Barack Obama

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I wish to commend Chairman Lieberman and Senator Collins for their hard work on this issue. I acknowledge that the underlying bill is an improvement over the status quo. It is just that we can do so much better. I ask that we ensure this amendment be included in the final package we vote on. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. OBAMA. I yield the floor.

Mr. OBAMA. If the Senator from Maine will yield, I want to ask a couple of questions based on my understanding. Maybe I am confused. We based our assessment of which States see an increase, which States do not see an increase, and which States see a decrease under our bill on the CRS analysis, assuming $913 million appropriated. They tell us 34 States will see an increase in funding, 6 States will see the same amount of funding under my amendment to S. 4, and 10 States will see a loss. We have not had the benefit of the analysis that was just presented on that chart indicating 32 States would see a decrease, so I am curious if either the chairman or the Senator from Maine would tell me where they got that statistic. Because I understand the statement was made: Well, the formulas may change, and this was based on the previous formula. I have no problem with changing the formula so it is more risk-based assessed. But I don't understand how it is that simply because we are going to eliminate some of the flaws of the previous formula that somehow--or the risk assessments, that somehow that is going to change the basic assessment that was made by the Congressional Research Service. I am happy for either Senator to respond.

Mr. OBAMA. Very briefly----

Mr. OBAMA. Thank you very much. I want to make clear now, it sounds to me as if we are comparing apples and oranges. Assuming we--which is what CRS did--apply the same formula on my amendment, my amendment would have 34 States see an increase in funding, and 6 States would remain the same. Now, if the funding formula changes, it might change 1 or 2 States, depending on what the risk assessments were, but it is not going to result in 32 States suddenly seeing a decrease in funding. This is a decrease in funding based on the bare minimums without applying any of the additional funding which we know is going to be coming. So it strikes me that chart does not describe at all the reality of what would happen under my amendment. I want to make sure I am clear in terms of what we are preparing here, because the best estimate of how this funding will be impacted is based on the CRS's own assessment of what would have happened this year. Ms. COLLINS addressed the Chair.

Mr. OBAMA. It is their time.

Mr. OBAMA. I certainly yield to the distinguished Senator from Maine to respond to my inquiry.

Mr. OBAMA. Madam President, I want to be exactly clear on what we are talking about here so there is no confusion among my colleagues. No one disputes that under my amendment, the minimum funding changes. That is the whole point of the amendment, is to change the minimum funding levels and shift more of the money into the risk-based assessment. So to state that 32 States lose on the minimum funding levels is to state the obvious. That is the point of the amendment. The point is more money then goes into the risk-based funding, and when you factor that in, unless there is going to be no risk-based funding--I mean I suppose that is a possibility, but I don't think so-- all that money, when you factor it in, will result in, under last year's formula, 34 States gaining and 6 States staying the same. Now, I also agree with the distinguished Senator from Maine that there were problems with last year's formula, and I am fine with changes to that formula. I have actively supported changes to that formula, including any possible shortchanging of high-risk areas such as Washington, DC or New York. The point of my amendment is very simple, and that is more money is allocated on the basis of risk. I am not concerned about predetermining where those risks are. That is the job of the Department of Homeland Security, and that is the purpose of our amendment. I want to be clear. Under your chart, Illinois loses money that is guaranteed under the minimum funding, as does New Jersey, Oklahoma, and Louisiana. But I would note that Senators Menendez, Coburn, and Landrieu were all cosponsors because they understand when the money is allocated based on risk, then wherever we live throughout the United States, we are going to be potentially better off. I am going to make one last point and then I am happy to listen to a response. Both Senators Lieberman and Collins talked about an all- hazards funding approach. I have no objection to that either. But keep in mind, we are talking here about the State Homeland Security Grant Program, which is not supposed to be targeted at all hazards. We have a separate program--the Emergency Management Grant Program--that is supposed to be addressing all hazards and that is why this amendment does not touch that portion of homeland security funding that is directed at all hazards. That is not the purpose of the State Homeland Security Grant Program. The purpose of that is supposed to be to deal with potential terrorist threats. That is why the 9/11 Commission and Chairman Lee Hamilton of the 9/11 Commission and the 9/11 families, all of whom I think have great concern about the safety of all Americans, indicate it makes sense for us to allocate this as much on the basis of risk as possible. It is for that reason that the House allocated funding on the basis of the formula we are discussing. I wish to make sure that anybody who is listening understands, yes, the guaranteed minimum funding might be less for 32 States, but that is because more of the money goes into the pot based on risk. When you add the funding that will be allocated on the basis of risk, then we can assume that at least 34 States would see an increase under my amendment, and 6 States would see about the same amount of funding. If the formula changes, it is conceivable that instead of 34 States, it may be 32 States or 36 States that see an increase in funding; instead of 6 States with the same amount under both amendments, it might be 4 States or 8 States. But the basic principle is that the funding is going to be allocated on risk. The Emergency Management Planning Grant Program deals with all-hazards funding.

Mr. OBAMA. Madam President, I have a very quick comment, and then I will yield to the Senator from New Jersey, who wants to speak on this amendment. I wish to make perfectly clear that the statement made by the Senator from Delaware is absolutely right. Every State has some risks. I have no doubt that Delaware has chemical plants and there are ports and various facilities that constitute real risk. Under the formula I am advocating, the funding is allocated on the basis of risk that will take into account such infrastructure. The notion somehow that the Department of Homeland Security will not take chemical plants into account is simply incorrect. Rural States, small States, large States--for all states, all of the allocations that are made, other than the .25 percent guaranteed level of funding, would be made on the basis of risk. The Department of Homeland Security will presumably make an educated, expert assessment on the risk that exists in Delaware, Maine or Connecticut. So it is not as if those States would not be getting money under this amendment. It is simply that the judgment of those experts, who are paid to determine what the threats are and what the risks are, would be the guiding basis upon which we make these decisions.

Mr. OBAMA. Madam President, I would like to yield the remaining time to the Senator from New Jersey.

Mr. OBAMA. The Senator from New Jersey has been waiting for quite some time.

