Hillary Clinton

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

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Long Island Sound Protection Act on behalf of myself and Senator Schumer. This legislation, which Congressman Bishop will be introducing in the House, would ensure that contaminated dredge materials are not dumped in Long Island Sound. The need for this legislation is that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is finalizing the process of designating several sites in Long Island Sound as long term disposal sites under the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act. Once this designation is complete, the sites will be open to receive dredged material indefinitely. I recognize that there has been and will continue to be a need to dredge harbors and marinas around the Sound to support commerce and navigation. But I am concerned that EPA has not looked hard enough at alternatives to dumping in the sound. While not all dredged materials are contaminated, we know that some are contaminated with heavy metals and other toxins. In my view, we should not use the Sound as a dumping ground for those materials. We must look more thoroughly for alternatives to dumping contaminated waste in Long Island Sound. We need careful planning that involves a strong role for the State of New York in this process. That is why this legislation is so important--we cannot let short term economics overtake long term environmental concerns. The Long Island Sound Protection Act would require the Corps of Engineers and the EPA to work with other federal agencies and the states of New York and Connecticut to develop a dredged material management plan (DMMP) that would govern dumping in the sound. The Long Island Sound Protection Act would require the DMMP to meet a set of objectives, including: Identifying the major sources and quantities of dredge material and contamination that require disposal; determining management actions that are to be taken to reduce sediment and contaminant loading of dredged areas; thoroughly assessing alternative locations, treatment technologies and beneficial uses for dredged material; ensuring that dumping is the disposal option of the last resort after all other options have been exhausted; securing alternative methods of disposal of contaminated dredge materials, including decontamination technologies, and alternative uses of materials, including upland disposal, containment, beach nourishment, marsh restoration, habitat construction, and other beneficial reuses; and confirming the specific roles of Federal, State, and local agencies with respect to various aspects of dredged material management. The Long Island Sound Protection Act also would stipulate that no dumping can occur in Long Island Sound, except in accordance with a DMMP that has been approved by the Governors of New York and Connecticut. In addition, the bill would provide for public hearings in both New York and Connecticut during the development of the DMMP. To me this is a common sense solution to the current dredge disposal problem. It would enable both New York and Connecticut to play a stronger role in determining what we put in the Sound. And it would provide for a much harder look at upland disposal and beneficial reuse as alternatives to dumping in the Sound. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the measure be printed in the Record.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Long Island Sound Protection Act on behalf of myself and Senator Schumer. This legislation, which Congressman Bishop will be introducing in the House, would ensure that contaminated dredge materials are not dumped in Long Island Sound. The need for this legislation is that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is finalizing the process of designating several sites in Long Island Sound as long term disposal sites under the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act. Once this designation is complete, the sites will be open to receive dredged material indefinitely. I recognize that there has been and will continue to be a need to dredge harbors and marinas around the Sound to support commerce and navigation. But I am concerned that EPA has not looked hard enough at alternatives to dumping in the sound. While not all dredged materials are contaminated, we know that some are contaminated with heavy metals and other toxins. In my view, we should not use the Sound as a dumping ground for those materials. We must look more thoroughly for alternatives to dumping contaminated waste in Long Island Sound. We need careful planning that involves a strong role for the State of New York in this process. That is why this legislation is so important--we cannot let short term economics overtake long term environmental concerns. The Long Island Sound Protection Act would require the Corps of Engineers and the EPA to work with other federal agencies and the states of New York and Connecticut to develop a dredged material management plan (DMMP) that would govern dumping in the sound. The Long Island Sound Protection Act would require the DMMP to meet a set of objectives, including: Identifying the major sources and quantities of dredge material and contamination that require disposal; determining management actions that are to be taken to reduce sediment and contaminant loading of dredged areas; thoroughly assessing alternative locations, treatment technologies and beneficial uses for dredged material; ensuring that dumping is the disposal option of the last resort after all other options have been exhausted; securing alternative methods of disposal of contaminated dredge materials, including decontamination technologies, and alternative uses of materials, including upland disposal, containment, beach nourishment, marsh restoration, habitat construction, and other beneficial reuses; and confirming the specific roles of Federal, State, and local agencies with respect to various aspects of dredged material management. The Long Island Sound Protection Act also would stipulate that no dumping can occur in Long Island Sound, except in accordance with a DMMP that has been approved by the Governors of New York and Connecticut. In addition, the bill would provide for public hearings in both New York and Connecticut during the development of the DMMP. To me this is a common sense solution to the current dredge disposal problem. It would enable both New York and Connecticut to play a stronger role in determining what we put in the Sound. And it would provide for a much harder look at upland disposal and beneficial reuse as alternatives to dumping in the Sound. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the measure be printed in the Record.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise to join with my colleagues Senators Lieberman and Brownback in introducing the Children and Media Research Advancement Act (CAMRA). Children today are living in an environment that is saturated with electronic media. Even in the last few years, we've seen a dramatic increase in media targeted directly at children. There's now a booming market of DVDs and videos for infants and the first TV show specifically for children as young as 12 months was launched a few years back. Kids today even have their own cable TV network. Researchers estimate that children spend an average of five-and-a- half hours a day using these media--this works out to more than they spend doing anything besides sleeping. Even kids under six spend as much time watching TV and videos, playing video games, and using computers as they do playing outside. Unfortunately, we don't really know how this trend affects our children. But we do know that a child's early years affect every aspect of his or her development--physical, emotional, and cognitive. And therefore, we know that ignorance is not bliss. The longer we wait to understand the full impact of media on our children, the bigger risk we take. And we are gambling with our children's future. Parents need to know how television, movies, advertisements, video games, and the Internet affect their children so that they can make informed decisions about how much and what kind of media their children should be exposed to. As parents, we know intuitively that our young children shouldn't be watching television shows with extreme violence or age-inappropriate content. But there are other issues we aren't so sure about. How much video game playing is too much? Do advertisements for cereals and junk foods contribute to childhood obesity? How are our very young children and infants impacted by media? Right now we have little idea of what it means for infant development to put babies in front of TVs for hours at a time, but we know that sometimes popping in a video is the best and only way to calm our children down. Our bill, The Children and Media Research Advancement Act, will help answer these questions by establishing a single, coordinated research program at the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. This program will study the impact of electronic media on children's--particularly very young children and infant's--cognitive, social and physical development. One of the first things the program will do will be to work with the National Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Medicine to establish an independent panel of experts to review and synthesize existing research and to establish research priorities on the impact of the media on child development. They'll then award grants for research that addresses the panel's priorities. If we are truly going to make children a priority, we have to pay attention to and take seriously the activities they're engaged in on a daily basis. Watching television, playing video games, and surfing the Internet are the things that children are doing more than anything else. We need to invest in research that will help us understand how this is affecting our children so that parents can make informed decisions about the positive effects and negative effects of these media on children.