'd like to include this article in the Congressional Record. The school closures worsened overcrowding, as parents Celia Ridely and Olive Warner pointed out to Newsday and the New York Times. With schools in such poor condition, is it surprising that just 38 percent of students in Hempstead graduate from high school? In Washingtonville, 54 miles north of New York City, the roof over a classroom in 44-year-old Taft Elementary collapsed. Fortunately the catastrophic collapse occurred in August of 2004, before the school year began, and no one was injured. Unfortunately, the U-shaped joist which contributed to the collapse was popular in school construction across New York and throughout America from 1900 to the early 1970s. Many of these schools are still in operation. New York's Department of Education took the precaution of advising school districts to check similar joists to make sure they are in good condition. The lack of funding for school construction can lead school districts to put off maintenance. Paul Abramson, a consultant based in Westchester County, New York told a school construction website, ``What happens, unfortunately, is [that] school districts cut down on maintenance.'' Barbara Knisely-Michelman of the American Association of School Administrators said, ``It comes down to the issue of resource. If school administrators had unlimited resources, [maintenance] would be at the top of the agenda.'' We can do better. Schoolchildren should not have to contend with falling-down schools. The lack of adequate school buildings hampers today' s most promising and innovative efforts to boost student achievement. Charter schools hold the promise of expanding the supply of high- quality public schools, especially in disadvantaged communities. But most charter schools have limited credit histories and lack access to public school facilities or traditional funding streams such as bonds. One in three charter school operators report that school construction costs are a major obstacle to their schools' success. The No Child Left Behind Act promised that children in underperforming schools would have the opportunity to transfer to better public schools. But in many communities, more students seek transfers than are spaces available. In New York City last year, 33,000 students applied to transfer out of underperforming schools but only 7,000 could be accommodated. Charter school operators should have access to affordable financing for school construction. Schoolchildren promised public school choice should be able to exercise that right. Innovative reforms should not be blocked by inadequate school buildings. In 2004, an editorialist for Newsday newspaper on Long Island wrote, ``School construction is one area where the federal government could do more. Little . . . has been heard on the subject since the late 90s-- that's a shame. . . . Money must be found to keep schools safe, functional, and welcoming places.'' Senator Harkin and I agree. That's why today we are introducing the Investing for Tomorrow's Schools Act. At the heart of our proposal is the creation of State Infrastructure Banks, which would improve financing for school construction. This financing mechanism has been used since the Reagan Administration to help local communities fund water treatment and clean water facilities and transportation projects. For example, my own State of New York received $2.48 billion in Federal support for its Clean Water State Revolving Fund between 1989 and 2004. It leveraged that money into more than $10 billion of loans to local communities. For example, State Infrastructure Banks would offer school districts a flexible menu of loan and credit enhancement assistance, such as low interest loans, bond-financing security, loan guarantees, and credit support for financing projects, which result in lower interest rates. State Infrastructure Banks would not strain Federal Treasury or the American taxpayer. After initial funding, they would require no ongoing federal appropriations. As each loan is repaid, the money can be offered as a new loan. Passage of this bill would lay the groundwork for a robust system of State Infrastructure Banks that provide immediate aid to the neediest schools and help local communities fund affordable construction far into the future. This modest proposal is one piece of the school construction solution. I ask my Senate colleagues to join me today to pass this legislation without delay. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 2 articles be printed in the Record.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. I would like to commend Chairman Enzi and Senator Kennedy for all of their work on this legislation. I would also like to recognize the commitment and leadership of the majority leader, who I have been working closely with on this issue. Today's passage of S. 1418, the Wired for Health Care Quality Act, is a fundamental first step in establishing a nationwide, interoperable health IT infrastructure. Our legislation provides the framework and authorizes several grant programs to begin the process of funding health IT projects that are compliant with the framework established in the bill. The legislation introduced by Senators Snowe and Stabenow and their work more broadly on this issue will be critical as we work on additional financing mechanisms. I am anxious to begin that work and am committed to working closely with them, and my colleagues on the HELP and Finance committees to ensure that physicians and hospitals are able to afford to participate in a 21st century health care system.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, there we have it. We are once again hearing objections. The status quo wins the day. FEMA will not change. The Department of Homeland Security will not change. We will never get to the bottom of what happened and what we need to do to fix the obvious flaws unless we have this independent commission. I ask my friend from Colorado if he agrees that the only way we will get the answers we need is through an independent commission.

