Hillary Clinton

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong support for the Head Start Readiness and Coordination Act, of which I am a proud original co-sponsor. I want to commend Senator Dodd and Senator Kennedy for their hard work and commitment to making this bill the best it could be. The Head Start Readiness and Coordination Act presents a clear contrast with what has been proposed by the Administration and what has been passed by the House of Representatives. What this Administration and the Republican Leaders in the House want to do will not provide a Head Start for children--it will be a giant step back. A step back from all of the great things that Head Start provides: family services, dental care, health care, and of course learning. We need to strengthen Head Start not weaken it. And we need to expand its reach, not limit it. The way we create more opportunities for every child in New York and across the country is to build on our successes. And let met tell you Head Start has been a success since 1965. More than 20 million kids have benefited from this program. In this year alone, 50,000 New York families will participate. And the trend every time reauthorization has come up is to build a program that helps even more children and their families. If it's not broken, don't fix it. And that's what our ``Head Start Readiness and Coordination Act'' will do. We double the size of Early Head Start. We expand access to all eligible pre-schoolers. We provide better services for families and children who are still learning English--that's 25 percent of the Head Start population. And we improve coordination between the States so that children are ready for school and so that every child who needs it to have access to year-round care. This bill builds on the remarkable success of the Clinton Administration in improving Head Start. During my husband's tenure in the White House, enrollment in Head Start increased by almost 30 percent and funding increased by 120 percent. In 1994, my husband created the Early Head program to provide critical care to infants who are in one of--if not the most--critical stage of development. And in the 1998 reauthorization, we doubled the Early Head Start program so that today it is serving 62,000 infants and toddlers. The Clinton Administration also introduced outcome measures aligned with the successful performance standards to improve the quality of the program. And we ensured that 50 percent of all Head Start teachers have an Associates degree. At the time, many people said we were setting impossible standards, but today, the performance standards and outcomes are the backbone of every Head Start program, and the goal of 50 percent of teachers having Associates degrees has been exceeded. So, I know that we can reform and improve Head Start. And that is why I will never support dismantling it. Head Start is more than just one of this country's most successful anti-poverty programs. It is a great equalizer. It is a place where a young girl might have a book read to her for the first time; a place where a young boy might have his first check-up, and a place where a mother or father might learn about nutrition, the early signs of lead poisoning, and how to encourage learning at home. Head Start has lived up to its name and then some for millions of Americans. There is bipartisan support to preserve Head Start as we know it, to expand it, and to improve it. I look forward to working with my colleagues to make sure that this happens. We can do all of these great things without dismantling one of our greatest national endeavors for our children.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong support for the Head Start Readiness and Coordination Act, of which I am a proud original co-sponsor. I want to commend Senator Dodd and Senator Kennedy for their hard work and commitment to making this bill the best it could be. The Head Start Readiness and Coordination Act presents a clear contrast with what has been proposed by the Administration and what has been passed by the House of Representatives. What this Administration and the Republican Leaders in the House want to do will not provide a Head Start for children--it will be a giant step back. A step back from all of the great things that Head Start provides: family services, dental care, health care, and of course learning. We need to strengthen Head Start not weaken it. And we need to expand its reach, not limit it. The way we create more opportunities for every child in New York and across the country is to build on our successes. And let met tell you Head Start has been a success since 1965. More than 20 million kids have benefited from this program. In this year alone, 50,000 New York families will participate. And the trend every time reauthorization has come up is to build a program that helps even more children and their families. If it's not broken, don't fix it. And that's what our ``Head Start Readiness and Coordination Act'' will do. We double the size of Early Head Start. We expand access to all eligible pre-schoolers. We provide better services for families and children who are still learning English--that's 25 percent of the Head Start population. And we improve coordination between the States so that children are ready for school and so that every child who needs it to have access to year-round care. This bill builds on the remarkable success of the Clinton Administration in improving Head Start. During my husband's tenure in the White House, enrollment in Head Start increased by almost 30 percent and funding increased by 120 percent. In 1994, my husband created the Early Head program to provide critical care to infants who are in one of--if not the most--critical stage of development. And in the 1998 reauthorization, we doubled the Early Head Start program so that today it is serving 62,000 infants and toddlers. The Clinton Administration also introduced outcome measures aligned with the successful performance standards to improve the quality of the program. And we ensured that 50 percent of all Head Start teachers have an Associates degree. At the time, many people said we were setting impossible standards, but today, the performance standards and outcomes are the backbone of every Head Start program, and the goal of 50 percent of teachers having Associates degrees has been exceeded. So, I know that we can reform and improve Head Start. And that is why I will never support dismantling it. Head Start is more than just one of this country's most successful anti-poverty programs. It is a great equalizer. It is a place where a young girl might have a book read to her for the first time; a place where a young boy might have his first check-up, and a place where a mother or father might learn about nutrition, the early signs of lead poisoning, and how to encourage learning at home. Head Start has lived up to its name and then some for millions of Americans. There is bipartisan support to preserve Head Start as we know it, to expand it, and to improve it. I look forward to working with my colleagues to make sure that this happens. We can do all of these great things without dismantling one of our greatest national endeavors for our children.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Five minutes.

