Hillary Clinton

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, today I honor Dr. Allan Rosenfield, Dean of the Mailman School of Public Health at Columbia University, as well as introduce the training program named in his honor. Dr. Rosenfield has spent his career working to improve the health and well-being of our most vulnerable populations. He has been a champion of women's health both in United States and around the world and is well known for his work on the HIV/AIDS pandemic, innovative family planning studies, and strategies to address the tragedy of wholly preventable maternal deaths in resource-poor countries. As dean and professor of the Mailman School of Public Health, Dr. Rosenfield has been, for the past 20 years, a mentor for several generations of educators, public health students, and researchers. Dr. Rosenfield was among the earliest to voice the ethical challenges of decreasing transmission of HIV to newborns by treating mothers with antiretroviral drugs before delivery, without consideration of ongoing care and treatment of mothers. He has spearheaded programs in resource- poor settings that not only prevent mother-to-child transmission of HIV but also provide comprehensive clinical services to women. In light of Dr. Rosenfield's countless contributions toward improving the health of individuals globally--as a researcher, an advocate, an educator and as a compassionate human being--it is fitting to name the ASPH-CDC Global Health Fellowship Program in honor of Allan Rosenfield. The fellows in this program, who are graduates of the Nation's accredited schools of public health, are trained to help prevent HIV infection, improve care and support, and build capacity to address the global HIV/AIDS pandemic. Fellows also participate in immunization program activities in support of global polio eradication, measles mortality reduction, regional measles elimination, and general global immunization activities. They receive mentoring and support from dedicated CDC employees in the field. The mission of this fellowship program is to train the next generation of global health leaders, and it is fitting that this program honor an individual who is a foremost leader in global health. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in celebrating the Allan Rosenfield Global Health Fellowship, most appropriately named after a person whom I, and many others, admire and respect for his relentless dedication and remarkable achievements in preventing disease and saving lives worldwide. I would like to honor and thank him for his many years of work.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about an issue that I believe needs attention during debates on the Agriculture appropriations bill for fiscal year 2007. Antimicrobial drugs that are used to treat human diseases are being used at an alarming rate in large-scale animal production. There is growing evidence of an increased human health risk as a result, specifically the development of antibiotic resistance. Penicillin is a very important antimicrobial drug. It is an essential treatment for serious human diseases and infections, such as Meningococcal meningitis and strep throat. Since its discovery in 1928, it has been estimated that penicillin has saved nearly 200 million lives. Overuse of this drug in agriculture could cause humans to build up resistance to penicillin, limiting our treatment options during health outbreaks. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, livestock producers in the United States use an estimated 24.6 million pounds of antimicrobials on healthy animals every year. Furthermore, the overall use of antimicrobials for nontherapeutic purposes has risen by nearly 50 percent since 1985. The World Health Organization outlined recommendations for healthy livestock production without the use of antimicrobials in the report ``Overcoming Antimicrobial Resistance'' in 2000. The report illustrated those farmers who stopped ``relying on antimicrobials as growth promoters in livestock have experienced no economic repercussions-- provided that animals were given enough space, clean water, and high- grade feed.'' These living conditions are also crucial in avoiding the spread of diseases. I was pleased that in July 2000, the Food and Drug Administration, FDA, announced its intention to ban the use of fluoroquinolone for poultry production due to increasing evidence of antibiotic resistant Campylobacter cultures. Campylobacter infects over 2 million people each year, particularly babies under 1 year old and young adults, and it is a leading cause of diarrhea and food-borne illness. In 1999, more than 11,000 people infected with Campylobacter were receiving less effective or ineffective treatment with fluoroquinolones, up from 5,000 people just one year before. Scientist later discovered the fluoroquinolone-resistant strand of Campylobacter found in humans was the same as those found in animals. Concerns over the emergence of fluoroquinolone-resistant bacteria led the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, to oppose approval of fluoroquinolones for animal use. The fact is diseases that were once easily treated and cured by antimicrobial drugs are becoming more difficult to treat. Resistance to these drugs has been linked to the overuse of these drugs in animal treatment. The Food and Drug Administration, FDA, has recently expressed concerns regarding the overuse of penicillin in the feeds of the animals humans consume. In a May 2004 a statement to manufacturers of veterinary penicillin, the FDA stated that their products could play a role in building up human resistance to this drug, as penicillin is often used in animals to induce animal growth and prevent diseases. I share in the FDA's concern regarding growing resistance to antibiotics like penicillin, and I believe that we should not use these drugs in animal feed without fully understanding the impact on human health. I believe it is important for the Center for Veterinary Medicine to conduct more research on the effects of penicillin in animal feeds, and encourage funding to be added for this purpose. Doing so would shed much needed light on how widespread use of these drugs in feed can affect treating human infections.

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I have an amendment to offer to the Agriculture appropriations bill for fiscal year 2007. My amendment calls for the Center for Veterinary Medicine to study the effects that certain uses of penicillin in animal feeds have on the human immune system. Antimicrobial drugs that are used to treat human diseases are being used at an alarming rate in large-scale animal production. There is growing evidence of an increased human health risk as a result, specifically the development of antibiotic resistance. Penicillin is a very important antimicrobial drug. It is an essential treatment for serious human diseases and infections, such as meningococcal meningitis and strep throat. Since its discovery in 1928, it has been estimated that penicillin has saved nearly 200 million lives. Overuse of this drug in agriculture could cause humans to build up resistance to penicillin, limiting our treatment options during health outbreaks. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, livestock producers in the United States use an estimated 24.6 million pounds of antimicrobials on healthy animals every year. Furthermore, the overall use of antimicrobials for nontherapeutic purposes has risen by nearly 50 percent since 1985. The World Health Organization outlined recommendations for healthy livestock production without the use of antimicrobials in the report ``Overcoming Antimicrobial Resistance'' in 2000. The report illustrated those farmers who stopped ``relying on antimicrobials as growth promoters in livestock have experienced no economic repercussions-- provided that animals were given enough space, clean water, and high- grade feed.'' These living conditions are also crucial in avoiding the spread of diseases. I was pleased that in July 2000, the Food and Drug Administration, FDA, announced its intention to ban the use of fluoroquinolone for poultry production due to increasing evidence of antibiotic resistant Campylobacter cultures. Campylobacter infects over 2 million people each year, particularly babies under 1 year old and young adults, and it is a leading cause of diarrhea and food-borne illness. In 1999, more than 11,000 people infected with Campylobacter were receiving less effective or ineffective treatment with fluoroquinolones, up from 5,000 people just 1 year before. Scientists later discovered the fluoroquinolone-resistant strand of Campylobacter found in humans was the same as those found in animals. Concerns over the emergence of fluoroquinolone-resistant bacteria led the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, to oppose approval of fluoroquinolones for animal use. The fact is diseases that were once easily treated and cured by antimicrobial drugs are becoming more difficult to treat. Resistance to these drugs has been linked to the overuse of these drugs in animal treatment. The Food and Drug Administration, FDA, has recently expressed concerns regarding the overuse of penicillin in the feeds of the animals humans consume. In a May 2004 statement to manufacturers of veterinary penicillin, the FDA stated that their products could play a role in building up human resistance to this drug, as penicillin is often used in animals to induce animal growth and prevent diseases. I share in the FDA's concern regarding growing resistance to antibiotics like penicillin, and I believe that we should not use these drugs in animal feed without fully understanding the impact on human health. I believe it is important for the Center for Veterinary Medicine to conduct more research on the effects of penicillin in animal feeds, and encourage funding to be added for this purpose. Doing so would shed much needed light on how widespread use of these drugs in feed can affect treating human infections. I hope that my colleagues will join me in support of this important amendment.