Hillary Clinton

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, on Monday, January 30, our country lost, all too prematurely, Wendy Wasserstein, a daughter of New York and one of our Nation's great playwrights and essayists. Wendy Wasserstein grew up in Brooklyn and Manhattan and was educated at Mount Holyoke College, the City College of New York, and Yale University School of Drama. She is best known for her 1989 Pulitzer Prize and Tony Award-winning play, ``The Heidi Chronicles'' and Tony- nominated play, ``The Sisters Rosensweig''. She wrote most recently, ``Third'', a play that opened in October at Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts. Her first novel, ``Elements of Style'', will be coming out in April. Throughout Wendy Wasserstein's career, she wrote with wit and an acute sensitivity to the challenges facing women negotiating the social changes of the last 40 years. She had the courage to dig deeply into her own experiences to write thoughtfully and compassionately about women, New York, and her Jewish roots. Wendy Wasserstein is best known for her work in the theater and literary world, but she cared deeply about progressive politics, advocacy for the arts, and worked to create richer opportunities for women in the theater. Having grown up attending theater and ballet performances on a weekly basis with her family, she also believed that all children should have the opportunity to be exposed to the arts. She gave back to the city that shaped her as an artist by making the theater accessible to New York's inner-city students through a program she instigated which is now called Open Doors. Through this program, she mentored students at the Young Women's Leadership School, a college prep public school in Harlem. She wrote of the program, ``* * * if a city is fortunate enough to house an entire theater district, shouldn't access to the stage life within it be what makes coming of age in New York different from any other American city?'' On a personal level, she was described by her friend, New York Times editorial page editor Gail Collins, as: ``* * * a charter member of the company of nice women, a river of accommodating humanity that flows through Manhattan just as it flows through Des Moines and Oneonta, N.Y., organizing library fund-raisers, running day care centers, ordering prescriptions for elderly parents, buying all the birthday presents and giving career counseling to the nephew of a very remote acquaintance who is trying to decide between making it big on Broadway and dentistry.'' We can only imagine what future gifts to the theater, journalism, literature and her community Wendy Wasserstein might have made. I am grateful for having known her, and I extend my condolences to her young daughter Lucy Jane and to the entire Wasserstein family. We have lost someone who loved New York with a big, big heart, and New York and our Nation loved her back.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, this amendment would establish a Katrina commission modeled after the 9/11 Commission, made up of experts on a bipartisan basis. We are seeing the administration withholding documents, testimony, and information from the ongoing investigations by the House and Senate. I commend our colleagues, Senator Collins and Senator Lieberman, for their efforts to obtain the information that is needed. But we must establish this commission to get at what the truth is about what actually happened in order to take steps that will fix the problems so they do not happen anywhere else in our country. A vote against this commission is a vote for continued stonewalling, sweeping problems under the rug, and ignoring the problems that we know exist today. That is a dangerous precedent for the people of this Nation. I urge my colleagues to vote for the Katrina commission.

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I move to waive the applicable sections of the Budget Act for purposes of the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2716 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I want to take this opportunity to recognize a remarkable organization, the Commission on Independent Colleges and Universities, cIcu, with which I have had the pleasure of working closely in the years since I was elected to the U.S. Senate. I am delighted to announce that this year cIcu is celebrating its 50th anniversary. In 50 years of service, cIcu has been at the forefront of every major issue facing postsecondary education in New York. With Abe Lackman's leadership, cIcu has been a powerful champion for college access, helping to increase opportunities for thousands upon thousands of New Yorkers. cIcu's more than 100 members--private, nonprofit colleges and universities in New York--offer an exceptional educational experience, with personalized attention, and world-class faculty. New York is home to more of the Nation's top 100 colleges and universities than any other State and a leading destination for students attending college out of State. Because of the hard work and commitment of the people at cIcu and throughout the independent sector, cIcu member campuses have been pioneers in expanding access to higher education in New York, serving more low-income and minority students than many public higher education institutions. New York's independent colleges and universities are also a robust economic engine, generating innovative ideas and sustaining thousands of jobs--a fact that Abe would never allow me to forget. cIcu schools enroll 452,000 students, including 300,000 New Yorkers, employ 131,000 people with an annual payroll of $6 billion, and generate $40 billion of annual economic impact. From major research universities to small faith-based institutions, cIcu's schools are shaping the future of individual students' lives and New York's economy. So happy birthday cIcu. May your second 50 years be as successful and productive as your first 50.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the Senator from Montana. I commend my colleague from New York for that very eloquent and lucid description of what the challenges facing 8 million families are with respect to the AMT. I rise to talk about Katrina. I introduced legislation to establish a Katrina commission last year. I am proud to have 17 cosponsors. I intend to offer this legislation as an amendment on this bill or any other bill that is coming before the Senate. Now, I can imagine some asking: Why are we talking about a Katrina commission on the tax reconciliation bill? The answer is that the White House is stonewalling the ongoing House and Senate investigations, as many of us feared and warned that they would. And something must be done about it. I commend our colleagues in the Senate on the Governmental Affairs Committee, led by Senator Collins and Senator Lieberman, for their diligent, persistent efforts to try to get information that would answer the questions that people have about what happened. Stonewalling the investigation into a storm that killed over 1,000 of our fellow Americans, displaced hundreds of thousands, and cost over $100 billion in damages is something every American should wonder about. Last week, it was reported that the White House is declining to turn over key documents related to Hurricane Katrina and that senior White House officials will not provide sworn testimony about the failed Federal response to the people in the gulf region. Other reports indicate that the White House Situation Room, which is the nerve center of the White House crisis response, received reports that a storm like Katrina would cause severe flooding and breaching of the levees, but apparently that was not a priority. There are reports that the Department of Homeland Security has attorneys telling witnesses not to talk about any communications whatsoever between the Department of Homeland Security and the White House. In fact, reports indicate that Michael Brown, whom we will remember as ``heck of a job, Brownie,'' the former head of FEMA, is now refusing to provide testimony because FEMA lawyers are advising him not to tell the congressional committees when he talked to the President and what he said, if he did, about damage and destruction on the ground. Just today the Comptroller General of the United States issued a GAO report which stated that there was a complete failure of leadership at the highest levels of our Government after the storm hit and that there needs to be a single person put in charge. There are also reports that the Army Corps of Engineers may not be providing adequate information to investigators. We have heard that a team of independent engineering experts, whose work is funded by the National Science Foundation, say they have grown frustrated with the Army Corps. In fact, it has been reported that the Corps has refused to release information needed to fully understand the levee failures that left so much of New Orleans shattered and soaked. If we don't have an open, broad-ranging inquiry into why the levees failed, if the Army Corps is not responding to independent engineering experts, can we, with any confidence, expect that whatever kind of patchwork is going on now will secure those levees when the next hurricane season comes around starting next summer? There are separate committees in the House and Senate conducting their own hearings, seeking to establish what happened. We have to be absolutely unafraid to face the facts, wherever they take us. People's lives are at stake. A great part of our country is devastated. I have been there. I have seen the destruction with my colleague, Senator Landrieu. It is heartbreaking. How do we know that the money we are appropriating, that we are sending somewhere to someone--independent contractors and other recipients, billions of dollars of taxpayer money--is doing what needs to be done when we don't know what was wrong the first time they did it? I hope we look to the model of the 9/11 Commission. The 9/11 Commission was instrumental in both helping America understand what happened and beginning a process of us coming together to try to make sure it doesn't happen again. We had a dedicated group of citizens who lost loved ones who came to the Congress month after month, who went to the White House and said: We want to know why our husbands, our wives, our children, our parents died. You have to give us answers. I was heartened when I saw in the last several days a dedicated group of citizens from the impacted gulf coast region, called Women of the Storm, were up here demanding answers and actions. They deserve no less. These are our fellow Americans. These are our brothers and sisters. I commend them for coming to Washington to petition their Government. But if we do not establish this commission, I fear they will not ever get the information they deserve. Even worse, we may make the same mistakes again. In this GAO report, it refers to a study that was done after Hurricane Andrew in southern Florida. There were a series of recommendations made. The Clinton White House followed the recommendations. People were put in charge. There was a chain of command. Information went up. Decisions were made. FEMA, on the Clinton administration's watch, functioned. It was filled with experts, not cronies. In 5 short years, all that work was undone. So here we are, after the worst natural disaster in modern times, after having demoralized and defunded FEMA, after having created the behemoth Department of Homeland Security, and no one was in charge. I guess that is what the White House doesn't want anybody to figure out; although, frankly, I think we have a pretty good idea that no one was in charge. But we need to fix our systems. I will, once again, be offering a Katrina commission amendment. I will, once again, try to help the people of the gulf coast get the answers they deserve. I will, once again, call on us to do what we did after 9/11, put together an independent commission--appointed by Democrats and Republicans--of distinguished people who can concentrate on this issue. They are not in Congress, responding to a million different pressures. Give them the power to get the answers and give us the recommendations that we need in order to make sure that no part of our country, no American ever faces both the natural and manmade disaster that happened on the gulf coast. I yield the floor.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce legislation 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 copayments 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 I am introducing will fix this problem by waiving copayments for this group of vulnerable beneficiaries and reimbursing them for any copayments they have already been forced to shoulder. This is just one of so many problems we have seen plaguing this program. The first 26 days of this program have been a disaster for far too many seniors and disabled across New York and across the country. We have heard reports from our poorest seniors, who were being charged hundreds of dollars for drugs. We have heard reports of disabled individuals asked to provide doctor's notes certifying a need for their medications and of beneficiaries leaving pharmacies without the drugs they depend on to keep them healthy. As a result of problems with computer systems, phone lines, and the inability of Medicare and private plans to provide correct information to those on the front lines of care, millions of people around the country have faced problems receiving this new benefit. 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 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 cosponsored 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 last week, 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 legislation 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 copayments 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 I am introducing will fix this problem by waiving copayments for this group of vulnerable beneficiaries and reimbursing them for any copayments they have already been forced to shoulder. This is just one of so many problems we have seen plaguing this program. The first 26 days of this program have been a disaster for far too many seniors and disabled across New York and across the country. We have heard reports from our poorest seniors, who were being charged hundreds of dollars for drugs. We have heard reports of disabled individuals asked to provide doctor's notes certifying a need for their medications and of beneficiaries leaving pharmacies without the drugs they depend on to keep them healthy. As a result of problems with computer systems, phone lines, and the inability of Medicare and private plans to provide correct information to those on the front lines of care, millions of people around the country have faced problems receiving this new benefit. 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 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 cosponsored 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 last week, 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, I yield the floor.

