Hillary Clinton

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I come to the Floor today to raise an issue that appears to be a foreshadowing national crisis. Every year we are losing more teachers than we can hire and many of our children are left in classrooms without full-time permanent teachers to lead them in the way that they need and deserve to learn. The teacher shortage in the United States is projected to reach a staggering 2.2 million teachers in the next ten years. And, these shortages have already begun for communities across my state as well as throughout the country. In New York, a third of upstate teachers and half of New York City teachers could retire within the next five years that's approximately 100,000 teachers across the State. In order to deal with these shortages, far too many of our schools are forced to hire emergency certified teachers or long-term substitutes to get through the year. I remember one story about a little girl in Far Rockaway, Queens who in March of last year had already had nine teachers so many she couldn't remember all of their names. Her mother was worried sick that her child was not getting the instruction she needed, but her mother felt powerless to do anything about the situation. And, at one school in Albany, the principal has to regularly fill-in for absent teachers because there are no substitutes available. The teacher shortage in New York State is only expected to get more dire in the next few years as more teachers retire. Now, in New York City, we know that many teachers decide to leave the City for better working conditions and higher salaries in the surrounding areas. Last week, we learned from the United Federation of Teachers in New York City that 7,000 teachers are expected to retire this year alone from the city's public schools. In Buffalo, 231 teachers retired last year, compared with an average of 92 in each of the preceding eight years. In addition, Buffalo lost 50 young teachers who moved on to other jobs or other school districts. Not only are we losing teachers, but principals are becoming more scarce as well. Many of our schools in New York City opened their doors this year without principals. In fact, New York City is expected to lose 50 percent of their principals in the next five years. That is just an unacceptable rate of attrition. We simply cannot afford to lose people who provide instructional leadership and direction to help teachers do their best every day. Mr. President, that's why I have chosen to focus on this issue so early in my term. And that is why I am proud to introduce the National Teacher and Principal Recruitment Act. My legislation will create a National Teacher Corps that can bring up to 75,000 talented teachers a year into the schools that need them the most. The National Teacher Corps can make the teaching profession more attractive to talented people in our society in several ways. One is by providing bonuses for mid-career professionals interested in becoming teachers. In this fast- paced world, more and more people are changing career paths several times during their working lives. A financial bonus plan can help attract people from other professions. The National Teacher Corps will also make more scholarships available for college and graduate students, and create new career ladders for teacher aides--to become fully certified teachers. And it will ensure that new teachers get the support and professional development they need both to become--and remain--effective teachers. This bill will also create a national teacher recruitment campaign to provide good information to prospective teachers about resources and routes to teaching through a National Teacher Recruitment Clearinghouse. And, finally, the bill will create a National Principal Corps to help bring more highly qualified individuals into our neediest schools. Like the Teacher Corps, the Principal Corps will be focused on attracting good candidates and providing them with the mentorship and professional development they need to succeed. I am introducing this bill to make sure that all teachers who step into classrooms and all principals who step into leadership in their schools have the expertise, the knowledge, and the support they need to meet the highest possible standards for all of our children, who deserve nothing less. Now, if a community were running short of water, a state of emergency would be declared and the National Guard would ship in supplies overnight. If a community runs short of blood supplies, the Red Cross stages emergency blood drives to ensure that patients have what they need. Our communities are running short of good teachers and principals, and they are as important to our children's future as any other role that I can imagine. That's what makes it so important for us to act now. Providing good teachers and principals to schools is a local issue, but it should be a national concern. And to have a partnership with our governors and our mayors, our school superintendents and others is a way that will really help us begin to address this crisis. I hope that all of us on both sides of the aisle and in the public and private sector will join together to make sure we have the supply of teachers that we need. It certainly is the most important public activity any of us can engage in, and it's important to our nation's values as well as our individual aspirations for our children. And I hope that we will find support for doing something to work with our states and localities to meet this crisis.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I come to the Floor today to raise an issue that appears to be a foreshadowing national crisis. Every year we are losing more teachers than we can hire and many of our children are left in classrooms without full-time permanent teachers to lead them in the way that they need and deserve to learn. The teacher shortage in the United States is projected to reach a staggering 2.2 million teachers in the next ten years. And, these shortages have already begun for communities across my state as well as throughout the country. In New York, a third of upstate teachers and half of New York City teachers could retire within the next five years that's approximately 100,000 teachers across the State. In order to deal with these shortages, far too many of our schools are forced to hire emergency certified teachers or long-term substitutes to get through the year. I remember one story about a little girl in Far Rockaway, Queens who in March of last year had already had nine teachers so many she couldn't remember all of their names. Her mother was worried sick that her child was not getting the instruction she needed, but her mother felt powerless to do anything about the situation. And, at one school in Albany, the principal has to regularly fill-in for absent teachers because there are no substitutes available. The teacher shortage in New York State is only expected to get more dire in the next few years as more teachers retire. Now, in New York City, we know that many teachers decide to leave the City for better working conditions and higher salaries in the surrounding areas. Last week, we learned from the United Federation of Teachers in New York City that 7,000 teachers are expected to retire this year alone from the city's public schools. In Buffalo, 231 teachers retired last year, compared with an average of 92 in each of the preceding eight years. In addition, Buffalo lost 50 young teachers