Hillary Clinton

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President. I rise today to introduce legislation to protect the rights of student borrowers trying to repay their loans. Students are borrowing now more than ever to pay for higher education. Need-based grant aid has stagnated while college costs have grown. The result is more students borrowing and higher levels of borrowing. In 1993, less than one-half of students graduating from 4-year colleges and universities had student loans. Now two-thirds do. Unlike other debt, you take out student loans to invest in yourself. For most people, that is a wise investment. In the long run student loans help people earn more money and have more choices in their careers. Student borrowers must also take their responsibilities seriously, so future generations of students can also benefit from the chance to borrow money--so they do not have to burden their families. But today it is harder to pay back loans than when I left school or when most of the Members of this Chamber did. The average debt burden for college graduates has increased 58 percent over the past decade, after accounting for inflation. And too many borrowers are overly burdened as they repay student loans. When I travel in New York, I meet young people all the time who say to me, ``You know, Senator, I'd like to go to nursing school or I'd like to be a teacher or I'd like to go into law enforcement, but I've got so much debt that I can't afford to do that.'' We need to make sure that student loans do not stand in people's way and prevent them from following their dreams. The burden of student loan debt can put people in economic handcuffs, forcing them out of important but low-paying professions or forcing them to delay the purchase of a home. Today 54 percent of former students wish they had borrowed less for college, up from 31 percent in 1991. Student loan debt may even prevent borrowers from pursuing a higher degree. According to the Nellie Mae Corporation, 40 percent of college graduates who do not go to graduate school blame student loan debt. Most disturbingly, the prospect that student loans will be burdensome may prevent successful high school students from going to college. Twenty percent of low-income high school graduates who are qualified for college do not go to college. The Student Borrower Bill of Rights will make it easier for students to repay and give them rights that are enforceable. The bill will give students the right to shop for loans in a free marketplace. It will give students access to better information about their loans. The bill will give student borrowers the right to make fair, monthly payments that do not exceed a percentage of their incomes and fair interest rates and fees. The bill would also give students the right to borrow without exploitation. We need this bill now to help students struggling to go to college. For the average family it now takes more income to pay for a child to go to college than it did, as a percentage, 25 years ago. So we need to do everything we can to ensure all students can afford college. It is in their best interest and it is in the Nation's best interest. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Student Borrower Bill of Rights.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize Dr. Gerald D. Fischbach for his service as the Executive Vice President for Health and Biomedical Sciences and Dean of the Faculties of Medicine and Health Sciences at Columbia University in New York. Gerry Fischbach is a highly respected neuroscientist and educator. I have known Dean Fischbach since 1998 when he served as Director of the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, NINDS, at the National Institutes of Health, NIH, during the Clinton administration. As executive vice president and dean, Gerry Fischbach was charged with running the Columbia University Medical Center, CUMC, in northern Manhattan. The CUMC comprises the College of Physicians and Surgeons, the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, the School of Nursing, the College of Dental Medicine, and the Mailman School of Public Health. Dean Fischbach worked tirelessly to advance the Medical Center's three primary missions, providing high quality patient care, conducting innovative biomedical research, and educating generations of doctors, scientists, nurses, dentists, and public health professionals. Gerry Fischbach is a native of Mount Vernon, New York and graduated from Colgate University. After graduating from Cornell Medical School in New York City, he completed his internship at the University of Washington Hospital in Seattle. In 1966, he began his lifelong dedication to research and education at the NIH. Before coming to Columbia, Dean Fischbach held Chairmanships at both Harvard University and Washington University in St. Louis, and was Director of the NINDS at NIH. Throughout his career, Dean Fischbach has studied the formation and maintenance of synapses, the junctions between nerve cells and their targets through which information is transferred. His work has focused on the neuromuscular junction, where he pioneered using cultured neurons and muscle cells to characterize the biochemical, cellular, and electrophysiological mechanisms underlying the development and function of this junction. Beginning in the 1970s, Dean Fischbach began to study the mechanism by which motor neurons regulate the number of acetylcholine receptors on muscle cells. In 1993, this work culminated with the purification and cloning of the acetylcholine receptor- inducing activity, ARIA, protein, which stimulates skeletal muscle cells to synthesize acetylcholine receptors. Dean Fischbach's work was key in demonstrating that synaptic development relies on biochemical mechanisms. While at Columbia, Dean Fischbach initiated and implemented a strategic planning process and oversaw the completion and dedication of the new Irving Cancer Research Center. No stranger to Congress from his days at NINDS, he has been active in the effort to expand eligibility for federal funding for stem cell research, and has lectured, written, and testified before Congress numerous times on the subject. During his tenure, he created the Columbia Center for Neuroscience Initiatives and the CUMC Stem Cell Consortium, both to promote better understanding of the human brain and develop treatments for diseases that affect millions of Americans. New York is blessed with an abundance of top research institutions and teaching hospitals, New York's jewels, as my predecessor Senator Moynihan used to call them, and there is no doubt that Columbia's medical center is one of the finest in the country. Columbia receives more NIH funding than any other New York institution, and two out of the past five Nobel Prize winners for Physiology and Medicine have been Columbia faculty. I have become very familiar with the outstanding clinical care provided by CUMC and the New York Presbyterian Hospital. Dr. Craig Smith, the surgeon who operated on my husband, is a Columbia faculty member. My colleagues may have noticed that the one word I have not used in my remarks is ``retire.'' Although Gerry Fishbach may be stepping down from his current position, he is not retiring. He will remain an active CUMC faculty member and researcher. He also will serve as the Scientific Advisor for the Simons Foundation, a New York-based foundation dedicated to advancing the basic and clinical frontiers of autism research. There will be more time to spend with his wife Ruth, a noted bioethicist, their children and grandchildren at their home in Wood's Hole, and I suspect there may be a few more rounds of golf in his future. Gerry Fischbach will continue to do what he has devoted his life to: expanding, creating, and disseminating knowledge of the brain and working on developing means to treat disease. He will also continue to be active on health and science policy issues like stem cell research and it would not surprise me, once absolved from the day-to- day responsibilities of Dean, if he is not more visible on Capitol Hill. Dean Fischbach is leaving Columbia University Medical Center in good hands. Dr. Lee Goldman will assume the executive vice president and dean position in late June. A distinguished cardiologist, Dr. Goldman comes to Columbia from the University of California San Francisco where he is Chair of the Department of Medicine. I want to welcome Dr. Goldman to New York and look forward to working with him. I ask that my colleagues join me in recognizing this great New Yorker, Dr. Gerald D. Fischbach. Congratulations Gerry and best to you and Ruth.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President. I rise today to introduce legislation to protect the rights of student borrowers trying to repay their loans. Students are borrowing now more than ever to pay for higher education. Need-based grant aid has stagnated while college costs have grown. The result is more students borrowing and higher levels of borrowing. In 1993, less than one-half of students graduating from 4-year colleges and universities had student loans. Now two-thirds do. Unlike other debt, you take out student loans to invest in yourself. For most people, that is a wise investment. In the long run student loans help people earn more money and have more choices in their careers. Student borrowers must also take their responsibilities seriously, so future generations of students can also benefit from the chance to borrow money--so they do not have to burden their families. But today it is harder to pay back loans than when I left school or when most of the Members of this Chamber did. The average debt burden for college graduates has increased 58 percent over the past decade, after accounting for inflation. And too many borrowers are overly burdened as they repay student loans. When I travel in New York, I meet young people all the time who say to me, ``You know, Senator, I'd like to go to nursing school or I'd like to be a teacher or I'd like to go into law enforcement, but I've got so much debt that I can't afford to do that.'' We need to make sure that student loans do not stand in people's way and prevent them from following their dreams. The burden of student loan debt can put people in economic handcuffs, forcing them out of important but low-paying professions or forcing them to delay the purchase of a home. Today 54 percent of former students wish they had borrowed less for college, up from 31 percent in 1991. Student loan debt may even prevent borrowers from pursuing a higher degree. According to the Nellie Mae Corporation, 40 percent of college graduates who do not go to graduate school blame student loan debt. Most disturbingly, the prospect that student loans will be burdensome may prevent successful high school students from going to college. Twenty percent of low-income high school graduates who are qualified for college do not go to college. The Student Borrower Bill of Rights will make it easier for students to repay and give them rights that are enforceable. The bill will give students the right to shop for loans in a free marketplace. It will give students access to better information about their loans. The bill will give student borrowers the right to make fair, monthly payments that do not exceed a percentage of their incomes and fair interest rates and fees. The bill would also give students the right to borrow without exploitation. We need this bill now to help students struggling to go to college. For the average family it now takes more income to pay for a child to go to college than it did, as a percentage, 25 years ago. So we need to do everything we can to ensure all students can afford college. It is in their best interest and it is in the Nation's best interest. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Student Borrower Bill of Rights.