Hillary Clinton

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise today to highlight the scourge of human trafficking. Every day, in countries around the world and right here in the United States, people desperate for economic opportunity and seeking to follow their dreams of a better life are lured from home by the promises of jobs and security. Sadly, though, all too often they find themselves trapped in a nightmare, imprisoned by violent criminals, abused, violated, deceived, bought, and sold as chattel. Some of these victims of trafficking disappear, never seen nor heard from again. Every year, traffickers strip thousands of people of their freedom and imprison them in the dark underworld of prostitution, domestic servitude, sweat shops, and agricultural labor. Trapped in debt bondage and faced with threats of physical harm to themselves or their families, trafficked persons have little choice but to try to work off their ballooning debts. Women forced into domestic servitude or sweatshop labor toil each day in abysmal, even dangerous conditions, earning no money and suffering physical and psychological abuse. And women and children trafficked into the sex industry constantly risk exposure to deadly diseases such as HIV and AIDS. Their only ``escape'' from the traffickers coming, if at all, is when the criminals discard them in the streets to die. This human trafficking is nothing short of modern day slavery. Each year the United States publishes a report ranking countries for their failure to combat trafficking. Improvements have been made, but still the 2004 Trafficking In Persons Report estimates that 600,000- 800,000 men, women, and children are trafficked worldwide across international borders; 14,500-17,500 are trafficked annually into the United States. This is even more chilling when one understands that these are new victims added each year to those whom traffickers have already ensnared. We must do better. Last week, the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Property Rights focused on the most fundamental of all civil rights in their July 7 hearing ``Examining U.S. Efforts to Combat Human Trafficking and Slavery.'' And this week, representatives from NGOs and the Bush administration, including the Departments of Justice, State, and Homeland Security, are convening in Florida for the ``National Conference on Human Trafficking.'' It is heartening to see the work begun by the Clinton Administration continues to grow and strengthen. The scourge of trafficking in women and children was a priority for me as First Lady and continues to be a priority for me as a U.S. Senator. I will do everything in my power to shine a light on this dark world that is so contrary to human dignity. Since the United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women in 1995, I have been working to raise awareness of the heinous practice of buying and selling women and children like commodities. I have seen the devastation it causes, and the lives and families it ruins. I remember very well crouching down by the chair of a 12-year-old girl who had been sold into prostitution by her own parents desperate for the income from that sale, only to have the child return home within a year, dying of AIDS. I have met other families who spend their nights at home worrying about what has happened to the daughter they haven't heard from since she went to the discotheque, or answered the ad to be a nanny or a clerk. In the summer of 1997, I met with women leaders from Eastern and Central Europe, as well as victims' family members who, with tears in their eyes, pleaded with me for help in dealing with this growing problem. Later that year, in Lviv, Ukraine, I launched a new information campaign designed to warn young women about the dangers posed by traffickers. And in the fall of 1999, at the meeting of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe held in Istanbul, Turkey, I announced a $1 million U.S. commitment to combat trafficking, and I called for greater economic opportunities to prevent young women from being driven into the hands of traffickers. In recent years, beginning with the leadership of the Clinton administration, the U.S. has made great strides in understanding the horrors of trafficking. We have worked with other nations to combat those who try to reap profits from this horrible practice. In 1997, the United States, along with the European Union, formally launched a campaign to combat trafficking of women and girls and to warn potential victims of the risks. In March of 1998, President Clinton condemned human trafficking as a fundamental human rights violation and a growing organized crime problem. I joined the President, Secretary of State Albright, Attorney General Reno, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, and a high-ranking member of the Thai government for a White House announcement of the first presidential directive to prevent and deter trafficking and to protect victims. At that time, the President directed his interagency Council on Women to coordinate the development and implementation of a three-part strategy that would: first, prevent trafficking; second, provide protection and assistance for trafficking victims; and third, prosecute traffickers. This comprehensive strategic framework later guided the development of the anti-trafficking legislation passed by Congress. The Clinton administration's State Department began raising the issue with foreign governments at the highest levels. Formal and informal working partnerships were forged with several foreign governments to address this international crisis, including the Ukraine and Finland. At the G-8 meeting in 1997, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright initiated discussions that resulted in 1998 with President Clinton and Italian Prime Minister Prodi formally signing the first bilateral agreement to cooperate on such anti-trafficking efforts as data collection and information sharing, prevention, assistance and law enforcement. We began the first U.S. funding of anti-trafficking programs in countries such as the Philippines and Bangladesh. Back then, no anti-trafficking legislation had passed so these were necessarily modest amounts by comparison to U.S. funding now, but it was a needed start. There was more. Embassies were tasked with reporting on human trafficking for the first time. And these assessments were included in the Department's annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices. Prevention efforts included publishing awareness pamphlets that were translated into multiple languages and distributed in many consular offices around the world. At the same time, the U.S. undertook the first official estimates of the magnitude of human trafficking world- wide and domestically, and funded the creation of a database on U.S. and international legislation on trafficking. Law enforcement training was initiated at the International Law Enforcement Academy in Bangkok and Budapest and in countries such as Thailand, Bulgaria, Romania and Bosnia. The Attorney General and the Secretary of Labor established an interagency Task Force to coordinate investigations and prosecutions of trafficking cases. Even prior to the passage of the 2000 anti- trafficking law, the Department of Justice used the legal tools available to successfully prosecute human traffickers. In 1995, the Department brought the seminal case of United States v. Manasurangkun against traffickers who enticed seventy-one women from Thailand to travel to the United States by promising them good wages, good working hours, and a better life. Upon their arrival in El Monte, CA, they were held in slavery behind barbed wire and forced to work up to twenty hour days and under the watch of guards. Women were imprisoned for up to 7 years before being rescued. This case was followed by other landmark cases such as United States v. Paoletti, United States v. Flores, United States v. Cadena and United States v. Mishulovich. These and other cases successfully prosecuted by the Justice Department ranging from sexual slavery to forced labor demonstrated the many manifestations of human trafficking, all of which must be addressed. Investigations resulting from the Justice Department's creation of the first national telephone line to receive calls to assist trafficking victims anywhere in the United States led to growing prosecutions. I am pleased that since the anti-trafficking legislation was passed and signed into law in 2000, prosecutions have continued to increase. Again, though, we need to do more to support increasing the capacity to undertake the investigations and prosecutions of these cases. Just as the Clinton administration and international organizations were beginning to highlight trafficking in persons as an international crisis, Senator Paul Wellstone--one of the greatest champions of civil rights to sit in this chamber--also recognized this growing abuse of human rights. He introduced, with Senator Dianne Feinstein, a resolution in 1998 that called trafficking a global human rights problem and directed the State Department to review it and report its findings to Congress. Congresswoman Louise Slaughter introduced a companion resolution and the led the charge in the House to bring attention to this issue. The Clinton administration worked with Senator Wellstone, his Republican co-sponsor, Senator Brownback, and Congressman Chris Smith and former Congressman Sam Gejdenson in the House, to introduce the first comprehensive anti-trafficking bill in Congress. This culminated in the passage of the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000. I supported adoption of the strongest possible legislation to eradicate trafficking in persons, and I was personally invested in the effort. The Clinton administration worked continuously with Congress on a bi-partisan basis to craft a bill to achieve this objective. We sought to institutionalize the comprehensive strategic framework--the ``3 Ps''--that the Administration had been implementing as the core of the legislation. The resulting legislation incorporated prevention mechanisms and better and stronger prosecution, protection, and victim assistance tools. Upon its passage, President Clinton congratulated Congress and noted that this new law would lay the groundwork for future administrations to carry this important work forward, and would ensure that trafficking of persons assumes the prominent place on the world's agenda that it deserves until we put an end to this horrible practice. I believed then, and I believe now, that this is one of the Clinton administrations greatest achievements and one of the most important parts of Senator Wellstone's legacy. That law means the difference between freedom and enslavement for unknown numbers of potential trafficking victims for years to come. I was also proud to support and work with Senator Brownback on the passage of the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2003. I know that Senator Wellstone would welcome our work in the Senate, and Chris Smith's continuing leadership in the House, as we fight one of the most egregious human rights violations, which Paul so passionately sought to bring to an end. Looking forward, we must pursue concrete and pragmatic approaches to combating this evil. Our rhetoric must be matched by our actions so that the United States government's seven year record of progress and success can continue and intensify. The fight against trafficking, like the fight against all forms of violence, must be supported with comprehensive strategies effectively implemented and appropriately funded here and abroad. There is still much to be done. The United States must do more to combat trafficking within our own shores. Trafficking victims exist in our midst, in towns large and small. We must target resources on training and equipping law enforcement authorities to identify trafficking victims, victims too often mischaracterized as ``illegal migrants'' and deported. And we must provide funds for NGOs working on the front lines in the United States to provide care and legal assistance to victims of all forms of trafficking. I applaud and support State initiatives to combat trafficking. However, we must ensure that State and Federal authorities work cooperatively to combat this scourge. These welcome state efforts must augment the ongoing Federal fight against human trafficking. The Federal Government cannot retreat, but must do more to focus on victims nationwide. We must ensure that our Federal law enforcement authorities continue to have the financial and human resources necessary to investigate these crimes. We must further support our Federal, State, and local law enforcement, investigators, and prosecutors in efforts to mobilize in an integrated and coherent way to respond appropriately to the organized criminal enterprises of human trafficking who still operate with relative impunity here and around the world. We must ensure that we adopt a consistent and coordinated national response to these human rights violations. Without witness protection and an appreciation of the risks that trafficking victims face in testifying against the perpetrators of these horrible crimes, the prosecution record will not improve. Conferences are a beginning, but not an end in themselves. We must do more to tailor specific responses to the special needs of the children who are trafficked, especially in terms of care and protection. Root causes such as economic deprivation demand and warrant growing attention. There are no short-term fixes. The incidence of retrafficking among children, many who have attempted to flee homes of violence and abuse or have been sold by their families, must be addressed. Finally, the Senate must ratify the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children, supplementing the U.N. Convention against Transnational Organized Crime. The United States played a major role in developing this new international law on trafficking. Through the annual TIP reports we have communicated our expectation to the world that all countries will join in our fight against human trafficking. Now, for the sake of our own credibility abroad, we must show our own commitment to abide by international norms on trafficking. The TIP report is a powerful tool for combating trafficking around the world. The threat of economic sanctions has inspired many countries to ramp up their efforts to combat trafficking within and across their borders. We must work closely in partnership with countries who are striving to do better and maintain the pressure on countries who are not. Meeting minimum standards is not enough. We must not shy away from ranking as Tier 3 those countries that fail to do their part in the global fight against trafficking. The simple fact is that we must do better in terms of demanding effectiveness of our programs and the significant funds that are spent by our government in the U.S. and around the world. There is no question that we are making progress, but we must do better for the sake of the victims of trafficking who try to endure, waiting and praying for our intervention in their nightmare. Every day, more women and girls are being sold into the sex industry, domestic servitude, sweatshop labor, debt bondage, and other forms of modern-day slavery. And more and more men, women, and children are being forced into various forms of manual labor, without any pay or any protection. These crimes are violations of human rights and human dignity, and the United States will not rest until they are stopped. I am pleased that President Bush has carried on our country's commitment to combat human trafficking. The progress we have made to date has been the result of strong bipartisan efforts that brought the horrors of trafficking to light. I hope we will continue to address this challenge in a bipartisan way. With the passage of important legislation and Congress's appropriation of much-needed funds to address this problem we have the opportunity to accomplish many things around the world and here at home to reduce human trafficking that we could only dream of before. The administration has declared its intention to spend $150 million over the next two years to reduce human trafficking. Support for these efforts is needed now more than ever because of the stark reality that in the four years since the legislation was signed into law there nevertheless remains no evidence that human trafficking is diminishing. It was Senator Wellstone who observed that despite some progress on human trafficking we must be impatient for better results. I believe that the need to be impatient is now more urgent than ever. In the fight against trafficking in persons, patience simply is not an option. We are making progress, but there is still so much more that needs to be done. No country has done more than the United States to bring worldwide trafficking out of the shadows and into the glare of public attention, and I am committed to doing whatever I can to help continue that leadership. I look forward to working with the administration and both sides of the aisle on additional improvements to the current legislation and effective strategies for implementing it internationally and domestically.