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise to join with my colleagues Senators Lieberman and Brownback in introducing the Children and Media Research Advancement Act (CAMRA). Children today are living in an environment that is saturated with electronic media. Even in the last few years, we've seen a dramatic increase in media targeted directly at children. There's now a booming market of DVDs and videos for infants and the first TV show specifically for children as young as 12 months was launched a few years back. Kids today even have their own cable TV network. Researchers estimate that children spend an average of five-and-a- half hours a day using these media--this works out to more than they spend doing anything besides sleeping. Even kids under six spend as much time watching TV and videos, playing video games, and using computers as they do playing outside. Unfortunately, we don't really know how this trend affects our children. But we do know that a child's early years affect every aspect of his or her development--physical, emotional, and cognitive. And therefore, we know that ignorance is not bliss. The longer we wait to understand the full impact of media on our children, the bigger risk we take. And we are gambling with our children's future. Parents need to know how television, movies, advertisements, video games, and the Internet affect their children so that they can make informed decisions about how much and what kind of media their children should be exposed to. As parents, we know intuitively that our young children shouldn't be watching television shows with extreme violence or age-inappropriate content. But there are other issues we aren't so sure about. How much video game playing is too much? Do advertisements for cereals and junk foods contribute to childhood obesity? How are our very young children and infants impacted by media? Right now we have little idea of what it means for infant development to put babies in front of TVs for hours at a time, but we know that sometimes popping in a video is the best and only way to calm our children down. Our bill, The Children and Media Research Advancement Act, will help answer these questions by establishing a single, coordinated research program at the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. This program will study the impact of electronic media on children's--particularly very young children and infant's--cognitive, social and physical development. One of the first things the program will do will be to work with the National Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Medicine to establish an independent panel of experts to review and synthesize existing research and to establish research priorities on the impact of the media on child development. They'll then award grants for research that addresses the panel's priorities. If we are truly going to make children a priority, we have to pay attention to and take seriously the activities they're engaged in on a daily basis. Watching television, playing video games, and surfing the Internet are the things that children are doing more than anything else. We need to invest in research that will help us understand how this is affecting our children so that parents can make informed decisions about the positive effects and negative effects of these media on children.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I am proud to be a cosponsor of S. 1248, and would like to thank Chairman Gregg and Senator Kennedy for working in such a cooperative and bipartisan way on this important legislation. I strongly believe in every child's right to a free, appropriate public education, and I appreciate the leadership you both have shown in working to ensure that this reauthorization bill protects that right. I believe the bill before us today is better than the House bill due largely to your commitment. This bill ensures that children with special needs receive a free, appropriate public education while supporting teachers and other school staff, strengthening monitoring and enforcement, involving parents more thoroughly in the education of their children, resolving disputes equitably, and improving the transition between school and beyond. I am particularly pleased that this bill includes several provisions that I supported. The first I sponsored with Senator Sessions, and it is embodied in S. 1321. This provision will channel $25 million directly to local school districts to help children with emotional and behavioral disabilities. This program will support investments in positive behavioral supports, whole school interventions, and improve the quality of interim alternative educational settings. These funds will help schools invest in professional development, provide for early interventions, and fund whole-school interventions that train school administrators, support staff, and parents to help students with disabilities succeed. This bill also includes provisions of the Personnel Excellence for Children with Disabilities Act, which I was proud to cosponsor. This act creates two new grant programs to support personnel preparation-- one to help schools recruit and retain new special education teachers, and another to better prepare general education teachers to work with children with special needs. New York faces a major shortage of qualified special education teachers, and I believe it is critical to dedicate resources to recruiting, retaining, and providing ongoing professional development for all teachers--general education and special education. These funds will go a long way to achieving this goal. In addition, I am pleased that the Senate adopted an amendment that I offered yesterday to include the Department of Education as a key partner in the planning and execution of the National Children's Study. This study will be the most comprehensive examination of children's health ever conducted in this country. It is critical that schools, where children spend more time than anywhere other than their homes, be included in this analysis. By including the Department of Education we will gain valuable insight into the role that environmental factors play in contributing to developmental disabilities. While I am so pleased with all of the provisions I have mentioned, I am deeply disappointed that Senator Harkin's amendment to provide mandatory full funding for IDEA failed yesterday. This amendment has strong bi-partisan support, thanks to the leadership of Senator Hagel on the Republican side, and it represents the only true mechanism to ensure that Congress keeps the promise it made in 1975. Back then, Congress vowed to provide 40 percent of the cost of educating children with special needs. To date, we have never even come close. By relying on discretionary funding we are virtually guaranteeing that we will never achieve the 40 percent threshold. And it is our children and local taxpayers who pay the price. So I will continue to work with Senator Harkin, Senator Hagel, Senator Kennedy and my other colleagues to ensure that one day we achieve the victory we were not able to yesterday. In one of my first experiences out of school, I was tasked by the Children's Defense Fund with reconciling census data with school enrollment. This project developed out of a realization that many children who were living in a given community were not enrolled in school. As I went door to door and talked to the families, I quickly realized that the children left out were the ones with special needs. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1975 fixed that problem. It promised every child--regardless of their needs--a free, appropriate public education. Today, we are strengthening that law and, more importantly, that promise. As a Senator from New York, I continue to hear stories about how critical IDEA is for children with disabilities. One parent recently came to my office to visit with his son who suffered brain trauma and now has cerebral palsy and other developmental disabilities. Kevin attends elementary school in the Port Washington School District in Long Island. Because of his special needs, he receives daily one-on-one instruction from a licensed teacher's assistant, 10 hours of speech therapy and three sessions of occupational therapy each week. This investment would have been unheard of 30 years ago. But today, Kevin is able to keep up with his courses in a mainstream 5th grade classroom setting. His success is possible because of IDEA and Kevin is on course to successfully pass the 5th grade and graduate into 6th. Kevin's story should remind us all why this bill is so important. Simply put, it ensures that both teachers and parents have the tools they need to help children with disabilities succeed. So I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting S. 1248. And as this bill moves forward I hope my colleagues will continue to maintain the best interest of our children and uphold the spirit and intent of the original law.