Hillary Clinton

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet for a hearing on medical privacy during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, April 16, 2002, at 10 a.m.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Madam President, I commend my colleague from Nebraska for recognizing the extraordinary burdens that are being placed on our States both because of the economic slowdown and the increase in health costs, as well as the effects of the 9-11 attacks in our State particularly, but also because of the unintended consequences of some of the efforts that were undertaken in the stimulus bill to stimulate investment which have the direct effect of further cutting State revenues. As a former Governor, I know our colleague from Nebraska understands this intimately. I very much appreciate his leadership on this issue and look forward to working with him.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Madam President, this next amendment, called the ``leave no vote behind'' amendment, aims at making sure the Office of Election Administration has the authority to determine whether or not there are unintentional or intentional human errors. With all due respect to the ranking member, it is not a burdensome provision because election officials are going to have to sort out the ballots to determine whether there are mechanical errors or not. Secondly, this does not have to be enforced until after January 1, 2010, and so the language that is in the bill provides more than sufficient flexibility for the Office of Election Administration to make a determination as to what benchmark standard to set. If we do not deal with this issue, we are not dealing with the underlying concern that many citizens have, that in some way their vote will not be counted. I urge our colleagues to give the Office of Election Administration the flexibility and authority to make a determination about this kind of error, along with mechanical errors. They get to set the standard. We do the same thing in most States to try to determine whether there are unintentional errors that a citizen makes in casting a vote, and in the absence of having this provision in the underlying bill we will not have addressed one of the major concerns that citizens have; not only from the 2000 election but from many elections.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 15 minutes.

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to join with my colleagues in talking about the very difficult choices that are being foisted upon some of our States and all of our consumers because of the renewable fuels provisions in the energy bill now under consideration. Now, these renewable fuels provisions do accomplish some very important goals. First, they ban the use of MTBE, which has resulted in serious ground water pollution all over our country. They revoke the oxygenate requirements that led so many States to make such heavy use of MTBE in the first place. And they do keep in place the same stringent air pollution standards mandated by the Clean Air Act. My State has, unfortunately, experienced firsthand the effects of MTBE contamination in our drinking water sources. While the full health and environmental impacts of MTBE are still unknown, we do know that it smells bad, it tastes bad, and the bottom line is that people do not want to be drinking MTBE-contaminated water any more than they want to be drinking water with arsenic or some other contaminant in it. As many of my colleagues know, because of poor air quality in certain areas of the country, we are required to meet something called an ``oxygenate requirement'' under the Clean Air Act. New York City and surrounding counties constitute one of those areas. This requirement requires that consumers use gasoline additives that aid in reducing harmful air pollution. The additives available at this time are primarily MTBE and ethanol. So those of us in the Northeast, who need to meet this oxygenate requirement, have been adding MTBE to our gasoline because we have no readily accessible, affordable, available sources of ethanol in places such as New York. The unfortunate consequence is that, as a result of leaking underground storage tanks, other leaks, and runoffs, we are now experiencing MTBE contamination in our underground water sources. This has been a big problem in our State, particularly on Long Island, which has an aquifer that provides drinking water that runs the full length of the island. In Suffolk County alone, MTBE has been found in both private and public wells in all 10 of the towns in that county. This is a serious problem and the costs of cleaning up this MTBE contamination are significant. While having clean air to breathe is critically important, so is having clean water to drink. We should not have to trade off air for water. We should be able to figure out how to provide both clean air and clean water. That is why New York State took the very bold step of banning MTBE by January 1, 2004--less than 2 years from today. In fact, I believe that about 13 States--including my own--have made the decision to restrict or ban the use of MTBE in the next couple of years. I agree that phasing out MTBE is exactly the right thing to do from a drinking water perspective and from an overall environmental perspective. That is why, in the last session, the Environment and Public Works Committee voted out S. 950 by voice vote, the provisions of which are incorporated in the renewable fuels provisions that we are now discussing. S. 950 includes a phaseout of MTBE and a repeal of the Federal oxygenate requirement, as recommended by the EPA's Blue Ribbon Panel on Oxygenates in Gasoline. I strongly support these provisions, and I commend the bipartisan leadership of the EPW Committee for their work on this important issue. But the committee-passed bill did not include the ethanol mandate that we are here to discuss. Now, I am not here--I want to make this absolutely clear--to oppose ethanol. I believe in ethanol. I think it is a great step forward for renewable fuels. And I know that it is an important use of the products that are grown in many parts of our country. It is a new market. And I believe that it does take us in the right direction. And phasing out MTBE, even with a repeal of the oxygenate requirement, will still lead to an increase in the use of ethanol in our country. That is why a Federal mandate is not needed to ensure a continuing market for ethanol. And that is why I and my senior colleague from New York, and my colleagues from California, and others, are opposing the ethanol mandate that is included in this bill. The energy bill we are currently debating includes what I can only describe as an astonishing new anticonsumer Government mandate: that every refiner in our country use an ever increasing volume of ethanol or pay for ethanol credits. At first when this was described to me, I thought there had to be some mistake because I, and I guess the majority of my colleagues, support ethanol. But to be told it has to be used, and the amount of it has to increase over time, struck me as exactly the opposite of what we are trying to achieve in this new energy policy. Because regardless of the market, and whatever the demand would be for ethanol, this bill requires the use of ethanol or the purchase of ethanol credits at a set amount, an amount that will eventually exceed 5 billion gallons. Currently U.S. refiners use approximately 1.7 billion gallons of ethanol. Starting in 2004, the Nation's refiners would be required to use 2.3 billion gallons of ethanol. And that number would ratchet up to 5 billion gallons of ethanol by 2012. And the use of a constant percentage of ethanol per volume of gasoline would be required every year thereafter no matter what kind of new breakthroughs we had in making gas both more efficient and cleaner. It would not matter. We would have a big brother, big-hand Federal Government mandate: You have to use it no matter what. This means that from 2012 on, the Nation's ethanol producers would have a Government-guaranteed annual market of at least 5 billion gallons, or perhaps even more. Now, oil refiners could, in a competitive market, find smarter, cleaner, and less expensive ways to reformulate gasoline, but they would be forced to keep using billions of gallons of ethanol annually nonetheless. Refiners in States outside the Corn Belt that lack the infrastructure to transport and refine ethanol would nonetheless be forced to pay for ethanol credits. The credits would result in rising gas prices and the transfer of funds from hard-pressed consumers in one part of the country to ethanol-rich areas in the rest of the country, while doing nothing to improve air quality. In other words, consumers in every State would be forced to pay for ethanol whether they used it or not. Make no mistake about it, this is tantamount to a new gas tax. This will cause the price of gasoline to go up anywhere from 4 cents to 10 cents a gallon. Others who spoke earlier today discussed specifically what would happen in their own States. I believe for New York this would mean more than 7 cents per gallon at the pump. The reasons for these cost increases are manyfold. There are costs of production issues. Ethanol simply costs more to produce than gasoline or MTBE. Since ethanol is primarily made from corn, if there is a bad corn crop one year, we can expect not only food prices but gas prices as well to increase under this bill. There are also supply issues. According to a recent report by the Congressional Research Service, in the short term ethanol is unlikely to be available in sufficient quantity. If the supply is not there, the gasoline supply can't be there, and prices will inevitably rise as a result. There are transportation distribution issues, as has been discussed earlier. The cost of using ethanol is also influenced by the fact that almost 90 percent of ethanol production occurs in just five States: Illinois, Iowa, Nebraska, Minnesota, and Indiana. The geographic concentration of ethanol production is an obstacle to its use on either the east or west coasts, particularly because ethanol-blended gasoline cannot travel