Hillary Clinton

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise to state my intention to vote for the conference report to the fiscal year 2005 Homeland Security Appropriations Act because communities and first responders across our Nation desperately need the funds provided in this legislation. I want to express my extreme disappointment, however, with many provisions in this conference report, and with the decision by the Republican leadership in the Senate and House to fail to improve the conference report language, and in some cases making it even worse, despite having many opportunities to do. It is hard to know where to begin, but three aspects of this bill are especially egregious; they defy common sense and are simply not in the best interest of our Nation's homeland defense. First, in outright defiance of recommendations of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, the 9/11 Commission, and of commissions before it, the leadership inserted language into this conference report that requires the Department of Homeland Security to allocate homeland security formula grant funds, such as funds under the State Homeland Security Grant Program and the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Grant Program, on a per capita basis. This is directly contrary to the recommendations of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, the 9/11 Commission. Specifically, in its report, the 9/11 Commission stated: We understand the contention that every state and city needs to have some minimum infrastructure for emergency response. But federal homeland security assistance should not remain a program for general revenue sharing. It should supplement state and local resources based on the risks or vulnerability that merit additional support. Congress should not use this money as a pork barrel. The 9/11 Commission also recommended that an advisory committee be established to advise the Secretary on any additional factors the Secretary should consider, such as benchmarks for evaluating community homeland security needs. As to these benchmarks, the Commission stated that ``the benchmarks will be imperfect and subjective, they will continually evolve. But hard choices must be made. Those who would allocate money on a different basis should then defend their view of the national interest.'' In short, the Commission made unequivocally clear that the current method of allocating federal homeland security resources, i.e., on a per capita basis alone, must be changed. Indeed, just a couple of weeks ago, 9/11 Commission Chairman Kean stated: We have recommended very strongly that homeland security funds should be distributed according to assessment of risk, and not simply by population or pork barrel or any other way. Our understanding is that that recommendation, which is a very important one to us, is not moving, and that other people are saying that we should now remove the discretion that Governor Ridge has now over those funds and mandate that it be only by population. That would fly totally in the face of our recommendations. We feel very strongly that the best ways to distribute those funds are by the proper assessments of risk. Not only did the 9/11 Commission recommend that such changes be made in how Federal homeland security funds are allocated, but commissions before it, such as the Homeland Security Independent Task Force of the Council on Foreign Relations, chaired by former Senator Warren, have strongly recommended it as well. Indeed, the Rudman Commission stated more than a year ago that ``Congress should establish a system for allocating scarce resources based less on dividing the spoils and more on addressing identified threats and vulnerabilities. . . . To do this, the federal government should consider such factors as population, population density, vulnerability assessment, and presence of critical infrastructure within each state.'' Moreover, the Senate just last week passed landmark legislation, the National Intelligence Reform Act, which contains the Homeland Security Grant Enhancement Act of 2004, which the Senate passed by voice vote as an amendment to the intelligence bill. The Homeland Security Grant Enhancement Act of 2004, originally introduced by Senate Governmental Affairs Committee Chairwoman Collins, contains a number of good provisions, but among the most important is one that requires the majority of Federal homeland security grant funds intended for State and local governments to be allocated based on threat and risk and other factors rather than on the basis of population alone. This legislation was the result of almost 2 years of work in the Senate. Legislation that calls for threat-based funding has also been introduced by House Select Committee on Homeland Security Chairman Cox, which has been included in the intelligence reform legislation that the House of Representatives just passed. In short, the language in the conference report to the Fiscal Year 2005 Homeland Security Appropriations Act reflects an utter disregard for the hard work performed over years by members of the Senate and House as well as the expert evaluations and recommendations of the 9/11 and Rudman Commissions. For the sake of our Nation's homeland defense, I hope that the Congress will soon act on the conference report to the intelligence reform legislation that has now initially passed both the Senate and House. Both the Senate and House bills direct that homeland security funds for States and local communities be allocated based on threat and other factors. Then, the tremendous wrong in this conference report that was done to our Nation's homeland defense will be made right. Second, this conference report actually includes less funding for our Nation's first responders for fiscal year 2005 than was appropriated for our fire fighters, police officers, EMTs and other first responders in fiscal year 2004, less funding for this year than last year, and at a time when the threat of terrorist attack against many of our communities, especially the City of New York, and our Nation as a whole remains. This conference report has less funding for the State Homeland Security Grant program, less funding for the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Grant program, less funding for the FIRE Act, and less funding specifically for high-threat urban areas. Lastly, much of the improvements that the Senate made to the homeland security appropriations bill during the Senate's initial consideration of the bill were stripped from the conference report by the House Republican leadership. And when the conferees had the opportunity to remedy this egregious mistake by supporting an amendment by Senator Byrd to restore $784 million in cuts, that amendment was defeated. As the conference report itself states, the conference agreement deletes section 518 of the Senate-passed bill, which included $200 million in additional funding for the Northern Border Air Wing, so that the air wings across our border can be appropriately operated; $50 million for nonprofit organizations that are at greater risk of terrorist threats; $50 million in additional critical funding for FIRE Act grants, and $50 million for Emergency Management Performance Grants. Though I am disappointed with other provisions either contained in this bill, or missing, I am pleased that the conference committee included language from an amendment I sponsored to include funding for the firefighters and police officers of New York City. Specifically, I commend the conferees of both the House and Senate for requiring the Federal Emergency Management Agency to provide $4,450,000 for Project Liberty pursuant to the request of the Governor of New York. We know that $25,000,000 remains unexpended, and unobligated, at the Federal Emergency Management Agency and I know they will respond to the direction of the Appropriations Committee to speed these funds to New York. We owe these heroes every penny available for mental health counseling. Our firefighters and police officers have been receiving this counseling since losing so many of their brothers, sisters, friends, and family members in the attacks. Our firefighters and police officers have had to cope with the unimaginable and yet they stand strong on the front lines to protect the homeland. The men and women of the New York City Fire Department and New York City Police Department, their families, and retirees, have helped this country cope with the tragic losses of that day, and this Congress has sent a clear message that we stand with them in helping them cope with their own losses. I will continue to do whatever I can in my capacity as a Senator from New York to make sure our firefighters and police officers receive the funding they need not only in the area of mental health counseling but in all areas of homeland security. (At the request of Mr. Daschle, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues in supporting the quest for justice in the Hungarian Gold Train case. I have heard from these Holocaust survivors. Their story is painful, and the evidence is overwhelming. Our moral duty is clear. One of the most troubling aspects of this is that we should not be having this debate at all. The facts of the Gold Train incident are not really in dispute. And for all the effort expended by the Federal Government in court trying to evade these facts, the facts were disclosed to the world by the Federal Government itself. The reason we know about the Gold Train is because of the Presidential Advisory Commission on Holocaust Assets, PCHA. In