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I associate myself with the eloquent remarks of the Senator from Maryland. Once again, she evidences the rare combination of high intellect, quick wit, and a savvy understanding of what is important to the people she represents. The nomination of Judge Samuel A. Alito, Jr., to the Supreme Court of the United States is a matter of great, even monumental, importance to all--to our children and to future generations of Americans. I have spent a lot of time in my State over the last 2 weeks. I have traveled from one end of it to the other, from Long Island to Buffalo. I have to say, Judge Alito's name is not on the lips of most of my constituents. They want to talk to me about the complex and confusing Medicare prescription drug benefit. They want to ask about the culture of corruption that seems to have taken over Washington under the Republican leadership. They have questions about their health care which is at risk, even if you are employed, or the pensions which seem to disappear with regularity these days. They are concerned about the day-to-day, bread-and-butter, table-top issues that we all live with. I say this vote we are going to take in the Senate will end up having a great deal to do with how they live their lives, with the balance of power within our country, with the quality of life and liberty and pursuit of happiness available to Americans. The Constitution commands the Senate provide the President with meaningful advice and consent on judicial nominations. I take this constitutional charge very seriously. I have carefully reviewed the committee's hearings and Judge Alito's extensive record. I have met with the judge. I have spoken with people who have strong opinions on both sides of this nomination. I have concluded I cannot give my consent to his nomination to the Supreme Court. The way I read American history is that the key to American progress has been the ever-expanding circle of freedom and opportunity. That has been the common thread through all periods of our history--greater rights and greater responsibilities of citizenship and equality. Each time we have made strides forward, there have been vocal voices of opposition. There have been those who have wanted to go back. At those moments of profound importance to our country, the Federal courts have been the guardians of our liberties, have stood on the side of greater freedom and opportunity. We all know the famous cases cited as representing this forward march of progress: Brown v. Board of Education, which struck down the notion of separate but equal; Baker v. Carr, which invalidated discriminatory State voting apportionment schemes and paved the way for the concept of one man, one vote; Griswold v. Connecticut, which recognized a right to privacy in the Constitution; Roe v. Wade, which established that women have a right to choose. We need judges who will maintain that forward progress. Despite his distinguished academic credentials, Judge Alito has not shown himself to be that kind of judge. He does not have the dedication to civil rights or women's rights or the right to privacy that I believe we need in the next Supreme Court Justice. Time and again, when given the choice, he has voted to narrow the circle, to restrict the rights Americans hold dear. Now is not the time to go backward. Without the progress we have made in the past 230 years, without that expansion of the circle of equality and freedom and opportunity, I certainly would not be standing here, nor would a number of my colleagues. There would be no opportunities for women in public life. But mine is hardly the only example. Voting rights would be restricted. Equal opportunities in education and in the workplace would not exist. And none of us would have a constitutional right to privacy. Simply put, our Nation would not be what it is today. Our greatest strength has always been our commitment, generation after generation, with some fits and starts, to enlarging the circle of rights and equality. That great American commitment has made us a beacon of freedom around the world. This nomination could well be the tipping point against constitutionally based freedoms and protections we cherish as individuals and as a nation. I fear Judge Alito will roll back decades of progress and roll over when confronted with an administration too willing to flaunt the rules and looking for a rubberstamp. The stakes could not be higher. To be sure, Roe v. Wade is at risk, the privacy of Americans is at risk, environmental safeguards, laws that protect workers from abuse or negligence, laws even that keep machine guns off the streets--all these and many others are in peril. I don't believe millions of Americans are aware of that yet. This debate is carried on in Washington. It is at a high level of legalisms and debates about jurisprudence and the meaning of the Constitution. But I am confident the Supreme Court will have a dramatic effect on our Nation and on what we believe America stands for. When I ran for the Senate, I told New Yorkers that I would only vote for judges who would affirm constitutional precedents, such as Roe and Brown and other landmark achievements and expanding rights and the reach of equality for all Americans. This is about more than rhetoric. This is very real. The American people are counting on us not to be a rubberstamp but counting on us to make sure the President's nominee will not take us backward. I also view this nomination through the prism of the Justice that Judge Alito will replace. I have not always agreed with Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. But she has shown, throughout her career of distinguished service to the Court that one Justice makes a big difference. One Justice can protect our constitutional rights. Justice O'Connor is a true conservative, a mainstream jurist. She appreciated the advancements we have made as a society because she lived them. Anyone who has ever read her autobiography about this little cowgirl growing up on a ranch in Arizona, going off to school, eventually going to Stanford Law School, graduating near the top of her class and being unable to find a job simply because she was a woman does not only intellectually understand why our history is about moving forward and removing the obstacles to God-given human potential, she feels it. She understands it. Time and time again, she showed she appreciated the advancements we have made as a society. She has fought to ensure they continue. Her vote was often the defining vote on which key civil liberties and rights rested. She exercised it with care and independent judgment. Any fair reading, in my view, of Judge Alito's record does not demonstrate that same independence of judgment, nor does it illustrate a grasp, either intellectual or emotional, of the day-to-day struggles that tens of millions of Americans face. On the contrary, Judge Alito proudly announced his personal opposition to a woman's right to choose early in his career in the now infamous 1985 job application for a position in the Reagan administration. Although he has tried to distance himself from the comments he made in that document, his time on the bench shows an unapologetic effort to undermine the right to privacy and a woman's right to choose. I believe, and I have said so for many years, abortion should be safe, it should be rare, but it should be legal. I understand it is a difficult and even tragic choice for many women. It is a decision of conscience. Therefore, it should be a constitutionally protected decision made not by the Government, not by the majority--whoever the majority might be--but between a woman, her doctor, and her faith in God. Judge Alito does not share this view. And I think we can be certain that, freed from the constraints of Supreme Court precedent, he will intensify his campaign to roll back these important privacy rights. The extreme rightwing of the Republican Party was up in arms when President Bush nominated Harriet Miers to the Court to replace Justice O'Connor. It was quite a spectacle to see this good woman, who had risen to the top of her profession in Texas--not, I would imagine, an easy place to be the president of a State bar and be the managing partner of a large law firm, but had done so by dint of hard work and intelligence--be turned on by members of her own party because they could not be sure she would agree with them no matter what the facts or circumstances. Their reaction to Judge Alito's nomination, in contrast, has been enthusiastic, effusive, even ecstatic. Why? Because they know exactly what they are getting. Judge Alito's constrained views have not been limited to issues of privacy. While on the Third Circuit, he has rarely sided with individuals seeking relief from discrimination on the basis of race, age, gender, or disability. In fact, in the vast majority of civil rights cases, Judge Alito has sided with those who would infringe on the civil rights of Americans. For example, in several dissents, he has called for curtailing what is called title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the landmark statute prohibiting discrimination against women and minorities in the workplace. These individual views, as manifested by his writings, his work in the Government, and his opinions on the bench, are even more troubling because he seems to favor Executive power so much over the other branches of Government. So I also fear he will not respect the system of checks and balances that our Founders so carefully set out in the Constitution. No one who has read the Federalist Papers or the debate that our Founders had when constructing the Constitution or who understands the historical context in which our Declaration of Independence and our Revolution occurred could underestimate the importance they placed on having three truly independent and equal branches of Government. The Founders understood human nature. They got it. They knew that unchecked power would lead to abuses. And we have seen some of that right here in Washington over the last 5 years. They realized that we had to check and balance against power centers in order to bring out the better ``angels'' of our nature, but also to keep a watch on each other. I do not believe, after reviewing Judge Alito's record, he understands or respects this central principle to the way America is set up. He has sought to expand the power and purview of the executive branch at nearly every turn, while simultaneously stripping Congress of its authority and curtailing the rights enjoyed by private citizens. For example, while working for the Reagan administration, he made the argument that Cabinet officials who are charged with authorizing illegal wiretaps of Americans in this country should be entitled to absolute immunity. At a time when this President and his political party stand accused of political overreaching and abuse of power, we must demand from our judiciary a respect for the proper role of each of our three branches of Government. But Judge Alito's excessive deference to Presidential authority, coupled with his restrictive view of congressional authority, tells me he does not have the proper reverence for separation of powers. What is worse is that in supporting the expansion of the reach of Presidential power, Judge Alito also holds a harshly limited view of what the Government can or should do to help ordinary Americans. Judge Alito said it all in 1986, when he was a young lawyer with the Reagan administration. He wrote that in his estimation, it is not the role of the Federal Government to protect the ``health, safety and welfare'' of the American people. Well, I guess that explains the inept, slow, and dangerous response to Hurricane Katrina. If you are not responsible to protect the health, safety, and welfare, why should you be held accountable when people suffer, when their Government leaves them neglected without any help? Judge Alito has long advocated a limited congressional authority view. Now, if that were adhered to, it would undermine a whole host of civil rights protections, health and safety regulations, standards for protecting our air and water, food and drug quality regulations, laws regulating firearms as well as vital programs such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Since his appointment to the Third Circuit, Judge Alito has aggressively sought to promote this theory of limited congressional power. In 1996, he voted to invalidate parts of our Federal gun laws, arguing there was no evidence in the record to determine that Congress had the power under the Constitution's commerce clause to enact legislation that regulated the sale of machine guns. In another case, Judge Alito wrote an opinion striking down Congress's right to make a State agency comply with the Family and Medical Leave Act. And just 3 years later, the Supreme Court, with a similar set of facts, reached precisely the opposite conclusion.

