Hillary Clinton

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the bipartisan End of Racial Profiling Act of 2001. I believe it is a thoughtful and balanced effort, designed to bring people together, not to divide. I also want to express my sincere gratitude to my esteemed colleagues, Senator Feingold and Senator Corzine, for their leadership and tremendous efforts in crafting this legislation that affects so many communities throughout this country. I also want to acknowledge the efforts of Representative Conyers, the Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee, and a leader on this issue. Representative Conyers has worked to obtain the support of both Democrats and Republicans alike, including Republican Representatives Asa Hutchinson, Chris Shays, Tim Johnson, Constance Morella, and Jim Greenwood. I thank them for attending the bipartisan press conference this morning and showing their support for this legislation. I hope we will be able to build upon this strong bipartisan support in the Senate. I am also pleased that we were joined by Chief Bruce Chamberlin, an esteemed and experienced member of the national law enforcement community, who is the Chief of Police of Cheektowaga--in the western part of the great state of New York. It was important for Chief Chamberlin to be here with us today to express his support for the bill because he recognizes, as we all do, that racial profiling is wrong and that this bill is an important step in bringing this practice to an end. Racial profiling is unjust. It relegates honest, law-abiding citizens to second-class status when they suffer the embarrassment, the humiliation, the indignity, of being stopped or searched, and in some cases even physically harmed simply because of their race, ethnicity or national origin. Racial profiling is not an effective law enforcement tool. The experts at John Jay College of Criminal Justice and elsewhere will tell you that the evidence is unquestionably clear, for example, that the vast majority of Blacks and Hispanics who are stopped or searched have committed no crime. Indeed, racial profiling has an insidious and devastating effect on entire communities because it increases the level of mistrust between law enforcement and the communities it is charged with the heavy burden to protect. That result serves no one. It fails to serve law enforcement because a critical component of truly effective law enforcement is strong community-police relations, partnerships in which law enforcement and our communities are working together to reduce crime and to make our communities as safe as they can be. Racial profiling fails to serve prosecutors, because law-abiding people who don't have faith that their law enforcement will protect them properly and treat them with dignity will not have faith in law enforcement when sitting on juries and assessing the credibility of police officers who often play a key role in getting convictions for criminals. What does this bill do and what doesn't it do? As you, my colleagues consider this legislation, understand that this bill is not about blaming law enforcement or saying that law enforcement is bad or doesn't do a good job. We know that this is simply not true. Those who uphold our Nation's laws on the streets where we live are men and women of courage. They go to work each day without the same degree of certainty that most of us have that they will return home safely, because they never know when the next traffic stop, the next domestic dispute, the next arrest will explode in their face. There is a memorial here in Washington with the names of more than 14,000 American heroes who gave their lives to make ours a safer country. What this bill does do is make very clear that racial profiling is wrong and that law enforcement agencies that haven't done so already should adopt policies and procedures to eliminate and prevent racial profiling. Some might ask, how can adopting policies and procedures help stop racial profiling? Well, the experts at John Jay College will tell you that in the 1960s and early 1970s, most police departments in this country left it up to the individual officer to decide when to shoot to kill. During that time, the racial disparity among persons shot and killed by police was as high as eight African-Americans for every white person, and very much higher among victims who were neither armed nor in the process of assaulting a police officer. During the 1970s and early 1980s, police departments promulgated and enforced strict standards, basically decreeing that deadly force could be exercised only in defense of the life of the officer or another person. In the large police departments in this country, these changes were accompanied by reductions of as much as 51 percent in the number of civilians killed by police. It also resulted in the significant reduction in the number of officers killed in the line of duty. This is just one example of how good policies and procedures can actually save lives without reducing the effectiveness of law enforcement. Recognizing the importance of policies and procedures to eliminate and prevent racial profiling, this bill provides incentives for law enforcement to promote such policies by providing grants to state and local law enforcement agencies to use in ways they believe will be most effective for their communities--whether to purchase equipment and other resources to assist in data collection or to provide training to officers to improve community relations and build trust. Chief Chamberlin spoke eloquently this morning about the importance of training and building relationships between law enforcement and communities. His actions, however, have spoken even louder than his words. He has taken the lead in Western New York in forming the Law Enforcement and Diversity Team or ``LEAD'' program, which exists to enhance communication and understanding between suburban law enforcement agencies and the diverse citizenry of Western New York. The LEAD team, sponsored by the National Conference for Community and Justice and the Erie County Chiefs of Police, developed one of the Nation's leading programs--``Building Bridges'' to start a dialogue between police officers and people of diverse cultural and racial backgrounds. The U.S. Department of Transportation has utilized excerpts from the LEAD Team's ``What to do When Stopped by Police'' brochure for the department's national publication. The program has been adopted by the Buffalo and Cheektowaga school systems in the curriculum for high schools students. It provides an important educational opportunity for the entire community and assists in the development of positive relationships between police and community by eliminating some level of fear, distrust, and skepticism. Other New Yorkers have also worked to improve the relationship between communities and law enforcement. New York's Attorney General, Elliot Spitzer, has instituted training programs in an effort to try and prevent racial profiling. In fact, just this past February through April, the Attorney General's office conducted in-service training of all members of the New Rochelle, New York Police Department at the request of that department. The training took place on Thursday mornings and focused, among other things, on what is meant by ``racial profiling'' and the perceptions of community members of police encounters in order to raise awareness. The training also reported on data collection efforts taking place across the country and the results of those efforts. Academia can also play a role in promoting trust between law enforcement and the community. For example, the John Jay College of Criminal Justice--whose Master of Public Administration Program was ranked first in the nation among graduate schools with specializations in Criminal Justice Policy and Management by U.S. News and World Report for the second year in a row--has begun to conduct a six-week free course for members of the New York City Police Department on the racial and cultural diversity of New York City. More than 600 police officers from across New York City have enrolled in a course entitled: ``Police Supervision in a Multiracial and Multicultural City.'' With this bill, efforts like those currently led by Chief Chamberlain, Attorney General Spitzer, and John Jay College will be expanded throughout the country. More than a year ago when I spoke about this issue at the Riverside Church in New York City, I said, ``we must all be on the same side.'' I am so proud that today--we are all here together--on the same side, citizens, officers of the law, Republicans and Democrats--to say that racial profiling is wrong and must end. We are here to say that in fighting racial profiling, we can at the same time forge even better relations between police and the neighborhoods they patrol, as we wage a common effort to reduce crime and make our communities safe. In closing, I hope that as we move forward with the consideration of this legislation, it will engender a positive and thoughtful dialogue between and among members of Congress, the President, law enforcement, and the civil rights community. And that by eliminating the practice of racial profiling, we can begin to restore the bonds of trust between communities and the law enforcement officers that serve them.