through petroleum pipelines and, therefore, it must be transported by truck, rail, or barge which significantly increases its per-unit cost. As has already been mentioned, ethanol production is also concentrated among a few large producers. The top 5 companies that produce ethanol account for approximately 60 percent of production capacity, and the top 10 companies account for approximately 75 percent of production capacity. ADM alone markets about half of the ethanol produced in the country. All of this is going to mean higher prices for the American consumer, particularly on the east and west coasts. There will be other costs to consumers as well. As many know, ethanol already gets a tax break in terms of the gasoline tax. Every gallon of gas with ethanol gets a 5.4-cent Federal subsidy. The subsidy is currently costing $600 million in Federal highway funds at today's ethanol use level. That means that with a 5- billion-plus-gallon-a-year ethanol mandate, we will have even less dollars for much needed transportation projects in all of our States, resulting in more traffic congestion, less safe roadways, and other consumer costs. Another cost to consumers will be the potential environmental cost of an increased use of ethanol, not to mention the safe harbor from liability that is included in this bill. I have to give it to the sponsors and authors of this provision; they have thought of everything: subsidies; put a tax on everybody else who has to use it; make it even less likely that the environmental costs are going to be in any way taken care of because the environmental and public health impacts of ethanol are still not fully understood. Studies have indicated that while reducing carbon dioxide emissions, ethanol may increase emissions of smog-producing and other toxic compounds. Despite the questions on its environmental and public health impacts, this bill also includes a renewable fuels safe harbor provision. What does that mean? It gives product liability protection against consumers and communities that may seek legal redress from the manufacturers and oil companies that produce or utilize defective additives in their gasoline. That is adding insult to injury. First, we are going to tax you and, second, we are going to make it impossible for you to get any kind of redress if what we are making you buy makes you sick or pollutes the environment. This means companies have less incentive to ensure that the additives they manufacture and use are safe, eliminating an important disincentive to pollute. What is the net result? We are providing a single industry with a guaranteed market for its products--subsidies on top of subsidies on top of subsidies and, on top of that, protection from liability. What a sweetheart deal. If the average American consumer tunes in on this debate and realizes what is happening, there will be a revolt. I dare predict that voting for this bill, which will raise gas prices in 45 of our States, will be a political nightmare for the people who end up voting for it. Higher gas prices at the pump, reduced Federal assistance for much needed transportation projects, possible negative air quality, and public health impacts, to say nothing of raiding the Federal Treasury to give this giveaway to these large producers, makes it impossible to understand why any proconsumer, prohealth, pro-environment, antigovernment mandate Member of this body would vote for this provision. For consumers, the ethanol mandate is a one, two, three, four punch. First, consumers will pay more at the pump to meet arbitrary goals that boost the sale of ethanol, whether we need it or not. Second, consumers will face reduced Federal assistance for transportation projects because the money is going to be going to the ethanol producers, not to fix your roads or your bridges. Third, consumers may experience potential environmental and public health impacts. But guess what. You are barred from seeking redress. Who needs tort reform, just stick this in the energy bill and forget about ever getting any kind of liability against anybody who may be intentionally or negligently causing health or environmental harm. And fourth, you can't sue the manufacturers and the oil companies. There are some very positive aspects of these provisions to phase out MTBE and eliminate the oxygenate requirement. We have long fought for this. There are many in this body who have been working on this a lot longer than I have. I applaud those Members for doing everything possible to ban MTBE and eliminate this oxygenate requirement. With about 13 States having already taken such action, this is an issue that needs to be addressed. But this is the wrong way to do it. New York and California are on the front lines of this battle because California had originally banned MTBE as of January 1, 2003, although the Governor was forced to push the date back a year. Now California and New York, with millions and tens of millions of consumers, are in the same boat because New York has also banned MTBE. But Arizona has also taken final action to ban MTBE. Colorado has mandated a phaseout, Connecticut has also phased it out as of 2004, and even Illinois has banned the use, sale, distribution, blending, or manufacturing of MTBE as a fuel additive, along with Kansas and Michigan. And Minnesota has prohibited the sale of gasoline containing more than .3 percent volume by weight of MTBE and required the phaseout by July 2005. There are many States that have taken actions. They have actually passed laws. There are numbers of others who are trying to take action to phase it out. We do need Federal action. My colleagues from New York and California and I understand that we need to pass provisions that will work. But that does not mean we should pass a 5-billion-gallon, anticonsumer, gas-price-increasing ethanol mandate. So, Mr. President, I hope that calmer heads will prevail in this debate, that we will understand the important role of ethanol, provide an opportunity for that market to grow, but not mandate it, not interfere with the operation of the market, not provide subsidies, not require consumers to buy it whether we need it or not, and not protect the producers from public health and environmental liability. What is going on here? Any business or any sector of the economy would love to have a mandated tax increase directly into their pocketbooks. That is not the purpose of having an energy bill that puts us on the path to self-sufficiency. I certainly don't think the tens of millions of consumers who may be following this debate think at the end of the day they are going to be transferring hard-earned money out of their pockets into the pockets of ethanol manufacturers, whether it helps or not. So I really hope my colleagues will consider the impact of this policy and join with those of us who are looking at this from the longer term perspective to come up with an amendment that provides the kind of support for ethanol we all believe would be in our best interest, without the damaging mandates that this approach would require. Again, I don't think anybody in this body came to this energy debate thinking they were voting to raise this gas tax, but indeed if we pass this as currently written, that is exactly what we are going to do. Those people who are going to pay that increased cost, starting in a few years, are going to turn around and say: Why is this happening? It is going to be hard for us to explain. There is no reason for us to make this decision when there are alternatives and we can work together and make it possible for us to have a much better approach without the damaging impact this amendment on ethanol would cause to our entire country. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Madam President, I commend my colleague from Nebraska for recognizing the extraordinary burdens that are being placed on our States both because of the economic slowdown and the increase in health costs, as well as the effects of the 9-11 attacks in our State particularly, but also because of the unintended consequences of some of the efforts that were undertaken in the stimulus bill to stimulate investment which have the direct effect of further cutting State revenues. As a former Governor, I know our colleague from Nebraska understands this intimately. I very much appreciate his leadership on this issue and look forward to working with him.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, the amendment I offer today is very similar to the amendment I offered a number of weeks ago at the beginning of this important debate. I appreciate the great support and good suggestions my colleagues have provided. And I particularly thank a colleague who suggested that this amendment should be entitled-- rather than the ``Residual Vote Error Rates'' amendment, which is a mouthful--the ``Leave No Vote Behind'' amendment. So that is how I shall refer to it. Why? Because this amendment is about ensuring that we do just that: Leave no vote behind, that we do everything we reasonably can to ensure that everyone's vote is counted. This amendment is neither liberal nor conservative. It is neither Democrat nor Republican. But it goes to the very heart of the reliability and accountability of our electoral system. Every voter who goes to the polls or votes by absentee or votes in any other manner that is appropriate under our laws should know that that effort was not in vain. It is truly American to ensure that we give every one of our citizens the confidence to believe our Federal election system is the best it can be. Therefore, this amendment is critical to our deliberations because year after year--not just in 2000 but in every year--in every State, ballots were not counted because of so-called residual votes. There are overvotes. There are undervotes. There are spoiled votes. According to the Caltech/MIT Report: Over the past four presidential elections [going back, therefore, 16 years] the rate of residual votes in presidential elections was slightly over two percent. This means that in a typical presidential election over 2 million voters did not have a presidential vote recorded for their ballots. The percentage of discarded