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, today the Senate will vote on the Australia Free Trade Agreement. Because I believe this agreement offers greater access to Australian markets for U.S. manufacturers as well help solidify a long-term relationship with Australia, a leading ally of the United States on a whole host of international challenges, I will vote in support of this agreement. The Australia Free Trade Agreement will offer new opportunities for U.S. manufacturers as well as granting substantial access to U.S. services suppliers, including telecoms, financial services, express delivery, and professional services providers. These sectors are a critical part of New York's economy. Furthermore, Australia has been a stalwart ally of the U.S. and this agreement is another step in cementing that relationship. I share the concerns raised by some of my colleagues regarding the drug importation language in the agreement. Quite simply, the United States Trade Representative should not be negotiating agreements that could impact on the drug importation debate and I have grave concerns about the inclusion of this language in the agreement. Similarly, in the Chile and Singapore agreements, I raised concerns about the inclusion of immigration provisions in those agreements. The continuing practice of the United States Trade Representative of including provisions in trade agreements which are rightfully in the jurisdiction of Congress is deeply troubling. During my tenure as a Senator, I have voted for every trade agreement that has come before the Senate. However, I will find it difficult to support future trade agreements which contain language that impedes the jurisdiction of Congress regarding drug importation or other issues While I wish the agreement had included provisions that provided greater market access for New York agriculture, I believe that a genuine effort was made to address the legitimate concerns of New York and other States' farmers and that, on balance, New York's economy will benefit from this agreement. Despite my concerns over the drug importation provisions, I believe that, in the aggregate, New York will benefit more from having this agreement pass than if it failed. I also believe it sends a positive signal to Australia about the importance of the United States-Australia relationship. The Trade Representative should not make the mistake of concluding that a vote for the Australia Free Trade Agreement is a vote in support of this troubling drug importation provision. When deciding how to vote on trade agreements, I look at each agreement in its totality and measure the impact of each agreement on the New Yorkers that I am privileged to represent. Because I believe that passage of the Australia Free Trade agreement will lead to more jobs and greater economic growth in industries that are an important part of New York's economy as well as strengthening the U.S. relationship with Australia, I will vote in support of this agreement.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, we all know this amendment is not likely to pass at this time because concern for our Constitution and the solemn responsibility that falls to us with respect to amending it is a bipartisan concern. There are many on the other side who will not tamper with the Constitution to deal with the heated politics of the moment. Yet we are taking precious time away from other matters about which I worry, about which I am concerned, most profoundly the challenges we confront from our adversaries in al-Qaida and elsewhere who we know are plotting and planning against us. I hope that once we hold the vote tomorrow--and the States continue to do what the States are doing--that we will get back to the business of both protecting and serving the American people and solving the problems they confront each and every day. Maybe we can come to some agreement that the Founders had it right and that the concerns that have been expressed about marriage will be taken care of as they traditionally have in the States which have held the responsibility since before our founding as a nation. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 more minutes.

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I have listened with great interest to the debate over the last several days. I believe there are many sincere positions being advocated on this floor on really all sides of this issue, because there are many sides. This is an incredibly important and quite solemn responsibility that we have before us. S.J. Res. 40, this joint resolution, proposes an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage. So maybe even more than the usual debate, this calls for each of us to be engaged, to be accurate, and to be thoughtful about the positions we take with respect to this proposed amendment. Now, a number of my colleagues have come to the floor to speak about the solemn responsibility that we hold in our hands with respect to amending our Constitution. I am in agreement that the Constitution is a living and working, extraordinary human accomplishment that protects our citizens, grants us the rights that make us free, and we in this body took an oath; we swore to defend and protect the Constitution of the United States. So to consider altering this document, one of the greatest documents in the history of humanity, is a responsibility no Member can or should enter into lightly, for what we do here will not only affect our fellow citizens in the year 2004, but it will affect every generation of Americans to come. As Henry Clay once observed: The Constitution of the United States was made not merely for the generation that then existed, but for posterity-- unlimited, undefined, endless, perpetual posterity. So we do owe an obligation to those we represent today and to future generations as we embark upon this very solemn undertaking. We should not amend the Constitution to decide any issue that can and will be resolved by less drastic means. We should not amend the Constitution to federalize an issue that has been the province of the States since our founding--in fact, as Senator Kennedy reminded us, even before our founding as a nation. I believe marriage is not just a bond but a sacred bond between a man and a woman. I have had occasion in my life to defend marriage, to stand up for marriage, to believe in the hard work and challenge of marriage. So I take umbrage at anyone who might suggest that those of us who worry about amending the Constitution are less committed to the sanctity of marriage, or to the fundamental bedrock principle that exists between a man and a woman, going back into the midst of history as one of the foundational institutions of history and humanity and civilization, and that its primary, principal role during those millennia has been the raising and socializing of children for the society into which they become adults. Now, if we were really concerned about marriage and the fact that so many marriages today end in divorce, and so many children are then put into the incredibly difficult position of having to live with the consequences of divorce, perhaps 20, 30 years ago we should have been debating an amendment to the Federal Constitution to make divorce really, really hard, to take it out of the States' hands and say that we will not liberalize divorce, we will not move toward no-fault divorce, and we will make it as difficult as possible because we fear the consequences of liberalizing divorce laws. If one looks at the consequences of the numbers of divorces, the breakup of the traditional family, you could make an argument for that. If we were concerned about marriage, why were we not concerned about marriage when marriage was under pressure over the last decades because of changing roles, because of changing decisions, because of the laws in the States that were making it easier for people--husbands, wives, mothers, and fathers--to get divorced? We searched, and I don't see anyone in the history of the Senate or the House who put forward an amendment to try to stop the increasing number of divorces in order to stem the problem and the difficulties that clearly have been visited upon adults certainly but principally children because of the ease of divorce in this society over the last decade. We didn't do that. We could stand on this floor for hours talking about the importance of marriage, the significance of the role of marriage in not only bringing children into the world but enabling them to be successful citizens in the world. How many of us have struggled for years to deal with the consequences of illegitimacy, of out-of-wedlock births, of divorce, of the kinds of anomie and disassociation that too many children experienced because of that. I think that if we were really concerned about marriage and that we believed it had a role in the Federal Constitution, we have been missing in action. We should have been in this Chamber trying to amend our Constitution to take away at the very first blush the idea of no- fault divorce, try to get in there and tell the States what they should and should not do with respect to marriage and divorce, maybe try to write an amendment to the Constitution about custody matters. Maybe we should have it be a presumption in our Federal marriage law that joint custody is the rule. Maybe we ought to just substitute ourselves for States, for judges, for individuals who are making these decisions every single day throughout our Nation. We did not do that, did we? Can any of us stand here and feel good about all of the social consequences, the economic consequences? We know divorce leads to a lowered standard of living for women and children. Then, of course, if we were to deal with some of the consequences of out-of-wedlock births, the lack of marriage, we could have addressed that in a constitutional amendment. Perhaps we should have amended the Constitution to mandate marriage. Is it really marriage we are protecting? I believe marriage should be protected. I believe marriage is essential, but I do not, for the life of me, understand how amending the Constitution of the United States with respect to same-gender marriages really gets at the root of the problem of marriage in America. It is like my late father used to say: It is like closing the barn door after the horse has left. We hear all of these speeches and see these charts about the impact on marriage. We are living in a society where people have engaged in divorce at a rapid, accelerated rate. We all know it is something that has led to the consequences with respect to the economy, to society, to psychology, and emotion that so often mark a young child's path to adulthood. So what are we doing here? Some say that even though marriage has been under pressure--which, indeed, it has--and has suffered because of changing attitudes toward marriage now for quite some years, even though most States are moving as rapidly as possible to prohibit same- gender marriages, we have to step in with a Federal constitutional amendment. The States, which have always defined and enforced the laws of marriage, are taking action. Thirty-eight States--maybe it is up to 40 now--already have laws banning same-sex marriage. Voters in at least eight States are considering amendments to their constitutions reserving marriage to unions between a man and a woman. But the sponsors argue that we have to act with a Federal constitutional amendment because the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution will eventually force States, if there are any left, that do not wish to recognize same-sex marriages to do so. That is not the way I read the case law. With all due respect, the way I read the case law is that the full faith and credit clause has never been interpreted to mean that every State must recognize every marriage performed in every other State. We had States that allowed young people to marry when they were 14, and then States that allowed young people to marry when they were 16 or 18. The full faith and credit clause did not require that any other State recognize the validity of a marriage of a person below the age of marital consent according to their own laws. Every State reserves the right to refuse to recognize a marriage performed in another State if that marriage would violate the State's public policy. Indeed, the Supreme Court has long held that no State can be forced to recognize any marriage. That is what the case law has held. But just to make sure there were no loopholes in that case law, the Congress passed and the President signed the Defense of Marriage Act, known as DOMA. The Defense of Marriage Act has not even been challenged at the Federal level, and because the Supreme Court has historically held that States do not have to recognize laws of other States that offend their public policy, it is assumed that any challenge would be futile. So what is it we are really focused on and concerned about here? If we look at what has happened in the last several months--and there are others in this body who are more able to discuss this than I because it affects the laws of their States--as Senator Kennedy said, in Massachusetts, a court decision will be challenged by a referendum. In California, San Francisco's action permitting the licensing of same- sex marriages was stopped by the California State courts. The DOMA law that was enacted already protects States from having to recognize same- sex marriage licenses issued in other States. So I worry that, despite what I do believe is the sincere concern on the part of many of the advocates of this amendment, they have rushed to judgment without adequate consideration of the laws, the case laws, the actions of the States, and that their very earnest, impassioned arguments about marriage have certainly overlooked the problems that marriage has encountered in its present traditional state within the last several decades in our country.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. I thank my good friend from Illinois and I yield the floor.

