Hillary Clinton

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.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise today to express my concern over comments made by the Secretary of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff. As several of my colleagues have already noted, Secretary Chertoff today made some very unfortunate comments about who is responsible for the safety of the tens of millions of people who use our mass transit systems every day. Secretary Chertoff said, and I quote, ``The truth of the matter is, a fully loaded airplane with jet fuel, a commercial airliner, has the capacity to kill 3,000 people. A bomb in a subway car may kill 30 people. When you start to think about your priorities, you're going to think about making sure you don't have a catastrophic thing first.'' He further added that he believes that States and localities should bear primary responsibility in ensuring the safety of their mass transit systems. The millions of New Yorkers who use the subways, buses, and ferries each day would be shocked and angered to hear that their Secretary of Homeland Security, Secretary Michael Chertoff, has declared that local governments are left to fend for themselves when it comes to paying for improved subway, train, and bus security. The reality is that Americans should not be forced to choose between a safe airplane trip or a safe subway ride. They should both be priorities. Unfortunately, this administration has presented us with a false choice they would like us to believe that resources are so scarce that we can't afford to fully protect all of our transportation systems. For the last few days, my colleagues and I have been on the Senate floor, forced to debate whether we should fund rail safety or bus safety, secure our borders or fund more airline screeners. This debate is necessary because this administration has made the judgment that cutting taxes for the wealthiest Americans is more important than fully meeting our Nation's security needs. This administration's priorities are clear: $1.5 trillion in tax cuts and only $30 billion for homeland security. So while I am outraged by Secretary Chertoff's comments belittling the threats posed to our subways and buses, I am not surprised. He is simply giving voice to this administration's misguided and indefensible priorities. If the London bombings didn't serve as a wakeup call to this administration that they need to reevaluate their priorities, I am hard pressed to understand what will make them understand the gravity of the threat millions and millions of Americans face every single day when they step onto a bus or a subway or a ferry to go about their daily lives.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1106 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I ask that Senators Lautenberg, Corzine, and Schumer be added as cosponsors of this amendment.

Mrs. CLINTON. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside.

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I send a modification to the desk.

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I would like to call up amendment No. 1105.

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, this is a commonsense amendment regarding the potential threat that all of our cities and States face from the theft or misuse of general aviation aircraft by criminals or terrorists. This amendment would require the Secretary of Homeland Security, in coordination with the Secretary of Transportation, to assess the dangers posed to high-risk, large population, and critical infrastructure areas should general aviation aircraft be stolen and used as a weapon by a criminal or terrorist. This study would require the two Secretaries to assess the vulnerability of general aviation airports and aircraft and study what low-cost, high-technology devices could be available to better track general aviation aircraft. Last month, a 20-year-old young man, while intoxicated and accompanied by two other individuals, breached a perimeter fence of an airport in Danbury, CT. He and his companions stole a small Cessna 172 aircraft, departed from the airport without detection, flew across the eastern border of New York, and eventually, thankfully, landed without incident at the Westchester County Airport in New York very near to my home. What is alarming about this is that this happened, and it happened without detection. So far as we know, no one knew the aircraft had been stolen or that the joyride was taking place. This incident occurred very close to New York City, very close to Indian Point, the nuclear facility in the county. Thankfully, this particular incident ended without any damage, destruction, or death, and the individuals were eventually detained by law enforcement. Following the incident, which, as you might imagine, happening so close to New York City involving stolen aircraft raised a great deal of concern among my constituents, I wrote to Secretary Chertoff and Secretary Mineta asking for an investigation into this incident, and I hope to hear back from them both soon. But this incident should be a forewarning of the types of threats we still face from aircraft. We have been very focused on the big commercial aircraft that many of us use on a regular basis, but we cannot forget that most aircraft are in private hands in local airports, many of them privately owned or privately leased, and that they still pose a potential danger to key infrastructure, to populated areas, and we need to be more aware of what that threat could be. The 9/11 Commission, which looked at this, concluded: Major vulnerabilities still exist in cargo and general aviation security. These, together with inadequate screening and access controls, continue to present aviation security challenges. In addition, the 9/11 Commission told us that we needed to be imaginative, we needed to think outside the box. Unfortunately, we needed to think like those who wish us harm about what the new and emerging threats could be. The Transportation Security Administration, known as TSA, issued security guidelines for general aviation airports in May of 2004, and they outlined some guidelines that general aviation airports should follow in order to secure the aircraft and the airfield. There are more than 19,000 landing facilities nationwide, including heliports, lakes, and dirt landing strips from which aircraft could be launched and more than 200,000 general aviation aircraft in our country. Of course, it is impossible to avoid every threat that is posed to the public or that we can imagine, but we should be vigilant to make sure we have a partnership so that local communities, private individuals, and private businesses can all take necessary steps to be vigilant and protective. My amendment requires the Secretary of Homeland Security, in coordination with the Secretary of Transportation, to conduct a threat assessment posed by security breaches at general aviation airports and to look at the potential impact such threats could pose to a number of potential targets if an aircraft were used as weapon or were loaded with explosives by terrorists. The Department of Homeland Security would assess low-cost technologies to track general aviation aircraft, the feasibility of implementing additional security measures and background checks, an analysis of airports with unmanned air traffic control towers and what costs may be associated with implementing necessary additional security measures. We have been very blessed that we have not suffered another terrorist attack. That is due to the hard work and vigilance of countless Americans who have responded not just heroically but in a very steadfast, daily way to prevent, detect, deter, and defend against potential threats. In this building, we have experienced evacuations which, thankfully, were caused by either false alarms or as a result of errors by pilots. Recently, another general aviation aircraft breached the airspace over Camp David while the President of the United States was present. It is important to evaluate the threats that could be posed. In its 2004 report, the TSA stated that as many vulnerabilities within other areas of aviation have been reduced, general aviation may be perceived as a more attractive target and consequently more vulnerable to misuses by terrorists. I have flown in just about every little kind of plane you can imagine--medium-sized plane, big plane, crop dusters. I have had doors blow off, windows blow off, I have had emergency landings in pastures and cow fields and roads. I have been in so many airports at all hours of the day and night when no one was around except those getting into the airport or those just landing. I have a good idea how available these airfields are. I appreciate the work the Aviation Security Advisory Committee Working Group did in advising the TSA. However, given the heightened vulnerability that we all are aware of, given some of the recent events--including the evacuations of our own Capitol involving general aviation aircraft--we need to roll up our sleeves and take another hard look at this. I hope we can do it hand in hand with the general aviation fixed-base operators, pilots, owners, airport managers, and others who have been working hard to increase security measures at so many of these small airports. I believe in general aviation. I take advantage of it practically every week. It is a significant and important contributor to our national economy. I want to be sure we do everything possible to make sure it is not in any way affected by any potential criminal or terrorist activity. This amendment does not mandate any new costs for general aviation. It simply requires the study be conducted on vulnerabilities and a report made to Congress within 120 days. Most people who own these airports, most people who own these general aviation aircraft, want to be safe. They want to do what is necessary to protect their investment. But we need to have a good analysis of what the threats might be so we can be smart about how we address them. We certainly do not want to wait until an incident happens. I appreciate Chairman Gregg and Senator Byrd who have agreed to accept this amendment. I ask unanimous consent amendment 1106 be agreed to.