Mrs. CLINTON. In several criminal cases, Judge Alito has shown blatant disregard for a defendant's fundamental right to be tried by an impartial jury--what any one of us would want if we or a loved one were ever in this position--chosen free of racial or gender prejudice. He has also narrowly construed other constitutional criminal procedure protections, arguing often in favor of granting law enforcement officials the greatest of latitude to conduct unauthorized searches and seizures. Judge Alito's opinions on these and many other topics remind us that judicial activism comes in many guises. Adopting an unnecessarily narrow view of the Constitution or of our laws to reach a desired outcome is a form of judicial activism that is no less offensive than subscribing to an overboard interpretation of the law in order to reach a specific result. Judge Alito, if confirmed, may hold a seat on the Supreme Court for a generation--long after this President has left office. Perhaps through 8 to 10 Presidential elections, decades of progress would fall prey to his radical ideology, jeopardizing not only civil rights, civil liberties, health and safety and environmental protections, but also fundamental rights such as the right to privacy. Our Federal Government could be transformed into one where Congress is largely irrelevant and the President is permitted to make up the rules as he goes. I do not believe Judge Alito's vision of that America is what our Founders intended for us. He would take us backward, when it has never been more important to move forward together. I sincerely hope my concerns about Judge Alito are unfounded, but I suspect they are not, and our children and grandchildren will pay the price. He has not demonstrated a proper respect for the rule of law, our Constitution, and the principles, freedoms, rights, and privileges that Americans hold most dear. I, therefore, cannot give my consent to his confirmation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letters written to Senators Specter and Leahy opposing this nomination be printed in the Record.

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

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 5 more minutes.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will help ensure beneficiaries who are eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid, the so-called ``dual-eligibles,'' make a smooth and successful transition from Medicaid prescription drug coverage to Medicare Part D. The 6.4 million seniors and disabled Americans who are dually eligible are the most vulnerable members of an already vulnerable population. They are the poorest of the elderly, with incomes of less than $10,000 per year. And they are the sickest of the elderly, with approximately 25 percent residing in a long-term care facility. They have significant health care needs, have often been diagnosed with multiple chronic conditions, and are in greatest danger of being affected by poor implementation of Medicare's new prescription drug benefit. On November 15, beneficiaries began signing up for Medicare Part D prescription drug plans, and on January 1, the drug benefit actually begins. But this date does not only mark the beginning of a new Medicare drug benefit. For the 6.4 million dual eligibles, January 1 is also the day that they stop receiving a Medicaid drug benefit. I voted against the Medicare bill when it was before the Senate in 2003 and we are all well aware of the many flaws and shortcomings: the insurance company slush fund, the ``donut hole,'' the prohibition on the Government negotiating for lower drug costs and on the safe importation of prescription medications, among others. But the short timeframe in which dual eligibles have to complete this transition is one of the most worrisome. There are only 6 weeks between the time when seniors began signing up for the new drug plans, and the date when Medicaid coverage ceases. That means that dual eligibles--the poorest and sickest portion of the Medicare population--have very little time in which to accurately balance the benefits and drawbacks of their prescription drug plan choices. We're giving most seniors 6 months to consider their options of a prescription drug plan, but we're giving the most vulnerable only 6 weeks. While it would be my preference that the existence of a Medicaid drug benefit be extended beyond January 1 to provide adequate time for the transition, Republicans in Congress have blocked legislation that would do this, leaving these individuals without coverage if their transition from Medicaid to Medicare doesn't happen before the end of the year. In response to the concern over the short implementation period, CMS announced that it will automatically enroll dual eligibles in a randomly chosen prescription drug plan by January 1, 2006. CMS reports that at the end of November they had automatically enrolled over 5 million of the 6.4 million dually eligible beneficiaries in a Medicare Part D plan. But this leaves more than 1 million of our poorest and sickest vulnerable to falling through the cracks if they are not enrolled in a Medicare Part D plan in the next several weeks. CMS Administrator Mark McClellan has himself said that some dual eligibles may not be auto-enrolled before January 1, when their Medicaid drug benefit ceases to exist. In fact, if CMS is able to auto- enroll 95 percent of all dual eligibles, more than 300,000 would still be left without prescription drug coverage and access to critical medications. At 98 percent enrollment, almost 130,000 would be left without coverage. These are unacceptable numbers. In light of growing concern that some dual eligible beneficiaries will arrive at their pharmacy counter on January 1 without coverage, CMS has announced a procedure to allow pharmacies to fill the prescription and a contractor to follow up with the beneficiary to facilitate enrollment in a Part D plan. While I am glad that CMS has taken this step, I am concerned that pharmacies will not be aware of this option and some beneficiaries will still fall through the cracks. In addition, pharmacies will be charged a transaction fee if they use this procedure and electronically inquire about the status of a beneficiary that comes to their pharmacy counter and isn't sure what coverage they have or if they have coverage at all. The legislation I am introducing today aims to address this problem. The Medicare Dual Eligible Identification and Enrollment Facilitation Act would require outreach and education to pharmacies, particularly independent pharmacies, and a hold harmless provision for transaction fees that pharmacies incur when they use this procedure. It is critical that we do everything we can to ensure that our most vulnerable seniors do not fall through the cracks and the pharmacies across the country are now our last line of defense. Helping them help these beneficiaries and eliminating fees they incur for doing so are simple but critical steps we should take to ensure that not a single dual eligible beneficiary is left without prescription drug coverage. I urge speedy passage of the Medicare Dual Eligible Identification and Enrollment Facilitation Act.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of the reauthorization of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act. The scourge of trafficking in women and children was a priority for me as First Lady and continues to be a priority for me as a Senator. Since the United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women in 1995, I have been working to raise awareness of the heinous practice of buying and selling women and children like commodities. I have seen the devastation that it causes, and the lives it ruins. I have met with the families from Eastern and Central Europe, who, with tears in their eyes, pleaded with me to help them find lost ones who had been stolen from them, and I have met with the victims, including a 12-year-old girl in Thailand who was dying of AIDS after being sold twice by her family. This barbaric practice has caused far too many to exist in a perpetual state of fear and vulnerability, and we must do everything in our power to bring the scourge of trafficking out of the shadows and to the attention of the world. I am proud to say that the United States has, for the past decade, been the leader in trying to persuade the rest of the world to eradicate this abhorrent practice. As the Clinton administration increased the antitrafficking activities of our Government through programs at the State Department and the Department of Justice, Congress was developing legislation to eradicate trafficking. We worked with the late Senator Wellstone, his Republican cosponsor, Senator Brownback, and Congressman Chris Smith and former Congressman Sam Gejdenson in the House, to introduce the first comprehensive antitrafficking bill in Congress. This culminated in the passage of the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000. I believed then, and I believe now, that this is one of the Clinton administration's greatest achievements and one of the most important parts of Senator Wellstone's legacy. That law has meant the difference between freedom and enslavement for unknown numbers of potential trafficking victims, and this reauthorization provides us with the opportunity to strengthen its ability to help those who have been trafficked, and I would like to thank Senator Brownback and Representative Smith, my colleagues on the Helsinki Commission, for their continued commitment to this act since its initial passage. I am proud to see that this reauthorization enhances the 3 P's strategy--prevention of trafficking, prosecution of those that engage in these acts, and protection of the vulnerable individuals who have been trafficked--that we developed in the Clinton administration. It gives the Justice Department the authority to pursue extraterritorial prosecutions of Federal employees or those accompanying them if they engage in trafficking activities. It encourages the prevention of trafficking by requiring organizations or contractors engaged in U.S.- supported peacekeeping efforts to have antitrafficking policies in place. And it will protect those who have been trafficked overseas by increasing funding for programs like residential treatment facilities. But there is still so much work to be done. Although reliable statistics are difficult to find, we know that 800,000 individuals--the vast majority of whom are women and children--are trafficked from one country to another every year, with 15,000 being trafficked to the United States. The FBI estimates that trafficking generates $9.5 billion annually for organized crime syndicates around the world. I am deeply concerned about the growing domestic commercial sex trade, and I believe that we need to increase funding and target efforts to end all forms of exploitation. Any expansion of our focus must not dilute our commitment to eradicating human trafficking in all its forms in the United States, nor detract from the progress we have made in increasing prosecutions and working with law enforcement agencies. We must ensure that our government has all the resources it needs to make inroads against these awful acts on our own soil. In the fight against trafficking in persons, patience simply is not an option. I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues to end this barbaric practice in both the United States and around the world, because this is not about politics, but about what we all share: universal freedom and universal human rights.