Hillary Clinton

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Now more than ever, we must remain resolute in our defense of America's values, interests and security. Our safety at home, as well as abroad rests on the strength of our military response, and Fort Drum is an absolutely essential component. Senator Schumer and I plan to work with my colleagues to ensure that Fort Drum and the 10th Mountain Division continue to play a large role in defending our Nation.

Mrs. CLINTON. The first of the two projects is a parallel taxiway at Wheeler-Sack Army Airfield, WSAAF at Fort Drum. This project will construct a new concrete taxiway parallel to the main runway to support operations at the airfield. The taxiway is required to enhance the capability, safety, and efficiency in the deployment of troops and equipment for the 10th Mountain Division, LI, and other fully functional units ready for combat from the installation. Fort Drum has experienced an increase in the number of air training missions and deployment operations in support of training, contingency, and NATO support missions. This construction project is necessary to keep the fort operating.

Mr. CLINTON

Mr. CLINTON. In April, I had the privilege of visiting the Walter Reed Army Medical Center, where other soldiers from the 10th Mountain Division were recuperating from wounds suffered in battle in Afghanistan. I know that all American feel the same pride for these distinguished service men and women as Senator Schumer and myself. It is no coincidence that when the initial troops were called into Afghanistan, soldiers from the 10th Mountain Division were among the first ones in. As one of the most frequently deployed missions in the U.S. Army, these flexible, mobile forces are a powerful weapon.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the accomplishments of a great New Yorker, Dr. Willis Haviland Carrier, who invented air-conditioning 100 years ago today. Dr. Carrier was a man of humble background. Born in 1876 in Angola, NY, he delayed his education for 2 years to work on the family farm during the Depression of the mid-1890s. After finishing high school in Buffalo, he won a scholarship to attend Cornell University in Ithaca. While at Cornell, he founded a cooperative student laundry agency, the first of its kind. He graduated in 1901 with a degree in electrical and mechanical engineering, and went to work for the Buffalo Forge Company. When the Sackett-Wilhelms Lithographing and Publishing Company of Brooklyn was looking for a solution to the problem of paper expansion due to heat and humidity, Carrier was assigned to the task. On July 17, 1902, he presented his design for a system to control temperature, humidity, air quality, circulation, and ventilation. The modern era of air conditioning was born. Dr. Carrier had the business acumen to make his invention a success, and in 1915 he founded the Carrier Corporation in Syracuse. Movie theaters were among the first adopters of the new technology, soon to be followed by department stores, airplanes, and cars. Air conditioning came to the House of Representatives in 1928 and here to the Senate in 1929. After World War II, air conditioning became affordable for private homes, forever changing the American lifestyle. Dr. Carrier held 80 patents at the time of his death in 1950. His company has continued his tradition of innovation, with the introduction in the 1950s of rooftop systems for skyscrapers eliminating the need for large and costly basement rooms. Today, Carrier Corporation is an industry leader in environmental responsibility, with chlorine-free alternative refrigerants in use across its entire product line. Dr. Willis H. Carrier used his creativity and entrepreneurship to change the way we live and the way we work. We are fortunate to benefit from the contributions of this great New Yorker.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, on April 26, 2002, I had the opportunity to attend the 10th annual ArtTable Luncheon. ArtTable is a national organization for professional women in leadership positions in the visual arts. Founded in 1981, it provides a forum for its members to exchange ideas, experience and information through various programs. ArtTable is dedicated to promoting and advancing greater knowledge, understanding, and appreciation of the visual arts. At each year's luncheon, a different woman who has given her distinguished service is honored. The keynote speaker on this occasion was Dr. Kirk Varnedoe, Chief Curator of the Department of Painting and Sculpture at the Museum of Modern Art and Professor in Historical Studies at the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton University. Dr. Varnedoe has more than a dozen major exhibitions to his credit, both for the Museum of Modern Art and for other institutions. His work has often been at the forefront of the history of modern art and his extensive publications on European and North American art of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries have helped reshape and open up a variety of fields in art history. His contributions began in 1972, at the age of 25, with his doctoral dissertation on the drawings of Rodin and the epidemic problem of forgeries of the later drawings. This work was so significant that its results were published in collaboration with Albert Elsen before the dissertation had even been submitted. His scholarship since that time has been instrumental in opening entire fields of inquiry, for example, Impressionism, Scandinavian modernism, and the influence of photography on painting, as well as bringing little known artists into the center of debate. In his remarks at the luncheon, which I will ask be printed in the Record, Dr. Varnedoe spoke eloquently about his ``personal odyssey with the art of Auguste Rodin'' and the greater issues that journey brought to life. He discussed the ever-changing world of modern art and what it can teach us, especially during this incredibly challenging period of history through which we are living. I am grateful to Dr. Varnedoe for his continued scholarship efforts in the area of art history and for sharing this history with us in a way that we can apply it to our experiences in the world today. I ask that the remarks be printed in the Record. ArtTable Keynote April 26, 2002 (By Kirk Varnedoe) I have had a personal odyssey with the art of Auguste Rodin. It's a love that I share--along with a great regard for her late husband Bernie--with Iris Cantor. Rodin was once for me an intense and special passion, a singular entry point into the history of art. And now, that body of work seems somehow seen at a distance, more coolly, and that artist one among many with whom I've worked, and from whom I've taken inspiration. Today, I would like to take that small and really trivial personal trajectory into and through Rodin and ruminate on it in relationship to a larger pattern: to use it to think about the way that the modern tradition metes out its gains and losses, the way it gives and takes; and then also to use my little journey to suggest much larger issues about learning and growth--about what we want from art as we change and learn. Modern art, as is notorious, kills, and it kills mercilessly. In the late 19th Century as it was just being born it laid waste to the Salon world of Gerome and Bougureau. And then as it built up steam in the early 20th Century it decided to start slaying some of its own parents and godparents. After World War II modern art killed Rodin like a bright young barbarian gladiator taking down an aging, opulently garlanded emperor--in sheer exhaustion at the achievement of Rodin's weight and complexity, people found themselves gagged to surfeit by the ancienne cuisine richness of this enormous oeuvre, and yearned for a leaner, cleaner psychic and physical life in art. That is perhaps exemplified most pointedly by the beautiful polished surfaces of Brancusi's sculpture. Where once Rodin's flesh roiled volcanically, now you had a still-waters-run-deep beautiful gleam, more like armor than palping flesh; compression/ density replaced extension/elasticity; wit and elegance took over for brooding and suffering; and abbreviated, pithy economic certainties were set up against the older anguished overflowing desire and doubt; fulfillment replaced yearning, and the sticky sweet humidity of Rodin's world was replaced by slick machine cool. And then in the 20's and 30's, the curse of the word ``Victorian'' descended on The Kiss on The Thinker and on so much else of Rodin's work. A curse that I might say is still enacted at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, if you go look at the installation of the former Andre Meyer Galleries where there is a special kind of purgatory off to the right of Cezanne Degas, and Manet, where The Age of Bronze strides in pride next to Rosa Bonheur and Bastien-Lepage. But just as certainly as the modern movement took away, it so eventually gave back. Modern art is a sure killer but it is also a fantastic resuscitator. And it works its growth through pulses of recovery. One of those main pulses came in the 1960's with scholarship by men like my mentor Albert Elsen at Stanford, and by Leo Steinberg, who wrote a key essay at the time of Elsen's Retrospective of Rodin at the Modern in the late 60's. Elsen re-found a new Rodin, via his training under Meyer Schapiro, and by his engagement as a young man in the 50's with Abstract Expressionism. And his show in the late 60's was the culmination of new interest, in everything about Rodin's bronzes that was spontaneous, painterly, seemed to depend on accident, and broadcast a kind of heroic drama of angst that seemed in tune with Pollock, with Rothko etc.. While Steinberg, on the other hand, via his experience of Jasper Johns and Judd, pointed us to a new awareness of the formal strategies of Rodin: his techniques of repeating single molds to form new compositions; his processes of fragmenting and hybridizing the body's anatomy, against nature, towards new