ballots is even higher in a Senate election, which, I suppose, should get us all thinking. But it is imperative we recognize that some of these are legitimate errors. Some of these are the problems that elderly people have in punching the little chad through the hole. Some of it is confusion with respect to the appropriate place to make the mark which is made. For all the reasons that lie behind these uncounted votes, the Commission, headed by former Presidents Ford and Carter, recommended, unanimously, that Congress needs to focus not just on the machine or mechanical errors in improving our election system, but on the unintentional human errors as well. The Commission did so because only by measuring the rate of these residual vote errors will we be able to assess effectively whether the voting process as a whole is giving all of our citizens the equal opportunity to have their votes counted. That is why I have offered this amendment, which would require the newly established Office of Election Administration to establish a residual vote error rate, a standard or benchmark with which voting systems will have to comply. It is a transfer of authority and expertise to the body that we are setting up to make determinations about our mechanical and machine errors. Since I offered this amendment back in February, it has been improved, thanks to the suggestions made by Senator Bingaman, who asked to be shown as an original cosponsor. He proposed and now included in the leave no vote behind amendment language that would give the Office of Election Administration even greater flexibility in setting the residual error rate standard. Senator Bingaman pointed out there are certain distinct communities in some parts of our country that have a historically high rate of intentional undervoting in elections for Federal office compared to the rest of the country. Therefore, the language added by Senator Bingaman requires the Office of Election Administration to report to Congress on the extent to which this is happening and permits the office either to set a separate benchmark or exclude whole areas. This gives us the requisite flexibility that the office requires, and I certainly hope our colleagues will support this amendment because, in the absence of taking some action on this issue, we are not going to be responding to what were the most serious questions raised in the past election. This is also in keeping with the other voting system standards in the bill. The mechanical rate standard, as important as that is, does not address this human error rate. Before I lose my voice and leave it behind, I would certainly urge my colleagues' support of this important amendment that would leave no vote behind and give greater assurance to voters no matter where they live that their votes truly will be counted. I yield back my time.

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask that it be called up for its immediate consideration.

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

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleague in offering this amendment which is very important to our State and would permanently protect the only national forest in New York State and the smallest national forest in our country from drilling. The Finger Lakes National Forest is a part of New York that I wish everyone could see, as Senator Schumer so eloquently stated. We would love to invite everyone in the Senate to come and see these lakes, which were named from an old Indian legend that says the Great Spirit had put his hand down on the land and when he lifted it up, he left behind these Finger Lakes. These lakes are so beautiful and special that, in and of themselves, they provide not only a tremendous amount of recreational visitation for the area, but they are beautiful places to live and to farm and to work. The U.S. Forest Service sought public comment last year on a draft environmental impact statement on a proposal to lease 13,000 acres of the 16,000-acre national forest. Among the consequences of the proposed drilling action identified in the Forest Service's statement were soil erosion, contamination at or near well sites due to the construction of access roads, well paths and pipelines, and the use of trucks and heavy equipment in drilling activity. The report predicted that such construction would require several acres for each particular drilling site of vegetation clearing, including tree cutting. In addition, the quality of local water rights would be put at risk. There is also concern about the loss of habitat for birds and animals that call the forest home, and it would be a very difficult problem for us to figure out how to accommodate drilling at such a relatively small area. That is why Senator Schumer and I believe, because of the potentially dire environmental consequences, the relatively small amount of energy that would be secured, assuming such drilling was successful, it is not a sufficient reason to take a chance on this very precious resource. We think it is our responsibility to protect our State's precious natural resources, and that is why, once again, we offer this amendment to permanently prohibit such drilling. We also have on our side the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which, as both Senator Schumer and I remind colleagues on a regular basis, has a very prominent place in our State--certainly in the Finger Lakes region--where not only dairy farms but increasingly wine vineyards and other products are grown, but in its final environmental impact statement, the USDA recommended a no-action alternative. In other words, the USDA does not support drilling in the Finger Lakes National Forest. So that is why we are offering this amendment. We don't believe drilling in the national forest, in the Finger Lakes, would be sensible energy policy. It is certainly not sound environmental policy. It is not good agricultural policy, and it would undermine a lot of the progress we have made in bringing people to enjoy this very beautiful area. So I am proud to join my colleague in asking for support in prohibiting drilling in this very small national forest that we are very proud to have in our State. I yield back the time to Senator Schumer.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, on the occasion of women's history month, I am proud to honor the long tradition of New York women who made history. And there is no more appropriate place to begin than with three women heroes who gave their lives to save others at the World Trade Center. Officer Kathy Mazza, Emergency Medical Technician Yamel Merino, and Officer Moira Smith were recently named Women of Distinction for their heroic acts on September 11, and for their history of service to the people of New York. Kathy Mazza served as the first female commandant of the Port Authority Police Training Academy. Yamel Merino was recognized as New York's emergency medical technician of the year last year, and Moira Smith previously received the Distinguished Duty Medal for rescuing people after a subway crash. On September 11 these three heroes brought the same commitment to their jobs that they showed every day, willing to put their lives on the line at a moment's notice for fellow New Yorkers who they did not know. We will never forget their selfless acts of courage and commitment to duty on that day, and how they worked side by side with their brothers to escort as many people as possible to safety. Our thoughts remain with their families who have suffered an immeasurable loss during this tragedy, and who are comforted by the knowledge that their loved ones acted with honor and bravery. Years from now their stories will be told alongside the stories of so many courageous New York women who devoted their lives to others and shaped history through their actions. After all, New York was the birthplace of one of the largest social movements of this country's history. In Seneca Falls in 1848, women came together to issue the Declaration of Sentiments that served as a launching point for the women's rights movement. So many of our foremothers whose contributions are now legendary called New York home. From the great abolitionist Harriet Tubman who provided safe passage to her sisters and brothers who sought freedom from slavery, to Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony who never gave up in the movement for women's suffrage, to the great labor leader Kate Mullany, New York women have always made a difference. When celebrating this women's history month, we pause to salute the accomplishments of women who gave so much of themselves to this country. Children generations from now will come to understand our great loss on September 11 by learning the stories of Kathy Mazza, Yamel Merino, Moira Smith and all of the firefighters, police officers and first responders to whom we owe so much. Today and everyday we need to do our part to tell their stories and to honor their lives.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to honor the late Fred Scheffold, a battalion chief with the New York City Fire Department and one of the many NYC firefighters who so bravely gave their lives on September 11, 2001. Today, I had the honor of meeting Fred's widow, Mrs. Joan Scheffold, and their daughter, Karen Scheffold-Onorio, at a news conference in the Mansfield Room of the U.S. Capitol Building. They were here to join my distinguished colleagues, Senator Stabenow, Senator Allen, Senator Kyl, and me to announce the next steps in the implementation of the Unity in the Spirit of America Act, the USA Act. The USA Act is legislation introduced by Senator Stabenow that establishes a program to name national and community service projects in honor of victims killed as a result of the terrorist attacks on September 11. The measure was signed into law by President Bush in January. To recognize the heroism of New York Firefighter Fred Scheffold, and all the victims of September 11, I ask unanimous consent that the statement of Joan Scheffold be printed in the Record. It is a warm and loving tribute to a heroic husband, father, and American.