Hillary Clinton

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Military Personnel Financial Services Education Act of 2005. Senator Collins, my colleague on the Armed Services Committee, has agreed to cosponsor this legislation. This bill will directly address a problem that has plagued military servicemen and women for years: a lack of general knowledge about the insurance and other financial services available to them. This deficiency in information has led to many of our brave men and women in uniform being taken advantage of by unscrupulous companies that have targeted and preyed on junior members of our military. Last year, a series of articles in the New York Times uncovered a serious problem: there were a number of companies using misleading sales practices to sell expensive life insurance policies to Iraq-bound recruits and other uniformed personnel. These articles led to investigations by the Department of Justice, reports by the GAO, and legislation by Congress. Earlier this year, I joined with Senator Enzi to introduce the Military Personnel Financial Services Protection Act. That legislation goes a long way toward tracking unscrupulous companies, and eliminating investment schemes which take advantage of our men and women in uniform. But we also need to address our more fundamental responsibilities to our servicemen and women, and their families, to ensure that we provide them with adequate financial education so that they can make informed decisions about their future. This bill will require the Department of Defense to provide consumer education for members of the armed forces and their spouses. It instructs the Secretary of Defense to carry out a comprehensive education program for military members regarding public and private financial services, including life insurance and the marketing practices of these services, available to them. This education will be institutionalized in the initial and recurring training for members of the military. This bill also requires that counseling services on these issues be made available, upon request, to members and their spouses. I think it is very important to include the spouses in this program, because we all know that investment decisions should be made as a family. Too many times, a military spouse has to make these decisions alone, while their husband or wife is deployed. This bill will require a permanent, trained counselor at military bases with at least 750 assigned personnel, and a part-time, equally capable counselor available at smaller bases with less than 750. By our calculations, this means about 230 installations will have full-time counselors. Finally, regarding life insurance, this bill will take existing legislation and DoD policy one more step in the military member's favor. During counseling of members or spouses regarding life insurance, counselors must include information on the availability of Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance--SGLI--as well as other available products. It requires that any enlisted member in the grades of E1-E4 must provide confirmation that they have received counseling from their approved counselor or commander before entering into any new contract with a private sector life insurer. Our legislation will keep the current rule of a 7 day waiting period for allotments to take effect to facilitate time for counseling. Existing policies will not be impacted by our legislation. I am pleased to be working on this issue with Senator Collins, my colleague on the Armed Services Committee, who has taken such a strong interest in ensuring proper financial education for our servicemembers. In closing, I want to reiterate the importance of this bill to military families. If implemented, this legislation will ensure our military families are fully equipped to make informed decisions that will best meet their financial and insurance needs. In my view, this is a provision long overdue. Thank you. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Military Personnel Financial Services Education Act of 2005. Senator Collins, my colleague on the Armed Services Committee, has agreed to cosponsor this legislation. This bill will directly address a problem that has plagued military servicemen and women for years: a lack of general knowledge about the insurance and other financial services available to them. This deficiency in information has led to many of our brave men and women in uniform being taken advantage of by unscrupulous companies that have targeted and preyed on junior members of our military. Last year, a series of articles in the New York Times uncovered a serious problem: there were a number of companies using misleading sales practices to sell expensive life insurance policies to Iraq-bound recruits and other uniformed personnel. These articles led to investigations by the Department of Justice, reports by the GAO, and legislation by Congress. Earlier this year, I joined with Senator Enzi to introduce the Military Personnel Financial Services Protection Act. That legislation goes a long way toward tracking unscrupulous companies, and eliminating investment schemes which take advantage of our men and women in uniform. But we also need to address our more fundamental responsibilities to our servicemen and women, and their families, to ensure that we provide them with adequate financial education so that they can make informed decisions about their future. This bill will require the Department of Defense to provide consumer education for members of the armed forces and their spouses. It instructs the Secretary of Defense to carry out a comprehensive education program for military members regarding public and private financial services, including life insurance and the marketing practices of these services, available to them. This education will be institutionalized in the initial and recurring training for members of the military. This bill also requires that counseling services on these issues be made available, upon request, to members and their spouses. I think it is very important to include the spouses in this program, because we all know that investment decisions should be made as a family. Too many times, a military spouse has to make these decisions alone, while their husband or wife is deployed. This bill will require a permanent, trained counselor at military bases with at least 750 assigned personnel, and a part-time, equally capable counselor available at smaller bases with less than 750. By our calculations, this means about 230 installations will have full-time counselors. Finally, regarding life insurance, this bill will take existing legislation and DoD policy one more step in the military member's favor. During counseling of members or spouses regarding life insurance, counselors must include information on the availability of Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance--SGLI--as well as other available products. It requires that any enlisted member in the grades of E1-E4 must provide confirmation that they have received counseling from their approved counselor or commander before entering into any new contract with a private sector life insurer. Our legislation will keep the current rule of a 7 day waiting period for allotments to take effect to facilitate time for counseling. Existing policies will not be impacted by our legislation. I am pleased to be working on this issue with Senator Collins, my colleague on the Armed Services Committee, who has taken such a strong interest in ensuring proper financial education for our servicemembers. In closing, I want to reiterate the importance of this bill to military families. If implemented, this legislation will ensure our military families are fully equipped to make informed decisions that will best meet their financial and insurance needs. In my view, this is a provision long overdue. Thank you. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise today to re-introduce the Kinship Caregiver Support Act with my friend and colleague, Senator Olympia Snowe. I would like to acknowledge Senators Tim Johnson and Thad Cochran who are original co-sponsors of this legislation. Over the weekend, America celebrated Mother's Day, a special day when we honored our mothers, whose love and nurturing sustains us throughout our lives. Mother's Day offers a wonderful opportunity to honor the millions of mothers who offer the gifts of love and nurturing for children in need. They give so much to the most vulnerable among us, and too often they go unnoticed and unthanked. Many of these women earn the title of Mother not through biology, but by their unconditional love for children. In New York alone, more than 500,000 children are cared for by non- parent relative caregivers. Nationwide, grandparents head 4.5 million households and other relatives head another 1.5 million households. Linda James of Rochester, NY is one such mother. She became a second- time mother at the age of 41 when her granddaughter Jasmine was born prematurely and her daughter, Jasmine's mother, was unable to care for her daughter. When the hospital needed authorization to perform an emergency operation on tiny Jasmine, Linda stepped in and assumed responsibility. Since that day, Linda has been Jasmine's only resource for stability and happiness. Over time, Linda, like many relative caregivers, faced many challenges as she tried to raise Jasmine. Simple tasks such as enrolling her in school and securing health insurance were daunting because she had trouble finding basic information about how to approach the process. Linda made many sacrifices to ensure Jasmine's success, even taking a leave of absence from her job so she could give Jasmine the constant medical attention she required, but she often felt like the cards were stacked against her. Emotionally, physically, and financially, the experience of raising little Jasmine was nothing short of exhausting. Kinship caregivers like Linda are often the best chance for a loving and stable childhood for the children in their care, but Federal law does little to support these families. In fact, unless a child's parents relinquish their parental rights, and the relative caregivers become adoptive parents, kinship caregivers are no different from strangers in the eyes of Federal law. In these sad cases, children often linger in foster care unnecessarily while a stable, permanent, loving option is overlooked. That is why Senator Snowe and I are introducing The Kinship Caregiver Support Act. This proposal will provide relative caregivers with the information and assistance they need to thrive as non-traditional families. This bill will link kinship families with localized information about the services and support available to them. By creating one-stop centers for kinship caregivers, this bill will provide essential support that will keep these families afloat. This legislation will also allow States to use their Federal foster care funds to provide kinship caregiver assistance payments for children languishing in foster care while a kinship caregiver stands ready to step in. At this time of year, when we remember and honor our mothers, let us also remember the contributions that unconventional mothers make, mothers who each and every day go above and beyond the call of duty to help some of the most vulnerable of our children.