the 1990s, our own Government told other nations they should look into their pasts--face the facts--and make redress as appropriate. Seventeen nations established commissions to do that. So did we. This Congress created the PCHA to study the past and reveal the truth. The Commission was fortunate to have Edgar Bronfman, then chairman of the World Jewish Congress, as its head. Stuart Eizenstat, the government's top official dealing with these matters, was a key member. It had a full staff of historians and researchers and a budget of several million dollars. The Commission found that the record of the United States was a source of pride. Our Nation not only liberated Europe, but after the war, served as a model for how to handle the assets that had been stolen from Europe's Jews--with one glaring exception. In 1999, the Commission issued a report on the Gold Train. After half a century of silence and coverup, the Federal Government stated that the Gold Train was an ``egregious failure of the United States to follow its own policy regarding restitution of Holocaust victims' property after World War II.'' We cannot be proud of this conduct, but we can all be proud that the Government made this admission. We should all have expected that the next step was to make good on these disclosures and this conclusion. The Government should have compensated these survivors. Instead, the survivors were forced to go to court. The Justice Department is fighting them inch by inch. One would expect the Justice Department to defend the Government's PCHA report. Instead, the Justice Department has disputed the accuracy of the report and claimed that the Commission withdrew its report. However, as Chairman Edgar Bronfman has made plain, the Progress Report is an ``accurate account of the United States' handling and disposition of the `Gold Train' property.'' Bronfman also has noted that, ``In no way . . . did the PCHA intend to retract or retreat from the findings of the Progress Report.'' In fact, Mr. Bronfman points out, the report is prominently displayed on the commission's website. Our Nation has a duty to the past. It has a duty to these people. They are dying every day. The Justice Department should sit down and resolve this matter with these survivors. That is the right thing to do.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise to introduce today a bill to authorize the development of the Coordinated Environmental Health Network. I am pleased to have Senators Chafee and Reid as cosponsors. Environmental public health tracking of chronic diseases began in FY 2002 when the CDC awarded $17 million to 17 states and 3 local health departments to develop the Program and establish 3 Centers of Excellence. These funds were for capacity building and demonstration projects over 3 years. Efforts included correlation of asthma in young adults to air pollution from traffic exhaust or indoor air quality in schools, correlation of adverse pregnancy outcomes and air pollution measurements, PCBs in water supplies, etc and biomonitoring for blood lead and hair mercury with exposure databases. In FY 2003, CDC awarded $18.5 million to continue this program and expand to three additional states as in Florida to link statewide surveillance systems for asthma, autism, mental retardation, cancers, and birth defects with EPA's Toxic Release Inventory, statewide air monitoring data, and data from the statewide well water surveillance program. 24 states now have efforts to track asthma. FY 2004 funding reached $27 million, and an additional $28 million pending in the Fiscal Year 2005 Labor-Health and Human Services-Education Appropriations bill. Our bill would build on these efforts, and would eventually cover all priority chronic conditions including birth defects, developmental disabilities (such as cerebral palsy, autism, and mental retardation), asthma and chronic respiratory diseases, neurological diseases, such as Parkinson's disease, multiple sclerosis, and Alzheimer's disease, and autoimmune diseases such as Lupus. It would also eventually reach as many of the States as possible; already the EPA and DHHS (CDC) have signed a Memorandum of Understanding to coordinate exposure databases with the CDC's nationwide chronic disease tracking network and the State grantees. Our current public health surveillance systems were developed when the major threats to health were infectious agents. Currently, 50 infectious diseases are tracked on a national basis. However, chronic diseases, such as cancer and cardiovascular disease are now the nation's number one killers, and there is evidence that rates of some chronic diseases and conditions are rising. More than 1.3 million new cancer cases were diagnosed in 2003. One in 33 U.S. babies born has a birth defect, and about 17 percent of children under 18 years of age have a developmental disability. In 2001, an estimated 31.3 million Americans reported having been diagnosed with asthma during their lifetime, and 14 million adults reported physician-diagnosed chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Chronic diseases cost Americans $750,000,000,000 in health care expenses and lost productivity and affect 100 million Americans. Yet our systems for tracking chronic diseases are woefully underdeveloped. All across our nation are communities where disease clusters such as birth defects, cancers and asthma raise questions about the role of environmental factors in chronic diseases. In order to improve the health of our nation and lower health care costs, we need to develop the infrastructure to study the relationship between environment and chronic disease. The Coordinated Environmental Health Network Act would create the infrastructure necessary to collect, analyze, and report data on the rate of disease and the presence of relevant environmental factors and exposures. The Network would also coordinate national, State, and local efforts to bolster our public health system's capacity to investigate and respond aggressively to environmental exposures that threaten health. In addition, the Coordinated Environmental Health Network will alert health officials when there is a sudden increase in any disease or condition, including those associated with a biological or chemical attack. Once fully operational, the network will coordinate national, state, and local efforts to inform communities, public health officials, researchers, and policymakers of potential environmental health risks, and to integrate this information with other parts of the public health system. The Coordinated Environmental Health Network Act is supported by the Trust for America's Health, American Public Health Association, Citizens for a Cleaner Environment, March of Dimes, American Lung Association, U.S. Public Interest Research Group, The Breast Cancer Fund, Physicians for Social Responsibility, and many others. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise to introduce today a bill to authorize the development of the Coordinated Environmental Health Network. I am pleased to have Senators Chafee and Reid as cosponsors. Environmental public health tracking of chronic diseases began in FY 2002 when the CDC awarded $17 million to 17 states and 3 local health departments to develop the Program and establish 3 Centers of Excellence. These funds were for capacity building and demonstration projects over 3 years. Efforts included correlation of asthma in young adults to air pollution from traffic exhaust or indoor air quality in schools, correlation of adverse pregnancy outcomes and air pollution measurements, PCBs in water supplies, etc and biomonitoring for blood lead and hair mercury with exposure databases. In FY 2003, CDC awarded $18.5 million to continue this program and expand to three additional states as in Florida to link statewide surveillance systems for asthma, autism, mental retardation, cancers, and birth defects with EPA's Toxic Release Inventory, statewide air monitoring data, and data from the statewide well water surveillance program. 24 states now have efforts to track asthma. FY 2004 funding reached $27 million, and an additional $28 million pending in the Fiscal Year 2005 Labor-Health and Human Services-Education Appropriations bill. Our bill would build on these efforts, and would eventually cover all priority chronic conditions including birth defects, developmental disabilities (such as cerebral palsy, autism, and mental retardation), asthma and chronic respiratory diseases, neurological diseases, such as Parkinson's disease, multiple sclerosis, and Alzheimer's disease, and autoimmune diseases such as Lupus. It would also eventually reach as many of the States as possible; already the EPA and DHHS (CDC) have signed a Memorandum of Understanding to coordinate exposure databases with the CDC's nationwide chronic disease tracking network and the State grantees. Our current public health surveillance systems were developed when the major threats to health were infectious agents. Currently, 50 infectious diseases are tracked on a national basis. However, chronic diseases, such as cancer and cardiovascular disease are now the nation's number one killers, and there is evidence that rates of some chronic diseases and conditions are rising. More than 1.3 million new cancer cases were diagnosed in 2003. One in 33 U.S. babies born has a birth defect, and about 17 percent of children under 18 years of age have a developmental disability. In 2001, an estimated 31.3 million Americans reported having been diagnosed with asthma during their lifetime, and 14 million