Barack Obama

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Montana. Let me begin by congratulating Senator Harkin for his outstanding explanation of some of the flaws in the reconciliation bill that we are receiving from the House. I thank Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus for the fine work they are doing in trying to deal with what is probably the biggest ticking timebomb we have in the Tax Code, and that is the alternative minimum tax. It is absolutely a critical necessity for us to address that. Mr. President, I rise to speak about an amendment to the tax reconciliation bill that I intend to offer at the appropriate time. The amendment achieves two goals. First, it helps keep a promise the President made to rebuild the gulf coast in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. Second, in a $70 billion bill laden with tax cuts for the wealthy and well- connected, it sets aside less than 1 percent for the neediest in our society. Two weeks after Katrina made landfall, President Bush stood in the ruins of New Orleans and vowed to ``do what it takes'' to help the region recover. He also acknowledged the terrifying images of abject poverty that struck Americans on their TV screens and said, ``We have a duty to confront this poverty with bold action.'' Five months later, the President's timid actions have not matched his bold rhetoric. He has not lived up to his promises. My amendment uses a cost-effective and proven tool in our tax code-- the child tax credit--to extend aid to 1ow-income working families affected by Hurricane Katrina. Enacted in 1997, the child credit allows families with qualifying children to receive a credit of $1,000 per child against their Federal income tax. Unfortunately, the credit is skewed so that many families who need it the most can't get it. Under current law, families that earn less than $11,000 get no benefit from the refundable child credit. That means that a child is left out of the credit even if her parent works full time at minimum wage, which has not increased since 1997. And the child doesn't get the full benefit of the $1,000 credit until her parent earns close to $18,000, or even more if the child has siblings. What's worse, if her parents' incomes stagnate, are disrupted for any reason, or the economy stalls and work hours or wages are reduced, the value of the credit drops or even disappears. Under current law, almost 17 million children get less than the full credit. We all know what happened to the families on the gulf coast due to Hurricane Katrina, and it will be a long time before these families can rebuild their lives. Many of the families in the affected States were evacuated to other areas, and many of them cannot even afford to go back. And the Federal response so far has been inadequate to get these families effectively back on their feet. We need to do better. At a time when we are debating $70 billion of tax breaks, many of which will benefit those who need the least help, it is critical that we remember the worst off and the most vulnerable members of our society. When I went to Houston after the hurricane, I met an evacuee from New Orleans who said to me: ``we had nothing before the hurricane, and now we've got less than nothing.'' Life was hard for many families even before Katrina hit. In Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama, for example, more than 900,000 children under 17 years of age were so poor that they got no child tax credit or only a partial credit. These States had among the highest rates of children too poor to get the full credit. In fact, more than one-third of the children in Mississippi and Louisiana didn't get the full benefit of the child tax credit. That is what our measure is designed to do. This amendment, at a cost of less than 1 percent of the overall tax reconciliation bill, will provide necessary assistance to many of these families. The amendment eliminates the income threshold that excluded all children in families with less than $11,000 of income. My amendment sends a simple message: If you work, your kids get a benefit. It provides a partial credit starting with the first dollar of a parent's income for families who lived in the areas affected by Hurricane Katrina. The amendment is simple. It says that the children of low-income working parents affected by Hurricane Katrina will no longer be denied the child credit. You work, your kids get a benefit. If you don't work, no benefit. And if you want the full benefit, you have to earn at least $10,000, which is just about the income of a full time job at minimum wage. That's a commonsense way to support families with children, especially families that have experienced the huge cost--psychological and financial--of a natural disaster. My amendment is also narrowly tailored and fiscally responsible. It is aimed at families affected by the hurricanes, and it provides short- term support, expiring in 2008. With this amendment, hundreds of thousands of this country's most disadvantaged children will see an increase in their credit. Katrina offered us a window into America's poverty. Let's not let that window close without doing something to provide a chance for America's children to rebuild their lives with dignity, hope, and opportunity. That is what this country is about. I hope that is what this Chamber is about. I yield the floor.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, today I am introducing a resolution honoring the life and contributions of Coretta Scott King. I hope all my colleagues will join me in this effort.