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise today to re-introduce the Kinship Caregiver Support Act with my friend and colleague, Senator Olympia Snowe. I would like to acknowledge Senators Tim Johnson and Thad Cochran who are original co-sponsors of this legislation. Over the weekend, America celebrated Mother's Day, a special day when we honored our mothers, whose love and nurturing sustains us throughout our lives. Mother's Day offers a wonderful opportunity to honor the millions of mothers who offer the gifts of love and nurturing for children in need. They give so much to the most vulnerable among us, and too often they go unnoticed and unthanked. Many of these women earn the title of Mother not through biology, but by their unconditional love for children. In New York alone, more than 500,000 children are cared for by non- parent relative caregivers. Nationwide, grandparents head 4.5 million households and other relatives head another 1.5 million households. Linda James of Rochester, NY is one such mother. She became a second- time mother at the age of 41 when her granddaughter Jasmine was born prematurely and her daughter, Jasmine's mother, was unable to care for her daughter. When the hospital needed authorization to perform an emergency operation on tiny Jasmine, Linda stepped in and assumed responsibility. Since that day, Linda has been Jasmine's only resource for stability and happiness. Over time, Linda, like many relative caregivers, faced many challenges as she tried to raise Jasmine. Simple tasks such as enrolling her in school and securing health insurance were daunting because she had trouble finding basic information about how to approach the process. Linda made many sacrifices to ensure Jasmine's success, even taking a leave of absence from her job so she could give Jasmine the constant medical attention she required, but she often felt like the cards were stacked against her. Emotionally, physically, and financially, the experience of raising little Jasmine was nothing short of exhausting. Kinship caregivers like Linda are often the best chance for a loving and stable childhood for the children in their care, but Federal law does little to support these families. In fact, unless a child's parents relinquish their parental rights, and the relative caregivers become adoptive parents, kinship caregivers are no different from strangers in the eyes of Federal law. In these sad cases, children often linger in foster care unnecessarily while a stable, permanent, loving option is overlooked. That is why Senator Snowe and I are introducing The Kinship Caregiver Support Act. This proposal will provide relative caregivers with the information and assistance they need to thrive as non-traditional families. This bill will link kinship families with localized information about the services and support available to them. By creating one-stop centers for kinship caregivers, this bill will provide essential support that will keep these families afloat. This legislation will also allow States to use their Federal foster care funds to provide kinship caregiver assistance payments for children languishing in foster care while a kinship caregiver stands ready to step in. At this time of year, when we remember and honor our mothers, let us also remember the contributions that unconventional mothers make, mothers who each and every day go above and beyond the call of duty to help some of the most vulnerable of our children.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise to address the emergency supplemental appropriations conference report. When the vote occurs, it is likely to be, if not unanimous, very close to being unanimous. And why? Because this conference report contains the funding that is needed by our brave troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. It contains funding to provide necessary resources to equip our troops and to do the military construction that is necessary. I will vote for this conference report. But I want to record some serious reservations about this process. First, the emergency supplemental appropriations process is destined to be just that. It is a way to fund unforeseen emergencies outside of the usual budgetary process. Unfortunately, once again, we are funding the cost of the military in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere, as well as a legitimate emergency, such as the tsunami relief provisions in the bill, through an emergency. I am privileged to sit on the Senate Armed Services Committee, which is responsible for presenting the authorization for the budget for the Department of Defense, and during several of our hearings over the last several months, I, among a number of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, have asked our civilian and military leadership from the Department of Defense how they explain the fact that once again the costs for Iraq and Afghanistan are not in the budget; they are in the emergency supplemental. Many of these costs perhaps were genuine emergencies, but many others are not. I would not argue with many of the decisions made because I am well aware of the importance of recapitalizing our equipment, building back up our stores of arms that have been decreased through necessary action. But a good budgeting process would take all of that into account. Having this supplemental, unfortunately, with the big title ``emergency'' over it appears to be an effort to rush things through to avoid congressional oversight and scrutiny. Obviously, a bill that is going to provide funding for the young men and women wearing the uniform of our country, in harm's way every single hour of every day, is going to command broad bipartisan and public support, as it should. But that doesn't, in my opinion, in any way mitigate against what should be the necessity of an orderly process, an appropriations process subject to the give and take of opinion and fact, and argument and reason and evidence, and then the presentation of a budget that includes the expenses that are necessary for our military. I regret deeply that we are, once again, seeing an emergency bill being pushed through the Senate, as it was pushed through the House last week, when instead we should be having an orderly process looking at these matters within the budget and making decisions based on that process. During the Armed Services Committee hearing on this supplemental request, a number of my colleagues asked why projects that ordinarily are included in the regular Department of Defense budget were being shifted to the supplemental. I really was quite taken aback when the military leadership said they didn't know, that they were just told they should put it out for the supplemental. The civilian leadership present at the hearing could not offer a much better explanation. So it is regrettable that we are making these important, literally life-and- death decisions once again in an emergency supplemental as opposed to the regular budget. Also, it is regrettable that the administration is not providing a proper accounting of how funds are being spent in Iraq. According to recent reports, Government auditors found that American officials rushed to start small building projects in a large area of Iraq during 2003 and 2004. They did not keep the required records that would tell us how they spent $89.4 million in cash. They cannot account for at least $7.2 million more. This is a very serious question. If we are appropriating this money and we are sending it for both military and reconstruction purposes to Iraq, we have a right to expect that records will be kept so we can determine whether it is being spent in the appropriate manner. We have also heard that millions of dollars of Iraqi reconstruction funds that have been appropriated have also not been spent. A large reason for that is security. But why come back for more money when we cannot spend the money we have already appropriated? It is heartbreaking to me that there is so little oversight from this Congress with respect to this administration. There are no rigorous hearings being held to determine whether we are spending money correctly, how it is being spent, where all of the cash is going. The first time I flew into Iraq, I flew from Kuwait to Baghdad on a C-130. The back of it was loaded with cash--dollars. They were being taken into Baghdad to be spent for God knows what, and there is no accountability. It is remarkable that this Congress, at this important moment in American history, is not exercising its constitutional oversight responsibilities. During the Second World War, Harry Truman, a Democratic President, with a Democratic Congress, held hearings about where money was going in World War II. In the 1960s, Senator Fulbright, with a Democratic President and a Democratic Congress, held hearings about our policies and actions in Vietnam. We have a Republican President, a Republican Congress--hear no evil, see no evil, speak to evil; we don't want to know. Questions are not asked--at least publicly. People have no idea where this money is going, who is getting it, and how it is being spent. These emergency supplementals have even less oversight than the typical budget, which in this Congress is practically nothing. So while we continue to spend billions and billions of American taxpayer dollars, we don't see the requisite accountability occurring in this body to determine whether we are spending them appropriately. I am also deeply concerned that on an emergency supplemental to fund our troops and fund the relief disaster in southeast Asia because of the tsunami, we are being asked to vote on something called ``REAL ID.'' It is a provision meant to, in the supporters' argument, make our country safer. How do we know? We