Hillary Clinton

Mrs. CLINTON

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

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I offer this amendment on my own behalf, along with Senators Boxer, Murray, and Leahy. First, I commend the leadership as well as the President for bringing this important issue of global HIV/AIDS to the floor this evening, although the hour is obviously very late. While I am pleased with many aspects of this bill, and the commitment it represents, I do believe the bill is flawed in a very important and fundamental respect; and that is, with regard to the treatment of and concern for girls and women. As many of us know who have traveled in Africa, the Caribbean, and other places where the HIV/AIDS pandemic has ravaged so many people, young girls, girls barely in their teens, adolescents, young women, are all too often the victims of this disease because of the way they are treated. I believe in abstinence. I went to Uganda in 1997. I was impressed, as many of my colleagues have been, by what I saw with respect to the program that Uganda undertook and certainly the results. But I am concerned that abstinence is not a prevention tool realistically available to many girls and women throughout Africa. So many of the prevention tools are controlled by men, and by customs and by traditions, in communities where the expectation may very well be for a young girl to be married at a very young age. In Africa, the seroprevalence for women ages 15 to 17 is five times the rate it is for boys of the same age. Now, why does that happen? Certainly the leaders in Africa who are now undertaking their own campaigns against HIV/AIDS are well aware of the uphill climb they face. Two years ago, Mozambique's Prime Minister, after a comprehensive study, found that there was an explanation for the higher rates among young women, and it was--and I quote him-- Not because the girls are promiscuous, but because nearly three out of five are married by age 18, [and] 40 percent of them [are married] to much older, sexually experienced men, who may expose their wives to HIV/AIDS. Abstinence is not an option for these child brides. Those who try to negotiate condom use commonly face violence or rejection. That is why I have offered this amendment to specifically address not just women's health but also women's empowerment, because empowering women and girls is the clearest way to give them the tools to be able to not only say no but to actually implement that belief. It is also imperative to reduce economic and other dependence, to combat gender discrimination and stigma, to recognize that the effective prevention strategies for women, who now represent the majority of people worldwide suffering from HIV/AIDS, must be addressed immediately, urgently, and with resources. Research shows that the most effective policies are those that include an understanding of the relevance and impact of the roles that culture and society assign men, women, boys, and girls. But the bill that we are considering overlooks and neglects this important aspect of the problem. Our amendment would correct that neglect by providing assistance for programs that increase women's access to female-controlled prevention technologies, including microbiocides when they become available; and by providing assistance for programs that improve the health education, and skills-building efforts for women and girls, increasing women's ability to protect themselves from unwanted sex, safeguarding themselves when they are sexually active, and reducing the stigma faced by women affected by HIV and AIDS. One of the reasons the prevalence of HIV/AIDS among younger and younger girls is occurring in Africa is for two interrelated causes: One, because many of these young girls are available, they are healthy; and, secondly, because there is this myth that very young girls will not transmit HIV. And because we do not have widespread testing, many of the men do not even know that they are infected. Thirdly, we have to recognize that gender inequality is a part of this epidemic. Women who lack access to education, or any kind of skills training, who are exposed to gender-based violence in their home or their larger community, who are sexually coerced or otherwise vulnerable, make up many of the victims that, unfortunately, suffer from HIV/AIDS. We also should be boosting women's access to pre- and postnatal care, and increasing resources for female-headed households caring for orphans and victims of AIDS, as my colleague from California, Senator Boxer, so eloquently argued. In addition, we should increase focus on other women's health threats, including cervical cancer, which can be caused by high-risk strains of human papilloma virus. I hope we can assure we pay particular attention to young people. Much of the language that is included in this amendment has already passed the Senate unanimously last year in S. 2525. It is not controversial, at least in this body. I understand the fast track we are on, and the fact that the majority does not wish to have any amendments, but I hope that when we revisit this, as we must, in the appropriations process--when we take the bill and rid it of the contradictions and the conflicts that it inherently has in its language--that this amendment will be accepted. It will help to guarantee that we address these very particular problems that affect women. When we are talking about women's health and looking at all of the problems women have, it is important that we not focus just on HIV/AIDS as though that is some separate, abstract problem that can be removed from cervical cancer and sexually transmitted diseases and other problems that women suffer from so grievously, not only in Africa but in many countries around the world. I ask the positive, affirmative support of those who remain in the Chamber on a voice vote for this amendment that specifically stands up for the girls and women of Africa in this important cause we are now undertaking.