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the bipartisan End of Racial Profiling Act of 2001. I believe it is a thoughtful and balanced effort, designed to bring people together, not to divide. I also want to express my sincere gratitude to my esteemed colleagues, Senator Feingold and Senator Corzine, for their leadership and tremendous efforts in crafting this legislation that affects so many communities throughout this country. I also want to acknowledge the efforts of Representative Conyers, the Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee, and a leader on this issue. Representative Conyers has worked to obtain the support of both Democrats and Republicans alike, including Republican Representatives Asa Hutchinson, Chris Shays, Tim Johnson, Constance Morella, and Jim Greenwood. I thank them for attending the bipartisan press conference this morning and showing their support for this legislation. I hope we will be able to build upon this strong bipartisan support in the Senate. I am also pleased that we were joined by Chief Bruce Chamberlin, an esteemed and experienced member of the national law enforcement community, who is the Chief of Police of Cheektowaga--in the western part of the great state of New York. It was important for Chief Chamberlin to be here with us today to express his support for the bill because he recognizes, as we all do, that racial profiling is wrong and that this bill is an important step in bringing this practice to an end. Racial profiling is unjust. It relegates honest, law-abiding citizens to second-class status when they suffer the embarrassment, the humiliation, the indignity, of being stopped or searched, and in some cases even physically harmed simply because of their race, ethnicity or national origin. Racial profiling is not an effective law enforcement tool. The experts at John Jay College of Criminal Justice and elsewhere will tell you that the evidence is unquestionably clear, for example, that the vast majority of Blacks and Hispanics who are stopped or searched have committed no crime. Indeed, racial profiling has an insidious and devastating effect on entire communities because it increases the level of mistrust between law enforcement and the communities it is charged with the heavy burden to protect. That result serves no one. It fails to serve law enforcement because a critical component of truly effective law enforcement is strong community-police relations, partnerships in which law enforcement and our communities are working together to reduce crime and to make our communities as safe as they can be. Racial profiling fails to serve prosecutors, because law-abiding people who don't have faith that their law enforcement will protect them properly and treat them with dignity will not have faith in law enforcement when sitting on juries and assessing the credibility of police officers who often play a key role in getting convictions for criminals. What does this bill do and what doesn't it do? As you, my colleagues consider this legislation, understand that this bill is not about blaming law enforcement or saying that law enforcement is bad or doesn't do a good job. We know that this is simply not true. Those who uphold our Nation's laws on the streets where we live are men and women of courage. They go to work each day without the same degree of certainty that most of us have that they will return home safely, because they never know when the next traffic stop, the next domestic dispute, the next arrest will explode in their face. There is a memorial here in Washington with the names of more than 14,000 American heroes who gave their lives to make ours a safer country. What this bill does do is make very clear that racial profiling is wrong and that law enforcement agencies that haven't done so already should adopt policies and procedures to eliminate and prevent racial profiling. Some might ask, how can adopting policies and procedures help stop racial profiling? Well, the experts at John Jay College will tell you that in the 1960s and early 1970s, most police departments in this country left it up to the individual officer to decide when to shoot to kill. During that time, the racial disparity among persons shot and killed by police was as high as eight African-Americans for every white person, and very much higher among victims who were neither armed nor in the process of assaulting a police officer. During the 1970s and early 1980s, police departments promulgated and enforced strict standards, basically decreeing that deadly force could be exercised only in defense of the life of the officer or another person. In the large police departments in this country, these changes were accompanied by reductions of as much as 51 percent in the number of civilians killed by police. It also resulted in the significant reduction in the number of officers killed in the line of duty. This is just one example of how good policies and procedures can actually save lives without reducing the effectiveness of law enforcement. Recognizing the importance of policies and procedures to eliminate and prevent racial profiling, this bill provides incentives for law enforcement to promote such policies by providing grants to state and local law enforcement agencies to use in ways they believe will be most effective for their communities--whether to purchase equipment and other resources to assist in data collection or to provide training to officers to improve community relations and build trust. Chief Chamberlin spoke eloquently this morning about the importance of training and building relationships between law enforcement and communities. His actions, however, have spoken even louder than his words. He has taken the lead in Western New York in forming the Law Enforcement and Diversity Team or ``LEAD'' program, which exists to enhance communication and understanding between suburban law enforcement agencies and the diverse citizenry of Western New York. The LEAD team, sponsored by the National Conference for Community and Justice and the Erie County Chiefs of Police, developed one of the Nation's leading programs--``Building Bridges'' to start a dialogue between police officers and people of diverse cultural and racial backgrounds. The U.S. Department of Transportation has utilized excerpts from the LEAD Team's ``What to do When Stopped by Police'' brochure for the department's national publication. The program has been adopted by the Buffalo and Cheektowaga school systems in the curriculum for high schools students. It provides an important educational opportunity for the entire community and assists in the development of positive relationships between police and community by eliminating some level of fear, distrust, and skepticism. Other New Yorkers have also worked to improve the relationship between communities and law enforcement. New York's Attorney General, Elliot Spitzer, has instituted training programs in an effort to try and prevent racial profiling. In fact, just this past February through April, the Attorney General's office conducted in-service training of all members of the New Rochelle, New York Police Department at the request of that department. The training took place on Thursday mornings and focused, among other things, on what is meant by ``racial profiling'' and the perceptions of community members of police encounters in order to raise awareness. The training also reported on data collection efforts taking place across the country and the results of those efforts. Academia can also play a role in promoting trust between law enforcement and the community. For example, the John Jay College of Criminal Justice--whose Master of Public Administration Program was ranked first in the nation among graduate schools with specializations in Criminal Justice Policy and Management by U.S. News and World Report for the second year in a row--has begun to conduct a six-week free course for members of the New York City Police Department on the racial and cultural diversity of New York City. More than 600 police officers from across New York City have enrolled in a course entitled: ``Police Supervision in a Multiracial and Multicultural City.'' With this bill, efforts like those currently led by Chief Chamberlain, Attorney General Spitzer, and John Jay College will be expanded throughout the country. More than a year ago when I spoke about this issue at the Riverside Church in New York City, I said, ``we must all be on the same side.'' I am so proud that today--we are all here together--on the same side, citizens, officers of the law, Republicans and Democrats--to say that racial profiling is wrong and must end. We are here to say that in fighting racial profiling, we can at the same time forge even better relations between police and the neighborhoods they patrol, as we wage a common effort to reduce crime and make our communities safe. In closing, I hope that as we move forward with the consideration of this legislation, it will engender a positive and thoughtful dialogue between and among members of Congress, the President, law enforcement, and the civil rights community. And that by eliminating the practice of racial profiling, we can begin to restore the bonds of trust between communities and the law enforcement officers that serve them.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I call for a voice vote.