who moved on to other jobs or other school districts. Not only are we losing teachers, but principals are becoming more scarce as well. Many of our schools in New York City opened their doors this year without principals. In fact, New York City is expected to lose 50 percent of their principals in the next five years. That is just an unacceptable rate of attrition. We simply cannot afford to lose people who provide instructional leadership and direction to help teachers do their best every day. Mr. President, that's why I have chosen to focus on this issue so early in my term. And that is why I am proud to introduce the National Teacher and Principal Recruitment Act. My legislation will create a National Teacher Corps that can bring up to 75,000 talented teachers a year into the schools that need them the most. The National Teacher Corps can make the teaching profession more attractive to talented people in our society in several ways. One is by providing bonuses for mid-career professionals interested in becoming teachers. In this fast- paced world, more and more people are changing career paths several times during their working lives. A financial bonus plan can help attract people from other professions. The National Teacher Corps will also make more scholarships available for college and graduate students, and create new career ladders for teacher aides--to become fully certified teachers. And it will ensure that new teachers get the support and professional development they need both to become--and remain--effective teachers. This bill will also create a national teacher recruitment campaign to provide good information to prospective teachers about resources and routes to teaching through a National Teacher Recruitment Clearinghouse. And, finally, the bill will create a National Principal Corps to help bring more highly qualified individuals into our neediest schools. Like the Teacher Corps, the Principal Corps will be focused on attracting good candidates and providing them with the mentorship and professional development they need to succeed. I am introducing this bill to make sure that all teachers who step into classrooms and all principals who step into leadership in their schools have the expertise, the knowledge, and the support they need to meet the highest possible standards for all of our children, who deserve nothing less. Now, if a community were running short of water, a state of emergency would be declared and the National Guard would ship in supplies overnight. If a community runs short of blood supplies, the Red Cross stages emergency blood drives to ensure that patients have what they need. Our communities are running short of good teachers and principals, and they are as important to our children's future as any other role that I can imagine. That's what makes it so important for us to act now. Providing good teachers and principals to schools is a local issue, but it should be a national concern. And to have a partnership with our governors and our mayors, our school superintendents and others is a way that will really help us begin to address this crisis. I hope that all of us on both sides of the aisle and in the public and private sector will join together to make sure we have the supply of teachers that we need. It certainly is the most important public activity any of us can engage in, and it's important to our nation's values as well as our individual aspirations for our children. And I hope that we will find support for doing something to work with our states and localities to meet this crisis.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise to add my voice to those of my colleagues who are concerned about efforts to demolish this important worker health and safety standard. I listened carefully to the remarks of my distinguished colleague from Missouri, and I understand there are many serious concerns being discussed about this regulation and its impact both on our workforce and our employers. But I ask that we remember where this started 10 years ago--in the previous Bush administration, under the leadership of Secretary of Labor Elizabeth Dole. We have held numerous hearings and studies to determine the impact of our 21st-century worksites on people's physical well-being. OSHA is charged with the responsibility of setting standards for the workplace to help protect citizens from harm. In its 30 years of existence, OSHA has helped to save many lives and prevent countless injuries. Despite such a track record, we know that OSHA faces almost continual opposition from those who do not agree with its mission and who seek to undermine its work. This year, the opposition feels emboldened to strike at the heart of OSHA's latest efforts to protect American workers. We are, of course, talking about the ergonomics standard, which is designed to help more than 600,000 workers who experience serious workplace injuries every year from repetitive motion and exertion. In enacting this standard, OSHA heard from thousands of witnesses and received the backing of the National Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Medicine. The report to which my distinguished colleague from Missouri referred is this rather large report that was issued on January 18. I draw our attention to some of the conclusions and recommendations that were arrived at. Let me just quote from it: The weight of the evidence justifies the identification of certain work-related risk factors for the occurrence of musculoskeletal disorders in the lower back and extremities. The panel concludes that there is a clear relationship-- I stress that-- between back disorders and physical load. That is, manual material handling, load momentum, frequent bending and twisting, heavy physical work, and whole body vibration. For disorders of the upper extremities, repetition, force and vibration are particularly important work-related factors. Mr. President, destroying this standard would put many workers at risk, but today I want to focus on women workers in particular because, as my friend and colleague Senator Feinstein said, women account for 64 percent of repetitive motion injuries, even though we make up only 46 percent of the workforce. Earlier today, I was joined by a number of women who have suffered from these disorders. One was Kathy Saumier, who was a worker at a plastics plant in Syracuse, NY. Kathy worked on a production line where she had to lift 40-pound boxes every 1 to 2 minutes while twisting and holding the boxes at an awkward angle in order to put the boxes on the conveyor belt. With relatively small changes to the design of her work station, or with automated assistance in lifting the boxes, she and many of her coworkers could have been saved from such painful and time-consuming injuries. Kathy joined me and my colleagues from Maryland and California, Senator Mikulski and Senator Boxer, at a news conference to highlight our concerns about these issues as they particularly affect women. Also speaking was Dianne Moriarity, who, for 18 years, worked as a school secretary in New York. Because of her years of work in a badly designed work station, both of her wrists and hands are damaged. She showed me the picture of her work station. The computer was bolted in a certain way so it could not be moved. The space for the chair was such that it could not be angled, and there was no place for her to be able to move comfortably to fulfill her obligations at that worksite. She is in virtually constant