expressive devices. In these radical, small gestures of handling material, he found a new and more relevant Rodin for the late 60's, the age of minimalism. Moving on, recuperating, resuscitating, the way that Modern art does it, involves, not simply leaving behind, but finding new ways to carry forward. We know that for example that Cezanne said that his goal was to redo Poussin after nature. Modern art has always had a steady urge to reinvent the past and to recapture it in terms that translate its values into ours, to reinvent, to make new, and this means not only old masters like Poussin, but its immediate forbearers. So in the 1960s, you not only have the reinvention of Rodin, but the re-invention of Russian Constructivism through minimalism, Marcel Duchamp reborn in the work of Richard Hamilton, Jasper Johns and Bruce Nauman, and Futurism in Pop Art, especially British. A whole new parentage was reinvented, often outside the traditional ``school of Paris'' lineage, for Modernism. And the ``recovery'' of Rodin was a part of this revivification. But at what a cost? Steinberg's essay for example, was explicit in saying we have to begin by disregarding so much. We have to begin by eliminating all of the public Rodin, all of the finished works, indeed virtually all of the most ambitious parts of his work, which are seen in a scornful way, as part of the desire to please too large a public. Steinberg wants to favor instead the intransigent truculence of a private experimenter, showing no compromise at all with the tastes or demands or emotions of the public of his time. In Steinberg's case it is particularly modern irony that imposes the great divide between our cooler, sophistication, and a rejected messier world of sentiment pathos, and earnest heroism in Rodins. ``Our'' Rodin, then, relevant, sanitized and censored--not the Rodin of The Kiss, the Thinker, or the marble works, and surely not the Rodin before whom Cezanne fell embarrassingly to his knees, and to whom Ranier Maria Rilke dedicated his pen and his time. Is that the inevitable price of progress in knowing art? To narrow-hew, in order to make newly vivid/ relevant? To diminish and deform as we try to reform, pick and choose? This audience in this room is a kind of aristocracy, or meritocracy, of special knowledge about art. We work at it. We are typical of those the self-elected and self-organized elites and cenacles and Salons that have made Modern art get up and go from the beginning and all along. And this group too is typical of the kind of voluntary assemblages--shooting associations, stamp guilds, glee clubs, softball leagues and debating societies--that, far from being anti-democratic in nature, have been seen by observers since Tocqueville as being central to the health of our plural society, and indeed the unscripted backbone of democracy's difference from mere mob rule. Now it's an article of faith in this room that knowing more about art, being more sophisticated, is certainly a good way of forming a club, of defining one's self, gathering together with fellow feelers. But is it a legitimate corollary that more sophistication and knowledge is necessarily greater moral intelligence about the larger world, or indeed about all art? The dirty truth is that there is always a price to be paid, in the deadening of our capacity to respond to joys that once moved us, sealing us off from others in our iced and ironic superiority. We have been living for years now in a time of great surprises, unpredictable events and changes that have deeply affected us--the coming of AIDS, and with it a new sense of fatality and mortality; the fall of the wall and what did not come in the wake of its euphoria; the haunted resurgence of Holocaust memory--and then, finally the massive rent in the historical fabric that took place just over six months ago. It is not just that the art of Louise Bourgeois, of Ghormley and Munoz, of Kiki Smith and Charlie Ray have for years now been asking us to rethink Rodin's heritage of the vulnerable body. Nor certainly am I dealing with only the question of suddenly now considering the specific memorial, monumental and public ambitions of the best sense of memory and tragedy in this one artist, Rodin--though both of these reinventions and rethinking seem overdue. But what seems subliminally an issue now is the broader confrontation with what our sophistications may cost us more generally--in a lack of access to the heroic, or to tragic, when these terms seem suddenly, newly apposite and relevant. Is it we slick pros who are irrelevant, and bound in? Inadequate to our time, as it has to our great surprise changed faster than we seem to be able to? This is a question I know many artists have been asking themselves, and it is one worth our asking ourselves too. We need to rethink the balance of continuity, and relevance in art, the two things I think, that we go to art for. On the one hand for a vivid sense of our own life, of being alive, but also for a sense of things outside ourselves, other minds, other ways of feeling. And that other shifts as we change, and grow, and can include the parts of ourselves, the passions that got us here but that we have abandoned and closed up to some ostensible hipper and better good. What does it mean to grow up? (Baudelaire felt that true genius was only childhood recovered at will, now equipped with adult means of communication) What does it mean in the art world that we all inhabit, to be a pro? Is it a dead ideal that it could entail for ourselves, and those we advise and instruct an effort always towards a broadening, increasing sympathy for a wider range of life experience, more encompassing, more fully human? It might--if we could be less hidebound, a little more sure of ourselves--it might be a goal to be more alive to the possibilities of our peculiar moment in history, if we truly work at it.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, on June 3, our Nation lost one of its finest citizens. Lew Wasserman, long time president and chairman of MCA and friend of Presidents, died at the age of 89. Lew came from humble roots, but never forgot those less fortunate than he. An entertainment industry visionary and modern day mogul, Lew Wasserman, along with his wonderful wife, Edie, used their position and resources to support hospitals and cultural institutions; to provide scholarships to young people; to fund research to prevent blindness; and to support political candidates in whose leadership they believed. In a rough and tumble industry, he believed in fairness and thoughtful mediation, and he cared passionately about our political system and democratic ideals. Lew Wasserman was a mentor and role model to an entire industry and a great friend to Presidents of both parties, including my husband. I was honored that he was my friend; but, even more than that, I was grateful for his many contributions to America. On September 29, 1995, my husband awarded Lew Wasserman the Presidential Medal of Freedom. In his remarks, the President said of Lew: I have met a lot of philanthropists and successful people in my life. I don't know that I ever met anybody that more consistently every day looked for another opportunity to do something for somebody else, to give somebody else the chance to enjoy the success that he had in life. I thank you, Lew Wasserman.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise in this period of morning business to raise a continuing and serious problem that we believe most acutely in New York but which I know is shared in other parts of our Nation. Last month, the Nation joined New Yorkers in our reflection and sorrow as the workers at ground zero removed the final debris from the 16-acre World Trade Center site. While this event, which was accomplished ahead of schedule and below budget by the most dedicated workforce that I think you could find anywhere in the world--unionized building trades and construction workers who worked on that pile for 12- to 15-hour days, 7 case days a week, for months, and, therefore, because of their heroic efforts we moved one step closer to the beginning of the rebuilding process--there are many workers who have not been able to begin rebuilding their lives simply because there are not enough jobs right now. Many of us will remember a photograph shortly after September 11 that the press ran showing hundreds of people standing in lines at a job fair that was held in the city, people who had lost their jobs, both directly because of the attack on the World Trade Center and indirectly because of the ripple effect through the economy. There were workers--and I have met with scores and scores of them-- whose jobs were literally destroyed when the Twin Towers collapsed. They were the janitors. They were the doormen. They were the waiters and waitresses. They were the secretaries and the messengers. They went to work every day in that huge complex of offices. There were those who served the small businesses that took care of the workers in those buildings. And, of course, then there were those throughout the city who may not have worked at ground zero but who lost their jobs because of the aftermath on the entire economy because of the terrorist attacks. We all know that thousands of hard-working Americans have been thrown out of work because of the combination of the jobless recovery and the terrorist attacks. Prior to September 11, our economy was beginning to slow down. Our national unemployment rate rose from 4.5 percent a year ago to 4.9 percent in September and to 5.9 percent today. But I think that somehow does not even tell the whole story because what we have seen occurring since September 11 is this so-called jobless recovery. The Wall Street Journal just ran an article about it stating that employment has now shown 13 consecutive months of decline through April. That exceeds the 11 straight months of loss in the 1990-91 recession, the only recent comparable period, about a decade ago. I ask unanimous consent that article be printed in the Record.

