Hillary Clinton

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. I greatly appreciate the Senator's awareness and commitment to doing something to help those who were affected. Certainly, from her position as chair of the Homeland Security Committee, she knows as much or more about these issues than any one of us. I appreciate greatly the suggestion that we include everyone. I make the following two additional points: Apparently, the rescue workers at the Pentagon were given respiratory equipment, given appropriate garb to wear, and were put into decontamination showers. They had the kind of worksite I wish we had had after a couple of days when the emergency immediately passed. So I wish we had that at Ground Zero. If there are those suffering from ill effects, I completely agree with the Senator. That is one of the reasons Senator Voinovich and I have joined together to try to expand the ability to treat first responders who come from anywhere. He had a rescue unit that went back to Ohio and they are sick. The final point in response to the Senator's question is, our issue in New York is somewhat complicated by the fact that the EPA, under then-Administrator Christine Todd Whitman, consistently stated that the air was safe, told the city, the State, and the workers that, and that there was no effort made to try to even obtain the respiratory equipment and other protective coverings the workers might have needed. I agree that we should not leave any of our responders behind, no matter where they came from or who they are.

Mrs. CLINTON. A point of clarification, Mr. President. I believe the amendment builds on the World Trade Center monitoring program which did go through Homeland Security. That may not be the best way to proceed in the future, but that is an existing structure. I absolutely agree with the Senator from Maine that the Voinovich bill will give us an opportunity to avoid these problems in the future, which has to be one of our primary goals. I thank the Chair.

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I call up pending amendment No. 4958, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, on Tuesday, September 5, our Nation lost a great American and our Nation's children lost a great friend and advocate in Mary Bourdette. Mary Bourdette was a woman who dedicated her working life to improving the lives of children and families. As a public interest advocate and public servant, she played critical roles in the enactment of the Act for Better Child Care, the Family and Medical Leave Act, the Adoption and Safe Families Act, the expansions of the earned-income tax credit, and the child care and development block grant. She worked to improve the Head Start Program by increasing funds dedicated to strengthening its quality and maintaining its comprehensive approach to helping our poorest children and families. Most recently, I had the pleasure of partnering with Mary in her capacity as director of government relations for Parents Action for Children to highlight the dangers to children of exposure to violent and explicit video games. Those of us fortunate enough to have worked closely with Mary Bourdette and to have enjoyed her friendship will dearly miss her keen understanding of policy, her gentle manner and humor. Mary seemed to wake up every day believing that it held an opportunity to make the world better for children. For her passion, commitment, and service, our country owes Mary Bourdette a great debt of gratitude. We have lost a caring, creative, and effective ally in our work to protect children and empower their families.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to help ensure students attending low-performing schools have access to high quality tutoring programs. If enacted, The Improving Quality of and Access to Supplemental Educational Services, the IQ Act, would ensure that supplemental educational services, free tutoring offered through the No Child Left Behind Act, NCLB, are effective in and accountable for increasing student academic achievement. One of the many ways that NCLB aims to close the achievement gap is through the provision that allows low-income children attending poorly performing school to enroll in supplemental educational services, SES. These programs hold the promise of helping schools to increase student achievement by offering additional academic support for students in underperforming schools. Unfortunately, the scope of the impact of SES remains to be seen due to low student participation rates and lack of evaluation of supplemental educational services. Improving the quality of and access to these programs should be a shared responsibility between the Department of Education, State and local educational agencies, as well as the SES providers themselves. By working together we can create tutoring programs that truly supplement the instruction that students receive during regular school hours and allow for more time to master the educational standards set by the state. Unfortunately, few States have assessed SES providers on the basis of improving student achievement. A recent study by the GAO found that not a single State has produced a report that provides a conclusive assessment of providers' effect on student achievement. Without these State evaluations, students, parents and policymakers are blind as to which programs are effective in raising academic achievement and are therefore unable to replicate their success. I strongly believe that if NCLB holds our teachers and schools accountable for increasing student achievement, then we must also hold SES providers to similar accountability standards. That is why The IQ Act requires States to use their current standardized test to evaluate provider performance. This legislation also provides States with additional funding to improve their data systems to manage these evaluations with no additional cost to the taxpayer. Maximizing the full potential of SES will not only require consistent evaluation of provider performance to ensure quality, but also increasing the number of students participating in these services. Unfortunately, only 19 percent of eligible students participated in SES in the 2004-2005, an abysmally low turnout for programs that offer free after school tutoring. Many districts find challenges in providing services for students in rural schools and students with limited English proficiency or disabilities. Although there are many other factors that determine why parents and students are not participating in these services, The IQ Act will provide additional opportunities for more students to participate in these tutoring programs that fit the needs of all children. This legislation requires districts to supply a choice of providers for students with limited English proficiency, students with disabilities, and students in rural districts. If enacted, this bill would help States and school districts build capacity to effectively implement supplemental educational services. The Improving the Quality of and Access to Supplemental Educational Services Act is a positive step forward in providing more opportunities for students to participate in quality after school tutoring programs. I am hopeful that my Senate colleagues from both sides of the aisle will join me today to move this legislation to the floor without delay.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to help ensure students attending low-performing schools have access to high quality tutoring programs. If enacted, The Improving Quality of and Access to Supplemental Educational Services, the IQ Act, would ensure that supplemental educational services, free tutoring offered through the No Child Left Behind Act, NCLB, are effective in and accountable for increasing student academic achievement. One of the many ways that NCLB aims to close the achievement gap is through the provision that allows low-income children attending poorly performing school to enroll in supplemental educational services, SES. These programs hold the promise of helping schools to increase student achievement by offering additional academic support for students in underperforming schools. Unfortunately, the scope of the impact of SES remains to be seen due to low student participation rates and lack of evaluation of supplemental educational services. Improving the quality of and access to these programs should be a shared responsibility between the Department of Education, State and local educational agencies, as well as the SES providers themselves. By working together we can create tutoring programs that truly supplement the instruction that students receive during regular school hours and allow for more time to master the educational standards set by the state. Unfortunately, few States have assessed SES providers on the basis of improving student achievement. A recent study by the GAO found that not a single State has produced a report that provides a conclusive assessment of providers' effect on student achievement. Without these State evaluations, students, parents and policymakers are blind as to which programs are effective in raising academic achievement and are therefore unable to replicate their success. I strongly believe that if NCLB holds our teachers and schools accountable for increasing student achievement, then we must also hold SES providers to similar accountability standards. That is why The IQ Act requires States to use their current standardized test to evaluate provider performance. This legislation also provides States with additional funding to improve their data systems to manage these evaluations with no additional cost to the taxpayer. Maximizing the full potential of SES will not only require consistent evaluation of provider performance to ensure quality, but also increasing the number of students participating in these services. Unfortunately, only 19 percent of eligible students participated in SES in the 2004-2005, an abysmally low turnout for programs that offer free after school tutoring. Many districts find challenges in providing services for students in rural schools and students with limited English proficiency or disabilities. Although there are many other factors that determine why parents and students are not participating in these services, The IQ Act will provide additional opportunities for more students to participate in these tutoring programs that fit the needs of all children. This legislation requires districts to supply a choice of providers for students with limited English proficiency, students with disabilities, and students in rural districts. If enacted, this bill would help States and school districts build capacity to effectively implement supplemental educational services. The Improving the Quality of and Access to Supplemental Educational Services Act is a positive step forward in providing more opportunities for students to participate in quality after school tutoring programs. I am hopeful that my Senate colleagues from both sides of the aisle will join me today to move this legislation to the floor without delay.