Hillary Clinton

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, this amendment would add $625 million to the high-threat urban area category of Homeland Security funding. This would bring the amount close to what the President asked in his budget where he asked for $1.5 billion for the high-threat category. What has been happening over the last several years is that the Department of Homeland Security has added the number of cities and localities with critical infrastructure to this category, which I support and agree with. But as a result, the amount of money is not sufficient in order to meet the needs of the number of places that the Secretary deems appropriate for high-threat urban funding. So I ask that we support this increase. It brings us close to the President's requested amount in the 2005 budget, and it enables the Secretary to provide the funding to a number of places that have high-threat needs.

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the subcommittee, the Senator from Mississippi, and his excellent staff for their assistance in working out this amendment. This is an amendment that would continue to provide funding for the mental health counseling that the fire department and police department and other first responders have been receiving because of their experiences arising out of September 11. We are finding that only now are some of the firefighters, police officers, and others coming forward and expressing their need for some kind of intervention and assistance. This is a program that has worked very well. I am grateful for the Federal assistance to start this program, and we are hopeful that this amendment will enable FEMA, which already has money set aside arising out of already appropriated money for New York and for purposes like this, to obtain the requisite support they need to go forward with this mental health counseling. So I am very grateful that we have worked this out. There is no new money in it, there is no new earmarking or appropriations; it is merely giving FEMA the go-ahead, with the appropriate authorization, to continue the mental health program that has proven so successful. So, again, I appreciate greatly the chairman and his staff's assistance. I ask for a voice vote on this amendment, if appropriate at this time.

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I move to waive the applicable sections of the Congressional Budget Act and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mrs. CLINTON. I would like to engage the Senator from Montana in a colloquy on Senate amendment No. 3636, the agriculture disaster assistance amendment. I appreciate his hard work in bringing this amendment forward. New York's farmers have suffered this year--both from heavy rains in July and from damaging winter frosts. In particular, both apple trees and grape vines were destroyed in New York this past winter. And while the losses for this year's crop will be covered by the crop disaster assistance provisions of this amendment, it is the tree assistance program that assists growers in replacing their lost trees and vines. So I thank the Senator for including that provision, and I would like to clarify with the Senator that the term ``tree'' as used in his amendment is used in the same way as it is defined in the 2002 farm bill. That is, term ``tree'' in this context means trees, bushes and vines, and would therefore assist New York's apple growers and grape growers alike.

Mrs. CLINTON. I thank the Senator for his assurance on this issue.

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3651.

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3631.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mrs. CLINTON. In addition to my first amendment, which would provide the Secretary with the discretion to distribute money above the State minimum, above the so-called PATRIOT Act minimum on the basis of threat, Senator Schumer and I offer this amendment to provide an additional $625 million for high-threat urban areas. This is a separate category of funding in homeland security in addition to the other two I mentioned. In this category, we know that the Secretary does have discretion, but what we have found is that over the last several years the discretion that he has felt obligated to exercise has meant less money going to more places as opposed to concentrating money on a threat analysis so we could really take care of the needs of particular areas and then move on down to take care of the needs of others. Last week, when Secretary Ridge spoke at the National Press Club, he said: I would tell you that we assess the level of terrorist threat outside of Washington and New York, which will always be at the top of the list. I mean, that's just a fact of life. . . . I'm not telling you anything [new]. It's not news. New York City, for obvious reasons--the impact on the economy and al-Qaida has always talked about the disruption or the undermining of our national economy. It's not just the iconic nature of New York City. A lot of the stock exchanges, the financial services community drives not only our national economy but the international economy. And Washington, D.C., the nation's capital, will always be targets. The 9/11 Commission and all the commissions before it, President Bush, and Secretary Ridge have all acknowledged the acute homeland security needs of high-threat urban areas, especially New York and Washington. I was delighted the recent Republican convention in New York went so well. Everyone seemed to have a great time in the greatest city in the world. The amount of work, the extraordinary expense of making it run so smoothly, was defrayed to some extent by Federal assistance, but to a large measure it reflected the ongoing investment that the people of the city of New York and the State of New York made in ensuring that we are always on high alert because, in fact, in New York City we are always on high alert. Yet despite that, last year, the Department of Homeland Security allocated only $47 million to the New York City area under the high- threat program. They admit that was insufficient. Everyone who looked at it knows it is insufficient. Our mayor has come forth with a very scrubbed list of immediate needs that is in the area of about $600 million just for New York City. That is why I am offering this amendment along with my colleague. I recognize Secretary Ridge has the authority to allocate high-threat resources in the way he deems appropriate. But, unfortunately, there is not enough money in the pot for him to do the job he knows needs to be done. So my amendment expresses the sense of the Senate that in allocating resources under the Urban Area Security Initiative, the Secretary should allocate commensurate with the threat these areas face. Now, $47 million, which was the allocation last year to New York City, is a lot of money. But it pales in comparison to the $200 million the New York City Police Department alone spends on counterterrorism activities and the $1 billion in New York City's specific homeland security needs. My guess is many of our guests at the Republican Convention enjoyed the city in part because the police presence was so pervasive and the reputation of our firefighters so well deserved for courage and bravery that it was not a matter you needed to think much about. You could get out and enjoy the city and go back and forth to hotels and go out for meals and maybe even go to the theater. I was thrilled by that. I am always very happy when people come to New York City. But the very bottom line is, we are not getting adequate funding to be as prepared as we need to be. And other high-threat areas are also in the same position. I hope we are able to recognize these two amendments are real, commonsense amendments. They are aimed at making sure the money gets where it