haven't had hearings about it in the Senate. We have not even had debate about it in the Senate. I joined with Senator Feinstein to try to prevent immigration proposals from being tacked onto the supplemental. But we all know why that happened-- because the administration backed up the House Republican leadership to give them an opportunity to put the so-called REAL ID on a must-pass piece of legislation; namely, legislation to fund our troops. So without debate, without committee hearings, without process, we have the so-called REAL ID in this emergency supplemental. I am outraged that the Republican leadership, first in the House and now, unfortunately, in the Senate, would put this seriously flawed act into this emergency supplemental bill for our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. Emergency legislation designed to provide our troops the resources they need to fight terrorism on the front lines is not the place for broad, sweeping immigration reform. That is what REAL ID is. There may be parts of it that we could agree on if we ever had a chance to debate it. Other parts go too far and don't fulfill the purpose of making our country more secure. I am in total agreement with those who argue that we need to address our immigration challenges, and we are still not doing what we should to fulfill the demands of homeland security. I think they go hand-in- hand. If we cannot secure our borders, we cannot secure our homeland. Everybody knows we are not securing our borders. Who are we kidding? We need a much tougher, smarter look at these issues. But instead we are taking a piece of legislation passed by the House, jammed into supplemental emergency appropriations for our troops, and we are going to up-end the way we do driver's licenses throughout our country, and we are going to claim we have now made America safer. I think that is a false claim. I regret deeply that we are rushing to pass this emergency bill with this so-called REAL ID in it. We need to reform our immigration laws. We need to make our borders more secure. But we need a debate about how we are going to do that. Isn't it somewhat interesting to everyone in this Chamber that the richest, smartest country with the best technology in the world cannot secure its borders? Why would that be? Well, part of the reason is because there are many people, particularly to our south, who are desperate for a better chance. They literally risk their lives to come here. Part of it is because we have a lot of employers who want to employ them. So they know if they get here, they will have a job. We are not having a public national debate about this because, if we were, we would have to point fingers at these employers who pick up illegal immigrants every single day on street corners throughout America, or who sign them up to work in dangerous factories with very little health and safety regulation. So come on, let's not kid ourselves. We have a serious security and immigration problem. But we are not addressing it by jamming this provision about driver's licenses into our emergency appropriations. We need to make our borders more secure. I have introduced legislation 3 years in a row to have a northern border coordinator. I met with both Secretary Ridge and Secretary Chertoff. We don't know who is in charge of the northern border. Trying to figure out who is responsible for the northern border is like playing ``Where is Waldo.'' we cannot figure that out. We are not taking simple steps to rationalize our bureaucracy in Washington, to find out what our holes are and how they can be plugged, what policies would work if we were actually serious about improving security. The REAL ID Act also gives total control to the Secretary of Homeland Security to waive legal requirements that stand in the way of constructing barriers and roads along the border. The only check is limited judicial review. This is quite a tremendous grant of authority to one person in our Government. I am sure there are some reasons why we would want to expedite a process to try to have better security along our borders. But to give this unchecked responsibility to the Secretary, with limited judicial review--that is a slippery slope, my friends. We are sliding further and further toward absolute power and the removal of our checks and balances. We also have to figure out how we are going to deal with the changes in asylum rules that are in REAL ID. I am very proud of the fact that our country has always welcomed asylum-seekers and refugees. There is a city in New York, Utica, which is known as one of the most welcoming places for refugees in the entire country. I am so proud of the people of Utica. They have taken in Bosnians, Kosovars, Somalians, all kinds of refugees--people who could not stay in their home country and were desperate for some place of refuge. Under these new rules, we will see whether America remains the place of welcome, whether we fulfill our obligations to our fellow men and women. I hope that the failure of having a process with respect to REAL ID, the continuing use of the supplemental appropriations route for funding our troops, which avoids the budget process, will at some point come to an end because the majority will no longer tolerate it. This is not good for any of us--to have these kinds of processes that really turn our constitutional system upside down. In the meantime, we need to send a message that we are able to have national debates about sensitive issues, to debate judicial nominations on the floor, using the rules that have really stood the test of time and been good for the Senate and our country. We don't always win, but the Senate was devised to protect minority rights. I represent a State of 19 million people. The Presiding Officer represents a much smaller State. He and I are equal. That is the whole idea behind the setup of the Senate. Finally, let's be sure that we do not piecemeal reform immigration--I use the word ``reform'' advisedly--that we have the kind of debate and comprehensive reform that is so needed. I bet every one of the offices of my colleagues is faced with what my office confronts every single day. We do lots of casework. There are a lot of people who came here legally. They cannot get their relatives into this country. They cannot reunite their families. I want to have a reform that really provides benefits for legal immigrants. Mr. President, I hope we can deal with these issues in a better way that really reflects the best of the Senate going forward.

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, before I make my remarks on the supplemental appropriations conference report, I commend my friend and colleague from California. As we have come to expect, her presentation was thorough, comprehensive, factually and historically accurate. Much in the debate that has occurred around the so-called nuclear option has been heated. It has been rhetorical. It has been filled with opinion. It has been, unfortunately, often devoid of either historical or factual content. I personally appreciate greatly the Senator from California putting into the Record these very carefully created remarks based on facts. I hope no matter what happens with this debate--and obviously, I hope the Senate comes to its senses and realizes that we owe an obligation to the Constitution and the country--historians will be able to look back and read the very impressive statement of the Senator from California and know what the facts were. I personally express my appreciation to her.

Mrs. CLINTON. Yes.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I am delighted today to extend congratulations to Mr. Frank Durkan on the 50th anniversary of his admittance to the New York State bar. Born in County Mayo, Ireland, Frank immigrated to the United States in 1947. He is a graduate of Columbia College and New York Law School. Like so many who follow their dreams to this great country, Frank worked hard as a janitor, parking attendant, and office clerk as he pursued his education. Upon graduation, he joined his uncle, the late Paul O'Dwyer, at the law firm of O'Dwyer and Bernstien. As a trial lawyer, Frank has an excellent reputation as an advocate for injured plaintiffs. For half a century he has been a defender of civil rights in Federal courts from New Hampshire to Texas. Frank epitomizes those who come to our shores following the American dream and enrich our institutions through their hard work and dedication.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I am pleased today to recognize the outstanding service of Patricia ``Judy'' Poland, who retires in May after 30 years of dedicated efforts on behalf of the U.S. Army. For three decades, Miss Poland has worked at the Army's Recruiting Battalion in Albany, NY. She retires as the Battalion's Chief of Advertising and Public Affairs. Miss Poland began her Government service in 1973 and has spent her entire career in the field of public affairs. It is fitting to note, therefore, that she entered Federal service at the same time that the Army began its daring initiative to become an All-Volunteer Force. Miss Poland's career spanned the full gamut of recruiting slogans, each of which reflected the changing temperament of the Nation, from ``Today's Army Wants to Join You,'' through ``Be All You Can Be'' to the current ``Army of One.'' She leaves an All-Volunteer Army sustained by successful recruitment. Judy Poland's efforts in Albany, NY, contributed greatly to the Army's success. Recognized for her leadership, for most of her service she has headed her department, she has held the unconditional trust of several thousand recruiters, and her institutional knowledge has eased the way for more than a dozen battalion commanders. From her early service pounding a manual typewriter under leaking steampipes in a basement, she has not only seen the Army change and grow into a service on the cutting edge of technology but she has facilitated that growth. As Judy Poland leaves Government service to pursue goals and hobbies postponed for 30 years, I offer not only congratulations on her accomplishments but heartfelt thanks for her selfless service to our great Nation. I send to her my best wishes for continued success.