Hillary Clinton

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, while I strongly believe that Congress should act to fix the problems in our bankruptcy system, I also believe that this bill is misguided and deeply flawed. This bankruptcy bill fundamentally fails to accord with the traditional purposes of bankruptcy, which recognize that we are all better off when hard-working people who have suffered financial catastrophe get a ``fresh start'' and a second chance to become productive and contributing members of society. With the passage of this legislation, which makes obtaining this fresh start more expensive and more difficult, we are ensuring that many responsible Americans will continue to be buried under mountains of debt, and unable to take back control and responsibility for their lives. Our Nation's bankruptcy law developed out of a recognition that the world can be a competitive, often unforgiving place. Bankruptcy reform should therefore be directed toward creating a civil society in which valuing individual responsibility is not incompatible with admitting the enduring truth that sometimes bad things happen to responsible, hardworking people. Sometimes, conscientious Americans need help and support against forces that are too big for them to stand against alone. It should be about making sure that both large corporations and individual citizens are held to the same standards of responsibility and accountability. This bill is flawed in a number of ways. But I want to begin by commenting on one of its most distressing elements. As many people know, I have long been concerned about the burdens placed on America's families by a lack of health care insurance and by rising healthcare costs. In this bill, the Senate had an opportunity to take one important step to help citizens driven to the point of bankruptcy by unavoidable medical problems. Instead, the Senate rejected this opportunity to lighten the load on Americans dealing with the twin blows of medical and financial difficulties. The Senate's failure to act is all the more striking to me today, because I must submit this statement into the Record while attending to a medical situation in my own family. Fortunately, my family is well- insured, and we are not in danger of losing that coverage. I am deeply aware and profoundly grateful for the good fortune we enjoy in having access to quality medical care in the face of significant medical needs. And I know that many American families are not so lucky. Indeed, among those Americans whose illnesses led to bankruptcy, 75.7 percent of them had insurance at the onset of the illness. Employees with serious long-term illnesses often lose their jobs, which means they also lose their health insurance. Medical bankruptcy has skyrocketed in recent decades. In 1981, only 8 percent of personal bankruptcy filings were due to a serious medical problem. By contrast, a recent study by researchers from Harvard Law School and Harvard Medical School found that half of personal bankruptcies filed in this country are now due to medical expenses. In this bill, the majority simply refuses to acknowledge this current crisis of medical bankruptcy. It refuses to acknowledge that sometimes medical disaster strikes. ``Life Happens.'' The family breadwinner is struck down by illness, and the entire family's financial future veers toward collapse. This is not a rare occurrence; we all know people who have endured hardships like medical emergencies that break the bank, layoffs, or vanishing pension plans. These are the people the bankruptcy laws are designed to protect. They are facing hardships because of forces outside of their control. I support real reform that would hold accountable people driven into bankruptcy because of their own irresponsibility. But the evidence shows that the vast majority of chapter 7 bankruptcy filers are not spendthrifts who have run up ther--it cards buying luxury goods. And this bill primarily targets the vast majority of chapter 7 bankruptcy filers who have lived responsibly but are nonetheless facing financial ruin because of the unavoidable vicissitudes of life. The world has changed since this bill was first considered in 2001. During the past 4 years, workers have sustained unprecedented job losses, endured termination of pension plans, and faced wage cuts and elimination of health care and other benefits as a result of their employer's bankruptcy. Many of these bankruptcies have been the direct result of wrongdoing by corporate mismanagement. The people who take the biggest hit when big companies go bankrupt aren't the top executives, but the ordinary employees whose pensions and healthcare coverage disappear overnight. In the last 4 years, the global economy has become relentless. Workers are living with more employment insecurity, and many have to retrain mid-career to adjust to the changing dynamics of the American economy. We are now a nation at war. And at a time when they are carrying the burden of sending loved ones off to war, military families have become the victims of payday loans charged at 400 percent interest, insurance scams, and other forms of financial chicanery that leave them economically devastated. Yet this bill does nothing to help these responsible Americans who suddenly find themselves in dire financial straits. In fact, it makes things harder for these individuals to find refuge in bankruptcy. Why is the majority committed to making things harder? Many of my colleagues on this side of the aisle have asked this question and have received no real answer. So the bottom line is that this bill's proponents, while touting the need for bankruptcy reform and accountability, are willing to address only part of the problem, dealing only with the most vulnerable in our society, and leaving the reform of corporate bankruptcies on the sidelines, requiring no additional accountability with respect to our Nation's companies. A number of my colleagues in the minority offered amendments in an effort to address many of these changed circumstances, but amendment after amendment was rejected. I simply cannot understand why the Republican majority gave instructions to its caucus to oppose any and all amendments, no matter how reasonable they were or the circumstances they were designed to address. I find even more disturbing the fact that the majority refused to more appropriately address the special needs of our troops in the context of this legislation. I am baffled by the majority's rejection of Senator Durbin's ``G.I. Protection Amendment,'' which I was proud to co-sponsor, and which was also supported by the Military Officers Association of America, the Air Force Sergeants Association, the National Association for the Uniformed Services, and the Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United States, among other organizations. I can't understand why the entire Senate didn't cosponsor this amendment to better protect our men and women in uniform and their families. It is troubling and incomprehensible to me that most of my colleagues would refuse to vote for it. And while refusing to support an amendment that would have helped military families in a meaningful way, the majority of the Senate had no problem rejecting an amendment that was designed to make it harder for millionaires to hide their assets from creditors, even after filing for bankruptcy. Even though there appears to be a near universal recognition that the bankruptcy law contains a major loophole, one that enables wealthier Americans who file for bankruptcy to shield their assets through what are called ``asset protection trusts,'' a majority of the Senate rejected a meaningful amendment to close that loophole. To make matters even worse, yesterday the Senate, again led by the Republican leadership, rejected an amendment offered by Senator Kennedy, which would have outlawed unlimited homestead exemptions. This would have prevented the wealthiest Americans from avoiding responsibility by hiding their assets from creditors. The Senate also rejected an amendment that was intended to reinsert language that had been in the legislation the Senate passed in 2001, which would have prevented the discharge in bankruptcy of all liability for willful violation of protective orders and violent protests of providers of lawful services, such as reproductive health services. Even though this language was in the 2001 Senate-passed bill, it is conspicuously absent from the bankruptcy bill that the Senate is now considering 4 years later. In other words, bill proponents, led by the Republican leadership, have called for additional significant financial accountability, but not if you are a corporate entity, not if you are wealthy, and not if you are an organization that a court has found to have violated the law and infringed upon the rights of others. Almost without exception, the majority has voted across the board against these and other amendments, apparently under strict orders from the Republican leadership to oppose any and all amendments, regardless of whether the amendments were designed to help our troops, to remove loopholes for millionaires, to help families facing medical and financial crisis. This is the antithesis of the American and family values that many of my colleagues so like to talk about. This legislation, especially after refusal, after refusal, after refusal to support amendments to improve it, is unfair and unjust. In short, the legislation that the Senate is voting on today, could have, with more careful and good-faith consideration, been a vehicle in which we could have thoughtfully addressed abuses in the bankruptcy process by both consumers and corporations. Unfortunately, the Senate leadership chose to go down a different road. Because of unforeseen and unavoidable circumstances, I will not be present when the Senate votes on final passage of this bill today. But were I able to be here, I would vote no, because this bill is clearly not in the best interests of the American people.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise in support of the Carl D. Perkins Vocation and Technical Education Improvement Act. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this legislation and am extremely pleased that this bill was written in a bipartisan fashion. I thank Senator Enzi, Senator Kennedy, and their staff members, Scott Fleming, Ilyse Schulman, and Jane Oates, for working so hard on this legislation. I sincerely hope that we continue in this spirit of bipartisanship in the HELP Committee. The bill before us today recognizes the important role of career and technical education for preparing today's workforce and rejects the Bush administration's proposal to eliminate the Perkins program, a proposal that would cost New York approximately $65 million a year. The bill before us today is evidence of a strong bipartisan commitment to maintaining and strengthening the program. It is an often overlooked fact that the Perkins program is the largest Federal investments in our Nation's high schools. Over 66 percent of all public high schools have at least one vocational and technical education program and 96 percent of high school students in this country will take at least one vocational or technical course while they are in high school. The Perkins program also plays a key role in postsecondary education. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, nearly 38 percent of all degree-seeking undergraduates are pursuing vocational careers. These programs play a key role in educating our workforce, and census data consistently shows that people with higher educational attainment have higher median incomes. Nearly 75 percent of employers say they have a very hard time when trying to hire qualified workers, according to a 2002 survey by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. In New York, the demand for business career and technical education programs in New York increased by 44 percent between the 2002 to 2003 school year and the 2003 to 2004 school year. In New York City, there was a 211 percent increase in enrollment in the approved business program and a 55 percent increase in the technology and communications programs. And the vast majority of these students are succeeding academically. Eighty-five percent of New York students that completed a career and technical education program passed all of the required regent's exams. The Perkins program is extremely important--not just for the numbers of students it serves but for the communities that benefit from a better prepared workforce as a result of these programs. This is why for the last 3 years I have spearheaded a letter to the Senate Appropriations Committee requesting additional funding for Perkins. I also offered an amendment to the budget resolution in 2003 to protect the Perkins programs from cuts because I was deeply concerned that President Bush's proposal to slash the Perkins program by 25 percent would be reflected in the Senate's budget. The Carl D. Perkins Vocation and Technical Education Improvement Act will go a long way towards strengthening vocational and technical education in New York and across the country. Among other things, it will provide for comprehensive professional development for career and technical education teachers, increase States' flexibility to meet their unique needs, and align secondary and postsecondary indicators with those established in other programs to ultimately reduce paperwork. I am particularly pleased that this bill also improves programs and services for women and girls pursuing nontraditional occupations. Last fall, at a HELP Committee hearing on vocational education, an inspiring woman from New York, Angela Olszewski, testified about how important it is that we support and encourage women and girls in their pursuit of non-traditional, traditionally ``male'' careers--in technology, math, science, and the construction and building trades. Unfortunately, women are still significantly underrepresented in these fields. For example, we know that while the number of women carpenters has tripled since 1972, they still only represent 1.7 percent of all carpenters. You can say the same about many other high-skill, high-wage trades. Many of these skilled trades industries are experiencing a significant labor shortage and experts expect these shortages to get worse over the next two decades as many workers retire. If women were to enter these professions, most of which are unionized and pay a livable paycheck and benefits, women would increase their earnings and standard of living for their families. For example, a journey-level electrician will make over $1,000,000 more than a typical cashier in a 30-year career. This bill requires States to measure students' participation and completion in career and technical programs in nontraditional fields and to disaggregate their data on performance by gender and race. In addition, programs will be required to prepare special populations for high skill, high wage occupations that will lead to self-sufficiency. These important provisions will go a long way toward helping more women follow in Angela's footsteps. Finally, I am pleased that the bill maintains Tech Prep as a separate program, rejecting the Bush administration proposal to eliminate it. Innovative Tech Prep programs in New York have made a real difference in the lives of students. For example, the Syracuse City Health Center Tech Prep program reduced the achievement gap between ethnic groups, white vs. non-white--to 2.8 percent. And at least 65 percent of students in the Syracuse City Health Careers Tech Prep program enroll in health-related professions, where New York has a critical shortage, after high school. In New York State, the average age of nurses is 47 and 80 percent of current nurses will reach retirement age within 10 years. For all of these reasons, I am thrilled that we are passing this legislation today.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise to encourage my colleagues to support two amendments that seek to provide some protections to families who face the devastation of medical bankruptcy. I thank Senator Kennedy for offering these amendments that I am proud to be a cosponsor of. The first would exempt from the means test debtors whose severe medical expenses have caused their financial hardship and forced them to file for bankruptcy, and the second would provide a homestead exemption to medically distressed debtors of $150,000 in equity in their primary residence. These amendments are critical and will help ensure that families do not have to declare bankruptcy and lose their homes just because they get sick. Medical bankruptcy has skyrocketed in recent decades. In 1981, only 8 percent of personal bankruptcy filings were due to a serious medical problem. In contrast, a recent study by researchers from Harvard Law School and Harvard Medical School found that half of personal bankruptcies filed in this country are now due to medical expenses. And what is most astonishing about this is that three-quarters of the medically-bankrupt had health insurance at the onset of their illness. This means that each year, 2 million families endure the double disaster of illness and bankruptcy. In my State of New York, more than 38,000 of the almost 77,000 personal bankruptcies in 2004 were caused by medical expenses, impacting more than 100,000 New Yorkers. On average, those bankrupted by medical expenses are middle-class Americans with children who owned their own homes, held jobs, and have completed some college education. Medical debtors are typical Americans who got sick. Their out-of-pocket costs, starting from the onset of illness, averaged almost $12,000, and in the year leading up to bankruptcy their out-of-pocket expenses averaged more than $3,500. These are families who desperately tried to avoid bankruptcy: more than 20 percent reported going without food; more than 30 percent had a utility shut off, more than 50 percent reported skipping needed doctor visits; and more than 40 percent failed to fill prescriptions in the 2 years leading up to their A bankruptcy filing. The Harvard study also found that those driven into bankruptcy by medical expenses differ in an important way from other filers: they were more likely to have experienced a lapse in health coverage leading up to their bankruptcy filing. In fact, a lapse in health coverage at some point in the 2 years before filing was a strong predictor of bankruptcy, with almost 40 percent of medical debtors experiencing a lapse in coverage, compared to 27 percent of other filers. For those bankrupt by medical costs, illness caused financial hardship not just because of medical expenses, but also because the illness forced them to work less or lose their employment entirely. In fact, 35 percent had to work less because of illness, and in many cases to care for someone else. And it is likely reduced work and even the loss of a job because of medical problems that resulted in a lapse in healthcare coverage. It's easy to see how the face of medical bankruptcy is the typical American worker. An unexpected illness or accident leaves you unable to work or unable to maintain your job full-time, which in turn leaves you with less income to pay your medical expenses. Over time your access to care is diminished because you can't afford the cost-sharing, are not seeking needed care to avoid expenses, or have lost coverage because of reduced work hours or job loss, and ultimately your health insurance coverage lapses. Now you have no assistance with medical expenses and little or no income to pay the bills. It's a vicious cycle. And all because you or a member of your family got sick. Unfortunately, rapidly rising health care costs will only exacerbate this problem going forward. The number of Americans spending more than a quarter of their income on medical costs climbed from 11.6 million in 2000 to 14.3 million in 2004. And the pressure on employers to reduce benefits and increase cost-sharing as a result of rising health costs is no less. The solution to this problem is not to punish hard working men and women who on a different day, with different luck, wouldn't be just a typical American who got sick. These Americans are already confronting difficulties because of circumstances beyond their control. Let's not make their situations even worse. We need to adopt these amendments and begin the hard work of addressing the causes of medical bankruptcy and the serious problems that face this nation's health care system. Again, I thank Senator Kennedy for his work on these amendments and urge their adoption. Amendment No. 67