is most needed and at increasing the money that is specifically addressing high-threat urban areas. Because, unfortunately, we are playing a little bit of a shell game here. We are cutting money for first responders, which is why I strongly support the amendment from my colleague, the Senator from Connecticut. We are expecting those firefighters and police officers and emergency responders and emergency room doctors and nurses and others to be ready when we need them. Hopefully, we will not need them, but they better be ready if we do need them. Yet we are cutting money for first responders. The omnibus Byrd amendment that we failed to pass in the Senate last week tried to address that. It is unfortunate we are taking money away with one hand while we are giving it back with the other. But what we are giving back does not make up for either what was lost or what is needed. I hope we can address the continuing emergency needs when it comes to our first responders. There is nothing more important--I am told this all the time--than funding specifically for interoperable communications systems. Unfortunately, there is no money in this bill to help our first responders do that. This is something we have talked about now for 3 years. Our police and firefighters could not talk to each other in New York. This is a problem that happens all over the country. Yet we do not seem to address it. Again, the 9/11 Commission came forward with a good recommendation: [H]igh-risk urban areas such as New York City and Washington, D.C., should establish single corps units to ensure communications connectivity between and among civilian authorities, local first responders, and the National Guard. Federal funding of such units should be given high priority by Congress. I hope we will do that before we finish this bill. I hope we can recognize that in most parts of our country that face these risks-- whether it is a tourist attraction such as Las Vegas or a large melting-pot city as Los Angeles or, of course, other cities of similar size and population density--having interoperable communications among and between first responders is essential to being able to deal with both threat and reality. We are on the lookout for potential terrorist activities and we need to be able to hope that all of our various law enforcement and firefighting responders and others are preventers as well as responders and are well equipped to do that. We can do the right thing by increasing the amount in the high-threat urban areas. If we put in the $625 million Senator Schumer and I are recommending in this amendment, we would bring the total appropriated amount to $1.5 billion. This is the amount I have been arguing for and fighting for in legislation I introduced back in January of this year. It is also in line with President Bush, according to his proposed fiscal year 2005 budget. In that budget, he called for $1,446,000,000 specifically for high-threat urban areas. So again, everybody seems to be in sync except our Congress. I do not understand that. I find it bewildering that we have the administration proposing this amount of money, we have every expert proposing this amount of money, but when it comes to action on the floor of the Senate and the House, somehow we do not do it. I hope my colleagues will support both of my amendments. I hope they will go along with the 9/11 Commission report which has won broad bipartisan support. It is, apparently, the fastest selling paperback in the country. A lot of Americans are reading it, digesting it. It is not only a debate among experts and policy wonks and security gurus. There is now a debate that is happening out in America. And it is a life-or-death debate. It goes to the heart of whether we are serious about homeland security, whether we are going to put our dollars where our words have been, whether we are going to get the results we need so we can feel confident we have done everything we know to do. So I ask my colleagues for support of the two amendments I have offered today and, in keeping with the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, to do so in a broad bipartisan way that sends a signal to not only our Nation but to any who wish us ill anywhere in the world that we are vigilant, we are prepared, we are doing all we humanly know to do to prevent and deter attacks and respond effectively should one occur. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise to respond to some of the points made by the chairman of the subcommittee. I start by saying that as I understand the underlying legislation from the House, there is no language, either legislative or report, that addresses how the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security should distribute the funding above the small State minimum. The language that my amendment is addressing specifically appears in the report to the Senate bill. So I want everyone to understand that I agree every State should receive a minimum level of funding. I think that is not only politically necessary, it is appropriate and fair. Based on the calculation of that funding, about 38 percent of all of the homeland security funding in the two biggest grant categories for the State homeland security grants and the terrorism prevention grants will go across the board on a per capita basis to all the States. So everybody will get a per capita basis that they can then use to meet their homeland security needs. Now, the remaining 62 percent of the money is what my formula amendment is addressing. At the very least, the Senate should not be, in report language, recommending that the Department of Homeland Security also distribute the funding on a per capita basis. That runs absolutely counter to the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. The 9/11 Commission said do away with small State minimums, do away with any kind of per capita funding, begin to distribute this money on the basis of risk and threat. Yet we get a committee recommendation from our Senate committee which basically recommends that the funds that are used consistent with each State's homeland security strategy are to be allocated on a per capita basis. So it is not only that we are failing to change the formula to comply with the 9/11 Commission, we are directing the Department of Homeland Security not to comply with the 9/11 Commission. I am not saying take the money away from all the States and direct it where it is most needed. I am not going the full place that the 9/11 Commission has set out for us. I am recognizing the political reality and the fairness of allocating money to every State. At the very least, let us not direct the Department of Homeland Security to distribute the money above the small State minimum on a per capita basis. So I hope we could remove that language, and my formula amendment would do that. Secondly, we cannot wait for the Governmental Affairs Committee to come forward with their authorization. I stood on this floor months ago and said we needed to change the risk and threat analysis in order to distribute the money more effectively. The very effective chairwoman of that committee came down to the floor and said: We are working on a change of formula. Work with us. Let us get the authorization changed. We have been waiting for that bill ever since. There is no authorization. The only opportunity we have to begin to try to focus our efforts on homeland security to address the kind of threats that we face is in this appropriations. In fact, the door has been opened because in this appropriations bill coming from the House, they talk about a PATRIOT Act minimum, and then the Senate committee goes one step forward and says above that minimum do not direct it any other way except per capita. So I understand very well that everybody has to look out for his or her own State, but on this matter we have to put the money where the threat is, and the threat is in places such as New York and Washington. Every committee, every commission that has looked at this has come to the same conclusion. So I look forward to working with the chairman to make it possible to distribute the money on a threat-based analysis as opposed to directing the Department to distribute the money above the small State minimum, 62 percent of the money, also on a per capita basis. I yield the floor.