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the Paycheck Fairness Act, which I am introducing along with my colleagues Senators Reid, Kennedy, Harkin, Durbin, Landrieu, Corzine, Leahy, Schumer, and Stabenow. I also want to acknowledge Senator Daschle for his longstanding support of this critical issue and Congresswoman DeLauro for being a champion in the House of Representatives. This morning I met Brenda Wholey, a plaintiff in the Wal-Mart class action sex discrimination lawsuit. Brenda came all the way to Washington from Philadelphia to share her story with us. She worked hard, put in her time, and watched as time in and time out, men were promoted above her and compensated with higher salaries. Too often when we talk about equal pay we talk about numbers--the 76 cents on the dollar that women earn, the 54 cents that Hispanic women earn. We talk about GAO reports and violations and litigation. But what this is really about is women like Brenda. Women who get up every day and go to work so they can provide for their families. Women who work hard and play by the rules and want to build a better life for their children. Women like Brenda who just want to be treated fairly. The Equal Pay Act was an important step forward for women. It gave women a real chance to be full, equal participants in the workforce and to earn equal pay for equal work. In the 42 years since the Equal Pay Act was enacted, women have shattered so many barriers. And for young women entering the workforce today, the sky is the limit. But we still have work to do to truly level the playing field. That means making sure that employers treat men and women equally in the workplace. It also means giving women the tools they need to acquire the pay and recognition they deserve. That is why I am pleased to be introducing the Paycheck Fairness Act--a bill that will build on the promise of the Equal Pay Act and help close the pay gap. The Paycheck Fairness Act has three main components. First, it prevents pay discrimination before it starts. By helping women strengthen their negotiation skills and providing outreach and technical assistance to employers to ensure they fairly evaluate and pay their employees, the Paycheck Fairness Act gives employers the tools they need to level the playing field between men and women. Second, the Paycheck Fairness Act creates strong penalties to punish those who do violate the act. By strengthening the penalties for employers who violate the Equal Pay Act, this bill sends a strong message--Equal Pay is a matter to be taken seriously. And finally, the Paycheck Fairness Act ensures that the Federal Government, which should be a model employer when it comes to enforcing Federal employment laws, uses every tool in its toolbox to ensure that women are paid the same amount as men for doing the same jobs. From ending the Clinton administration's Equal Pay Matters Initiative, to halting the collection of data on women workers, to removing important information about the wage gap from the Department of Labor's website, to tying its own hands in enforcing the Equal Pay Act among Federal contractors, the Bush administration has taken this country backwards in the fight for equal pay. You might say the Bush administration has taken one giant step backwards for womenkind. The Paycheck Fairness Act would stop the Bush administration's rollbacks and make sure, once again, that our Federal Government sets a standard of excellence for making sure women are paid the same as men. There is no question that we've come a long way since the Equal Pay Act became law 42 years ago. And women have earned every step they have gained in the journey toward equality. But what has made this country great is that we have never accepted that ``less discrimination'' is ``good enough.'' The history of our country is one of constant striving to live up to the ideal of our founding. And the most basic element of our American character is the belief that all of us deserve to be treated as equals. Our country in its history has faced lots of difficult questions, questions on which reasonable people could disagree. Equal pay is not one of those hard questions. It is common sense, it is basic fairness. It is simply right. And frankly, when it comes to equal pay, we still have a lot of work to do. Women's compensation still lags behind men's in nearly every occupation and every field. As the American Association of University Women study being unveiled today shows us, this fact is not lost on most Americans. Young, old, Democrat, Republican, male, female--there is universal recognition that a wage gap exists. Well, the Paycheck Fairness Act will do something about it. This issue is about our mothers, our sisters, our daughters. It's about women being able to earn an equal wage for equal work. It is in all of our interests to allow women to support their families and to live with the dignity and respect accorded to fully engaged members of the workforce. Equality works for all of us. Now is the time to make sure that we all work towards equality.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the Paycheck Fairness Act, which I am introducing along with my colleagues Senators Reid, Kennedy, Harkin, Durbin, Landrieu, Corzine, Leahy, Schumer, and Stabenow. I also want to acknowledge Senator Daschle for his longstanding support of this critical issue and Congresswoman DeLauro for being a champion in the House of Representatives. This morning I met Brenda Wholey, a plaintiff in the Wal-Mart class action sex discrimination lawsuit. Brenda came all the way to Washington from Philadelphia to share her story with us. She worked hard, put in her time, and watched as time in and time out, men were promoted above her and compensated with higher salaries. Too often when we talk about equal pay we talk about numbers--the 76 cents on the dollar that women earn, the 54 cents that Hispanic women earn. We talk about GAO reports and violations and litigation. But what this is really about is women like Brenda. Women who get up every day and go to work so they can provide for their families. Women who work hard and play by the rules and want to build a better life for their children. Women like Brenda who just want to be treated fairly. The Equal Pay Act was an important step forward for women. It gave women a real chance to be full, equal participants in the workforce and to earn equal pay for equal work. In the 42 years since the Equal Pay Act was enacted, women have shattered so many barriers. And for young women entering the workforce today, the sky is the limit. But we still have work to do to truly level the playing field. That means making sure that employers treat men and women equally in the workplace. It also means giving women the tools they need to acquire the pay and recognition they deserve. That is why I am pleased to be introducing the Paycheck Fairness Act--a bill that will build on the promise of the Equal Pay Act and help close the pay gap. The Paycheck Fairness Act has three main components. First, it prevents pay discrimination before it starts. By helping women strengthen their negotiation skills and providing outreach and technical assistance to employers to ensure they fairly evaluate and pay their employees, the Paycheck Fairness Act gives employers the tools they need to level the playing field between men and women. Second, the Paycheck Fairness Act creates strong penalties to punish those who do violate the act. By strengthening the penalties for employers who violate the Equal Pay Act, this bill sends a strong message--Equal Pay is a matter to be taken seriously. And finally, the Paycheck Fairness Act ensures that the Federal Government, which should be a model employer when it comes to enforcing Federal employment laws, uses every tool in its toolbox to ensure that women are paid the same amount as men for doing the same jobs. From ending the Clinton administration's Equal Pay Matters Initiative, to halting the collection of data on women workers, to removing important information about the wage gap from the Department of Labor's website, to tying its own hands in enforcing the Equal Pay Act among Federal contractors, the Bush administration has taken this country backwards in the fight for equal pay. You might say the Bush administration has taken one giant step backwards for womenkind. The Paycheck Fairness Act would stop the Bush administration's rollbacks and make sure, once again, that our Federal Government sets a standard of excellence for making sure women are paid the same as men. There is no question that we've come a long way since the Equal Pay Act became law 42 years ago. And women have earned every step they have gained in the journey toward equality. But what has made this country great is that we have never accepted that ``less discrimination'' is ``good enough.'' The history of our country is one of constant striving to live up to the ideal of our founding. And the most basic element of our American character is the belief that all of us deserve to be treated as equals. Our country in its history has faced lots of difficult questions, questions on which reasonable people could disagree. Equal pay is not one of those hard questions. It is common sense, it is basic fairness. It is simply right. And frankly, when it comes to equal pay, we still have a lot of work to do. Women's compensation still lags behind men's in nearly every occupation and every field. As the American Association of University Women study being unveiled today shows us, this fact is not lost on most Americans. Young, old, Democrat, Republican, male, female--there is universal recognition that a wage gap exists. Well, the Paycheck Fairness Act will do something about it. This issue is about our mothers, our sisters, our daughters. It's about women being able to earn an equal wage for equal work. It is in all of our interests to allow women to support their families and to live with the dignity and respect accorded to fully engaged members of the workforce. Equality works for all of us. Now is the time to make sure that we all work towards equality.