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 652, which is at the desk.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, on February 18, New York lost one of its finest citizens. Thomas Shepardson was a Syracuse funeral director who helped change the way our Nation responds to incidents of mass fatality. The Disaster Mortuary Operational Rescue Team, D-MORT, plan was created because Mr. Shepardson was disturbed by news reports of the exploitation of victims' families after a Texas air disaster in 1986. He convened a group of local morticians, first responders, and medical professionals to create a strategy that would be humane and team- oriented. Fortunately, the plan would never be used locally, but State officials would enlist Shepardson to devise a similar plan for the State of New York. He subsequently worked with FEMA and other government agencies to incorporate the D-MORT model into our national disaster medical system. Tom Shepardson responded to the major disasters of the last decade including the Oklahoma City bombing. On September 11, 2001, he oversaw the national D-MORT response in New York, Pennsylvania and the Pentagon. Tom Shepardson was described by Gary Moore, deputy director of the Federal Office of Emergency Response, as ``a man who spent his whole life working to help everyone . . . He was a one-man show who brought so much energy and commitment to this that it now involves about 5,000 people nationwide and made him known all around the world.'' I am grateful for Tom Shepardson's legacy of personal sacrifice and leadership.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I ask that the following letter be printed in the Record. The letter follows. Letter From an Endangered Species, by David A. Harris, Executive Director, American Jewish Committee, January 10, 2003 Let me put my cards on the table right up front. I consider myself a potentially endangered species. I am-- gasp!--a committed transatlanticist. Until just a short time ago that was a rather unexceptional thing to be; most people I knew on both sides of the Atlantic were, to varying degrees, in the same club. Now, in some places, it could get my picture on a ``Wanted'' poster. Seemingly overnight, significant swaths of European public opinion--most strikingly in Germany, but in other countries as well--appear to have concluded that the Bush administration is hell-bent on imposing its ``imperialist'' vision on the world, that the American ``infatuation'' with the use of force as a solution to global challenges is downright hazardous, and that America pays little more than lip service to its European allies, with the possible exception of Britain, while single-mindedly pursuing a unilateralist agenda. According to this line of thinking--often promoted by opinion molders, including, in the recent German elections, a few leading politicians--America is run by a group of modern- day ``cowboys,'' with precious little sophistication in the ways of the world, determined to use their unchallenged superpower status to get their way on everything, be it Iraq, global warming, the International Criminal Court, or genetically modified foods, and let the rest of the world be damned if they don't like it. In response, Europe must draw appropriate conclusions and rise up essentially as a counterweight to otherwise unchecked American global domination. This disparaging and distrustful view extends beyond politics. A new American Jewish Committee survey in Germany found that only 36 percent of the respondents rated America's cultural achievement as ``very substantial or substantial,'' while 48 percent thought it either ``hardly substantial'' or ``insubstantial,'' and 16 percent had no opinion. And a recent grisly case involving the Internet, cannibalism, and homicide in Germany produced a telling comment from the influential Munich newspaper Suddeutsche Zeitung, as reported in the International Herald Tribune (December 19): ``It is all so unreal. So haunting that one thinks such a case would only happen in the movies, perhaps in America, but not in Germany. . . .'' Yes, America, of course, is capable of such bestial violence, but Germany never, we are led to believe. Meanwhile, new generations of Europeans, increasingly fed this diet of overtly or subtly anti-American thinking, too often lose sight of the larger picture. They cannot relate easily to the backdrop of history. That America came to Europe's rescue in two world wars of Europe's making, that America became history's most benign occupier in postwar Germany, that the U.S.-funded Marshall Plan was a key to Western Europe's astonishing reconstruction efforts, that American-led resolve and strength prevailed in the Cold War and contributed to the unification not only of Germany but of all Europe, and that America prodded a largely paralyzed Europe into decisive action against ethnic cleansing (on European soil) in the Balkans, may at best have an abstract hold on younger people's thinking, but little more. Like their American counterparts, younger Europeans are largely focused on the here and now. They may relate to American music, fashion, idiom, or, heaven forbid, fast food, but have an increasingly jaundiced view of America's larger place in global affairs. At the same time, on too many levels, America largely ignores Europe, even as some voices emphasize the oceanic divide. Perhaps the most talked-about recent essay on the subject was Robert Kagan's ``Power and Weakness,'' which appeared in the June & July 2002 issue of Policy Review. It is a provocative piece well worth reading. Here's a brief excerpt: ``It is time to stop pretending that Europeans and Americans share a common view of the world, or even that they occupy the same world. On the all-important question of power--the efficacy of power, the morality of power, the desirability of power--American and European perspectives are diverging. Europe is turning away from power, or to put it a little differently, it is moving beyond power into a self- contained world of laws and rules and transnational negotiation and cooperation. It is entering a post-historical paradise of peace and relative prosperity, the realization of Kant's `Perpetual Peace.' ``The United States, meanwhile, remains mired in history, exercising power in the anarchic Hobbesian world where international laws and rules are unreliable and where true security and the defense and promotion of a liberal order still depend on the possession and use of military might. ``That is why on major strategic and international questions today, Americans are from Mars and Europeans are from Venus.'' And noting the wide gap in perceptions of America between Eastern and Western Europe, columnist Charles Krauthammer suggested jokingly--I think--in the Weekly Standard (August 26) that had America let Western Europe fall under the sway of the Kremlin for a few decades, perhaps, like the nations of Eastern Europe today, it would be far more appreciative of America's world role. In essence, the caricatured image of America in Europe has its counterpart here. Europeans are seen as sanctimonious, self-adulatory, and wobbly at the knees. Rather than display a willingness to confront evil--that is, if they can even recognize it these days--they all too frequently seek to engage it through rationalization, negotiation, and, if necessary, appeasement via one Faustian bargain or another, all in the name, however it may be packaged, of realpolitik. Look, the critics point out, at the European Union's so- called ``critical dialogue'' with Iran, which has been much longer on dialogue than on criticism. Or the French flirtation with Iraq, going back to the 1970s when Jacques Chirac, as prime minister, negotiated the Osirak nuclear deal with Baghdad. Apropos, according to the Wall Street Journal, the last foreign country Saddam Hussein visited was France, in 1979. Or the quiet deals several European countries, most notably France and Italy, sought to make with Palestinian terrorist groups to avoid being targeted by them. Or the EU's unwillingness, even post-9/11, to agree on classifying Hizballah as a terrorist organization on the ostensible grounds that the group is also a ``legitimate'' political party in Lebanon, but actually motivated by a desire to avoid offending Syria and its satellite, Lebanon. Or the state visits accorded to the Syrian president in London last month, complete with an audience with Queen Elizabeth, no less, or previously in Paris, Madrid, and other European capitals, while Syria illegally occupies neighboring Lebanon and cossets terrorist groups bent on Israel's total destruction. Or the EU's stance on Israel-related UN resolutions, almost always opting to work out ``acceptable'' final language with the Arab bloc rather than joining the United States in opposing outright those objectionable texts that inevitably end up condemning Israel, regardless of the facts on the ground. Some Americans believe that, left to their own devices, many Europeans would, in Churchill's memorable words, be ``resolved to be irresolute'' when faced with the likes of Saddam Hussein, the mullahs of Tehran, or, for the matter, Slobodan Milosevic. And, ironically, the Europeans can get away with it because they know that, at the end of the day, there is an America that has both the will and capacity to lead the fight when no other option is available. Observing these issues being played out from both sides of the Atlantic, I wouldn't for a moment underestimate the current chasm. It is real, if not always as wide as it may seem at first glance. Still, we can't ever afford to lose sight of what unites us. Call me hopelessly, irredeemably naive, but I remain convinced that Americans and Europeans are umbillically bound by common foundational values and common existential threats, and thus, ipso facto, a common agenda. Those common values emanate from the very essence of our respective societies: democracy, the rule of law, and respect for the dignity of the individual. Even a brief glance at international socio-economic indices reveals the striking fact that the democratic nations, as a group, rank highest in personal freedoms, per capita income, life expectancy, levels of educational attainment, and overall standards of living, and lowest in infant mortality and corruption rates. No less importantly, the democratic nations have renounced war as an instrument of resolving policy disputes among themselves. The ties that link this precious fraternity of kindred nations must never be permitted to fray, for they represent the best--indeed, I would argue that only--hope for the ultimate realization of a peaceful and prosperous world. And the threats are transnational. Just as democratic nations were at risk during World War II and again during the Cold War, today those democratic nations are in the crosshairs of the radical Islamic terrorist network. True, some European countries initially convinced themselves that this threat was about America and not them. But as Islamic terrorist cells have been uncovered in Britain, Spain, Italy, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, and elsewhere in Europe, there is a growing realization that we are all in this together. The targets are not just specific countries, but the overarching values of freedom, secularism, religious tolerance, pluralism, women's rights, and openness that are enshrined in every democratic society. The threat from terrorist groups and their supporters operating in just about every Western country is heightened by the prospect of increasingly available weapons of mass destruction. Even at the risk of stating the obvious, the United States and Europe need each other, as much now as ever, in the face of this worldwide, long-term menace. We must maintain full cooperation in the gathering and sharing of intelligence and a hundred other fields if we are to emerge on tops in this daunting conflict. We have to do a better job of coordinating policy, not only on terrorist groups, but also on those nations that help and harbor these groups. Can we afford to let such nations continue to play us off one against the other, as they so often have in the past? And if I could be permitted to dream for just a moment, imagine our collaborating on developing alternative energy sources that would eventually wean us all off Middle East oil and gas--and, perhaps way down the road, fossil fuels in general--and do something good for Planet Earth in the process. In the final analysis, this struggle against the radicals also entails strengthening the moderates in the Islamic world, and, here again, the United States and Europe, working together, increase the odds of success. Put another way, we must win two epic battles, not one. We must win the war, and we must win the peace. Winning one without the other will eventually prove a Pyrrhic victory. The United States cannot go it alone on both fronts and hope to prevail. Nor can Europe. Both of us have a profound stake in finding constructive ways to encourage the forces of democratization, civil society, and greater openness in countries that by and large have been remarkably resistant to the political and economic revolutions of recent times. Otherwise, further regression will take place, with still greater division between their world and ours, and all the attendant implications for conflict, terrorism, and the spread of fundamentalism. Take, as an example, the case of Pakistan. Imagine for a moment the catastrophic global consequences if it descended into civil war or fell into the hands of the Islamists. Here's a turbulent country of 150 million, twice the size of California, with 40 percent of its population under the age of 15. Not only does Pakistan have weapons of mass destruction, but the world was on edge recently when India and Pakistan engaged in nuclear