discomfort and needs regular therapy. We also heard from Jennifer Hunter from Virginia, who worked for 20 years in a chicken processing plant. She was required, as the chickens went down the line, to make 1,400 cuts each hour. She spoke specifically about what it took to prepare the filet of chicken breast, which so many of us enjoy and eat at home or order in a restaurant, and how difficult it was at the speed of that line to be able to get those cuts in, and how her wrists had to be constantly moving. She, too, has suffered serious health effects from that kind of repetitive motion. As she told us today, we really need this standard so that workers are protected. Heidi Eberhardt of Massachusetts worked at an Internet publishing company, writing, editing, and researching. She is only 32 years old. This was her dream job. She was able to put her college education to work. But because of the repetitive motion that was required over long hours sitting at her computer, she finds it impossible to perform some of the daily functions we all take for granted. She can't turn on a faucet; she can't squeeze a toothpaste tube; she can't twist an ice cube tray or even open mail without severe limitations and pain. As Heidi said, this is not just about the people who are already injured; this is about hundreds of thousands of workers who will become injured if there is no ergonomic standard for the workplace. One of the reasons women are adversely affected by this workplace hazard is because women hold more than 80 percent of the jobs that involve repetitive motion injuries, jobs such as hotel cleaning, data entry, secretarial positions, sewing. Those who are here today working to save this worker safety standard understand that our opponents believe it will impose a costly burden on business. But as our distinguished colleague, Senator Feinstein from California, pointed out, those businesses that have already implemented standards have found they save money. They save money by keeping their workers on the job, in good health, and more productive. Certainly in New York we have found that businesses which have implemented the standards have reaped rewards: businesses such as garment manufacturers, Sequins International in Queens, or Xerox in Rochester, a company that has had ergonomic standards in place since 1988. We have found that these standards and the businesses that implement them are taking not only better care of their workers but better care of their bottom line. In addition to our concerns about the substance of the standard, we are also deeply concerned about the manner in which the opponents seek to destroy this important worker safety provision. Everyone is willing to work together to change or improve the standard. If there are legitimate concerns that have been raised, there are certainly ways we can go about working to ameliorate those concerns. As my colleague, the senior Senator from Massachusetts, put it so well, this is an effort that is truly a legislative atom bomb. The Congressional Review Act has never been used before. It does more than rescind the worker safety standard. It does ensure that the Labor Department can never again put forth an ergonomic standard. It is, in effect, a gag rule on worker safety. By dropping this Congressional Review Act atom bomb, opponents will completely eliminate 10 years of bipartisan effort in two administrations, many hours of public review and witness testimony, and extensive research in less than 10 hours of debate--10 years versus 10 hours. I can appreciate the desire by some to make changes to the standard. But I hope we can talk about ways that such changes would be considered, give the public a chance to be heard, and any changes would be based not upon anecdote, not upon story after story but on science and on the legitimate concerns of both workers and businesses. We should simply not bow to pressure groups and wipe this worker safety standard off the face of our regulatory planet. We are here today to send a clear message that this is not the way to go about creating a safe workplace or working with businesses to make it safer for them to employ people across the vast sectors of the economy that use repetitive motion. We particularly are concerned about the impact this will have on women in the workplace. We are also concerned this could mark the beginning of an erosion of protection for workers in America; if you will, a legislative repetitive motion that will undo safeguards that save lives. In the 20th century, we made great advances in protecting workers. Often those advances came because of a tragedy, a terrible fire, a mine collapse, a factory assembly line run amok, when all of a sudden it became clear that we were putting people's lives and well-being at risk. This is a silent epidemic. There will not be a big newspaper headline about a crash of ergonomics. We will see just the slow but steady erosion of people's health and their productivity and their capacity to get up and go to work and to go home and do what they need to do for themselves and their families. This is an issue that goes to the heart of the new economy. How do we provide for 21st century workers the protections we did finally work out after lots of effort? We should not go back. We should not turn our backs on America's working families. We should, instead, defeat this effort to kill this vitally important standard and then utilize the procedures available to us to go ahead and consider whatever the concerns on the other side might be. I ask our distinguished opponents to think hard about using this legislative atom bomb and, instead, consider how we can, through existing procedures, petition the administration to stay the regulation while further work is done. We can also petition the agency to modify or repeal the standards, and we can have OSHA initiate rulemaking procedures to modify the rule in accordance with the Administrative Procedures Act. If the real point here is to protect small business and protect workers, there are ways of going about that which are already provided for. It is hard to understand why we would need to blow away 10 years of work, the findings of nonpartisan, objective scientists, and the stories that flood many of our offices from workers who are endangered, in order to deal with what could be legitimate questions. I certainly hope we are able to disapprove this resolution so we can, together, work on behalf of the American worker.