Mr. OBAMA. I am happy to.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, today we mourn the passing of Coretta Scott King. When I think about Coretta Scott King, I think about a little girl who walked 5 miles to school on those rural Alabama roads and felt the heat of racism each day she passed the door of the Whites-only school, so much closer to home. It didn't matter, because she studied and succeeded and excelled beyond most of her classmates, Black and White. She earned a college degree, and an acceptance to a prestigious graduate school up North. One day she met a young preacher from Atlanta, and she fell in love with him. And he told her his dreams. And she believed in them. And she decided that she would help to make them real--not just as a wife or as a friend, but as a partner in freedom's cause. Over the next years, Coretta Scott King did that in so many ways we can't even imagine. She raised a family, she marched through the streets, she inspired through song, she led through speech, and she even dodged countless attempts on her family's life. And when one of those attempts finally took her love from this world, she made the selfless decision to carry on. With no time to even cry or mourn, to wallow in anger or vengeance, Coretta Scott King took to the streets just four days after Dr. King's assassination and led 50,000 people through the streets of Memphis in a march for the kind of justice for which her husband had given his life. She spent the rest of her time on this earth marching for that same justice--leading the King Center for Nonviolent Social Change in Atlanta, and spreading her family's message of hope to every corner of this world. I had the great honor of knowing Mrs. King, and the occasion to visit with her in Atlanta last year. She was an extraordinarily gracious woman. We sat and chatted in her living room. She showed me an album of photographs of her, Dr. King and the children. Then she told me what her husband had said to her once, at a time when she was feeling burdened, understandably, by all the stress and strain that had been placed on the family as a consequence of his role in the civil rights movement. She said her husband advised: When you are willing to make sacrifices for a great cause, you will never be alone. Because you will have divine companionship and the support of good people. Coretta Scott King died in her sleep last night, but she certainly was not alone. She was joined by the companionship and support of a loving family and a grateful Nation--inspired by her cause, dedicated to her work, and mournful of her passing. My thoughts and condolences today are with her children. I ask that she and her husband now rest together in eternal peace.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise today to say a few words about a special group of constituents. This April marks the 50th anniversary of Boy Scout Troop 89 of Downers Grove, IL. Teenagers move a mile a minute. Something that is ``cool'' in the morning may be forgotten by the afternoon. But Scouting is one institution that has maintained a central role in the lives of many young people in Illinois and around America. Boy Scouts learn about and enjoy the outdoors, build friendships for life, and strengthen values such as teamwork, honesty, and respect for others. Downers Grove is a quiet residential village west of Chicago and a good place to instill these lessons. Some troops last longer than others, but Troop 89 has served the boys of Downers Grove since before I was born. That is a singular achievement, and I am pleased to have this opportunity to recognize it. To the Boy Scouts, parents, and friends of Troop 89, my heartiest congratulations on your 50th anniversary.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, in the hours after the terrorist attacks on 9/11, America's air traffic controllers rose to meet the tremendous challenges of that day. After halting all takeoffs, controllers began clearing the skies over America. Under unprecedented conditions, controllers guided 4,500 planes carrying 350,000 passengers to safe landings. They also rerouted more than 1,100 of the 4,500 flights within the first 15 minutes of the landing order--about one every second--and cleared the skies over America within 2\1/2\ hours. That kind of performance was wholly dependent on the caliber and training of the world's finest air traffic controllers. And as I come to the floor of the Senate today, there are hundreds of pilots flying commercial airplanes under an air traffic controller's guidance. Each and every day, the lives of thousands of people are in the hands of each and every air traffic controller. Because what they do is vital to our safety, I became very concerned by a letter I received from Illinois air traffic controller Michael Hannigan last December. He wrote that ``the air traffic controllers, who work aircraft everyday, often six days a week, are not being allowed to negotiate in good faith with the Federal Aviation Administration.'' And he asked for me to help ``the hard working Federal employees that want the protections as a labor union that they should have a right to bargain for.'' What was clear in Michael's plea was the sense that he and his colleagues felt that they were being treated unfairly. I looked into it and came to the conclusion that if we did not restore a fair negotiation procedure, it would threaten agency morale and effectiveness. The problem is this: lower courts have determined that the FAA Administrator currently has the extraordinary authority to impose wages and working conditions on her workers without arbitration. In order to do that, she merely has to declare an impasse in negotiations and if Congress does not set everything else aside and stop her from imposing her terms and conditions within 60 days, the Administrator can go ahead and act unilaterally. That authority denies air traffic controllers and all other FAA employees the opportunity to engage in and conclude negotiations in good faith. To diffuse the management-labor tension at the agency and bring the FAA together, I am introducing ``The FAA Fair Labor Management Dispute Resolution Act of 2006''. I am also proud to say that Senator Inouye, the co-chair of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committees; Senator Murray, the ranking member on the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee; and Senator Lautenberg, a member on the Commerce Committee Subcommittee on Transportation, are joining me in this effort. The FAA Fair Labor Management Dispute Resolution Act replaces the FAA Administrator's arbitrary authority with neutral binding arbitration in the case of an impasse in labor-management negotiations. In arbitration, both labor and management would have to make concessions, and both would be able to accept the outcome as fair. We need this legislation now because the FAA Administrator is engaged in contract negotiations with the