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, on the occasion of the 90th anniversary of the Girl Scouts, I want to take this opportunity to discuss the exciting work of the Girl Scouts in New York State. I am proud to report that over 190,000 girls participate in New York Girl Scout troops, with the help of over 50,000 adult volunteers. For 90 years, the Girl Scouts have been hard at work building the self-esteem of girls, raising awareness about the importance of public service, building character, and developing leadership skills. Today, as scouting enters the 21st century, Girl Scouts in New York are involved in a series of new projects and outreach efforts. Immediately after September 11th, New York troop leaders quickly revised a curriculum on tolerance and diversity to include the attack on New York and our country. The revised curriculum helped to provide local leaders across the State with the tools they needed to help girls deal with our national tragedy. New York Girl Scouts are reaching out to new members in underserved communities. Troop leaders are working through the schools and through housing programs to recruit girls who may not be familiar with scouting, and to create opportunities for new experiences and challenges. The Genesee Valley Girl Scouts offer an innovative conflict resolution program that provides anger and conflict management training for middle school girls referred by school guidance counselors. Role- playing is used to teach girls a range of peaceful solutions to different situations. This program has been a huge success: 88 percent of participants maintained or improved school attendance, 72 percent maintained or improved their GPA and 82 percent reduced disciplinary problems. From Buffalo to Chappaqua, from Elmira to Long Island, Girl Scout troops across New York are committed to public service projects that help instill in our youth the importance of helping others. And girls across the State are learning the value of hard work and commitment through their efforts to meet the requirements of merit badges. Every year in New York, a small number of girls are honored with the Gold Award, the highest achievement award given by the Girl Scouts. In order to be eligible for a Gold Award, a Girl Scout must first meet the requirements of a series of awards that require leadership and work on behalf of their community. Gold Award recipients must also design and follow through with an extensive community service project. I want to take this opportunity to congratulate the New York Gold Award honorees for their great public service accomplishments and commitment to scouting. As a member of the Honorary Congressional Girl Scout Troop and a former Girl Scout, I encourage my colleagues to support Girl Scouts in the 21st century. I look forward to working with New York Girl Scouts to help create opportunities for girls and to encourage youth involvement in public service.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Madam President, I submit the following statement of Peter James Johnson, Jr., delivered at the funeral mass for Father Mychal F. Judge in New York City on September 15, 2001, for printing in the Record to commemorate the 6-month anniversary of the many lives so tragically lost on September 11. The statement follows: Remarks Prepared for Delivery by Peter J. Johnson, Jr., at the Funeral Mass of Rev. Mychal Judge, O.F.M., Fire Department of New York, Chaplain, September 15, 2001, St. Francis of Assisi Church, New York City, Your Eminence, Cardinal Egan, President Clinton, Senator Clinton, Mayor Dinkins, Mr. Controller, Mr. Public Advocate, Family, Friends, Firefighters and Friends. ``Don't worry about me. Help the thousands.'' Mychal says to us. I see him kneeling gently, hear him speaking in a firm and lilting whisper, his large hands making reassuring contact with a dying firefighter, his warm eyes focused and loving and deep, communicating the wisdom of almost seventy years and the spirituality of a millennium. Enveloped in the unshakeable concentration of the prayers he knew and lived so faithfully, shrouded in his own mystical but practical Catholic belief, oblivious to the risk of harm that rained from the sky, he died as he lived, trying to save a life, to save a soul in our City on a sunny, not so perfect September morning. Friar's friar, firefighter, warrior for the Lord and New Yorker--I can't help believing that Erin and Dymphna, your beloved Emmet, who wanted to be a priest at the age of four, our beloved Mychal--in the swirling and fiery wind tunnel of the majestic twin towers, helmet off in respect to our creator, lifted his lovely tenor voice and uttered a final Alleluia as he rode the winds aloft, smiling broadly as he shot one final mortal glance at what his model St. Francis of Assisi called ``burning sun with golden beam and silver moon with softer gleam.'' Father Mike, it's not that we hardly knew ya that makes you leaving this earth so hard. It's that we all knew you so well and depended on you so much that hurts so much. Though you were neither a husband nor a father, you became a model for husbands and fathers. Though you never trained on a hose on a fire or experienced the pain of being a firefighter's widow, you became a model for firefighters and the widowed. Though up until recently you never felt the anxiety of sickness, you became a guide for the sick. You taught us that the St. Francis Prayer was not merely a bookmark but a living, speaking roadmap for our daily lives as New Yorkers. We saw your greatness up close and personal. But we respectfully ask why were you so strong? As Father Pecci pointed out last night at the wake service maybe it was the countless windows and shoes you polished and shined on Dean Street in Brooklyn as a child. Or was it the constancy and strength of example of your mother who balanced the needs of a dying husband, a house and three young children in the Depression? I have not seen your sisters Erin and Dymphna for some time. So I asked Dymphna last night, what made Mychal great? She said it best: ``With Michael there were no narrow truths. There was only wide open possibility.'' As I stepped outside onto 32nd Street near Penn Station last night to get some air, I was struck by the wide world of possibilities that Mychal lived in. I noticed how much more alive the street has become in just in twenty-four hours. A saxophone could be heard--``Amazing Grace''--the musician played. The smell of fried food in the air. Taxis racing down the street. Men and women laughing in conversation near a parked delivery truck. Mychal would say ``How marvelous. What a strong and dynamic people we are!'' And I looked at the faces on the street behind us. In Mychal's words: ``Peter look at these faces. Brown and black and yellow and white. Such good minds, such strong hands, such hard workers.'' ``Such a resilient city. There is nothing like a New Yorker. We're back.'' In that moment I had an understanding of the incessant activity that Mychal often heard from his room on 31st Street. The same vitality that so energized him even when he was bone tired from caring for the families of the victims of Flight 800 when he would answer the phone or pager and respond to an emergency to support a stricken firefighter. And that was Mychal too. He naturally saw the very best of himself in others. And in a strange way we slowly but surely began to see a little bit of Mychal in all of us. His dynamic strength, his good mind and his strong hands were always in evidence. Whether he was helping lift his dear friend paralyzed hero Detective Steven McDonald onto a rough stone road in Northern Ireland, to go another ten miles on the path to peace and reconciliation. Or riding Splash Mountain at Disney with Conor McDonald, who helps serve the mass. Or at the bedside of his friar friend forever, Patty Fitzgerald, in an Israeli hospital--fifty years of friendship on Saturday. Or anointing the forehead of a sick man with aids in a small Chelsea studio apartment. Or arm in arm with our missing hero Patty Brown, comforting the family of hero firefighters like the late Captain John Drennan in a New York Hospital burn unit, Mychal was equally at home in the brown robe and sandals of a friar or the uniform of a New York City fire officer and always in an encouraging and positive way motivating us to do bigger and better things. He was comfortable visiting President and Senator Clinton or President and Mrs. Bush in the East Wing of the White House, the portico of Gracie Mansion with Mayors Koch, Dinkins and Giuliani and the Cardinal's Residence with the late Cardinal O'Connor and now Cardinal Egan. But he was really at home in a Times Square shelter for single mothers conducting Midnight Mass on Christmas eve, cradling a small plastic doll in its role as the baby Jesus or in a firehouse kitchen helping reunite a couple whose marriage was strained by the job. This church is full of families he united. Being at Ground Zero--wherever it was-- was his life, and his death. Mychal loved Christ and loved his family and yes, he loved us, the people of New York. This morning we unfortunately see only his casket. But I dreamt the other night of Mychal, walking and walking and walking; I guess the constant motion of his life: In a power walk from 31st Street and Seventh Avenue to Coney Island and the Atlantic Ocean, in his crisply pressed uniform on a blustery Saint Patrick's day waving, to the crowd like a matinee idol, hands outstretched to hug our children for a moment, flashing a knowing, almost shy smile and then jogging back to the line of march. Walking the streets greeting on a first name basis the homeless and friendless, many of whom wore the Christmas and birthday gifts that many in this congregation wrapped so nicely for Mychal to wear. He loved to watch the fireworks, a ride on a fire boat, a thick deep piece of apple pie with ice cream. Both most of all, he loved the call to service, the romance of duty, the necessity of honor. He was a bridge between people. Friars and firefighters, Christians and Jews, able and disabled. He grafted spirituality onto our Bill of Rights. You see, Mychal was proud to be an American. Not in the quaint sense of a Norman Rockwell painting or in your face