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about bringing development and good jobs to upstate New York and other regions of our country that have not fully participated in our nation's economic growth. As I travel across the state and listen to the struggles of small business owners and workers, I'm often reminded of my father, who ran a small business and worked hard every day to provide for our family. I think about people like him who live in Plattsburgh and Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, Binghamton, Oneonta and every town and village in between. Most importantly, I think that--with the right ideas and a lot of hard work--we can create opportunities that will revitalize New York's upstate economy, as well as in places like these all across our country. Now as we all know, a historic shift has taken place in our economy and, to succeed in the twenty first century new economy, businesses have to be innovative, creative and flexible. Workers have to have better education and training; and community leaders have to bring all sectors of our communities together to make their hometowns more hospitable to high tech industries. Many parts of upstate New York have not been able to fully enjoy the fruits of the new knowledge based economy. Too many of our finest young people leave the state for better jobs elsewhere. Two summers ago, I talked to an upstate New York professor who told me what he thought was the biggest barrier to economic progress in the region: poor internet access. He pointed out that just as canals and railroad lines had made upstate, western and central New York the hub of the industrial economy in the 19th and 20th centuries, the region's shortage of high speed internet lines would hold us back in the 21st Century. Studies have shown, for example, that New York lags behind many states when it comes to the internet connections that are essential to commerce and communications in this new economy. But with leadership, and through partnerships, we can meet these challenges. All of us who care about the towns and villages in upstate New York and across our country have an obligation to help. That is why I am very proud today to introduce a package of legislation that is designed to bring new jobs to New York and to America. This legislation is the result of a lot of conversations, and listening, and hard work by many people. These seven bills will help bring all of New York online and into the new economy by promoting entrepreneurship and innovation, and by knocking down some of the stubborn barriers to economic progress. Just in the past three weeks, I have been in Rochester, and Rome and Watertown--Buffalo, and Niagara Falls meeting with business and labor leaders, academic, religious and civic leaders as well as citizens from all walks of life. I've also been meeting and talking with many of my Republican and Democratic colleagues here in the Congress--talking about the budget, and talking about the economies of New York and the rest of our nation. I have found that this legislation I propose today reflects the views and values, not only of many New Yorkers, but also a number of my colleagues here in the Senate. We agree that we have to clear away some of the major obstacles to economic growth and that we must invest in the skills of our country's greatest resources--our people. After all, upstate New York is the region where America's innovators, businesses and workers spun Thomas Edison's first light bulb, made cameras widely available to all Americans, created the nation's first business incubator and the pacemaker. Now, with a proud place in the economic history of our country, upstate New York deserves its place in the economic future as well. My legislation is designed to help bring all of New York to the forefront of the 21st century economy. Specifically, I propose the creation of new technology bonds. Using federal tax credits, states and local governments will be able to issue such bonds to help local governments invest in the high-speed data lines they need to attract cutting edge businesses. I propose creating new incentives to link industrial parks and small business incubators to the Internet--and to bring access to high-speed internet connections called broadband. Too many families and businesses still have to dial long distance to get on the Internet. That's why my plan also includes a $100 million initiative to help businesses bring broadband to rural and underserved communities. I also support research into the next generation of broadband technologies that could make access to the Internet even more cost- effective. We have to help small businesses make the most of the new technologies to maximize profits and productivity. Too many firms still do not know where to begin when it comes to bringing their businesses online. Large businesses, we know, can spend millions on high-priced consultants to find out which computer and software systems to buy so they can best use the new technologies. But small, and even medium size businesses, just can't afford to do that. So, as part of my package of incentives, I am introducing what I call a Technology Extension Program to help small and medium business owners. For years, the federal government has provided farmers advice and expertise through the Cooperative Extension system. More recently, the Department of Commerce has successfully helped small manufacturers with new technologies through the Manufacturing Extension Program. I think we can build on the successes of these programs and help small and medium business owners in the same way, creating partnerships with universities and community colleges to transform their innovations into jobs for more and more people. New York is also a state blessed with some of the finest colleges and research institutions in the world. Yet, we haven't been able to transform a lot of those discoveries into commercial ventures near where they have been made. That's why my plan increases support for business incubators that can cut the time it takes for a breakthrough on the laboratory bench to make it to the factory and sales floor. Of course one of the most important parts of this legislation focuses on investing in the skills of our people. We can create all the high tech jobs we need from, you know, Plattsburg to Reno--but if they don't have people to fill them it's not going to mean anything, as I know that the President understands. That's why I'll fight to increase America's investment in the Regional Skills Alliances that bring businesses, universities, and community colleges together to make sure workers have the training they need in the modern workplace. I know that we have to support and encourage small businesses to bring jobs to places like upstate New York. My legislation will create a new Small Business Jobs Tax Credit to allow small firms in underserved communities across the country eligible because of population loss and low job growth--to claim a $3,000 tax credit for every employee they hire. Mr. President, during my campaign I promised that my first legislation would focus on promoting economic growth in upstate New York. That is why I am particularly pleased to be here in fulfillment of that pledge. But I see my plan as a part of a larger partnership to spur job creation across our country, where good people and their communities are in need of help. According to the latest Labor Department statistics New York, for example, as a whole enjoyed a 2.3 percent job growth rate last year. But upstate New York's job growth rate was about half of that at 1.2% and below the national average of 2.1 percent. Now behind those numbers are the lives and livelihoods of millions of people, and it is for those people that this legislation is being introduced. No parent should have to see a child leave his or her hometown simply because a good job can't be found. My co-sponsors and I know that the fight for new jobs for New York and America is a long and difficult one. We do not expect everything in this plan to pass in one year alone, or even in the exact form in which it is introduced. And standing alone, no single plan or Senator will be able to get the job done. But my colleagues and I understand we need a long-term partnership among people in government at all levels and with the private sector, business, labor, schools universities and others. That is why I also support S. 41 introduced by Senators Hatch and Baucus, and supported by many Democrats and Republicans