Hillary Clinton

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce legislation that will improve patient safety while helping to provide some relief to health care providers dealing with escalating medical liability costs. We are dealing with a medical malpractice problem in this country that is jeopardizing patient safety and hurting our health care system. As I visit with doctors and hospitals in New York and around the Nation, I hear about the pressures and problems of escalating medical malpractice insurance premiums. These high premiums are forcing many physicians to alter their practice of medicine and leaving some patients without access to necessary medical care. In my State of New York, an unacceptable 40 percent of our counties have less than 5 practicing obstetricians. At the same time, we have all heard the terrifying statistic from the landmark 1999 IOM report stating that as many as 98,000 deaths every year are the result of medical errors. But, far fewer people know that the IOM suggests that 90 percent of medical errors are the result of failed systems and procedures, not the negligence of physicians. We must do better. If properly designed, these systems and procedures could go a long way towards seriously reducing medical errors. But, understanding the root causes of errors requires their disclosure and analysis. And that's the fundamental tension between the medical liability system and our common goal of providing high quality care and improving patient safety in the health care system. Studies have consistently shown that health care providers are reticent to engage in patient safety activities and be open about errors because they believe they are being asked to do so without appropriate assurances of legal protection. That's where this legislation comes in. We build on the patient safety bill that was signed into law earlier this summer by creating a voluntary program to encourage disclosure of errors, an opportunity to enter negotiations and early settlement, while, at the same time, protecting patients' rights and providing liability protection for health care providers who participate in the program. Our bill is designed to bridge the gap between the medical liability and patient safety systems for the benefit of patients and providers. The truly unfortunate result of the current congressional stalemate over caps is that patients and physicians are left waiting for someone to break the logjam and work to find bipartisan solutions that have an opportunity to mitigate this problem. I believe it's critical that we find a way around this stalemate and that Congress work in good faith to find solutions that can garner enough support to find their way to the President's desk. I believe that this is an exciting and innovative program that will improve patient-physician communication, reduce the rates of preventable patient injury, reduce the liability insurance premiums that physicians are facing, and insure that patients have access to fair compensation for medical injury: Four fundamental goals that I believe are necessary components of any solution we consider. There are a number of successful programs across the country that are consistent with the provisions of our legislation, including one at the University of Michigan, and even one initiated by a medical malpractice insurance provider in Colorado. I am excited about the results these programs are producing--fewer numbers of suits being filed, more patients being compensated for injuries, greater patient trust and satisfaction, and significantly reduced administrative and legal defense costs for providers, insurers, and hospitals where these programs are in place. I am hopeful that our legislation will provide an opportunity for more hospitals and physicians to use this program and see for themselves the benefits they--and their patients--will reap.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce legislation that will improve patient safety while helping to provide some relief to health care providers dealing with escalating medical liability costs. We are dealing with a medical malpractice problem in this country that is jeopardizing patient safety and hurting our health care system. As I visit with doctors and hospitals in New York and around the Nation, I hear about the pressures and problems of escalating medical malpractice insurance premiums. These high premiums are forcing many physicians to alter their practice of medicine and leaving some patients without access to necessary medical care. In my State of New York, an unacceptable 40 percent of our counties have less than 5 practicing obstetricians. At the same time, we have all heard the terrifying statistic from the landmark 1999 IOM report stating that as many as 98,000 deaths every year are the result of medical errors. But, far fewer people know that the IOM suggests that 90 percent of medical errors are the result of failed systems and procedures, not the negligence of physicians. We must do better. If properly designed, these systems and procedures could go a long way towards seriously reducing medical errors. But, understanding the root causes of errors requires their disclosure and analysis. And that's the fundamental tension between the medical liability system and our common goal of providing high quality care and improving patient safety in the health care system. Studies have consistently shown that health care providers are reticent to engage in patient safety activities and be open about errors because they believe they are being asked to do so without appropriate assurances of legal protection. That's where this legislation comes in. We build on the patient safety bill that was signed into law earlier this summer by creating a voluntary program to encourage disclosure of errors, an opportunity to enter negotiations and early settlement, while, at the same time, protecting patients' rights and providing liability protection for health care providers who participate in the program. Our bill is designed to bridge the gap between the medical liability and patient safety systems for the benefit of patients and providers. The truly unfortunate result of the current congressional stalemate over caps is that patients and physicians are left waiting for someone to break the logjam and work to find bipartisan solutions that have an opportunity to mitigate this problem. I believe it's critical that we find a way around this stalemate and that Congress work in good faith to find solutions that can garner enough support to find their way to the President's desk. I believe that this is an exciting and innovative program that will improve patient-physician communication, reduce