agency's two largest groups of workers--the National Air Traffic Controllers Association (NATCA) and Professional Airways Systems Specialists (PASS). In both cases, negotiations have been contentious. And the FAA's workers fear that the Administrator is not intent on reaching fair, voluntary agreements given her previous negotiations. Indeed, the Administrator has already used her authority to impose wages and working conditions without arbitration or agreement on NATCA's 11 non-air traffic controller bargaining units, and she stands at impasse with four of PASS's five bargaining units. The Administrator has made three arguments in defense of her actions: 1. the FAA needs the authority ``to operate more like a business''; 2. air traffic controller pay is ``inappropriate given the financial circumstances of the airline industry the system serves''; and 3. changing the law to send an impasse to binding arbitration would essentially ``change the rules of the game during halftime.'' But the agency's employees point out that the agency is not a business driven to cut costs in pursuit of profit, it is a public agency with no margin for error. They also argue that the nation's air safety should not depend on how well or poorly the airlines are doing financially. And, if the rules are unfair, the employees argue they should be changed before negotiations conclude. Regardless of the merits of each side's positions, if the Administrator is able to impose her chosen conditions on air traffic controllers, it will have two negative effects on the agency: 1. it will lead to an erosion of talent at the agency with vital, retirement- eligible air traffic controllers interpreting such agency action as an invitation to retire; and 2. it will make recruiting needed replacement employees that much more difficult. I recognize that negotiations between the Administrator and the air traffic controllers are difficult. However, it is in the best interest of the agency and public safety to have management and labor cooperate in contract negotiations and if that is impossible, then no one side should be able to impose its views on the other. Only neutral arbitration can produce a fair outcome that the entire organization can accept. More than 2,900 air traffic controllers will be eligible to retire this year, and 7,100 controllers could leave the agency within the next nine years. Meeting this management challenge will require cooperation between labor and management. Moreover, rising tension between the FAA Administrator and FAA employees threatens this vital agency's effectiveness at every level and, as a result, threatens the safety of passengers. Again, the legislation we are introducing today would encourage both sides in all FAA labor-management negotiations to reach a voluntary agreement and in the case of impasse, it would allow the FAA to move forward after binding arbitration, bring its workers together, and focus on other challenges because no one side will have had arbitrary authority. The FAA's employees are dedicated, hard working public servants responsible for helping ensure the safety of the flying public. It is stressful, important work. We must value that work and treat them fairly.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, it is my understanding that the hour is dedicated to the Democrats speaking with respect to the Alito nomination. I request 5 minutes of that time.

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

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, in the hours after the terrorist attacks on 9/11, America's air traffic controllers rose to meet the tremendous challenges of that day. After halting all takeoffs, controllers began clearing the skies over America. Under unprecedented conditions, controllers guided 4,500 planes carrying 350,000 passengers to safe landings. They also rerouted more than 1,100 of the 4,500 flights within the first 15 minutes of the landing order--about one every second--and cleared the skies over America within 2\1/2\ hours. That kind of performance was wholly dependent on the caliber and training of the world's finest air traffic controllers. And as I come to the floor of the Senate today, there are hundreds of pilots flying commercial airplanes under an air traffic controller's guidance. Each and every day, the lives of thousands of people are in the hands of each and every air traffic controller. Because what they do is vital to our safety, I became very concerned by a letter I received from Illinois air traffic controller Michael Hannigan last December. He wrote that ``the air traffic controllers, who work aircraft everyday, often six days a week, are not being allowed to negotiate in good faith with the Federal Aviation Administration.'' And he asked for me to help ``the hard working Federal employees that want the protections as a labor union that they should have a right to bargain for.'' What was clear in Michael's plea was the sense that he and his colleagues felt that they were being treated unfairly. I looked into it and came to the conclusion that if we did not restore a fair negotiation procedure, it would threaten agency morale and effectiveness. The problem is this: lower courts have determined that the FAA Administrator currently has the extraordinary authority to impose wages and working conditions on her workers without arbitration. In order to do that, she merely has to declare an impasse in negotiations and if Congress does not set everything else aside and stop her from imposing her terms and conditions within 60 days, the Administrator can go ahead and act unilaterally. That authority denies air traffic controllers and all other FAA employees the opportunity to engage in and conclude negotiations in good faith. To diffuse the management-labor tension at the agency and bring the FAA together, I am introducing ``The FAA Fair Labor Management Dispute Resolution Act of 2006''. I am also proud to say that Senator Inouye, the co-chair of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committees; Senator Murray, the ranking member on the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee; and Senator Lautenberg, a member on the Commerce Committee Subcommittee on Transportation, are joining me in this effort. The FAA Fair Labor Management Dispute Resolution Act replaces the FAA Administrator's arbitrary authority with neutral binding arbitration in the case of an impasse in labor-management negotiations. In arbitration, both labor and management would have to make concessions, and both would be able to accept the outcome as fair. We need this legislation now because the FAA Administrator is engaged in contract negotiations with the agency's two largest groups of workers--the National Air Traffic Controllers Association (NATCA) and Professional Airways Systems Specialists (PASS). In both cases, negotiations have been contentious. And the FAA's workers fear that the Administrator is not intent