Mr. OBAMA. Madam President, I thank my distinguished colleague from New Jersey for an eloquent summation of what this amendment is about. What I would like to do is reiterate my response to some of the issues that were raised by the distinguished Senators from Connecticut and Maine. No. 1, we are talking about real money. We don't have exact figures, but let's assume we are talking about around $80 million that would be shifted from guaranteed funding to the States and instead would be allocated on the basis of risk. That $80 million will mean firefighters are getting the equipment they need in States that have higher risks. It will mean more money will be available for interoperability systems. It means this money will be allocated to States that have chemical plants and nuclear plants in higher proportion than those States that do not. In each case, this money, under my amendment, will be allocated on the basis of the risk assessments made by experts, as recommended under the 9/11 Commission Report, and will not be allocated simply on the basis that every State gets a piece of the pie regardless of risk, threats and vulnerabilities. To go back to the issue of how many States benefit or lose, my main point is that we all win when the money is allocated on the basis of risk. We all win. Every State wins. But in terms of the estimates of which States gain and which States lose, I reiterate, the chart that was put up by the Senator from Maine is only talking about the amount of money that is allocated on the basis of guaranteed funding, not based on risk. The additional funding, the lion's share of the funding, as the Senator from Delaware stated, will be allocated on the basis of risk, and once you factor that in, then you can be assured that the overwhelming majority of States will get more money under my amendment than they will under the underlying bill. That is the central point. Don't get confused when it is stated that 32 States stand to lose money under this amendment. They stand to lose the guaranteed money because more money goes back into risk assessment, and once it is put back into the States, then you will see a majority of States gaining under my amendment. Madam President, there is one last point I wish to reiterate. One of the seemingly plausible arguments made by the Senator from Connecticut and the Senator from Maine was that we want an all-hazards funding approach--hurricanes, natural disasters. We want to make sure that money is fairly allocated. I reiterate, that is not the point of this program. We have another program that allocates on the basis of all hazards. That is the Emergency Management Planning Grant Program. So if they want to make an argument that money should be allocated to all States at a certain percentage to guarantee minimum funding for all hazards funding, that is entirely sensible, but that is not what this funding stream is all about. This funding stream is supposed to address the specific risks and threats of terrorism. So if we want to follow the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Report, then we must protect against those particular risks for which the program is designed. I appreciate the healthy debate. This does not always happen on the floor of the Senate. I thank my colleague from Connecticut, the chairman of the committee, for entertaining as many questions as he did, and I thank him for his patience. I reiterate that the underlying bill is an improvement over the status quo, but the same principles that drove the Senator from Connecticut and the Senator from Maine to change and reduce the amount of minimum funding each State obtains is the same principle of my amendment. I just take it a step further. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised that if you applied the manner of calculating funding that was up on the chart behind the Senator from Maine, it is not clear to me you wouldn't see a whole bunch of States losing under the change the Chairman has proposed as well. But what he realizes and the reason he thinks the underlying bill makes sense is because that money is going to be distributed based on risk, and in the end a lot of States will do better. This amendment is no different. It simply takes it a step further in line with what the House has done and in line with what the 9/11 Commission Report recommends. I urge all my colleagues to join on this amendment. I believe it will be an improvement not just for some States but for the entire country. I thank the Chair.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, this amendment aims at moving us closer to a risk-based allocation of resources. It takes us a step closer to the 9/11 Commission report. I want to let everyone know that 34 States actually potentially do better under this amendment. Six States are held harmless, and there are some States that would get less money. But keep in mind the whole goal of this particular program is to ensure that money is allocated on the basis of risk. It would still be .25 percent of the money allocated to every State. It would still be a minimum, and there would still be money through other programs that would ensure that money is allocated to States for all-hazard purposes. So I strongly urge all in this Chamber to take a look at this bill and look at the chart that we passed out. There have been arguments from my good friend, the Senator from Connecticut, as well as the Senator from Maine, suggesting that somehow States get less money. That is only the baseline; it does not include the money that would be allocated on the basis of risk. I urge a ``no'' vote on this motion to table.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, 33 years ago, this Nation faced a crisis that touched every American. In 1973, in the shadow of a war against Israel, the Arab nations of OPEC decided to embargo shipments of crude oil to the West. The economic effects were devastating. For American drivers, the price at the gas pump rose from a national average of 38.5 cents per gallon in May 1973 to 55.1 cents per gallon in June 1974. The stock market fell, and countries across the world faced terrible cycles of inflation and recession that lasted well into the 1980s. Lawmakers in Washington reacted by calling for a nationwide daylight savings time and a national speed limit. They established a new Department of Energy that eventually created a strategic petroleum reserve. Perhaps most important, Congress enacted the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards, or CAFE, the first-ever requirements for automakers to improve gas mileage on the vehicles we drive. At the time, auto executives protested, saying there was no way to increase fuel economy without making cars smaller. One company predicted that Americans would all be driving sub-compacts as a result of CAFE. But CAFE did work, and under the direction of Congress, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, NHSTA, nearly doubled the average gas mileage of cars from 14 miles per gallon in 1976 to 27.5 mpg for cars in 1985. Today, CAFE standards save us about 3 million barrels of oil per day, making it the most successful energy- saving measure ever adopted. Now 30 years later, Americans again are feeling the pain at the pump. The price of oil has reached up to $78 a barrel, and Americans have paid more than $3.00 a gallon for gas. America's 20-million-barrel-a- day habit costs our economy $800 million a day, or $300 billion annually. Because we import 60 percent of our oil, much of it from the Middle East, our dependence on oil is also a national security issue as well. Al-Qaida knows that oil is America's Achilles heel. Osama bin Laden has urged his supporters to ``Focus your operations on oil, especially in Iraq and the gulf area, since this will cause them to die off.'' At a time when the energy and security stakes couldn't be higher, CAFE standards have been stagnant. In fact, because of a long-standing deadlock in Washington, CAFE standards that initially increased so quickly have remained stagnant for the last 20 years. Since 1985, efforts to raise the CAFE standard have been stymied by opponents who have argued that Congress does not possess the expertise to set specific benchmarks and that an inflexible congressional