Hillary Clinton

Ms. CLINTON

Ms. CLINTON. Mr. President, I am pleased today to join with Senator Schumer to introduce the Access of Life-Saving Medicine Act. This legislation will have a dramatic impact on the rising costs of prescription drugs, which puts the squeeze on employers trying to provide health coverage for employees while turning a profit, on families struggling to make ends meet, and on our economy. We spend 16 percent of our national income on health care and prescription drugs and that number is on the climb. In 2005, the cost of biologics grew 17.5 percent compared to the cost of traditional drugs, which increased 10 percent. According to CMS, the top 2 anemia drugs--both biologics--accounted for 17 percent of all Medicare Part B carrier drug spending, while two other biologics for rheumatoid arthritis and cancer accounted for an additional 13 percent. In 2006, the Medicare Part B program spent more than $5 billion on biologic drugs. More than $10 billion worth of biopharmaceuticals will come off patent in the next 5 years but will continue to cost on-patent prices unless we act. Our legislation creates a pipeline for approval of safe, cost effective generic versions of these biologic drugs. Without action, the manufacturers of these biotech drugs can continue to charge monopoly prices indefinitely. This is a perfect example of skyrocketing costs in health care--and a perfect opportunity to put the brakes on this overspending, which is bad for patients, businesses, and our country. According to a report released in January by Engel & Novitt to the Pharmaceutical Care Management Association, passage of this bill could save, by conservative estimates, $14 billion over the next 10 years in Medicare Part B alone. Scientific advances over the past 20 years have made the biotechnology industry an integral part of the pharmaceutical industry, but our health care system has not kept pace. Our laws need to be updated to reflect the critical role biologics now play in treatment. The Access to Life-Saving Medicine Act amends the Public Health Service Act to authorize the FDA to approve abbreviated applications for biological products that are ``comparable'' to and ``interchangeable'' with previously approved biological products. And because biological products are very diverse, the Secretary has discretion on a case-by-case basis to determine what studies are necessary to establish comparability and interchangeability, and may require a clinical study or studies if necessary. To encourage the development of substitutable products, the legislation gives the first applicant to obtain approval of an interchangeable product a period of exclusive marketing during which no other interchangeable version of the product may be approved. In order to facilitate timely access to these products, an approval may, however, be granted for a comparable version of the brand name product if it is not interchangeable. Finally, to encourage early resolution of patent disputes which might otherwise delay competition, a patent holder must disclose relevant patents in response to a request and bring a patent infringement suit within 45 days of notice of a challenge or lose the right to certain remedies in court. Biotech drugs hold great promise, but we break that promise when costs push treatment out of reach for American families and employers. We should bring safe, effective and affordable generic versions of these medicines to patients through passage of the Access to Life- Saving Medicine Act, saving money and lives. This issue is part of a larger challenge. It is time to develop a health care system that reflects and responds to how people are living today, that addresses the critical problems in cost, quality, and coverage. We can use what is right in health care--incredible ingenuity, leaders at the forefront of medical research, advances in technology, the best medical professionals in the world--to fix what is wrong. Smart solutions to the vexing problems plaguing our health care system will require evidence-based--not ideologically-based--decision making. My wonderful predecessor, Senator Moynihan, memorably said, ``Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but no one is entitled to his own facts.'' Well, right now, we see a lot of people who have their own facts that are not based on the evidence. The fact is, building a pipeline for generic biologics is long overdue. Achieving this goal is a top priority for me in the HELP Committee when we consider FDA-related legislation this spring and I look forward to working with Senator Schumer and my other colleagues to get it done.

Ms. CLINTON

Ms. CLINTON. Mr. President, I am pleased today to join with Senator Schumer to introduce the Access of Life-Saving Medicine Act. This legislation will have a dramatic impact on the rising costs of prescription drugs, which puts the squeeze on employers trying to provide health coverage for employees while turning a profit, on families struggling to make ends meet, and on our economy. We spend 16 percent of our national income on health care and prescription drugs and that number is on the climb. In 2005, the cost of biologics grew 17.5 percent compared to the cost of traditional drugs, which increased 10 percent. According to CMS, the top 2 anemia drugs--both biologics--accounted for 17 percent of all Medicare Part B carrier drug spending, while two other biologics for rheumatoid arthritis and cancer accounted for an additional 13 percent. In 2006, the Medicare Part B program spent more than $5 billion on biologic drugs. More than $10 billion worth of biopharmaceuticals will come off patent in the next 5 years but will continue to cost on-patent prices unless we act. Our legislation creates a pipeline for approval of safe, cost effective generic versions of these biologic drugs. Without action, the manufacturers of these biotech drugs can continue to charge monopoly prices indefinitely. This is a perfect example of skyrocketing costs in health care--and a perfect opportunity to put the brakes on this overspending, which is bad for patients, businesses, and our country. According to a report released in January by Engel & Novitt to the Pharmaceutical Care Management Association, passage of this bill could save, by conservative estimates, $14 billion over the next 10 years in Medicare Part B alone. Scientific advances over the past 20 years have made the biotechnology industry an integral part of the pharmaceutical industry, but our health care system has not kept pace. Our laws need to be updated to reflect the critical role biologics now play in treatment. The Access to Life-Saving Medicine Act amends the Public Health Service Act to authorize the FDA to approve abbreviated applications for biological products that are ``comparable'' to and ``interchangeable'' with previously approved biological products. And because biological products are very diverse, the Secretary has discretion on a case-by-case basis to determine what studies are necessary to establish comparability and interchangeability, and may require a clinical study or studies if necessary. To encourage the development of substitutable products, the legislation gives the first applicant to obtain approval of an interchangeable product a period of exclusive marketing during which no other interchangeable version of the product may be approved. In order to facilitate timely access to these products, an approval may, however, be granted for a comparable version of the brand name product if it is not interchangeable. Finally, to encourage early resolution of patent disputes which might otherwise delay competition, a patent holder must disclose relevant patents in response to a request and bring a patent infringement suit within 45 days of notice of a challenge or lose the right to certain remedies in court. Biotech drugs hold great promise, but we break that promise when costs push treatment out of reach for American families and employers. We should bring safe, effective and affordable generic versions of these medicines to patients through passage of the Access to Life- Saving Medicine Act, saving money and lives. This issue is part of a larger challenge. It is time to develop a health care system that reflects and responds to how people are living today, that addresses the critical problems in cost, quality, and coverage. We can use what is right in health care--incredible ingenuity, leaders at the forefront of medical research, advances in technology, the best medical professionals in the world--to fix what is wrong. Smart solutions to the vexing problems plaguing our health care system will require evidence-based--not ideologically-based--decision making. My wonderful predecessor, Senator Moynihan, memorably said, ``Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but no one is entitled to his own facts.'' Well, right now, we see a lot of people who have their own facts that are not based on the evidence. The fact is, building a pipeline for generic biologics is long overdue. Achieving this goal is a top priority for me in the HELP Committee when we consider FDA-related legislation this spring and I look forward to working with Senator Schumer and my other colleagues to get it done.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following my remarks, Senator Brown of Ohio and Senator Chambliss of Georgia be recognized.