Mrs. CLINTON. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. CLINTON. So here we are with a national unemployment rate of 5.9 percent, and the situation in New York is even worse. In our State, it is 6.1 percent unemployment, and in New York City, 8 percent unemployment. We did the right thing a few months ago when we passed unemployment insurance and disaster unemployment assistance for 13 weeks. Those are both very important programs. The disaster unemployment assistance, which comes through FEMA, goes directly to those workers who actually lost their jobs because of the physical destruction of September 11. Unemployment insurance, as we know, is triggered when there is a lack of jobs for whatever reason. And, of course, more people are out of work in New York and throughout our Nation because of the impact of September 11. Unfortunately, these extensions, which provided a very needed safety net for thousands of workers, are about to expire for many of those workers. Nationally, 686,000 individuals will have exhausted their benefits with no job to enter. On Monday, I participated in an announcement of a study that was commissioned by a group called the 9/11 United Services, which is a coordinating group that tried to bring all the charities together. A very accomplished corporate executive was asked to come in and serve as the temporary chairman. He immediately said: We don't have any data. We don't know what the facts are. He commissioned a study by McKenzie and Company to try to figure out what the economic challenges are that we are confronting. Their survey, which was announced on Monday, showed that approximately 45,000 workers in New York City whose jobs were affected continue to suffer an income loss of more than 25 percent. Approximately 28,000 are still unemployed. In other words, we got down to about 45,000, and of those 45,000, about 17,000 did get a job, although it cut their income considerably, and 28,000 are still unemployed. It is clear, despite the very best efforts of private charities and very extraordinarily generous people, we just cannot make up the losses of income and joblessness that we are still confronting. The New York State Department of Labor confirmed these figures from the McKenzie study, but, in fact, theirs are even more dire, and they are the official figures. They show that 105,000 people were on unemployment insurance as a direct result of the World Trade Center attacks. We have an increasing number who are running out of time. Nearly 7,000 of the 24,000 are still unemployed, looking for jobs, and have exhausted all their benefits. There is no job in sight. The disaster unemployment assistance expired, dropping 1,100 people who still have not found a job, who have not been placed anywhere else because their companies, if they are still in New York--as many, thankfully, are--have downsized, have moved, and have not been able to provide all the jobs that were once there. I have provided these statistics just to give you some insight. But, of course, the personal stories are what are most wrenching and what I encounter every time I am in the city, or my caseworkers and staff, as they field phone calls, e-mails, and letters from people who worked at jobs for 18 years, 25 years, who put two children through college, and now have nothing to fall back on, who are on the brink of being evicted from the apartment they have lived in for decades, or are about to be foreclosed on in the homes they have struggled to buy. I know that it is sometimes difficult to think about these faceless people out there, but we have tried very hard to do the right thing in the wake of the World Trade Center. We certainly tried to provide the resources that businesses needed to get back on their feet. This body and the President and the House were extremely generous to provide the public funds that we needed to begin the rebuilding process, to clean up the debris, to do what we needed to get back on the right track in Lower Manhattan. But I just do not want to see our workers--people who were gainfully employed, doing the right thing-- forgotten. Certainly, I have a great deal of sympathy for people in other parts of the country who are really caught up in this so-called jobless recovery as well. I am introducing two pieces of legislation, along with Senators Schumer and Kennedy, to extend both unemployment insurance and disaster unemployment assistance for an additional 13 weeks. It is our hope that the jobs will start coming back into the economy. In fact, experts certainly agree that extending unemployment insurance is more likely than anything else we can do to get money into the economy that people will have to start spending because they do not have any choice. Over the last five recessions, every $1 spent on unemployment benefits generated a $2.15 increase in the gross domestic product. I went back and looked. What did we do the last time we were in any kind of comparable period? Mr. President, the period of 1990-91 was the most recent time in which to compare this. In the early 1990s, benefits were extended four times, for it became clear, in the absence of that safety net, that lifeline, we would have even greater problems with which to deal. What are we going to do with people who get foreclosed on and evicted? Not everybody has a family to go to and crowd on to a sofa bed or into a spare room. We are going to have increases in homelessness. We are going to have all kinds of problems that at least we can try to forestall and, hopefully, eliminate. These benefits would be extended for just an additional 13 weeks-- half the time they were extended back in the early 1990s. Clearly, I think we need systemic changes to the unemployment insurance system. I think it is kind of an odd position for us all to be in: Coming back, asking to extend it whenever it is needed, that we have to have new congressional action. There ought to be some ways where we can also be more sensitive to different parts of the country. I know there are parts of the country--there are parts of my State-- that are below the national average in unemployment. But there are concentrated pockets that we don't, frankly, want to spread and have more expensive problems to deal with, which is one of the additional reasons I hope the Senate will support this action. I am very appreciative of all of the support that New York and New Yorkers have received over the last many months. This has been obviously a traumatic and terrible time for many families. Certainly nothing we can say or do will bring back a loved one or even bring back a job that was there for 20, 25 years. But we do have to continue to try to send out this lifeline, the help that is needed, so people can try to get themselves back on their feet and that we don't claim more victims because of the horrific attack on September 11.