mandate would result in the production of less safe cars and a loss of American jobs. This has been a bureaucratic logjam that has ignored technological innovations in the auto industry and crippled our ability to increase fuel efficiency. To attempt to break this two-decade-Iong deadlock and start the U.S. on the path towards energy independence, I have joined with Senators Lugar, Biden, Smith, Bingaman, Coleman, and Specter to introduce the Fuel Economy Reform Act of 2007. This bill would set a new course by establishing regular, continual, and incremental progress in miles per gallon, targeting 4 percent annually, but preserving NHTSA expertise and flexibility on how to meet those targets. Over the past 20 years, NHTSA's efforts to improve fuel economy have been encumbered with loopholes and resistance. With this bill, CAFE standards would increase by 4 percent every year unless NHTSA can justify a deviation in that rate by proving that the increase is technologically unachievable, does not materially reduce the safety of automobiles manufactured or sold in the U.S., or can prove it is not cost-effective when comparing with the economic and geopolitical value of a gallon of gasoline saved. We specifically define the grounds upon which NHTSA can determine cost-effectiveness. By flipping the presumption that has served as a barrier to action, we replace the status quo of continued stagnation with steady, measured progress. Under this system, if the 4 percent annualized improvement occurs over ten years, this bill would save 1.3 million barrels of oil per day--or 20 billion gallons of gasoline per year. If gasoline is just $2.50 per gallon, consumers will save $50 billion at the pump in 2018. By 2018, we would be cutting global warming pollution by 220 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent gases. The Fuel Economy Reform Act also would provide fairness and flexibility to domestic automakers by establishing different standards for different types of cars. Currently, manufacturers have to meet broad standards over their whole fleet of cars. This disadvantages companies like Ford and General Motors that produce full lines of small and large cars and trucks rather than manufacturers that only sell small cars. In order to enable domestic manufacturers to develop advanced- technology vehicles, this legislation provides tax incentives to retool parts and assembly plants. This will strengthen the U.S. auto industry by allowing it to compete with foreign hybrid and other fuel efficient vehicles. It is our expectation that NHTSA will use its enhanced authority to bring greater market-based flexibility into CAFE compliance by allowing the banking and trading of credits among certain vehicle types and between manufacturers. Finally, the bill also would expand the tax incentives that encourage consumers to buy advanced technology vehicles. The bill would lift the current 60,000-per-manufacturer cap on buyer tax credits to allow more Americans to buy ultra-efficient vehicles like hybrids. By ending a 20-year stalemate on CAFE, the Fuel Economy Reform Act will recapture the innovation that Congress and the auto industry launched in response to the OPEC crisis. In the process, we will safeguard our national security, protect our economy, reduce consumer pain at the pump, and protect our climate, environment, and public health. I urge my colleagues to join our bipartisan coalition and support the Fuel Economy Reform Act. I ask unanimous consent that the text of these two bills be printed in the Record.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, 33 years ago, this Nation faced a crisis that touched every American. In 1973, in the shadow of a war against Israel, the Arab nations of OPEC decided to embargo shipments of crude oil to the West. The economic effects were devastating. For American drivers, the price at the gas pump rose from a national average of 38.5 cents per gallon in May 1973 to 55.1 cents per gallon in June 1974. The stock market fell, and countries across the world faced terrible cycles of inflation and recession that lasted well into the 1980s. Lawmakers in Washington reacted by calling for a nationwide daylight savings time and a national speed limit. They established a new Department of Energy that eventually created a strategic petroleum reserve. Perhaps most important, Congress enacted the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards, or CAFE, the first-ever requirements for automakers to improve gas mileage on the vehicles we drive. At the time, auto executives protested, saying there was no way to increase fuel economy without making cars smaller. One company predicted that Americans would all be driving sub-compacts as a result of CAFE. But CAFE did work, and under the direction of Congress, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, NHSTA, nearly doubled the average gas mileage of cars from 14 miles per gallon in 1976 to 27.5 mpg for cars in 1985. Today, CAFE standards save us about 3 million barrels of oil per day, making it the most successful energy- saving measure ever adopted. Now 30 years later, Americans again are feeling the pain at the pump. The price of oil has reached up to $78 a barrel, and Americans have paid more than $3.00 a gallon for gas. America's 20-million-barrel-a- day habit costs our economy $800 million a day, or $300 billion annually. Because we import 60 percent of our oil, much of it from the Middle East, our dependence on oil is also a national security issue as well. Al-Qaida knows that oil is America's Achilles heel. Osama bin Laden has urged his supporters to ``Focus your operations on oil, especially in Iraq and the gulf area, since this will cause them to die off.'' At a time when the energy and security stakes couldn't be higher, CAFE standards have been stagnant. In fact, because of a long-standing deadlock in Washington, CAFE standards that initially increased so quickly have remained stagnant for the last 20 years. Since 1985, efforts to raise the CAFE standard have been stymied by opponents who have argued that Congress does not possess the expertise to set specific benchmarks and that an inflexible congressional mandate would result in the production of less safe cars and a loss of American jobs. This has been a bureaucratic logjam that has ignored technological innovations in the auto industry and crippled our ability to increase fuel efficiency. To attempt to break this two-decade-Iong deadlock and start the U.S. on the path towards energy independence, I have joined with Senators Lugar, Biden, Smith, Bingaman, Coleman, and Specter to introduce the Fuel Economy Reform Act of 2007. This bill would set a new course by establishing regular, continual, and incremental progress in miles per gallon, targeting 4 percent annually, but preserving NHTSA expertise and flexibility on how to meet those targets. Over the past 20 years, NHTSA's efforts to improve fuel economy have been encumbered with loopholes and resistance. With this bill, CAFE standards would increase by 4 percent every year unless NHTSA can justify a deviation in that rate by proving that the increase is technologically unachievable, does not materially reduce the safety of automobiles manufactured or sold in the U.S., or can prove it is not cost-effective when comparing with the economic and geopolitical value of a gallon of gasoline saved. We specifically define the grounds upon which NHTSA can determine cost-effectiveness. By flipping the presumption that has served as a barrier to action, we replace the status quo of continued stagnation with steady, measured progress. Under this system, if the 4 percent annualized improvement occurs over ten years, this bill would save 1.3 million barrels of oil per day--or 20 billion gallons of gasoline per year. If gasoline is just $2.50 per gallon, consumers will save $50 billion at the pump in 2018. By 2018, we would be cutting global warming pollution by 220 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent gases. The Fuel Economy Reform Act also would provide fairness and flexibility to domestic automakers by establishing different standards for different types of cars. Currently, manufacturers have to meet broad standards over their whole fleet of cars. This disadvantages