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, we are debating this resolution for two simple reasons. First, no matter how the lily is gilded, things are not going well in our war against terrorism, and there is no doubt we need new leadership. Second, this Congress has abdicated its constitutional responsibility to conduct oversight and hold the administration accountable for the decisions which it has made over the course of the last 5 years. This is quite unusual in American history because ordinarily the Congress would play that role of check and balance. In the middle of World War II, which really was a world war, then- Senator Harry Truman was the chair of a commission looking into war profiteering and other matters related to the conduct of the war. There was a Democratic Congress, a Democratic President. Yet the Congress, under then-Senator Truman's leadership, fulfilled its responsibility. During the Vietnam war, which ripped this country apart, Senator Fulbright felt compelled to hold hearings about the conduct of that war. A Democratic Congress, a Democratic President, fulfilling its responsibility. We have seen none of that, with very few exceptions. This Congress has been either intimidated or negligent in the fulfillment of its responsibilities to hold the administration accountable. Absolute power not only corrupts, but it can lead to bad decisions. This has been a very small group of decisionmakers. Recently, the President changed the leadership of his economic team because we all know the economy is not doing as well as advertised. Profits are up, productivity is up, but average wages and income aren't. It is getting harder and harder for the average American to make ends meet. So the President changed his economic leadership, changed his Chief of Staff in the White House. Yet there is no accountability with respect to his security team. I just returned, as did my colleagues, from our recess. I visited throughout my State. In every kind of community, people are expressing deep concerns about the direction we are heading when it comes to the war in Iraq, when it comes to American security interests. New Yorkers, as most Americans, want things set right in Iraq, when so much both has gone wrong and seems to continue to go wrong. We are asking for some accountability. There is no illusion on this side of the aisle that this resolution will pass. We know it will not. We may not even get a vote on it because, heaven forbid, the other side would have to stand up and actually vote. We know that many on the other side share our doubts. Privately, they will say some of the most harsh and critical comments about the Secretary of Defense, about the President, about the Vice President, and the conduct of this war. However, they abdicate their responsibility in public. We have no illusions we are going to get a vote. Yet we owe it to ourselves, our troops, our fellow citizens to raise these issues. One doesn't have to read the recently published book ``Fiasco'' or the book before it, ``Cobra II,'' to see how badly things have gone. We know that. At the center of so many of the wrong calls, the misjudgments, the strategic blunders has been the Secretary of Defense. No one is questioning his patriotism, his honorable service. We are questioning his judgment and his leadership. We went to war with the Secretary of Defense we had. Now it is time to complete the mission with the new Secretary of Defense we need. It is past time. Our friends on the other side will come forward and make the most impassioned arguments about how things are going, how we have to stay the course, and what has to be done in order to succeed. But under Secretary Rumsfeld's leadership, it has not happened. We have a full- fledged insurgency and full-blown sectarian conflict in Iraq. I don't care what you label it--civil war, sectarian violence--the fact is the Iraqis are losing hundreds and hundreds of lives. As of yesterday, 2,652 service men and women have been killed in Iraq; amongst them, 123 New Yorkers. We didn't go with enough troops to establish law and order, to put down a marker as to our authority as we replaced an authoritarian dictatorship. We went with this dysfunctional bureaucracy known as the Coalition Provisional Authority, which disbanded the Iraqi Army which we are now trying to recreate. Secretary Rumsfeld rejected virtually all of the planning that had been done previously to maintain stability when the regime was overthrown. He deliberately and repeatedly underestimated the nature and strength of the insurgency, the sectarian violence, and the spread of Iranian influence. Let us not confuse the leadership's failures with either the remaining mission in Iraq, the war on terrorism or with our support for our troops. What we have is a failure of leadership to accomplish that mission. What was hailed as our shortest war has now become one of our longest. What was hailed as a model of democracy teeters on the brink of complete anarchy. What was the leadership that quickly claimed credit for success has been lethargic in the face of misjudgments and setbacks. I do not see what other conclusions one can draw. We will have the same President and Vice President for the next 2 years. But why not ask the President to exercise his judgment to bring in new leadership, to send a new signal to our troops, to our military leadership, to our friends and our allies, and to our country that-- guess what--we get it, we need new leadership. When I confronted Secretary Rumsfeld a month ago, he continued to obfuscate and deny responsibility. He denied he ever painted a rosy picture in Iraq. In response, my office compiled a list of 13 statements, out of many he had made, which clearly painted a rosy scenario. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that those statements be printed in the Record.

Mrs. CLINTON. Certainly.

Mrs. CLINTON. It is time for the Senate to exercise our responsibility, for the Members of this Chamber to decide: What do we owe our constituents, our young men and women in uniform? What do we owe history in terms of our responsibility? We know the answer. Whether we stand up and deny it or not, we know the answer. History is going to judge this period harshly. And I wish we could, as a body, redeem ourselves and redeem this mission, give it a chance for success, with new eyes and ears, with a new way of thinking and leading. I have no idea whom the President might ask to replace the Secretary were he to be asked to leave or resign, but I have to believe that some fresh thinking, some new ideas would make a difference. It is time we put our policy, our chance for success, ahead of politics, that we put wise decisionmaking and new leadership ahead of the status quo. When it is not working, why do we keep digging a deeper hole? So I hope this body would exercise responsibility in the only way open to us, since we cannot have the oversight and accountability the Congress should be demanding. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation which would designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 110 Cooper Street in Babylon, NY, as the ``Jacob Samuel Fletcher Post Office Building.'' Jacob Samuel Fletcher sent his first application for military enlistment to the Marines when he was 8 years old. Young Jacob had completed an application he found in a magazine and submitted it through the mail. Though his mother told the Marines recruiter to call back in a few years, it wouldn't be long before Fletcher was wearing a uniform. Fletcher enlisted in the Army soon after the September 11 terrorist attacks. He told family members that he felt he had a duty to serve his country. This service was nothing new to his family, as both his father and his stepfather served in Vietnam. His story, however, ends in a tragically different manner than his father's or stepfather's. On November 14, 2003, PFC Jacob Samuel Fletcher was killed when a road side bomb exploded near a bus he was riding in Samara, Iraq. It was 11 days before his 29th birthday. He was posthumously awarded the Bronze Star and the Purple Heart. While he was close to finishing his tour of duty at the time of his death, Jacob told family and friends that he was not finished serving; he hoped to become a state trooper upon completion of his tour in the military. I ask that the Senate come together and honor this brave American for his service to our Nation.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation which would designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 110 Cooper Street in Babylon, NY, as the ``Jacob Samuel Fletcher Post Office Building.'' Jacob Samuel Fletcher sent his first application for military enlistment to the Marines when he was 8 years old. Young Jacob had completed an application he found in a magazine and submitted it through the mail. Though his mother told the Marines recruiter to call back in a few years, it wouldn't be long before Fletcher was wearing a uniform. Fletcher enlisted in the Army soon after the September 11 terrorist attacks. He told family members that he felt he had a duty to serve his country. This service was nothing new to his family, as both his father and his stepfather served in Vietnam. His story, however, ends in a tragically different manner than his father's or stepfather's. On November 14, 2003, PFC Jacob Samuel Fletcher was killed when a road side bomb exploded near a bus he was riding in Samara, Iraq. It was 11 days before his 29th birthday. He was posthumously awarded the Bronze Star and the Purple Heart. While he was close to finishing his tour of duty at the time of his death, Jacob told family and friends that he was not finished serving; he hoped to become a state trooper upon completion of his tour in the military. I ask that the Senate come together and honor this brave American for his service to our Nation.