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

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I understand Chairman Gregg and Senator Byrd have agreed to accept this amendment as modified. I ask unanimous consent that this amendment be agreed to as modified.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the fiscal year 2006 Homeland Security appropriations bill. Protecting the security of our people and our homeland is the most important responsibility that any Member of this body possesses. It is, therefore, our solemn obligation to review this bill carefully and make certain it adequately addresses our Nation's vulnerabilities. The question should be, Have we done all that we can do to make America safe? Now, obviously, none of us can look into the minds, the perverted minds of the terrorists and know everything they might do to harm us or people around the world, as we saw again in London last week. But I think we do have an obligation to do all we can. Does that mean even after we do it there will never be an attack? Of course not. But we have to try, to the best of our human ability, to protect our citizens and make our Nation safe by deterring, detecting, and preventing terrorist attacks. I believe--and I am sure many of my colleagues would agree--that to make America truly safe we need to carefully allocate our homeland security resources. We need to make sure the money we appropriate in Congress gets to where it is most needed; that the American cities, States and places that are under the greatest threat, that are most vulnerable, receive the funding they need to be protected. I have advocated for threat-based allocation of homeland security funds for several years now. Last year, the 9/11 Commission made a very specific recommendation. It urged Congress to base Federal funding for emergency preparedness solely--solely--on risks and vulnerabilities. Over the last 4 years, the Department of Homeland Security and its agencies have provided $11.3 billion to State and local governments to prevent, prepare for, and respond to acts of terrorism. Additionally, $3.2 billion in grants and other assistance provided by other Federal agencies has also gone to State and local responders to take on the terrorist threat. Unfortunately, nearly half of this $14.5 billion has been allocated according to congressionally mandated formulas that bear little relation to need, risk, vulnerability, or threat. Last September, when the Senate took up consideration of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, I offered an amendment to require the Secretary of Homeland Security to allocate formula-based grants to State and local governments based on an assessment of threats and vulnerabilities, in accordance with the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. Although the amendment was tabled, I am thankful, as are I am sure millions of my fellow Americans who live in high-threat communities, that the President has finally heard our concerns. He proposed, in the fiscal year 2006 budget, a restructuring of $2.6 billion in grants for States, urban areas, and infrastructure protection. Under the President's proposal, DHS, the Department of Homeland Security, will target grants to fill critical gaps in State and local terrorism prevention and preparedness capabilities, taking into consideration threats and vulnerabilities. While I am not completely satisfied with the formula--of course I could not be, representing New York, which remains, by all the intelligence we are privy to, the No. 1 target of the terrorists in our country--I am pleased by the recognition of the President and Secretary Chertoff that we are now called upon to look at threat-based funding. That is indeed welcome news. While this bill we are considering makes important steps toward securing our homeland, there are certainly some deficiencies that we cannot afford to ignore. Last week's tragic events in London highlighted one of our Nation's most glaring homeland security deficiencies--the vulnerability of our rail and transit systems. We have seen these senseless, evil terrorist attacks in Japan, Russia, Spain, and now England. These attacks, like the one that struck our own country on 9/11, hit when innocent people were going about their everyday lives. All of these cowardly acts were not merely attacks on individuals but an attack on a way of life. These attacks on the subway and transit systems around the world are a clear signal to this Congress that we have to fill this glaring hole in our national security budget. Now, our resolve to stand against these acts of terrorism will not waiver. But courage and determination is not enough. We must also commit, with equal force, to developing a comprehensive plan and allocating adequate resources to guard against similar attacks in our own cities and States. I know there are some who argue against increasing the funding for homeland security because they say: Well, we can't possibly guard against every risk and vulnerability. I read a comment by one think tank pundit who said: We can't childproof our Nation. Well, childproofing a home when a new baby arrives is something I take very seriously. I think most parents do as well. We go out and we buy those little plugs to put into outlets. We move to a higher shelf household cleaners and poisons. We go out and maybe buy one of those little gates to put at the top and bottom of stairs. We obviously take steps to childproof our homes. Starting in the 1970s, responsible parents got some help from the Federal Government, which, looking at the evidence, determined that a lot of children were getting into the prescription pills of their parents and suffering severe injury, even death. So along came the childproof top that made it very difficult for little hands to open those dangerous pill bottles. And other steps were taken so that responsible parents could have some control over the circumstances in their homes and in their communities that their children would face. Does that mean every risk facing every child was eliminated? Of course not. But we saved a lot of lives. We protected a lot of children. We provided a lot of peace of mind to many mothers and fathers. So when somebody in a kind of offhand, critical way says, ``What do these people expect when they call for more money for rail and transit security or for border security or for chemical plant security? They are trying to childproof the Nation,'' I view that as an ignorant insult. Of course we are trying to protect our Nation. That is our highest obligation. We know we cannot protect against everything, but we have to do all we can to make sure every community is as protected as we can make it. We know from every expert who has looked at rail and transit security that we are woefully underfunding it. In fact, based on the research and analysis I have seen, it would take approximately $7 billion to protect across this country the tens of millions of people who use our mass transit systems--our subways, our buses, our trains, our ferries-- every single day to get back and forth to work, to go about their daily lives. We know millions of Americans use this because they have to. It is convenient. It is inexpensive. It fills their needs. In New York, we have millions and millions of New Yorkers who ride the bus and the subway and the ferries and the trains every single day. So when the tragedy struck in London, it was again a tragic wakeup call for our own country. I know we cannot provide all the funding that many of us believe is necessary to take the steps required to protect our transit systems. But we certainly must do more than the $100 million currently in the Senate bill. I am grateful the Senate majority leader has recognized the bill's reduction from last year's $150 million to $100 million was a step in the wrong direction and that at a minimum we need to restore the $50 million that was cut. If we look at how much money has been spent on airline security, we find it totals $18 billion. We all know that following the attacks of 9/11, spending that money on airline security was absolutely necessary. Some of it went a little overboard--people who have no profile of fitting any kind of terrorist identity being strip-searched or being stopped or people going through all the security--but we spent that money because we knew we had to deter those people who might wish us ill by using our air against us. We simply cannot continue to shortchange rail and transit security. More people are riding our transit systems than ride our airplanes and commercial aviation. Last October, the Senate passed the Rail Security Act of 2004. The bill was introduced by Senator McCain, and I was proud to be an original cosponsor. That bill would have authorized Amtrak and New York to receive over $570 million to upgrade the six tunnels for better ventilation, electrical and fire safety technology upgrades, emergency communications and lighting systems, and emergency access and egress for passengers. A couple of years ago I stood right in this spot with pictures of what the tunnels in New York look like. We now know one of the explosions in London took place in Kings Cross. The rescue workers have not even been able to get there yet. They are not even sure they have recovered all of the bodies. We will learn from this horrible tragedy, and we will be able to do an even better job in what we need to do to protect tunnels and bridges and other essential infrastructure for our rail and transit systems. But I am bewildered because the $150 million we appropriated last year for rail and transit security has not yet been fully distributed by the Department of Homeland Security to the cities and the States that need it. Instead of being put to work on behalf of improved safety in our rail and transit systems, it is sitting on the ledgers of the Department of Homeland Security. We need to spend that money, and we need to be smart about how we spend it. But the plans that city and State transit systems have developed can't be implemented if the Federal Government doesn't do its part. I hope, as we consider the Homeland Security appropriations bill this week, we will support the amendments that increase funding for securing our Nation's rail and transit systems. I hope we will do so because it is the right thing to do and because the bombings last Thursday in London were such a tragic reminder of what we still need to do to protect our own homeland from senseless and barbaric actions of extremists. I am proud to join Senators Shelby, Sarbanes, Inouye, Reed, and other colleagues in an amendment to add over $1.3 billion in additional rail and transit security grants. I am absolutely confident that our Nation is up to the task of securing our mass transit systems. I am absolutely confident that this body is capable of dedicating the resources necessary to get this essential job done. I hope this week proves that we are ready, we are willing, and we are able to do everything possible to protect our Nation. I yield the floor.