Barack Obama

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I am proud to join Senators Frist and Clinton in introducing the Health Technology to Enhance Quality Act of 2005. Our national health care system is in crisis. Forty-five million Americans are uninsured, and this number continues to rise. Health care costs are increasing at almost double digit rates. Millions of Americans are suffering, and dying, from diseases such as diabetes or AIDS that could have been prevented or delayed for many years. And the chance of Americans receiving the right care, at the right time and for the right reason is no greater than the flip of a coin. These health care issues are varied and complex, as are the solutions. But, as one of my constituents advised, it is time for us in the Congress to put on our hard hats, pick up our tool belts and get to work fixing our broken health care system. One place to start is by bringing the health care system into the 21st century. In our lifetimes, we have seen some of the greatest advances in the history of technology and the sharing of information. Yet, in our health care system, too much care is still provided with a pen and paper. Too much information about patients is not shared between doctors or readily available to them in the first place. And providers too often do not have the information to know what care has worked most effectively and efficiently to make patients healthy. Mistakes are easily made--medical errors alone kill up to 98,000 people a year, more people than the number who die from AIDS each year. But embracing 21st century technology is not just about reducing errors and improving the quality of medical care. It is also about cost. We spend nearly $1.5 trillion a year on health care in America. But a quarter of that money--one out of every four dollars--is spent on non- medical costs--most of it on bills and paperwork. Every transaction you make at a bank now costs them less than a penny. Yet, because we have not updated technology in the rest of the health care industry, a single transaction still costs up to $25--not one dime of which goes toward improving the quality of our health care. The Health Technology to Enhance Quality Act of 2005 is going to help bring the health care system into the 21st century. This bill will lead to the development and implementation of health information technology standards to ensure interoperability of health information systems. The legislation codifies the Office of National Coordinator for Information Technology and establishes standards for the electronic exchange of health information. The bill also provides grant funding to support development of health information technology infrastructure as well as measurement of the quality of care provided to patients. This legislation will help our health care system take a huge step forward. A vote for the Health TEQ Act is a vote for health care that is safe, effective, and affordable. I urge my colleagues to join us in passing this bill quickly.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I am proud to join Senators Frist and Clinton in introducing the Health Technology to Enhance Quality Act of 2005. Our national health care system is in crisis. Forty-five million Americans are uninsured, and this number continues to rise. Health care costs are increasing at almost double digit rates. Millions of Americans are suffering, and dying, from diseases such as diabetes or AIDS that could have been prevented or delayed for many years. And the chance of Americans receiving the right care, at the right time and for the right reason is no greater than the flip of a coin. These health care issues are varied and complex, as are the solutions. But, as one of my constituents advised, it is time for us in the Congress to put on our hard hats, pick up our tool belts and get to work fixing our broken health care system. One place to start is by bringing the health care system into the 21st century. In our lifetimes, we have seen some of the greatest advances in the history of technology and the sharing of information. Yet, in our health care system, too much care is still provided with a pen and paper. Too much information about patients is not shared between doctors or readily available to them in the first place. And providers too often do not have the information to know what care has worked most effectively and efficiently to make patients healthy. Mistakes are easily made--medical errors alone kill up to 98,000 people a year, more people than the number who die from AIDS each year. But embracing 21st century technology is not just about reducing errors and improving the quality of medical care. It is also about cost. We spend nearly $1.5 trillion a year on health care in America. But a quarter of that money--one out of every four dollars--is spent on non- medical costs--most of it on bills and paperwork. Every transaction you make at a bank now costs them less than a penny. Yet, because we have not updated technology in the rest of the health care industry, a single transaction still costs up to $25--not one dime of which goes toward improving the quality of our health care. The Health Technology to Enhance Quality Act of 2005 is going to help bring the health care system into the 21st century. This bill will lead to the development and implementation of health information technology standards to ensure interoperability of health information systems. The legislation codifies the Office of National Coordinator for Information Technology and establishes standards for the electronic exchange of health information. The bill also provides grant funding to support development of health information technology infrastructure as well as measurement of the quality of care provided to patients. This legislation will help our health care system take a huge step forward. A vote for the Health TEQ Act is a vote for health care that is safe, effective, and affordable. I urge my colleagues to join us in passing this bill quickly.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the amendment offered by the Senator from New Mexico. During the debate on this energy bill, we have already heard and will continue to hear about the importance of strengthening the energy independence of America. The phrase ``energy independence,'' however, must be heard no longer as a routine utterance. It must be heard as an urgent warning of the most serious magnitude. The sirens are sounding, and I fear that we are not listening. The days of running a 21st century economy on a 20th century fossil fuel are numbered--and we need to realize that before it is too late. The price of gas is now around $2.24 per gallon. Crude oil is now soaring over $50 a barrel. The Saudis are pumping at near-full capacity, and their own oil minister says that the price of crude will probably stay at this price for the rest of the year. And Goldman Sachs predicts that soon it may reach $100 a barrel. Imagine what that would do the price of gas--$100 for one barrel of oil. Our own Department of Energy predicts that American demand will jump by 50 percent over the next 15 years. And as developing countries like China and India continue to grow, the world will be faced with more drivers than it knows what to do with. Right now, there are 800 million cars on the road. By 2050, that number will grow to 3.25 billion. Think about that 3.25 billion cars guzzling oil that is becoming more limited and more expensive with each passing day. We could open up every corner of the United States for drilling and tell the oil companies to go to town, but with only 3 percent of the world's oil supplies, it wouldn't even make a dent in the problem. Of course, most of the rest of the world's oil lies in the Middle East, a region we have seen torn by war and terror. Every year, we send $25 billion to these countries to buy oil. It doesn't matter if they are budding democracies, despotic regimes with nuclear intentions, or havens for the madrasas that plant the seeds of terror in young minds they get our money because we need their oil. What is worse--this oil isn't even well-protected. Over the last few years, terrorists have stepped up their attempts to attack poorly defended oil tankers and pipelines. And a former CIA agent tells us that if a terrorist hijacked a plane in Kuwait and crashed it into an oil complex in Saudi Arabia, it could take enough oil off the market and cause more economic damage in the United States than if a dirty nuclear weapon exploded in downtown Manhattan. Recently, I came across a quote from Henry Ford, the carmaker, who said these prophetic words in 1916: All the world is waiting for a substitute to gasoline. When that is gone, there will be no more gasoline, and long before that time, the price of gasoline will have risen to a point where it will be too expensive to burn as a motor fuel. Mr. Ford was right--he was just ahead of his time. His words were spoken before the shocks to our economy caused by the oil crisis of the 1970s, before the world's oil fields became areas of turmoil and terrorism, before growing nations like China and India joined us at the trough of massive petroleum consumption. We need a 21st century energy policy. Whether this bill accomplishes that remains to be seen. But it is clear that part of the solution must be greater use of renewable fuels instead of continued reliance on foreign oil. That is why I am astonished that there is any effort in this Chamber to eviscerate a renewable fuels standard that can and will--further America's energy independence while also strengthening our economy. The Nation's ethanol production is expected to exceed 4 billion gallons this year. In the coming years, ethanol production is expected to be so robust that as much as 8 billion gallons of renewable fuels could be in our fuel supply by 2012. Right now, outside Washington, in cities and towns, on farms and in factories across America, there is hope for us to do so much more than we have been doing on energy. Whether it is farming the corn in Galesburg that can fuel our cars or fine-tuning the microchip in Chicago that let's us plug them in, people are taking America's energy future into their own hands with the same sense of innovation and optimism that has always kept our country on the forefront of discovery and exploration. They deserve a government that can see that future too. The American people are asking us to address high gas prices. The American people are asking us for greater national security. The American people are asking us to invest in job creation. The renewable fuels standard in the Domenici amendment proposes to do just that in 7 years, and I am proud to be a cosponsor of the amendment. Instead of continuing to link our energy policy to foreign fields of oil, it should be linked to farm fields of corn. I urge my colleagues to support the Domenici amendment.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. I agree with the senior Senator from Vermont about the importance of upholding the rule of law in Africa and around the world. I would also like to add my support for the efforts of the Special Court for Sierra Leone to bring to justice some of the worst war criminals of the 20th century. While the Special Court has not been perfect, there is no question that the Court is doing vitally important work of promoting peace and reconciliation, increasing accountability, and strengthening the rule of law throughout West Africa. I also want to discuss a related issue--the case of Charles Taylor. I know the Senator from Vermont has been working for years on this issue. I will simply say that Charles Taylor is an indicted war criminal, and he needs to be transferred to the Special Court to stand trial as soon as possible. The Government of Nigeria has allowed Charles Taylor to live in exile, within its borders, with the support of the international community, including the United States, since August 2003. While we owe Nigeria a debt of gratitude for helping prevent further bloodshed in Liberia, it is time for Mr. Taylor to be transferred to the Special Court. No nation should be permitted to willfully ignore an indictment issued by this tribunal. Moreover, there are credible reports that Mr. Taylor has broken the terms of his exile, is a threat to the Liberian peace process, and continues to meddle in the internal affairs of Liberia--just a few months before the Liberian elections. I wonder if the Senator from Vermont shares my views?