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I would like to begin by commending Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee Chairman Enzi, Senate HELP Committee Ranking Member Kennedy, and the rest of my colleagues on the HELP Committee and the Senate Finance Committee for their commitment to working on a bipartisan basis toward the shared goal of comprehensive pension reform. This legislation is the product of their tireless work on behalf of our Nation's workers and retirees. In particular, I would like to express my appreciation to the conferees in the Senate and the House for undertaking the difficult work of negotiating a compromise between the two Chambers' bills. It is a challenge to reconcile legislation on such a complex set of reforms, and it is an enormous credit to the hard work of the conferees--and their staffs--that we were in a position to act on this important piece of legislation. The protection of the retirement security of workers and their families is one of my highest priorities as a Senator. The promise of a pension is one of the central tenets of the compact between an employer and an employee and one of the essential components of the American dream. It is incumbent on our businesses and on our Nation to make good on that promise. So many of my constituents in New York, like millions of other Americans throughout the Nation, work their entire lives to secure the right to pension benefits when they retire, and they come to depend on those benefits to provide financial security for them and their loved ones through retirement. Unfortunately, the private pension system in America is badly in need of repair. More and more companies are terminating the defined benefit plans that serve as a dependable source of retirement income for tens of millions of workers throughout the country. Workers in terminated plans often find their pension benefits slashed, and the consequences for these workers are all too real, including postponed retirement, additional jobs, and tighter budgets. Liability for these pension plans is shifted to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, which insures defined benefit plans but is now $22 billion in debt and itself could require a taxpayer bailout if more companies abandon their plans. And in fact, many more companies' defined benefit plans are on the brink of insolvency--defined benefit plans insured by the PBGC are underfunded by roughly $450 billion, including almost $100 billion for defaults it calls reasonably possible. I meet often with New Yorkers who are deeply anxious that they will never see the pension benefits they worked so hard to earn. The Pension Protection Act makes great strides toward restoring the great promise of the private pension system for workers in New York and throughout the Nation. Among the important reforms in this bill are provisions that: require companies to fully fund their single-employer defined benefit plans; provide incentives for companies to contribute more money to their pension plans during good years; strengthen the multiemployer pension system; improve the pensions of public safety officers; allow Reserve and National Guard members to draw on their retirement savings without penalty when they serve our country in active duty; and take important steps toward restoring the solvency of the PBGC. The Pension Protection Act also contains provisions that aim to protect the retirement security of workers as more employers transition from defined benefit pensions to 401(k)s and new hybrid plans. The legislation will clarify the legality of these hybrid plans on a prospective basis, and prohibit the ``wear-away'' of the benefits of older employees under these plans. The legislation will encourage the use of automatic enrollment for 401(k)s and other defined contribution plans. And the legislation will prohibit employers from requiring employees to keep their retirement savings in company stock, a practice that magnified the harmful impact of the Enron and other corporate scandals on employees. Finally, in light of the low personal savings rate in this country, it was vitally important that the bill included tax incentives for savings. I am particularly happy that the bill makes permanent the Saver's Credit, which helps middle- and low-income families save for their retirement. Making the credit permanent was one of the reforms that I and some of my colleagues call for in the American Dream Initiative. These are smart and commonsense reforms that will offer clarity and certainty in the retirement planning of the millions of New Yorkers and the 65 million Americans estimated to participate in 401(k) and defined contribution plans. I also commend the conference on making a number of improvements to the Senate bill that was passed last year. For one, the new bill is wise to drop a provision that would have looked to the credit rating of a company to determine whether it is at risk for plan default and therefore must make accelerated contributions into its plan. That approach would have made it far more difficult for a company to preserve a plan during a period of financial distress, a result that is undesirable for the company, its employees, and the American taxpayer. Likewise, the legislation increases the ``smoothing'' period for the calculation of assets and liabilities from what was in the Senate bill, a change that will improve the predictability of pension payments and make it easier for employers to keep their pension promises. The legislation is not without its flaws. The legislation walks back several of the provisions in various areas of the Senate bill that provided important protections for workers. My strong preference was to see the costs in the legislation offset. Also, while funding provisions in the bill required a certain measure of compromise on the part of all of the stakeholders, I am concerned that these provisions could exact an unintentional and unnecessarily harsh toll on employees in certain industries. I will be monitoring the impact of the bill closely, and I will work with my colleagues to correct the situation should this occur. Finally, while the bill protects the pensions of many of the thousands of airline employees who live and work in New York, we must continue to find ways to assist other distressed companies in taking the steps necessary to preserve the pension plans of their employees. And indeed, we should not regard this bill as an excuse to rest on our laurels. Our work on behalf of workers and their families is only beginning. We need even more Congressional action to pursue public and private ways of addressing the retirement security of workers in New York and throughout America: portable retirement accounts for workers with even stronger incentives to save, offering real health care options to retirees and workers; and protecting Social Security for our seniors. Workers and their families are counting on their employers to keep their pension promises. The Pension Protection Act will help employers to do so, while strengthening the defined benefit system, protecting the PBGC, and encouraging private savings. This bill is an important step toward the goal of restoring retirement security for working men and women. For these reasons, I applaud the Senate for passing this important piece of legislation, and I call on the President to sign it promptly. I look forward to working my colleagues on further measures to enhance the defined benefit system and increase retirement savings for workers in New York and throughout the Nation.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to help ensure that American students are competitive in the global economy of 21st century. If approved, The National Mathematics and Science Consistency Act would ensure that America's children have access to a rigorous math and science education. This bill will help young men and women in America compete successfully with students from around the world. Last fall the National Academy of Sciences, NAS, outlined the challenges to American competitiveness in its report, ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future.'' The reality is that modern technology makes it increasingly possible for employers to hire the most skilled workers wherever in the world they live. Unfortunately, too many American students--even some graduates of high school and college--are not equipped with the skills they need to compete successfully in the global economy. Among 12th graders, America ranks 21st out of 40 industrialized nations in tests of math and science knowledge. Just one in three of America's college graduates earn degrees in math, science, and engineering while two in three college graduates of other countries do so. We must act now to improve education and research in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, STEM, if America is to retain leadership of the global economy in the 21st century. In ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm,'' the National Academy of Sciences made 20 recommendations for how America can increase its global competitiveness. Nineteen of the 20 recommendations were proposed in the PACE Acts--PACE-Education, PACE-Energy, and PACE- Finance. I was proud to cosponsor these bills, and it is a testament to the widespread concern regarding this issue that each bill has been cosponsored by more than 60 Senators. The Mathematics and Science Consistency Act would implement the final NAS recommendation--for the Department of Education to convene a national panel of experts that will collect proven effective K-12 science and mathematics teaching materials, and, if effective models don't exist, create new ones. All materials would be made available online, free of charge, as a voluntary national curriculum that would provide an effective standard for K-12 teachers to use as a resource. Regrettably, many States have set standards for math and science education at an abysmally low level. A Fordham report entitled ``The State of State Science Standards 2005'' found that nearly half of the States are doing a poor job of setting academic standards for science. The result of low State standards is that States think their students are passing, teachers think their students are passing, and students think they are passing when they in fact are not. For example, a review of 12 diverse States by a team at the University of California at Berkeley found that the typical State reports that 77 percent of its fourth graders are proficient in mathematics as assessed by the State standard, while just 36.5 percent of fourth grade students in the typical State score as proficient in mathematics as assessed by the gold-standard National Assessment of Education Progress. Lowering academic standards does not adequately prepare our students to meet the demands of the global economy. The Mathematics and Science Consistency Act will help States raise standards and invest in high-quality teaching through the collection of best practices and ensure that a world-class curriculum is available. Under my bill, it is entirely up to States whether to adopt the recommendations of the panel. States that do would be eligible for grants to acquire instructional materials, to make those materials available online and free to teachers and school staff, and to train teachers to effectively use the instructional materials. Again, I want to emphasize that this bill provides assistance to States that wish to work together to ensure that all children are taught a rigorous, common curriculum. The Mathematics and Science Consistency Act would implement the final recommendation made in the Gathering Storm report, and it will help ensure that our children are prepared to compete with success in the 21st century. It is high time to do what is best for our children and their economic future. I am hopeful that my Senate colleagues from both sides of the aisle will join me today to move this legislation to the floor without delay.