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Dirty Bomb Protections Acts along with Senators Gregg and Reid. This bill directs the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NRC, to control key materials that could be used in a dirty bomb. Unfortunately, some of these materials are currently exempt from Federal control. This bill follows a prior bill that I introduced with Senator Gregg in 2002, which was the first bipartisan legislation to propose improved domestic controls on materials that could be used in a ``dirty bomb.'' This legislation was supported and acclaimed by international dirty bomb experts. It provided for the safeguarding of radioactive material against use by terrorists. The bill required proper tracking, recovery, storage and export controls for radioactive material. Since then, the IAEA Board of Governors accepted and its General Conference endorsed the revised ``IAEA Code of Conduct on the Safety and Security of Radioactive Sources,'' which reflects many of the elements in that bill. The heads of state and government of the eight major industrialized democracies, G8, and over 30 other countries have committed to implement the code. And at the Sea Island Summit earlier this year, G8 leaders urged all states to implement the code and recognize it as a global standard. Passage of the Dirty Bomb Protections Act would allow the U.S. to fully implement the commitments of the code by providing the NRC with authority to control a set of substances for which they currently lack authority, including Radium-226 and other naturally occurring radioactive materials that for historical reasons have remained outside of Federal control. To control these materials, the bill instructs the NRC to: (1) promulgate final implementing regulations governing such byproduct material; and (2) prepare and give public notice of a transition plan for State assumption of regulatory responsibility for such material. I believe this bill represents an important step forward in our war against terror and our efforts to control access to materials that could be used to produce a dirty bomb. The language is identical to language that passed the EPW Committee unanimously last year. I look forward to working with Senator Inhofe and other Members of the Senate, as well as the NRC, to advance this important legislation this year.

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will create a national penalty for baby selling and help ensure that all families experience safe and legal adoptions. Although the majority of adoptions are handled by reputable and ethical agencies, each year around the world, hundreds of thousands of children are sold illegally. In these tragic instances, birth mothers and prospective adoptive families alike are victimized by individuals who treat children as commodities. Baby brokers exploit couples who are eager, if not desperate, to adopt a child, and vulnerable women who are unable or unwilling to raise their children. In too many States baby brokering constitutes only a misdemeanor offense. The Baby Selling Prohibition Act of 2004 will make this horrific crime a felony. I am pleased to partner with Lifetime Television to help raise awareness about this issue and to change public policy. Lifetime's original movie, ``Baby for Sale,'' which is based on the troubling true story of a couple who tried to adopt a child and got caught up in a baby selling ring, will go a long way toward raising the Nation's consciousness of this issue, and, I hope, generate support for my legislation. The movie ``Baby for Sale'' highlights the story of a prospective adoptive couple, William and Lauren Schneider, who registered with an online agency called ``Adoption Online.'' Through this agency, they met a lawyer who introduced them to a baby, Nikolett, who they were told was available for adoption. The Schneiders fell in love with Nikolett at once and wanted to begin the adoption procedures so that they could begin their life as a family together. However, when the lawyer asked them for $60,000 under-the-table to process the adoption the couple alerted the authorities, and ultimately uncovered a bidding war between multiple couples for this little girl. The public outrage surrounding this case led to a change in New York law last year. Under New York's new law, baby selling is considered a felony instead of a misdemeanor. The Baby Selling Prohibition Act of 2004 is modeled after New York's law. It makes profiting from the sale of a child, defined as charging fees beyond those that are reasonable and allowable, a felony, punishable by up to 10 years in prison. This critical legislation will prevent families from enduring the same agony that the Schneider's went through and will ensure that every adoptive child's safety and best interest is strictly maintained in all adoption cases. 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 that will create a national penalty for baby selling and help ensure that all families experience safe and legal adoptions. Although the majority of adoptions are handled by reputable and ethical agencies, each year around the world, hundreds of thousands of children are sold illegally. In these tragic instances, birth mothers and prospective adoptive families alike are victimized by individuals who treat children as commodities. Baby brokers exploit couples who are eager, if not desperate, to adopt a child, and vulnerable women who are unable or unwilling to raise their children. In too many States baby brokering constitutes only a misdemeanor offense. The Baby Selling Prohibition Act of 2004 will make this horrific crime a felony. I am pleased to partner with Lifetime Television to help raise awareness about this issue and to change public policy. Lifetime's original movie, ``Baby for Sale,'' which is based on the troubling true story of a couple who tried to adopt a child and got caught up in a baby selling ring, will go a long way toward raising the Nation's consciousness of this issue, and, I hope, generate support for my legislation. The movie ``Baby for Sale'' highlights the story of a prospective adoptive couple, William and Lauren Schneider, who registered with an online agency called ``Adoption Online.'' Through this agency, they met a lawyer who introduced them to a baby, Nikolett, who they were told was available for adoption. The Schneiders fell in love with Nikolett at once and wanted to begin the adoption procedures so that they could begin their life as a family together. However, when the lawyer asked them for $60,000 under-the-table to process the adoption the couple alerted the authorities, and ultimately uncovered a bidding war between multiple couples for this little girl. The public outrage surrounding this case led to a change in New York law last year. Under New York's new law, baby selling is considered a felony instead of a misdemeanor. The Baby Selling Prohibition Act of 2004 is modeled after New York's law. It makes profiting from the sale of a child, defined as charging fees beyond those that are reasonable and allowable, a felony, punishable by up to 10 years in prison. This critical legislation will prevent families from enduring the same agony that the Schneider's went through and will ensure that every adoptive child's safety and best interest is strictly maintained in all adoption cases. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Dirty Bomb Protections Acts along with Senators Gregg and Reid. This bill directs the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NRC, to control key materials that could be used in a dirty bomb. Unfortunately, some of these materials are currently exempt from Federal control. This bill follows a prior bill that I introduced with Senator Gregg in 2002, which was the first bipartisan legislation to propose improved domestic controls on materials that could be used in a ``dirty bomb.'' This legislation was supported and acclaimed by international dirty bomb experts. It provided for the safeguarding of radioactive material against use by terrorists. The bill required proper tracking, recovery, storage and export controls for radioactive material. Since then, the IAEA Board of Governors accepted and its General Conference endorsed the revised ``IAEA Code of Conduct on the Safety and Security of Radioactive Sources,'' which reflects many of the elements in that bill. The heads of state and government of the eight major industrialized democracies, G8, and over 30 other countries have committed to implement the code. And at the Sea Island Summit earlier this year, G8 leaders urged all states to implement the code and recognize it as a global standard. Passage of the Dirty Bomb Protections Act would allow the U.S. to fully implement the commitments of the code by providing the NRC with authority to control a set of substances for which they currently lack authority, including Radium-226 and other naturally occurring radioactive materials that for historical reasons have remained outside of Federal control. To control these materials, the bill instructs the NRC to: (1) promulgate final implementing regulations governing such byproduct material; and (2) prepare and give public notice of a transition plan for State assumption of regulatory responsibility for such material. I believe this bill represents an important step forward in our war against terror and our efforts to control access to materials that could be used to produce a dirty bomb. The language is identical to language that passed the EPW Committee unanimously last year. I look forward to working with Senator Inhofe and other Members of the Senate, as well as the NRC, to advance this important legislation this year.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I salute the 9/11 Commission for an extraordinary job well done and an act of real patriotism. The men and one woman who served on this Commission were asked to do a very difficult task, to try to separate themselves from their prior associations. These are all political people. Not everyone ran for political office, but the distinguished chair and vice chair certainly did and other members as well. These are all people who understand our political process and who with great distinction have served their party as well as our country, but they put that to one side when it came to working together. This 9/11 Commission report is a great testimony to their willingness to search hard for the truth, to get at the facts, to then explain, in understandable language, whatever they could discover about the events leading up to 9/11. This report not only is educational and informative, but it is an urgent call to action. There are recommendations that ask the branches of our Government, the executive and legislative, as well as the American public, to understand we are up against a determined and committed adversary. Therefore, we have to think differently. We have to organize differently. We cannot act as though business as usual is sufficient. The recommendations from this Commission will ask this body to reorganize itself, to have a different approach to the oversight of intelligence. I hope we will respond to that request and recommendation. There have been many other commissions, led by distinguished Americans, who have plowed the same ground, who have come forth with worthwhile and compelling recommendations which, frankly, have been ignored. We ignore this one at our peril. I have stood in this spot numerous times, most recently just a week ago Thursday, to ask what are we doing. We sometimes act as though there is no threat beyond what our young men and women in the military face in the mountains of Afghanistan or the streets of Baghdad. This threat is real and it is here. It is among us. We know enough to understand that there are credible reports of plans underway as I speak to strike again. If one reads this report--and I hope every American does, and I hope this is assigned in junior high schools and high schools and colleges because this is not just a report to be read by decisionmakers, to be read by political leaders, this is a report that should be read by every American--they cannot help but be struck by the ongoing threat we face. I perhaps feel it more strongly because we know that in every report of any credibility, New York is always mentioned. Therefore, I have to ask: Are we doing our part even now, before we get to the point of considering the Commission's recommendations? Why aren't we considering homeland security right now? Why have we done nearly everything but consider the appropriations for homeland security, consider the very good legislation offered on both sides of the aisle to try to have a better approach to everything from port security to providing our first responders with the resources they need, to disbursing Federal funds based on threat and not treating it, as the Commission rightly says, like some kind of revenue sharing? Obviously, that will mean New York will get more than any other place, probably followed closely by Washington, DC, but those are the places of highest risk and threat. The work before us is obvious. But I have to confess to a certain level of frustration that we have not even addressed what is within our purview. Now we are being asked by the 9/11 Commission to be even more imaginative, to be willing to change the turf, to remove some of the authority some have in order to better organize ourselves going forward. At the press conference today, one of our distinguished former Members who served in this body for a number of years, Senator Bob Kerrey, summed it up. He said, knowing as he does how this town works and how this body works, how this Congress works, he was hopeful but not optimistic that we would face up to our responsibilities. What does it take for us to realize that the partisan bickering, the divisiveness, the point scoring, and the political gamesmanship have no place in the ongoing serious war against terror? I hope, as a result of the fine work of this Commission and the path it has charted that we should follow into the future, we will rise to the occasion. There are recommendations certainly for the White House, the FBI, the CIA, the Department of Defense, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the Department of Homeland Security. There are many recommendations that go to the administration, that go to the executive branch, that regardless of who is our President after November, that President will have to address. But that does not let the Congress off the hook. We have not fulfilled our responsibilities of oversight, and we now must take seriously the recommendations of these patriotic, hard-working, thoughtful Commissioners. This report cannot be allowed to sit on a shelf somewhere. I hope we will take it in the spirit it is offered, as not just a bipartisan but, frankly, nonpartisan report; that we will immediately, under the leadership we have in this Senate, begin to figure out how we will fulfill the hope this Commission offers us; that we will be better prepared, better organized to play our part in the struggle against terrorism. I certainly will look forward to working with my colleagues in order to do that. I trust and hope that I can afford to be optimistic and that we will be able to prove our former colleague and one of the Commissioners, Senator Kerrey, wrong to a limited extent, that we can be both hopeful and optimistic that the Senate, the Congress, and our Government will live up to the obligations this report lays out so clearly. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. CLINTON. I have also written to and spoken to both Chairman Warner and Ranking Member Levin from the Senate Committee on Armed Services, to ask for hearings on this issue when we return in September. However, I was alerted yesterday that there is a provision in the Department of Defense conference report that would prohibit the Department of Defense from taking immediate action to address these financial abuses on our military installations. Specifically, section 8133 of the conference report does not allow any changes to the Department of Defense Directive 1344.7, entitled ``Personal Commercial Solicitation on DOD Installations,'' until 90 days after a report containing the results of an investigation regarding insurance premium allotment processing is submitted to the House Committee on Government Reform and the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs. With that investigation still ongoing, it could be months--maybe years, for all we know--until any changes are made to these abusive practices. During that time, more of our young men and women will fall prey to these unscrupulous agents who sell them financial products they do not need and they barely understand. Yesterday, I sent a letter to Senators Stevens and Byrd, the distinguished chair and ranking member of the Senate Committee on Appropriations, as well as to Senator Inouye, the ranking member of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, to express my concern about the inclusion of this provision in the conference report of the DOD appropriations bill and to urge them to take action to remove this rider. I understand a similar provision, with an even longer delay before DOD can take action, was included in the House Defense authorization bill. I am a conferee in the House-Senate conference on the Defense authorization bill, and I intend to do everything I can to include language that will allow the Department of Defense to immediately address this troubling issue without having to wait several months while our men and women in uniform continue to be fleeced. I hope I will have the support of my colleagues who are also conferees on the Department of Defense authorization bill. I look forward to working with Senators on the Committee on Appropriations to figure out the best way to address this issue. The problem of financial advisers taking advantage of our service men and women is one that requires immediate action. It is almost hard to believe, as the two articles in the New York Times so poignantly point out, that young men and women, who have a lot on their minds--such as leaving their families; oftentimes worrying about young wives left alone, taking care of children; or parents who are worried about their safety; trying to get the training they need; trying to get prepared for the dangerous missions they will face in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere--would be required, in many instances, to attend these meetings, which could do a lot to help educate them. In fact, in my letter to Secretary Rumsfeld I ask there be financial education provided to these young men and women and oftentimes, if possible, where there are large bases, to the spouses who are left behind. I have visited bases where particularly young wives--often as young as 17, 18, 19 years old--are seeing their husbands leave for overseas deployments. They do not know how to keep a checkbook. They do not know how to pay bills. They have gone literally from their parents' home into a new, young marriage, oftentimes under the pressure of an impending deployment--usually of their husbands--and now, all of a sudden, they are left to try to deal with the financial demands of running a household. They should be given help. They should not be taken advantage of. It strikes me as just regrettable that we would permit the solicitation for questionable financial schemes at the very military installations where these young men and women live prior to asking them to go into harm's way. There certainly is a role for additional insurance, for other kinds of investment information to be provided, but not in a situation where the people doing the presentations are often former military officers or high-ranking noncommissioned officers, who purport to and present themselves as people in authority, and often lay the groundwork for a very rushed and somewhat coercive atmosphere, where these young men and women sign things they do not understand. It is somewhat reminiscent of many of our college students, who are in comparable age and group settings, who are given the hard sells for credit cards and insurance policies they do not understand. So I think there is a tremendous opportunity for legitimate financial education and for helping our military service members know what their needs are, and then to meet those needs. I am looking forward to working with my colleagues on the Committee on Armed Services, as well as Senators on the Committee on Appropriations, to find a solution to this problem. I regret these riders were injected into the DOD appropriations subcommittee conference report that we will vote up or down this afternoon. I will certainly support the appropriations bill because there are much-needed resources in it for our military and other ongoing needs that are within the purview of the Department of Defense that we need to be funding. Report of the 9/11 Commission

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise today to express my concern about a rider included in the Department of Defense appropriations conference report that we will be taking up shortly. This rider is from the House Defense appropriations bill. It will limit the ability of the Department of Defense to address deceptive sales practices on our military bases. This week, the New York Times has published a two-part series which included disturbing reports of financial advisers taking advantage of service men and women on our military installations. These articles contained evidence which indicate that recently enlisted service members are required, at many installations, to attend mandatory financial advisory classes. In those classes, it has been discovered that sales agents use questionable tactics to sell insurance and investments that may not fit the needs of our young men and women in uniform. Mr. President, I commend to my colleagues the articles from the July 20 and July 21 editions of the New York Times titled ``Basic Training Doesn't Guard Against Insurance Pitch to G.I.'s'' and ``Insurers Rely on Congress to Keep Access to G.I.'s.'' Mr. President, as you well know, our men and women in uniform today are being called upon to sacrifice, sometimes--for more than 900 of them--the ultimate sacrifice. All of them are separated from their families. They are putting their lives at risk in the service of our Nation. It is almost unimaginable that in addition to their sacrifice they would be exposed to less than scrupulous financial advisers at the installations at which they serve. However, instead of protecting our service members, a culture of financial abuse persists on our military bases. As soon as I learned of these reports, I immediately wrote to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, asking for an immediate investigation of these practices, as well as immediate action to prevent these abuses from continuing. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my letter to Secretary Rumsfeld be printed in the Record.