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, for nearly 3 years, the Government of Sudan has conducted genocide in Darfur. The United Nations, the African Union, the U.S. State Department, and many other organizations possess detailed descriptions of these crimes against humanity. This enormous body of evidence demonstrates unequivocally that the Government of Sudan and its jingaweit proxies have attacked, uprooted, raped, starved, enslaved, and killed millions of civilians. In Congress, we have written letters, introduced and adopted legislation, and spoken out strongly. We have supported the African Union peacekeepers, the international relief workers, and the people of Darfur. In March, I sent a letter to President Bush detailing 13 steps that should be taken to address the crises in Sudan. I reiterate the steps that are suggested. These include appointment of a Presidential Envoy to Sudan; rapid preparation and deployment of additional, well- equipped, robustly-mandated international peacekeepers to Darfur; urgent assistance to the African Union, including by NATO; and multilateral enforcement of existing U.N. resolutions that establish a no-fly zone over Darfur and hold accountable those who have committed crimes. Thousands of Americans, including many New Yorkers, have taken a strong and personal interest in the crisis in Darfur. I have heard their voices and frustration. The situation on the ground is still dire. As we lament this crisis today, four million people in Darfur and eastern Chad now depend on relief organizations for survival--one million more than a year ago. The alarm issued on May 19 by the United Nations Under Secretary General for Humanitarian Affairs, Jan Egeland, is therefore especially distressing. Despite the hopeful signing of the Darfur Peace Agreement on May 5 by the Government of Sudan and one of the main Darfur rebel groups, the work of aid workers remains sharply constrained by violence, funding shortfalls, and restrictions being imposed by the Government of Sudan. Civilians continue to be attacked and sexually- brutalized by Sudanese armed forces, the jingaweit, and rebel groups. On May 19, Mr. Egeland warned, ``We can turn the corner towards reconciliation and reconstruction, or see an even worse collapse of our efforts to provide protection and relief to millions of people.'' In eastern Chad, Mr. Egeland said, ``we are confronted with a very dangerous vacuum that is being filled by rebels, militia and others, leaving civilians, internally displaced persons, refugee camps and relief workers utterly exposed.'' In the context of Sudan's history, this post-peace agreement reality is not unique. Nor is it surprising. The genocide in Darfur, in the west, began just as the Government of Sudan concluded a horrific, 20- year campaign of violence in the south--a campaign that laid waste to the institutions and infrastructure of southern Sudan. That conflict was brought to an end more than 1 year ago through the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA)--but conditions in southern Sudan remain grim. Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick said recently that the challenge in southern Sudan is not one of re-construction, but rather of basic construction; years of conflict have destroyed nearly everything. Even so, the National Congress Party in Khartoum--the signatory to the CPA with the means and the mandate to implement many of its provisions--has moved ahead very slowly and selectively. Khartoum is failing to deliver on some of the most important provisions of the CPA, including those related to the resolution of disputed boundaries, the sharing of oil wealth, and the timely withdrawal of armed forces. Displaced and enslaved southerners are not being returned as promised to their homes. Incursions by the Lord's Resistance Army and other armed groups continue, often with impunity. Amidst these circumstances, the Government of Southern Sudan faces great challenges in providing basic goods to the people--basic goods such as roads, electricity, schools, hospitals, food, and clean water. By dragging its feet and turning a blind eye, Khartoum is abdicating its commitments under the CPA, and perpetuating the suffering of the southern Sudanese. If things do not change quickly in southern Sudan, today's fragility may tomorrow become chaos, with grave and deadly consequences for millions of civilians. The United States can, and must, do more. We should support the continued development of the Government of Southern Sudan, and urgently assist its provision of food, health care, shelter, and security to the southern peoples. In addition, we should expedite the safe, voluntary return of displaced southerners to their homes and families. More broadly, we should closely monitor security conditions, humanitarian access, and implementation of the peace agreements in both southern Sudan and Darfur. We must hold the signatories to their word and bring other groups on board. The Government of Sudan must fulfill its pledges to desist from military offensives; accept international peacekeepers; disarm the jingaweit by mid-October, 2006; and take clear steps to share power and wealth with the south and west. Members and sponsors of the jingaweit should be held accountable for their gruesome crimes, and not simply integrated into the national army. Relief workers and supplies must immediately be provided free and safe access to the peoples of Sudan--by the rebels, the jingaweit, and the Government of Sudan. If the National Congress Party in Khartoum fails to uphold its commitments or its broader obligations under international law, it must face consequences--especially if its failure erodes the security of civilians or aid workers. The possible sanctions and no-fly zone that have been authorized by the U.N. Security Council can compel compliance. In the meantime, to transform the Darfur Peace Agreement into peace, we need to immediately strengthen the African Union's ability to protect civilians and aid workers. Even with the commendable field work of the African Union, the United Nations, and many relief organizations, we must not lose focus on the current problems in Sudan. We must urgently support the work of these partners and together ensure that peace and justice prevail for the peoples of Sudan. I ask unanimous consent that the letter to which I referred be printed in the Record.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 4072, and I ask for its consideration.

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, as has become abundantly clear from the debate on the floor, immigration is a Federal responsibility. As this debate has shown, for too long the Federal Government has neglected its duty. My amendment addresses one of the clearest examples of this neglect because our failed national immigration policy has left our State and local governments to bear the brunt of the cost of immigration. Our schools, our hospitals, our other State and local services are being strained. Obviously, this is a problem in many communities and not just in border communities. Throughout our country and in my State, there are counties and municipalities that are covering the costs of dealing with education, health care, and law enforcement without adequate or any Federal reimbursement. So we have left our local and State governments to fend for themselves. They should not be left to bear these costs alone because it is not they who are making Federal immigration policy. This amendment does several things. It helps finally provide adequate support for State and local governments. How? Well, it not only appropriates the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program funding to our States, but it establishes a program that provides financial assistance to State and local governments for the cost of health and educational services related to immigration. Money is allocated to our States in accordance with a funding formula based on the size and recent growth of the State's noncitizen population. The State must then pass the funds on to local governments and other entities that need the money for reimbursement. Here is how this program would be funded, because the amendment does not appropriate any new funds or impose any new fees on immigrants. Funding is drawn solely from existing fees already in the underlying bill. The underlying bill creates a State impact assistance account at the Treasury, but it does not direct any money into that account. It is an empty account with no State purpose. My amendment would direct certain fees that already exist in the underlying bill into the account and then provide for the disbursement of the collected funds to State and local government. To which fees are we referring? Well, there is a $500 fee for immigrants who participate in the guest worker program. Right now, that fee is not marked for any purpose, and the funds simply go to the Treasury. My amendment directs this $500 fee into the State impact assistance account. Additionally, the underlying bill imposes a $2,000 fee for the undocumented immigrants to participate in the path to legalization program spelled out in title VI of the bill, plus imposes an additional fine that is left to the Department of Homeland Security to determine later. Eighty percent of these funds go to border security; 20 percent go to processing and administrative costs related to the undocumented. My amendment does not touch the 80 percent going to border security. Instead, it takes half of the processing fees--in other words, 10 percent of the $2,000 fee and the yet-to-be, unspecified fine by DHS-- and redirects that money away from Federal Government administration to this fund which will help State and local governments get reimbursed. This still leaves about $1 billion for processing and administrative costs at the Federal level. What happens with this money? Pursuant to my amendment, 25 percent goes to the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, known as SCAAP, to pay for the cost of detention which our State and local governments incur. Each year, the SCAAP program is underfunded. A 2005 GAO study documents that State and local governments get only 25 percent of their costs reimbursed through this program. A report indicates that my State of New York received even less--21 percent of their costs were compensated in 2002 and 24 percent in 2003. The remaining 75 percent of the money collected from the fees deposited in the State Impact Assistance Account would go to States and localities to pay for the cost of providing health and education services to noncitizens. This money is allocated among the States in accordance with a funding formula based on the size and recent growth of the States' noncitizen population. Now, to ensure that the funds actually get to the counties and cities and don't sit in State governments, my amendment also requires that at least 70 percent of those funds be passed on to localities within 180 days of the States receiving the money. States can retain the remaining 30 percent to help offset their own costs related to immigration. I think this amendment helps us fix a problem I care a lot about as I travel around my State. Our local communities have a tradition in New York of being very welcoming. We are a State that is not only built on immigrants but very proud of that, as the Statue of Liberty in New York Harbor so eloquently says. But the costs of immigration have steadily increased, and the Federal Government's neglect has strained local and State government budgets. I think if we pass any kind of immigration reform and we don't take into account the strains on the budget on State and local governments, we will not have done our job. This amendment also helps State and local governments not only recoup some of their expenditures, but it underlines a message to communities that they are working together, they welcome people who work hard and who make a contribution and will be on the path to earned legalization. So I hope this amendment will be supported. It has support from the National Immigration Law Center, the National League of Cities, the National Association of Counties, and the National Conference of State Legislatures. I think our laws can be both fair and strict. I think we can have laws which don't shut the doors of America to people who want to make a contribution and at the same time don't really provide disincentives to communities to be part of that welcoming tradition. Balancing all of the interests in this debate is not easy, but I appreciate the efforts that are being made on this floor to wrestle with this difficult problem. I hope we will also send a message to local communities that we are here to help them because they don't set immigration policy, they don't enforce immigration laws, but they are often left holding the bag for the costs that flow because we haven't done our job. So I hope that this amendment finds favor in this body and we send a message to our local executives and legislatures around our country that we are going to send them some help to be part of a comprehensive immigration solution.