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, today, the Senate has begun debate on S. 3709, the United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act, which will help pave the way for our Nation to assist India in fulfilling its energy needs. I intend to vote in support of this legislation. The United States and India are bound together by deep mutual respect and our common efforts to work towards a democratic, free, and secure world. As cochair of the Senate India Caucus, I have sought to strengthen the ties that bind our two nations. The legislation that emerged from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is a significant improvement over the implementing legislation put forward by the administration in March. The administration's initial proposal sought to undercut Congressional authority by asking us to effectively approve an agreement before it had even been negotiated with India and before India had reached its nuclear safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA. I carefully followed the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's consideration of this agreement. Senator Richard Lugar, the Foreign Relations Committee chairman, and Senator Joseph Biden, the Foreign Relations Committee ranking member, are to be commended for the seriousness with which they exercised their jurisdiction over this legislation. Because of the efforts of Chairman Lugar and Ranking Member Biden, the bill before us today is much improved. This legislation not only retains congressional prerogatives, but it also ensures that Congress will not have to vote to approve a final agreement until every single nation in the Nuclear Suppliers Group. NSG, the global regime given the charge for ensuring the responsible trade of nuclear technology, has agreed to permit the transfer of peaceful nuclear technology to India. By working through the NSG, we will help strengthen both that group, as well as the greater international nonproliferation regime that is center stage as we address the threats posed by the nuclear weapons programs of Iran and North Korea. As India continues to grow stronger and to shoulder more of the responsibilities that come with being a leading nation in the world, we must continue to work towards greater cooperation with our Indian friends to deal with our common challenges in security, energy, economics, and health. I hope that this agreement is just one step on that journey that our countries, and our people, are taking together.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Accurate Crime Trends for School Act, a bill that is critical in protecting our children from crimes within their schools. Each day, parents send their children off to school with a sense of security that they are spending their day in a classroom free from danger. The latest outbreaks of school violence and crimes are a clear reminder that this is not always the case. While the majority of our schools are safe, some parents send their children off to school only to find that their child has become the victim of a crime. The No Child Left Behind Act requires States and local educational agencies to publicly report criminal activity in our schools, based on their own reports and best-guess surveys. However, there is no Federal crime reporting and tracking system for K-12 schools in the United States. I strongly believe that accurate data on the crimes occurring in our schools will help us develop preventative measures and effectively address crimes occurring in our nation's classrooms. My bill, the Accurate Crime Trends (``ACT'') for Schools Act, directs the Attorney General, in consultation with the FBI and the International Association of Chiefs of Police, to determine the feasibility of expanding the National Incidents Based Reporting System (``NIBRS'') to include information on K-12 school-related crime. NIBRS is the FBI's comprehensive, detailed crime reporting system. It provides a greater capability of reporting the details of crimes than self-reporting or surveys do. I want it to be clear that expanding NIBRS would not create a new level of bureaucracy. This bill would neither bring the FBI into our schools, nor place any new requirements or new burdens upon educators. Expanding NIBRS would use existing crime reporting infrastructures to collect specific K-12 crime data, allowing us to improve the safety of our kids in school. This year The Office of the New York State Comptroller released a study that underscored the need for such legislation. The report showed that at schools sampled, 80 percent of documented incidents of crimes went unreported to the State, with a number of these instances being serious crimes. This is the type of information that we need that we are not currently getting. As a parent, I truly believe it is imperative to be made aware of any crime that takes place in our children's schools. Our parents, educators, and children need and deserve a sense of comfort and security from their schools. When we have accurate data on what is occurring in our school, we will be able to develop effective policies to make sure our schools are safe. This bill is a critical first step in achieving this goal. The infrastructure for collecting this data is already in place. All we have to do is determine the best way to utilize it. The Accurate Crime Trends for Schools Act will accomplish just that. I hope that my colleagues will join me in support of this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Accurate Crime Trends for School Act, a bill that is critical in protecting our children from crimes within their schools. Each day, parents send their children off to school with a sense of security that they are spending their day in a classroom free from danger. The latest outbreaks of school violence and crimes are a clear reminder that this is not always the case. While the majority of our schools are safe, some parents send their children off to school only to find that their child has become the victim of a crime. The No Child Left Behind Act requires States and local educational agencies to publicly report criminal activity in our schools, based on their own reports and best-guess surveys. However, there is no Federal crime reporting and tracking system for K-12 schools in the United States. I strongly believe that accurate data on the crimes occurring in our schools will help us develop preventative measures and effectively address crimes occurring in our nation's classrooms. My bill, the Accurate Crime Trends (``ACT'') for Schools Act, directs the Attorney General, in consultation with the FBI and the International Association of Chiefs of Police, to determine the feasibility of expanding the National Incidents Based Reporting System (``NIBRS'') to include information on K-12 school-related crime. NIBRS is the FBI's comprehensive, detailed crime reporting system. It provides a greater capability of reporting the details of crimes than self-reporting or surveys do. I want it to be clear that expanding NIBRS would not create a new level of bureaucracy. This bill would neither bring the FBI into our schools, nor place any new requirements or new burdens upon educators. Expanding NIBRS would use existing crime reporting infrastructures to collect specific K-12 crime data, allowing us to improve the safety of our kids in school. This year The Office of the New York State Comptroller released a study that underscored the need for such legislation. The report showed that at schools sampled, 80 percent of documented incidents of crimes went unreported to the State, with a number of these instances being serious crimes. This is the type of information that we need that we are not currently getting. As a parent, I truly believe it is imperative to be made aware of any crime that takes place in our children's schools. Our parents, educators, and children need and deserve a sense of comfort and security from their schools. When we have accurate data on what is occurring in our school, we will be able to develop effective policies to make sure our schools are safe. This bill is a critical first step in achieving this goal. The infrastructure for collecting this data is already in place. All we have to do is determine the best way to utilize it. The Accurate Crime Trends for Schools Act will accomplish just that. I hope that my colleagues will join me in support of this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, will the Senator from Rhode Island, with whom I agree 100 percent, join me in a unanimous-consent request to pass this bill right now? Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we pass S. 757, the Breast Cancer Environmental Research Act of 2006.