to make the research and development tax credit permanent and to promote entrepreneurship and innovation. It's why I think we have to continue to tackle other stubborn barriers to economic growth like high utilities costs, high taxes and inadequate transportation and poor infrastructure. And of course, I can't talk about upstate New York without mentioning the spectacular geography and cultural heritage that is not only a source of pride, but also as a valuable economic resource. Mr. President, I would like to thank my colleagues, representing both parties, who have come together to join and sponsor one or more of my bills today. I look forward to talking to more members of this chamber and the other body in the days and weeks ahead. I believe if we take good ideas and through hard work make them real, we can revitalize New York's upstate economy and also give hope to the hardworking, deserving families of communities across our country. No one should have to leave their hometown, their families, and their roots to find a good job in America. I ask unanimous consent that text of the bills, the summary of the bills, and articles relevant to the bills be printed in the Record.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about bringing development and good jobs to upstate New York and other regions of our country that have not fully participated in our nation's economic growth. As I travel across the state and listen to the struggles of small business owners and workers, I'm often reminded of my father, who ran a small business and worked hard every day to provide for our family. I think about people like him who live in Plattsburgh and Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, Binghamton, Oneonta and every town and village in between. Most importantly, I think that--with the right ideas and a lot of hard work--we can create opportunities that will revitalize New York's upstate economy, as well as in places like these all across our country. Now as we all know, a historic shift has taken place in our economy and, to succeed in the twenty first century new economy, businesses have to be innovative, creative and flexible. Workers have to have better education and training; and community leaders have to bring all sectors of our communities together to make their hometowns more hospitable to high tech industries. Many parts of upstate New York have not been able to fully enjoy the fruits of the new knowledge based economy. Too many of our finest young people leave the state for better jobs elsewhere. Two summers ago, I talked to an upstate New York professor who told me what he thought was the biggest barrier to economic progress in the region: poor internet access. He pointed out that just as canals and railroad lines had made upstate, western and central New York the hub of the industrial economy in the 19th and 20th centuries, the region's shortage of high speed internet lines would hold us back in the 21st Century. Studies have shown, for example, that New York lags behind many states when it comes to the internet connections that are essential to commerce and communications in this new economy. But with leadership, and through partnerships, we can meet these challenges. All of us who care about the towns and villages in upstate New York and across our country have an obligation to help. That is why I am very proud today to introduce a package of legislation that is designed to bring new jobs to New York and to America. This legislation is the result of a lot of conversations, and listening, and hard work by many people. These seven bills will help bring all of New York online and into the new economy by promoting entrepreneurship and innovation, and by knocking down some of the stubborn barriers to economic progress. Just in the past three weeks, I have been in Rochester, and Rome and Watertown--Buffalo, and Niagara Falls meeting with business and labor leaders, academic, religious and civic leaders as well as citizens from all walks of life. I've also been meeting and talking with many of my Republican and Democratic colleagues here in the Congress--talking about the budget, and talking about the economies of New York and the rest of our nation. I have found that this legislation I propose today reflects the views and values, not only of many New Yorkers, but also a number of my colleagues here in the Senate. We agree that we have to clear away some of the major obstacles to economic growth and that we must invest in the skills of our country's greatest resources--our people. After all, upstate New York is the region where America's innovators, businesses and workers spun Thomas Edison's first light bulb, made cameras widely available to all Americans, created the nation's first business incubator and the pacemaker. Now, with a proud place in the economic history of our country, upstate New York deserves its place in the economic future as well. My legislation is designed to help bring all of New York to the forefront of the 21st century economy. Specifically, I propose the creation of new technology bonds. Using federal tax credits, states and local governments will be able to issue such bonds to help local governments invest in the high-speed data lines they need to attract cutting edge businesses. I propose creating new incentives to link industrial parks and small business incubators to the Internet--and to bring access to high-speed internet connections called broadband. Too many families and businesses still have to dial long distance to get on the Internet. That's why my plan also includes a $100 million initiative to help businesses bring broadband to rural and underserved communities. I also support research into the next generation of broadband technologies that could make access to the Internet even more cost- effective. We have to help small businesses make the most of the new technologies to maximize profits and productivity. Too many firms still do not know where to begin when it comes to bringing their businesses online. Large businesses, we know, can spend millions on high-priced consultants to find out which computer and software systems to buy so they can best use the new technologies. But small, and even medium size businesses, just can't afford to do that. So, as part of my package of incentives, I am introducing what I call a Technology Extension Program to help small and medium business owners. For years, the federal government has provided farmers advice and expertise through the Cooperative Extension system. More recently, the Department of Commerce has successfully helped small manufacturers with new technologies through the Manufacturing Extension Program. I think we can build on the successes of these programs and help small and medium business owners in the same way, creating partnerships with universities and community colleges to transform their innovations into jobs for more and more people. New York is also a state blessed with some of the finest colleges and research institutions in the world. Yet, we haven't been able to transform a lot of those discoveries into commercial ventures near where they have been made. That's why my plan increases support for business incubators that can cut the time it takes for a breakthrough on the laboratory bench to make it to the factory and sales floor. Of course one of the most important parts of this legislation focuses on investing in the skills of our people. We can create all the high tech jobs we need from, you