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, today we commemorate International Women's Day. Discussions that will take place this week in celebration of International Women's Day allow women leaders, policy makers and experts from governments around the world to take stock of our progress and recommend concrete steps for future action. I commend U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan for using his platform at the United Nations to advocate on behalf of women's rights. More than most, the Secretary General knows firsthand that global progress depends on securing the rights of women worldwide. I am grateful to him for raising his voice on behalf of women and for the pivotal role the U.N. continues to play in advancing women's rights on every continent. About 2 weeks ago, I had the privilege of traveling to Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan with some of my colleagues on the Senate Armed Services Committee. I visited U.S. troops and had a chance to see the extraordinary work these dedicated men and women are doing under extremely trying circumstances. I also spent a few very valuable moments with Iraqi and Afghan women, just as I had done on a previous visit to Iraq and Afghanistan during Thanksgiving in 2003. What I saw, and what I heard from these women, was both inspiring and unnerving. In many ways the experiences of Iraqi women, and their counterparts in Afghanistan, underscore the opportunities unfolding for women all over the globe. But they also represent an enduring truth--that no matter how far we have come and how much hope is on the horizon, women must continue to work, struggle, and fight for every ounce of progress we make. Even then there are no guarantees. Ten years ago, women from 189 countries came together for the United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing. It was a gathering that lasted only a few days, but it changed the world. We were women of all colors, races, ethnicities, languages, and religious backgrounds. Yet we knew that, as women, we shared common aspirations and dreams, as well as concerns and worries about the futures of our families and our communities. In Beijing, after years, decades, indeed centuries, we broke our silence. Together we spoke up and we spoke out. We spoke out on behalf of women and their daughters, mothers and sisters; women who were underpaid, under-educated and undervalued; women who were deprived of the right to go to school, earn a living, see a doctor, own property, get a loan, cast a vote or run for office; women who were persecuted, abused, violated, even killed because there were no laws to protect them or no enforcement of the laws that were supposed to protect them. Although some governments and officials doubted that a United Nations conference on women would have an impact, what transpired in Beijing was the beginning of a global movement. It was a global movement focusing attention on the issues that matter most in the lives of women and their families: access to education, health care, jobs and credit, and the opportunity to enjoy the full range of political, legal and human rights. We called on governments around the world to promote and protect women's rights unequivocally and to act on the ideal that ``women's rights are human rights and human rights are women's rights.'' We made our case that global progress depends on the progress of women; that democratic institutions cannot thrive and survive without the participation of women; that market economies cannot grow and prosper without the inclusion of women; that societies are not truly free and just without legal protections and rights for women; that a nation cannot advance into the 21st century and in the Information Age without educated, literate women. Today, as we face new and daunting enemies--from stateless terrorism to the global pandemic of HIV/AIDS to the scourge of human trafficking--we are learning that our Nation and our world cannot be secure or at peace if women are denied the right to fulfill their God- given potential at home, at school, at work, at the ballot box, in the courthouse and in the board room. The Beijing Conference got us going. Governments, working with NGOs, used the Beijing Platform for Action as a road map. In the 10 years since, many have taken significant steps in the right direction. From Mongolia to Indonesia to Tajikistan, we are seeing more equitable laws protecting women from discrimination, abuse and violence. From Gambia to Chile more women are getting elected or appointed to leadership roles in government. Our global movement is having a profound impact around the world. Turkey recently passed sweeping legislative reforms to protect the rights of women with regard to rape and honor killings. In Ethiopia, a center funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development opened last summer to offer medical assistance and counseling to women and girls who are victims of human trafficking. Morocco instituted new family law that gives women equal rights to make decisions about marriage, divorce custody and alimony. In Afghanistan, for the first time, a woman, Dr. Masooda Jalal, ran for the presidency. And Habiba Sarobi was just appointed governor of one of Afghanistan's central provinces. She is the first woman to hold a provincial government post in Afghanistan. In Mexico, Amalia Garcia became the third women ever to be elected governor of a state in her country. In Iran, Dr. Shirin Ebadi, a woman lawyer, judge, and human rights activist, was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2003. The following year in Kenya, Wangari Maathai, the deputy minister of the environment, won the Nobel Peace prize for her efforts to protect the environment and advance opportunities for poor women. In the United States, the Clinton administration launched the Vital Voices democracy initiative to help women around the globe build democratic institutions and market economies in their own countries. During my husband's administration, I was honorary chair of the President's Interagency Council on Women, whose job was to follow up on Beijing and make sure that policies and programs relating to women and girls were a priority in every federal agency. President Clinton's administration was the first ever to understand that social investment particularly investments in women and girls should be an integral part of foreign policy. Secretary Madeleine Albright led the charge, and I am grateful for her energy and vision. These achievements might not have been possible without the galvanizing effects of Beijing. We should all be very proud of the work we have done here in the United States, as well as around the world, to advance the Beijing agenda and ensure that we continue to make progress on all of these fronts. But where do we go from here? Despite our advances, women still comprise the majority of the world's poor, illiterate and uneducated. Women remain undercompensated for the work they do in every country on Earth. Women in too many countries still do not have adequate access to medical care or the fundamental right to plan their own families. Women are underrepresented in leadership positions in government and business. Women continue to be targeted for unspeakable atrocities in war and conflict. At this very moment, women and girls in some parts of the world are being forced into marriages they do not want. They are dying of HIV/ AIDS in disproportionate numbers. They are getting trapped in the bondage of international trafficking rings. They are being subjected to rape, mutilation and murder as a tactic or prize of war. They are left diseased, destitute and dying in refugee camps. In too many instances, the march to globalization has also meant the marginalization of women and girls. That has to change. This week's events offer an opportunity not just to assess our progress and pat ourselves on the back. We also must reaffirm the goals laid out in the Beijing platform for action and adopt our strategies to meet the new and complex challenges of the 21st century. Specifically: One, we must continue to improve access to quality health care, including reproductive and sexual health and HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment. When women and girls are healthy, we all benefit from lower rates of maternal and child mortality, improved public health, a decline in population growth, a more productive work force and more stable families. Among the most serious health crises facing women today is HIV/AIDS. About half of those infected worldwide are women. In Africa, young women are three times more likely to contract the virus than men. A vicious cycle of poverty, inadequate health care, illiteracy, sexual coercion and gender-based violence make this a daunting problem with implications well beyond the developing world. That is why Senator Boxer and I proposed an amendment to the Global AIDS bill that would provide assistance to foreign countries to combat HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. We also have to ensure that women enjoy the fundamental right to plan their own families and that they have access to family planning services. This is not an easy issue. There are people with equally strong passions and convictions on both sides. But we should all be able to agree that we want every child born in this country and around the world to be wanted, cherished and loved. And the best way to achieve that is to educate the public about reproductive health and how to prevent unsafe and unwanted pregnancies. Research shows that the primary reason that teenage girls abstain is because of their religious and moral values. We should embrace this and support programs that reinforce the idea that abstinence at a young age is not just the smart thing to do; it is the right thing to do. But we should also recognize what works and what does not work and the jury is still out on the effectiveness of abstinence-only programs. I do not think this debate should be about ideology, it should be about facts. We have to deal with the choices young people make and not only the choices we want them to make. We should use all the resources at our disposal to ensure teens are getting the information they need to make the right decisions. Today, roughly 20 million women worldwide risk unsafe abortions every year. About 68,000, most of them in developing countries, die in the process. Many more suffer horrific injuries. The World Health Organization estimates that about 600,000 women die each year from pregnancy-related causes. Many times that number suffer grievous injury. Many of these deaths could be prevented by providing women with the information and means to choose the size and spacing of their families. Yet, the Bush administration is making it more difficult for women in these situations to receive safe medical care. Under the global gag rule, none of our foreign aid dollars can go to foreign NGOs that provide abortions beyond cases of rape, incest or endangerment to the mother. Or provide abortion counseling or advocate the legalization of abortion in their countries. In places such as Nepal and Afghanistan, which suffer from some of the highest maternal mortality rates in the world, clinics funded by our government provided a full range of health services to women and girls. But with the Bush administration's reinstatement of the global gag rule, those funds have dried up; the doors to the clinics are closed. When I visited Afghanistan two years ago and recently, Afghan women asked that the U.S. renew women's health assistance for that country. Practically speaking, making it harder for women to get information, counseling and family planning services is a counterproductive policy. It does nothing to reduce abortion; in fact, it may do quite the opposite. Without access to contraception and family planning services, there will be more unwanted pregnancies. Without access to adequate medical care, many pregnant women will die undergoing unsafe abortions. There is no reason why governments cannot help educate women and assist girls and women with their health care needs. It is the most effective way to reduce abortions and improve the health and well-being of women and their families. Two, we must prevent violence against women, and that includes the trafficking of women and girls worldwide, and we must make sure that the criminals who engage in these activities are brought to justice and not allowed to go free. For all the benefits of globalization, modern technology and instant communications, there are dark sides. One of the most insidious is the crime and heinous human rights violation of human trafficking. As many as 800,000 men, women and children are trafficked across international borders each year, lured by the promise of jobs or a better life, only to find themselves trapped in prostitution, forced labor and debt bondage. I will never forget visiting a school in northern Thailand that took in young girls whose lives were ruined by prostitution and taught them vocational skills. Many of the girls had contracted HIV/AIDS. I remember crouching in front of a teenage girl in a wheelchair who was so ill that she could barely raise her hands to greet me. The girl had been sold into prostitution by her family because they were desperate for money. She had escaped her brothel, returned home, and was sold again. She died a few days after my visit. I also met with women leaders from Eastern and Central Europe and our government launched campaigns in Lviv, Ukraine, and in Istanbul to combat trafficking. I am proud that in March of 1998, President Clinton condemned human trafficking as a violation of human rights and outlined the prevention, protection and prosecution framework and strategy which led to the first anti-trafficking bill, which he signed into law in 2000. Now the Senate must ratify the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress, and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children. Our government played a major role in developing this Protocol that has led many countries around the world to enact new antitrafficking legislation and we and other member states must ratify it. So far 79 countries have ratified it and I believe that it is past time for our country to provide clearer leadership to other countries who have not yet ratified this landmark instrument of international cooperation. But more is needed. I am heartened that since we initially helped bring global attention to this issue that our work continues to grow. But I am equally concerned that current efforts have not yet achieved the concrete results desperately needed by the victims of trafficking like the girls I visited whose lives were ravaged by their servitude. We have a deep responsibility to all of trafficking's victims to do better and I am committed to continue to work on their behalf. In a related area, the U.S. and other nations must, for moral and economic reasons, support efforts to curb all forms of violence against women, be it mass rapes in Bosnia and Darfur or battered women suffering in the silence of their own homes in America. Three, we must continue to increase participation of women in decision-making positions in government and the private sector. Women are on the front lines when it comes to issues involving their children, their families and their communities. But too often their voices are not part of the political dialogue. We need to make sure that women have every opportunity to make their voices heard, to be part of civic life and to contribute to the formation of policies and programs that will affect their lives and the lives of those around them. NGOs have been a critical element of promoting women's human rights. They were the voice for women in Afghanistan during the dark days of the Taliban. Thanks to organizations such as the Vital Voices Global Partnership, more and more women around the world are learning the skills necessary to run