on reaching fair, voluntary agreements given her previous negotiations. Indeed, the Administrator has already used her authority to impose wages and working conditions without arbitration or agreement on NATCA's 11 non-air traffic controller bargaining units, and she stands at impasse with four of PASS's five bargaining units. The Administrator has made three arguments in defense of her actions: 1. the FAA needs the authority ``to operate more like a business''; 2. air traffic controller pay is ``inappropriate given the financial circumstances of the airline industry the system serves''; and 3. changing the law to send an impasse to binding arbitration would essentially ``change the rules of the game during halftime.'' But the agency's employees point out that the agency is not a business driven to cut costs in pursuit of profit, it is a public agency with no margin for error. They also argue that the nation's air safety should not depend on how well or poorly the airlines are doing financially. And, if the rules are unfair, the employees argue they should be changed before negotiations conclude. Regardless of the merits of each side's positions, if the Administrator is able to impose her chosen conditions on air traffic controllers, it will have two negative effects on the agency: 1. it will lead to an erosion of talent at the agency with vital, retirement- eligible air traffic controllers interpreting such agency action as an invitation to retire; and 2. it will make recruiting needed replacement employees that much more difficult. I recognize that negotiations between the Administrator and the air traffic controllers are difficult. However, it is in the best interest of the agency and public safety to have management and labor cooperate in contract negotiations and if that is impossible, then no one side should be able to impose its views on the other. Only neutral arbitration can produce a fair outcome that the entire organization can accept. More than 2,900 air traffic controllers will be eligible to retire this year, and 7,100 controllers could leave the agency within the next nine years. Meeting this management challenge will require cooperation between labor and management. Moreover, rising tension between the FAA Administrator and FAA employees threatens this vital agency's effectiveness at every level and, as a result, threatens the safety of passengers. Again, the legislation we are introducing today would encourage both sides in all FAA labor-management negotiations to reach a voluntary agreement and in the case of impasse, it would allow the FAA to move forward after binding arbitration, bring its workers together, and focus on other challenges because no one side will have had arbitrary authority. The FAA's employees are dedicated, hard working public servants responsible for helping ensure the safety of the flying public. It is stressful, important work. We must value that work and treat them fairly.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the bill before us today. If any of you are wondering why the American people are so frustrated with the legislative process, why they believe that politics always trumps substance and nothing ever gets done in Washington, this is what they are talking about. Every single member of this body wants our military to have the funding and the resources it needs to fight the war in Iraq and the war on terror. We all agree on that. Yet somehow an otherwise noncontroversial bill gets bogged down because some have chosen to use it as a political opportunity to slip in proposals they couldn't get passed through the normal channels of debate and deliberation. The idea here is to add anything you want to a Defense bill, no matter how surprising or controversial, figuring that it will pass since no one would dare cast a vote against our troops. They may think this is shrewd politics, but it is terrible policy, and it is disrespectful to both our brave men and women in the field and the American people back home. Now, I have great respect for the Senator from Alaska, and I also respect his passion towards the ANWR debate, even if I disagree with his position. But I strongly believe that if he and other ANWR supporters wish to convince us of that position, they should do so by arguing the merits of the proposal itself, not by sneaking it into a bill none of us want to vote against. Not only does that go against the best traditions of the United States Senate, it goes against the best expectations of the American people when they sent us here. Aside from critical defense funding for our troops, there are other elements of this bill that this country desperately needs to have passed. There is funding for gulf coast recovery efforts and resources that will help our Nation prepare for a possible avian flu pandemic. I am also pleased that Senator McCain's amendment opposing torture, which was overwhelmingly passed by the Senate, appears in this bill. Unfortunately, all of this critical funding is being jeopardized by one Senator's desire to ram through a provision that is personally important to him. That is not the way Congress should be conducting its business. There will be a time and a place for debate on this topic as there has been before. But now is not that time. Not with 180,000 troops in harm's way who need important resources and supplies; not with families from the gulf coast who want a place to go home to; not with the danger of pandemic influenza threatening our shores. Now is the time to respect the legislative process and pass a bill that does not play politics with our troops, so that we can finally return home to our constituents and let them know that we truly did the people's work. Mr. President, I want to express my strong support for the reauthorization of the Department of Defense, DOD, 1207 program. The 1207 program is designed to ensure that the DOD Federal contracting process does not support or subsidize discrimination. This program must be extended through September 2009 so that the tremendous progress we have made in leveling some of the playing ground for Federal contracting is not lost. We here in Congress know that there is a long history of keeping out the little guys in government contracting. In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, minority-owned and economically disadvantaged companies have had a near impossible time trying to secure some of the billions of dollars of gulf coast reconstruction contracts. Meanwhile, big multinational contractors were given no-bid contracts in the weeks immediately following the hurricane. This double standard is unfortunately all too common, and it is the duty of Congress to ensure that this discrimination does not continue. Ever since the DOD's 1207 program was first adopted in 1986, racial and ethnic discrimination--both overt and subtle--have continued to erect significant barriers to minority participation in Federal contracting, but the 1207 program helps to correct the problems of discrimination without imposing an undue burden on larger businesses. Without programs like the 1207 program, many contractors would simply revert to their old practices, denying contracts to small companies owned by minorities or the economically disadvantaged. It is clear that the 1207 program is still needed to monitor and secure the gains made and perhaps encourage even greater opportunity for these small businesses. I am pleased that this bill includes an extension of this important program. I have a letter from a minority-woman owned business detailing some of her experiences with the Department of Defense, and I ask that this letter also be printed in the Record.