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague from Wisconsin for that beautiful tribute to Gaylord Nelson. He was a hero to many of us, and I actually remember the first Earth Day, which certainly does date me. We need more and more people who would follow his example and heed his words about what our obligation to the Earth is. So I thank my friend.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, today the Senate votes on the Central American-Dominican Republic Free Trade Agreement. During my tenure as Senator, I have voted for every trade agreement that has come before the Senate and I believe that properly negotiated trade agreements can increase living standards and foster openness and economic development for all parties. When DR-CAFTA negotiations began, I was eager to support an agreement. It was my sincere hope that President Bush would send an agreement to Congress that would help address the DR-CAFTA nations' development challenges and spread the gains from trade more broadly. Unfortunately, the Bush administration has not submitted such an agreement, instead missing a tremendous opportunity to conclude an agreement that strengthens the bonds between the United States and the DR-CAFTA nations. While this agreement provides some benefit for New York, I regretfully conclude the harm outweighs the good. I must therefore vote to oppose. My vote to oppose DR-CAFTA is one taken with great difficulty. I have heard strong arguments both for and against from many New Yorkers who have a stake in the agreement and I have weighed them seriously. Segments of the New York economy would benefit from this agreement, but at the end of the day, I cannot support an agreement that fails to include adequate labor standards and is a step backward in the development of bipartisan support for international trade. At the outset, it is important to understand that consideration of DR-CAFTA is not occurring in isolation. This agreement must be read within the larger context of the failed economic and trade policies of this administration. Under this administration, the trade deficit has soared. The offshoring of U.S. jobs has continued to increase, and the U.S. economy has experienced a net loss of U.S. jobs. The administration has no plans to address rising health care and pension costs that are imposing such a tremendous burden on American businesses. This administration has also failed to enforce existing trade rules and has not been aggressive in addressing the tax and capital subsidies of our competitors. Turning to the specifics of the agreement itself, DR-CAFTA fails in significant respects. The most problematic elements are its labor provisions which retreat from advances made in the late 1990s and that culminated in the labor provisions of the U.S.-Jordan Free Trade Agreement. The U.S.-Jordan Free Trade Agreement included internationally recognized enforceable labor standards in the text of the agreement. Sadly, DR-CAFTA is a step backward. The labor provisions of the DR-CAFTA agreement instead used an ``enforce your own laws'' standard which is not included in any other area of the agreement. An ``enforce your own laws'' standard may work in nations with a strong tradition of labor enforcement, but the International Labor Organization, ILO, has documented that the CAFTA countries' labor laws have not complied with international norms in at least 20 areas. The Jordan FTA made labor rights obligations subject to the same dispute settlement resolution procedure as commercial obligations. Conversely, DR-CAFTA includes a separate dispute settlement procedure for labor disagreements, which caps the damages that can be imposed for labor violations. The Chile, Australia and Singapore free trade agreements, which I supported, contained similar ``enforce your own law'' labor provisions to DR-CAFTA, but as I noted when I voted for these agreements, I was greatly disturbed by these provisions' departure from the labor rights standards negotiated in the U.S.-Jordan Free Trade Agreement. In the end, I supported these agreements despite these concerns because I believed the agreements would not harm the average working person in those nations and, thus, the flawed labor provisions did not outweigh the benefits offered by the agreements. I noted, however, that I would not continue to support agreements with these provisions where the impact was greater on workers. In the DR-CAFTA agreement, the flawed labor provisions represent a real missed opportunity to spread the benefits of trade not just to the wealthy elites, but to the broader workforce as well. There are other problems with the DR-CAFTA agreement. The final agreement excludes provisions for assisting U.S. workers harmed by trade. The environmental provisions of CAFTA undermine environmental protection, by including a lack of parity between the enforcement of commercial and environmental provisions. This is a clear step back from the Jordan Free Trade Agreement. Finally, the environmental conservation provisions lack a commitment to fund their implementation. The agreement also fails in the area of public health. Regarding pharmaceuticals, I would note that in 2001, 142 countries, including the United States, adopted the Doha Declaration, an agreement that provided that trade obligations should be interpreted and implemented in ways that protect public health. In August 2002, Congress passed the Trade Promotion Authority Act which applied Doha to U.S. trade negotiations. Despite this commitment, the administration has promoted provisions within trade agreements, including DR-CAFTA, that will significantly impede the ability of developing countries to obtain access to inexpensive, life-saving medications. Contrary to the principles of Doha, these agreements place the interests of large multinational drug companies over the ability of developing countries to safeguard public health. The DR-CAFTA agreement negotiated by the President represents a missed opportunity in many respects, both for the DR-CAFTA nations and for the U.S. For the DR-CAFTA nations, it is a missed opportunity to ensure that the benefits of trade flow to all of their citizens and not just wealthy elites. This agreement will not promote democracy and stability in these nations. A stronger agreement would instead have bolstered the political and economic stability in these nations, through fair apportionment of benefits. In some of the DR-CAFTA nations, the agreement has proved to be quite polarizing and a better agreement could have gained broader public support. For the United States, DR-CAFTA was a missed opportunity to reconstitute the bipartisan consensus in support of international trade. Rather than consult widely and develop a consensus, the administration has decided to go for a narrow victory with disturbing implications for the possibility of bipartisan trade agreements in the future. In a time when Americans are facing increasing economic anxiety, trade is often viewed with suspicion. An administration which fails to consult and pushes for trade agreements which are unable to get bipartisan support undermines public support for international trade as a tool for economic development and greater prosperity. Even if the administration is successful in gaining passage of DR-CAFTA, I fear that this victory will be hollow as the anxiety over international trade continues to grow. In the end, the administration's strategy to ignore consultation and consensus in its trade policy may do more harm for the cause of international trade than the purported benefits of this agreement. While it is inevitable that some will benefit more than others from open markets, we have a responsibility to ensure that the basic rules of the game are fair. In previous trade agreements, this balance was achieved. And I voted for those agreements. DR-CAFTA fails this test. This is a sad day for supporters of free and fair rules-based trade. Our relationship with our Central American neighbors is a critical one. The right CAFTA deal would strengthen ties between the United States and these nations. I urge the administration to reopen the CAFTA negotiations and re-establish the broad, bipartisan coalition for trade.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the Cold War Medal Act of 2005, a bill to provide for the award of a military service medal to members of the Armed Forces who served honorably during the Cold War era, be printed in the Record.