adults reported physician-diagnosed chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Chronic diseases cost Americans $750,000,000,000 in health care expenses and lost productivity and affect 100 million Americans. Yet our systems for tracking chronic diseases are woefully underdeveloped. All across our nation are communities where disease clusters such as birth defects, cancers and asthma raise questions about the role of environmental factors in chronic diseases. In order to improve the health of our nation and lower health care costs, we need to develop the infrastructure to study the relationship between environment and chronic disease. The Coordinated Environmental Health Network Act would create the infrastructure necessary to collect, analyze, and report data on the rate of disease and the presence of relevant environmental factors and exposures. The Network would also coordinate national, State, and local efforts to bolster our public health system's capacity to investigate and respond aggressively to environmental exposures that threaten health. In addition, the Coordinated Environmental Health Network will alert health officials when there is a sudden increase in any disease or condition, including those associated with a biological or chemical attack. Once fully operational, the network will coordinate national, state, and local efforts to inform communities, public health officials, researchers, and policymakers of potential environmental health risks, and to integrate this information with other parts of the public health system. The Coordinated Environmental Health Network Act is supported by the Trust for America's Health, American Public Health Association, Citizens for a Cleaner Environment, March of Dimes, American Lung Association, U.S. Public Interest Research Group, The Breast Cancer Fund, Physicians for Social Responsibility, and many others. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. I would like to thank Senator Bayh, along with Senators McCain, Lieberman and Specter, for stepping forward to ensure that the 9/11 Commission's recommendations on education become a key part of our Nation's anti-terrorism strategy. As you know, I have introduced legislation to promote universal basic education in all of the world's developing countries by 2015. I am pleased that the Senators forging this bipartisan bill have accepted many of these recommendations, including creating, for the first time, a strategy to promote universal basic education in the Middle East and other significantly Muslim countries. The bill also encourages countries to come forward with strong national education plans for quality universal basic education and directs our efforts at providing support for such crucial systemic reform. The provisions included in this 9/11 bill represent an important step toward the goal of universal basic education. I want to thank all the leaders on this amendment for working with me on this issue, and I appreciate their leadership on this bill.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the important work of kinship caregivers across the Nation and to commend the Edgewood Center for Children and Families in San Francisco, CA, for its long-spanning commitment to caring for children. Kinship caregivers are making a real difference in the lives of children all across our country. According to the Census, more than 6 million children--1 in 12--live in households headed by grandparents or other relatives. Similarly, a study conducted by the American Association of Retired Persons found that the number of children living in grandparent-headed households increased by 30 percent between 1990 and 2000. Unfortunately, while grandparents and other relatives have stepped forward to provide safe and loving homes for the children in their care, they also often face great difficulties in achieving emotional and financial stability. With millions of children still in need of loving, permanent homes and countless grandparents and relatives willing to raise these children who need our support, there is more work to be done. The Edgewood Center for Children and Families is the oldest children's charity in the western United States serving children and families that provides a national model for keeping families intact. Edgewood Center's Kinship Support Network is the first program in the nation to provide comprehensive, private-sector support services to relative caregiver families. This program uses mentoring, support groups, and training to prepare grandparents and relatives for parenting, while providing tutoring, independent living skills, and mental health care for adopted children. Last year, as many as 95.5 percent of the children in Edgewood's program either remained with their kinship families or were reunited with their parents, and less than 2 percent had to be moved into foster care. This is an enormous success considering that only 78 percent of Kinship families remained stable in the years prior to the inception of Edgewood's programs. In July, I introduced the Kinship Caregiver Support Act, S. 2706, to establish community ``kinship navigator'' programs with services similar to the Edgewood's Kinship Support Networks. My legislation would also help ease the financial burden of kinship caregivers so that these families receive the financial support they need. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate to ensure passage of the Kinship Caregiver Support Act so that we help strengthen kinship families all across America. Again, I commend the Edgewood Center for Children and Families for its tradition of excellence in providing services to kinship caregivers and extend my best wishes for continued success in the future.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, on September 23, our country lost one of its greatest jurists, and Arkansas lost one of its greatest native sons, Richard Sheppard Arnold. Judge Arnold was born into a legal family in 1936 in Texarkana, TX. His maternal grandfather, Morris Sheppard, served in this body from Texas from 1913 until 1941, and his paternal grandfather, William H. Arnold, was a circuit judge. His father, Richard Lewis Arnold, was a leading expert in public unitlies law. Judge Arnold graduated first in his class from Yale University and Harvard Law School, and in 1960 and 1961, he served as law clerk to one of our Nation's greatest Supreme Court Justices, the late William J. Brennan. Judge Arnold served in private practice, ran for Congress, served as legislative advisor to both Governor and Senator Dale Bumpers, and spent more than 25 years on the Federal district and appellate benches. Since 1980, Judge Arnold served on the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Richard Arnold was one of our great legal writers with more than 700 opinions over the course of his legal career. Just this year, the American Society of Writers on Legal Subjects awarded him its lifetime achievement award, only the second in its 50-year history. His more prominent opinions advanced civil rights and voting rights, and in March of this year, as part of a three-judge panel, his 22-page opinion upheld a lower court ruling releasing the Little Rock School District from more than 40 years of Federal court supervision of its desegregation efforts. Judge Richard Arnold was a friend to President Clinton and me and we join his wife, Kay, and his two daughters, Janet and Lydia, along with his brother, Judge Morris ``Buzz'' Arnold, in mourning his passing. He will be remembered for his remarkable life, his unequalled brilliance, character, common sense, deep religious faith, and devotion to the law. We have lost a cherished friend, and our Nation has lost a champion of justice.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise today in recognition of the DREAM Vigil, a national grassroots effort to raise support for the DREAM Act. Many New Yorkers participated in a 5-day fast during the National Week of Action for Immigrants' Rights. They did this in part to show support for the DREAM Act, an important piece of legislation for immigration reform. In a show of solidarity, similar fasts have been organized in cities and States across the Nation over the past 2 weeks. The DREAM Vigil culminated last week and I commend all of the State and local organizations, community members, local leaders and students in New York and across the Nation that have participated in this effort. Recently, I stood before you and spoke about the importance of this month's celebration of Hispanic heritage. Today, Hispanic Americans are flourishing in States across the country and I am proud to represent the most diverse Hispanic community in our Nation. Yet, I worry that far too many immigrant children and families continue to suffer under America's broken immigration system. This year more than 65,000 immigrant students graduated from U.S. high schools only to see the doors of opportunity closed to them, through no fault of their own. The DREAM Act, which I proudly cosponsor, will help expand opportunities for our Nation's immigrant students by placing them on a path to college and U.S. citizenship. Yet Members of Congress and this administration continue to put this important legislation on the back burner. Over the last few years, immigrant students and advocates across the country have engaged in an enormous amount of activity in support of the DREAM Act. They have met with members of Congress, held hundreds of rallies, gathered more than 100,000 petitions, made tens of thousands of phone calls to congressional