brinkmanship. Moreover, there are nearly one million youngsters studying full-time in Muslim religious schools, where the Koran and jihad, and not civics and biology, are the principal educational fare, and Osama bin Laden could win his share of popularity contests. What's the future for these young people, and how will their future impact on us? The unraveling of Pakistan would hit the jackpot on the political Richter scale and send massive shock waves through its neighbors--Afghanistan, a country that has just been brought back from the edge but remains far from secure, China, India, and Iran. It would also have staggering geopolitical, strategic, and economic implications for both Europe and the United States. Once again, therefore, we have a common agenda. So, too, with Turkey. Mustafa Kemal Ataturk was one of the most influential statesmen of the twentieth century. He established the modern Turkish Republic on the rubble of the collapsed Ottoman Empire, courageously separated religion from state, and recognized that the nation's future belonged squarely with Europe. Eighty years later, Turkey is closer to that goal than ever before, but the outcome is by no means certain. Whether to admit Turkey to the European Union is a European, not an American, decision. While the United States has a profound interest in seeing this happen, it must exert its influence without overplaying its hand and infuriating the Europeans, as it managed to do last month in the run-up to the Copenhagen summit of EU leaders. Close cooperation between the United States and Europe can encourage Turkey to take the additional steps necessary to persuade Brussels that Ankara is a truly viable candidate for EU membership, and thereby outflank its European opponents. (Valery Giscard d'Estaing, the former French president, expressed this opposition most bluntly when, in November, he declared in the French daily Le Monde that Turkey ``is not a European country'' and inviting it into the EU would mean ``the end of Europe.'') The challenges of integrating Turkey into the EU should not be minimized. At the time of accession, a decade or more from now, it would almost certainly be the single most populous-- and, by far, poorest--EU member country. Further, it would extend the EU's boundaries to the turbulent Middle East. Turkey shares borders with, among others, Syria, Iran, and Iraq. And, in the process, Europe would inherit an unknown percentage of the Turkish population that is Muslim fundamentalist, adding to Europe's already considerable challenges in this regard. Even so, the successful integration of Turkey into the European Union could create a powerful and perhaps contagious role model for other Muslim countries, beginning with those Central Asian nations in the Turkish sphere of interest, such as Azerbaijan and Uzbekistan, and extending far beyond. The United States and Europe should have a similar interest in extending the reach of genuine democracy, especially in the Arab world, much of which is located practically at Europe's doorstep. Here, too, there's room for collaboration driven by the common overall objective of stabilizing the region and increasing prospects for peace and regional cooperation. The United States, by dint of its size, influence, and global reach, has a great deal to offer. So does the European Union. Let me digress for a moment. I am a long-time admirer of the European Union. The more I understand the inventive genius of Jean Monnet, the Frenchman called upon by Robert Schuman, the postwar French foreign minister, to conceptualize a structure that would prevent future wars with Germany, the more in awe I am and the more I appreciate the need for similarly bold thinking today. (And it should be pointed out that such a structure, envisioned to fully integrate a rebuilding Germany, was a far cry from 1944 Morgenthau Plan, named after President Roosevelt's secretary of the treasury, which would have converted a defeated Germany into a primarily pastoral country.) Indeed, following Monnet's recommendations, the six-nation European Coal and Steel Community was formally established in 1952, once the member countries--Belgium, France, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and West Germany--ratified the Treaty of Paris. Along the way, on May 9, 1950, Schuman publicly declared: ``It is no longer a time for vain words, but for a bold, constructive act. France has acted, and the consequences of her action may be immense. We hope they will. She has acted essentially in the cause of peace. For peace to have a chance, there must first be a Europe. Nearly 5 years to the day after the unconditional surrender of Germany, France is now taking the first decisive step toward the construction of Europe and is associating Germany in this venture. It is something which must completely change things in Europe and permit other joint actions which were hitherto impossible. Out of all this will come forth Europe, a solid and united Europe. A Europe in which the standard of living will rise. . . .'' The European Union's evolution over the past 50 years has been nothing short of breathtaking. It is a remarkable case study in the emergence of a democratic and ever-more prosperous grouping based on the vision of political giants, with the core objective of preventing future wars. A European Union of 15 nations, soon to be 25, with Bulgaria and Romania poised to join a few years hence, has much to teach other regions, most notably the Arab world, about institution-building and integration. This sounds, I realize, like the stuff of distant, perhaps impossible, dreams. Many reasons can be offered why the European experience cannot take root in the Arab world. There are, needless to say, countless political, cultural, historic, and economic differences between Europe and the Arab bloc. Still, I refuse to abandon hope because there is no more promising alternative, certainly not over the long term, and I am unwilling to accept the proposition that the Arab people have no choice for the future but to live under corrupt, autocratic, stifling filial dynasties. Here, too, the United States and Europe, working in concert, can help lead the way and reap the benefits of their efforts. And while it may seem far-fetched today, it is entirely conceivable that the United States and Europe could one day be talking about Israel's entry into the European Union, and perhaps even NATO, as part of a comprehensive solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict. In short--and I've only skimmed the surface--leaders on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean need to stress constantly our common values, common threats, and common goals. To be sure, there are, and inevitably will always be, differences between Europe and the United States rooted in political rivalry, economic competition, divergent interests, and the like. In the larger scheme of things, however, these differences however, ought to be quite manageable and, in any case, must never be permitted to overshadow the commonalities. The American Jewish Committee has long been in the business of building bridges between Europe and the United States, precisely because it understands what is at stake. At turbulent moments such as this, the work becomes only more important. For us, it means recognizing that Europe, given its size and significance, cannot easily be ignored or dismissed even when we don't like what we see; rather, it must be engaged with skill, sophistication, and sensitivity, with ever more points of contact established. Moreover, it means never losing sight of the larger picture of Europe and America as the likeliest of strategic allies, even we raise tough issues with our European interlocutors, as we at AJC do regularly in Berlin, Paris, Madrid, Brussels, and other centers of power. Among these issues currently are: (a) the slow and stumbling reaction of too many Europeans to the indisputable rise in anti-Semitism during the past 2 years; (b) the unacceptable moral equivalence (or worse) with which a number of European governments view the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; (c) the political expediency all too evident in molding relations with dictatorial regimes in the Arab world (and Iran); (d) the rapidly declining impact of the Shoah on European attitudes toward Israel and the Jewish people; and (e) the growing anti-Americanism that too often goes unchecked. On a lighter but related note, I had a good laugh when I saw a cartoon in the New Yorker (October 28, 2002) which showed a hostess at a cocktail party introducing two men to each other. The caption read: ``Francophobe, meet Francophile.'' In my case, though, I sometimes feel that both individuals are living within me. No European country attracts me more culturally, or exasperates me more diplomatically, than France. At the same time, I fully understand that generalizations can be dangerous. Not all of Europe is anti-American, anti-Israel, or anti- Semitic, far from it. Britain, Denmark, Italy, and Spain are today very close to Washington; Germany, Britain, and the Netherlands are the EU countries most sympathetic to Israel; and there are some European nations that have experienced few, if any, anti-Semitic incidents in recent years. Even in France, described by proche-orient.info (the principal French-language source for balanced Middle East coverage) as the country that ``takes the lead in the European Union's anti-Israel policies,'' roughly 20 percent of the parliamentarians in the National Assembly belong to the France-Israel Caucus. That may not be a sufficient critical mass to sway a nation, but it's still a rather impressive number to work with. Moreover, though often overlooked, the situation in Central and Eastern Europe is actually quite encouraging. By and large, these countries are pro-American--Poland, Bulgaria, and Romania being three outstanding examples; they have close links with Israel, and, for a variety of reasons, have reached out to world Jewry in the past decade in a way that offers real hope for the future. To sum it up, it would be well to revisit the eloquent words expressed by President Bush at the NATO summit in Prague 6 weeks ago. The American head of state said: ``The trans-Atlantic ties of Europe and America have met every test of history, and we intend to again. U-boats could not divide us. The threats and standoffs of the Cold War did not make us weary. The commitment of my nation to Europe is found in the carefully tended graves of young Americans who died for this continent's freedom. That commitment is shown by the thousands in uniforms still serving here, from the Balkans to Bavaria, still willing to make the ultimate sacrifice for this continent's future. ``For a hundred years, place names of Europe have often stood for conflict and tragedy and loss. Single words evoke sad and bitter experience--Verdun, Munich, Stalingrad, Dresden, Nuremberg, and Yalta. We have no power to rewrite history. We do have the power to write a different story for our time. . . . ``In Prague, young democracies will gain new security, a grand alliance will gather strength and find new purpose, and America and Europe will renew the historic friendship that still keeps the peace of the world.'' These stirring words--and their policy implications-- deserve a long life span, as well as permanent top-priority status, on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean. The question, of course, is whether they will get it. Given the global challenges piling up one on top of another, from Iraq to North Korea, it's safe to say that we should have a pretty good idea quite soon.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I hope we will have an even larger bipartisan coalition supporting this legislation, working with us, perhaps even convincing the Government agencies responsible for letting these contracts to think very hard about the process they are now following. Again, I thank my colleague from Oregon and my colleague from Maine for providing such leadership. It is a pleasure to work with them. But it is also a duty. I think all of us feel a heavy responsibility to make sure the billions and billions of dollars--maybe as much as $100 billion that will be spent on reconstructing Iraq--is spent in the most effective way. Because, while we are looking at the extraordinary costs of this kind of task awaiting us in Iraq, we are also in this body hearing from our constituents, as many of us did over the previous 2 weeks, about what is happening to their schools, what is happening to their hospitals. So we have to be especially conscious that this money can be justified; that we can look our constituents in the eyes when they say, I don't understand, Senator. I thought we were going to get more help for our poor schools. Senator, I don't understand. Our hospital has just closed down because we can't get enough reimbursements from the Federal Government. This is not only about all of the good government principles. It is not even only about the integrity and credibility of our government. It is about the choices that are being made. These choices are not only important with respect to contracting, but they are important with respect to our values. I hope our colleagues will join us in moving this piece of important legislation through so that we can begin to practice what many of us preach about transparency and openness and also making sure we get the very best deal. Our dollars are limited. If there is any excess on justified dollars going to Iraq that could go to my kids and schools in New York City, or to Ron's hospital in Oregon, that is our responsibility. Let me again thank my colleagues. I look forward to being successful with this bipartisan coalition and getting this legislation passed at the earliest possible time.