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will help ensure beneficiaries who are eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid, the so-called ``dual-eligibles,'' make a smooth and successful transition from Medicaid prescription drug coverage to Medicare Part D. The 6.4 million seniors and disabled Americans who are dually eligible are the most vulnerable members of an already vulnerable population. They are the poorest of the elderly, with incomes of less than $10,000 per year. And they are the sickest of the elderly, with approximately 25 percent residing in a long-term care facility. They have significant health care needs, have often been diagnosed with multiple chronic conditions, and are in greatest danger of being affected by poor implementation of Medicare's new prescription drug benefit. On November 15, beneficiaries began signing up for Medicare Part D prescription drug plans, and on January 1, the drug benefit actually begins. But this date does not only mark the beginning of a new Medicare drug benefit. For the 6.4 million dual eligibles, January 1 is also the day that they stop receiving a Medicaid drug benefit. I voted against the Medicare bill when it was before the Senate in 2003 and we are all well aware of the many flaws and shortcomings: the insurance company slush fund, the ``donut hole,'' the prohibition on the Government negotiating for lower drug costs and on the safe importation of prescription medications, among others. But the short timeframe in which dual eligibles have to complete this transition is one of the most worrisome. There are only 6 weeks between the time when seniors began signing up for the new drug plans, and the date when Medicaid coverage ceases. That means that dual eligibles--the poorest and sickest portion of the Medicare population--have very little time in which to accurately balance the benefits and drawbacks of their prescription drug plan choices. We're giving most seniors 6 months to consider their options of a prescription drug plan, but we're giving the most vulnerable only 6 weeks. While it would be my preference that the existence of a Medicaid drug benefit be extended beyond January 1 to provide adequate time for the transition, Republicans in Congress have blocked legislation that would do this, leaving these individuals without coverage if their transition from Medicaid to Medicare doesn't happen before the end of the year. In response to the concern over the short implementation period, CMS announced that it will automatically enroll dual eligibles in a randomly chosen prescription drug plan by January 1, 2006. CMS reports that at the end of November they had automatically enrolled over 5 million of the 6.4 million dually eligible beneficiaries in a Medicare Part D plan. But this leaves more than 1 million of our poorest and sickest vulnerable to falling through the cracks if they are not enrolled in a Medicare Part D plan in the next several weeks. CMS Administrator Mark McClellan has himself said that some dual eligibles may not be auto-enrolled before January 1, when their Medicaid drug benefit ceases to exist. In fact, if CMS is able to auto- enroll 95 percent of all dual eligibles, more than 300,000 would still be left without prescription drug coverage and access to critical medications. At 98 percent enrollment, almost 130,000 would be left without coverage. These are unacceptable numbers. In light of growing concern that some dual eligible beneficiaries will arrive at their pharmacy counter on January 1 without coverage, CMS has announced a procedure to allow pharmacies to fill the prescription and a contractor to follow up with the beneficiary to facilitate enrollment in a Part D plan. While I am glad that CMS has taken this step, I am concerned that pharmacies will not be aware of this option and some beneficiaries will still fall through the cracks. In addition, pharmacies will be charged a transaction fee if they use this procedure and electronically inquire about the status of a beneficiary that comes to their pharmacy counter and isn't sure what coverage they have or if they have coverage at all. The legislation I am introducing today aims to address this problem. The Medicare Dual Eligible Identification and Enrollment Facilitation Act would require outreach and education to pharmacies, particularly independent pharmacies, and a hold harmless provision for transaction fees that pharmacies incur when they use this procedure. It is critical that we do everything we can to ensure that our most vulnerable seniors do not fall through the cracks and the pharmacies across the country are now our last line of defense. Helping them help these beneficiaries and eliminating fees they incur for doing so are simple but critical steps we should take to ensure that not a single dual eligible beneficiary is left without prescription drug coverage. I urge speedy passage of the Medicare Dual Eligible Identification and Enrollment Facilitation Act.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, the Senate is considering today the Department of Defense authorization conference report for the 2006 fiscal year. As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I have attended numerous hearings and participated in the markup of this legislation. And I want to commend the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator Warner, and the ranking member, Senator Levin, for the serious, bipartisan approach they took in preparing the Senate version of the bill. The DOD authorization bill is critically important, particularly with our servicemen and women are serving bravely in Iraq, Afghanistan and around the world. We owe it to our men and women in uniform to do everything we can to support them. While what has emerged from conference is not perfect, the bill contains a wealth of positive provisions in keeping with the responsibility of Congress to our men and women in uniform. When we first considered the DOD authorization bill in July, the Senate accepted an amendment Senator Graham and I offered to make Tricare available to all National Guard members and reservists during the House-Senate conference, we reached a compromise which will offer great opportunities for Guard members and reservists to join the Tricare Program. At at time when approximately 40 percent of the men and women serving in Iraq are members of the National Guard and Reserve, and as Guard members and reservists are a serving in a new and expanding role in the global war on terror, we ought to do all we can to ensure that these men and women have the services and support they need and deserve. This bill marks further progress in this effort, increasing access to health benefits for our National Guard and Reserve and their families in New York and around the country. Providing the Guard and Reserves, as well as their families, with adequate support and benefits is the least that a grateful nation can do. Under the provision, all members of the Selected Reserve are eligible to enroll in the military health care program.The premiums are based on categories of eligibility: Category 1: Members of the Selected Reserve who are called to active duty qualify for TRICARE Reserve Select, TRS. Under this program, established last year, a reservist would accumulate 1 year of TRS coverage for every 90 days of Active-Duty service. Monthly premiums during the years of accumulated eligibility are only 28 percent of the program cost. The Government picks up the remaining 72 percent. As has always been the case, coverage is free of charge while on active duty. This bill now permits accumulation of earned periods of coverage for frequently deployed personnel. In addition, it authorizes 6 months of transitional coverage for family members following the death of the Reserve member, if the member dies while in an inactive status. Category 2: Members of the Selected Reserve who are not called to active duty and who otherwise do not qualify for health insurance due to unemployment or lack of employer-provided coverage are eligible to enroll in TRICARE for a 50-percent cost-sharing premium. The Government will pay the remaining 50-percent. Category 3: Members of the Selected Reserve who do not fit into either of the above categories but would like to participate in TRICARE are eligible to do so for an 85-percent cost share. Employers are allowed and encouraged to contribute to the reservist's share. The Government contributes 15 percent of the costs. This compromise is an important step forward in improving health care access for our Nation's guardsmen and reservists. It is important to note as well that this expansion was the fruit of a bipartisan effort by Senator Graham and myself, along with my colleagues Senator Leahy and Senator DeWine. The conference report also includes another provision I offered, this one with Senator Collins, to improve financial education for our soldiers. It is a problem that has plagued military service men and women for years: a lack of general knowledge about the insurance and other financial services available to them. This provision instructs the Secretary of Defense to carry out a comprehensive education program for military members regarding public and private financial services, including life insurance and the marketing practices of these services, available to them. This education will be institutionalized in initial and recurring training for members of the military. This is important so that we don't just make an instantaneous improvement, but a truly lasting benefit to members of the military. The legislation also requires that counseling services on these issues be made available, upon request, to members and their spouses. It is very important to include the spouses in this program because we all know that investment decisions should be made as a family. Too many times, a military spouse has to make these decisions alone, while a husband or wife is deployed. This amendment requires that during counseling of members or spouses regarding life insurance, counselors must include information on the availability of Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance, SGLI, as well as other available products. I am happy that my fellow Senators support this legislation and proud that the amendment was adopted in conference. The legislation also includes a provision which will ensure the availability of special pay for members during rehabilitation from wounds, injuries, and illnesses incurred in a combat zone. Earlier this year, I learned of the story of Army SPC Jeffrey Loria, who was encountering pay problems while recovering at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. My inquiry to the Army in this matter corrected Specialist Loria's problems and also led to the discovery of pay problems for at least 129 other soldiers. I continued to follow up on the plight of wounded soldiers when I questioned each of the service secretaries about this topic in early March 2005, asking if they would support efforts to ensure that wounded Guard members and reservists did not lose their combat pay allowance while in a military hospital. Their unanimous answer was yes. I am proud to see the provision incorporated into the bill. In addition, I am pleased that the House and Senate have agreed to provide hundreds of members of the National Guard who served at Ground Zero after the terrorist attacks the full Federal retirement credit for their service that they deserve. Many of the soldiers who served at Ground Zero, often for extended periods, were not officially put on Federal active duty and so did not receive Federal military retirement credit. I was proud to fight for this legislation as a House-Senate conferee, and I want to thank Congresswoman Maloney and Congressman King for their hard work to see the provision through the House of Representatives. I applaud Congress for accepting our arguments for those brave men and women of the National Guard who gave their all after the September 11 attacks and absolutely deserve this credit. I am also glad to see that the final conference report includes no language to restrict the role that women can play in our Armed Forces. Women have a long history of proud service in our Armed Forces, and more than 200,000 women currently serve, making up approximately 17 percent of the total force. Thousands of women are currently