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, my colleague from South Carolina, Senator Lindsey Graham, and I come to the floor this afternoon to speak about the necessity of expanding TRICARE for National Guard members and reservists. I especially thank Senator Graham for his hard work and advocacy on behalf of this legislation. Almost 2 years ago exactly, in the spring of 2003, Senator Graham and I joined at the Reserve Officers Association building to announce the first version of this legislation. In the intervening years, we have made a great deal of progress in expanding access to TRICARE, the military health program. But we agree there is still a long way to go. We recently discovered our proposed legislation to ensure that National Guard and Reserve members have access to the military health program known as TRICARE does not have a cost this year, so it was not appropriate for us to attempt to attach this to the supplemental appropriations bill that is currently on the floor. But we are extremely hopeful we will be able to include legislation in this year's Department of Defense authorization bill. Because Senator Graham and I serve on the Armed Services Committee, we have heard firsthand, as have many of my colleagues, about the extraordinary strain being placed on our Guard and Reserve Forces. We are well aware that a major part of our military success in Iraq and Afghanistan has been because of the role played by reservists and Guard members who heeded the call to serve their country--for some, not once, not twice, but three times in Iraq and/or Afghanistan. Since September 11, our reservists and National Guard members have been called upon with increasing frequency. From homeland security missions where they were absolutely essential in New York after 9/11, National Guard men and women patrolled and guarded our subways, the Amtrak lines in Penn Station, other places of importance. We have seen in so many other instances where they were called to duty here in our own homeland. We also know they have paid the ultimate sacrifice, losing their lives in serving the missions they were called to fulfill in Iraq and Afghanistan or being grievously wounded and returning home, having given their all to our country. In New York we have over 30,000 members of the Guard and Reserves, and over 4,000 are currently deployed in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. When I have visited with our activated reservists and National Guard in New York, I have been greatly impressed by their willingness and even eagerness, in some cases, to serve. But I have also heard about the strains they face, that their families have borne, that their businesses have endured. It is abundantly clear we are having some difficulty in recruitment and retention of the Guard and Reserve because of the extraordinary stresses being placed on these very dedicated individuals. Now more than ever, we need to address the needs of our Guard and Reserve members. The general of the Army Reserves, General Helmly, has expressed concern about whether we are going to be able to meet our needs for the Reserve component. The legislation Senator Graham and I have been working on for 2 years is bipartisan. It is not a party issue. It is a core American issue. Our TRICARE legislation allows Guard and Reserve members the option of enrolling full time in TRICARE, getting the family health insurance coverage that is offered to active-duty military personnel. The change would offer health care stability to families who lose coverage under their employers' plans when a family member is called to active duty. In fact, one of the most shocking statistics was that about 25 percent of our active-duty Guard and Reserve had some medical problems, but the numbers were particularly high for the Guard and Reserve because so many of these--primarily but not exclusively--young people either had jobs which didn't offer health insurance or worked for themselves and could not afford health insurance. So when they were activated and reported, they were not medically ready to be deployed. This is not simply the right thing to do; this is part of our military readiness necessity. The legislation addresses these critical issues. I am very grateful for Senator Graham's leadership and the support of so many in this body. He and I will be working with Chairman Warner and Ranking Member Levin and the rest of the Armed Services Committee to get our TRICARE legislation authorized in this year's Department of Defense authorization bill. Finally, I know there are questions of cost that obviously have to be addressed. I don't think you can put a price on the military service these men and women have given our country. When I was in Iraq a couple of weeks ago, I was struck by how many men I saw with white hair. I think I was surprised there were so many people in their fifties, late fifties, who had been called back to active duty, members of the Individual Readiness Reserve. The men I spoke with had flown combat missions in Vietnam. There they were again, having left their families, left their employment, their homes, and doing their duty in Baghdad or Fallujah or Kirkuk and so many other places of danger. We have an all-volunteer military. That all-volunteer military has to be given not only the respect it so deserves but the support and the resources it has earned. I am hopeful we will have unanimous support in the Armed Services Committee to add this legislation, that we will have support from the administration and, in an overwhelming vote in both Houses of Congress, not give lipservice and rhetorical pats on the back to our Guard and Reserve members but show them in a tangible way that we appreciate and respect their service and we understand the strains they are living under and often their families are suffering under. One small way to show our appreciation as a nation is to make sure once and for all they and their families have access to health care. It is a great pleasure to be working with Senator Graham, and I look forward to successfully ensuring that this legislation is once and for all enacted, first in the Armed Services Committee and then on the floor of the Senate. I yield the floor.

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

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I thank my colleague and our ranking member of the Judiciary Committee. I, too, am enthusiastic about this nominee. This is a supremely qualified judicial nominee, and he will serve with great distinction in the Southern District in New York. He does hail from a family and tradition of public service, and his hometown of Buffalo is particularly pleased this vote is about to occur. Mr. President, he has distinguished himself in both the public and the private sectors. He served for years as a practicing attorney in New York City. He has served as a counsel for a major corporation, and he has always served his community. After the attack of September 11, Paul Crotty signed on to serve on the Lower Manhattan Development Board to help Lower Manhattan recover from those devastating attacks. He has been active in organizations, such as the New York Urban League, City Bar Fund, and the Tri-State United Way. He worked very closely with Mayor Ed Koch, first as commissioner of financial services, and then as commissioner of housing preservation and development. He later served as corporation counsel to Mayor Giuliani, during which he advised the mayor on a wide variety of issues. So, without question, Paul Crotty has the intellect, demeanor, and commitment to justice to serve the people of New York and America with distinction. I, also, congratulate the entire Crotty family: Paul's wife Jane, his children John, Elizabeth, and David, his daughter-in-law Katherine, and his brothers Bob and Jerry, because this is a family accomplishment. The Crotty family, which extends far beyond the names I have mentioned--there are too many to enumerate--is a very close-knit family. I know how much pride they take in this nomination. Paul's father, Peter J. Crotty, who passed away in 1992, was a great political leader in New York. He instilled in his children that sense of tradition. Finally, I want to acknowledge Paul's mother Margaret who is 92 years old and still lives in Buffalo. She has been and remains a tremendous influence in Paul Crotty's life and that of the entire Crotty family. With this nomination today, Mr. President, the Senate will have confirmed 205 of the judicial nominations sent to the Senate by the President. I am very pleased we were all able to come together across the aisle to unanimously, I hope, support someone who is so well qualified for this lifetime appointment. Again, I thank my friend and colleague from Vermont, and I yield back my time.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, it is with great pride that I commemorate the 125th anniversary of the founding of the Missionary Sisters of the Sacred Heart of Jesus whose assistance to New York's Italian community in the late 19th century is a model for immigrant outreach. The efforts of the Missionary Sisters of the Sacred Heart of Jesus initiated by the first American citizen saint, Frances Cabrini, led the Vatican to name her Patroness of Immigrants. From the missionary sisters' first New York initiative, a home for destitute Italian orphans that opened in 1889, to the vibrant network of schools, hospitals and social service agencies serving immigrants in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Louisiana, Illinois, Colorado, Washington State and California, as well as New York, the missionary sisters brought solace to immigrants in both urban and rural areas, visiting them in homes, public hospitals, prisons and mines. Today this enduring mission flourishes in 16 nations on six continents where the Cabrinian religious institute eases misery, works for justice, and educates new generations. The institute's compassionate work cares for AIDS orphans in Swaziland and street children in the Philippines, provides health and child care and educates young people in Australia, Central and South America and the United States. Frances Cabrini's legacy can be seen in 21st century New York State in Dobbs Ferry at the St. Cabrini Nursing Home and the Cabrini Elder Care Consortium. Dobbs Ferry is also home to the Monsignor Terence Attridge Adult Day Health Center and Cabrini Immigrant Services. New York City is fortunate to have the Cabrini Center for Nursing and Rehabilitation, Cabrini Care at Home, Cabrini Immigrant Services, Cabrini Hospital, Sister Josephine Tsuei Senior Day Services, Cabrini High School, the Cabrini Shrine and the Cabrini Housing Development Fund's apartments for the elderly. This year the St. Cabrini Nursing Home honors two individuals who exemplify the dedication and service of the Cabrinian values--Donna McNamara whose efforts were crucial to the creation of Cabrini Immigrant Services and Cabrini Care at Home; and James A. Smith, longtime board member who has given leadership to the Cabrini Elder Care Consortium. I am thankful for the efforts of Ms. McNamara and Mr. Smith and for the 125 years of compassion and care that are hallmarks of the life of Frances Cabrini and those who continue to serve the ideals to which she dedicated her life.