offices, and more. Just last April, over 300 students and advocates came to Washington, DC, from all across the Nation to express their support for the DREAM Act and to urge President Bush to support this legislation. Nearly half of these students came from New York, and I was proud to have had the opportunity to meet some of them. It is important to understand that these students were brought to this Nation as young children and have been educated in our public school system. They have stayed in school and stayed out of trouble and many are valedictorians, honor students, student leaders, and high achievers. Yet, because of their immigration status they are often effectively barred from pursuing a post-secondary education and the American dream. Over the past several years I have met many of these students. They have also written to me to share their stories of why this legislation is important to them. In July, I heard from Alejandra, who came to Washington as part of a group of advocates for immigration reform. Alejandra also participated in the 5-day fast as part of the National Week of Action in New York. She graduated in June as the valedictorian of Renaissance Charter School in Jackson Heights, Queens. Alejandra was a member of the National Honor Society; a sixth grade tutor; a teacher's assistant; an intern with the Global Kids, Human Rights Activist Project; and one of 400 students and staff across the Nation who were selected to participate in the National Young Leaders Conference in Washington, DC, last year. Yet. Alejandra is one of many students across New York whose high school graduation was bittersweet. Alejandra has done everything right. However, she still struggles to pay for college, a struggle that is not based on her merit, but rather on her immigration status. Despite all of her hard work, exemplary academic performance, and outstanding record of community service, Alejandra remains ineligible for Federal grants, loans or work-study jobs to help her afford college. Our broken immigration system is trying to force her out of our education system and the American dream. But, Alejandra is determined. She is persistent, and she refuses to give up. In spite of her immigration status and unlike other students in her precarious situation, Alejandra has found a way to pursue higher education. She currently attends the City University of new York. But still, the DREAM Act remains her only real hope of achieving that one thing that all Americans yearn and work hard for--the opportunity to fully contribute to the land we call home--the American dream. Without the DREAM Act, her years of hard work and the education that she has struggled so hard to obtain will be meaningless and wasted since Alejandra will never be able to put her skills to work legally.It is a wasted investment for her and a wasted investment for the American people. I find it deeply troubling that we allow this to happen in today's 21st century economy, where a post-secondary education is quickly becoming the minimum requirement for higher-earning jobs. Failure to provide immigrant students such as Alejandra and all students with adequate access to post-secondary education will have devastating economic and social consequences for these individuals and our entire Nation. That is why the DREAM Act is so critical. It ensures that the promise of the American dream becomes a reality for our Nation's immigrants-- many of whom are Hispanic Americans--and every American. Results of two national public opinion polls demonstrate strong voter support for the concept embodied in the DREAM Act. The DREAM Act deserves our Nation's full support and I urge President Bush and Congress to pass this important legislation this year.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise to add my strong support to the efforts of the Senator from New Jersey. The situation in Sudan has been plaguing the civilized world for years. Despite the best efforts of those who have attempted to broker some kind of resolution, including our Secretary of State, the Secretary General of the United Nations, other people of good will, the Sudanese Government--which is largely a terrorist regime--continues to thumb its nose at the civilized world and continues to support and engage in the terrorism that afflicts the Darfur region. We have to do something. What the Senator from New Jersey proposes, to declare a contingent emergency, to ask the administration to continue its best efforts to look for a way to bring even greater pressure on the Sudanese, is exactly what we should do. Many of my colleagues have been to Sudan. They have returned to report and to validate the stories we read in the press. The Janjaweed are, obviously, a tool of the Sudanese Government. The regime in Khartoum is attempting to obliterate, to commit genocide against the people of Darfur. Once again, for the rest of the world, including the United States, to stand by and watch this happen, engage in diplomatic, political, and United Nations Security Council negotiations, but the murdering continues, the raping continues, the extraordinary hardship continues, it is just unacceptable. There have been a lot of books written in the last couple of years about how could we let Rwanda happen? Why did we wait so long before we went into Bosnia and Kosovo? I don't know the answer to all of that. But I know that we face right now another situation of genocide. I commend the Senator from New Jersey, who has been to Sudan, who has seen firsthand the effect of these genocidal policies carried out by the Sudanese Government, and I hope we will support his efforts. The Senate should be on the side of protecting people who are attempting to live their lives and go about their daily business. We are expending tens of billions of dollars to bring democracy and freedom to Iraq. We should be doing all we can with moral authority and financial support and with logistical support to try to end the genocide in Darfur. I hope our colleague will support this very important amendment by the Senator from New Jersey and stand with the people who are oppressed, who are left behind, largely women and children who are totally under the thumb, the heel, the boot of these Janjaweed marauders who are fully supported by the Sudanese Government, and do what we can to go on record in this Foreign Operations appropriations to make it clear that we will do whatever we can to stand with people who are being subjected to genocide. I hope our colleagues on both sides of the aisle will support the amendment of the Senator from New Jersey. I yield the floor.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, today, I rise to introduce the Patients' Privacy Protection Act, legislation that will close a loophole in the Federal Rules of Evidence and ensure that every American's medical records remain confidential. I want to acknowledge my friend Congressman Nadler who is introducing the House companion to this bill today as well as Senators Corzine, Wyden, Lautenberg, Boxer, Jeffords, and Mikulski who join me as original cosponsors of this critical measure. I began exploring this issue when I learned that Attorney General John Ashcroft had subpoenaed the confidential medical records from thousands of women around the country to defend the first-ever Federal abortion ban in Federal court. The fact that the women in question were not a party to the lawsuits did not deter him. Such a deliberate intrusion into people's medical privacy record is deeply disturbing. Americans deserve full confidence that the government is not looking into their medical records. Without such an assurance, how will Americans trust their doctors? What procedures, discussions, and diagnoses will they avoid for fear that these records could shame them or adversely impact their future if unearthed? At issue in this bill is what a reasonable person should expect when they walk into a doctor's office. That person expects that what they say to her doctor stays with her doctor. Only because of that confidence are people able to be honest. And only through that honesty are people able to obtain the healthcare they need. The right to private medical records is an issue that, in rhetoric at least, has broad support on both sides of the partisan divide. In fact, it was President Bush himself who, as recently as 2001 during a statement on the Medical Privacy Rule said, ``I believe that we must protect both vital health care services and the right of every American to have confidence that his or her personal medical records will remain private.'' Even Attorney General Ashcroft has made strong statements in support of the privacy of medical records. Back in 1998, in a press release put out by his Senate office in which he is referred to as a ``consistent champion of privacy rights,'' then-Senator Ashcroft says ``We should guarantee that the federal government does not undermine an individual's fundamental right to privacy . . . Without privacy protections in place, people may be discouraged from seeking help or taking advantage of the access to health care.'' I agree. But unlike Attorney General Ashcroft, I believe preserving patient privacy entails more than issuing a press release. Patient privacy doesn't end when it conflicts with a political agenda, no matter how deeply felt that conviction. Throughout this Administration, we have seen Attorney General Ashcroft disregard civil liberties in the name of preventing terrorism. But through this action, we see him disregarding civil rights in the name of outlawing abortion. This is a