serving bravely in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. During my own visits to Iraq--as I am sure that many of my colleagues who have also visited Iraq can also attest--I witnessed women performing a wide range of tasks in a dangerous environment. Our soldiers, both men and women, volunteered to serve their Nation. They are performing magnificently. There should be no change to existing policies that would decrease the roles or positions available to women in the Armed Forces. Earlier this year, I introduced, along with several of my colleagues, a sense-of-the Senate resolution stating that there should be no change to existing laws, policies, or regulations that would decrease the roles or positions available to women in the Armed forces. Finally, I want to highlight several other provisions in the legislation that honor the commitment of this Congress to our men and women in uniform. The final bill includes a 3.1-percent pay raise for all military personnel as well as increases to the maximum amount of assignment incentive pay and hardship duty pay that our servicemen and servicewomen receive. The bill also calls for an increase of $60 million for childcare and family assistance services to support Active- Duty and Reserve military families. Also included were measures to bolster the support and gratitude our Nation shows for the families of our men and women in uniform who have lost their lives in service to our country. The bill increases the survivor benefits to $100,000 for all Active Duty military decedents; payments would be retroactive, to include all those lost since the commencement of Operation Enduring Freedom. In addition, the conference report increases TRICARE benefits for the surviving children of those who have lost their lives while on active duty and calls for the establishment of a uniform policy on casualty assistance to improve the services provided to survivors and next of kin. I am proud to support these provisions and proud to do all I can for these families. Despite the positive sections of the conference report, many of which I have outlined above, there are also portions of the authorization bill that are deeply troubling. I fear that included in a bill that does so much to support our men and women in uniform are provisions that might also do a disservice to these brave Americans. One in particular is the Graham-Levin-Kyl amendment, included in the conference report, governing the treatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay. Like all of my colleagues, I am deeply troubled by the circumstances that have opened our Federal courts to enemy combatants. Senator Graham is correct that the present level of accessibility to our courts by individuals who would do us harm is unprecedented in our Nation's history. However, the seeds of this situation were sown when the President chose our course for the war against terror. Rather than treating our detainees in accordance with the governing principles of military engagement, he chose to institute policies that demonstrate disrespect for the rule of law and have resulted in lowering our country's moral standing in the world. Had the President chosen instead to respect international conventions that provide due process protections, we would not be facing the unprecedented problem of having to make our courts open to our enemies. I agree that this is an area long overdue for reform. Although it left much to be desired, I voted in favor of the Graham-Levin-Kyl amendment in its original form because it was an improvement over a harsh measure that would have eliminated almost entirely a detainee's ability to challenge his or her detention. In conference, however, House negotiators once again undermined much of the thoughtful deliberation that went into crafting the Graham-Levin-Kyl compromise, stripping out important provisions that would have prohibited the admission of evidence obtained through ``undue coercion'' and further limiting legal recourse available to detainees. We must work toward a system that corrects the missteps made by the President and adopt a well-thought-out set of procedures that respects the rule of law and restores our Nation to its proper standing in the world. The system outlined by the Graham-Levin-Kyl amendment as provided in the DOD Authorization conference report falls short of this measure. The Defense authorization conference report contains a great deal that we in this body can look to with pride. That is why I support the bill as a whole and why I voted in favor of it. We face real challenges and threats as a nation, and our men and women in uniform are, every single day, serving with courage on the front lines in defense of our values and our way of life. I do not vote without concern, however, in light of a few troubling provisions which I fear do not serve the interests of our country or our troops.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. I rise today to speak in support of the reauthorization of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act. The scourge of trafficking in women and children was a priority for me as First Lady and continues to be a priority for me as a U.S. Senator. Since the United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women in 1995, I have been working to raise awareness of the heinous practice of buying and selling women and children like commodities. I have seen the devastation that it causes, and the lives it ruins. I have met with the families from Eastern and Central Europe, who, with tears in their eyes, pleaded with me to help them find lost ones who had been stolen from them, and I have met with the victims, including a 12-year-old girl in Thailand who was dying of AIDS after being sold twice by her family. This barbaric practice has caused far too many to exist in a perpetual state of fear and vulnerability, and we must do everything in our power to bring the scourge of trafficking out of the shadows and to the attention of the world. I am proud to say that the United States has, for the past decade, been the leader in trying to persuade the rest of the world to eradicate this abhorrent practice. As the Clinton administration increased the anti-trafficking activities of our Government through programs at the State Department and the Department of Justice, Congress was developing legislation to eradicate trafficking. We worked with the late Senator Wellstone, his Republican cosponsor, Senator Brownback, and Congressman Chris Smith and former Congressman Sam Gejdenson in the House, to introduce the first comprehensive anti- trafficking bill in Congress. This culminated in the passage of the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000. I believed then, and I believe now, that this is one of the Clinton administration's greatest achievements and one of the most important parts of Senator Wellstone's legacy. That law has meant the difference between freedom and enslavement for unknown numbers of potential trafficking victims, and this reauthorization provides us with the opportunity to strengthen its ability to help those who have been trafficked, and I would like to thank Senator Brownback and Representative Smith, my colleagues on the Helsinki Commission, for their continued commitment to this act since its initial passage. I am proud to see that this reauthorization enhances the 3 P's strategy--prevention of trafficking, prosecution of those that engage in these acts, and protection of the vulnerable individuals who have been trafficked--that we developed in the Clinton administration. It gives the Justice Department the authority to pursue extraterritorial prosecutions of Federal employees or those accompanying them if they engage in trafficking activities. It encourages the prevention of trafficking by requiring organizations or contractors engaged in U.S.- supported peacekeeping efforts to have antitrafficking policies in place. And it will protect those who have been trafficked overseas by increasing funding for programs like residential treatment facilities. But there is still so much work to be done. Although reliable statistics are difficult to find, we know that 800,000 individuals--the vast majority of whom are women and children--are trafficked from one country to another every year, with 15,000 being trafficked to the United States. The FBI estimates that trafficking generates $9.5 billion annually for organized crime syndicates around the world. I am deeply concerned about the growing domestic commercial sex trade, and I believe that we need to increase funding and target efforts to end all forms of exploitation. Any expansion of our focus must not dilute our commitment to eradicating human trafficking in all its forms in the United States, nor detract from the progress we have made in increasing prosecutions and working with law enforcement agencies. We must ensure that our Government has all the resources it needs to make inroads against these awful acts on our own soil. In the fight against trafficking in persons, patience simply is not an option. I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues to end this barbaric practice in both the United States and around the world, because this is not about politics, but about what we all share: universal freedom and universal human rights.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to object to insertion of a provision in the Department of Defense appropriations bill that would provide sweeping immunity protections to pharmaceutical manufacturers. I know that this provision is being billed as a simple liability protection to help those who would manufacture avian flu vaccine, but it is nothing of the sort. I support limited liability protections for manufacturers to help cover their risks in developing products that our Nation will need in case of emergency. However, this provision would grant immunity to all claims of loss, including death and disability, for a broad range of products, including any drug that the Secretary designated as one that would limit the harm caused by a pandemic--a definition so broad as to encompass nearly any drug. This immunity is not subject to judicial review. It preempts any State laws that provide different liability protections or that may provide stronger consumer safety protections for pharmaceutical products. In fact, the only exception to this immunity is for actions of ``willful misconduct,'' which is so narrowly defined that it would only apply to cases where a company intentionally set out ``to achieve a wrongful purpose . . . in disregard of a known or obvious risk that is so great as to make it highly probable that the harm will outweigh the benefit.'' The provision requires the Secretary and the Attorney General to narrow the scope of willful misconduct even further and states that for any FDA-approved product, willful misconduct will not apply unless the Government is already taking action against the manufacturer for such misconduct. If the Government is providing complete immunity to manufacturers, how are those who may be injured to seek compensation in case of injury? This provision sets up a ``Covered Countermeasure Process Fund,'' but fails to provide any money for this fund. We all recognize that in a public health emergency, we may need to seek whatever protections we can find to prevent widespread death and disease--but those who are asked to take these products are told that if they are injured, their only recourse is to seek compensation from a fund which currently has no money to award. I am also gravely concerned by the fact that this provision was included in the appropriations bill without following the process for passing legislation used by this Chamber. This authorizing-- authorizing, not appropriating--language was never considered, let alone agreed to by the Senate. It was never agreed to by the HELP or Judiciary Committees, which have jurisdiction over this matter. It is a mockery of the legislative process. I believe that the American people are ill-served by Congress when controversial and potentially harmful provisions can simply be inserted without undergoing the open deliberations and debate that are fundamental to the democratic process and are designed to protect our citizens from special interests and back-room dealings. This provision should be stripped from the bill.