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I join my colleague in expressing great regret that once again the women of America have been blocked from having the additional help that this bill would provide. I applaud those of us who have tried on a bipartisan basis to pass this very important bill to increase research between the possible links of breast cancer and the environment and to include peer review grant programs within the National Institutes of Health and make sure that consumers and researchers and victims of breast cancer are part of determining how we spend money in order to try to prevent, treat, cure, and ultimately abolish the horrible disease of breast cancer. I yield the floor.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. In 1990, Congress enacted a law that has been a vital part of our national strategy to fight AIDS and HIV, the Ryan White CARE Act, which directs support and resources to the people and places most in need throughout our Nation. It was an incredible act of compassion, smart decisionmaking, and bipartisanship. Members in this Chamber put aside politics, recognized the seriousness of the crisis, and took action. How far we have come. Unfortunately, though, the recent debate around the Ryan White CARE Act has been marred by misconceptions and mired in politics. It is time to set the record straight. First, some of my colleagues have alleged that New York receives more funding per case than the national average, suggesting that New York is somehow getting more than its fair share. But the numbers I heard being used on the Senate floor yesterday only represented part of the funding under the Ryan White CARE Act, skewing the data to make a political point. When you look at the whole picture and see the funding under the whole bill, the story is very different. According to an analysis prepared by the Communities Advocating for Emergency AIDS Relief Coalition, the CAEAR Coalition--as seen on this chart--the national per case allocation for people with AIDS is $4,745. Here is the State-by-State breakdown. New York is by no means at the top. This analysis does not even account for the higher cost of living and treatment in my State. Some of my colleagues have cried foul saying they get far less per person with AIDS than New York. I heard my friends and colleagues from Wyoming and Alabama making that point. But here are the facts, and they say otherwise. When you look at all of the titles under the Ryan White CARE Act, Wyoming and Alabama actually receive more per person with AIDS than New York and more than the national average. The difference between Oklahoma and New York is about $100 per person living with AIDS. And, again, these numbers do not account for differences in costs. Second, there are those making misleading statements about my State, that we misuse funding, or do not use the funding we receive, claims that are simply not true. Some have even asserted that New York has allowed dog walking to count under the CARE Act. Well, let me set the record straight. New York is not using Federal dollars for such services. And to point fingers and make such outlandish assertions impugns my State and is profoundly unfair to the thousands of New Yorkers who rely each and every day on the CARE Act for treatment and needed services. New York has been audited by the HHS--the Health and Human Services-- inspector general. They said New York complies with all requirements and is not misspending or mismanaging its funds. Another specious claim is that New York is somehow not even using the funds we receive, that we retain surpluses every year. Well, being fiscally responsible is good management. In New York, a tiny percentage of unspent funds is carried from one year to the next. This year, New York carried about $3 million over, representing about 3 days' worth of expenses. That is exactly what I want States to do--manage resources wisely and avoid interruptions in care or create waiting lists. I don't believe sound fiscal management is something to denigrate. Third, we are having a debate now over a shrinking pot of funding, at a time when I absolutely agree that more and more States have greater and greater needs. But to argue about the formula instead of arguing about the program and what it needs to be funded appropriately seems like a diversion. We are having a formula fight when we should be focused on fixing our strategy and strengthening our funding to meet the growing challenge and crisis of HIV/AIDS in America. That is the real debate we should be having on the floor of the Senate. Here is a chart that shows the increase of people living with HIV/ AIDS in the United States. That is this red line here. It shows the decline in funding for title I of the CARE Act. So you can see the disparity. I have a great deal of sympathy for my friends from States that are just realizing the full extent of the AIDS crisis in their communities, who are deeply concerned by the fast-growing number of such cases among poor women and among our African-American and Hispanic populations. But here is part of the reason we are in this dilemma. Here is the number of AIDS cases, and here is the amount of funding available to deal with them. Instead of honoring our moral obligation, instead of strengthening our efforts as the epidemic continues to grow, State and local agencies and community groups have been forced to do more with less. This is especially true in New York, the State that has been hardest hit by the AIDS epidemic. Back in the 1980s and 1990s, people were moving from other States to be able to come to New York, where they thought somebody would care enough to try to take care of them. And New York still leads the Nation in both the number of overall HIV/AIDS cases as well as the number of new HIV infections each year. What is this fight about? Well, I will tell you. New York stands to lose more than $78 million in funding over the next 5 years. We would see New York City alone lose $17 million next year. But we know who would really lose--the patients whose health and lives are on the line. With the exception of the AIDS Drug Assistance Program--which still doesn't go nearly far enough, given the long waiting list for the poorest and sickest of those who cannot afford the drugs they need to stay healthy and alive--the CARE Act has been cut over the past 3 years, even as costs and the number of people with the virus have risen, adding to the pressure on New York, New Jersey, and other States with higher costs of living and the largest numbers of people living with HIV/AIDS. In addition, the Ryan White CARE Act is the payer of last resort; it is the safety net for the safety net. And this Congress and the administration have spent years trying to cut big holes in both. In fact, the CARE Act is only part of the strategy against this terrible disease. The Medicaid Program serves nearly half of those living with HIV/AIDS in America. This Republican Congress and the Republican administration have tried time and time again to cut Medicaid and have succeeded in passing drastic reductions. I have introduced bipartisan legislation with my colleague, Senator Gordon Smith, the Early Treatment for HIV Act. This legislation would provide Federal funding to extend Medicaid eligibility to low-income Americans living with HIV before they develop symptoms, allowing them to access life-extending medical services. There are those suggesting that somehow the epidemic has changed, trying to pit one part of the country against another, trying once again to divide us. My Republican colleagues have told me there is not enough money to prevent cutbacks for New York and other States that lose under this proposed formula. Nine States, plus Puerto Rico, lose, and every other State makes gains. So, in effect, you want to take money away from my 100,000 people living with HIV/AIDS and give it to worthy people in other parts of the country because this administration and this Congress won't put more money into funding treatment programs for HIV/AIDS. My colleagues on the other side still refuse to provide us with a guarantee--at a time when the epidemic continues to grow--that New York and other States facing losses will not lose out, a guarantee meant to make sure people dying with AIDS have the treatment they need. The White House and Republican leadership in the Congress are cynically pressuring many of my colleagues that if they don't reauthorize the bill this year, they will face cuts in funding next year. But approving a fundamentally flawed bill, under pressure, that will end up hurting people living with HIV/AIDS is the wrong thing to do. We should be working to strengthen the CARE Act for everyone. I will also address the question of the expanding epidemic. There is no doubt that it is growing--40,000 new HIV infections occur every year in the United States, and they have a disproportionate impact on people of color. In my State, African Americans account for 45 percent of the total population living with HIV/AIDS, while Hispanics account for an additional 29 percent of the cases. But this bill cuts funding for both of them. Groups such as the National Minority AIDS Council, the Hispanic Federation, and the Latino Commission on AIDS have expressed concern over these cuts which would limit access to care for far too many people of color and people of modest, limited means. We are also seeing the infection rate rising among women. In New York alone, over 30,000 women are living with HIV/AIDS. Women would also be shortchanged under the latest version of the CARE Act. Indeed, the version of the bill my colleagues want to bring up would flat-fund what is called title IV--the very program designed to address the needs of women, infants, and children, the populations so many have come to this floor and spoken about so eloquently. Let's put our money where our mouth is. Let's put money into this program so we are not picking between a poor African American in New York City and a poor African-American woman in Alabama. The epidemic is spreading. When people talk about the South, they are talking not only about Alabama and North Carolina but Washington, DC, Texas, Florida, and Maryland, which are the places that have been the hardest hit by this epidemic. Texas and Florida alone account for about 20 percent of people living with AIDS. Yet Florida, too, would lose money under this proposal. If we decide to meet the growing AIDS epidemic in our Nation, I hope we can look at the facts about how the program works now and try to come to a bipartisan solution that covers the entire country's needs and leads to a real solution, not a political one. We know there are solutions. Those of us representing the States that are going to be giving up money so money can be shifted to take care of other people who are worthy and deserve help have proposed solutions. This is not about politics. This is about how we help people. My colleagues from New York, New Jersey, Illinois, and Florida have proposed a 1-year extension for the Ryan White CARE Act. So let's extends it for a year and figure out how we can fix it. I think we could raise the authorization levels across the titles by 3.7 percent and set up a grant program to address unmet needs of States that do not receive title I funding in order to address the challenge in rural areas where HIV incidence has also increased. Our proposal would delay penalties for those who cannot meet the HIV reporting requirements and give them time to come into compliance with the CDC. As a Senator from New York, which has experienced the heaviest burden of the AIDS epidemic, I don't think anyone cares more about this legislation. I understand completely the profound importance of the Ryan White CARE Act. I am committed to the reauthorization of a good bill that strengthens and improves the ability of all Americans to access HIV/AIDS care, support, and treatment. But a bill that destabilizes existing systems of care and devastates, even destroys, the ability of high-prevalence communities to address needs is unacceptable. I stand ready to work with my colleagues on a fair, openminded, nonpartisan, practical solution--in the spirit of the original bill that brought people together to develop a strategy to combat this horrible epidemic that has caused so much death and destruction, destroyed so many lives, created such a challenge to our health care system and our basic values. Mr. President, we can do this if we really want to. All it takes is narrowing the gap between these two lines on the chart--HIV/AIDS cases and the amount of funding available. Some of the priorities on which we are asked to vote in this Chamber certainly don't reflect the pressing needs I have heard described in this Chamber. I hope we can come up with a real solution for the Ryan White CARE Act.