Mrs. CLINTON

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

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I would like to acknowledge the contribution to this nation provided by the workers and management of Alcoa's Massena, New York Operations. The Massena Operations make aluminum ingot--which is the raw material that is used in a variety of applications--and fabricated aluminum products. I hope many of my colleagues will have the chance to visit the town of Massena, NY, because it is a wonderful community. Massena is located on the St. Lawrence River in St. Lawrence County, serving as a gateway to America's Fourth Coast, including the St. Lawrence Seaway, the Thousand Islands and the Great Lakes. This year, Massena is celebrating its 200th birthday, and along with it a century of Alcoa involvement in the community. Alcoa is celebrating an incredible 100 years of aluminum production at its Massena location. As part of its celebration, Alcoa will establish the Massena Operations Memorial Park. Earlier this year, Alcoa-Massena officials also announced their contribution of $100,000 to the Massena Bicentennial. The history of Alcoa's Massena Operations is a true American success story. A century ago, the Pittsburgh Reduction Company, a predecessor of Alcoa, built a smelting plant at Massena. The products manufactured at Massena have included wire and electric transmission cable. Consumer products with aluminum components made in Massena have harnessed the power of electricity for the home. The Massena Operations have also made significant contributions to our Nation's military and aerospace efforts. For a century, Alcoa's Massena Operations has upheld the proud American tradition of quality manufacturing. I wish to thank you for the opportunity to highlight their fine work and the important role that Alcoa's Massena Operations plays in their community in New York.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I am surprised and offended by the decision of the Appeals Court of the Ninth Circuit and hope that it will be promptly appealed and overturned. I believe that the Court has misinterpreted the intent of the Framers of the Constitution and has sought to undermine one of the bedrock values of our democracy, that we are indeed ``one nation under God,'' as embodied in the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. While our men and women in uniform are battling overseas and defending us here at home to preserve the freedom that we all cherish for our country and its citizens, we should never forget the blessings of Divine Providence that undergird our Nation. That includes the freedom to recite the pledge of allegiance in our Nation's schools. I can only imagine how they will feel about this decision as they risk their lives for our values. And the children of America, who share a bond with each other and with our Nation by reciting the pledge each day, what effect will a decision like this have on them? It will cause them to wonder about the ways in which our beliefs can be stretched, our heritage can be assaulted. It is the wrong decision, and it is an unfair decision, especially unfair to those who defend our Nation, and to the young people who will inherit our Nation's future. Ours is a Nation founded by people of faith. People of faith have helped lead some of the most significant movements of social justice throughout our history: to end slavery, to win civil rights for all Americans. No one is required to have faith, and our Government does not impose faith on its citizens. But ours is the most faith-filled nation on Earth, and there is no moral or constitutional argument why our Pledge of Allegiance cannot acknowledge our commonly held belief that ours is one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I am honored to support S. 292, the Pledge of Allegiance resolution, and I hope that the rule of law will be upheld by an ultimate rejection of this wrongheaded decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Madam President, it is with deep sadness that I stand before you today to honor the life and service of Master Sgt. Peter Tycz, who made the ultimate sacrifice for his country. I want to express my deepest sympathies to his wife and their five children for their heart-wrenching loss. Master Sgt. Tycz was killed June 12 when his plane caught fire and crashed after taking off from an airstrip in Afghanistan. Our entire nation is saddened by this immeasurable loss and I rise in recognition of his profound contribution to America. A native of Tonawanda, New York, Master Sgt. Tycz was a Green Beret and the father of five girls, ages 1 to 9: Elizabeth, Samantha, Faith, Tiffany and Felicia. He joined the Army out of high school and was committed to the fight for freedom wherever it took him. He welcomed the opportunity to defend America in Afghanistan. Master Sgt. Tycz wrote in an email to his mother, Terry Harnden, this past fall, which read: ``[I] will have to make great sacrifices to make sure our lifestyle is not threatened and I'm prepared to do that.'' His daughters will grow up knowing that their father was a true American hero who represents the very best of our great Nation. Master Sgt. Tycz's sacrifice for his country reminds us of the enormous debt of gratitude we owe all of our men and women in uniform-- those who risk their lives and, in particular, those who have been lost in the defense of our country. Their courage and steadfast determination keeps America safe and our freedom strong. We are grateful to Master Sgt. Tycz and the many American service men and women like him who are determined to defend and protect our great country. In that same email to his mother, Master Sgt. Tycz wrote, ``Do not ever be sad for me because you will defeat my reason for being.'' I hope that we will always remember his words and that they will bring us all, most especially his family, comfort and strength.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I want to tell you about a remarkable young man I met two years ago. His name is Cullinan Williams, he is 10 years old and he lives in the beautiful little town of Cazenovia in upstate New York. When Cullinan was 6, he was diagnosed with diabetes. He gives himself injections of insulin and pricks his finger to test his blood glucose level several times a day. Unless we find a cure for diabetes, he will need to do this for the rest of his life. Diabetes is a very serious disease but Cullinan is not sad or defeated. Quite the opposite: Cullinan is a strong advocate for increased diabetes research funding. I first met Cullinan when he asked my husband and me to sponsor him in America's Walk for Diabetes. This year he served as the American Diabetes Association's National Youth Advocate. He traveled all across the country talking to patients, providers and legislators. Every year he lobbies Congress and he tells other young people that they too can have a voice on Capitol Hill and in the halls of their state legislatures. Cullinan has important things to say. There are 17 million Americans with diabetes; 6 million don't even know they have it. The prevalence of diabetes in the U.S. has grown by 50 percent since 1990; the Center for Disease Control has called it an epidemic. At the current rate, by the year 2010, 10 percent of all Americans will have diabetes. Diabetes is a very serious disease. Life expectancy for people with diabetes is reduced by 15 years. People with diabetes have health problems. Many go on dialysis or need a transplant because their kidneys fail. Some lose their limbs and others lose their sight. Many have a heart attack or a stroke. More than 200,000 people die of diabetes every year. It is the fifth leading cause of death by disease and it is the third leading cause of death for some minority groups. Diabetes costs a lot. In addition to human pain and early death, the financial cost exceeds $100 billion every year. Fourteen percent of all of our health care dollars goes to caring for people with diabetes; 25 percent of medicare expenditures goes to diabetes care. If the epidemic of diabetes continues, the expenditures for diabetes care will become astronomical and bankrupt our healthcare system. Diabetes can be stopped but we need research to do it. While deaths attributed to diabetes have increased by 40 percent since 1987, the proportion of the NIH budget that goes to diabetes research has decreased by 20 percent. We also have to promote a healthy lifestyle across all ages. Obesity is reaching epidemic proportions in our country and is one of the reasons why Type 2 diabetes, the most common form of diabetes, is increasing. Type 2 diabetes used to be diagnosed in older adults. Now we see it in overweight children. This form of diabetes can be prevented by eating a healthy diet, getting regular exercise, and maintaining a normal weight. As a society, we must face the fact that our sedentary lifestyle, fast food, and ``super size'' portions are killing us. Stopping Type 2 diabetes means we must make a commitment as a nation to encouraging and supporting a healthy lifestyle in our families, our communities and our work environment. Cullinan does not have Type 2 diabetes. He has Type 1 diabetes. However, both Cullinan and I know that Type 1 diabetes can be prevented or cured through research. Science has produced many recent breakthroughs in our understanding of this disease. We know how to identify the genes that put children like Cullinan at-risk for diabetes. Scientists are now searching for the environmental triggers that cause diabetes in genetically at-risk children. Once they identify those triggers, prevention of Type 1 diabetes will be possible. Scientists also understand that Type 1 diabetes is an autoimmune disease; the body destroys its own insulin producing islet cells. Scientists are now studying ways to transplant islet cells or to regenerate islet cells. This will cure diabetes in people with the disease. We need to provide these scientists with the research funding they need to make a difference in Cullinan's life and to stop Type 1 diabetes in future generations.