Hillary Clinton

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Thank you very much. Mr. President, I say to the chairman of the Budget Committee, on which I am honored to serve, that I appreciate those words. I came down to the floor after hearing that to say just two quick things. One, in 1993, we made a considerable effort to reform health care. I learned a lot from that experience. I learned that we had to go in a step-by-step, progressive way to try to achieve quality, affordable health care. I also learned that we needed to have an open, spirited debate about what needed to be done for the good of our country. I appreciate the chance to rise and state my objections to adding reconciliation instructions to the budget resolution because I think the lesson we learned is a lesson we should apply. I thank the distinguished Senator for his remarks.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, Willie Louis King of Niagara Falls, NY, took seriously his role as citizen-activist and acted on the democratic ideals that many of us only talk about. To honor Mr. King's memory, I ask that Ken Hamilton's eloquent tribute be printed in the Record. The tribute follows: Willie King Walked to the Circle's Edge I read Willie King's obituary, and it did not say enough. One of the problems with obituaries is that they are hastily written biographies of loved ones that attempt to convey to the world ``who'' the individual was and ``whom'' they leave to mourn. For most of us, that is fine, because our lives are about the ``whos'' (ourselves) and ``whoms'' closest to us, those who will mourn the end of our existence, as we know it. More often than we know, many of those same people were about much more than just ``who'' and ``whom,'' and their lives are not simply measured in the many names that are listed in the ``survived by'' paragraph of their obituaries. Though their lives were not ideal, nonetheless, they lived their lives based on ideals. It was hard for the principled Willie King to change his mind about the things he strongly believed in. He was a dyed- in-the-wool Democratic committeeman, and I, a registered Republican and former committeeman who believes, among other things, that while party affiliation is a consideration, the value of the person is more important. We were members of the same church, but even there, our encounters ended in political talk. Though Willie King and I disagreed upon many issues, he was the one man I knew who believed in one thing more than anything else in the world: It was more than everyone's right to vote; it was their responsibility to do so. Perhaps it was his rural, southern upbringing and the associated hardships and attitude that were endemic in a then-segregated South, that led him to believe that ideal. He often spoke, and was qualified to do so, of those who had died--of all races--so that we might have that privilege. Yet while the youthful Willie King endured inequity in the South, the elder King believed in, and at every opportunity that he had, practiced equality in the North. I know this because, as expected, this dyed-in-the-wool Democrat crossed racial lines and voted against me when I ran for state Senate and boldly let me know that he did so. Moreover, our mutual dear and tearful Italian friend, Tony Mondi, called me to tell me of Willie's passing. In the telling, he spoke of his last time seeing Willie. It was Election Day, and Tony had talked to Zola, Willie's wife, and found that Willie, who was rapidly succumbing to the cancer that was ravaging his body, was too sick to go to the polls to vote. As far as anyone knew, this would be the first time that he would not exercise that privilege--no-- responsibility, that he so dearly believed in. Hanging around campaign headquarters that day were a couple of firefighters. Tony knowing how important it was to his friend, talked to them about the situation. ``No problem,'' they said. ``We'll go get him so that he can vote.'' Tony called Zola, and all that she asked for was for 15 minutes. Off they went, into the rain, to exercise the ideal. Tony ``chauffeured'' his own big, black Cadillac, and the two firefighters, Greg Colangelo and Rick Horn, went into the house to ``pick up'' this man and ``carry'' him to the polls. There was a wheelchair available, but Willie was not going to have that! For as many years that he had voted, he had proudly walked into the polls and done so. There would be no prouder time for him than Tuesday, November 2, 1999. With all of the strength that he, and all of his ancestors, could muster, he again ``walked'' into those polls and voted--most probably, straight across the line! Yes, this one-time fruit picker, Willie King, one rainy afternoon, dragging death behind him and carrying with him the memories of counseling with great political leaders, walked into the polls. You know, I often hear people speak of others whom I have never met, and whom I will never know, of how they gave their lives for the ideal of democracy and our right to vote. These heroes all stand together in a very special place in history--Abraham, Martin, John, and others. On Nov. 12, as Willie King slept, cared for by his beloved wife; those heroes welcomed him, another King, to the edge of that very special circle. Therefore, next Election Day, I am interested in hearing your excuse for knowing the issues, but not going out to vote. Walk proudly into those polls. Willie did.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. I am, Madam President.