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

Mrs. CLINTON. I call up amendment No. 517.

Mrs. CLINTON. Yes.

Mrs. CLINTON. Earlier in this debate, I came to the floor with colleagues from both sides of the aisle to focus on what I believe is one of our greatest national crises; namely, the shortage of teachers in our highest need schools. By that I mean schools that do not have qualified teachers, whether they are in inner cities, in older suburbs, or in our rural areas. I was very pleased we passed a bipartisan amendment incorporating many of the ideas that I and others brought to the floor, to provide needed resources to recruit and retain teachers, that will help our children meet high academic standards. Along with qualified teachers and up-to-date resources, all students need to attend schools where we have high-quality principals who will work together with teachers and parents to create a learning environment that will maximize the achievements of every single child. But too many schools around our country open their doors every school year without principals in place or without the kind of high-quality principals every school should be able to have. I really believe we would be remiss if we did not recognize that our schools are struggling to find principals, just as they are struggling to find qualified teachers. In fact, more than 40 percent of public school principals are expected to retire in the next 10 years. The problem is especially severe in our urban and rural areas, with 52 percent of rural districts reporting a shortage and 47 percent of urban districts. In public schools in New York City, for example, 65 percent of our current principals are eligible to retire. In New York State overall, 50 percent of all principals are expected to retire in the next 5 years. In any business, in any walk of life, if we thought we were going to lose half of our leaders, I think we would be quite concerned. I bring that concern to the floor because we simply cannot afford to lose the people who are supposed to be providing instructional leadership and direction to our teachers. That is why earlier this year I introduced the National Teacher and Principal Recruitment Act. Today I am offering an amendment that reflects part of my bill focused on recruiting principals. It authorizes the Secretary of Education to offer grants to recruit and retain principals in high-need school districts through such activities as mentoring new principals, providing financial incentives or bonuses to recruit principals, and providing career mentorship and professional development activities. I believe if we are serious about educational reform, we have to be serious about recruiting and retaining qualified principals. If we are going to have a system that holds our students and our teachers accountable, we have to have somebody who is responsible for implementing those accountability measures. That, to me, leads us to call for the CEOs, if you will, of our schools. Those are our principals. We need school leaders to guide our teachers and help our students to achieve high academic standards. A 1999 report issued by the National Association of State Boards of Education characterized effective principals as ``the linchpins of school improvement'' and ``the gatekeepers of change.'' We know a similar study conducted by the Arthur Andersen consulting firm, of high- and low-performing schools in Jersey City and Patterson, NJ, found that the one attribute of all the high-performing schools we visited is a dedicated and dynamic principal. I have been going in and out of schools, I guess, ever since I was in one myself but, as an adult, for nearly 20 years. And I know from my own observation and experience that the principal is the key. We can have great teachers, but if they are in a system or in a school that doesn't value their contributions and that doesn't work with them to do the very best they can, we are not going to get the results that we need. In 1999, New York City schools opened their doors with 165 uncertified principals. In Buffalo last year, the school district faced 10 principal vacancies and only received 11 applications. So they basically will put a warm body in wherever they can find one. And that is not a problem that is unique to New York. In Vermont, one out of five principals had retired or resigned by the end of the last school year. In Washington State, 15 percent of principals retired or resigned. And in Baltimore, 34 of 180 principals left in the last 2 years alone. I absolutely would agree that an amendment is not going to turn this problem around, but we have to recognize the problem, be willing to admit its extraordinary depth around our country, and then try to put into place at the local, State, and Federal level efforts to try to fill the need. We need efforts such as the one that is currently going on in New York City where the chancellor is providing additional training and support to principals who are new to the profession to help them believe they can make that kind of commitment to difficult schools that really need their leadership. The nonprofit New Leaders for New Schools Project is also trying to attract talented teachers into the ranks of our principals. This amendment is a small step to support local and State efforts to recruit and retain the next generation of school leaders. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of our principals and in favor of recruiting and retaining them. In New York, Norman Wechsler, a former principal of Dewitt Clinton High School in the Bronx, illustrates the importance of this problem. He helped to lead that school from failure to success by raising the standards and holding students and teachers accountable for results. It is very important that we recruit and keep such principals in our public schools or else the work we are doing so diligently, attempting to forge the kind of consensus we need to pass this education bill, will not have the results it should have. This bill holds a lot of promise. It puts the Federal Government squarely on the side of accountability. It sets forth measurements that we will use to make decisions about schools. Yet if we don't have our teachers and principals in place to do this work, then it is just going to be another piece of legislation. It won't have the effect that we all want it to have. I hope we will agree to this amendment that it is aimed at helping us address the Nation's principal shortage.

Mrs. CLINTON. I move to lay aside the pending amendment temporarily.

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I am delighted to rise today to address another amendment, if the Senator from Massachusetts is ready for that?