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today legislation to provide parents new options to balance family and work. The reality of today's economy is that most parents must work to provide economic security for their families--a reality that is particularly true when a new baby is welcomed into the family. In fact, 55 percent of women with infants younger than one year of age work. As a result, working parents face the challenge of providing economic security for their family while simultaneously ensuring that their infant receives the quality care that he or she needs. Research shows that the quality of caretaking in the first months and years of life is critical to a newborn's brain development, social development and well-being. Yet there is currently a severe shortage of safe, affordable, quality care for infants. The number of licensed child care slots for infants meets only 18 percent of the need. The shortage is particularly acute in rural areas, and especially in rural areas that have many low-income residents. In the ideal circumstance, I think we would all agree, parents who need affordable, high-quality care for their infant would provide that care themselves. Unfortunately, in many low- and moderate-income families, having a parent quit his or her job or reduce work hours to care for an infant is not financially viable. Doing so would plunge the family into an economic crisis. Rather, parents should have the choice of using a state child care subsidy to obtain infant care outside the home or of keeping the subsidy so they can stay home and care for their child themselves without risking their family's financial security. The Choices in Child Care Act of 2006 would provide parents this choice. The bill amends the child care development block grant, CCDBG, so that low- and moderate-income parents have the option of forgoing a State childcare subsidy for infant care outside the home and instead receiving a comparable stipend to provide the care themselves while keeping the family economically stable. Providing support for at-home infant care would give thousands of working families the help they need to balance work and care for their infant children. The bill would also help meet the critical shortage of infant childcare, provide cost savings to state child care programs, support quality care for the critical first years of a child's development, and value parenting as a form of work. The time has come for us to recognize the challenges facing families today and give parents additional resources and options to address those challenges. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Choices in Child Care Act of 2006.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to help ensure that American students are competitive in the global economy of 21st century. If approved, The National Mathematics and Science Consistency Act would ensure that America's children have access to a rigorous math and science education. This bill will help young men and women in America compete successfully with students from around the world. Last fall the National Academy of Sciences, NAS, outlined the challenges to American competitiveness in its report, ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future.'' The reality is that modern technology makes it increasingly possible for employers to hire the most skilled workers wherever in the world they live. Unfortunately, too many American students--even some graduates of high school and college--are not equipped with the skills they need to compete successfully in the global economy. Among 12th graders, America ranks 21st out of 40 industrialized nations in tests of math and science knowledge. Just one in three of America's college graduates earn degrees in math, science, and engineering while two in three college graduates of other countries do so. We must act now to improve education and research in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, STEM, if America is to retain leadership of the global economy in the 21st century. In ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm,'' the National Academy of Sciences made 20 recommendations for how America can increase its global competitiveness. Nineteen of the 20 recommendations were proposed in the PACE Acts--PACE-Education, PACE-Energy, and PACE- Finance. I was proud to cosponsor these bills, and it is a testament to the widespread concern regarding this issue that each bill has been cosponsored by more than 60 Senators. The Mathematics and Science Consistency Act would implement the final NAS recommendation--for the Department of Education to convene a national panel of experts that will collect proven effective K-12 science and mathematics teaching materials, and, if effective models don't exist, create new ones. All materials would be made available online, free of charge, as a voluntary national curriculum that would provide an effective standard for K-12 teachers to use as a resource. Regrettably, many States have set standards for math and science education at an abysmally low level. A Fordham report entitled ``The State of State Science Standards 2005'' found that nearly half of the States are doing a poor job of setting academic standards for science. The result of low State standards is that States think their students are passing, teachers think their students are passing, and students think they are passing when they in fact are not. For example, a review of 12 diverse States by a team at the University of California at Berkeley found that the typical State reports that 77 percent of its fourth graders are proficient in mathematics as assessed by the State standard, while just 36.5 percent of fourth grade students in the typical State score as proficient in mathematics as assessed by the gold-standard National Assessment of Education Progress. Lowering academic standards does not adequately prepare our students to meet the demands of the global economy. The Mathematics and Science Consistency Act will help States raise standards and invest in high-quality teaching through the collection of best practices and ensure that a world-class curriculum is available. Under my bill, it is entirely up to States whether to adopt the recommendations of the panel. States that do would be eligible for grants to acquire instructional materials, to make those materials available online and free to teachers and school staff, and to train teachers to effectively use the instructional materials. Again, I want to emphasize that this bill provides assistance to States that wish to work together to ensure that all children are taught a rigorous, common curriculum. The Mathematics and Science Consistency Act would implement the final recommendation made in the Gathering Storm report, and it will help ensure that our children are prepared to compete with success in the 21st century. It is high time to do what is best for our children and their economic future. I am hopeful that my Senate colleagues from both sides of the aisle will join me today to move this legislation to the floor without delay.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today legislation to provide parents new options to balance family and work. The reality of today's economy is that most parents must work to provide economic security for their families--a reality that is particularly true when a new baby is welcomed into the family. In fact, 55 percent of women with infants younger than one year of age work. As a result, working parents face the challenge of providing economic security for their family while simultaneously ensuring that their infant receives the quality care that he or she needs. Research shows that the quality of caretaking in the first months and years of life is critical to a newborn's brain development, social development and well-being. Yet there is currently a severe shortage of safe, affordable, quality care for infants. The number of licensed child care slots for infants meets only 18 percent of the need. The shortage is particularly acute in rural areas, and especially in rural areas that have many low-income residents. In the ideal circumstance, I think we would all agree, parents who need affordable, high-quality care for their infant would provide that care themselves. Unfortunately, in many low- and moderate-income families, having a parent quit his or her job or reduce work hours to care for an infant is not financially viable. Doing so would plunge the family into an economic crisis. Rather, parents should have the choice of using a state child care subsidy to obtain infant care outside the home or of keeping the subsidy so they can stay home and care for their child themselves without risking their family's financial security. The Choices in Child Care Act of 2006 would provide parents this choice. The bill amends the child care development block grant, CCDBG, so that low- and moderate-income parents have the option of forgoing a State childcare subsidy for infant care outside the home and instead receiving a comparable stipend to provide the care themselves while keeping the family economically stable. Providing support for at-home infant care would give thousands of working families the help they need to balance work and care for their infant children. The bill would also help meet the critical shortage of infant childcare, provide cost savings to state child care programs, support quality care for the critical first years of a child's development, and value parenting as a form of work. The time has come for us to recognize the challenges facing families today and give parents additional resources and options to address those challenges. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Choices in Child Care Act of 2006.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I believe that as part of a balanced energy policy, we need to expand domestic oil and gas production where it has local support and can do so in an environmentally sound way. I think the bill before the Senate meets that test, and that is why I am voting for it. However, I want to make it clear that New Yorkers do not support drilling off Long Island, or in the Finger Lakes, or in the Great Lakes, and I will vehemently oppose any bill that would open any of these areas up for drilling. With that in mind, I am concemed about conferencing the Senate bill with the House bill, but I have been assured by Senator Reid that he will oppose efforts to expand drilling beyond the areas included in the Senate bill. In addition, I am disappointed that Senator Frist chose to block all amendments to this bill. Expanding domestic supplies is only a partial solution to our energy problems. It is even more important that we take steps to increase energy efficiency and to expand production of renewable energy. I filed amendments to this bill to accomplish those goals, but was not afforded the opportunity to offer them. I will continue to urge Senator Frist to schedule time to consider these and other bills that offer a more comprehensive long-term solution to our Nation's energy problems.