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, last week, I came to the floor to speak against the proposed reconciliation bill, and I used the analogy of the Grinch who stole Christmas. At that time, we did not have a conference report yet before us, and I hoped that we might make some significant changes in what would be sent to us after the House acted. Unfortunately, although there were some changes, the overall impact of what has been sent to the Senate for action is disappointing and deeply disturbing. While the Grinch stole the gifts, the decorations, and even the Christmas tree, this budget slashes hope. It slashes opportunity. It slashes support that the least among us need in order to be as productive and healthy as possible. This Republican budget slashes child support enforcement, Medicaid benefits, student loans, and so much else. Now, the story of the Grinch who stole Christmas actually has a happy ending, because the Grinch, seeing the error of his ways, returned what he had taken. Unfortunately, I fear the budget before the Senate today does not have a happy ending. It represents a monumental failure by the Republicans in Congress to recognize the real priorities that the people of America--working families, students, seniors, and particularly children--need. The Republican priorities are crystal clear in this bill. The Republican majority chose $2.6 billion in new tax breaks for oil companies. I don't know how that is a priority. I don't even know how that is understandable. The oil companies could not be doing any better than they are doing, and we are still giving them more tax breaks from hard-working American taxes. We still prohibit the Government from negotiating for prescription drugs to lower the cost to Medicare beneficiaries, which could save $100 billion for taxpayers. The Republicans decided not to eliminate the $5.4 billion Medicare insurance company slush fund and, instead, chose to cut home health care, hospital quality improvements, imaging services, medical equipment, and hospital payments. And as usual, with the Republican majority, they decided against cracking down on abusive corporate tax shelters such as mailbox headquarters and other loopholes. We have heard a lot of this from the eloquent, persuasive argumentation by the Democratic ranking member on the Budget Committee, the Senator from North Dakota. We have heard from others of our colleagues raising the alarm about this ill-conceived budget. But one issue that has not yet been raised that I would like to highlight is that I think this bill may very well increase the number of unintended pregnancies and abortions in our country. Why, you might ask? Today contraception and other family planning services are provided as a matter of course under Medicaid. We do this because it is good for women to have access to such treatments and medications. It also prevents unintended pregnancies and, therefore, prevents abortions and, therefore, saves money. For every dollar Medicaid spends on family planning, the Government saves $3. But this bill eliminates the guarantee. I don't understand this. We obviously have very strong opinions and deeply held convictions about abortion, but are we also divided about contraception and family planning? Are we not in this body committed to reducing the number of abortions? Apparently, we are not because the provision in this reconciliation budget that eliminates family planning for Medicaid recipients makes it very clear that the majority opposes contraception and family planning, which reduces unwanted pregnancies and abortions. It makes no sense to me. I thought we were working toward a bipartisan agreement that we would try to prevent unwanted pregnancies and, therefore, reduce the need for abortion. I sadly predict that if this measure stays in the bill, which apparently it is going to because we expect to vote on it in the next several hours, the number of abortions will go up, the human and financial costs will go up, and many women will really be out of luck. The other piece that is so troubling to me is young people aging out of foster care. These are young people for whom we try to provide some support services by continuing their access to Medicaid. They, too, will not have access to family planning. This is all about misplaced priorities, choices that do not serve our Nation's future and puts the burden of balancing the budget on the backs of working families, college students, seniors, single moms, and the middle class. Consider who is bearing the costs because we know there are winners and there are losers. Certainly, the winners will be oil companies, drug companies, corporate freeloaders, and deadbeat parents. That is a wonderful list of whom we are helping in this Christmas season. Despite rising medical expenses that burden middle-class and low- income Americans, this bill cuts $6.9 billion from Medicaid by slashing benefits and increasing costs to beneficiaries. We know there is a considerable body of research from RAND to the Urban Institute and many others that have found if you increase copays and premium costs, beneficiaries will skip needed care and may lose coverage entirely. This bill also, for some reason, has it out for college students, the very people we should encourage to get their education, to become productive citizens, to have competitive jobs in a global economy. The bill cuts over $12.7 billion from student loan programs, resulting in higher payments for 472,000 New Yorkers today and millions more in the years to come. The bill also undermines the Direct Loan Program which has been shown by every independent analysis to cost as much as 12 times less than the private loan program. So I guess we should put the banks on the list of winners along with the corporate freeloaders and the deadbeat parents and the oil companies. As millions of seniors struggle with medical bills, this bill slashes $6.4 billion from Medicare over the next 5 years, including a $1.6 billion increase in Medicare Part B premiums, making it more expensive for their seniors to visit their doctor this year instead of last. The thing I am still totally amazed by is cutting $4.9 billion in child enforcement, eliminating $343 million from foster care programs, undermining childcare for working families and TANF that rewards and enables work. I don't know, Mr. President, I guess there are different priorities between us in this Chamber, and I am disappointed in that. Given that 1.1 million more Americans fell into poverty last year, and over 37 million Americans, including 13 million children, live in poverty today, we are headed in the wrong direction. I guess the Republican majority can brag about $2.6 billion in new tax cuts for oil companies, $6.9 billion in Medicaid cuts, and cuts to foster children, the most vulnerable of all of our citizens. Corporate welfare was saved. Student loans were cut. I don't know how you can, with a straight face, say that is the kind of priorities we should be having at any time but particularly in the Christmas season. But I suppose the folks who find these great big tax breaks under their tree are going to be grateful. The ultimate irony is that this bill is being called deficit reduction. We know how to do deficit reduction. We did it in the 1990s. We did it by making hard choices. We did it by making it clear that nobody was going to get off scot-free, that everybody would have to pay their fair share. Tough decisions would be made on both the revenue and the spending side. This bill doesn't reduce the deficit at all. In fact, it worsens the deficit outlook by at least $30 billion. That is going to become even more clear when we come back after the first of the year and the Republicans give us $70 billion in additional tax cuts. Let's tell everybody those tax cuts are, once again, going to help people who have been helped already, quite substantially, over the last 5 years. It is not doing much for the average American, it is not doing anything for some of the poorest of Americans, other than telling them they are on their own. In a time of war, with the third largest budget shortfall in our Nation's history, when we have rising poverty again, the call for financial sacrifice by the White House and the Republican Congress falls only on families struggling to make ends meet. It falls on our children particularly, the poorest of our children, foster care children, children whose parents are not providing support for them. It doesn't fall on oil companies reaping record profits, not on the drug companies, not on the corporate freeloaders, not on the deadbeat parents. This bill is not in keeping with the spirit of this season or the priorities of the American people. I hope that we will do better next year. I hope that people will realize, as the Grinch did, that we don't need to act in a way that is playing to the lowest common denominator, that takes care of the privileged at the expense of everybody else. I do think it is fair to say that this bill is unprecedented. Never has so much been done for so few who need it so little. This is a very sad day in the Senate. I hope we can do better in the future on a bipartisan basis, and I hope that the real values of America once again are put into action in the Congress. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to help parents protect their children against violent and sexual media. In rising, I stand with the parents and children of New York and of the Nation, all of whom are being victimized by a culture of violence. As parents, we monitor the kind of people who interact with our children. We attend parent night at school. We meet our children's teachers. We look over their textbooks to make sure they are installing our values and attitudes in our children. We meet our children's friends and their parents to make sure they are a positive source of influence. If somebody is exposing our children to material we find inappropriate, we remove our children from that person. If you hired a babysitter who exposed your children to violence and sexual material that you thought was inappropriate, what would you do? If you are like me, you would fire that babysitter and never invite him or her to come back. Yet our children spend more time consuming media than doing anything else but sleeping and attending school. Media culture is like having a stranger in your house, and it exerts a major influence over your children. It is this attack on the sensibilities of our children that is the subject of the bill I introduce today. It is a bill that I consider to be of tremendous importance to our families. This bill would take an important step towards helping parents protect their children against influences they often find to be inappropriate--violent and sexually explicit video games. Quite simply, the bill would put teeth into the video game industry's rating system, which specifies which video games are inappropriate for young people under 17. By fining retailers who do not abide by the ratings system, this bill sends a message that the ratings system is to be taken seriously. I know many of my colleagues, myself included, don't play video games and aren't aware of exactly what is contained in these games. So, I hope you will listen as I describe a few scenes so we know what is at issue here today. Consider the following scenario: You have been captured by a demented film-maker who drops you into a gang-infested slum. While the gangs think they are hunting you, they don't know the real plot: that you are hunting them, while the director records