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 220, S. 1748, a bill to establish the Katrina commission investigation, that the bill be read a third time and passed, and that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I thank my friend for his support. He knows a lot about what he is speaking of today. He was an attorney general. He had law enforcement responsibilities. He knew how essential it was to coordinate services throughout the State of Colorado. I am very grateful for his support and his eloquence on behalf of this bipartisan commission and his vigilance in working toward the establishment of a Katrina commission. I have said before that I agree that our established congressional committees should conduct their own oversight roles, but an independent commission is absolutely necessary to get this right. The Katrina commission would be made up of individuals with the expertise and credentials to do the work; namely, people who have experience with emergency preparedness, mitigation, and cataclysmic planning. The commission would build upon previous investigations and issues we know exist. For example, on 9/11, one of the problems our emergency response system faced was the lack of interoperable communications; namely, the police radios couldn't talk to the fire department radios, couldn't talk with people coming from other parts of New York or even outside New York to be helpful at the site of Ground Zero where the Towers collapsed. Yet 4 years later, we find people responding to Katrina faced the same problems. We have not yet solved the problem of interoperable communications. How long are we going to let this go on? When the 9/11 Commission issued its report, the majority leader applauded the Commission for its tremendous act of public service and patriotism and looked forward to a time when we could work together to ensure America grew stronger and better prepared. Let's ask ourselves, Are we stronger today and better prepared? Although I applaud my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who are conducting the committee hearings into what happened, I do not believe this disaster has the attention or the right mix of people investigating it that will give us both answers and a roadmap for the future. Some of the statistics are frightening. FEMA ordered over 125,000 trailers or mobile homes to provide housing for an estimated 600,000 people. Media reports indicate that as of the beginning of November, hundreds of thousands of people are still in hotel rooms, relatives' rooms, shelters, and even in tents. Now we hear FEMA is going to move these people out of their hotels as of December 1. Where are they going to be moving them? What is going to happen to them? I think these are questions that add to the urgency of such an investigation. There are thousands of churches and other faith-based institutions, as well as nonprofits, that have yet to hear from FEMA as to whether they will get any help in continuing the assistance they are providing. I cannot help but agree with the Senator from Colorado, who pointed out that we went through this after 9/11. He spoke about his meeting with the President. He spoke about the resistance to a department of homeland security, to any kind of investigation. This Katrina commission will eventually be put into operation. It will have to be because people are not getting the answers they need. I hope we will come to a realization that this Katrina commission, an independent commission, is the way to proceed. Unanimous Consent Request--S. 1748

Mrs. CLINTON. May I finish, Mr. President?

Mrs. CLINTON. No, 1:30 p.m.

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I would like to begin by expressing my gratitude to Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee Chairman Enzi and the HELP Committee's ranking member, Senator Kennedy, for working together, and with our colleagues on the Senate Finance Committee, to address the wide spectrum of pension issues in the bipartisan bill that is before the Senate today. Their tremendous hard work and conscientious approach to this legislation--and that of their staffs--is commendable. They have had to balance many factors. Enhancing the retirement security of Americans is one of my priorities in the Senate. Retirement security is, simply put, one of the most important challenges facing our Nation. Single-employer and multiemployer pension plans play an essential role in providing retirement security for so many New Yorkers and millions of Americans around the Nation. For a variety of reasons, we have recently seen defined benefit plan terminations that have jeopardized the retirement security of many Americans and placed additional burdens on the defined benefit system. I have heard from New Yorkers who are gravely concerned that they will not see the benefits they worked so hard to earn. A recent report by the Government Accountability Office, GAO, highlights some of the deeply troubling trends facing the defined benefit pension system. GAO notes that ``the nation's private defined benefit, DB, pension system, a key contributor to the financial security of millions of American workers and their families, is in long-term decline.'' The GAO report describes a sharp drop in the number of single-employer DB plans in recent years, down to less than 35,000 in 2002 from more than 95,000 25 years ago. According to the GAO, the same period of time has seen ``the number of active participants in such plans dropping from 27.3 percent of all national private wage and salary workers in 1980, to about 15 percent in 2002.'' In addition, the GAO report notes that ``structural problems in industries like airlines, steel, and auto parts have led to large bankrupt firms terminating their DB plans, with thousands of workers losing some of their benefits and saddling the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, PBGC, with billions of dollars in unfunded benefit guarantees.'' Moreover, the PBGC reported in 2004 that the ``rapid decline'' in the net financial position of its single-employer program from 2000 to 2004 ``resulted from several very large losses (primarily from steel and airline industry plans), lower interest rates that raised the value of PBGC's liabilities and declining stock prices.'' A look at the finances of the PBGC provides a snapshot of the aftermath of these trends. According to the PBGC, in 2004 it insured more than 34 million single-employer plan participants and more than 9.8 million multiemployer plan participants. The PBGC reported that its single-employer program swung from a surplus of $9.7 billion in 2000 to a $23.3 billion deficit in 2004, and that its multiemployer program showed a deficit of $236 million in 2004. Yesterday, the PBGC reported its financial results for fiscal year 2005. According to the PBGC, the single-employer program deficit as of September 