very slippery slope that, if unchecked, could affect not just women seeking reproductive healthcare, but all Americans. Over the past few months, the Department of Justice has asserted that federal law does not recognize the doctor-patient privilege, and that individuals no longer have a reasonable expectation of medical privacy. These are alarming statements. Thankfully, Attorney General Ashcroft is not being allowed to run roughshod over our right to privacy and medical confidentiality. On March 5, 2004, a San Francisco court ruled that the Department of Justice has no right to view the records in question in the Planned Parenthood Federation of America lawsuit against the abortion ban. The decision issued by Judge Phyllis Hamilton soundly affirmed women's right to privacy. She said, ``There is no question that the patient is entitled to privacy and protection. . . . Women are entitled to not have the government looking at their records.'' Nevertheless, we cannot take a chance that once again, when it suits the political or ideological interests of this Administration or Administrations to come, the federal government will intrude upon the most personal of information. That is why I stand before you today. The Patient Privacy Protection Act of 2004 is very simple. It states that a patient's medical records and any communication about their medical history are confidential unless a judge determines that the public interest in those records being made public significantly outweighs the patient's privilege. In the cases where a judge orders the records to be disclosed, the court shall, to the extent practicable, eliminate any and all personally identifiably information. I am pleased to be introducing this simple, straightforward, common- sense piece of legislation. I do not believe there is a Member of either Chamber of Congress who in good faith could oppose this measure, and I look forward to working with my colleagues, Representative Nadler and others to see it enacted into law expediently.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, today, I rise to introduce the Patients' Privacy Protection Act, legislation that will close a loophole in the Federal Rules of Evidence and ensure that every American's medical records remain confidential. I want to acknowledge my friend Congressman Nadler who is introducing the House companion to this bill today as well as Senators Corzine, Wyden, Lautenberg, Boxer, Jeffords, and Mikulski who join me as original cosponsors of this critical measure. I began exploring this issue when I learned that Attorney General John Ashcroft had subpoenaed the confidential medical records from thousands of women around the country to defend the first-ever Federal abortion ban in Federal court. The fact that the women in question were not a party to the lawsuits did not deter him. Such a deliberate intrusion into people's medical privacy record is deeply disturbing. Americans deserve full confidence that the government is not looking into their medical records. Without such an assurance, how will Americans trust their doctors? What procedures, discussions, and diagnoses will they avoid for fear that these records could shame them or adversely impact their future if unearthed? At issue in this bill is what a reasonable person should expect when they walk into a doctor's office. That person expects that what they say to her doctor stays with her doctor. Only because of that confidence are people able to be honest. And only through that honesty are people able to obtain the healthcare they need. The right to private medical records is an issue that, in rhetoric at least, has broad support on both sides of the partisan divide. In fact, it was President Bush himself who, as recently as 2001 during a statement on the Medical Privacy Rule said, ``I believe that we must protect both vital health care services and the right of every American to have confidence that his or her personal medical records will remain private.'' Even Attorney General Ashcroft has made strong statements in support of the privacy of medical records. Back in 1998, in a press release put out by his Senate office in which he is referred to as a ``consistent champion of privacy rights,'' then-Senator Ashcroft says ``We should guarantee that the federal government does not undermine an individual's fundamental right to privacy . . . Without privacy protections in place, people may be discouraged from seeking help or taking advantage of the access to health care.'' I agree. But unlike Attorney General Ashcroft, I believe preserving patient privacy entails more than issuing a press release. Patient privacy doesn't end when it conflicts with a political agenda, no matter how deeply felt that conviction. Throughout this Administration, we have seen Attorney General Ashcroft disregard civil liberties in the name of preventing terrorism. But through this action, we see him disregarding civil rights in the name of outlawing abortion. This is a very slippery slope that, if unchecked, could affect not just women seeking reproductive healthcare, but all Americans. Over the past few months, the Department of Justice has asserted that federal law does not recognize the doctor-patient privilege, and that individuals no longer have a reasonable expectation of medical privacy. These are alarming statements. Thankfully, Attorney General Ashcroft is not being allowed to run roughshod over our right to privacy and medical confidentiality. On March 5, 2004, a San Francisco court ruled that the Department of Justice has no right to view the records in question in the Planned Parenthood Federation of America lawsuit against the abortion ban. The decision issued by Judge Phyllis Hamilton soundly affirmed women's right to privacy. She said, ``There is no question that the patient is entitled to privacy and protection. . . . Women are entitled to not have the government looking at their records.'' Nevertheless, we cannot take a chance that once again, when it suits the political or ideological interests of this Administration or Administrations to come, the federal government will intrude upon the most personal of information. That is why I stand before you today. The Patient Privacy Protection Act of 2004 is very simple. It states that a patient's medical records and any communication about their medical history are confidential unless a judge determines that the public interest in those records being made public significantly outweighs the patient's privilege. In the cases where a judge orders the records to be disclosed, the court shall, to the extent practicable, eliminate any and all personally identifiably information. I am pleased to be introducing this simple, straightforward, common- sense piece of legislation. I do not believe there is a Member of either Chamber of Congress who in good faith could oppose this measure, and I look forward to working with my colleagues, Representative Nadler and others to see it enacted into law expediently.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise to bring an important matter to the attention of my colleagues. As we all know, the No Child Left Behind Act, NCLB, requires an important shift in accountability for our Nation's public schools. It requires our schools to look at the achievement of all students, including students in several traditionally under-performing subgroups such as students with special needs. Our goal in passing this law was to make sure that no child was left behind to send a clear message that all American children deserve a world-class education. To do that, we required accountability for results, expanded local control and flexibility, emphasized the importance of valid and reliable educational tools, and expanded parental involvement. We also required schools to show, through transparent processes, sufficient progress for all students, including minorities, low-income students and students with disabilities. Today I am submitting for the record an August 30, 2004, New York Times article that contains troubling information about how NCLB is being implemented for students with special needs. This article, ``School Achievement Reports Often Exclude the Disabled,'' by Diana Jean Schemo, illustrates that some States are skirting the law in ways that are leaving students with disabilities behind. According to Schemo and the education officials who corroborated her observations, some States have raised the minimum number of disabled students that must be enrolled before the school has to report on their progress as a separate group. And some States do not break down the test scores for disabled students on school report cards. A number of States even classify special education schools as programs, not schools, therefore exempting them from accountability. This report is deeply troubling because it makes it impossible for parents to evaluate the effectiveness of their children's schools, and ultimately, could lead to children with special needs being ignored as they too often were in the past. Over 25 years ago, Congress enacted the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, a landmark education and civil rights law that ensured that all students--including the 6 million with disabilities--receive quality services in our Nation's public schools. This body has worked hard to reauthorize the IDEA because we continue to believe strongly in the notion that every child with special needs has the right to a free, appropriate, public education. The spirit and the letter of the No Child Left Behind Act builds on that promise, and it is my hope that with better implementation, it will be realized. I ask unanimous consent that the New York Times article be printed in the Record.