Mrs. CLINTON

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

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, today I am pleased to be introducing legislation that expands the supports and services available to grandparents and other relatives who are raising children when their biological parents can no longer take care of them. I am happy to have worked with my friend and colleague, Senator Olympia Snowe, in crafting this important bill. Today there is a phenomenon that is quietly changing the face of the American family and creating new challenges for our Nation's child welfare system--the growth of kinship care. According to the Census, more than 6 million children--1 in 12--live in households headed by grandparents or other relatives. New York alone has over 409,000 children living in these households. The majority of these children--54 percent--live with their grandparents, while the rest live with aunts, uncles, siblings, and cousins. Sadly, one-fifth of families headed by grandparents are living in poverty. While extended families have always stepped in to raise children when parents could not, over the past two decades we've seen a rise in the number of children living with grandparents and other relatives. A study conducted by the American Association of Retired Persons found that the number of children living in grandparent-headed households increased by 30 percent between 1990 and 2000. Parents are unable to raise their own children for many different reasons, and we still have a lot to learn about this trend, but a few statistics are illuminating: Mothers are the fastest growing segment of the U.S. prison population. Approximately 7 in 10 women in correctional facilities have children under age 17. The number of women living with HIV/AIDS increased from 4,000 in the early 80s to close to 60,000 in 2000. Many of these women are unable to raise their children and often rely on their relatives to fill in. Many other parents die or contract debilitating diseases that also make it impossible for them to fulfill their parental obligations. Grandparents and other relatives have stepped forward, often at great personal sacrifice, to provide safe and loving homes for the children in their care. This has allowed tens of thousands of children to live with extended family rather than strangers. Extended families can provide a sense of belonging and a connection with their family history. Children are traumatized when they are separated from their natural parents--being cared for by grandparents or other relatives can soften that blow. But kinship families, especially those without formal legal custody of the children under their care, face a number of unnecessary barriers. Let me give you an example. Maria Lemmons, of Albany, lost her daughter, a single mother of 3, in a tragic car crash when Maria was 67. Maria immediately stepped in to take custody of her grandchildren, aged 11, 13, and 15. But as you can imagine, she struggled. Maria was financially secure, but she hadn't raised a teenager in over 20 years. She needed guidance about parenting and a support group to help her navigate the tough terrain of parenting. At the other extreme is Susan Smith. Susan's daughter Cathy almost lost custody of her son, Jacob, when she became addicted to heroin and neglected him for days at a time. Susan intervened to take care of Jacob even though doing so required a significant financial sacrifice. Susan lives on a Social Security check of less than $300 a month. She can barely afford her groceries and her medicine. But she was not willing to let Jacob be raised by a stranger. At the very least, both of these women need and deserve our compassion. But I believe they also deserve our support as they assume the awesome responsibility of raising children. The Kinship Caregiver Support Act will help women like Maria and Susan in three important ways. First, it will establish a ``kinship navigator'' program. This program will provide funds to social service agencies to establish toll-free hotlines, websites, and resource guides on the local and State parenting support available to kinship families. These hotlines and websites will give grandparents critical information about enrolling children in school, obtaining SCHIP, Medicaid and other health insurance, safeguarding their homes for small children, applying for housing assistance, obtaining legal services, finding childcare, and identifying parental support groups so that women like Maria have someone to talk to about their experiences. The kinship navigator program will promote partnerships between government agencies, not-for-profit and faith-based organizations to help them better serve the needs of kinship care families. The second part of this legislation will make it possible for kinship families who serve as permanent legal guardians to receive the same payments that foster families would receive. This is extremely important because many grandparents want to raise their grandchildren but, like Susan, simply cannot afford to do so. States will have the option to use their title IV-E funds to provide payments to grandparents and other relatives who have assumed legal guardianship of the children they've cared for as foster parents. Families would be eligible if the child has been under the care of the State agency for at least 12 months and was eligible for foster care maintenance payments. There are a few States, such as Illinois and Maryland, that have already implemented subsidized guardianship waivers through the Health and Human Services demonstration project. These States have shown that subsidized guardianship is a cost-neutral and effective way to keep families together. My legislation will make it possible for all States to follow in their path. It values families that care for each other. The final part of this legislation will require States to notify grandparents when children enter the foster care system. Unfortunately, grandparents and other relatives often do not know when their grandchildren or nieces and nephews come under the care of the State. By notifying grandparents and other relatives when children enter the foster care system, we can make it a lot easier for families to stay together. I also want to note that in May of this year, the Pew Commission on Children in Foster Care recommended that children who live with a permanent legal guardian should receive federal guardianship assistance. This commission is widely considered to be one of the most comprehensive investigation of child welfare financing policy in decades and is chaired by a bipartisan group of child welfare experts, including legislators, state administrators, family service providers, judges, foster and adoptive parents, and former foster youth. It is encouraging that their recommendations are in line with the legislation I am introducing today. I am very pleased with this legislation; it shows that we are moving in the right direction toward helping the thousands of children and the relatives that care for them in this country. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this bill in the Senate.