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I am honored to join my colleagues from California, Massachusetts, Michigan, and elsewhere to oppose this funding for the robust nuclear penetrator, the so-called nuclear bunker buster. I thought this issue was closed at the end of last year. Regrettably, it is not. This program has been the subject of debate and discussion for several years. I think it is important to look at the funding request because it tells a slightly different story about what the intentions are behind this program. In its fiscal year 2003 budget request, the Department of Energy sought $15 million to fund the first year of what was to be a 3-year, $45 million study to determine the feasibility of using one of two existing large nuclear weapons as a robust nuclear earth penetrator. In fiscal year 2003, $15 million was authorized and appropriated for this, but the DOE was not to begin work until it submitted a report setting forth the requirements for the penetrator and the target types that the nuclear penetrator was designed to hold at risk. DOE submitted the report in April 2003, the funds were released, and the work began. In its fiscal year 2004 budget request, DOE again sought $15 million for the penetrator, but only $7.5 million was appropriated. In the fiscal 2005 budget request, DOE sought $27.5 million for the RNEP. For the first time, however, DOE included the robust nuclear earth penetrator in its 5-year budget report. The cost of the feasibility study had increased dramatically, from $45 million to $145 million. Moreover, the DOE determined that the feasibility would take 5 years rather than 3 to complete. Most significantly, the DOE 5-year budget plan also included $484.7 million to complete the engineering and design phases. Based on this cost progression, the nuclear penetrator would cost in excess of $1 billion to produce. Finally, Congress had enough of this, although the administration persisted in pursuing the nuclear penetrator, and in its fiscal 2006 budget requested $4 million to restart the feasibility study. An additional $14 million would be needed in fiscal 2007 to complete the feasibility study. We have heard that the robust nuclear penetrator is a concept to modify an existing large yield nuclear weapon to be an earth penetrator that would penetrate hard rock. But we also now know more than we knew a couple of years ago. The administration told us a couple years ago about what the effect of this would be, how far into the earth it could penetrate--12 feet or so, according to the National Academy of Sciences. What would be the collateral damage? Maybe up to a million casualties. The funding requests would lead to the development of a weapon that would have devastating impacts. I conclude by pointing out that before Operation Iraqi Freedom started, Iraq was one of the countries used as an example of a potential enemy with a hard and deeply buried WMD storage and manufacturing areas. It was the principal justification for the development of this bunker buster. I believe this body needs to once again join the House in saying that to create a weapon--which, believe me, this may not be just a research and report; the DOE budget figures demonstrate they clearly have much more in mind in the administration that would be used in a first strike offensive manner--would require confidence in the accuracy of intelligence that at this time we simply do not have. I hope this amendment will be successful this year based on the additional information, particularly with respect to the National Academy of Sciences' analysis which demonstrates the devastating effect such a weapon could have with very little intelligence available to guide the use of it. I yield back my time.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Melissa Ho, a fellow in my office, be granted the privilege of the floor for the remainder of the debate on the appropriations bill.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise today during National Home Ownership Month to introduce the Housing America's Workforce Act. Affordable and safe housing plays a vital role in creating and sustaining healthy communities and a vibrant workforce. The Housing America's Workforce Act creates incentives to expand employer-assisted housing initiatives across the Nation. I thank Senators Smith, Martinez, Reed, and Durbin for their co-sponsorship of this important legislation. I would also like to thank Congresswoman Nydia Velazquez for her leadership in introducing the companion bill in the House of Representatives. The sad truth is that across our Nation, working full-time no longer guarantees that a family will be able to afford a secure and comfortable home. The shortage of workforce housing has become a national crisis as housing costs have far outgrown the rate of inflation in many markets and as the gap between wages and housing costs widens. The result is that affordable housing is out of reach for a growing number of working families. As a result, people who provide the backbone services for our communities--teachers, firefighters, police officers, and nurses--often cannot afford to live in the communities in which they serve. A recent workforce housing study released by the National Association of Home Builders found that for the most part, workers who provide these vital community services can only find housing they can afford in less than half of the nation's top 25 metropolitan areas. Across the Nation, the number of working families with critical housing problems (defined as those paying more than half of their income for housing and/or living in dilapidated conditions) has increased by 67 percent between 1997 and 2003 to approximately 5 million families. Families that spend more than half of their income on housing have little income left over for other essentials such as food, healthcare, and transportation. And despite overall improvements in home-ownership trends since 1978, working families--employed households with children earning less than 120 percent of Area Median Income--have actually experienced a decrease in homeownership rates. A 2004 Center for Housing Policy study shows that the homeownership rate for working families with children was at 62.5 percent in 1978, and only 56.6 percent through 2001. Employer-assisted housing, EAH, is a local, innovative solution that a growing number of employers are using to meet the housing needs of their employees while increasing the competitiveness of their businesses. There are several types of EAH products, including homebuyer education, down payment assistance, rental assistance and loan guarantee programs. Employers often combine these products to meet their employees' specific needs in the most effective ways. The benefits for employees and employers are impressive. The employee, in addition to receiving financial support from an employer to buy or rent a home closer to work, also regains extra time--formerly spent in traffic--for family or community life. The employer likewise benefits from a more stable workforce when employees live near work. They enjoy the advantages from the improved employee morale, lower turnover rate and reduced recruitment costs result in bottom line savings that the increased proximity brings. Furthermore, EAH programs benefit not only the workers and employers, but also the entire community. As former commuters buy homes near the jobsite, the surrounding community which previously suffered from traffic congestion, now enjoys new investment and property tax revenues. The Housing America's Workforce Act is inspired in great part by lessons learned in States and local communities across the Nation, where EAH has proven to be an effective tool to promote housing affordability for working families and community revitalization. Through EAH programs, the private sector becomes part of the solution, investing in housing assistance for employees while experiencing bottom line benefits. This is clearly a public-private partnership that is proven and makes sense. The Housing America's Workforce Act provides incentives to increase private sector investment in housing in three important ways. First, it offers a tax credit of 50 cents for every dollar that an employer provides to eligible employees up to $10,000 or six percent of the employee's home purchase price, whichever is less, or up to $2,000 for rental assistance. Second, to ensure that employees receive the full value of employers' contributions, the Act defines housing assistance as a ``nontaxable benefit,'' similar to health, dental and life insurance. Third, the act establishes a competitive grant program available to nonprofit housing organizations that provide technical assistance, program administration, and outreach support to employers undertaking EAH initiatives. In New York and in other parts of the country, EAH has caught on with the local business community, elected and appointed officials, and the broader housing arena. Its expansion indicates a growing understanding among the private sector that it pays to invest in workforce housing. I have worked with employers across my State to launch county employer- assisted housing programs in places such as Long Island, Rochester and Westchester. I have met many of the families that have already benefited from Long Island's EAH program, which I helped launch in 2002. People like the Isaacs family, who were able to buy their first home in North Amityville in 2002 thanks to their employer's participation in the program. Pamela Isaac, like so many employees on Long Island, works as a Dietician at Our Lady of Consolation, part of the Catholic Health Services Network. Catholic Health Services' participation in the employer assisted housing program enabled Pamela and her husband Bartholomew to stay on Long Island and raise their three children in their own home. I also worked in collaboration with Mayor William A. Johnson of Rochester to jumpstart the City of Rochester's EAH initiative. The City provides $3,000 for its own employees and also encourages other employers to provide a home purchase benefit by offering to match that benefit dollar for dollar up to a maximum of $3,000. Therefore, if an employer offered the maximum benefit of $3,000, he or she would produce a $6,000 benefit for his or her employees with the city's matching funds. The Westchester County EAH, which was spEAHheaded by the Business Council and Fannie Mae, brings together the following Westchester County nonprofit organizations: Housing Action Council, Westchester Residential Opportunities, Westchester Housing Fund and Community Housing Innovations. Each of these nonprofits provides standardized, comprehensive education and counseling support to participating employers. The initiative also provides matching funds of up to $3,000 from Westchester County or from the cities of Yonkers, New Rochelle, White Plains or Mount Vernon. In addition, the nonprofit collaborative offers down payment and closing cost assistance programs that can match employer contributions. The creation of Federal incentives to expand employer-assisted housing has been a consistent recommendation of experts in the broader housing arena, including the Millennial Housing Commission. In addition, former HUD Secretaries Henry Cisneros and Jack Kemp, along with Nic Retsinas and Kent Colton of the Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies recently released a bipartisan platform for national housing policy, which includes EAH as one of its recommendations. According to the Society for Human Resources Management's 2004 Benefits Survey, 12 percent of employers offered home ownership assistance in 2004, up from 7 percent in 2002. Since 1991, Fannie Mae has offered a nationwide EAH program through participating lending institutions and employers. Fannie Mae has helped about 750 employers of various sizes implement EAH programs and nearly 570 have been launched since 2000. Freddie Mac launched a similar national program in 1999, which it expanded in 2004. Several states have enacted EAH tax incentive programs, including Illinois, Connecticut, Missouri, and New Jersey. Employer-assisted housing programs offer a fresh approach to addressing our Nation's housing challenge by allowing the private sector to play a direct role in promoting housing affordability. I hope every Senator will recognize that the Housing America's Workforce Act will create opportunities for us as a Nation to expand these public- private partnerships and will make a profound impact in the lives of our workforce, and I hope that you will support this important piece of legislation.