Mr. OBAMA. I thank the Senator from Vermont, the ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, because he makes a crucial point. Debt relief from the United States is not automatic. In the past, debt relief has come with conditions, including making progress in fighting corruption and on economic reform, to ensure that this relief achieves the maximum results. For Nigeria, this means turning over Charles Taylor--an indicted war criminal who has the blood of thousands on his hands and threatens, once again, to destabilize the region--to the Special Court. Like the Senator from Vermont, I strongly believe that Nigeria is a worthy candidate for debt relief and a key U.S. partner in West Africa. When Charles Taylor is turned over, there is no doubt in my mind that I will be a forceful advocate for debt relief for Nigeria. I would also like to praise the Government of Nigeria for its leadership on other issues, especially their efforts to lead the African Union force in Darfur. I want nothing more than to see the Taylor issue successfully resolved so we can focus our attention on other important issues with the Nigerians. I would also reiterate what the Senator said about the waiver authority contained in section 585. The President can waive these restrictions, including those pertaining to Nigerian debt relief, by formulating a plan to get Mr. Taylor to the Court.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of this resolution. Before I make any further remarks, I would like to recognize Doria D. Johnson, and thank her for coming. She is from Evanston, IL. Ms. Johnson is the great, great-granddaughter of Anthony Crawford, a South Carolina farmer who was lynched nearly 100 years ago for the crime of being a successful Black farmer. I am sure that this day has special meaning for her, and for the other family members of those who were impacted by these great tragedies of the past. I thank her and others for being here today. Since America's darkest days of Jim Crow, separate but equal, fire hoses, church bombings, cross burnings and lynchings, the people of this great Nation have found the courage, on occasion, to speak up and speak out so that we can right this country's wrongs, and walk together down that long road of transformation that continues to perfect our Union. It is a transformation that brought us the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act; a transformation that led to the first Black Member of Congress, and the first Black and White children holding hands in the same playground and the same school; a transformation without which I would not be standing here speaking today. But I am. And I am proud because, thanks to this resolution, we are taking another step in acknowledging a dark corner of our history. We are taking a step that allows us--after looking at the 4,700 deaths from lynchings, the hate that was behind those deaths, and this Chamber's refusal to try and stop them--to finally say that we were wrong. There is a power in acknowledging error and mistake. It is a power that potentially transforms not only those who were impacted directly by the lynchings, but also those who are the progeny of the perpetrators of these crimes. There is a piercing photographic exhibit in Chicago right now that displays some of the lynchings that occurred across the country over the past two centuries. These photographs show that what is often most powerful is not the gruesome aspects of the lynching itself, nor the terrible rending of the body that took place. No, what is most horrific, what is most disturbing to the soul is the photographs in which you see young little White girls or young little White boys with their parents on an outing, looking at the degradation of another human being. One wonders not only what the lynching did to the family member of those who were lynched, but also what the effect was on the sensibilities of those young people who stood there, watching. Now that we are finally acknowledging this injustice, we have an opportunity to reflect on the cruelties that inhabit all of us. We can now take the time to teach our children to treat people who look different than us with the same respect that we would expect for ourselves. So it is fitting, it is proper, and it is right that we are doing what we are doing today. However, I do hope, as we commemorate this past injustice, that this Chamber also spends some time doing something concrete and tangible to heal the long shadow of slavery and the legacy of racial discrimination, so that 100 years from now we can look back and be proud, and not have to apologize once again. That means completing the unfinished work of the civil rights movement, and closing the gap that still exists in health care, education, and income. There are more ways to perpetrate violence than simply a lynching. There is the violence that we subject young children to when they do not have any opportunity or hope, when they stand on street corners not thinking much of themselves, not thinking that their lives are worth living. That is a form of violence that this Chamber could do something about. As we are spending time apologizing today for these past failures of the Senate to act, we should also spend some time debating the extension of the Voting Rights Act and the best way to extend health care coverage to over 45 million uninsured Americans. We should be considering how we can make certain that college is affordable for young African-American children, the great, great-grandchildren or the great, great, great-grandchildren of those who have been wronged. These are the ways we can finally ensure that the blessings of opportunity reach every single American, and finally claim a victory in the long struggle for civil rights. Today is a step in the right direction. Today's actions give us an opportunity to heal and to move forward. But for those who still harbor anger in their hearts, who still wonder how to move on from such terrible violence, it is worth reflecting for a moment on one remarkable individual: Mamie Till Mobley. Mamie Till Mobley's child Emmett was only 14 years old when they found him in the Mississippi River, beaten and bloodied beyond recognition. After Ms. Mobley saw her child, her baby, unrecognizable, his face so badly beaten it barely looked human, someone suggested that she should have a closed casket at his funeral. She said: No, we are going to have an open casket, and everybody is going to witness what they did to my child. The courage displayed by this mother galvanized the civil rights movement in the North and in the South. And, despite the immensity of the pain she felt, Mamie Till Mobley has repeatedly said: I never wasted a day hating. Imagine that. She never wasted a day hating, not one day. I rise today, thanking God that the United States Congress--the representatives of the American people and our highest ideals--will not waste one more day without issuing the apology that will continue to help us march down the path of transformation that Mamie Till Mobley has been on her whole life, and that the people in attendance in the gallery have been on for generations. I am grateful for this tribute, and I am looking forward to joining hands with my colleagues and the American people to make sure that when our children and grandchildren look back at our actions in this Chamber, we do not have something to apologize for. I yield the floor.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, on May 22, 2005, the women's lacrosse team from Northwestern University captured the NCAA Division I championship. This was the first championship for the Wildcats' women's lacrosse team and the first women's lacrosse champion to come from outside of the eastern time zone. This championship also marks a milestone for Northwestern sports. It is the first ever women's team championship for the university and only the second team championship in school history. The men's fencing team was national champion in 1941. This talented and dedicated team from the great State of Illinois secured the championship by defeating traditional lacrosse powerhouses, Dartmouth and Princeton. The Wildcats completed their undefeated, 21 win season with a 13-10 victory over defending champion Virginia. Since regaining varsity status in 2002, this outstanding program has taken only four seasons to capture the championship. Congratulations to Abby Bangser, Donna McCann, Sarah Albrecht, Kristen Kjellman, Sara Crosby, Aly Josephs, Kristen Boege, Ashley Koester, Courtney Koester, Hilary Alley, Ashley Gersuk, Courtney Flynn, Christy Finch, Lindsey Munday, Emily Lovett, Laura Glassanos, Shelby Chlopak, Kaitie Lenahan, Lynda McCandlish, Abby Alley, Sarah Walsh, Lindsay Finocchiaro, Jenny Bush, Fallon McGraw, Quinn Cammarota, Lindsay North, Meredith Philipp, Hannah Whitman, Rebecca Zazove, Annie Elliott, Bailey Su, Kate Darmody, Minnie Doherty, Kim Corcoran, Head Coach Kelly Amonte Hiller, Assistant Coach Alexis Venechanos, Assistant Coach Danielle Shearer, and Assistant Coach Scott Hiller. Please join me in congratulating the Northwestern women's lacrosse team on its historic championship season.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. I thank the Chair. I rise today to speak on the nomination of California Justice Janice Rogers Brown to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. Let me begin by saying that the last thing I would like to be spending my time on right now is talking about judges. I am sure that is true for many in this Chamber. I know that I certainly do not hear about filibusters and judges when I go back to Illinois and hold townhall meetings with people across the State. What I hear about are veterans who are concerned about their disability payments and families who are talking about how high gas prices are or how difficult it is to pay for college. And so I think this argument we have been having over the last several weeks about judicial nominations has been an enormous distraction from some of the work that is most important to the American people. Moreover, I am not so naive as to think that speaking to an empty Chamber for the benefit of C-SPAN is somehow going to change people's minds or people's votes. I recognize that most of my colleagues, on both sides of the aisle, are fairly locked into their positions. I do not expect the President to appoint many judges of my liking. One of the things I have told some of my colleagues on this side of the aisle is that there is only one sure way to make sure Democrats are able to block what they consider to be bad judges, and that is to win elections. And yet I feel compelled to rise on this issue to express, in the strongest terms, my opposition to the nomination of Janice Rogers Brown to the D.C. Circuit. I think it is important for the American people to know just what it is we are getting. After the Supreme Court, as my esteemed colleague from Wisconsin just stated, the D.C. Circuit is widely viewed as the second highest court in the land. Three of our current Supreme Court Justices came directly from this court. Under its jurisdiction fall laws relating to all sorts of Federal agencies and regulations. This is a special court. It has jurisdiction that other appeals courts do not have. The judges on this court are entrusted with the power to make decisions affecting the health of the environment, the amount of money we allow in politics, the right of workers to bargain for fair wages and find freedom from discrimination, and