Mrs. CLINTON. Madam President, I rise in support of Senator Harkin's effort to make sure that we as a nation keep our word and that we do, indeed, make education a national priority. The Senator has called for investing $250 billion in education programs for our children over the next 10 years. I think that is a smart investment. I think that is a sound investment. I think it is a prudent investment. I know that improving education has bipartisan support, as I know from my work on the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, where I serve with the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire, where the Elementary and Secondary Education Act reauthorization--now called the BEST Act--passed with unanimous bipartisan support. I think we need to put the resources behind the title of that act. If it is to be the BEST Act, if it is, indeed, to promote education and provide the kind of opportunities that our children need in the 21st century, then we have to be sure it is not an empty program. Higher standards will mean absolutely nothing unless we provide our schools and our students--particularly in underserved urban and rural areas--with the resources and support necessary to meet those goals. We have to ask ourselves whether this budget, absent an amendment such as that of Senator Harkin's, will reflect and meet those priorities. When we talk about our children's education, we know we have to start early. Does this budget include funding for Head Start, Early Start, the Early Learning Opportunities Act to the extent that our children and families need them? We don't know the details yet, but I am very concerned that what we do know seems to indicate that important programs such as Head Start and the Early Learning Opportunities Act may well be at risk. In fact, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the administration's spending on education, training, employment, and social services does not actually include a real increase in spending. The numbers have only been adjusted for inflation, which is important and necessary to do, but that means there hasn't been money added to cover the additional children who attend our public schools and rely on these important programs. In fact, I believe it is correct to say that we now have more children in school than we have ever had at any previous time in our history. And in the absence of adding real resources, we are going to find ourselves, once we do get this budget, which I hope will be soon, having to take money away from programs such as Head Start in order to provide services for the elderly, or vice versa. Those are not the kinds of Hobson's choices, at a time of surplus, we want in order to make the best investments, pay down the debt, and provide affordable tax cuts that I think are available to us. How do we expect children to enter school ready to learn if they don't have the best of resources at home, which many of our children don't have, and we don't help provide them through partnerships in our communities? It is obviously clear, as Senators Harkin, Reed, and Kennedy pointed out earlier, the research is absolutely positive that a nurturing, stimulating child care environment has enormous positive impacts on our children. I would like to see us meet the goals outlined by Senator Harkin of providing eligible 3- and 4-year-olds the opportunity to participate in Head Start. I also know that once our children get to school, if the classrooms are so crowded, if the teacher cannot even get to all of the children during the day, then many children who come with a disadvantage are never going to catch up. I believe we should continue the efforts we started of reducing class size and putting dollars into getting more qualified teachers into our classrooms. With both Federal and State funding, for example, New York City has been able to reduce class size for approximately 90,000 students in the early grades. That is nearly 30 percent of our entire K-through-3 population. We know from the research that we are getting better results because of it. Also, what we claim to be our priorities should be reflected in the school buildings for students to see. We talk about how important education is, and yet I know throughout New York and throughout America, based on my own visits, there are children going to schools in deplorable condition. We have many school buildings that are very old that need to be upgraded. Modernization costs are soaring. This administration's budget wipes out the $1.2 billion partnership with States and localities for emergency school renovation and repair. I do not believe this is the time to be cutting funds that will help us modernize our schools, equip them with the technologies that are needed--in fact, in some instances, make them safe enough for the children and teachers who spend their days in them. It is not enough, though, just to reduce class size and have modern, well-equipped schools. We also have to have teachers in those classrooms. We are seeing shortages throughout America. For example, in Buffalo, 231 teachers retired last year, compared with an average of 92 in each of the preceding 8 years. Most telling, Buffalo lost 50 young teachers who moved on to other jobs or other school districts. Buffalo happens to have the oldest school stock in America. Some of the schools were beautifully built, but their walls are so thick that they cannot be wired. I have seen schools where the wires for computers come out the window and down to be hooked up. For many teachers, these are impossible circumstances. That is why I introduced the National Teacher and Principal Recruitment Act which I believe will bring up to 75,000 qualified teachers into our highest needs school districts. Later this week, I will offer an amendment to the budget resolution to reserve funds specifically for teacher recruitment. We have to ensure that all our teachers get the professional development they need. My friends tell me it is just harder teaching these days. There are a lot of circumstances that make it harder, but the fact is, if we are going to put our money where our words are, then we need to invest in our teachers, in their professional development, in their recruitment, and their retention. We also need to be sure the Federal Government lives up to its responsibility to fully fund IDEA. Special education students should be provided with the assistance they need to meet the academic standards they are required to meet. I support Senator Harkin's amendment which will work toward the goal of fully funding the Federal Government's share of IDEA. Finally, I do not think there is a more important obligation than to make sure those doors to college are wide open to anyone who is willing to work and study hard. I support increasing the maximum Pell grant. I support expanding programs that will help our low-income and minority students get the assistance they need while they are still in high school, and even junior high and middle school, so they are ready to go on to college, by investing in programs such as TRIO and GEAR UP. It is imperative, especially in this economic time, to increase job training by nearly $1 billion a year. These are the investments we should be making. I urge my colleagues to truly leave no child behind and vote in favor of Senator Harkin's amendment. I thank the Chair.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Yes.

Mrs. CLINTON. Madam President, I yield myself 10 minutes.