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mrs. CLINTON. Over the last several years, I have become even more concerned about how the environment affects a child's health and cognitive development. I think we have a lot of work to do to understand this and then to act on it. We know that 25 years of research and experience with developmental disabilities has demonstrated the increasing threat that these disabilities pose to our children's learning and also to the costs and expenses borne by families, school districts, and other public agencies around our country. Since 1977, enrollment in special education programs for children with learning disabilities has doubled, and 12 million children under the age of 18 are now diagnosed with a developmental learning or behavioral disability. Now, obviously some of that is due to our greater understanding and our willingness to admit that these kinds of disabilities exist, but there are other reasons as well. A National Academy of Sciences study suggests that 28 percent of developmental disabilities are caused by environmental hazards. A recent study in the New England Journal of Medicine showed that even low levels of lead exposure can reduce a child's IQ by as much as 7.4 points. For many children, this literally could mean the difference between being developmentally disabled or not. According to a General Accounting Office study, almost half of all children in our country attend schools with at least one unsatisfactory environmental condition. I have seen a lot of those in my own travels. I have seen horrible mold conditions. I have seen exposed dust and building materials. I have seen schools that were built over toxic waste dumps. It goes on and on. We also know that one of the most prevalent environmental health problems is poor indoor air quality. According to recent studies, that is present in nearly half of our 115,000 schools. Almost a quarter of these schools have inadequate heating, ventilation, and air- conditioning systems, and about 21,000 have faulty roofs. Now, poor indoor air quality severely aggravates allergies, asthma, and other infections and respiratory diseases. It is something we know more and more about but actually still have a lot of work to do. I have worked to address these problems through legislation that crosses different jurisdictional lines. I introduced the act to prevent developmental disabilities in education, which has evolved into the amendment we have before us today. I have strongly supported the 12 centers for children's environmental health and disease prevention research funded by our Government because they are focusing on issues that are so critically important, such as studying the potential environmental causes of autism, a condition that we know is increasing. We are looking at new ways of researching, identifying, treating, and ultimately preventing autism and other diseases that may or may not have an environmental link. We just do not know enough yet. Similarly, I have proposed a general health tracking bill that would coordinate pollution and contamination data with disease data so we can learn more about the possible links between the two. I am not one who thinks there are as many different problems as one can imagine depending upon the environmental condition, but I think common sense tells us that there are a good number of them. Right now we do not know which. We cannot give good information to parents about how best to protect their children. In the No Child Left Behind Act, a provision that I championed called the Healthy, High-Performance Schools Program was adopted. That would assist States in creating and disseminating information and technical assistance to our neediest schools to help them improve indoor air quality and energy efficiency, and we know it can make a difference. In Greenwich, NY, a school renovation project left cement and construction dust all over the buildings, fiberglass exposed in the library, paint fumes in the elementary classrooms, heavy equipment and jackhammers outside, and electric wires and pipes exposed. In another New York school, a parent of an asthmatic child was so upset by the child's repeated absences because of being exposed to the toxic chemicals that were used in the installation of a gym floor. These are just two of the multitude of examples that argue for us learning more about what we are doing inside our schools to perhaps better control these problems so that, if we cannot eliminate them, certainly the information will help us to decrease the health problems from which these children suffer. I hope this amendment will be a real encouragement for the National Children's Study because it is one of the most important research studies we can undertake in our country. As I said, the Framingham Heart Study, which has been going on now for 50 years, has yielded remarkable advances in the prevention of heart disease. The Nurses Health Study that began in 1976 has given women invaluable information about how to protect our health. The National Children's Study is the same. It will give us so much help, trying to figure out what we should do in the public health arena in our schools and in our homes. I am hopeful we will fully fund this National Children's Study because it is important that we begin the hard work of getting answers to many of the questions my constituents ask me. We need an additional $15 million for this study to be carried out. These are critical funds. I hope we will be able to appropriate them. This amendment will enable the study to take advantage of the expertise in the Department of Education and particularly zero in on the needs of children with disabilities. I thank my colleagues for their support. I appreciate their strong advocacy on behalf of this reauthorization of the bill and in particular this amendment.

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise in support of my amendment to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act that is being considered today. Before I get into the amendment, I thank the chairman and the ranking member of the committee, Senators Gregg and Kennedy, for all their hard work in bringing this bill to the floor. It has been a long and, at times, I know a tedious process. The issues inherent in this bill are complicated, and I respect the strong effort of both Senators Gregg and Kennedy to work together in a bipartisan fashion to move the process forward. I also thank their two key staff members, Connie Garner for Senator Kennedy and Annie White for Senator Gregg, because they have worked extraordinarily hard and diligently to ensure that this legislation, which affects millions of children with disabilities, will be reauthorized and will improve the lives of so many of these children and their families. I also thank Senators Gregg and Kennedy for being supportive of this amendment. My amendment is very simple and straightforward but I think very important. It proposes to make the Department of Education a key partner in the development and execution of the National Children's Study. The National Children's Study will be the most important study of children with disabilities ever undertaken. It will provide a comprehensive examination of the effects of environmental influences, as well as many other factors affecting growth and development, from birth until age 21. The overarching goal of this study is to give us information to enable us to improve the health and well-being of our children and, in particular, what more can be done to prevent, treat, ameliorate, and cure disabilities. The National Children's Study was authorized by the Children's Health Act of 2000. All of the key Federal departments with jurisdiction over children's health and welfare, including the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Environmental Protection Agency, are sponsors and partners in the completion of this critical study. It is absolutely essential that these agencies work together, but missing from the list is the Department of Education. Despite the fact that children in our country spend 6 to 8 hours or more in school, the Department of Education is not one of the agencies explicitly included as a participant in the national children's study. I believe this study has the potential to provide significant value, but it will be missing a critical source of information if the Department of Education is not a full partner. Two studies that I would remind my colleagues of, that are similar to what we are attempting to do with this national children's study, is the Framingham study that followed a number of people in Framingham, MA, for a very long period of time. From that, we learned all kinds of information about heart attacks, cancers, and other factors that affect our health. Similarly the nurses study which followed several thousand nurses gave us other useful information. So now we are trying to provide this information, based on very well run studies, to not only parents but practitioners, public officials, and others. The participation of the Department of Education will ensure that school records can be, with appropriate permission, incorporated into the findings. Why is that important? Because only schools have information about children's educational outcomes, about special education classifications and the special services that children are receiving. Without this critical piece of information, the study would be incomplete. The Department also needs to be a key player in order to get in on the ground floor of the planning for this study. We need to make sure that the educational component is considered from the very beginning. It is also possible, through this amendment and the inclusion of the Department of Education, to compare how different States and schools classify children with disabilities. Currently, every State has a different standard for how they classify children with disabilities. That makes it very difficult, if not impossible, for researchers and advocates to compare data on children with disabilities across State lines. It is also very frustrating for parents who may live in one State where their child is classified as special education and eligible for services but because of a job change or other reason for a move, they move to another State where that is no longer the case. If the national children's study were to collect data directly from schools on children's disabilities and how they are classified, we would have valuable information that I think would be very informative for our States and local school districts, as well as parents and others. In addition to all of these reasons, the participation of the Department of Education will help us better understand how environmental factors are associated with the development of disabilities in childhood. Every single day children are exposed to environmental hazards. They are exposed in their homes, neighborhoods, communities, and even in their schools. It is important that we begin to understand how to figure out what it is that we need to prevent in order to deal with the increasing numbers of children classified as in need of special education. I want to thank a number of groups that have supported this amendment, including the Council for Exceptional Children, and Easter Seals, the National Education Association, the Parents Support Network of New York, the Children and Adults with Attention Deficit/ Hyperactivity Disorder, National Arc, the Council for Occupational Therapists, the Learning Disabilities Association of America, and the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities, which is a national disability organization that is a coalition of 100 groups. I ask unanimous consent that the letters of support on behalf of this amendment be printed in the Record.