know, Plattsburg to Reno--but if they don't have people to fill them it's not going to mean anything, as I know that the President understands. That's why I'll fight to increase America's investment in the Regional Skills Alliances that bring businesses, universities, and community colleges together to make sure workers have the training they need in the modern workplace. I know that we have to support and encourage small businesses to bring jobs to places like upstate New York. My legislation will create a new Small Business Jobs Tax Credit to allow small firms in underserved communities across the country eligible because of population loss and low job growth--to claim a $3,000 tax credit for every employee they hire. Mr. President, during my campaign I promised that my first legislation would focus on promoting economic growth in upstate New York. That is why I am particularly pleased to be here in fulfillment of that pledge. But I see my plan as a part of a larger partnership to spur job creation across our country, where good people and their communities are in need of help. According to the latest Labor Department statistics New York, for example, as a whole enjoyed a 2.3 percent job growth rate last year. But upstate New York's job growth rate was about half of that at 1.2% and below the national average of 2.1 percent. Now behind those numbers are the lives and livelihoods of millions of people, and it is for those people that this legislation is being introduced. No parent should have to see a child leave his or her hometown simply because a good job can't be found. My co-sponsors and I know that the fight for new jobs for New York and America is a long and difficult one. We do not expect everything in this plan to pass in one year alone, or even in the exact form in which it is introduced. And standing alone, no single plan or Senator will be able to get the job done. But my colleagues and I understand we need a long-term partnership among people in government at all levels and with the private sector, business, labor, schools universities and others. That is why I also support S. 41 introduced by Senators Hatch and Baucus, and supported by many Democrats and Republicans to make the research and development tax credit permanent and to promote entrepreneurship and innovation. It's why I think we have to continue to tackle other stubborn barriers to economic growth like high utilities costs, high taxes and inadequate transportation and poor infrastructure. And of course, I can't talk about upstate New York without mentioning the spectacular geography and cultural heritage that is not only a source of pride, but also as a valuable economic resource. Mr. President, I would like to thank my colleagues, representing both parties, who have come together to join and sponsor one or more of my bills today. I look forward to talking to more members of this chamber and the other body in the days and weeks ahead. I believe if we take good ideas and through hard work make them real, we can revitalize New York's upstate economy and also give hope to the hardworking, deserving families of communities across our country. No one should have to leave their hometown, their families, and their roots to find a good job in America. I ask unanimous consent that text of the bills, the summary of the bills, and articles relevant to the bills be printed in the Record.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, as we begin our work on the 2002 budget, we find ourselves at a crossroads, facing a very big choice. The choice we make will determine whether we pay down our national debt. It will determine our investments in priorities like education, the environment, health care and Social Security. And it will define the quality of life for millions of Americans for years to come. The choice we face is this: Do we continue along the budgetary path that we, as a Government and a nation, have followed in recent years? Or do we make a break from that path, and return to the one we followed 2 decades ago? Let's look, for a minute, at history. Eight years ago our budget deficit was $290 billion--the largest in our history. The national debt was $3 trillion and unemployment had surged to 7.8 percent. At the time, the Congressional Budget Office predicted that the deficit would reach $513 billion by this year. This year, the predicted deficit is, in fact, a surplus, likely to reach $281 billion. We are scheduled to pay off $600 billion of the national debt--concluding the largest three-year debt reduction in our nation's history. As Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan once said, our ``commitment to fiscal discipline has been instrumental in achieving the longest expansion in the nation's history.'' Now debt reduction has meant lower interest rates for college, car loans and home mortgages. With Government no longer draining resources out of the capital markets, private investment in equipment and software skyrocketed, and productivity gains kept fueling prosperity. At the same time, we have invested in America's working families. We doubled student financial aid. In New York, for example, 45,000 more children enrolled in Head Start in 1999 than in 1993 and this year New York schools will receive an additional $100 million for renovations and repairs which, based on observations during my many visits, are very much needed. Democrats and Republicans have worked together to set aside the Social Security and Medicare Trust Fund surpluses to extend their solvency. Together, we put more police on the streets, more teachers in classrooms and moved people from welfare to work. And we have done all of this while holding Federal income taxes, as a percentage of income for the typical American family, to their lowest level in 35 years. And something else happened. As the information age exploded, America flourished, making itself a leader in new technologies and increasing our productivity so that once again we became competitive in this new world. It turned out that these policies were not only prudent--but they opened the doors to the changes that prepared us and our children to be successes in the 21st Century. Twenty-two million new jobs were created--nearly 1 million in New York alone--unemployment dropped to 4 percent. And those jobs are pouring more than 900 billion dollars into our economy each year. That's how we have gone so quickly from deficit to surplus. But here's the catch: If we upset the careful balance of our economy, we can lose far more than the cost of the tax cut--a tax cut recession would cost us trillions more in lost income through lost jobs. Mr. President, I share the concerns of many of my colleagues that President Bush's extremely large tax proposal will take us back back to the days of big deficits, high interest rates, shrinking investment, and a growing national debt. I may be old-fashioned, but as the daughter of a small businessman who did not believe in living outside our means and who even paid cash for the house where we lived, I just don't believe we should spend what we don't yet have in the bank. President Bush's extremely large tax plan would spend trillions we don't have, and may never have. If we reverse the engines of economic growth by adopting President Bush's tax proposal, I fear that we will reverse the progress we've made--by increasing interest rates now and by saddling our children with big debts in the future. I know and respect that President Bush supports