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the SHINE Act of 2006 with my colleague Senator George Allen. This legislation is critical for the health of newborns and children. Each year in our Nation at least 4 million newborns are screened and severe disorders are detected in 5,000 of them. Although these numbers may seem small, these disorders are often life threatening and can cause mental and physical disabilities if left untreated. Early detection by newborn screening can lessen side effects or completely prevent progression of many of these disorders if medical intervention is started early enough. I am proud to say that New York has been a leader in newborn screening since 1960 when Dr. Robert Guthrie developed the first newborn screening test. Since then, more than 10 million babies have been tested. In 2004, New York expanded their newborn screening panel from 11 to 44 conditions. These improvements were a concerted effort by State officials and parent advocacy groups like the Newborn Screening Saves Lives and Hunter's Hope Foundation. They share a common goal that every child born with a treatable disease should receive early diagnosis and lifesaving treatment so that they can grow up happy and healthy. Today, we want to ensure that the great strides made by New York can be a model for all States and that New York can continue to make advancements that will benefit the children of New York and around the Nation. Newborn screening experts suggest States should test for a minimum of 29 treatable core conditions. However, as of today, some States only screen for seven conditions. Every child should have access to tests that may prevent them from a life-threatening disease. Parents should not have to drive across State lines to improve the health of their baby. This bill establishes grant programs so that States can increase their capacity to screen for all the core conditions. Grant funds are also available for States like New York to expand newborn screening panels above and beyond the core conditions by developing additional newborn screening tests. We should expect equity within newborn screening so that it does not matter where your baby is born. This legislation will establish recommended guidelines for States for newborn screening tests, reporting, and data standards. Our goal should be that affected babies be identified quickly, babies who have the diseases should not be missed, and the number of newborns falsely identified as sick should be minimized. By tracking the prevalence of diseases identified by newborn screening within States, we will be able to meet these goals and improve the long-term health of our children. I hear from many parents how scary it is to have a sick child and to not have a diagnosis. Many parents spend years trying to find out what is wrong with their child and feel helpless. This legislation will make sure that current information on newborn screening is available and accessible to health providers and parents. The SHINE Act will provide interactive formats so that parents and providers can ask questions and receive answers about the newborn screening test, diagnosis, follow-up and treatment. Early treatment can prevent negative and irreversible health outcomes for affected newborns. We should be doing all we can to give every child born in our country the opportunity for a happy and healthy life. I ask unanimous consent that the following letters in support of this legislation from the March of Dimes, Hunter's Hope Foundation, Save Babies Through Screening Foundation, and Blythedale Children's Hospital be printed in the Record.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the SHINE Act of 2006 with my colleague Senator George Allen. This legislation is critical for the health of newborns and children. Each year in our Nation at least 4 million newborns are screened and severe disorders are detected in 5,000 of them. Although these numbers may seem small, these disorders are often life threatening and can cause mental and physical disabilities if left untreated. Early detection by newborn screening can lessen side effects or completely prevent progression of many of these disorders if medical intervention is started early enough. I am proud to say that New York has been a leader in newborn screening since 1960 when Dr. Robert Guthrie developed the first newborn screening test. Since then, more than 10 million babies have been tested. In 2004, New York expanded their newborn screening panel from 11 to 44 conditions. These improvements were a concerted effort by State officials and parent advocacy groups like the Newborn Screening Saves Lives and Hunter's Hope Foundation. They share a common goal that every child born with a treatable disease should receive early diagnosis and lifesaving treatment so that they can grow up happy and healthy. Today, we want to ensure that the great strides made by New York can be a model for all States and that New York can continue to make advancements that will benefit the children of New York and around the Nation. Newborn screening experts suggest States should test for a minimum of 29 treatable core conditions. However, as of today, some States only screen for seven conditions. Every child should have access to tests that may prevent them from a life-threatening disease. Parents should not have to drive across State lines to improve the health of their baby. This bill establishes grant programs so that States can increase their capacity to screen for all the core conditions. Grant funds are also available for States like New York to expand newborn screening panels above and beyond the core conditions by developing additional newborn screening tests. We should expect equity within newborn screening so that it does not matter where your baby is born. This legislation will establish recommended guidelines for States for newborn screening tests, reporting, and data standards. Our goal should be that affected babies be identified quickly, babies who have the diseases should not be missed, and the number of newborns falsely identified as sick should be minimized. By tracking the prevalence of diseases identified by newborn screening within States, we will be able to meet these goals and improve the long-term health of our children. I hear from many parents how scary it is to have a sick child and to not have a diagnosis. Many parents spend years trying to find out what is wrong with their child and feel helpless. This legislation will make sure that current information on newborn screening is available and accessible to health providers and parents. The SHINE Act will provide interactive formats so that parents and providers can ask questions and receive answers about the newborn screening test, diagnosis, follow-up and treatment. Early treatment can prevent negative and irreversible health outcomes for affected newborns. We should be doing all we can to give every child born in our country the opportunity for a happy and healthy life. I ask unanimous consent that the following letters in support of this legislation from the March of Dimes, Hunter's Hope Foundation, Save Babies Through Screening Foundation, and Blythedale Children's Hospital be printed in the Record.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I am very pleased today to support the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Improvement Act. I was proud to cosponsor this legislation in the Senate, and I am proud that the Congress is on the eve of passing it into law. I am extremely pleased that this bill was written in a bipartisan fashion. I want to thank Senator Enzi, Senator Kennedy, Congressman McKeon, and Congressman Miller for working so hard on this legislation. I hope that the HELP Committee will approach other education bills in the same bipartisan process. The legislation recognizes the important role of career and technical education in the preparation of today's workforce. It rejects the Bush administration's proposal to eliminate the Perkins program, a proposal that would cost New York approximately $65 million a year. The bill before us today is evidence of the strong bipartisan commitment to maintaining and strengthening Perkins. The Perkins program plays a key role in helping young people and people returning to school gain the skills they need to land high- quality jobs. Perkins is the largest Federal investments in our Nation's high schools. Over 66 percent of all public high schools have at least one vocational and technical education program and 96 percent of high school students in this country take at least one vocational or technical course while in high school. The Perkins program also plays a key role in postsecondary education. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, nearly 38 percent of all degree-seeking undergraduates are pursuing vocational careers. These programs play a key role in educating our workforce and census data consistently shows that people with higher educational attainment have higher median incomes. In New York, the demand for business career and technical education programs increased by 44 percent between the 2002-2003 school year and the 2003-2004 school year. In New York City, there was a 211-percent increase in enrollment in the approved business program and a 55- percent increase in the technology and communications programs. And the vast majority of these students are succeeding academically. Eighty- five percent of New York students who completed a career and technical education program passed all of the required regent's exams. The Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Improvement Act takes the next step in strengthening career and technical education for the 21st century. I am particularly pleased that this bill improves programs and services for women and girls pursuing nontraditional occupations. Families, industries, and our economy as a whole benefit when women and girls pursue non-traditional, traditionally ``male'' careers--in technology, math, science, and the construction and building trades. Unfortunately, women continue to be significantly underrepresented in these fields. For example, while the number of female carpenters has tripled since 1972, women still represent only 1.7 percent of all carpenters. You can say the same about many other high-skill, high-wage trades. Many of these skilled trades industries are experiencing a significant labor shortage and experts expect these shortages to get worse over the next two decades as many workers retire. If women were to enter these professions, most of which are unionized and pay a livable paycheck and benefits, women would increase their earnings and standard of living for their families. For example, a journey-level electrician will make over half a million dollars more than a typical cashier in a 30-year career. This bill requires States to measure students' participation and completion in career and technical programs in nontraditional fields and to disaggregate their data on performance by gender and race. In addition, programs will be required to prepare special populations for high-skill, high-wage occupations that will lead to self-sufficiency. These important provisions will go a long way toward helping more women achieve economic security for their families. The bill also provides comprehensive professional development for career and technical education teachers and aligns secondary and postsecondary indicators with those established in other programs to ultimately reduce paperwork. Finally, I am pleased that the bill maintains Tech Prep as a separate program, maintaining the position proposed in the Senate bill. Innovative Tech Prep programs in New York have made a real difference in the lives of students. For example, the Syracuse City Health Center Tech Prep program reduced the achievement gap between ethnic groups-- white versus non-white--to 2.8 percent. And at least 65 percent of students in the Syracuse City Health Careers Tech Prep program enroll in health-related professions, where New York has a critical shortage, after high school. In New York State, the average age of nurses is 47 and 80 percent of current nurses will reach retirement age within 10 years. The Perkins program is extremely important--not just for the numbers of students it serves but for the communities that benefit from a better prepared workforce as a result of these programs. This is why for the last 4 years I have spearheaded a bipartisan letter to the Senate Appropriations Committee requesting additional funding for Perkins. Indeed, I hope that in this budget cycle we will continue to provide adequate funding for the Perkins program. For all of these reasons, I am thrilled that Congress continues its strong support for this critical program by passing this legislation today.