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Nursing Education and Quality of Health Care Act of 2006. This legislation is essential for addressing our current and future nursing shortages. I have been hearing from nurses and health care providers from every part of New York that we are facing an impending nursing crisis and their stories echo what is heard from nurses across the Nation. By 2014, the Bureau of Labor Statistics forecasts that there will be over 1 million job openings for registered nurses. In New York alone, we will need to produce over 80,000 new RNs to meet these projections. One of our greatest needs will be in rural areas where the pool of nurses is small and the loss of just one nurse from the workforce can have a profound impact on the health of the community. I can proudly say we have made good progress in New York on one front. In 2006, 30 percent more registered nurses graduated than in 2004. I believe that we can credit this increase to the Nurse Reinvestment Act that was signed into law in 2002. Through this bipartisan legislation, we were able to make great strides in strengthening our nation's nursing workforce. The Nurse Reinvestment Act includes a number of critical initiatives including one from the bipartisan bill I introduced with Senator Gordon Smith to retain nurses who are already in the profession. The Clinton- Smith provision provides grants to health care organizations that develop and implement models based on magnet hospitals. Hospitals that have achieved magnet status report lower mortality rates, higher patient satisfaction, greater cost-efficiency, and patients experiencing shorter stays in hospitals and intensive care units. But I am here today because nurses are still facing an urgent situation that requires action. Even though we are making strides to graduate more nurses, in 2005 over 37,000 qualified applicants were turned away from nursing schools in United States. In New York, it is estimated that nearly 3,000 nursing school applicants were denied entry. Put simply, we don't have the capacity in our nursing schools to train qualified potential students. Not only are we facing a nursing shortage, we are setting ourselves up for a potential nursing crisis if we don't address the impending faculty shortage. This situation will become dire if we lose potential nurses due to the retirement of nurse faculty as that the aging population increases. We need to pave the way and recruit more people into the nursing profession. This shortage crisis impacts not only the nurses, but also patients since we know that the quality of care increases when nurses are not working too many hours, are not treating too many patients, and are satisfied with their jobs. Today I am here to support recruitment, education, and training to help alleviate this crisis in New York and in the rest of the nation through introduction of the Nursing Education and Quality of Health Care Act of 2006. This act will establish distance learning opportunities for people in rural communities who wish to pursue the nursing profession without leaving their home town. This legislation will also provide tuition assistance and loan forgiveness for those who choose to practice in rural communities. To increase the number of nurses in the workforce we need to expand the nursing faculty so that thousands of qualified people are not turned away from the profession. This legislation will fund programs that will enhance recruitment, scholarships, and educational preparation and encourage more nurses to become faculty members by establishing online courses and accelerated degree programs. We need for nurses to participate and collaborate in patient-safety initiatives for the well-being of patients. The Nursing Education and Quality of Health Care Act will take the lead on this issue by supporting projects that integrate patient safety practices into nursing education programs and enhance the leadership of nurses in improving patients' outcomes within their health care settings. We will all rely on nurses sometime in our life, and we need to make sure that this essential member of the health care team will always be present at our bedsides. I am pleased to be here encouraging Nurses, who are so critical to the successful operation of our hospitals and the quality of care patients receive. We should be doing everything we can to address the nursing shortage and to make nursing an attractive and rewarding profession. The Nursing Education and Quality of Health Care Act of 2006 is supported by: American Association of Colleges of Nursing; American Nursing Association; American Organization of Nurse Executives; Brooklyn Nursing Partnership; New York State Area Health Education Center System

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Nursing Education and Quality of Health Care Act of 2006. This legislation is essential for addressing our current and future nursing shortages. I have been hearing from nurses and health care providers from every part of New York that we are facing an impending nursing crisis and their stories echo what is heard from nurses across the Nation. By 2014, the Bureau of Labor Statistics forecasts that there will be over 1 million job openings for registered nurses. In New York alone, we will need to produce over 80,000 new RNs to meet these projections. One of our greatest needs will be in rural areas where the pool of nurses is small and the loss of just one nurse from the workforce can have a profound impact on the health of the community. I can proudly say we have made good progress in New York on one front. In 2006, 30 percent more registered nurses graduated than in 2004. I believe that we can credit this increase to the Nurse Reinvestment Act that was signed into law in 2002. Through this bipartisan legislation, we were able to make great strides in strengthening our nation's nursing workforce. The Nurse Reinvestment Act includes a number of critical initiatives including one from the bipartisan bill I introduced with Senator Gordon Smith to retain nurses who are already in the profession. The Clinton- Smith provision provides grants to health care organizations that develop and implement models based on magnet hospitals. Hospitals that have achieved magnet status report lower mortality rates, higher patient satisfaction, greater cost-efficiency, and patients experiencing shorter stays in hospitals and intensive care units. But I am here today because nurses are still facing an urgent situation that requires action. Even though we are making strides to graduate more nurses, in 2005 over 37,000 qualified applicants were turned away from nursing schools in United States. In New York, it is estimated that nearly 3,000 nursing school applicants were denied entry. Put simply, we don't have the capacity in our nursing schools to train qualified potential students. Not only are we facing a nursing shortage, we are setting ourselves up for a potential nursing crisis if we don't address the impending faculty shortage. This situation will become dire if we lose potential nurses due to the retirement of nurse faculty as that the aging population increases. We need to pave the way and recruit more people into the nursing profession. This shortage crisis impacts not only the nurses, but also patients since we know that the quality of care increases when nurses are not working too many hours, are not treating too many patients, and are satisfied with their jobs. Today I am here to support recruitment, education, and training to help alleviate this crisis in New York and in the rest of the nation through introduction of the Nursing Education and Quality of Health Care Act of 2006. This act will establish distance learning opportunities for people in rural communities who wish to pursue the nursing profession without leaving their home town. This legislation will also provide tuition assistance and loan forgiveness for those who choose to practice in rural communities. To increase the number of nurses in the workforce we need to expand the nursing faculty so that thousands of qualified people are not turned away from the profession. This legislation will fund programs that will enhance recruitment, scholarships, and educational preparation and encourage more nurses to become faculty members by establishing online courses and accelerated degree programs. We need for nurses to participate and collaborate in patient-safety initiatives for the well-being of patients. The Nursing Education and Quality of Health Care Act will take the lead on this issue by supporting projects that integrate patient safety practices into nursing education programs and enhance the leadership of nurses in improving patients' outcomes within their health care settings. We will all rely on nurses sometime in our life, and we need to make sure that this essential member of the health care team will always be present at our bedsides. I am pleased to be here encouraging Nurses, who are so critical to the successful operation of our hospitals and the quality of care patients receive. We should be doing everything we can to address the nursing shortage and to make nursing an attractive and rewarding profession. The Nursing Education and Quality of Health Care Act of 2006 is supported by: American Association of Colleges of Nursing; American Nursing Association; American Organization of Nurse Executives; Brooklyn Nursing Partnership; New York State Area Health Education Center System

Mrs. CLINTON

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