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, today I am pleased to be introducing legislation that expands the supports and services available to grandparents and other relatives who are raising children when their biological parents can no longer take care of them. I am happy to have worked with my friend and colleague, Senator Olympia Snowe, in crafting this important bill. Today there is a phenomenon that is quietly changing the face of the American family and creating new challenges for our Nation's child welfare system--the growth of kinship care. According to the Census, more than 6 million children--1 in 12--live in households headed by grandparents or other relatives. New York alone has over 409,000 children living in these households. The majority of these children--54 percent--live with their grandparents, while the rest live with aunts, uncles, siblings, and cousins. Sadly, one-fifth of families headed by grandparents are living in poverty. While extended families have always stepped in to raise children when parents could not, over the past two decades we've seen a rise in the number of children living with grandparents and other relatives. A study conducted by the American Association of Retired Persons found that the number of children living in grandparent-headed households increased by 30 percent between 1990 and 2000. Parents are unable to raise their own children for many different reasons, and we still have a lot to learn about this trend, but a few statistics are illuminating: Mothers are the fastest growing segment of the U.S. prison population. Approximately 7 in 10 women in correctional facilities have children under age 17. The number of women living with HIV/AIDS increased from 4,000 in the early 80s to close to 60,000 in 2000. Many of these women are unable to raise their children and often rely on their relatives to fill in. Many other parents die or contract debilitating diseases that also make it impossible for them to fulfill their parental obligations. Grandparents and other relatives have stepped forward, often at great personal sacrifice, to provide safe and loving homes for the children in their care. This has allowed tens of thousands of children to live with extended family rather than strangers. Extended families can provide a sense of belonging and a connection with their family history. Children are traumatized when they are separated from their natural parents--being cared for by grandparents or other relatives can soften that blow. But kinship families, especially those without formal legal custody of the children under their care, face a number of unnecessary barriers. Let me give you an example. Maria Lemmons, of Albany, lost her daughter, a single mother of 3, in a tragic car crash when Maria was 67. Maria immediately stepped in to take custody of her grandchildren, aged 11, 13, and 15. But as you can imagine, she struggled. Maria was financially secure, but she hadn't raised a teenager in over 20 years. She needed guidance about parenting and a support group to help her navigate the tough terrain of parenting. At the other extreme is Susan Smith. Susan's daughter Cathy almost lost custody of her son, Jacob, when she became addicted to heroin and neglected him for days at a time. Susan intervened to take care of Jacob even though doing so required a significant financial sacrifice. Susan lives on a Social Security check of less than $300 a month. She can barely afford her groceries and her medicine. But she was not willing to let Jacob be raised by a stranger. At the very least, both of these women need and deserve our compassion. But I believe they also deserve our support as they assume the awesome responsibility of raising children. The Kinship Caregiver Support Act will help women like Maria and Susan in three important ways. First, it will establish a ``kinship navigator'' program. This program will provide funds to social service agencies to establish toll-free hotlines, websites, and resource guides on the local and State parenting support available to kinship families. These hotlines and websites will give grandparents critical information about enrolling children in school, obtaining SCHIP, Medicaid and other health insurance, safeguarding their homes for small children, applying for housing assistance, obtaining legal services, finding childcare, and identifying parental support groups so that women like Maria have someone to talk to about their experiences. The kinship navigator program will promote partnerships between government agencies, not-for-profit and faith-based organizations to help them better serve the needs of kinship care families. The second part of this legislation will make it possible for kinship families who serve as permanent legal guardians to receive the same payments that foster families would receive. This is extremely important because many grandparents want to raise their grandchildren but, like Susan, simply cannot afford to do so. States will have the option to use their title IV-E funds to provide payments to grandparents and other relatives who have assumed legal guardianship of the children they've cared for as foster parents. Families would be eligible if the child has been under the care of the State agency for at least 12 months and was eligible for foster care maintenance payments. There are a few States, such as Illinois and Maryland, that have already implemented subsidized guardianship waivers through the Health and Human Services demonstration project. These States have shown that subsidized guardianship is a cost-neutral and effective way to keep families together. My legislation will make it possible for all States to follow in their path. It values families that care for each other. The final part of this legislation will require States to notify grandparents when children enter the foster care system. Unfortunately, grandparents and other relatives often do not know when their grandchildren or nieces and nephews come under the care of the State. By notifying grandparents and other relatives when children enter the foster care system, we can make it a lot easier for families to stay together. I also want to note that in May of this year, the Pew Commission on Children in Foster Care recommended that children who live with a permanent legal guardian should receive federal guardianship assistance. This commission is widely considered to be one of the most comprehensive investigation of child welfare financing policy in decades and is chaired by a bipartisan group of child welfare experts, including legislators, state administrators, family service providers, judges, foster and adoptive parents, and former foster youth. It is encouraging that their recommendations are in line with the legislation I am introducing today. I am very pleased with this legislation; it shows that we are moving in the right direction toward helping the thousands of children and the relatives that care for them in this country. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this bill in the Senate.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Madam President, I would like to bring to my colleagues' attention the nationally recognized essay of one of my constituents, Vivek Viswanathan, a junior at Herricks High School in New Hyde Park, NY. I had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Viswanathan on June 23, 2004, when he visited my office during the United States Institute of Peace 2004 National Peace Essay Contest, NPEC Awards Week in Washington. The mandate of the United States Institute of Peace, as established by Congress, is to support the development, transmission, and use of knowledge to promote peace and curb violent international conflict. The Institute's annual NPEC, one of its oldest programs, is based on the belief that expanding the study of peace, justice, freedom and security is vital to civic education. Mr. Viswanathan's essay, ``Establishing Peaceful and Stable Postwar Societies Through Effective Rebuilding Strategy'' was awarded first- place among the essays of his peers representing all 50 States, U.S. territories and overseas schools. In his essay, Mr. Viswanathan argues that to be effective, reconstruction efforts should be tailored to the specific post-war situation, obtain a large commitment of resources and assistance from the international community, and involve ``a nation's own people in a way that allows them to ultimately control their destiny and that eventually provides a clear exit strategy for international actors.'' I am proud of Mr. Viswanathan's commendable essay and congratulate him and his teachers at Herricks High School. Mr. Viswanathan is a bright and energetic student who will be a leader in his future endeavors. I would like to share with my colleagues a copy of Mr. Viswanathan's first-place essay. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. In light of the pending release of the 9/11 Commission report, I wish to recognize the Family Steering Committee for the 9/11 Independent Commission and their efforts to establish the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States.