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, at this moment of challenge for our Nation, the vantage point of this august Chamber, we look onto a world filled with danger, deeply complex threats against our troops and our national interests abroad, and genuine risks to our security at home. Keeping our Nation strong and our people safe requires that we employ the best and smartest strategies available. In confronting enemies and threats we are fortunate to possess a great many assets, all of which we must wisely deploy, including our military, diplomatic, economic, and cultural assets. Our strongest asset remains the democracy that we are privileged to take part in as Members of the Senate and as representatives of our constituents. Our democratic institutions, under our Constitution, balance one another and check against excesses and concentrations of power that help us wrestle with difficult challenges in an open and forthright way. This constitutional framework is not an obstacle to pursuing our national security but the example that we should project to the world. Our democracy, with its tradition of accountable power and open debate, is America at its best. That is what we need, America at our best, as we deliberately and resolutely confront the threat posed by the Iranian regime. Make no mistake, Iran poses a threat to our allies and our interests in the region and beyond, including the United States. The Iranian President has held a conference denying the Holocaust and has issued bellicose statement after bellicose statement calling for Israel and the United States to be wiped off the map. His statements are even more disturbing and urgent when viewed in the context of the regime's quest to acquire nuclear weapons. The regime also uses its influence and resources in the region to support terrorist elements that attack Israel. Hezbollah's attack on Israel this summer, using Iranian weapons, clearly demonstrates Iran's malevolent influence, even beyond its borders. We also have evidence, although it is by no means conclusive, of attacks using Iranian-supplied or manufactured weaponry against our own American soldiers. As I have long said, and will continue to say, U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal. We cannot, we should not, we must not permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons. In dealing with this threat, as I have also said for a long time, no option can be taken off the table. But America must proceed deliberately and wisely, and we must proceed as a unified nation. The smartest and strongest policy will be one forged through the institutions of our democracy. That is the genius of our American system and our constitutional duty. We have witnessed these past 6 years, until the most recent election of a new Congress by the American people, the cost of congressional dereliction of its oversight duty--a vital role entrusted to Congress by our constituents and enshrined in and even required by our Constitution. So we are here today because the price that has been paid in blood and treasure through the rush to war in Iraq and the incompetence of its execution and managing the aftermath, in the excesses of military contracting abuses and the inadequate supply of body armor and armored vehicles on the ground, have led to a loss of confidence in this administration among our allies and the American people. Therefore, we cannot and we must not allow recent history to repeat itself. We continue to experience the consequences of unchecked Presidential action. Sunlight is the best disinfectant but this President was allowed, for too long, to commit blunder after blunder under cover of darkness provided by an allied Republican Congress. In dealing with the threats posed by the Iranian regime, which has gained its expanding influence in Iraq and the region as a result of the administration's policies, President Bush must not be allowed to act without the authority and oversight of Congress. It would be a mistake of historical proportion if the administration thought that the 2002 resolution authorizing force against Iraq was a blank check for the use of force against Iran without further congressional authorization. Nor should the President think that the 2001 resolution authorizing force after the terrorist attacks of 9/11 in any way authorizes force against Iran. If the administration believes that any--any--use of force against Iran is necessary, the President must come to Congress to seek that authority. I am deeply concerned by the recent statements coming out of the Bush administration. The administration has asserted evidence of the Iranian regime's complicity at the highest levels for attacks within Iraq. Yet, at the same time, GEN Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, questions these assertions--in particular, the culpability and intentions of the Irani Government. In this delicate situation, while making disturbing comments, the administration has also announced it is sending a third aircraft carrier to the gulf. The President owes an ongoing consultation to this Congress and owes straight talk to the country. We have to get this right. The Congress should debate our current course, including the current silent-treatment policy toward our adversaries. I believe we can better understand how to deal with an adversary such as Iran if we have some direct contact with them. I think that can give us valuable information and better leverage to hold over the Iranian regime. And if we ever must, with congressional agreement, take drastic action, we should make clear to the world that we have exhausted every other possibility. I welcome the agreement announced yesterday between the United States and North Korea. It demonstrates the central value of using every tool in our arsenal to achieve our objectives. I only wish the administration had pursued this course 6 years ago when an agreement with North Korea was within reach. The wasted time has allowed North Korea to develop nuclear weapons in the interim. Failure to use diplomacy has damaged our national security interests. The important step forward our country has made with North Korea raises the obvious question: Why will the President refuse to have any kind of process involving Iran, as I and others have urged? The United States engaged in talks with North Korea within a multilateral process but also had ongoing bilateral discussions. We should have such a process of direct engagement with Iran as recommended by many, including the Iraq Study Group. We need friends and allies to stand with us in this long war against terrorism and extremism and to contain and alter the regimes that harbor and support those who would harm us. During the Cold War, we spoke to the Soviet Union while thousands of missiles were pointed at our cities, while its leaders threatened to bury us, while the regime sowed discord and military uprisings and actions against us and our allies. That was a smart strategy used by Republican and Democratic Presidents alike, even though it was often a difficult one. As we discuss potential evidence of Iranian complicity in supplying arms to insurgents along with the refusal to suspend their nuclear ambitions, we need to deliver a strong message to Iran that we will not stand by and tolerate this behavior. However, we need to deliver that message forcefully through direct talks. The lives of American soldiers are at risk, and we should not outsource our discussions with the Iranians on this and other issues. When I say no option should be taken off the table, I include diplomacy. Currently, our intelligence on Iran is of uncertain quality. We need to examine the facts closely and carefully. No action can or should be taken without explicit congressional authorization. And knowing what we know now, this body needs a steady stream of real, verifiable intelligence. We in the Congress cannot do our part in deciding what needs to be done if we do not know what is happening, and it does not appear that the administration has any real grasp on the facts on the ground, even after all these years. The public unclassified sections of the NIE recently issued made it very clear in their conclusions that sectarian violence would still exist in Iraq absent Iran. So we have a lot to sort out. We have all learned lessons from the conflict in Iraq, and we have to apply those lessons to any allegations that are being raised about Iran because what we are hearing has too familiar a ring, and we must be on guard that we never again make decisions on the basis of intelligence that turns out to be faulty. If we find evidence of potential Iranian complicity, we will take appropriate action, but that requires a partnership to defend and protect America's national security interests between the Congress and the President. Oversight will also lead to a consensus approach that brings together the best judgment and strategies of our Nation and will examine the consequences of action, the reality of any perceived or alleged threat, and the consequences of taking action. I sometimes fear that the word ``consequence'' has been taken out of the vocabulary of this administration. We have to look over the horizon. We have to make hard choices among difficult options. So there are no easy answers to the complex situations we confront in the world today. But if we do face threats, the congressional consultation and authorization will bring the American people into the debate. Whatever steps, if any, may be required should be taken by our Nation, not just by our President. We must act as Americans, not as members of one party or another. Our Nation has been divided by a failed policy and the relentless pursuit of it. We are facing that again with the escalation policy the President is pursuing today. Mr. President, if we face up to our constitutional responsibilities as the Congress, if we conduct the oversight that is required, if we exercise our checks and balances, then we are likely to reach a better conclusion than we have thus far. We must be tough and smart, deliberative and wise, and we must look at all of our assets, not just the brave men and women who wear the uniform of our country. To implement the best policy, we should start by employing our best values: the democratic values that give strength to our Nation and our cause and that serve as an example and beacon to people who wish to live in peace and freedom and prosperity around the world. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, today I am proud to introduce the Breast Cancer and Environmental Research Act with Senator Reid and colleagues from both sides of the aisle. This legislation would allow us to investigate the links between environmental exposures and breast cancer. Improving our ability to investigate the connection between pollutants and cancer incidence is the first step in improving our overall response to environmental health concerns. Environmental hazards manifest themselves in unexpected cancers, tumors, and other diseases in ways that we are only now beginning to understand. Breast cancer is the second leading cause of cancer death for women in the United States, and 3 million women in the United States are currently living with the disease 1 million of whom have not yet been diagnosed. Each year, over 13,000 women in New York State are diagnosed with this disease. Every one of us has been affected by breast cancer, whether it is through our own personal battle or our experiences offering love and support to our friends, our mothers, and our sisters. Since 2001, I have sought to raise awareness of the need for increased research into the connections between environmental factors and the incidence of chronic diseases like breast cancer. I have worked closely with advocates from New York on this issue, and hosted a field hearing of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee in Long Island to discuss breast cancer and other environmental health concerns. The bill that we are introducing today will expand the available resources for our scientists and expedite research in this area. The Breast Cancer and Environmental Research Act will create Centers of Excellence to engage in multidisciplinary research, carried out in collaboration with the community, and learn more about how environmental factors may be linked to the more than 200,000 breast cancer cases diagnosed each year. I am hopeful that in the not-too-distant future, the incidence of breast cancer will be dramatically reduced, and in the handful of new cases that appear, we will be able to provide high-quality, highly effective treatment and save women's lives. But in order to achieve those goals, we need to learn more about all the causes of breast cancer, including the environmental factors that contribute to this disease. Last year, the Breast Cancer and Environmental Research Act was reported unanimously out of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. I will work with my colleagues there to once again move it through the committee process quickly, so that we can pass this essential legislation in this session of Congress.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, as today marks the 98th anniversary of the founding of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), I am proud to submit a concurrent resolution to honor our country's oldest and largest civil rights organization for the work they have done to change the path of our Nation. The legacy of pioneers such as W.E.B. Du Bois, Thurgood Marshall, Rosa Parks, hundreds more cannot and must not be forgotten. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution honoring and praising the NAACP for 98 years of championing the cause of equality in the United States. At the dawn of the 20th century--over half a century after the Civil War--African Americans were still denied the full rights of citizenship. They were forced to endure the daily humiliation and struggle of economic exploitation, social segregation, and sometimes even physical brutality. Racial tensions began to escalate, resulting in riots and lynchings. It was at this critical juncture in our Nation's history that a group of concerned citizens, recognizing the urgent need to address these intolerable conditions, gathered to form the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People in New York City. Since its founding, the NAACP has sought to eliminate racial discrimination and has fought for the social, political, and economic equality of all Americans, while maintaining its commitment to nonviolence in achieving these goals. In 1918, the NAACP successfully persuaded President Wilson to publicly condemn lynching and continued to raise awareness about this horrifying crime. The NAACP fought for, and ultimately achieved, desegregation of the military as well as other federal government institutions. They were also deeply influential in watershed court cases such as Buchanan vs. Warley, where the Supreme Court held that states cannot restrict and segregate residential districts. In the landmark case Brown v. Board of Education, the NAACP successfully argued that the ``separate, but equal'' doctrine was unconstitutional, thereby making segregation in public schools illegal. The NAACP has also played an integral role in the passage of essential civil rights legislation, including the Civil Rights Act of 1957, 1960, and 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the Fair Housing Rights Act. Their efforts continue today. The NAACP led efforts to reauthorize the Voting Rights Act last year. They recognize that we must continue vigilantly to guard against the resurgence of discriminatory practices that would deprive African Americans of the most fundamental right of democracy--the right to vote. Notwithstanding its powerful voice and extraordinary accomplishments, we must never forget that the NAACP works through the tireless efforts of its individual members united around a common vision of justice and equality. One act of civil disobedience, by NAACP member Rosa Parks, helped to spark the civil rights movement. Another member, Medgar Evers, worked tirelessly, despite many threats, to desegregate schools and to investigate the murder of Emmett Till. Mary Burnett Talbert, a teacher in Little Rock, Arkansas, was one of the founders of the NAACP and eventually became its president. She once wrote that ``by her peculiar position the colored woman has gained clear powers of observation and judgment--exactly the sort of powers which are today peculiarly necessary to the building of an ideal country.'' The NAACP continues to take us closer to the ``ideal country'' that Mary Talbert envisioned, with every public education campaign, every fight over a judicial nomination, and every lobbying effort to pass progressive legislation. The NAACP's has always been a multiracial and multicultural organization. Many of its founding members were white, including Oswald Garrison Villiard, Mary White Ovington, and Henry Moscowitz. Despite the last century of achievements, substantial racial disparities still persist today in educational achievement, access to health care, and economic prosperity. Hurricane Katrina highlighted the tragic and enduring link between race and poverty in our country, as well as emphasized our nation's failure to care for those among us least able to provide for themselves. It is no surprise that the NAACP raised nearly $2 million to aid the victims of the hurricane. The NAACP has always stood ready to face these and other challenges. Ninety-eight years after a group of concerned citizens assembled in New York around the common goal of creating a more just society, the NAACP's half million members continue to lead the way towards positive social change. For striving and continuing to push our nation closer to the promise of equality envisioned in our Constitution, we must honor the NAACP.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Madam President, we are all well aware in this Chamber that our country finds itself in a deepening crisis in Iraq, and we find ourselves at a moment of decision in the Senate. Nearly 4 years ago, our President rushed us into war in Iraq, a war now longer than American involvement in World War II, which next month will actually exceed the length of our own Civil War. For 4 years, Members on both sides of the aisle have watched with shock and dismay as our President has made mistake after misjudgment after miscalculation. Even before the invasion ended, the administration rejected the voluminous plans drawn up by the State Department to deal with the chaotic aftermath. The successful examples of the U.S. experience in Bosnia and Kosovo during the 1990s were summarily rejected. State Department and other American officials with experience in nation-building were blackballed in favor of inexperienced ideologues who were selected on the basis of political litmus tests, including answering questions about whether they were for or against Roe v. Wade and whether they had voted for George W. Bush. Despite the urgent warnings of Army Chief of Staff Rick Shinseki and other senior military commanders, the necessary number of troops to ensure security and stability was not sent at the start of the conflict. Our men and women in uniform were ordered into harm's way without the necessary body armor or armored vehicles, a mortal error I have tried to correct time and again since I first learned of it. The strategic blunders now fill an entire library shelf of books, and they are certainly too numerous for me to list in the time allotted here. Through these 4 years, there has also been another abdication of responsibility. That was the failure of this Congress to engage in its Constitutional obligation of oversight and accountability. While our troops have stood valiantly on the frontlines, the Congress has stood on the sidelines. Defending a partisan position trumped U.S. national security interests and the welfare of our troops in the field. Many Members attempted to raise the debate, and we were unable to do so because of the majority's refusal to hold the administration accountable. In the election last year, the American people decided the status quo was no longer acceptable. So we have a new Congress, and it is past time we in this Chamber do our duty to balance the President and provide a check against his failed policy in Iraq. As there is a majority in our country against the President's failed policy in Iraq, there is a bipartisan majority in this Senate against it, as well. The resolution before the Senate reflects that bipartisan consensus as it also reflects the sentiments of the overwhelming majority of Americans. But a partisan minority seeking to shield the administration's continuing failure in Iraq seeks to thwart the bipartisan majority and the will of the American people. This is not a debate about abstractions. I have seen the consequences of our involvement in Iraq, as have many of my fellow Senators. Three weeks ago, I visited Iraq to express gratitude to our soldiers, to meet with Iraqi leaders and U.S. commanders and our troops on the ground. What I saw and what I did not see underscored my concerns. I saw American service men and women performing their duty admirably, but I did not see a strategy that, under the current circumstances, has much chance of success. The collective analysis of our intelligence community in the latest National Intelligence Estimate is that the term ``civil war'' does not adequately capture the complexity of the conflict in Iraq. The bipartisan Baker-Hamilton Commission said the situation in Iraq is grave and deteriorating. Yet the President's response to the bipartisan commission and the latest National Intelligence Estimate does not match the urgency that is described. The so-called surge is not a new strategy but a tactic that has been tried and failed. The absence of leadership on the part of the President leaves Congress no choice but to demonstrate the leadership that the American people and the reality on the ground demand. The previous two Congresses abdicated their duty. We must not. Every single day our feet sink deeper into the sands. Every day the crisis worsens. To hide from this debate with our troops in such danger is wrong, plain and simple. The crisis in Iraq has fostered a crisis of democracy at home. The American people expect a debate. Our troops are owed a debate. Our Constitution commands we debate. But a partisan minority acting at the behest of the administration is standing in the way. This amounts to a gag rule on our democracy, contrary to the national security interests of the United States. Even though America voted for a new direction in Iraq, even though the majority of Senators opposes escalation in Iraq, we cannot get the Republicans to allow us to take a symbolic vote to condemn the escalation, much less a real vote to stop it. This resolution deserves a debate. It deserves a vote. It deserves passage. There are those in the Senate who invoke our grave troops, suggesting that a debate on the most important issue facing our country and facing our troops would somehow undermine the mission and weaken our Nation. It is a pernicious, shameful argument and it is dead wrong. Our democracy is stronger than that and the American people and our troops deserve better than that. Our troops understand we are debating this war. We are debating it not just in this Senate, we are debating it in kitchen table conversations, around water coolers, and standing in line at supermarkets. We are debating this war everywhere Americans gather. Indeed, our troops are debating this war. The American people understand it is the policy that undermines our national security interests, not a vote disapproving the policy. This debate and this resolution have merit and purpose and it will, if permitted to go forward, begin the process of changing the policy; otherwise, why would the administration and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle fight so hard to prevent us from having a debate and a vote? Because they understand this will be the first step to restore our strength and renew our leadership around the world, to begin redeploying our troops out of Iraq and start on the long road of undoing the damage brought by the President to America's leadership around the world. If you believe the escalation is the right strategy, cast your vote for it. If you believe, as the majority in this Chamber believes, that escalation is not the right strategy, then cast your vote against it. But standing on the sidelines is no way to stand up for the troops. Now, there are many--both in the Chamber and outside--who wish to go further than this resolution and look for ways to bind the actions of the President and to require him to change course. I understand and agree with the frustration that has afflicted many Members in dealing with the President's policy. However, if we can get a bipartisan vote against escalation, it will be the first time the Senate has exercised its constitutional responsibility to be a check and balance on the President. The first step for the Senate will be a giant leap toward accountability and toward the right end to this war. There is a big difference between calling for the end of this war and doing the difficult, painstaking work of building the political will within the Congress to take action. We, in the Senate, entrusted by our constituents to cast tough votes, should not have the luxury of standing outside the arena and lobbing criticism from within. Once we pass this resolution, we should go further. Rather than an escalation of U.S. troops, which will not contribute to fundamentally changing the conditions on the ground, we should put pressure on the Iraqi Government in a way that they will understand there are consequences to their empty promises and their continued inaction. Last week, the National Intelligence Counsel released the unclassified key judgments of the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq. That presents the consensus views of the U.S. intelligence community. It underscores the need for a political solution. The NIE states that in the coming 12 to 18 months, the overall security situation will continue to deteriorate at rates comparable to the latter part of 2006. And it goes on further to say that even if violence is diminished, given the current winner-takes-all attitude and sectarian animosities infecting the political scene, Iraqi leaders will be hard-pressed to achieve sustained political reconciliation in the timeframe of the estimate, namely, a year to a year and a half. Even if the intelligence experts argue the escalation results in greater security, their best judgment is that the bloodshed and violence will continue to spiral out of control. So what should we do? Many believe, and we have been arguing for this and voting for this for more than a year and a half, that we have to chart a new course that emphasizes greater Iraqi responsibility. I still believe that is the path we should be taking. Instead, the President has chosen a very narrow course that relies heavily on American military force. I will be introducing legislation that I think offers a better alternative. First, my legislation will cap the number of troops in Iraq as of January 1st and will require the administration to seek congressional authorization for any additional troops. The President has finally said, this is not an open-ended commitment in Iraq, but he is providing the Iraqis with an open-ended presence of American troops. Second, as a means to increase our leverage with the Iraqi Government and to clearly send a message that there are consequences to their inaction, I would impose conditions for continued funding of the Iraqi security forces and the private contractors working for the Iraqis. My legislation would require certification that the security forces were free of sectarian and militia influence and were actually assuming greater responsibility for Iraqi security, along with other conditions. We must not let U.S. funds, taxpayer funds, be used to train members of sectarian militias who are responsible for so much of the violence in Iraq. Unfortunately, it appears our funds to Iraqi security forces may be going to the people we are trying to restrain. A news report last week in an article entitled ``Mahdi Army Gains Strength through Unwitting Aid of U.S.'' reports that: . . . the U.S. military drive to train and equip Iraq's security forces has unwittingly strengthened Muslin cleric Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army militia, which