Mrs. CLINTON. Madam President, I come to the floor today to speak out and join the distinguished Senator from West Virginia and the distinguished Senator from Florida to express our concerns about the upcoming budget debate. First, I thank Senator Byrd for his extraordinary commitment to this institution, which is really unprecedented in history and is such a blessing for not only the institution and those who have been privileged to serve with him but for our country. And I heed his words seriously because he has taken the long view about what is in the best interests of a deliberative body, of this Senate, of a nation, that should rely upon the careful, thoughtful analysis of the issues that come before us and the people we represent. I am personally grateful to him for the time he has taken as my good friend, the distinguished Senator from Florida, referred to, to help mentor us freshmen Senators, to give us the guidance we need to be able to do the best possible job for the people who sent us here. And it is such an honor to stand on the floor of this Senate, a place I have long revered, on behalf of New Yorkers. But I come today with somewhat of a heavy heart because I believe in the principles and values this Senate represents. I want to see them fulfilled. I want to be a part of perpetuating them into our future. I find myself, as a new Member, struck by how difficult it will be to discharge my responsibilities in the upcoming week without having seen the budget, without having the opportunity to debate its priorities, and even more than its priorities, the values which it seeks to implement. I do not know that the people I represent, or the people any of us represent, will get the benefit of our best judgment, that the decisions we make will be grounded in our careful, thoughtful analysis. There will certainly be differences among us. That is what makes this a great deliberative body and makes our country so great. We come with different experiences. We come with different viewpoints. I come as the daughter of a small businessman who did not believe in mortgages, did not have a house until he could pay for it with cash, did not believe in credit, and who believed it was his responsibility to always make sure our family's books were balanced. I come with the belief that we had to go to extraordinary efforts to make sure our economy enjoyed these last 8 years of prosperity and progress and that we could not have done so had we not reversed the decade of deficits and debt that really did undermine America's capacity at home and abroad. So when we talk about the important debate in which we will engage next week, I think it is the most important debate in which I may engage in my entire term as Senator. It is certainly one of the most important debates for our country, and everyone who is following it, to understand what is at stake. This debate will set our priorities as a nation for the foreseeable future and could determine whether or not we have surpluses, whether or not we will be prepared for the impending retirement of the baby boomers that starts in just 11 years. It is a debate that will certainly be about numbers, deficit projections, surplus projections, and spending. But I think underlying it is a debate about who we are as a people. It is not only about our prosperity, not only about our Federal budget--it is certainly about that--it is about who we are as Americans. I come to this body determined to represent the people of my State and our country, as all of us do. But will we be able to do that? We are going to be deciding, in the votes we cast--starting with procedural votes--whether or not our seniors will have prescription drug benefits. We are going to be deciding whether or not our children will have the teachers they need and the schools they deserve to have. We are going to be deciding whether we have the sewer systems and the clean drinking water that every American deserves and should be able to count on. We are going to be deciding whether or not we do have the resources to maintain America's strength around the world, whether we will combat terrorism, whether we will stand firm with our allies. We are going to be determining whether we make the investments in research and development that will make us a stronger, richer, smarter nation in the decades ahead. I am deeply concerned that we enter this debate without the benefit of the administration's budget. I am privileged to serve on the Budget Committee under the extraordinary leadership of the Senator from North Dakota and my colleagues, the Senators from West Virginia and Florida. We sat through fascinating hearings. We listened as our defense priorities were discussed, as our education priorities were discussed, as our health care priorities were discussed. We listened to experts from all across the spectrum of economic opinion and analysis. I found it an extraordinarily enlightening experience. But we are not going to get a chance to debate with our colleagues what it is we as a committee should be deciding to recommend to this body with respect to the budget we will be debating. So we are flying blind. We are looking through a glass darkly. We are in the dark. Will this budget have the investments we need to protect child care and child abuse programs? The early information is it will not; that we will be turning our backs on working parents, cutting tens of millions of dollars from child care. Will we protect our most vulnerable children, those who are abused? The information we have, without a budget but kind of leaking out of the administration, suggests that we are going to be asked to cut child abuse prevention programs. We also are being told that we are going to be asked in this budget to cut training programs for the pediatricians who take care of the sickest of our children in our children's hospitals. These are very difficult issues in any circumstance, but not to have the chance to be able to analyze what is being proposed is troubling to me. Will this budget ensure our children will grow up in a safe environment with clean water and clean air, with access to quality, affordable health care? Will it adequately protect our food supply? Every day we see a new article in the paper about what is happening with our food supply in Europe, in the United States, around the world. Will we be able to protect ourselves so we have the kind of reliable food supply that Americans deserve? What are we doing in this time of surplus to ensure a safety net for all Americans, young and old? The prescription drug benefit that we hear about from the administration would leave over 25 million of our seniors without prescription drugs. I don't want to choose between some of our seniors and others in New York, those who may be just a penny over the limit that they, therefore, won't get the prescription drugs they need. I want to make sure that everyone on Medicare--and that is what most Americans want--has access to those prescription drugs. To pay for the tax cut, the administration includes the Medicare surpluses. Those are resources that should be ensuring the solvency of Medicare for all Americans, totally in a reserve that is set off, never to be used for any other obligations. I believe other obligations that we have should be paid for in the context of a balanced budget and not put Medicare at risk. The administration has correctly committed to doubling the number of people served through community health centers. I support that. It is a worthy goal. But then on the other hand, I understand they are doing it by completely eliminating the community access program that ensures that community health providers work together to create an infrastructure for care so no patient falls through the cracks. New York is filled with wonderful religiously based hospitals, privately based hospitals that are part of this infrastructure of care that would be left out completely. We also have the finest teaching hospitals in the world. There are no resources that will continue to make sure that they are the finest in the world. New York trains 50 percent of all the doctors in America. What are the plans for making sure that continues and that our teaching hospitals are given the resources they need? We are also hearing that the administration's budget will provide more security guards for our Nation's schools. That, too, is a worthy goal. In fact, I was heart broken to hear today