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Salazar and Schumer be added, along with Senators Obama and Boxer, as cosponsors of this amendment.

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

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support H. Con. Res. 335, a concurrent resolution honoring and praising the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People for 97 years of championing the cause of equality in the United States. At the dawn of the 20th century--almost 56 years after the end of the Civil War--African Americans were still denied the full rights of citizenship. African Americans were forced to endure the daily humiliation of economic exploitation and social segregation with almost no recourse. Racial tensions boiled over into riots and lynchings. It was at this critical juncture in our nation's history that a group of concerned citizens, answering freedom's call, gathered together to form the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People in New York City. Since its founding, the NAACP has fought for the social, political, and economic equality of all Americans and has sought to eliminate racial discrimination. And the NAACP has never wavered from its commitment to nonviolence in achieving these goals. In 1918, the NAACP successfully pressured President Wilson to publicly condemn lynching and continued to raise awareness about the horrific crime. In 1930, the NAACP began its long history of protesting judicial nominees who oppose the advancement of civil rights, with the successful defeat of John Parker to the Supreme Court. The NAACP fought for, and ultimately achieved, desegregation of the military and other federal government institutions. The NAACP was victorious in Buchanan vs. Warley, where the Supreme Court held that states cannot restrict and segregate residential districts. And of course, in the seminal case of Brown v. Board of Education, the NAACP successfully argued that the ``separate, but equal'' doctrine is unconstitutional, thereby making segregation in public schools illegal. In the 1960s, the NAACP was a leader in the fight to eradicate Jim Crow laws and abolish segregation. And the NAACP was integral to the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1957, 1960, and 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the Fair Housing Rights Act. In short, the NAACP has been a catalyst for social change in this country, winning landmark court decisions and advocating for civil rights laws that have walked our nation closer to the promise of equality envisioned in our Constitution. Notwithstanding its powerful voice and extraordinary accomplishments, we must never forget that the NAACP works through the tireless efforts of its individual members, united around a common vision of justice and equality. During desperate times, legendary NAACP members such as Thurgood Marshall, Rosa Parks, and Medger Evars made historic stands in service of the movement of civil rights. However, equally as important are the ``everyday'' contributions of organizers and activists. One example is Mary Burnett Talbert. Originally a teacher in Little Rock, AR, Talbert eventually moved with her husband to Buffalo, NY, where she received an advanced degree. An active member of her community, Talbert was one of the founders of the NAACP and later its director, vice president, and president. As director the NAACP's Anti-Lynching Campaign, Talbert traveled the Nation giving speeches to black and white audiences. She once wrote that ``By her peculiar position the colored woman has gained clear powers of observation and judgment--exactly the sort of powers which are today peculiarly necessary to the building of an ideal country.'' With every public education campaign, every fight over a judicial nomination, and every lobbying effort to pass progressive legislation, the NAACP takes us one step closer to the ``ideal country'' that Mary Talbert envisioned. While the NAACP's mission is to fight for the rights of African Americans, it has always been a multiracial and multicultural organization. Many of its founding members were white, including Oswald Garrison Villiard, Mary White Ovington, and Henry Moscowitz. As we celebrate the accomplishments of the NAACP, we must also honor the values upon which it was founded, for there is much work left to be done, and the same tireless dedication and clarity of purpose will be required to continue onward. Despite the last century of achievements, substantial racial disparities persist in educational achievement, access to health care, and economic prosperity. Hurricane Katrina highlighted the tragic and enduring link between race and poverty in our country, as well as emphasized our nation's failure to care for those among us least able to provide for themselves. We must continue vigilantly to guard against the resurgence of discriminatory practices that would deprive African Americans of the most fundamental right of democracy--the right to vote. We must continue to work to guarantee that every citizen is able to vote and that every vote is counted. And this summer, we must reauthorize the Voting Rights Act. The NAACP has always stood ready to face these and other challenges. Ninety-seven years after a group of concerned citizens assembled in New York around the common goal of creating a more just society, the NAACP's half million members continue to lead Freedom's march. For the battles it has fought, and for the battles it has yet to fight, our nation is forever in debt to the NAACP.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Standing with Minimum Wage Earners Act''. This legislation will raise the minimum wage over the next two years and link future increases in the minimum wage to Congressional raises. Today, working parents earning the minimum wage are struggling to make ends meet and to build better lives for their children. The Federal minimum wage is currently $5.15 an hour, an amount that has not been increased since 1997. Sadly, during that time, Congress has given itself eight annual pay raises. We can no longer stand by and regularly give ourselves a pay increase while denying a minimum wage increase to help the more than 7 million men and women working hard across this nation. At a time when working families are struggling to put food on the table, it's critically important that we here in Washington do something. If Members of Congress need an annual cost of living adjustment, then certainly the lowest-paid members of our society do too. There are currently 13 million American children living in poverty across this country, and this number is increasing every day. Families work hard and yet cannot make enough money to support themselves. More families are falling into poverty every day, and these families are working 40 hours a week. This is unacceptable. Minimum wage workers have not had a raise in nearly a decade. The reality is a full-time job that pays minimum wage just does not provide enough money to support a family today. A single mother with two children who works 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year earns only $10,700 a year. This amount--$10,700 a year--is almost $6,000 below the Federal poverty line for a family of three. We have a responsibility to help families earn a living wage. My legislation will benefit all minimum wage earners, and it would especially benefit women who represent a disproportionate number of low-wage workers. 61 percent of minimum wage earners are women, even though women only comprise 48 percent of the total workforce. And almost one-third of these working women are raising children. The women in my State of New York would feel the effects of a minimum wage increase most dramatically. New York is one of the top five States with the greatest number of low-wage women workers. In addition to helping America's hardest working families, raising the minimum wage will also narrow the dramatic income gap between the haves and the have-nots across the country. The average income of the richest fifth of New York State families is 8.1 times the average income of the poorest fifth. Nationwide, families in the top fifth made 7.3 times more than those in the bottom fifth. This discrepancy needs to be fixed and my bill would be a step in the right direction towards fairness for America's hard-working families. My legislation would increase the minimum wage first to $5.85 an hour, then to $6.55 an hour, and ultimately to $7.25 an hour within the next two years. In addition, my legislation then ensures that every time Congress gives itself a raise in the future that Americans get a raise too. This is the right and fair thing to do for hardworking Americans. I would like to recognize my cosponsors Senators Kennedy, Jeffords, Leahy, Harkin and Obama and thank them for joining me in this effort. The ``Standing with Minimum Wage Earners Act'' has letters of support from Service Employees International Union (SEIU), the American Federation of Labor--Congress of Industrial Organization (AFL-CIO) and the Coalition for Human Needs. I ask my colleagues to recognize the moral aspect of this issue. It is simply wrong to pay people a wage that they can barely live on. And it is shameful to continue to give ourselves raises as millions of American families struggle to survive. We should raise the Federal minimum wage so that working parents can lift their children out of poverty. It is past time to make this investment in our children and families.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, today I rise to discuss legislation that designates the United States Post Office Building in Patchogue, New York as the ``Lieutenant Michael P. Murphy Post Office Building.'' Almost a year ago, Navy LT Michael P. Murphy was reported missing in the mountains of Afghanistan while on a covert reconnaissance mission in search of Taliban and al-Qaida insurgents. Reports indicate Lieutenant Murphy and the three other members of his Navy SEAL team came under heavy attack by Taliban insurgents soon after they were inserted by helicopter into their position. The military creed of ``never leaving a fallen comrade behind'' was never more appropriate as this American hero's body was recovered on the Fourth of July, our Nation's Independence Day. Michael Murphy was only 29 years of age at the time of his passing, but as his father recalls, ``He squeezed more life into 29 years than I will ever see.'' Lieutenant Murphy attended Patchogue-Medford High School on Long Island, where he was a National Honor Society student and a varsity football athlete. After graduating high school he attended Penn State University where he majored in political science and excelled academically. At the time of his graduation, he decided to fulfill a lifelong dream of becoming a Navy SEAL. While realizing this would be a formidable challenge, Michael was determined to serve our country. Michael was engaged to be married, and he planned to attend law school after his military service. I ask that the Senate come together and honor this brave American hero for his service to our Nation.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, today I rise to discuss legislation that designates the United States Post Office Building in Patchogue, New York as the ``Lieutenant Michael P. Murphy Post Office Building.'' Almost a year ago, Navy LT Michael P. Murphy was reported missing in the mountains of Afghanistan while on a covert reconnaissance mission in search of Taliban and al-Qaida insurgents. Reports indicate Lieutenant Murphy and the three other members of his Navy SEAL team came under heavy attack by Taliban insurgents soon after they were inserted by helicopter into their position. The military creed of ``never leaving a fallen comrade behind'' was never more appropriate as this American hero's body was recovered on the Fourth of July, our Nation's Independence Day. Michael Murphy was only 29 years of age at the time of his passing, but as his father recalls, ``He squeezed more life into 29 years than I will ever see.'' Lieutenant Murphy attended Patchogue-Medford High School on Long Island, where he was a National Honor Society student and a varsity football athlete. After graduating high school he attended Penn State University where he majored in political science and excelled academically. At the time of his graduation, he decided to fulfill a lifelong dream of becoming a Navy SEAL. While realizing this would be a formidable challenge, Michael was determined to serve our country. Michael was engaged to be married, and he planned to attend law school after his military service. I ask that the Senate come together and honor this brave American hero for his service to our Nation.

