Hillary Clinton

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. With all due respect to my friend from Oklahoma, that is not what the bill says. The bill provides 13 weeks for those first coming into the system, but for people who have already exhausted their 13 weeks, it does provide an additional 13 weeks, which adds up to 26 weeks. Maybe it is not artfully enough drafted. I certainly have the greatest respect for my colleague from Oklahoma, who is one of the premier legislators in this body, but if it is not clear, then I will be more than happy to write it so it is absolutely clear. The intention is, as I have stated, to provide an additional 13 weeks to people who have exhausted their benefits. To echo the eloquent comments of my colleagues from Washington and Maryland, there are lots of people out there. The Senator from Washington read the numbers. Let me give you one quick example.

Mrs. CLINTON. Yes, I yield to the Senator from Oklahoma.

Mrs. CLINTON. What we did, in response to the Senator from Oklahoma-- and maybe we were misinformed about this--we went back to our last recession under the previous President Bush. We thought that would be a good model as to what was done five times to extend unemployment insurance benefits. We took the language the first Bush administration and the bipartisan body here at that time decided was the appropriate legislative language to bring about the result that people agreed was needed. If it was in some way misguided to rely upon the first Bush administration's extension of unemployment insurance, then we are going to say we did the best we could to look at what had been effective and worked in the past. In direct response, the people who are still being counted in the unemployment insurance is a relatively small number because, obviously, to get them on and off does take some bureaucratic and technical adjustments. There are certainly some--I am sure I could find a few in Oklahoma and a few in New York. But the fact is the overwhelming number of people who will be eligible and will receive benefits are people who deserve it, and that is, I think, the goal we should be addressing.

Mrs. CLINTON. We have the same language that was used in the first Bush recession. Now we are in the second Bush recession. We are using the same language. It worked then.

Mrs. CLINTON. It is the same kind of trigger, I am advised.

Mrs. CLINTON. It includes States with concentrated high unemployment. That is true, there is a slightly different trigger. Again, I was not around in 1991 and 1992, so I cannot speak to what the Senator would or would not have done. The fact is, we have a problem. We have tried repeatedly--eight separate times--to work out some way to provide some additional benefits for people who deserve them. If there is a way to work out a better approach, to do something that will clearly meet the objections of the Senator from Oklahoma, I stand ready to do that. I am just worried about all of these decent people who are running out of unemployment benefits. There is nowhere for them to go. I do not know what else to bring to the floor other than those stories. We can argue about triggers. I am sure between the two of us, we can fix a trigger if there was a willingness to act on that. What is coming over from the House, larded with other controversial provisions, is not a good-faith effort to extend unemployment benefits to people in need. It is an effort to basically try to say something was done which will not have any lasting benefit for those who are most in need.

Mrs. CLINTON. Clearly, if the Senator from Oklahoma is going to object to our following the precedent of the triggers of the President Bush 1 package, then obviously we are going to have to go back to the drawing board. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 619, S. 3009, a bill to provide for a 13-week extension of unemployment compensation; that the bill be read three times, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, without intervening action or debate.

Mrs. CLINTON. We would be more than happy to clarify that. That is not the way the bill was intended. It certainly is not the way it was meant to be drafted. If there is any--

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I intend to offer a unanimous consent request that the Senate proceed to immediate consideration of the extension of unemployment insurance. As the dialog between the distinguished Senators from Pennsylvania and Michigan just illustrated, this is an issue that had bipartisan support--really, nonpartisan support. There are 2.2 million workers who have exhausted or are about to exhaust their benefits without finding a job. Ignoring these people, especially as we are about to enter into the Thanksgiving-Christmas holiday season, will not make them go away. It is not going to help them automatically find a job because they have been out there diligently looking. The fact is, we don't have enough jobs right now. All of us hope that is going to turn around. But if you look at the statistics available, there are 1.7 million workers who have been unemployed for longer than 6 months as of October. That is an increase of 70,000 over September and over 180,000 over August. One out of every five of these unemployed has been out of work for more than 6 months. That is a proportion larger than at any time in the previous 8 years. I believe that extending these benefits now sends a message to those who lost their jobs through no fault of their own in States such as mine and that of Senator Cantwell of Washington. The provision we are asking unanimous consent on would provide 13 more weeks of unemployment insurance for everyone who lost their job, were laid off, cannot find a job. The bill would not provide a single additional benefit, if you look at what the Republicans are proposing. So our bill is a much better one because the Republicans would permit those who are about to crash into the brick wall of December 31 no relief. I believe it is imperative that we take action before we leave.