Mrs. CLINTON. I so yield.

Mrs. CLINTON. Certainly. Unanimous Consent Request--S. 2537 and H.R. 4567

Mrs. CLINTON. Certainly, I agree with my good friend and my distinguished leader who makes some excellent points. Even more than that, as the Senator from Nevada knows so well, in the face of a disaster or another attack, all of this becomes unimportant, trivial, even frivolous. I have enough respect for all of my colleagues that I hope we are not putting ourselves in a position where in the event what has been predicted, and given voice to today by Secretary Ridge, comes to pass, and people rightly can turn and ask, Where were our elected representatives? This goes way beyond politics. This is not about Democrats and Republicans. This is about us as Americans. What are our priorities? What do we think is important? What are we willing to fight for, stand up for? As my good friend points out, the majority has made a different set of choices. They have decided they want to create an atmosphere of gridlock and obstructionism which means we go so far as not even to take up the Homeland Security appropriations. It is profoundly sad. It would be sad any time, but it is extraordinarily disheartening that on a day when the Senate was briefed behind closed doors about the threats, when the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security went before the world to talk about the threats, that we cannot get a debate on the appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security. I have no doubt my good friend is right, there must be some political machinations going on in some back room, there must be some pollster whispering in someone's ear and saying, If you do this, that, and the other, you can come. Maybe people will be fooled into believing--even though you are in charge, and as my friend points out, you are in charge of the White House, the House, and the Senate--that somehow the fact that nothing has happened has to be the other side's fault. I am sure people are saying that, but how pathetic is that. What does that say about our values and priorities as a nation? If that is what they care about, trying to score cheap political, partisan points at the expense of bringing up the Department of Homeland Security appropriations in the face of the warnings we received today, then it is going to be clear for all to see the responsibility rests on their shoulders. It is not too late. There are a lot of Members who have worked day and night to deal with the real business of America. I am sure my good friend, our deputy leader on this side of the aisle who is literally here every waking hour, would be here even more in order to deal with the people's business. And what is the people's business? No. 1, keeping the people safe. Again, I hope we get about what is important, that our majority leadership decide they want to put aside these petty, partisan, political games dealing with scoring cheap points at somebody's advantage, and work for the good of all of our people.

Mrs. CLINTON. Certainly.

Mrs. CLINTON. Madam President, this is a very difficult time for our Nation. A few hours ago, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security appeared at a press conference to discuss in some detail what he could say publicly about the continuing threats our Nation confronts because of the diabolical plots of the terrorists to undermine our way of life, to destroy American life, to disrupt American life. Earlier today there was a closed door hearing for the Senate that went into even greater detail. A few weeks ago I personally was briefed by representatives of the Department of Homeland Security, the FBI, the CIA, others within our Government who follow the terrorist threats on a daily, even hourly basis. I believe it is fair to say there has been, ever since September 11 and I think one can argue even before, a concerted effort by those who subscribe to the nihilistic philosophy or theology that underlies the fundamentalist Islamic terrorists that whatever they could do to strike against our country or American interests or American allies anywhere in the world somehow furthered their perverted cause, their sense of purpose to try to strike against freedom and democracy, against women's rights and roles, against what the United States represents as a beacon of opportunity for so many around the world. Representing the State of New York, I saw firsthand the horrific damage the terrorists caused because of their attacks on the World Trade Center and of course at the Pentagon, and then the crash in Pennsylvania of a plane thought to be headed toward either this building or the White House. I have met recently, about 2 hours ago, with a group of interns who came to my office. I love meeting with the young people who work here in Washington during the summer. They come with such energy and enthusiasm. They were asking me a variety of questions. One of them said: Senator, what do you spend most of your time doing? I told them that certainly, because of September 11, I have spent the bulk of my time worrying about and working on behalf of New York to help us recover from the attacks, to help us rebuild, to help us try to repair, so far as possible, the shattered lives and lost dreams of so many thousands of people. Then, once having become a member of the Armed Services Committee in January, a year and a half ago, I have been immersed in the details and challenges of how we defend our country, how we best protect our interests, how we take care of the young men and women in uniform. Running through all of that work has been a commitment to do everything I could do as a U.S. Senator to ensure that we were vigilant, we took every step necessary and possible to protect our fellow men, women, and children. I have taken that responsibility very seriously. I have introduced legislation to try to put both more resources into homeland security and to allocate those more effectively to ensure that our first responders, our police and our firefighters and our emergency workers, had the resources necessary to do the job we expected them to do because, in effect, they are our frontline homeland soldiers. I have worked to protect our rail lines and our courts, to ensure that our critical infrastructure has been given whatever help can be offered so we are prepared, so we are vigilant, because none of us can predict whether there will be an attack or where one might occur. I am well aware of that. That is not something that we can stand here today and say we know is going to happen, but we can say with confidence there are people right now, meeting throughout the world in cafes in Europe, in tents in North Africa, in caves in Afghanistan, who wish us ill and who will do everything they possibly can to kill as many Americans, to injure as many Americans, and to destroy as much of America as possible. I don't think we have a higher priority in the Senate than to work together in a bipartisan--frankly, a nonpartisan--way to provide the resources and to do what is necessary to protect the people we represent. That is why it grieves me to come to the floor of this Senate having watched now for several weeks as we have done nearly everything but focus on the real business of America. We have an appropriations bill standing in line for homeland security that we cannot get to the floor. Instead, we are engaged in these nonsensical, futile, parliamentary, politically partisan games. It is a shame, and it reflects on all of us, but it reflects most on the majority leadership of this body. It is one thing not to know exactly all we should be doing to protect our homeland. It is something altogether different not to be doing the business we are expected to do to provide as many resources effectively deployed as possible to try to ensure that so far as humanly possible we have done our job. Look at what we are doing today. One can argue about whether dealing with class action is a priority given everything else going on in our world, but we can't even deal with that. The majority leader comes to the floor, and in a parliamentary move makes it impossible to present any other issue, whether that issue is to try to raise the minimum wage for people who haven't had a raise in years or whether it is to try to bring about the reimportation of drugs from Canada so that people can pay an affordable price for the drugs they should be able to use for their prescriptions. Some issues we hear about all the time. It is indeed frustrating that we are not even dealing with what is allegedly on the Senate floor. But what really frustrates and disappoints me is that this impasse, this games playing, this pure, unadulterated partisan politics, is preventing us from dealing with the urgent business, the threats, and the dangers that confront our country. The Homeland Security appropriations bill just sits there. We can't get it to the floor. We have passed out of our requisite committees not once but several times steps to make our ports safer, to make our rail lines safer. For heaven's sake, we saw what happened in Madrid. How can we in good conscience act as though we don't have an obligation and a responsibility to protect our rail lines and our ports, our critical infrastructure? We have just appropriated some additional funds to make sure we have more security in Boston and New York which will be the home of the Democratic and Republican Conventions, part of our great political democratic tradition in our country. What about the people who do their job every day? What about the police officers in New York who walk the streets every day picking up information and conveying it to the intelligence-gathering operations of our New York Police Department and detectives coordinating with the FBI? What are we doing for them? We are cutting the COPS Program. That is what we are doing. We are not even adding additional money to homeland security. We are cutting the very lifeblood of what keeps the police on the streets in a city such as New York and so many other great cities around our country. What about our firefighters? With budget cuts and cutbacks, we are not fulfilling the needs they confront for interoperable communications for hazardous materials, both training and equipment for the personnel that are needed with the highly developed skills to deal with chemical, biological, and radiological attacks. I feel as if I am living in some kind of fantasy world, some parallel area. We have the Department of Homeland Security Secretary standing before our Nation talking about the danger and threats we face. We have closed-door briefings for Members of the Senate and the House. Yet we don't get about the business of doing all we can to make sure we are prepared. It is bewildering. When Secretary Ridge announced this morning that we have credible reporting that al-Qaida is moving forward with its plan to carry out a large-scale attack on the United States, then I think we act as though we have nothing better to do, at our peril. Shame on us. Yet here we are. We have a person in our Government responsible for giving us this information based on credible reports, and we are ground to a halt in the Senate. This is one of those times when I think history is watching and will judge us harshly. We are 4 days after our Independence Day, 4 months before the November elections, nearly 5 months after the President submitted his budget request to Congress, and the U.S. Congress has yet to send a single appropriations bill to fund the U.S. Government to the President for his signature. The Department of Defense, Homeland Security, Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Secret Service, responsible for coordinating security at both conventions, Federal Emergency Management Agency, and a host of others charged with the solemn responsibility of protecting our country have not yet been funded. As is so painfully clear, we haven't even taken up the Homeland Security appropriations yet. We could be right now debating on the floor of the Senate how much money our first responders need and whether we are going to take seriously the obvious threat to rail lines. And what about those ports with those thousands of containers that come in? Last week, I was privileged to be in Seattle, WA, with my good friend and colleague, Senator Murray, who is the No. 1 champion of port security in this body. In fact, she was named Port Person of the Year because of her advocacy for our ports. We went out across the water from downtown Seattle with the skyline spread before us to an island that processes a lot of the container traffic. We talked to the Coast Guard, Immigration, and other personnel who run that operation. It is an overwhelming task. You