political organizations and campaigns, build political networks and win elective office. As more women enter the political arena, research shows that their presence raises the standards of ethical behavior, lowers corruption and makes political institutions more responsive to constituents. We have seen women in Rwanda win nearly half the seats in their parliament during the 2003 elections. Their active participation makes Rwanda stronger. We have seen Afghan women refuse to sell their voter registration cards to tribal warlords and defy expectations by voting. Their active participation makes Afghanistan stronger. We just saw Iraqi women refuse to run away from polling stations in January despite the enormous risk and sometimes flying bullets. Their active participation will make Iraq stronger. We were all moved by photos of women and men on Election Day in Iraq holding up their ink-stained fingers, showing their courage and determination to vote freely in their country's first democratic elections. We were encouraged that a significant number of women were candidates and won. The wide participation in this election gives us good reason to be cautiously optimistic that Iraq is on the path to building a stable and secure democratic government. But there are also troubling signs: Women have been targeted for retribution, with tragic consequences. Women have been attacked for wearing Western dress or promoting progressive ideas. I have been told that fear of violence has kept some women confined to their homes. And so it is important that we recognize and applaud the progress that has been made, and that we remain vigilant for the future. We cannot become complacent and see women freed from one tyranny only to be imprisoned by another: the tyranny of violence or of extremism. Decisions are being considered right now in Iraq that will determine the role that women have in governance, under the law and in society. To ensure that Iraqi women are not marginalized under their new government, their rights must be ensured, their personal security guaranteed and their access to opportunity protected. Four, we must extend full economic opportunities to women, including access to microfinance and microenterprise. It seems obvious that, with women making up more than half of the world's population, global prosperity depends on women having the right to education, jobs, property ownership and credit. Yet it is only relatively recently that this fact became more widely accepted. Over the past several decades we have seen the enormous benefits accrued when women are given even a small slice of the economic pie. Microcredit is one of those stunningly simple, inexpensive tools that can forever alter the economic landscape for the better. Women now make up 80 percent of the world's 70 million microcredit borrowers. From India to Nicaragua to South Africa to Costa Rica, women are proving that small loans can transform individual lives, families and entire communities. Five, we must ensure that the doors of primary education are open to every girl--and boy--in every country and on every continent. If there is a domino effect at work here, it begins with primary education. Today, 55 percent of girls in sub-Saharan Africa do not complete primary school. This failure has real consequences for our global economy and our national security, not to mention for tens of millions of children with limitless potential who are losing the chance to discover their worth and importance as global citizens. Girls who are educated are more likely to have healthy and stable families, lower mortality rates, higher nutrition levels, delayed sexual activity and less chance of contracting HIV/AIDS or having unwanted pregnancies. Educated children also correlate to increases in the GDP. Equally important today, the education of children in the developing world is one of our best weapons against terror. We cannot just win the military battles; we have to win the hearts and minds of hundreds of millions of people around the world, many of them between the ages of 15 and 24. We have to educate them, and we have to engage them in discussions about our future. I am pleased to have introduced the Education For All Act last year, which calls for a clear, global strategy to achieve universal global education by 2015. By dramatically increasing our investment in global education, the legislation would make educating children, including girls, a top priority of U.S. foreign policy. No country can do this alone. We need other reform-minded countries to step up to the plate. We need to leverage the strength and resources of private voluntary organizations. We have to work together to achieve this goal. Six, we must strengthen the role of women as agents of peace because we know that women are among our best emissaries when it comes to easing religious, racial and ethnic tensions, crossing cultural divides, and reducing violence in areas of war and conflict. War and conflict disproportionately impact women, yet women are rarely included in peace negotiations or the peace process. Too many societies continue to view women's roles narrowly, thus losing the chance to benefit from the special wisdom and insights that women offer. In Rwanda, Sierra Leone and Colombia, women have formed groups to support orphans and widows left in the wake of genocide and have advocated for peace. The 2004 U.N. Report of the High Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change recommends that in order to more capably resolve conflicts between states, the U.N. should engage in greater consultation with important voices from civil society, especially those of women, who are often neglected during peace talks. The report goes on to say that in order to protect civilians, the Security Council, U.N. agencies and Member States should fully implement Resolution 1325 on women, peace and security, which passed unanimously in 2000; it is the first resolution ever passed by the Security Council that specifically addresses the impact of war on women, and women's contributions to conflict resolution and sustainable peace. From my own experiences, I know that women can serve as tremendously courageous and effective peace brokers. I have listened to women from Central America talk about combating domestic violence after helping end real combat in deadly civil war. I have seen Catholic and Protestant women meet over tea, finding common ground amidst the conflict of Northern Ireland. I have seen Bosnian, Croat, and Serbian women bridge their differences by working together, eating together and learning side by side. Finally, it is time to ensure that women have equal opportunity for meaningful representation in all areas of decision-making. Not just token positions. We need to be partners in developing budgets, writing laws, serving in security forces, dispensing justice, conducting business and serving in government. Doing all of these things is not just the right thing to do. It is the smart thing to do. Stronger, healthier, fulfilled and productive women are the key to building stronger societies. Ten years after Beijing, politicians and policymakers around the globe have become increasingly sophisticated at talking about gender equality and the important role women play in society. Political speeches, election outreach and advertisements all suggest a growing acceptance of women's rights. But listen carefully to the words, match them to their deeds and you will see that we still have a lot of work to do. It is not enough to enshrine equal rights in a constitution. It is a critical first step, but nations have to interpret and actively enforce equal rights for women. We are working with women in Iraq to make sure this happens and that their rights are not eroded under a new government. It is not enough to say women deserve a voice in politics. Nations have to take steps to ensure the full participation and representation of women in their conferences and committees, their plenaries and parliaments. Our sisters in Nigeria are struggling with this as we speak. Although the constitution guarantees equal rights, Nigerian women have been virtually excluded from the political process. It is not enough to say we want to educate our girls and give women economic opportunities. Women must be able to safely conduct business, have access to loans and participate fully in economic activities. They must have a say in how society allocates its resources. It is not enough to say violence targeted against women is wrong. Nor is it acceptable to excuse violence against women as a cultural norm. Violence against women is not cultural. It is criminal, and laws must be written and enforced to punish perpetrators of any and all forms of violence against women. During this week, women on all continents, who are often divided by national boundaries and by ethnic, linguistic, cultural, economic and political differences, come together to celebrate International Women's Day. It is a time to reflect on our commitment to the ideals of equality, justice, peace and development for women around the world. Let us use this occasion to redouble our efforts on behalf of the hundreds of millions of women worldwide who rely on us to speak up and speak out for them because they cannot speak up for themselves. Let us keep women's rights on the world's agenda. Let us continue to mobilize and galvanize until every woman and every girl is able to exercise her human rights and achieve her full potential. Women represent our best hope for democracy, stability, prosperity, peace and security as we look forward into this new century,

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. I rise today to express my support for S. 306, the Genetic Nondiscrimination Act. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this bill, and I thank Senator Snowe for her leadership on this issue. I urge my colleagues to vote for passage of this important legislation. The Genetic Nondiscrimination Act is a crucial first step to protecting individuals and families from genetic discrimination. This legislation prevents insurers from denying coverage or raising premiums based upon the results of genetic tests. It prohibits insurance companies and employers from requiring individuals to undergo genetic testing. And finally, this legislation protects workers from employment discrimination based on their genetic information. Genetic testing holds great promise for medicine. Knowing you are prone to cancer or heart disease or Lou Gehrig's disease may give you a fighting chance. But just try, with that information in hand, to get health insurance in a system without strong protections against discrimination for pre-existing or genetic conditions. As genetic information allows us to predict illness with greater certainty, these tests threaten to turn the most susceptible patients into the most vulnerable. Each vaunted scientific breakthrough brings with it new challenges to our health system and this legislation will help maximize advancing technology's benefits while protecting Americans from the use of genetic information as a tool for discrimination. With this bill, we can help patients access the latest advances in science without sacrificing their personal privacy. Genetic discrimination has many victims: those who are denied health coverage, those who lose job opportunities, and those who forego important tests out of fear that they will be victimized. We should encourage people to learn more about their health so that they can make informed decisions about treatment and care, not discourage them from seeking information with threats of unemployment or loss of insurance. By passing the Genetic Nondiscrimination Act into law, we will address at the Federal level an issue that has been recognized by a majority of states. More than 40 States have enacted genetic nondiscrimination provisions, and I believe that it is far past the time for Congress to follow suit. I would also like to note that the Genetic Nondiscrimination Act, while a good first step, is only the beginning of our work in this area. Many who have long championed genetic nondiscrimination support stronger protections and tough enforcement provisions. Passing the Genetic Nondiscrimination Act will help to put a necessary framework in place and we will need the same commitment to action in the future to reinforce this framework, and provide strong, reliable enforcement for the important civil right that we are defending today. Again, I would urge my colleagues to support the passage of the Genetic Nondiscrimination Act. I also urge the House to take up this matter as quickly as possible, to protect the millions of patients that might benefit from genetic testing.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, when the time comes I intend to vote in favor of Judge Chertoff's nomination to be Secretary of Homeland Security. There is no position in government of greater importance to the security of our country and of my home State of New York. And so I am glad that the Senate has agreed to devote some time to a discussion of the important issues that the next Secretary of Homeland Security will face. Let me say at the outset that I have some serious concerns about this nomination. These concerns have nothing to do with Judge Chertoff's personal abilities: his professional and intellectual qualifications are beyond question, as is his commitment to public service. Rather, my concerns are based on the misguided and constitutionally infirm policies that have been drafted by the Department of Justice and implemented by the Administration in its prosecution of the war on terror and in the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. Judge Chertoff was a senior DOJ official at the time that these policies were created. Because he is being nominated to a position for which respect for Constitutional and treaty obligations is especially important, his role in the formation of these policies is therefore worthy of careful scrutiny. My primary concern relates to those policies that have undercut and placed our men and women in uniform in greater danger and diminished our standing in the international community. I feel a particular personal obligation as a member of the Armed Services Committee to do my utmost to ensure that our government does not do anything that unnecessarily puts our troops in harm's way, that diminishes our standing among our allies, or that blurs the values that distinguish us from our depraved and nihilistic enemies. The August 1, 2002 memo from the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel, with its absurdly narrow definition of torture, is the most shocking and well-known example of the administration's attempt to radically weaken this country's commitment to treat all prisoners and detainees humanely and in accordance with international agreements. Another oft-cited example is Attorney General Gonzales' January 2002 advice to President Bush that the ``war on terrorism'' offers a ``new paradigm [that] renders obsolete'' the Geneva Convention's protections. I am satisfied by Judge Chertoff's testimony that, as Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division, he did not provide legal advice that strayed below the standard that is expected from senior members of the Justice Department. He testified that executive branch officials sought his views on the practical application of laws prohibiting torture and on specific techniques. And he testified that torture is illegal and wrong and that he does not believe that the definition of torture in the August 1, 2002 OLC memo is broad enough. He testified that he told executive branch officials to ``be sure that you have good faith and you've operated diligently to make sure what you are considering doing is well within the law.'' Regarding specific techniques, Judge Chertoff testified that, ``I was not prepared to say to people, to approve things in advance, or to give people speculative opinions that they might later take as some kind of a license to do something.'' These responses suggest that Judge Chertoff appreciates the importance of upholding America's long tradition of treating prisoners humanely, and of respecting international agreements that protect our men and women in uniform as well as our standing in the international community. While I would have preferred that Judge Chertoff had argued his point to the administration more forcefully, I am satisfied that he did not actively promote these wrongheaded, immoral, and counterproductive policies. Another important concern arises from the Justice Department's treatment of more than 750 aliens detained immediately following the attacks of September 11. The department's own inspector general released a report in 2003 that acknowledged the ``difficult circumstances'' in which the department found itself, but concluded there were ``significant problems in the way that the September 11 detainees were treated.'' Among those problems were significant delays in the FBI's clearance process, hindrances in access to legal counsel, and verbal and physical abuse of detainees. The report specifically finds that the Justice Department, including Judge Chertoff, was aware of the FBI's clearance problems at the time. In fact, Judge Chertoff testified that he inquired with the FBI about the clearance delays, but the FBI's resources were ``stretched.'' The inspector general found that the Justice Department should have done more once it learned of the detainee-related problems. When asked about this report at his confirmation hearing, Judge Chertoff acknowledged that there were ``imperfections'' in the executive branch's response. He testified that he was unaware at the time of the hindrances in detainees' access to counsel, that he was unaware of the verbal and physical abuse, and that such mistreatment is inappropriate and should not have happened. He also stated the importance of learning from experience. I am disappointed that Judge Chertoff did not express greater regret for the department's role in the mistreatment of detainees, and that he did not testify in detail as to the status of the implementation of the inspector general's recommended 21 reforms. Nonetheless, his responses to this line of questioning are not, in my view, sufficient to