Mrs. CLINTON. Certainly.

Mrs. CLINTON. Yes, it is.

Mrs. CLINTON. Yes.

Mrs. CLINTON. I appreciate the Senator's factual intervention. It is the same proposal that was used in the early 1990s to extend unemployment insurance under the first President Bush. It is what has historically been done. Now, some people benefit more because of the circumstances in which they find themselves. Indeed, when we passed the only extension of unemployment insurance back in, I think, March, there were a couple of States that had been very hard hit that were given additional benefits. As the Senator points out, what the House is about to send over is not just an unemployment insurance extension; it changes welfare law, it provides Medicare benefits to a certain category of Medicare recipients and not to others. So I think that it would be far better for us to ensure that an unemployment insurance benefit was going to be extended.

Mrs. CLINTON. Let me finish my answer. You get to ask, I get to answer. My answer is, it is intended to be a 13-week extension. If there needs to be a cutoff point so it is absolutely clear that this is the intention, we stand ready to do that. In contrast, the bill the House is working on is a 5-week extension for those who already are in the system, and then it is over. No more help. From my perspective, representing 300,000 unemployed New Yorkers, 120,000 of whom lost their jobs directly as a result of September 11, it is very hard to go back to New York and look at people such as Felix Batista who worked for 22 years at Windows on the World, with four children--luckily was not there that day when the terrorist attack occurred--and has not been able to find work, even though we have all been trying to help him. He is a man of limited skills, but a good, hard-working person, a father of four. He has no help. What is he supposed to do? Let me ask that question of the Senator from Oklahoma. Where is my office supposed to send literally thousands of people who have no work because the economy is not producing jobs?

Mrs. CLINTON. Yes, I will be more than happy to yield.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Will the Senator from Nevada yield?

Mrs. CLINTON. Did the Senator from Oklahoma actually propound an objection or reserve the right to object?