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania for this time to speak and I also thank him for cosponsoring this amendment along with my colleagues Senator Schumer, Senator Warner, and myself. This money is critically important for high-threat urban areas. It is also money that the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security has already made clear is needed in order to address the vulnerability and threat and other intelligence information that comes in on an hourly basis, not only to the Department of Homeland Security but to all of our intelligence agencies. The Secretary and the Department have identified so many communities as high threat during the past few months that it is a little bit daunting. But I agree with that assessment because, whether it is a large city such as New York City, or a small community such as Lackawanna, we have threats from one part of our country to the next. Indeed, just last month Attorney General Ashcroft unsealed an indictment against a 34-year-old Ohio truck driver who plotted with al- Qaida to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge. What more impressive symbol of New York and America could you imagine than the Brooklyn Bridge, that gateway bridge that connects Manhattan and Brooklyn, which is traveled over by thousands and thousands of pedestrians and motor vehicles every single day. Faris pled guilty to delivering cash, cell phones, plane tickets, and sleeping bags to al-Qaida leaders. We learned that he, working with terrorists, was planning to sever the Brooklyn Bridge's suspension cables. After getting close enough to the bridge to conduct surveillance, Faris decided to call off the terrorist attack because of the tight security on and around the bridge, provided by the NYPD. I am absolutely proud and confident in the activities of the NYPD. There is not a better police force anywhere in the world than the New York Police Department. They have been vigilant, providing the kind of security that is needed. But the NYPD's Operation Atlas that provided that security costs New York up to $700,000 a day. Some people might say that is a lot of money. Yes, it is a lot of money. But compared to destroying the Brooklyn Bridge it is nothing. And the fact that the NYPD was on the job, there every single day, scaring off terrorist scouts like this man from Ohio, saved how many lives? We have no way of calculating. In a guilty plea, Faris also admitted to conspiring to pinpoint targets for simultaneous terrorist attacks on New York City and Washington. This indictment was unsealed. His surveillance was conducted, not on September 12, 2001, but in recent months. These threats have not gone away, and we need to make sure we do everything possible to provide more funding to high-threat urban areas. Unfortunately, the threat of acts of terrorism against our great country and Americans is real. And it is especially so with respect to high-threat urban areas like New York, like Buffalo, like Washington, and many communities across the United States. That's the kind of threat we are talking about, the resources the NYPD used in Operation Atlas are the kind of resources that are needed to thwart a terrorist threat. The NYPD's outstanding efforts also demonstrate how being prepared can not only help our first responders and communities be prepared to respond to a terrorist attack, but, equally and arguably even more important, it unequivocally demonstrates how being prepared--and how the terrorists knowing we are prepared--serves to deter or prevent a terrorist attack. Back in January, I gave a speech at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York City to talk about how our country needed to renew its commitment to strengthen our domestic defense. I also released a report that showed how 70 percent of New York cities and counties had not received any Federal homeland security funding since September 11, underscoring the need for direct funding. In that speech, I talked about the need to provide extra homeland security attention to the most vulnerable communities in our country, places that are more appealing to terrorists as targets because, for example, of the American values they represent or because they are densely populated. After hearing more and more about the particular needs of high-threat urban areas across the country, back in early March, I proposed the idea of a Domestic Defense Fund, which had three components: $5 billion in direct funding for local communities and States; a $1 billion emergency reserve fund that Secretary Ridge could draw down from to reimburse cities and States in times of heightened threat, or in the event of a high-profile terrorist trial, discovery of a terrorist cell, or similar emergency need; and $1 billion for high-threat urban areas because, at the time, only $100 million, and more was needed. Later than month, I offered an amendment to the budget resolution that would have provided for funding for the Domestic Defense Fund, including $1 billion for high-threat urban areas, for Fiscal Year 2003. Though that amendment was narrowly defeated, I am pleased that I was able to bring greater attention to the needs of high-threat urban areas. And in April during the Senate's consideration of the wartime supplemental, I was pleased to join Senators Schumer and Mikulski in offering an amendment to the supplemental that would have, among other things, provided approximately $1 billion in high-threat urban area funding. Though that amendment was also narrowly defeated, I am glad, for the sake of our country, that the supplemental did in fact include an additional $700 million for high-threat urban areas. This funding is critically important because of acute and urgent homeland security needs that face certain communities in our nation. Los Angeles City Councilman Jack Weiss noted that the city has actually received little funding to guard against terrorist attack, even though it is a high-threat area. Every time the Nation's terror alert goes from yellow to orange, it costs Los Angeles $1.5 million a week and another $1 million a week to protect the Los Angeles International Airport. Baltimore spent $17.5 million for homeland security and has received very little help from Washington to date. The New York City Police Department needs almost $10 million for air filtration systems for sensitive police facilities and $27 million is needed for additional vessels to patrol the Port of New York. Nearly 2 years after the September 11 terrorist attacks, New York City's first responders--38,000 police officers and 15,000 fire fighters, and thousands of EMS, health department and hospital workers--need nearly $100 million to ensure that they are properly trained using personal protective and detection equipment and in being prepared for a possible terrorist attack. The Department of Homeland Security has allocated high-threat funding based on factors such as credible threat, vulnerability, population, the identified needs of public agencies, and the existence of mutual aid agreements. I ask my colleagues to look at this chart. Many communities, not just New York and Washington, have been allocated high-threat funding this year, including Houston, Chicago, Los Angeles, Denver, Detroit, Phoenix, Baltimore, Dallas, St. Louis, Kansas City, Cincinnati, Honolulu, Pittsburgh, Portland, New Orleans, Memphis, Cleveland, and Charleston, among others. This funding will help all of our Nation's most vulnerable targets. The decision is left to Secretary Ridge, but the bottom line is that in disbursing these funds, he is recognizing that some communities face a particularized threat and need extra assistance. I have said this before, but I will say it again that regarding New York, I would give anything for terrorists not to be targeting New York or Buffalo, but, unfortunately, I can't. What I can do, and what I will continue to do, is to try and ensure that these and other high-threat urban areas receive the assistance they need and deserve. I want to say again that, yes, we have made some progress since September 11 in improving our homeland defense, but we have not done nearly enough. Expert after expert has said it, the Homeland Security Independent Task Force of the Council on Foreign Relations--chaired by former Senator Warren Rudman)--being the most recent example. It echoes what our first responders have told us again and again. I hope, for the sake of our country and the American people, that we heed their call. This map should serve as a warning. I hope it serves as a reminder, and hopefully a convincing display about why we need this extra money in order to deal with the threats that we know exist and to make sure we have the job done, not only by the Department of Homeland Security but by our police officers, our firefighters, and our other homeland frontline defenders who live in and protect high-threat urban areas such as those on this map. I yield the floor.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, in response to the Senator, the chairman, I only point out that the Senate committee report accompanying the bill requires the Secretary to distribute the State and local grants, other than the high-stress grants, on a per-capita basis. I applaud the chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee for the work she has done because, under her leadership, there has been a tremendous effort undertaken to begin the process to authorize the changes in formula. This authorizing legislation will come before the Congress, I hope, this year. I hope it is passed this year. But it will not influence the appropriations we are considering today, and, therefore, the Secretary--even if he were to pick up the legislation from the Governmental Affairs Committee, read it, and say he agrees 100 percent--would not be able to do anything about it. What this sense-of-the-Senate amendment tries to do is to give at least some encouragement, and hopefully it could become more specific in the conference report to the Secretary, that based on factors such as those in the Governmental Affairs legislation and the work of the committee under Senator Rudman, there would be an opportunity to begin to actually do this, instead of waiting for another year and a half to figure out what the appropriations would be. So I certainly understand the chairman's perspective that this is not authorizing legislation. That is why what I have is a sense-of-the- Senate amendment. The work the Senator from Maine has done is extremely important work, but I worry about the time lag because since the Senate committee report says that Secretary Ridge cannot distribute on any basis other than per capita, the good work of the Governmental Affairs Committee and the recommendations of experts is going to be once again in suspended animation. The Secretary will find himself once again having to follow what is, by all accounts, an outdated formula in the face of the most pressing homeland security challenges that we confront. Mr. President, I hope we will at least give a little bit of wiggle room, some discretion to Secretary Ridge, especially based on the good work done by the Governmental Affairs Committee.