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, that is an eloquent summation as to why I have joined with my colleagues in introducing the Sunshine In Iraqi Reconstruction Contracting Bill. Tonight President Bush will address our Nation and will tell the world that Operation Iraqi Freedom's military action is over, at least insofar as major military engagements may be required. We know we will have continuing problems, like those we have seen in the last few days. But it is true we are now moving toward the second phase, which is the rebuilding of Iraq. So this colloquy we are having today is especially timely because of the President's announcement this evening. With respect to our going forward, I think the important points the Senator from Oregon has made need to be underscored because, for many of us, we want to see the plans that have been explained in the last several weeks about the rebuilding effort move forward as expeditiously and cost-effectively as possible. We know, as we just heard from the distinguished Senator, that a number of contracts have already been let. They have been no-bid or closed-bid contracts. As one follows the information about these contracts in the press, it has become clearer and clearer this has been in the planning for quite some time and it has been largely the province of a rather small group of insiders. I think it is imperative, not only for the integrity of our procurement process, for the integrity of the congressional appropriation and oversight process, but for the integrity of the entire operation that has been undertaken in Iraq, to be transparent and open before the world. If I may ask the Senator from Oregon another question, is it correct the legislation we have introduced would require when contracts are awarded without a full and open competition, behind closed doors, that the awarding agency--whether it is the Department of Defense or USAID-- would have to publicly explain why they could not have had an open process?