has been battling to take over much of the capital city as American forces are trying to secure it. According to this new report, U.S. Army commanders and enlisted men who are patrolling East Baghdad, said al-Sadr's militias had heavily infiltrated the Iraqi police and Army units that they've trained and armed. Said one soldier: They'll wave at us during the day and shoot at us during the night. We need to inform the Iraqi Government, in no uncertain terms, that there are consequences, that we will take funds away from their troops--not from our troops, many of whom still lack armored vehicles and counterinsurgency measure devices and communications equipment. And we will not fund the Iraqis if our troops are going to enter into sectarian battles where some of the participants have received American training and support. Third, I would hold the administration accountable for their empty promises as well. My bill requires the Bush administration to certify that Iraq has disarmed the militias, has ensured that a law has finally been passed for the equitable sharing of oil revenues; that the Iraqi Government, under American influence and even pressure, has made the constitutional changes necessary to ensure rights for minority communities; that the debaathification process has been reversed to allow teachers, professionals, and others who joined the Baath Party as a means to get a job to serve in the new Iraqi Government. I would also require the administration to engage in a regional diplomatic initiative, including all of Iraq's neighbors, to address Iraq's future and to understand and convey clearly that the United States expects Iraq's neighbors to be partners in the stability and security of the new Iraqi state. If these conditions are not met or are not on their way to being met within 6 months, a new congressional authorization requirement would be triggered. Finally, I would prohibit any spending to increase troop levels unless and until the Secretary of Defense certifies that our American troops will have the proper training and equipment for whatever mission they are ordered to fulfill. Yesterday, I read the classified report outlining the findings by the Department of Defense inspector general about the problems that have been faced by our troops getting the equipment they desperately need in combat areas such as Iraq. The inspector general did not have the full cooperation of the Department of Defense. It is heartbreaking that the inspector general could conclude that the U.S. military still has failed to equip our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, especially for the kind of warfare they are confronting, with IEDs and insurgents who are attacking them in asymmetric, unconventional warfare. This report comes on the heels of an article in the Washington Post last week titled ``Equipment for Added Troops Is Lacking: New Iraq Forces Must Make Do, Officials Say.'' The Washington Post story raised serious questions about the adequacy of the supply of up-armored HMMWVs and trucks. One of our generals is quoted as saying he does not have the equipment our forces need, and they will have to go into battle with what they have. On my way back from Iraq and Afghanistan, I stopped at Landstuhl Hospital in Germany to visit with some of our wounded soldiers. I met with one young man who was lying in his bed with injuries he had suffered from one of the shape charges, these new more advanced, more sophisticated command-controlled IEDs, the improvised explosive devices. He told me that the armored, fully equipped HMMWV had saved his life and that of the lives of his buddies who were with him. But he also told me that not everybody he served with had that kind of protection because there were not enough of those armored vehicles to go around. I do not believe the Congress can shirk its responsibility. It is past time we live up to our constitutional responsibility. If I had been President in October of 2002, I would have never asked for authority to divert our attention from Afghanistan to Iraq, and I certainly would never have started this war. But we are where we are, and this Congress must deliver a strategy to help us end this war in the right way and begin returning our troops home. So on this most important issue of our time, I call on my colleagues not to hide from this debate but to welcome it, to welcome the opportunity to set forth whatever one's opinions might be because this debate is about more than our policy in Iraq. It is about the role and responsibility of this august institution. Great debates in our past have not only moved public opinion but furthered the progress of our country. This debate is not merely about whether the President should escalate troops into Iraq, whether he has failed to grasp the complexity of the situation we confront in Iraq, and to take every diplomatic, political, economic, and military strategy available to him, but it is about our democracy itself. We should consider this resolution, and I hope we will. Our duty is rooted in the faith entrusted to us by our constituents and enshrined in our Constitution. When we think about the patriotism and bravery, the humor and resolve, the optimism and strength of our soldiers, marines, airmen, and sailors, our Active Duty, our Guard, and Reserve, I think it humbles us all. But it comes out of this great democratic tradition that we are all blessed to be a part of. I hope we have the opportunity in the next days to do our duty just as the men and women who are serving us have done and are doing theirs. A week ago, I was privileged to go to San Antonio for the opening of a remarkable center called the Center for the Intrepid. It is a new state-of-the-art facility devoted to the rehabilitation and recovery of our wounded heroes. It was funded by contributions from more than 600,000 Americans. It was not built by our Government. It was built by our citizens. It is not only going to be a place of great hope and healing for the brave men and women who have given their full measure, but it will also stand as a symbol of our democracy, of our values, of people coming together across our country--a unique partnership that you find nowhere else in the world except here. As I sat on the stage during the ceremonies for the opening of this new rehabilitation center, I watched the hundreds of young men and women who had been injured march in, and in some cases wheeled in, to take their place in the audience. I believe they are owed this debate. And certainly all those who are currently serving, and the thousands who are on their way to carry out this escalation strategy, deserve it even more. So I hope we will have a chance to express the will of our constituents, our deeply held opinions, and participate in a debate that is historic and necessary. That is the least we can do.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to give rights to student borrowers. The Student Borrower Bill of Rights Act will provide student borrowers with five basic rights to protect them when trying to repay their loans. Students are borrowing now more than ever to pay for higher education. Need-based grant aid has stagnated while college costs have grown, resulting in more students borrowing and at higher levels. In 1993, less than one-half of students graduating from 4-year colleges and universities had student loans. Now two-thirds are faced with this debt. Unlike other debt, young people take out student loans to invest in themselves. Because these loans help to pay for college, student loans can help people earn more money over the course of their lifetimes and offer students greater choices in their careers. Student borrowers must take the responsibility of repaying their debt seriously so that future generations of students can have the chance to invest in themselves. However, too many borrowers in New York, and around the country, are overly burdened or treated unfairly as they repay their student loans. That is why I am introducing the Student Borrower's Bill of Rights Act. This bill will make it easier for students to repay loans and give them a basic set of enforceable rights. This bill would give student borrowers the right to fair monthly payments that do not exceed a percentage of their incomes, as well as access to fair interest rates and fees. This bill would also give students the right to shop in a free marketplace for their lender and to borrow without exploitation. Finally, the bill will give students access to better information about their loans to provide students with better options during repayment. The unfortunate truth is that student loan debt may even prevent borrowers from pursuing a higher degree. According to the Nellie Mae Corporation, 40 percent of college graduates cite alarming student loan debt as the reason for not pursuing a graduate degree. Most disturbingly, the burden of student loan debt alone can force graduates out of important, but low-paying professions, such as social workers, teachers and police officers. Our Nation cannot remain competitive in the global economy if these trends continue. I am happy to report that two of the provisions from the Student Borrower Bill of Rights Act of the 109th Congress were enacted into law through the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense 2006. These provisions, a repeal of the single holder rule and consolidation between loan programs, will enable borrowers to choose lenders with acceptable income-sensitive repayment terms when consolidating student loans. We need to make sure that student loans do not prevent students from following their dreams. It is in our Nation's economic interest to provide student borrowers with effective rights to make repayment of student loans easier. The rights found in my bill are long overdue. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Student Borrower Bill of Rights.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to give rights to student borrowers. The Student Borrower Bill of Rights Act will provide student borrowers with five basic rights to protect them when trying to repay their loans. Students are borrowing now more than ever to pay for higher education. Need-based grant aid has stagnated while college costs have grown, resulting in more students borrowing and at higher levels. In 1993, less than one-half of students graduating from 4-year colleges and universities had student loans. Now two-thirds are faced with this debt. Unlike other debt, young people take out student loans to invest in themselves. Because these loans help to pay for college, student loans can help people earn more money over the course of their lifetimes and offer students greater choices in their careers. Student borrowers must take the responsibility of repaying their debt seriously so that future generations of students can have the chance to invest in themselves. However, too many borrowers in New York, and around the country, are overly burdened or treated unfairly as they repay their student loans. That is why I am introducing the Student Borrower's Bill of Rights Act. This bill will make it easier for students to repay loans and give them a basic set of enforceable rights. This bill would give student borrowers the right to fair monthly payments that do not exceed a percentage of their incomes, as well as access to fair interest rates and fees. This bill would also give students the right to shop in a free marketplace for their lender and to borrow without exploitation. Finally, the bill will give students access to better information about their loans to provide students with better options during repayment. The unfortunate truth is that student loan debt may even prevent borrowers from pursuing a higher degree. According to the Nellie Mae Corporation, 40 percent of college graduates cite alarming student loan debt as the reason for not pursuing a graduate degree. Most disturbingly, the burden of student loan debt alone can force graduates out of important, but low-paying professions, such as social workers, teachers and police officers. Our Nation cannot remain competitive in the global economy if these trends continue. I am happy to report that two of the provisions from the Student Borrower Bill of Rights Act of the 109th Congress were enacted into law through the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense 2006. These provisions, a repeal of the single holder rule and consolidation between loan programs, will enable borrowers to choose lenders with acceptable income-sensitive repayment terms when consolidating student loans. We need to make sure that student loans do not prevent students from following their dreams. It is in our Nation's economic interest to provide student borrowers with effective rights to make repayment of student loans easier. The rights found in my bill are long overdue. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Student Borrower Bill of Rights.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, in crafting our delicate system of checks and balances, our Founding Fathers vested in Congress what is commonly referred to as the ``power of the purse''--control over raising revenue and appropriating funds. While the virtue of Congress abdicating some of its budget responsibility to the president is a subject of worthwhile debate, the construct of Senator Gregg's Second Look at Wasteful Spending Act of 2007 does little to return much needed fiscal discipline to our budget process. And while I support efforts to rein in our spending and to solve our Nation's budget woes, Senator Gregg's amendment would create a system far too susceptible to abuse. The Gregg amendment's weakness is in its construction. Up to four times a year, the President could package his or her proposed rescissions in any manner he or she chooses, selecting and combining provisions from any number of bills. Among the Gregg amendment's most significant flaws are the timetables it imposes. The amendment would give the President up to 1 full year after enactment of a provision to submit a rescission request. Even in the event that Congress rejects the President's request, the legislation still gives the President the power to defy the congressional vote and withhold spending for a program for up to 45 days. This formulation would effectively allow a President to hold hostage spending measures and force congressional votes on new bundles of spending provisions, injecting chaos into our budget process and wreaking havoc in countless other ways. There is no debate that we need to curb our spending. The Bush administration has run up a record debt and an unprecedented deficit, endangering our Nation's long-term financial health and our children's future. Unfortunately, as noted by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, Senator Gregg's amendment does little to return much needed fiscal discipline to our budget process. I am open to considering a different proposal, keeping in mind that what we need is measured reform coupled with strong leadership that will exercise fiscal responsibility.