faith-based programs, but his tax plan should not be one of them. Going forward with a huge tax proposal now is like getting a letter from Ed McMahon and going out to buy a yacht. A surplus projection is not a promise. And if the past is any guide, it's not even a likely outcome. That is not my view alone. It is the view of many experts who have testified before the Budget Committee, on which I serve. It is the view of colleagues like the gentleman from West Virginia, Mr. Byrd and the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Nelson, both of whom voted for President Reagan's tax plans in the 1980's, only to regret those votes when those cuts plunged us deep into debt. I encourage my colleagues to read the comments of both Mr. Byrd and Mr. Nelson in our Committee's proceedings, or speak with them personally about their historic and wise perspective. The question before us is not whether or not we should enact tax cuts. I support tax cuts. The question is: how do we structure a responsible tax cut? A prudent tax cut that will allow us to pursue our important national values while keeping interest rates down and encouraging economic growth. The path of fiscal discipline is marked by four signposts: It pays down the debt, it protects Social Security and Medicare, it invests wisely in children and families, and it reduces taxes in a prudent and sensible way. I do not believe President Bush's tax plan meets those tests. It also fails the fairness test. President Bush says that, under his plan, the typical family of four will be able to keep $1,600 of their money. Citizens for Tax Justice found that when the Bush plan is fully in effect, 85 percent of families would receive a nominal tax cut of less than $1,600 or no tax cut at all. Even if President Bush's proposal were fair to all Americans, it would not be prudent. During this time of surplus, it would leave nothing for the real reforms necessary to ensure that Social Security and Medicare are intact for future generations. The President's tax plan abandons the principle of putting first things first. Just yesterday, some of America's wealthiest citizens came out against President Bush's estate tax repeal, saying that it was ``bad for our democracy, our economy and our society.'' And I agree. A tax cut that is fair to all Americans needs to be part of a framework that strengthens, not weakens, our economy. In my view, we can and should have a tax cut that cuts income tax rates, but we have to give relief to those paying the payroll tax on their income as well. And I believe there is a bipartisan consensus for smart, responsible and fair tax cuts. It is smart to include a long-term care tax credit to provide relief for families caring for elderly and disabled family members. And the college opportunity tax deduction of $10,000 a year, championed by my distinguished colleague from New York, would enable families to pay for college, graduate study, or training courses. Tax cuts like these will bring tangible relief to New Yorkers and working families everywhere. It's also both smart and responsible to invest in our people, especially in building the knowledge economy. And I know that the President has had first hand knowledge of that in his former position. We have to bring new technology to smaller communities across the country so they can take advantage of the well-educated workforce and higher education infrastructure that already exists in or near so many of these smaller communities. And, we have an obligation to ensure fairness. We should not favor the richest Americans at the expense of the vast majority of Americans. So how should we go forward? Will President Bush try to push through his one-sided and lop-sided proposals with the votes of his own party? If he does, I will respectfully have to dissent. Or will he sit down and negotiate to reduce its size and make it fairer to more Americans? If he does this then I hope I can support the outcome. Bipartisanship is a two-way street--it's not about Democrats supporting Republican proposals or even Republicans supporting Democratic proposals. It's about Republicans and Democrats working together to do what is right for the country. And the true test of leadership is not appealing to the people under the guise of bipartisanship, but actually hammering out a bipartisan compromise bill that merits the support of both sides of the aisle. That's the right way to pass a tax cut and protect our budget priorities. And it is certainly what I hear when I meet with business leaders, workers and civic leaders in places like Rochester, and Rome, and Brooklyn and Watertown, just to name a few of the places I've been in the last week. They want a tax cut, but they also want to make sure we make the right choices for our budget. History calls us to reject a spendthrift tax plan that would threaten our efforts to reform and modernize Medicare--including a long overdue prescription drug benefit that is voluntary, affordable and available to all beneficiaries. I also fear a spendthrift tax plan would hurt our ability to invest in the military. As the gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. Lieberman, said this week, ``the President's tax plan would consume more than 80 percent of the on-budget surplus, leaving nothing but fiscal leftovers for national security.'' I don't think any of us want that. For me, the details of the 2002 budget have to be negotiated. But the big choice is clear. We must pass a budget that keeps paying down the debt, provides sensible tax cuts and invests in priorities that matter to the people we represent. We must stay the course that has helped us build the longest economic expansion in our nation's history. And we must avoid a course that takes us back, throws caution to the wind and risks mortgaging our children's future. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, yesterday I was in Rome and Watertown, NY, to speak with members of the Rotary Clubs and chambers of commerce about the upstate New York economy and how we can work together to promote investment and job creation in these communities. I will carry their concerns about the economy to the Budget Committee on which I am pleased to serve and where we are fashioning the framework for the next Federal budget. We are hearing about surplus projections and words of caution, about how much faith to place in them. We are hearing about President Bush's tax cut plans and words of caution from colleagues who voted for big tax cuts in the early 1980s, cuts which helped contribute to the ruinous deficits and high interest rates that hobbles our Nation's capacity to create jobs, invest in people, and pay down our national debt. The budget resolution we create sets the stage for how much we can invest in health care, schools, and the other pressing needs of families throughout our country. Later this week, I will return to the floor to talk about the budget in greater detail. Today I would like to discuss a topic that transcends party, geography, and ideology. It is an issue that is important to the people in Rome and Watertown, Rochester and Brooklyn, and everywhere I have been in recent weeks. It will be foremost in my mind as the outlines of the 2002 budget take shape; that is, improving access to quality, affordable health care for New Yorkers, for all Americans, and especially for our children. In this session of Congress, we will need to focus on many aspects of health care, medical privacy, Medicaid