30, 2005, was $22.8 billion, and the multiemployer program deficit had grown to $335 million. While at this time it appears the PBGC will be able to pay benefits for some time to come, it is incumbent upon us, as elected representatives, to take meaningful steps to address these challenges to the survival of the defined benefit system and the dangers these challenges pose for workers, retirees, and their families who are depending upon the viability of that system. A central goal of that effort should be ensuring that employers offering single-employer pension plans keep pension promises and have incentives to remain in the defined benefit system to provide good pensions to their employees. Additional goals include protecting older, longer term employees from unfair changes in their pension plan, enhancing financial transparency, and shoring up the PBGC. It is also important to work to maintain and strengthen the multiemployer pension system. The Pension Security and Transparency Act of 2005 takes important steps towards these goals, including: transitioning to a full funding target; offering incentives for companies to contribute more in good times to help plans get through economically challenging times; tools for the government to use in an effort to help preserve pension plans facing financial challenges; rules intended to help airlines preserve their pension plans; reforms intended to improve multiemployer plan funding; prospective-only rules for cash balance pension plan conversions, with protections for older and longer serving workers; and enhanced disclosure of pension plan finances. In addition, the defined contribution autoenrollment provisions included in the bill are an important first step in ensuring that employees start saving today. It has widespread support among employers and employees, and is a commonsense provision that I will work to ensure is included in the final conference agreement. As is usually the case with new legislation of this scope, I believe there is room for improvement and refinement, particularly with respect to ``at risk'' plan funding. I hope that in conference the legislation may be brought in line with the approach to ``at risk'' funding taken in the legislation approved by the Senate HELP Committee in September. We should support efforts of companies that are acting responsibly to preserve their defined benefit pension plans and fund them adequately, in the face of financial distress or cyclical downturns, and we should strive to avoid actions that may, however unintentionally, have the opposite effect of that intended. Working men and women are counting on the security provided by the benefits they earn through their pensions. Some of the most important decisions of their lives depend on these benefits being there for them when they need them. I am glad that the Senate is acting today on comprehensive pension reform legislation and addressing a wide variety of challenges facing the defined benefit pension system. I will continue to work with my colleagues to enact legislation designed to maintain and strengthen the defined benefit pension system for generations to come.

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for such time as I may consume remaining for the Democratic side on the pension bill, and then for an additional 20 minutes as if in morning business.

Mrs. CLINTON. I thank the Chair. And I thank the managers of the pension bill. Hurricane Katrina Commission Mr. President, I come to the floor today to discuss a topic that many on the other side of the aisle, as well as in the administration, hope will just go away as we near the end of this session--the creation of an independent bipartisan commission to examine the State, local, and Federal response to Hurricane Katrina. We all know that nearly 3 months ago Katrina struck Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama, wreaking havoc on cities along the coast and most especially in New Orleans and the surrounding parishes. Thousands of residents had to flee, and thousands more saw that the levees were breached and cataclysmic flooding wiped out the city's infrastructure causing extensive damage far beyond the boundaries of New Orleans. Along the gulf coast the hurricane force winds destroyed so many of the communities that had been there for years. Americans were horrified by the images on television of this catastrophe unfolding before our very eyes. It was followed by an equally catastrophic failure of Government in its uncoordinated, failed response. I remember my own visit to Houston in the days immediately following the hurricane where I met with people who had fled Louisiana and Mississippi for shelter in Texas. They were desperately searching for lost relatives and to try to regain some semblance of order in their lives. Mr. President, our response at all levels of Government was nothing short of shameful, and the victims of Hurricane Katrina, as well as all Americans, deserve to know why that response was such a colossal failure. Who was in charge? Was it the President, the Director of Homeland Security, the FEMA Administrator? Why were Government assets not more readily available or prepositioned better? Why was there no plan to deal with an event that had been predicted for years? What went wrong at the Federal, State, and local levels? Why were declarations delayed? But even more important than the answers to these questions is what do we need to do to fix it so this never happens again in our country? Who is in charge now? What more must be done to fix the problems that plague our national system of disaster, response, and recovery? On September 11 we lost nearly 3,000 people, and the families of those left behind demanded to know what went wrong. Thanks to their dedication, we finally convinced the President and Congress to establish the 9/11 Commission. It was the right thing to do because over 218 years ago the signers of the Constitution pledged themselves on behalf of all Americans to provide for the common defense. So when we hear things such as the fact there was only one FEMA employee in the entire city of New Orleans from August 27 through 30, we see e-mails from the FEMA Director that he was distracted with his wardrobe when people were drowning in their own homes, waiting for rescue from the roofs of those homes, and the national response plan that is supposed to guide our national response was basically totally ignored, we have to ask ourselves how could we be so unprepared especially after September 11? Because I believe the victims of Hurricane Katrina and, indeed, all Americans deserve answers to these questions and a way forward that merits the confidence and trust of the American people, I introduced legislation cosponsored by my friend and colleague from Colorado to establish a Katrina commission, modeled after the 9/11 Commission, intended to be