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, today, I introduce legislation to help our schools become more energy efficient. Each year, America's schools spend more on energy costs than they do on books and computers combined. As we continue to debate education spending, there is at least one way to save on education costs: energy efficiency measures could save America's schools $1.5 billion. And we can reinvest those dollars into educational resources--like books, computers or more training for our teachers--that can make a real difference for our children's futures. Typically, nearly one-third of the energy used in a U.S. school goes to waste because of outdated technology, old equipment and poor insulation. The least energy-efficient schools, many of which are in desperate need of upgrades and repair, use almost four times as much energy per square foot as the most energy-efficient ones. Over half of our the country's K-12 schools are more than 40 years old and in need of renovation to reach standards of efficiency and comfort. And it's estimated that 6,000 new schools will be needed in the next 10 years because of the growing student population. The U.S. Department of Energy estimates that schools could save 25 to 30 percent of the money they spend on energy--$1.5 billion--through better building design, use of energy-efficient and renewable energy technologies and improvements to operations and maintenance. Unfortunately, school districts may not be aware of the things they can do to be more energy efficient, improve indoor environments, and save money. That is why the legislation that I am introducing today is so important. The Healthy and High Performance Schools Act of 2001 would create a program within the Department of Education to provide grants to states to help school districts make their buildings healthier and more energy efficient. It will help our schools improve the indoor air quality, make smart energy efficient upgrades and take advantage of new, energy efficient technology. And this will save our schools money. There are some basic things that every school can do to reduce energy use. If schools adopt energy management systems to coordinate heating, ventilation and air conditioning they can help ensure rooms are heated and cooled only while being used. And simply closing doors to keep heated or cooled air from escaping can save money. Schools can add insulation to walls, floors, attics and ceilings or use shades, films and screens to better secure windows. Using some type of window treatment in the summer can greatly reduce the need for air conditioning. Energy-efficient fixtures, bulbs and lamps can make a big difference too. And installing occupancy sensors to control lighting when rooms are empty is smart and efficient. So much of the energy used by schools--approximately fifteen percent--is for cooking, refrigeration, and heating hot water. Simply maintaining food service equipment in schools can mean large energy savings. Energy use by computers and office equipment is one of the fastest- growing sources of electricity consumption in schools, businesses and homes. And it is expected to grow by as much as 500 percent in the next decade. If schools use products with an ENERGY STAR label--the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's, EPA, label for energy efficient appliances--they can save as much as 50 percent in energy costs. And I'm proud to report that many schools in New York are already leading the way. The Smithtown School District on Long Island recently became the first school district in New York State to receive the Energy Star label. The District completed an extensive lighting modification project using the latest energy-efficient technologies in three of its elementary schools. Three schools, Smithtown Elementary, Mount Pleasant Elementary and Dogwood Elementary, will display the bronze plaque with the Energy Star logo in their buildings. The district now uses more than five million kilowatts less than it did in the 1970's. The Kingston School District in Ulster County, New York, made drastic improvements in the energy performance of all the schools in the district by replacing many of the windows, installing new boilers, and making other energy efficient upgrades. In 2000, the school district saved more than $395,000 through its energy-efficiency upgrades and in 2001, received an Energy Star Partner of the Year Award. Sachem Central School District on Long Island was awarded the Energy Start Partner of the Year Award in 2000. The District installed energy- efficient lighting fixtures and new boilers that resulted in savings of almost 300,000 gallons of oil and more than 2.9 million kWh. Special building automation system helps measure, monitor and manage energy use. Other New York Energy Star School Partners are Connetquot Central School District, East Rockaway Public Schools, Fordham Preparatory School, Patchogue Medford Schools, Rochester City School District, Rye City School District and Wantagh Union Free School District. I am pleased to join my colleague in the House of Representatives, Mark Udall from Colorado, the sponsor of the High Performance Schools Act of 2001, H.R. 1129, as well as the co-sponsors, including my fellow New Yorkers, Sherwood Boehlert and Maurice Hinchey. I hope that my colleagues in the Senate will join me in supporting this legislation, which has bipartisan support in the House, so that we can provide our schools with the tools that they need to save money on their energy costs, and reinvest that money into much-needed education resources that can help our children reach their goals. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, today, I introduce legislation to help our schools become more energy efficient. Each year, America's schools spend more on energy costs than they do on books and computers combined. As we continue to debate education spending, there is at least one way to save on education costs: energy efficiency measures could save America's schools $1.5 billion. And we can reinvest those dollars into educational resources--like books, computers or more training for our teachers--that can make a real difference for our children's futures. Typically, nearly one-third of the energy used in a U.S. school goes to waste because of outdated technology, old equipment and poor insulation. The least energy-efficient schools, many of which are in desperate need of upgrades and repair, use almost four times as much energy per square foot as the most energy-efficient ones. Over half of our the country's K-12 schools are more than 40 years old and in need of renovation to reach standards of efficiency and comfort. And it's estimated that 6,000 new schools will be needed in the next 10 years because of the growing student population. The U.S. Department of Energy estimates that schools could save 25 to 30 percent of the money they spend on energy--$1.5 billion--through better building design, use of energy-efficient and renewable energy technologies and improvements to operations and maintenance. Unfortunately, school districts may not be aware of the things they can do to be more energy efficient, improve indoor environments, and save money. That is why the legislation that I am introducing today is so important. The Healthy and High Performance Schools Act of 2001 would create a program within the Department of Education to provide grants to states to help school districts make their buildings healthier and more energy efficient. It will help our schools improve the indoor air quality, make smart energy efficient upgrades and take advantage of new, energy efficient technology. And this will save our schools money. There are some basic things that every school can do to reduce energy use. If schools adopt energy management systems to coordinate heating, ventilation and air conditioning they can help ensure rooms are heated and cooled only while being used. And simply closing doors to keep heated or cooled air from escaping can save money. Schools can add insulation to walls, floors, attics and ceilings or use shades, films and screens to better secure windows. Using some type of window treatment in the summer can greatly reduce the need for air