funding, genetic discrimination, providing prescription drug coverage for our seniors, and long-term care for our families, among others. Today I will talk about the importance of insuring more Americans, particularly our children, and protecting the rights of those who are insured. In all corners of New York, I have met countless people who have told me powerful stories of the cruel inequities of our health care system. Last August, at the Dutchess County Fair, a single mother told me how hard it was to keep her family afloat because her medical bills totaled more than $30,000. She was worried she would become impoverished and forced to go on welfare. In Massena, an uninsured woman suffering from cancer told me how much trouble she had finding a doctor who would treat her for free. In the MonteFiore Children's Emergency Room in the Bronx, I saw children who had come there for asthma treatments because they had no health coverage and, therefore, no doctor of their own. From Buffalo to Bay Shore, the people of New York have urged me to go to the Senate to fight for better health care. Many of my colleagues will remember when I came to Capitol Hill 7 years ago with an idea or two about how to improve health care in our country. At that time, I was privileged to work with the Acting President pro tempore's father, who served not only Rhode Island, but our entire country so well for so many years. We were not successful then, but I learned some valuable lessons about the legislative process, the importance of bipartisan cooperation, and the wisdom of taking small steps to get a big job done. The Clinton-Gore administration took such steps, and with the help of both Democrats and Republicans we made progress: the Kassebaum-Kennedy Health Insurance Portability and Protection Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, the Children's Health Insurance Program, the help we gave to young people leaving the foster care system under the Chafee bill--to give them eligibility for Medicaid health coverage through their 21st birthday, ending drive-by deliveries, mental health parity, helping to prevent breast cancer by waiving cost sharing for mammography services in the Medicare program--and providing annual screening for beneficiaries age 40 and older, advances in federally funded medical research, and the human genome project. Even with such progress, however, there are still 40 million Americans who are uninsured. Adults with health insurance are three times more likely to receive care when they need it. People with no health insurance are 50 to 70 percent more likely to be hospitalized for routine illnesses such as pneumonia. Children with no health insurance are twice as likely to be hospitalized for illnesses such as asthma and ear infections. Americans without health insurance are 4 times more likely to seek care in emergency rooms. It has only been 3 months since my election and 6 weeks since I was sworn in, but already I have received hundreds of letters from New Yorkers urging me to help them, their families, and their neighbors get the care and coverage they need. One such letter is from Kevin Pispisa, a Boy Scout from Troop 207 in North Babylon, whose parents are nurses. Kevin wrote to me: It seems that the poor working class do not have the means to receive adequate health care. Some of them cannot afford to go to the doctor or pay for medication that they need. Elsie Doetsch from Binghampton wrote to tell me about her friends who are dairy farmers. She is concerned about them because, as she writes in her letter to me: They work every day to help put the food we eat and enjoy on our tables, yet cannot afford the ``luxury'' of health insurance, which I feel is a necessity for anyone in their hazardous occupation. These letters serve as an important reminder to us all as we think about President Bush's tax cut plans and as we deliberate over the shape of our new budget. We must not forget to invest in the people we represent. We must help them find affordable quality health care. Health insurance should not be a luxury; it should be a fact of life for Americans everywhere. Let me be specific. We should expand the Children's Health Insurance Program. If we change the poverty threshold to include children and families with annual incomes up to 300 percent of the national poverty level and extend the program to parents of eligible children, we can provide health care to more than 5 million parents and nearly 2 million more children. Merely expanding CHIP, however, is not enough. We need to do more to encourage the enrollment of the 7 million children who are eligible for CHIP, or Medicaid. I am very pleased that in New York, CHIP outreach efforts include radio PSAs in a number of languages, from Greek to Russian to Albanian to Creole to Chinese. We should provide a financial bonus to States that meet CHIP enrollment targets and reduce the CHIP-enhanced matching rate for States that fail to do so. There are other creative ideas to provide greater access to health care for all Americans. As we consider them, I believe we should adhere to certain principles. First, we must develop policies that cover more uninsured Americans without encouraging businesses to drop or reduce their employees' health benefits. Second, we should make improvements to our health care system without setting up burdensome new Federal or State bureaucracies. Third, we should not penalize States such as New York that have been leaders in expanding coverage. Fourth, we should encourage flexibility for States to expand coverage while enacting strong accountability provisions so that taxpayer dollars are effectively invested. As we work to expand health care coverage, we must also work to improve the quality of coverage. That is why it is past time to pass a meaningful Patients' Bill of Rights, and I am very pleased to be a cosponsor of the McCain-Edwards-Kennedy Patient Protection Act of 2001. President Bush recently set out his principles for a Patients' Bill of Rights, and this legislation meets every one of them with only one exception: The President wants to preempt State laws that allow people to seek relief in State courts when they are injured by bad HMO decisions. That objection should not stand in the way of progress. I believe President Bush can transform the rhetoric of leadership into the reality of accomplishment by embracing this bipartisan patient protection act. Across this aisle and across our country, Democrats and Republicans are joined together in support of this Patients' Bill of Rights. Say the word, President Bush, and we can make this bill a law. I appreciate the opportunity to speak today, and I look forward to working with my colleagues on improving the health of our Nation in the context of a budget that is balanced and prudent. I would also like to take this occasion to pay special thanks to my predecessor, Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, whose legacy of service to New York and our Nation is unparalleled and who has always been a source of inspiration, not only to me and my colleagues but to people literally around our world. Finally, I am so grateful to the people of New York who have given me this extraordinary opportunity to serve them. Over the course of the next 6 years, I will work hard each and every day to listen to their concerns and to fight for their futures. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. I yield myself 15 minutes of the time controlled by the Democrats.