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Madam President, I rise today to honor Toby Milberg Needler, an outstanding New Yorker, who has served the students of New York City's public schools for more than 30 years. On June 27, 2002, Ms. Needler will retire from her position as Vice Principal of the esteemed Washington Irving High School where she also served as Director of the school's distinguished Arts program. The success of the Arts Program is largely the result of Ms. Needler's dedication and resolve. Skillfully combining the support of private business with her education plan, established an inspiring level of credibility with her supervisors and peers. This greatly benefited the program she both developed and administered. She was most revered, however, for the special relationships she developed with her students. Ms. Needler has been a listener, a protector, an advocate and a constant source of energy for young people who confront the challenges that adolescence may bring. Ms. Needler's career is marked by her creative effort to integrate the world of arts into the lives of her students. Many of those who are familiar with the Washington Irving High School's Arts Program, attribute its success to Ms. Needler's vision, hard work and commitment. Since her arrival the program has expanded beyond bounds. Nearly 100 percent of its graduates are admitted to four-year colleges. We owe a great debt of gratitude to Ms. Needler's dedication. Ms. Needler's legacy will endure in the hearts and minds of those whose lives she touched. I commend Ms. Needler for her tremendous achievements. She exemplifies the high-quality of teaching and public service that we aspire to instill in all those dedicated individuals entrusted with the education of our nation's young people.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. I want to give one example. I could literally give so many examples in this Chamber because they have flooded into my office and come to my attention and to my counsel's attention for weeks now. Francis Greenberger of Time Equities, Inc., a real estate investment firm, has confirmed to me that the insurer they had before September 11 required their company to buy terrorism insurance for four properties: three in New York and one in Madison, WI, an apartment building. They were required to insure the property in Madison, WI, against terrorism, despite the fact that it is clearly not near New York City. It is not an area where there have been a lot of threats, but, nevertheless, in order to get the terrorism insurance where it was needed in New York, the four properties were lumped together. The cost of the insurance premiums for these properties rose from $191,500 pre-September 11 to $664,300, an increase of 347 percent. Even with these exorbitant premiums, the amount of terrorism insurance coverage that the company received for these much higher premiums was actually 50 percent less than the amount of coverage it had previously received. In addition, the new policy excluded bioterrorism and nuclear attacks and had a deductibility of more than $1 million. By any standard, that is a terrible burden to try to absorb, especially during an economic downturn in the wake of the terrorist attack on New York. That is not by any means a unique story. I have heard many like it from not only real estate holders but construction contractors, stadium owners, sports teams, amusement park owners, banks, and not just in New York but people who do business, literally, all over the country. The lack of insurance has affected the ability of many developers to close real estate deals, to complete old ones and to start new ones. So at least in our part of the world new offices, residential buildings, new hotels, and new entertainment centers are either on hold or being forced to expend much more money than any reasonable assessment of the risk should call for. In addition, we know the reinsurance market ends on July 1, so there is urgency for us to act. I appreciate my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who are working to get this legislation passed. It is not only the private sector; it has also been a real challenge for hospitals. Again, the New York insurance superintendent has reported that hospitals were the first New York business to experience significant difficulties in obtaining adequate and affordable property coverage for their facilities. We also have problems with our major philanthropic organizations. They operate hospitals. They operate museums. We have an across-the- board problem in getting the kind of insurance that is required, and, in many instances, what has been offered is far from adequate. Many, as I said, exclude certain kinds of terrorism. They tighten up the definition of occurrence. Then they jack up the prices so that it is not affordable anyway, even though it is not very good coverage. In many cases, the insured has no choice. I do hope we are not only going to pass this and pass it as soon as possible, but that we will recognize another area of difficulty, and that is with respect to workers' compensation coverage. Under New York law, primary insurers providing workers' compensation coverage cannot exclude terrorism coverage. Therefore, many primary insurers are dropping their insureds and refusing to offer workers' compensation anymore at all. I understand it was the intention of Senator Dodd that workers' compensation insurance would be covered by this bill under the general rubric of commercial lines of insurance. I have some concern, however, because a number of types of insurance are specifically defined, but workers' comp is not. I understand, though, that Senator Dodd will address this issue and will make it explicitly clear that workers' compensation coverage is also covered by this legislation. I wish to thank Senator Dodd and his staff for recognizing this potential oversight and moving to remedy it. In conclusion, I am delighted that this bill is finally being debated. Many of us have been urging that it arrive as soon as it could. We are now right in the crunch period because reinsurance in most instances disappears in just a few weeks on July 1. Workers' compensation is not even being written right now in New York in many instances, so we must move. I have said from this floor many times in the last months that when New York was attacked, it was an attack on America. The economy of New York is absolutely crucial to the full recovery of America, and there is no more important legislation than the one we are considering now to ensure that economic activity resume at the highest possible level and that we not only put New Yorkers back to work but that, because of the dynamism of the New York economy, we send out that energy that will get our national economy moving in the right direction as well. So I thank the sponsors. I look forward to the vote on this, and I appreciate support for this important legislation. I yield the floor.

Mrs. CLINTON. Madam President, I am here to express very strong support for S. 2600, the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002. I know we have had debate and a couple of votes, but I want to underscore how important this legislation is to the State of New York and to the ongoing economic challenges we confront because of September 11. This legislation provides a temporary Government-industry program for sharing property and casualty insurance losses; in short, what is called a Government backstop. The loss sharing program would run for just 1 year, although it could be extended for an additional year. We are only talking about a temporary fix until the marketplace gets back on its feet and we get a reinsurance industry that is willing to backstop the insured and their losses. I hope all of my colleagues understand how significant this legislation is to so many industries and particularly in the State of New York. Under the legislation, if there were a terrorist attack that results in more than $5 million in insured losses, insurance companies would collectively cover total losses of up to $10 billion. Companies would contribute to that $10 billion amount based upon their individual market shares. If the losses exceeded $10 billion, but were less than $20 billion, then the Federal Government would pay 80 percent of the losses and the insurance industry would cover 20 percent. If the losses were more than $20 billion but less than $100 billion, the Federal Government would pick up 90 percent and the industry would cover 10 percent. And if there were more than $100 billion in losses, the Secretary of the Treasury would notify the Congress, and we would then determine how losses over that huge amount would be covered. All property and casualty insurance, except crop and mortgage insurance, would be covered. The bill would also cover not just insurance companies, but also those which self-insure, which includes many businesses in New York and across the country. I have heard so many concerns expressed by businesses in New York. I have heard it from the real estate industry, from the Association for a Better New York, which is the equivalent in many ways of the Chamber of Commerce in New York City, from New York City Partnership, which also acts to bring businesses, large and small, from all different sectors of the economy together to speak with one voice. But throughout New York City and throughout New York State, throughout certainly the larger New York area, which includes New Jersey and Connecticut, the problems associated with obtaining terrorism insurance have become a matter of great immediacy and urgency. In fact, the department of insurance superintendent, Gregory Serio, has recently met with me to confirm that it is not just individual companies that are running into problems, it is a systemwide challenge to the fundamental concept of being able to provide insurance for our businesses.