the Social Security that our seniors will receive. It is because of this power that we deserve to give the American people a qualified judicial nominee to serve on the D.C. Circuit. Now, the test for a qualified judicial nominee is not simply whether they are intelligent. Some of us who attended law school or were in business know there are a lot of real smart people out there whom you would not put in charge of stuff. The test of whether a judge is qualified to be a judge is not their intelligence. It is their judgment. The test of a qualified judicial nominee is also not whether that person has their own political views. Every jurist surely does. The test is whether he or she can effectively subordinate their views in order to decide each case on the facts and the merits alone. That is what keeps our judiciary independent in America. That is what our Founders intended. Unfortunately, as has been stated repeatedly on this floor, in almost every legal decision that she has made and every political speech that she has given, Justice Brown has shown she is not simply a judge with very strong political views, she is a political activist who happens to be a judge. It is a pretty easy observation to make when you look at her judicial decisions. While some judges tend to favor an activist interpretation of the law and others tend to believe in a restrained interpretation of the law providing great deference to the legislature, Justice Brown tends to favor whatever interpretation leads her to the very same ideological conclusions every single time. So when it comes to laws protecting a woman's right to choose or a worker's right to organize, she will claim that the laws that the legislature passed should be interpreted narrowly. Yet when it comes to laws protecting corporations and private property, she has decided that those laws should be interpreted broadly. When the rights of the vulnerable are at stake, then she believes the majority has the right to do whatever it wants. When the minority happens to be the people who have privilege and wealth, then suddenly she is counter- majoritarian and thinks it is very important to constrain the will of the majority. Let me just give you a couple examples. In a case reviewing California's parental notification law, Justice Brown criticized the California Supreme Court decision overturning that law, saying that the court should have remained ``tentative, recognizing the primacy of legislative prerogatives.'' She has also repeatedly tried to overturn the fact that California law recognizes Tameny claims, a line of cases that establishes that an employer does not have an unfettered right to fire an employee, but that the right has limits according to fundamental public policy. She says judicial restraint is critical. She claims that public policy is ``a function first and foremost reserved to the legislature.'' So on these cases dealing with a woman's right to choose, worker protections, punitive damages, or discrimination, she wants the judge to stay out of the legislative decisionmaking process. But Justice Brown doesn't always want the courts to exercise restraint and defer to the legislature. When Justice Brown wanted to limit the ability of juries to punish companies that engage in severe discrimination, a fellow judge on the California Supreme Court accused her of engaging in ``judicial law making.'' Instead of denying it, Justice Brown defended her judicial activism. She called it creativity. This is what she said: ``All judges make law. It is arrogance, carelessness and a lack of candor that constitute impermissible judicial practice, not creativity.'' Justice Brown has also gone out of her way to use her position in the courts to advocate for increased protections for property owners. In a case about a developer that wanted to break a city rent control law, Justice Brown dismissed the fact that a majority of the city's voters had approved of that law and thought that the case should be an exception to the philosophy of narrow judicial review. Justice Brown believed that this case was one in which ``some degree of judicial scrutiny . . . is appropriate.'' Which is it, Justice Brown? In some cases you think we should defer to the legislature and in some cases, apparently, you think it is appropriate for judges to make law. What seems to distinguish these two types of cases is who the plaintiff is, who the claimant is. If the claimant is powerful--if they are a property owner, for example--then she is willing to use any tool in her judicial arsenal to make sure the outcome is one they like. If it is a worker or a minority claiming discrimination, then she is nowhere to be found. Judicial decisions ultimately have to be based on evidence and on fact. They have to be based on precedent and on law. When you bend and twist all of these to cramp them into a conclusion you have already made--a conclusion that is based on your own personal ideology--you do a disservice to the ideal of an independent judiciary and to the American people who count on an independent judiciary. Because of this tendency, and because of her record, it seems as if Justice Brown's mission is not blind justice but political activism. The only thing that seems to be consistent about her overarching judicial philosophy is an unyielding belief in an unfettered free market and a willingness to consistently side with the powerful over the powerless. Let's look at some of her speeches outside of the courtroom. In speech after speech, she touts herself as a true conservative who believes that safety nets--such as Social Security, unemployment insurance, and health care--have ``cut away the very foundation upon which the Constitution rests.'' Justice Brown believes, as has already been stated in the Chamber, that the New Deal, which helped save our country and get it back on its feet after the Great Depression, was a triumph of our very own ``Socialist revolution.'' She has equated altruism with communism. She equates even the most modest efforts to level life's playing field with somehow inhibiting our liberty. For those who pay attention to legal argument, one of the things that is most troubling is Justice Brown's approval of the Lochner era of the Supreme Court. In the Lochner case, and in a whole series of cases prior to Lochner being overturned, the Supreme Court consistently overturned basic measures like minimum wage laws, child labor safety laws, and rights to organize, deeming those laws as somehow violating a constitutional right to private property. The basic argument in Lochner was you can't regulate the free market because it is going to constrain people's use of their private property. Keep in mind that that same judicial philosophy was the underpinning of Dred Scott, the ruling that overturned the Missouri Compromise and said that it was unconstitutional to forbid slavery from being imported into the free States. That same judicial philosophy essentially stopped every effort by Franklin Delano Roosevelt to overcome the enormous distress and suffering that occurred during the Great Depression. It was ultimately overturned because Justices, such as Oliver Wendell Holmes, realized that if Supreme Court Justices can overturn any economic regulation-- Social Security, minimum wage, basic zoning laws, and so forth--then they would be usurping the rights of a democratically constituted legislature. Suddenly they would be elevated to the point where they were in charge as opposed to democracy being in charge. Justice Brown, from her speeches, at least, seems to think overturning Lochner was a mistake. She believes the Supreme Court should be able to overturn minimum wage laws. She thinks we should live in a country where the Federal Government cannot enforce the most basic regulations of transparency in our security markets, that we cannot maintain regulations that ensure our food is safe and the drugs that are sold to us have been tested. It means, according to Justice Brown, that local governments or municipalities cannot enforce basic zoning regulations that relieve traffic, no matter how much damage it may be doing a particular community. What is most ironic about this is that what Justice Brown is calling for is precisely the type of judicial activism that for the last 50 years conservatives have been railing against. Supreme Court Justice Scalia is not somebody with whom I frequently agree. I do not like a lot of his judicial approaches, but at least the guy is consistent. Justice Scalia says that, generally speaking, the legislature has the power to make laws and the judiciary should only interpret the laws that are made or are explicitly in the Constitution. That is not Justice Brown's philosophy. It is simply intellectually dishonest and logically incoherent to suggest that somehow the Constitution recognizes an unlimited right to do what you want with your private property and yet does not recognize a right to privacy that would forbid the Government from intruding in your bedroom. Yet that seems to be the manner in which Justice Brown would interpret our most cherished document. It would be one thing if these opinions were confined to her political speeches. The fact is she has carried them over into her judicial decisionmaking. That is why the California State Bar Association rated her as ``unqualified'' to serve on the State's highest court. That is why not one member of the American Bar Association found her to be very qualified to serve on the D.C. Circuit, and why many members of the bar association found her not qualified at all. It is also why conservative commentators, such as Andrew Sullivan and George Will, while agreeing with her political philosophy, simply do not see how she can be an effective judge. Here is what Sullivan said: She does not fit the description of a judge who simply follows the law. If she isn't a ``judicial activist,'' I don't know who would be. Sullivan added that he is in agreement with some of her conservative views but thinks ``she should run for office, not the courts.'' Columnist George Will, not known to be a raving liberal, added recently that he believes Justice Brown is out of the mainstream of conservative jurisprudence. Let me wrap up by making mention of a subtext to this debate. As was true with Clarence Thomas, as was true with Alberto Gonzales, as was true with Condoleezza Rice, my esteemed colleagues on the other side of the aisle have spent a lot of time during this debate discussing Justice Brown's humble beginnings as a child of a sharecropper. They like to point out she was the first African American to serve on the California Supreme Court. I, too, am an admirer of Justice Brown's rise from modest means, just as I am an admirer of Alberto Gonzales's rise from modest means, just as I am an admirer of Clarence Thomas's rise from modest means, just as I am an admirer of Condoleezza Rice's rise from modest means. I think it is wonderful. We should all be grateful where opportunity has opened the doors of success for Americans of every background. Moreover, I am not somebody who subscribes to the view that because somebody is a member of a minority group they somehow have to subscribe to a particular ideology or a particular political party. I think it is wonderful that Asian Americans, Latinos, African Americans, and others are represented in all parties and across the political spectrum. When such representation exists, then those groups are less likely to be taken for granted by any political party.