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, regular order.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I come to the floor in support of Senator Lieberman's amendment to strike the provisions in the homeland security package that have nothing to do with homeland security. Mr. President, we are here for the most critical and compelling of public interests; namely, our homeland security. But I have to say that we make a mockery of our duties if, instead of focusing our attention, our time, as we end this session, on this absolutely essential issue, we let the Homeland Security Department bill become a vehicle for other matters, special interests, pet projects that Members in either House have, instead of focusing on the business at hand. Senator Lieberman has eloquently listed a number of these provisions that have been inserted into the homeland security bill in the other House. I know my colleague from Connecticut is here to talk about something taken out of the bill that has direct implications for homeland security, which makes the shell game going on even harder to understand. Among the many provisions that have no business being in this bill at this late hour of this session is one that offers special protection against litigation for pharmaceutical companies that manufacture childhood vaccines by using the homeland security bill to dismiss existing lawsuits. Now, I, along with Senators Dodd and DeWine, have legislation that we think is very important when it comes to pharmaceuticals and children. We believe that protecting our children against shortages in the universally recommended childhood vaccines for diseases such as measles, tetanus, and polio is absolutely critical. Our bill would provide stockpiles and advance notice so that the Centers for Disease Control can manage shortfalls without having to turn children away when they come for immunizations. There are very few public health achievements in the last century more significant than protecting children against vaccine-preventable diseases. Yet as we meet today, we are struggling with a vaccine shortage which clearly we need to deal with as soon as possible. It is a very important, sensitive issue. We have bipartisan consensus around what we should do. Yet we could not put it on the homeland security bill. We were not given an opportunity to try to deal with a real problem, namely, the shortage of vaccines. We were told it was an unsuitable vehicle. Yet we find that others have not shown the same degree of respect for our Nation's security and have added all kinds of unrelated provisions. I specifically want to focus on the vaccine liability provision. By excluding our vaccine supply proposal, they cannot even argue with a straight face that these provisions are needed to protect our children and protect their access to required vaccines. The few one-sided provisions that have been snuck into this bill not only fail to protect or advance homeland security, they even fail to adequately protect our children against preventable diseases. All they do is protect manufacturers of vaccines against lawsuits. What is really sad is that we in the HELP Committee had been working on a comprehensive approach to dealing with these vaccine issues. Senator Frist from Tennessee had such a bill that would include many of these provisions because he acknowledged, as a physician, that we not only needed to figure out what was appropriate to protect manufacturers from unnecessary liability, but, first and foremost, how to benefit children, consumers, and families. We have worked very closely over a number of months with the Senators and their staffs--Senator Frist, Senator Gregg, Senator Kennedy, as well as Senator DeWine and Senator Dodd--to try to figure out how we would deal with these vaccine issues. They have been very productive discussions. We fully expect we will reach a bipartisan resolution early in the next session. Unfortunately, we are now confronted with a homeland security bill that not only undermines our discussions but, once again, puts the health of our pharmaceutical companies in front of the health of our children. That is by no definition I am aware of homeland security. In fact, it is just the opposite. It is home insecurity. What are our families supposed to do? Many of us read the article in last week's New York Sunday Times magazine about the potential link between this very ingredient that the House has decided to protect against lawsuits, a compound known as thimerosal which is made of mercury that was put into a number of pharmaceutical preparations to preserve them, including into vaccines. My colleagues read the article. We do not know what the right conclusion is. We do not know whether this has any effect on the rather alarming increase in the number of children who are diagnosed with autism and the related problems associated with the autistic condition, but we know it is a problem. Now all of a sudden, we are taking one provision out of all of the hard work that Senator Frist and others have done to deal in a comprehensive way with our vaccine issues of shortage, liability, manufacturing standards, and everything else, plucking one thing the pharmaceutical companies wanted out and sticking it in homeland security. It is not surprising I guess after being here now for nearly 2 years. It is still stunning that in the midst of a debate about how to protect ourselves, by George, we are going to protect our pharmaceutical companies from what may or may not be fair questions about liability. Now we will never know because it was those parents of children who had developed autism who were bringing the lawsuits to get to the information to figure out what was going on with this compound. Now they will be foreclosed from pursuing their lawsuits. They will be told: Sorry, whatever research and work you have done to come up with some answers--and these parents deserve these answers-- apply to the vaccine liability fund and we will take care of you, but we are not going to go any further; we are not going to try to find out what really is at the root of this increase in autism. It is a very sad commentary that this is where we have come with this debate. As I listened to my colleague from Connecticut, whose idea it was to have the Homeland Security Department, whose legislation he masterfully maneuvered through the Governmental Affairs Committee, against the opposition of the administration, list all of these extraneous untested provisions that have been stuck into this bill at the last minute is disheartening because there has been no one who has believed more strongly in homeland security and the need to get our Federal Government smarter and quicker and more flexible than Senator Lieberman. I urge my colleagues to support the Lieberman amendment to strike unrelated provisions. If what we are concerned about is homeland security, if what the administration and the President have been talking about during this past election season about protecting our homeland is absolutely what we are supposed to be doing, then let's do that job. Let's do the job that needs to be done on homeland security without undermining other important issues that should go through the legislative process to reach the kind of bipartisan resolution they deserve. I thank the Chair.

Mrs. CLINTON. Will the Senator from Connecticut yield for a question?

Mrs. CLINTON. I am well aware of the Senator's longtime support for firefighters and the work he has done throughout his career to make sure our firefighters have the resources they need. Isn't it ironic that we stand here debating a homeland security bill which has no money for first responders, and the only money that was in there they have now taken out? There is not a single penny that is going to the firefighters, the police officers, the emergency responders on the ground, and we are going to leave with a continuing resolution that also has no additional resources. Since September 11 of last year, with our firefighters and police officers having faced many more challenges, is it not the Senator's understanding they have not received additional resources?