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, will my distinguished colleague yield for a question?

Mrs. CLINTON. You know, our bill also requires as part of that transparency, letting the sunshine come in, that the agencies would make public the amount of the contract, the scope of the contract, would provide information about how contractors were identified, as well as the justification and determination of the documents that led to the decision not to use full and open competition. I find that very reassuring. I do not understand why this would not be legislation we could literally pass by unanimous consent this afternoon. I don't think it is in our Government's interest nor is it in America's interest that there be any doubt at all, any shadow cast over this process so people in our own country or elsewhere can say there is something funny going on, this is not being done straight. Would the Senator agree, in addition to fulfilling what we know to be the appropriate procurement procedures, the fact that no-bid or closed- bid contracts time and time again lead to overruns, to excessive costs, that we are also, through this legislation, trying to send a warning, in a sense holding out a helping hand to the Government, to say let's do this in the open so nobody can ever go back and question motive or process with respect to what we are attempting to do with the reconstruction of Iraq?

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, it is a great privilege to be working in this bipartisan coalition with the chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee, Senator Collins, and with a long-time champion of taxpayers and consumers like Senator Wyden. Is it the understanding of the Senator from Oregon that the buck really stops with Congress? It is the Congress's responsibility to ensure the funds we appropriate for reconstruction in Iraq are spent in a fair and open manner?