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise in recognition of the start of Hispanic Heritage Month. As we embark on this month-long festivity, I am pleased to take this opportunity to celebrate the extraordinary contributions to our country that the Hispanic community embodies. Today it is clear to all of us that Hispanic Americans are flourishing in every State in our Nation. The diversity of the population is such a tribute to the freedom and opportunity America promises. Hispanic Americans are starting growing businesses, contributing to the safety and security of our Nation through their service in the Armed Forces, going on to college in high rates, and making a real difference in every part of American life. So there is much to celebrate during Hispanic Heritage Month 2004. There are also serious concerns that should involve all of us--not only those who themselves are of Hispanic heritage or those like myself who are privileged to represent a very vibrant, dynamic Latino community in New York, but for all Americans--because the issues facing Hispanic Americans are the same ones that are important to every American. I have been concerned because I think on so many fronts the record of the current administration is one that by any objective analysis is found wanting. Time and time again, the administration has promised or told us one thing, only to proceed to do something else and to establish a record of broken promises. For example, on health care, Hispanic Americans, as all Americans, are dependent in their older years on Medicare. Medicare provides vital services to Hispanic seniors. They were listening last year as President Bush claimed his Medicare bill would benefit them. He repeated that claim in his speech at his party's political convention. And the next day, what did we see? The largest increase in Medicare premiums in history. While Hispanic parents, like all parents, look to our public schools to help their children acquire the tools to be successful in our very competitive global economy, again, the Bush administration has proposed over and over in its budget to cut key programs such as bilingual education, dropout prevention, migrant and seasonal Head Start, and Hispanic Serving Institutions that do so much in every community across our Nation. Yet in the fiscal year 2005 budget, all of these programs are targeted for dramatic cuts. This is happening at the same time that we know the administration has continued to underfund the No Child Left Behind Act. In New York City, we have the largest school district in the country, with a million students. That seems shocking to some of my colleagues who come from States that don't even have a million people. In very difficult circumstances, that school district is struggling to deal with the obligations imposed upon it by the No Child Left Behind Act. Among the obligations is to provide testing to children in their native language. Yet we know that is still not being fulfilled by the administration. We know there are all kinds of issues with overcrowding because we are letting people move from school to school under the transfer provision, but we don't have adequate space for them to move into. Because of the very highly concentrated Hispanic population in New York, that falls disproportionately on the children I represent. I worry that what was held out as a great promise under No Child Left Behind, because of a broken promise and a failure to fund what had been promised, the burdens of complying with that act are falling on those least able to bear them. Perhaps most alarmingly, the President continues to tell us, against the evidence we see with our own eyes, that the economy is strong and that the budget deficit, estimated to be at least $422 billion--and more likely $445 billion--is not to be worried about. In fact, recently, on a national news program, the President was asked whether he thought the budget deficit--the highest in our history--was pretty good. The President answered, ``Yes, I do, I do.'' Well, I could not disagree more. There is nothing pretty good about a record budget surplus in 2001 being transformed into a record budget deficit. All the while, the number of Americans without health care goes up, the number of Americans in the middle class falling into poverty goes up. Since the President took office, the number of Americans living in poverty has increased by more than 4.3 million men, women, and children. Median household income for families is down 3.4 percent. However, the picture for Hispanic Americans is even bleaker because so many of them start at the bottom of the economic ladder, where they work and strive and accomplish so much to lift themselves and their children out of poverty. So while 11.7 percent of all Americans live in poverty, 21.4 percent of Hispanics live in poverty. Last year, median income fell, on average, $63 nationally, but it dropped $864 for Hispanic families. The list goes on and on because so many of the pillars of the American middle-class dream--a dream that sustained my family, that motivated me, that has brought many of us to this Chamber--are beginning to erode. What does it mean if the income you get from a job is not enough to sustain yourself and your family? What does it mean for a minimum wage when you work 40 hours a week and you remain mired in poverty? What does it mean if you can get a job but it doesn't have health care benefits? What does it mean if your pension is at risk and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, the Federal Government's promise to try to guarantee those pensions, is tottering as well? Mark my words, we are on a path that will undermine the economic viability not only of American businesses in this competitive global economy but of Americans, American families, and traditionally disadvantaged communities will suffer disproportionately. When people sort of dismiss the importance of the Federal budget deficit, I don't know what economic text they have been studying. We know that it is inevitable that interest rates will rise, capital will be squeezed as the Government takes more and more. But what is even worse is we become increasingly dependent on foreign lenders. I for one am not enthusiastic about the fact that we borrow tens of billions of dollars from the Governments of Japan, China, and South Korea. How can we look ourselves in the mirror and know we are now the world's biggest debtor nation, and among our creditors are nations we built, we saved, we economically propped up or are our competitors strategically and economically for the future? We are setting up a house of cards. When it will begin to totter adequately for all to see, I cannot predict, but I know we are living on both borrowed money and borrowed time. I do not wish to dampen the celebration of Hispanic Heritage Month, but none of this sounds pretty good to me. The Latino community has made so many contributions to our history, our culture, our economy, and our society. I wish every one of my colleagues could march with me in the many parades we hold in New York, celebrating the various diverse heritages that make New York the most dynamic, extraordinary place on this wonderful planet of ours. Just to see and hear the excitement, the music, the color, and the vivacity would lift your spirit. I am so proud and honored to represent the most diverse Hispanic community in our Nation. Yet I worry that if we don't focus on what is happening in our health care system, our education system, and our economy, all Americans will wake up to find that the future is not as bright as it should be, that the promise we all feel is part of our birthright--those of us born here and those of us who came here--has somehow been undermined. It gives me great pleasure to celebrate Hispanic Heritage Month but to ask that we do more, to ask that we pass legislation such as AgJobs, ask that we pass the DREAM Act and continue to do everything we can to ensure the promise of the American dream for Hispanic Americans and every American.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the subcommittee, the Senator from Mississippi, and his excellent staff for their assistance in working out this amendment. This is an amendment that would continue to provide funding for the mental health counseling that the fire department and police department and other first responders have been receiving because of their experiences arising out of September 11. We are finding that only now are some of the firefighters, police officers, and others coming forward and expressing their need for some kind of intervention and assistance. This is a program that has worked very well. I am grateful for the Federal assistance to start this program, and we are hopeful that this amendment will enable FEMA, which already has money set aside arising out of already appropriated money for New York and for purposes like this, to obtain the requisite support they need to go forward with this mental health counseling. So I am very grateful that we have worked this out. There is no new money in it, there is no new earmarking or appropriations; it is merely giving FEMA the go-ahead, with the appropriate authorization, to continue the mental health program that has proven so successful. So, again, I appreciate greatly the chairman and his staff's assistance. I ask for a voice vote on this amendment, if appropriate at this time.