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I join with my colleagues in taking these few moments to pay tribute to an extraordinary man and a great Senator. It is hard to come back to the Senate floor this afternoon and not be overcome by a sense of loss because this desk behind me, with the flowers, will never again serve as the launching pad for one of Paul Wellstone's memorable and impassioned speeches. Every American who shared Paul's determination to make our country all that it should be, all that it can be, all that Paul thought it must be, felt that same sense of loss. The Americans who only knew Paul Wellstone through tuning into C-SPAN or seeing the evening news, watching that energy flow, those arms flail about, that pacing up and down, may not have known the man but they too saw, as we his colleagues saw, that deep abiding love of our country. That is what motivated Paul Wellstone. He would come on to this floor, sometimes bursting through those doors, having to speak out, making it clear that there was some injustice that had to be righted, some problem that had to be solved, in order for us all to be the best we could be. That wrestling spirit that never let go really was with him in every encounter. He was a bear hugger. He was a caring, loving man, as well as a great advocate. His determination to improve our Nation, our education system, our health care system, our employment system, to strengthen civil and human rights and provide opportunities to those who live on the outskirts of American life, was unparalleled. Every one of us who knew him, and the millions who did not, were heartbroken by his untimely death. I had someone say to me that the voice for the voiceless has been silenced. That is not only a tribute to Paul but it can also be heard as a rebuke to us. Was there only one among us who spoke for the voiceless, who hurt for those who were hurting, who carried the pain of injustice and exclusion under which so many suffered? One hopes that is not the case, but the only way to prove it is not is to ensure that our voices are heard loudly and clearly. This floor will seem empty without his words of conviction unless we fill it with our own. The ideals he represented and his steadfast belief that we, the people, through our government, acting together, can be a positive force, literally to change the future for those who might otherwise be left in despair, that commitment motivated every aspect of his daily life. Our Senate family and the people of Minnesota not only lost Senator Paul Wellstone, but we lost a great advocate in Sheila Wellstone and we lost a great teacher in Marcia Wellstone. His family shared his passion and his drive for justice. His staff were with him every step of the way and some tragically even gave their lives in service. Our thoughts and prayers are certainly with all those, along with the Wellstone family, who lost family members, friends, and colleagues. Before coming to the Senate, I had the great pleasure of working with both Paul and Sheila Wellstone. I admired Sheila greatly. Just as her husband, she was made of steel. That little package of energy that propelled her down these corridors and throughout the State of Minnesota looking for ways to help and to shed the spotlight she could bring into the darkest corners of human misery set her apart. She especially became a champion of those women and children who were victims of domestic violence. The stories she heard from women all over Minnesota and America did not stay her property; she told them to anyone. She would come to the White House and button hole me or the President. She would go anywhere to see anyone to make sure that someone whose small cry for help that she heard in St. Paul or Margie would be heard in Washington as well. She believed that the idea of violence-free families should be a reality in every home in our Nation. She and Paul, together, believed the diseases, the illnesses of the mind, should no longer be relegated to some back room where they would be brushed aside, ignored because of the stigma, the embarrassment attached to them historically. She encouraged Paul to join forces with Senator Domenici to transform each of their families' experiences into a national campaign to improve the lives of the mentally ill. Sheila and Paul were also instrumental in bringing to international awareness the horrific problem of trafficking in human beings, the modern form of slavery by which young women, young girls, are literally sold into bondage, into the sex trade, into domestic servitude. Sheila and Paul Wellstone were absolutely committed that this practice of degradation would end. When each of us heard the news that the plane carrying Paul and Sheila and Marcia went down, time seemed to stop. Many did not want to believe it. We kept asking our staff and others how it could be true. How could this have happened? Horrible events, tragedies of this magnitude, have a way of stopping time. But then we have to return. The clocks have to start moving again. We have to continue our journey into the future. But if we remember what that moment in time felt like when we realized our friend, our colleague, a great Senator, would no longer join us for our debates, then perhaps that tragedy can change the tone and landscape of our politics and our debates. Perhaps Paul's example in life, his legacy in death, will compel all to look inward, to ask ourselves what are we doing today with the same energy, the same good humor, the same fighting spirit that Paul Wellstone embodied to make life a little better for the people we represent, to give voice to the voiceless. Over the past weeks I have thought a lot about Paul Wellstone. I remember so many incidents and so many of his triumphs. He was