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I support the Schumer-Clinton-Mikulski amendment because I believe it more accurately reflects the needs that have been conveyed. Even in the materials that the Senator from Pennsylvania has entered into the Record, the kind of requests we are hearing from mayors and county executives and police chiefs and fire chiefs far exceed what is available. It has been now 18 months where we have failed to arrive at an understanding of what our local communities and our States require in order to fulfill their obligations on the front lines of this second front. Once again, I believe we have an opportunity to do what is needed, but we are not taking it. The Schumer amendment provides the kind of thoughtful analysis and disbursement of funds that will most guarantee that the money, No. 1, gets out of the Federal Government within 30 days--something not in the Specter amendment--and that once it gets to the States, it has to be distributed within 60 days. And we appreciate that. But one of the problems we have had is getting the money out of the Federal Government to the States, and we also have to assure that the money gets where it is most needed--to our first responders. I urge our colleagues to support the Schumer amendment as being far more reflective of the overall needs our country confronts when it comes to homeland security. Across the country, there are common sounds that should trigger an alarm in all of us: the sound of a firehouse door closing for the final time; a police officer turning in his or her badge as it slides across the desk; or an ambulance door locking. In the cities and the towns in the States we represent our first responders are losing their jobs. States and cities are trying to deal with budget deficits--some the worst in a generation, and they simple do not have the money to keep paying for additional homeland security costs. We need to work together--Republicans and Democrats--to provide them with the resources they need to strengthen our domestic defense. Yes, we have made progress since September 11, but we have not done enough. That same message echoes from report after report, from our experts, from independent commissions, from our police commissioners, fire chiefs, mayors, doctors and nurses--we have not done enough to prevent and respond to another terrorist attack. I cannot find a single credible security expert who has said, ``We're fine. We've done enough.'' ``There's no need to guard our chemical plants and nuclear plants. It's okay if we only check 2 percent of the containers that come through our ports. Don't worry about hiring border guards they don't need the extra support. We don't need to give our police officers, firefighters, and emergency response personnel the equipment they need. We're fine, and `All's Quiet on the Homefront.' '' You know last week, the President was asked about how long the war in Iraq would take and he responded correctly, ``How ever long it takes.'' That's the same attitude we need to use for homeland security-- ``whatever it takes'' to protect the American people. This isn't a new public work project or an example of frivolous spending; this is about securing our country on the frontlines here at home. And for 18 months our cities and States and counties have been shouldering this burden alone. Homeland security is a national priority and these costs and these responsibilities should be shared by the Nation. So what are we doing? What we are doing 18 months after that tragic day in September when nearly 3,000 Americans lost their lives still debating homeland security? Still debating whether or not we should not take the steps we need to take in order to prevent another day like that from ever happening again. Still talking about whether or not we should provide our first responders with the support they need. Homeland security is a concern we all share. We should not allow politics to prevail over our Nation's protection. We should not let it get in the way of strengthening our border and port security, improving security at our chemical and nuclear plants, and providing critical support for our police officers, firefighters, emergency personnel, and public health officials. Why would some in this Chamber willingly say ``no'' to critical steps that would improve our domestic defense? Why would our colleagues who care just as much about their constituent's safety as I care about the people of New York say, ``no, this isn't the right vehicle for these investments. No, this isn't the right time for homeland security because this supplemental bill is for spending that's an emergency-it's for the war.'' This is the right vehicle. This is the right time. This is an emergency. This is funding that does go toward winning the war against terrorism here at home. And this would be the right moment for Washington to send a clear message to the millions of first responders across this Nation who have sacrificed in order to keep us safe--we support you too. This amendment that I am proposing with Senator Schumer and Senator Mikulski would provide $4.3 billion for critical first responder funding. It includes $3 billion for grants to States and local governments; another $1.045 billion for high-threat areas like New York City; $155 million for the FIRE Act, and $130 million for the COPS Program. Yes, the President's proposal last week was a good start, but it is not nearly enough for what we need to do here at home in order to fight this two-front war. This amendment would provide $3 billion to Office of Domestic Preparedness at DHS for grants to States and Local Governments: $2.5 billion of this funding would go toward equipment, training, exercises, planning, and first responder personnel costs. The Federal Government must pass the money to States within 30 days. States must pass on at least 80 percent of this money to local communities within 30 days of the date they receive it. And States and local governments may use up to 20 percent of this $2.5 billion for first responder personnel costs, including overtime. For the last 18 months, our majors, fire chiefs, police commissioners, and public health officials have been telling me that they need more help from Washington to better protect the American people. This amendment provides that help. It guarantees that the Federal resources will get out of Washington and to the state houses and to our local first responders quickly so that they can continue to do what they do best-keep America safe. In January I gave a speech at John Jay in New York City to talk about how our country needed to renew its commitment to strengthen our domestic defense. I also released a report that showed how 70 percent of New York cities and counties had not received any federal homeland security funding. I continue to work with the U.S. Conference of Mayors, national police organizations, firefighters, and emergency medical technicians from across the country to find the best way to support our first responders. And I spoke with Secretary Ridge the other day to talk about improving this formula to meet our country's needs, and he agrees. Within the $3 billion for State grants, $500 million is set-aside for States and local communities to secure critical infrastructure security--bridges, nuclear and chemical plants, water treatment facilities, communication centers to name a few. All of this money may be used for first responder personnel costs, including overtime. The States must provide 80 percent of this funding to local communities, with states allowed to use 20 percent. And again, the federal government must send this money to the States within 30 days, and the States must pass through 80 percent of the funds to local communities within 30 days. These ideas follow my block grant proposal of 2001 and I am very pleased that the leadership has adopted my other proposal to put aside more than $1 billion for high threat areas. And I want to thank my colleague Senator Byrd for understanding that New York's needs are different because it is the top target for terrorists. The $1.045 billion for high-threat areas would be disbursed based on whether or not there is a credible threat, over-all vulnerability, critical infrastructure that is important to the Nation, population, and the needs of public safety organizations. This isn't just good for New York City and DC; it's good for all of our Nation's most vulnerable targets. This applies to Arizona and the recent threat against the nuclear power plant. This amendment would help cover extra security costs. Recent news reports suggested that al- Qaida was targeting the Arizona Memorial at Pearl Harbor. This would help Hawaii cover costs and take precautions. It would assist Las Vegas Nevada where the population doubles Friday through Sunday. This would benefit Florida and help them cover costs to secure Disney World. These are high-threat areas. They are different and they need extra assistance. Let's look at recent ``code orange'' costs. According to the U.S. Conference of Mayors, they estimate that cities are spending an extra $70 million a week. In six months, when this supplemental runs out, that's $2 billion in costs. $2 billion they don't have, but costs they will incur because they are honoring their commitment to protect this country. During the ``code orange,'' New York and New York City are spending a total of $12 million a week. In the supplemental, the President set aside only $50 million to cover such costs for every high-risk area. New York will have exhausted those resources by the end of next week. That's why we need this extra $1 billion for high-threat areas. And we cannot forget that it's not just in our cities where extra security steps are being taken. Who would have thought that a terrorist cell was working in Lackawanna, NY? This could have been a small town in Missouri, Texas, or Pennsylvania. I know that some of my colleagues believe that their State isn't a target--they may think that because their state is small, it's safe. I bet the chief of police in Lackawanna, NY, would beg to differ about the likelihood of terrorists turning up in small towns. He would say we cannot forget that the terrorists continue to plot and plan against us, and we can't predict exactly where they will turn up. Yesterday, the FBI issued a new warning to their field agents to look out for people making chemicals like Ricin. Yesterday, the Wall Street Journal reported that the Bush administration was getting ready to launch a plan to increase chemical plant security. The Department of Homeland Security's spokesman said, ``We realize that voluntary efforts alone will not be sufficient to assure the appropriate level of security across the chemical sector.'' And in the last few weeks, we heard Secretary of State Powell, FBI Director Mueller, Secretary Ridge and CIA Director Tenet all state that another attack by al-Qaida is not a matter of ``if'' but ``when.'' We can all hope for the best, but I think it's best to plan and prepare for the worst. Why would any of us want to take a risk that ``when'' that day comes, it would be in someone else's back yard--a tragedy in another state across the Continental Divide and not my problem. When any city or State or American interest abroad has been attacked like we were. America was attacked and Washington and the country united to deal with that aftermath. Again, we have to do that today to pass this amendment and improve our domestic defense. I believe that Retired Colonel Randy Larsen, from the ANSER Institute said it best when he testified about the Hart-Rudman report on November 14, 2002. He said, ``All of us want what is best for America. But we do not have much time. We must get it right--or close to right--very soon. I cannot repeat often enough: America is at war. We need to act like it while there is still time to prepare.'' But they way to prepare, the way to fund homeland security isn't by taking money from existing traditional first responder programs. That's why this amendment also includes $155 million for the FIRE Act, and $130 million for the COPS Program. We need to fully fund every traditional first responder program. Since 1994, COPS has helped nearly 12,950 jurisdictions through 27 different grant programs. As of September 2002, COPS had provided funding for 116,573 community policing professionals across the country. It has played a critical role in reducing crime. It has worked well in the past, and it will continue to work well in the future to help our communities fight crime. And it should not be used to fund homeland security. The same applies to the FIRE Act. The $155 million here ensures full funding--$900 million--for the FIRE Act for FY 2003. This program assists fire departments in protecting communities and fire fighters' health and safety. Local communities may use the funding for training, equipment and additional staffing. Currently, 2/3 of this Nation's fire departments do not meet the standards for adequate staffing. Congress would never allow our Army to engage in a war with 2/3 of its divisions understaffed. But this is exactly what we are asking our fire fighters to do. To date this grant program has received requests totaling more than $2 billion. The program's funding levels only allow it to award grants that a small percentage of that need. In the event of a terrorist act, fire fighters are the troops on the front lines. And they deserve our full support. So when we think about all of the good that comes out of this amendment and the others that strengthen our domestic defense, why wouldn't every leader support these steps? There are some who may try to defeat domestic defense funding by saying that the only dollars that should be included in the emergency supplemental are those that go toward winning this war. I agree, we should only be talking about funding to fight the war, but I believe we need to fight the war on all fronts that it is being waged. Every support that our troops in Iraq need to win will have the full support of Congress. We cannot forget about our men and women who continue to fight al-Qaida in Afghanistan--they too deserve every resource they need. And so do our domestic troops, our police, firefighters, and EMT's, on the frontlines here at home. The President's proposal last week was a good start, but it is not nearly enough. The Congress and the administration have the opportunity to do so much good for our first responders and strengthen the domestic defense of our Nation. It would be a shame if we did not take advantage of this moment, use this as the moment Washington turned the page and said the time has come, whatever it takes, we will give it our all to