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, the Senate is currently debating a bill on how we treat detainees in our custody, and, more broadly, on how we treat the principles on which our Nation was founded. The implications are far reaching for our national security interests abroad; the rights of Americans at home, our reputation in the world; and the safety of our troops. The threat posed by the evil and nihilistic movement that has spawned terrorist networks is real and gravely serious. We must do all we can to defeat the enemy with all the tools in our arsenal and every resource at our disposal. All of us are dedicated to defeating this enemy. The challenge before us on this bill, in the final days of session before the November election, is to rise above partisanship and find a solution that serves our national security interests. I fear that there are those who place a strategy for winning elections ahead of a smart strategy for winning the war on terrorism. Democrats and Republicans alike believe that terrorists must be caught, captured, and sentenced. I believe that there can be no mercy for those who perpetrated 9/11 and other crimes against humanity. But in the process of accomplishing that I believe we must hold on to our values and set an example we can point to with pride, not shame. Those captured are going nowhere--they are in jail now--so we should follow the duty given us by the Supreme Court and carefully craft the right piece of legislation to try them. The President acted without authority and it is our duty now to be careful in handing this President just the right amount of authority to get the job done and no more. During the Revolutionary War, between the signing of the Declaration of Independence, which set our founding ideals to paper, and the writing of our Constitution, which fortified those ideals under the rule of law, our values--our beliefs as Americans--were already being tested. We were at war and victory was hardly assured, in fact the situation was closer to the opposite. New York City and Long Island had been captured. General George Washington and the Continental Army retreated across New Jersey to Pennsylvania, suffering tremendous casualties and a body blow to the cause of American independence. It was at this time, among these soldiers at this moment of defeat and despair, that Thomas Paine would write, ``These are the times that try men's souls.'' Soon afterward, Washington lead his soldiers across the Delaware River and onto victory in the Battle of Trenton. There he captured nearly 1,000 foreign mercenaries and he faced a crucial choice. How would General Washington treat these men? The British had already committed atrocities against Americans, including torture. As David Hackett Fischer describes in his Pulitzer Prize winning book, ``Washington's Crossing,'' thousands of American prisoners of war were ``treated with extreme cruelty by British captors.'' There are accounts of injured soldiers who surrendered being murdered instead of quartered, countless Americans dying in prison hulks in New York harbor, starvation and other acts of inhumanity perpetrated against Americans confined to churches in New York City. Can you imagine. The light of our ideals shone dimly in those early dark days, years from an end to the conflict, years before our improbable triumph and the birth of our democracy. General Washington wasn't that far from where the Continental Congress had met and signed the Declaration of Independence. But it is easy to imagine how far that must have seemed. General Washington announced a decision unique in human history, sending the following order for handling prisoners: ``Treat them with humanity, and let them have no reason to complain of our Copying the brutal example of the British Army in their treatment of our unfortunate brethren.'' Therefore, George Washington, our commander-in-chief before he was our President, laid down the indelible marker of our Nation's values even as we were struggling as a Nation--and his courageous act reminds us that America was born out of faith in certain basic principles. In fact, it is these principles that made and still make our country exceptional and allow us to serve as an example. We are not bound together as a nation by bloodlines. We are not bound by ancient history; our Nation is a new nation. Above all, we are bound by our values. George Washington understood that how you treat enemy combatants can reverberate around the world. We must convict and punish the guilty in a way that reinforces their guilt before the world and does not undermine our constitutional values. There is another element to this. I can't go back in history and read General Washington's mind, of course, but one purpose of the rule of law is to organize a society's response to violence. Allowing coercion, coercive treatment, and torturous actions toward prisoners not only violates the fundamental rule of law and the institutionalization of justice, but it helps to radicalize those who are tortured. Zawahiri, bin Laden's second in command, the architect of many of the attacks on our country, throughout Europe and the world, has said repeatedly that it is his experience that torture of innocents is central to radicalization. Zawahiri has said over and over again that being tortured is at the root of jihad; the experience of being tortured has a long history of serving radicalized populations; abusing prisoners is a prime cause of radicalization. For the safety of our soldiers and the reputation of our Nation, it is far more important to take the time to do this job right than to do it quickly and badly. There is no reason we need to rush to judgment. This broken process and the blatant politics behind it will cost our Nation dearly. I fear also that it will cost our men and women in uniform. The Supreme Court laid out what it expected from us. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record letters and statements from former military leaders, from 9/11 families, from the religious community, retired judges, legal scholars, and law professors. All of them have registered their concerns with this bill and the possible impact on our effort to win the war against terrorism.

Mrs. CLINTON. Now these values--George Washington's values, the values of our founding--are at stake. We are debating far-reaching legislation that would fundamentally alter our Nation's conduct in the world and the rights of Americans here at home. And we are debating it too hastily in a debate too steeped in electoral politics. The Senate, under the authority of the Republican majority and with the blessing and encouragement of the Bush-Cheney administration, is doing a great disservice to our history, our principles, our citizens, and our soldiers. The deliberative process is being broken under the pressure of partisanship and the policy that results is a travesty. Fellow Senators, the process for drafting this legislation to correct the administration's missteps has not befitted the ``world's greatest deliberative body.'' Legitimate, serious concerns raised by our senior military and intelligence community have been marginalized, difficult issues glossed over, and debates we should have had have been shut off in order to pass a misconceived bill before Senators return home to campaign for reelection. For the safety of our soldiers and the reputation of our Nation, it is far more important to take the time to do the job right than to do it quickly and badly. There is no reason other than partisanship for not continuing deliberation to find a solution that works to achieve a true consensus based on American values. In the last several days, the bill has undergone countless changes-- all for the worse--and differs significantly from the compromise brokered between the Bush administration and a few Senate Republicans last week. We cannot have a serious debate over a bill that has been hastily written with little opportunity for serious review. To vote on a proposal that evolved by the hour, on an issue that is so important, is an insult to the American people, to the Senate, to our troops, and to our Nation. Fellow Senators, we all know we are holding this hugely important debate in the backdrop of November's elections. There are some in this body more focused on holding on to their jobs than doing their jobs right. Some in this chamber plan to use our honest and serious concerns for protecting our country and our troops as a political wedge issue to divide us for electoral gain. How can we in the Senate find a proper answer and reach a consensus when any matter that does not serve the majority's partisan advantage is mocked as weakness, and any true concern for our troops and values dismissed demagogically as coddling the enemy? This broken process and its blatant politics will cost our Nation dearly. It allows a discredited policy ruled by the Supreme Court to be unconstitutional to largely continue and to be made worse. This spectacle ill-serves our national security interests. The rule of law cannot be compromised. We must stand for the rule of law before the world, especially when we are under stress and under threat. We must show that we uphold our most profound values. We need a set of rules that will stand up to judicial scrutiny. We in this Chamber know that a hastily written bill driven by partisanship will not withstand the scrutiny of judicial oversight. We need a set of rules that will protect our values, protect our security, and protect our troops. We need a set of rules that recognizes how serious and dangerous the threat is, and enhances, not undermines, our chances to deter and defeat our enemies. Our Supreme Court in its Hamdan v. Rumsfeld decision ruled that the Bush administration's previous military commission system had failed to follow the Constitution and the law in its treatment of detainees. As the Supreme Court noted, the Bush administration has been operating under a system that undermines our Nation's commitment to the rule of law. The question before us is whether this Congress will follow the decision of the Supreme Court and create a better system that withstands judicial examination--or attempt to confound that decision, a strategy destined to fail again. The bill before us allows the admission into evidence of statements derived through cruel, inhuman and degrading interrogation. That sets a dangerous precedent that will endanger our own men and women in uniform overseas. Will our enemies be less likely to surrender? Will informants be less likely to come forward? Will our soldiers be more likely to face torture if captured? Will the information we obtain be less reliable? These are the questions we should be asking. And based on what we know about warfare from listening to those who have fought for our country, the answers do not support this bill. As Lieutenant John F. Kimmons, the Army's Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence said, ``No good intelligence is going to come from abusive interrogation practices.'' The bill also makes significant changes to the War Crimes Act. As it is now written, the War Crimes Act makes it a federal crime for any soldier or national of the U.S. to violate, among other things, Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions in an armed conflict not of an international character. The administration