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Standing with Minimum Wage Earners Act''. This legislation will raise the minimum wage over the next two years and link future increases in the minimum wage to Congressional raises. Today, working parents earning the minimum wage are struggling to make ends meet and to build better lives for their children. The Federal minimum wage is currently $5.15 an hour, an amount that has not been increased since 1997. Sadly, during that time, Congress has given itself eight annual pay raises. We can no longer stand by and regularly give ourselves a pay increase while denying a minimum wage increase to help the more than 7 million men and women working hard across this nation. At a time when working families are struggling to put food on the table, it's critically important that we here in Washington do something. If Members of Congress need an annual cost of living adjustment, then certainly the lowest-paid members of our society do too. There are currently 13 million American children living in poverty across this country, and this number is increasing every day. Families work hard and yet cannot make enough money to support themselves. More families are falling into poverty every day, and these families are working 40 hours a week. This is unacceptable. Minimum wage workers have not had a raise in nearly a decade. The reality is a full-time job that pays minimum wage just does not provide enough money to support a family today. A single mother with two children who works 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year earns only $10,700 a year. This amount--$10,700 a year--is almost $6,000 below the Federal poverty line for a family of three. We have a responsibility to help families earn a living wage. My legislation will benefit all minimum wage earners, and it would especially benefit women who represent a disproportionate number of low-wage workers. 61 percent of minimum wage earners are women, even though women only comprise 48 percent of the total workforce. And almost one-third of these working women are raising children. The women in my State of New York would feel the effects of a minimum wage increase most dramatically. New York is one of the top five States with the greatest number of low-wage women workers. In addition to helping America's hardest working families, raising the minimum wage will also narrow the dramatic income gap between the haves and the have-nots across the country. The average income of the richest fifth of New York State families is 8.1 times the average income of the poorest fifth. Nationwide, families in the top fifth made 7.3 times more than those in the bottom fifth. This discrepancy needs to be fixed and my bill would be a step in the right direction towards fairness for America's hard-working families. My legislation would increase the minimum wage first to $5.85 an hour, then to $6.55 an hour, and ultimately to $7.25 an hour within the next two years. In addition, my legislation then ensures that every time Congress gives itself a raise in the future that Americans get a raise too. This is the right and fair thing to do for hardworking Americans. I would like to recognize my cosponsors Senators Kennedy, Jeffords, Leahy, Harkin and Obama and thank them for joining me in this effort. The ``Standing with Minimum Wage Earners Act'' has letters of support from Service Employees International Union (SEIU), the American Federation of Labor--Congress of Industrial Organization (AFL-CIO) and the Coalition for Human Needs. I ask my colleagues to recognize the moral aspect of this issue. It is simply wrong to pay people a wage that they can barely live on. And it is shameful to continue to give ourselves raises as millions of American families struggle to survive. We should raise the Federal minimum wage so that working parents can lift their children out of poverty. It is past time to make this investment in our children and families.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, sitting here listening to my colleague from Tennessee reminds me of that old story about the boy who kills his parents and then stood before the judge and asked for mercy because he was an orphan. This is an unbelievable narration we have just heard. The other side of the aisle has been expert in running up the largest deficits we have ever had. We had a balanced budget, we had a surplus 5 years ago. We were on the right track economically. We were fiscally responsible. But the combination of this White House and this Republican majority has blown all of that to smithereens. This President has never vetoed anything and now we finally get a veto threat on an emergency supplemental. This President has used emergency supplementals in order to avoid the budget realities that would confront anyone who knows elementary arithmetic about how much we are spending that we do not have. With all due respect to my colleague, this is a rather strange argument to be making at this point in time as though none of the history of the previous 5 years had occurred. The debate between these two amendments is a worthy debate; however, it is an unnecessary debate. The President sent a budget to this Congress just a few months ago. It could have had much of what is in this emergency supplemental in the budget. They chose not to do so because even they are getting a little embarrassed about the ocean of red ink we are all swimming in these days. What this supplemental appropriations bill does is provide vital support for our men and women currently serving in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. This emergency supplemental provides body armor, tools to defeat improvised explosive devices, the so-called IEDs that are killing and maiming young Americans every single day. This supplemental provides money for training for the Iraqi security forces. Maybe, finally, we will have a government in Iraq that knows how to do that. They certainly need to get the message that we are not there for the long term unless they start defending themselves and providing security for their own people. These funds are to replenish the money we are spending in our military to make sure our young men and women who are bravely serving us have the resources, the equipment, the tools they need to do the job we sent them to do. The bill also includes funds to continue the rebuilding from Hurricane Katrina. As we approach yet another month of debris, confused leadership, failure to supervise and monitor expenditures from this administration, we know how much more needs to be done to rebuild New Orleans and the gulf coast region. Here we are, about to have a vote in a few hours on an amendment-- really, two amendments--as to whether we are also going to face up to our responsibilities along our border, and how we are going to pay for that. Both the Gregg amendment and the Reid amendment recognize the critical need for increased border security. I have long maintained it is unconscionable to think that in our post-September 11 world we still do not know the identities of people who enter our country, stay illegally in our country, and may or may not exit our country. Over the past several weeks, we have seen agreement in the Senate that securing our borders must be a top priority and a major component of whatever immigration reform we consider. Now, there are those who are, frankly, misguided and demagogic in their claims that all we need is border security. We know that is not the case. Senator Kennedy, who is in the Chamber at this moment, has been a leader on immigration reform for decades. He knows if you do not have comprehensive immigration reform, you do not deal with the challenges we confront. We all are in agreement we have to do more to secure our porous borders. The Reid amendment is a step in the right direction because it does provide $1.9 billion to strengthen our borders. These funds would be used to replace and upgrade law enforcement communications, provide Border Patrol agents with air and land vehicles, expand air operations for Customs and border protection, invest $100 million in sensor and surveillance technology that will help our Border Patrol agents be more effective. If we can succeed in securing our borders, something that we have not yet succeeded in doing, then we can turn our attention as a nation and focus our energies and our resources on other credible threats against our homeland. I commend Senator Reid's efforts to direct resources to strengthening our borders. I know he would agree with me that obtaining these additional funds should not be mistaken for comprehensive immigration reform. We still need comprehensive immigration reform that secures our borders, creates a better set of agreements and understandings with our neighbors to the south as to what they are going to do to stop the flow of illegal immigrants through their countries, particularly Mexico, and imposes and enforces tough sanctions against employers who employ illegal immigrants. After all, these people would not be risking their lives if there wasn't a job waiting for them at the other end of their dangerous journey; make sure we don't disadvantage people who have waited legally for their opportunity to come here to join a family member and to get a job that has been promised. We need to do something to help alleviate the financial burden on local communities--not just along the border but, frankly, in New York--that are paying health care and education and law enforcement costs because this Federal Government can't figure out how to run an immigration system. Yes, we need an earned pass to citizenship to bring out of the shadows the 11 or 12 million hard-working immigrants who are here and give them a chance through paying back taxes, going through a background check, learning English, and waiting their turn to become legal. We know what comprehensive reform looks like. And border security is absolutely paramount, but passing the Gregg amendment is not the end of immigration reform. I hope everyone understands that. My colleague from New Hampshire agrees that we need to increase border security, but he would cut needed funds for our troops in the name of border security. The Gregg amendment would take money from troop pay, body armor, and even from the joint improvised explosive device funds. That is a false choice, and it is a wrong choice. I do not believe that we should be engage in deficit spending. That is why I have voted against many of the provisions that have come from the other side--tax cuts which we can't afford, spending that should be under control. But it is an odd moment indeed that all of a sudden my friends have found a conversion experience and they want to take money from our troops to secure our borders. I will take that comparison any time. I will be on any list that says don't take money from our troops; don't cut the research which we finally have as to how we are going to defeat improvised explosive devices because you now decide you want to do border security when you have been presenting