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

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for Tori Brescoll, a fellow in my office, to have access to the floor during the consideration of S. 1248.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I compliment my colleague from Montana for his legislative skill and determination in managing the JOBS bill on this side of the aisle. I also thank him for the patience and consideration he and his staff have shown in working with me on the Clinton-Dayton privacy amendment. I and my colleague Senator Dayton look forward to testifying on this issue in front of the Finance Committee because it is vitally important to maintain the privacy of our constituents and Americans throughout the Nation. New Markets Tax Credit and Economic Substance Doctrine

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a legislation to restore operation of the Cross Sound Cable. I was dismayed to learn last Friday that the Secretary of Energy had issued an order that effectively shut down the Cross Sound Cable. The cable had been operating since Secretary Abraham issued an order directing that the cable be turned on almost immediately after the August 14, 2003 blackout. I believe that last Friday's decision is shortsighted, and I am extremely concerned that it will put Long Island at immediate risk of power failures as we enter the summer peak demand months. The Cross Sound Cable has provided proven reliability benefits at a time when a shortage of generation and transmission facilities continues to exist on Long Island and in Southern New England. The Cross Sound Cable transmitted 300 MW of power over the Blackout weekend, enough to turn on the power in about 300,000 homes on Long Island. Since beginning full-time operation on September 1, 2003, the Cross Sound Cable has transmitted nearly one-half million megawatt- hours of electricity to help provide sufficient power to prevent more blackouts or brownouts on the island. Additionally, the extra power from the Cable makes more power available on Long Island to export over another submarine cable into Southwestern Connecticut when needed, thereby making the regional power grid more resilient. The independent grid operators have successfully tested sending power over the Cross Sound Cable to Long Island and then simultaneously sending power from Western Long Island over another submarine cable to Southwest Connecticut. During a severe cold spell in January, Long Island Power Authority was prepared to send 200 mw of power over Cross Sound Cable to help Connecticut if needed. Over the short- to long-term, the Cable thus allows excess New York-generated power to be transmitted to Connecticut to help prevent blackouts and brownouts. In addition, the vital role of the Cross Sound Cable was confirmed in the final report of the U.S.-Canada Task Force on the Blackout. The blackout report concludes that ``[r]eactive power problems were a significant factor in the August 14 outage, and they were also important elements in several of the earlier outages . . .'' During the August 14 blackout, the Cross Sound Cable provided critical reactive power to Long Island and Connecticut to help stabilize the system. Cross Sound has responded to and corrected 17 unanticipated reactive power problems such as lightning strikes and equipment failures. CONVEX, the Connecticut arm of the independent transmission system operator, ISO-New England, has relied on Cross Sound to provide reactive power for voltage support on a preventive basis 84 times. Cross Sound Cable is currently the only operating cable system in Connecticut and Long Island capable of providing dynamic reactive power support during sensitive energy demand periods. Nearly every day now, the Cable operates under the direction of CONVEX to provide voltage support to Connecticut. In summary, the Cross Sound Cable has provided reliability benefits at a time when a transmission and generation shortage persists in the region. I strongly believe that this critical energy link between New England and New York should remain operational until all reliability studies required by the Blackout Task Force are completed and all of the resulting recommendations are implemented to prevent further large- scale blackouts in this region. Until all of these steps occur, I believe that an emergency situation clearly continues to exist. That is why I am introducing this legislation today. In essence, the legislation overrides the order issue by Secretary Abraham on May 7, 2004, reinstates his order of August 28, 2003, and provides that that later order shall remain in effect unless rescinded by an Act of Congress. This would turn the cable back on and leave it on until Congress determines it is appropriate to shut it down. That day may indeed come, but for now, we are facing the prospect of power outages on Long Island as we head into the peak-demand months of the summer. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a legislation to restore operation of the Cross Sound Cable. I was dismayed to learn last Friday that the Secretary of Energy had issued an order that effectively shut down the Cross Sound Cable. The cable had been operating since Secretary Abraham issued an order directing that the cable be turned on almost immediately after the August 14, 2003 blackout. I believe that last Friday's decision is shortsighted, and I am extremely concerned that it will put Long Island at immediate risk of power failures as we enter the summer peak demand months. The Cross Sound Cable has provided proven reliability benefits at a time when a shortage of generation and transmission facilities continues to exist on Long Island and in Southern New England. The Cross Sound Cable transmitted 300 MW of power over the Blackout weekend, enough to turn on the power in about 300,000 homes on Long Island. Since beginning full-time operation on September 1, 2003, the Cross Sound Cable has transmitted nearly one-half million megawatt- hours of electricity to help provide sufficient power to prevent more blackouts or brownouts on the island. Additionally, the extra power from the Cable makes more power available on Long Island to export over another submarine cable into Southwestern Connecticut when needed, thereby making the regional power grid more resilient. The independent grid operators have successfully tested sending power over the Cross Sound Cable to Long Island and then simultaneously sending power from Western Long Island over another submarine cable to Southwest Connecticut. During a severe cold spell in January, Long Island Power Authority was prepared to send 200 mw of power over Cross Sound Cable to help Connecticut if needed. Over the short- to long-term, the Cable thus allows excess New York-generated power to be transmitted to Connecticut to help prevent blackouts and brownouts. In addition, the vital role of the Cross Sound Cable was confirmed in the final report of the U.S.-Canada Task Force on the Blackout. The blackout report concludes that ``[r]eactive power problems were a significant factor in the August 14 outage, and they were also important elements in several of the earlier outages . . .'' During the August 14 blackout, the Cross Sound Cable provided critical reactive power to Long Island and Connecticut to help stabilize the system. Cross Sound has responded to and corrected 17 unanticipated reactive power problems such as lightning strikes and equipment failures. CONVEX, the Connecticut arm of the independent transmission system operator, ISO-New England, has relied on Cross Sound to provide reactive power for voltage support on a preventive basis 84 times. Cross Sound Cable is currently the only operating cable system in Connecticut and Long Island capable of providing dynamic reactive power support during sensitive energy demand periods. Nearly every day now, the Cable operates under the direction of CONVEX to provide voltage support to Connecticut. In summary, the Cross Sound Cable has provided reliability benefits at a time when a transmission and generation shortage persists in the region. I strongly believe that this critical energy link between New England and New York should remain operational until all reliability studies required by the Blackout Task Force are completed and all of the resulting recommendations are implemented to prevent further large- scale blackouts in this region. Until all of these steps occur, I believe that an emergency situation clearly continues to exist. That is why I am introducing this legislation today. In essence, the legislation overrides the order issue by Secretary Abraham on May 7, 2004, reinstates his order of August 28, 2003, and provides that that later order shall remain in effect unless rescinded by an Act of Congress. This would turn the cable back on and leave it on until Congress determines it is appropriate to shut it down. That day may indeed come, but for now, we are facing the prospect of power outages on Long Island as we head into the peak-demand months of the summer. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the Cantwell-Voinovich amendment because it is the right thing to do for America's workers and the right thing to do for our economy. Although I am pleased that we are finally voting on this critical amendment, it saddens me that we are still talking about this issue. As many in this Chamber may remember, I worked with my colleagues, Senator Fitzgerald and Senator Nickles, to craft an unemployment insurance extension as the first legislation passed by the 108th Congress. That was back in January of 2003. Now, I find myself feeling like its Groundhog Day. A year and 5 months have gone by and times are still tough for the 8.2 million Americans who are out of work. Little over a month ago, on March 30, tens of thousands of Americans lost their unemployment benefits because the Government's temporary extension of unemployment insurance expired. Every week, 85,000 workers have been running out of benefits and 1.5 million have lost their benefits since January. Since President Bush took office, our country has lost over 2 million jobs. I represent a State with one of the highest unemployment rates in the country. In March, New York State's unemployment rate was 6.5 percent. In New York City alone, unemployment has hovered around 8 percent since September 11, 2001. And, according to the Department of Labor, if New York City were a State, it would have the highest unemployment rate in the entire country. Almost 130,000 New Yorkers exhausted their unemployment insurance benefits between December of last year and today, none of whom qualified for Federal benefits. Action to help New Yorkers--and all Americans--who are out of work is long overdue. That is why I am proud to cosponsor the Cantwell- Voinovich amendment. This amendment is virtually identical to a bill that I introduced with Senator Gordon Smith in November of last year. The Cantwell-Voinovich legislation will do what my bill with Senator Smith would have done: it will reinstate the Federal unemployment insurance program and probably every unemployed worker with an additional 13 weeks of benefits. Ignoring the unemployed will not make them go away. In fact, today, despite Congress's inaction on this issue, long-term unemployment is at the highest level in recorded history. More than 2 million Americans have been our of work for 6 months or more, a higher percentage than ever before. According to the Children's Defense Fund, this represents an increase of 245 percent in the past 2 years alone. And if the past is any indication of the future, many of these jobs will never return. In past recessions, 50 percent of job loss is temporary, the other half is permanent. Economists estimate that today nearly 80 percent of job loss is permanent. Permanent job loss isn't just a theoretical term. It is a father with a mortgage, a mother with car payments, and a young person with a college loan. We must never lose sight of that simple fact. While everyone wants to collect a paycheck, unemployment checks provide certainty in an economy that is anything but certain. For months, administration officials have claimed that their tax package will grow the economy and create jobs. But the only thing it is certain to grow is our Nation's mounting debt. The last time their economic policies were enacted, Americans lost 2 million jobs. We cannot wait to see how this debate plays out while 10 million unemployed Americans struggle. They paid into this system--some for decades--and now, when they need those benefits the most, we should provide them. It is long past time that we take care of unemployed workers in this country. We simply cannot keep repeating the past and let down American workers in these vulnerable and uncertain times. After all, Groundhog Day was officially February 2. And like more than 600,000 unemployed New Yorkers, I am ready to put it behind me.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise today in recognition of Cinco de Mayo, a holiday celebrated in Mexico and increasingly in the United States, that commemorates an important victory of the Mexican Army against the French at the Battle of Puebla. In my home State of New York and across the Nation, Hispanic communities--particularly the Mexican-American community--have embraced this holiday and transformed it into a day of recognition and celebration of the contributions Hispanics have made in the United States. Among all cities across the Nation, New York ranks 11th in the size of its Mexican population, close to cities with long standing Mexican communities such as San Diego, Santa Ana, and San Jose, CA. The number of Mexican New Yorkers counted by the U.S. Census more than tripled in the 1990s, increasing from 61,772 in 1990 to 186,872 in 2000. Currently, Mexicans constitute the third largest Hispanic/Latino population in New York State after Puerto Ricans and Dominicans. As the Nation's largest minority group, Hispanics are adding to our Nation's cultural richness and economic prosperity. Every day they are working and creating businesses in all sectors across the country. Today, one in nine workers in America is of Hispanic descent and there are currently 1.2 million Hispanic-owned businesses with annual revenues of $200 billion. Even as we celebrate these important contributions, Hispanics across the Nation continue to face unique challenges, including high unemployment, stagnant or declining wages, high school dropout rates, poverty, and lack of access to health insurance. The Bush administration's 2005 budget proposal fails to make adequate investments to help improve the quality of life for Hispanics. In fact, his budget proposal cuts funding for small businesses, fails to adequately fund the No Child Left Behind Act, eliminates funding for dropout prevention, and underfunds minority health care programs. The President's budget also provides tax breaks that benefit the wealthy at the expense of working families. That is why I have joined my fellow Democrats in Congress in supporting an agenda that increases investments in key economic, educational, and health-related programs to make America even stronger for future generations and will continue to fight for these key programs in the 108th Congress. I hope that today's Cinco de Mayo celebrations serve as an important reminder of the contributions of Hispanics and the need to support additional investments in programs and services that help them build a better future for their families and for our Nation.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the Harkin amendment because I believe it is the right thing to do for New York's working families. The Harkin amendment is very simple. It says that not a single worker who is currently eligible for overtime pay should be denied that right. And I have yet to hear a compelling reason that some workers currently eligible for overtime should lose that eligibility. In fact, the Department of Labor argues emphatically that few if any workers will actually lose eligibility. Well, if few if any workers will lose overtime eligibility then I see no reason why the Department of Labor shouldn't support the Harkin amendment wholeheartedly. Of course, the reality, as those at the Department of Labor well know, is that plenty of workers will lose eligibility for overtime. Let's look at the facts. Registered nurses will be in danger of losing their eligibility because, for the first time, it will be easier to classify those who are paid hourly as ``salaried employees.'' It will also be easier to classify them as ``team leaders.'' Journalists will lose their automatic overtime protection. Veterans who do not have a 4- year degree will be much more easily classified as professional employees and denied overtime eligibility. Workers in the financial services industry--and I represent many of them--will lose their overtime protection if they do not exercise independent judgment and discretion. Chefs. Funeral Directors. Embalmers. Insurance Claims Adjusters. Salespeople. Software engineers. Computer programmers. All will be vulnerable to the loss of overtime--and therefore face significant pay cuts. The list goes on and on and on. And these are just the consequences analysts can foresee. What does the loss of overtime mean? Let's put it in human terms. It's a 25 percent pay cut. It is $161 a week on average. And--as importantly--it's time with your family. This is not trivial. At its very core, this issue is about our American values of work and family. Workers stripped of their overtime protection would end up working longer hours for less pay. That translates into less time with their children, less time with their parents, their spouses, less time to volunteer and contribute to the fabric of our community. More work hours, for less pay, and less family time--that is not the American way. This regulation would make unpaid overtime a household word and make it easier for bad-faith employers to coerce other workers into accepting time off instead of overtime pay. Now, I know there is strong support in this Chamber to protect the rights of workers to receive overtime because we've done it before. Back in September, we passed a very similar amendment to prevent the Department of Labor from promulgating any amendment that denied overtime from any worker currently eligible. Republicans in my State crossed party lines to block this regulation in the House--and I applaud them for doing so. They know how many New Yorkers rely on overtime pay--not as a luxury, as a necessity. Back then, despite strong bi-partisan votes in the House and Senate, the extremist right wing leaders in the House and Senate neglected to include the language in the final appropriations bill. They made a mockery of the democratic process. But with this vote today we prove that we will keep fighting for the rights of working people. We may be overruled--as we were before--but we will not back down. So, I urge my colleagues to support the Harkin and to reject the Bush administration economic policy of tax cuts for wealthy; pay cuts for the workers.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will address a growing trend in higher education--the changing face of today's college student. Over the last decade, there has been a steady increase in the number of non-traditional students entering or returning to college. Nationwide, non-traditional students on college campuses are slowly becoming the norm--the percentage of non-traditional students on college campuses has increased to 47 percent in 2001 from 34 percent in 1991. Non-traditional students come in many different forms. Some waited to go to college until their mid to late twenties or later--or were put in the position of having to go back to college late in life because they lost their job. Others are attending college part-time while they work full-time and/or are financially independent. Others have children, and may or may not have the support of a spouse. And still others never obtained a high school diploma. As you can imagine, these students face unique challenges that make it more difficult for them to graduate than their traditional peers. These challenges include affording their education, balancing work, school, and family responsibilities, and sometimes overcoming inadequate preparation. Unfortunately, many of our current higher education policies make it harder, not easier, for non-traditional students to complete their degrees. That is why today I am pleased to be introducing, along with my colleague from the state of Florida, Senator Graham, The Non- Traditional Students Success Act. This legislation is a comprehensive solution to the barriers non- traditional students face as they try to earn a college degree. It is timely, and our system is long overdue for improvement. When I travel