of yet another school shooting in another school in another part of our country. That is an issue we must address. If security guards would help, I will support that. But I am troubled and my heart goes out to the families who are suffering these terrible tragedies in school shootings. I will do whatever I can on all fronts to try to deal with that problem. But I understand from the President's budget that they are shifting funds from the very successful COPS Program that has really helped us drive down the crime rate in order to pay for the security guards at the schools. We are robbing Peter to pay Paul. Why would we take resources away from the COPS Program, where so many brave men and women put on the uniform and walk those streets, that has become so effective in driving crime out of neighborhoods? Why would we take money away from our police officers and put it in our security guards at schools, if we need to do both? I argue strenuously we do. Are we being confronted with such a Hobson's choice because of a genuine shortage of resources or are we making these choices and cutting needed investments simply to allow for an enormously expensive tax cut that leaves millions of Americans out, leaves millions of America's working families again behind where they need to be in order to make the decisions that are best for their families because we are favoring others? The kinds of priorities I speak of today, for which I have fought for so many years, going back to the days when we tried to bring fiscal responsibility to our budget, when we tried to lower the crime rate, when we tried to improve health care and education and protect the environment, are bipartisan priorities. These are genuinely American priorities. Child care, child abuse prevention, police on our streets, we don't stop and ask: Are you for it or against that based on party? We say: Isn't this something we should do together in America? Madam President, I hope we will come together once again, Republicans and Democrats, Americans, to fashion a budget that pays down the debt, which is still the best tax cut we can give the vast majority of Americans. That is what puts money in your pocket when you have to have a mortgage, when you do have a credit card, when you do have a car payment. Let's keep those interest rates down. We have learned from the last 8 years that the best way to do that is to be fiscally responsible and pay down our debt. We need to provide sensible tax relief. Everybody in this Chamber is for that--sensible, affordable, fiscally responsible tax relief that says to every American, we are going to make it possible for everybody to share in these surpluses. We are not going to favor one group over another. That is the kind of tax relief I would be proud to be part of and for which I will speak out. Finally, we need a budget that invests in our Nation's most pressing needs, not just what we see right before us. The fact that we should continue to lower class size in the early grades, that we should continue to modernize our schools, those are needs I see every day. I go in and out of schools. I talk with teachers and parents and students. I know how much better our education system can be if we have both increased accountability and increased investments. I know we have needs that are staring us right in the face that we may be turning our back on if we are not careful. I also want to be looking to the horizon, looking around the corner. It is not just enough to take care of today. We have to be thinking about next year and the next 10 years and the next 25 and 50 years, if we are to fulfill our obligations as stewards for our people. That means we cannot turn our backs on the demands of Social Security and Medicare. As a member of the so-called baby boomer generation, I do not want to be part of a generation that is not responsible. The World War II generation is often rightly called the greatest generation. I am proud of the service of my father. I am proud of the service of all who came before. But they also understood the investment that needed to be made. It was in those years after that war when we started investing in our Nation's schools, started building the Interstate Highway System, started making the investment that we, frankly, have been living on for the last 50 years in this country. How on Earth can we keep faith with those who came before us, let alone our children and grandchildren and great grandchildren, if we don't have the same level of responsibility? I think we have a rendezvous with responsibility, and it is now. If we turn our backs on that responsibility, we are going to have a great price to pay. Maybe the bill won't become due until 5 years, 10 years, maybe 15 or 25 years. But like my colleagues who have spoken, I want to be able to say to the young children I meet that we tried to be responsible, we tried to do the right thing that will make us a stronger, richer, smarter nation. The American people--and I certainly know that people in New York who sent me--send us here to Washington to work together across party lines, to make the tough choices necessary to move our country forward. That is exactly what I want to do. It is not necessarily going to mean that Democrats will support all Republican proposals, or vice versa. But what it does mean is that we will reason together and work together to do what is right for our Nation. I hope when that process begins next week we will have a chance to really sit down and look at the President's budget, have a good, honest, open debate, as we just had these last few weeks about another very important matter before this body, and that we will honestly say what the priorities are we are setting, the values we stand for, the vision we have for America. I believe there won't be a more important issue that I will face. I want to make my decisions in a deliberative, thoughtful manner. I want to look for ways I can work with my friends across the aisle, as well as my colleagues on this side, because I want to be sure that at the end of the day we have done the right thing for the children of America. If we are not going to leave any child behind, then let's make sure we know what we are voting on that will affect every child. If we can make that determination to work together, I am confident we can come up with a bipartisan, sensible policy that leads to a budget we can support. In the absence of that, it will be very difficult to do so, and I hope that certainly the people of New York and America understand we are trying to stand firmly in favor of a process that may sound arcane and difficult from time to time to understand but which goes back, as Senator Byrd so rightly points out, to people who were very thoughtful about how to design a process that protected the rights of everybody. It is not just about that, as important as that is; it is fundamentally about the choices we will make for the children and families of America. I know that people of good faith will find a way to come to a resolution about how we proceed next week. I am looking forward to that. But I do have to say that, in the absence of such an agreement, I for one will have to be asking the hard questions the people of New York sent me here to ask about what specifically will be done to affect the hopes and aspirations and needs and interests of the people I represent. So I will be guided by three principles: Will this budget pay down the debt to continue us on a path of fiscal responsibility that protects Social Security and Medicare? Will we be in a position to recognize that the investments we need to make are important investments that are not going to disappear overnight? And, at the end of the day, will we have made decisions that will protect America's long-term interests at home and abroad? Madam President, I hope I will be able to answer affirmatively every one of those questions. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mrs. CLINTON. Thank you.