each act of murder on film. Since you are outnumbered and could easily be mobbed, you cannot just jump in and fight everyone. Rather, you must be silent and patient, tracking your prey so that you can strike from behind. You strangle a villain with a sharp wire, and a finely rendered mist of blood sprays from his severed carotid artery. . . . This is just one scene from one game. It happens not to be a game that has gotten a tremendous amount of attention lately. Frankly, I don't know if it's one of the most popular games out there or not. But I do know, if my daughter was still young, I wouldn't want her playing it. Here is another one: Carl Johnson long ago escaped the hardships of street life in San Andreas. Now his mother is murdered, his old buddies are in trouble, and Carl must come home to clean up the mess--San Andreas style. That means spraying people with uzi bullets, blowing them up, or sniper shooting them from the top of buildings. It also means killing police officers and visiting prostitutes. No one doubts that this material is inappropriate for children. The video game industry itself developed and implemented the ratings system that parents rely on today. They are responsible for developing the ``M'' for Mature or ``AO'' for Adults Only labels, which signal to parents that the content is too violent and/or sexually explicit for a child to play. Unfortunately, enforcement has been lax and minors can purchase Mature-rated games with relative ease. A 2001 study by the Federal Trade Commission showed that 85 percent of unaccompanied minors, ages 13 to 16, could purchase games rated Mature. A study by the National Institute on Media and the Family found that nearly half of children, as young as age 9, succeed in buying Mature-rated games. And close to a quarter of retailers did not understand the ratings system and half did not provide any training to their employees. This is a terrible problem that needs to be fixed. And this bill does just that. I want to be clear--this bill is not an attack on video games. Video games are a fun part of the lives of millions of Americans, young and old alike. They can teach coordination and strategy. They can introduce children to computer technology. They can provide practice in learning to problem solve and they can help children hone their fine motor and spatial skills. This bill is also not an attack on free and creative expression. Relying on the growing body of scientific evidence that demonstrates a causal link between exposure to these games and antisocial behavior in our children, this bill was carefully drafted to pass constitutional strict scrutiny. Furthermore, nothing in this bill limits the production or sale of these games beyond current practice. If retailers are following the rules--established voluntarily by the video game industry--then this bill will have absolutely no impact on them. And this bill does not overlook or undervalue the critical role parents play in protecting their children, and instilling in them, their own values. This bill is designed to buoy the efforts of parents, who too often feel like they are fighting an uphill battle against the violent and sexually explicit messages that are just a trip to the mall away. The unfortunate truth is there is a darkside to some video games, which has lead to a universal agreement--among parents, advocates, policymakers, and the gaming industry--that some games are not suitable for children. What we are seeking to do today is to ensure that that value judgment is meaningful. Much of the public concern about the exposure of children to M-rated games focuses on sexually explicit content. Parents are rightly worried about this content and we should come together to take steps to keep these games out of the hands of our kids. But let's not discount the awful effect of violence in the media because, frankly, the evidence on this point is overwhelming and deserves more of our attention. Consider the Joint Statement on the Impact of Entertainment Violence on Children from the Congressional Public Health Summit in July of 2000. I quote: ``Well over 1,000 studies--including reports from the Surgeon General's office, the National Institute of Mental Health, and numerous studies conducted by leading figures within our medical and public health organizations . . . point overwhelmingly to a causal connection between media violence and aggressive behavior in some children,'' states their report. The American Academy of Pediatrics stated, in a report entitled Media Exposure Feeding Children's Violent Acts, ``Playing violent video games is to an adolescent's violent behavior what smoking tobacco is to lung cancer.'' I ask to have printed in the Record a resolution adopted by the American Psychological Association about the effect of violence in video games and interactive media.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to help parents protect their children against violent and sexual media. In rising, I stand with the parents and children of New York and of the Nation, all of whom are being victimized by a culture of violence. As parents, we monitor the kind of people who interact with our children. We attend parent night at school. We meet our children's teachers. We look over their textbooks to make sure they are installing our values and attitudes in our children. We meet our children's friends and their parents to make sure they are a positive source of influence. If somebody is exposing our children to material we find inappropriate, we remove our children from that person. If you hired a babysitter who exposed your children to violence and sexual material that you thought was inappropriate, what would you do? If you are like me, you would fire that babysitter and never invite him or her to come back. Yet our children spend more time consuming media than doing anything else but sleeping and attending school. Media culture is like having a stranger in your house, and it exerts a major influence over your children. It is this attack on the sensibilities of our children that is the subject of the bill I introduce today. It is a bill that I consider to be of tremendous importance to our families. This bill would take an important step towards helping parents protect their children against influences they often find to be inappropriate--violent and sexually explicit video games. Quite simply, the bill would put teeth into the video game industry's rating system, which specifies which video games are inappropriate for young people under 17. By fining retailers who do not abide by the ratings system, this bill sends a message that the ratings system is to be taken seriously. I know many of my colleagues, myself included, don't play video games and aren't aware of exactly what is contained in these games. So, I hope you will listen as I describe a few scenes so we know what is at issue here today. Consider the following scenario: You have been captured by a demented film-maker who drops you into a gang-infested slum. While the gangs think they are hunting you, they don't know the real plot: that you are hunting them, while the director records each act of murder on film. Since you are outnumbered and could easily be mobbed, you cannot just jump in and fight everyone. Rather, you must be silent and patient, tracking your prey so that you can strike from behind. You strangle a villain with a sharp wire, and a finely rendered mist of blood sprays from his severed carotid artery. . . . This is just one scene from one game. It happens not to be a game that has gotten a tremendous amount of attention lately. Frankly, I don't know if it's one of the most popular games out there or not. But I do know, if my daughter was still young, I wouldn't want her playing it. Here is another one: Carl Johnson long ago escaped the hardships of street life in San Andreas. Now his mother is murdered, his old buddies are in trouble, and Carl must come home to clean up the mess--San Andreas style. That means spraying people with uzi bullets, blowing them up, or sniper shooting them from the top of buildings. It also means killing police officers and visiting prostitutes. No one doubts that this material is inappropriate for children. The video game industry itself developed and implemented the ratings system that parents rely on today. They are responsible for developing the ``M'' for Mature or ``AO'' for Adults Only labels, which signal to parents that the content is too violent and/or sexually explicit for a child to play. Unfortunately, enforcement has been lax and minors can purchase Mature-rated games with relative ease. A 2001 study by the Federal Trade Commission showed that 85 percent of unaccompanied minors, ages 13 to 16, could purchase games rated Mature. A study by the National Institute on Media and the Family found that nearly half of children, as young as age 9, succeed in buying Mature-rated games. And close to a quarter of retailers did not understand the ratings system and half did not provide any training to their employees. This is a terrible problem that needs to be fixed. And this bill does just that. I want to be clear--this bill is not an attack on video games. Video games are a fun part of the lives of millions of Americans, young and old alike. They can teach coordination and strategy. They can introduce children to computer technology. They can provide practice in learning to problem solve and they can help children hone their fine motor and spatial skills. This bill is also not an attack on free and creative expression. Relying on the growing body of scientific evidence that demonstrates a causal link between exposure to these games and antisocial behavior in our children, this bill was carefully drafted to pass constitutional strict scrutiny. Furthermore, nothing in this bill limits the production or sale of these games beyond current practice. If retailers are following the rules--established voluntarily by the video game industry--then this bill will have absolutely no impact on them. And this bill does not overlook or undervalue the critical role parents play in protecting their children, and instilling in them, their own values. This bill is designed to buoy the efforts of parents, who too often feel like they are fighting an uphill battle against the violent and sexually explicit messages that are just a trip to the mall away. The unfortunate truth is there is a darkside to some video games, which has lead to a universal agreement--among parents, advocates, policymakers, and the gaming industry--that some games are not suitable for children. What we are seeking to do today is to ensure that that value judgment is meaningful. Much of the public concern about the exposure of children to M-rated games focuses on sexually explicit content. Parents are rightly worried about this content and we should come together to take steps to keep these games out of the hands of our kids. But let's not discount the awful effect of violence in the media because, frankly, the evidence on this point is overwhelming and deserves more of our attention. Consider the Joint Statement on the Impact of Entertainment Violence on Children from the Congressional Public Health Summit in July of 2000. I quote: ``Well over 1,000 studies--including reports from the Surgeon General's office, the National Institute of Mental Health, and numerous studies conducted by leading figures within our medical and public health organizations . . . point overwhelmingly to a causal connection between media violence and aggressive behavior in some children,'' states their report. The American Academy of Pediatrics stated, in a report entitled Media Exposure Feeding Children's Violent Acts, ``Playing violent video games is to an adolescent's violent behavior what smoking tobacco is to lung cancer.'' I ask to have printed in the Record a resolution adopted by the American Psychological Association about the effect of violence in video games and interactive media.