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss a resolution I submitted on January 8 in recognition of the uncommon valor and tremendous bravery demonstrated by New York City resident Wesley Autrey. On January 2, 2007, Mr. Autrey and others stood on a platform in the 137th Street subway station in Harlem, and watched as a young man suffering from a seizure fell onto the train tracks. Terrified by what he saw, Mr. Autrey heroically dove down onto the tracks, putting his own life in grave danger to save that of a stranger. Mr. Autrey covered the young man in the trough between the tracks as the incoming train screamed to a halt just inches above his head. Later, when asked about the courageous rescue, Mr. Autrey responded humbly, saying, ``I'm not looking at this like I'm the hero, cause the real heroes are the young men and women that are fighting in Iraq now. What I did is something that any New Yorker should do . . . if you see somebody in distress, do the right thing.'' We could all learn from Wesley Autrey's example. A proud member of the Construction and General Building Laborers' Local 79, a veteran of the United States Navy, and a father of two young girls, Mr. Autrey--in both his heroic actions and his humble conduct in the midst of his newfound fame--represents values that all Americans should cherish and respect. His selflessness should be held up as an example to those in his community, his state and his country. Indeed, this resolution is just one fitting way in which to honor the uncommon valor and tremendous bravery demonstrated by Wesley Autrey when he dove in front of an incoming train to save the life of a stranger on January 2. I am hopeful that my Senate colleagues from both sides of the aisle will join me in honoring Mr. Autrey by moving this legislation as expeditiously as possible.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, today I honor the life and legacy of Ms. Jane Bolin. Jane Matilda Bolin of Queens, NY, passed away on Monday, January 8, 2007 after a lifetime of public service. In 1939, Ms. Bolin was the first Black woman to become a judge in the United States, and she continued to serve honorably on the bench for the next 40 years. Her lifelong dedication to social justice, civil rights, and to the betterment of our American society serves as an inspiration to us all. A trailblazer in so many arenas, Ms. Bolin pursued her goals in the face of widespread discrimination and prejudice. She was the first Black woman to graduate from Yale Law School, the first to join the New York City Bar Association, and the first to work in the city's legal department. In addition to being a fellow Yale Law graduate, she and I also share the same undergraduate alma mater. Ms. Bolin attended Wellesley College in the 1920s as one of only two Black freshmen. She went on to graduate as a Wellesley Scholar, an honor given only to the top 20 students in her class. Ms. Bolin's tenacity set a powerful example for the women of my generation. In 1958, she commented on the struggle for women's rights that ``we have to fight every inch of the way and in the face of sometimes insufferable humiliations.'' And Ms. Bolin never stopped fighting. She spoke out against segregation in her native Pougkheepsie. She used her position on the bench to end the assignment of probation officers and the placement of children in childcare agencies on the basis of race. As a family court judge, she heard cases ranging from homicides and battered spouses to child support and paternity suits. Jane Bolin was truly a remarkable woman. I offer my deepest sympathies to her son, Yorke B. Mizzle, and to all those whose lives she enriched. My thoughts and prayers are with her family during this difficult time.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. I rise today to join my good friend Senator Snowe in introducing a resolution recognizing the life and untimely loss of a distinguished women's advocate and beloved friend to so many in New York, Washington and beyond: Cynthia Boles Dailard. A native New Yorker, Cynthia will be remembered not only for her incredible work and impressive career, but also for the way she touched so many in her all too short life. Throughout her career, Cynthia impressed and inspired countless colleagues at the National Women's Law Center, as a legislative assistant and counsel for Senator Snowe and as an associate director for domestic policy in the Clinton Administration. She was known for working in a bipartisan manner to promote her passion: the health and wellbeing of women and their families. This passion was matched by a genuine concern for the lives of others. Cynthia then moved to the Guttmacher Institute, where her passionate and talented voice catalyzed research and policy regarding family planning, adolescent sexual behavior and insurance coverage for contraception. In remembering Cynthia, her friends at the Institute noted how her prolific writings pushed the women's health community ``to think deeply and to stretch in new directions.'' Indeed, it is the sort of innovative work that Cynthia was known for that impacts lives the most, as it spurs policy that can truly make a difference. As we reflect upon Cynthia's life, we can see a path paved with far more than laudatory academic and professional achievement. Cynthia's legacy is one of commitment, thoughtfulness, character and kindness. I remain touched by the myriad of ways Cynthia made a difference in people's lives as a wife and a mother, as a lawyer and a writer, and as an advocate and a friend. I had the pleasure of working with Cynthia on numerous occasions and was always impressed with her intellect, knowledge and passion for women's health. I extend my deepest sympathies to Cynthia's husband of 14 years, Scott and her daughters Miranda and Julia. And it is with the utmost respect that I pledge to celebrate Cynthia's work and her life through this resolution to honor her memory and through my work in the future to honor the health and wellbeing of women across America and throughout the world.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, as allegations of ethical abuses swirl around their government, the American people have understandably lost confidence in the ability of their elected representatives to lead with integrity. Their confidence has dwindled as the undue influence of lobbyists and special interests has permeated their government. They have lost faith not only in their elected leaders, but also in the institutions that stand as the very pillars of our representative democracy. With their trust waning, Americans spoke at the ballot box last November, admonishing their elected leaders and declaring that they would no longer tolerate the exploitation of their government by those who wield excessive influence. For this reason, I was gratified to see the House of Representatives move so quickly on ethics and lobby reform when the 110th Congress convened, and I was pleased when Majority Leader Reid placed ethics and lobby reform at the top of the Senate agenda. Both the Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2007 and the Lobbying Transparency and Accountability Act of 2007 enact long overdue ethics and lobbying reforms that will hold our elected officials to the highest possible standards. If we are going to restore the American public's trust in their government, any reform we enact must squarely confront the undue influence that special interests and lobbyists exert on the legislative process. It must strengthen the rules that govern lobbying and close the revolving door between the ``K Street'' lobby firms and the Capitol. It must shine a light on what has until now been a legislative process corrupted by backroom promises and deals struck in the dead of night. It must promulgate new rules that curb wasteful spending by creating greater transparency in the earmark process. Earning back the confidence and trust of the American people will require greater transparency and stronger laws. The American public deserves to be certain that their elected officials are not being swayed by lavish gifts offered as quid pro quo for promoting special agendas. To that end, gifts from registered lobbyists have no place in our legislative process. For that reason, I support the sweeping ban on lobbyist-paid gifts in the Senate bill. This ban includes not just meals but also gifts of travel and lodging, areas that have been the subject of notorious abuse. Our commitment to a new era of openness must go hand in hand with a similar commitment on the part of lobbyists. We must demand more disclosure from lobbyists about their practices and increase the penalties for their failure to disclose their activities. To be clear, our Constitution protects the right of Americans to petition their government. However, what it does not do is protect their ability to hire lobbyists to buy influence by showering elected officials with expensive gifts and vacations. Reining in wasteful spending must also be a part of any ethical reform we enact. Specifically, we must bring reform and accountability to the process of earmarking. Although the term ``earmark'' has taken on a negative connotation, the designation of funds for individual projects or programs is not in and of itself devious. The practice of earmarking permits essential public projects that would otherwise go unfunded and ignored to receive critical funds that can sustain their important community work. However, the process by which earmarks are currently distributed is susceptible to corruption and abuse, and that must be corrected by injecting both accountability and transparency into the process. In order to promote accountability, the Senate bill requires that the legislator sponsoring the earmark identify him or herself and provide a description explaining the ``government purpose'' served by the sponsored project. Additionally, I believe we can improve accountability by mandating publication of the earmark for a minimum period of time prior to any vote on the underlying measure, ensuring that both other elected officials and the general public have the opportunity to scrutinize the sponsored outlay. Taking these common sense steps would ensure that legislators are made to answer for the spending they sponsor. The American people demand a more open and honest government, one that strives to put their concerns ahead of those of special interest, one that endeavors to hold its elected officials accountable to the electorate, and one that inspires the confidence of its people. In order to achieve these goals, we must remove any semblance of impropriety. The reforms contained in both the Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2007 and the Lobbying Transparency and Accountability Act of 2007 enact much-needed and long-awaited reforms that move us toward those goals.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to meet the needs of non-traditional college students. If enacted, The Non-Traditional Student Success Act would expand services that promote retention and graduation for non-traditional students. The number of non-traditional students has been increasing dramatically on college campuses all across America. These students face unique challenges to completing their degree that include affording their education, balancing work, school, and family responsibilities, overcoming inadequate academic preparation, and navigating the college environment. Unfortunately, many of our current higher education policies make it harder, not easier for these students to complete their degree. In fact, among students seeking a bachelor's degree, nearly half of non-traditional students leave college within the first 3 years before completing their studies, compared with 12 percent of traditional students. Similarly, among those seeking an associate's degree, 62 percent of non-traditional students left without any degree, compared with 19 percent of traditional students. This trend has a disproportionate impact on minority communities especially when considering over 80 percent of both black and Hispanic undergraduate students are non-traditional in some way. This trend must end if we are to ensure that all students are awarded an equal opportunity to compete for jobs in today's marketplace. We must take a step forward with a positive agenda in the 110th Congress to ensure that all students are able to successfully acquire a college education as doing so is essential to our economic prosperity. That is why I have introduced the Non-Traditional Student Success Act. The Non-Traditional Student Success Act will tear down the financial barriers many non-traditional students face when financing their college education. By allowing students access to their Federal Pell grants year-round while increasing the maximum Pell grant award to $12,600 over the next 5 years, this bill will not only help students pay for college but also allow them the opportunity to complete programs more quickly. This legislation also creates a pilot program to provide more financial aid--grants and loans--to students enrolled in a degree program less than half-time. This legislation will also expand services that promote retention and graduation for non-traditional students. The Non-Traditional Student Success Act will increase funding for Student Support Service programs, GEAR-UP, mentoring, tutoring and other services to help non-traditional students succeed. While spending for remediation among U.S. colleges and universities approaches the $1 billion mark, this bill create incentives for institutions to customize their courses to help students more successfully complete remedial work and graduate into academic programs. I am happy to report that two of the provisions from the previously introduced Nontraditional Student Success Act were enacted into law through the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005. These provisions, expanding the use of Pell grants for less than half-time students and a provision to reduce the work penalty for independent students, will provide more options to non-traditional students in financing their college education. The fact is, three out of four undergraduate students--75 percent-- are non-traditional in some way. My bill will increase access to a higher education and improve the graduate rates for the millions of non-traditional students. The start of a new Congress brings an opportunity to provide critical changes in higher education and offer assistance to non-traditional students. This proposal is endorsed by the Commission on Independent Colleges and Universities, The Center for Law and Social Policy, Career Colleges Association, and the American Association of Community Colleges. I am hopeful that my Senate colleagues from both sides of the aisle will join in support of this bill and move this legislation to the floor without delay.