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I add my words of support and thank Senator Levin and the other cosponsors who have worked hard on this matter. I wish to reiterate the point that, while we are working so hard to reform our campaign finance system, we cannot undermine our ability to reform the way elections are conducted. For all of the reasons Senator Levin and Senator Ensign and others have pointed out, registering voters, getting voters out to the polls is a critical role of parties. From my perspective, we need to be doing even more to try to promote what parties used to do, which was that kind of grassroots outreach activity. In reforming the way campaigns are financed, we must not hurt out ability to reform the way elections are conducted. This amendment would ensure that State, district or local committees of a political party would be able to continue to provide vital services to our citizenry during Federal elections, from voter registration activities to assisting individuals in getting out to vote on Election Day. The 2000 election taught us many things. One of the most important was the significance of having an informed electorate. Too many citizens in the last election were provided with too little information about where and how to vote. Too many citizens experienced unwarranted obstacles to registration and voting. As a result, fewer votes were counted, and in the next election fewer people may turn out to vote. The solution to these problems cannot be in the province of Government alone. America's political parties must play an important role in helping people register to vote, helping them learn more about the voting process and helping them turn out at the polls on election day. It is vital to the health of our democratic process. Leading up to an election, both parties provide voters with information on how and where to register to vote. On Election Day, both parties use their resources to drive elderly voters to the polls, provide answers to questions about where and how to vote, and give voters information about where the candidates stand on issues. In the State of New York over the past 2 years, the State Democratic Party has conducted an intensive voter education drive in predominantly African-American and Latino communities, often our most disenfranchised citizens. This education drive resulted in a surge in voter registration and voter activity in both of these communities throughout the state. Republican parties around the country are also active in voter registration and get out the vote efforts. This type of activity should continue to be supported by our State parties for all elections so that all of our citizens fully participate in our democracy. Some will claim that this amendment will bring soft money back into federal campaigns. Let me be very clear, this amendment does not bring soft money back into campaigns. Rather, it allows State and local parties to use money that is regulated by States and is capped at $10,000 for single contributions in order to support vital election services. That represents an improvement over the status quo, because under current law there is no national cap on such contributions at the local and State level. I ask my colleagues to rise in support of an amendment that will ensure that our political parties can continue to use State regulated funds to provide voter education, registration and get out the vote services that we know work. Because helping voters register to vote, helping them to learn how and where to vote, and helping them get out to vote are American values we should encourage, not inhibit. It is imperative this amendment pass so we are able to make a very clear distinction between the kind of roles and activities that should be conducted by parties and that we look forward to a time when we are going to be able to take up electoral reform with the same intensity that we have taken up campaign finance reform, which will give us a chance to go into more detail as to what our parties could and should be doing in order to promote democracy. I thank our colleague from North Dakota for pointing out where we stand when it comes to voter participation. I hope all of our colleagues will support the amendment.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, it is an honor to be here today in order to join my colleague Congressman Eliot Engel and other members of the New York Delegation in introducing a bill that would designate the U.S. Courthouse situated at 40 Centre Street in New York City the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse. The courthouse on 40 Centre Street is the site where Thurgood Marshall served from 1961 to 1965 during his tenure on the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals. For over 30 years of his life, Thurgood Marshall worked in New York, first as chief counsel of the NAACP, and later as a Justice on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. President Kennedy nominated Thurgood Marshall to serve on the federal bench in a recess appointment--at the time there was resistance to an African American being named to the federal appeals court. Robert Kennedy was Thurgood Marshall's sponsor, and sat beside him in a show of support throughout his confirmation hearing. The Senate eventually confirmed his nomination. Later, President Johnson went on to name Justice Marshall Solicitor General of the United States, and then to nominate him as the first African American to serve on the United States Supreme Court. There, he became one of the most influential and respected justices of this past century. In a tribute to Justice Marshall, Chief Justice Rehnquist said: Inscribed above the front entrance to the Supreme Court building are the words ``Equal Justice Under Law.'' Surely, no one individual did more to make these words a reality than Thurgood Marshall. It is amazing to think that a little boy who grew up under the iron grip of Jim Crow, a talented student who was denied admission to the University of Maryland's Law School because of his race and went on to graduate at the top of his law class at Howard University, charted a course in the courts that led the way for the Civil Rights Movement to put an end to the segregation that had plagued our country for so long. Thurgood Marshall will always be our nation's preeminent civil rights lawyer. He won 29 of the 32 cases he argued before the Supreme Court. During his time with the NAACP, he argued one of the hallmark court cases of our time, Brown v. Board of Education, which declared segregation illegal. For those of us who were alive then, we will forever have etched in our consciousness images of the Little Rock Nine, and the sheer courage of those children who would not be deterred from their efforts to integrate Central High School. As foot soldiers of the first true test of Brown v. Board of Education, the Little Rock Nine will always be American heroes. And so will Thurgood Marshall, whose brilliance and persistence in the courtroom made possible the eventual success of the civil rights movement, as it took root in small towns and large cities all across America. Thurgood Marshall was a role model to all who knew him in the way that he carried himself and treated his coworkers and friends. He was known for his casualness, and his ability to put people at ease. And he enjoyed life--his son, Thurgood Marshall, Jr., has shared with me the love his father held for New York City and the joy he found there. I had the privilege of attending his memorial service, and saw that 85 of his former law clerks were there. This is a great testament to Thurgood Marshall, and I believe they, and all the good works they do, may be one of his greatest legacies. New Yorkers will be proud to have a courthouse named after a man who committed himself to attaining equal opportunity for every American. For many years of his life, Thurgood Marshall was denied access to the institutions, restaurants and hotels in New York City and elsewhere. But he always found an open door at the courthouse, and he never gave up on his belief that he could right the nation's wrongs through the courts. There could not be a more fitting tribute than to name a courthouse in New York City, a city at the forefront of so many national and global movements, after Thurgood Marshall, an American hero and visionary whose work embodies the spirit of our country. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. My question would be: In response to the discussion between the Senators on this issue, how can we impose undue burdens on only unions as compared to corporations and completely leave out of the Senator's concerns all of these membership groups that raise tremendous amounts of money, are on the front lines of our political campaigns, have a direct influence on how voters vote, and yet are in no way covered by the Senator's amendment?