think about this, one of our ports--we have so many of them. The biggest are Los Angeles and Long Beach, Seattle-Takoma, and of course, New York-New Jersey. We have made some progress. I am proud of that progress. But we haven't done what we know needs to be done. We have had report after report after report by distinguished Americans, by experts in security and intelligence, by people who understand the perverse mentality of our enemies, and they have said over and over again that we are not ready, we are not prepared, we have not done our part. Let us get back to business. Let us get serious around here. Elections take care of themselves. That comes and goes. Our job is to do the people's work right now, today, in July, to deal with important pressing matters, and there isn't any that is more critical than homeland security. We still have time, although it is a little hard to believe, but we only have about 2 more weeks, which usually translates around here into 6 days of work, and a day like today when nothing happens. It is discouraging. There are 100 very smart, energetic, able people in this body who know how to work and how to get things done. They might as well be on a beach somewhere for all their efforts amount to with respect to the important issues facing us and the one I am most concerned about; namely, the security in our country. Every intelligence report, every briefing, always mentions New York. It mentions other places, too, but it always mentions New York. The people I represent, who have already gone through so much--the firefighters and police officers I represent, who have already set the world class standard for courage and class--I don't want to have to look them in the face and say, We could not get around to giving you the funds you needed to be sure you got those additional pieces of equipment that were required. We could not figure out how we were going to have the Senate deal with the business as to whether you live or die. I am proud and honored to serve in the Senate. I am especially proud and honored to represent New York. But it is hard to understand how we could be turning our collective backs on the most pressing need confronting our country. In 2 weeks we are going to be recessing--Democrats will go to Boston; the Republicans, later in August, will go to New York--and I guess everyone hopes and crosses their fingers and prays to God Almighty that nothing bad happens. I was raised in a faith tradition that believed God helps those who help themselves; that we were given a soul, a heart, and head, and we were expected to use all three. I can only hope we will get a signal from our majority leader that we are going to go back to business, we are going to get this process moving again, we are going to bring the appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security to this Senate and we are going to act--not that we can prevent every bad thing from happening but that we will have done our duty. There is still time. I hope, for all our sakes, we act.

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

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation, with strong bi-partisan support, calling for the women's suffrage statue located in the Capitol Rotunda to include a likeness of Sojourner Truth. As many of my colleagues know, in the majestic Capitol Rotunda sits a monument honoring three pioneers of the women's suffrage movement, which led to the women of our great nation being granted the right to vote in 1920. The monument features the busts of Lucretia Mott, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and Susan B. Anthony that were sculpted by Adelaide Johnson, who passed away in 1955. As the Architect of the Capitol has noted, the monument was presented to the Capitol as a gift from the women of the United States by the National Women's Party and was accepted on behalf of Congress by the Joint Committee on the Library on February 10, 1921. The unveiling ceremony was held in the Rotunda on February 15, 1921, the 101st anniversary of the birth of Susan B. Anthony, and was attended by representatives of over 70 women's organizations. The Committee authorized the installation of the monument in the Crypt, where it remained until, by act of Congress in 1996, it was relocated to the Capitol Rotunda in May 1997. In addition to the wonderful busts of Stanton, Mott, and Anthony, one of the interesting features of the monument is the existence of a large slab of stone that was never sculpted. Looking at the monument, it is clear that it was intended for a fourth person--another pioneer of the women's suffrage movement--to be sculpted. The legislation I am introducing today calls for Sojourner Truth to be that person. Born into slavery as one of the youngest of thirteen children of James and Elizabeth in Hurley, which is in Ulster County, New York, in approximately 1897, Sojourner Truth's given name was Isabella Baumfree. Almost all of her brothers and sisters had been sold to other slave owners. Some of her earliest memories were of her parents' stories of the cruel loss of their other children. Isabella was sold several times to various slave owners and suffered many hardships under slavery, but throughout her life she maintained a deep and unwavering faith that carried her through many difficult times. In 1817, the New York State Legislature passed the New York State Emancipation Act, which granted freedom to those enslaved who were born before July 4, 1799. Unfortunately, however, this law declared that many men, women and children could not be freed until July 4, 1827, ten years later. While still enslaved and at the demand of her then owner, John Dumont, Isabella married an older slave named Thomas, with whom she had at least five children--Diane, Peter, Hannah, Elizabeth, and Sophia. As the date of her release came near--July 4, 1827--she learned that Dumont was plotting to keep her enslaved, even after the Emancipation Act went into effect. For this reason, in 1826, she ran away from the Dumont plantation with her infant child, leaving behind her husband and other children. She took refuge with a Quaker family--the family of Isaac Van Wagenen--and performed domestic work for them as well as missionary work among the poor of New York City. While working for the Van Wagenen's, she discovered that a member of the Dumont family had sold her youngest son Peter to a plantation owner in Alabama. At the time, New York law prohibited the sale of slaves outside New York State and so the sale of Peter was illegal. Isabella sued in court and won his return. In doing so, she became the first black woman in the United States to take a white man to court and win. Isabella had always been very spiritual, and soon after being emancipated, she had a vision that affected her profoundly, leading her--as she later described it--to develop a ``perfect trust in God and prayer.'' In 1843, deciding her mission was to preach the word of God, Isabella changed her name to Sojourner Truth--her name for a traveling preacher, one who speaks the truth--and left New York. That summer she traveled throughout New England, calling her own prayer meetings and attending those of others. She preached ``God's truth and plan for salvation.'' After months of travel, she arrived in Northampton, Massachusetts, and joined the Northampton Association for Education and Industry, where she met and worked with abolitionists such as William Lloyd Garrison, Frederick Douglas, and Olive Gilbert. As we know, during the 1850s, slavery became an especially heated issue in the United States. In 1850, Congress passed the Fugitive Slave Law, which allowed runaway slaves to be arrested and jailed without a jury trial, and in 1857, the Supreme Court ruled in the Dred Scott case that those enslaved had no rights as citizens and that the government could not outlaw slavery in the new territories. Nevertheless, these extraordinarily difficult times did not stop Sojourner Truth from continuing her mission. Her life story--``The Narrative of Sojourner Truth: A Northern Slave''--written with the help of friend Olive Gilbert, was published in 1850. While traveling and speaking in states across the country, Sojourner Truth met many women abolitionists and noticed that although women could be part of the leadership in the abolitionist movement, they could neither vote nor hold public office. It was this realization that led Sojourner to become an outspoken supporter of women's rights. In 1851, she addressed the Women's Rights Convention in Akron, Ohio, delivering her famous speech ``Ain't I a Woman?'' The applause she received that day has been described as ``deafening.'' From that time on, she became known as a leading advocate for the rights of women. Indeed, she was one of the nineteenth century's most eloquent voices for the cause of anti-slavery and women's rights. By the mid-1850s, Truth had earned enough money from sales of her popular autobiography to buy land and a house in Battle Creek, Michigan. She continued her lectures, traveling to Ohio, Indiana, Iowa, Illinois, and Wisconsin. When the Civil War erupted in 1861, she visited black troops stationed near Detroit, Michigan, and offered encouragement. After the Emancipation Proclamation of 1863, she worked in Washington as a counselor and educator for those who had been previously enslaved through the Freedman's Relief Association and the Freedmen's Hospital. It was during this time--in October 1864--that she met with President Abraham Lincoln. Throughout the 1870s, Sojourner Truth continued to speak on behalf of women and African Americans. Failing health, however, soon forced Sojourner to return to her Battle Creek, Michigan home, where she died on November 26, 1883. This brief recounting of Sojourner Truth's life story only begins to speak of her faith, courage, intelligence, and steadfastness in the face of extraordinary circumstances and volatile times in our Nation's history. Though she could neither read nor write, her eloquence commanded the attention of thousands of Americans, both black and white. It therefore comes as no surprise to learn that among her many friends, admirers and staunch supporters were Frederick Douglass, Amy Post, Olive Gilbert, Parker Pillsbury, Mrs. Francis Gage, Weldell Phillips, Willilam Lloyd Garrison, Laura Haviland, Lucretia Mott, and Susan B. Anthony. The legislation I am introducing today pays tribute to Sojourner Truth by including her in the portrait monument with three of her fellow leading suffragettes. That is why this legislation has the strong bi-partisan support of so many of my colleagues and of many organizations, including the National Council of Women's Organizations. I also want to take a moment to say a special thanks of appreciation to Dr. C. Delores Tucker, Chair of the National Congress of Black Women, who is the champion of this legislation and for all African American women, children and families today. I know that with her continued, unwavering support, this legislation will be enacted. I ask all of my colleagues to support it. Thank you. 