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following essay be printed in the Record on behalf of Kristen Breitweiser, Patricia Casazza, Mindy Kleinberg and Lorie Van Auken who lost their husbands on September 11, 2001 and became advocates on behalf of their own families and all who were affected by the tragic events of that day.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Improvement Act of 2004. I am extremely pleased that this bill was written in a bipartisan fashion. I thank Senator Enzi, Senator Gregg, Senator Kennedy and their staff members, Scott Fleming, Ilyse Schulman, Kelly Scott, and Jane Oates, for working so hard and so quickly to make this happen. I sincerely hope that we continue in this spirit of bipartisanship as we work together on future legislation coming out of the HELP Committee. It is an often-overlooked fact that the Perkins program is the largest Federal investments in our Nation's high schools. Over 66 percent of all public high schools have at least one vocational and technical education program and 96 percent of high school students in this country will take at least one vocational or technical course while they are in high school. In New York, this means that over 275,000 high school students benefited from Perkins Act programs last year. Perkins also plays a key role in postsecondary education. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, nearly 38 percent of all degree-seeking undergraduates are pursuing vocational careers. When I travel throughout New York, I hear about how important career and technical education is for tens of thousands of New Yorkers. Institutions such as the Adirondack Community College and the Culinary Institute of America in the Hudson River Valley and thousands of our Nation's community colleges, skill centers and other postsecondary sub- baccalaureate institutions rely on the Perkins program to help provide vocational and technical courses to students. Last year, 65 New York community colleges received funding under the Perkins Act, directly benefiting over 200,000 community college students. These schools use the funds to provide career counselors and academic curricula that guide students toward high-wage and high-skill occupations. The Perkins program is extremely important--not just for the numbers of students it serves but for the communities that benefit from a better prepared workforce as a result of these programs. This is why for the last 2 years I have spearheaded a letter to the Senate Appropriations Committee requesting additional funding for Perkins. I also offered an amendment to the budget resolution in 2003 to protect the Perkins programs from cuts because I was deeply concerned that President Bush's proposal to slash the Perkins program by 25 percent would be reflected in the Senate's budget. The Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Improvement Act of 2004 will go a long way towards strengthening vocational and technical education in New York and across the country. Among other things, it will provide for comprehensive professional development for career and technical education teachers, increase States' flexibility to meet their unique needs, and align secondary and postsecondary indicators with those established in other programs to ultimately reduce paperwork. I am particularly pleased that this bill also improves programs and services for women and girls pursuing nontraditional occupations. A few weeks ago at a HELP Committee hearing on vocational education, an inspiring woman from New York, Angela Olszewski, testified about how important it is that we support and encourage women and girls in their pursuit of nontraditional, traditionally ``male'' careers--in technology, math, science, and the construction and building trades. Unfortunately, women are still significantly underrepresented in these fields. For example, we know that while the number of women carpenters has tripled since 1972, they still only represent 1.7 percent of all carpenters. You can say the same about many other high-skill, high-wage trades. Many of these skilled trades industries are experiencing a significant labor shortage and experts expect these shortages to get worse over the next two decades as many workers retire. If women were to enter these professions, most of which are unionized and pay a livable paycheck and benefits, women would increase their earnings and standard of living for their families. For example, a journey-level electrician will make over $1,000,000 more than a typical cashier in a 30-year career. That would go a long way toward putting many women on the road towards selfsufficiency. I want all New York women--and women throughout the country--to have the same opportunities. This bill helps us toward that goal. I also want to highlight another successful program started in New York called Project Lead the Way. This program builds partnerships among public schools, institutes of higher education, and the private sector to promote pre-engineering and technology courses for middle school and high school students. Project Lead the Way is now a presence in more than 875 schools in 39 States and should serve as an example for career and technical education of the future. I am very pleased with this legislation; it shows that we are moving in the right direction, tweaking our education policies to better serve our Nation's career and technical students. I look forward to working with my colleagues as this bill goes to conference.