there day in and day out. No issue was too small that it did not have his commitment behind it if he thought it would make a difference in someone's life. The Senate passed expanding insurance coverage for the mentally ill. I hope Senator Domenici's heartfelt plea and his long- time commitment will help finally to pass his and Paul's dream into law. We increased access to child care for the working poor because Paul Wellstone knew what it meant to worry about your children while at work because you did not know the conditions they would be in, whether they would receive the quality of care they should. One of my favorite Paul Wellstone moments was that Paul and I were at a hearing he was chairing of the Subcommittee on Employment and Training. We had been receiving reports about a sharp increase in the numbers of unreported deaths and injuries among immigrant workers--many of them illegal, who found their way to our country and were put to work, despite the laws against it, for the cheap labor they provided-- who were not given the protection or the support or the respect they should have for the dangerous jobs they were performing. One of my State's newspapers, NewsDay, ran a powerful investigative report about the conditions in which immigrant workers labored in New York. Paul read it and contacted me right away. He wanted us to work together to find out what we could do to stop people from dying, literally dying, in New York and around America. Many who go to hearings around here know that not many people, except the paid lobbyists for the various industries affected, show up for the committee hearings. The lobbyists fill the chairs. They take the notes. They rush out to make the cell phone calls to report to their superiors and employers what is going on. But unfortunately, except on rare occasions, other people do not come. On that day, to our surprise, hundreds of workers flooded the halls of the Dirksen Building trying to get into our hearing, trying to tell their stories. Unfortunately, we had no idea this would draw such a crowd. The room the hearing was being held in was not big enough to accommodate everyone waiting. Paul and I conferred, and Paul said: I can't believe it. There are all these people outside. Some of them came from miles away. You can see his arms, as you hear those words, going back and forth. What are we going to do? Before I could answer, he got up, and in that bow-legged wrestler's stance and walk he had, he walked down from the platform, through the crowd, threw open the doors, told the Capitol Police that everyone was coming in and that there would be room. They could sit on the floor, they could sit in the Senators' chairs because he and I were the only Senators there. He would not keep the very people we were having the hearing about out of the hearing room. That was Paul. He was a people's Senator. Everyone was welcome. Every door was open. It was an unusual hearing, but it was a memorable one. Afterwards, he greeted each and every person who was there. It was this passion that got him up and fighting every day, even when he was in such pain, as some of us can remember, seeing him in pain on this floor, remembering how last year the pain was so intense he literally dropped to the floor of the Senate. He later learned that he was not just contending with the aches and pains of a Hall of Fame wrestling career but that he had multiple sclerosis. That did not stop him either. For any of us who inquired how he was doing, he brushed it off. He was not interested in any way or concerned about his own health. He wanted to talk to you about what we were going to do about unemployment insurance, what we were going to do about education, how we could turn our backs on all these children who would not get the resources they needed. During the debate on the education bill, Paul was the only member of our Education Committee to vote against it. We knew why. He warned that focusing our education system solely on improvements in standardized tests without a major increase in Federal funding was wrong. I agreed with that. I said so at the time in our committee. I will vote for this bill, but only if we have the funding. Here we are, a year later. We got the funding for 1 year and then the administration came in and no more funding. Paul was right, as the distinguished Senator from West Virginia knows. Trust, but verify, when it comes to such promises. Senator Wellstone always stood by his beliefs. His last big fight, as Senator Byrd has so eloquently reminded us, was over two big issues: Certainly Iraq, what should be done, what will be done, what our obligations as Senators are to hold this administration accountable; and, here at home, the fight for unemployment benefits to be extended. For the life of me and for Paul Wellstone, with whom I spoke about this at length time and time again, it made no sense. How could we turn our backs on people who were out of work through no fault of their own, who needed a little bit of a helping hand? He would come to the floor, he would make that case, and we wouldn't go anywhere with it. We couldn't get our colleagues to support extending unemployment insurance one more time. Along with what I hope will be a lasting legacy of mental health parity, I truly request our colleagues and the administration to extend unemployment insurance, Paul Wellstone's last domestic battle, for people who will otherwise have nowhere to turn when those benefits are gone. I want to say also a word about Senator Wellstone's staff, because he certainly loved and respected his staff. As Senator Byrd has mentioned, his staff was a loyal, hard-working group who often accompanied Senator Wellstone to the floor and sat there watching him, getting energy from his excitement and