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to meet the needs of non-traditional college students. If enacted, The Non-Traditional Student Success Act would expand services that promote retention and graduation for non-traditional students. The number of non-traditional students has been increasing dramatically on college campuses all across America. These students face unique challenges to completing their degree that include affording their education, balancing work, school, and family responsibilities, overcoming inadequate academic preparation, and navigating the college environment. Unfortunately, many of our current higher education policies make it harder, not easier for these students to complete their degree. In fact, among students seeking a bachelor's degree, nearly half of non-traditional students leave college within the first 3 years before completing their studies, compared with 12 percent of traditional students. Similarly, among those seeking an associate's degree, 62 percent of non-traditional students left without any degree, compared with 19 percent of traditional students. This trend has a disproportionate impact on minority communities especially when considering over 80 percent of both black and Hispanic undergraduate students are non-traditional in some way. This trend must end if we are to ensure that all students are awarded an equal opportunity to compete for jobs in today's marketplace. We must take a step forward with a positive agenda in the 110th Congress to ensure that all students are able to successfully acquire a college education as doing so is essential to our economic prosperity. That is why I have introduced the Non-Traditional Student Success Act. The Non-Traditional Student Success Act will tear down the financial barriers many non-traditional students face when financing their college education. By allowing students access to their Federal Pell grants year-round while increasing the maximum Pell grant award to $12,600 over the next 5 years, this bill will not only help students pay for college but also allow them the opportunity to complete programs more quickly. This legislation also creates a pilot program to provide more financial aid--grants and loans--to students enrolled in a degree program less than half-time. This legislation will also expand services that promote retention and graduation for non-traditional students. The Non-Traditional Student Success Act will increase funding for Student Support Service programs, GEAR-UP, mentoring, tutoring and other services to help non-traditional students succeed. While spending for remediation among U.S. colleges and universities approaches the $1 billion mark, this bill create incentives for institutions to customize their courses to help students more successfully complete remedial work and graduate into academic programs. I am happy to report that two of the provisions from the previously introduced Nontraditional Student Success Act were enacted into law through the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005. These provisions, expanding the use of Pell grants for less than half-time students and a provision to reduce the work penalty for independent students, will provide more options to non-traditional students in financing their college education. The fact is, three out of four undergraduate students--75 percent-- are non-traditional in some way. My bill will increase access to a higher education and improve the graduate rates for the millions of non-traditional students. The start of a new Congress brings an opportunity to provide critical changes in higher education and offer assistance to non-traditional students. This proposal is endorsed by the Commission on Independent Colleges and Universities, The Center for Law and Social Policy, Career Colleges Association, and the American Association of Community Colleges. I am hopeful that my Senate colleagues from both sides of the aisle will join in support of this bill and move this legislation to the floor without delay.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, yesterday evening I voted to table an amendment that would have prohibited authorized committees and leadership PACs from employing the spouse or immediate family members of any candidate or Federal officeholder connected to the committee. I appreciate the concerns raised by Senator Vitter regarding allegations of abuse in this area, and believe action should be taken when the Senate Rules Committee undertakes comprehensive campaign finance reform later this year. I look forward to working with Chairwoman Feinstein and the rest of my colleagues at that time to deal with the concerns raised by Senator Vitter.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the honorable and heroic actions demonstrated by the late Marine Cpl Jason Dunham of Scio, NY. Today, the President of the United States presented the Medal of Honor, the Nation's highest decoration for combat heroism, to the family of Cpl Jason Dunham during a ceremony in the White House. Cpl Jason Dunham was 22 years old in mid-April of 2004 and serving in Husaybah, Iraq. An Iraqi terrorist attacked Dunham, and Dunham selflessly acted to shield his squad members from a hand grenade blast. The blast severely wounded Dunham and he was flown to Bethesda Naval Hospital outside of Washington, DC where he died April 22, 2004. Corporal Dunham is the first marine to earn the Medal of Honor in more than 30 years and one of only two U.S. service members to be awarded the medal since the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq began. Corporal Dunham's actions in Iraq were truly humbling and worthy of the greatest honor. This medal is a fitting tribute to a true hero who made the ultimate sacrifice on behalf of his Nation and the marines with whom he proudly served. I was honored to have sponsored the legislation last year to designate the U.S. Postal Service facility located at 4422 West Sciota Street in Scio, NY, as the ``Corporal Jason L. Dunham Post Office''. Today, as their son is honored as the incredible hero that he was, I send my thoughts and prayers to Corporal Dunham's family and to all the brave men and women of our Armed Forces.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Calling for 2-1-1 Act. I'm thrilled to be a part of the new Democratic Congress as we move to pass the kind of bipartisan legislation I'm talking about today--a bill that could make an invaluable difference in the lives of citizens in New York and the country. I'd first like to thank my colleague Senator Dole for joining me in this effort. Because of her long history with the Red Cross, the Senator understands the importance of 2-1-1, and I am so pleased to be working with her again in this new Congress to champion this important cause. Every hour of every day, someone in the United States needs essential services--from finding an after-school program to securing adequate care for an aging parent. Faced with a dramatic increase in the number of agencies and help-lines, people often don't know where to turn. In many cases, people end up going without necessary services because they do not know where to start. The 2-1-1 system is a user-friendly social- services network, providing an easy-to-remember and universally available phone number that links individuals and families in need to the appropriate nonprofit and government agencies. 2-1-1 helps people find and give help by providing information on job training, schools, volunteer opportunities, elder care housing, and countless other community needs. However, the importance of this system extends far beyond the day to day needs of our citizens. The need for effective communication was made crystal clear in the immediate aftermath of the devastation of September 11, when most people did not know where to turn for information about their loved ones. Fortunately for those who knew about it, 2-1-1 was already operating in Connecticut, and it was critical in helping identify the whereabouts of victims, connecting frightened children with their parents, providing information on terrorist suspects, and linking ready volunteers with coordinated efforts and victims with necessary mental and physical health services. 2-1-1 provided locations of vigils and support groups, and information on bioterrorism for those concerned about future attacks. As time went by, many people needed help getting back on their feet. More than 100,000 people lost their jobs. Close to 2,000 families applied for housing assistance because they couldn't pay their rent or mortgage. 90,000 people developed symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder or clinical depression within eight weeks of the attacks. Another 34,000 people met the criteria for both diagnoses. And 2-1-1 was there to help. The needs were great and the people of America rose to the challenge. But our infrastructure struggled to keep up with this outpouring of support. In fact, a Brookings Institution and Urban Institute study of the aftermath of September 11 found that many dislocated workers struggled to obtain available assistance. The devastation of natural disasters Hurricanes Katrina and Rita further demonstrated the need to connect people to services quickly in a time of crisis. That's what 2- 1-1 is all about: providing a single, efficient, coordinated way for people who need help to connect with those who can provide it. There is broad, bi-partisan support for this legislation--because the need for it has been proven. Unfortunately, in many States, limited resources have slowed the process of connecting communities with this vital service. Without adequate Federal support, 2-1-1 will not reach a nationwide population for decades. The University of Texas developed a national cost-benefit analysis that found there would be a savings to society of nearly $1.1 billion over ten years if 2-1-1 were operational nationwide. The Federal Government, States, counties, businesses and citizens all stand to benefit from a nationwide 2-1-1 service. As this new Congress moves in a positive direction for America, we must enact legislation that best protects and prepares ourselves for the future. All fifty States deserve to be equipped with the proper communication to respond effectively in an emergency situation. Every single American should have a number they can call to cut through the chaos of an emergency. That number is 2-1-1. It's time to make our citizens and our country safer by making this resource available nationwide.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Calling for 2-1-1 Act. I'm thrilled to be a part of the new Democratic Congress as we move to pass the kind of bipartisan legislation I'm talking about today--a bill that could make an invaluable difference in the lives of citizens in New York and the country. I'd first like to thank my colleague Senator Dole for joining me in this effort. Because of her long history with the Red Cross, the Senator understands the importance of 2-1-1, and I am so pleased to be working with her again in this new Congress to champion this important cause. Every hour of every day, someone in the United States needs essential services--from finding an after-school program to securing adequate care for an aging parent. Faced with a dramatic increase in the number of agencies and help-lines, people often don't know where to turn. In many cases, people end up going without necessary services because they do not know where to start. The 2-1-1 system is a user-friendly social- services network, providing an easy-to-remember and universally available phone number that links individuals and families in need to the appropriate nonprofit and government agencies. 2-1-1 helps people find and give help by providing information on job training, schools, volunteer opportunities, elder care housing, and countless other community needs. However, the importance of this system extends far beyond the day to day needs of our citizens. The need for effective communication was made crystal clear in the immediate aftermath of the devastation of September 11, when most people did not know where to turn for information about their loved ones. Fortunately for those who knew about it, 2-1-1 was already operating in Connecticut, and it was critical in helping identify the whereabouts of victims, connecting frightened children with their parents, providing information on terrorist suspects, and linking ready volunteers with coordinated efforts and victims with necessary mental and physical health services. 2-1-1 provided locations of vigils and support groups, and information on bioterrorism for those concerned about future attacks. As time went by, many people needed help getting back on their feet. More than 100,000 people lost their jobs. Close to 2,000 families applied for housing assistance because they couldn't pay their rent or mortgage. 