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the memory of Senator Eugene McCarthy, who passed away earlier this month. I did not have the pleasure of knowing him. But I know how powerful and stirring he was--a man who was not afraid to speak the truth. A man who, in 1968, had already resided in the corridors of power for nearly 20 years, but had not been corrupted by them. Accomplished and beloved by his constituents, Senator McCarthy could have rested on his laurels and kept his views to himself; he could have toed the line in the name of unity and loyalty to the president. But that was not in Senator McCarthy's character. There is something about Minnesota that produces people and politicians who care more about what is right than about being liked. In this tradition, he was a clarion voice of courage and conviction. Senator McCarthy retired after 22 years of service in Congress, but he never abandoned his beliefs or moderated his tone. He was not interested in conforming to society's expectations for an elder statesman. Nor was he afraid to turn his wit against his adversaries when discussing their policies with which he disagreed. While he took more than his share of criticism, he stuck to his principles and gave as good as he got. The Senate is better because Eugene McCarthy served here, and the country is as well. He will be missed.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in opposition to the spending reconciliation conference report. The Federal budget should reflect the Nation's priorities. Unfortunately, the priorities on display in this year's budget reconciliation process are out of touch with those of the American people. Worse yet, the rhetoric we hear about fiscal responsibility is at odds with the reality of the pending legislation. This bill cuts deeply into programs that serve our country's most vulnerable citizens in order to fund tax breaks for those who need them the least. I support lower taxes. I also support lower Government spending. Most Americans do. But at what cost, and for what purpose? What sacrifices in our domestic priorities, our economic security and independence, our humanity are we asking the American people to endure so that the wealthiest can pocket a little more income each year, even as working class Americans--facing rising fuel prices and health care costs--are pocketing a lot less? And it is not even as if the spending cuts here will fully pay for the tax breaks. The majority's campaign to do away with pay-as-you-go rules has meant that the tax breaks over the past 4 years have been financed by debt. Debt that now exceeds $8 trillion and keeps rising. Debt, not discipline, has been the hallmark of the majority's fiscal strategy. They want us to believe that we can't afford the Government we need. But funding our domestic priorities like education, health care, and equal opportunity for America's children is not inconsistent with budget discipline. In fact, a responsible fiscal policy is a prerequisite to tackling the challenges of a relentlessly competitive global economy. First, ensuring access to basic health care is critical to our Nation's productivity. But this bill undermines Medicaid and essential health services for the poor, cutting benefits by $6.3 billion over 10 years. Second, education is the key to economic competitiveness. But this bill cuts student loans by $12.7 billion, the largest cut in history. I don't understand how the majority expects middle-class American families to make it in the 21st century workforce if we turn our backs on students. Third, helping people move from dependence to independence, from poverty to prosperity is in all of our best interests. And many States have made great progress implementing TANF requirements and moving people from welfare to work. But this bill deprives States of the flexibility they need to set realistic and meaningful work targets for their caseloads. It also dramatically underfunds childcare, thus assuring that it will be even more difficult for States and families to fulfill the Federal mandates. The TANF program affects millions of American children and families and deserves a full and fair debate. Under the rules, the reconciliation process does not permit that debate. Reconciliation is therefore the wrong place for policy changes and the wrong place for the proposed changes to the TANF program. In short, the reconciliation process appears to have lost its proper meaning. A vehicle designed for deficit reduction and fiscal responsibility has been hijacked to facilitate reckless deficits and unsustainable debt. Instead of being a tool to get us back on track to deal with our serious economic challenges, reconciliation has become a tool for enacting tax cuts for the wealthy while punishing the poor. This is a profound disappointment to me. Indeed the entire 2006 budget process has been a disappointment. Mr. President, as we wrap up this session and look towards next year, I hope we will find ways to work in a bipartisan manner on the issues and choices that really matter to American families. The importance of our task and the demand for responsible leadership will only grow in the years ahead. I urge my colleagues to vote against the conference report on spending reconciliation.