conditioning. Energy-efficient fixtures, bulbs and lamps can make a big difference too. And installing occupancy sensors to control lighting when rooms are empty is smart and efficient. So much of the energy used by schools--approximately fifteen percent--is for cooking, refrigeration, and heating hot water. Simply maintaining food service equipment in schools can mean large energy savings. Energy use by computers and office equipment is one of the fastest- growing sources of electricity consumption in schools, businesses and homes. And it is expected to grow by as much as 500 percent in the next decade. If schools use products with an ENERGY STAR label--the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's, EPA, label for energy efficient appliances--they can save as much as 50 percent in energy costs. And I'm proud to report that many schools in New York are already leading the way. The Smithtown School District on Long Island recently became the first school district in New York State to receive the Energy Star label. The District completed an extensive lighting modification project using the latest energy-efficient technologies in three of its elementary schools. Three schools, Smithtown Elementary, Mount Pleasant Elementary and Dogwood Elementary, will display the bronze plaque with the Energy Star logo in their buildings. The district now uses more than five million kilowatts less than it did in the 1970's. The Kingston School District in Ulster County, New York, made drastic improvements in the energy performance of all the schools in the district by replacing many of the windows, installing new boilers, and making other energy efficient upgrades. In 2000, the school district saved more than $395,000 through its energy-efficiency upgrades and in 2001, received an Energy Star Partner of the Year Award. Sachem Central School District on Long Island was awarded the Energy Start Partner of the Year Award in 2000. The District installed energy- efficient lighting fixtures and new boilers that resulted in savings of almost 300,000 gallons of oil and more than 2.9 million kWh. Special building automation system helps measure, monitor and manage energy use. Other New York Energy Star School Partners are Connetquot Central School District, East Rockaway Public Schools, Fordham Preparatory School, Patchogue Medford Schools, Rochester City School District, Rye City School District and Wantagh Union Free School District. I am pleased to join my colleague in the House of Representatives, Mark Udall from Colorado, the sponsor of the High Performance Schools Act of 2001, H.R. 1129, as well as the co-sponsors, including my fellow New Yorkers, Sherwood Boehlert and Maurice Hinchey. I hope that my colleagues in the Senate will join me in supporting this legislation, which has bipartisan support in the House, so that we can provide our schools with the tools that they need to save money on their energy costs, and reinvest that money into much-needed education resources that can help our children reach their goals. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I would like to recognize the accomplishments of James A. Harmon, the outgoing Chairman of the Export-Import Bank of the United States. When Chairman Harmon steps down from this position on May 25, he will have served Ex-Im Bank for 4 years, one of the longest terms as Chairman in the Bank's history. Chairman Harmon came to Ex-Im Bank in 1997 after a distinguished 38- year career as an investment banker in New York. He brought his wealth of private sector experience to Washington and immediately set about the task of enhancing Ex-Im Bank's ability to achieve its important mission, supporting U.S. jobs through exports. One of the early challenges he had to face was the global financial crisis that hit Asia and other emerging markets in 1997-98. Recognizing the important role Ex-Im Bank could play in this crisis, Chairman Harmon directed the Bank to extend much needed credit to many of the impacted Asian nations to keep trade flowing between this region and the United States. Perhaps the most dramatic example was in South Korea, where Ex-Im Bank provided $1 billion of short-term export credit insurance for South Korean banks that allowed South Korean businesses to purchase urgently needed raw materials and equipment from the United States. Ex-Im Bank supported more than 2,400 transactions in South Korea during this crucial period, compared to less than 60 the prior year. Ex-Im Bank also worked to shore up the struggling Asian markets by coordinating assistance for the region from the other major export credit agencies. Ex-Im Bank's aggressive response to the Asian financial crisis helped stabilize these economies and keep U.S. goods and services flowing to the region until commercial financing was once again available. Under Chairman Harmon's leadership, Ex-Im Bank forged into new markets in an effort to increase opportunities for U.S. exporters. I am particularly pleased to cite the Bank's expanded involvement in Africa. During Chairman Harmon's tenure, Ex-Im Bank unveiled new programs for facilitating U.S. exports to sub-Saharan Africa and expanded the number of countries in this region for which financing support is available. Notably, Chairman Harmon demonstrated his personal commitment to sub- Saharan Africa by traveling to the region three times, becoming the first Ex-Im Bank Chairman to visit southern Africa. The results of these efforts have been dramatic. Ex-Im Bank support for transactions in sub-Saharan Africa rose from $50 million in 1998 to nearly $1 billion in 2000. I know from my own visits to sub-Saharan Africa the vital importance of increased U.S. trade with the region and I commend Chairman Harmon for his efforts. Ex-Im Bank also enhanced its presence in Russia and the New Independent States, developing innovative financing structures that allowed U.S. exporters to capitalize on the vast opportunities of this market. In June 2000, Ex-Im Bank launched a Southeast Europe Initiative to develop U.S. trade opportunities in Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Macedonia and Romania, an initiative that can help foster the development of these emerging market economies as well as benefit U.S. exporters. While working to support exports to new markets abroad, Chairman Harmon also pushed Ex-Im Bank to reach out to new groups of exporters here at home. During Chairman Harmon's tenure, Ex-Im Bank implemented program changes and marketing efforts aimed at expanding its support for women- and minority-owned businesses, two groups that have traditionally had difficulty accessing export financing. Chairman Harmon also made environmental exports a top priority, recognizing both the potential export opportunities for U.S. producers of environmental goods and services and the importance of promoting environmentally sound development. At the same time, Chairman Harmon championed the need for greater environmental responsibility in export financing, urging his G-7 and other major export credit agency counterparts to adopt uniform, meaningful environmental standards for the projects they finance. Jim Harmon has worked tirelessly at Ex-Im Bank to create high-paying export-related jobs here at home by expanding opportunities for U.S. exporters abroad. I am pleased to welcome him back to New York after four years of distinguished service to Ex-Im Bank and the Nation.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. This reminds me of what we went through in 1981, so I went back and read the account. I wish my colleagues would recall what David Stockman said in December of 1981. He said: The reason we did it wrong . . . was that we said, Hey, we have to get a program out fast. And when you decide to put a program of this breadth and depth out fast, you can only do so much . . . . We didn't think it all the way through. We didn't add up all the numbers. We didn't make all the thorough, comprehensive calculations about where we really needed to come out. . . . In other words, we ended up with a list that I'd always been carrying of things to be done, rather than starting the other way and asking, What is the overall fiscal policy required to reach the target? I am afraid that is what we are doing again.