oppose his nomination. I hope that Judge Chertoff will bring to bear the lessons we have learned from this experience and work to ensure appropriate reforms are successfully carried out. After careful consideration, I am satisfied by Judge Chertoff's answers to the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee regarding his conduct at the Justice Department. Despite the egregious missteps the department made during his tenure, I do not believe that his performance there disqualifies him from serving as the next Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. And in view of his testimony and of his exceptional record during his short time on the Federal bench, I believe that Judge Chertoff understands that the next Secretary of Homeland Security must be both unflagging in his efforts to protect us from terrorist attack and steadfast in his respect for our Constitutional order. I also believe that Judge Chertoff has a good understanding of the issues and challenges facing the Department of Homeland Security. Perhaps the biggest challenge awaiting him is the taming of the enormous bureaucratic tangle that is the current department. If confirmed, Judge Chertoff will become the head of a department that was created via the integration of 22 separate agencies and 180,000 employees. These agencies and employees engage in a wide range of activities related to securing the homeland, and they need a steady and firm hand on the tiller. They also need a creative leader who can cut through bureaucratic entanglement and get things done. As Secretary, Judge Chertoff's central task will be setting priorities and getting a vast bureaucracy to work efficiently and in a unified fashion. I am hopeful Judge Chertoff's well-documented intellectual abilities and his long experience as a public servant will serve him well as he moves from the role of Federal judge to the head of such a large and demanding Department. He pledged at his confirmation hearing to work ``tirelessly'' to safeguard the nation. I hope he follows through on that pledge in a variety of areas of critical importance. He will need to devote substantial energy and political capital if he is to help this still nascent Department develop to its full potential and render all Americans as safe and as secure in their liberties as possible. I am encouraged that Judge Chertoff and I agree on a number of specific challenges facing the Department of Homeland Security. One of these issues--Federal funding formulas for state and local preparedness--is essential to protecting the homeland. I have repeatedly called upon the administration and my colleagues to implement threat-based homeland security funding, so that homeland security resources go to the states and areas where they are needed most. I have introduced legislation in this regard and even developed a specific homeland security formula for administration officials to consider. The latest iteration of that proposal is contained in my Domestic Defense Fund Act of 2005, which I introduced on the first legislative day of this Congress. Modeled on the Community Development Block Grant program, the Domestic Defense Fund of 2005 provides $7 billion in annual funding to local communities, States, and first responders. The act requires that all of that funding be allocated using threat, risk, and vulnerability-based criteria that homeland security experts-- including the Homeland Security Independent Task Force of the Council on Foreign Relations, chaired by former Senators Gary Hart and Warren Rudman, and the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States--have long recommended. I was heartened to hear Judge Chertoff testify at his confirmation hearing, that ``I think we have to have a formula for funding and a formula for lending assistance to State and local governments across the board that takes account of the reality of vulnerabilities and risks and making sure that we're making a fair allocation.'' Judge Chertoff also stated this view when I met with him. His unequivocal support for threat- and vulnerability-based funding is important for New York, and for the nation. Another issue on which Judge Chertoff and I agree is the need for greater sharing of terrorist-related information between and among Federal, State, and local government agencies. In the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, I worked with a number of my colleagues in the Senate on a bi-partisan basis in focusing on this need. As I noted in my remarks on the passage of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, the sharing of critical intelligence information is vitally important if we are to win the War against terrorism. We need to ensure that our front line solders in the war against terrorism here at home--our local communities and our first responders--are as informed as possible about any possible threat so that they can do the best job possible to protect all Americans. It is vital for New York City and other local communities across New York State and the Nation to receive accurate and timely information from the department when a potential threat emerges. It is equally important that local communities on the front lines serve as valuable sources of information for the Federal Government. I was pleased to learn that Judge Chertoff testified at his confirmation hearing that his personal experiences as an Assistant United States Attorney, a United States Attorney and as head of the Criminal Division on September 11, give him a thorough appreciation and respect for State and local perspectives. In his testimony, he described ``negotiating cooperation with our state and local government officials'' as one of ``the central elements of the war against terrorism. . . .'' He repeatedly referred to the need to work in partnership with State and local government. I could not agree more. The Federal Government cannot, and should not, go it alone when it comes to securing the homeland. States and local communities must be full partners. Much more needs to be done, but Judge Chertoff's testimony demonstrates that he understands the importance of this area as a key to homeland security. I also find it encouraging that Judge Chertoff testified that he is ``acutely aware'' of the importance of allocating resources to secure our ports. Needless to say, having a secretary of homeland security who understands the importance of the Port of New York and New Jersey is likely to be a good thing for New Yorkers, and for the entire country. There has been little evidence to date that administration is interested in using a threat-based formula for allocating resources. Indeed, in Fiscal Year 2004, when the Administration had the opportunity to employ such a formula in allocating funds under the State Homeland Security Grant Program, SHGP, and the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention, LETP, grant program, it affirmatively chose not to do so, despite pleas from me and many members of Congress on both sides of the aisle. Again in Fiscal Year 2005, there was no significant effort on the part of the administration to use a threat-based formula. I wrote President Bush imploring him to work with the House and Senate leadership on the issue of homeland security funding, but language was inserted in the Fiscal Year 2005 Homeland Security Appropriations Act to require that SHGP and LETP funds be allocated in that fiscal year as the administration chose to allocate funds in Fiscal Year 2004, which, unfortunately, was on the basis of population alone. Every homeland security expert I know has said that this makes no sense. If the terrorists are looking at things such as the presence and vulnerability of critical infrastructures as well as population and population densities, so should we. This year, the administration is again talking a good game on homeland security grant formulas. The Fiscal Year 2006 budget request calls for more than $1 billion in grants to States for the purpose of enhancing capabilities to prevent, deter, respond to and recover from acts of terrorism, to be allocated by the Secretary of Homeland Security ``based on risks, threats, vulnerabilities, and unmet essential capabilities,'' with a 0.25 percent State minimum. In addition, more than $1 billion would go for grants to urban areas, for the same purpose, and on the same basis--minus, of course, a State minimum. This is a step in the right direction, but we need to allocate much more funding for this purpose. Whether through direct funding--which I continue to believe is the best way to disburse homeland security funding to many communities--or funding that is sent to the states and passed through to local communities, the Federal Government should be disbursing the homeland security state and local funds to communities according to a threat- and vulnerability-based formula. In addition, my Domestic Defense Fund Act makes it explicit that the funding provided for in my proposed legislation will not supplant or be in lieu of funding for traditional first responders programs, such as the Community Oriented Policing Services, COPS, program and the Assistance to Fire Fighters, FIRE, Act program. These Federal programs have proven successful in helping first responders perform traditional functions, such as fighting crime and responding to fires. Unfortunately, the Fiscal Year 2006 budget request seeks to cut or eliminate a number of these essential first responder programs. Under the President's proposed budget, funding for the COPS program is reduced from $379 million to $118 million nationally, which comes on top of previous years' cuts for the COPS program, which once received more than $1.5 billion in funding. And absolutely no funding is proposed for the COPS Universal Hiring Program, the COPS MORE program, COPS in Schools program, or the COPS Interoperable Communications Technology Program. The Fiscal Year 2006 budget request also proposes no funding for the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant program, named after a New York City police officer killed in the line of duty, and the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant program. These programs in the past have provided states and local governments with Federal funds to support efforts to reduce crime and increase public safety, such as enhancing security measures around schools, establishing or supporting drug courts, and preventing violent and/or drug-related crime. I find that shameful, especially as our fire fighters, police officers, emergency service workers and other first responders continue to be on the front lines of our nation's homeland defense. It is imperative that Judge Chertoff, if confirmed, stand by his philosophy of risk-based allocation and appreciation for the role of state and local partners when he prepares his department's budget in coming years. In fact, the outcome of a number of homeland security imperatives will depend to a significant extent on Judge Chertoff's willingness to fight hard during the budget process. A good example of this is the addition of new border patrol agents mandated in the recently enacted Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. If the goals of this legislation are realized, the security of the northern border would be improved, a result I have worked for since 2001. Among many provisions, the act calls for an increase of at least 10,000 border patrol agents from Fiscal Years 2006 through 2010, many of whom will be dedicated specifically to our northern border. And yet the FY06 budget request did not come close to seeking the 2,000 new border patrol agents authorized for this year. Judge Chertoff must be willing to fight hard for full funding of this and other programs essential to the department's mission. I appreciate that Judge Chertoff understands the critical importance of securing chemical facilities. There are hundreds of chemical plants in the United States where a terrorist attack could threaten more than 100,000 Americans with exposure to toxic chemicals. This is a homeland security vulnerability that has been recognized by many, yet we still have no mandatory Federal standards for chemical plants, and the Department of Homeland Security lacks authority to put such standards in place. Until Congress provides the department with such authority, Americans will continue to rely on voluntary security measures at chemical plants, which have been repeatedly shown to be lax. I believe that the best solution to this problem would be to enact the Chemical Security Act that I have sponsored with Senator Corzine. However, in order to pass this or other chemical plant security legislation, we will need stronger support from the administration and from the Secretary of Homeland Security than we have had in the past. That is why I was encouraged by Judge Chertoff's testimony that he is aware of the significant risk of that sector based on his personal experience. He also testified that ``the Federal Government needs to be able to use a whole range of tools to bring the industry up to an appropriate standard'' and that ``the President has indicated that he supports, if necessary, the use of authorities to require chemical companies to come up to certain standards, with appropriate penalties if they don't do so.'' Thus, on balance, my personal exchange with Judge Chertoff--and the testimony he gave during his confirmation hearing--speak of his commitment to threat- and vulnerability-based funding, his keen awareness of other vital homeland security issues for New Yorkers, and his intent to work tirelessly. He is from New Jersey and knows the homeland security needs of the region from personal experience. Ultimately, his roots in the region, his personal experiences, and his expressions of commitment to policies that are essential to the security of New Yorkers, are decisive factors in my decision to vote to confirm. One of the lessons we have learned since September 11 is that constant vigilance is required of the Congress; oversight and accountability must be our watch words. Oversight requires us to demand that the rule of law be respected by the executive branch, and that we do not countenance the flouting of the law or of treaties. It requires us to hold the executive branch truly accountable for its actions. If we have learned anything since that September day in 2001, particularly with respect to this administration, it is the timeless truth that ``eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.'' It has been said before, but it bears repeating--our Nation faces a new kind of challenge to our way of life. I have no doubt we will overcome this challenge, but it will only be overcome through maintaining and strengthening our civil society and our commitment to being a force for decency and respect for law in the world. Judge Chertoff testified that, as Secretary, he will ``be mindful of the need to reconcile the imperatives of security with the preservation of liberty and privacy.'' I agree that one of the central dilemmas of our time is balancing security with liberty and privacy. As the 9/11 Commission said, ``Our history has shown us that insecurity threatens liberty. Yet, if our liberties are curtailed, we lose the values that we are struggling to defend.'' I believe that Judge Chertoff is professionally qualified to be Secretary of Homeland Security, and that he understands and respects the values that the Secretary works to defend. Therefore, I will be voting in favor of his confirmation.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I add my voice to so many in New York and Washington who are mourning the loss of Representative Shirley Chisholm of New York. Shirley Chisholm was a bold pioneer who fought for civil rights and equality with an energy that forever changed the way American politics deals with matters of race and gender. When she was elected to Congress in 1968, Representative Chisholm became the first African-American congresswoman. She overcame the twin obstacles of racism and sexism to win election. But she didn't stop there. When she reached Congress she spoke with a loud, clear voice, and she quickly lived up to her slogan of being ``unbought and unbossed.'' She was a cofounder of the Congressional Black Caucus in 1969, and she fought to improve the lives and opportunities of inner city children and families. She opposed the Vietnam war and the military draft. And she bravely declaimed the sexism and racism she encountered in a political world that, prior to her arrival, had been exclusively white and almost exclusively male. Her positions on the issues and her statements about race and gender made her a lightning rod for criticism. But despite the intense pressure of being both outspoken and a ``first,'' Representative Chisholm continued to blaze a path to greater equality. In 1972, she became the first woman to run for the Democratic Presidential nomination. Despite being largely ignored by the media, her committed run for the Presidency, and the 152 delegates she won, proved to the entire country that a woman was up to the task of taking on a serious run for national office. Representative Chisholm was a powerful symbol, an ``historical person'' as she put it. But perhaps her greatest achievement was reminding us that the purpose of fighting for equality is not to simply make a point or become a symbol; it is to work for that day when we can all enjoy the quiet responsibility of being equal. As she explained in her 1969 speech to the House in favor of the equal rights amendment: ``A woman who aspires to be the chairman of the board or a member of the House does so for exactly the same reason as any man . . . She thinks she can do the job and she wants to try.'' Arthur Ashe said that heroism ``is not the urge to surpass all others at whatever cost, but the urge to serve others at whatever cost.'' Representative Chisholm was a heroine. She knew that ``there is little place in the political scheme of things for an independent, creative personality, for a fighter. Anyone who takes that role must pay a price.'' She paid that price in order to serve Americans who were not being served by the political establishment. She fought injustice and discrimination and refused to be cowed by a history of exclusion. And in so doing, she served not only the constituents of her time but all Americans for all times. Shirley Chisholm's legacy is undeniable; 13 African-American women served in the House in the 108th Congress. We are grateful for her life, and we are grateful for the doors she opened and the barriers she brought down on behalf of us all.