companies like Ford and General Motors that produce full lines of small and large cars and trucks rather than manufacturers that only sell small cars. In order to enable domestic manufacturers to develop advanced- technology vehicles, this legislation provides tax incentives to retool parts and assembly plants. This will strengthen the U.S. auto industry by allowing it to compete with foreign hybrid and other fuel efficient vehicles. It is our expectation that NHTSA will use its enhanced authority to bring greater market-based flexibility into CAFE compliance by allowing the banking and trading of credits among certain vehicle types and between manufacturers. Finally, the bill also would expand the tax incentives that encourage consumers to buy advanced technology vehicles. The bill would lift the current 60,000-per-manufacturer cap on buyer tax credits to allow more Americans to buy ultra-efficient vehicles like hybrids. By ending a 20-year stalemate on CAFE, the Fuel Economy Reform Act will recapture the innovation that Congress and the auto industry launched in response to the OPEC crisis. In the process, we will safeguard our national security, protect our economy, reduce consumer pain at the pump, and protect our climate, environment, and public health. I urge my colleagues to join our bipartisan coalition and support the Fuel Economy Reform Act. I ask unanimous consent that the text of these two bills be printed in the Record.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President. I am proud to introduce the Voter Advocate and Democracy Index Act of 2007 with the goal of having the Act help inform voters and State officials on how well their States are doing on a basic set of procedural standards for making polls accessible to voters and making the right to vote as easy to exercise as possible. The Act would establish an Office of the Voter Advocate within the Election Assistance Commission that would be charged with creating a Democracy Index. The Index would rank States according to a system of measurable, basic state election practices. With that information, States could identify weak spots in their process, and voters could push for better performance. The concept is based on a proposal that Yale Law School Professor Heather Gerken published this January in Legal Times. It focuses on issues that matter to all voters: How long did voters spend in line? How many ballots got discarded? How often did the balloting machinery break down? The Act would constitute an important first step toward improving the health of our democracy. We are all familiar with the problems that have recently plagued our elections: Long lines, lost ballots, voters improperly turned away from the polls. These are basic failures of process. Until we fix them, we run the risk in every election that we will once again experience the kind of chaos and uncertainty that paralyzed the Nation in 2000. We can do better. We must do better. But to do better, we need more than anecdotal information. We need better, nonpartisan, objective information. This bill would provide that information. Some voters have personally experienced problems in casting a ballot; others see stories on the news about election results tainted by malfunctioning machines, inadequate registration lists, or poorly trained administrators. I believe that these issues are merely the visible symptoms of a deeper, systemic problem in the way our election system is run. But voters need a yardstick for evaluating the full extent of the problem and what needs to be done to improve the election process in their State. Toward that end, this bill would charge the Office of the Voter Advocate with creating the Democracy Index and specifying the success or failure of States in meeting the criteria that the index is going to measure. The bill also ensures that the Office of the Voter Advocate will draw upon the experience and knowledge of experts and citizens in thinking about what information voters would want to know in evaluating the health of their State's election process. And it requires the Office to establish a pilot program for the 2008 election, use the lessons learned from that experience, and make the Index a reality nationwide as soon as possible. The Democracy Index would encourage healthy competition among States to improve their systems. It would allow states to engage in healthy experimentation about how best to run an election. In short, the Democracy Index will empower voters and encourage States to work toward the goal we all share: an election system that makes us all proud.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President. I am proud to introduce the Voter Advocate and Democracy Index Act of 2007 with the goal of having the Act help inform voters and State officials on how well their States are doing on a basic set of procedural standards for making polls accessible to voters and making the right to vote as easy to exercise as possible. The Act would establish an Office of the Voter Advocate within the Election Assistance Commission that would be charged with creating a Democracy Index. The Index would rank States according to a system of measurable, basic state election practices. With that information, States could identify weak spots in their process, and voters could push for better performance. The concept is based on a proposal that Yale Law School Professor Heather Gerken published this January in Legal Times. It focuses on issues that matter to all voters: How long did voters spend in line? How many ballots got discarded? How often did the balloting machinery break down? The Act would constitute an important first step toward improving the health of our democracy. We are all familiar with the problems that have recently plagued our elections: Long lines, lost ballots, voters improperly turned away from the polls. These are basic failures of process. Until we fix them, we run the risk in every election that we will once again experience the kind of chaos and uncertainty that paralyzed the Nation in 2000. We can do better. We must do better. But to do better, we need more than anecdotal information. We need better, nonpartisan, objective information. This bill would provide that information. Some voters have personally experienced problems in casting a ballot; others see stories on the news about election results tainted by malfunctioning machines, inadequate registration lists, or poorly trained administrators. I believe that these issues are merely the visible symptoms of a deeper, systemic problem in the way our election system is run. But voters need a yardstick for evaluating the full extent of the problem and what needs to be done to improve the election process in their State. Toward that end, this bill would charge the Office of the Voter Advocate with creating the Democracy Index and specifying the success or failure of States in meeting the criteria that the index is going to measure. The bill also ensures that the Office of the Voter Advocate will draw upon the experience and knowledge of experts and citizens in thinking about what information voters would want to know in evaluating the health of their State's election process. And it requires the Office to establish a pilot program for the 2008 election, use the lessons learned from that experience, and make the Index a reality nationwide as soon as possible. The Democracy Index would encourage healthy competition among States to improve their systems. It would allow states to engage in healthy experimentation about how best to run an election. In short, the Democracy Index will empower voters and encourage States to work toward the goal we all share: an election system that makes us all proud.