has voiced concern that Common Article--which prohibits ``cruel treatment or torture,'' ``outrages against human dignity,'' and ``humiliating and degrading treatment''--sets out an intolerably vague standard on which to base criminal liability, and may expose CIA agents to jail sentences for rough interrogation tactics used in questioning detainees. But the current bill's changes to the War Crimes Act haven't done much to clarify the rules for our interrogators. What we are doing with this bill is passing on an opportunity to clearly state what it is we stand for and what we will not permit. This bill undermines the Geneva Conventions by allowing the President to issue Executive orders to redefine what permissible interrogation techniques happen to be. Have we fallen so low as to debate how much torture we are willing to stomach? By allowing this administration to further stretch the definition of what is and is not torture, we lower our moral standards to those whom we despise, undermine the values of our flag wherever it flies, put our troops in danger, and jeopardize our moral strength in a conflict that cannot be won simply with military might. Once again, there are those who are willing to stay a course that is not working, giving the Bush-Cheney administration a blank check--a blank check to torture, to create secret courts using secret evidence, to detain people, including Americans, to be free of judicial oversight and accountability, to put our troops in greater danger. The bill has several other flaws as well. This bill would not only deny detainees habeas corpus rights--a process that would allow them to challenge the very validity of their confinement--it would also deny these rights to lawful immigrants living in the United States. If enacted, this law would give license to this Administration to pick people up off the streets of the United States and hold them indefinitely without charges and without legal recourse. Americans believe strongly that defendants, no matter who they are, should be able to hear the evidence against them. The bill we are considering does away with this right, instead providing the accused with only the right to respond to the evidence admitted against him. How can someone respond to evidence they have not seen? At the very least, this is worth a debate on the merits, not on the politics. This is worth putting aside our differences--it is too important. Our values are central. Our national security interests in the world are vital. And nothing should be of greater concern to those of us in this chamber than the young men and women who are, right now, wearing our Nation's uniform, serving in dangerous territory. After all, our standing, our morality, our beliefs are tested in this Chamber and their impact and their consequences are tested under fire, they are tested when American lives are on the line, they are tested when our strength and ideals are questioned by our friends and by our enemies. When our soldiers face an enemy, when our soldiers are in danger, that is when our decisions in this Chamber will be felt. Will that enemy surrender? Or will he continue to fight, with fear for how he might be treated and with hate directed not at us, but at the patriot wearing our uniform whose life is on the line? When our Nation seeks to lead the world in service to our interests and our values, will we still be able to lead by example? Our values, our history, our interests, and our military and intelligence experts all point to one answer. Vladimir Bukovsky, who spent nearly 12 years in Soviet prisons, labor camps, and psychiatric hospitals for nonviolent human rights activities had this to say. ``If Vice President Cheney is right, that some `cruel, inhumane, or degrading' treatment of captives is a necessary tool for winning the war on terrorism, then the war is lost already.'' Let's pass a bill that's been honestly and openly debated, not hastily cobbled together. Let's pass a bill that unites us, not divides us. Let's pass a bill that strengthens our moral standing in the world, that declares clearly that we will not retreat from our values before the terrorists. We will not give up who we are. We will not be shaken by fear and intimidation. We will not give one inch to the evil and nihilistic extremists who have set their sights on our way of life. I say with confidence and without fear that we are the United States of America, and that we stand now and forever for our enduring values to people around the world, to our friends, to our enemies, to anyone and everyone. Before George Washington crossed the Delaware, before he could achieve that long-needed victory, before the tide would turn, before he ordered that prisoners be treated humanely, he ordered that his soldiers read Thomas Paine's writing. He ordered that they read about the ideals for which they would fight, the principles at stake, the importance of this American project. Now we find ourselves at a moment when we feel threatened, when the world seems to have grown more dangerous, when our Nation needs to ready itself for a long and difficult struggle against a new and dangerous enemy that means us great harm. Just as Washington faced a hard choice, so do we. It's up to us to decide how we wage this struggle and not up to the fear fostered by terrorists. We decide. This is a moment where we need to remind ourselves of the confidence, fearlessness, and bravery of George Washington--then we will know that we cannot, we must not, subvert our ideals--we can and must use them to win. Finally, we have a choice before us. I hope we make the right choice. I fear that we will not; that we will be once again back in the Supreme Court, and we will be once again held up to the world as failing our own high standards. When our soldiers face an enemy, when our soldiers are in danger, will that enemy surrender if he thinks he will be tortured? Will he continue to fight? How will our men and women be treated? I hope we both pass the right kind of legislation and understand that it may very well determine whether we win this war against terror and protect or troops who are valiantly fighting for us. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce a bill that will help inform the Congress and the American people about our Nation's trade agreements. The trade policy debate here in Washington is heated and polarized. Supporters of ``free trade'' often view trade agreements uncritically and without question while others are suspicious of any agreement that makes it easier to trade with other countries. I believe that trade policy decisions should be based on an understanding of the concrete results of these agreements and the impact that they have on our economy and the American people, rather than on preconceived notions. My bill, the Trade Agreement Accountability Act, will inject factual analysis in to this debate. The bill requires the International Trade Commission to report on the effects of every trade agreement we sign. These reports will examine the good and the bad of every trade agreement after two years, after five years and then every five years after it goes into effect. They will study the effect of each trade agreement on a sector-by-sector basis, and conduct an assessment and quantitative analysis of how each agreement is fostering economic growth, improving living standards and helping to create jobs. In short, this bill will help educate policymakers and the American people about this important debate. I hope that by evaluating the results of past agreements, we will be able to better understand the consequences of future ones. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I join my colleague, Senator Obama, in support of the Lead Poisoning Reduction Act of 2006. This legislation would close an important gap in primary prevention strategies by providing critical resources to make all nonhome-based childcare facilities and Head Start Programs lead-safe within 5 years. Lead is highly toxic and continues to be a serious, persistent, and entirely preventable threat to the health and well-being of our children. Lead poisoning continues to pose an unacceptable environmental health risk to infants, children, and pregnant women in the United States, particularly in minority and low-income communities. A CDC survey conducted between 1999 and 2002, estimated that 310,000 American children under 6 were at risk for exposure to harmful lead levels in United States. Childhood lead poisoning has been linked to impaired growth and function of vital organs and problems with intellectual and behavioral development. A study from the New England Journal of Medicine also found that children suffered up to a 7.4- percent decrease in IQ at lead levels that CDC considers safe. At very high levels, lead poisoning can cause seizures, coma, and even death. It is critical that we remove lead hazards where our children live, learn, and play. We especially need to eliminate these risks and hazards that continue to persist in childcare facilities and schools. Nearly 12 million children under age 5 spend 40 hours a week in childcare. Lead paint in older buildings is a primary source of exposure, but significant lead exposure can also come from tap water. The Department of Housing and Urban Development estimates that about 14,200 childcare facilities have considerable lead-based hazards present. In addition, a recent report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office, GAO, identified significant, systemic problems with the way in which the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, monitors and regulates the levels of lead in our Nation's drinking water, including a complete lack of reliable data on which to make assessments and decisions. The GAO study found that few schools and childcare facilities nationwide have tested their water for lead, and no focal point exists at either the national or State level to collect and analyze test results. Few States have comprehensive programs to detect and remediate lead in drinking water at schools and childcare facilities. Only five States have required general lead testing for schools, and of those, only four require childcare facilities to test for lead when obtaining or renewing their licenses. Almost half the States reported having no lead efforts of any kind. State and local officials need more information on the pervasiveness of lead contamination to know how best to address the issue. Each year in New York State an additional 10,000 children under the age of 6 years are newly identified as having elevated blood lead levels, and over 200,000 children in New York have had documented lead poisoning between 1992 to 2004. Exposure to lead results in increased expenses each year for New York in the form of special educational and other educational expenses, medical care for lead-poisoned children, and expenditures for delinquent youth and others needing special supervision. It is estimated that these increased expenses, as well as lost earnings, exceed $4 billion annually. New York City and Rochester have been at the forefront of grassroots efforts to combat lead poisoning, and this bill would provide important resources and incentives to implement their model programs nationwide.