Mr. OBAMA. I thank the Chair. I do not think that because Justice Brown is an African-American woman she has to adhere to a particular political orthodoxy, something that has been suggested by the other side of the aisle. Just as it would be cynical and offensive that Justice Brown be vilified simply for being a Black conservative, it is equally offensive and cynical to suggest that somehow she should get a pass for her outlandish views simply because she is a Black woman. I hope we have arrived at a point in our country's history where Black folks can be criticized for holding views that are out of the mainstream, just as Whites are criticized when they hold views that are out of the mainstream. I hope we have come to the point where a woman can be criticized for being insensitive to the rights of women, just as men are criticized when they are insensitive to the rights of women. Unfortunately, Justice Brown's record on privacy and employment discrimination indicates precisely such an insensitivity. I will give one example. In a case where a group of Latino employees at Avis Rent A Car was subjected to repeated racial slurs in the workplace by another employee, the lower court found that Avis, in allowing this to go on, had created a hostile environment. Justice Brown disagreed with and criticized the decision. In her opinion, she wrote that racially discriminatory speech in the workplace, even when it rises to the level of illegal race discrimination, is still protected by the first amendment. This was despite U.S. Supreme Court opinions that came to the exact opposite conclusion. Justice Brown went so far as to suggest that the landmark civil rights law, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, could be unconstitutional under the first amendment. I believe if the American people could truly see what was going on here they would oppose this nomination, not because she is African American, not because she is a woman, but because they fundamentally disagree with a version of America she is trying to create from her position on the bench. It is social Darwinism, a view of America that says there is not a problem that cannot be solved by making sure that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. It requires no sacrifice on the part of those of us who have won life's lottery and does not consider who our parents were or the education received or the right breaks that came at the right time. Today, at a time when American families are facing more risk and greater insecurity than they have in recent history, at a time when they have fewer resources and a weaker safety net to protect them against those insecurities, people of all backgrounds in America want a nation where we share life's risks and rewards with each other. And when they make laws that will spread this opportunity to all who are willing to work for it, they expect our judges to uphold those laws, not tear them down because of their political predilections. Republican, Democrat, or anyone in between. Those are the types of judges the American people deserve. Justice Brown is not one of those judges. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this nomination.

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for a couple minutes to wrap up.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, today I introduce a bill that is long overdue and would require American nuclear power plants to follow the same procedures that we would like to impose on nuclear power plants in other countries. Each year, the Nation's nuclear power plants produce over 2,000 metric tons of spent fuel, which is the used fuel that is periodically removed from nuclear reactors. According to the Government Accountability Office, GAO, spent nuclear fuel is ``one of the most hazardous materials made by humans.'' Within minutes, the intense radiation in the fuel can kill a person without protective shielding; in smaller doses, the fuel can cause cancer. In the hands of terrorists, such highly radioactive materials, when coupled with conventional explosives, could be turned into a dirty bomb that could pose a critical threat to public safety. In April of this year, GAO issued a report concluding that ``[n]uclear power plants' performance in controlling and accounting for spent nuclear fuel has been uneven.'' In recent years, three U.S. nuclear power plants--Millstone, Vermont Yankee, and Humboldt Bay--have reported missing spent fuel. The Millstone fuel was never located, the Vermont Yankee fuel was located three months later in a different location, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is still investigating the missing Humboldt Bay fuel. In all three cases, the missing spent fuel had been contained in loose fuel rods or fuel rod segments. Currently, NRC provides little or no guidance on how nuclear power plants should conduct physical inventories of their spent fuel or how they must control, store, and account for loose spent fuel rods and fragments. NRC also does not conduct routine inspections to monitor compliance with regulations relating to spent fuel. As a result of its investigation, GAO made a series of recommendations for how NRC should improve its regulation and oversight. My bill--the Spent Nuclear Fuel Tracking and Accountability Act--would implement those recommendations and require NRC to establish: 1. specific and uniform guidelines for tracking, controlling, and accounting for spent fuel rods or segments; and 2. uniform inspection procedures to verify compliance with these guidelines. Within six months, NRC would be required to report to Congress on its progress in establishing these guidelines. Tracking spent nuclear material used in the United States is just as important as tracking spent nuclear material in the former Soviet Union. This is a common-sense solution to an important problem. I urge my colleagues to support this measure. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, today I introduce a bill that is long overdue and would require American nuclear power plants to follow the same procedures that we would like to impose on nuclear power plants in other countries. Each year, the Nation's nuclear power plants produce over 2,000 metric tons of spent fuel, which is the used fuel that is periodically removed from nuclear reactors. According to the Government Accountability Office, GAO, spent nuclear fuel is ``one of the most hazardous materials made by humans.'' Within minutes, the intense radiation in the fuel can kill a person without protective shielding; in smaller doses, the fuel can cause cancer. In the hands of terrorists, such highly radioactive materials, when coupled with conventional explosives, could be turned into a dirty bomb that could pose a critical threat to public safety. In April of this year, GAO issued a report concluding that ``[n]uclear power plants' performance in controlling and accounting for spent nuclear fuel has been uneven.'' In recent years, three U.S. nuclear power plants--Millstone, Vermont Yankee, and Humboldt Bay--have reported missing spent fuel. The Millstone fuel was never located, the Vermont Yankee fuel was located three months later in a different location, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is still investigating the missing Humboldt Bay fuel. In all three cases, the missing spent fuel had been contained in loose fuel rods or fuel rod segments. Currently, NRC provides little or no guidance on how nuclear power plants should conduct physical inventories of their spent fuel or how they must control, store, and account for loose spent fuel rods and fragments. NRC also does not conduct routine inspections to monitor compliance with regulations relating to spent fuel. As a result of its investigation, GAO made a series of recommendations for how NRC should improve its regulation and oversight. My bill--the Spent Nuclear Fuel Tracking and Accountability Act--would implement those recommendations and require NRC to establish: 1. specific and uniform guidelines for tracking, controlling, and accounting for spent fuel rods or segments; and 2. uniform inspection procedures to verify compliance with these guidelines. Within six months, NRC would be required to report to Congress on its progress in establishing these guidelines. Tracking spent nuclear material used in the United States is just as important as tracking spent nuclear material in the former Soviet Union. This is a common-sense solution to an important problem. I urge my colleagues to support this measure. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, the Department of Veterans Affairs estimates that on any given day, as many as 200,000 veterans are homeless. That is 200,000 men and women who have fought for this country who will go without the comfort of knowing that they will have a roof over their head and a place to call home. If 200,000 of our Nation's veterans will go homeless tonight, the VA estimates that about twice as many veterans will experience homelessness this year. Again, that is 400,000 men and women who defended this great Nation, who will be left out on the streets at some point this year. I hope my colleagues are as distressed as I am by these numbers, and I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting the bill I introduce today--the Shelter All Veterans Everywhere or ``SAVE'' Reauthorization Act of 2005. This bill reauthorizes many of the soon-to-expire homeless veterans programs currently serving this needy population, including the Homeless Providers Grant and Per Diem Program and the Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program. These programs work to provide much-needed services to homeless veterans so that they can find jobs and ultimately find a stable home. These programs deserve to be continued. The SAVE Reauthorization Act actually expands the reach of the Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program, which provides job placement and training assistance, to include those veterans at risk of homelessness as well as those actually homeless, so that we can work to prevent homelessness before it happens. At a time when so many of my colleagues are working to ensure that our Nation's veterans receive the benefits and services they have earned and deserve, we cannot forget the neediest of our veterans--the homeless veterans. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting these worthy programs.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, today marks the 40th anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Griswold v. Connecticut, which struck down Connecticut laws that prohibited reproductive counseling and the use of contraception. In recognizing a constitutional right to privacy, this landmark decision secured the right of married women to use contraception and laid the groundwork for widespread access to birth control for all American women. The availability and use of contraceptives has had a profound impact on the health and lives of women across the Nation. Widespread use of birth control has led to dramatic reductions in national rates of sexually transmitted infections, unintended pregnancies, and abortion. Contraceptive use has also significantly improved maternal and infant health outcomes, and reduced maternal and infant mortality rates. Since 1965 maternal and infant mortality rates have declined by more than two-thirds. The impact of contraception on the professional lives of women has been equally profound. The ability of women to control fertility has allowed them to successfully achieve educational and career goals that would've been impossible a century ago. Women are critical to this nation's economic success, comprising up to one half of the total U.S. labor force. In 1999, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recognized the significant impact of birth control on American society and included family planning in their list of the ``Ten Great Public Health Achievements in the 20th Century.'' However, despite considerable progress in this area, much work remains. The United States has one of the highest rates of unintended pregnancies and sexually transmitted infections among industrialized nations, which in part reflects lack of access to basic preventive health care, including contraception. A growing number of women--almost 17 million currently--must rely on publicly supported contraceptive care. Between 2000 and 2002, this number increased by 400,000 alone, because of the rising number of uninsured women. Yet, even those women with health insurance are not guaranteed access to contraceptives because some health plans choose not to cover these medications and procedures as they would other basic preventive health measures. And we are increasingly hearing about pharmacists and other providers who refuse to prescribe or fill contraceptive prescriptions, or refer women to those who will, because of their own personal beliefs. This 40th anniversary of the Griswold decision provides a perfect opportunity to reflect upon the critical importance and impact of this decision on the health and professional lives of millions of women. We must ensure that policy decisions about contraception services remain health decisions and not political ones, and work to ensure that all women have access to contraception when they need it.