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I come to the floor on behalf of an amendment with regard to the homeland security funding. But I would like first to recognize that a tragic shooting has occurred at city hall in New York City this afternoon. Councilman James Davis from Brooklyn, a man devoted to public service and an energetic and outspoken advocate for New York and the community he represented, was murdered. Prior to Councilman Davis's service, he served in other capacities: as a New York City detective, as an instructor at the police academy. In 1991, he started a nonprofit organization called ``Love Yourself- Stop the Violence'' in an effort to address growing urban violence. It is a tragic, terrible irony that a man who first devoted himself to police work and law enforcement and then to trying his best to stem urban violence by giving people something to say yes to would himself fall victim to such violence. I know the thoughts and prayers of New Yorkers go out to Councilman Davis's family and friends and colleagues at this difficult time. Certainly today's tragic event reminds us of the fragility as well as the preciousness of life. Certainly it gives us pause as we confront the need for us to do everything within our power on behalf of ensuring the safety and security of all of our citizens. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk expressing the sense of the Senate that homeland security block grant funds should be allocated to the States using a threat-based formula rather than simply a per-capita formula.

Mrs. CLINTON. Will my friend from Nevada yield?

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Maine for her leadership and her very obvious concern about these issues. I particularly appreciate her concern about New York and what we are contending with in New York, not just in New York City but throughout our State. I would very much appreciate the opportunity to work with the Senator from Maine on this issue. I worry a little bit, and perhaps there is some way, working with the able chairman of the appropriations subcommittee--and I hope her legislation will pass very soon because it is a long overdue revamping of how to deal with this issue--that we would be able to give some discretion to the Secretary going forward and not have to wait until the next appropriations process. It is, from my perspective, based particularly on the insights and recommendations of many of the security experts, an issue we are urgently facing. With the Senator's very able stewardship of this legislation and getting it through on the authorizing committee, I look forward to working with her and doing everything I can to help move that legislation forward. I hope there is some way we can figure out how to give the Secretary some discretion in the meantime, especially based on the work the committee has done, the factors the Senator has taken into account so we do not lose another year. That is my main concern as I stand here today. Again, I commend the Senator from Maine for her extraordinary work and leadership, and I look forward to working with her.

Mrs. CLINTON. I would certainly wait until after this vote or at any other time that the managers of the bill could schedule discussion of this amendment.

Mrs. CLINTON. Will the Senator yield?