the rates of preventable patient injury, reduce the liability insurance premiums that physicians are facing, and insure that patients have access to fair compensation for medical injury: Four fundamental goals that I believe are necessary components of any solution we consider. There are a number of successful programs across the country that are consistent with the provisions of our legislation, including one at the University of Michigan, and even one initiated by a medical malpractice insurance provider in Colorado. I am excited about the results these programs are producing--fewer numbers of suits being filed, more patients being compensated for injuries, greater patient trust and satisfaction, and significantly reduced administrative and legal defense costs for providers, insurers, and hospitals where these programs are in place. I am hopeful that our legislation will provide an opportunity for more hospitals and physicians to use this program and see for themselves the benefits they--and their patients--will reap.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, the nomination of Judge John Roberts to be Chief Justice of the United States is a matter of tremendous consequence for future generations of Americans. It requires thoughtful inquiry and debate, and I commend my colleagues on the Senate Judiciary Committee for their dedication to making sure that all questions were presented and that those outside of the Senate had the opportunity to make their voices heard. After serious and careful consideration of the committee proceedings and Judge Roberts's writings, I believe I must vote against his confirmation. I do not believe that the judge has presented his views with enough clarity and specificity for me to in good conscience cast a vote on his behalf. The Constitution commands that the Senate provide meaningful advice and consent to the President on judicial nominations, and I have an obligation to my constituents to make sure that I cast my vote for Chief Justice of the United States for someone I am convinced will be steadfast in protecting fundamental women's rights, civil rights, privacy rights, and who will respect the appropriate separation of powers among the three branches. After the Judiciary hearings, I believe the record on these matters has been left unclear. That uncertainly means as a matter of conscience, I cannot vote to confirm despite Judge Roberts's long history of public service. In one memo, for example, Judge Roberts argued that Congress has the power to deny the Supreme Court the right to hear appeals from lower courts of constitutional claims involving flag burning, abortion, and other matters. He wrote that the United States would be far better off with 50 different interpretations on the right to choose than with what he called the ``judicial excesses embodied in Roe v. Wade.'' The idea that the Supreme Court could be denied the right to rule on constitutional claims had been so long decided that even the most conservative of Judge Roberts's Justice Department colleagues strongly disagreed with him. When questioned about his legal memoranda, Judge Roberts claimed they did not necessarily reflect his views and that he was merely making the best possible case for his clients or responding to a superior's request that he make a particular argument. But he did not clearly disavow the strong and clear views he expressed, but only shrouded them in further mystery. Was he just being an advocate for a client or was he using his position to advocate for positions he believed in? The record is unclear. It is hard to believe he has no opinion on so many critical issues after years as a Justice Department and White House lawyer, appellate advocate and judge. His supporters remind us that Chief Justice Rehnquist supported the constitutionality of legal segregation before his elevation to the high court but never sought to bring it back while serving the court system as its Chief Justice. But I would also remind them of Justice Thomas's assertion in his confirmation hearing that he had never even discussed Roe v. Wade, much less formed an opinion on it. Shortly after he ascended to the Court, Justice Thomas made it clear that he wanted to repeal Roe. Adding to testimony that clouded more than clarified is that we in the Senate have been denied the full record of Judge Roberts's writings despite our repeated requests. Combined, these two events have left a question mark on what Judge Roberts's views are and how he might rule on critical questions of the day. It is telling that President Bush has said the Justices he most admires are the two most conservative Justices, Justices Thomas and Scalia. It is not unreasonable to believe that the President has picked someone in Judge Roberts whom he believes holds a similarly conservative philosophy, and that voting as a bloc they could further limit the power of the Congress, expand the purview of the Executive, and overturn key rulings like Roe v. Wade. Since I expect Judge Roberts to be confirmed, I hope that my concerns are unfounded and that he will be the kind of judge he said he would be during his confirmation hearing. If so, I will be the first to acknowledge it. However, because I think he is far more likely to vote the views he expressed in his legal writings, I cannot give my consent to his confirmation and will, therefore, vote against his confirmation. My desire to maintain the already fragile Supreme Court majority for civil rights, voting rights and women's rights outweigh the respect I have for Judge Roberts's intellect, character, and legal skills.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, this is such a happy occasion and I am delighted that so many of you who know the importance of this extraordinary artist-citizen's work could join us. I want to thank Speaker Hastert and Senator Stevens, as well as our leaders in the Senate, Senator Frist and Senator Reid, my colleague Senator Enzi, Congressmen Pascrell and Bilirakis, and of course Ambassador Boggs. It is so wonderful that we are here in this historic building, where Americans can see the best of our democracy in action. I often just shake my head and wonder as I walk through the Capitol--its beauty, its iconic power really defy my attempts at articulation. More than any other building, it is the exterior of the Capitol that we associate with the freedoms, values, and privileges of American citizenship. But on the inside we tell so many stories about who we are as a people, what our aspirations and our dreams might be. Constantino Brumidi was 47 years old, a painter, when he came to our shores. As is often the case with the immigrant experience, he landed