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, with strong bi-partisan support, calling for the women's suffrage statue located in the Capitol Rotunda to include a likeness of Sojourner Truth. As many of my colleagues know, in the majestic Capitol Rotunda sits a monument honoring three pioneers of the women's suffrage movement, which led to the women of our great nation being granted the right to vote in 1920. The monument features the busts of Lucretia Mott, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and Susan B. Anthony that were sculpted by Adelaide Johnson, who passed away in 1955. As the Architect of the Capitol has noted, the monument was presented to the Capitol as a gift from the women of the United States by the National Women's Party and was accepted on behalf of Congress by the Joint Committee on the Library on February 10, 1921. The unveiling ceremony was held in the Rotunda on February 15, 1921, the 101st anniversary of the birth of Susan B. Anthony, and was attended by representatives of over 70 women's organizations. The Committee authorized the installation of the monument in the Crypt, where it remained until, by act of Congress in 1996, it was relocated to the Capitol Rotunda in May 1997. In addition to the wonderful busts of Stanton, Mott, and Anthony, one of the interesting features of the monument is the existence of a large slab of stone that was never sculpted. Looking at the monument, it is clear that it was intended for a fourth person--another pioneer of the women's suffrage movement--to be sculpted. The legislation I am introducing today calls for Sojourner Truth to be that person. Born into slavery as one of the youngest of thirteen children of James and Elizabeth in Hurley, which is in Ulster County, New York, in approximately 1897, Sojourner Truth's given name was Isabella Baumfree. Almost all of her brothers and sisters had been sold to other slave owners. Some of her earliest memories were of her parents' stories of the cruel loss of their other children. Isabella was sold several times to various slave owners and suffered many hardships under slavery, but throughout her life she maintained a deep and unwavering faith that carried her through many difficult times. In 1817, the New York State Legislature passed the New York State Emancipation Act, which granted freedom to those enslaved who were born before July 4, 1799. Unfortunately, however, this law declared that many men, women and children could not be freed until July 4, 1827, ten years later. While still enslaved and at the demand of her then owner, John Dumont, Isabella married an older slave named Thomas, with whom she had at least five children--Diane, Peter, Hannah, Elizabeth, and Sophia. As the date of her release came near--July 4, 1827--she learned that Dumont was plotting to keep her enslaved, even after the Emancipation Act went into effect. For this reason, in 1826, she ran away from the Dumont plantation with her infant child, leaving behind her husband and other children. She took refuge with a Quaker family--the family of Isaac Van Wagenen--and performed domestic work for them as well as missionary work among the poor of New York City. While working for the Van Wagenen's, she discovered that a member of the Dumont family had sold her youngest son Peter to a plantation owner in Alabama. At the time, New York law prohibited the sale of slaves outside New York State and so the sale of Peter was illegal. Isabella sued in court and won his return. In doing so, she became the first black woman in the United States to take a white man to court and win. Isabella had always been very spiritual, and soon after being emancipated, she had a vision that affected her profoundly, leading her--as she later described it--to develop a ``perfect trust in God and prayer.'' In 1843, deciding her mission was to preach the word of God, Isabella changed her name to Sojourner Truth--her name for a traveling preacher, one who speaks the truth--and left New York. That summer she traveled throughout New England, calling her own prayer meetings and attending those of others. She preached ``God's truth and plan for salvation.'' After months of travel, she arrived in Northampton, Massachusetts, and joined the Northampton Association for Education and Industry, where she met and worked with abolitionists such as William Lloyd Garrison, Frederick Douglas, and Olive Gilbert. As we know, during the 1850s, slavery became an especially heated issue in the United States. In 1850, Congress passed the Fugitive Slave Law, which allowed runaway slaves to be arrested and jailed without a jury trial, and in 1857, the Supreme Court ruled in the Dred Scott case that those enslaved had no rights as citizens and that the government could not outlaw slavery in the new territories. Nevertheless, these extraordinarily difficult times did not stop Sojourner Truth from continuing her mission. Her life story--``The Narrative of Sojourner Truth: A Northern Slave''--written with the help of friend Olive Gilbert, was published in 1850. While traveling and speaking in states across the country, Sojourner Truth met many women abolitionists and noticed that although women could be part of the leadership in the abolitionist movement, they could neither vote nor hold public office. It was this realization that led Sojourner to become an outspoken supporter of women's rights. In 1851, she addressed the Women's Rights Convention in Akron, Ohio, delivering her famous speech ``Ain't I a Woman?'' The applause she received that day has been described as ``deafening.'' From that time on, she became known as a leading advocate for the rights of women. Indeed, she was one of the nineteenth century's most eloquent voices for the cause of anti-slavery and women's rights. By the mid-1850s, Truth had earned enough money from sales of her popular autobiography to buy land and a house in Battle Creek, Michigan. She continued her lectures, traveling to Ohio, Indiana, Iowa, Illinois, and Wisconsin. When the Civil War erupted in 1861, she visited black troops stationed near Detroit, Michigan, and offered encouragement. After the Emancipation Proclamation of 1863, she worked in Washington as a counselor and educator for those who had been previously enslaved through the Freedman's Relief Association and the Freedmen's Hospital. It was during this time--in October 1864--that she met with President Abraham Lincoln. Throughout the 1870s, Sojourner Truth continued to speak on behalf of women and African Americans. Failing health, however, soon forced Sojourner to return to her Battle Creek, Michigan home, where she died on November 26, 1883. This brief recounting of Sojourner Truth's life story only begins to speak of her faith, courage, intelligence, and steadfastness in the face of extraordinary circumstances and volatile times in our Nation's history. Though she could neither read nor write, her eloquence commanded the attention of thousands of Americans, both black and white. It therefore comes as no surprise to learn that among her many friends, admirers and staunch supporters were Frederick Douglass, Amy Post, Olive Gilbert, Parker Pillsbury, Mrs. Francis Gage, Weldell Phillips, Willilam Lloyd Garrison, Laura Haviland, Lucretia Mott, and Susan B. Anthony. The legislation I am introducing today pays tribute to Sojourner Truth by including her in the portrait monument with three of her fellow leading suffragettes. That is why this legislation has the strong bi-partisan support of so many of my colleagues and of many organizations, including the National Council of Women's Organizations. I also want to take a moment to say a special thanks of appreciation to Dr. C. Delores Tucker, Chair of the National Congress of Black Women, who is the champion of this legislation and for all African American women, children and families today. I know that with her continued, unwavering support, this legislation will be enacted. I ask all of my colleagues to support it. Thank you. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, today, I rise to introduce the Positive Aging Act of 2004 to improve the accessibility and quality of mental health services for our rapidly growing population of older Americans with my colleagues Senators Breaux and Collins. Representatives Patrick Kennedy and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen are also introducing a companion bill in the House this afternoon. My colleagues John Breaux and Patrick Kennedy introduced this bill initially to focus on mental health programs, and with constituent input we decided to broaden it to involve the aging community as well. I want to acknowledge our partners from both the mental health and aging organizations who have collaborated with us and been working hard on these issues for a long time. Our significant success in extending the life span of older adults has created a set of challenges related to the quality of life for American's senior citizens. It is critically important now to focus on making the extra years of life as productive and healthy as possible. This legislation is designed to do just that. It puts mental health services on a par with other primary care services in community settings that are easily accessible to the elderly. I firmly believe we must integrate mental health services with other essential primary care. The Surgeon General's report on mental health in 1999 told us that disability due to mental illness in the elderly population is fast becoming a major public health problem. Depression, dementia, anxiety, and substance abuse are growing problems among older Americans that result in functional dependence, long-term institutional care and reduced quality of life. Nearly 20 percent of those over age 55 experience mental illnesses that are not a part of ``normal'' aging, and are all too frequently undetected and untreated. The real tragedy is that we can effectively treat many of these conditions, but in far too many instances we are not making such treatments available. Unrecognized and untreated mental illness among elderly adults can be traced to gaps in training of health professionals, and in our failure to fully integrate mental health screening and treatment with other health services. Far too often physicians and other health professionals fail to recognize the signs and symptoms of mental illness. More troubling, knowledge about effective interventions is simply not accessible to many primary care practitioners. Research has shown that treatment of mental illnesses can reduce the need for other health services and can improve health outcomes for those with other chronic diseases. These missed opportunities to diagnose and treat mental diseases are taking a huge toll on the elderly and increasing the burden on their families and our health care system. I know there are a number of reasons for our failure to meet the mental health needs of our seniors. Regrettably, acknowledging and seeking mental health care can be impeded by the stigma associated with mental illness. In addition, Medicare benefit discrimination related to coverage of mental health services continues to be a barrier to appropriate care for the elderly. Finally, the lack of coverage for prescription drugs in Medicare has until now imposed significant financial burdens on many older Americans. Notwithstanding the addition of a limited Medicare drug benefit, there remains the potential that drugs needed for the treatment of mental illness will be treated unfairly through formulary restrictions, prior authorization, and higher out-of-pocket expenses. We must be especially vigilant in our oversight of this benefit to prevent such discrimination on behalf of the millions of older Americans with mental illnesses. The bill we are introducing today provides new authorities and resources to the Administration on Aging (AOA) and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) in the Department of Health and Human Services. For over 35 years, the AOA has provided home and community-based services to millions of older persons through the programs funded under the Older Americans Act. SAMHSA provides block grants to the States and other financial support to develop and apply best practices in the identification and treatment of mental diseases at the community level. Working together these agencies have the potential for strengthening and extending the delivery of mental health services to older Americans. This legislation focuses on getting mental health services to community sites where primary care and other social services are provided. It will promote the integration of mental health services and the use of evidence-based practice protocols. This approach has the advantage of building on existing structures and programs, and ``mainstreaming'' mental health care for these vulnerable populations. The bill authorizes AOA to make formula grants to the states for the development and operation of systems for providing mental health screening and treatment services to older Americans. These funds may also be used for outreach programs to increase public awareness of the availability and effectiveness of mental health assessments and treatment. Priority will be given to areas that are medically under- served and include significant numbers of older adults. States will be required to coordinate projects with existing community agencies and voluntary organizations offering services to the targeted populations. This legislation also establishes new grant authorities at AOA to support development and operation of projects for screening and treating mental illness among seniors in rural and urban areas. Multidisciplinary teams of mental health professionals relying on evidence-based intervention and treatment protocols are required to deliver these services. To the maximum extent possible, the grants will be coordinated with activities in senior centers, adult day care programs, and naturally occurring retirement centers (NORCs). This legislation also authorizes two new grant programs at SAMHSA to provide new resources to support mental health screening and treatment services in clinical settings. Primary care sites serving a geriatric patient population such as public or private nonprofit community health centers or private practices would be eligible for one of these new grant programs. The other program will provide