Mrs. CLINTON. Yes. This is an amendment that expresses the sense of the Senate that the homeland security block grant fund allocated to the States be done using primarily a threat-based formula rather than solely a per-capita formula. The Homeland Security appropriations bill before us seeks to provide critical homeland security resources to our first responders--our States and our local communities--to help them improve our homeland defense. I offer this amendment to support the effort to ensure that those funds are disbursed effectively. After setting forth a number of findings, this amendment states that it is the sense of the Senate that homeland security grants to State and local governments that contain the small State minimums in the PATRIOT Act and that are disbursed by the Office for Domestic Preparedness should be allocated to the States through a threat-based formula rather than a per capita formula after-- and I stress this--after the small State minimum provision is applied. I am offering this amendment because the Senate committee report accompanying the bill requires Secretary Ridge to distribute the State and local grants, other than the high-threat formula grants, on a per capita basis. This is obviously a bit confusing and arcane because it has to do with formulas and percentages, but it is a very important issue with which we have to come to grips. The last wartime supplemental that we considered, thanks to the efforts of the senior Senator from Pennsylvania, included language in the final supplemental conference report that directed Secretary Ridge to develop a threat-based formula for the distribution of State and local homeland security funds for fiscal year 2004. This amendment is wholly consistent with that language which the entire Congress approved. I have said for months that we need to have a better formula for the distribution of State and local homeland security grants based not solely on the population of a State but on a variety of threat and vulnerability factors. I am sure these factors are ones on which we can all agree. But we are having some difficulty putting them into a formula that can then be used to direct the expenditure of the homeland security funds. I have written Secretary Ridge. I have met with him. We have talked about this issue. He agrees that a better formula is needed. He has said it many times, including in testimony in April before the Senate Commerce Committee. At that time, Secretary Ridge told the committee he wants to overhaul the entire grant process to include a threat assessment. He has asked for guidance from Congress in designing a formula for distributing homeland security grant money to reflect the threats and vulnerabilities of different regions within the United States. Here is what he specifically has to say: The Office of Domestic Preparedness . . . had a formula that we don't believe is the appropriate distribution for counter terrorism [funding]. The formula as it exists now does not take into consideration critical infrastructure, whether it's private, whether they're federal, whether they're national icons. The Formula doesn't really take in threat or vulnerabilities. And finally: I suspect that reconstituting the Office for Domestic Preparedness formula or coming up with something new is something that we hope to achieve some bipartisan support [on] and get it done and then attached to the 2004 appropriations. On this issue, I absolutely agree with Secretary Ridge. The last thing we should do is tie the Secretary's hands by saying he cannot use any formula other than a per capita formula. That is not just my view but, more importantly, it is the view of national experts, such as the Homeland Security Independent Task Force of the Council on Foreign Relations, chaired by former Senator Warren Rudman. The task force makes it unequivocally clear that for the sake of our homeland defense we must employ a better formula. The report of the task force states that they: . . . found existing systems for determining the distribution of appropriated funds [to States] to be badly in need of reform. The state and population-driven approach has led to highly uneven funding outcomes. . . . While this approach may have political appeal, it unnecessarily diverts funding from areas of highest priority. In addition, decisions by state officials regarding the allocation of funds in their states have not sufficiently taken into account the multitude of necessary factors. Now, you see, we have a two-tiered problem. We have a problem here in Washington distributing the funds based on assessments of threats and vulnerabilities, and we have a problem in State capitals distributing the funds that the States get on the same basis. Based upon their assessment, the task force, under former Senator Rudman, said: 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. My amendment, expressing the sense of the Senate, sets forth those same factors that I believe Secretary Ridge can choose to consider in developing a threat-based formula. Let me make clear, this is a sense-of-the-Senate amendment; it is not authorizing language. Let me further underscore that the small State minimums in the underlying bill are not affected. But what then do we do with the threat assessment formula? How do we figure out what factors should be considered? Here are some I would recommend--obviously, starting with population. That has to be the No. 1 consideration. But I would go a step further because it is not just what the census says about the population as to who lives permanently in a particular city or county or region. There are parts of our country that have a very high tourism industry, that might have a military base, that have other factors that should be taken into account when we look at population. As Senator Reid said yesterday, in talking about Las Vegas, the population in Nevada peaks on the weekend when thousands of people from all over the country and the world come to Las Vegas. So in addition to population, we should consider population density, again, taking into account not just who lives there every day but the ebbs and flows in the density of the population--whether it is Orlando, FL, or Las Vegas, NV, or Manhattan. We should look at the proximity to nuclear and chemical facilities, ports, and international borders. Yesterday, I referred to a GAO report when I was standing here in support of the very commonsense approach that the Byrd amendment represented. I referred to a GAO report that shows there are hundreds of chemical facilities in our country that contain toxic chemicals that could harm thousands, if not millions, of people within the near proximity. That is an issue we need to take seriously. Similarly, nuclear powerplants--particularly the one in the county where I live, which is in a heavily populated area, in an area with very narrow, winding roads--they, too, should be taken into account. We should look at the location of national icons, whether it is the Gateway Arch in St. Louis or the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco or any other national icon. We should also begin to assess the presence and vulnerability of other critical infrastructure. I consider agriculture a critical industry to our country. Food supplies, water, public health, emergency services, the kinds of things that, if they were targeted, would disrupt commerce, would dramatically impede the kind of response needed because of the potential for destruction. Finally, we should be taking into account intelligence and threat information, and any other information or any other factor that the Secretary deems appropriate. Now, reasonable people can, of course, disagree as to which factors should be included and what weight should be provided to each factor. But there is an absolutely clear consensus among security experts that a better formula must be devised and used. And I have heard not just from homeland security experts on this point but from our front line defenders, our first responders, or, as some of our police officers like to refer to themselves, our first preventers. Hopefully we can prevent tragedies, not just respond to them. It is not only our police and our firefighters but our public health officials and our EMTs, our mayors, our county executives who are there on the front lines. I said the other day if we were to determine our defense posture, our projection of force around the world on some kind of per capita basis, we would be placing soldiers in Canada and Sweden because, after all, they are there. Obviously, that is nonsensical. We don't do that. We look at the threats. We try to design our weaponry and our other responses to take account of all the threats that American military forces might encounter. And we should be doing the same for homeland security. This is a two-front war. It is not only what we are doing in Afghanistan and Iraq and other places, it is what we are doing to defend ourselves here at home that we have to be very concerned about. At the national level, if we don't take these various factors into account and establish a formula, we also fail to give guidance to our States. We also fail to recognize in a thorough, comprehensive way all of the potential vulnerabilities and targets we have. For example, if one were discussing the homeland security needs of Louisiana, you might look at population and density, but you would also look at the fact that there is a major port. There are offshore petroleum platforms. We have part of the strategic petroleum reserve. We have river railroad crossings and facilities that are pumping natural gas to the rest of the country. That would be part of the kind of formula I am proposing that would certainly be justifiable and give the Secretary the discretion he needs. There are many other places in the country that at first glance you don't think of as being perhaps vulnerable or strategically located, but take Lancaster County, PA. It has two nuclear powerplants on its borders. There are only five counties in the entire country in that same position. So I would argue that kind of consideration about critical infrastructure, proximity to nuclear and chemical facilities, should be considered. I know many of my colleagues who represent less populated States worry about a threat-based formula versus a per capita formula. I have to say I understand that. I have lived in big States and I have lived in small States. I have been in every State. I believe every State has vulnerabilities and is potentially subject to threats that need to be considered. I think it is important we look at this effort as an ongoing one, but we have to untie the Secretary's hands. Right now he has no discretion. He has no ability to deal with the grants to State and local communities other than on a per capita basis. What that leads to is articles like we have seen recently in national newspapers where money goes out in a huge amount on a per capita basis to less populated States, while States and cities such as New York and LA are trying desperately to figure out how they are going to protect major airports, all the other ports and facilities that they have, how they are going to do it with the amount of money they have, given the budgetary constraints that every State and city is confronting. I tried in this resolution to recognize the political reality that exists. It retains the small State minimum. I can count and I know that we are not yet at a point where we can eliminate the small State minimum, so it retains that. That is about 40 percent of the money right off the top to be distributed on a per capita basis. But that leaves 60 percent to begin to implement a formula that does what the experts say we must do. In closing, I believe whether we go through direct funding, which I still believe is the best way to disburse money--I am hearing from a lot of my mayors; they still haven't gotten any of the money that has gone to the State capital. Again, I understand that. I know a little bit about the pressures on Governors. But the fact is, the money is not getting down to a lot of the cities and counties that really bear the brunt of homeland defense. So I still believe we should do it directly. But if it is passed to the States, then we need a formula, and we need a formula that gives guidance at the State level so we can get the money where it is most needed. I hope we can begin to move down this road and start giving the kind of discretion to the Secretary of Homeland Security who, after all, is really on the hot seat. He is the person who gets the threat information and the intelligence. He knows exactly what is happening because he has to be briefed on it all the time. To provide him this discretion would give him the opportunity to begin to implement a formula which I am sure is going to be revised. The factors will change. The weight will change. But we must start now; otherwise, we lose another year. I don't think we can afford to do that. I hope that my colleagues will support this resolution, give the authority to the Secretary, preserve the small State minimum, but begin to give us some factors to gauge the threats and vulnerabilities that we know the experts know, but mostly our police and firefighters know they are facing every single day.