secure our country. But instead of using this as a chance to do more for our country, we're hearing phrases like ``beat them straight up.'' ``We will fight it out.'' ``Defeat them.'' Those aren't words meant for Saddam Hussein or al-Qaida. Those are fighting words against those of us who are trying to get more homeland security funding, new masks for firefighters, extra patrols along our borders and at nuclear power plants, guards at tunnels and bridges, new high tech equipment to track radioactive material, and more help for the Coast Guard. We seem to have gotten stuck in a dialogue that eliminates our ability to look at a great American tradition that is at stake in this debate. Some of our country's greatest successes reside in our ability to do whatever it takes to do what is right for the greater good of our country. Imagine if George Washington had decided at the battle of Brooklyn that it was too much of a challenge for the army to retreat to Manhattan that night? That decisive act saved the majority of our army, made victory inevitable, and this debate possible. What about Lewis and Clark? What if they turned back just after they had embarked on their journey? Or imagine if Jefferson believed that it would take too long and that it was too much for two men to search for that path to the Pacific? But his belief in them, the task at hand, and that expansion and exploration was critical to a young nation. What about Josuah Chamberline, a professor from Bowdoin College in Maine and what he did for our country at the battle of Gettysburg. He and his regiment stood their ground at Little Round Top. Against overwhelming odds and the future of the Union resting on his shoulders, Chamberline charged. His regiment followed, they prevented the south from taking that hill, and our Union was preserved. Or when President Lincoln gave the final speech about Reconstruction in April 1865, he did not buckle at the great challenge of uniting a divided and partially destroyed country. Or today, what if we as a Congress decided to only partially support our troops in Iraq? What kind of victory would follow if we balked at the challenge? So then why would we not do the same for our domestic defense? Why wouldn't we support our first responders? Again, our country's success rises and falls in our ability to confront great challenges. On September 11th, we were tested once again. The new challenges that came out of that tragic day are what we are debating today. These are the stakes. The Senate has a choice to meet the new demands against the war on terrorism at home, to finally give it our all to protect this country, and to carry on this tradition of never giving up and doing what it takes to do what is right. Or we can bow our heads, look the other way and pray that tragedy does not strike again on our shores and hope that if the alarms do ring in our fire stations and police stations, our brave men and women in uniform here at home are ready to answer the call to 9-1-1. I urge my colleagues to make the right choice and support this amendment.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, today, I am introducing the Votes for Women's History Trail Act today in honor of Women's History Month. I recognize that this is a very difficult time in the history of our country. Our brave soldiers are putting their lives on the line in a war halfway around the world. At times like this it is important to remember our pioneers, the people who fought for equality and liberty for all Americans. Their courage should serve as an inspiration at troubling times like these. The Votes for Women's History Trail Act would create a moving memorial to the women's suffrage movement in upstate New York, home to many of the most notable figures and events in the fight for women's suffrage. The Women's Rights movement began in 1848 when the first Women's Rights Convention occurred in Seneca Falls, NY. Although this convention was planned on very short notice, more than 300 people descended on Seneca Falls to challenge the subordination of women to men and call for equal rights. After the Seneca Falls convention, the women's movement, lead in large part by Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony, continued their efforts to break down barriers for women. At times, they suffered major setbacks. Susan B. Anthony was arrested when she tried to vote by claiming that the 14th amendment entitled her to as a ``citizen.'' In 1875, the United States Supreme Court upheld the decision, forcing the women's movement to pursue a different strategy. They were undeterred and launched statewide campaigns for voting rights for women. Their efforts eventually paved the way for the passage of the 19th amendment in 1920--72 years after the first Women's Rights Convention. These pioneers believed that women ought to be full and equal partners in the social, cultural, religious, economic, educational, and political life. To a large degree, their vision has been realized. But the journey is not complete. Women still earn only $.73 for every dollar earned by men. They are still underrepresented in the highest levels of virtually every occupation and field, including the United States Congress. The Votes for Women's History Trail Act would create a fitting tribute to this critical period in our history and to the people whose strength and clarity of vision led us through the journey. For young children and older Americans alike, it would serve as an important reminder of how very far we have come. The National Park Service has already conducted a feasibility study about this trail. Their study concluded that the Votes for Women's History Trail is of historical value, national significance, and possesses significant potential for public use and enjoyment. The study examined over 300 properties and narrowed the list to the 20 of the most significant and easily accessible to the public. I am proud to introduce this bill on behalf of Senators Schumer, Feinstein, Landrieu, Cantwell, and Murray, and Stabenow. I look forward to working with them and so many of my other colleagues to make the Votes for Women's History Trail a reality.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, today, I am introducing the Votes for Women's History Trail Act today in honor of Women's History Month. I recognize that this is a very difficult time in the history of our country. Our brave soldiers are putting their lives on the line in a war halfway around the world. At times like this it is important to remember our pioneers, the people who fought for equality and liberty for all Americans. Their courage should serve as an inspiration at troubling times like these. The Votes for Women's History Trail Act would create a moving memorial to the women's suffrage movement in upstate New York, home to many of the most notable figures and events in the fight for women's suffrage. The Women's Rights movement began in 1848 when the first Women's Rights Convention occurred in Seneca Falls, NY. Although this convention was planned on very short notice, more than 300 people descended on Seneca Falls to challenge the subordination of women to men and call for equal rights. After the Seneca Falls convention, the women's movement, lead in large part by Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony, continued their efforts to break down barriers for women. At times, they suffered major setbacks. Susan B. Anthony was arrested when she tried to vote by claiming that the 14th amendment entitled her to as a ``citizen.'' In 1875, the United States Supreme Court upheld the decision, forcing the women's movement to pursue a different strategy. They were undeterred and launched statewide campaigns for voting rights for women. Their efforts eventually paved the way for the passage of the 19th amendment in 1920--72 years after the first Women's Rights Convention. These pioneers believed that women ought to be full and equal partners in the social, cultural, religious, economic, educational, and political life. To a large degree, their vision has been realized. But the journey is not complete. Women still earn only $.73 for every dollar earned by men. They are still underrepresented in the highest levels of virtually every occupation and field, including the United States Congress. The Votes for Women's History Trail Act would create a fitting tribute to this critical period in our history and to the people whose strength and clarity of vision led us through the journey. For young children and older Americans alike, it would serve as an important reminder of how very far we have come. The National Park Service has already conducted a feasibility study about this trail. Their study concluded that the Votes for Women's History Trail is of historical value, national significance, and possesses significant potential for public use and enjoyment. The study examined over 300 properties and narrowed the list to the 20 of the most significant and easily accessible to the public. I am proud to introduce this bill on behalf of Senators Schumer, Feinstein, Landrieu, Cantwell, and Murray, and Stabenow. I look forward to working with them and so many of my other colleagues to make the Votes for Women's History Trail a reality.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I join my colleague in expressing our sense of loss at the passing of a man whom we knew, we admired, we respected, we enjoyed. Yesterday, we lost more than ``The Gentleman from New York.'' We lost one of the great minds of America's 20th century. He devoted more than 50 years of his life to public service in order to build a better world. For Senator Moynihan, his service to his country and to the State he loved was more than his career. It was his calling. For 24 years, New Yorkers had the benefit of his intellect and his dedication on the floor of this Senate. Whenever he headed to the Senate floor to speak, he kept the people of New York close to his heart. And he came armed with three signature items: his horn-rim glasses, a bow tie, and a great idea. No one believed more in the power of restoration than Senator Moynihan: Restoration of our cities as economic and cultural centers; restoration of our historic buildings as public places of pride; restoration of the family, when given the proper tools to mend decades of despair; restoration of our Government to better serve its people. It was Senator Moynihan who helped restore our sense of hope with his ability to look at an abandoned building, a neglected neighborhood, or an empty school, and see not only what it could become but how to make it so. He could ``see around corners,'' to quote his Irish heritage. I always loved that phrase when applied to Pat Moynihan because it so aptly described his unique ability to foresee how we might address a difficult problem. Time after time, he could see our Nation's next pressing challenge--and its solution-- even when it was decades away from our own national conscience. His soul was anchored in the New Deal, but it was his ability to enhance the social contract to meet the challenges of the 20th and 21st century that transformed the lives of millions of New Yorkers and Americans. Whether it was Social Security, Medicare, education, health care, the environment, fighting poverty, or historic preservation, every issue illustrated what Senator Moynihan did best: He used the power of an idea as an engine for change. He was an architect of hope. It was Senator Moynihan who was able to articulate that poverty in an urban setting was just as isolating and devastating as in a rural setting. This helped launch the war on poverty and the idea that we now know as the earned income tax credit. It was Senator Moynihan who realized that States such as New York and others across the Northeast contributed more in taxes than we received back from the Federal Government. This prompted what he called the FISC Report, and his fight, which I carry on, to get New York its fair share. It was Senator Moynihan who looked at our historic places--from Pennsylvania Avenue right here in Washington, DC, to Penn Station in New York City--and saw how saving these great monuments to the past held meaning and purpose for our future. It was Senator Moynihan, as chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, who helped write the 1993 Budget Act, pass the Economic Act, and the Deficit Reduction Act, that set the foundation for the prosperity of the 1990s, lifted 7 million Americans out of poverty, and sent a clear message that the Federal Government did its best work when it did it responsibly, living within a budget. Unlike what we have just seen here on the floor over the last several days, Senator Moynihan understood that a Government which lived within its means made real choices, not false choices, and then putting it on a credit card for our children to have to pay. It was Senator Moynihan who, in addition to all of these domestic accomplishments, forged a new era of foreign policy for America with his work as Ambassador to India, and with his eloquence on behalf of the United States, speaking up during a contentious time as Ambassador to the United Nations. On a personal note, it was Senator Moynihan who welcomed me to his farm in Pindars Corners on a picture-perfect July day in 1999 and offered his support and encouragement, sending me on my way with a gesture of profound kindness that I will never forget. A few months ago, Senator Moynihan came to see me in my office. It is the office he was in for so many years. He sat with me, and we talked about the issues confronting this Senate. I asked his advice. I told him I wanted to have a chance to talk with him further about so many of the challenges that are facing us. Unfortunately, that was not to be. His illness prevented him from coming back to the Senate and from helping other Senators one last time. Today, we are all thinking of him and his family. We extend our condolences, and our gratitude for the life he lived, the example he set, and the countless contributions he made. Senator Moynihan once said, in a very Irish way: Well, knowledge is sorrow really. He was right. The knowledge that he no longer walks among us brings sorrow to every New Yorker and American. He grew up in Hell's Kitchen, but he brought a bit of heaven to the Senate. We are grateful for his being amongst us; his looking around those corners, seeing further than any of us could on our own. Our thoughts and prayers go out to his wonderful wife Liz, his children, his grandchildren. We wish them strength, and we want them to know that Pat Moynihan was a blessing, a blessing to the Senate, a blessing to New York, and a blessing to America. I thank the Chair.