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

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3631.

Mrs. CLINTON. I would like to engage the Senator from Montana in a colloquy on Senate amendment No. 3636, the agriculture disaster assistance amendment. I appreciate his hard work in bringing this amendment forward. New York's farmers have suffered this year--both from heavy rains in July and from damaging winter frosts. In particular, both apple trees and grape vines were destroyed in New York this past winter. And while the losses for this year's crop will be covered by the crop disaster assistance provisions of this amendment, it is the tree assistance program that assists growers in replacing their lost trees and vines. So I thank the Senator for including that provision, and I would like to clarify with the Senator that the term ``tree'' as used in his amendment is used in the same way as it is defined in the 2002 farm bill. That is, term ``tree'' in this context means trees, bushes and vines, and would therefore assist New York's apple growers and grape growers alike.

Mrs. CLINTON. I thank the Senator for his assurance on this issue.

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, this amendment--sponsored by myself and Senators Ensign, Lautenberg, Feinstein, Boxer, and Corzine--follows the recommendation in the 9/11 Commission. What it does is to put into our bill language that permits the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security to allocate the money above the minimum that goes to all States. In other words, 38 percent of the money for homeland security will be distributed on a per capita basis to all States. The remaining 62 percent, which is the subject of my amendment, will be distributed as recommended by the 9/11 Commission and every other expert who has studied this issue on threat factors and risk assessments that will take into account matters such as population, population density, critical infrastructure, and such other factors as the Secretary considers appropriate. We have debated this on the floor for a number of years. I engaged in a colloquy about this back in July of 2003 when we were considering the Homeland Security appropriations. I have spoken on numerous occasions with Secretary Ridge. I know we have been given assurance that there would be developed some kind of threat matrix so we could take into account the full range of issues that should be considered. I am not in any way suggesting what those factors should be. I think food security should be among them. I think our petrochemical complexes should be among them. I think our laboratories in States such as New Mexico should be among them. I think there are probably threat-based assessments that would apply to every single State. But we know, having gone through this debate now year after year, that what happens is the path of least resistance is followed and the money is distributed on a per capita basis. I don't think that is good for any State, whether it is a large State or a small State, or any State in any part of our country. Some have argued my amendment would take money away from other States, particularly the small States. It does not. The money that was guaranteed to the small States, to all States, will continue to flow. But what we have done is to say, wait a minute, the Secretary of this Department should begin to be able to develop a threat assessment. And let's look at our critical infrastructure. Every State has such infrastructure. Instead, the money is going out to the States and they are spending it as they see fit, without necessary regard for our national interests and our homeland security concerns, some of which cross State and county borders, and I believe that looking to this opportunity as recommended by the 9/11 Commission is absolutely essential. So my amendment embodies the factors that were noted by the 9/11 Commission and it gives the administration--not me--and the Department of Homeland Security the discretion and authority to come up with any other factors they believe are relevant. It is time we follow the advice of the experts--this Commission and the Rudman Commission. Every commission and every security expert who has looked at this has come to the same conclusion: We should give the Secretary discretion to develop a threat matrix to do a risk analysis, and then to make sure the money is distributed accordingly. I hope for the sake of our homeland defense and in keeping with the words of this Commission, you will support the Clinton-Ensign amendment. Senator Ensign wanted to get back in time to be part of the debate, but it moved a little more quickly than we had expected. I look forward to working with him and working with our colleagues to ensure that we do this right. We have spent a lot of money and we have given a lot of equipment and given a lot of local communities money that, frankly, according to the articles that are often printed about this, they are looking for ways to spend. Mr. President, I hope we will vote for this amendment. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Schumer be added as a cosponsor.

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3651.

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, are there 2 minutes available equally divided?

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senators Kennedy and Corzine as cosponsors of this high-threat amendment.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise to respond to some of the points made by the chairman of the subcommittee. I start by saying that as I understand the underlying legislation from the House, there is no language, either legislative or report, that addresses how the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security should distribute the funding above the small State minimum. The language that my amendment is addressing specifically appears in the report to the Senate bill. So I want everyone to understand that I agree every State should receive a minimum level of funding. I think that is not only politically necessary, it is appropriate and fair. Based on the calculation of that funding, about 38 percent of all of the homeland security funding in the two biggest grant categories for the State homeland security grants and the terrorism prevention grants will go across the board on a per capita basis to all the States. So everybody will get a per capita basis that they can then use to meet their homeland security needs. Now, the remaining 62 percent of the money is what my formula amendment is addressing. At the very least, the Senate should not be, in report language, recommending that the Department of Homeland Security also distribute the funding on a per capita basis. That runs absolutely counter to the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. The 9/11 Commission said do away with small State minimums, do away with any kind of per capita funding, begin to distribute this money on the basis of risk and threat. Yet we get a committee recommendation from our Senate committee which basically recommends that the funds that are used consistent with each State's homeland security strategy are to be allocated on a per capita basis. So it is not only that we are failing to change the formula to comply with the 9/11 Commission, we are directing the Department of Homeland Security not to comply with the 9/11 Commission. I am not saying take the money away from all the States and direct it where it is most needed. I am not going the full place that the 9/11 Commission has set out for us. I am recognizing the political reality and the fairness of allocating money to every State. At the very least, let us not direct the Department of Homeland Security to distribute the money above the small State minimum on a per capita basis. So I hope we could remove that language, and my formula amendment would do that. Secondly, we cannot wait for the Governmental Affairs Committee to come forward with their authorization. I stood on this floor months ago and said we needed to change the risk and threat analysis in order to distribute the money more effectively. The very effective chairwoman of that committee came down to the floor and said: We are working on a change of formula. Work with us. Let us get the authorization changed. We have been waiting for that bill ever since. There is no authorization. The only opportunity we have to begin to try to focus our efforts on homeland security to address the kind of threats that we face is in this appropriations. In fact, the door has been opened because in this appropriations bill coming from the House, they talk about a PATRIOT Act minimum, and then the Senate committee goes one step forward and says above that minimum do not direct it any other way except per capita. So I understand very well that everybody has to look out for his or her own State, but on this matter we have to put the money where the threat is, and the threat is in places such as New York and Washington. Every committee, every commission that has looked at this has come to the same conclusion. So I look forward to working with the chairman to make it possible to distribute the money on a threat-based analysis as opposed to directing the Department to distribute the money above the small State minimum, 62 percent of the money, also on a per capita basis. I yield the floor.