here with nothing but a dream, and within a relatively short period of years he was here at the Capitol, using his talent and the great tradition that he exalted, to turn the interior of our Capitol into something much more alive and real than just the walls and the columns that held it up. He had a Greek father, an Italian mother; some might very well say the best of both worlds. And the coincidence should not be lost on us, that classical wall painting, the medium of which he was a master, originated in Greece and reached a high degree of refinement during the Roman Republic. So he brought with him his classical training and influences and he became a master of that tradition. He believed that the Capitol required, as he put it, ``a superior style of decoration in real fresco, like the palaces of Augustus and Nero.'' In the Brumidi biography, by Capitol curator Barbara Wolanin, she so aptly writes, ``his originality lay in integrating American themes into his classical repertoire. He was inspired by the great Renaissance artist Raphael, and he emulated his design of scrolls and leaves with birds and animals, but the species of squirrels and mice he painted in the Senate Wing corridors were strictly American.'' He spent 25 years painting in the Capitol Building, but that was not his only commission. One of his most notable other great works is found in New York, at the Church of Our Lady of the Scapular and Saint Stephen, which is in the Gramercy Park area of Manhattan. My predecessor, Senator Moynihan, recognized the importance of Brumidi's work at Saint Stephen's years ago. Commissioned in 1866, Brumidi painted a huge mural of Christ's crucifixion over the church's high altar, in addition to 43 murals and paintings around the walls. He was acclaimed for this work, and you can see why as you look through the Capitol, and I also hope you will also visit Saint Stephen's. The church is engaged in an important effort to preserve Brumidi's work, and I personally hope that this ceremony and the 200th anniversary of his birth will help draw attention to that effort. As we have learned from years of effort, preserving and restoring Brumidi's work is enormously important. For decades it was obscured by moisture and leaks, and gas torch light residue, but finally in the 1980s and the 1990s his work had begun to be restored to its original splendor. I remember coming in late at night in the Capitol on numerous occasions in the past 10 or 15 years and seeing the restorers working so meticulously to preserve and enhance and once again reveal the full beauty of his work. Yes, he was an artist-citizen. He used his artistry on behalf of his citizenship, and he used his citizenship to elevate his art. He is reported to have said, ``My one ambition and my daily prayer is that I may live long enough to make beautiful the Capitol of the one country on Earth in which there is liberty.'' I believe his daily prayer was answered and I am delighted that so many of us could be here to recognize and celebrate the 200th anniversary of his birth, but even more the work he did which has stood the test of time.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I have offered an amendment to create an independent commission, known as the Katrina Commission, to investigate with outside experts the situation we have confronted for the last 2 weeks in the Gulf Coast. This vote is on a motion to suspend the rules to consider this amendment. I hope that we have bipartisan support to do just that. There are a number of committees that have a role in this Congress to conduct oversight, to ask questions, but just as with 9/11 we did not get to the point where we believed we understood what happened until an independent investigation was conducted. This legislation is modeled on the 9/11 Commission. The President appoints the chairman. The Republican and Democratic leaders appoint the members. This will provide us an opportunity to do the investigation away from the work that needs to happen in this Congress and in the administration, to meet the immediate needs of the people in the Gulf Coast. I hope we will vote to support the Katrina Commission.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. I ask unanimous consent the pending amendments be set aside.

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

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I hope we will be able to address this important matter. I believe it is essential for the people who have been directly affected along the Gulf Coast, and really for all Americans, that we have an independent commission consisting of people who have no direct involvement in either the administration or congressional activities, similar to what we had with the 9/11 Commission that I believe discharged its responsibility to the American people with such a high degree of civic-mindedness and public citizenship. When I was in Houston last Monday a week ago, I met with a number of the people who had been evacuated out of New Orleans and the surrounding parishes. They kept asking me questions I certainly could not answer: What happened to the buses that were supposed to pick them up and take them out? Why wasn't there adequate security at the Superdome or the convention center? How come helicopters were flying overhead and never coming to pick them up? This morning I heard on the radio an interview with a gentleman who is the president of one of the parishes surrounding New Orleans. I believe his name is ``Junior'' Rodriguez. Mr. Rodriguez said he couldn't get any help at all. He kept trying to get help and he kept waiting for help and nothing happened. This, as we know now, was a catastrophe of almost Biblical proportions for the people who suffered it: people who lost their homes; people who were driven from their homes; the people who, most tragically, lost loved ones. Many are still searching for members of their family whom they have not been able to find since they got on a bus or left a home and waded through water. I hope we will address this. I believe it is a matter that needs to be taken out of politics as usual. I personally don't want members of the administration whose primary obligation is to the people who have been directly affected, who need to be directing and managing the relief efforts beginning the rebuilding process, being diverted from doing so. I respectfully suggest the President's idea of investigating himself is not an adequate recommendation. Similarly, I do not believe Congress should be diverted. We have committees already established and their job is to assess and make recommendations with respect to all of the matters pertaining to homeland security, not only