nonpartisan, independent, designed to study the Federal, State, and local response to Hurricane Katrina. We have 17 cosponsors of this legislation, and I am, frankly, outraged we cannot get an up-or-down vote on it. The cameras may have left the area of destruction but the devastation and the devastated lives remain. We owe it to the thousands of people who are still displaced, who lost loved ones, who are still finding bodies in homes that people are returning to, to understand what went wrong, what needs to be fixed, and where the responsibility really resides. Over 80 percent of the American people believe a Katrina commission is the right and necessary thing to do. Yet the Republican leadership of the Congress is afraid to allow an up-or-down vote. Why? Because they know what I know--that a lot of Republicans will vote for this. They were equally dismayed. They saw the same television pictures. They worry about what might happen next with an earthquake, a forest fire, massive tornadoes like just whipped through the central-southern part of our country. But even more significantly, the reason this is important is because of the potential of a terrorist attack that could happen again. And I have to say it appeared that our Federal response based on Katrina is nowhere near ready. We cannot accept the status quo. We must fix FEMA and the Department of Homeland Security. My friend from Colorado is a cosponsor of that legislation, and I ask him does he believe a Katrina commission is still needed?

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Alaska. I will wrap this up. I wish to serve notice to my colleagues in the Senate that my good friend from Colorado and I will be back again and again and again, as we were with the 9/11 Commission. He was not in the Senate at that time. He was serving his people in Colorado from a position of trust and responsibility as attorney general, but he watched from afar, understood the tragedy that befell us, and, like so many of us who are given the public trust of public office, wanted answers. He came to this body to help find those answers. When Katrina struck and it became so apparent that we were not yet prepared, the Senator from Colorado was among the very first to say we need those answers and we need them yesterday because no place is prepared, no place is ready if the Federal Government is not in a position to provide the assistance and the assets and the support that is needed in the face of a large manmade or natural disaster. We will be back again and again, as we were with the 9/11 Commission, until this commission is established. It is the right thing to do. The country deserves to have it and, most of all, the people along the gulf coast deserve the answers and deserve to know what did occur to them, what could have been prevented, and then the rest of us should act on that information to make sure our Nation is prepared in the future. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. CLINTON. I think we will be finished by 1:30.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, the Senate today is considering the Department of Defense authorization bill for the 2006 fiscal year. As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I have attended numerous hearings and participated in the markup of this legislation. And I want to commend the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator Warner, and the ranking member, Senator Levin, for the serious, bipartisan approach they have taken in preparing this bill for consideration on the Senate floor. I just returned from an International Rule of Law symposium focusing on the need to create an international rule of law movement. As we talk today about providing our troops with the support they need to serve our Nation, it is also important to recognize that we should be doing all we can to make sure that we are not tarnishing their service. As we promote the rule of law in other societies, we need to begin by recognizing that the United States has a special heritage and a special responsibility--a responsibility not to be perfect, for that is impossible, but to admit our mistakes and use the rule of law to mend them, not to cover them up. When we fail that standard, we harm the ideals we most seek to promote--and undermine the foundations of our own society and our influence around the world. That is why it is so important that we send a clear signal that the mistreatment of prisoners under our control was a mistake that will not happen again. Our commitment to the rule of law demands it. The men and women who signed up to defend our country, not to defend accusations of torture, deserve it. It is very unclear whether any good information ever comes from torture--many experienced intelligence officers say no. But it is crystal clear that the bad consequences of this high-level political decision will haunt us for years--in how hostile armies treat our soldiers; how foreign governments judge our trustworthiness; and how foreign citizens respond to our best shared values, like faith in the rule of law. This DOD authorization bill is critically important, particularly with our service men and women serving bravely in Iraq, Afghanistan, and around the world. We owe it to our men and women in uniform to do everything we can to support them. Back when we first considered the DOD authorization bill in July, the Senate accepted an amendment Senator Graham and I offered to make Tricare available to all National Guard members and reservists. This week, the Senate has accepted another amendment I offered--this one with Senator Collins--that will improve financial education for our soldiers. This is a problem that has plagued military service men and women for years: a lack of general knowledge about the insurance and other financial services available to them. This amendment instructs the Secretary of Defense to carry out a comprehensive education program for military members regarding public and private financial services, including life insurance and the marketing practices of these services, available to them. This education will be institutionalized in the initial and recurring training for members of the military. This is important so that we don't just make an instantaneous improvement, but a truly lasting benefit to members of the military. This amendment also requires that counseling services on these issues be made available, upon request, to members and their spouses. I think it is very important to include the spouses in this program, because we all know that investment decisions should be made as a family. Too many times, a military spouse has to make these decisions alone, while their husband or wife is deployed. This amendment requires that during counseling of members or spouses regarding life insurance, counselors must include information on the availability of Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance, SGLI, as well as other available products. It requires that any junior enlisted member--those in the grades of E1-E4--that they must provide confirmation that they have received counseling before entering into any new contract with a private sector life insurer. It is my expectation that this will help prevent our young troops from being taken advantage of by unscrupulous insurance companies. I am proud my fellow Senators support this legislation and I look forward to working hard during conference to ensure its incorporation in the final bill put before the President. Today, I would also like to speak about several issues that, while unlikely to be brought up as amendments to this bill, we will have to seriously consider during conference. The first is the extremely important issue of the role of women in combat. In the House Armed Services Subcommittee markup of the Defense bill, a provision was inserted that would have turned back the clock on the roles that women play in our military. The uproar over this provision from the public and from the Pentagon was strong. General Cody, the Vice Chief of Staff of the Army, wrote a letter to the House Armed Services Committee explaining that such a provision would disrupt our forces serving overseas. The House Armed Services Committee withdrew the offending provision and instead included a provision to codify the Pentagon's 1994 policy regarding women in combat. I am uncertain that this policy needs to be codified and will be looking at this language closely in conference. Because of the House's efforts to restrict the role of women, I want to take a few minutes to recognize the enormous contributions that women have made and continue to make to our military. Women have a long history of proud service in our Armed Forces. Women have served on the battlefield as far back as the American Revolution, where they served as nurses, water bearers, cooks, laundresses, and saboteurs. Since that time, opportunities have increased, especially since 1948 when the Women's Armed Services Integration Act of 1948 was passed. More than 200,000 women currently serve, making up approximately 17 percent of the total force. Thousands of women are currently serving bravely in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. During my own visits to Iraq--and as I am sure that many of my colleagues who have also visited Iraq can also attest--I witnessed women performing a wide range of tasks in a dangerous environment. In Iraq, the old distinctions between the front lines and the rear are being blurred, and women are ably shouldering many of the same risks as men. And when I have met with women soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, they have not complained that they are being placed in harm's way. To the contrary, they have expressed pride in being able to contribute to the mission. At a time when our Armed Forces are struggling to meet recruiting and retention goals, it makes no sense to further restrict the role of our women in uniform. Doing so would only add to the strain on our Armed Forces and undermine the morale of our service members. Since September 11, our Armed Forces have stretched to meet new and growing needs. It is essential that we fu1ly utilize and retain personnel. Women in uniform have increasingly served in the line of fire, performing honorably and courageously in service to our country. Over 100,000 women have been deployed in support of military operations since September 11. Imagine the strain that our forces would suffer if many of these women were suddenly deemed ineligible to serve in their current roles. Our soldiers, both men and women, volunteered to serve their Nation. They are performing magnificently. There should be no change to existing policies that would decrease the roles or positions available to women in the Armed Forces. Earlier this year, I introduced, along with several of my colleagues, a sense-of-the-Senate resolution stating that there should be no change to existing laws, policies or regulations that would decrease the roles or positions available to women in the Armed forces. As we approach the conference, I will oppose any efforts that would send a negative signal to women currently serving and I hope my colleagues will join me in preserving the ability of women to fully serve their country. As we talk about honoring those who serve, I would also like to draw the attention of my colleagues to another piece of legislation that I have introduced in the Senate, the Cold War Medal Act of 2005. It is important that we remember and honor the contributions of all veterans, from our World War II veterans to those just returning from Iraq. It is especially important that we not forget those who served during the Cold War, a decades-long struggle that, even in the absence of a formal declaration of hostilities, was for nothing less than the future of the world. Our victory in the Cold War was made possible by the willingness of millions of Americans in uniform to stand prepared against the threat from behind the Iron Curtain. That is why I have introduced legislation, S. 1351, the Cold War Medal Act of 2005, to create a military service medal to members of the Armed Forces who served honorably during the Cold War. This is the companion bill to legislation that was introduced on the House side by Congressman Andrews. This legislation would establish a Cold War Medal for those who served at least 180 days from September 2, 1945 to December 26, 1991. About 4.8 million veterans would be eligible to receive this medal. Our victory in the Cold War was a tremendous accomplishment and the men and women who served during that time deserve to be recognized. This legislation has been included in the House-passed version of the Defense authorization bill and I intend to encourage my colleagues in both the House and Senate to support its inclusion in the bill that emerges from the House-Senate conference. It is also important that we honor those men and women who are currently serving. One issue that has come to my attention is the status of National Guard members who served at Ground Zero in the aftermath of September 11. In the rush to send National Guard members to Ground Zero immediately after the attacks on September 11, New York's Governor activated them in their State status. However, many of these Guard men and women ended up serving at Ground Zero for over a year. Since they were in their State status, these Guard men and women did not qualify for Federal retirement credits. However, other New York National Guardsmen who were activated to protect Federal installations after September 11 were activated in their Federal status. The result was that two groups of Guardsmen were created. Each group served honorably after September 11, but the Guardsmen serving at Ground Zero did not earn retirement