flag waver, although flag waving is good too. I recall two connected events to demonstrate his palpable pride. I urged Mychal to become the Fire Chaplain, to fill late Friar Father Julian Deeken's large shoes. Shortly after he assumed his duties, there was a report of a ship run aground, and yes, even a landing of Chinese nationals with guns, according to the Park Police, in the Rockaways. I was an honorary firefighter and pro bono adviser to Mayor Dinkins, and so Mychal called me, said he would be by to get me in a few minutes and we took off in the middle of the night. Just as we started to get to the Brooklyn Battery Tunnel, the radio started to crackle with confirmation of a large ship aground with passengers in the water. Mychal gunned the Chevy, hit the lights and sirens, both which reflected and reverberated off the tunnel walls. I felt like I was in the middle of Studio 54. I said ``Mike, what are you doing? Slow down.'' He looked straight ahead laughed and said: ``No this is good. I'm not sure what we've got here but we can do good things together.'' I'll never forget what we saw that chilly morning. Helicopters in the air. A large broken ship battered by the waves off shore and a beach full of shaking, shivering and soaked Chinese men who had paid dearly and almost with their lives to reach the safe haven of America. They did not speak a word of English and he did not speak Chinese, but it did not deter Mychal. Within a few minutes he was handing out blankets, coffee and telling jokes. And they laughed. An immigration officer warned him of the dangers of disease from the men--tuberculosis, hepatitis. Mychal said thank you, ignored the warning and continued on as he was inclined to do. We returned home to Manhattan later that morning and ate an enormous breakfast, ``Mychal, you're a bright guy. They could be very sick.'' To which he replied: ``When I travel half way round the world I get a blanket and a cup of coffee. They're our guests and they deserve no less. They only want what we were born into.'' As usual Mychal had done good things. Maybe we know why: A few days after July 4th, our daughters Blanche and Veronica, eight and six, received a handwritten note addressed to them. Blanche recognized the distinctive note paper and handwriting and read to her sister at the kitchen table: ``Friday evening, July 6, 2001, 10:00 p.m. My dearest Blanche and Veronica Felicity. Earlier this evening I walked to the new walk along the Hudson-Little West 12th Street to the Battery. It is a wonderful promenade and a great place for Bladers--Someday both of you will be most proficient at that and you'll be there often'' And they will. The letter continued: ``I sat and gazed at Lady Liberty--so majestic with her torch burning brightly and thought of the great feelings of joy and happiness and hope that my mother and father experienced when they saw her as their boat came into New York Harbor--it was their dream come true. 1921--oh so long ago. They had no idea of all the blessings and a few sorrows that lie ahead of them. They were so brave and had such faith and trust in God, that, that he brought them to these shores and that he would care for them.'' The note paper and the distinctive penmanship were those of Mychal Judge, friar and firefighter. And it was then when I heard our oldest daughter read these simply eloquent words to our youngest daughter that I began to understand Mychal's rush to the Rockaways. As he and the late Captain Grethel and late Firefighter Weinberg raced down Seventh Avenue did Mychal think about his little rollerbladers, Blanche and Veronica? Did his mind rush back to pleasant barbecues and lasagna dinners in Northern New Jersey? Did he think of the woman who came to this church and presented Father John Pierce with a tiny American flag in honor of Mychal who had guided her so well when she lost her son last year or of Erin or Dymphna and the prospect of a trip to see them in Maryland, reading books and just talking? Of the people he had not yet met who would need his services at the friary that day upon his return? Of how he could be made an instrument of peace or consolation or harmony? Or as he pondered the blazing twin towers and the desperate New Yorkers ending their suffering by jumping sometimes arms linked from the inferno, did he try to summon and recreate the innocent but great feelings of joy and happiness and hope that his parents felt when they saw the Lady in the Harbor? We'll not know the answer on this earth. But we do know that Mychal died as he lived and as his parents lived-- bravely, having such faith and trusting God and loving this land that God made. Mychal, you taught so many of us that we can only be enslaved, victimized or terrorized by our demons if we so consent. In the coming months we will call upon your memory and your inspired example of faith, sacrifice and determination and rely upon your prayers to help strengthen and console and raise all of us up. Today, from the well of our sorrow filled with the bitter tears of our loss, we will tend to our garden, emboldened by the faith and trust in God you exemplified and from which the joy and happiness and hope you aspired to will flower again. In an even more resplendent but Mychal Judge less American century.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Madam President, I rise today on behalf of legislation I am introducing along with Senator Feinstein and others to help patients and their families around the country who are struggling against cancer. It has been three decades since we declared war on cancer, and passed the National Cancer Act of 1971. And while we have many new weapons in our arsenal, new surgical techniques, new drugs like Gleevec, and new diagnostic tests to catch cancer in its early stages, the burden of this disease on our Nation is still devastating. One out of every two Americans will hear these devastating words sometime in their lives: ``you have cancer.'' It is the second leading cause of death in our country--surpassed only by heart disease, and it not only devastates the patient; it brings immeasurable pain into the lives of that person's family and friends. Consider the statistic that 1,500 Americans die of cancer each day-- that's 1 out of every 4 deaths attributable to cancer. And the new cases continue to mount. Last year in New York alone there were an estimated 83,200 new cases of cancer--including 14,200 cases of breast cancer and nearly 4,000 cases of Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. Sadly, cancer has become a part of life for all American families. Thanks to research, early detection and treatment, cancer is not automatically a death sentence. It can be beaten. And it is even better to keep it from occurring in the first place. Our hope for this and future generations is this simple dream--that in the long fight against this disease, some day we will ultimately win--that keeps so many patients and families going. This bill we're introducing today can move us closer to making the dream a reality. It calls for: Recruiting talented medical experts by offering to cover the student loan payments of 100 physicians a year who agree to become cancer researchers; supporting the work of NCI Cancer centers like Memorial Sloan Kettering and Roswell Park in New York; improving cancer care by attracting and training health professionals to provide cancer care, to encourage cancer quarterbacks that can coordinate a patients care, and improving access to important cancer services such as screenings, smoking cessation therapy, genetic testing, and counseling about whether to undertake genetic testing. While this legislation goes a long way to strengthening the biomedical research efforts, we will also be continuing to work with the States, communities, and public health institutions to educate the public about cancer prevention, to address the risk factors, and promote early intervention. In the past, the phrase ``public health'' conjured up battles against infectious diseases like malaria or tuberculosis. Now with chronic diseases, such as heart disease and cancer, as the leading killers, we must think about ``public health'' in a new light, and fight carcinogens as well as pathogens. For instance, this bill affirms FDA's authority over tobacco, the carcinogen that is responsible for 1 out of every 3 cancer deaths. Next week I will be chairing a hearing in the Subcommittee on Public Health to explore the need for better tracking of chronic disease and environmental exposure, so that we can identify and understand the connections between the environment and diseases like cancer. I am a big believer in patient access to clinical trials. In the previous administration Medicare and Medicaid began covering the routine medical costs of participating in clinical trials, and I support extending that coverage to patients who have private insurance as well. The Senate-passed Patients' Bill of rights and the legislation we're introducing today takes steps toward allowing more cancer patients to participate in clinical trials that just might save their lives. I will continue fighting to strengthen this important cornerstone of patient care and scientific progress. Our hope for this legislation and America's war on cancer is simple: to move cancer from the medical books to the history books. And to live in a world where no one has to hear the words, ``you have cancer,'' ever, ever again.