budgets for 5 years after 9/11. We need to get serious about defending this country and the men and women who serve on its behalf. We shouldn't be cutting funds for our troops in the name of border security. It is wrong to cut funds for body armor or for efforts to defeat IEDs. It is wrong to cut money from Iraqi security force training when they are finally about to have an Iraqi Government, something we have all been waiting for. It is wrong to cut the defense health program which provides medical assistance to our troops on the battlefield. And it is wrong to cut the death gratuity which assists the families of fallen soldiers. If I sound a little passionate about this, it is because I am. I find this a false, cheap choice to score political points. And I think it is wrong. The most important obligation of our Government is to provide for the security of the American people. Border security is an urgent need. It should and must be addressed by this Congress. But our security and our values are not served by choosing between protecting our troops and protecting our homeland, nor by playing support for our men and women in uniform against our need for border security. The Gregg amendment undermines both. I urge my colleagues to support the Reid amendment. Do we need to get back to fiscal responsibility? You bet we do. Let us talk about that when it comes to cutting even more taxes for people making more than $1 million a year. Let us talk about that when we are spending $10 billion a month in Iraq and Afghanistan. Let us talk about that when we borrow $60 billion a month from foreign lenders, such as the Governments of China, Japan, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, and India. How do we protect our security against an increasingly dangerous world? How do we stand up to the threats from unstable regimes and from competition from China and elsewhere for scarce natural resources when we can't even get our own fiscal house in order because the other side of the aisle and the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue are addicted to tax cuts for the wealthy regardless of the costs for anything else, regardless of the costs for our country? We need an energy policy that moves us toward energy independence. We get rhetoric, we don't get budget priorities. We are living on borrowed time and borrowed money. We are one accident or one terrorist attack away from oil at $100 a barrel--not just $75. We have no leadership. We are not asked to sacrifice anything. The only people who sacrifice on a daily basis are the young men and women wearing our uniform. Now we are standing up here with a straight face saying we are going to cut funds for body armor, we are going to cut the IED research program, we are going to cut the death gratuity so we can score political points and act all of sudden as if we have become fiscally responsible. I am sorry, I find that a sad commentary about what should be expected from each and every one of us. I hope we will begin to seek common ground and try to figure out how we get ourselves out of the dangerous situation we are in today. All one has to do is pick up the morning newspapers or turn on the news. It is beyond me why we would want to have a political debate pitting border security against the needs of our men and women in uniform. There are other ways to pay for this. There is money for construction that could be postponed until a real budget emerges. There are other kinds of options. But, no, we are going to have a debate about two serious, urgent requirements that we should be stepping up to meet. I hope we will support the Reid amendment and do what is right by our troops and our border needs, and then let's get down to a serious discussion that is long overdue in this Chamber about where this country is headed. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce the Community-Based Choices for Older Americans Act of 2006. This legislation would take several important steps toward helping older Americans meet their long-term care needs. Issues related to long-term care are of growing concern to many in New York and around the country, especially as baby boomers begin to require more of these important services. Older Americans are struggling to afford costly care and to maintain dignity and choice regarding these services. As I talk with seniors around the State of New York and throughout the country, what I hear most is that people want to stay in their homes for as long as they can. However, too many individuals struggle to afford quality home and community-based care and, as a result, are forced into institutional care: A more costly outcome they do not desire and that places additional burden on the Medicaid program. That is why I am introducing this legislation today. The Community- Based Choices for Older Americans Act will assist individuals age 60 or older who grapple with daily living activities or with a disability, yet are above a State's Medicaid eligibility threshold, in meeting their long-term care needs. This bill will establish a matching grant program to States to help these individuals pay for a broad range of health, social, and supportive services based on the individuals' personal choices and preferences in collaboration with a service coordinator. Eligible individuals will be able to purchase services and supports that would be provided in home or community-based settings, such as home modifications like a wheelchair or ramp, assistance with grocery shopping or meal preparation, or adult day services. This legislation is based on the Cash and Counseling model successfully used in demonstration projects in 15 States. This consumer-directed approach offers individuals more choice, flexibility, and control in managing their daily lives. Through this bill, State Agencies on Aging throughout the country will be given the tools to develop a community-based, long-term care system where seniors choose the services and the providers they want so they are able to maintain independence and dignity while they age in place in the homes and communities where they have often lived for decades. This year marks the first year that the baby boom population turns 60. Development of a consumer-friendly, home and community-based system of long-term care is a critical step in planning services for this population. I look forward to working with all of my colleagues to ensure passage of this bill to help our seniors choose the long-term care resources and services they need to remain independent. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce the Community-Based Choices for Older Americans Act of 2006. This legislation would take several important steps toward helping older Americans meet their long-term care needs. Issues related to long-term care are of growing concern to many in New York and around the country, especially as baby boomers begin to require more of these important services. Older Americans are struggling to afford costly care and to maintain dignity and choice regarding these services. As I talk with seniors around the State of New York and throughout the country, what I hear most is that people want to stay in their homes for as long as they can. However, too many individuals struggle to afford quality home and community-based care and, as a result, are forced into institutional care: A more costly outcome they do not desire and that places additional burden on the Medicaid program. That is why I am introducing this legislation today. The Community- Based Choices for Older Americans Act will assist individuals age 60 or older who grapple with daily living activities or with a disability, yet are above a State's Medicaid eligibility threshold, in meeting their long-term care needs. This bill will establish a matching grant program to States to help these individuals pay for a broad range of health, social, and supportive services based on the individuals' personal choices and preferences in collaboration with a service coordinator. Eligible individuals will be able to purchase services and supports that would be provided in home or community-based settings, such as home modifications like a wheelchair or ramp, assistance with grocery shopping or meal preparation, or adult day services. This legislation is based on the Cash and Counseling model successfully used in demonstration projects in 15 States. This consumer-directed approach offers individuals more choice, flexibility, and control in managing their daily lives. Through this bill, State Agencies on Aging throughout the country will be given the tools to develop a community-based, long-term care system where seniors choose the services and the providers they want so they are able to maintain independence and dignity while they age in place in the homes and communities where they have often lived for decades. This year marks the first year that the baby boom population turns 60. Development of a consumer-friendly, home and community-based system of long-term care is a critical step in planning services for this population. I look forward to working with all of my colleagues to ensure passage of this bill to help our seniors choose the long-term care resources and services they need to remain independent. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I thank the Democratic leader, the Senator from Nevada, for his leadership on this issue. We have come together to present this Prevention First amendment because we believe deeply that we can do better than we are doing in our country when it comes to preventing unintended pregnancy and helping to support mothers and children. The United States has one of the highest rates of unintended pregnancies in the industrialized world. Half of all pregnancies in our country are unintended. Nearly half of those end in abortion. In order to decrease the number of unintended pregnancies, and to decrease the number of abortions, we must make contraception more accessible and more affordable. The Prevention First amendment ensures that we dedicate adequate funding for these programs, while at the same time the amendment provides for dedicating funding to mothers and children so children will be as healthy as possible. This amendment sends a clear message: Women who need access to contraception to prevent unintended pregnancies will have that help. At the same time, women who are pregnant and want to have a healthy child will also have the support they need. Our amendment provides $100 million to programs that reduce unintended pregnancy and $247 million to programs that support and protect women and babies. The $100 million prevention program does four basic things. First, it increases the funds for title X, the Nation's only program solely dedicated to family planning. Title X provides high quality preventive health care and contraception to low-income individuals who may otherwise lack access to supplement care. Every year, title X services prevent approximately 1 million unintended pregnancies. But despite its proven success, this administration has continuously