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, the Department of Veterans Affairs estimates that on any given day, as many as 200,000 veterans are homeless. That is 200,000 men and women who have fought for this country who will go without the comfort of knowing that they will have a roof over their head and a place to call home. If 200,000 of our Nation's veterans will go homeless tonight, the VA estimates that about twice as many veterans will experience homelessness this year. Again, that is 400,000 men and women who defended this great Nation, who will be left out on the streets at some point this year. I hope my colleagues are as distressed as I am by these numbers, and I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting the bill I introduce today--the Shelter All Veterans Everywhere or ``SAVE'' Reauthorization Act of 2005. This bill reauthorizes many of the soon-to-expire homeless veterans programs currently serving this needy population, including the Homeless Providers Grant and Per Diem Program and the Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program. These programs work to provide much-needed services to homeless veterans so that they can find jobs and ultimately find a stable home. These programs deserve to be continued. The SAVE Reauthorization Act actually expands the reach of the Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program, which provides job placement and training assistance, to include those veterans at risk of homelessness as well as those actually homeless, so that we can work to prevent homelessness before it happens. At a time when so many of my colleagues are working to ensure that our Nation's veterans receive the benefits and services they have earned and deserve, we cannot forget the neediest of our veterans--the homeless veterans. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting these worthy programs.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues Senators Specter and Harkin to introduce The Gynecological Cancer Education and Awareness Act of 2005, also known as Johanna's Law. This important legislation authorizes a national gynecologic cancer early detection and awareness campaign for women and their providers. This bill is named in honor of Johanna Silver Gordon who died from ovarian cancer and whose sister, Sheryl Silver, founded Johanna's Law Alliance for Women's Cancer Awareness. We thank Ms. Silver for her courage and her persistent efforts to turn her sister's tragedy into a crusade to raise awareness and prevent needless suffering and death from gynecologic cancers for other women. Nearly 80,000 American women are diagnosed with gynecologic cancers each year. Tragically, 29,000 of them die from this disease. We know that early detection is the key to successful treatment of all gynecologic cancers, and we have made great strides at reducing rates of cervical cancer with wide-spread use of Pap screening tests. Yet, we have not been able to replicate this success with uterine cancer and ovarian cancer, for which effective and general screening methods do not exist. For ovarian cancer, which is the deadliest of the gynecologic cancers, in addition to lack of screening tests, doctors and researchers have not identified effective diagnostic and treatments. Seventy percent of all new diagnoses of ovarian cancer take place after this cancer has progressed beyond its earliest and most survivable stage. Given these challenges, knowing the symptoms of gynecologic cancers, which can mimic GI illnesses, menopause or perimenopause, is key to early diagnosis. The 5-year survival rates for the most common gynecologic cancers are 90 percent when diagnosed early, but drop to 50 percent for cancers diagnosed later. Johanna's Law will promote early detection and awareness through a National Public Awareness Campaign conducted by the Department of Health and Human Services. Women will be given written materials that provide information about gynecologic cancers, and Public Service Announcements will be developed to encourage women to talk to their doctors about gynecologic cancer. The Department will also give grants for demonstration projects to local and national non-profit organizations to identify the best ways to reach and educate women about these cancers, particularly those women who are high risk. Johanna's Law will make sure that women and doctors get the information they need to help them recognize early symptoms of gynecologic cancers, so that women can be diagnosed and treated earlier when their cancers are treatable. I urge my colleagues to work to move this legislation forward promptly.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues Senators Specter and Harkin to introduce The Gynecological Cancer Education and Awareness Act of 2005, also known as Johanna's Law. This important legislation authorizes a national gynecologic cancer early detection and awareness campaign for women and their providers. This bill is named in honor of Johanna Silver Gordon who died from ovarian cancer and whose sister, Sheryl Silver, founded Johanna's Law Alliance for Women's Cancer Awareness. We thank Ms. Silver for her courage and her persistent efforts to turn her sister's tragedy into a crusade to raise awareness and prevent needless suffering and death from gynecologic cancers for other women. Nearly 80,000 American women are diagnosed with gynecologic cancers each year. Tragically, 29,000 of them die from this disease. We know that early detection is the key to successful treatment of all gynecologic cancers, and we have made great strides at reducing rates of cervical cancer with wide-spread use of Pap screening tests. Yet, we have not been able to replicate this success with uterine cancer and ovarian cancer, for which effective and general screening methods do not exist. For ovarian cancer, which is the deadliest of the gynecologic cancers, in addition to lack of screening tests, doctors and researchers have not identified effective diagnostic and treatments. Seventy percent of all new diagnoses of ovarian cancer take place after this cancer has progressed beyond its earliest and most survivable stage. Given these challenges, knowing the symptoms of gynecologic cancers, which can mimic GI illnesses, menopause or perimenopause, is key to early diagnosis. The 5-year survival rates for the most common gynecologic cancers are 90 percent when diagnosed early, but drop to 50 percent for cancers diagnosed later. Johanna's Law will promote early detection and awareness through a National Public Awareness Campaign conducted by the Department of Health and Human Services. Women will be given written materials that provide information about gynecologic cancers, and Public Service Announcements will be developed to encourage women to talk to their doctors about gynecologic cancer. The Department will also give grants for demonstration projects to local and national non-profit organizations to identify the best ways to reach and educate women about these cancers, particularly those women who are high risk. Johanna's Law will make sure that women and doctors get the information they need to help them recognize early symptoms of gynecologic cancers, so that women can be diagnosed and treated earlier when their cancers are treatable. I urge my colleagues to work to move this legislation forward promptly.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, let me begin my statement today by outlining what I think this debate is not about. I do not believe this debate is about Mr. Bolton being rude on occasion. This debate is not about Mr. Bolton being blunt. The debate is not about Mr. Bolton occasionally losing his temper. As the distinguished Senator from Arizona just noted, if this is the criteria, many of us in the U.S. Senate would not be qualified to serve in a position that requires confirmation. Almost all of us lose our cool from time to time and say things we come to regret later. Let me add, I don't think this debate is about whether Mr. Bolton is an intelligent man. These are not the issues at the heart of the strong bipartisan objections that have been voiced on this nomination. The crux of the objections is very specific, very credible allegations that Mr. Bolton sought to shade intelligence and sideline career intelligence analysts who did not agree with his policy views. This is the core of the bipartisan objections to this nomination. Over and over again, we heard from a range of career officials and Bush administration appointees that Mr. Bolton sought to massage intelligence to fit an ideological bias. Let me emphasize, these are objections coming forward from Bush appointees. In addition, we have 102 former ambassadors and senior diplomats who oppose Bolton--from the Nixon administration, the Ford administration, and that bastion of fuzzy-headed liberalism, the Reagan administration. In an environment where reliable intelligence is one of the best tools we have to keep us safe, we must heed the lessons from the Iraq war: Intelligence must never be shaped to fit policy views. Dissent within the intelligence community should not be muzzled or suppressed; it should be respected and encouraged. The United States Senate should be sending a clear, unequivocal statement to our intelligence officers: We want you to play it straight and call it like you see it--even if it is something we do not want to hear. I am afraid that by voting to confirm Mr. Bolton, we will fail to send that critical message. Now, I believe the President is entitled to the benefit of the doubt when appointing senior members of his team. To that end, I have supported a number of the President's choices for top foreign policy positions, including Secretary Rice; Robert Zoellick, to be her deputy; and Nick Burns, to fill the third-ranking position at the State Department. I think we should provide some deference to the President. The executive branch is primarily responsible for the day-to-day operations of our foreign policy. At the same time, the Constitution gives the Senate the power to advise and to consent. This is a responsibility I take very seriously. And so, because of Mr. Bolton's consistent breach of the line between practicing politics and analyzing intelligence--that is pivotal to our national security--I intend to vote ``no'' on the nomination of John Bolton to be our representative to the United Nations. I agree with much of what my colleagues have said about the problems with Mr. Bolton's qualifications to serve in this position. But I would like to focus on one issue that I believe has not been covered in great detail--Mr. Bolton's performance in his current job. It has been suggested we should overlook the troubling aspects of Mr. Bolton's record--the fact that he appears