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the ``Dignity for Wounded Warriors Act,'' which I am proud to introduce with Senator McCaskill. Last week, the Nation learned of the serious problems at Walter Reed Army Medical Center including decaying, cockroach-infested facilities and an overwhelmed patient-care bureaucracy. As described in a series of articles in the Washington Post by Dana Priest and Anne Hull, wounded soldiers are returning home from the battle in Iraq only to face a new battle to get the care and benefits they have earned. These stories should not have come as a complete surprise to those who have followed the issue closely. We have long known that troops returning from battle face numerous bureaucratic hurdles when they get home. That's why I introduced legislation last year to smooth the transition from active duty to civilian life. The Lane Evans Bill expands and improves electronic medical records, face-to-face physical exams, better tracking of veterans, and other approaches to make life easier for returning veterans. However, the stories out of Walter Reed last week did shock my conscience because, like many Senators, I have made the half-hour trek from the Capitol to visit Walter Reed. And I saw what the Army wanted the world to see: a shining world-class facility where the wounded can heal with state-of-the-art care. I never saw mold growing on the walls, or broken elevators, or the lack of adequate support for soldiers and their families. Walter Reed was supposed to be the flagship of military health care. Instead it has become an emblem of much that is wrong with the system, and a harbinger of more severe problems that may be hiding at other military hospitals and facilities that are not in the spotlight. The problems at Walter Reed stem from complex causes, the most important of which is that the military and VA have not yet prepared for the growing flood of casualties from the Iraq war. Our injured troops did not hesitate to fight for us on the battlefield--we shouldn't make them fight again at home in order to receive the care they deserve. That is why Senator McCaskill and I are introducing the bipartisan Dignity for Wounded Warriors Act today. The bill will fix the problems at Walter Reed and improve care at our military hospitals and facilities. Our bill would fix deplorable conditions at outpatient residence facilities by setting high standards and increasing accountability. Under this bipartisan measure, the standards will be clear. First, recovering soldiers' rooms will be as good or better as the best standard rooms for active-duty troops. Second, our injured heroes will not have to wait more than two weeks for maintenance problems to be repaired. Third, we will have zero tolerance for pest infestations. And finally, emergency medical personnel and crisis counselors will be available to recovering troops 24 hours a day. The bill also tackles accountability problems. In the days following the Post stories, the Army vice chief of staff, and the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs both said they were surprised by conditions at Walter Reed and directed blame on lower-ranking officers and noncommissioned officers. I also read in the Army Times that soldiers at Walter Reed have been warned not to talk to the media. Under our bill, we won't have to rely on the media to inform the Congress and the American people of the conditions at military hospitals. It requires that the Inspector General inspect facilities twice a year and report conditions to high-level officials and the public. Under our bill, military leaders will no longer be able to use the excuse that they didn't know conditions on the ground. When injured servicemembers return home, they along with their family members face a mountain of paperwork and bureaucracy. From the moment a doctor determines a soldier may be unable to return to duty, it takes an average of 209 days for the military to figure out what to do with the soldier. The system is broken, and soldiers and their families are the ones who pay the price. Our bill addresses this problem by bringing the far flung parts of the military's Physical Disability Evaluation System (PDES) under one roof in each branch of the military. It also puts much of the system online so that caseworkers and servicemembers can manage their documents electronically. Today, students can apply to go to law school or business school online, without ever having to touch a piece of paper. Navigating the Pentagon bureaucracy should be that easy. Our bill also calls for injury-specific procedures so that the most severely injured servicemembers can skip unnecessary steps. There's no reason why a soldier with a gunshot injury to the spine should face the same procedural hurdles in order to prove his injury was service- related as a soldier with less severe injuries. At the same time, nothing in our bill will prevent those servicemembers who wish to stay in the military from appealing decisions. Our bill also helps soldiers and their families navigate the PDES system with new hotlines, manuals, and an ombudsman to help answer questions. Another problem at Walter Reed is casework. The caseworkers are doing amazing work helping soldiers schedule medical appointments, prepare paperwork, and obtain their everyday needs. However, the caseworkers are overwhelmed. Some have to care for 50 or more recovering soldiers at a time, more than double the ideal ratio. The Dignity for Wounded Warriors Act fixes this problem by forcing the Pentagon to work with each military hospital to set the ideal ratio of caseworkers to patients based on the particular needs of that facility. In the interim, our bill requires a temporary ratio of 1 caseworker for every 20 recovering servicemembers. This will push the Pentagon to begin hiring and training caseworkers right away. This legislation also provides important new support for family members who often have to endure economic and emotional hardship to accompany their loved one through the recovery process and the currently flawed PDES process. It clarifies that non-medical attendees and family members on invitational orders may receive medical care and mental health counseling while caring for injured loved ones at military facilities. It extends employment and job placement training services to family members. And most important, this bipartisan legislation provides federal protections against a family member on invitational orders being fired. I think we can all agree that a mother should never have to choose between caring for a wounded son or daughter and keeping her job. Secretary Gates promised a thorough investigation by outside experts and accountability for those responsible. Our bill builds on that model by establishing an Oversight Board of outside experts to review the Pentagon's progress in implementing this bill. The Board would be appointed by Congress and the executive branch and be made up of veterans, wounded soldiers, family members and experts on military medicine. The Oversight Board will be an important check to make sure the Defense Department is following through to care for recovering troops. We cannot move fast enough to make sure our wounded troops are getting the care they need. No cost is too great. We must pass the Dignity for Wounded Warriors Act quickly and follow up with the adequate resources to ensure the men and women recovering at military hospitals across the world get the best care we can offer.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the ``Dignity for Wounded Warriors Act,'' which I am proud to introduce with Senator McCaskill. Last week, the Nation learned of the serious problems at Walter Reed Army Medical Center including decaying, cockroach-infested facilities and an overwhelmed patient-care bureaucracy. As described in a series of articles in the Washington Post by Dana Priest and Anne Hull, wounded soldiers are returning home from the battle in Iraq only to face a new battle to get the care and benefits they have earned. These stories should not have come as a complete surprise to those who have followed the issue closely. We have long known that troops returning from battle face numerous bureaucratic hurdles when they get home. That's why I introduced legislation last year to smooth the transition from active duty to civilian life. The Lane Evans Bill expands and improves electronic medical records, face-to-face physical exams, better tracking of veterans, and other approaches to make life easier for returning veterans. However, the stories out of Walter Reed last week did shock my conscience because, like many Senators, I have made the half-hour trek from the Capitol to visit Walter Reed. And I saw what the Army wanted the world to see: a shining world-class facility where the wounded