passion. I want to name some of the names of those men and women who helped him do the work we honor today. Colin McGinnis, his chief of staff, and Brian Ahlberg, his legislative director, are two extraordinary public servants. My staff has enjoyed the privilege of working with them. My staff and I have also had the opportunity to work with Marge Baker, who led Senator Wellstone's efforts on the Subcommittee on Employment and Training, with Jill Morningstar, who was his legislative assistant on education and women's issues, with Rachel Gregg, who led his efforts to assist the working poor, as well as Patti Unruh, Ellen Gerrity, and Richard McKeon, who made up his team of health care advisers. I offer my condolences to each of his extraordinary staff members and I want them to know how much we appreciate the work they did for Paul. On October 15, at the close of his last debate, here is what Senator Wellstone said: I don't represent the pharmaceutical companies, I don't represent the big oil companies, I don't represent the big health insurance industry, I don't represent the big financial institutions. But you know what, I represent the people of Minnesota. That may be his most fitting tribute--the honor, the ability, the results he brought to the way he represented the people of Minnesota. He did it with passion and principle. We join in saluting his life and his service and we challenge ourselves to remember the reasons why so many are mourning him today. Each of us, try to live up to the standard Paul Wellstone set.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, on October 12, the world was shocked as we learned of the tragedy in Indonesia. As news spread across the globe, we heard about the victims, the missing, and the utter devastation unleashed by a group of nameless and faceless murderers. New Yorkers and Americans understand the grief that has enveloped those who lost loved ones in the Bali bombing, and we wish them solace in this time of great personal loss. This was the largest terrorist attack since September 11, and while 13 months have passed since that fateful day in September, the images of that day remain crystal clear in our minds. While words often fail to provide comfort, perhaps knowing that there are others who can empathize with the shock that's felt in the days and weeks and months after such a tragedy, can console a grieving nation, city, and friend. After the attacks on the World Trade Centers, New Yorkers were so grateful for the outpouring of support that came from every corner of the globe. It is a sense of solidarity that no country wishes to share, but we must use it to strengthen our efforts in our war against terrorism. In the weeks and months ahead, New Yorkers will do everything we can to help those impacted by the bombings in Bali. This act of terror has taken nearly 200 lives and injured hundreds. These were parents, children, husbands and wives and friends from so many countries: Indonesia, Australia, Japan, Italy, Great Britain, South Korea, Germany, and two Americans. Five Americans are still unaccounted for. For many, watching family members go to hospitals in Bali carrying pictures of their loved ones is an all too familiar sight. But every opportunity to maintain hope in a desperate time should be pursued. Bali is known as a peaceful place where people from many different religions, races, and backgrounds can come for relaxation and recreation. Its hospitality is honored around the world. These bombings were a deliberate attempt to disrupt that tranquility and undermine the Indonesian government and its economy. We stand with the Indonesian government as they seek to punish those who are responsible and root out the terrorists in their midst. Australia was also deeply impacted by these bombings, and to date they are mourning the loss of 33 citizens and wait desperately to learn about 119 who are still missing. In New York's time of need, Australia provided us with so much kindness and generosity. They supported our efforts to defend freedom and we send our deepest condolences to the Australian people. Last week, we were reminded that the terrorists are still organized and determined to inflict violence and bloodshed in furtherance of their destructive goals. Whether it is murdering innocent people on vacation or bombing a French tanker in Yemen or killing American soldiers in Kuwait, those who wish to do us harm will continue to disrupt this world until we stop them. We must maintain our resolve to seek out and destroy every network in every country until the war on terror has been won.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, on August 20, New York lost one of its finest citizens. Lillian Goldman was a beautiful woman, inside and out. She was also committed, wise and generous. I was fortunate enough to be Lillian's friend, and I know how much her friendship meant to me and to so many others. I witnessed the effects she had on people and their futures. Four years ago, Lillian gave a significant gift to the 92nd Street Y for the family center. Two years ago, I was privileged to attend the dedication of the Lillian Goldman Law Library at Yale Law School. Among the many things about which she cared was the ability of women to make careers in the law, and especially to be educated at Yale Law School. Not only would she provide the scholarships to make that possible, she would have the foresight to support daycare at the law school, as well. Women, children and their families, will be indebted to Lillian Goldman, her generosity and her progressivism for many generations to come.