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. I thank the Chairman and ranking member of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee. When one considers that New York's northern forests are more than three times the size of those in New Hampshire and Vermont combined, I believe that adding New York for funding is the right thing to do. The forest products industry is a major contributor to the New York State and national economy. New York's forest products industry is the fifth largest manufacturing sector employing more than 60,000 people. It is estimated that forest-based manufacturing and forest-related tourism and recreation contribute more than $9 billion to New York State's economy each year. Jobs in these areas must be sustained to ensure our forest communities remain strong. These forests must be managed wisely through sustainable development that recognizes the needs of these communities, but also values the benefits derived from America's forests. This is particularly true when considering that these forests cover 75 percent of the critical New York City watershed. This investment will provide economic benefits that contribute to ``smart energy'' demonstrations and commercialization of wood-based bio-refining technology which will advance biofuels, and other natural industries in New York State. I thank the chairman and ranking member for their willingness to consider additional funding to include New York as part of the Northeast States Forestry Research Cooperative. Lake Mead National Recreation Area Water Systems

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss an important matter with the Chairman and ranking member of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee regarding a provision in the Senate bill which provides funding for the Northeast States Forestry Research Cooperative. Congress authorized the creation of the Northeast States Forestry Research Cooperative in the 1998 Agricultural Research Act. The authorization directed the Secretary of Agriculture to provide funding to land grant colleges and universities and natural resources and forestry schools in the States of New York, Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont for research, technology transfer and other activities related to ecosystem health, forest management, development of forest products and alternative renewable energy. While I certainly support funding for Maine, Vermont and New Hampshire, I believe that New York, and our lead institution, the SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry, has been left out of the funding pool and ought to be included in this year's Interior Appropriations bill.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise in strong, overwhelming support for the Boxer amendment. I agree with my friend and colleague from California that there should not be a single vote against this amendment. As was done in the House, this amendment should pass unanimously, and I hope at the end of this debate, led by the able Senator from California, that will be the conclusion of all of our colleagues, on both sides of the aisle. This debate is not about whether pesticides can be useful. Pesticide use has improved crop yields, has helped to control insect and other pests. We can all agree on that. I am sympathetic to the farmers that raised with me the concern they have about how our current system works for testing pesticides. The fact is, we ask our domestic farmers to comply with detailed pesticide requirements. We have no similar controls on overseas farmers. That is not fair. It does not keep our food as safe as it should be. That should be addressed at a later time. Let's put that aside. What we are talking about is pesticide testing. Pesticides are inherently toxic. They have been linked to a broad range of human health problems, including cancer, damage to the central nervous system, interference with neural development, and the endocrine system. Children are particularly vulnerable to the toxic effects of pesticides. This debate is about ensuring we protect our children and ourselves from the adverse effects of pesticides that could be administered through these testing programs. We need to ensure that any studies that Congress sanctions are conducted in a safe and ethical manner. The reason we are debating this, as amazing as it is to many who might be watching, the administration is taking actions that undermine the protection we should be able to count on against misuse of pesticides and pursuing a path that leads to using testing regimens which are ill thought out, poorly conceived, and immoral. At the urging of the pesticide industry, the EPA has reversed a moratorium on the consideration of studies in which humans are intentionally dosed with pesticides. In addition, the administration will soon propose a regulation that will greatly expand the funding and use of such studies. This amendment, which I am proud to cosponsor, simply says we need to stop and take a much closer look at this issue before we continue down this dangerous path. At the present time, the EPA is reviewing more than 20 human pesticide studies. Many of them violate widely accepted ethical standards for research involving human subjects. Specifically, there were instances where those who conducted the studies failed to obtain informed consent, inflicted harm on the human subjects, dismissed adverse outcomes or failed to conduct long-term monitoring. That is not just my opinion. That is the conclusion of the National Academy of Sciences, in a report issued in 2004, which found that the EPA pesticide studies were in gross violation of ethical standards set out in the Nuremberg Code, the Declaration of Helsinki, and the common rule that guides medical research in our country. In addition, the NAS concluded that pesticide manufacturers have submitted to EPA intentional oral dosing studies involving humans in order to justify the reduction or elimination of safety factors for the regulation of certain pesticides in food residues. To begin with, it is clear the EPA should not be using these flawed studies in any way. That is one part of what our amendment would do: Prohibit the EPA from using or relying on third-party human pesticide studies. The amendment would also prohibit the EPA from funding such studies. The reason it is so important is in plain view in yesterday's news report. According to them, the EPA is on the verge of issuing draft regulations that open the floodgate for new EPA, Government-sponsored studies involving human pesticide testing. These draft regulations are in direct contradiction to the key recommendations made by the National Academy of Sciences. For example, as my colleague from California has pointed out, the draft rule reportedly legitimizes pesticide testing on children, pregnant women, and newborns. It ignores recommendations for the establishment of an independent ethics review board to evaluate proposed studies on a case-by-case basis. I don't see how any Member cannot be concerned about this regulation. We are going to be monitoring it very closely. It is clear that in addition to preventing the EPA from looking at human studies, we need to prohibit the EPA from conducting and sanctioning human studies. I point out that this issue goes much further than even what we are discussing in the Senate. It has broad implications for how we protect our children. Pesticide manufacturers want to push for human testing because it may result in less stringent exposure standards. That concerns me. The Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 tightened the regulation of pesticide residues in food and specifically added more stringent safety factors to account for the increased sensitivity of infants and children. It also includes safety factors that apply to animal tests but not to human tests. The EPA is clearly headed in the wrong direction. We should work diligently to make sure we pass the Boxer amendment. It is so important to take a stand on this. We do not need another study. We know the EPA has studied. They have looked at the National Academy of Sciences' recommendations. It is clear we need to pass this immediately to send a signal, joining with the House which passed such a prohibition, a moratorium by unanimous consent, that this cannot go forward. I urge my colleagues to reject the second-degree amendment, to pass the Boxer amendment, and to take a stand against this kind of reckless, immoral testing and sanctioning of testing on children, on infants, and on all human subjects. I thank my colleague for yielding me that time.