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, let me begin by commending Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Baucus for the hard work they have put in on this very difficult assignment. I appreciate greatly their efforts. It pains me that I rise in opposition to the bill which they have presented and that we will be voting on later this evening. I wish I could support this bill. I wish I could support it because I believe in affordable, reasonable tax cuts. I believe in continuing to pay down our budget debt. And I believe in making the kinds of investments that will enable our country to be richer and stronger and smarter. However, it is my analysis that, unfortunately, this bill does not meet those criteria. What bothers me is that, despite the pressures that have been working on the Finance Committee to come up with the best possible alternative in a bipartisan way, which they just labored so hard to do, we read there will be additional requests for tax cuts coming down the road, and that there will be additional dollars requested, which might very well be fully justified, to raise our defense expenditures. It bothers me that we see, in the bill that has been presented to us, that it will be very difficult to find the resources we need for the investments that I think everyone in this Chamber knows are demanded by the people we represent: investments in education, investments in health care, such as a prescription drug benefit, or, as my colleague from New Jersey rightly pointed out, a long-term care tax credit. I am concerned that, in fact, this bill does squeeze out the opportunity that we have to address, in a realistic way, our energy needs, as well as the other priorities I have mentioned. There are several considerations that are very important to the people I represent. It is very difficult to look at this tax bill, without adequate alternative minimum tax reform, and not realize that we are going to be pushing millions of Americans, many of them New Yorkers, into a higher tax bracket. The Joint Tax Committee estimates that 40 million taxpayers will be subject to the AMT after the tax bill, now debated, is fully phased in. That will have a tremendous impact. It will be a rude surprise for many citizens in New York, California, Connecticut, Wisconsin, Oregon, and other States when they find they do not really gain much from this tax bill but, in fact, they get a higher tax bill. I am also concerned that due to repeal of the estate tax, and the earlier elimination of the State credit from the estate tax, we are going to find States such as New York in a terrible budgetary dilemma. They are going to be losing dollars from the State side of the estate tax before the Federal Government loses the revenues in 2011. In some States that will be an incredible burden: several percentage points out of their revenue base where they would have to find some way to amend their constitution or find new revenues. It seems eminently unfair for the Federal Government to be able to shift that burden to the backs of the States with so little warning.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. I will be happy to speak now.

Mrs. CLINTON. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I rise in support of this amendment which has been a passion of my senior Senator from New York. It arises out of the real- world experiences he and I have every day in New York where we meet parent after parent who is troubled by the rising costs of college tuition and other expenses associated with going to college. I wish we would all recognize that going to college has become not just a luxury, but in many respects a necessity. There are so many jobs today which are on the leading edge of the economy that require the advanced education that can only come in a higher education setting. The fastest growing occupations, all of them in the field of technology, require at least a bachelor's degree, and they pay much higher than average for full-time workers. The Senator has recognized that we have to do more to make college affordable for our families. The saddest statistic I am aware of is as hard as it is to believe after all the work this body has done over the last years to make college more affordable, with the HOPE scholarships, with increasing Pell grants for worthy students, with the life-long learning tax credit, with all of that work, there are still so many children whose families cannot afford to send them to college or for whom the college tuition stretch is so great it requires mortgaging homes, it requires tremendous sacrifice from many working and middle-class families, and it often leads to a student having to drop out because the dollars just don't keep coming and there is not enough financial support. In New York, for example, more than 80 percent of New York students go on to some form of higher education. Nearly 1 million students attend college in New York, yet not that many finish. And the No. 1 reason given is financial hardship. The combination of the debt load that so many of our youngsters and their families have to carry, and the fact that sometimes that credit is just not available, makes the dream of college just beyond the reach of too many of our children and their families. As we debate this overall tax bill, which has many features that are not, in my view, going to make us richer and stronger and smarter, I hope we will try to support this amendment which I think will do all of those. I think this amendment, Senator Schumer's college opportunity tax credit, is the single most important amendment we could pass in this entire debate. It not only will provide much needed financing, it will send a clear message that we in this Chamber have heard the students, the parents, the families, the businesses, and the colleges of America, we have heard their requests and we try to help make college affordable for all Americans. The college challenge now of paying has become absolutely out of reach because average tuition has doubled in the last 20 years. Family incomes and financial aid have not doubled in a comparable period. It is time to give families in New York, families across America, the kind of tax cut they can really count on and that will mean something for everybody--the people who are the bulk of the taxpayers in this country. This amendment, when fully phased in, will give families a tax deduction of up to $12,000 in tuition costs, which will provide as much as $3,360 in tax relief. I commend my colleague, my senior Senator, for his passion, his work, his persistence. I hope that work will finally culminate in a positive outcome today and we will pass the college opportunity tax cut, the kind of sensible, affordable tax cut that makes sense for America's families and especially for the young people for whom we, after all, have to think most clearly about trying to create a better future. There is no better investment we can make. I commend my colleague and thank him for his work on this critically important amendment.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. I thank the Chair. I thank my distinguished colleagues from Wyoming and Iowa. I am concerned, as Senator Harkin has pointed out, that dollars that are already committed to construction projects, to State planning for school repair and renovation, under the second-degree amendment, will be diverted to other worthy causes. I happen to agree with the Senator from Wyoming that the dollars we need as the Federal Government to spend to upgrade, repair, and construct BIA schools and DOD schools and Impact Aid schools is an obligation we should step up to and fulfill. But I do not think we should be robbing Peter to pay Paul, when we have so many schools that are in need of the kind of assistance that can be provided with Senator Harkin's amendment. What I hope is that as we debate the second-degree amendment, we look for ways to deal with the very real problem that the Senator from Wyoming has pointed out without upsetting and undermining the commitments that have already been made. These are commitments for this $1.2 billion that my State of New York is counting on, that the cities in my State are counting on. As the chart that Senator Harkin has shown points out clearly, we have plans for that money. About $105 million of it has been allocated to New York. We have a backlog of many hundreds of millions of dollars more of repair and renovation. I hope that the Senator from Wyoming's amendment as currently written will not pass, but that we take the good ideas the Senator from Wyoming has brought to the floor with respect to the BIA schools and other schools that are particularly part of the Federal responsibility and look for additional ways to provide the funds they need. Let me also reiterate something I have said on this floor before, and then I will yield for final comments to our Democratic leader on this issue, Senator Harkin. This bill does not remove State or local responsibility for school construction, repair, and renovation. What it does is provide necessary funds where we as a nation have gotten so far behind in providing decent facilities for our teachers and students. It is a partnership. I thought the whole idea behind this reauthorization was that we were going to have a partnership. The Federal Government was going to step in with the funds it provides and assist the States and localities in providing the best possible education for our children; that we were going to marry accountability and resources. I do not think the $105 million currently in line to come to New York to help us with our backlog of construction, repair, and renovation is in any way an interference with State or local control over education. It is a recognition that we as a nation have fallen woefully behind. I am reminded of how many of the schools that children in New York attend--some were built 100 years ago, many were built 50 or 60 years ago. We have not invested in our children to provide the kind of resources they need. I stood on the floor and told true stories about what happens in some of our schools. The Senator from Iowa may have heard me talk about a teacher standing in a classroom in Mechanicville, NY, who had a piece of concrete fall on her head. I showed pictures of classrooms that were so overcrowded there was literally no place for the children to sit. We have schools where we have 100 different languages being spoken, where we are in hallways and bathrooms, where we have not a single square foot of space left and where the condition of what is there is deteriorating. This bill that Senator Harkin is promoting, to me, is the right kind of partnership. We are not interfering. We are not forcing any money on anybody. This is a voluntary program. It adds to, it does not take away from, the resources our States and localities are using. But it recognizes the fact that States that have made a commitment to using these dollars would, under Senator Enzi's amendment, lose money. New York will lose at least $22 million off the top because 20 percent of the funds would first be diverted to smaller states, but in all likelihood New York would never see any of the $105 million already set aside for Emergency School Renovation and Repair. We have a million children in the New York City school district. We have the oldest school buildings in America in Buffalo, NY. We want to do the best job we can for our children, as every other State represented here does. All we need is a little bit of help. I urge we vote for Senator Harkin's amendment.