cut its funding. Second, this amendment ends the current practice where some insurance companies refuse to provide coverage for contraception even though they cover other prescription drugs. Lack of coverage for contraception results in women of reproductive age paying 68 percent more in out-of- pocket costs for health care services than men of the same age. Our amendment remedies this disparity by requiring private health care plans that cover prescription drugs to also cover FDA-approved prescription contraceptions and related medical services. In our own State of New York, contraceptive equity is already the law and it should provide a real role model for the Nation. If insurance companies can cover drugs such as Viagra, they can certainly cover prescription contraception. Third, this amendment improves public awareness of emergency contraception. Emergency contraception, also known as Plan B, is one of the most misunderstood drugs around. Some have tried to deliberately mislead its purpose. Emergency contraception prevents pregnancy. It does not interrupt or end a pregnancy. The most recent research estimates that emergency contraception could have prevented 51,000 abortions per year. Further, a study from the Journal of the American Medical Association confirms that easier access to emergency contraception does not increase sexual risk taking or greater transmission of sexually transmitted diseases. Fourth, our amendment provides funding for programs dedicated to decreasing the teen pregnancy rate. To date, 34 percent of young women become pregnant at least once before they reach the age of 20. That results in 820,000 teen pregnancies a year. Eight in 10, or 80 percent, of those pregnancies are unintended. This amendment funds proven programs that will help reduce the rate of teen pregnancy by improving decisionmaking, improving access to education and information. In addition to strengthening pregnancy prevention programs, our amendment also increases support for low-income mothers trying to raise healthy children. Our message in this amendment to the women of this country is clear: We will support you in your effort to prevent unintended pregnancy and we will support you in your decision to have a child. Our amendment provides funding for programs such as the childcare and development block grant that help families afford safe quality day care; programs such as the maternal and child health block grant that ensure women have healthy pregnancies. Healthy Start and WIC Programs focus on providing nutrition for pregnant women and their infants. I hope we could unite behind a common goal of preventing unintended pregnancies, reducing abortions, and supporting women and children's health. We hope our colleagues and the White House will work with us to put prevention first. A vote in support of this amendment is a vote to support healthy families. I urge our colleagues to pass the Clinton-Reid amendment. I yield the floor.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, tomorrow, we will convene for a Joint Session of Congress to hear comments by the new Liberian President, Ellen Johnson Sirleaf. I hope that we will give her a warm welcome and send her home to the 3.3 million people of Liberia with a simple and strong message: We will stand by you as you work day-by-day to build a safer, more prosperous country. It is an exciting and hopeful time for the people of Liberia. Civil conflict has been replaced by civil discourse. Free and fair Presidential elections have taken place, with dozens of candidates and three-fourths of voters turning out to shape the country's future. Looking back, it is clear what the Liberian people were voting for when they elected President Sirleaf: honest government, economic growth, an expansion of infrastructure, and greater opportunity for all Liberians, regardless of gender. They also chose a leader with three decades of experience. President Sirleaf has served as Finance Minister in Liberia, and she has also held high-level positions at the United Nations and World Bank. It is no surprise that in just 8 weeks in her new job, President Sirleaf is already making progress. She has taken bold steps to reduce corruption, and she has rightly emphasized the need to get ex-combatants into schools and jobs. After more than a decade of conflict, this is vitally important. Now, Liberians in every part of the country are turning to President Sirleaf's government for things like clean water, electricity, health care, roads, and jobs. These are enormous challenges for the Government of Liberia, but they are also opportunities. They are opportunities to educate, to employ, to strengthen the rule of law, and to consolidate the peace. These opportunities are the bedrock of Liberia's great hope. We have an opportunity also. It is an opportunity to partner with more than 3 million people as they rebuild their country from conflict, using the bricks and glue of peace. And it is an opportunity to demonstrate to all the people of West Africa--and the world--that greater riches flow from peace than from any form of violence. In the last 2 fiscal years, Congress has appropriated almost $900 million to reconstruction efforts in Liberia. Many Americans have participated personally in this noble work, through USAID, other government agencies, and many NGOs. We must continue these efforts. President Sirleaf and the people of Liberia have embraced democracy and peace. We must embrace them as our friends.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce bipartisan legislation with my colleagues Senators Smith, Nelson, and Bingaman to address yet another serious flaw in the Medicare prescription drug benefit that has come to light. On January 1, the new Medicare prescription drug benefit went into effect. Overnight, millions of seniors and disabled Americans found themselves thrown into a confusing and complex transition. Some of our poorest and most vulnerable beneficiaries, those in assisted living facilities, have found themselves suddenly forced to produce co-payments to get the medications they need. These are beneficiaries with serious mental illnesses who have been stabilized on medications, and people with developmental and physical disabilities who have little or no incomes and no way to afford the medicines that they depend on. The bill we are introducing will fix this problem by waiving co- payments for this group of vulnerable beneficiaries in the same manner that these co-payments are already waived for Medicare beneficiaries in nursing homes. This is just one of so many problems we have seen plaguing this program. I am working on all fronts to help Medicare beneficiaries weather this transition. Before this program went into effect, it was clear that those dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid, our poorest and most vulnerable seniors and disabled, would have a particular challenge navigating this transition. I was very concerned that many of these Medicare recipients would walk up to their pharmacy counters on January 1 and be unable to get their prescriptions filled. In anticipation of these problems, I introduced legislation in December to keep these Medicare recipients from falling through the cracks by stepping up outreach and education to pharmacists and providing reimbursement to pharmacists who are charged a transaction fee to access beneficiary information through Medicare. I also co- sponsored legislation to give Medicare beneficiaries more time to enroll in the new program. And I issued a resource guide, now available in both English and Spanish, to help New Yorkers navigate this new program. To date more than 75,000 copies of the guide have been distributed. Since the new program went into effect, I have repeatedly urged the Bush Administration to address the problems plaguing this program. And in January, I introduced comprehensive legislation along with several of my Senate colleagues, that includes my bill to help pharmacists help their customers, and makes the other fixes I have been calling for: provisions to improve outreach and education, fix problems with drug plans transition programs, protect the benefits of seniors who also have coverage from a retiree drug plan, and make sure that states and low income beneficiaries are reimbursed for excessive costs they have been forced to shoulder by the inept implementation of the new benefit. We owe it to our seniors and disabled Americans to get this right. And I will keep fighting to ensure that we do.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce bipartisan legislation with my colleagues Senators Smith, Nelson, and Bingaman to address yet another serious flaw in the Medicare prescription drug benefit that has come to light. On January 1, the new Medicare prescription drug benefit went into effect. Overnight, millions of seniors and disabled Americans found themselves thrown into a confusing and complex transition. Some of our poorest and most vulnerable beneficiaries, those in assisted living facilities, have found themselves suddenly forced to produce co-payments to get the medications they need. These are beneficiaries with serious mental illnesses who have been stabilized on medications, and people with developmental and physical disabilities who have little or no incomes and no way to afford the medicines that they depend on. The bill we are introducing will fix this problem by waiving co- payments for this group of vulnerable beneficiaries in the same manner that these co-payments are already waived for Medicare beneficiaries in nursing homes. This is just one of so many problems we have seen plaguing this program. I am working on all fronts to help Medicare beneficiaries weather this transition. Before this program went into effect, it was clear that those dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid, our poorest and most vulnerable seniors and disabled, would have a particular challenge navigating this transition. I was very concerned that many of these Medicare recipients would walk up to their pharmacy counters on January 1 and be unable to get their prescriptions filled. In anticipation of these problems, I introduced legislation in December to keep these Medicare recipients from falling through the cracks by stepping up outreach and education to pharmacists and providing reimbursement to pharmacists who are charged a transaction fee to access beneficiary information through Medicare. I also co- sponsored legislation to give Medicare beneficiaries more time to enroll in the new program. And I issued a resource guide, now available in both English and Spanish, to help New Yorkers navigate this new program. To date more than 75,000 copies of the guide have been distributed. Since the new program went into effect, I have repeatedly urged the Bush Administration to address the problems plaguing this program. And in January, I introduced comprehensive legislation along with several of my Senate colleagues, that includes my bill to help pharmacists help their customers, and makes the other fixes I have been calling for: provisions to improve outreach and education, fix problems with drug plans transition programs, protect the benefits of seniors who also have coverage from a retiree drug plan, and make sure that states and low income beneficiaries are reimbursed for excessive costs they have been forced to shoulder by the inept implementation of the new benefit. We owe it to our seniors and disabled Americans to get this right. And I will keep fighting to ensure that we do.