can heal with state-of-the-art care. I never saw mold growing on the walls, or broken elevators, or the lack of adequate support for soldiers and their families. Walter Reed was supposed to be the flagship of military health care. Instead it has become an emblem of much that is wrong with the system, and a harbinger of more severe problems that may be hiding at other military hospitals and facilities that are not in the spotlight. The problems at Walter Reed stem from complex causes, the most important of which is that the military and VA have not yet prepared for the growing flood of casualties from the Iraq war. Our injured troops did not hesitate to fight for us on the battlefield--we shouldn't make them fight again at home in order to receive the care they deserve. That is why Senator McCaskill and I are introducing the bipartisan Dignity for Wounded Warriors Act today. The bill will fix the problems at Walter Reed and improve care at our military hospitals and facilities. Our bill would fix deplorable conditions at outpatient residence facilities by setting high standards and increasing accountability. Under this bipartisan measure, the standards will be clear. First, recovering soldiers' rooms will be as good or better as the best standard rooms for active-duty troops. Second, our injured heroes will not have to wait more than two weeks for maintenance problems to be repaired. Third, we will have zero tolerance for pest infestations. And finally, emergency medical personnel and crisis counselors will be available to recovering troops 24 hours a day. The bill also tackles accountability problems. In the days following the Post stories, the Army vice chief of staff, and the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs both said they were surprised by conditions at Walter Reed and directed blame on lower-ranking officers and noncommissioned officers. I also read in the Army Times that soldiers at Walter Reed have been warned not to talk to the media. Under our bill, we won't have to rely on the media to inform the Congress and the American people of the conditions at military hospitals. It requires that the Inspector General inspect facilities twice a year and report conditions to high-level officials and the public. Under our bill, military leaders will no longer be able to use the excuse that they didn't know conditions on the ground. When injured servicemembers return home, they along with their family members face a mountain of paperwork and bureaucracy. From the moment a doctor determines a soldier may be unable to return to duty, it takes an average of 209 days for the military to figure out what to do with the soldier. The system is broken, and soldiers and their families are the ones who pay the price. Our bill addresses this problem by bringing the far flung parts of the military's Physical Disability Evaluation System (PDES) under one roof in each branch of the military. It also puts much of the system online so that caseworkers and servicemembers can manage their documents electronically. Today, students can apply to go to law school or business school online, without ever having to touch a piece of paper. Navigating the Pentagon bureaucracy should be that easy. Our bill also calls for injury-specific procedures so that the most severely injured servicemembers can skip unnecessary steps. There's no reason why a soldier with a gunshot injury to the spine should face the same procedural hurdles in order to prove his injury was service- related as a soldier with less severe injuries. At the same time, nothing in our bill will prevent those servicemembers who wish to stay in the military from appealing decisions. Our bill also helps soldiers and their families navigate the PDES system with new hotlines, manuals, and an ombudsman to help answer questions. Another problem at Walter Reed is casework. The caseworkers are doing amazing work helping soldiers schedule medical appointments, prepare paperwork, and obtain their everyday needs. However, the caseworkers are overwhelmed. Some have to care for 50 or more recovering soldiers at a time, more than double the ideal ratio. The Dignity for Wounded Warriors Act fixes this problem by forcing the Pentagon to work with each military hospital to set the ideal ratio of caseworkers to patients based on the particular needs of that facility. In the interim, our bill requires a temporary ratio of 1 caseworker for every 20 recovering servicemembers. This will push the Pentagon to begin hiring and training caseworkers right away. This legislation also provides important new support for family members who often have to endure economic and emotional hardship to accompany their loved one through the recovery process and the currently flawed PDES process. It clarifies that non-medical attendees and family members on invitational orders may receive medical care and mental health counseling while caring for injured loved ones at military facilities. It extends employment and job placement training services to family members. And most important, this bipartisan legislation provides federal protections against a family member on invitational orders being fired. I think we can all agree that a mother should never have to choose between caring for a wounded son or daughter and keeping her job. Secretary Gates promised a thorough investigation by outside experts and accountability for those responsible. Our bill builds on that model by establishing an Oversight Board of outside experts to review the Pentagon's progress in implementing this bill. The Board would be appointed by Congress and the executive branch and be made up of veterans, wounded soldiers, family members and experts on military medicine. The Oversight Board will be an important check to make sure the Defense Department is following through to care for recovering troops. We cannot move fast enough to make sure our wounded troops are getting the care they need. No cost is too great. We must pass the Dignity for Wounded Warriors Act quickly and follow up with the adequate resources to ensure the men and women recovering at military hospitals across the world get the best care we can offer.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Madam President, I will vote today to bring up a resolution for debate that would disapprove of the President's policy of escalation in Iraq. Last November, the American people sent a clear message to their representatives in Washington. With their votes, the American people said they wanted a change in direction with regard to the war in Iraq. Unfortunately, the White House--and its defenders in the Senate--has ignored that will and fought to keep this day from happening for as long as they could. We may fail to get the required number of votes to debate this very simple resolution. And even if we do get enough votes, I realize that this resolution may not force a single change to this country's policy in Iraq. I realize that it may not bring the Shiites and Sunnis closer to peace, nor will it bring a single soldier home from this war. But for the first time in the 4 years of this long, hard war, Democrats and Republicans can join together to express the will of the people who sent us here. That is why today's vote must be only the beginning, and not the end, of a long-overdue debate on how we plan to exit Iraq and refocus our efforts on the wider war against terror. If more stalemate and inaction follow this resolution, it truly will be a meaningless gesture. It is now the responsibility of every Member of this body to put forth a plan that offers the best path to peace among the Iraqis so that our brave soldiers can finally come home. Recently, I introduced the Iraq De-Escalation Act of 2007. This plan would not only place a cap on the number of troops in Iraq and stop the escalation, it would more importantly begin a phased redeployment of U.S. forces with the goal of removing of all U.S. combat forces from Iraq by March 31, 2008--consistent with the expectations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group that the President has so assiduously ignored. The redeployment of troops to the United States, Afghanistan, and elsewhere in the region would begin no later than May 1 of this year, toward the end of the timeframe