the potential of terrorist attacks but also natural disasters. Therefore, I do believe in an investigation modeled on the 9/11 Commission where the President--as in my legislation-- appoints the Chair. He can appoint whomever he wishes. He certainly made an excellent choice when he appointed former Governor of New Jersey Tom Kean. Then the Democratic and Republican leaders appoint the other members, to have a 10-member Commission with the President and his party obviously having an advantage, as is appropriate under the circumstances, but appointing people for whom there is universal respect and people who can set aside everything, people who are willing to delve into this and ask the hard questions about what happened at all levels of government, so we can get answers. I think the people who have been evacuated, the people who have lost loved ones, the people who suffered deserve answers. But it is not just an exercise in looking backward. I think it is essential that we look forward. What the 9/11 Commission did was help focus our attention on what we should be doing, how we should be proceeding to be ready, prepared in the face of the ongoing threats from the terrorists. Today we heard about an al-Qaida operative--we think it is some disaffected American who has gone off and joined al-Qaida--who issued the threat that specifically named Los Angeles. We need to be sure we are totally prepared. We have learned some things, but you can't learn enough unless you are honest enough and out of denial in order to conduct a thorough investigation and let the chips fall where they may. Let's find answers. I hope we will have an opportunity to vote on this amendment. I invite my friends and colleagues from the other side of the aisle to join with us to support this independent Katrina commission and to let us get about the business, on a very short timetable, of getting answers we can all then implement. I marked the fourth commemoration of what happened to New York on 9/ 11. I spent yesterday, as I have in past years, with the victims, with the survivors, with family members, with members of the police and fire departments and emergency workers. I could not be more proud to represent such extraordinary, heroic people. But, in speaking especially to our first responder community, they were shaken by this. We needed Federal help. We did a heck of a job. We had the greatest police force and fire department--I would say in the world, with not just pride but with a factual basis. We did a great job, but we needed help and we got help. But now, 4 years later, we are wondering whether that help would be there if something were to happen to us. No city, no State should wonder that. I think it is a boost of confidence for people to know we are moving as best we can to understand it, but we are unafraid to face whatever the facts might be. That is why we need an independent commission constituted as soon as possible, given the resources to do its work, and asked to report in as short a timeframe as possible. I appreciate the opportunity to call up this amendment and I hope there will be an opportunity to address it and that we will have a strong vote on both sides of the aisle to proceed with this independent commission as soon as possible. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I call up Senate amendment No. 1660, an amendment establishing an independent Katrina commission.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, in accordance with rule V of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby give notice in writing that it is my intention to move to suspend paragraph 4 of rule XVI for the purpose of proposing to the bill, H.R. 2862, the Science, State, Justice, Commerce appropriations bill, the following amendment:

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, in a few days, on Sunday, we will mark the fourth anniversary of September 11. I remember very well the extraordinary support, the kindness, the solidarity, the friendship shown by our colleagues toward my State. The Federal response, the congressional actions, matched by the extraordinary generosity of the American people made what was the worst manmade disaster in our Nation's history somewhat bearable because we knew that despite what the terrorists had done, America stood with us. We are now confronting the worst natural disaster in our Nation's history. On behalf of the people of New York, I publicly express our solidarity, our support, and our friendship. I am very familiar with the gulf coast. I went to Biloxi, MS, and the Mississippi gulf coast as a teenager. I have had a lot of opportunities to travel through Mississippi when I lived all those wonderful years in Arkansas. We also spent a lot of time in Louisiana. We had friends in Baton Rouge and Lafayette and lots of friends in New Orleans and surrounding parishes. Of course, I have been in Mobile. I have been along the gulf coast of Alabama. So I can personally see in my mind's eye what Senators are speaking of. Senator Lott spoke about what happened to Mississippi, and Senator Cochran spoke about the devastation being greater than anything he had ever seen or experienced. Senator Landrieu and Senator Vitter try to describe what it is like for everything one knows and everything that is familiar to be gone. I imagine those days and nights of friendship and good times that I had the privilege of spending in such a wonderful part of our country. So I am very proud of how America is responding once again. The generosity of countless Americans--even people far beyond our shores want to contribute to try to help put lives and communities back together. It is entirely fitting that our Federal Government, that this Congress would be acting to pass in an expeditious manner this important supplemental so that the work of cleanup, recovery, even hopefully of rebuilding, can begin. I believe that when we vote, as we will, this evening, it will send a very tangible message that the Congress understands and that on behalf of the American people we will be with the people of the gulf coast until they, too, can recover and rebuild. Just as we did after 9/11, there are many questions we should be answering. When I was in Houston this past Monday with my husband, President and Mrs. Bush, and Senator Obama, hundreds of people surrounded us asking questions to which we do not yet know the answers. There is a lot of false information, misinformation about what happened, should have happened, did not happen. People are grabbing at whatever they hear, trying to make sense of a devastating experience that has totally transformed their lives and their futures. I respect the fact that our leaders in