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, today is International Women's Day, a chance for us to reflect upon the status of women around the globe, recognize their achievements, and recommit ourselves to ensuring that women can fully realize the rights with which all humans are endowed. There is much for women to celebrate this year. Women in Kuwait were granted the right to vote and run for office, while women in Afghanistan exercised their right to vote in November's elections. In Tanzania, and Burundi, among other countries, the number of women serving in elected office increased to record levels. In all parts of the world, women are seizing opportunities to weigh in with their governments on the issues of greatest importance to their lives. But there is still so much work to be done to help women achieve equal rights and equal protection. The culture of corruption apparent in far too many countries has a disproportionate impact upon women. In Latin America, women have disappeared or been killed without proper criminal investigations. In other countries, women who have endured rape or sexual abuse experience further stigmatization and punishment, including forced detainment and death threats. All across the globe, women and girls are trafficked across borders, often with the knowledge of local officials who tolerate the presence of their captors. We need to devote more energy to making our communities safer for women, ensure that crimes against women are given fair and full consideration by law enforcement, and that bribery and cronyism do not dilute the rule of law. Women, the caregivers in families and communities around the world, must also have the opportunity to seek and receive appropriate health care. More than 500,000 women each year die of largely preventable pregnancy-related complications, while millions more suffer injuries, like obstetric fistulas, for which they cannot get treatment. In many countries in sub-Saharan Africa, where AIDS has had the greatest impact, the majority of young women still do not have adequate knowledge of the ways in which HIV is transmitted. Girls and women account for 70 percent of the world's hungry, and malnutrition in pregnant women leads to deficiencies in their children's development. We need to recognize the way that gender inequality contributes to disease and address these disparities through increased education and outreach and equal access to medical treatment and support services. As international trade transforms economies around the world, we must ensure that women have equal access to these opportunities. In one- third of the world, women are the breadwinners for their families. Female farmers account for 80 percent of the agricultural workforce in Africa, and 60 percent in Asia. Yet despite their contributions to the economy, women make up 60 percent of the world's working poor, struggling to survive on less than one dollar a day. They are too often placed in situations of informal employment--temporary or part-time positions that do not offer a formal salary or benefits. We must ensure that all girls and women have access to educational opportunities that can lead to employment at an adequate wage, and that women receive fair compensation for labor performed outside a traditional workplace setting. It has been more than a decade since I traveled to Beijing for the Fourth World Conference on Women. This week, the Commission on the Status of Women at the United Nations is convening to evaluate the progress we have made in achieving the goals we set at that time. We must work to ensure that the commitments we made then become reality now. I will continue to work with my colleagues in Congress and counterparts in other governments to create a world in which every woman is treated with respect and dignity, every boy and girl is loved and cared for equally, and every family has the hope of a strong and stable future.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I thank Chairman Enzi and Senator Kennedy for placing S. 1902, the Children and Media Research Advancement Act CAMRA, on the calendar today. I appreciate their commitment to the health and welfare of children. I also want to thank the co-sponsors of this bill, Senators Lieberman, Brownback, Santorum, Bayh, and Durbin for being such leaders on this issue, and my fellow Senators on the HELP Committee for their support for this legislation. In addition, I thank two groups, Common Sense Media and Children Now, for raising awareness of the effect media has on children's development. And finally, I express thanks to two researchers, Dr. Michael Rich of the Center for Media and Child Health at Harvard University Medical School, and Dr. Sandy Calvert of the Children's Digital Media Center at Georgetown University. Both Dr. Rich and Dr. Calvert have been great advocates for CAMRA. I thank them for sharing their expertise and support. Last year the Kaiser Family Foundation released a report showing dramatic changes in the way young people consume media, and confirming that children use electronic media an extraordinary amount. On average, children are spending 45 hours a week--more than a full-time job--with media. Young people today are not just watching television or playing video games, they are increasingly ``media multi-tasking,'' using more than one medium at a time and packing a growing volume of media content into each day. According to Kaiser, a full quarter of the time children are using media, they are using more than one type at once. This new pattern of media consumption presents twin challenges. Parents face new obstacles to monitoring their children's media consumption. And children are exposed to a media environment with an unknown impact. That is why the CAMRA Act--the Children and the Media Research Advancement Act--is so important. This bill will create a single, coordinated research program at the Center for Disease Control. It will study the impact of electronic media on children's--including very young children and infants'--cognitive, social and physical development. The CAMRA Act will help answer critical questions about the myriad effects media has on childhood development. One area we need to look at particularly is the effect of exposure to media on infants. Research tells us that the earliest years of a child's life are among the most significant for his or her brain development. But we need to know what forms of media--if any--contribute to healthy brain development for babies. Is it OK to put a baby down in front of the TV? Are videos helpful or harmful when it comes to children's cognitive and emotional development? Today we don't know. In December the Kaiser Foundation published a report finding ``no published studies on cognitive outcomes from any of the educational videos, computer software programs, or video game systems currently on the market for children ages 0-6.'' These products are more and more popular. You can see them marketed to new parents everywhere. We should know what their effect is on young children and infants. The CAMRA Act will also spur research on the effect of media on children's physical development. Since 1980, the proportion of overweight children has doubled and the rate for adolescents has tripled. During that same time period, the number of advertisements for unhealthy food that children see annually has exploded. In the 1970s, children saw 20,000 commercials a year. Today, they see 40,000. Is this a coincidence or is there a direct link? We need answers to these questions. In December, the Institute of Medicine called for ``sustained, multidisciplinary work on how marketing influences the food and beverage choices of children and youth.'' CAMRA will help get us there. The bill I introduced with Senators Lieberman, Brownback, Santorum, Bayh, and Durbin included pilot projects to look at the effect of media on young children, and to look at food marketing and obesity. Although those projects were not included in this manager's package, I continue to be very pleased with the bill. It's a step forward for children. And I look forward to working with my colleagues in other venues to ensure that the pilot projects get done. But CAMRA is just one step. We need to do more so children grow up in a safe media environment. In December Senators Lieberman, Bayh, and I introduced S. 2126, the Family Entertainment Protection Act, which would prevent children from buying and renting ultra violent and pornographic video games. There is enough research out there now to show conclusively that playing violent video games has a negative effect on youth. We know that these games are damaging to children. We need to take the decision to buy them out of the hands of children and put that decision back in the hands of parents. That is what S. 2126 would do, and I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate to move that bill. I am so pleased that we are taking this step forward today with CAMRA, and I am hopeful that it will be speedily approved by the full Senate. It is one step to ensure that children in America grow up safely.