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise today during National Home Ownership Month to introduce the Housing America's Workforce Act. Affordable and safe housing plays a vital role in creating and sustaining healthy communities and a vibrant workforce. The Housing America's Workforce Act creates incentives to expand employer-assisted housing initiatives across the Nation. I thank Senators Smith, Martinez, Reed, and Durbin for their co-sponsorship of this important legislation. I would also like to thank Congresswoman Nydia Velazquez for her leadership in introducing the companion bill in the House of Representatives. The sad truth is that across our Nation, working full-time no longer guarantees that a family will be able to afford a secure and comfortable home. The shortage of workforce housing has become a national crisis as housing costs have far outgrown the rate of inflation in many markets and as the gap between wages and housing costs widens. The result is that affordable housing is out of reach for a growing number of working families. As a result, people who provide the backbone services for our communities--teachers, firefighters, police officers, and nurses--often cannot afford to live in the communities in which they serve. A recent workforce housing study released by the National Association of Home Builders found that for the most part, workers who provide these vital community services can only find housing they can afford in less than half of the nation's top 25 metropolitan areas. Across the Nation, the number of working families with critical housing problems (defined as those paying more than half of their income for housing and/or living in dilapidated conditions) has increased by 67 percent between 1997 and 2003 to approximately 5 million families. Families that spend more than half of their income on housing have little income left over for other essentials such as food, healthcare, and transportation. And despite overall improvements in home-ownership trends since 1978, working families--employed households with children earning less than 120 percent of Area Median Income--have actually experienced a decrease in homeownership rates. A 2004 Center for Housing Policy study shows that the homeownership rate for working families with children was at 62.5 percent in 1978, and only 56.6 percent through 2001. Employer-assisted housing, EAH, is a local, innovative solution that a growing number of employers are using to meet the housing needs of their employees while increasing the competitiveness of their businesses. There are several types of EAH products, including homebuyer education, down payment assistance, rental assistance and loan guarantee programs. Employers often combine these products to meet their employees' specific needs in the most effective ways. The benefits for employees and employers are impressive. The employee, in addition to receiving financial support from an employer to buy or rent a home closer to work, also regains extra time--formerly spent in traffic--for family or community life. The employer likewise benefits from a more stable workforce when employees live near work. They enjoy the advantages from the improved employee morale, lower turnover rate and reduced recruitment costs result in bottom line savings that the increased proximity brings. Furthermore, EAH programs benefit not only the workers and employers, but also the entire community. As former commuters buy homes near the jobsite, the surrounding community which previously suffered from traffic congestion, now enjoys new investment and property tax revenues. The Housing America's Workforce Act is inspired in great part by lessons learned in States and local communities across the Nation, where EAH has proven to be an effective tool to promote housing affordability for working families and community revitalization. Through EAH programs, the private sector becomes part of the solution, investing in housing assistance for employees while experiencing bottom line benefits. This is clearly a public-private partnership that is proven and makes sense. The Housing America's Workforce Act provides incentives to increase private sector investment in housing in three important ways. First, it offers a tax credit of 50 cents for every dollar that an employer provides to eligible employees up to $10,000 or six percent of the employee's home purchase price, whichever is less, or up to $2,000 for rental assistance. Second, to ensure that employees receive the full value of employers' contributions, the Act defines housing assistance as a ``nontaxable benefit,'' similar to health, dental and life insurance. Third, the act establishes a competitive grant program available to nonprofit housing organizations that provide technical assistance, program administration, and outreach support to employers undertaking EAH initiatives. In New York and in other parts of the country, EAH has caught on with the local business community, elected and appointed officials, and the broader housing arena. Its expansion indicates a growing understanding among the private sector that it pays to invest in workforce housing. I have worked with employers across my State to launch county employer- assisted housing programs in places such as Long Island, Rochester and Westchester. I have met many of the families that have already benefited from Long Island's EAH program, which I helped launch in 2002. People like the Isaacs family, who were able to buy their first home in North Amityville in 2002 thanks to their employer's participation in the program. Pamela Isaac, like so many employees on Long Island, works as a Dietician at Our Lady of Consolation, part of the Catholic Health Services Network. Catholic Health Services' participation in the employer assisted housing program enabled Pamela and her husband Bartholomew to stay on Long Island and raise their three children in their own home. I also worked in collaboration with Mayor William A. Johnson of Rochester to jumpstart the City of Rochester's EAH initiative. The City provides $3,000 for its own employees and also encourages other employers to provide a home purchase benefit by offering to match that benefit dollar for dollar up to a maximum of $3,000. Therefore, if an employer offered the maximum benefit of $3,000, he or she would produce a $6,000 benefit for his or her employees with the city's matching funds. The Westchester County EAH, which was spEAHheaded by the Business Council and Fannie Mae, brings together the following Westchester County nonprofit organizations: Housing Action Council, Westchester Residential Opportunities, Westchester Housing Fund and Community Housing Innovations. Each of these nonprofits provides standardized, comprehensive education and counseling support to participating employers. The initiative also provides matching funds of up to $3,000 from Westchester County or from the cities of Yonkers, New Rochelle, White Plains or Mount Vernon. In addition, the nonprofit collaborative offers down payment and closing cost assistance programs that can match employer contributions. The creation of Federal incentives to expand employer-assisted housing has been a consistent recommendation of experts in the broader housing arena, including the Millennial Housing Commission. In addition, former HUD Secretaries Henry Cisneros and Jack Kemp, along with Nic Retsinas and Kent Colton of the Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies recently released a bipartisan platform for national housing policy, which includes EAH as one of its recommendations. According to the Society for Human Resources Management's 2004 Benefits Survey, 12 percent of employers offered home ownership assistance in 2004, up from 7 percent in 2002. Since 1991, Fannie Mae has offered a nationwide EAH program through participating lending institutions and employers. Fannie Mae has helped about 750 employers of various sizes implement EAH programs and nearly 570 have been launched since 2000. Freddie Mac launched a similar national program in 1999, which it expanded in 2004. Several states have enacted EAH tax incentive programs, including Illinois, Connecticut, Missouri, and New Jersey. Employer-assisted housing programs offer a fresh approach to addressing our Nation's housing challenge by allowing the private sector to play a direct role in promoting housing affordability. I hope every Senator will recognize that the Housing America's Workforce Act will create opportunities for us as a Nation to expand these public- private partnerships and will make a profound impact in the lives of our workforce, and I hope that you will support this important piece of legislation.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, on May 28, New York and our Nation lost one of its finest child advocates, innovators, and clinicians. Dr. Phyllis Levenstein, longtime Wantagh, NY, resident and founder of The Parent-Child Home Program, an international early literacy, school readiness program, passed away shortly after returning to Long Island to celebrate the program's 40th anniversary. She was born Phyllis Aronson in Boston and grew up in Detroit. After graduating from Wayne State University in 1937, she taught in Detroit before coming to New York, where she earned a master's degree in social work in 1944 and a doctorate from Columbia University in 1969. She met her husband, Sidney Levenstein while working as a social worker in Manhattan during World War II. They married in 1946 and moved to Wantagh in 1957. Sidney, an Adelphi University Professor, who died in 1974, helped Phyllis develop The Parent-Child Home Program model. In 1965, she identified parent-child interaction as the key to the development of early language skills and working with her husband, a statistician, created a pioneering model program. The Parent-Child Home Program, which Dr. Levenstein first piloted in Freeport, NY, in 1965, is a home-visiting program for families with 2- and 3-year-olds challenged by poverty and low levels of education. The program encourages parent-child verbal interaction through talking, reading, and playing and helps families create a language-rich environment in their homes. Longitudinal research shows that children who complete the 2-year program enter school ready to learn and graduate high school at the same rate as middle-income students. The program that began serving just 5 Long Island families in 1965 will reach 5,000 disadvantaged families across the country this year. Dr. Levenstein's genius was in seeing the critical importance of parents engaging in continual verbal interaction with their young children through talking, reading, playing, and asking questions. Over the years, she conducted and published significant research on the program's design and outcomes. The 88-year-old clinical psychologist was working on an expanded edition of her 1988 book about parent-child verbal interaction, ``Messages from Home,'' when she passed away. A practicing clinical psychologist, Dr. Levenstein was in private practice in Wantagh for 44 years and continued to see patients up until her death. She also was affiliated with Stony Brook University and a number of Long Island mental health and child guidance centers. Dr. Levenstein was a fellow of the American Orthopsychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association and a member of the American Educational Research Association and the Nassau County and New York State psychological associations. Her children describe her as a person who derived true joy from helping people and say that her soft touch was well-matched by her scientific tough-mindedness. Her principled humanism led as well to a lifelong impassioned advocacy of peace and social justice. Her colleagues will remember her great intelligence, intensity, and wisdom, coupled with integrity, warmth, and humility.