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment which is at the desk numbered 1348.

Mrs. CLINTON. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise to mark the passage on the Senate floor of a bill, S. 650, that will assure the safety and efficacy of medicines for children, and address a problem that pediatricians, parents, and children's advocates have worked on for decades. A great deal of work went into this bill. So many hardworking, dedicated Senators made the effort on a bipartisan basis to come together around this important issue. In particular I want to thank Senators DeWine, Dodd, Gregg, and Kennedy. Senators DeWine and Dodd and I now have worked on pediatric research for many years, and we will continue to be around to work on behalf of children, who, without dedicated advocates like Senators DeWine and Dodd, would not have a political voice. Last year this bill was passed out of committee but held up on the floor toward the end of session. Unfortunately, that meant no backstop was in place to assure the continuation of a minimum baseline protection for children when last October, a District Court judge struck down the 1998 FDA Pediatric Rule, based on his view that Congress did not intend to charge FDA with making sure our children are protected. Today, we pass legislation to clarify that FDA authority to assure safe, effective medicines for children is exactly what we intend. This bill was the product of compromise. We all worked hard and made concessions on all sides to craft the language the Senate was able to pass today. Some of us would have preferred a strong, permanent assurance for children, and not a sunset of these crucial protections in 2007. Indeed, because the purpose of this legislation was to address the uncertainty caused by the court-triggered lapse of pediatric studies, not codify such a lapse into statute, I cannot support the sunset provision. But others may have wished to change other aspects of the bill. So we were able to give on each side for the sake of moving forward on a central accomplishment providing FDA with undisputed, unencumbered authority to require and enforce studies of whether medicines important for children are also safe and effective for children. Our managers' amendment and the colloquy we submitted today reinforce that as the goal we all share here today in passing this language. I want to take a moment to bring special attention to the amount of work and cooperation that the chair and ranking member of Senate Health Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee have dedicated to this bill, both last Congress and this Congress. Senator Gregg and Senator Kennedy, and both their staffs, Vince Ventimiglia, and David Dorsey have lent their expertise and their time to this issue. Senator DeWine's staff, Abby Kral, and Senator Dodd's staff, Ben Berwick this year, Debra Barrett last year, have been more dedicated than anyone on this issue. I particularly want to acknowledge the outside experts who have devoted so much time to advocating on behalf of children and making this proposal a reality. The American Academy of Pediatricians, Elaine Vining here in DC and all the pediatricians across the country, have been championing this issue for so long. Also, Mark Isaac and Jeanne Ireland at the Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation have been tireless in their efforts. The children's hospitals, and so many others cannot be thanked enough. We would not be here today without their passionate advocacy. I also appreciate working with Phrma to get to this point and hope to continue to work with them in order to move this bill quickly into law.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. I certainly would agree with the Senator from Nevada. I believe that is a factor that Secretary Ridge should consider in a threat-based formula where we have large crowds of people who come for attractions such as those that the Senator has in Las Vegas or we have in New York City and certainly other places around our country. That should be taken into account because our police officers, our firefighters are constantly on duty because there is a constant stream of people coming from all over the world to enjoy the attractions.

Mrs. CLINTON. Yes.

Mrs. CLINTON. Certainly.