credit, while the Guardsmen protecting Federal installations did earn that credit. Several months ago, I introduced legislation, S. 1144, to remedy this injustice. This legislation was included in the House's version of the Defense authorization bill and I will once again urge my colleagues to support this in the House-Senate conference on the legislation. One issue that is not addressed in either the House or the Senate version of the Defense authorization bill is our spending priorities for science and technology at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, DARPA. I would like to use the remainder of my time to raise some concerns that I have regarding the Department of Defense's investments in science and technology and disturbing trends in our investments in the longer term, basic research--investments that will develop the next generation of capabilities on which our military superiority will depend. To put it plainly, I am concerned that DARPA is losing its focus on basic and early stage research. The Department's science and technology programs make investments in research at our nation's universities and innovative high-tech small businesses in areas such as robotics, artificial intelligence, and nanotechnology. In the past, we have seen these investments grow into revolutionary capabilities that our military takes for granted today. We have seen the fruits of these investments support our efforts in the global war on terrorism and operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. That is why I am concerned that the Department of Defense seems to be systematically underinvesting in fundamental and long-term research programs that will shape the military of the future. I note that the Department's science and technology request for 2006 was down $2.8 billion from the 2005 appropriated level and even $28 million below the original 2005 budget request. In fact, the request is so low it has triggered a congressionally mandated Defense Science Board review of the effects of the lowered S&T investment on national security. I look forward to seeing the results of that review. I am pleased that this bill has increased those funding levels by over $400 million. While I understand the need to focus efforts on current events and operational issues--we cannot do it at the expense of sacrificing the research base that shapes the military of the future. Of particular concern to me are the trends in funding of DOD's premier research agency. DARPA has been the engine of defense innovation for nearly 50 years--spawning innovations such as the Internet, unmanned air vehicles, and stealth capability--a record of unmatched technological accomplishments of which we should all be proud. However, I am concerned that in recent years--despite tremendous overall budgetary increases--DARPA has lost some of its unique, innovative character and is no longer funding the ``blue sky'' research for which it is famous. Concern over DOD's, and especially DARPA's support for early stage research has come from a number of distinguished scientific circles. The National Academy of Sciences, in a recent report requested by the Senate Armed Services Committee, recommended that ``DOD should redress the imbalance between its current basic research allocation'' and its needs to support new technology areas, new researchers, and especially more unfettered or long-term research. President Bush's own Information Technology Advisory Committee, PITAC, recently noted that DARPA had decreased funding in the critical area of cybersecurity research, stating, ``. . . very little, if any, of DARPA's substantial cybersecurity R&D investment was directed towards fundamental research.'' They also noted a ``shift in DARPA's portfolio towards classified and short-term research and development and away from its traditional support of unclassified longer-term R&D.'' The Defense Science Board has also raised concerns over DARPA's funding of computer science, stating that DARPA has further limited university participation in its computer science programs. These limitations have arisen in a number of ways, including non-fiscal limitations, such as the classification of work in areas that were previously unclassified, precluding university submission as prime contractors on certain solicitations, and reducing the periods of performance to 18-24 months.'' That kind of short term-focus is not conducive to university programs or to addressing broad, fundamental technical challenges--especially when research in computer science is helping develop and shape our networked forces of the future. I know that our chairman, Senator Warner, is also a great supporter of DOD research programs and the committee has taken a number of steps to ensure that these programs are well-managed and adequately funded. In addition to the National Academy study that I mentioned above, the Senate Armed Services Committee has initiated a Defense Science Board, DSB, review of the position of the Director of Defense Research and Engineering. This position also serves as the Chief Technology Officer of DOD, and the head of all science and technology programs. The committee has been concerned that the position does not have adequate authority to advocate for S&T budgets or ensure that Services and DARPA programs are well-coordinated into a broader defense technology strategy. I understand that the DSB should report out its findings sometime later this year. I hope the members of the Armed Services Committee, and indeed the entire Senate, will consider carefully the findings of these expert, independent studies and reports. At a time when we are so dependent on technologies to combat IEDs, treat battlefield injuries, and defend our homeland, we should make sure that DOD's science and technology organizations--especially DARPA--are adequately funded, well managed, and investing in the development of capabilities for the battlefields of both today and tomorrow. I look forward to working with the committee to look closely at DARPA and the entire DOD S&T program. Although we should be clearly focused on the issues our troops are facing here at home, in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere, we cannot afford to lose sight of the important role that scientific research plays in developing the military of the future. Mr. President, I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Armed Services committee and in the Senate as well as the House on the issues that I have discussed today.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. I understand that these reallocations or reprogramming usually require approval by the subcommittee. Will both the chairman and ranking member join us, in writing, in an effort to urge the Department to reprogram funds to ensure reasonable operating times for these vital national user facilities during fiscal year 2006?