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I oppose this legislation called the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, because I do not believe it is fair to litigants who have legitimate claims that are most appropriately addressed by our state courts. Yes, there are some problems in the use of class actions, and in some cases there are excessive fees or inappropriate coupon settlements. I am pleased that after many years of seeking to move class action ``reform'' legislation, the bill proponents finally agreed to include language that addresses some of the abuses concerning ``coupon'' settlements, in which plaintiffs who have proven their case in court receive in turn coupons for products or services that have little value. This language has long been advocated by the distinguished ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Leahy, and it is a good provision because in contrast to most of the bill, it is narrowly crafted to address an actual problem that the legal system and litigants confront. But the vast majority of the provisions in this legislation are not narrowly crafted to address discrete problems. Instead, this legislation is an extremely blunt instrument that I believe will result in justice delayed and justice denied for many Americans. There have been many claims about ``judicial hellholes'' and ``magnet jurisdictions'' but the evidence shows that these claims are, at best, overstated, and are certainly not so widespread so as to justify passage of this legislation that turns 200 years of federalism on its head. Indeed, a recent report by Public Citizen found that there were, at most, two jurisdictions--Madison County and St. Clair County, IL--of the 3,141 court systems in the United States for which bill proponents have provided limited data that they are ``magnet jurisdictions.'' As to Madison County in particular, the facts also do not support the rhetoric. In 2002, only 3 of 77 class actions were actually certified to proceed to trial, and in 2003, only 2 of 106 class actions filed were certified. Moreover, the Public Citizen report notes that, in recent years, at least 11 states have made major changes to the class action process used in their States to aid in the administering of justice, and in fact Illinois is in the process of doing the same. The legislation purports to help Americans but I believe it will hurt them. The legislation itself states its purpose is to: ``(1) assure fair and prompt recoveries for class members with legitimate claims; (2) restore the intent of the framers of the United States Constitution by providing for Federal court consideration of interstate cases of national importance under diversity jurisdiction; and (3) benefit society by encouraging innovation and lowering consumer prices.'' As to assuring ``fair and prompt recoveries,'' hundreds of consumer rights, labor, civil rights, senior, and environmental organizations, esteemed legal experts, and many State Attorneys General believe, as I do, that this legislation will do just the opposite. There is also no reasonable basis for the assertion that this legislation ``will restore the intent of the framers'' with respect to the role of our federal courts. As Arthur Miller, the distinguished Harvard Law School professor, author, and expert in the fields of civil procedure, complex litigation, and class actions noted with respect to similar legislation considered last year: it is a ``radical departure from one of the most basic, longstanding principles of federalism [and] is a particular affront to state judges when we consider the unquestioned vitality and competence of state courts to which we have historically and frequently entrusted the enforcement of state-created rights and remedies.'' As a Senator representing the great State of New York, I have worked closely with many businesses in my state to help them with their efforts to grow and create jobs, and I am a firm believer in encouraging innovation and lowering consumer prices. But even if we assume there is a strong connection between this legislation and those goals, there are many more appropriate means to achieve those ends without doing the harm to the administration of justice that I believe this legislation will impose. In addition to being unfair to the American people, I do not believe this legislation is fair to our State or Federal judiciaries. This bill will effectively preclude state courts in many instances from employing their expertise and experience in class action cases based on state law that they have historically considered. I believe that state courts should determine matters of state law whenever possible. It is not fair to our Federal judiciary, which simply does not have the resources or experience to handle a mass influx of class action cases to our federal courts. Indeed, the Judicial Conference of the United States has expressed its opposition to similar legislation introduced in prior Congresses because it ``would add substantially to the workload of the federal courts and [is] inconsistent with principles of federalism.'' Similarly, the Board of Directors of the Conference of Chief Justices representing the Chief Justices of our state courts has said that legislation of this kind is simply unwarranted ``absent hard evidence of the inability of the state judicial systems to hear and decide fairly class actions brought in state courts.'' That evidence simply does not exist. As the National Conference of State Legislatures, NCSL, has noted in its strong opposition to this legislation, the legislation ``sends a disturbing message to the American people that state court systems are somehow inferior or untrustworthy.'' The NCSL went on to say that the effect of the legislation ``on state legislatures is that state laws in the areas of consumer protection and antitrust, which were passed to protect the citizens of a particular state against fraudulent or illegal activities, will almost never be heard in state courts. Ironically, state courts, whose sole purpose is to interpret state laws, will be bypassed and the federal judiciary will be asked to render judgment in those cases.'' Although bill proponents have sometimes suggested the contrary, make no mistake: if enacted, this legislation will not only result in the majority of class action lawsuits being transferred from our state to Federal courts, but it will also serve to terminate some class action lawsuits that seek to provide justice to everyday Americans. Proponents of this legislation refer to an alleged abuse by lawyers in bringing class actions and assert that too many cases are instituted that are without merit. As I have already noted, I believe some proponents of this legislation have mischaracterized the extent of the problems concerning class actions. But, even if these assertions were true, the proponents have failed to justify the rejection of the very reasonable amendments offered by my colleagues that sought to address major concerns with the legislation without undermining its spirit or intent. One such amendment was offered by my colleague Senator Pryor of Arkansas, a former Arkansas State Attorney General. It would have clarified the role that State Attorneys General would continue to play in State class action cases. That amendment had the express written support of 47 of the 50 State Attorneys General in our Nation. As the highest law enforcement officers in their respective States, I cannot imagine that anyone in this body would believe that such public servants would bring ``frivolous lawsuits'' or would seek to abuse the class action process. And yet, that amendment failed, primarily along party lines. The remaining amendments met a similar fate, including one offered by Senators Bingaman and Feinstein. There is no general Federal consumer protection statute, which is why consumer fraud, deceptive sales practices, and defective product cases are almost always commenced in state courts. Yet, the legislation before us would effectively move many of these cases to Federal courts, courts that are already overburdened and have neither the experience nor the expertise to handle these cases. If such cases are forced into Federal courts through consolidation of many state court cases, a Federal court hearing such a case must then decide which state laws should be applied. Because these kinds of circumstances have presented enormous challenges to our Federal courts, many Federal judges have simply, and understandably, denied certification of nationwide consumer fraud cases. Yet, the bill language would preclude the consideration of many of these cases in state courts, creating what many have described as the bill's ``Catch- 22.'' At that point, such cases would literally be in justice ``limbo'' because a federal court would have dismissed the case but under the provisions of the legislation, the case could not withstand a defendant's challenge to maintain the case in a State court. The amendment offered by Senator Feinstein, an original cosponsor of the underlying legislation, and Senator Bingaman, would have provided a process to handle such cases to increase the likelihood that such cases would be certified by a Federal court and the appropriate State laws would be applied. This was a more than reasonable effort to address a significant concern with this legislation without undermining the legislation's intent to transfer many class actions to Federal courts. But, once again, a majority of the Members of this body chose to reject it. The Leadership Conference on Civil Rights has stated, and no one has refuted, that ``there is no evidence that lawsuits brought by workers seeking justice in state courts on issues ranging from overtime pay to working off the clock are abusing the system. To the contrary, failure to exempt such lawsuits in this legislation is an abusive act against every hard-working American seeking fair pay and a better life.'' Yet, the amendment offered by Senator Kennedy that would have carved out such cases from this legislation was rejected as well. In short, this bill currently stands now in the same shape as when it was introduced. Though valiant efforts were made to improve it, none were successful. Eliot Spitzer, the distinguished New York State Attorney General, and a number of other State Attorneys General, expressed their overall concern with the bill, including the fact that the legislation still ``unduly limits the right of individuals to seek redress for corporate wrongdoing in their state courts.'' I could not agree more. In speaking in opposition to this legislation on the Senate floor earlier this week, Senator Leahy, the Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, reminded all of my colleagues that sometimes individual claims are so small that even though a harm was done for which a plaintiff should receive relief, it is not worth it for him or her to spend significant financial resources to obtain that relief through the judicial process. Unfortunately, as he said, ``[s]ometimes that is what cheaters count on, and it is how they get away with their schemes. [Yet,] cheating thousands of people is still cheating. Class actions allow the little guys to band together, allow them to afford a competent lawyer, and allow them to redress wrongdoing.'' With the expected passage of this legislation today, I believe the ``little guy'' loses, and I believe that is neither fair nor just. That is why I cannot support this legislation. I appreciate the concerns raised by businesses in New York and around the country about the cost of litigation. I too believe that litigation costs have increased significantly. Any legislation that seeks to address discrete problems with class action litigation should address this and other concerns without unnecessarily and negatively affecting the ability of Americans to seek and obtain justice through our courts. A proper balance must be struck. The so-called Class Action Fairness Act simply does not strike that balance.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Caribbean National Forest Act of 2005 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. Just over 100 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 100 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 almost one million 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. During a House hearing on this measure in 2003 the U.S. Forest Service stated its support for the designation of the El Toro Wilderness Area. Those views were reconfirmed last July, when Mark Rey, the Department of Agriculture's Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment, supported my legislation during his testimony before the Senate Energy and National Resources Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Madam President, we are here on the floor this morning, after last night's State of the Union Address, to begin what is going to be a debate about the future of Social Security. Now, last night we did not receive any details from the President, and we do not know exactly what the President intends to propose. But based on the reports in the press and some of the briefings coming back that Senators have held with administration officials, there seems to be an expectation that the President will do several things. First, launch a very aggressive campaign, using every tool at his disposal, which is considerable, to persuade the country that Social Security is facing an imminent crisis, and that the responsible course of action is to do something, preferably what the President will recommend, and that the irresponsible course of action is to somehow argue with or question this presumption of there being a crisis. Secondly, it appears the President's plan will include privatization. Now, I understand the White House has sent out the word they do not want to use that word anymore, but let's not be fooled. What they are attempting to do is take a Social Security system that has worked for generations of Americans and begin the process of privatizing it. They can call it personal accounts, they can call it ownership, they can call it wealth creation, they can call it whatever they want to call it, but the bottom line is this will be a plan to begin the privatization of Social Security. And thirdly, it appears the administration will attempt to finesse, if not downright conceal, the real costs of their plan--in benefit cuts, in additional borrowing, and increasing the debt facing our Nation. So this will be a generational debate. I regret that because I think there are other ways to deal with some of the questions that are raised about the future of Social Security. I think we could do what was done under President Reagan, who showed great leadership in bringing together a bipartisan group which came forward with recommendations at a time when Social Security truly was facing a crisis. People of good faith on both sides of the aisle came together, agreed upon the facts, did not try to spin, did not try to embroider, did not try to create a sense of hysteria, but, in a very businesslike, professional manner said, ``What are the facts?'' and then came up with solutions to the problems faced in 1983. We should be doing the same. I earnestly hope the President would adopt that model of President Reagan. He often refers to President Reagan. Here is one instance where I think everyone can salute the leadership President Reagan showed. Those who support private accounts say they are necessary because Social Security faces what they call a crisis and is on the verge of financial collapse. Supporters of privatization say the way to avoid this collapse is by carving private accounts out of the system. This is not only a scare tactic, which I deplore and regret, but it is wrong on two counts. First, there is no imminent collapse of the Social Security system. And I want to assure everybody who is a faithful C-SPAN watcher out there--and I know there are millions of you--tell your friends and neighbors: Do not be misled. There is not any danger of an imminent collapse of the Social Security system. Secondly, and equally important, privatization makes the challenge of fixing the problems Social Security faces decades from now more difficult, not easier, to solve. Now, let's be clear. Social Security does have a financial challenge that does need to be addressed, but the fact remains that program will continue to run annual surpluses for decades to come and can pay full benefits until between 2042 and 2052. After that--and I won't be around for that, but hopefully my daughter and everyone else's children and these young pages will be--Social Security still will not be bankrupt because payroll taxes coming into the system will be enough to pay almost 80 percent of the benefits promised today if we do nothing to fix any problems so that we can provide whatever the 100-percent benefit level would be in 2052. So I believe Social Security may require some action to ensure that it remains strong, but it does not require fundamental changes. I would strongly caution against this ``medicine'' the President is prescribing. It will make the patient, who is well, sick. It will undermine the long-term health and quality of this remarkable achievement of the 20th century. Because, after all, Social Security is the largest source of retirement income in the United States. For 6 out of 10 seniors, it provides half or more of their total income. My mother was born in 1919. I hope she does not mind me telling everybody. Let's remember that before the enactment of Social Security, more than 50 percent of the Nation's elderly lived in poverty. We are talking about destitute poverty. Today, only 8 percent of seniors live in poverty. Let us also not forget that it is women like my mother who constitute the majority of Social Security beneficiaries: approximately 60 percent of Social Security recipients over the age of 65, and roughly 72 percent of those over 85. In my State of New York, more than 1.6 million women receive Social Security benefits.