Mrs. CLINTON. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Dodd, and Mr. Wellstone pertaining to the introduction of S. 584 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I thank my good friend from Connecticut. I also thank Senators Torricelli and Corzine for bringing this important issue to the forefront of this debate because clearly we are not going to be able to have the kind of campaign finance reform that many of us are hoping will come out of this process if we do not address the most expensive aspect of modern-day campaigns. As we all know, that is the advertising that we have to do in order to communicate with voters about where we stand on issues. It is a particular challenge in large States. But it is a national one that all of my colleagues face. The Torricelli amendment, which would amend the Communications Act of 1934, would require that the lowest unit rate be provided to committees of political parties or candidates purchasing time. I think that is in the best interest of our democracy. I certainly believe it is the kind of reform that goes to the real heart of what the money chase is all about. I think a lot of us would like to be able to turn the clock back to the days that some of our colleagues can remember, but for most of us, we just read about it, where you could literally go out into a town square or out in the countryside, set up a little platform, visit with constituents, make a speech, keep on going, and reach most of the people who were going to vote for you or make a decision on an important issue. Those days are long gone. The television broadcast networks know they are the means by which we must communicate. I think this amendment is not only fair but long overdue. I commend the Senator from New Jersey for bringing it to the floor. I hope the television industry recognizes that there is an effort to not just have a level playing field but fulfill what many of us thought was the bargain; that when we use the public airwaves for communications--and those communications are basically controlled by the companies that have been given, in my opinion, the privilege of having those airwaves--that there has to be some way they give back to keep the first amendment alive, to keep democracy going. I am just so pleased that we are going to have a chance to vote on it. I thank my good friend from Connecticut for yielding some time so that I could weigh in on the importance of this issue.

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, may I ask unanimous consent to supplement my earlier remarks?

Mrs. CLINTON. Will the Senator yield on this point?

Mrs. CLINTON. My good friend from Connecticut raised an issue that troubles me about this proposed amendment that the distinguished Senator from Utah has put forth. In addition to the issues that Senator Kennedy and Senator Dodd have raised about the vagueness and definitional concerns raised in the amendment, this particular issue is the real heart of the parity problem that many of us have with this amendment. It reminds me of the old Anatole France saying: The law is fair; neither the rich nor the poor can sleep under the bridge. What we have is an amendment that in its practice not only would fall disproportionately on unions as compared to corporations but which, under the rationale put forward by it, completely leaves out other membership groups, as the Senator from Connecticut so rightly points out. The burdensome reporting requirements that are imposed under this amendment on unions in particular are really much more difficult to comply with than if they would be in a corporation. As I understand the amendment, corporations would be required to report only on expenditures from their own general treasuries and from the general treasuries of their subsidiaries. However, unions would be required to report on the expenditures from all of their affiliates, which would mean that a local union would be required to report on expenditures by a national union, and vice versa, even though neither of them had either access or control to the financial records of the other. This point we heard about from Senator Dodd is particularly important. If the point we are trying to get at with this amendment is to understand who is doing what with what funds to engage in political activity during election cycles, then clearly a lot of the other membership groups that raise and spend tremendous amounts of money--two were mentioned, the NRA, the Sierra Club, you can add the Chambers of Commerce, National Right to Work Foundation, other groups across the political spectrum----

Mrs. CLINTON. Thank you very much. Mr. President, I didn't realize it until after I spoke, but my good friend, Senator Torricelli from New Jersey, gave me one of the articles he read into the Record that I have yet a new title; that is, ``Modern Day Santa Claus.'' I was given an article that was written by Paul Taylor about broadcasters and their desire to have political advertising. I was delighted to learn that I am a beautiful thing like Santa Claus because the campaign I ran brought, I guess, great beauty and good cheer to the broadcasters of my State. I would like to add to my previous comments in support of this amendment that I think this is a good start to ensure that the spirit of the current law is enacted and implemented. But I think we should go further. And later in the debate I hope we will have a chance to talk about even going further, to perhaps legislate the 5 minutes that has been suggested by a number of people as being free air time, and even to have a debate on an issue I support, which is free broadcast time across the board and some way to fulfill the political obligations of communications that I think our society so desperately needs without having the charges attached to it that we currently are experiencing. I know in 1997 when the FCC doubled the amount of the spectrum it licensed to television broadcasters, I joined with many others in recommending that 5-minute, voluntary, candidate-centered discourse during the 30 days leading up to the campaign. We know that is not happening. I think we need to do more to provide free air time for political candidates. I hope we will not only pass this amendment but go on to consider other ways we can make air time more readily available. If it were in my power, as Santa Claus, to give that gift to the American people, I would certainly do it. But I am going to try to make that case in addition to supporting this very worthy amendment. I thank the Senator from Kentucky for yielding me time.