Mrs. CLINTON. In addition to my first amendment, which would provide the Secretary with the discretion to distribute money above the State minimum, above the so-called PATRIOT Act minimum on the basis of threat, Senator Schumer and I offer this amendment to provide an additional $625 million for high-threat urban areas. This is a separate category of funding in homeland security in addition to the other two I mentioned. In this category, we know that the Secretary does have discretion, but what we have found is that over the last several years the discretion that he has felt obligated to exercise has meant less money going to more places as opposed to concentrating money on a threat analysis so we could really take care of the needs of particular areas and then move on down to take care of the needs of others. Last week, when Secretary Ridge spoke at the National Press Club, he said: I would tell you that we assess the level of terrorist threat outside of Washington and New York, which will always be at the top of the list. I mean, that's just a fact of life. . . . I'm not telling you anything [new]. It's not news. New York City, for obvious reasons--the impact on the economy and al-Qaida has always talked about the disruption or the undermining of our national economy. It's not just the iconic nature of New York City. A lot of the stock exchanges, the financial services community drives not only our national economy but the international economy. And Washington, D.C., the nation's capital, will always be targets. The 9/11 Commission and all the commissions before it, President Bush, and Secretary Ridge have all acknowledged the acute homeland security needs of high-threat urban areas, especially New York and Washington. I was delighted the recent Republican convention in New York went so well. Everyone seemed to have a great time in the greatest city in the world. The amount of work, the extraordinary expense of making it run so smoothly, was defrayed to some extent by Federal assistance, but to a large measure it reflected the ongoing investment that the people of the city of New York and the State of New York made in ensuring that we are always on high alert because, in fact, in New York City we are always on high alert. Yet despite that, last year, the Department of Homeland Security allocated only $47 million to the New York City area under the high- threat program. They admit that was insufficient. Everyone who looked at it knows it is insufficient. Our mayor has come forth with a very scrubbed list of immediate needs that is in the area of about $600 million just for New York City. That is why I am offering this amendment along with my colleague. I recognize Secretary Ridge has the authority to allocate high-threat resources in the way he deems appropriate. But, unfortunately, there is not enough money in the pot for him to do the job he knows needs to be done. So my amendment expresses the sense of the Senate that in allocating resources under the Urban Area Security Initiative, the Secretary should allocate commensurate with the threat these areas face. Now, $47 million, which was the allocation last year to New York City, is a lot of money. But it pales in comparison to the $200 million the New York City Police Department alone spends on counterterrorism activities and the $1 billion in New York City's specific homeland security needs. My guess is many of our guests at the Republican Convention enjoyed the city in part because the police presence was so pervasive and the reputation of our firefighters so well deserved for courage and bravery that it was not a matter you needed to think much about. You could get out and enjoy the city and go back and forth to hotels and go out for meals and maybe even go to the theater. I was thrilled by that. I am always very happy when people come to New York City. But the very bottom line is, we are not getting adequate funding to be as prepared as we need to be. And other high-threat areas are also in the same position. I hope we are able to recognize these two amendments are real, commonsense amendments. They are aimed at making sure the money gets where it is most needed and at increasing the money that is specifically addressing high-threat urban areas. Because, unfortunately, we are playing a little bit of a shell game here. We are cutting money for first responders, which is why I strongly support the amendment from my colleague, the Senator from Connecticut. We are expecting those firefighters and police officers and emergency responders and emergency room doctors and nurses and others to be ready when we need them. Hopefully, we will not need them, but they better be ready if we do need them. Yet we are cutting money for first responders. The omnibus Byrd amendment that we failed to pass in the Senate last week tried to address that. It is unfortunate we are taking money away with one hand while we are giving it back with the other. But what we are giving back does not make up for either what was lost or what is needed. I hope we can address the continuing emergency needs when it comes to our first responders. There is nothing more important--I am told this all the time--than funding specifically for interoperable communications systems. Unfortunately, there is no money in this bill to help our first responders do that. This is something we have talked about now for 3 years. Our police and firefighters could not talk to each other in New York. This is a problem that happens all over the country. Yet we do not seem to address it. Again, the 9/11 Commission came forward with a good recommendation: [H]igh-risk urban areas such as New York City and Washington, D.C., should establish single corps units to ensure communications connectivity between and among civilian authorities, local first responders, and the National Guard. Federal funding of such units should be given high priority by Congress. I hope we will do that before we finish this bill. I hope we can recognize that in most parts of our country that face these risks-- whether it is a tourist attraction such as Las Vegas or a large melting-pot city as Los Angeles or, of course, other cities of similar size and population density--having interoperable communications among and between first responders is essential to being able to deal with both threat and reality. We are on the lookout for potential terrorist activities and we need to be able to hope that all of our various law enforcement and firefighting responders and others are preventers as well as responders and are well equipped to do that. We can do the right thing by increasing the amount in the high-threat urban areas. If we put in the $625 million Senator Schumer and I are recommending in this amendment, we would bring the total appropriated amount to $1.5 billion. This is the amount I have been arguing for and fighting for in legislation I introduced back in January of this year. It is also in line with President Bush, according to his proposed fiscal year 2005 budget. In that budget, he called for $1,446,000,000 specifically for high-threat urban areas. So again, everybody seems to be in sync except our Congress. I do not understand that. I find it bewildering that we have the administration proposing this amount of money, we have every expert proposing this amount of money, but when it comes to action on the floor of the Senate and the House, somehow we do not do it. I hope my colleagues will support both of my amendments. I hope they will go along with the 9/11 Commission report which has won broad bipartisan support. It is, apparently, the fastest selling paperback in the country. A lot of Americans are reading it, digesting it. It is not only a debate among experts and policy wonks and security gurus. There is now a debate that is happening out in America. And it is a life-or-death debate. It goes to the heart of whether we are serious about homeland security, whether we are going to put our dollars where our words have been, whether we are going to get the results we need so we can feel confident we have done everything we know to do. So I ask my colleagues for support of the two amendments I have offered today and, in keeping with the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, to do so in a broad bipartisan way that sends a signal to not only our Nation but to any who wish us ill anywhere in the world that we are vigilant, we are prepared, we are doing all we humanly know to do to prevent and deter attacks and respond effectively should one occur. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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