Ms. CLINTON

Ms. CLINTON. First, I want to compliment the chairman and ranking member of the Energy and Water Subcommittee for their hard and successful work in leading the development of the Energy and Water bill that is before the body today. I know it is especially difficult to fund all of the important programs under the jurisdiction of this subcommittee, particularly in light of the significant needs of the Army Corps of Engineers to respond to the calamitous impact of Hurricane Katrina on the lives of so many Americans. However, it seems to me that the funding pressures faced by the subcommittee resulted in the programs of the Office of Science being funded at a level significantly below the value of these programs to the future security and economic health of the Nation. When the Senate passed the Energy and Water Appropriations bill, an appropriation of $419,741,000 was included for the Department of Energy's nuclear physics program, an increase of $49 million over the President's budget request, according to the Committee on Appropriations' report, to ensure full utilization of experimental facilities. The House-passed bill included an amount of $408,341,000, also including adequate funds to restore operation time of the facilities in the nuclear physics program. The conference report accompanying the bill before the Senate provides $370,741,000, the amount of the President's budget request. Due to severe budget constraints, the conferees were unable to retain the increases provided in the House and Senate bills for national user facilities, including the increase for the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider, RHIC, at the Brookhaven National Laboratory in New York and the Jefferson Laboratory in Virginia. I understand the allocation for the conference bill reduced the total amount available. I also understand the Senate-passed bill was about $1.5 billion above the House bill and that the conference bill allocation provided for a split of that additional amount leaving an increase of $750 million over the House-passed bill. I further understand that the vast majority of the $750 million in new funding was provided to the Army Corps of Engineers for flood control and navigation projects in the wake of Hurricanes Katrina, Ophelia, Wilma and others. Under the circumstances, this was a wise investment of our Nation's resources. However, an unintended consequence of these cutbacks is a negative impact on the Brookhaven National Laboratory in my State of New York, where the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider, known as RHIC, is a key nuclear physics facility with many user groups in our region and elsewhere. I am told that this amazing major facility will be severely impacted by the amount approved by the conference agreement for nuclear physics. We had urged the Committee to approve additional funds above the President's budget request to ensure the continued operations of this facility at last year's level. The budget request was inadequate to begin with, principally because of the increased power costs that have occurred in our area to operate the facility for experiments for approximately 30 weeks operating time. Unfortunately, the situation with the power costs has worsened.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize an outstanding leader from New York who has spent his entire career championing improved health for minorities. Dr. Jack Geiger has been a pioneer in medical care for underserved populations through his dedicated work as a human rights advocate, scholar, educator, and physician. In commemoration of his 80th birthday this month, I would like to congratulate him on the extraordinary accomplishments he has achieved during his career that have impacted so many people in our Nation and in other countries. For more than 60 years, Dr. Geiger has promoted human rights in the health field. In fact, he was one of the earliest leaders to advance the idea of health care as a civil right. He helped pioneer the American health centers movement by creating the first health centers in rural Mississippi and inner-city Boston, which then burgeoned into a network of more than 900 urban, rural, and migrant centers serving millions of low-income patients today. It is difficult to cover all of Dr. Geiger's work in addressing human rights violations in the health sector because his contributions are so numerous. In the 1940s and 1950s, he led campaigns to end racial discrimination in hospitals and medical schools. In the 1960s, he helped provide medical care to civil rights workers. Later, he helped found and head the Physicians for Human Rights, a national organization of health professionals that investigates human rights abuses and war crimes and provides medical aid to victims of oppression. This organization shared in the Nobel Prize for Peace in 1998. In more recent years, he has served as the president of the Committee for Health in Southern Africa and as an NGO delegate to the United Nations Conference on Racism and Discrimination, in addition to leading several human rights missions abroad. Dr. Geiger also has been a prolific researcher and author of numerous articles, book chapters, reports, and monographs on such topics as community-oriented primary care and community health centers, poverty and health care, the role of physicians in the protection of human rights, and health