I first proposed in a speech more than 2 months ago. In a civil war where no military solution exists, this redeployment remains our best leverage to pressure the Iraqi Government to achieve the political settlement between its warring factions that can slow the bloodshed and promote stability. My plan allows for a limited number of U.S. troops to remain as basic force protection, to engage in counterterrorism, and to continue the training of Iraqi security forces. And if the Iraqis are successful in meeting the 13 benchmarks for progress laid out by the Bush administration itself, this plan also allows for the temporary suspension of the redeployment, provided Congress agrees that the benchmarks have actually been met and that the suspension is in the national security interest of the United States. The U.S. military has performed valiantly and brilliantly in Iraq. Our troops have done all that we have asked them to do and more. But no amount of American soldiers can solve the political differences at the heart of somebody else's civil war, nor settle the grievances in the hearts of the combatants. It is my firm belief that the responsible course of action for the United States, for Iraq, and for our troops is to oppose this reckless escalation and to pursue a new policy. This policy that I have laid out is consistent with what I have advocated for well over a year, with many of the recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, and with what the American people demanded in the November election. When it comes to the war in Iraq, the time for promises and assurances, for waiting and patience, is over. Too many lives have been lost and too many billions have been spent for us to trust the President on another tried and failed policy opposed by generals and experts, Democrats and Republicans, Americans and many of the Iraqis themselves. It is time for us to fundamentally change our policy. It is time to give Iraqis their country back. And it is time to refocus America's efforts on the challenges we face at home and the wider struggle against terror yet to be won.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the Stop Tax Haven Abuse Act, which I am proud to cosponsor with Senators Levin and Coleman. This bill seeks to improve the fairness of our tax system by deterring the abuse of secret tax havens and unacceptable tax avoidance strategies. It is a serious solution to a serious problem. An investigation by the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations found that offshore tax havens and secrecy jurisdictions hold trillions of dollars in assets and are often used as havens for tax evasion, financial fraud, and money laundering. Experts estimate that abusive tax shelters and tax havens cost this country between $40 billion and $70 billion every year, and the burden of filling this gap is borne unfairly by taxpayers who follow the rules and can't afford high-priced lawyers and accountants to help them game the system. The problem is not new, but we need a new solution. Several years ago, the subcommittee heard testimony from the owner of a Cayman Island offshore bank who estimated that all of his clients--100 percent--were engaged in tax evasion, and 95 percent were U.S. citizens. In 2000, the Enron Corporation--remember Enron?--established over 441 offshore entities in the Cayman Islands. A 2004 report found that U.S. multinational corporations are increasingly attributing their profits to offshore jurisdictions. A 2005 study of high-net-worth individuals worldwide estimated that their offshore assets now total $11.5 trillion. The IRS has estimated that more than half a million U.S. taxpayers have offshore bank accounts and access those funds with offshore credit cards. Unfortunately, the tax, corporate, or bank secrecy laws and practices of about 50 countries make it nearly impossible for American authorities to gain access to necessary information about U.S. taxpayers in order to enforce U.S. tax laws. Today, the Government has the burden of proving that a taxpayer has control of the tax haven entity and is the beneficial owner. This allows taxpayers to rely on the secrecy protections of tax havens to deceive Federal tax authorities and evade taxes. This is not a political issue of how low or high taxes ought to be. This is a basic issue of fairness and integrity. Corporate and individual taxpayers alike must have confidence that those who disregard the law will be identified and adequately punished. Those who defy the law or game the system must face consequences. Those who enforce the law need the tools and resources to do so. We cannot sit idly by while tax secrecy jurisdictions impede the enforcement of U.S. law. Under this bill, if you create a trust or corporation in a tax haven jurisdiction, send it assets, or benefit from its actions, the Federal Government will presume in civil judicial and administrative proceedings that you control the entity and that any income generated by it is your income for tax, securities, and money-laundering purposes. The burden of proof shifts to the corporation or the individual, who may rebut these presumptions by clear and convincing evidence. This bill provides an initial list of offshore secrecy jurisdictions where these evidentiary presumptions will apply. Taxpayers with foreign financial accounts in Anguilla, Bermuda, the Cayman Islands, or Dominica, for example, should be prepared to report their accounts to the IRS. And this bill will make it easier for the IRS to find such taxpayers if they do not. The Treasury Secretary may add to or subtract from the list of offshore secrecy jurisdictions. The list does not reflect a determination that a country is necessarily uncooperative but merely that it is difficult to obtain adequate financial and beneficial ownership information from that country and it is ripe for tax abuse. If an offshore jurisdiction is in fact uncooperative and impedes U.S. tax enforcement, however, this bill gives Treasury the authority to impose sanctions, including the denial of the right to issue credit cards for use in the United States. This bill also establishes a $1 million penalty on public companies or their officers who fail to disclose foreign holdings and requires hedge funds and private equity funds to establish anti-money laundering programs and to submit suspicious activity reports. Importantly, this bill clarifies that the sole purpose of a transaction cannot legitimately be to evade tax liability. Transactions must have meaningful ``economic substance'' or a business purpose apart from tax avoidance or evasion. There is no such thing as a free lunch--someone always has to pay. And when a crooked business or shameless individual does not pay its fair share, the burden gets shifted to others, usually to ordinary taxpayers and working Americans without access to sophisticated tax preparers or corporate loopholes. This bill strengthens our ability to stop shifting the tax burden to working families. All of us must pay our fair share of the cost of securing and running this country. There is no excuse for benefiting from the laws and services, institutions, and economic structure of our Nation, while evading your responsibility to do your part. I believe it is our job to keep the system fair, and that is what this bill seeks to do. I commend Senator Levin and Senator Coleman for their leadership on this important issue. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this bill and urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the Stop Tax Haven Abuse Act, which I am proud to cosponsor with Senators Levin and Coleman. This bill seeks to improve the fairness of our tax system by deterring the abuse of secret tax havens and unacceptable tax avoidance strategies. It is a serious solution to a serious problem. An investigation by the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations found that offshore tax havens and secrecy jurisdictions hold trillions of dollars in assets and are often used as havens for tax evasion, financial fraud, and money laundering. Experts estimate that abusive tax shelters and tax havens cost this country between $40 billion and $70 billion every year, and the burden of filling this gap is borne unfairly by taxpayers who follow the rules and can't afford high-priced lawyers and accountants to help them game the system. The problem is not new, but we need a new solution. Several years ago, the subcommittee heard testimony from the owner of a Cayman Island offshore bank who estimated that all of his clients--100 percent--were engaged in tax evasion, and 95 percent were U.S. citizens. In 2000, the Enron Corporation--remember Enron?