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Massachusetts, not only for yielding that time but also for giving us this opportunity to come to the floor and express our appreciation and gratitude to our colleague. There have been a lot of wonderful words already spoken. There will be many more this afternoon and included in the Record. I think that all goes to the point that each of us, Republican and Democrat alike, Member of the Senate or the House, citizen of Massachusetts, New York, or any State in our Union, shares a common bond of pride in the work Senator Kennedy has done over a lifetime. I remember the first time I saw him in action, it was 1978, it was the Democratic Party's so-called midterm convention in Memphis, TN. Ted Kennedy had come to appear on a panel about health care. The fire and the passion and the extraordinary knowledge he displayed 25 years ago on that issue is just as prominent in his public pronouncements and actions today. Twenty-five years ago he was making the case that, in a country as rich as ours, every single citizen should as a matter of right be entitled to quality, affordable health care. He laid out ideas then which he has worked on steadily in the years since. I appreciate the extraordinary guidance and support he gave to me when I tackled the rather awesome task of working on health care, an issue that has certainly brought a lot of humility to my life. In the work that I did, it was Senator Kennedy who understood it intuitively, who absolutely mastered every nuance, and was ready to offer counsel and advice about how we should go forward. As everyone knows, that wasn't a successful effort. But in such a typical fashion that really marks his Senate career, he didn't waste any time regretting what was not done. He immediately got to work about what could be done. As a result, we had the Kennedy-Kassebaum bill. We had the great partnership between Senator Kennedy and his colleague and friend, Senator Hatch, on the Children's Health Insurance Program. Despite the fact that the overall goal could not be achieved, many people were helped because, along the way, Senator Kennedy helped to craft legislative solutions to human problems. You can look at the landscape of this country and realize that not just in his beloved home State of Massachusetts but in my State of New York and all the way across the country, people have been helped to get a better wage for the day's work they do, to get access to health care, and most recently, with the triumph of his leadership on the Leave No Child Behind Act, to look forward to a better public education. There is much that can be said about Senator Kennedy's legislative prowess and career. What I want to remark on is his personal interest in all of his colleagues, the staff who work here, the people who keep this place going. A very heartwarming and common sight is that of the Senator walking down the hallway with his faithful companion, Splash, the most intelligent, creative, energetic dog who has ever walked the halls of the Capitol or probably anywhere else in our country, and to see him waving or saying hello to people, no matter what job they are doing, no matter who they are--because he is no respecter of the boundaries that sometimes separate Senators from everyone else. He came to do a job 40 years ago. He is just as actively engaged in the pursuit of the goals that he not only holds near to his heart but which represent the best of our country. I was honored to have the Senator campaign for me in my election to the Senate. One memorable day, he and Caroline and his redoubtable father-in-law, Judge Reggie, and I got into a small plane and made our way from New York City to Buffalo to Albany. Along the way he warmed up the crowds we brought him to meet. One particular moment that I appreciated was how he said he was proud to be in my company because now people were sending out letters against both of us--not just him. I was proud to be in his company, as I am every single day proud to serve with him. We rise today to pay tribute to an extraordinary leader and an absolutely unparalleled Member of this body, a Senator for all time-- not just this time--and a friend and colleague to all of us. Thank you. Happy birthday, and Godspeed.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise today in support of an amendment to the important election bill that is being considered. I note that the Presiding Officer has been deeply involved in the crafting of this legislation, along with Senator Dodd, Senator McConnell, and others. It does put us in a very good position to be able to tell Americans that we have heard their concerns about our electoral system and we are moving to address them. I applaud the President for putting $1.2 billion in his budget to be able to fund the requirements that will fall upon the States as they attempt to bring their electoral system in line with what is really required for a modern Federal election system to function. I have introduced this amendment, referred to as the residual vote error rates amendment, a rather complicated description that I will get to in a minute, because I think it is imperative that we address what were the legitimate concerns not only in this last Presidential election, but in elections prior to it, because year after year, not just in the year 2000, ballots have not been counted because of what are referred to as ``residual votes.'' These are overvotes and undervotes, and spoiled votes. According to the definitive Caltech/MIT report: Over the past four Presidential elections, the rate of residual votes was slightly over 2 percent. This means that in a typical Presidential election over 2 million voters did not have their Presidential vote recorded for their ballots. The percentage of discarded ballots is even higher in Senate elections--approximately 5 percent. In other words, almost 5 million votes are not recorded for other prominent statewide offices. Now, in the vast majority of these cases, voters actually believed they were recording their votes, even though their ballots were ultimately discarded. Because of this pattern of discarded votes, so-called residual votes, based on unintentional human error, the Ford-Carter commission, chaired by former President Gerald Ford and former President Jimmy Carter, recommended unanimously that Congress focus not just on machine errors in improving our election system but on the unintentional human errors that make up the bulk of what denies our citizens their vote from being counted. The commission, acting unanimously--Republicans, Democrats, independents, academics, people with political experience, all walks of life--made this unanimous recommendation because they concluded that only by measuring the rate of residual vote errors will we be able to assess effectively whether the voting process as a whole is giving citizens an equal opportunity to have their votes counted. That is why I have offered this amendment, which would require the Office of Election Administration--which is called for in the underlying bill--to set a residual vote error rate standard, or benchmark. In other words, just as we are asking the Office of Election Administration to set a standard for mechanical errors--you know, you pull the lever, put the punch card in a machine, and something goes wrong, and the machine, because of mechanical error, doesn't count your vote--in the bill we are asking the Office of Election Administration to set a benchmark, so that we will make sure that mechanical errors are corrected. Well, similarly, I am asking in this amendment that we set such a standard or benchmark for the residual errors, votes that are never counted, so that we keep those votes to the barest possible minimum. This proposed standard is 100 percent in keeping with the other voting standards in the bill, including the voting system standard that requires the Office of Election Administration to make sure that we have a system nationwide that, in Federal elections, ensures that mechanical errors for people in one State are counted in the same way as for people in another State. Similarly, these unintentional human errors should be held to the same standard. Now, a mechanical error rate standard, I agree, will certainly be helpful in improving the election system; but, unfortunately, it does not address the most significant cause of discarded votes. Just think back to those weeks, those torturous weeks when we had to go through the recounting of votes to try to determine what was the voter's intent. Most States have such a standard in State law, and the States use their systems to determine the outcome once a challenge is made and then to figure out how they are going to appropriately address it by counting those votes and trying to meet the standard that the State sets. We need a similar standard for Federal elections. This amendment will provide greater assurance that all voters in any Federal election are protected. Some people have said in discussing this amendment with me that this may result in suits being brought against States. As I understand the bill, it gives the Attorney General the authority to bring a civil action against States that fail to comply with any standard. This amendment is no different. It does not put an additional burden on the States, nor does it put an additional burden on the Attorney General. In any event, States will have more funding and more than 7 years to comply since jurisdictions that receive grant funds to meet voting system standard requirements will be deemed in compliance until the year 2010. We are not asking any different process than what has already been established in the bill for the mechanical error rate. I also think it is important to recognize that this amendment does not address what happened solely in the Presidential election of 2000. In fact, on the contrary, both the Caltech-MIT report and the Ford- Carter commission have told us that we discovered a problem that has been, unfortunately, widespread throughout our country for many elections. That is why this amendment is supported by the AARP, the League of Women Voters, the NAACP, the National Council of La Raza, the AFL-CIO, the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, and many other groups that are concerned that if we leave this particular issue unaddressed, we have not given our citizens the assurance they deserve that their votes will count. In closing, I hope we are able to obtain the support needed for this residual vote error amendment so that we can be sure we are not only taking care of the machines that break down, but we are taking care of those unintentional errors that may cause a breakdown in the individual citizen being able to have his or her vote counted. I hope for the sake of all Americans we will ensure that we can have the utmost faith in our election system, and I hope my colleagues will support this amendment. I thank the Chair.