Mrs. CLINTON. Certainly. Amendment No. 3839 Withdrawn

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I have a great deal of respect for my colleagues who are arguing this point with extraordinary vigor and zeal. I have no doubt they absolutely believe that the wealth tax is wrong and should be abolished. We ought to take a step back and put this debate into a bit of a reality check again, since there has been a lot said on the floor which may be good argument points, good advocacy positions, but is not necessarily connected to the reality that we face today as we are about to vote on this decision. I don't usually come to the floor and quote the Wall Street Journal, but I will today because if one were to look for a source that probably views this issue more favorably to the position of my colleagues, they probably couldn't find a publication that would be more inclined to support it. Certainly the editorial pages have done so, and there are columnists and others who make the argument. I will enter into the Record a column that was written by one of the Wall Street Journal's leading writers, a gentleman by the name of Alan Murray, no friend of taxation, who wrote an article, dated May 28, 2002, entitled ``Senate Needs Reality Check Before Refunding Estate Tax.'' If one reads this, they will get a better context than the sort of disembodied one that occurs on the floor of the Senate where abstractions and generalities can be made for the sake of argument without really looking at what it is we are being asked to vote on. Mr. Murray starts by saying: Marie Antoinette had nothing over the U.S. Senate. In its rush to permanently eliminate the estate tax, the nation's ``deliberative body'' has apparently forgotten to deliberate on the surging social trends of our time. Mr. Murray goes on to make the following point: The last two decades have led to a concentration of wealth and income among the fortunate few in this country that hasn't been seen since the gilded age. When was the estate tax first proposed and who proposed it? President Theodore Roosevelt, himself a product of the gilded age, who understood intuitively that our country, founded on principles of equality, could not afford to see vast disparities in wealth occur. Therefore, President Roosevelt, a Republican, proposed the estate tax, because he recognized the threat that greater and greater accumulation of wealth that separated the few from the many posed to our Nation. Mr. Murray goes on to say that ``the 10 most highly compensated corporate chief executives earned a total of $3.5 million in 1981,'' 21 years ago. You take the 10 top CEOs in America. Were they doing a good job in 1981? They were doing a good job. But now 21 years later, the 10 most highly compensated CEOs in our country make $155 million, almost 45 times the 1981 figure. Are they doing a job 45 times better than they did 20 years ago? The argument would be hard to make. Secondly, we are currently in a situation where our market, the engine of economic growth, has been shaken by revelations about the behavior and conduct among these same highly paid corporate executives. We know, just to take one example, Mr. Skilling, the former CEO of Enron, would benefit to the tune of $55 million if the estate tax were repealed. How would that be paid for because the money is not fungible? If you do away with the estate tax, then you will have to eliminate or cut something. There are a lot of things that probably could be looked at to be cut. How about the Social Security tax payments of Americans? It would take 30,000 Americans earning $30,000 a year, paying their taxes, to make up for the $55 million that Mr. Skilling would benefit. I don't think that passes the fairness test. I don't think that is really the kind of choice we should be making in this body. Third, as Mr. Murray points out, every single day we are told our Nation is at war. I believe that. I represent New York. We were attacked when America was attacked. I have spent more time than I ever wish to recall working and being with the victims of that horrific attack. In the past, whenever our country has been at war, we have been called upon to sacrifice. Particularly, the affluent have been called upon to sacrifice because, as Theodore Roosevelt pointed out, you are so fortunate to live in America; there is not a place better devised in the entire history of the world to be successful, to become rich. And the rich, God bless all of us, they actually take more advantage of our system than anybody else. They are really lucky, fortunate, blessed to be in this country. The inheritance tax was created to finance the wars of the 19th century. The notion of repealing it, when we are under constant threat, when we have to spend billions of dollars to protect ourselves in ways we never had to think about before, strikes me as bizarre. We have voted on the floor of the Senate for billions of dollars to protect our borders, our ports, our airports, our food, to be prepared against bioterrorism. I went to the White House this morning for the President's signing of the bioterrorism bill. It costs money to get the vaccines and do everything we need to do to protect ourselves and our children. The idea that, instead of calling upon the most fortunate among us, we would at this point in our Nation's history, rather than reform, repeal the estate tax flies in the face of what we have historically done. Why aren't we on the floor of the Senate asking that we close the loophole for the corporations that take advantage of the good times of being in our Nation and move their headquarters offshore so they don't have to pay any taxes? Unlike everybody else who works for a living, they want to avoid taxation. Yet they are more than happy to take advantage of our country's protection, security, and markets. What is wrong with this picture? Well, I agreed with Mr. Murray that we have to look at this and inject some reality into it. I have not even gotten to the budget deficit. Last year we had a budget surplus, and I listened to the debate and, honest to goodness, you can take transcripts from 1981 and put them right next to transcripts from 2002; it is the same rhetoric: slash the taxes and you will see more revenues coming in. That is what we were told in 1981. And in 12 years we quadrupled the debt of our Nation. Last year we were told again to slash taxes and we will have even greater surpluses. Now we are back into deficits, we are spending the Social Security surplus, and we are spending the Medicare trust fund surplus. It is pretty hard to explain how we are in debt and in deficit and we want to make it even worse, which of course shifts the burden not on the rich but on everybody else. If we were going to be talking about repealing taxes, there are taxes that affect far more Americans and really have an impact on the kind of lives that Americans lead. We could make the expanded childcare tax credit permanent. We could make the new 10-percent tax bracket permanent. We could pass the college tuition tax deductibility, which would be a huge benefit for most Americans--particularly middle-income Americans. Instead, we are debating the wealth tax. It is hard to understand why we are having this debate, except, with all due respect, my colleagues believe it is absolutely the most important issue we can be discussing at this time. Now, to be sure, the uncertainty posed by the tax cuts that were passed last year is a problem. But the reason they were passed in the form that they were passed is because the numbers would not work any other way and we were hoping to defy the laws of arithmetic. Many of us believe that raising the taxable limit is a good idea. We believe that reform is significantly possible without repeal. Responsible, affordable reform could save money, as well as continue both the principle and reality of providing a check on the kind of estates that Theodore Roosevelt and his relative Franklin Roosevelt warned us about. If one looks at all of the issues that we are confronting right now, I just hope we are going to take a deep breath and stop and say: Circumstances have changed since last spring. We don't have a surplus anymore. We are back into deficits. We are bleeding red ink. We have been attacked on our own shores. We have to fund our defense. We have to make sure our men and women in uniform, who are fighting for us in Afghanistan and elsewhere, are given every single piece of equipment and new technology that they deserve. We have to make sure our frontline soldiers, our police officers, our firefighters, the first responders, get the resources they need. And then we have longer term issues. We have all kinds of infrastructure problems we have to deal with that an individual cannot pay for on his or her own. We have to make sure our bridges and tunnels are safe. In a few weeks, we are going to debate what to do with nuclear waste. There is going to be a big issue about the safety of transporting it on our barges, along our waterways, on our railcars, and on our trucks. I am getting letters from rural parts of my State saying their bridges are not in good shape. So how can we do that? In our cities, our sewer systems and our wastewater treatment systems are not up to the kind of standards they should for ordinary treatment of waste and the provision of clean water, and now we have to worry about terrorism. So there is a list of pressing needs that will make us safer and stronger in the future. Repealing the estate tax is not on that list. Let me also say a few words about who it actually affects. I know my colleague from Connecticut was on the floor because he looked at the same statistics that are available to all of us. As he pointed out, he has 73 filers who were affected by the estate tax. We hear a lot about what happens to family