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, it is an honor to be here today in order to join my colleague Congressman Eliot Engel and other members of the New York Delegation in introducing a bill that would designate the U.S. Courthouse situated at 40 Centre Street in New York City the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse. The courthouse on 40 Centre Street is the site where Thurgood Marshall served from 1961 to 1965 during his tenure on the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals. For over 30 years of his life, Thurgood Marshall worked in New York, first as chief counsel of the NAACP, and later as a Justice on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. President Kennedy nominated Thurgood Marshall to serve on the federal bench in a recess appointment--at the time there was resistance to an African American being named to the federal appeals court. Robert Kennedy was Thurgood Marshall's sponsor, and sat beside him in a show of support throughout his confirmation hearing. The Senate eventually confirmed his nomination. Later, President Johnson went on to name Justice Marshall Solicitor General of the United States, and then to nominate him as the first African American to serve on the United States Supreme Court. There, he became one of the most influential and respected justices of this past century. In a tribute to Justice Marshall, Chief Justice Rehnquist said: Inscribed above the front entrance to the Supreme Court building are the words ``Equal Justice Under Law.'' Surely, no one individual did more to make these words a reality than Thurgood Marshall. It is amazing to think that a little boy who grew up under the iron grip of Jim Crow, a talented student who was denied admission to the University of Maryland's Law School because of his race and went on to graduate at the top of his law class at Howard University, charted a course in the courts that led the way for the Civil Rights Movement to put an end to the segregation that had plagued our country for so long. Thurgood Marshall will always be our nation's preeminent civil rights lawyer. He won 29 of the 32 cases he argued before the Supreme Court. During his time with the NAACP, he argued one of the hallmark court cases of our time, Brown v. Board of Education, which declared segregation illegal. For those of us who were alive then, we will forever have etched in our consciousness images of the Little Rock Nine, and the sheer courage of those children who would not be deterred from their efforts to integrate Central High School. As foot soldiers of the first true test of Brown v. Board of Education, the Little Rock Nine will always be American heroes. And so will Thurgood Marshall, whose brilliance and persistence in the courtroom made possible the eventual success of the civil rights movement, as it took root in small towns and large cities all across America. Thurgood Marshall was a role model to all who knew him in the way that he carried himself and treated his coworkers and friends. He was known for his casualness, and his ability to put people at ease. And he enjoyed life--his son, Thurgood Marshall, Jr., has shared with me the love his father held for New York City and the joy he found there. I had the privilege of attending his memorial service, and saw that 85 of his former law clerks were there. This is a great testament to Thurgood Marshall, and I believe they, and all the good works they do, may be one of his greatest legacies. New Yorkers will be proud to have a courthouse named after a man who committed himself to attaining equal opportunity for every American. For many years of his life, Thurgood Marshall was denied access to the institutions, restaurants and hotels in New York City and elsewhere. But he always found an open door at the courthouse, and he never gave up on his belief that he could right the nation's wrongs through the courts. There could not be a more fitting tribute than to name a courthouse in New York City, a city at the forefront of so many national and global movements, after Thurgood Marshall, an American hero and visionary whose work embodies the spirit of our country. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise today in support of final passage of S. 420, the Bankruptcy Reform Act. Many of my colleagues may remember that I was a strong critic of the bill that passed out of the 106th Congress because I did not believe it provided a balanced approach to bankruptcy reform. While we have yet to achieve the kind of bankruptcy reform I believe is possible, I have worked with a number of people over the past three years to make improvements that bring us closer to our goals, particularly when it comes to child support. Women can now be assured that they can continue to collect child support payments after the child's father has declared bankruptcy. The legislation makes child support the first priority during bankruptcy proceedings. This year, we have made more progress. The Senate agreed to include a revised version of Senator Schumer's amendment to ensure that any debts resulting from any act of violence, intimidation, or threat would be non-dischargeable. Earlier today, this body agreed to include a cap on the homestead exemption to ensure that wealthy debtors could not shield their wealth by purchasing a mansion in a state with no cap on homestead exemption. And finally, today I worked hard to make sure that once a person has been declared bankrupt, single mothers can still collect the child support they depend upon. Senator Hatch and I passed an amendment to ensure that child's custodian--usually the mother--will be informed by the bankruptcy trustee of her right to have the State child support agency collect the non-dischargeable child support from the ex-spouse. In addition, I was concerned about competing non-dischargeable debt so I worked hard with Senator Boxer to ensure that more credit card debt can be erased so that women who use their credit cards for food, clothing and medical expenses in the 90 days before bankruptcy do not have to litigate each and every one of these expenses for the first $750. Let me be very clear--I will not vote for final passage of this bill if it comes back from conference if these kind of reforms are missing. I am voting for this legislation because it is a work in progress, and it is making progress towards reform. Bankruptcy reform is important. I grew up with a father who worked hard to avoid having debts. In recent weeks, I have heard form many small credit unions throughout New York, hard working small lenders whose entire membership suffers when the credit union is faced with covering bankruptcy losses. One credit union from Hoosick Falls has assets of only $2.5 million, but when one of their members filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy, this small credit union was left with a bill of thousands, which penalized the entire 1,000 membership with increased fees. Reform is needed. The right kind of reform is necessary. We're on our way toward that goal, and I hope we can achieve final passage of a good bankruptcy reform bill this year.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise to support my very good friend, the Senator from California, who is one of the strongest advocates on behalf of women and children in our entire country. I do so because I find myself in agreement that there is some confusion about the meaning and application of this provision. That certainly should be clarified before we move to a vote on the underlying legislation. As the Senator has so eloquently stated, we are making a dramatic change in both cutting the amount and the period of time for which a debtor would be held accountable with respect to any luxury goods or services. I respect my very good friend, the Senator from Delaware, in his pointing out that the legislation makes clear that this is not goods for services and is reasonably necessary for the support or maintenance of the debtor or a dependent of the debtor. We have several issues with this. One which the Senator from California pointed out is the size and the timing. The other is to make clear that this presumption is absolutely sustainable with respect to the meaning of support and maintenance. I urge that we adopt the amendment of the Senator from California because I believe it is reasonable for existing law to have the amount and the time period. I don't believe it is a great disservice to the credit card companies and other creditors to keep the status quo in this provision since we are so dramatically changing the law in so many other respects. I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from California.