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I am proud to reintroduce the Improved Nutrition and Physical Activity Act or the IMPACT Act today with my colleagues Senators Frist, Bingaman, and Dodd. This legislation would take several important steps toward promoting healthy eating and physical activity and combating obesity and eating disorders. Eating disorders and obesity have become serious and 2 growing public health concerns in our country. Childhood obesity has emerged as an important issue in the public, as we have seen a significant increase in the number of Americans who are overweight or obese. Today, more than 15 percent of children and adolescents are considered seriously overweight. We know that obesity and the lack of exercise are directly linked with a broad array of health problems, including heart disease, high blood pressure, diabetes, arthritis-related disabilities, depression and some cancers. In New York State alone, almost 60 percent of adults are overweight or obese, while 43 percent of the children in New York City's public elementary schools are overweight and a quarter qualify as obese. Obese adults incur significantly higher annual medical expenditures than those of normal weight adults. The cost now rivals that attributable to smoking. I believe that while nutrition education is one part of the solution to the obesity problem facing our youth, it is not enough to simply say that childhood obesity is caused by eating too much junk food. Instead, we must be aware of the complex environmental, genetic, and behavioral factors that have influenced the epidemic. Included among the factors that affect children's eating habits and activity levels are increased hours in front of the TV or computer, working parents spending more hours at the office trying to make ends meet, deteriorating healthfulness or foods available in schools, reduced access to recess and physical education in schools, changes in the physical design of neighborhoods and communities, and low self esteem. And sadly, as the number of people battling obesity has increased, eating disorders have also reached epidemic proportions in the United States. It is estimated that between 8 and 10 million people experience an eating disorder, with millions of new cases being diagnosed each year. Eating disorders do not discriminate--they affect men and women or all ages, racial and ethnic backgrounds, socioeconomic classes, and religions. Eating disorders are linked to a variety of health problems including heart failure, kidney failure, osteoporosis, gastric ruptures, and death. Eating disorders are also often associated with a variety of mental health problems including depression, substance abuse, and suicide. The age of onset for these disorders is getting younger and younger. According to the Center for Mental Health Services, 90 percent of those who have an eating disorder are women between the ages of 12 and 25. Research indicates that 50 percent of females between the ages of 11 and 13 see themselves as overweight, and by the age of 13, eighty percent have attempted to lose weight. We know that the most common behavior that will lead to an eating disorder is dieting. In fact, 51 percent of 9 and 10 year old girls report feeling better about themselves when they are on a diet. It is estimated that currently as many as 17 percent of high school students have been diagnosed with an eating disorder. Our youth today are striving to reach an unrealistic body ideal. Fears of falling short of this ideal are leading to dire consequences. That is why I am proud to co-sponsor of the IMPACT Act. This legislation would take several important steps toward promoting healthy eating and physical activity to combat obesity and eating disorders. This legislation addresses the growing public health problems of increasing rates of obesity and eating disorders by: training students and health professionals to diagnose, treat and prevent obesity, overweight, and eating disorders; funding demonstration programs that promote healthy eating behaviors and physical activity to prevent eating disorders, obesity and being overweight, and related serious and chronic medical conditions; directing the Center for Disease Control to collect information regarding fitness levels and energy expenditure among children; authorizing the Director of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality to review all research carried out under this act and include such information, where it is relevant, in its health disparities report; allowing states to use their Preventive Services Block Grant money to address and prevent overweight, obesity, and eating disorders; mandating a report on obesity and eating disorders research; authorizing a report on the effectiveness of a National Public Education Campaign on changing children's behaviors and reducing obesity. Each of these steps is needed to address our country's growing problems of obesity and eating disorders. Any comprehensive approach to promote healthy lifestyles and prevent disordered eating in our youth must be multifaceted. It must include education about nutrition and physical activity, and most importantly, it must encourage open communication about body image and self esteem. Such an effort will require the leadership and resources of healthcare providers, local communities, advocacy organizations, parents and families, and schools. It is time that we promote and celebrate healthy bodies and healthy lifestyles regardless of size, weight indexes, or arbitrary numbers on a scale. This is a delicate task and we must make sure not to let an unhealthy emphasis on thinness jeopardize the health of our children. I look forward to working with all of my Senate colleagues to promote healthy lifestyles across the lifespan.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I am proud to reintroduce the Improved Nutrition and Physical Activity Act or the IMPACT Act today with my colleagues Senators Frist, Bingaman, and Dodd. This legislation would take several important steps toward promoting healthy eating and physical activity and combating obesity and eating disorders. Eating disorders and obesity have become serious and 2 growing public health concerns in our country. Childhood obesity has emerged as an important issue in the public, as we have seen a significant increase in the number of Americans who are overweight or obese. Today, more than 15 percent of children and adolescents are considered seriously overweight. We know that obesity and the lack of exercise are directly linked with a broad array of health problems, including heart disease, high blood pressure, diabetes, arthritis-related disabilities, depression and some cancers. In New York State alone, almost 60 percent of adults are overweight or obese, while 43 percent of the children in New York City's public elementary schools are overweight and a quarter qualify as obese. Obese adults incur significantly higher annual medical expenditures than those of normal weight adults. The cost now rivals that attributable to smoking. I believe that while nutrition education is one part of the solution to the obesity problem facing our youth, it is not enough to simply say that childhood obesity is caused by eating too much junk food. Instead, we must be aware of the complex environmental, genetic, and behavioral factors that have influenced the epidemic. Included among the factors that affect children's eating habits and activity levels are increased hours in front of the TV or computer, working parents spending more hours at the office trying to make ends meet, deteriorating healthfulness or foods available in schools, reduced access to recess and physical education in schools, changes in the physical design of neighborhoods and communities, and low self esteem. And sadly, as the number of people battling obesity has increased, eating disorders have also reached epidemic proportions in the United States. It is estimated that between 8 and 10 million people experience an eating disorder, with millions of new cases being diagnosed each year. Eating disorders do not discriminate--they affect men and women or all ages, racial and ethnic backgrounds, socioeconomic classes, and religions. Eating disorders are linked to a variety of health problems including heart failure, kidney failure, osteoporosis, gastric ruptures, and death. Eating disorders are also often associated with a variety of mental health problems including depression, substance abuse, and suicide. The age of onset for these disorders is getting younger and younger. According to the Center for Mental Health Services, 90 percent of those who have an eating disorder are women between the ages of 12 and 25. Research indicates that 50 percent of females between the ages of 11 and 13 see themselves as overweight, and by the age of 13, eighty percent have attempted to lose weight. We know that the most common behavior that will lead to an eating disorder is dieting. In fact, 51 percent of 9 and 10 year old girls report feeling better about themselves when they are on a diet. It is estimated that currently as many as 17 percent of high school students have been diagnosed with an eating disorder. Our youth today are striving to reach an unrealistic body ideal. Fears of falling short of this ideal are leading to dire consequences. That is why I am proud to co-sponsor of the IMPACT Act. This legislation would take several important steps toward promoting healthy eating