to have attempted to manipulate intelligence data; the fact he does not appear to have been entirely forthcoming before the Foreign Relations Committee; and the fact we still cannot get basic information from the State Department on his nomination--for one reason: because Mr. Bolton is so competent for the job. I have heard this argument repeatedly from the other side of the aisle. I am baffled by this reasoning. I am stupefied by the suggestion that Mr. Bolton is such an excellent choice for the job, so uniquely qualified for this job, that we should just ignore all of these other problems. When I look at the record of Mr. Bolton during the last 4 years as the top arms control and nonproliferation official at the State Department, I am not impressed. Let's look at his track record. On North Korea, the approach that has been advocated by both Mr. Bolton and this administration has simply not worked. Under Mr. Bolton's watch, there are no longer international inspectors and cameras at any site in North Korea. The North Koreans have withdrawn from the Non-Proliferation Treaty. We now believe North Korea has developed material for six to eight nuclear weapons. When North Korea has one or two nuclear weapons, the situation is critical. They can test one weapon, and hold one weapon. When it has six to eight, the situation is terminal. North Korea can now test a weapon, hold a couple, and sell the rest. And we know that North Korea will do virtually anything for the money. Another area Mr. Bolton was responsible for is the Non-Proliferation Treaty, a critical tool for helping to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons to rogue states, which could ultimately fall into the hands of terrorist organizations. President Bush recognized the importance of the NPT and pledged to strengthen this treaty in a 2004 speech at the National Defense University. A week later, Mr. Bolton promised to do the same. What has happened since? Virtually nothing. The administration has made very little progress on this issue, and the Non-Proliferation Treaty review conference currently underway is not going well. An article from MSNBC reports: The United States has been losing control of the conference's agenda this week to Iran and other countries, a potentially serious setback to U.S. efforts to isolate Tehran. Where has Mr. Bolton been throughout this process? According to the same article: [S]ince last fall Bolton, Mr. Bush's embattled nominee to be America's ambassador to the United Nations, has aggressively lobbied for a senior job in the second Bush administration. During that time Mr. Bolton did almost no diplomatic groundwork for the NPT conference . . . officials say. Everyone knew the conference was coming, and that it would be contentious, says a former senior Bush official, but Bolton stopped all diplomacy on this six months ago. In other words, Mr. Bolton was more interested in lobbying for the U.N. job than doing the tough groundwork necessary for a successful review conference. Let's turn to Iran--another issue on which Mr. Bolton should have been working to formulate a coherent, workable administration strategy. Instead, the administration's policy has been all over the map. In a hearing before the Foreign Relations Committee last week, a senior State Department official described the latest iteration of the Administration's policy as a ``patient policy.'' I would say the policy has been less about patience and more about paralysis--a dangerous situation for a nation such as Iran that is developing nuclear weapons, is a state sponsor of terrorism, and is meddling in Iraq. Perhaps this paralysis and incoherence is best illustrated by the fact that since 2001, the administration has tried--to my knowledge, without success--to formulate a Presidential Directive on Iran. As the top non-proliferation official at the State Department, Mr. Bolton should have been doing more to shape a workable policy instead of letting it drift dangerously along for the last 4 years. Mr. President, I know my time is running short, so let me conclude with a couple of simple points. Two examples are frequently cited by Mr. Bolton and his supporters as evidence of his success and competence in his current position: Libya and the Proliferation Security Initiative. During his confirmation hearings, Mr. Bolton touted these successes over and over again. Now, I agree with Mr. Bolton that we have made important progress on these issues. But reports suggest that the Libya deal was struck in spite of Mr. Bolton, not because of him. In fact, Mr. Bolton was sidelined from the negotiations by the White House. And, the British Government specifically asked that Mr. Bolton not play a role in this process. I quote from an MSNBC article that specifically addresses this issue: Bolton, for instance, often takes and is given credit for the administration's Proliferation Security Initiative, an agreement to interdict suspected WMD shipments on the high seas, and the deal to dismantle Libya's nuclear program, a deal that Bolton, by the way, had sought to block. But [a] former senior Bush official . . . says that, in fact, Bolton's successor, Robert Joseph deserves most of the credit for these achievements. This official adds that it was Joseph who was in charge of counterproliferation at the NSC [and] who had to pitch in when Bolton fumbled preparations for the NPT conference as well. Now, here is my point: If there was clear evidence that Mr. Bolton is a terrific diplomat, maybe I could understand how some in the Senate could overlook what I consider to be a mountain of evidence concerning his misuse of intelligence and say: You know what, this guy is such a capable administrator and diplomat, we need him to reform the United Nations. I would still believe that the misuse of intelligence, in and of itself, disqualifies Mr. Bolton from the job, but at least I could understand why some people would draw such a conclusion. But the record indicates that in his current job he has not had much success, which leads me to ask: Why is it we are so confident this is the person who is going to lead reform in the United Nations? The distinguished Senator from Arizona is exactly right, we need reform in the United Nations. It is inexcusable some of the things that go on up there. But as a consequence of Mr. Bolton's diminished credibility and stature, I think he is exactly the opposite of what we need at the United Nations. Countries such as Zimbabwe and Burma, and others that do not want to see reform take place at the UN, are going to be able to dismiss our efforts at reform by saying: Mr. Bolton is a U.N. basher, someone who is ideologically opposed to the existence of the U.N.--thereby using Mr. Bolton's own words and lack of credibility as a shield to prevent the very reforms that need to take place. Moreover, I have yet to hear a comprehensive plan from Mr. Bolton or the administration for U.N. reform. So let me close by saying this: When the Foreign Relations Committee considered Mr. Bolton's nomination, I invoked the memory of Adlai Stevenson, a great citizen of the State of Illinois. Stevenson had the credibility, the temperament, and the diplomatic skill to guide the United States through some of the worst, most difficult times at the United Nations--especially the Cuban missile crisis. During this crisis, we were able to isolate the Soviets because of the stature and integrity of our permanent representative to the United Nations. Given the issues that have surfaced surrounding Mr. Bolton's nomination, I simply ask my colleagues this: If a crisis were to occur with North Korea or Iran, are we sure the integrity and credibility of Mr. Bolton would command the respect of the rest of the world? Would Mr. Bolton, like Adlai Stevenson, be able to convince the world that our intelligence and our policies are right and true? Would Mr. Bolton be able to isolate our enemies and build a coalition that would ultimately make our troops safer and our mission easier? I believe the answer is no. There are some wonderful, capable, tough, conservative, reform-minded Republican diplomats who are well qualified for this task and would easily be confirmed by the Senate. Mr. Bolton is not one of them. I would urge that the other side of the aisle seriously consider their position on this nomination. I hope we can muster the votes to send this nomination back to the President. Let's start afresh. I know we can do better. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. OBAMA

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

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise today to bring attention to the situation of Afro-Latinos throughout Latin America, in the hopes that we can encourage more action on this issue. From Colombia to Brazil to the Dominican Republic to Ecuador, persons of African descent continue to experience racial discrimination and remain among the poorest and most marginalized groups in the entire region. While recent positive steps have been taken in some areas--for example, giving land titles to Afro-Colombians and passing explicit anti-discrimination legislation in Brazil--much work still needs to be done to ensure that this is the beginning of an ongoing process of reform, not the end. In places where civil conflict has taken hold, Afro-Latinos are much more likely to become victims of violence or refugees in their own countries. In many areas, Afro-Latinos are also subject to aggression by local police forces at far greater rates than those perceived to be white. Access to health services is another serious concern, and recent studies have shown that Afro-Latino communities are at greater risk of contracting HIV/AIDS. In the last Congress, there was not one mention in the Senate of the millions of Afro-Latinos who continue to experience this widespread discrimination and socioeconomic marginalization. Now is the time for more action on this issue, not less. Emerging civil society groups are growing stronger throughout many countries in Latin America, and this growth should be encouraged as it presents important opportunities for partnerships and collaboration. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate and House on this critical concern in the coming months, and I believe that together we can and will make a difference.