Mrs. CLINTON. In June, a groundbreaking study by researchers at the University of Indiana School of Medicine, which was published in the Journal of Clinical Psychology, concluded that adolescents exposed to high levels of violent media were less able to control and to direct their thoughts and behavior, to stay focused on a task, to plan, to screen out distractions, and to use experience to guide inhibitions. A 2004 meta-analysis of over 35 research studies that included over 4,000 participants, found similar results. It concluded that playing violent video games significantly increases aggressive behavior, physiological arousal and feelings of anger and hostility, and significantly decreases pro-social helping behavior. And according to testimony by Craig Andersen before the Commerce Committee in 2000, violent video games have been found to increase violent adolescent behavior by 13 to 22 percent. Eighty-six percent of African American females in the games are victims of violence. And, the most common role for women in video games is prostitutes. Research also demonstrates the opposite--reducing exposure to violence reduces aggressive behavior. A 2001 study by Stanford University School of Medicine found that reducing TV and video violence consumption to under one hour per day reduces verbal aggression by 50 percent and physical aggression by 40 percent among 3rd and 4th grade children. Now, if you don't find the scientists compelling, consider a child named Devon Thompson, who shot three police officers after being brought in under suspicion of driving a stolen car. He grabbed one of the officer's guns, shot three men and then jumped into a police car, a scene remarkably like one found in the game Grand Theft Auto. When Thompson was apprehended he said ``Life is a video game. You've got to die sometime.'' In the face of this mountain of scientific and anecdotal evidence, the same company that developed Grand Theft Auto is coming out with a new game called Bully. In Bully, the player is a student who beats up other students in school. Again, I am not here to argue that these games shouldn't be developed or made available. But, I am here to ask, can't we as a society do better by our kids? Can't we give parents the tools to make sure they know what may fall into the hands of their children? That is what this bill is all about and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting it.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, in the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks, this body came together--Republicans and Democrats alike--around the shared goal of preventing a similar tragedy from ever occurring again on our soil. Toward this end, Congress worked in a bipartisan manner to pass the provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act, legislation that expanded many of our laws, providing our Government and law enforcement with the tools needed to ably combat these threats. We understood then, as we do now, that these tools are important in our fight against terrorism. And because there is no greater responsibility that we bear as Members of this body than ensuring the safety of our citizens, I voted in favor of the USA PATRIOT Act in 2001 and supported its reauthorization when the Senate considered its bill earlier this year. But even in the immediate aftermath of the September 11 tragedy, Congress recognized that in its haste to give law enforcement these expanded powers, there was a risk that this new authority was coming at the expense of constitutionally guaranteed rights and liberties. And so in the wisdom of both Republican and Democratic legislators, several provisions of the PATRIOT Act included 4-year sunsets, allowing Congress the opportunity to revisit whether the PATRIOT Act strikes the proper balance between securing our safety and ensuring our freedom. I have very serious concerns that the current PATRIOT Act reauthorization conference report, which was negotiated largely without the input of Democrats, does not do enough to strike this proper balance. I believe that we can be both safe and free. The conference report falls well short of achieving that goal. I am hopeful that bipartisan negotiations can result in a compromise bill like the one agreed to in the Senate in July, a bill which did a far better job of protecting our civil liberties. The current conference report fails in many respects. Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act gives law enforcement in domestic intelligence investigations nearly limitless power to obtain all types of personal records, including business, library, and medical records. Under current law, the Government merely needs to demonstrate that the records it seeks are ``sought for'' a terrorism investigation. Upon such a showing, a secret court is required to issue the order. This is an extremely lenient standard, one that for the first time gives the Government almost unchecked access to the sensitive personal information of innocent Americans. To compound matters, the third parties--business, libraries, hospitals, and the like--who are recipients of these orders are subject to an automatic gag order. They cannot tell anyone that they have been asked for these records, including the person whose documents the Government is seeking. Given its broad scope, this provision has tremendous potential for abuse. Innocent Americans should not be subjected to these possible intrusions when adequate safeguards can be written into the law, ones that would not sacrifice the utility of these orders as a law enforcement tool. Americans should not have to hope that the Government will demonstrate self-restraint in its exercise of this power, nor should they fear that their personal records will be part of a Government fishing expedition. The Senate bill, which I supported, not only required the Government to meet a higher standard before issuing these orders, it also gave recipients of a FISA order an explicit and meaningful right to challenge these orders and their accompanying gag orders in court. The conference report sadly retains a variation of the current law's exceptionally lenient standard of review, a standard that effectively turns the courts into little more than a rubberstamp. Further, the conference report does not give the recipient of a FISA order any express right at all to seek meaningful judicial review of its gag order. Quite simply, the conference report places inadequate checks on these orders. Another failure of the conference report was exposed in an article appearing in the Sunday, November 6, 2005 edition of The Washington Post, which brought to light a very troubling practice by the FBI that underscores the importance of adopting proper safeguards. National security letters, NSLs, are administrative subpoenas that allow the FBI to obtain sensitive information about ordinary Americans in national security cases. NSLs are issued by FBI agents without the authorization or approval of a judge, grand jury or prosecutor. While the FBI has long employed NSLs, the PATRIOT Act greatly expanded their scope, significantly lowering the standard for their issuance. The result has been, according to The Washington Post, a ``hundredfold increase'' in their use, with the FBI annually issuing thousands of NSLs demanding private information about ordinary Americans not necessarily suspected of any crime. These records include financial, library, credit card, telephone, Internet service provider, and e-mail records as well as customer transaction information. These NSLs are governed by strict gag orders that prevent companies from telling their customers that their records were given to the FBI. As this description suggests, NSLs are very similar to section 215 FISA orders but with one very critical difference--NSLs do not require the Government to get any court approval whatsoever. While NSLs can be an important tool in our fight against terrorism, their unfettered and unchecked use makes them susceptible to abuse that infringes upon the privacy of innocent people. The Senate version of the PATRIOT Act reauthorization bill created important checks on the power to issue and enforce NSLs--protections absent from the conference report--without hindering the effectiveness of this law enforcement tool. Other sections of the conference report give rise to additional concerns. The conference report would give law enforcement the free- wheeling power to impose roving ``John Doe'' wiretaps without the safeguards needed to protect innocent Americans from unnecessary surveillance, casting aside important checks on this power that were included in the Senate bill. The report would also give the FBI the right to enter and search a home or business without providing notice to the owner of the residence or business for a month or longer after the search. And the conference report contains a provision that seriously curtails the habeas corpus rights of prisoners to challenge their convictions in court. This provision was in neither the House nor Senate bills, and there has been practically no debate on the merits of this change. Apart from the serious civil liberties concerns, perhaps the greatest shortcoming of the conference report is its failure to incorporate a threat-and-risk-based formula for the allocation of critical homeland security funds to our local communities, States, and first responders. This deficiency was emphasized just last week by the former 9/11 Commission, which issued a blistering indictment of our homeland security failures. As I said earlier, I have long maintained that protecting the security of our citizens and our homeland is the most important responsibility I bear as a Senator. To that end, I believe that to truly make America safe, we need to carefully allocate our homeland security resources. We need to make sure that the money gets to where it is needed, that our American cities and States living under the greatest threat receive the funding they need to protect themselves. Unfortunately, up until now, a substantial portion of our homeland security money has been allocated according to congressionally mandated formulas that bear little relation to need and risk. Our resources should be dedicated to addressing our most glaring weaknesses. During their negotiations, I encouraged my House and Senate colleagues considering the PATRIOT Act reauthorization bill to account for this reality in our homeland security funding. I have maintained-- as the former 9/11 Commission reiterated in its report last week--that lawmakers should cease playing politics with the allocation of our limited resources by promoting distribution formulas that ignore risk and threat. The Commission's report card was a condemnation of this administration and the Congress, both of whom have demonstrated far too little urgency in enacting the reforms needed to properly secure our homeland and fight the war on terror. The former 9/11 Commission sent a clear, discernible message to the entire Nation last week--reform is needed at all levels of Government. The failure to incorporate in the PATRIOT Act conference report a much- needed threat-based formula for the allocation of homeland security funds is a major shortcoming and needs to be corrected. As I noted at the outset, apart from these concerns, the PATRIOT Act contains provisions that provide law enforcement with important tools in the war on terror. Because we cannot afford to be without these tools, I am supporting bipartisan legislation that will extend the sunsetting provisions of the PATRIOT Act by 3 months. Just because we are coming up against the end of the year does not mean we should have to compromise the rights of law-abiding Americans. This extension will preserve the current state of the law on a temporary basis, giving those working on the bill the opportunity to craft a compromise that both safeguards our liberty and gives our law enforcement the capabilities they need to effectively combat and investigate terrorist threats. I am also hopeful that during this 3-month extension, those working on the reauthorization bill will heed the call of the former 9/11 Commission and include provisions that mandate the distribution of homeland security funds on the basis of threat and risk. While we all recognize the importance of equipping our law enforcement with the tools they need to effectively combat terrorism, we also must ensure that those tools are administered in a manner that does not unnecessarily restrict the freedom and liberty that are the hallmark of American life. Like all Americans, I am troubled by recent reports that the President signed an order in 2002 that authorized the National Security Agency to conduct domestic spying on U.S. citizens and foreign nationals in the United States, despite legal prohibitions against such activity. Likewise, I am disturbed by recent reports that the Department of Defense is maintaining a database in order to monitor the activity of peaceful antiwar groups. The balance between the urgent goal of combating terrorism and the safeguarding of our most fundamental constitutional freedoms is not always an easy one to draw. However, they are not incompatible, and unbridled and unchecked executive power is not the answer. I believe the conference report falls short of this goal, and I am hopeful that with more time, those negotiating these provisions will find the proper balance.