throughout New York, I hear about the challenges faced by many of our citizens, particularly those who have found themselves unemployed after years of working in companies like Kodak, Xerox, Corning, and IBM. Many of these citizens are in need of retraining-- some are returning to school, while others are attending college for the first time. The goal of this legislation is to increase graduation rates for non- traditional students by addressing the range of barriers they face-- financial, academic, and social. First, I will begin with the financial; this legislation includes several provisions to make it more affordable for non-traditional students to complete their postsecondary education. It increases the maximum Pell Grant to $11,600 by 2010. Pell Grants work and there is no reason why we should not continue to invest in this worthwhile solution. This bill also increases the income protection allowance so that working students can keep more of their income. Our bill sets the level at $18,000 per year as opposed to only $5,000 per year--which is current law for single independent students. It increases the amount of education expenses that students can claim under the Lifetime Learning credit from 20 percent to 50 percent. Under current law, students receive a credit of only $300 for education expenses towards the Lifetime Learning credit. Under this proposal, they could claim $750--money that would go a long way towards offsetting the cost of higher education today. I am also proposing an information campaign so that students will know more about the financial aid available to them. Research shows that one of the most significant challenges to making ``lifelong learning'' a reality is to overcome the perception held by many non- traditional students, especially first-generation and adults with few work skills, that they are not ``student material.'' A direct mailing campaign combined with outreach to employers about the financial resources available to non-traditional students could significantly boost attendance and retention of non-traditional students. Secondly, The Non-Traditional Students Success Act addresses the daily challenges of balancing work, family and school by creating a pilot program to provide financial aid to students who are attending school less than half-time while maintaining a full-time work schedule. This provision will provide resources to schools that create class schedules that accommodate the realities of non-traditional students' lives--classes that are taught in short, compressed modules, on weekends, in the evenings, and over the Internet. This bill also creates a pilot program that will make Pell Grants available year round so students are not forced to discontinue their studies for the three-month summer period. These students want to complete their studies as soon as possible, and the three-month delay only impedes their progress. We are also putting forward ideas to put reliable childcare within the reach of students who have children. During my husband's administration we created CCAMPIS--a program to provide quality childcare on college campuses. This is an excellent program that deserves to be expanded. It has never received more than $25 million in funding, even though the need for reliable childcare on campuses is overwhelming. The Non-Traditional Student Support Act will expand the CCAMPIS program and provide a supplemental grant to low-income parents attending school. This legislation also increases funding to TRIO and Gear-Up. These programs have been successful in helping many non-traditional students achieve the goal of a college degree, and we must continue to support and expand these programs. We have also included language that requires these programs to give special attention to first-year students, as research shows completion of the first year is a key indicator of retention through graduation. I am very pleased with this legislation; it shows that we are moving in the right direction, tweaking our higher education policies to better serve our changing student population. I look forward to working with my colleagues to incorporate these provisions into the reauthorization of the higher education act.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I speak in celebration of El Dia de los Ninos, a traditional Latin American holiday celebrating the future of children. This holiday honors Latino children and other children throughout the United States. In my home State of New York a number of important celebrations are taking place in honor of this important day. Today, there are nearly 45 million children under 18 living in the United States and one in four of these children are of Hispanic descent. Of the 3.5 million children under 18 living in New York, nearly 1 million are Latino. While El Dia de los Ninos recognizes the importance of all children, the holiday also provides an occasion to shed light on the unique challenges currently facing Latino children in America. Every day nationwide, 751 Latino children are born into poverty and 561 Latino high school students drop out of school. In New York, 35.9 percent of Latino children live in poverty and nearly 20 percent of Hispanic youth drop out of high school each year. We must do better for our children, especially our Latino children. The President's budget fails to provide adequate investments in education that could significantly improve the future of our most vulnerable children. President Bush's fiscal year 2005 budget eliminates the dropout prevention program and even calls them unnecessary despite the fact that over 27 percent of Latinos across the country currently don't graduate from high school. His budget freezes funding for bilingual education and migrant education programs; cuts funding for Head Start, after school programs, and college loan programs; and eliminates Even Start. This budget is devastating to programs designed to help Latinos gain an even footing in education. That is why I joined my colleagues in the Senate in sending a letter to the Appropriations Committee urging the committee to target funding to meet the needs of our Hispanic children. To strengthen our Nation, we must take steps to ensure that all children growing up in America have access to a quality education. Throughout the remainder of the 108th Congress, I will continue to champion legislative efforts to aid all young Americans and the Latino community so that we can help these children pursue their hopes and dreams. Today, as we celebrate El Dia de los Ninos I encourage all Americans to stop for a moment and pay tribute to the future of our great country--our Nation's youth.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will address a growing trend in higher education--the changing face of today's college student. Over the last decade, there has been a steady increase in the number of non-traditional students entering or returning to college. Nationwide, non-traditional students on college campuses are slowly becoming the norm--the percentage of non-traditional students on college campuses has increased to 47 percent in 2001 from 34 percent in 1991. Non-traditional students come in many different forms. Some waited to go to college until their mid to late twenties or later--or were put in the position of having to go back to college late in life because they lost their job. Others are attending college part-time while they work full-time and/or are financially independent. Others have children, and may or may not have the support of a spouse. And still others never obtained a high school diploma. As you can imagine, these students face unique challenges that make it more difficult for them to graduate than their traditional peers. These challenges include affording their education, balancing work, school, and family responsibilities, and sometimes overcoming inadequate preparation. Unfortunately, many of our current higher education policies make it harder, not easier, for non-traditional students to complete their degrees. That is why today I am pleased to be introducing, along with my colleague from the state of Florida, Senator Graham, The Non- Traditional Students Success Act. This legislation is a comprehensive solution to the barriers non- traditional students face as they try to earn a college degree. It is timely, and our system is long overdue for improvement. When I travel throughout New York, I hear about the challenges faced by many of our citizens, particularly those who have found themselves unemployed after years of working in companies like Kodak, Xerox, Corning, and IBM. Many of these citizens are in need of retraining-- some are returning to school, while others are attending college for the first time. The goal of this legislation is to increase graduation rates for non- traditional students by addressing the range of barriers they face-- financial, academic, and social. First, I will begin with the financial; this legislation includes several provisions to make it more affordable for non-traditional students to complete their postsecondary education. It increases the maximum Pell Grant to $11,600 by 2010. Pell Grants work and there is no reason why we should not continue to invest in this worthwhile solution. This bill also increases the income protection allowance so that working students can keep more of their income. Our bill sets the level at $18,000 per year as opposed to only $5,000 per year--which is current law for single independent students. It increases the amount of education expenses that students can claim under the Lifetime Learning credit from 20 percent to 50 percent. Under current law, students receive a credit of only $300 for education expenses towards the Lifetime Learning credit. Under this proposal, they could claim $750--money that would go a long way towards offsetting the cost of higher education today. I am also proposing an information campaign so that students will know more about the financial aid available to them. Research shows that one of the most significant challenges to making ``lifelong learning'' a reality is to overcome the perception held by many non- traditional students, especially first-generation and adults with few work skills, that they are not ``student material.'' A direct mailing campaign combined with outreach to employers about the financial resources available to non-traditional students could significantly boost attendance and