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

Mrs. CLINTON. Madam President, I thank my colleague, the woman we call the dean of the women in the Senate.

Mrs. CLINTON. Thank you, Madam President. So you can see why we have come to the floor today to talk about the way this affects women, because among elderly widows, such as my mother, Social Security provides, on average, nearly three-quarters of their income. Four out of 10 widows rely on Social Security to provide 90 percent or more of their income. Now, we heard the President say last night that people over 55 need not worry. Well, what about people between 20 and 55? What about the 50-year-old woman who has paid into Social Security for the last 30 years? What about the 40-year-old woman who has paid into Social Security to ensure the retirement security of her mother and expects the same from her daughter? These are very important questions because they go to the heart of our intergenerational compact. So this is the first of what will be a long and very active debate. Let us hope at the end we conclude that we should follow President Reagan's example, swallow some medicine that will not kill the patient, work in a bipartisan manner, and preserve Social Security for years to come. Madam President, I thank my colleague from Maryland.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, there has been a lot of discussion throughout this debate of the personal story of White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales, who has been nominated by President Bush to serve as the next Attorney General of the United States. I agree that Judge Gonzales's life story embodies the American dream. Judge Gonzales is the son of immigrants, and lived in a home with his parents and eight brothers and sisters that I am sure had a lot of love but that did not have a lot of comfort, with no running water and no telephone. Thanks to his hard work and dedication, he went on to graduate from Rice University and Harvard Law School; he served as the Texas Secretary of State and a Justice on the Texas Supreme Court; and of course he became White House counsel in 2000. This is an extremely impressive record of personal accomplishment, and I admire Judge Gonzales for his life story, which proves that hard work can take you anywhere in this country, no matter where you start out on the economic ladder. It is inspiring not only for Hispanic Americans, but for all Americans. But while a Cabinet nominee's personal story is relevant to our consideration of whether that nominee should be confirmed, I believe that our constitutional responsibility to advise and consent requires a more thorough look. We in the Senate owe an obligation to the American people to consider and evaluate fully an Attorney General nominee's current policy and legal views, as well as his or her prior views and actions taken concerning relevant issues. I have reviewed Judge Gonzales's record and his responses, or lack of responses, to the many thoughtful questions posed by members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. On the basis of his professional record and his unwillingness to answer critical questions, I am compelled to oppose his nomination. Judge Gonzales's record as White House counsel contains misjudgments and misreadings of U.S. and international law that were so grievous as to have shaken the conscience of our Nation and the bedrock of the most fundamental aspects of our democracy. Judge Gonzales advised President Bush in January 2002 that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to the conflict in Afghanistan. He wrote that the ``war on terrorism'' offers a ``new paradigm [that] renders obsolete'' the Geneva Convention's protections. Memos prepared under his direction that same year recommended official authorization of cruel interrogation methods including: waterboarding, feigned suffocation, and sleep deprivation. In response to a draft memorandum prepared and circulated by White House Counsel Gonzales on the applicability of the Geneva Convention to the conflict in Afghanistan, then-Secretary of State Colin Powell, who served our Nation for decades with distinction both in and out of uniform, prepared a memo outlining his deep concerns with both Judge Gonzales's assertions and his reasoning. Secretary Powell wrote that he was ``concerned that the draft [memorandum] does not squarely present to the President the options that are available to him. Nor does it identify the significant pros and cons of each option.'' The Secretary also noted a number of significant inaccuracies in the draft memorandum, concerning previous applications of the Geneva Convention. In discussing the option of declaring that the Geneva Convention does not apply, Secretary Powell noted a number of key concerns, including that doing so ``would reverse over a century of U.S. policy and practice in supporting the Geneva conventions and undermine the protections of the law of war for our troops, both in this specific conflict and in general.'' Secretary Powell also noted many other major disadvantages of pursuing such a position, including the high cost in terms of a negative international reaction, which would hinder the ability of the United States to conduct its foreign policy, and noting that the policy would undermine public support among critical allies. Judge Gonzales dismissed out-of-hand these concerns, as well as others raised by senior members of the military, and recommended that the Geneva Conventions do not apply. I believe that all Members of this body strongly support our men and women in the military. As a member of the Armed Services Committee, however, I feel a particular personal obligation to do my utmost to ensure that our government does not do anything that unnecessarily puts our troops in harm's way; that diminishes our standing among our allies, from whom we have asked and will continue to ask much in helping us fight the global war on terror; or that blurs the values that distinguish us from our enemies, whose depraved actions and nihilistic morality stand in stark contrast to our Nation's historic values and conduct. In serving as the President's top legal adviser on matters of both domestic and international policy and law, Judge Gonzales had that obligation as well. Unfortunately, I believe he fell short of meeting that obligation and let the American people, and especially America's men and women in uniform, down. These are not just my views but the views of some retired senior members of our military. In an open letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee, this group of retired military leaders expressed their deep concern with this nomination. They noted his significant role in shaping U.S. detention and interrogation policies and operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere and concluded, ``it is clear that these operations have fostered greater animosity toward the United States, undermined our intelligence gathering efforts, and added to the risks facing our troops serving around the world.'' Their open letter went on to say, [p]erhaps most troubling of all, the White House decision to depart from the Geneva Conventions in Afghanistan went hand in hand with the decision to relax the definition of torture and to alter interrogation doctrine accordingly. Mr. Gonzales' January 2002 memo itself warned that the decision not to apply the Geneva Convention standards ``could undermine U.S. military culture which emphasizes maintaining the highest standards of conduct in combat, and could introduce an element of uncertainty in the status of adversaries.'' Yet Mr. Gonzales then made that very recommendation with reference to Afghanistan, a policy later extended piece by piece to Iraq. Sadly, the uncertainty Mr. Gonzales warned about came to fruition. As James R. Schlesinger's panel reviewing Defense Department detention operations concluded earlier this year, these changes in doctrine have led to uncertainty and confusion in the field, contributing to the abuses of detainees at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere, and undermining the mission and morale of our troops. Almost as troubling to me as the advice Judge Gonzales gave the President as White House counsel is his unwillingness to respond to important questions posed by members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. During his nomination hearing before the Committee, Judge Gonzales was presented with repeated opportunities to repudiate his prior positions, and to respond to legitimate concerns. He consistently refused to do so. He also refused to respond freely to important written questions submitted by Judiciary Committee members that remained unanswered after the hearing. Judge Gonzales's unwillingness to answer questions or to submit himself fully to the nomination process has extended beyond his dealings with the Judiciary Committee. The Congressional Hispanic Caucus has announced that it will not support his nomination, because Judge Gonzales refused to meet with the Caucus or address their questions. According to the White House, Judge Gonzales was ``too busy'' to meet with the CHC. The CHC has determined that ``the Latino community continues to lack clear information'' about how Judge Gonzales would influence policies important to the Latino community. It is for this same reason that the New York-based Puerto Rican Legal Defense & Education Fund has withheld its endorsement from Judge Gonzales. PRLDEF signed a letter prior to Judge Gonzales's hearing before the Judiciary Committee, identifying serious concerns about his nomination. PRLDEF reports that Judge Gonzales has still not adequately addressed these concerns. I believe the Congress and the American people deserve much more from a nominee who seeks to become the Nation's chief law enforcement officer. What saddens me the most is that Judge Gonzales is an accomplished and bright public servant, and the circumstances that have forced me to oppose his nomination were eminently avoidable, had Judge Gonzales simply met his basic obligations as a lawyer and as a nominee. Underlying my opposition to Judge Gonzales's nomination as Attorney General is the fact that as White House Counsel, one of the most important legal positions in the Nation, Judge Gonzales had a firm duty, as do all lawyers, to advise his client in this case President Bush with independent, professional judgment grounded in law, and based upon standards of morality and decency. Indeed, the American Bar Association's Model Rules of Professional Conduct speak explicitly to the role of lawyers as counselors and advisors. One of those rules states that ``[i]n representing a client, a lawyer shall exercise independent professional judgment and render candid advice. In rendering advice, a lawyer may refer not only to law but to other considerations such as moral, economic, social and political factors that may be relevant to the client's situation.'' The duty to exercise independent judgment and provide informed advice to one's client is a duty that all lawyers must uphold; lawyers are compelled to speak the truth as they independently see it, and not simply parrot back what they believe their clients want to hear. I believe that as White House counsel, Judge Gonzales breached that duty, not only to his client President Bush, but to the American people. He advised that the President adopt a number of incorrect legal positions that were wrong on the law and wrong morally. And he did so on some of the most important issues confronting our Nation, at a time when thousands of young Americans fighting to promote democracy and freedom in Afghanistan and Iraq and around the world were at risk of mistreatment if captured. We cannot control the behavior of our enemies, but we can avoid giving them any excuse or rationale to mistreat Americans. And we can avoid giving them any basis on which to claim there is no difference between us and them. For all of these reasons, I must oppose this nomination and ask my colleagues to do the same.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Caribbean National Forest Act of 2005 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. Just over 100 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 100 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 almost one million 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. During a House hearing on this measure in 2003 the U.S. Forest Service stated its support for the designation of the El Toro Wilderness Area. Those views were reconfirmed last July, when Mark Rey, the Department of Agriculture's Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment, supported my legislation during his testimony before the Senate Energy and National Resources Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the calling for a 2-1-1 Act with my colleague Senator Elizabeth Dole. This bill will make an invaluable difference for the citizens of New York and the country. Just last week I was in Rochester helping to launch a 2-1-1 call center that will serve the citizens of the Finger Lakes region of New York. This call center will provide a simple, efficient, and convenient way for individuals to obtain vital information about government services. It is the first step in an ambitious plan to provide 365 day, 24 hour 2-1-1 service throughout all of New York, and ultimately, the entire country. The Calling for 2-1-1 Act, which I am introducing today, will create at least one 2-1-1 call center just like the one in Rochester in every state in the country, and will link every regional call center together to ensure Statewide coverage. Last Congress, 31 members of the Senate and 149 members of the House of Representatives co-sponsored the Calling for 2-1-1 Act. In the 109th, we are working to appeal to even more. The best part of the 2-1-1 system is that it is equally available to everyone. From the mother whose child is about to go off to war, to the veteran returning from service, 2-1-1 will help people access the information they need when they need it. It helps teens who are in crisis and young mothers who have nowhere else to turn. Single mothers trying to find a job in a tough economy, frail senior citizens who need help with transportation but have no family or friends to call, and substance-abusing teens who in a moment of lucidity decide to seek a way out can all find what they need by dialing 2-1-1. This number also helps people who want to give back to their communities. 2-1-1 provides lots of information about volunteer opportunities and helps direct people who want to give donations. At times of disaster, like the recent tsunami, 2-1-1 will be there to help get everyone the information they need to make sure their donations are directed effectively. 2-1-1 is not only good for New Yorkers; it is also good for our Nation's bottom line. 2-1-1 saves money because it eliminates duplicative services. The service will replace the existing maze of individual numbers for individual services: hotlines for shelter from abusive spouses, vaccinations for children, or information about where to obtain hospice services for ailing parents or loved ones. 2-1-1 will be a ``one-stop shop'' for all of these services. According to a recent study by the Ray Marshall Center for the Study of Human Resources at the University of Texas' Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, 2- 1-1 call centers can save as much as $130 million in the first year of operation and as much as $1.1 billion over ten years. I would add that 2-1-1 saves lives. Every time someone calls 9-1-1 with a non-emergency call, the operators spend time with that caller that they could be spending dealing with a true emergency. 2-1-1 will replace 9-1-1 as the non-emergency point of reference because it is so easy to recall. We learned on September 11th how important 2-1-1 can be. In the immediate aftermath of the disaster, most people did not know where to turn for information about their loved ones. Fortunately for those who knew about it, 2-1-1 was already operating in Connecticut during September 11th, and it was critical in helping identify the whereabouts of victims, connecting frightened children with their parents, providing information on terrorist suspects, and linking ready volunteers with coordinated efforts and victims with necessary mental and physical health services. 2-1-1 provided locations of vigils and support groups, and information on bioterrorism for those concerned about future attacks. As time went by, many people needed help getting back on their feet. More than 100,000 people lost their jobs. Close to 2,000 families applied for housing assistance because they couldn't pay their rent or mortgage. 90,000 people developed symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder or clinical depression within eight weeks of the attacks. Another 34,000 people met the criteria for both diagnoses. And 2-1-1 was there to help in Connecticut. It wasn't available in far too many other areas, however. In fact, a Brookings Institution and Urban Institute study of the aftermath of September 11th found that many dislocated workers struggled to obtain available assistance. People ``found it difficult to connect with resources due to a social-services infrastructure that does not support a simple and efficient method for people to learn about and access services and for agencies to coordinate their activities.'' And that is what 2-1-1 is all about. It provides a single, efficient, coordinated way for people who need help to connect with those who can provide it. The Federal Communications Commission laid the groundwork for a 2-1-1 number in 2000 when it directed that telephone number to be reserved for information and referral to social and human-services agencies. The 2-1-1 system opens the way to a user-friendly social-services network, by providing an easy-to-remember and universally available phone number that links individuals and families in need to the appropriate non- profit and government agencies. In Rochester, New York and throughout the Finger Lakes, 2-1-1 will do just that. Whatever the need, 2-1-1 can help point you in the right direction. That is why I am so pleased to be introducing this legislation today, and why I am so optimistic that this will be an important first step in the road to bringing 2-1-1 to communities throughout the Empire State and the entire U.S.A. Thank you.