Mrs. CLINTON

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

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I am proud to submit this statement in praise of David Vigliarolo Bauer, a New York City public school student who won the top $100,000 prize in this year's Intel Science Talent Search, STS. David attends Manhattan's Hunter College High School, known for its excellence and high educational standards. His project, which was inspired by the events of September 11, began in the bio-organic chemistry lab of Professor Valeria Balogh-Nair at the City College of New York, CCNY. A coworker at the CCNY lab had been exposed to asbestos at Ground Zero the day of the attack. David has designed a new type of universal sensor for neurotoxins in the body which he believes has the potential to save thousands of lives by rapidly detecting and evaluating individual exposure to biochemical agents. The Intel STS is often considered the ``junior Nobel Prize'' and is America's oldest and most highly regarded precollege science competition. Alumni of the program hold more than 100 of the world's most coveted science and math honors, including six Nobel Prizes. David and his family can be proud of this outstanding achievement, and I am heartened by his interest in using science to the potential benefit of our first responders in the war on terrorism. I ask that the following New York Times article of March 16, 2005 be printed in the Record. I congratulate David Bauer for his creativity and leadership. The article follows: [March 16, 2005] New Yorker Takes Top Prize in Intel Science Contest (By Lia Miller) New York City public school student whose project was inspired by the events of Sept. 11 has won the top prize of a $100,000 scholarship in this year's Intel Science Talent Search. The winner, David L. V. Bauer, is a 17-year-old senior at Hunter College High School in Manhattan. He worked on a new method to detect toxic agents in the nervous system. Mr. Bauer said that his study could result in a patch, worn somewhat like a radiation patch is on a jacket, that would quickly detect how much neurotoxin a person had been exposed to. ``I was thinking more in terms of paramedics and individual exposure, so in the event of a terrorist attack, we would know the nature of the attack,'' he said. Forty finalists have been competing for the last five days in Washington for $530,000 in scholarship money. Each finalist will receive at least $5,000. Mr. Bauer began his study last year while working in the bio-organic chemistry lab of Prof. Valeria Balogh-Nair at the City College of New York. He said that a co-worker at the lab had been at ground zero the day of the attack. Mr. Bauer was amazed to hear that testing showed that the co-worker had a different level of exposure to asbestos in the bloodstream than others in the same area. It was this finding, Mr. Bauer said, that led him to begin thinking of a way to quickly determine a person's neurotoxin exposure levels through the use of fluorescent nanocrystals. Mr. Bauer, who is from the Bronx, plans to attend the CUNY Honors College in the fall to study chemistry and hopes to teach at the university level one day. Now that the competition is over, he said he was looking forward to taking up some of his other interests, which include fencing and overseeing an organization he founded called United Liberia, which runs a Web site that provides news about Liberia. Since seventh grade, Mr. Bauer has attended Hunter College High, a public high school administered by the college. Professor Balogh-Nair, who was Mr. Bauer's mentor, said: ``He is an unusual student, both by the depth of his understanding of science--but he is multitalented--you seldom find a combination of talents in one person. He has great people skills, too.'' The last time a student from the New York metropolitan area won the top prize was in 2000, when Viviana Risca from Paul D. Schreiber Senior High School in Port Washington, N.Y., won for encrypting a message on a DNA strand. This year there were 13 finalists from New York State, but only Mr. Bauer made the top 10. The second-place winner was Tim Credo, 17, a senior from the Illinois Mathematics and Science Academy. He won a $75,000 scholarship for a study involving particle accelerators and a more precise way to measure brief intervals of time known as picoseconds. Third place went to Kelly Harris, 17, from C. K. McClatchy High School in Sacramento. She won a $50,000 scholarship for her study on Z- DNA and viral proteins. The technology company Intel has sponsored the contest since 1999. Before then, the Westinghouse Electric Corporation sponsored it.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. I urge adoption of this very important and necessary amendment.

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I, too, come to the floor in support of the Smith-Bingaman amendment, and I thank our colleagues for bringing this amendment forward. What it does is very simply and very profoundly say, wait a minute, let's not cut Medicaid right now. Let's take the $15 billion in cuts that are in this budget resolution and restore them. But that is not the end of it. Let's also put together a bipartisan commission so that we can take a hard look at Medicaid and try to figure out how to improve service delivery and quality and do more to make it cost effective. I am very proud to cosponsor this amendment because I believe this is the right way to go. I believe wholeheartedly that we should be on a much faster track to return to fiscal discipline and to reduce the unprecedented deficits we are running. But I do not believe slashing Medicaid funding is the answer to getting our fiscal house in order, and it is regrettable that we would have in this same budget room for millions and millions of dollars more in tax cuts while we attempt to balance our budget on the backs of our most vulnerable citizens. I can look at the growth in Medicaid and certainly see the same strategy that everyone else has. In part it is part of the sluggish economy, the loss of health insurance benefits for so many people who do still have jobs. I know in my own State the Medicaid Program grew between 2000 and 2004. In fact, in the last 4 years in America, we have seen 35 million more Americans receive their health insurance through Medicaid. We now have 45 million uninsured Americans. I think that number would be above 50 million if we did not have Medicaid as a health care safety net. This budget resolution hits New York especially hard, cutting our Medicaid funding by almost $2 billion. Let me just tell you what that means. We provide insurance to 4.1 million New Yorkers through Medicaid. That includes 1.7 million children, 1.4 million adults, and 1 million elderly and disabled beneficiaries. These are people who are the frail elderly in nursing homes. These are the children of those who are working but do not have health insurance. These are people living with chronic diseases. For these people, Medicaid truly is their last resort. They have nowhere else to turn. As some of you know, I just spent 5 days in the hospital in New York City with my husband, and we are very fortunate we can go to one of the finest hospitals in the world to get the care that is necessary, but I know very well that that hospital has two-thirds of its income coming in Medicare and Medicaid. It is in an area in New York City where there are a lot of poor people, people who get up every day and go to work. They get on the subways, the trains, they get to work, they work hard, but they do not have health insurance. Medicaid enables them to go to that hospital just like my husband can go to that hospital. We need Medicaid reform. That is what Senators Smith and Bingaman are proposing. Let us do the right diagnosis about what is wrong with Medicaid. Let us do what we need to do to get it on a better footing, but let me add that the costs in Medicaid have gone up more than the cost of private insurance. This is not just a problem in Medicaid, this is a problem in the health care system, and we are going to make our problem worse if we do this cutting of Medicaid without this type of bipartisan amendment. If we tried to cut in New York, for example, we would have to make some horrible choices. Should we cut out children? Should we eliminate 100,000 beneficiaries, most of whom are in nursing homes?