--established over 441 offshore entities in the Cayman Islands. A 2004 report found that U.S. multinational corporations are increasingly attributing their profits to offshore jurisdictions. A 2005 study of high-net-worth individuals worldwide estimated that their offshore assets now total $11.5 trillion. The IRS has estimated that more than half a million U.S. taxpayers have offshore bank accounts and access those funds with offshore credit cards. Unfortunately, the tax, corporate, or bank secrecy laws and practices of about 50 countries make it nearly impossible for American authorities to gain access to necessary information about U.S. taxpayers in order to enforce U.S. tax laws. Today, the Government has the burden of proving that a taxpayer has control of the tax haven entity and is the beneficial owner. This allows taxpayers to rely on the secrecy protections of tax havens to deceive Federal tax authorities and evade taxes. This is not a political issue of how low or high taxes ought to be. This is a basic issue of fairness and integrity. Corporate and individual taxpayers alike must have confidence that those who disregard the law will be identified and adequately punished. Those who defy the law or game the system must face consequences. Those who enforce the law need the tools and resources to do so. We cannot sit idly by while tax secrecy jurisdictions impede the enforcement of U.S. law. Under this bill, if you create a trust or corporation in a tax haven jurisdiction, send it assets, or benefit from its actions, the Federal Government will presume in civil judicial and administrative proceedings that you control the entity and that any income generated by it is your income for tax, securities, and money-laundering purposes. The burden of proof shifts to the corporation or the individual, who may rebut these presumptions by clear and convincing evidence. This bill provides an initial list of offshore secrecy jurisdictions where these evidentiary presumptions will apply. Taxpayers with foreign financial accounts in Anguilla, Bermuda, the Cayman Islands, or Dominica, for example, should be prepared to report their accounts to the IRS. And this bill will make it easier for the IRS to find such taxpayers if they do not. The Treasury Secretary may add to or subtract from the list of offshore secrecy jurisdictions. The list does not reflect a determination that a country is necessarily uncooperative but merely that it is difficult to obtain adequate financial and beneficial ownership information from that country and it is ripe for tax abuse. If an offshore jurisdiction is in fact uncooperative and impedes U.S. tax enforcement, however, this bill gives Treasury the authority to impose sanctions, including the denial of the right to issue credit cards for use in the United States. This bill also establishes a $1 million penalty on public companies or their officers who fail to disclose foreign holdings and requires hedge funds and private equity funds to establish anti-money laundering programs and to submit suspicious activity reports. Importantly, this bill clarifies that the sole purpose of a transaction cannot legitimately be to evade tax liability. Transactions must have meaningful ``economic substance'' or a business purpose apart from tax avoidance or evasion. There is no such thing as a free lunch--someone always has to pay. And when a crooked business or shameless individual does not pay its fair share, the burden gets shifted to others, usually to ordinary taxpayers and working Americans without access to sophisticated tax preparers or corporate loopholes. This bill strengthens our ability to stop shifting the tax burden to working families. All of us must pay our fair share of the cost of securing and running this country. There is no excuse for benefiting from the laws and services, institutions, and economic structure of our Nation, while evading your responsibility to do your part. I believe it is our job to keep the system fair, and that is what this bill seeks to do. I commend Senator Levin and Senator Coleman for their leadership on this important issue. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this bill and urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. OBAMA

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

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise to speak in favor of a bill I am proud to introduce today with Senators Bayh and Coburn to help close the tax gap by improving the reporting of capital gains income. This bill requires brokerage firms and mutual fund companies to track and report the adjusted cost basis of their clients' stock, bond, and mutual fund investments. This bill is a simple, commonsense solution to a serious problem. Many taxpayers have a hard enough time filing their taxes. One of the most complex parts of an individual's tax return is the schedule for capital gains income. And what makes capital gains particularly difficult is the challenge of figuring out the adjusted basis of a security that has been sold. Many taxpayers lack the proper records or knowledge to calculate adjusted basis for a stock that has split or been exchanged as part of a company's merger or acquisition. And right now, the IRS does not have the ability to monitor the accuracy of taxpayer calculations. As a result, there is a clear risk of error or fraud. In some cases, taxpayers may end up paying too much in taxes. More often, they report too little income and thus pay too little in taxes. In 2001, the IRS estimated that underreporting cost the Treasury $11 billion annually. Today the loss is even greater. Because the IRS fails to collect these funds, the rest of us have to pay higher taxes than we should. Most people pay their taxes honestly and follow the law to the best of their ability. But a small number of tax frauds--who often owe great amounts of taxes--cheat the system. And it's hard now for the IRS to stop them. This bill makes it easier to stop these cases of fraud and it helps reduce the amount of Federal tax dollars owed that the IRS fails to collect each year. Brokerage firms and mutual fund companies will be required to keep track of a taxpayer's cost basis and to report that information to the IRS. This will make it easier for honest taxpayers to calculate their taxable capital gain, and harder for dishonest taxpayers to lie about it. Based on information from the Taxpayer Advocate, reporting to the IRS can improve compliance of capital gains reporting from an estimated 50 percent today to 90 percent. Fortunately, this new reporting requirement will not pose an undue burden to the financial firms affected. First, the firms will have plenty of time to put the necessary systems in place since the reporting requirement will not take effect until 2009, and then will only apply to securities acquired starting in 2009. Second, technology has made tracking by financial firms simple and efficient. More than 80 percent of all retail accounts already subscribe to a national reporting service for transferring basis information at a nominal cost per account. Finally, in cases where it is impossible to track basis, the Treasury Secretary and the IRS may develop regulations to require alternative information. It is estimated that $345 billion of Federal taxes goes uncollected each year. This bill doesn't solve that full problem, but it is a step in the right direction. It reduces the Federal deficit without raising taxes or cutting spending. It simplifies the tax filing process and reduces the chance of error or fraud. It applies what we know about the clear benefits of automatic reporting to the IRS--which is required now for wage income--to capital gains income as well. This bill makes sense. It's good policy. And I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting it and in helping to improve our tax code.