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill--the ``STEP UP Act''--to establish grants for summer school enrichment programs to increase the academic skills of students in need. According to the 2005 Nation's Report Card of Educational Progress, the gap in reading scores between fourth grade children in poverty and their more affluent peers did not decrease between 1998 and 2005. Fewer than half of the fourth graders eligible for free or reduced priced lunch are able to read at even the basic level--a level attained by more than three-quarters of wealthier students. This data confirms that too many of our children are not attaining skills at levels that will lead to success, and too often, it is the children most in need who are left behind by the educational system. Teachers understand that students return to school in the fall at levels below their performance of the previous spring. Educators know this as summer learning loss. Research has shown that students, on average, lose more than one month of reading skills and two months of math skills over the summer. That is the average. But the impact of summer learning loss is greatest for children living in poverty, children with learning disabilities, and children who do not speak English at home. Achievement levels for such children often plummet during the summer, so that that the reading skills of disadvantaged students can fall more that three months behind the scores of their more affluent peers. The summer learning losses for children in poverty accumulate over the elementary school years, so these students end up falling further and further behind in school. Several programs have been successful in countering summer learning loss. The BELL programs and the Teach Baltimore Summer Academy provide evidence that students can achieve months of progress, rather than months of decline, when they participate in structured enrichment and education programs for several weeks during the summer. These programs are successful but reach too few of the students who need them. The bill I am introducing today establishes a grant program for states to support summer learning in selected local districts. These grants would be used to help students in the early elementary grades who are living in poverty, by supporting their participation in six weeks of summer school. These summer opportunities could be offered by a variety of providers, including the public schools, but also by other community organizations that have shown success in providing educational enrichment, such as youth development organizations, nonprofits, and summer enrichment camps. These summer programs would be aligned with the school year curriculum to increase the reading and math skills of students in need and to provide them with learning opportunities to avoid a path that might otherwise lead to failure in school--a path that too often ends, years later, with these students dropping out of the educational system. The achievement gap in education begins in the early grades and remains a burden for too many throughout their time in school. It is becoming increasingly clear that much of this early difference can be combated by structured summer learning opportunities. That is the purpose of this bill, and I hope my colleagues will support this important legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill--the ``STEP UP Act''--to establish grants for summer school enrichment programs to increase the academic skills of students in need. According to the 2005 Nation's Report Card of Educational Progress, the gap in reading scores between fourth grade children in poverty and their more affluent peers did not decrease between 1998 and 2005. Fewer than half of the fourth graders eligible for free or reduced priced lunch are able to read at even the basic level--a level attained by more than three-quarters of wealthier students. This data confirms that too many of our children are not attaining skills at levels that will lead to success, and too often, it is the children most in need who are left behind by the educational system. Teachers understand that students return to school in the fall at levels below their performance of the previous spring. Educators know this as summer learning loss. Research has shown that students, on average, lose more than one month of reading skills and two months of math skills over the summer. That is the average. But the impact of summer learning loss is greatest for children living in poverty, children with learning disabilities, and children who do not speak English at home. Achievement levels for such children often plummet during the summer, so that that the reading skills of disadvantaged students can fall more that three months behind the scores of their more affluent peers. The summer learning losses for children in poverty accumulate over the elementary school years, so these students end up falling further and further behind in school. Several programs have been successful in countering summer learning loss. The BELL programs and the Teach Baltimore Summer Academy provide evidence that students can achieve months of progress, rather than months of decline, when they participate in structured enrichment and education programs for several weeks during the summer. These programs are successful but reach too few of the students who need them. The bill I am introducing today establishes a grant program for states to support summer learning in selected local districts. These grants would be used to help students in the early elementary grades who are living in poverty, by supporting their participation in six weeks of summer school. These summer opportunities could be offered by a variety of providers, including the public schools, but also by other community organizations that have shown success in providing educational enrichment, such as youth development organizations, nonprofits, and summer enrichment camps. These summer programs would be aligned with the school year curriculum to increase the reading and math skills of students in need and to provide them with learning opportunities to avoid a path that might otherwise lead to failure in school--a path that too often ends, years later, with these students dropping out of the educational system. The achievement gap in education begins in the early grades and remains a burden for too many throughout their time in school. It is becoming increasingly clear that much of this early difference can be combated by structured summer learning opportunities. That is the purpose of this bill, and I hope my colleagues will support this important legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, across the country there are more than 6 million children living in households headed by a grandparent or other relative. Regardless of the reason children enter relative--care the death of a parent, neglect, abuse, military deployment, or poverty--it is never, ever the fault of the child. I commend grandparents and other relatives who step forward to care for these children, keeping the children out of foster care while providing safe, stable homes, often at great personal sacrifice. In my state of Illinois, 9 percent of the children live with nonparent relatives. Grandparents and other relative caregivers often provide the best chance for a loving and stable childhood for the children in their care, but their hard work and dedication often goes unnoticed. Today I offer my formal acknowledgement and deepest appreciation for the ongoing service of these caregivers to our country and our Nation's most valuable asset--our children. There are still far too many barriers preventing grandparent- and other relative-caregivers from accessing the services they need. For example, even though grandparent-caregivers are eligible for many housing programs through the Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD officials on the ground often unwittingly exclude grandparents from accessing housing because of confusion over the relevant laws. For this reason, I recently worked with my colleague Senator Stabenow to obtain $4 million in new funding for grandparent- caregiver housing demonstration projects. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to improve access to services for grandparent- and other relative-headed households. My grandparents played a central role in my upbringing, and without them I would not be standing before you today. I am certain that the same can be said of thousands of children and adults in Illinois and across the country. It is time that we recognize the contributions of these worthy relative-caregivers, and grant them the access to Federal services that they deserve.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise today, on behalf of Senator Brownback, Senator Durbin, and Senator DeWine to introduce the Democratic Republic of the Congo Relief, Security and Democracy Promotion Act. As we try to conclude our business for the year here in the Senate, we are in the midst of sharp debates on a large number of issues. In the foreign policy arena alone, the Administration and Congress are consumed with nurturing a political process and defeating insurgents in Iraq, attempting to halt proliferation by Iran and North Korea, and trying to end the bloodshed in Darfur, Sudan. But there is another country embroiled in conflict that has not yet received the high-level attention or resources it needs. It's the Democratic Republic of Congo, and right now it is in the midst of a humanitarian catastrophe. An International Rescue Committee report from 2004 found that 31,000 people were dying in the Congo each month and 3.8 million--3.8 million--people had died in the previous 6 years. This means that this conflict, which still smolders and burns in some regions, has cost more lives than any other conflict since World War II. Beyond the humanitarian catastrophe, resolving the problems in the Congo will be critical if Africa is to achieve its promise. The country, which is the size of Western Europe, lies at the geographic heart of Africa and borders every major region across the continent. If left untended, Congo's tragedy will continue to infect Africa--from North to South; from East to West. I believe that the United States can make a profound difference in this crisis. According to international aid agencies, there are innumerable cost-effective interventions that could be quickly undertaken--such as the provision of basic medical care, immunization and clean water--that could save thousands of lives. On the political front, sustained U.S. leadership could fill a perilous vacuum. The bill that we are introducing here today is an important step on the long road towards bringing peace and prosperity to the Congo. I am proud to be a part of a collaborative, bipartisan effort with some of the Senate's leading voices on Africa--Senators Brownback, Durbin and DeWine. This bill establishes 14 core principles of U.S. policy across a range of issues; authorizes a 25 percent increase in U.S. assistance for the Democratic Republic of the Congo; calls for a Special Envoy to resolve the situation in Eastern Congo; and urges the Administration to use its voice and vote at the United Nations Security Council to strengthen the U.N. peacekeeping force that is providing security in parts of the Congo. The legislation has been endorsed by a number of faith-based and humanitarian nongovernmental organizations, including some with extensive field operations in Congo: CARE, Catholic Relief Services, Global Witness, International Crisis Group, International Rescue Committee, and Oxfam America. I ask unanimous consent that these letters of support be printed in the Record. I want to stress something before closing. We are under no illusion that enacting the policies in this bill would be a panacea for Congo's many ills. But the one thing we do know is that the one way to ensure that a complex problem will not be resolved is to accept the status quo. The other thing we know is that status quo in the Democratic Republic of Congo is unacceptable--unacceptable to the women and children caught up in the crossfire, unacceptable to the civilians being felled by preventable disease, unacceptable to a continent that is making great strides, and unacceptable to our country, the United States, which has the financial and diplomatic resources to make a profound difference. I look forward to working with my colleagues and the administration to enacting this bill and working to promote peace and prosperity in the Congo.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise today, on behalf of Senator Brownback, Senator Durbin, and Senator DeWine to introduce the Democratic Republic of the Congo Relief, Security and Democracy Promotion Act. As we try to conclude our business for the year here in the Senate, we are in the midst of sharp debates on a large number of issues. In the foreign policy arena alone, the Administration and Congress are consumed with nurturing a political process and defeating insurgents in Iraq, attempting to halt proliferation by Iran and North Korea, and trying to end the bloodshed in Darfur, Sudan. But there is another country embroiled in conflict that has not yet received the high-level attention or resources it needs. It's the Democratic Republic of Congo, and right now it is in the midst of a humanitarian catastrophe. An International Rescue Committee report from 2004 found that 31,000 people were dying in the Congo each month and 3.8 million--3.8 million--people had died in the previous 6 years. This means that this conflict, which still smolders and burns in some regions, has cost more lives than any other conflict since World War II. Beyond the humanitarian catastrophe, resolving the problems in the Congo will be critical if Africa is to achieve its promise. The country, which is the size of Western Europe, lies at the geographic heart of Africa and borders every major region across the continent. If left untended, Congo's tragedy will continue to infect Africa--from North to South; from East to West. I believe that the United States can make a profound difference in this crisis. According to international aid agencies, there are innumerable cost-effective interventions that could be quickly undertaken--such as the provision of basic medical care, immunization and clean water--that could save thousands of lives. On the political front, sustained U.S. leadership could fill a perilous vacuum. The bill that we are introducing here today is an important step on the long road towards bringing peace and prosperity to the Congo. I am proud to be a part of a collaborative, bipartisan effort with some of the Senate's leading voices on Africa--Senators Brownback, Durbin and DeWine. This bill establishes 14 core principles of U.S. policy across a range of issues; authorizes