farms, and I looked for any evidence I could find, and I know the Farm Bureau was asked to provide such evidence of any farm, anywhere, that had been lost because of estate taxes. Neil Harl, an Iowa State University economist, conducted that search and is quoted in an article in the New York Times last year. He said it is a myth. Since most farms in New York are worth less than a million dollars, even under the current law they are not going to have to pay estate taxes; and when we reform it and raise the limits, they certainly are not going to do so. I talked to one farmer and he said: I dream for the chance to have a farm worth enough that anybody would think I had to pay the estate tax. There is a lot of mythology and ideology that is being discussed in terms of the repeal of the estate tax, but I guess it really does come down to what are our priorities. If our priority is eliminating billions of dollars of tax obligations from the very richest people, then this is the vote for us. But if it is to protect our Nation's fiscal condition and get back on a path of fiscal responsibility, get back to where we are paying down our debt, not increasing the debt limit as was voted for yesterday, getting out of deficits, putting the money back into the Social Security trust fund, making sure we are prepared for the retirement of the baby boomers, dealing with health care, prescription drug benefits, the needs that both underinsured and uninsured people face to ensure they have health care when they need it, paying for that prescription drug benefit we promised our seniors, making sure we continue to fund our education policy so that we have the qualified teachers in every classroom, we have the equipment and the resources that every schoolchild deserves to have, then this vote is not for us. There are a lot of priorities at which we have to be looking. Repealing the estate tax would cost about $100 billion this decade, but in the next decade when people like me are starting to retire, then we are looking at a cost of $740 billion. It is hard to imagine from where the money to provide for Social Security and Medicare will come. The Jeff Skillings of the world and the other corporate executives who have a lot of money to start with--much more than any limit on the estate tax that we could imagine--why, they would be laughing all the way to the bank. I know a lot of Americans think they fall under the estate tax, and I give credit to the repealers who have turned Teddy Roosevelt on his head, have ignored the manifesto signed by several hundred of our wealthiest Americans, people such as William Gates, David Rockefeller, George Soros. They all said: Don't repeal it; reform it, but don't repeal it; it is bad for our country. I heard Warren Buffett, one of America's richest businessmen, say: It is bad for my family. I had to go out and earn my money the old-fashioned way. I do not want the kind of idle rich that has never been part of the American scene. That is something we did not want to have, and we turned away from it. The truth is, we do not have a death tax in America. There is no such thing as a death tax. People do not pay taxes at death. We have an estate tax, which is really a wealth tax that is based on people having a certain level of assets. Currently, it is $1 million. Many of us want to increase it significantly. At the present time, it affects less than 2 percent of the estates in our country. If we raised it to $3 million for an individual and $6 million for a couple and then in 2009 took it to $3.5 million for an individual and $7 million for a couple, we would have three-tenths of 1 percent of estates subjected to any tax. I also support setting a maximum rate of 50 percent. Then we really would be aiming at the Gateses and the Soroses and the Rockefellers and the people who have inherited a lot of wealth with an estate tax, and they still would have tens of millions of dollars. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for the opportunity to speak. I ask unanimous consent that the Wall Street Journal and New York Times articles to which I referred be printed in the Record.

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, rather than one day raising the debt limit without any plan to get us out of debt, except continuing to believe in the god of supply-side economics, which did not work so well 20 years ago, and instead of repealing the wealth tax without any plan for dealing with our problems, like a war and Social Security and other significant issues we confront, I hope we will opt for the more responsible way of reforming the estate tax and make it clear that the reality check in this body demonstrates clearly we cannot afford it. It would be the wrong decision, and we have other priorities that we need to get about the business of addressing. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, the events of September 11 had a disastrous effect on Lower Manhattan's mass transit infrastructure. The Metropolitan Transportation Authority serves roughly one third of the entire Nation's commuters. Twelve of its subway stations below Chambers Street were incapacitated as a direct result of the attack, and the current, damaged state of the MTA's systems affects many of its 360,000 riders each day.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise today, along with Senator Corzine, to introduce legislation to remedy the gross disparity in the distribution of Federal dollars to provide health care services to our nation's veterans around the country. The source of the gap is a formula that does not sufficiently take into account the needs of all facilities, effectively unfairly penalizing states in the Northeast and Midwest. And New York has lost tens of millions of dollars as a result. The bill we're introducing today would provide increased funding for networks in high-cost of living areas, like New York and New Jersey, and help low-income veterans afford quality health care. In 1997, to repair geographic inequities in the distribution of VA allocations, the Federal government put in place the Veterans Equitable Resource Allocation, VERA, system. As I noted in a letter I sent to VA Secretary Anthony Principi on this issue in March, the VERA formula was intended to better meet the needs of the large number of veterans who flocked to the South. As a General Accounting Office, GAO, report released in February 2002 makes clear, however, the 6-year-old formula has resulted in disparities and cutbacks in health services for veterans in the Northeast and Midwest. Veterans' hospitals in these regions lost a staggering $921 million. The VERA formula is flawed for a number of reasons. First, the formula, which is based on the number of veterans, does not take into account the differences in various patient health care needs within different networks. As the GAO report states, the formula ``excludes about one-fifth of VA's workload in determining each network's allocation.'' These are veterans who do not have service-related disabilities and whose incomes fall within a low-priority range, called ``Priority 7''. Although this group is considered a low-priority, these individuals represent a growing percentage of the veteran population who seek care at VA facilities. From fiscal year 1996 through fiscal year 2001, the number of veterans with incomes within this range increased from 4 percent to 22 percent of the total caseload. However, the formula has not been adjusted to reflect the dramatic increase in these ``Priority 7'' cases, leaving many networks without the resources to meet the growing demand. Further, the formula does not accurately reflect the higher cost of medical care in the Northeast. Because VA hospitals in New York City, and Nassau and Suffolk counties are situated in a high cost of living area, they tend to have an inflated number of Priority Group 7 veterans. VA health networks in high cost regions provide care to thousands of veterans without sufficient funding to do so. Additionally, taking into account the regional cost of living would relieve many Priority 7 veterans of the burden of making a copayment. Finally, the number of veterans treated nationally over the last several years rose 47 percent, with all VA networks contributing to that increase. As I noted to Secretary Principi, a rise in patient caseloads spread across the health network should dictate an equitable distribution of funding. The GAO's recommendations can be reduced to one simple goal: ``comparable resources for comparable workloads.'' Any delay in fixing this formula, the GAO stated, means that approximately $200 million in veterans' health funding annually would be allocated unjustly. One of my State's newspapers, the Poughkeepsie Journal, reported that Secretary Principi agreed with the GAO's assessment of the formula but wanted to conduct another study of hospital workloads and patient needs before taking action. I strongly believe sufficient time has already been devoted to studying this issue. I urge Secretary Principi to take specific actions now to carry out the recommendations outlined in the GAO's report. The courageous service and sacrifice of our Nation's veterans in defense of our nation and our democratic values should never be forgotten. Fulfilling our promise to provide for their health care needs is an important part of the enduring bond that we share. I urge my colleagues to support our legislation to remedy this unfair formula so that all of our nation's veterans have access to the health services they deserve.