the Senate and the House have commenced hearings in the Governmental Affairs Committee and that there was an announcement yesterday about a bicameral effort to try to look into what did happen. But I would respectfully suggest that just as with 9/11, we need an independent commission that will look in depth and will bring to that inquiry independent expertise, people who are not elected officials, people who can look with a very cold and calm eye at the facts and the evidence so that we in the Congress, in the executive branch and State and local governments and, most importantly, the American public, can have some sense that we understand, so far as it is humanly possible, what was done and what could have been done. The reason for the independent commission is not only because I believe we need to replicate the 9/11 Commission to send a clear message that we are open to looking anywhere and everywhere to find the answers that the people are demanding but also because we do not have the luxury of having officials in the executive and congressional branch diverting their attention to this inquiry, beginning the process of compiling evidence, of interviewing witnesses, of holding hearings. We are now required to focus on the future on behalf of not only the people of the gulf coast but on behalf of our constituents as well. We are spending a lot of money and we will be spending a lot more to ensure that we treat fairly, equitably, and with accountability the needs people have right now and in the months and years ahead. Therefore, I would hope that we will come to a bipartisan agreement to establish such a commission, exactly as the 9/11 Commission functioned, with 10 members, the President appointing the chair, the other members being appointed by the Democratic and Republican leaders of the House and the Senate, that they will be people of independence and integrity, and that they will, in a sense, be the surrogates for all Americans as they try to make sense of how could this have happened. I chanced upon a television program the other night that was recounting responses from people around the world--places that know their fair share of disaster--who were asking: How could this happen in the United States of America? It did not make sense to them. They would not have been surprised if it had happened in some poor country, some country without an elaborate bureaucracy intended to deal with disasters, but they were shocked. They were asking questions. Perhaps the most important reason for us to convene this commission and get it working immediately is because we need these answers to ensure that whatever happens in the future will be better handled. There are lessons for all levels of government, and there are probably lessons for those of us in the Congress. We have no idea what Mother Nature has in store for us. We are not even at the peak of hurricane season yet. I remember going to Homestead, FL, in 1992 to see the impact of Hurricane Andrew. It was late August, early September, and we were only on the A's. Hurricane Andrew was an A. We are already to K, and we have M and others forming out in the ocean and the gulf. We need these answers to protect ourselves. We need to clear away all of the confusion, the natural tendency of human beings to say: It was not me, it was somebody else; oh no, wait, it was somebody else indeed. We need to just calmly, dispassionately conduct this investigation as quickly as possible to get the answers we need. I do not think there is any doubt any longer that the Department of Homeland Security, for understandable reasons that I certainly, as a Senator from New York, understand and appreciate, turned much of its attention to the war against terrorism. People drilled, people met, people worried about a bioterrorist attack, a chemical attack, a radiological or, heaven forbid, a nuclear attack. But in the meantime, we have to worry about natural disasters, too, which we have just seen. There were thousands--millions--of people who had to be evacuated. People lost everything. Businesses are gone. It is certainly fair to say that it will have a devastating effect on the gulf coast, but it will ripple through the economy as well. So I would hope that I would find support in the days to come for the bill I have introduced, the Katrina Commission bill. I have also offered it as an amendment to Commerce-Justice-State, but that we could come to a nonpartisan agreement to do this piece of the people's business, to answer the questions and to make sure this never happens again.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I am pleased to join in a colloquy with the senior Senator from Kansas, and my chairman on the Helsinki Commission, Mr. Brownback. We are united in believing the subject we will address is of great importance to this body. I appreciate my chairman's willingness to present these issues to our colleagues.

Mrs. CLINTON. The most plausible explanation for his murder appears to be the power of his investigative journalism, which explored the connections between business, politics, and crime in Russia. His murder has galvanized those who care deeply about justice, as well as the fate of democracy and the rule of law in Russia. Paul Klebnikov was a descendant of Russian emigres and a New Yorker. His widow Musa Klebnikov and children still live in New York City. Paul's murder shows us in tragic terms one of the threats faced by the press and civil society in Russia. The silencing of Paul Klebnikov's voice is a direct challenge to independent journalism, democracy, and the rule of law.

Mrs. CLINTON. That would be an appropriate gesture in honor of Paul Klebnikov. I look forward to continuing my work with the senior Senator from Kansas and chairman of the Helsinki Commission, and I thank him for his leadership.

Mrs. CLINTON. For their part, Russian law enforcement authorities have made arrests and filed charges. While Russian authorities should be commended for the energy they have shown to date, there are additional steps that would increase the chances that all those responsible are held to account. I hope that the United States Government will continue to make clear to Russian authorities that resources such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation are available to assist Russian authorities in the investigation.

Mrs. CLINTON. These recent developments underline the fundamental importance of transparency. I hope the Russian authorities will share as much information as possible with Paul Klebnikov's family. Without a transparent process, doubt will remain that the person or persons truly responsible for ordering Paul's murder will be brought to justice.