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, this is the Clinton-Reid prevention first amendment. What it does is try to put us on record and provide funding for the important goal of preventing unintended pregnancies and abortions. What this amendment does is to increase public health funding for the National Family Planning Program and enact the EPIC bill which says to insurance companies, if you are going to provide insurance coverage for Viagra you should provide insurance coverage for contraception. It increases funding to improve awareness and education about emergency contraception, which is a prevention program, not termination, and finally funds a new teen prevention program. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I send a modified version of the amendment to the desk, and ask unanimous consent that it be considered.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I thank my friend, who knows more about the budget than I think anybody in Washington. He has, once again, done a tremendous job in trying to help educate all of us about the consequences. I strongly endorse the amendment that Senator Reid and I have offered, the Prevention First amendment. This is an area where Senator Reid and I absolutely agree that we need to do more to cut the rate of unintended pregnancies; therefore, the rate of abortions in our country. The statistics are pretty stark that half of the pregnancies in the United States are unintended, and nearly half of those are terminated. Making contraception more accessible will help us reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and abortions. The Prevention First amendment will ensure there is money in the budget that will provide more family planning services and that will change our health insurance law to give women equal rights of access to prescription contraception. It just boggles my mind that insurance companies pay for Viagra and they will not pay for birth control. I do not understand that at all. That is just backward, in my mind. It increases the title X services that are so important in providing that support, as well as ending insurance discrimination when it comes to contraceptive coverage. It provides better public awareness for emergency contraception, which could prevent many thousands of abortions. It is a prescription drug that, if FDA approves over the counter, does not interrupt or disrupt an established pregnancy. According to the Journal of the American Medical Association, there is no risk associated with emergency contraception. Finally, this amendment provides funding to programs dedicated to decreasing teen pregnancy. In my husband's 1995 State of the Union Address, he made that a goal of his administration, and we accomplished a lot. But we still have a long way to go. If you are pro-choice or pro-life, if you believe we should do more to find common ground on this often difficult and contentious issue, and if you want to spend some money to save money and decrease abortions and unintended pregnancies, then please support the Clinton- Reid amendment to the budget. I thank the Chair.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I will take some time today to tell the Senate about a New Yorker named Paul Klebnikov. Paul Klebnikov was an American journalist who was shot and killed in Moscow on July 9, 2004, as he left his office after work. The most plausible reason for his killing appears to be his investigative journalism, which has explored the connections between business, politics, and crime in Russia. The stilling of Paul Klebnikov's voice represents a direct challenge to independent journalism, democracy, and the rule of law in Russia. According to the Committee to Protect Journalists, CPJ, in the last 5 years, 11 journalists in Russia, including Paul Klebnikov, have died in ``contract-style'' killings. Mr. Klebnikov's murder illustrates in tragic terms one of several threats faced by the press in today's Russia. Observers have described these threats as including the lack of accountability for the killing of journalists and government restrictions on the media. It is in the broader context of the challenges to press freedom in Russia that the importance of Paul Klebnikov's murder has been brought home to me in a very personal way by his family, which has long ties to New York. Paul, with family roots in Russia, grew up in New York, and his wife and their children still reside in New York. At the time of his death at age 41, Paul Klebnikov was working in Moscow as the editor-in-chief of Forbes Russia, after having served as a senior editor at Forbes. Paul Klebnikov's contributions to press freedom have received special recognition since his death. He was a recipient of the CPJ 2004 International Press Freedom Award. He was also a recipient of the 2004 Knight International Press Fellowship Award for achievements in the face of threats. At the CPJ 2004 International Press Freedom Awards ceremony, Paul's widow Musa underlined Paul's deep sympathy for the plight of the Russian people and the way in which he chose to translate his ideals into action: ``Being surrounded by criminality, greed and misuse of power has made people suffer from apathy and hopelessness. Paul wanted to help ordinary Russians find courage. He was thrilled to edit a magazine for Russians, and use it to expose economic and moral corruption, and offer positive models instead.'' As Paul's widow Musa makes clear, a free press is an essential component of the effort to enhance transparency. A free and vital press helps to keep citizens informed and knowledgeable regarding the most important issues in their lives. Without accurate information on the most pressing public issues of the day, people are hindered in the exercise of their other rights, as well as in the conduct of the many other civic activities that are essential to the healthy functioning of a democracy. That is why I have been seeking ways to bring attention to the contract-style killing of Paul Klebnikov at the highest levels of government. I have joined with a bipartisan group of my colleagues on the US Helsinki Commission, on which I serve, in writing to President Putin urging him to ensure the case is aggressively investigated and all those responsible are brought to justice. And I 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. I expressed to President Bush that his personal involvement would contribute enormously to the effort to bring all those responsible for Paul's murder to justice. And that such a result, in turn, would help to move Russia along the path to freedom and democracy, and strengthen Russian civil society. Recent comments by Secretary Rice encourage me in my hope that the administration will emphasize, both in public to the world, as well as in private to Russian officials, the vital role a free press has to play in Russia. During Secretary Rice's February fifth visit to Warsaw, she underlined that it ``is important that Russia make clear to the world that it is intent on strengthening the rule of law, strengthening the role of an independent judiciary, permitting a free and independent press to flourish. These are all the basics of democracy.'' And around the same time as the Bratislava meeting between President Bush and President Putin, we learned of encouraging news reports. According to these reports, two suspects in the murder of Paul Klebnikov, who had been arrested in Belarus, were extradited to Russia; and one of them was charged in connection with Paul's murder. Nonetheless, under the current state of affairs in Russia, I am convinced that if all those responsible for this crime are to be brought to justice, it is absolutely essential for President Bush and senior members of his Administration personally to raise Paul's case with senior officials of the Russian Government, including President Putin. It is my hope that if consistent pressure is applied in a determined manner by the U.S. Government, the Russian government will have the strongest incentive to follow through on the investigative efforts already begun, and pursue the leads in this case wherever, and however high, they reach. It is vital that all those responsible for the murder of Paul Klebnikov be held accountable. Bringing those involved in his murder to justice will help to end any perception that those perpetrating violence against journalists in Russia are immune from the reach of the law. A free press, not threatened by violence or coercion, will aid the Russian people immeasurably in their quest for freedom and democracy. It is our obligation to continue to impress on the Russian Government the importance of bringing to justice those responsible for Paul Klebnikov's murder, both for Paul's sake and to strengthen the rule of law and a free press in Russia.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, thank you, once again, to my friend from West Virginia for offering this important amendment. It is somewhat hard to believe we have to offer this amendment. There should not be a debate about the importance of Amtrak and national passenger rail service, but there is, so once again we are making the case and asking the support of our colleagues in this body on behalf of Amtrak. As Senator Byrd pointed out, the President's budget and this budget resolution does not provide a penny for the continued operation of Amtrak. It provides just enough money to shut the trains down, but there is very little thought given as to the consequences of shutting the trains down, of ending the services that Amtrak offers, and the impact on the regional rail services that, in addition to Amtrak, provide so much support for our national transportation system. I know there are members of the administration and even of the Congress arguing that Amtrak should not receive another penny because it is not self-sufficient. I have to respectfully ask, are the airlines self-sufficient? We keep bailing them out. Are the highway systems self-sufficient? We continue the development and maintenance of highways, transit systems, buses. No form of transportation is self- sufficient. We have a fundamental decision to make which apparently the administration is making by this budget request that we give up on national rail for passenger travel. That is a very shortsighted position and a critical mistake. I ask my colleagues to think back to the days after September 11. Our airports were shut down. The bridges going in and out of Manhattan were shut down. The only way in and out of Manhattan was Amtrak. That was it. If we could not have moved through the Amtrak system in and out of Manhattan, we would not have had any contact, any continuing communication, any movement of people. I am amazed we have such a short