and physical activity to combat obesity and eating disorders. This legislation addresses the growing public health problems of increasing rates of obesity and eating disorders by: training students and health professionals to diagnose, treat and prevent obesity, overweight, and eating disorders; funding demonstration programs that promote healthy eating behaviors and physical activity to prevent eating disorders, obesity and being overweight, and related serious and chronic medical conditions; directing the Center for Disease Control to collect information regarding fitness levels and energy expenditure among children; authorizing the Director of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality to review all research carried out under this act and include such information, where it is relevant, in its health disparities report; allowing states to use their Preventive Services Block Grant money to address and prevent overweight, obesity, and eating disorders; mandating a report on obesity and eating disorders research; authorizing a report on the effectiveness of a National Public Education Campaign on changing children's behaviors and reducing obesity. Each of these steps is needed to address our country's growing problems of obesity and eating disorders. Any comprehensive approach to promote healthy lifestyles and prevent disordered eating in our youth must be multifaceted. It must include education about nutrition and physical activity, and most importantly, it must encourage open communication about body image and self esteem. Such an effort will require the leadership and resources of healthcare providers, local communities, advocacy organizations, parents and families, and schools. It is time that we promote and celebrate healthy bodies and healthy lifestyles regardless of size, weight indexes, or arbitrary numbers on a scale. This is a delicate task and we must make sure not to let an unhealthy emphasis on thinness jeopardize the health of our children. I look forward to working with all of my Senate colleagues to promote healthy lifestyles across the lifespan.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the energy bill. I am pleased to say that I support this bill. The bill includes provisions that will help develop new energy sources and technologies, encourage conservation and increased energy efficiency, improve the reliability of our electricity system, and address the challenge of climate change. I think that it should go further in some respects--particularly in making us less dependent on foreign oil. But overall, it represents a step in the right direction. First, I want to discuss several provisions that I think are extremely important in helping us develop new energy sources and technologies. It is true that in the coming decades we will continue to rely heavily on traditional energy resources such as fossil fuels to heat and light our homes and power our cars. But there are new sources of energy and new energy technologies that offer great potential to help us meet many of these needs. We need to move beyond fossil fuels, and that goal must be a top priority of our national energy policy. Hydrogen fuels cells are clearly one of the energy technologies that offer great promise. I am extremely pleased that 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. This ambitious legislation authorizes significant funding for hydrogen research and development and sets aggressive goals for the deployment of hydrogen technologies. The research and development components authorize $3.75 billion over the next 5 years for work on hydrogen fuel cells, hydrogen powered automobiles, and a nation-wide fueling infrastructure. But in addition to funding, the legislation sets ambitious goals for deployment of fuel cells in transportation: 100,000 hydrogen-fueled vehicles on the road in the United States by 2010, and 2.5 million on the road by 2020. I am also pleased that the bill includes significant provisions to promote the development of renewable energy. It includes an extension of the wind production tax credit, which is critical to the continued deployment of windmills to generate electricity in New York and across the country. In addition, I am extremely pleased that the Senate adopted an amendment that I cosponsored to put a renewable portfolio standard into place. Under the amendment offered by Senator Bingaman, electricity producers will need to increase gradually the percentage generated from renewable sources to 10 percent by the year 2020. This is an important step forward, and I think it is critical that we retain this provision in conference. In addition, the bill includes provisions to help us continue to develop clean coal technology. Coal is by no means new, but it is incredibly abundant here in the United States, and needs to continue to be a cornerstone of our future energy policy. Continued investment in clean coal technology not only offers the promise of new, clean coal plants here in the United States; it also means the development of technology that we can export. To accomplish these goals, the bill includes a Clean Coal Power Initiative that will provide $200 million annually for clean coal research into coal-based gasification and combustion technologies. During Senate debate on the Energy bill, an amendment that establishes a renewable fuels standard was added to the bill. I strongly believe that ethanol has a role to play in helping to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and the renewable fuels amendment contains elements that I support. For example, the renewables fuels standard provides incentives for the development of cellulosic ethanol, something that has the potential to be produced economically in New York. In fact, there is an exciting project underway to convert an old Miller Brewery in upstate New York to produce ethanol. This project, which is slated to begin production in the next year, will start with corn as a feedstock, but ultimately plans to use local hardwoods as feedstock. After extracting sugars from the wood, the chips would then be available as a raw material to pulp and paper mills in the area. The renewable fuels amendment can help to move this technology and this project along. In spite of these and other positive aspects of the renewable fuels amendment, I could not support it as a whole because I believe it will lead to higher gasoline prices for New York consumers. In addition, I am concerned that unless measures are adopted to address the increased evaporative emissions caused by blending ethanol in gasoline, the amendment will make it more difficult for New York to reduce smog to meet the new federal health standards. In addition to provisions to promote new energy sources, the bill includes excellent conservation and energy efficiency measures, which are the fastest and most lasting way to reduce our energy consumption. For example, the bill sets new efficiency standards for appliances and projects such as commercial refrigerators, freezers, and refrigerator- freezers, battery chargers, distribution transformers and commercial clothes washers. According to the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, these efficiency provisions, along with the others in the bill, will save 1.1 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and reduce peak electric demand by 50,000 megawatts by the year 2020. This reduction in peak demand means that we will eliminate the need to build 170 300 megawatt power plants. We need to retain these strong measures in conference. While the bill does not go as far as I would like in terms of reducing our dependence on foreign oil, it does contain a provision that would reduce U.S. oil consumption by 1 million barrels of oil per day by 2015. It is critical that we retain this provision in conference. As we approach the second anniversary of the August 2003 blackout, it is unbelievable to me that Congress has not yet adopted the top recommendation of the blackout task force--passing mandatory, enforceable reliability standards. I am pleased that this Energy bill contains these standards, but if the legislation stalls, then I will push for a stand-alone bill to put these standards in place, as I have in the past. The Energy bill also includes legislation that I recently introduced as cosponsored with Senator Voinovich. The legislation would create a grant program at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to promote the reduction of diesel emissions. The bill authorizes $1 billion over five years to help in the retrofitting and replacement of existing diesel engines. This program will help to reduce harmful fine particulate emissions in a cost-effective way. In fact, EPA estimates that diesel retrofits yield $13 of health for every $1 spent on them. Finally, I am pleased that the Senate is now on record in this legislation as supporting a mandatory program to start reducing the greenhouse gas emissions that are contributing to climate change. I think this represents a step forward for the Senate, and I hope that the Senate will follow this sense of the Senate amendment with the passage of legislation soon to put such a program in place. This is by no means a perfect bill. I have mentioned some of the things that I think are lacking. But on balance, I think this bill represents a major step forward. I am pleased to back it. However, as we pass this bill out of the Senate, I have to say that I am extremely wary of conference. I was dismayed that the Energy bill voted out by the House this year was even worse than what came out of the House last year. Again, it contains a liability waiver for the gasoline additive MTBE. MTBE has contaminated groundwater in New York and across the country. According to two new studies, commissioned by the American Water Works Association, AWWA, and the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies, AMWA, the clean-up costs are likely to be in the range of $25-$33.2 billion and could be as high as $85 billion or more. If this provision is retained in conference, I will have no choice but to again oppose the Energy bill when it comes back from conference. In addition, I think it is critical that the many of the key features of the Senate bill--including the renewable portfolio standard and the strong energy efficiency provisions--be retained in conference.