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I thank my good friend, the ranking member of the Senate Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee and of the full committee, the Senator from West Virginia, for his constancy in sounding the alarm. He is the Paul Revere of the homeland security debate. Because every time we come to the floor to debate and consider provisions that we believe will make our country safer, the Senator from West Virginia is there sounding the alarm. This time I hope our colleagues on both sides of the aisle will respond to that alarm which he has once again sounded, because his amendment reflects a full and complete understanding of what we know, what the experts tell us is absolutely essential to meeting the homeland security needs of our Nation. As has already been referred to in many different settings, the amendment the Senator presents to us contains the best thinking of people who have considered our vulnerabilities and have honestly assessed what it will cost so we can look into the eyes of our constituents and say: We have done the best we knew to do. Recently the independent Homeland Security Task Force of the Council on Foreign Relations, a task force chaired by former Senator Warren Rudman, issued its third report regarding the state of our homeland defense. While the report noted that we had made progress and that positive action in a number of areas had occurred since September 11, there was still much to be done and we remained woefully unprepared. The report, ``First Responders: Drastically Underfunded, Dangerously Unprepared,'' says it all in its title. It reminds us as to how much work we truly have in front of us if we intend to address these needs honestly and to equip our frontline homeland defenders with the resources they desperately need. Drastically Underfunded, Dangerously Unprepared The United States has not reached a sufficient national level of emergency preparedness and remains dangerously unprepared to handle a catastrophic attack on American soil, particularly one involving chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear agents, or coordinated high-impact conventional means. How much more specific and dramatic a conclusion from independent experts do we need to have before we act to pass overwhelmingly the amendment that has been presented to us? The report also emphasizes the pivotal and primary role our first responders play in our national homeland defense: America's local emergency responders-- We are talking about our police officers, our firefighters, our EMTs, and others who are on the front line, who need to be given the resources that will equip them to prevent horrific attacks, as well as to respond-- will always be the first to confront a terrorist incident and will play the central role in imagining its immediate consequences. . . . the United States-- Namely, the U.S. Government, not the New York State government, or the New York City government, or the Buffalo government, or the West Virginia government, but the United States Government-- has both a responsibility and a critical need too provide them [our first responders] with equipment, training, and other necessary resources to do their jobs safely and effectively. Again, I don't know how much more specific we need to be. The efforts of these first responders in the minutes and hours following an attack will be critical to saving lives, reestablishing order, and preventing mass panic. The report speaks about the heroic police and fire professionals who entered the World Trade Center on September 11. They acknowledge what all of us saw: that our emergency responders will be there; they will answer the call; they will perform their duties. What will we do for them? In providing just a few examples of the needs of these brave police officers and firefighters and EMTs that are unmet, I have picked a few very representative, dramatic examples from the report: Two-thirds of our fire departments do not meet the consensus fire service standard for minimum safe staffing levels. On average, fire departments across the country have only enough radios to equip half the firefighters on a shift, and breathing apparatuses for only one-third. Only 10 percent of fire departments in the United States have the personnel and equipment to respond to a building collapse. Most States' public health labs still lack basic equipment and expertise to respond adequately to a chemical or biological attack. Seventy-five percent of State laboratories report being overwhelmed by too many testing requests. Most cities do not have the necessary equipment to determine what kind of hazardous materials emergency responders may be facing. Police departments in cities across the country do not have the protective gear to safely secure a site following an attack using weapons of mass destruction. I read these statistics, but I also know firsthand from speaking to police officers and firefighters, police chiefs and fire commissioners, and others throughout New York who tell me exactly what we were reading here from this report. Now, I have to say it is troubling to me that, while we know we have not done enough to equip and fund and provide the resources needed by our first responders, we are seeing, because of budget constraints, cities and counties cutting back on their personnel. According to the International City-County Management Association, the average number of full-time, paid police employees for jurisdictions between 250,000 and 500,000 residents, today, is 16 percent below the figure for 2001. Why is anyone surprised by that? We have seen countless stories about the budget cutbacks that States and counties and cities are experiencing. Police departments and fire departments are not immune. In the city of New York, after the heroic, incredible performance of these brave firefighters, they watched helplessly as fire stations were closed. So this is something that we know is happening. So not only are we failing to fully fund our first responders, we are seeing the numbers cut back. When you think about what this report tells us and what the estimate is as to what is necessary for us to protect ourselves, clearly, we are asking that we honestly assess where we are and the funding that is needed. The report says we need approximately $100 billion over the next 5 years--approximately $20 billion a year for 5 years. We spend $5 billion a month in Iraq and Afghanistan. We are asking for 4 months of the expenditures of those two military actions and postconflict activities to make sure we are safe here at home. These preliminary figures are based on the assessments that are coming directly from first responders and from communities. They were developed in partnership with the Concord Coalition and the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessment. It may be conservative, but it is the best assessment we could find. First, it assumes, however, that State and local governments will continue to spend somewhere between $26 billion and $76 billion of their own funds for homeland security over the next 5 years. Second, in looking at specific needs, particularly the need for a communications system that actually works and includes everybody, the task force erred on the side of conservative figures they obtained from communications policy experts. Third, many law enforcement associations could not even assess their own needs. They don't have time to stop and do a survey or try to hire a consultant. So they did the best they could in assessing what they thought their needs were. Clearly, as the task force has pointed out, we should have a thorough national needs assessment. Under Senator Byrd's leadership, he did hold very thorough hearings out of which we got some specific information, and we need to continue a comprehensive needs assessment so that we do know what our needs are so that we can better plan how to meet them. We certainly would not do for our men and women in uniform what we do for our men and women in uniform at home. I have the honor of serving on the Armed Services Committee. It is a painstaking process to determine what our troops need and how to best plan that they can be protected. I am very proud of that process. I think it is time we did the same for our front-line defenders, our soldiers in the war against terrorism here at home--primarily our police officers, our firefighters, and our EMTs. Among the many things we need to be doing, the task force concludes-- and I agree--is to create those interoperable communications systems so that first responders can communicate seamlessly across borders, between police and firefighters, and certainly across borders of jurisdictions. We need to extend nationally the Emergency 911 system. I am very proud to be working with my colleague from Montana, Senator Burns, on groundbreaking legislation to extend the E-911 system. I think it will certainly move us forward as long as we fund it. We need to enhance our urban search