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

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Madam President, I rise today to pay tribute to Americans who embody the extraordinary service and sacrifice that make our country great: the American Gold Star Mothers. Formed shortly after World War I, this organization has brought together mothers who lost children during World War I, World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, Beirut, Grenada, Panama, the Persian Gulf, Somalia, Bosnia, Saudi Arabia and in other times and places where soldiers' lives were lost in service of our country. The American Gold Star Mothers work to promote the noble ideals for which their children fought and died. The gold star they wear is a source of pride for their families and a symbol of the sacrifice they have endured so that our Nation might remain free. All of us who are parents know what it is like to live with the fear of losing a child, but only those who have suffered through such a loss can know just how very painful it is. Gold Star Mothers have endured such a burden and transformed their grief into an organization that serves not only the families of all who have lost loved ones in the military, but veterans everywhere, as well as our Nation as a whole. Their grace, dignity and patriotism represent the very best of America. I have had the honor of meeting with representatives of this wonderful organization to discuss their history and their work. Words alone cannot describe how much I admire their courage and resolve. We as a Nation have an obligation to them: not only to recognize their profound sacrifice and the bravery of their lost loved ones, but to give them support as they meet the challenges of life, challenges that I am sure would be easier to bear if their children were with them today. During this extraordinary time in our history when, once again, American forces are overseas in battle, it is fitting that we pay tribute to the soldiers who fought for the cause of freedom and democracy in earlier conflicts and to the families who have given up so much in the name of these ideals. We must memorialize the losses that we, as a Nation, have suffered and make clear that what counts in the long run is the quality and endurance of human spirit. Nowhere has it been given fuller flower than in our country. And in no organization can the power of the human spirit be seen more clearly than in the American Gold Star Mothers. Although we can never alleviate the pain of losing a son or daughter, we can recognize the sacrifices these families have made and ensure that they suffer no economic hardship. That is why I am proud to cosponsor S. 129, ``Gold Star Parents Annuity Act,'' which was introduced by my colleague, and an America hero, Senator Max Cleland of Georgia. This legislation would provide a monthly stipend to Gold Star Parents. It can make a big difference in the lives of families who are struggling to make ends meet. But, more important, it can itself be a powerful symbol of our Nation's respect for the service and sacrifice of those who fought and died so that we might be free. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important bill, and in paying tribute to the American Gold Star Mothers.

Mrs. CLINTON

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

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise to do two things. The first is to thank my colleagues, Senators Dodd and McConnell. I thank my colleagues for the extraordinary work they have done in crafting an election reform bill that will significantly improve our Federal election system. I am very pleased that in this legislation we call for national standards for voting systems. I appreciate greatly the call for national standards for voting systems, provisional voting, and statewide voter registration lists in all voting systems used in Federal elections. I believe these national standards are critically important because the rights of citizens in one State to exercise their constitutional right to vote should not be any greater or lesser than the rights of a citizen in any other State. In considering and passing this bill, we are also making a statement of our values and, in a direct way, repudiating those who attacked our country on September 11 because of our commitment to a free and democratic system that we would like to see replicated in every nation of the world. But the only way we can demonstrate to the rest of the world that we put our values into practice is if each and every American has faith that our election system is the best and fairest. I rise to offer an amendment that will provide a greater assurance that the rights of voters to vote and have their votes counted in Federal elections will not vary widely from State to State. As we know, the bill we are considering requires by 2006 that all voting systems used in Federal elections have an error rate that does not exceed the standards established by the Director of the Office of Election Administration. That refers to the rate that voting machines make mistakes in reading ballots. This standard is important because it means that by 2006 all voting systems used in Federal elections will have to use technology and equipment that does not result in more than a minimum percentage of votes being discarded. Yet as important as this standard is, it deals with only one of the two pieces of the problem of discarded ballots because this standard concerns votes uncounted due to mechanical errors of the voting system, but it does not address at all the major problem of residual votes which are overvotes, undervotes, or spoiled votes that are discarded due to unintentional human error. Residual votes, not mechanical errors, are by far the most common reason why ballots are discarded and not counted and why, therefore, voters who thought they were doing the right thing ended up being disenfranchised. Over the past four Presidential elections, the total rate of residual vote errors has been slightly more than 2 percent. This translates into more than 2 million voters in these elections not having their votes counted. The percentage of residual votes is even higher in Senate elections. With respect to last year's Presidential election, the Caltech-MIT voting technology project reports that voting ballot problems led to an estimated 2 million votes never being counted because ballots were ambiguous, spoiled, or unmarked. Though 500,000 of these ballots represented abstentions, the remaining 1.5 million ballots represented votes where the voters actually believed they had recorded a vote for President even though their votes were ultimately discarded. In addition to the Caltech-MIT study, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights found that in some precincts as many as 20 percent or more of the ballots were discarded. Other researchers and media analysts found the same results, and many of these discarded votes were actually what we call residual votes. For these reasons, the Election Reform Commission, chaired by our distinguished former Presidents, President Carter and President Ford, the so-called Carter-Ford Commission, recommended unanimously that we focus not just on machine errors in improving our election system, but on these unintentional human errors as well. The Commission members from both parties from all regions of the country did so because they knew that focusing only on mechanical errors was not good enough; that only by measuring residual votes will we be able to assess effectively whether the voting process as a whole is giving citizens an equal opportunity to have their votes counted. The bottom line is that there is no dispute that residual votes are a major problem. The question is, What are we going to do about it? The amendment I have offered provides a fair, reasonable, and effective answer. This amendment calls upon the Office of Election Administration to establish a national performance benchmark for residual votes, measured as the percentage of residual errors at the top of the ballot, excluding an estimate based upon the best available research of intentional undervotes. Like the other benchmarks in the bill, voting systems used in Federal elections would have to meet it. This amendment mirrors the language already in the bill that calls upon the Office of Election Administration to set a benchmark with respect to mechanical error rates. The amendment, however, puts in the final piece of the puzzle for requiring this benchmark for residual votes as well. For any who might be concerned that the benchmark is measured by subtracting an estimated number of intentional undervotes, that is not the case. In considering this particular issue, the Carter-Ford Commission noted there has been considerable progress in determining how often intentional undervotes occur. We can take this data from the National Election Studies, from the Voter News Service, and we can then use it for the determination as to how we consider this remaining problem. The Caltech/MIT study, for example, said exit polls suggested approximately 30 percent of residual votes, less than 1 percent of all votes, are intentional. Individually and collectively, therefore, we can estimate these intentional undervotes and knock them out and only focus on the unintentional where someone thought they were actually marking the ballot. I hope when we establish these national standards, we recognize this is an important issue. Yes, we need to take care of those mechanical errors but we also have to take care of the unintentional human errors. We have learned in election after election, not just in 2000 but in many of our elections, that hundreds of thousands of our fellow Americans have gone to the polls believing they were exercising the most fundamental of their constitutional rights. They cast their ballots and they never knew their ballots were not counted and their voices were never heard. I hope the Senate will consider this problem and will favorably act upon my amendment so we can, at the end of this process, say clearly and unequivocally to all Americans we have put into place the best possible system we can to ensure every vote truly counts and that our election system matches our values.