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Debit and Check Card Consumer Protection Act of 2006, an important piece of legislation in the battle against consumer fraud. Despite consumers' best efforts, debit and check card fraud is a serious problem making consumer liability an important issue. Unfortunately, current consumer protection laws do not adequately protect debit and check card holders from fraud. Over the last decade, debit and check card use has experienced double digit growth and now over 80 percent of American consumer households possess a debit or check card. This growth has outpaced that of credit cards and recent reports indicate that between 2001 and 2003 consumers made 42.5 billion transactions with debit cards, 2.3 billion more transactions than with credit cards. While debit and check card growth benefits the American economy, consumers continually face greater challenges to prevent and protect themselves from debit and check card fraud. Recent statistics show that in 2005, ATM/debit card fraud in the United States generated losses of $2.75 billion. During the same period, ATM fraud alone affected 3 million U.S. consumers. Despite these findings, debit and check card consumer liability protections under the law remain substandard as compared to credit cards. Under current law, debit and check card holders are liable for fraudulent transactions dependent upon when they report the fraud. In some cases the consumer can be held accountable for $500 worth of fraudulent transactions. Conversely, credit card holders who face similar consumer challenges are liable for a maximum payment of $50 and are allowed to refuse or ``chargeback'' a payment when goods or services fail to arrive or they are dissatisfied with a transaction. Debit and check card holders are not provided with similar ``chargeback'' protections. Fortunately, some debit and check card issuers provide customers with stronger liability protections; however, it is essential that consumers are assured liability protections under the law, not just through a company's policy. The Debit and Check Card Consumer Protection Act of 2006 remedies these inconsistencies between credit card liability protections and debit and check card liability protections by simply affording the same level of protection to debit and check card users given to credit card users. This legislation is an important step in ensuring consumer protections in an economy increasingly driven by electronic commercial transactions, and I am proud that Consumers Union, one of the largest nonpartisan advocate organizations for consumer rights, has endorsed it. The time has come to strengthen debit and check card liability protections for the American consumer, and I urge my colleagues to support this simple and commonsense remedy to a growing problem. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will create an undergraduate institution designed to cultivate a generation of young leaders dedicated to public service. The U.S. Public Service Academy Act, the PSA Act, will establish a national academy, modeled after the military service academies, to serve as an extraordinary example of effective, national public education. The tragic events of September 11 and the devastation of natural disasters Hurricanes Katrina and Rita have demonstrated just how critical it is for our Nation to improve its ability to respond to future emergencies and to confront daily challenges. These events also underscore how much our Nation depends upon strong public institutions and competent civilian leadership at all levels of society. Our country must improve its ability to groom future public servants to fill the pipeline as the baby boomer generation approaches retirement from critical public sector careers. Recent studies have shown that 2 million teachers are approaching retirement this decade alone, and more than 80 percent of law enforcement agencies are unable to fill positions due to a lack of qualified candidates. The PSA Act will establish the U.S. Public Service Academy to provide a 4-year, federally subsidized college education for more than 5,000 students a year in exchange for a 5-year commitment to public service following graduation. Academy graduates will help to fill the void in public service our Nation will soon face by serving for 5 years in areas such as public education, public health, law enforcement, and the nonprofit sector. Not only has the public service sector expressed a need for a young, talented, and high-qualified workforce, many college students today have already expressed a strong desire to serve. A recent study conducted by the Higher Education Research Institute found that more than two-thirds of the 2005 freshman class expressed a desire to serve others, the highest rate in a generation. Unfortunately, as thousands of American youth seek to serve their Nation in a civilian capacity, many are often priced out of public service due to rising college debts. Over the past decade, the average debt burden for a college graduate has increased by 58 percent. Many of the students who want to serve our country owe more than $20,000 in student loans after graduating from college. By providing a quality college education at no cost to the student, the U.S. Public Service Academy would tap into the renewed sense of patriotism and civic obligation among young people and create a corps of competent civilian leaders. The establishment of a U.S. Public Service Academy is an innovative way to strengthen and protect America by creating a corps of well- trained, highly qualified civilian leaders. I am hopeful that my Senate colleagues from both sides of the aisle will join me today to move this legislation to the floor without delay.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will create an undergraduate institution designed to cultivate a generation of young leaders dedicated to public service. The U.S. Public Service Academy Act, the PSA Act, will establish a national academy, modeled after the military service academies, to serve as an extraordinary example of effective, national public education. The tragic events of September 11 and the devastation of natural disasters Hurricanes Katrina and Rita have demonstrated just how critical it is for our Nation to improve its ability to respond to future emergencies and to confront daily challenges. These events also underscore how much our Nation depends upon strong public institutions and competent civilian leadership at all levels of society. Our country must improve its ability to groom future public servants to fill the pipeline as the baby boomer generation approaches retirement from critical public sector careers. Recent studies have shown that 2 million teachers are approaching retirement this decade alone, and more than 80 percent of law enforcement agencies are unable to fill positions due to a lack of qualified candidates. The PSA Act will establish the U.S. Public Service Academy to provide a 4-year, federally subsidized college education for more than 5,000 students a year in exchange for a 5-year commitment to public service following graduation. Academy graduates will help to fill the void in public service our Nation will soon face by serving for 5 years in areas such as public education, public health, law enforcement, and the nonprofit sector. Not only has the public service sector expressed a need for a young, talented, and high-qualified workforce, many college students today have already expressed a strong desire to serve. A recent study conducted by the Higher Education Research Institute found that more than two-thirds of the 2005 freshman class expressed a desire to serve others, the highest rate in a generation. Unfortunately, as thousands of American youth seek to serve their Nation in a civilian capacity, many are often priced out of public service due to rising college debts. Over the past decade, the average debt burden for a college graduate has increased by 58 percent. Many of the students who want to serve our country owe more than $20,000 in student loans after graduating from college. By providing a quality college education at no cost to the student, the U.S. Public Service Academy would tap into the renewed sense of patriotism and civic obligation among young people and create a corps of competent civilian leaders. The establishment of a U.S. Public Service Academy is an innovative way to strengthen and protect America by creating a corps of well- trained, highly qualified civilian leaders. I am hopeful that my Senate colleagues from both sides of the aisle will join me today to move this legislation to the floor without delay.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong support for the Ryan White CARE Act. The programs funded through this law have, for more than 15 years, enabled hundreds of thousands of people living with HIV and AIDS to access essential care and treatment services. Yet the reauthorization proposals currently under consideration by both the House and the Senate would unfairly shift funding from the hardest-hit areas of the epidemic, devastating the ability of providers and organizations to offer life-extending services. The more than 100,000 people living with HIV and AIDS in New York would be adversely affected by the millions of dollars in cuts they would face if these reauthorizations were to go through. I understand that the White House and the Republican leadership are pressuring many of my colleagues, particularly those from code-based States, that if they don't reauthorize the bill this year, they will face cuts in funding next year. But approving a fundamentally flawed bill under pressure is not the right thing to do. We should be working to strengthen the CARE Act for everyone, not decimate it. Today, I, along with my colleagues from New Jersey, Illinois, and Florida, will be introducing legislation that provides for a 1-year extension of programs funded by the Ryan White CARE Act, to give us more time to address the concerns of many that were raised during this reauthorization process. It will increase authorization levels across titles by 3.7 percent, and will set up a grant program to address unmet need in States that do not receive title I funding, in order to address the need in rural areas where HIV incidence has increased. It will also delay the switch from code-based to names-based reporting for 1 year, in order to give us time to address many of the issues that these States are facing in making this switch. I believe in the reauthorization of the CARE Act, but I believe in reauthorizing the CARE Act the right way--in a way that will help, not hurt, all of the people living with HIV and AIDS in this country. Our bill will help that process, and I would urge all of my colleagues to support it.