Mrs. CLINTON

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

Mrs. CLINTON. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. CLINTON

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

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Madam President, I come to the floor on very sad business, both for this body, for my State, and my country. We have just received word that Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan has passed away. For those of us who were privileged to know him, to work with him, to admire and respect him, this is a loss beyond my capacity to express. Senator Moynihan for decades represented the highest ideals and values of the United States of America. A son of Hell's Kitchen in New York City, he rose to be a confidante and adviser to Presidents. He is responsible for many of the most important ideas and legislative programs that have improved the lives of people in New York, people here in Washington, DC, and our country and around the world. I am very honored to hold the seat that Senator Moynihan held for so long and so well. Along with his wonderful wife Liz Moynihan, they have been great counselors and advisers to me personally. I will miss him greatly. Sometimes when I sit here on the floor of the Senate, I wish that Senator Moynihan could be here in spirit as well as body, that his wise counsel could influence our decisionmaking, that he would remind us that what we do, what we say, what we vote for is not just for today, it is for all time. It goes down into the history books. It represents the judgments that we make. It truly displays the values that we claim to hold. He understood that being a U.S. Senator was a precious trust. Anyone who ever heard him speak knows the experience of learning more than you ever thought possible in a short period of time. He could explain and expound on such a range of subjects that it took my breath away. I remember riding with him through western New York on a bus during the 1992 campaign and hearing the most exquisite disposition about the history of the Indian nations, the Revolutionary War, the geological formations. The love he had for New York and America was overwhelming and so obvious to anyone who spent more than a minute in his company. He also held high standards about what we should expect from this great country of ours. He wanted us to keep looking beyond the short term, looking beyond the horizon, thinking about the next generation, understanding the big problems that confront us, having the courage to tackle what is not immediately popular, even not immediately understandable, because that is what we are charged to do in this deliberative body. Senator Moynihan's scholarly undertakings also will stand the test of time. He sometimes was ahead of his time. In each of his writings or his speeches, whether you agreed with him or not, you were forced to think and think hard. He certainly opened my eyes to a lot of difficult issues. I could not have had a stronger, more helpful adviser during my campaign than Senator Moynihan. I started my listening tour of my exploration of whether or not to run for this office at Pinders Corner, his farm in upstate New York, a place that he loved beyond words. I met him in a little schoolhouse, a 19th century schoolhouse that was on the property where he wrote. He would walk down the road from his house to that little schoolhouse every day where he would think deeply and write about the issues that he knew would be important, not just for tomorrow's headline but for years and years to come. There is not any way that anyone will ever fill his place in this Senate, not just in the order of succession definition but in the intellectual power, the passion, the love of this extraordinary body and our country. He will be so missed. On behalf of myself and my family and the people I represent, I extend my condolence and sympathy not only to his wonderful family and not only to New Yorkers who elected him time and time again, increasing majorities from one end of the State to the next, but to our country. We have lost a great American, an extraordinary Senator, an intellectual, and a man of passion and understanding about what really makes this country great. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Madam President, on rollcall vote No. 103, I voted no. It was my intention to vote aye. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to change my vote since it will not affect the outcome.

Mrs. CLINTON

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

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, this amendment, offered by myself and Senator Bingaman, will restore funding for vocational education to its 2003 appropriations level for the next 10 years. The chairman's mark cuts this program by 25 percent from its 2003 level. We often talk about education, and many times we act as if every single child in this country is going to go to college and graduate school, and we do not pay enough attention or give due regard to those people who do the technical work that keeps this country going from day to day. The President has proposed a new vocational educational program which will place many new demands on the technical training infrastructure. These lofty goals deserve an adequate investment. Slashing funding by one-quarter will undermine the chances of our high schools and community colleges being able to fulfill their obligations to these students. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to cast this vote in favor of technical vocational education and to support the infrastructure in our high schools and community colleges.

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 424, which is at the desk.

Mrs. CLINTON. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise to offer this amendment because it fully funds the Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement Act, the Byrne Grant Program, named for a New York City police officer, and the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant Act, by providing a respective $650 million and $400 million in funding in fiscal year 2004. In addition, this amendment raises the discretionary cap for fiscal year 2003 by $1 billion and fiscal year 2004 by $2.5 billion to provide direct homeland security first responder funding to localities and for high threat areas such as New York City through the Department of Homeland Security's Office of Domestic Preparedness. This amendment is paid for by the nonreconciliation part of the tax cut. In addition, we are still not adequately funding homeland security directly where it needs to go to the people on the front lines in our cities. Just because we now have new terrorist threats does not mean we can let our guard down when it comes to drug dealers, violent crimes, the kinds of things that we have successfully dealt with over the last decade. I ask my colleagues to cast this vote for our police officers, our firefighters, and our emergency responders.

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