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I have great deal of respect for the experience of my colleague from Oklahoma. I believe he has served his patients in a conscientious, caring manner for all those 20-plus years he has been practicing medicine as an OB/GYN. He comes to the floor with his own experience. It is entitled to great weight because it is his experience. He has very passionately set forth his strong beliefs. I come from a different perspective. I have been a lawyer for a number of years. I was a law professor running a legal aid clinic at the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville not far from the Oklahoma border when one day in my office I got a call from one of the local judges telling me he had assigned me to a case. That was pretty common. I said: Judge, what kind of case is it? He said: Well, I want you to represent this man who has been accused of raping a 12-year-old girl he is related to. I said: Judge, I don't really want to do that. He said: Professor, you are going to do it because I am signing the order right now. So I did. I got into the details of this sordid crime and how this man who was related to this family had abused this child. And the family, to be charitable, wasn't really all that attentive or caring. They were people of very modest means. They lived a pretty disorganized life, and they didn't watch out for their children. There wasn't what we would call the kind of relationship and dialog and discussion that every one of us wants to have with our own children and would hope to nurture in others. So I did my duty and I represented this man. But I often wondered about that little 12-year-old girl. About a year later, my phone rings again. This time, it is the prosecuting attorney. He said: Well, Professor, we have another case for you. I said: I have done my part. He said: We need you. We want you to represent a father who is accused of impregnating both of his daughters. The older daughter has had her baby and she is about 14. The younger daughter is now pregnant. The older daughter has come to us and said that it was the father, and she is desperate for us to take her younger sister away from this environment. I said: You know, Mr. Prosecutor, find somebody else to do this. He said: Well, you did such a good job in that bad case last year, we just need you to do this. I said: I really don't want to do it. He said: Well, I am having the judge sign the order. I got deeply into the family dynamics of this perverse, incestuous family. I met the 14-year-old who already had a baby, and I met the 12- year-old who was now pregnant with her father's baby. And my heart just broke. Who was that child supposed to talk to? Where was that child supposed to go? The sister was trying to help her younger sister. If she had a driver's license, she might have driven her to where she could have gotten medical care. A couple years later, I was practicing law in Little Rock, and Arkansas had a parental consent law with a judicial bypass. People were called by judges whenever this occurred and were asked to come and represent the young girl who was appearing before the court. I got called one day, as I was on the list as a practicing lawyer. So I went and met my client, a 15-year-old girl. She had been raped by her mother's boyfriend and was pregnant. Her mother could have cared less. Maybe her mother should have cared. Lord knows, I wish she had cared. But she didn't want to disrupt the relationship with the boyfriend. So the girl needed to come to court and get a judge to give her permission because there was no parent. There may have been a biological parent, but there wasn't a parent in any sense of the word other than biology. By that time, I had my own daughter and I thought, what a tragedy. You know, life isn't always the way we wish it would be. Sometimes tragedies happen and sometimes families are not just negligent but abusive. Sometimes young girls are taken advantage of by members of their family, people in whom they should be able to trust. So I just have to say that when we talk about experience, we can all bring experience to the floor of the Senate. We can talk about the many instances where things worked out, parents did do the right thing; they gave their children the right values, gave them the appropriate education to know how to take care of themselves, to respect themselves. But I have lived long enough to know that is not everybody. I wish it were. But in the meantime, we are going to sacrifice a lot of girls' lives. I think that is unfortunate, to say the least. We now know, because we have research to prove it, what works. We know that in South Carolina--for example, in a Wall Street Journal article recently was a story about small, impoverished towns that had a high rate of teenage pregnancy, and they decided they wanted to do something and they got help. They had one-on-one coaching sessions for parents who would come and participate. They preached abstinence, but they also taught about contraception and they made it clear what they wanted their children to do, how they expected them to behave to try to prevent irresponsible sexual activity and pregnancy. They tried to make both the young women and the young men accept responsibility for their actions. I know, too, in my State, we have a lot of grandmothers and aunts who are raising children. The Child Custody Protection Act would put any family member--a sister, aunt, or grandmother--in jail for helping a teenager deal with one of the most difficult decisions that any person has to make. I don't believe that these young women should make those decisions alone. Certainly, we are complicating the lives of everyone instead of doing our duty as parents, as family members, and as leaders, which is to inculcate and pass on values but to recognize that reality is messy. I have championed kinship care, and I know how many grandparents are raising children, and I know from my own personal experience how many older relatives who are faced with very difficult situations would be criminalized if they tried to reach out and help a young girl who asked them for that kind of assistance. The Child Custody Protection Act, while seeking to criminalize what a teenager does once she is pregnant, fails to address the issue of teen pregnancy in this country, the root of the problem. To address only how teenagers should behave once they become pregnant without any resources on the front end to prevent a pregnancy is shortsighted, to say the least. One of the most important initiatives I worked on as First Lady and am proud to continue to champion in the Senate is the prevention of teen pregnancy. In 1996, we worked with the National Campaign To Prevent Teen Pregnancy to set a goal to reduce teen pregnancy by one-third within a decade, and I am proud to say that we met that goal. But we did not do it overnight. We invested over a period of time. We invested in different programs and initiatives, recognizing that this issue could not be solved with a one size fits all approach. And according to the National Campaign To Prevent Teen Pregnancy, between 1991 and 2004, the teen birth rate fell 33 percent to a record low for those aged 15 to 19. And while we are all pleased that the teen pregnancy rate has dropped since 1991--as I am that in my home State of New York, it's come down a full 10 percent--we also recognize that this is just a drop in bucket if we are truly going to get to the root of the problem and eliminate pregnancy among girls and boys who are far too often too young and unprepared, emotionally and financially, to be mothers and fathers. Sadly, even with this decrease, the United States continues to have the highest rate of teen pregnancy and births in the Western industrialized world. Today, 34 percent of young women become pregnant at least once before they reach the age of 20, and that results in about 820,000 teen pregnancies a year. Eight in ten of these pregnancies are unintended. We also have an overwhelming body of evidence about the repercussions of teen parenting. Children born to teen moms begin life with the odds against them; they are more likely to be born a low birth weight baby, which is connected to a host of long-term health problems. They are 50 percent more likely to repeat a grade and significantly more likely to be victims of abuse and neglect. In addition, girls who give birth as teenagers face a long, uphill battle to economic self-sufficiency and self-esteem, with only 32 percent of teenage mothers who begin their families before age 18 ever completing high school. For all these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support the Lautenberg-Menendez amendment that seeks to increase funding to critical programs that are helping to decrease teen pregnancy in our country. Last week, CNN highlighted in a story what research has consistently shown: Teenagers who receive comprehensive sex education that includes discussion of contraception are more likely than those who receive abstinence-only messages to delay sexual activity and to use contraceptives when they do become sexually active. And this past Saturday, a Wall Street Journal article featured how small, impoverished towns in South Carolina are showing the lowest teen pregnancy rates in the country. Both places owe their success to comprehensive sex education. From one-on-one coaching sessions for parents and teens to teaching about contraception, the towns are proactive in making kids more aware of the dangers that are out there if they don't practice safe sex. This further reinforces the need to implement policies that support and educate young women about all of the facts, so that they do not become pregnant in the first place. Teenagers need to be educated that abstinence is the best defense against an unwanted pregnancy, and they also need to be educated and encouraged to exercise cautious decisions about sex. We should not have a cookie cutter approach to preventing teen pregnancy. In instances where young people are sexually active and are likely to remain so, we need to ensure that they are encouraged to use contraception consistently and carefully. As policymakers, we need to recognize what works and what doesn't work, and to be fair, the jury is still out on the effectiveness of abstinence-only programs. I don't think this debate should be about ideology. It should be about facts and evidence. We have to deal with the choices young people make, not just the choice we wish they would make. We should use all the resources at our disposal to ensure that teens are getting the information they need to make the right decision and that we remain a part of the solution by supporting programs and policies that deal with all the layers