retention of non-traditional students. Secondly, The Non-Traditional Students Success Act addresses the daily challenges of balancing work, family and school by creating a pilot program to provide financial aid to students who are attending school less than half-time while maintaining a full-time work schedule. This provision will provide resources to schools that create class schedules that accommodate the realities of non-traditional students' lives--classes that are taught in short, compressed modules, on weekends, in the evenings, and over the Internet. This bill also creates a pilot program that will make Pell Grants available year round so students are not forced to discontinue their studies for the three-month summer period. These students want to complete their studies as soon as possible, and the three-month delay only impedes their progress. We are also putting forward ideas to put reliable childcare within the reach of students who have children. During my husband's administration we created CCAMPIS--a program to provide quality childcare on college campuses. This is an excellent program that deserves to be expanded. It has never received more than $25 million in funding, even though the need for reliable childcare on campuses is overwhelming. The Non-Traditional Student Support Act will expand the CCAMPIS program and provide a supplemental grant to low-income parents attending school. This legislation also increases funding to TRIO and Gear-Up. These programs have been successful in helping many non-traditional students achieve the goal of a college degree, and we must continue to support and expand these programs. We have also included language that requires these programs to give special attention to first-year students, as research shows completion of the first year is a key indicator of retention through graduation. I am very pleased with this legislation; it shows that we are moving in the right direction, tweaking our higher education policies to better serve our changing student population. I look forward to working with my colleagues to incorporate these provisions into the reauthorization of the higher education act.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, today I am pleased to be submitting a resolution that urges Congress to expand the supports and services available to grandparents and other relatives who are raising children when their biological parents can no longer take care of them. I am pleased to have worked with my friend and colleague, Senator Olympia Snowe, in crafting this important bill. Today, in Albany, NY, there is a ``GrandRally'' going on to celebrate and honor the almost 300,000 children who live in grandparent-headed households--a total of 6.3 percent of all children in New York State. Another 112,000 children live in households headed by other relatives. I am so pleased that this resolution coincides with the GrandRally because they compliment each other nicely. Nationwide, four and a half million children are living in grandparent-headed households and an additional 1.5 million children are living in households headed by other relatives. This represents a 30 percent increase between 1990 and 2000. Kinship care families came to be because there are many tragic instances when parents are unable to raise their own children. Serious illness, death, substance abuse, incarceration, domestic violence, and unemployment are just some of the reasons that have forced grandparents and other relatives to step forward, often at great personal sacrifice, to provide safe and loving homes for the children in their care. This has allowed thousands of children to live with extended family rather than strangers. We know that children are better off living in an environment with people that they know, who are familiar, and who are able to provide them with extended family as additional support. When foster children are placed with family members rather than strangers, they gain a critical sense of belonging and a family history. Unfortunately, these grandparents and other relatives raising children often face a number of unnecessary barriers, including difficulties enrolling children in school, authorizing medical treatment, and accessing a variety of government benefits and services. Almost one-fifth of grandparents who are serving as the parents for their grandchildren are living in poverty. The time, effort, and unselfish commitment of these family members is worthy of recognition. This resolution encourages institutions and government entities at every level to promote public policies that support these caregivers by expanding existing services such as respite care, housing, and subsidized guardianship for grandparents and other relatives who are raising children inside and outside of the foster care system. I want to thank all of my colleagues who are cosponsors of this resolution. Senator Snowe and I are being joined by a diverse, bipartisan group of Senators whose commitment to this issue demonstrates the broad range of support for kinship care families.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Caribbean National Forest Act of 2004, along with Senator Schumer. The Caribbean National Forest Act designates approximately 10,000 acres of the Caribbean National Forest (CNF) as the El Toro Wilderness. The El Toro Wilderness would be the only tropical forest wilderness in the U.S. National Forest system. The CNF has long been recognized as a special area, worthy of protection. The Spanish Crown proclaimed much of the current CNF as a forest reserve in 1824. One hundred years ago, President Theodore Roosevelt reasserted the protection of the CNF by designating the area as a forest reserve. Located 25 miles east of San Juan, the CNF is a biologically diverse area. Although it is the smallest forest in the national forest system, the CNF ranks number one in the number of species of native trees with 240. In addition, the CNF has 50 varieties of orchids and over 150 species of ferns. The area is also rich in wildlife with over 100 species of vertebrates, including the endangered Puerto Rican parrot. The only native parrot in Puerto Rico, they numbered nearly one million at the time that Columbus set sail for the New World. Today there are fewer than 35 of these parrots. The Forest Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Puerto Rico's Department of Natural Resources and the Environment have initiated a recovery program for the Puerto Rican Parrot. Wilderness designation will ensure that the forest home to the parrot will remain protected and the ongoing recovery efforts, consistent with the Wilderness Act, will continue. The CNF also provides valuable water to the people of Puerto Rico. The CNF receives over 10 feet of rain each year. As a result, the major watersheds in the CNF are able to provide water to over 800,000 residents. In addition, the CNF provides a variety of recreational opportunities to over 700,000 Puerto Ricans and tourists each year. Families, friends and school groups come to the forest to hike, bird watch, picnic, swim and enjoy the scenic vistas. Wilderness designation of the El Toro will protect approximately one third of the forest. A companion House bill, H.R. 1723, has been introduced by Puerto Rico's Resident Commissioner, Abibel Acevedo Vila. During a House hearing on this measure last summer, the U.S. Forest Service stated its support for the designation of the El Toro Wilderness Area. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Graham in introducing the ``Restore Elector Confidence in Our Representative Democracy Act of 2004'' (``RECORD'' Act) because there is no civic action more important in a democracy than voting. Yet right now, many Americans have concerns about the integrity of the electoral system. We must restore trust in our voting, and we must do it now. Electronic voting systems, specifically touch-screen voting machines, are being increasingly used across the nation. Indeed, according to Election Data Services, it is estimated that this November, at least 50 million voters this year will vote on touch-screen voting machines. These machines have benefits but there are major concerns with the security of these machines and the current ability of voters to verify their votes through a paper record. This legislation effectively addresses both of these vitally important issues. In New York, electronic voting is on the horizon. Some machines will be used next year in the New York City mayoral race. As New Yorkers start to use this new technology, I want them to be absolutely certain their right to elect the leaders of their choice won't be at risk for want of a simple fix like this. When you use an ATM, you get a paper receipt. Right now, when you cast an electronic vote, you get nothing. You have no way of knowing that the selections you've made on the touch screen will be recorded and counted. This legislation will ensure that voters will be able to verify a paper ballot that accurately reflects their intentions and that will be locked away and will be the official ballot in a recount. This legislation will also address the security issues surrounding electronic voting systems. Why is this so critical? Because we know from computer experts that these systems are vulnerable to hacking--and that with just a push of a button, hackers could turn Kerry votes to Bush votes. Think about that. Indeed, a number of recent studies, including the July 2001 study by Caltech/MIT, the July 2003 study by Johns Hopkins and Rice universities, the September 2003 study by Science Applications International, and the two November 2003 studies conducted by Compuware corporation and InfoSENTRY, pointed to significant and disturbing security risks in electronic voting systems and related administrative procedures and processes. According to the Johns Hopkins study, these voting machines are incapable of detecting their own mistakes. Specifically, as one of the authors noted, there is no way to validate the outcome of an election using the current crop of machines. Errors can't be detected and, in my opinion, that is a threat to all of us. There were also problems with these machines in the recent presidential primaries. Counties in California, Georgia, and Maryland reported problems with encoders, the devices that allow touch-screen voting machines to display the candidate and ballot measures specific to one county. We already know of stories