90,000 people developed symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder or clinical depression within eight weeks of the attacks. Another 34,000 people met the criteria for both diagnoses. And 2-1-1 was there to help. The needs were great and the people of America rose to the challenge. But our infrastructure struggled to keep up with this outpouring of support. In fact, a Brookings Institution and Urban Institute study of the aftermath of September 11 found that many dislocated workers struggled to obtain available assistance. The devastation of natural disasters Hurricanes Katrina and Rita further demonstrated the need to connect people to services quickly in a time of crisis. That's what 2- 1-1 is all about: providing a single, efficient, coordinated way for people who need help to connect with those who can provide it. There is broad, bi-partisan support for this legislation--because the need for it has been proven. Unfortunately, in many States, limited resources have slowed the process of connecting communities with this vital service. Without adequate Federal support, 2-1-1 will not reach a nationwide population for decades. The University of Texas developed a national cost-benefit analysis that found there would be a savings to society of nearly $1.1 billion over ten years if 2-1-1 were operational nationwide. The Federal Government, States, counties, businesses and citizens all stand to benefit from a nationwide 2-1-1 service. As this new Congress moves in a positive direction for America, we must enact legislation that best protects and prepares ourselves for the future. All fifty States deserve to be equipped with the proper communication to respond effectively in an emergency situation. Every single American should have a number they can call to cut through the chaos of an emergency. That number is 2-1-1. It's time to make our citizens and our country safer by making this resource available nationwide.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I am proud that we are finally sending the Lifespan Respite Care Act to the President for his signature. After 4 years of bipartisan efforts, we are delivering a great victory for millions of American families providing care to a parent, child, or loved one. Thank you to Senator Snowe who was the first lead Republican on the legislation and has been a champion for this bill and family caregivers. Thank you to Senator Warner for his efforts on the bill. Your leadership will make a difference in the lives of so many American families. I want to express my appreciation to Representatives Mike Ferguson as the primary sponsor of the House bill as well as Congressman Langevin. We would not be on the verge of enacting this bill without their work. Deep appreciation and thanks to the Lifespan Respite Task Force, a coalition of 180 national, state, and local organizations under the direction of the National Respite Coalition. A special thank you to Jill Kagan of the National Respite Coalition for her leadership and invaluable assistance. Today's passage represents a tremendous win: for ailing seniors, children, and loved ones being cared for at home; for family members providing a time-consuming, emotionally exhausting, and physically demanding labor of love; for our health care system; for our values; and for decisions based on evidence, not ideology. Each year, 44 million Americans care for an adult family member who has a chronic illness or disability. Almost 4 million Americans with developmental disabilities, of all ages, live at home with their families. These are our friends, neighbors, coworkers, loved ones; their work represents real struggle and hardship; extraordinary acts of love and generosity that we have a duty to honor and support. This legislation will expand and enhance access to respite care services to provide support and relief to these families providing care; to help ailing loved ones stay in their homes longer; and to control health care costs as respite care allows families to postpone or prevent expensive hospitalization and nursing care. Today, the fastest growing illnesses in our country are chronic illnesses. And our health care system--already burdened by rising costs, aging infrastructure, a growing population of elderly, and upside-down incentives--is struggling to adapt systems designed to provide acute and immediate care. Families have stepped into this breach. Family caregivers provide 80 percent of all long-term care in the U.S.--work that is virtually always unpaid but valued at more than $300 billion annually. That is more than the entire amount we spent on Medicare in 2004. Today, we are sending a message to family caregivers: through extraordinary sacrifice, in a system plagued by problems, you are part of the solution--and today, finally, Congress is part of the solution, too. Because of their responsibilities at home, studies have shown us that it is much more difficult for caregivers to find and maintain jobs. Many caregiving families are struggling to stay afloat. The cost to businesses is estimated in the tens of billions of dollars, including the cost for employees who leave jobs due to overwhelming responsibilities at home. This labor of love often results in substantial physical and psychological hardship. Research suggests that caregivers often put their own health and well-being at risk while assisting loved ones. Many caregivers are exhausted and are more prone to illness themselves. One study found that caregivers are 51 percent more likely to experience sleeplessness and 61 percent more likely to experience depression. Caregiving stress can even lead to marital discord and divorce. Often, this incredible struggle--with little support despite the heroic efforts of the organizations advocating for and providing respite care--leads to more costly out-of-home placements as a family's only alternative. Across our country quality respite care remains hard to find. Where community respite care services do exist, there are often long waiting lists. And until the Lifespan Respite Care Act, no Federal plan has focused on respite care to coordinate among disparate and fragmented services. Now, after years of work on both sides of the aisle and between the Senate and House, we are finally going to begin meeting the growing needs of family caregivers. Respite care provides some much needed relief--for a few hours or a few days--from the daily demands of caregiving, which are vast. And we know respite care works. In one study, 88 percent of caregivers said that respite care allowed loved ones to remain at home. Nearly 100 percent believed respite care made them better caregivers and helped them manage the stress of this incredible responsibility and 80 percent even said respite care helped their marriages. This act is about real family values and it is exactly what we should be doing in this chamber--no partisanship; understanding hardships and taking steps to help; common sense solutions that put families in charge, that provide the tools to improve their own lives and honor their loved ones, that serve our health care system and our values. Families have stepped into the breach--and now with the Lifespan Respite Care Act, Congress is sending these families a lifeline. This legislation will expand access to respite care; improve local coordination of services; and help families find out about what is available and how to get the care they need. This legislation will make respite services equally available to all age groups and prioritize those with special needs who do not qualify for any other respite services or who cannot find appropriate quality respite care in their communities. It is critical that HHS ensures that the funds provided by this act are used by State agencies and ADRCs--which to date have primarily served the aging population--to serve all age groups and disability categories equally and without preference and without waiting periods or a phase in of age specific groups. This legislation will also facilitate a coordinated approach at the Federal level. To ensure this critical component and maximize our investment, the grantees selected to implement Lifespan programs must be able to demonstrate unequivocally that they are working collaboratively at every level--with agencies in HHS that have respite resources, including the Administration on Aging, the Maternal and Child Health Bureau, other public health programs in the Health Resources and Services Administration, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration, the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare, the Administration on Developmental Disabilities, and the Administration on Children and Families. But improving the services at the local, State, and Federal levels is not enough. All family caregivers, regardless of the age, disability, or chronic condition of their loved ones, should be able to access information on how and where to find a respite provider that meets their needs and on how to pay for services. The lifespan respite program grantees will identify all the current respite funding streams in the State and assist a family in determining, their eligibility for any existing private, State or federally funded respite program. If that family does not qualify for any existing services, the lifespan respite program may use its funds to help families pay for respite. No family should struggle to obtain information on how or where to find or pay for respite care. I thank chairman Senator Enzi for his leadership on the HELP Committee. It has been a privilege serving under him over these last several years, and I am very grateful to him for pushing forward a very positive agenda for the people of our country. I am very proud that we are finally able to reach agreement on the Lifespan Respite Care Act and send it to the President for his signature. This has been a bipartisan effort from the very beginning. I am grateful to Senator Warner who has made a real difference in his leadership on behalf of this bill. I am grateful to Senator Snowe who was the first lead Republican on this legislation and has been a champion. I want to express my appreciation to Representative Mike Ferguson as the primary sponsor of the House bill, as well as Congressman Jim Langevin. We would not be here on the verge of enacting this bill without their work. Deep appreciation and thanks is due to the Lifespan Respite Task Force, a coalition of 180 national, State, and local organizations under the leadership and direction of the National Respite Coalition. A special thanks to Jill Kagan of the National Respite Coalition for her leadership and invaluable assistance. As Senator Enzi said, this bill represents a tremendous acknowledgment of the families who are caring for their loved ones--for failing seniors, for children with disabilities, for a spouse who has been incapacitated by accident or chronic condition. Family members provide most of the support and the time-consuming physical labor and the emotionally exhausting input that really makes it possible to keep people at home. You know, each year 44 million Americans care for an adult family member who has a chronic illness or disability. Almost 4 million Americans with developmental disabilities of all ages live at home with their families. Senator Coburn and I were talking earlier today--this is such a human issue that affects the lives and the fortunes and the feelings of so many of our fellow Americans. What this legislation does is to expand and enhance access to respite care services. What are those for? Those are to give that wife who is caring for her ailing husband a few hours off a week. Those are for that father who devotes himself to his child with a disability, to have someplace to go to get a little bit of respite while his child is still well cared for. Family caregivers provide 80 percent of all long-term care in the United States. But as Senator Coburn and I were discussing, you don't get real financial help unless you put your loved one in a nursing home. There is something wrong with that. That doesn't reflect our deepest values. The work that our loved ones do for all of us is unpaid but valued at more than $300 billion a year. That is more than the entire amount of money we spent on Medicare in 2004. Today our Congress is sending a message to family caregivers: We recognize and we honor your commitment and in many instances your sacrifice. We know that because of this care many caregivers cannot keep their jobs. It becomes too much of a burden. They struggle to stay afloat. They start selling off assets. This is a labor of love that often undermines the health of the very people who are providing it. We found that many caregivers suffer physical symptoms, sleeplessness, depression. They feel like they are all alone. This incredible struggle is one that we will see more and more of in our country because of our aging population. I am grateful that we are going to be passing this legislation and giving some assistance to these courageous men and women, these parents, these children, these grandparents, these spouses. I hope, also, that in the new Congress we will address something else I talked to Senator Coburn about--that we can address this issue of caregiving, and particularly how to rearrange the incentives within our health care system, particularly through Medicaid, where 80 percent of the money is spent on 20 percent of the recipients; and that is mostly for long-term nursing care at the end of life. Many people would rather be home or rather be in a less-restrictive setting. If this is a statement of our concern, we need to follow that up. This will provide what has been missing, improved coordination at the local level of services, helping families understand more about how to shoulder these burdens. It is critical that Health and Human Services ensure that we serve all age groups, all disability categories, without preference, and that we begin to not just honor the love that we see and the sacrifices that are too often accompanying it but really provide some support. I am deeply appreciative of all who have worked over the last year to make this legislation possible. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to continue to address these long-term needs and address how to help people stay at home, how to support their families who are doing the most important work there is.