and rescue capabilities. We need to enhance our public health preparedness, particularly by strengthening and expanding the quality and number of laboratories that can track diseases, that can quickly diagnose some kind of biological, chemical, or radiological event. This report reflects what I hear from all over New York and, of course, from all over the country, whether you are in Los Angeles, where every time the terror alert goes to orange, it costs that city $1.5 million a week and another $1 million a week to protect the Los Angeles International Airport; or whether you are in Denver, a city that has incurred many millions of dollars for emergency preparedness and has purchased mobile emergency equipment but still doesn't have an adequate communications system; or whether you are in Douglas County, NE, which needs resources to buy protective suits for first responders, this is a national problem. Certainly in New York, I know firsthand how inadequately funded many of our brave men and women are. I know that under the leadership of the chairman of the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee, whom I commend, the committee has worked very hard to come up with a good bill and, given the budgetary constraints under which the committee has operated, they have done an incredible job. The problem is that the budget resolution we adopted last spring did not adequately reflect the real costs of homeland security. That is why the Senator from West Virginia has an amendment which more honestly assesses those needs. It provides an additional $1.7 billion: $729.5 million for first responders; $602 million for maritime and land security; $238 million for border security; $100 million for air cargo security; and $80 million for chemical facility security. It is hard to argue with the EPA's own figures that we have 123 chemical facilities located throughout the Nation that have toxic worst-case scenarios where more than 1 million people would be in the so-called vulnerable zone and could be at risk of exposure to a cloud of toxic gas. Remember the terrible accident in Bhopal, India? Remember that? We have 123 chemical facilities that could produce this kind of extraordinary horror. We have 600 facilities that could threaten between 100,000 and 1 million people, and 2,300 more that would threaten between 10,000 and 100,000 people in these so-called vulnerable zones. When I read statistics such as that, it has to make one feel vulnerable, and it certainly makes me, as a Senator with responsibility for my constituents, sick at heart. I do not think any of us want to see these scenarios ever come true and, thank goodness, we have been spared that since September 11. But that is not the way a great country plans to defend itself. If that were the case, we could have shut down our entire military. After the War of 1812, we could have just said forget it. After the Civil War, we could have said forget it. We could say we do not think we will ever have anything bad in the world happen again, so let's just send everybody home. Let's just let the tanks rust. Let's just give up preparing for the worst-case scenario which will more than likely make it possible for us to avoid such an occurrence. That is what we are doing when it comes to homeland security. The Congressional Budget Office estimated it will take $80 million to conduct vulnerability assessments associated with our chemical plants. This amendment provides the money for that purpose. Regarding the first responder funding in the Byrd amendment, there is additional money for State and local grants, $250 million, and I especially appreciate an additional $250 million for high-threat urban area grants; $150 million for FIRE Act grants so we can fund the program fully at the authorized level; and, finally, $79.5 million for the interoperable communications equipment I have talked about in this Chamber so many times since September 11. We learned tragically that our police and fire departments could not talk with each other. We learned that people coming to our rescue to assist us could not communicate with the New York City police and fire departments. Later in the debate, I will talk about State and local grants and how important they are and how strongly I believe the Department of Homeland Security and Secretary Ridge should disburse those funds using a threat base rather than a per capita formula. Right now I want to underscore how important it is to get more money into this high-threat urban area category. In January, I gave a speech at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York City. In that speech, I made some recommendations and released a survey about what I had found as I surveyed cities and counties throughout my State: Seventy percent of New York cities and counties had not received any Federal homeland security funding since September 11. Since January, some money has come forward; more has been appropriated. But I was in Buffalo, NY, on Sunday speaking with the mayor. They have not received a penny of the money we have appropriated. It is either tied up in Washington or it is tied up in the State capital. Either explanation is, to me, unacceptable. We need to do more, and in that speech I called for a domestic defense fund. In March, I proposed that we provide direct funding and we include $1 billion for high-threat urban areas. Later that month, I offered an amendment to the budget resolution that would have provided funding for the domestic defense fund, including the $1 billion for high-threat urban areas for fiscal year 2003. Unfortunately, the amendment was narrowly defeated but at least we began a dialog and a debate about high-threat areas with critical infrastructure, with dense populations. We are making some progress and, in fact, the supplemental we considered for funding the action in Iraq in April did include $700 million for high-threat urban areas. I thank my colleagues for that funding. I think we all recognize how critical that funding is. The Department of Homeland Security has begun to allocate high-threat funding based on factors such as credible threat, vulnerability, population, mutual aid agreements, and identified needs of public agencies. And many communities, not just New York and Washington but Houston, Chicago, Los Angeles, Cincinnati, Kansas City, New Orleans, Memphis, Cleveland, Charleston, among others, across our country have received this high-threat funding. This will help us shore up our defenses against our most vulnerable targets. Regarding New York, I would give anything if terrorists did not have such an interest in New York but we have to accept that reality. New York is such a symbol of our Nation. It is such an incredibly diverse, dynamic place, the most fascinating and exciting city in the world, and it is going to draw that kind of attention. Therefore, we need the support we have been getting and that the Byrd amendment will provide in additional funding that, believe me, we can put to good use. In recent articles that have appeared in national newspapers, such as USA Today, I read about communities that got homeland security funding and did not know what to do with it. I said: If you really do not know what to do with the money, send it to New York; we have more needs than we can possibly meet. If we are serious about defending our Nation, then we have to be serious about putting money behind that commitment. What the Byrd amendment does is to say very straightforwardly: We have not done enough. We may have done all we could within the constraints of the budget resolution, and for that I commend the chairman and the ranking member, but the budget resolution was inadequate. We do not have a budget resolution for our military and occupational expenses in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are not even in the budget. There is not one penny. We passed a $398 billion defense budget last week and there is not one penny for Iraq and Afghanistan. We did not worry about the budget resolution when it came to supporting our troops. We did what we thought we had to do. Well, we should do the same when it comes to protecting us at home. How on Earth can we do less? So, yes, we have made some progress since we were attacked. How could we not? How negligent would we have been if we had not done what at least we have started to try to achieve in providing more support? But we have not done nearly enough. History will judge us harshly if we are found wanting when it comes to defending ourselves on our own soil. So I hope for the sake of our country, for the sake of our citizens, we will listen to former Senator Warren Rudman and the task force, we will listen to the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, and we will do our duty, we will vote for the Byrd amendment, and we will send a clear signal to friend and foe alike that we intend to prevent, in every way possible, any further terrorism on our shores. But if anyone dares to take us on, we intend to be ready.