from Florida in which there was a special election for one office, and the computer election system recorded 120 people as there but not voting. These security concerns have only been inflamed by statements from people like Walden O'Dell--the CEO of Diebold, a major electronic voting machine manufacturer--who said he would do anything to ensure that President Bush would be re-elected. So we have a system that is vulnerable to attack, that provides no real accountability to ensure accuracy and, to add to our concerns, an e-voting manufacturer demonstrating his tremendous partisanship. This should give us all pause. This legislation will require the use of voter verifiable paper ballots so that each and every voter will be able to confirm that his or her vote was accurately cast and recorded. The verified paper ballot will be deemed the official record for purposes of a recount and at least 2 percent of all ballots in all jurisdictions in each State and 2 percent of the ballots of military and overseas voters will be counted at random. One hundred and fifty million will also be appropriated to the Election Assistance Commission in order to help States implement the paper ballot system. To ensure greater security of electronic voting systems, the Act authorizes the use of only open source software. Manufacturers will also have to satisfy a number of security standards concerning the development, maintenance, and transfer of software used in electronic voting systems. This legislation also provides $10 million to the Election Assistance Commission to help it administer the implementation of verification systems and improved security measures nationally, and $2 million to the National Institute of Standards and Technology for consultation services to State and local governments regarding voter verification and the security of their electronic voting machines. The Commission must receive this additional administrative funding because unfortunately, even though the Help America Vote Act of 2002 authorized $10 million annually to help the Commission do its work, Congress in the fiscal year 2004 omnibus appropriations legislation appropriated less than $2 million to the Commission, making it that much more difficult for the Commission to do its work. Lastly, the Act requires the Election Assistance Commission to report to Congress within 3 months of enactment on operational and management systems that should be used in Federal elections and within 6 months of enactment on a proposed security review and certification process for all voting systems. Our Nation is the greatest nation on earth and it is the leading democracy in the world. In fact, the Bush Administration takes pride in promoting democracy around the world--and they should. But we also have to do everything in our power to ensure democracy here. Central to our democracy is the ability of Americans to have confidence in the voting system used to register and record their votes. This is a fundamental standard that must be met. We are currently, however, falling short of that standard. And let me say one more thing. The election this November is going to be one of the most important of my lifetime. And every pundit in America says it will be close, because we are still so divided. If we have huge problems again, if we have another debacle like Palm Beach voting for Buchanan, people will fundamentally lose confidence in our democracy and in their vote. We cannot let that happen. This legislation is good insurance against that risk. For all of those who believe that in a democracy, there is no more important task than assuring the sanctity of votes, this should be an easy step to take to assure it. I ask all of my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Graham in introducing the ``Restore Elector Confidence in Our Representative Democracy Act of 2004'' (``RECORD'' Act) because there is no civic action more important in a democracy than voting. Yet right now, many Americans have concerns about the integrity of the electoral system. We must restore trust in our voting, and we must do it now. Electronic voting systems, specifically touch-screen voting machines, are being increasingly used across the nation. Indeed, according to Election Data Services, it is estimated that this November, at least 50 million voters this year will vote on touch-screen voting machines. These machines have benefits but there are major concerns with the security of these machines and the current ability of voters to verify their votes through a paper record. This legislation effectively addresses both of these vitally important issues. In New York, electronic voting is on the horizon. Some machines will be used next year in the New York City mayoral race. As New Yorkers start to use this new technology, I want them to be absolutely certain their right to elect the leaders of their choice won't be at risk for want of a simple fix like this. When you use an ATM, you get a paper receipt. Right now, when you cast an electronic vote, you get nothing. You have no way of knowing that the selections you've made on the touch screen will be recorded and counted. This legislation will ensure that voters will be able to verify a paper ballot that accurately reflects their intentions and that will be locked away and will be the official ballot in a recount. This legislation will also address the security issues surrounding electronic voting systems. Why is this so critical? Because we know from computer experts that these systems are vulnerable to hacking--and that with just a push of a button, hackers could turn Kerry votes to Bush votes. Think about that. Indeed, a number of recent studies, including the July 2001 study by Caltech/MIT, the July 2003 study by Johns Hopkins and Rice universities, the September 2003 study by Science Applications International, and the two November 2003 studies conducted by Compuware corporation and InfoSENTRY, pointed to significant and disturbing security risks in electronic voting systems and related administrative procedures and processes. According to the Johns Hopkins study, these voting machines are incapable of detecting their own mistakes. Specifically, as one of the authors noted, there is no way to validate the outcome of an election using the current crop of machines. Errors can't be detected and, in my opinion, that is a threat to all of us. There were also problems with these machines in the recent presidential primaries. Counties in California, Georgia, and Maryland reported problems with encoders, the devices that allow touch-screen voting machines to display the candidate and ballot measures specific to one county. We already know of stories from Florida in which there was a special election for one office, and the computer election system recorded 120 people as there but not voting. These security concerns have only been inflamed by statements from people like Walden O'Dell--the CEO of Diebold, a major electronic voting machine manufacturer--who said he would do anything to ensure that President Bush would be re-elected. So we have a system that is vulnerable to attack, that provides no real accountability to ensure accuracy and, to add to our concerns, an e-voting manufacturer demonstrating his tremendous partisanship. This should give us all pause. This legislation will require the use of voter verifiable paper ballots so that each and every voter will be able to confirm that his or her vote was accurately cast and recorded. The verified paper ballot will be deemed the official record for purposes of a recount and at least 2 percent of all ballots in all jurisdictions in each State and 2 percent of the ballots of military and overseas voters will be counted at random. One hundred and fifty million will also be appropriated to the Election Assistance Commission in order to help States implement the paper ballot system. To ensure greater security of electronic voting systems, the Act authorizes the use of only open source software. Manufacturers will also have to satisfy a number of security standards concerning the development, maintenance, and transfer of software used in electronic voting systems. This legislation also provides $10 million to the Election Assistance Commission to help it administer the implementation of verification systems and improved security measures nationally, and $2 million to the National Institute of Standards and Technology for consultation services to State and local governments regarding voter verification and the security of their electronic voting machines. The Commission must receive this additional administrative funding because unfortunately, even though the Help America Vote Act of 2002 authorized $10 million annually to help the Commission do its work, Congress in the fiscal year 2004 omnibus appropriations legislation appropriated less than $2 million to the Commission, making it that much more difficult for the Commission to do its work. Lastly, the Act requires the Election Assistance Commission to report to Congress within 3 months of enactment on operational and management systems that should be used in Federal elections and within 6 months of enactment on a proposed security review and certification process for all voting systems. Our Nation is the greatest nation on earth and it is the leading democracy in the world. In fact, the Bush Administration takes pride in promoting democracy around the world--and they should. But we also have to do everything in our power to ensure democracy here. Central to our democracy is the ability of Americans to have confidence in the voting system used to register and record their votes. This is a fundamental standard that must be met. We are currently, however, falling short of that standard. And let me say one more thing. The election this November is going to be one of the most important of my lifetime. And every pundit in America says it will be close, because we are still so divided. If we have huge problems again, if we have another debacle like Palm Beach voting for Buchanan, people will fundamentally lose confidence in our democracy and in their vote. We cannot let that happen. This legislation is good insurance against that risk. For all of those who believe that in a democracy, there is no more important task than assuring the sanctity of votes, this should be an easy step to take to assure it. I ask all of my colleagues to support this legislation.