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the calling for a 2-1-1 Act with my colleague Senator Elizabeth Dole. This bill will make an invaluable difference for the citizens of New York and the country. Just last week I was in Rochester helping to launch a 2-1-1 call center that will serve the citizens of the Finger Lakes region of New York. This call center will provide a simple, efficient, and convenient way for individuals to obtain vital information about government services. It is the first step in an ambitious plan to provide 365 day, 24 hour 2-1-1 service throughout all of New York, and ultimately, the entire country. The Calling for 2-1-1 Act, which I am introducing today, will create at least one 2-1-1 call center just like the one in Rochester in every state in the country, and will link every regional call center together to ensure Statewide coverage. Last Congress, 31 members of the Senate and 149 members of the House of Representatives co-sponsored the Calling for 2-1-1 Act. In the 109th, we are working to appeal to even more. The best part of the 2-1-1 system is that it is equally available to everyone. From the mother whose child is about to go off to war, to the veteran returning from service, 2-1-1 will help people access the information they need when they need it. It helps teens who are in crisis and young mothers who have nowhere else to turn. Single mothers trying to find a job in a tough economy, frail senior citizens who need help with transportation but have no family or friends to call, and substance-abusing teens who in a moment of lucidity decide to seek a way out can all find what they need by dialing 2-1-1. This number also helps people who want to give back to their communities. 2-1-1 provides lots of information about volunteer opportunities and helps direct people who want to give donations. At times of disaster, like the recent tsunami, 2-1-1 will be there to help get everyone the information they need to make sure their donations are directed effectively. 2-1-1 is not only good for New Yorkers; it is also good for our Nation's bottom line. 2-1-1 saves money because it eliminates duplicative services. The service will replace the existing maze of individual numbers for individual services: hotlines for shelter from abusive spouses, vaccinations for children, or information about where to obtain hospice services for ailing parents or loved ones. 2-1-1 will be a ``one-stop shop'' for all of these services. According to a recent study by the Ray Marshall Center for the Study of Human Resources at the University of Texas' Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, 2- 1-1 call centers can save as much as $130 million in the first year of operation and as much as $1.1 billion over ten years. I would add that 2-1-1 saves lives. Every time someone calls 9-1-1 with a non-emergency call, the operators spend time with that caller that they could be spending dealing with a true emergency. 2-1-1 will replace 9-1-1 as the non-emergency point of reference because it is so easy to recall. We learned on September 11th how important 2-1-1 can be. In the immediate aftermath of the disaster, most people did not know where to turn for information about their loved ones. Fortunately for those who knew about it, 2-1-1 was already operating in Connecticut during September 11th, and it was critical in helping identify the whereabouts of victims, connecting frightened children with their parents, providing information on terrorist suspects, and linking ready volunteers with coordinated efforts and victims with necessary mental and physical health services. 2-1-1 provided locations of vigils and support groups, and information on bioterrorism for those concerned about future attacks. As time went by, many people needed help getting back on their feet. More than 100,000 people lost their jobs. Close to 2,000 families applied for housing assistance because they couldn't pay their rent or mortgage. 90,000 people developed symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder or clinical depression within eight weeks of the attacks. Another 34,000 people met the criteria for both diagnoses. And 2-1-1 was there to help in Connecticut. It wasn't available in far too many other areas, however. In fact, a Brookings Institution and Urban Institute study of the aftermath of September 11th found that many dislocated workers struggled to obtain available assistance. People ``found it difficult to connect with resources due to a social-services infrastructure that does not support a simple and efficient method for people to learn about and access services and for agencies to coordinate their activities.'' And that is what 2-1-1 is all about. It provides a single, efficient, coordinated way for people who need help to connect with those who can provide it. The Federal Communications Commission laid the groundwork for a 2-1-1 number in 2000 when it directed that telephone number to be reserved for information and referral to social and human-services agencies. The 2-1-1 system opens the way to a user-friendly social-services network, by providing an easy-to-remember and universally available phone number that links individuals and families in need to the appropriate non- profit and government agencies. In Rochester, New York and throughout the Finger Lakes, 2-1-1 will do just that. Whatever the need, 2-1-1 can help point you in the right direction. That is why I am so pleased to be introducing this legislation today, and why I am so optimistic that this will be an important first step in the road to bringing 2-1-1 to communities throughout the Empire State and the entire U.S.A. Thank you.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, the vote on whether to confirm Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State is a difficult decision. The administration and Defense Department's Iraq policy has been, by any reasonable measure, riddled with errors, misstatements, and misjudgments. From the beginning of the Iraqi war, we were inadequately prepared for the aftermath of the invasion with too few troops and an inadequate plan to stabilize Iraq. Today, we are reaping the consequences of those decisions with continuing tragic losses of American and Iraqi lives, a full-fledged insurgency in Iraq and a lack of security and stability in many areas. In fact, the National Intelligence Council, the CIA's own think tank, recently stated that Iraq has now replaced Afghanistan as the prime international terrorist haven--a deeply disturbing result of our problematic policies. In her role as National Security Advisor, Dr. Rice was a member of the team responsible for our flawed Iraq policy. She made several misleading statements about the presence of weapons of mass destruction in the lead up to the war. And in the almost 2 years since the Iraq invasion, the flawed policies on Iraq have not been corrected. Indeed, Dr. Rice has tremendous difficulty in even admitting error though obvious errors abound. In addition, $18 billion has been appropriated for the reconstruction of Iraq, but only a tiny percentage of that money has actually been spent because of the violence in Iraq. Although I profoundly disagree and deeply regret how this war has been conducted, my concern has less to do with Dr. Rice and more to do with President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and Secretary Rumsfeld. The fact is that the President was reelected, and, though I was strongly opposed to his reelection, he was reelected nonetheless. I do not believe, however, that accountability ends with an election. We are all public servants, including the President and his team, and we are all therefore accountable to the public for our achievements and mistakes on a continual basis. We are also accountable to the future and to history. So while I, and many of my colleagues, have strong concerns about her role in the development of a flawed Iraq policy, an overwhelming majority on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, including a large majority of committee Democrats, voted in favor of forwarding her nomination to the full Senate. While many of my Democratic colleagues on the committee, including the ranking member, share my concern over her role in our Iraq policy, they think it worthwhile to give her a chance in this new role. That judgment, from Senators who had the opportunity to probe and question Dr. Rice on her qualifications, tips the balance in favor of voting for Dr. Rice's nomination to be Secretary of State, in my mind. I am hopeful that Dr. Rice's background and training will enable her to serve as Secretary of State with distinction and that she will carry the lessons of our policy failures in Iraq with her as she leads the Department of State. She does have the President's ear and I hope she will use her role to direct the President's attention to addressing our frayed alliances in Europe, our relationships with Latin America, our policy toward Russia, nuclear proliferation around the world, especially in Iran and North Korea, personal sustained attention to new opportunities for lasting security and peace in the Middle East, problems and opportunities posed by China, Afghanistan, India and Pakistan and to lead the world's efforts to address the global crises of AIDS and other diseases, environmental degradation, poverty, education and health care in the developing world, and human rights. As National Security Advisor, Dr. Rice's role was to advise the President. The Secretary of State has a different role as the Nation's chief diplomat. Dr. Rice's proposed appointments to senior positions within the State Department are well-qualified experienced personnel. I am hopeful that Dr. Rice's statements during the recent hearings in support of reaching out to allies, public diplomacy and building coalitions will be more than words, but instead describe a genuine effort to ensure that our country leads the world though its strong alliances, values and example.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, this is obviously a difficult debate for many reasons. I commend the Senator from California for joining with members of the House, most particularly Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones, in raising the objection, because it does permit us to air some of these issues--something I believe is necessary for the smooth functioning of our democracy and the integrity of the most precious right of any citizen, namely, the right to vote. As we look at our election system, I think it is fair to say there are many legitimate questions about its accuracy and about its integrity, and they are not confined to the State of Ohio. They are ones that have arisen throughout our country and certainly because of the election of 2000 have been given high relief in the last 4 years. Then questions were raised additionally with respect to this election which deepened the concern of many people about whether we can assure the continuity of our democratic process by ensuring the consent of the governed and the acceptance of the results of elections. Several weeks ago, we stood in great admiration as a nation behind the people of Ukraine as they took to the streets to demand they be given the right to an election where every vote was counted. In a few weeks, we are going to see an election in Iraq. We know there are people literally dying in Iraq for the right to cast a free vote. I am very proud of our country, that we have stood with Ukrainians, Iraqis, and others around the world, but increasingly, I worry that if this body, this Congress does not stand up on a bipartisan basis for the right to vote here at home, our moral authority will be weakened. I take that very seriously because freedom is our most precious value, and we have for 225-plus years worked to form a more perfect Union. At first, not everybody was permitted to vote in our own country, but through constitutional changes, a civil war, and a civil rights movement, we expanded the franchise. This year we will celebrate the anniversary of the Voting Rights Act, and it will be an opportunity for us to take a look at this landmark legislation and determine how we are going to move it into the 21st century so it really stands for what it was intended to do when it was first passed. I would be standing here saying this no matter what the outcome of the election because I still think the best rule in politics is the golden rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. I worry, whether it is a Democratic or Republican administration or a local county, State, or Federal election, that we are on a slippery slope as a nation. My colleague, Senator Boxer, and I, along with former Senator Bob Graham of Florida, introduced legislation last year to try to assure a verifiable paper audit. We did not get anywhere with that. We did not get a hearing before the Rules Committee, and I hope the distinguished chair of the Rules Committee will hold such a hearing this year because if we can buy a lottery ticket or go to a bank and make an ATM deposit, then we know we can use an electronic transfer mechanism that gives us a record. That is just one of the many issues we can deal with technologically. Last spring, India, the largest democracy--we are the oldest democracy, so in that way we are real partners in this great enterprise of democracy--had an election. Mr. President, 550 million or so people voted, from the dot-com billionaire to the poor illiterate peasant. They all voted. They voted on electronic voting machines. They voted in a way that guaranteed the safety, security, and accuracy of their vote. They had uniform standards. They had a nonpartisan board that oversaw that election, and the result was shocking. They threw out the existing government. Nobody had predicted that. Yet they did it with integrity. Surely, we should be setting the standards. I hope in this body, and thanks to the objection of my friend from California, this debate which started today will continue. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, today is a historic day. We are coming to the end of a process that began immediately after the September 11 attacks and is ending with a historic reorganization of the intelligence community. Today's vote, coming after months of testimony before the 9/11 Commission, weeks of hearings on Capitol Hill and tough negotiations in Congress, represents a signal accomplishment in reforming our government to protect our homeland and fighting the war on terror. Today's accomplishment, the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, would not have been possible without the courage, dedication and hard work of the families of the victims of September 11. It was the persistence and resilience of these brave family members who lost their loved ones on September 11 that led to the creation of the 9/11 Commission. And it was their continued resolve that helped to keep the heat on Congress to insure that those recommendations were put into law. While not every recommendation of the 9/11 Commission is included in this bill, the bill makes historic changes in the way our government will collect and analyze intelligence so that we hopefully never again have to live through a day like September 11. In the aftermath of September 11, and as the 9/11 Commission report so aptly demonstrates, it is clear that our intelligence system is not working the way that it should. The Commission report, following on the work of prior commissions that have studied the issue, details how we have 15 different intelligence agencies who are not sharing information, not communicating with one another and missing important linkages. This legislation, through the creation of a Director of National Intelligence, DNI, breaks down the artificial barriers in the intelligence community and insures that there is a high level official, answerable to the President, who is working to insure that our intelligence agencies are sharing information and communicating with one another. This legislation gives the DNI budget authority over the intelligence community which will allow him or her to exercise proper control over the coordination among agencies. In Washington, budget authority means real authority and strengthening the DNI is a major accomplishment of this bill. He or she will also be responsible for budget execution and have the authority to reprogram funds and transfer personnel. These powers will allow the DNI to establish objectives and priorities for the intelligence community and manage and direct tasking of collection, analysis, production, and dissemination of national intelligence. This legislation also establishes a Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, as the 9/11 Commission recommended. The creation of this Board is intended to ensure that at the same time we enhance our Nation's intelligence and homeland defense capabilities, we also remain vigilant in protecting the civil liberties of Americans. Our civil liberties define us as Americans. As the 9/11 Commission said, ``Our history has shown us that insecurity threatens liberty. Yet, if our liberties are curtailed, we lose the values that we are struggling to defend.'' The conference report being considered today essentially charges the Board with primary executive branch responsibility for ensuring that privacy and civil liberty concerns will be appropriately considered in the implementation of provisions designed to protect us against terrorism. While the legislation that initially passed the Senate explicitly provided the Board with subpoena powers, the conference report that we are voting on today does not. That omission is unfortunate, and I will work with my colleagues in Congress to address this issue and provide such powers in the future, so that the Board will have the tools it will need to help us maintain the proper balance between our Nation's security and our liberties. The legislation calls for dramatic improvements in the security of our Nation's transportation infrastructure, including aviation security, air cargo security, and port security. Through this legislation, the security of the northern border will also be improved, a goal I have worked toward since 2001. Among many key provisions, the legislation calls for an increase of at least 10,000 border patrol agents from fiscal years 2006 through 2010, many of whom will be dedicated specifically to our northern border. There will also be an increase of at least 4,000 full-time immigration and Customs enforcement officers in the next 5 years. While I look forward to a productive debate on immigration issues in the next Congress, I am pleased that there are a number of key immigration reform provisions in this legislation, including those addressing the process of obtaining U.S. visas. I am also pleased that the legislation addresses the root causes of terrorism in a proactive manner. This is an issue that I have spent a good deal of time on in the past year because I believe so strongly that we are all more secure when children and adults around the world are taught math and science instead of hate. The bill we are voting on today includes authorization for an International Youth Opportunity Fund, which will provide resources to build schools in Muslim countries. The legislation also acknowledges that the U.S. has a vested interest in committing to a long-term, sustainable investment in education around the globe. Some of this language is modeled on legislation that I introduced in September, the Education for All Act of 2004, and I believe it takes us a small step towards eliminating madrassas and replacing them with schools that provide a real education to all children. But we are being shortsighted if we limit our educational investments to countries with predominantly Muslim populations, and if we focus solely on expanding the number of U.S.