of this issue, not just a one size fits all approach. Sadly, instead of putting resources into this important fight to prevent teen pregnancy, we are adding more penalties for those who try to help teens during their time of crisis. The Child Custody Protection Act would put any family member--a sister, aunt, grandmother--in jail for helping a teen cross State lines to obtain an abortion. I don't believe that any young woman should have to make this decision alone. Research actually shows that in most cases, young women already involve one or both parents when faced with an unintended pregnancy, without being required to do so by law. But, tragically, not every family is perfect. There are some instances in which a young woman simply cannot involve her parents, including rape, violence or incest; and for some in this body to pretend that those instances should not be considered in this debate is unconscionable. The Child Custody Protection Act glosses over these complicated situations, making criminals out of grandparents, clergy and other adults who try to act in good faith. Instead of criminalizing other caring adults in a teenager's life, we should do more to educate and involve parents about the critical role they can play in encouraging their children to abstain from sexual activity. Teenagers who have strong emotional attachments to their parents are much less likely to become sexually active at an early age. I am disappointed that this bill does not provide any exemptions for adult relatives or clergy who seek to provide guidance and support to young women seeking abortions. In the Senate, I have championed the Kinship Care Act which supports the many family members in New York and in America who are raising children who would otherwise be in the foster care system. The reality is, not every child is fortunate enough to be raised by their biological parents. Nationwide, more than six million children--1 in 12 children--are living in households headed by grandparents. In New York City alone, there are over 245,000 adolescents already living in grandparent households. It's important to note that for many families, but these families in particular, the legal guardian who has physical custody and who provides a young woman with support and guidance are not one in the same. This bill fails to acknowledge the importance of close family members such as grandmothers and aunts, who often raise their relatives or play a significant role in their lives. In doing so, this bill creates a strong incentive for young women to seek risky alternatives she wouldn't have considered if permitted to seek counsel from her family and community. Major medical and public- health organizations, including the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Public Health Association oppose governmental parental-involvement laws because of the risk to women's health. While we all hope that young women will involve their parents in these decisions, mandating parental consent has the serious potential to do more harm than good. In fact, during congressional testimony, Dr. Warren Seigel, an expert in adolescent medicine, stated that legislation mandating parental involvement ``represents bad medicine and places politics before the health of our youth.'' The Child Custody Protection Act is a reflection of the misdirected priorities out there when it comes to truly doing something about unintended pregnancy. Rather than criminalizing family members and clergy who are trying to provide guidance to these young women in crisis, we should be working to reduce the rate of teen pregnancy in this country. There are far better ways to prevent pregnancy than putting people in jail. We could start by supporting family planning services and making sure we're providing medically accurate information in sex education classes that includes contraception. That is why my good friend Harry Reid and I have long championed the Prevention First Act here in the Senate which, among other important measures, ensures that Government-funded sex education programs provide medically accurate information about contraception. And that is also why I rise today to encourage all of my colleagues to support the Lautenberg-Menendez amendment because we need policies that support and educate our young women about the importance of prevention now more than ever. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, on Thursday, July 20, 2006, I introduced S. 3700, which would honor the valiant efforts of our Korean war veterans, who risked their lives fighting against communism on the Korean peninsula. As we honor the 53rd anniversary of the Korean War Armistice, I am proud to reintroduce this legislation recognizing Korean War Armistice Day. The Korean War Veterans Recognition Act of 2006 would include National Korean War Veterans Armistice Day among the days when the American flag should especially be displayed. Earlier this year, Representative Sue Kelly reintroduced similar legislation into the House. National Korean War Veterans Armistice Day is July 27, which recognizes that negotiators signed an armistice agreement at Panmunjom on July 27, 1953. This led to North Korea's withdrawal across the 38th parallel and allowed the Republic of South Korea to be free from attempts to force communism upon its people. This year, as we commemorate the 53rd anniversary of the signing of the Korean War Armistice, it is important that we take a moment to reflect upon the sacrifices our men and women of the U.S. Armed Forces have made in brave service to our Nation since its inception. I am pleased to introduce this legislation to respectfully honor and pay tribute to the tremendous courage and sacrifice demonstrated by the men and women who served in the Korean war. As U.S. soldiers continue to fight for freedom around the world, we must remember the sacrifice and valor of their brethren who helped protect and promote American values on the Korean peninsula over a half century ago.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I am proud to introduce legislation which would designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service located at 100 Pitcher Street in Utica, NY, as the Captain George A. Wood Post Office Building. CAPT George A. Wood bravely served our Nation in Iraq before his tragic death on November 20, 2003. Captain Wood was born and raised in Utica, NY, in the heart of the Mohawk Valley. As a student at Notre Dame Junior-Senior High School, Wood excelled both in the classroom and on the athletic field, where he participated in football and track and field. Upon graduation from high school, Wood attended Cornell University. He played on the university's football team, but focused most of his attention on his academics, particularly his history coursework. After earning his bachelor's degree in 1993, Wood continued in his academic pursuits, earning master's degrees at SUNY-Albany and SUNY-Cortland. Wood's interest in history continued after he entered the U.S. Army. As a captain in the 4th Infantry Division, Wood's responsibilities included leading a tank unit in Iraq. He told his wife that his experience leading troops would someday help him prepare for a doctorate in military history. Captain Wood hoped to teach history and coach football at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, NY. Unfortunately, his untimely death will prevent this dream from becoming a reality. However, we can honor this great American for the sacrifice he made defending the freedoms we all enjoy. Captain Wood's father and grandfather both worked at the Pitcher Street Post Office in Utica, NY, and it would be a fitting honor to designate this facility in tribute to CAPT George A. Wood. I ask that the Senate come together and honor this brave American hero for his service to our Nation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I am proud to introduce legislation which would designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service located at 100 Pitcher Street in Utica, NY, as the Captain George A. Wood Post Office Building. CAPT George A. Wood bravely served our Nation in Iraq before his tragic death on November 20, 2003. Captain Wood was born and raised in Utica, NY, in the heart of the Mohawk Valley. As a student at Notre Dame Junior-Senior High School, Wood excelled both in the classroom and on the athletic field, where he participated in football and track and field. Upon graduation from high school, Wood attended Cornell University. He played on the university's football team, but focused most of his attention on his academics, particularly his history coursework. After earning his bachelor's degree in 1993, Wood continued in his academic pursuits, earning master's degrees at SUNY-Albany and SUNY-Cortland. Wood's interest in history continued after he entered the U.S. Army. As a captain in the 4th Infantry Division, Wood's responsibilities included leading a tank unit in Iraq. He told his wife that his experience leading troops would someday help him prepare for a doctorate in military history. Captain Wood hoped to teach history and coach football at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, NY. Unfortunately, his untimely death will prevent this dream from becoming a reality. However, we can honor this great American for the sacrifice he made defending the freedoms we all enjoy. Captain Wood's father and grandfather both worked at the Pitcher Street Post Office in Utica, NY, and it would be a fitting honor to designate this facility in tribute to CAPT George A. Wood. I ask that the Senate come together and honor this brave American hero for his service to our Nation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I am also here to voice my support for the Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006. It is so fitting that this legislation reauthorizing this landmark Civil Rights Act would be named for three women who are so well known as heroines of the struggle for civil rights in our own country. Thousands of Americans risked their lives, and some unfortunately lost them, during the civil rights movement to challenge an electoral system that prevented millions of our fellow citizens from exercising their constitutional right to vote. After a long struggle by activists and everyday citizens, President Johnson introduced and eventually signed the Voting Rights Act of 1965 into law. I vividly remember the day, 41 years ago, when I sat in front of our little black and white television set and watched President Johnson announce the signing into law of the Voting Rights Act. He opened his speech to the Nation that night with these memorable words: I speak tonight for the dignity of man and the destiny of democracy. That was the culmination of a long struggle which continues even now because we still must work vigilantly to make certain that those who try to vote are allowed to do so, and that we keep watch to guarantee that every vote is counted. President Johnson was right all those years ago. When you deny a person his or her right to vote, you strip that individual of dignity and you weaken our democracy. The endurance of our democracy requires constant vigilance, a lesson that has been reinforced by the last two Presidential elections, both of which were affected by widespread allegations of voter disenfranchisement. I believe we have a moral as well as a political and historical obligation to ensure the integrity of our voting process. That was our Nation's obligation in 1965; it remains our obligation today. As we turn on our news and see the sights of conflict, as we hear the stories of sectarian violence, as we struggle to help nations understand and adopt democracy in their own lands, we more than ever must ensure that America is the place where the right to vote is fully and equally available to every citizen. We still have work to do, to renew protections for the right to vote, to enforce safeguards that guarantee the right to vote, and strengthen our election laws so that our right to vote is not impeded by accident or abuse. While parts of the Voting Rights Act are permanent, there are three important sections set to expire next year unless they are renewed. Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act requires that the Federal Government or a Federal court approve or, in the language of the act, ``preclear'' all changes to voting procedures by jurisdictions that have a history of discrimination. The importance of this provision cannot be overstated. Section 5 is the bulwark. It stands to ensure that all minorities have equal access to the ballot box. Not only has Section 5 been used to strike down potentially discriminatory changes to election laws, but it has also deterred them. Equally important is the reauthorization of sections 6 through 9, which authorize the Federal Government to send examiners and observers to jurisdictions with a history of voter discrimination and voter intimidation, and to ensure that by the presence of the Federal Government--which represents all of us--no one will engage in such despicable behavior. Finally, section 203 of the Voting Rights Act requires bilingual assistance for areas with a concentration of citizens with limited English proficiency, including bilingual ballots, if necessary. Voters with limited English proficiency would in many instances be unable to participate in our political process and to fully exercise their rights of citizenship if this assistance were not available to help them understand what is on a ballot. Sometimes, even though I speak English, I think I need help understanding what is on some of our ballots when we have all kinds of bond issues and other kinds of activity. Imagine if you are, as are some of the people I have met, a legal immigrant from Latin America who is so proud to be a citizen and so worried she will make a mistake when she first goes to vote, or an elderly gentleman who came to this country fleeing oppression in the former Soviet Union, who speaks only Russian but has become a citizen, is learning English and wants to be able to understand what he is voting for. At a time when we are embroiled in a debate about how best to assimilate immigrants and to send out the message that we want people in our country to learn English, to participate as citizens, we don't want to set up any artificial barriers to them feeling totally involved in and supportive of and welcomed by our great democracy. These expiring sections of the Voting Rights Act, sections 5, 203, 6 through 9, have all been reauthorized--first in the House, then in the Judiciary Committee yesterday here in the Senate. I am very pleased that has happened because I think we still need them. Of course, we have made so much progress. I am very proud of the progress our Nation has made, when you go back and look over more than 200 years of history, what we have accomplished--it is just a miraculous, wonderful happening that could only occur in this great country of ours where we have steadily and surely knocked down the barriers to participation. But are we perfect? Of course not. There is no such thing as perfection on this Earth. We have survived as a nation and as the oldest democracy in part because we have had checks and balances and we have been under the rule of law, not of men. So this reauthorization is critical to making sure we still have the framework to make it possible for every person to believe that he or she can vote, and that vote will matter. Of course, the Voting Rights Act only works if it is actually enforced. We can have all the laws in the world. We have seen in so many authoritarian regimes, totalitarian regimes, where they have great sounding laws. The laws sound as though they are next to paradise, but it does not matter because no one enforces the laws. Unfortunately, I am worried we may be at that point in our own country when it comes to voting rights. The civil rights division at the Department of Justice has been purged by many of the people, career lawyers who enforced the law regardless of whether it was against Democrats or Republicans or in any part of the country. Now it is filled with political appointees who often choose ideology over evidence. That has resulted in a failure to enforce the Voting Rights Act. There are lots of examples. Look at the news coverage this past December: Six career lawyers and two analysts in the Department of Justice's civil rights division, it was reported, were basically overruled when they made recommendations about the Texas redistricting plan. The civil rights division officials were overruled when they recommended against Georgia's voter photo ID requirement which disadvantaged African Americans, the elderly, and other voters. Finally, that law was enjoined by a Federal court. These are isolated incidents in some people's minds, but I see, unfortunately, a pattern. We need to make sure our laws have teeth; otherwise, they are just for show, they do not make any difference at all. Unfortunately, almost two-thirds of the lawyers in the voting section of the civil rights division have left in the last few years. That sends a very disconcerting message that maybe the Voting Rights Act will be honored by word but not by deed. I hope when we reauthorize it, as I am confident we will do in the Senate, we will send a message that we expect it to be enforced and that it means something; otherwise, we are not going to be fulfilling the promise of a Constitution that sets voting and democracy at its core. I hope we will not only reauthorize the Voting Rights Act, that we will enforce the Voting Rights Act and, third, we will change some of our other laws to protect against some of the abuses now taking place around the country when it comes to voting. We have to strengthen our electoral system so that basic democratic values are protected as voting technology evolves and as it threatens to undermine the right to vote. We need to put a few simple principles into law and we should do it sooner rather than later so that we count every vote and we make sure every vote is counted. That is why I drafted and introduced, along with some of my colleagues in both Houses, the Count Every Vote Act, because I believe all Americans ought to have a reasonable opportunity to register and cast their vote if they are citizens. That should be part of being a citizen. In fact, I met with a group of young high school students from New York. We were talking about how we can get more young people involved in voting. One of them asked, when we turn 18, why aren't we automatically registered? That is a great idea. Citizens should be automatically registered. We need to make this part of the growing up in America. You turn 18, you get registered to vote, beginning a lifetime habit of voting. We also need to make sure every American citizen will be able to count on the fact that their name will not be illegally purged from the voter roles. We have seen that happen. It is still happening. What happens is, someone in the political position of a State says, we will purge the voter roles to get rid of people who have moved or who may not be eligible to vote. I don't disagree with that. People who don't live in a jurisdiction or are not eligible should not be permitted to vote. Instead of purging on that very limited basis, oftentimes they purge hundreds and thousands of people unfairly, unlawfully. Someone shows up to vote and they are told, we are sorry, you are not registered to vote. The person does not know what has happened, but they are prohibited from voting. Every American voter who shows up at the polls should be confident they do not have to wait hours to cast ballots. I did a town hall meeting in Cleveland with my friend Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones. We heard testimony from some students from Kenyon College who had to wait for 10 and 12 hours to be able to vote. They were eligible, they were registered, they were anxious to vote, and because of the way the number of voting machines was allocated and the discouragement that was meant to be sent that you would have to wait so long, it was an unfair treatment of these young people and not in keeping with our desire to increase the number of people who vote in our country. We also need to make sure the system of voting has not been compromised by politics or partisanship. It is flat wrong for someone who runs an election to also be running in the election and thereby be supervising their own election, or for someone to be running for election to some position, get the support of the person running the election as his campaign manager or spokesman. That is a conflict of interest. That ought to be prohibited. People need to feel, and they have every right to feel, confidence in the integrity of our electoral system. Finally, every American voter should know there are adequate safeguards against abuses or mistakes caused by the new computerized voting machines. There have been so many problems. They have broken down, they have double counted, they have failed to count, tests have been run showing how easy they are to hack into. We do not need that. We need a system people can count on. If we can go to an ATM and withdraw money, if we can have all the other advantages from access to computers and the Internet, for goodness sakes, we ought to be able to use electronic voting without raising questions about whether it is being truthful, whether it is being accurate, and whether it is even being operated correctly. This effort to reauthorize the Voting Rights Act is part of a larger struggle about basic rights, basic values, and basic opportunities. It is, at root, a struggle to ensure that we live up to the promise of democracy in this Nation. We do need to reinstate the decades-old voting rights protections. We need to enforce those voting rights presentations. We need to strengthen those voting rights protections. We need to do that because that is what we are as Americans. That is what we expect of ourselves. I hope after we reauthorize the Voting Rights Act, which I am confident we are going to do, then we turn our attention to making sure we enforce it, that we are doing everything we can to encourage people to vote, make it easy for them to vote, and make sure that every vote counts. Our ideals are important to us as Americans. Our principles about who we are, what we believe in, our core values as to what it means to be an American. I hope and trust when it comes to the most important function in a democracy--namely, running elections and giving people the right to make decisions about who governs us--that we will be second to none. We cannot say that now because other countries, frankly, are doing a better job than we are, but today is a good first step to get us back on the track of making sure that the world's oldest democracy demonstrates clearly we know how to run elections that people have confidence and trust in and that we want every single citizen to feel welcome to participate and to make the decisions that will determine the future of our country. I yield the floor.