Mrs. CLINTON. Paul Klebnikov's widow Musa has explained that Paul, through his journalism, sought to foster hope in the hearts of the ordinary Russian citizen, bring corruption to light and focus attention on positive models of how a democracy ought to operate. Chairman Brownback and I have sought to keep the attention of the United States Government focused on reinforcing with Russian authorities the vital need to hold to account all those responsible for Paul Klebnikov's murder. I was pleased to join with nine of my colleagues on the Helsinki Commission in writing to President Putin and calling for an aggressive investigation into the killing. I also wrote to President Bush to ask him to raise the issue of Paul's murder with President Putin during their meeting in Bratislava, Slovakia on February 24th. That meeting with President Putin presented an opportunity to make clear that all those involved in instigating, ordering, planning and carrying out the murder should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. The Helsinki Commission and my office have been assured that representatives of the State Department have expressed to the Government of Russia the United States Government's desire to see a thorough and complete investigation of this murder.

Mrs. CLINTON. Paul Klebnikov's work continues to serve the people of Russia and the cause of democracy. We should continue to press authorities to find everyone who was involved in Paul's murder and hold them to account.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the Energy bill that the Senate will be voting on today. Unfortunately, I cannot support this bill. The bill does include some worthy provisions. For example, the bill includes the major provisions of the Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technology Act of 2005 that I have worked on for years with Senator Dorgan. It includes my Dirty Bomb Prevention Act of 2005, as well as a provision that I authored to require backup power for emergency sirens around the Indian Point nuclear powerplant. It extends and expands the wind production tax credit, and includes a provision to help us continue to develop and commercialize clean coal technology. It will push energy efficiency standards of air conditioners and other appliances forward. It will establish mandatory, enforceable reliability standards, something that I have been pushing for since the August 2003 blackout. And it includes a bill I introduced with Senator Voinovich to create a grant program at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to promote the reduction of diesel emissions. In spite of these positive measures, I oppose the bill for two reasons. First, it contains a number of highly objectionable provisions. Second, it simply ignores several of our most pressing energy challenges, such as our dependence on foreign oil. I won't list all of the problematic provisions here, but I want to highlight a couple of the most troubling. The bill includes billions in subsidies for mature energy industries, including oil and nuclear power. These are giveaways of taxpayer money that do nothing to move us toward the next generation of energy technologies. The bill accelerates the siting procedures for liquid natural gas terminals and weakens the State role in the process, something I am very concerned about, given the Broadwater proposal looming off the Long Island shores. As ranking member of the Water Subcommittee of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I object to the provisions that exempt hydraulic fracturing from coverage under the Safe Drinking Water Act and exempt oil and gas construction sites from stormwater runoff regulations under the Clean Water Act. Despite a long-standing moratorium on oil drilling off most of the U.S. coast, including the New York coast, the bill authorizes an inventory of oil and gas resources there. None of these provisions should be in the bill. But the main reason that I must oppose this bill is that it simply doesn't address the most pressing and important energy challenges that we face. It is a missed opportunity to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, spur the development of renewable resources, and address climate change. While the Senate-passed bill did not go as far as I would like in terms of reducing our dependence on foreign oil, it did contain a provision that would reduce U.S. oil consumption by 1 million barrels of oil per day by 2015. That was dropped in conference. The Senate bill had a modest provision to increase the percentage of electricity generated from renewable sources to 10 percent by the year 2020. That, too, was dropped in conference. In addition, the Senate went on record as supporting a mandatory program to start reducing the greenhouse gas emissions that are contributing to climate change. That is gone as well. So as I look at the bill as a whole, I see a major missed opportunity. By the President's own admission, this bill won't do anything to reduce gasoline prices, but we know for a fact that it will give billions in tax breaks to companies like Exxon Mobil. It doesn't do nearly enough to push the development and commercialization of clean, next-generation energy technologies, but it gives huge tax breaks to nuclear power, a technology that has been with us for 50 years. And given what we now know about the looming threat of climate change, it makes no sense to make energy policy without integrating a cost-effective strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But that is exactly what this bill does. In short, this bill simply misses the mark. It ignores our biggest energy challenges, subsidizes mature energy industries like oil and nuclear, and rolls back our environmental laws. I know it will pass today, but I will not be voting for it.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. I ask unanimous consent that Charlie Perham, a fellow in my office, be granted the privilege of the floor during the full consideration of this bill.