-run schools in these areas, as the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act does. Instead, the U.S. should work with the global community to create strong incentives for developing countries to build universal, public education systems of their own. Only then will our investments have the maximum impact because only then will they result in systemic change. We do not know where the next Afghanistan will spring up, but we do know that extremism will flourish where educational systems fail. The 9/11 Commission, and the commissions before it, including the Homeland Security Independent Task Force of the Council on Foreign Relations, chaired by former Senators Warren Rudman and Gary Hart-- Hart-Rudman Commission--and the Advisory Panel to Assess Domestic Response Capabilities for Terrorism Involving Weapons of Mass Destruction, chaired by former Gov. James Gilmore III--Gilmore Commission--called for dramatic improvements in the sharing of intelligence information. In the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, I worked with a number of my colleagues bipartisan basis in focusing on the need for greater sharing of terrorist-related information between and among Federal, State and local government agencies. The sharing of critical intelligence information is vitally important if we are to win the war against terrorism. We need to ensure that our frontline solders in the war against terrorism here at home-- our local communities and our first responders--are as informed as possible about any possible threat so that they can do the best job possible to protect all Americans. I am pleased that this legislation mandates major improvements in this regard. Contained in title VII of the act are provisions from the 9/11 Commission Implementation Act of 2004, legislation introduced by Senators McCain and Lieberman and for which I am proud to have been an original cosponsor. Among its provisions are those that address homeland security preparedness, including a call for a unified incident command system and significantly enhancing interoperable communications between and among first responders and all levels of government. Title VII also speaks to the need for allocation of additional spectrum for first responder needs and to assess strategies that may be used to meet public safety telecommunication needs, an issue that I have focused on intensely as cochair of the E-911 Caucus. I am extremely disappointed, however, that this legislation does not specifically mandate an improvement in how the Federal Government allocates critical homeland security funds to States and local communities around the country. As many of my colleagues know, I have repeatedly called upon the administration and my colleagues to implement threatbased homeland security funding to ensure that the homeland security resources go to the States and areas where they are needed most. I have introduced legislation in this regard and even developed a specific homeland security formula for administration officials to consider. But threat-based funding is not only important to me and to the New Yorkers whom I represent; it was also a primary recommendation of the 9/11 Commission. Specifically, in its report, the Commission stated: We understand the contention that every state and city needs to have some minimum infrastructure for emergency response. But federal homeland security assistance should not remain a program for general revenue sharing. It should supplement state and local resources based on the risks or vulnerability that merit additional support. Congress should not use this money as a pork barrel. The 9/11 Commission also recommended that an advisory committee be established to advise the Secretary on any additional factors the Secretary should consider, such as benchmarks for evaluating community homeland security needs. As to these benchmarks, the Commission stated that ``the benchmarks will be imperfect and subjective, they will continually evolve. But hard choices must be made. Those who would allocate money on a different basis should then defend their view of the national interest.'' In short, the Commission made unequivocally clear that the current method of allocating the majority of federal homeland security resources, i.e., on a per capita basis alone, must be changed. Not only did the 9/11 Commission recommend that such changes be made in how Federal homeland security funds are allocated, but commissions before it, such as the Rudman Commission, have strongly recommended it as well. Indeed, the Rudman Commission stated more than a year and a half ago that ``Congress should establish a system for allocating scarce resources based less on dividing the spoils and more on addressing identified threats and vulnerabilities. . . . To do this, the federal government should consider such factors as population, population density, vulnerability assessment, and presence of critical infrastructure within each state.'' Both the Senate and House-passed intelligence reform bills that were reconciled in this conference report contained language that sought to effectuate this important recommendation but, unfortunately, such language was not included in the conference report. As the 9/11 Commission, Rudman Commission, many other homeland security experts, and I have repeatedly asserted, there are few issues more important to our nation's homeland defense than homeland security preparedness and the proper allocation of the resources to achieve that preparedness. Therefore, I will continue to work as hard as I can with my colleagues on a bi-partisan basis to make the 9/11 Commission's call for threat and risk-based funding a reality. At the end of the day, this legislation has the capacity to improve our security and make us safer. I would especially like to note the dogged persistence of Senators Collins and Lieberman, who were unflinching in their work on this important bill. However, passage of this legislation is just the beginning. We have now given our Government the tools to make a difference. But as with anything in our system, success depends on the independence and accountability of those appointed to carry out these reforms. It is critical that the American people, and we in Congress, insist upon accountability from those whom we are asking to implement these reforms. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate in that effort. Once again, thank you to the 9/11 families, the 9/11 Commission and all those who have worked to make this legislation a reality. Now the hard work of implementing these reforms begins.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise today to honor Dr. Richard Axel, the co-recipient of the 2004 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine. Dr. Axel received this prize for research that he and his co- recipient Dr. Linda Buck conducted on the ways in which our brains process smells. Drs. Axel and Buck are pioneers in the field of sensory biology, and have contributed much to our knowledge of how humans comprehend olfactory information. Their prize-winning research was conducted at Columbia University Medical Center, where Dr. Axel is a University Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biophysics and Pathology. Dr. Axel grew up in Brooklyn and received his earliest training at Manhattan's Stuyvesant High School. Because of his interest in science, he found a job as a glassware washer at a Columbia medical research facility, where he was soon promoted to a research position. By the time he graduated from Columbia College, his work had already been published in scientific journals. Dr. Axel has spent the majority of his subsequent career performing neuroscience research at Columbia University. I would like to note that Dr. Axel's prize is the latest in a series of distinguished scientific honors earned by residents of New York. The 2003 Nobel Prize for Chemistry was awarded to Dr. Roderick MacKinnon of Rockefeller University, and in 2000, Dr. Eric Kandel of Columbia University was one of the recipients of the Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine. Next month, Dr. Axel will travel to Stockholm to accept the 2004 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine. I ask that all of my colleagues join me in congratulating Dr. Axel for receiving this tremendous honor. I look forward to learning of the future discoveries that will result from Dr. Axel's groundbreaking research. I ask that an article about Dr. Axel from In Vivo, the Columbia University Medical Center campus newspaper, be printed in the Record following my remarks. A Life in Science Rewarded (By Susan Conova) Discoveries made at CUMC about the sense of smell go beyond providing a description of what most people think is merely an aesthetic sense. Instead, understanding how the brain distinguishes among a bewildering array of different odors gives scientists a much greater understanding of how the brain works. ``Odors generate specific behaviors and specific thoughts and how that happens is still an unsolved and fascinating mystery in brain science,'' says Richard Axel, M.D., University Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biophysics and Pathology and recipient of the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine on Oct. 4. ``Knowing how our perceptions of the external world, including smell, impact our emotions and our behavior will be extremely important in thinking about diseases like schizophrenia to understand how the brain works.'' When Dr. Axel and his former postdoctoral researcher Linda Buck, Ph.D., of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center and a professor at the University of Washington in Seattle, began their work in the late 1980s, very little was known about the sense of smell. In 1985, Dr. Buck came across a paper describing the unsolved question of how odors are detected in the nose and was immediately hooked by ``the monumental problem and a wonderful puzzle.'' ``This paper opened up a fascinating new world for me,'' she wrote earlier this year in the journal Cell. ``It was estimated that humans could perceive 10,000 or more chemicals as having distinct odors. How could the olfactory system detect such an enormous diversity of chemicals? And how could the nervous system translate this complexity of chemical structures into a multitude of different odor perceptions?'' The questions would remain unanswered unless the receptors responsible for picking up odorants in the air were identified. In 1988, Dr. Buck, working in Dr. Axel's lab at P&S, started tracking them down. Several initial attempts failed. ``Linda was an extremely creative and tenacious Fellow,'' Dr. Axel says. ``The solution to this problem took quite a long time, but the thoughtfulness of her approach made me think she would eventually succeed.'' In 1991 Drs. Axel and Buck broke the field open when they published a paper describing an enormous family of genes in mice that coded for 1,000 different receptors. The study was reported in newspapers and other news media worldwide. Later work revealed about 350 functional receptor genes in humans. ``We were quite surprised that up to 5 percent of the genome was taken up by odor receptors,'' says Dr. Axel, also a member of Columbia's Center for Neurobiology and Behavior. ``That's a sharp distinction to the three genes that the visual system uses to discriminate several hundred different hues. It shows that a system like the visual system would be inadequate to distinguish among the rich variety of odors in the environment.'' Gerald Fischbach, M.D., executive vice president and dean, says the finding ranks among the most important discoveries of the past 50 years: ``The discovery of the genes opened up a field of sensory biology that didn't exist before.'' Once the receptor genes were identified, both researchers independently moved to the more complex question of how the brain knows what the nose smells, with the support of the NIH and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, where the two are investigators. Their labs and others have revealed that part of the answer is that each odor produces a unique spatial pattern, or map, of neuronal activity in the brain's olfactory center. If the olfactory center was laid out like a map of the United States, it would be as if the aroma from a rose would light up Boston, New York, and San Francisco, while rotting food would light up Los Angeles and Denver. The question now, Dr. Axel says, is figuring out how an organism uses these odor maps. We can look down at the maps of activity in an organism's brain and see what it's smelling, but how does the process actually work within an organism? ``To know that the world is interested in our work will, I think, intensify our efforts toward reaching an answer,'' Dr. Axel says.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, last year, I stood with several of my colleagues in the Senate and voiced concerns that the effort to increase the debt limit by nearly $1 trillion was the wrong fiscal course to take this Nation. Indeed, I did not oppose the debt limit increase because of any ideological opposition to doing so. In fact, during my husband's administration, we raised the debt limit permanently on two separate occasions. But what was different then was that we had a solid plan to balance the budget, and thereby begin paying down our Nation's debt. That plan worked. We had the largest budget surpluses in the history of this Nation and we retired nearly half a trillion dollars of our Nation's debt while creating jobs, growing our economy and lifting millions of Americans out of poverty. With the current administration's agenda, there is no plan for restraint or moderation, nor is there any solid framework for paying down our Nation's debt. During these next four years, we know we will be making a huge investment for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan and we know that we will continue to make significant and increased investments in homeland security, education and health care. Faced with these growing budgetary pressures, I am amazed that the same passion used to champion and implement this administration's agenda over the last four years has been entirely muted when it comes to fiscal restraint or responsible choices to balance the budget or pay down our national debt. This certainly wasn't the case during the 90's when, even though we were making solid progress in reducing the deficit and the national debt, we were warned that our national debt would ``threaten future generations, threaten the future of our children, threaten our Social Security system and threaten our ability to lead the way in the global economy of the 21st century.'' Last year, when I opposed the last debt limit increase, I said that absent any plan from this administration to address the growing deficit and exploding debt, we would be here again. Here we are one year later, about to pass the third increase in 4 years, having permanently increased the debt ceiling by over $2.2 trillion or $8,100 for every man, woman and child in the United States. However nothing from the administration in terms of a plan to reduce the debt or making responsible choices has changed. Indeed, the only thing that has changed since the last debt increase is that our budget deficit has deteriorated by $50 billion. Given the reckless fiscal course taken over the last several years, and little evidence to indicate a shift from that course, I cannot, in good conscience support another step that passes along the burdens of this generation to the next because of our failure to address these problems today. Raising this debt limit while embracing policies that further exacerbate the deficit is in essence a ``children's tax,'' a burden borne not by this administration or this Congress, but by our sons, our daughters, and our grandchildren.