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise today, along with Senator Corzine, to introduce legislation to remedy the gross disparity in the distribution of Federal dollars to provide health care services to our nation's veterans around the country. The source of the gap is a formula that does not sufficiently take into account the needs of all facilities, effectively unfairly penalizing states in the Northeast and Midwest. And New York has lost tens of millions of dollars as a result. The bill we're introducing today would provide increased funding for networks in high-cost of living areas, like New York and New Jersey, and help low-income veterans afford quality health care. In 1997, to repair geographic inequities in the distribution of VA allocations, the Federal government put in place the Veterans Equitable Resource Allocation, VERA, system. As I noted in a letter I sent to VA Secretary Anthony Principi on this issue in March, the VERA formula was intended to better meet the needs of the large number of veterans who flocked to the South. As a General Accounting Office, GAO, report released in February 2002 makes clear, however, the 6-year-old formula has resulted in disparities and cutbacks in health services for veterans in the Northeast and Midwest. Veterans' hospitals in these regions lost a staggering $921 million. The VERA formula is flawed for a number of reasons. First, the formula, which is based on the number of veterans, does not take into account the differences in various patient health care needs within different networks. As the GAO report states, the formula ``excludes about one-fifth of VA's workload in determining each network's allocation.'' These are veterans who do not have service-related disabilities and whose incomes fall within a low-priority range, called ``Priority 7''. Although this group is considered a low-priority, these individuals represent a growing percentage of the veteran population who seek care at VA facilities. From fiscal year 1996 through fiscal year 2001, the number of veterans with incomes within this range increased from 4 percent to 22 percent of the total caseload. However, the formula has not been adjusted to reflect the dramatic increase in these ``Priority 7'' cases, leaving many networks without the resources to meet the growing demand. Further, the formula does not accurately reflect the higher cost of medical care in the Northeast. Because VA hospitals in New York City, and Nassau and Suffolk counties are situated in a high cost of living area, they tend to have an inflated number of Priority Group 7 veterans. VA health networks in high cost regions provide care to thousands of veterans without sufficient funding to do so. Additionally, taking into account the regional cost of living would relieve many Priority 7 veterans of the burden of making a copayment. Finally, the number of veterans treated nationally over the last several years rose 47 percent, with all VA networks contributing to that increase. As I noted to Secretary Principi, a rise in patient caseloads spread across the health network should dictate an equitable distribution of funding. The GAO's recommendations can be reduced to one simple goal: ``comparable resources for comparable workloads.'' Any delay in fixing this formula, the GAO stated, means that approximately $200 million in veterans' health funding annually would be allocated unjustly. One of my State's newspapers, the Poughkeepsie Journal, reported that Secretary Principi agreed with the GAO's assessment of the formula but wanted to conduct another study of hospital workloads and patient needs before taking action. I strongly believe sufficient time has already been devoted to studying this issue. I urge Secretary Principi to take specific actions now to carry out the recommendations outlined in the GAO's report. The courageous service and sacrifice of our Nation's veterans in defense of our nation and our democratic values should never be forgotten. Fulfilling our promise to provide for their health care needs is an important part of the enduring bond that we share. I urge my colleagues to support our legislation to remedy this unfair formula so that all of our nation's veterans have access to the health services they deserve.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. I thank the chairman for yielding me that time. I, too, wish to add my words of gratitude for the work that has been done on this bipartisan, comprehensive bioterrorism legislation. Under the leadership of Chairman Kennedy and Ranking Member Gregg, and Senator Frist, as well as a number of others of our colleagues, we are about to pass legislation that I think will make a significant difference in the health, safety, and preparedness of our Nation. Americans know we cannot wait for another bioterrorism incident such as the one we suffered last fall with respect to the anthrax attacks before we take action to protect ourselves. This bill contains a number of critical provisions that will improve national, State, and local preparedness. The authorization of a national stockpile of vaccines, antibiotics, and other drugs necessary in the case of an outbreak or other incident is absolutely essential. Furthermore, the emphasis on public health is long overdue, as Senator Frist so eloquently stated. This bill will invest over $1 billion in grants to our States to assure the adequate planning that is necessary to improve State and local public health system preparedness. I know all of us were surprised when we learned that many public health offices were more in the early 20th century with respect to their equipment and communications capability than in the early 21st century. They didn't have fax machines or e-mail capabilities. One of the problems we encountered with respect to our efforts to get ahead of the anthrax outbreaks and attacks was, in fact, the inability to communicate at different levels of government. The underinvestment in our public health infrastructure has been unacceptable. Now we are about to reverse it. This is long overdue and to be applauded. I also appreciate the bill authorizing $520 million to equip hospitals to respond to bioterrorism. After 9-11, when we had our hospitals on alert to try to take care of what we at the time thought would be thousands of injured people-- unfortunately, it turned out to be thousands of deaths and relatively few people who were injured--we found we were not prepared because we could not perform many of the functions that were necessary, not only to respond to the attacks but the aftermath. For example, many of the first responders went, after their duties at the Ground Zero site, to be decontaminated. There was no decontamination system. Many ended up at our hospitals in New York and were in very cramped and totally insufficient situations to try to decontaminate them before they went back to Ground Zero. That is just one example of what we determined was absolutely unacceptable, given the threats we currently face. So we will be providing training and other provisions to promote the development and production of treatments and what is necessary for our hospitals to be prepared. I also applaud the inclusion of strong provisions to safeguard our food supply and to provide for the protection of our children. We are finally coming into the recognition that we have not protected our food supply, now that we are in a global marketplace, the way we need to. These provisions that are included are ones that I and others have long believed were absolutely essential to establishing a registration system for food manufacturers, to give the FDA records inspection authority to trace back investigations, to provide for prior notice of imported food, to allow the cross-utilization of inspectors-- both from USDA and FDA--to provide grants for surveillance and protection, and to improve the surveillance of diseases affecting both animals and humans. I am very pleased, too, that this bill contains provisions I introduced in legislation, along with Senator Dodd and Congresswoman Slaughter from New York, to address the special needs of children. We know children have special vulnerabilities, and we also know biological and chemical agents can have a particularly bad and different effect on children because children are lower to the ground where we have gases that are dense and inert. We have other challenges in dealing with what happens to our children dealing with a bioterrorism attack. We have therefore established a national advisory commission on children and bioterrorism, and we will do much more to try to provide guidance on how best to protect our children. I also applaud the provision of $100 million to keep Plum Island, off the coast of New York, at its current biosecurity level and to modernize and improve the security of the facilities. Also, I think it is essential we are adding to our security at water systems and expanding the availability of potassium iodide for communities near nuclear powerplants, such as Indian Point near where I live. While we have taken such strong steps related to bioterrorism and children and food security and water security, I do have to express a disappointment that we were unable to include the codification of the pediatric rule that would require the testing of drugs that might be prescribed for our children. Senators Dodd and DeWine and I have introduced legislation to bring this about. Unfortunately, we were unable to attain support to have it included. But we will be taking steps, through a markup at the committee level and then with legislation, to try to ensure that the drug manufacturers to whom we have given access to an improved streamlined drug approval process-- which we all support--also will be assuring us that the drugs needed by our children are safe and properly labeled. This is a very good bill. There obviously are some features that should be included to make us stronger in the future, but I applaud my colleagues, and particularly those who shepherded it through the conference, for making us, today, safer than we would have been otherwise.