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I want to express my views on the Help America Vote Act of 2002. The Help America Vote Act of 2002 has many strong provisions that will improve our Federal election system. This legislation requires that election districts across the nation provide provisional voting and post sample ballots and other voter information. It allows voters the opportunity to verify and change their vote before casting their vote. The act implements a statewide voter registration system to help reduce fraud and ensures that individuals are not wrongly refused the right to vote. It authorizes $3.9 billion in Federal funding to help states improve voting systems, make the polls more accessible to the disabled, train poll workers, and educate the electorate. Despite these positive provisions, however, I cannot vote for this bill because the voting rights of New Yorkers will be negatively affected by this legislation. For many years, the State of New York has had provisional voting and what is called signature verification. In the 1980s, New York City put in place a digitized signature verification system. When a New Yorker registers to vote, his or her signature is scanned into a computer and placed in the election board's files. Then on election day, the voter signs the book of registered voters in that election district. If the signatures do not match, the poll worker has the right to prevent the voter from casting a ballot on the machine, but the voter is permitted to cast a provisional ballot. The board of elections later determines whether the provisional ballot is valid and should therefore be counted. Because of New York State's system, there is no need for a voter to present a form of identification at the poll. In fact, the poll worker manual in New York explicitly states that poll workers cannot ask prospective voters for identification. This system was implemented in New York City and across the State of New York more than a decade ago. This system has worked in New York and should be a model for the Nation. Unfortunately, the Help America Vote Act would reduce the rights of New Yorkers who are first-time voters in a federal election by requiring them to present a valid photo identification, utility bill, bank statement or government identification that verifies the name and address of the voter. If a first-time voter filled out a registration form and included either her driver's license number or the last four digits of her Social Security number, then she would not have to present a form of identification to a poll worker before voting. While this may serve as a step in the right direction for other States, this is a new restriction for New York. This provision will repress voter participation among those New Yorkers who are in fact eligible to vote. Moreover, it will disproportionately affect ethnic and racial minorities, recently naturalized American citizens, language minorities, the poor, the homeless, the millions of eligible New York voters who do not have a driver's license, and those individuals who otherwise would have exercised their right to vote without these new provisions. Many civil rights groups who oppose this legislation have compared these provisions to poll taxes and literacy tests that were used to repress voter participation in the past. I do not believe this is an unfair analog because I believe this bill may indeed reduce voter participation. When voter participation numbers hover at 50 percent, I believe that we should make every effort to increase voter participation, not reduce it. I know this bill will pass the Senate today and will shortly become law, no matter what I do. But despite the many provisions in the bill that may increase voter participation in some states across the country who do not currently have provisional voting, I cannot support this legislation because it will negatively affect the rights of voters in the state that I am proud to represent--the State of New York. New York is a state with 19 million people and 11 million voters; a state that is home to the world's cultural and financial capitals. It is the gateway for millions of people from different countries and ethnicities. New York represents one of the best things about our country--it's diversity. In America, the birthplace of modern democracy, we should do all we can to ensure that the right of every voter is not unduly hindered unnecessarily. Unfortunately, I believe the provisions in the Help America Vote Act will do just that. I applaud the work of Senator Dodd, as chairman of the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, for all of his work on the bill, and the other members of the election reform conference committee. I also want to give a special thanks to the Rules Committee staff of Senator Dodd, especially Kennie Gill and Veronica Gillespie, who have worked from the first inception of the Senate's election reform bill to the final words in this election reform conference report. I know many members of the conference committee and their staffs have done their best to produce legislation that will try to improve our federal election system. I am also proud to have worked with Senator Dodd on a provision included in the conference report that calls upon the new Election Assistance Commission to study and report to Congress on the extent of residual votes. These are over votes, under votes, or ``spoiled'' votes that are created when a voter, unintentionally, makes a mistake in casting her ballot, either because she doesn't understand the ballot or the voting machinery I have fought hard to support the voting rights of the disenfranchised voter. But I cannot in good conscience, representing the State of New York, support legislation I believe will hurt the voting rights of New Yorkers. I will continue, however, to do all I can to ensure that our Federal election system and our democracy will be as strong as possible.