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Harkin amendment on school construction, renovation, and repair. I am concerned by what I have heard from Senator Harkin as to his analysis of the----

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Washington. I rise to express my very strong support for Senator Murray's class size reduction amendment. I have been in this Chamber several times in the last weeks talking about class size and have shown numerous pictures of conditions in the classes in the schools in New York. I have listened to the extraordinary description of other colleagues as to what their students and teachers face day in and day out because of overcrowded classrooms. I know we will be making decisions that determine the opportunities for our educational achievement for our students for years to come when we vote on this amendment and on the bill of which I hope it will be a part. I have to reiterate several points and call on my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to look at the evidence. I do believe sometimes in Washington we live in an evidence-free zone. It does not matter who comes up with whatever scientific research or evidence. If it runs against any particular political point of view, it is not given the seriousness it deserves. I do not see how we can turn our backs on the evidence that we have from study after study that lower class size, when it comes to teaching children from disadvantaged backgrounds, makes all the difference. Sometimes my colleagues say: But there are schools that do a good job with more students, and I remember when I was in school and we had a lot of students. I can remember that, too. I started school when we had three television networks. I can remember when we had more two-parent families. I can remember when we did not have all of the social and cultural interference with raising children that we now face. The fact is, we have to take our kids where they are today, and many of them today are coming from situations where they need more attention, more adult time, more discipline, more guidance in order to be academically successful. We are turning our backs not only on the research which points that out time and again but on these children. I hope my colleagues who have not seen fit to support this amendment will reconsider it. It is not too late to cast a vote for the kinds of classrooms where teachers can teach and children can learn. If you look at our big States with big cities--and I know New York has obviously a special set of issues because of the size of our school district in New York City, but it is not unique. In Pennsylvania, for example, the average class size in Philadelphia is 30 children per class. In Pittsburgh, it is 25 children per class. In Chicago, it averages 28. In Georgia, it averages 32. This is not an issue for just Senators or teachers or school board members to be concerned about in debate. Much of the attention I have seen focused on this comes from parents who know their children are not getting academic assistance they need to do the best they can do. There is a woman in New York whom I commend who started a grassroots parents organization called Class Size Matters. She began to form networks of parents around the country who know because they have seen with their own eyes and their experience of their children, that class size matters. In Pennsylvania alone, this Class Size Matters network got 1,700 parents to sign a petition in just 2 days, urging the Senate to vote in favor of class size reductions. I have heard from parents throughout New York who tell me in great detail how crowded their classrooms are and how they need help. This does not interfere with flexibility. This does not take anything away from the local school districts determining priorities, but it does give additional help and resources to those districts and those parents who know that unless we get those class sizes down, their children will not learn to the extent they should do so. I also regret deeply that if we do not adopt this amendment, we will be stopping the progress we have made. New York State has hired to date 2,600 teachers and has 700 more all ready to be hired. This will stop that hiring, and we know from the 2,600 we have already hired what a difference it makes in the classrooms of New York. I believe that without dedicated funding for reducing class sizes, our hardest pressed, most needy districts will not receive the dollars they need to reduce the classes. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to stand behind our children, our parents, our teachers and reduce the size of our classes and adopt Senator Murray's amendment. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I thank my ranking member, the Senator from North Dakota, who, as my good friend from South Carolina has put so well, has led with honesty and directness, and believes so passionately in the issues that we are addressing today. I rise because I cannot remain silent in the face of both a budget process and a budget product that I think will be so harmful to our country. I really wish I did not have to rise today. I wish, given the opportunities that lie before us as a nation, what we were debating was the kind of balanced approach to the budget that I could wholeheartedly support--a balanced approach that included an affordable, reasonable tax cut, that fairly went to all Americans, giving every one of our families a Mother's Day present, as Senator Byrd so wonderfully reminded us is around the corner. I wish this budget were filled with the kind of careful analysis about the investments that we need to make our country rich and smarter and stronger in the years ahead. And I wish this budget continued to pay down the debt in the way that we had been doing. In the last 3 years, we paid off more than $600 billion of our debt. We took it off the backs of all these schoolchildren who are watching us. We said: We are not going to pass on the debts of your parents. Your grandparents, the greatest generation, did not leave us in debt the way that this country did in the 1980s with the quadrupling of our national debt. I cannot stand here and say that. I look at all these faces. I meet with schoolchildren from throughout New York nearly every day. I wish I could say: I am going to go to the Senate Chamber and support a budget that will invest in education the way we need it, that will continue to pay down the debt so that you are not faced with that debt when you are my age, or even younger, and that it will invest in Social Security and Medicare so that you do not have to worry about your parents, your grandparents, or yourselves. Unfortunately, I cannot say that. I have thought hard about what it is that has happened in the Senate in the last several months because I sat through 16 hearings in the Budget Committee. They were informative, very helpful hearings, laying out the priorities of our Nation, talking about the amount of money we had that we could count on, not pie in the sky, not projections that were unlikely ever to come true but realistically what it was we, as a nation, could count on. And then how could we have a tax cut, pay down the debt, and invest in education, health care, the environment, as well as taking care of Social Security and Medicare? I do not exactly know what happened, how we arrived at this point. We had those hearings, and then we were shut out of the process. We did not have a markup, which is a device in a committee to get everybody together to try to hammer out a bill. Then the Democrats, with decades of experience--with distinguished Senators such as Senator Hollings and Senator Conrad--were shut out of the process between the House and the Senate. So here we are today on the brink of passing a tax cut that will, I believe, do to our country what was done in the 1980s. I can only think that this is a tax cut proposal that was born in the passion of a primary political campaign, in the snows of New Hampshire, when the President was running for his life to be President and had to come up with something, so he plucked out of the air $1.6 trillion and said that was what it was going to be and felt compelled to come and present it to us. I was proud of the Senate when, in the process of the budget debate, we made some good changes. We made those changes not only on the tax cut side but on the investment side. I thought: If the House can go along with that, maybe at the end of the process we can have a better balance. I did not think it went far enough, but I was proud of the fact that we had a negotiation. What we have today has zero increases in education. We have spent a heck of a long time talking about education. The President says it is his first priority. I can only look at the documents I am handed. I have only been handed them recently. I was not part of the process, even though I serve on the Budget Committee. And it looks to me as if we are turning our back on education. As I thought back, I could not think of any analogy, I could not think of any guidance that would help illuminate what it is we are going through. So I went back and looked at 1981. I read about what happened when another President said: Pass this big tax cut, and we are going to have surpluses. And we went further and further and further in debt. It is always easier to pass a tax cut. Who doesn't want a tax cut? I want a tax cut. But I don't want to have a tax cut at the expense of hurting my country. I don't want a tax cut at the expense of preventing the kind of investment in education that we need. I don't want a tax cut where I have to go and tell my mother that Medicare may not be viable for the rest of her natural life. I don't want that kind of tax cut.