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, we have been spending a considerable amount of time in this body debating the so-called nuclear option. Today I want to spend a little bit of time talking about an issue that poses a more significant threat to our Republic. Throughout the last half of the 20th century, one nation more than any other on the face of the Earth, defined and shaped the threats posed to the United States. This nation, of course, was the Soviet Union and its successor state, Russia. While many have turned their attention to China or other parts of the world, I believe the most important threat to the security of the United States continues to lie within the borders of the former Soviet Union in the form of stockpiles of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons and materials. We are in a race against time to prevent these weapons from getting in the hands of international terrorist organizations or rogue states. The path to this potential disaster is easier than anyone could imagine. There are a number of potential sources of fissile material in the former Soviet Union in sites that are poorly secured. The material is compact, easy to hide, and hard to track. Weapons designs can be easily found on the Internet. Today, some weapons experts believe that terrorist organizations will have enough fissile material to build a nuclear bomb in the next 10 years--that is right, 10 years. I rise today to instill a sense of urgency in the Senate. I rise today to ask how are we going to deal with this threat tomorrow, a year from now, a decade from now? The President has just completed an international trip that included a visit to Russia. I commend him for taking this trip and making our relationship with Russia a priority. During the Cold War, the United States and the Soviet Union produced nearly 2,000 tons of plutonium and highly enriched uranium for use in weapons that could destroy the world several times over. To give an idea of just how much this is, it takes only 5 to 10 kilograms of plutonium to build a nuclear weapon that could kill the entire population of St. Louis. For decades, strategic deterrence, our alliances, and the balance of power with the Soviet Union ensured the relative safety of these weapons and materials. With the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union, all this has changed. Key institutions within the Soviet national security apparatus have crumbled, exposing dangerous gaps in the security of nuclear weapons, delivery systems, and fissile material. Regional powers felt fewer constraints to develop nuclear weapons. Rogue states accelerated weapons programs. And while this was happening, international terrorist organizations who are aggressively seeking nuclear weapons gained strength and momentum. Now, thanks to the leadership of former Senator Nunn and Senator Lugar in creating the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program at the Department of Defense, there is no question that we have made some great progress in securing these weapons. These same two leaders continue to work tirelessly on this issue to this day--Senator Nunn, through the Nuclear Threat Initiative, and Senator Lugar, through his chairmanship of the Foreign Relations Committee. The situation in Russia and the rest of the former Soviet Union is drastically different than it was in 1991 or even 1996 or 2001. But, the threat is still extremely dangerous and extremely real. In March of this year, a senior Russian commander concluded that 39 of 46 key Russian weapons facilities had serious security shortcomings. Many Russian nuclear research sites frequently have doors propped open, security sensors turned off, and guards patrolling without ammunition in their weapons. Meanwhile, the security situation outside of Russia continues to be of grave concern. Fanatical terrorist organizations who want these weapons continue to search every corner of the Earth resorting to virtually any means necessary. The nuclear programs of nations such as Iran and North Korea threaten to destabilize key regions of the world. We are still learning about the tremendous damage caused by A.Q. Khan, the rogue Pakistani weapons scientist. Looking back over the past decade and a half, it is clear that we could and should have done more. So as the President returns from his trip to Russia, we should be thinking--on a bipartisan basis--about the critical issues that can guide us in the future to ensure that there are no more missed opportunities. The first question we should be thinking about is what is the future of the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program? What is our plan? I believe the administration must spend more time working with Congress to chart out a roadmap and a strategic vision of the program. There are two things the President can do to move on this issue. First, in the National Security Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction of 2002, the administration said the National Security Council would prepare a 5-year governmentwide strategy by March of 2003. To my knowledge, this has not been completed. In addition, Congress required the administration to submit an interagency coordination plan on how to more effectively deal with nonproliferation issues. This plan is due at the end of this month. Completing these plans will help the United States better address critical day-to-day issues such as liability, resource allocation, and timetables. Having a better strategic vision will also help us work more efficiently and effectively with other international donors who have become increasingly involved and are making significant contributions to these efforts. This is very important, as the contribution of other donors can help us make up valuable lost time. Mr. President, my second question concerns the U.S.-Russian relationship. Where is this relationship heading? Will Russia be an adversary, a partner, or something in between? We do not ask these questions simply because we are interested in being nice and want only to get along with the Russians. We have to ask these questions because they directly impact our progress towards securing and destroying stockpiles of nuclear weapons and materials. In the last few years, we have seen some disturbing trends in Russia: the rapid deterioration of democracy and the rule of law, bizarre and troubling statements from President Putin about the fall of the Soviet Union, the abuses that have taken place in Chechnya, and Russian meddling in the former Soviet Union--from the Baltics to the Ukraine to Georgia. The Russians must understand that their actions on some of these issues are entirely unacceptable. At the same time, I believe we have to do a better job of working with the Russians to make sure they are moving in the right direction. This starts by being thoughtful and consistent about what we say and what we do. Tone matters. Some of the statements by our own officials have been confusing, contradictory, and problematic. At times I have been left scratching my head about what exactly our policy is and how administration statements square with this policy. Another issue is the level of sustained engagement with Russia. I am glad the President and Secretary of State have made several trips to Russia, but as these trips are only a few days every year or so this is only one aspect of the relationship. An additional component, which has suffered in recent years, is our foreign assistance programs to Russia and the rest of the former Soviet Union. These programs are absolutely essential in maintaining our engagement with Russia. These programs are not giveaways. They are programs that advance U.S. interests by strengthening Russian democracy and civil society, enhancing economic development and dealing with international health issues--in addition to curbing the nonproliferation threat. At a time when these programs are desperately needed, their budgets have been cut dramatically. At a time when we should be doing more to engage and shape the future of Russia, we seem to be doing the exact opposite. The nonproliferation threat does not exist in a vacuum. The issue I just mentioned, along with other important issues such as our own strategic nuclear arsenal, must be considered as we move forward. Finally, Mr. President, I would like my colleagues to consider how our relationship with Russia, and our efforts to secure and destroy weapons and materials inside the former Soviet Union, fits in with our broader nonproliferation goals. Russia is a major player in the two biggest proliferation challenges we currently face--Iran and North Korea. Russia's dangerous involvement with Iran's nuclear program has been well documented, and there is no question their actions will be pivotal if the President is to successfully resolve this deteriorating situation. The Russians are also an important voice in trying to make progress on the deteriorating situation in North Korea. The Russian city of Vladivostok is home to 590,000 people and is very close to the North Korean border, putting the Russians smack in the middle of the crisis that we need to resolve. In addition to all this, Russia holds a seat on the Security Council of the United Nations, which could consider Iranian and North Korean issues in the very near future. Developing bilateral and multilateral strategies that deal with Russia's role in these growing crises will be extremely important, both in terms of resolving these crises, advancing our non-proliferation goals within the former Soviet Union, and our long-term relationship with Russia. I realize that, at this time, none of us have all the answers to these extraordinarily difficult questions. But if we hope to successfully fight terror and avoid disaster before it arrives at our shores, we have to start finding these answers. We have a lot of work to do. I believe it is worth putting in place a process, one that involves senior administration officials, a bipartisan group of Members of Congress, as well as retired senior military officers and diplomats, in an effort to dramatically improve progress on these issues. I am interested in hearing from the President about his trip. I am also interested in hearing if he believes that an idea similar to the one I put forward is worth considering. Delay is not an option. We need to start making more progress on this issue today. I urge my colleagues to act. Despite all the distractions we have had with the so-called nuclear option and judicial nominations, this is literally a matter of life and death. I hope we start paying more attention to it in this Senate Chamber and in the debates that are going to be coming in the coming months. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, we have all heard from folks back home about the high price of gasoline. When you pull into a gas station to fill up your tank, you're now paying some of the highest prices of all time. This amendment is designed to do something about that--by promoting a choice at the pump that will allow consumers to choose a fuel that today is 50 cents per gallon cheaper than regular gasoline. That's why I would like to thank the chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Grassley, and the ranking member of the Committee, Senator Baucus, for their advocacy of this amendment. I also want to thank the manager of the transportation bill, Chairman Inhofe, for working with us on this proposal. These Senate leaders are all committed to addressing high gas prices, and their work on this amendment is an example of that commitment. I would like to thank my fellow authors of this amendment, Senator Talent, as well as my distinguished colleague from Illinois, Senator Durbin, for their hard work in getting this provision passed. And I thank the cosponsors of this amendment, also longtime supporters of ethanol, Senators Lugar, Harkin, Bayh, Coleman, Salazar, Dayton, and Nelson of Nebraska. And of course, I would like to thank the excellent staff work of Elizabeth Paris, Matt Jones, and Russ Sullivan on behalf of this provision. I am sure many of us in this Chamber, and many watching these proceedings, would jump at the chance to fill our cars and trucks with fuel that is 50 cents cheaper than current prices. What many consumers may not know is that that option is available today. It is known as E- 85, a fuel comprised of 85 percent ethanol. And I suspect most Americans would agree that a fuel made of 85 percent Midwestern corn is a lot more desirable than one made from 100 percent Middle Eastern oil. Right now, there are millions of cars and trucks that can run on E- 85. They are known as ``flexible fuel vehicles,'' and the auto industry is turning out hundreds of thousands of them every year. These cars and trucks aren't more expensive to operate than regular cars--in fact, for just a one-hundred-dollar adjustment, even regular cars could run on E- 85. And if E-85 is good enough for the Indianapolis 500--which just announced their cars will run on this fuel--then you can be sure that E-85 will work great in a flexible fuel vehicle. The only problem now is our short supply of E-85 fuel stations. While there are more than 180,000 gas stations all over America, only about 400 offer E-85. The amendment adopted by the Senate today addresses this problem by providing a tax credit to encourage the installation of more E-85 fuel pumps at your local gas station. Its enactment will not only give motorists another option at the pump, it will also send a clear message that the U.S. Senate is serious about reducing our country's dangerous dependence on imported oil. Again, I thank my colleagues who have worked to adopt this amendment to help make America energy independent.