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, on February 19, 2006, our Nation lost a great lawyer, educator, advocate, and public servant. Janet Altman Spragens was a lifelong resident of Washington, DC, and a professor at American University's Washington College of Law for 33 years. I met Janet when she was a young graduate student at Northwestern University and taught social studies at my alma mater, Maine South High School in Park Ridge, IL. She was a Wellesley graduate, and as I was making choices about where I would go to college, she urged me to consider Wellesley. I am grateful to Janet for helping me make that important decision in my life. Janet went on to law school and developed an expertise in tax law. She used that expertise to benefit our Nation's underserved taxpayers by advocating for them in Congress and, in 1990, founding the Federal Tax Clinic. The clinic continues to operate today and the American Bar Association's Tax Section called it one of the earliest and most successful low-income taxpayer clinics in the country. Janet Altman Spragens made a difference in the lives of many Americans who never will have the pleasure and privilege of knowing her. I join her family and friends in mourning her loss and ask that her obituary in the Washington Post be printed in the Record. The material follows: [From the Washington Post, Feb. 22, 2006] Janet Spragens, 62; Law Professor Set Up Tax Clinic to Aid Poor (By Joe Holley) Janet R. Spragens, 62, a tax professor at American University's Washington College of Law and the founder of the nation's first tax clinic for low-income taxpayers, died Feb. 19 of cancer at her home in the District. Ms. Spragens joined the faculty of the Washington College of Law in fall 1973 and founded the Federal Tax Clinic in 1990. Its purpose is to provide third-year law students the opportunity to learn by doing instead of just reading legal theory and to provide assistance to people who frequently are not served well by the legal system. ``Janet came to realize that the tax system is a place where low- and moderate-income taxpayers don't have the resources to protect themselves,'' said Andy Pike, an associate dean at the law school. The clinic's clients have included cabdrivers, single working mothers, travel agents, construction workers, retirees, high school teachers, household workers and others who find themselves caught up in the complexity of the nation's administrative and judicial systems. As Ms. Spragens told a House committee in 2001, many are non-English speakers who are frightened and confused. The clinic charges no fees for its services. Since the clinic was founded, participation in it has been ``standing-room only,'' said its supervising attorney, Nancy Abramowitz, referring both to students and clients. The program's success has spawned others at law schools across the nation. Born in Washington into a family of lawyers, Ms. Spragens considered becoming a teacher before deciding to pursue a career as a lawyer who taught. She received a bachelor's degree from Wellesley College in 1964 and a master's degree in education from Northwestern University in 1965. She received a law degree from George Washington University Law School in 1968. As a student teacher during her year at Northwestern, she taught future Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), then a high school senior. In her memoir, ``Living History,'' Clinton credits Ms. Spragens with urging her to broaden her horizons by leaving the Midwest and attending college in the East. Like Ms. Spragens, Clinton chose Wellesley. During her third year of law school, Ms. Spragens served as a clerk to U.S. District Judge Oliver Gasch. She was an attorney with the appellate section of the Justice Department's tax division before joining the faculty of the Washington College of Law in 1973. At the time, she was the only female member of the full-time faculty. Federal funding for the tax clinic, thanks to Ms. Spragens' efforts, came about almost accidentally. Testifying in 1997 before the National Commission on Restructuring the Internal Revenue Service, she was asked what could be done to alleviate tax problems confronting the working poor. ``She said, somewhat offhandedly, just provide funds to create more clinics for the provision of services to this needy population across the country,'' Abramowitz noted. ``The rest is history.'' Ms. Spragens also was concerned about unethical tax preparers who prey on low-income taxpayers and about the complexities of the earned income tax credit, which is designed to help the working poor. ``They are just overwhelmed by the complexity,'' she told The Washington Post in 2001. Ms. Spragens served as executive director of the American Tax Policy Institute from 1996 to 2001, was a member of the council for the American Bar Association section on taxation since 1999 and had chaired the section's low-income taxpayer and teaching taxation committees. She was director of the Israel program at the Washington College of Law and was visiting professor of law at the University of Haifa Faculty of Law in 2000. For her work on behalf of low-income taxpayers, she received the 2006 ABA Section on Taxation Pro Bono Award. Her marriage to Jeffrey Spragens ended in divorce. Survivors include two daughters, Robin Spragens Trepanier of Washington and Lee Spragens of Los Angeles; her mother, Sophie B. Altman of Washington; two sisters, Susan Altman of Washington and Nancy Altman of Bethesda; and a brother, Robert Altman of Potomac.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the excellent work New York YMCAs are doing to build healthier communities. They are taking important steps to address health problems, such as obesity, smoking, and physical inactivity, by participating in the Pioneering Healthier Communities Project, Gulick Project, YMCA Healthy Kids Day, and Steps to a HealthierUS partnership. These projects are part of the initiative, YMCA Activate America, whose goal is to promote healthy living among millions of Americans. The Pioneering Healthier Communities Project--a partnership with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention--brings leaders together to promote cultural and environmental changes in neighborhoods supportive of healthy lifestyles. Each year YMCAs are selected to convene teams of representatives from the government and public health and private sectors to improve healthy living. This year, the YMCAs of Rye and Greater Rochester were selected and convened teams, resulting in creative plans to help youngsters. For example, the Rye YMCA implemented the Fitkids Program to increase healthy menu choices and promote physical activity and healthy eating in four school systems. The YMCA of Greater Rochester introduced the Coordinated Approach to Child Health, CATCH, Program, which promotes physical activity and healthy food choices and prevents tobacco use in children, as well as the Family Cooks Program, which teaches children using a hands-on approach to nutritious cooking. In addition, YMCAs in greater New York and greater Rochester are participating in the Gulick Project--an initiative that is dramatically improving the way they work with individuals and families to support healthy living. Through the Gulick Project, YMCAs in New York and in other States are enhancing their programs, facilities, and staff to effectively meet the needs of those who want to be active and healthy but continuously stop and start the process. Cutting-edge work at four YMCA branches in Prospect Park, Cross Island, Long Island city and West Side, as well as at other Gulick YMCAs in the Nation, is leading to the development of best practices. Moreover, YMCAs in New York are actively involved in YMCA Healthy Kids Day, a grassroots event that encourages children and families to adopt and uphold behaviors that support healthy living through fun and engaging activities. Healthy Kids Day recognizes that there is local help for parents, from schools to public libraries and YMCAs. In 2006, more than a half million people will participate in Healthy Kids Day with events in more than 1,300 communities across the country. New York YMCAs are also engaged in a variety of health initiatives through partnerships with the Steps to a HealthierUS, which offers grants to address health problems like obesity and asthma and risk factors like physical inactivity and poor nutrition. For instance, Broome County YMCA has partnered with the Steps program to develop Mission Meltaway, an 8-week program that educates participants on ways to control weight. This partnership has also established nutrition and physical activity policies for all YMCA afterschool programs. Similarly, the Chautauqua County YMCA has joined with the Steps program to create a wellness resource center and expand a weight loss management program, among other things. Through the Steps program, the Rockland County YMCA is improving nutritious offerings at snack time in child care programs called ``healthy snack Wednesdays.'' The Watertown Family YMCA has teamed up with the Steps program to implement Kids NutriFit, a project that will increase physical activity in children ages 5 to 12 by engaging them in traditional play and teaching them about healthy snacking. Many health problems are linked to habits common in American lifestyles, including overeating, underexercising, and poor diets. YMCAs in New York and their community partners are vigorously promoting healthy lifestyle choices and behaviors through innovative programs. I applaud their hard work and dedication to build healthy families and communities in New York and look forward to continuing to work with them. As an advocate for strong and healthy children and families, I will continue to fight for increased funding for programs that promote access to healthy food and nutrition education in our schools and communities. Specifically, I have supported Farm-To-Cafeteria programs, which promote using locally grown produce in school cafeterias through community grants, and the USDA Team Nutrition program, which funds coordinated efforts between Federal, State and local entities to offer nutrition education to children. Through my own Farm-to-Fork initiative, I also have been working to get local New York State produce in schools, colleges, and universities. Healthy food options in school cafeterias teach kids about good nutrition and the importance of agriculture, as well as support local farms by keeping food dollars within the community. Obesity, which has doubled in children and tripled in adolescents over the last two decades, is another serious health issue I am committed to addressing. Last year, I reintroduced the Improved Nutrition and Physical Activity Act, IMPACT Act, that awards grants to train primary care physicians and other health professionals in identifying, treating, and preventing obesity and eating disorders and allows States to use preventive health and health services block grants for activities and community education programs targeting obesity and eating disorders. This bill also promotes funding programs that encourage healthy eating and physical activity and collecting and analyzing data to determine the fitness levels and energy expenditures of children. I have used nonlegislative avenues to address obesity and eating disorders as well. I wrote an article in the New York Daily News last summer highlighting long-term physical and emotional problems that can result from childhood obesity, such as cardiovascular disease, Type 2 diabetes, cancer, and depression, not to mention low self-esteem, academic problems, and discrimination. I have urged making childhood obesity a real priority for families, schools, government and businesses and outlined steps to do this, including educating parents and children about the importance of a healthy lifestyle, restoring physical education programs during and after school hours, and enlisting health care professionals to join the antiobesity campaign. Working with the Eating Disorders Coalition, I sponsored a congressional briefing called Schools, Students, Obesity and Eating Disorders to raise awareness of obesity, eating disorders, and physical activity in school-age youth. I am dedicated to promoting safe and fit lifestyles in our children and to fighting for healthier and stronger communities. Together we can combat the health problems afflicting our youth today and create a better, more promising future. I commend the exemplary efforts of New York YMCAs as they contribute to this mission on many fronts.