support for geriatric mental health outreach teams to foster collaboration between clinical sites and senior centers, assisted living facilities, and other social or residential service centers. Since the projects supported by these new grant programs are based in clinical settings, these funds will help to inform primary care practitioners and increase their capabilities in screening and treatment for mental illness. These projects build on existing health care delivery systems and extend their reach to low-income seniors in the community. I expect these demonstrations will be a catalyst for breaking down the barriers that have limited access to mental health services and retarded the dissemination of evidence-based protocols in the primary care setting. I have specifically set a priority for projects to serve a variety of populations, including racial and ethnic minorities and low-income populations, in both rural and urban areas. Finally, we have included in this bill several administrative provisions to raise the profile of mental health services for older adults at AOA and SAMHSA. A new Office of Older Adult Mental Health Services is established at AOA to provide a senior level focus for initiatives to improve the access of seniors to appropriate mental health screening and treatment services. At SAMHSA, the bill creates a new deputy director for geriatric mental health services within the Center for Mental Health Services to develop and implement targeted programs for older adults. There are practical and immediate opportunities to improve mental health care for older Americans. This legislation can help to target our resources on identifying and treating a population at high risk for disability and dependence. We have an obligation to take what is known about effective treatments and improve the quality of life and overall health of millions of seniors. It's not only the right thing to do; it's also an investment that will return enormous dividends in terms of more economical use of health resources, improved patient outcomes, and a better quality of life for older Americans. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, today, I rise to introduce the Positive Aging Act of 2004 to improve the accessibility and quality of mental health services for our rapidly growing population of older Americans with my colleagues Senators Breaux and Collins. Representatives Patrick Kennedy and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen are also introducing a companion bill in the House this afternoon. My colleagues John Breaux and Patrick Kennedy introduced this bill initially to focus on mental health programs, and with constituent input we decided to broaden it to involve the aging community as well. I want to acknowledge our partners from both the mental health and aging organizations who have collaborated with us and been working hard on these issues for a long time. Our significant success in extending the life span of older adults has created a set of challenges related to the quality of life for American's senior citizens. It is critically important now to focus on making the extra years of life as productive and healthy as possible. This legislation is designed to do just that. It puts mental health services on a par with other primary care services in community settings that are easily accessible to the elderly. I firmly believe we must integrate mental health services with other essential primary care. The Surgeon General's report on mental health in 1999 told us that disability due to mental illness in the elderly population is fast becoming a major public health problem. Depression, dementia, anxiety, and substance abuse are growing problems among older Americans that result in functional dependence, long-term institutional care and reduced quality of life. Nearly 20 percent of those over age 55 experience mental illnesses that are not a part of ``normal'' aging, and are all too frequently undetected and untreated. The real tragedy is that we can effectively treat many of these conditions, but in far too many instances we are not making such treatments available. Unrecognized and untreated mental illness among elderly adults can be traced to gaps in training of health professionals, and in our failure to fully integrate mental health screening and treatment with other health services. Far too often physicians and other health professionals fail to recognize the signs and symptoms of mental illness. More troubling, knowledge about effective interventions is simply not accessible to many primary care practitioners. Research has shown that treatment of mental illnesses can reduce the need for other health services and can improve health outcomes for those with other chronic diseases. These missed opportunities to diagnose and treat mental diseases are taking a huge toll on the elderly and increasing the burden on their families and our health care system. I know there are a number of reasons for our failure to meet the mental health needs of our seniors. Regrettably, acknowledging and seeking mental health care can be impeded by the stigma associated with mental illness. In addition, Medicare benefit discrimination related to coverage of mental health services continues to be a barrier to appropriate care for the elderly. Finally, the lack of coverage for prescription drugs in Medicare has until now imposed significant financial burdens on many older Americans. Notwithstanding the addition of a limited Medicare drug benefit, there remains the potential that drugs needed for the treatment of mental illness will be treated unfairly through formulary restrictions, prior authorization, and higher out-of-pocket expenses. We must be especially vigilant in our oversight of this benefit to prevent such discrimination on behalf of the millions of older Americans with mental illnesses. The bill we are introducing today provides new authorities and resources to the Administration on Aging (AOA) and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) in the Department of Health and Human Services. For over 35 years, the AOA has provided home and community-based services to millions of older persons through the programs funded under the Older Americans Act. SAMHSA provides block grants to the States and other financial support to develop and apply best practices in the identification and treatment of mental diseases at the community level. Working together these agencies have the potential for strengthening and extending the delivery of mental health services to older Americans. This legislation focuses on getting mental health services to community sites where primary care and other social services are provided. It will promote the integration of mental health services and the use of evidence-based practice protocols. This approach has the advantage of building on existing structures and programs, and ``mainstreaming'' mental health care for these vulnerable populations. The bill authorizes AOA to make formula grants to the states for the development and operation of systems for providing mental health screening and treatment services to older Americans. These funds may also be used for outreach programs to increase public awareness of the availability and effectiveness of mental health assessments and treatment. Priority will be given to areas that are medically under- served and include significant numbers of older adults. States will be required to coordinate projects with existing community agencies and voluntary organizations offering services to the targeted populations. This legislation also establishes new grant authorities at AOA to support development and operation of projects for screening and treating mental illness among seniors in rural and urban areas. Multidisciplinary teams of mental health professionals relying on evidence-based intervention and treatment protocols are required to deliver these services. To the maximum extent possible, the grants will be coordinated with activities in senior centers, adult day care programs, and naturally occurring retirement centers (NORCs). This legislation also authorizes two new grant programs at SAMHSA to provide new resources to support mental health screening and treatment services in clinical settings. Primary care sites serving a geriatric patient population such as public or private nonprofit community health centers or private practices would be eligible for one of these new grant programs. The other program will provide support for geriatric mental health outreach teams to foster collaboration between clinical sites and senior centers, assisted living facilities, and other social or residential service centers. Since the projects supported by these new grant programs are based in clinical settings, these funds will help to inform primary care practitioners and increase their capabilities in screening and treatment for mental illness. These projects build on existing health care delivery systems and extend their reach to low-income seniors in the community. I expect these demonstrations will be a catalyst for breaking down the barriers that have limited access to mental health services and retarded the dissemination of evidence-based protocols in the primary care setting. I have specifically set a priority for projects to serve a variety of populations, including racial and ethnic minorities and low-income populations, in both rural and urban areas. Finally, we have included in this bill several administrative provisions to raise the profile of mental health services for older adults at AOA and SAMHSA. A new Office of Older Adult Mental Health Services is established at AOA to provide a senior level focus for initiatives to improve the access of seniors to appropriate mental health screening and treatment services. At SAMHSA, the bill creates a new deputy director for geriatric mental health services within the Center for Mental Health Services to develop and implement targeted programs for older adults. There are practical and immediate opportunities to improve mental health care for older Americans. This legislation can help to target our resources on identifying and treating a population at high risk for disability and dependence. We have an obligation to take what is known about effective treatments and improve the quality of life and overall health of millions of seniors. It's not only the right thing to do; it's also an investment that will return enormous dividends in terms of more economical use of health resources, improved patient outcomes, and a better quality of life for older Americans. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. I wholeheartedly agree with the senior Senator from New York. Our State's contribution to America's security throughout the cold war was large and important. New York is home to 36 former atomic weapons employer sites and DOE facilities--more than any other State in the Nation. Fourteen of these facilities are located in the western New York region alone. Under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Act of 2000, Congress made a promise to the people who worked at these sites and others like them across the country that they would receive uniform, timely compensation under the act under certain conditions. But to date, NIOSH has completed just one of the many needed site profiles in New York that are needed to administer the program. One of the provisions of that act provides for what is known as a special exposure cohort. The act named facilities in four States that would be added to the special cohort, which in essence results in prompt payment of benefits under the act without the need to go through a dose reconstruction process. The Bond-Harkin amendment would, under certain conditions, add several facilities in Missouri and Iowa to this special exposure cohort. I am very sympathetic to the plight of these workers, but I am even more concerned about the workers that I represent. Many of the New York workers are in very similar plights as the workers in Missouri and Iowa who might be helped by the Bond-Harkin amendment. I am encouraged that the amendment recognizes this fact, in that it includes a sense of the Senate declaring that all eligible employees deserve fair and equitable consideration under the act's special exposure cohort provisions.

Mrs. CLINTON. I echo the request of my colleague from New York. I would also ask whether the Senators from Virginia and Michigan share our understanding that the Bond-Harkin amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act of 2004 does not in any way reflect the view that New York's workers or those of any other State are less deserving of access to special cohorts than those named in the amendment.