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, with my colleagues Senators Chafee and Reid, the Coordinated Environmental Health Tracking Act of 2005. There is a saying--``what you don't know can't hurt you.'' But when it comes to chronic disease, what we don't know can hurt all of us. The bill we are introducing today will help us solve the mysteries behind the high rates of chronic diseases such as cancer, autism, and Alzheimer's that afflict so many American communities. Once we are able to track diseases, and detect links to environmental or other causes, we will be able to prevent public health crises before they occur. The environmental links to the onset of diseases are not well understood. They are hidden health hazards that manifest themselves in chronic diseases. We are only beginning to understand what these hazards are and what is the scope of their effects on our health. We need more specifics on these environmental factors. For example, we need to know what is the cumulative effect of extended exposure to a variety of environmental factors over time. One way to get those specifics is to track the outbreak of chronic diseases, just like we track the outbreaks of infectious diseases. This legislation would establish a comprehensive national tracking system for chronic diseases, so that we can identify, address and prevent them. It would help States to participate in this national tracking system- by providing them with Environmental Health Tracking Network Grants, assisting them in developing the infrastructure necessary to participate in this network. It would also create a chronic disease response force, bringing the expertise of environmental, scientific and health experts to areas with potential clusters of chronic diseases, like Long Island's breast cancer cluster. It will allow us to monitor our environmental health by requiring an annual report of the results of the Nationwide Health Tracking Network, helping to educate and arm us with valuable information in the fight against chronic diseases. Finally, it will help us build the public health expertise we need to address these issues in the future, by providing funding for the establishment of at least seven biomonitoring labs and setting up epidemiology fellowships and centers of excellence for environmental health. I believe that this legislation will help obtain and act on the best possible evidence to improve our Nation's health and to begin to tackle the extraordinary human and economic costs that chronic disease imposes on our country.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I join my colleague from South Carolina. He has been a tireless advocate for this legislation, and his passion about the need to take care of our Guard and Reserve members is unmatched. It has been an honor for me to work with him on this important legislation. Over 2 years ago, Senator Graham and I went over to the Reserve Officers Association building to announce the first version of this legislation. As he has just pointed out, we made some progress on expanding access to TRICARE in the last Congress, but not nearly enough. So our work is not done and we come, once again, to the floor of the Senate urging our colleagues, on a bipartisan basis, to support giving this important benefit to Guard and Reserve members and their families. Our amendment allows Guard and Reserve members the option of enrolling full time in TRICARE. They do not have to take this option. It is voluntary. But TRICARE is the family health insurance coverage offered to Active-Duty military personnel. The change would offer health care stability to families who lose coverage under employers' plans when a family member is called to active duty, or to families-- and we have so many of them in the Guard and Reserve--who do not have health insurance to begin with. So, really, this amendment offers basic fairness to Guard and Reserve members and their families. We have seen firsthand, those of us who have been to Iraq and Afghanistan--as I have been with my colleague, the Senator from South Carolina--the heroism and incredible dedication that Guard and Reserve members have when they are called up to serve our country. They are serving with honor and distinction, and we need to reward and recognize that. Senator Graham and I first started talking about this more than 2 years ago because in our respective States, we heard the same stories. I heard throughout New York about the hardship being imposed on Guard and Reserve members and their families, not because they didn't want to serve their country--indeed, they were eager to go and do whatever they could to protect and defend our interests--but because they didn't have health insurance. Twenty-five percent of our Guard and Reserve members do not, and when they showed up after being activated, 20 percent of them were found not ready to be deployed. We are talking about the three R's: recruitment, retention, and readiness. Since September 11, our Reserve and National Guard members have been called to duty with increasing frequency. In New York, we have about 35,000 members of the Guard and Reserves. I have seen, in so many different settings, their eagerness to do their job. But I have also heard from them and their family members about the hardship of not having access to health care. I think the broad support that we have engendered for this amendment, from the National Guard Association, the Reserve Officers Association, the Military Officers Association, really speaks for itself. It is important to note that this amendment is responding to a real need. This is not a theoretical exercise. We know that lacking health insurance has been a tremendous burden for Guard and Reserve members and their families, and we in our armed services have paid a price because of that lack of insurance in the readiness we should expect from our members. Mr. President, I am honored to join my colleague in this long fight that we have waged. I hope we will be able to make significant progress and have this amendment accepted and send a loud and clear message to Guard and Reserve members and their families that we indeed not only appreciate and honor their work, we are going to do something very tangible to make it easier for them and their families to bear these burdens.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, with my colleagues Senators Chafee and Reid, the Coordinated Environmental Health Tracking Act of 2005. There is a saying--``what you don't know can't hurt you.'' But when it comes to chronic disease, what we don't know can hurt all of us. The bill we are introducing today will help us solve the mysteries behind the high rates of chronic diseases such as cancer, autism, and Alzheimer's that afflict so many American communities. Once we are able to track diseases, and detect links to environmental or other causes, we will be able to prevent public health crises before they occur. The environmental links to the onset of diseases are not well understood. They are hidden health hazards that manifest themselves in chronic diseases. We are only beginning to understand what these hazards are and what is the scope of their effects on our health. We need more specifics on these environmental factors. For example, we need to know what is the cumulative effect of extended exposure to a variety of environmental factors over time. One way to get those specifics is to track the outbreak of chronic diseases, just like we track the outbreaks of infectious diseases. This legislation would establish a comprehensive national tracking system for chronic diseases, so that we can identify, address and prevent them. It would help States to participate in this national tracking system- by providing them with Environmental Health