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I am proud to introduce the Compassionate Assistance for Rape Emergencies Act, a bill that will help sexual assault survivors across the country get the medical care they need and deserve. It is hard to argue against this commonsense legislation. Rape--by definition--could never result in an intended pregnancy. Emergency contraception is a valuable tool that can prevent unintended pregnancy. This bill makes emergency contraception available for survivors of sexual assault at any hospital receiving public funds. Every 2 minutes, a woman is sexually assaulted in the United States, and each year, 25,000 to 32,000 women become pregnant as a result of rape or incest. According to a study published in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 50 percent of those pregnancies end in abortion. By providing access to emergency contraception, up to 95 percent of those unintended pregnancies could be prevented if emergency contraception is administered within the first 24 to 72 hours. In addition, emergency contraception could also give desperately needed peace of mind to women in crisis. I am proud that for 3 years, this has already been law in New York State. Survivors of sexual assault and rape receive information and access to emergency contraception at every hospital in the State. As a result, victims are getting better care than they ever have before in New York. This bill will allow women nationwide to benefit from the same standard of care New Yorkers receive. In New York City, women are benefiting from Mayor Bloomberg's significant initiative to expand access to emergency contraception and family planning services and improve maternal and infant outcomes. I applaud this focus on increasing awareness about emergency contraception--to all women--so that we can work together at decreasing the rate of unintended pregnancy in this country. The FDA recently made EC available over the counter for women 18 years of age and older. Despite the ideologically driven agenda against this drug, the research has been consistently clear--this drug is safe and effective for preventing pregnancy. The FDA's own scientific advisory committees and more than 70 major medical organizations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Medical Association recommended EC be made available without a prescription. If pharmacies stock this drug for any citizen of age, surely hospitals should provide women in crisis with the information necessary to evaluate this option for themselves. Women deserve access to EC. For millions of women, it represents peace of mind. For survivors of rape and sexual assault, it offers hope for healing and a tomorrow free of painful reminders of the past. Let us recommit ourselves to the fight to better protect and serve our Nation's sexual assault survivors.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong support for the Ryan White CARE Act. The programs funded through this law have, for more than 15 years, enabled hundreds of thousands of people living with HIV and AIDS to access essential care and treatment services. Yet the reauthorization proposals currently under consideration by both the House and the Senate would unfairly shift funding from the hardest-hit areas of the epidemic, devastating the ability of providers and organizations to offer life-extending services. The more than 100,000 people living with HIV and AIDS in New York would be adversely affected by the millions of dollars in cuts they would face if these reauthorizations were to go through. I understand that the White House and the Republican leadership are pressuring many of my colleagues, particularly those from code-based States, that if they don't reauthorize the bill this year, they will face cuts in funding next year. But approving a fundamentally flawed bill under pressure is not the right thing to do. We should be working to strengthen the CARE Act for everyone, not decimate it. Today, I, along with my colleagues from New Jersey, Illinois, and Florida, will be introducing legislation that provides for a 1-year extension of programs funded by the Ryan White CARE Act, to give us more time to address the concerns of many that were raised during this reauthorization process. It will increase authorization levels across titles by 3.7 percent, and will set up a grant program to address unmet need in States that do not receive title I funding, in order to address the need in rural areas where HIV incidence has increased. It will also delay the switch from code-based to names-based reporting for 1 year, in order to give us time to address many of the issues that these States are facing in making this switch. I believe in the reauthorization of the CARE Act, but I believe in reauthorizing the CARE Act the right way--in a way that will help, not hurt, all of the people living with HIV and AIDS in this country. Our bill will help that process, and I would urge all of my colleagues to support it.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I am proud to introduce the Compassionate Assistance for Rape Emergencies Act, a bill that will help sexual assault survivors across the country get the medical care they need and deserve. It is hard to argue against this commonsense legislation. Rape--by definition--could never result in an intended pregnancy. Emergency contraception is a valuable tool that can prevent unintended pregnancy. This bill makes emergency contraception available for survivors of sexual assault at any hospital receiving public funds. Every 2 minutes, a woman is sexually assaulted in the United States, and each year, 25,000 to 32,000 women become pregnant as a result of rape or incest. According to a study published in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 50 percent of those pregnancies end in abortion. By providing access to emergency contraception, up to 95 percent of those unintended pregnancies could be prevented if emergency contraception is administered within the first 24 to 72 hours. In addition, emergency contraception could also give desperately needed peace of mind to women in crisis. I am proud that for 3 years, this has already been law in New York State. Survivors of sexual assault and rape receive information and access to emergency contraception at every hospital in the State. As a result, victims are getting better care than they ever have before in New York. This bill will allow women nationwide to benefit from the same standard of care New Yorkers receive. In New York City, women are benefiting from Mayor Bloomberg's significant initiative to expand access to emergency contraception and family planning services and improve maternal and infant outcomes. I applaud this focus on increasing awareness about emergency contraception--to all women--so that we can work together at decreasing the rate of unintended pregnancy in this country. The FDA recently made EC available over the counter for women 18 years of age and older. Despite the ideologically driven agenda against this drug, the research has been consistently clear--this drug is safe and effective for preventing pregnancy. The FDA's own scientific advisory committees and more than 70 major medical organizations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Medical Association recommended EC be made available without a prescription. If pharmacies stock this drug for any citizen of age, surely hospitals should provide women in crisis with the information necessary to evaluate this option for themselves. Women deserve access to EC. For millions of women, it represents peace of mind. For survivors of rape and sexual assault, it offers hope for healing and a tomorrow free of painful reminders of the past. Let us recommit ourselves to the fight to better protect and serve our Nation's sexual assault survivors.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, as I have often reminded my colleagues, New York State is an agricultural State. We are home to 36,000 farms, and our farmers are world-class producers of dairy products, apples, grapes, honey, maple syrup, great wines, and other fruits and vegetables. New York is truly a land of milk and honey--and so much more. Agriculture contributes almost $4 billion to New York's economy. More than 1.2 million people work on farms or in farm-related jobs. But farmers in New York who are contributing so much to our economy and way of life--in a plight shared by the agricultural industry across the country--face an incredible challenge to maintain a workforce that does the difficult job of harvesting crops and bringing our State's bounty to the marketplace. That is why I continue to fight for a solution. And as we consider the Craig and Feinstein amendments, I hope we can keep these farmers-- many of whom I have met and worked closely with these past 6 years--in our focus and put the politics and partisanship aside. There are those in this Chamber who have strong disagreements over how to pursue comprehensive immigration reform. But I hope that these proposals to stand by our family farmers and agricultural industry, both struggling to find labor, are not held hostage to the larger debate. Our farmers have long desired a legal, stable workforce and have been calling for reform. But now they face the prospect of crops dying in the field or on the vine--or worse, their farms going out of business because of a shortage of workers. We have had the best apple crop in years in New York, but the lack of labor has left apples unpicked on the trees. We are in the midst of the harvest season in New York State, and the 36,000 farm families face the real risk--this year--of losing their livelihoods if we cannot ensure a legal, stable workforce for them. In fact, according to the Farm Bureau, New York's agricultural industry stands to lose $289 million with fruit and vegetable growers estimated to lose more than $100 million without solving this problem. Farmers have shared with me their stories. Many feel abandoned to election-year politics, partisan wrangling, and a Government that does not recognize their hardship. Our farmers' crops are dying in the fields. We cannot allow a real solution to die on the vine. In recent meetings with scores of New York farmers from across the State, it was stressed to me that the current worker program in place-- the H-2A legal guest worker program is antiquated, unworkable, and woefully inadequate. Couple this with the recent increases in enforcement by the Social Security Administration and the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and the result has been major disruptions to our farms. I join with many of my colleagues in this Chamber who believe that workplace enforcement is imperative. But as we all know, our current laws are broken, and enforcement has been inadequate and haphazard at best. We know this because we have been debating reforms for months, some of us for years. These increases in enforcement have left our farmers reeling. Day to day, they do not know whether their labor force will show up for work, whether their workers have been apprehended by Immigration and Custom Enforcement or whether they have simply fled the area out of fear of apprehension. Whatever the cause, the result is our farms are being paralyzed. It is worth noting that the farmers I have spoken with are trying in good faith to obey the law. They get labor referrals from the New York State Department of Labor. They inspect work documents to ensure that they have a legal workforce. Our farmers are on the losing end of a broken system, and it is up to us to fix it. For several years, a broad, bipartisan coalition of Senators has advocated for passage of the Agricultural Job Opportunities, Benefits, and Security Act, AgJOBS, and other legislative reforms that would provide our farmers with the long overdue relief they need to maintain a workforce. The AgJOBS bill would not only expand the current H-2A program, it would also modernize and streamline its procedures, making it easier for our farmers to use. AgJOBS would also provide agricultural employers with a stable labor supply by giving many undocumented agricultural workers the chance to earn the right to become legal immigrants. The AgJOBS compromise was reached after years of negotiations, and it represents a unique agreement between farmworker labor unions and agricultural employers. It has the support of a broad coalition of organizations, including major business trade associations, Latino community leaders, civil rights organizations, and religious groups. Moreover, AgJOBS will promote our security by helping our Government identify persons inside the United States who are here without authorization. By encouraging farm workers to come out of the shadows, we can stand by family farms while refocusing our limited resources on real threats to our security. I applaud the leadership of Senators Craig, Kennedy, Feinstein, and Boxer on this issue. I support the Craig and Feinstein amendments to this bill because we share a belief that we can tackle this crisis. We are in this Chamber debating amendments that will serve our farm economy and serve to make our immigration system fairer and more workable. What I hope is that we can put politics aside and have a vote, up or down, yes or no. We owe it to our farmers, workers, and consumers to pass a bill that will help save our farms and agricultural industry.