Mrs. CLINTON. I also wish to recognize the efforts of my friends from Virginia and Michigan on this bill and their willingness to engage in this colloquy in order to discuss the needs of New York's former nuclear workers and the necessity of providing them with prompt access to the compensation they have earned through service to this country.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Paul Paolozzi, a fellow in my office, be granted the privilege of the floor for the remainder of the consideration of this bill.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise to thank the chairman and ranking member for the work they and their staffs have done, along with the Senator from Missouri and myself and our staffs, to accept an amendment that addresses two issues critical to our men and women in uniform. First, through this amendment we are attempting to develop better policies and information in order to track the health of soldiers and others in uniform after a deployment overseas. Second, we are seeking to improve the medical and dental readiness of our National Guard members and reservists. Last month, Senator Talent and I introduced the Armed Forces Personnel Medical Readiness and Tracking Act of 2004. I am delighted that many of the ideas we have advocated are included in this legislation because of our amendment. It has been a pleasure working with my colleague on the Armed Services Committee, Senator Talent, and with his staff. When I was First Lady, I worked to bring attention to the problems and symptoms that many of our veterans returning from the 1991 gulf war experienced. This constellation of symptoms came to be known as the Gulf War Syndrome. During Senate Armed Services Committee hearings in February 2003, before the current Iraq war, I asked the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Myers, and each of the Service Chiefs, whether they would be monitoring and tracking the health of our soldiers who are deployed in the gulf. They assured me they would. But I am afraid that based on reports from soldiers returning from this deployment, we have not done all we should to screen and track the health of our soldiers. Indeed, several weeks ago we had several soldiers from the 442 MP unit out of Orangeburg, NY, who are being treated at Fort Dix for injuries and symptoms they incurred in Iraq, including headache, sleeplessness, and many others. We know very well our enemy stops at nothing. The use of Sarin in an artillery shell in Iraq last month demonstrates more than ever the need to have adequate information about the health of our young men and women. The legislation we have championed that is being adopted seeks to establish procedures to ensure that the information is systematically collected so that, if soldiers return exhibiting certain symptoms, there will be a base of information on which we can determine what could have caused that. The amendment requires the Department of Defense to develop a comprehensive plan to improve medical readiness and tracking before, during, and after deployment. It establishes a Joint Medical Readiness Oversight Committee to advise the Secretary of Defense on the medical readiness and health status of members of the active Reserve components. It requires compliance of the Armed Forces with medical readiness and tracking policies. It requires that we develop and implement the annual readiness plan. The committee will include DOD officials and experts in the military service organizations, veterans service organizations, and civilians. Finally, current law requires the information about the health of soldiers returning from deployment to be collected, but it appears these provisions are not being enforced. So we require audits of blood serum collection programs, as well as the predeployment and postdeployment health assessment database that DOD is supposed to maintain. These problems have come to light because of our many Guard and Reserve members who have been deployed, and we are finding too many examples where they don't have the requisite medical readiness and where they are not sufficiently tracked. This is an effort to do what we should do--the right thing to treat our young men and women in uniform. I am hoping it provides a good base for us to learn more about what they are supposed to do during their deployment in the gulf and elsewhere around the world. I thank my colleague from Missouri as well as the chairman and ranking member for working with us and I look forward to seeing this implemented to further the health of our young men and women. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Madam President, I rise to speak in strong support of the Bunning-Bingaman amendment, of which I am a proud cosponsor. At the outset, I want to thank Senator Bunning and Senator Bingaman for their leadership and hard work on this amendment, and in bringing this to the floor. I also want to thank Senator Grassley, Senator Domenici and the many other members who have worked on this amendment. The full list of cosponsors is a long, bipartisan list: Bunning, Bingaman, Grassley, Clinton, Domenici, Cantwell, Voinovich, Schumer, Alexander, Kennedy, Murkowski, Murray, DeWine, Feinstein, Talent, Durbin, Stevens, and Bond. The purpose of our amendment is simple: We're here to help fulfill the promise that Congress made 4 years ago to some of our Nation's cold warriors. In 2000, thanks to the leadership of Senators Voinovich, Kennedy, and many others, Congress passed the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Act as part of the FY 2001 Defense Authorization Act. That law was both a recognition of the Government's responsibility for exposing energy program workers to deadly radiation, and a promise that the Government would provide timely assistance and compensation to workers who were harmed by exposure to radiation and other toxic substances. I think it is worth briefly revisiting some of the findings of that 2000 act, because I think it sets the context for this amendment. The findings of that act stated: Since the inception of the nuclear weapons program and for several decades afterwards, a large number of nuclear weapons workers at sites of the Department of Energy and at sites of vendors who supplied the Cold War effort were put at risk without their knowledge and consent for reasons that, documents reveal, were driven by fears of adverse publicity, liability, and employee demands for hazardous duty pay. Many previously secret records have documented unmonitored exposures to radiation and beryllium and continuing problems at these sites across the Nation, at which the Department of Energy and its predecessor agencies have been, since World War II, self-regulating with respect to nuclear safety and occupational safety and health. No other hazardous Federal activity has been permitted to be carried out under such sweeping powers of self-regulation. The policy of the Department of Energy has been to litigate occupational illness claims, which has deterred workers from filing workers' compensation claims and has imposed major financial burdens for such employees who have sought compensation. Contractors of the Department have been held harmless and the employees have been denied workers' compensation coverage for occupational disease. Over the past 20 years, more than two dozen scientific findings have emerged that indicate that certain of such employees are experiencing increased risks of dying from cancer and non-malignant diseases. Several of these studies have also established a correlation between excess diseases and exposure to radiation and beryllium. To ensure fairness and equity, the civilian men and women who, over the past 50 years, have performed duties uniquely related to the nuclear weapons production and testing programs of the Department of Energy and its predecessor agencies should have efficient, uniform, and adequate compensation for beryllium-related health conditions and radiation-related health conditions. Although the findings of the 2000 act still stand, its promise of efficient, uniform and adequate compensation simply has not been met. That is what this amendment is about--Congress needs to make good on the promise it made in 2000. Before I describe the amendment in detail, I want to make it clear that this amendment is a compromise. It does not contain everything that I would have liked to include, and I know that it reflects compromises on both sides. But there is no question in my mind that it will help workers in New York, and virtually everywhere else that our nuclear weapons production facility workers are found, and therefore I strongly support it. As Senator Bunning has described, Subtitle D of the 2000 act required DOE to review evidence to determine if a worker's illness was caused by exposure to toxic substances in their DOE work. Claimants with positive findings from the DOE physician panels were to be assisted by DOE in filing for and receiving State workers' compensation benefits due to them. Processing of claims by DOE has been extremely slow. In 4 years, only 3 percent of claims have been processed by DOE. Eighty percent of subtitle D claims are languishing in the DOE system at the very earliest stages of development or with no work begun on them at all. There have been three Senate hearings in recent months examining the DOE's failed operation of Subtitle D of the EEOICPA program. GAO has studied DOE's efforts under subtitle D and found significant problems with both DOE's claims review process and DOE's ability to pay valid claims. The bottom line is that after 4 years and more than $90 million in administrative funding, DOE admits that they have only provided compensation to four claimants of the more than 24,000 that have applied for assistance under the Subtitle D program. Our amendment addresses this problem by transferring claims processing operations to the Department of Labor, one of the largest and most efficient claims operations in the country. DOL is already processing thousands of similar claims under Subtitle B of EEOICPA and has already processed more than 90 percent of their claims. Our amendment assures that benefits due to workers or survivors will be paid according to the State laws covering the worker or survivor. The payments will be made directly by DOL to the worker or survivor. Benefits will be paid with appropriated funds, just as they would have been had DOE performed as expected. The Department of Labor's operation of this program is likely to be significantly more efficient and less expensive than DOE's current claims processing operation. Although I would have preferred to see a uniform benefit established under subtitle D in this amendment, I believe that moving the subtitle D program to the Department of Labor will be a very significant improvement. The amendment also corrects a significant problem associated with subtitle B of the 2000 Act. Under subtitle B of the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act, workers are eligible for a payment of $150,000 and medical coverage for expenses associated with the treatment of certain illnesses resulting from exposure to radiation at atomic weapons plants. This part program is administered by the Department of Labor, and though its administration has been far better than the subtitle D program administered by DOE, it has had its share of problems as well. One of the problems is that workers who became sick from working in contaminated atomic weapons plants after weapons production ceased are not eligible to apply for benefits under subtitle B of the Act. Recognizing that this was a potential oversight in the 2000 act, Congress directed the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health to study the issue and report back to Congress. In 2003, NIOSH finished its study, entitled ``Report on Residual Radioactive and Beryllium Contamination in Atomic Weapons Employer and Beryllium Vendor Facilities.'' The report concluded potential for significant residual radioactive contamination existed in many of these plants for years and decades after weapons production ceased, posing a risk of radiation- related cancers or disease to unknowing workers. In fact, the report found that: 97, 44 percent, covered facilities have potential for significant residual radioactive contamination outside of the periods in which atomic weapons-related production occurred; 88, 40 percent, such facilities have little potential for significant residual radioactive contamination outside of the periods in which atomic weapons-related production occurred; and 34, 16 percent, such facilities have insufficient information to make a determination. In my State of New York, 16 of 31 covered facilities were found to have the potential for significant contamination, 10 had little potential for significant contamination, and 5 of the 31 had insufficient information. In other words, more than half of the New York Atomic Weapons Employer Facilities in New York were contaminated after weapons production ceased. As a result, workers were exposed to radiation, and deserve to be eligible for benefits under EEOICPA. But this is not just a New York issue. The 97 facilities where NIOSH found the potential for significant residual radioactive contamination outside the periods during which weapons-related production are spread across 16 States. I want to briefly list these States for the benefit of my colleagues. They are California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Massachusetts, Maryland, Michigan, Missoiuri, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Texas. Once the NIOSH report came out, it was clear that the law needed to be changed. The fact is that many of the facilities remained contaminated after weapons production ceased, and workers continued to be unwittingly exposed to radiation. That is why I introduced the Residual Radioactive Contamination Compensation Act, RRCCA, earlier this year, and I am pleased that with some modifications, it has been incorporated into this amendment. The most important change that this provision will accomplish is that it will provide eligibility for benefits under subtitle B to workers who were employed at facilities where NIOSH has found potential for significant radioactive contamination. This just means that these workers will be eligible to apply for benefits like the workers who were exposed to radiation during weapons production. We are not automatically granting them benefits. We are just saying that they ought to be eligible to apply. And that is only fair. In addition to expanding eligibility to workers employed at facilities where NIOSH has found potential for significant radioactive contamination, the amendment would require NIOSH to update the list of such facilities by 2006. This addresses the fact that there was insufficient information for NIOSH to characterize a number of sites in its 2003 report. As I pointed out earlier, fixing this so-called ``residual contamination'' oversight in the 2000 act will be very helpful to a small number of deserving workers in my State, particularly in western New York. And it will be similarly helpful to workers in the other 15 States that I mentioned. Due to the efforts of Senator Schumer, the amendment would also establish a center in western New York to help people navigate the claim system. I want to applaud his work on this provision which will also be extremely helpful to New Yorkers. These are steps forward, and paired with the changes to the workers compensation portion of the program that Senator Bunning has outlined, represent significant improvements. Before I close, I want to make several additional points. First, this is a modest amendment. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that making workers who were exposed to residual contamination eligible for benefits under subtitle B of the act, as I have described, will cost only $2.9 million per year over 10 years. The changes to subtitle D, the workers' compensation component of the program, are also relatively inexpensive. CBO anticipates the program will need an appropriation of an additional $2 million in FY 05 from the current program to pay for these changes, and that annual costs in future years will be on the order of $25 million per year annual costs. This is very close to the current scored amount for this portion of the program. All of these costs are fully offset in the amendment. This is a very small price to pay to help fulfill the promise that Congress made to weapons workers in 2000. It is not everything that I and others involved in the negotiations would have wanted, but it will make a significant difference. Finally, I note that last week we celebrated the life and service of Ronald Reagan. Many of the tributes to President Reagan focused on his role in ending the cold war. Ronald Reagan was a commander in chief in that war--one of the last in a line of commanders in chief that stretched back to the end of World War II. As we all know, the cold war was a different kind of war--one that relied on deterrence, the credible threat of a massive retaliatory attack by the U.S. In a very real sense, the foot soldiers of that cold war included the men and women who toiled in the weapons production related facilities run by DOE and its contractors. These people were true cold war heroes, working in hazardous conditions, and in some cases, paid a heavy price in terms of their health. We owe it to them to fix the glaring flaws in the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program. As the Senator from Kentucky explained, the purpose of the program in 2000 was to remedy and provide compensation for workers who had been the warriors during the cold war. It was not a hot war. It was a cold war. One of the commitments made by our Nation in passing the legislation in 2000 was to recognize our responsibility to workers who were exposed to radiation and to help them with medical and living expenses all these years later. One of the problems is that workers who became sick from working in contaminated atomic weapons plants or their contractors, after weapons production ceased, were not eligible to apply for benefits under the act. Recognizing that this was a potential oversight, the Congress directed the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health to study this issue and report back to Congress. In 2003, NIOSH--the national institute--submitted a report entitled ``Report on Residual Radioactive and Beryllium Contamination in Atomic Weapons Employer and Beryllium Vendor Facilities.'' That is a long way of describing that the NIOSH investigators found that some of the plants people have worked in were contaminated for years after the actual weapons production ceased or after the actual components for the weapons production in the contractor's plant ceased. The report concluded there was a potential for significant residual radioactive contamination that posed a risk of radiation-related cancers or diseases to unknowing workers. In fact, the report found that 44 percent or 97 of the facilities that fell into the category of being potentially residually contaminated did have evidence of such contamination; 88 such facilities have little potential for such contamination; 34 had insufficient information on which to base a determination. In New York, 16 of 31 facilities that could have been considered residually contaminated were found to have significant contamination. I am not satisfied with the NIOSH findings because I think we now know more about where to look for and how to discover this residual contamination. The bottom line is that, even under the NIOSH report of 2003, we had workers in New York who were found to have been exposed to radiation and beryllium because of the work they did for our country through the contracting in order to produce the weapons needed in the cold war. This is not just a New York issue, obviously. There are 16 States where this residual contamination has been found. So out of the NIOSH report it became clear that we needed to amend the law. I introduced the Residual Radioactive Contamination Compensation Act. I am pleased that, with some modifications, it has been incorporated into this amendment. The most important change is we now will provide eligibility for benefits under subtitle B of the original act to workers who were employed at facilities where NIOSH has found potential for significant radioactive contamination. That means they will be able to apply for benefits just like the workers who we know were directly exposed to radiation during weapons production. They are not automatically eligible for benefits, but they now have a right to apply. That is only fair. In addition to expanding eligibility for workers employed at facilities where the potential for residual contamination was discovered, my amendment requires NIOSH to update the list of such facilities by 2006. I have met with these men who worked in these plants. They came home from World War II--the vast majority of them-- and they went to work in the industrial plants that were all over western New York in the late 1940s and 1950s, and they worked hard. They have distinct memories of rolling big coils of uranium around the floor of the plants, and uranium residue was falling into the fires of the steel mills. It is a very touching experience because they did what they were supposed to do. Many of them fought in Europe, in the Pacific, and came home after the war to lead their lives, raise their families. They worked hard for years, and now they are sick. So we need to fix this. I am grateful for this amendment moving us forward. I am going to focus hard on NIOSH as they continue their work to meet the 2006 update deadline that this amendment imposes because I think there are other facilities--certainly in my State--where it is indisputable that they were contaminated by residual radioactive materials. We are also establishing a center in western New York to help people navigate the claims system. As the Senator from Kentucky pointed out, the DOE has not done the job. We need to have a place where all of these workers, many of whom are in their seventies and eighties now, can go and get the information about this new law and they can get their claims expedited accordingly. This is a modest amendment. The CBO estimates that making workers who were exposed to residual contamination eligible for benefits under subtitle B of the act will cost only $2.9 million per year over 10 years. The changes to subtitle D, the workers' compensation component of the program, are also relatively inexpensive. CBO anticipates the program will need an appropriation of an additional $2 million in fiscal year 2005 from the current program to pay for these changes, and that annual costs in future years will be on the order of $25 million per year. This is very close to the current scoring amount for this portion of the program. The difference is we are not only going to do the program better and take care of more people, these costs are fully offset in this amendment. Madam President, this is a very small price to pay to fulfill the promise Congress made to weapons workers in 2000 and that Americans made to these men over decades as they labored in these facilities. It is obviously not everything some of us would wish for, but it is a very honorable compromise, and the sponsors of the bill have worked very hard to bring it about. So I hope that, in the wake of dedicating the World War II Memorial and the week of honors to President Reagan and his legacy, we recall that during the cold war we relied on deterrence. What that meant is we had to have a credible threat of a massive retaliatory attack by the United States against the Soviet Union in the event that they were to even consider acting against us. In a very real sense, the soldiers of the cold war were also the men and women who toiled in these weapons production facilities run by DOE and the contractors, many of whom were in western New York and throughout my State. These were people who worked in hazardous conditions; many have paid a heavy price in terms of their health. I am very pleased that today we are taking a step to fix the glaring flaws in the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program, and I urge my colleagues to join in supporting the Bunning- Bingaman amendment. I yield the floor.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. I am concerned how this is being portrayed, and I am sure it is meant to be a fix for a specific situation in South Carolina, but it is setting a precedent. That is what we do around here. We set precedents. It is hard to imagine that the Department of Energy would be satisfied only taking their new definition to one State. It would be South Carolina first, but then what would be next? In particular, I am concerned about western New York where we have a site known as West Valley. Through the West Valley Act, the Federal Government and the State of New York agreed, decades ago, to partner to reprocess commercial nuclear waste. In many respects, this project has been a success, but in the last several years the site has been the subject of a bitter debate between the Federal Government and the State of New York. Why would that be? Because, in New York's view, the Department of Energy is not fulfilling its responsibilities for the cleanup obligations it assumed under the West Valley Act. I bring this up because it is directly relevant, even though it is not the same act. The West Valley site has the same type of waste that the Department of Energy would be able to reclassify at Savannah River under section 3116 of the Department of Defense bill. That is no coincidence. Rather, the language that the Department of Energy originally sought to include in both the Energy bill last year and the DOD bill this year would have provided the DOE with general authority to reclassify high- level wastes at Hanford, Savannah River, the Idaho labs, and West Valley. Now, obviously, West Valley does not have the mind-boggling quantities that are present at other sites, but we are still talking about 600,000 gallons of waste. That is a significant amount. It is not a problem that New York State or the local governments in the area will be able to handle if the Department of Energy decides it can wash its hands literally of its responsibility.

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 5 more minutes.

Mrs. CLINTON. So when the Department of Defense markup approached, New York Governor George Pataki wrote to Chairman Warner and Ranking Member Levin urging them not to include DOE's language in the bill. While the provision was changed before the markup, and it is now intended only to affect the Savannah River site, DOE's original language would have affected West Valley and the other sites I have mentioned. We know that is exactly what DOE is aiming for. That is their goal and their objective, to try to reclassify nuclear waste. So New York State remains opposed to section 3116 of the bill. On behalf of the Governor and my State, I am supporting the Cantwell amendment, because I think we need a different process to get to the point of determining what our nuclear waste classification system should be. It is certainly a very difficult issue. I respect the Presiding Officer's concern about the cost. I share that concern. These are incredibly expensive undertakings that go on for decades. But, in effect, we are cleaning up the mess we made. We made it for military purposes. We made it for commercial purposes. We owe it to ourselves and future generations to do it as well as it can be done. I, for one, hope we can take this issue off the floor of the Senate by passing the Cantwell amendment. Then let's have the hearings in the Energy Committee and the EPW Committee. If there is a role for the Armed Services Committee, let's do it there, also, because, for me, this is setting a precedent that is very troubling, to have a matter this important decided in such a quick consideration in a closed markup of the Armed Services Committee. I hope we will support the Cantwell amendment, and then put our heads together to determine if there are differences between Savannah River, Hanford, and West Valley that merit different classifications. If there are new advances in dealing with how we would grout over the high-level nuclear waste--we know that has not worked in the past; maybe it can work now--then we can proceed in a more sensible manner that protects the health and safety of our people and preserves the environment in the areas where this waste is stored and dispose of it appropriately. I thank the Senator from Washington for being such a leader on this issue.