Tracking Network Grants, assisting them in developing the infrastructure necessary to participate in this network. It would also create a chronic disease response force, bringing the expertise of environmental, scientific and health experts to areas with potential clusters of chronic diseases, like Long Island's breast cancer cluster. It will allow us to monitor our environmental health by requiring an annual report of the results of the Nationwide Health Tracking Network, helping to educate and arm us with valuable information in the fight against chronic diseases. Finally, it will help us build the public health expertise we need to address these issues in the future, by providing funding for the establishment of at least seven biomonitoring labs and setting up epidemiology fellowships and centers of excellence for environmental health. I believe that this legislation will help obtain and act on the best possible evidence to improve our Nation's health and to begin to tackle the extraordinary human and economic costs that chronic disease imposes on our country.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise today to oppose the nomination of Lester Crawford to be Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration. The FDA is a vitally important agency, charged with ensuring that the products we rely on for our health and well-being are safe and effective. Having a strong leader at the helm is essential to a well- functioning agency. Ultimately, after weighing the facts and considering the events that have occurred under Dr. Crawford's watch as Acting Commissioner, I came to the conclusion that I cannot support this nominee. As I said during Dr. Crawford's confirmation hearing and during the HELP Committee's consideration of his nomination, Dr. Crawford's tenure at the FDA has been marked by controversy. The agency has faced scrutiny over its response to various crises: the failure to adequately warn us of the possibility of an influenza vaccine shortage, the failure to heed concerns about drug safety raised by both agency employees and outside scientists, and the failure to adequately separate science from what is viewed as ideology-driven decisionmaking. As a result, public confidence in the ability of the FDA to ensure the safety and efficacy of drugs is failing. The dedicated scientists and civil servants who work at the agency are losing morale. They have clearly identified the need for reform, for change, and for improvements at the agency. In December 2004, the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services released the results of a survey that found two-thirds of FDA scientists do not believe the agency adequately monitors the safety of prescription drugs. In March 2005, Dr. Sandra Kweder, Deputy Director of the Office of New Drugs at the FDA, testified that it ``would be helpful'' to change FDA authority, and give them the power to require changes in drug labels, rather than have to negotiate such changes in a lengthy back- and-forth process with manufacturers. And just last week, Dr. Janet Woodcock, Deputy Commissioner of Operations at the agency, told an Institute of Medicine panel: This system has obviously broken down to some extent, as far as the fully informed provider and the fully informed patient. But Dr. Crawford's response to these concerns has been less than adequate. He has maintained that the agency ``is fully capable of carrying out its mission under its current regulatory and statutory authority,'' despite statements and evidence to the contrary from both those inside and outside the agency. His attempts to address the clear issues faced by the agency have been inadequate to the task. For example, despite his November 2004 announcement that the FDA would fill the position of Director of Office of Drug Safety, this position is still vacant--at a time when concerns over drug safety have been at the forefront of news about the FDA. At a time when the FDA needs a strong leader to restore its reputation, Dr. Crawford represents an unacceptable status quo. I fear that his record demonstrates that he lacks the vision and the drive necessary to ensure that the FDA is the gold standard of drug regulation. He has failed to address the concerns raised by his own employees about the needs of the agency. And he cannot provide assurances that the FDA will place science, not ideology or other interests, as the cornerstone of its decisionmaking. In addition, I am deeply concerned about the interference of personal beliefs over science in the decisionmaking process surrounding emergency contraception. By now, the details are all too familiar: the FDA's scientific advisory committees voted 23 to 4 in favor of the drug being made available over the counter. More than 70 organizations, including the American Academy of Physicians, American Associations of Family Physicians, American College of Obstetrics and Gynecologists, and the American Medical Association, submitted testimony in support of Plan B being made available over the counter. Press reports later revealed that internal FDA memos indicated that career professionals at the agency had recommended unconditional approval of the application. And according to a May 8, 2004, article in the New York Times, several former FDA officials said they ``could not remember another instance in which Dr. Galson, a career officer in the public health service or any of his predecessors had overruled both an advisory committee and staff recommendations.'' In May, both The Nation and the Washington Post reported that Dr. Hager, a member of the Reproductive Health Advisory Committee, had stated, on videotape that he was asked to write a minority report arguing that Plan B should not be made available over the counter. And the result, up until Friday, was foot dragging by the FDA. That is why my colleague, Senator Murray, and I felt it necessary to hold up Dr. Crawford's nomination. We wanted to send a strong message that the FDA needed to act on this application, which it has had for more than 2 years. We believed, and still do, that the American people have a right to an answer. On Friday, we received a letter stating that the FDA would make a decision on Barr Laboratory's application to move Plan B to over-the- counter status by September 1, 2005. This is a giant step forward, but it does not erase the missteps under Dr. Crawford's watch. That is why I cannot in good faith support Dr. Crawford to be Commissioner of the FDA. Like so many Members of this body, I want the FDA to have a permanent Commissioner, and I think it is high time for that. But that Commissioner must be someone who can restore the drug approval and safety processes to the gold standard that the New Yorkers who I represent and the Americans who rely on this process for their health and, even their lives, deserve. I vote ``nay'' and I urge my colleagues to do the same.