Mrs. CLINTON. I thank the Senator from West Virginia and I yield the floor.

Mrs. CLINTON. I thank the Senator from Nevada.

Mrs. CLINTON. I certainly do agree with that.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, the U.S. State Department is legally obligated to provide security protection for the United Nations and its missions. Under a longstanding arrangement, the City of New York has provided this police security for the United Nations and its missions, and then it has been reimbursed by the State Department. Long ago, the State Department decided the best way to do this was to have the city provide the service and then provide a reimbursement. Since September 11, the security needs of the United Nations have increased to about $18.5 million annually in New York alone. Then there have been additional events, such as the U.N. General Assembly and the Millennium Summit alone cost almost $20 million. Thus, the authorization for the program entitled ``Protection of Foreign Missions and Officials'' must be increased so that the City of New York can receive adequate reimbursement. I thank the chairman for his understanding and his cooperation in making this possible. I thank the ranking member as well. This program has been authorized at $10 million over the last several years. It will provide reimbursement not only for New York but also Los Angeles and Chicago. The annual figure will be increased $21 million to cover all three cities' expenses; plus an authorization of $55.9 million is included to reimburse the cities for back claims accumulated over the last several years. I thank the chairman and the ranking member for accepting this amendment. I would like to yield to my colleague, Senator Schumer, on a second amendment.