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator. Amendment No. 104 First, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order, considered germane for the purpose of S. 420, and the following agreed to: In the amendment on behalf of myself and Mr. Hatch, on page 80, line 25, after the word ``resides)'' add the following: ``, and the holder of the claim,''. I ask that this be adopted because this remedies the problem that was also brought to our attention with respect to this particular legislation.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I join in support of this amendment because we know, from a lot of the work that has been done over the last several years, many students are being deliberately solicited, even targeted, for credit cards before they are financially independent, responsible, or knowledgeable about what it is they are signing up for. Story after story has demonstrated clearly that this particular amendment by my good friend, the Senator from Connecticut, targets a real problem. I think all of us are committed to ensuring that people who are irresponsible with their financial affairs are held accountable. But I think we should look at our young people in a different category. It used to be no one could be held financially responsible when they were under 21. Then the age was dropped for many purposes to 18. But despite how quickly it seems our children grow up these days, there are many young people in college or out working who are not yet 21 who do not really have the experience to deal with the solicitations that come flooding through the mail and over the telephone that we know are targeting them with these credit card applications. This morning, I was talking with another colleague of ours who told me he was babysitting for his very young grandchildren. He put them to bed, the phone rang, and the person on the other end asked for one of his granddaughters. Our colleague said: What is this about? He was told, much to his amazement, that his 5\1/2\-year- old granddaughter had been approved for a new credit card. He said he was shocked this kind of activity was going on and did not really believe it until it happened in his own family. I urge our colleagues, regardless of the position we take on the underlying legislation, we should stand behind the basic principle that our young people should not be solicited, they should be given some better credit training as this amendment proposes, and there should be some sense of responsibility on the part of creditors before they reach out to entice our young people into these credit cards before they even know what it is they are signing up for. It looks all so easy, and they end up in trouble, with debts they cannot pay. Let's try to avoid that. That does not mean they cannot ever become customers, but let's make it a little more reasonable in the steps that have to be taken in order for them to qualify. I certainly urge passage of this amendment. I thank my good friend, the Senator from Utah, for yielding time. I yield the floor.

Mrs. CLINTON

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

Mrs. CLINTON. Madam President, I will speak to one of the pending amendments. I rise today to offer my support for a pending amendment offered by Senator Conrad, the Social Security and Medicare Off-Budget Lockbox Act of 2001. This legislation would protect Social Security and Medicare trust funds from being raided to pay for tax cuts or programs and would ensure our continuing commitment of the surpluses to debt reduction. I am pleased that similar legislation has had broad, bipartisan support in both the Senate and the House over the past years, as I believe it is the responsible step that we should take to ensure these vital benefits remain available, with the paying down of the debt, with assuring that we have affordable tax cuts, and with the investments that we need to make to ensure our country is stronger in the future. Now, I know that the chairman of the Budget Committee, for whom I have the greatest respect, suggests this amendment is more of a scare tactic than a real effort to protect Medicare and Social Security. But I have to respectfully disagree. This amendment is nearly identical to the amendment for which 60 Senators, including 16 of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, voted in favor of last year as an amendment to the Labor/HHS appropriations bill, but it was unfortunately dropped in conference. It is important to raise it again now because, much to my disappointment, President Bush's budget blueprint does appear to raid the Social Security and Medicare trust funds to pay for his tax cut proposal. Over the past several weeks, members of the administration have come before the Budget Committee, on which I serve, and argued that President Bush's blueprint protects the Social Security and Medicare trust funds. But you can look at the numbers and see that is not the case. A table in the blueprint entitled ``The President's 10-year Plan,'' for example, refers to a contingency reserve of over $840 billion, of which over $500 billion of that comes from the Medicare trust fund. Since other parts of the administration's budget seriously underfund many important priorities, such as a prescription drug benefit for our seniors on Medicare, national defense, investments in our schools and our children, our teachers, and other significant areas for which there is broad bipartisan support, it also proposes hundreds of billions of dollars in unspecified cuts across programs. And there isn't any mystery. There can't be any mystery that if you combine a very large tax cut with underfunding important programs and leaving out many others, then there will not be the money in this reserve, and it is money taken out of the Medicare trust fund that will be available to cover the priorities that we would determine are in our national interest. During the time of projected surpluses, I have to ask, is this really the choice that we want to be making? Madam President, I know most New Yorkers would agree that it would be both unfair and wrong to shortchange either our seniors or our children when it comes to prescription drug benefits, or investments in smaller class sizes, school construction, and other important programs that will improve the quality of education. The real choice we face should be between a very large tax cut from which millions of working Americans would receive little to no tax relief and the three priorities which I think we can agree on in this body--a priority for affordable tax cuts, a priority to continue to pay down the debt, and a priority of the kind of investment that we need to make. For example, I believe we should invest in a real prescription drug benefit. The President's immediate helping hand proposal denies eligibility for prescription drugs to nearly 25 million Medicare beneficiaries, most of whom today lack affordable, dependable prescription drug coverage. Republican and Democratic Governors have also raised concerns with this proposal, noting that it fails to meet the immediate prescription drug needs of their elderly and disabled residents. The challenge should be not deciding to shortchange our seniors on prescription drugs in order to give a very large tax cut to people at the upper end of the income scale, but it should be between how do we keep all of our priorities in order and how do we provide prudent tax relief, continue to pay down the debt, and invest in what will make us a healthier, better-educated, stronger Nation. I believe Senator Conrad's amendment to lock away the Social Security and Medicare trust funds sets the right balance. It clearly takes off budget what should be off budget. It should not be used for a contingency, for tax cuts, or for spending; it should be used for what it was intended to be used for: to meet the Social Security and Medicare needs of our seniors. I ask that I be added as a cosponsor, and I urge my colleagues, as they did once before on an appropriations measure, to ensure the solvency of the important programs, such as Medicare, and to ensure the provision of a prescription drug benefit to our seniors on Medicare, and to deal with the other important priorities that we face. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mrs. Clinton pertaining to the introduction of S. 476 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')