Mrs. CLINTON. So I, with great regret, stand in this Chamber and express the disappointment I feel in that we had an opportunity to do what our country needs--to invest in education, health care, the environment, pay down our debt, and provide affordable tax cuts--but, instead, we are taking a U-turn back to the 1980s. Mark my words, we will be back here--maybe under the same President, or maybe under a different President--having to fix the fiscal situation we are throwing our country into today. I lived through that once. I do not look forward to it. But I will be a responsible Member of this body in trying to fix the problem that we are causing for our Nation because of this tax cut and budget. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mrs. CLINTON. Oh, 6 minutes.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I am so pleased to join my colleagues supporting this amendment, Careers to Classrooms. I commend my good friend from Texas who brought all of us together, took all of our various ideas, and came up with a amendment that I believe will make a tremendous difference in one of the most serious problems facing us in education. This is an issue all of us who joined together as original cosponsors have worked on because it is one that came to us in our respective States. I brought along just three sample headlines from 3 different years. The first, from August of 1998, from the Buffalo News, reports that more than half of the teachers in New York State, 201,000, were headed for retirement in the next 10 years. Then a year later, in August 1999, the New York Times ran a story on the front page alerting the public that as children were heading back to school, cities and towns across our country were struggling to fill the teacher slots, especially in our poorest neighborhoods, and especially in difficult subjects such as math and science and special ed. Then, again, in August 2000, the New York Times focused on Westchester County where I live, highlighting the fact that faced with retirements and other departures from the profession, superintendents were spending their time desperately searching for teachers to be there when school opened. I think all of us who joined together on this amendment do not want to see these headlines anymore. We think it is time that, from August 2001 on, the headlines should read that our country is coming together to answer the call to recruit and retain more teachers. I am so pleased that this amendment hits what I see as all of the necessary major points. As Senator Hutchison said, it supports alternative routes to certification. I have heard so many stories similar to the one she told about her friend, the Latin teacher, who could not get a job in the public schools. As Senator DeWine points out, it continues to support and fund the very successful Troops to Teachers Program. As Senator Wellstone points out, it begins to provide the resources that our high- need school districts will require in order to place them at the head of the queue to try to attract teachers. I am pleased it will permit each local school district to develop a local teacher corps, which would be able to provide bonuses for midcareer professionals interested in becoming teachers. I have often said if we give signing bonuses to athletes, we ought to give signing bonuses to teachers. There is not any more important job in our country. All too often our teachers are relegated to the margins of our concerns. The teacher corps would also be able to make scholarships available for recent college students and create new career ladders for teacher's aides to become fully certified teachers. A lot of our teacher's aides want to become teachers. If they are performing well, if they have the requisite academic skills, we ought to encourage their development. It will also provide additional mentoring, support, and professional development that is needed to become an effective teacher. All in all, I am so pleased that we have an opportunity to address this important issue in this bill because if we do not address the quality and the quantity of our teaching force, we are not going to be able to deliver on all the other promises we are trying to make and keep with the children, teachers, and parents of our country. I know in New York City we are looking desperately to fill the slots that are needed for our teachers. This kind of program of alternative certification and additional mentoring, similar to what we call the New York City Teaching Fellows Program, will help us recruit and retain our teachers. In addition to promoting alternative routes to full certification, I am pleased that in the underlying bill as part of S. 1 we have the National Teacher Recruitment Campaign to alert prospective teachers from across the country about these new resources and routes to teaching and include a National Teacher Recruitment Clearinghouse so someone, anywhere in the country, can sign on to the Web and find out information about where they are living now or where they hope to move so we can really attract people who are the best and the brightest into teaching. I am excited about this opportunity. I commend all my colleagues who have worked in a collegial and bipartisan manner, representing States from Texas to Ohio to Minnesota to New York, to send a clear message that teacher recruitment and retention is not a partisan issue. It is at the root of how successful we can be in improving education. I am so pleased we are going to have a chance to vote on this amendment and send that clear message to the people of our country.

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, thanks to my colleague, especially for her leadership on this issue.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, on April 22, 2001 I delivered a statement before the Warsaw Ghetto Resistance Organization's, WAGRO, Annual Tribute to the Martyrs of the Warsaw Ghetto, at Temple Emanuel in New York City. I ask unanimous consent that my remarks be printed in the Record along with the statement delivered on the same day by Mr. Benjamin Mead, President of the Warsaw Ghetto Resistance Organization, WAGRO.