memory. I am also amazed we do not recognize the benefits that Amtrak offers in providing this service to so many commuters and passengers. In fiscal year 2004 Amtrak broke the 25 million passenger record. That was an extraordinary accomplishment. I give David Gunn and the leadership team he brought in, which is turning Amtrak around, tremendous credit. The record of 25 million was a million greater than 2003, which itself was a record. So we are making progress in running a railroad that meets people's needs. The new Acela trains are a great gift, moving us back and forth between Washington and New York in a little over 3 hours. I obviously have a very personal interest in this because New Yorkers rely on rail more than perhaps any other citizens in our country. Penn Station on 34th street in Manhattan is the busiest passenger rail station in our country, servicing almost 9 million passengers who boarded Amtrak trains there in 2004. Our Albany Rensselaer Station is the 10th busiest in the country. Much of our upstate economy depends upon Amtrak. We also have the busiest commuter rail system in the country. I have to point out we are putting our commuter rail system on the path to obliteration as well as Amtrak because our commuter rails operate on Amtrak rail lines. They use Amtrak tracks. Much of the system would not be able to operate if they did not share expenses, share maintenance, with Amtrak. So we are not just writing the death warrant for Amtrak but also writing the death warrant for commuter rail. Why are we doing this? Some are ideologically opposed to passenger rail. We might as well be ideologically opposed to air travel, if we say if you cannot make a profit you go out of business. In many instances it is the combination of Government funding and passenger use that works around the world. Why do we think we can be different? The effect of this policy the administration has embedded in its budget will be so far reaching that I don't think people have stopped and considered the impact on the economy, the impact on our transportation infrastructure. I was talking to one of the people who is quite an expert in railroads who said if you take Amtrak off the tracks, Amtrak is no longer responsible, the burden of keeping the tracks will fall completely on the freight companies. The freight companies have not done that good a job of keeping up their tracks and we will have all these bottlenecks that have a ripple effect through the economy, the likes of which we did not contemplate. This has long-term effects on our economy, on our homeland security. To remove this necessary form of transportation at a time when we face all of these dangers and risks is extremely shortsighted. What is going to happen with our airports and our highways? Amtrak right now accounts for 50 percent of the Washington, DC-New York air and rail market and 35 percent of the Boston-New York travel market. Are we going to put all of these passengers into our airports which, as anyone who has traveled lately knows, are pretty chaotic to start with? Are we going to add them to the highways and to the congestion? What are we thinking about? I wish we would take a deep breath. The administration says it would like to reform Amtrak. I am very impressed with the steps David Gunn has taken. If the idea of reform is transferring the costs for funding Amtrak on to the States, that is a nonstarter. We will be burdening the States with expenses they cannot meet now. We will be thinking of cutting Medicaid, cutting housing. We will cut community development block grants and then say, by the way, pick up the costs of keeping your economy and business travel going by paying for Amtrak. I don't know any State that can accommodate that kind of hit. I hope we will take the moment to support Senator Byrd's amendment. It is the right approach to take. I am the first to say if we can do some smart reforms in the context of keeping the railroad operating, let's do it. But what are the smart reforms? David Gunn has said if he can have some money for capital investments, we would cut the amount of time for commuting between Washington, DC, New York, and Boston. We could have high-speed rail along the east coast. We would make some of the routes that are not now a very effective means for transporting passengers much more so because we would make the investments that are necessary in the underlying infrastructure. I join very happily with my friend and colleague, the senior Senator from West Virginia. I hope on both sides of the aisle all Members will think hard about this amendment. I cannot stress strongly enough the impact on the Northeast of killing Amtrak. For people who say, well, I live a long way from there, what difference does it make, the financial engine that the Northeast still is, that provides the funds for so much of what we offer to other States far from New York, far from West Virginia, far from Boston, far from the east coast, will be at risk. This is a necessary part of our financial engine in the Northeast, particularly in New York. I respectfully request every single Member to vote in your own self- interests. Vote for passenger rail. Vote for the economic benefits that it necessarily provides. But vote for the Byrd amendment and make us once again supportive of passenger rail as part of our overall transportation infrastructure. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague and the Presiding Officer for this time.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I strongly support Senator Bingaman's amendment to restore funding for education. I am pleased to be a co-sponsor of this critical amendment. And while I am unable to be present in the Senate today to vote, I would like the Congressional Record to reflect that if I were present, I would have voted aye. The Republican budget is nothing short of an assault on education. It cuts education for the first time in a decade, does not provide sufficient funding to sustain current levels of funding for all programs, provides virtually no increases to Title I or IDEA, and neglects to fund any new initiatives. One of the most egregious examples is the lack of funding for No Child Left Behind, NCLB. At a time when our schools are struggling to meet the requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act, the Republican budget provides $12 billion less than was promised, including $947.5 million less for New York, bringing the total funding shortfall since NCLB was passed to almost $40 billion. If enacted, that would mean 296,648 children who are eligible for Title I will be denied services. This budget leaves behind 3 million disadvantaged students who would receive services if the Republicans had kept their promise for funding for No Child Left Behind. This budget also fails to provide what is needed for special education, and it does so just 3 months after the President signed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act into law. This budget betrays the bipartisan funding agreement contained in that law by funding special education at $3.6 billion below the promised level. As a result, funding for IDEA would provide just 18.6 percent of the national average per-pupil expenditure toward meeting the excess cost of educating students with disabilities--still less than half of the 40 percent ``full funding'' level that Congress committed to paying when the IDEA was first adopted 30 years ago. The resolution before the Senate today provides minimal increases to Title I and IDEA, but pays for them by abolishing and slashing funding for programs that have a big impact on at-risk students. Among the programs targeted for elimination are technology grants that help close the digital divide, safe and drug-free schools, the dropout prevention program, alcohol abuse reduction, elementary school counseling, arts in education, and smaller learning communities. The budget also abolishes the school leadership initiative, a program that I was proud to help design back in 2001 and which has provided critical funding to recruit and retain talented principals to lead our troubled schools. At the same time that the President has proposed to eliminate the school counseling program, only 1 in 5 children with mental health problems receives services in any given year. The current counselor-to- student ratio in elementary and secondary schools is 1 to 560, roughly 9 percent higher than it was last year, and over double the ratio of 1 to 250 recommended by such organizations as the American School Health Association. And while the President has proposed to eliminate the dropout prevention program, the Nation faces a dropout crisis. According to estimates by the Civil Rights Project and the Urban Institute, 50 percent of Black and 53 percent of Latino youth complete high school on time. The budget also eliminates several early intervention programs that help disadvantaged students prepare for and succeed in college. GEAR UP, a Clinton administration initiative that prepares entire grade levels of low-income students for college, would be abolished; a move that would deny services to 20,086 New York students. The TRIO programs Upward Bound and Talent Search, which provide tutoring, mentoring and college counseling services to 19,000 New York students, would suffer the same fate. Senator Bingaman's amendment would restore these valuable programs. Senator Bingaman's amendment would also restore funding for Even Start, a family literacy program that serves low-income communities. Last year, New York received $19 million for this program. The Republican budget provides nothing. I worked with Senator Snowe to spearhead a letter to the Appropriations Committee in October of last year asking for $250 million for this program, and I will do so again if this amendment is unsuccessful. Ironically, this budget also eliminates the Perkins Vocational Education program, a program that this body voted 99 to 0 to maintain last Thursday. In New York, the Perkins program helps approximately 275,000 high school students and 200,000 postsecondary students in New York attain technical skills to launch successful careers in the 21st century. Yet the Republicans propose to abolish it. Along with Senator Collins and 30 of my colleagues, I sent a letter to the Budget Committee specifically asking them to maintain this program. I am disappointed that the will of so many Senators was ignored. Fundamentally, this budget is a reflection of our values and our priorities. And the message the Republican budget sends is loud and clear: our children and the schools they attend are low on the list. I hope this body will support Senator Bingaman's amendment, which takes an important step toward putting children closer to the top.