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, like my distinguished colleagues from Arkansas and from Mississippi, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by my distinguished colleague from Virginia. I strongly urge my colleagues to preserve the seatbelt program as it is written in the Transportation reauthorization bill. This provision in the underlying bill gives States that pass primarily seatbelt laws a one-time incentive grant from that State's annual traffic safety grant apportionment. The purpose of this incentive is to encourage States to take specific action, passage of a primary seatbelt law that will save more lives. As it so happens, my State of Illinois passed a primary seatbelt law in response to this incentive. I know we did it in response to these incentives because I was the chief sponsor of passage of the primary seatbelt law. The same thing happened in Delaware. The same thing happened in Tennessee. You know what. It works, and it works faster and cheaper than any other method, in terms of ensuring that people wear safety belts and save lives. It is amazing we have to keep saying this, but seatbelts save lives and primary seatbelt laws save more lives. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration predicts if every State enacted primary seatbelt laws, more than 1,000 lives could be saved each year and 17,000 injuries could be prevented. Seatbelt use is 11 percentage points higher in States with primary enforcement laws than in those States where laws provide for secondary enforcement. And States changing from secondary to primary enforcement have seen 10 to 15 percentage point increases in usage. Beyond the facts and statistics, this is an issue that makes sense. We should not have to just hope people wear seatbelts, just as we should not have to hope they obey speed limits or hope they stop at red lights. We should do what we can to make sure people will wear seatbelts that will keep them alive. We teach our children to wear seatbelts when they get into a car and we all hope they listen to mom and dad and do it when we are not there, but wouldn't we feel better if we knew our laws in our communities were helping to make that happen? Doesn't it makes sense for the Federal Government to maintain a consistent message on seatbelt use, not through a mandate but through a simple incentive? The National Safe Kids Campaign thinks so. Mothers Against Drunk Drivers thinks so. They endorse and prefer the Federal incentive as written in the underlying bill. Finally, a Federal incentive is also a Federal commitment. When the Federal Government makes a commitment and States respond accordingly, then the Federal Government needs to keep its word. One of the points that was raised by Senator Allen in sponsoring this amendment was that, in Virginia at least, there seems to be some concern that primary seatbelt enforcement would result potentially in an increase in racial profiling in Virginia. As somebody whose community on the south side of Chicago is fairly familiar with racial profiling, and who hears anecdotes each day from African-American drivers who believe they may have been profiled, I am certainly sensitive to Senator Allen's point. As it turns out, though, part of the way we were able to solve this in Illinois was to couple a primary seatbelt enforcement law with a racial profiling law that would ensure we were keeping track as to how traffic enforcement was taking place and to make certain it was being done in a nondiscriminatory fashion. This was the bargain that was struck at the local level: the notion that we would have a primary seatbelt law enforced; we would also have a data collection bill that would allow us to track and make sure our traffic laws are being applied in a nondiscriminatory fashion. That deal that was struck in Illinois was premised on the notion that we would be getting these Federal incentives. It is not appropriate for the Federal Government to now pull the rug out from under States such as Illinois that have done the right thing. It is appropriate, instead, for us to keep our word, maintain our commitments, and make sure we continue to incentivize a law that everybody knows, in fact, saves the lives of our citizens. I encourage my colleagues to oppose this amendment Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, recently, more 1,200 students from across the United States visited Washington, DC to take part in the national finals of We the People: The Citizen and the Constitution, the most extensive educational program in the country developed specifically to educate young people about the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. I applaud the class from Maine Township High School in Park Ridge that skillfully represented the great State of Illinois in this prestigious national event. Through their knowledge of the U.S. Constitution, these outstanding students won the statewide competition and made Illinois proud in the national competition here in our Nation's capitol. Congratulations to Nicole Calabrese, Carly Calkins, Emily Cottrell, Keith Dent, Katie Eichstaedt, Alyssa Engle, Katie Funkhouser, Kathryn Futris, Jacqueline Heffernan, Kevin Kane, Erin Keating, Maddie Kiem, Dan Leung, Mike Mangialardi, Kelly McKenna, Ryan Morrisroe, Allison Mueller, Jessica Newton, James Pikul, Elizabeth Poli, Ashley Rezaeizadeh, Alex Schallmo, Jimmy Skuros, Ryan Stegink, Dan Widing, Meredith Wisniewski, and their teacher Dan States. I commend each and everyone of you for your hard work. While in Washington, these students participated in a 3-day academic competition that simulated a congressional hearing in which they ``testified'' before a panel of judges. Students demonstrated their knowledge and understanding of constitutional principles and had opportunities to evaluate, take, and defend positions on relevant historical and contemporary issues. I wish these students the best of luck in their future endeavors and applaud their outstanding achievement.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the fiscal year 2005 emergency supplemental appropriations bill. Every day in Iraq and Afghanistan, the men and women of the U.S. Armed Forces risk their lives to defend ours. They are completing a mission they did not ask for and, in Iraq, a mission that is longer and more dangerous than they were ever told. Yet amid roadside explosions, insurgent attacks, and the loss of some of their closest friends, they wake up each day and do their jobs. They wake up each day and do whatever it takes to leave a democratic Iraq for a free Iraqi people. This bill is a way for us to support these efforts. With its passage, I sincerely hope our troops will receive all the support and all the equipment they need to do their job. With its passage, I hope we do not hear any more stories about troops driving convoys with unarmored humvees, or about troops going into battle with armor their parents had to send them from home for their birthday. And I sincerely hope this money will be used to train more Iraqis to secure their own country so we can bring home our young people safe and secure. I particularly thank the chairman and ranking member of the Appropriations Committee for working with me on several other emergency spending needs. I say to Senator Cochran, I appreciate that this bill provides $25 million for the prevention of the avian flu. As some of you may have read, the number of cases in Southeast Asia is increasing, and there is serious concern that this virus could mutate and jump from continent to continent, potentially causing a pandemic that could kill millions of people. We have to work proactively to prevent such a pandemic, and I appreciate the support from the committee chairman as well as the administration on this issue. Also included in the bill is an amendment I sponsored with my friend from South Carolina, Senator Graham. This amendment will ensure that our injured service members who remain under medical care but are no longer hospitalized will not have to pay for their meals while receiving therapy. I thank the graciousness of Senator Cochran for adopting that amendment on the floor without debate. I also joined with Senator Durbin to address the security needs of our judiciary. As some of my colleagues know, a Federal judge in Illinois recently suffered a tragic loss, the murder of her mother and her husband. This bill provides necessary funding for the U.S. Marshal Service to step up its security for our Federal judges. I commend all those who have been involved, including the chairman, for crafting a number of important measures in this bill. I wish that I could, without any further statement, simply say how proud I am of our troops and move on with the supplemental. Unfortunately, this bill also includes some immigration provisions, known as REAL ID, that cause me enormous concern. Although I will certainly vote for the conference report because of the good measures I have already discussed, it is important to state for the record my serious reservations about REAL ID. Despite the fact that almost all of these immigration provisions are controversial, the Senate did not conduct a full hearing or debate on any one of them. While they may do very little to increase homeland security, they come at a heavy price for struggling State budgets and our values as a compassionate country. The driver's license provisions in REAL ID, for example, will cost an estimated $100 million over 5 years. States will have to bear the majority of these costs. At a time when budgets are tight, I don't think we should be outsourcing our homeland security to States that can't afford it. The cost to our Nation's legacy as a refuge for asylum seekers is also heavy. Conferees were able to improve some aspects of REAL ID, including increasing the limit on the number of foreigners who can apply for asylum in the United States, but other provisions intended to eliminate fraudulent asylum applications may end up denying asylum to people who deserve to receive it. These are costs that call for greater examination. As a sovereign country, we have the right to control and identify those who enter and exit. I have worked with my colleagues to support hundreds of millions of dollars for more Border Patrol agents to help exercise that right. But controlling immigration is a Federal responsibility--it always has been--and it should not come at the expense of State budgets or basic civil liberties. We should have more time to examine and debate the REAL ID provisions as part of comprehensive immigration reform. These provisions, currently in the bill, are opposed by religious organizations, civil liberties groups, civil rights organizations, church groups, and hundreds of other groups. The legitimate concerns of these groups have not been properly aired in the Senate. I am aware of the fact that the REAL ID Act, despite what I say, despite my reservations, will become law. It will become law not because it is the right thing to do but because the House majority has abused its privilege to attach this unexamined bill to must-pass legislation. This is highly inappropriate, and I hope that all of the Senate will agree to highlight and correct the deficiencies of these immigration provisions in the year to come. I yield the floor.