Mrs. CLINTON. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, the crisis in Darfur demands a more robust response. In July 2004, more than 2 years ago, the United States Senate declared genocide in Darfur. As the crisis has continued, as the death toll has mounted, it was hard to believe that the situation on the ground could deteriorate further. Unfortunately, it has, and the realities today are even worse than they were in July 2004. As many as 4 million civilians have been uprooted from their homes, and by some accounts 400,000 people have been killed. Countless women and young girls are being violently and sexually abused. Escalating violence is forcing the evacuation of many vital relief workers. These realities are well documented. We have United Nations, U.N., reports, State Department reports, reports from our colleagues who have traveled to the region, and countless other reports that tell us what has happened, what is happening, and who may be responsible. In the face of this crisis, the response of many citizens, officials, relief workers, and journalists has been impressive and inspiring. Their courageous efforts are testimony to the great work that can be done by individuals who act on their moral duty to end atrocities. The Senate also has taken important steps. We have provided funding to African Union peacekeepers and to humanitarian workers; we have urged NATO assistance; we have encouraged the establishment of a no-fly zone; we have supported sanctions against the perpetrators of violence; we have established Presidential accountability by requiring regular reports on Darfur; and we have demanded the appointment of a Presidential Envoy to Sudan. We must continue to shine a spotlight and to take action wherever possible. But like many of my constituents, I am disturbed that the killings and rapes and violence continue. I fear that our efforts and those of many Americans are not being complemented by equal efforts from our President. I again urge the administration to be more proactive and to turn the tables on Khartoum. Khartoum repeatedly has committed to disarm the Jingaweit. In fact, the Government of Sudan committed to do so long ago, in the summer of 2004. To date, this promise remains unfulfilled. And this Spring, Sudanese officials said that U.N. peacekeepers would be allowed into Darfur once a peace deal was agreed. This commitment has been broken also. These abandoned promises may not be surprising in light of Khartoum's long history of intransigence. What is astonishing is that Khartoum has faced few consequences for these massive failures, and worse, that Khartoum still is being allowed to dictate the terms of peacekeeping and humanitarian efforts in Darfur. I implore the administration to learn from this grim history, and to get one step ahead of the leaders in Khartoum. We must prepare for all scenarios, not just those we seek. Going forward, our agreements with Khartoum must include some ``teeth'' to incentivize compliance. We should remind Khartoum that we already have good records of the crimes committed in Darfur and of the suspected perpetrators. We also should pursue without delay all points of pressure that have been authorized by the U.N. Security Council. We must demonstrate to Khartoum that continued intransigence will be more painful than cooperation. As we pursue these measures with Khartoum, we should remind rebel groups that they will be held accountable for violations of international law. In addition, we should work urgently with partners to stabilize eastern Chad and the Central African Republic. I suspect that history will pass exacting judgment on all parties who have acted insufficiently to end the suffering in Darfur. But history is a long way off for the people of Darfur, and I will continue to work urgently with colleagues towards peace in Sudan and the region. I urge the President to work more proactively to end this unconscionable crisis.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the great service of retiring Senators Paul Sarbanes, Mark Dayton, and James Jeffords. Senator Sarbanes' service in the Senate stretches back three decades. First elected in 1977, he had previously served as a Congressman and before that as a delegate in the Maryland State House. I have been so grateful to the Senator for his advice and his work in this Chamber. Senator Sarbanes is the son of immigrants from Laconia, Greece, and he has often spoken about the pride that he has for his Greek heritage, as well as the inspiration that he draws from it through his work in the Senate. His parents instilled in him a reverence for the principles of democracy and a respect for the values of opportunity and fairness. He has championed these values throughout his life in public service, passing important legislation to reform the accounting industry, the 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley Act, among many other legislative accomplishments. I want to thank Senator Sarbanes and his dedicated staff for their extensive and laudable work on the surface transportation reauthorization bill and in particular for their tireless efforts to ensure our Nation's transit systems are adequately funded. With so much congestion on our roads it is critical that we continue to invest in our trains, buses, ferries, and other modes of transportation to reduce congestion and reduce travel times. Senator Sarbanes did this work in his role as ranking member of the Banking Committee, and millions of people everyday--especially in New York--who ride trains and buses to and from work should be grateful that we had him on our side for so many years. I could stand here for a long time singing the praises and accomplishments of Senator Sarbanes after a long and distinguished career in the Senate. I will end by saying this: We will miss him and he has left his mark on this great Chamber. I will also express a fond farewell to Senator Dayton. It has been an honor to serve on the Armed Services Committee with Senator Dayton. He has done a wonderful job for the people of Minnesota. In his time in the Senate Senator Dayton worked hard to live up to the legend of Senator Wellstone, to honor the values that Senator Wellstone championed in this body. One example: I was grateful to Senator Dayton for his support of the Nontraditional Student Success Act, a piece of legislation to help more people attend college while working and raising families--to open the doors of opportunity wider for more and more Americans. I am grateful to Mark Dayton for his work to honor his values, and I know he leaves this body having made the people of Minnesota proud. I will also say a few words about Senator Jeffords. Senator Jeffords has ably represented Vermonters here in the Congress for decades. In doing so, he has reflected the independent spirit of Vermonters, and no more so than when he took the courageous step in 2001 to become an Independent and caucus with the Democrats. Since that time, I have had the great pleasure of working with Senator Jeffords on the Environment and Public Works Committee. His tenure at that committee was a fitting capstone to his career, as he has long been focused on environmental protection. Throughout his long and distinguished career, Senator Jeffords has been a strong advocate of renewable energy. In many ways, he has been ahead of his time. In 1990, he introduced a bill to promote ethanol and other alternative fuels, and nearly 10 years ago he introduced legislation to create a 20-percent renewable portfolio standard. During his tenure first as chairman, and then as ranking member of the EPW committee, he has been a strong and clear voice for a cleaner environment. He has been an ally and a champion of reducing pollution from powerplants, fighting global warming, and making our buildings more energy efficient. And he has worked hard to hold the administration to task for numerous rollbacks of our landmark environmental laws. During his tenure on the committee, Senator Jeffords has been ably assisted by a staff led by Ken Connolly and Alison Taylor. I thank them and Senator Jeffords' entire staff for their assistance to me and my staff. Unfortunately, I could not attend the final EPW meeting this week, but I understand that Senator Jeffords announced that he is returning home to Vermont, and described home as ``the place you can go where they have to take you in.'' I know that Vermont will welcome Senator Jeffords back with open arms, and I know that he will always have a home away from home here in the Senate. Finally, I also wish the very best to my Republican colleagues who will leave the Senate at the conclusion of this Congress. The Senate, at its best, is a body that promotes bipartisanship, deliberation, and cooperation, and the dedication to shared values. It has been a privilege to work with my departing colleagues on the other side of the aisle.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I submit to the Record my disappointment that the Senate failed to consider S. 1948, The Cameron Gulbransen Kids and Cars Safety Act to improve the child safety features in new vehicles. Nearly every other day, a child dies in the United States from a completely preventable tragedy--backed over by a driver who could not see behind their vehicle, strangled in a power window, or killed when an automobile inadvertently shifts into gear. The average age of victims in these cases is just 1 year old. In 70 percent of cases, a parent, relative, or close friend is behind the wheel. Safety is something every family deserves, and it is not a partisan issue. I have been proud to work with Senator Sununu of New Hampshire as my partner on this legislation. We have met with families from our States and listened to parents share their heart-wrenching experience of losing a child. The Gulbransens are one such family. Two-year-old Cameron was killed when he slipped outside unnoticed by his mother and babysitter and toddled behind the SUV his father was backing into the driveway. It is in memory of Cameron and the hundreds of children like him that we introduced bipartisan legislation to take steps we know can reduce these accidents. The Cameron Gulbransen Kids and Cars Safety Act will help to ensure that America's cars are properly equipped to prevent these tragedies from happening to others. While the auto manufacturing industry has tried to make some changes to address these issues, this bill is timely and urgently needed. As parents, we do all we can to keep our children safe. As legislators, we should do the same to protect our Nation's children. I am committed to reintroducing the Cameron Gulbransen Kids and Cars Safety Act in the 110th Congress and will work vigorously to ensure that safer cars mean safer kids across America.