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I call up the amendment I have at the desk.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Madam President, over the past nearly 5 months, the entire Nation has been inspired by the grit, bravery and selflessness of the workers at the World Trade Center site who have labored around the clock on the rescue and recovery efforts. The courageous images of firefighters, police officers, emergency medical personnel, construction workers and clergy have inspired workers throughout the country. There are many other images of New York, however, that have not been shown on the news, but that are also the heart-wrenching results of the terrible September 11 attack and a weak economy. These images that our Nation has not seen, but that everyone here knows all too well, are the faces of hundreds of New Yorkers who have found themselves without a job. These are the workers whose jobs were literally destroyed, jobs when the Twin Towers collapsed: The janitors, the doormen, the waiters and waitresses, the secretaries, and messengers. Or, the workers who did not work in lower Manhattan, but who have felt the ripple effect of the so-called frozen zone primarily the hotel workers and small businesses owners. In New York State, we have 71 percent more workers on Unemployment Insurance than we did one year ago. In New York City, we are experiencing unemployment rates that we haven't seen in years. In December, the unemployment rate continued to spike up to 7.4 percent-- 2.4 percent above the national average for the same period. New York City is expected to lose 150,000 jobs in the aftermath of September 11 and we are not expected to rebound until 2004. What is happening to our unemployed who are waiting for the economy to rebound? Well, let me tell you--in the last quarter alone, over 65,000 unemployed workers exhausted their UI benefits. Over the past two weeks, I have received hundreds of calls and pleas from my constituents in New York--some are being evicted from their homes, others are uncertain how they will continue to put food on their tables, and all are desperate to go back to work. Senator Daschle has put forward a proposal to extend unemployment for an additional 13 weeks. This proposal is not only the right thing to do for our thousands of workers who are without a job, but it is the right thing to do for the economy. In fact, some experts argue that extending unemployment insurance is more likely than any other policy to stimulate the economy. We may not agree on a comprehensive package to stimulate the economy, but I think we all agree that we must do the right thing for the workers of this country by extending unemployment insurance.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise today to express my deep and profound opposition to a decision by the International Olympic Committee to ban the carrying of a special American flag during the opening ceremonies of the 2002 Olympics in Salt Lake City. This flag is very special. It was found in the rubble of the World Trade Center after the attacks on September 11. It is a powerful, moving, visual reminder of America's strength, endurance, and freedom. In fact, I believe this flag carries with it a profound parallel with the original Star-Spangled Banner--the historic flag that flew over Fort McHenry in the War of 1812, and in the battle of 1814 it survived 25 hours of bombardment and inspired the creation of our national anthem. Now, to those who say that the carrying of this particular flag by American athletes marching into the stadium would be a ``political statement,'' I say this is a ridiculous argument on its face. The American flag from the World Trade Center is the American flag, just as surely as the flag that flanks our Presiding Officer, as the flag that has flown in many classrooms, in front of many homes, and at the top of this great Capitol dome. It is not a symbol of politics. It is the representation of our Nation, and it does what so many of us believe needs to be done right now: It demonstrates clearly our resilience and our persistence in the face of terrorism. We should have the right to carry this flag in whatever national or international setting we choose. To those who say that the carrying of this flag would set some kind of improper precedent, I say this is an equally absurd argument. First of all, the attacks on our country on September 11 were themselves unprecedented, and there is every reason for us to mark the tragic events of that day by having our athletes hold the flag from the World Trade Center aloft during the opening ceremonies of the Olympics. Second, should the unthinkable occur and any similar tragedy strike this or any other nation in the years ahead, I cannot imagine any serious objection being raised if any nation wanted to carry its own flag, like this flag, in a future Olympic event. The world was shocked by the attacks of September 11. Freedom-loving people everywhere are united with us in our determination to fight back against terrorism. While the terrorists may have destroyed buildings and ended lives, they did not destroy the values we share, and those values define our Nation and find expression in the stars and stripes of our flag. I believe the carrying of this flag that terrorists could not destroy is fully in keeping not only with the spirit of America but with the spirit of the Olympics. According to the International Olympic Committee, the Olympic movement is meant ``to contribute to building a peaceful and better world,'' and the Olympic spirit is built on ``mutual understanding with a spirit of friendship, solidarity, and fair play.'' I believe the carrying of this World Trade Center American flag does help contribute to building a peaceful and better world, especially because those who attempted to destroy our way of life and who did destroy buildings tried to accomplish the exact opposite goal. They were not trying to contribute to a better and peaceful world but just the opposite. This flag, in a sense, for the entire world portrays that ``spirit of friendship, solidarity, and fair play'' that underscores the Olympic spirit. Mr. President, today I am writing to the International Olympic Committee to urge them to reverse their decision regarding the carrying of this American flag during the opening ceremonies of the Olympics. I ask my colleagues for their support and their signatures on this letter. We are the host Nation for the Olympics. Our athletes and the American people they represent want this flag carried by them on Friday, and I do not believe the International Olympic Committee should stand in the way of this fitting and patriotic act, nor should they have any role in telling us which particular American flag we can carry in the Olympics staged in our country just a few months after the terrible and tragic attacks of September 11. I hope the Olympic Committee will change this very ill-thought-out, ill-advised, and insulting decision before Friday. But until then, I hope my colleagues will join me in expressing not only our concern but our outrage at what seems to be a demeaning decision meant to undermine what this flag represents and in some clear way to undermine the heroic efforts of the firefighters who found it and hoisted it. I hope this decision will be changed. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I was unable to be present for today's procedural vote pertaining to the Smith amendment. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on the motion to waive the Budget Act with respect to the Smith second-degree amendment to the Daschle substitute amendment. The Daschle amendment includes 1-year 30-percent bonus depreciation for assets either put in operation or binding contracts signed by September 10, 2002. The Smith amendment would have provided 30-percent bonus depreciation for 3 years, causing a deepening of the projected Federal deficit and extending the incentive beyond the forecasted period of the current economic downturn. Moreover, the incentive for a company to act now to acquire and place into service assets that do not take years to produce would be reduced under a 3-year bonus depreciation proposal, as proposed by Senator Smith. I would also note that my absence for this vote did not affect the outcome of the vote. The Smith amendment was rejected in a 39-45 vote, and would have required 60 votes to prevail.