effects of nuclear war. Most recently, he has contributed to seminal reports on racial and ethnic disparities in clinical diagnosis and treatment. As an educator and a physician, Dr. Geiger has produced generations of committed health professionals throughout the world and has provided medical care to countless patients and communities of all backgrounds. Before assuming his current position as Arthur C. Logan Professor Emeritus of Community Medicine at City University of New York Medical School and Visiting Professor of Epidemiology at Mailman-Columbia School of Public Health, he served as Chairman of the Department of Community Medicine at Tufts University Medical School, Visiting Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School and Chairman of the Department of Community Medicine at State University of New York at Stony Brook School of Medicine. There is no doubt that this extraordinary man embodies the true meaning of ``doctor'' and has positively changed the lives of tens of thousands of people. For his work on health care, human rights, and poverty, Dr. Gieger has been recognized with scores of illustrious awards; most recently, he was the recipient of the Award for Academic Leadership in Primary Care from Morehouse School of Medicine in 2003 and the Paul Cornely Award from the Physicians Forum in 2004. It is only fitting that we acknowledge this health champion today. I congratulate Dr. Geiger on a lifetime full of remarkable accomplishments and am proud to honor his 80th birthday.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, today I discuss the Agricultural Appropriations conference report, which recently passed the Senate. Though I was not pleased with all aspects of the final report, I voted in favor of this bill because I support New York farmers and consumers. I am proud to support the increases made to the Food Stamp Program, which is vital to feeding New York families and children. The Food Stamp Program plays a critical role in fighting hunger and ameliorating poverty in both our urban and rural communities. This program provides critical resources to millions of low-income families with children, seniors and individuals with disabilities. In addition, hundreds of thousands of displaced evacuees are currently in need of critical food assistance due to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. As the Nation works to recover and rebuild from these devastating natural disasters, the widespread need for increased assistance demands that Federal Government food relief efforts be expanded, not cut. I also welcomed increased funding to child nutrition programs, though I was upset to see that New York State was not included in the USDA's Fruit and Vegetable Program this year. I will continue to work with my Senate colleagues on the Agriculture Committee to ensure that New York is added next year. New York children deserve to have access to fresh produce in their lunch lines and in their schools. These positive aspects of the bill won my support for the bill as a whole. However, the bill has several important flaws that I must make note of. I am dismayed by the decision to cut funds to the Conservation Security Program, CSP, which provides voluntary incentives for farmers and ranchers to participate in efforts to preserve and enhance their farmland, their natural resources and the environment. Five watersheds in New York State are currently eligible for CSP sign up in FY 2005--Ausable, Northern and Southern Long Island, Buffalo and Niagara--and about 2,860 farms and over 436,000 acres are enrolled. Two additional New York State watersheds have been proposed to be added to CSP for FY 2006--East Branch Delaware and Oak Orchard--which would add an estimated 1,800 new farms and almost 390,000 acres to the program. Due to the drastic nature of the cuts to the Conservation Security Program, these contracts to New York State farmers are in jeopardy. I am also extremely disappointed by several of the provisions that were included in the conference report, particularly the decision to once again delay mandatory country-of-origin labeling. This provision was inserted behind closed doors and does not serve the interests of producers and consumers in my state of New York. The 2002 farm bill required that the U.S. Department of Agriculture write rules and implement mandatory country-of-origin labeling, COOL, of meat products, seafood, fresh and frozen fruits and vegetables, and peanuts by September 2004. My producers want mandatory COOL because it will give them a competitive advantage over foreign goods, particularly for the fresh market specialty crops that New York produces. It is also good for consumers, who will be able to make an informed choice and buy food produced closer to home. In addition, mandatory COOL will enhance food safety through increased traceability of our food products and will better protect animal and human health. Despite practical suggestions from small farmers and ranchers for streamlining the country-of-origin labeling process, I am disheartened to see that the decision has instead been made by agribusiness, which doesn't want consumers to know where food comes from. While I voted for this bill because I feel that it is imperative to keep agriculture and nutrition programs moving forward, I hope to continue to work with my Senate colleagues to address some of the shortcomings in the future.