a 25 percent increase in U.S. assistance for the Democratic Republic of the Congo; calls for a Special Envoy to resolve the situation in Eastern Congo; and urges the Administration to use its voice and vote at the United Nations Security Council to strengthen the U.N. peacekeeping force that is providing security in parts of the Congo. The legislation has been endorsed by a number of faith-based and humanitarian nongovernmental organizations, including some with extensive field operations in Congo: CARE, Catholic Relief Services, Global Witness, International Crisis Group, International Rescue Committee, and Oxfam America. I ask unanimous consent that these letters of support be printed in the Record. I want to stress something before closing. We are under no illusion that enacting the policies in this bill would be a panacea for Congo's many ills. But the one thing we do know is that the one way to ensure that a complex problem will not be resolved is to accept the status quo. The other thing we know is that status quo in the Democratic Republic of Congo is unacceptable--unacceptable to the women and children caught up in the crossfire, unacceptable to the civilians being felled by preventable disease, unacceptable to a continent that is making great strides, and unacceptable to our country, the United States, which has the financial and diplomatic resources to make a profound difference. I look forward to working with my colleagues and the administration to enacting this bill and working to promote peace and prosperity in the Congo.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise today to call attention to the heroic efforts of Dr. Cynthia Maung and her Mae Tao clinic to provide hope on the border of Thailand and Burma. Dr. Maung, herself a Burmese refugee, has dedicated her life to helping those fleeing political and economic turmoil in Burma. Few Burmese refugees are granted official refugee status in Thailand, making it almost impossible to obtain healthcare, employment or education. On the outskirts of the town of Mae Sot, Dr. Maung started a makeshift facility to treat her malaria stricken fellow refugees as they began crossing by the thousands into Thailand, following the Burmese junta's brutal crackdown on the democracy movement in 1988. Mae Tao is now a thriving clinic treating around 70,000 people a year. From providing maternity care and family planning to treating infectious diseases and fitting landmine victims with prosthetics, the Mae Tao clinic represents hope, safety and a brighter future for some of the most vulnerable people in the world. This is a mission we should do everything we can to support. Dr. Maung's tireless efforts have not stopped with the Burmese refugee population in Thailand, as she trains medical teams to deliver health services to remote villages in Burma. Unable to return to her homeland, Dr. Maung continues to be a fearless advocate for democracy and justice for the people of Burma--on both sides of the border. We can and must do more to support this courageous woman, and her work to ensure that the refugee population in Thailand is granted basic rights, including healthcare and education, for all.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, 4 years ago, following the most devastating attack in our history, this Senate passed the USA PATRIOT Act in order to give our Nation's law enforcement the tools they needed to track down terrorists who plot and lurk within our own borders and all over the world; terrorists who, right now, are looking to exploit weaknesses in our laws and our security to carry out attacks that may be even deadlier than those that took place on September 11. We all agree we need legislation to make it harder for suspected terrorists to go undetected in this country. And we all agree that we needed to make it harder for them to organize and strategize and get flight licenses and sneak across our borders. Americans everywhere wanted to do that. Soon after the PATRIOT Act passed, a few years before I even arrived in the Senate, I began hearing concerns from people of every background and political leaning that this law, the very purpose of which was to protect us, was also threatening to violate some of the rights and freedoms we hold most dear; that it does not just provide law enforcement the powers it needed to keep us safe but powers it did not need to invade our privacy without cause or suspicion. Now, in Washington, this issue has tended to generate into the typical either/or debate: Either we protect our people from terror or we protect our most cherished principles. I suggest this is a false choice. It asks too little of us and it assumes too little about America. That is why, as it has come to time to reauthorize the USA PATRIOT Act, we have been working in a bipartisan way to do both, to show the American people we can track down terrorists without trampling on our civil liberties, to show the American people that the Federal Government will only issue warrants and execute searches because it needs to do so, not because it can do so. What we have been trying to achieve under the leadership of a bipartisan group of Senators is some accountability in this process to get answers and see evidence where there is suspicion. Several weeks ago, these efforts bore fruit. The Judiciary Committee and the Senate managed to pass a piece of bipartisan legislation that, while I cannot say is perfect, was able to address some of the most serious problems in the existing law. Unfortunately, that strong bipartisan legislation has been tossed aside in conference. Instead, we have been forced to consider a piece of rushed legislation that fails to address the concerns of Members of both parties as well as the American people. This is legislation that puts our own Justice Department above the law. When national security letters are issued, they allow Federal agents to conduct any search on any American, no matter how extensive, how wide ranging, without ever going before a judge to prove the search is necessary. All that is needed is a signoff from a local FBI agent. That is it. Once a business or a person receives notification they will be searched, they are prohibited from telling anyone about it and they are even prohibited from challenging this automatic gag order in court. Even though judges have already found that similar restrictions violate the first amendment, this conference report disregards the case law and the right to challenge the gag order. If you do decide to consult an attorney for legal advice, hold on; you will have to tell the FBI you have done so. Think about that: You want to talk to a lawyer about whether your actions are going to be causing you to get into trouble, you have to tell the FBI that you are consulting a lawyer. This is unheard of. There is no such requirement in any other area of the law. I see no reason why it is justified here. If someone wants to know why their own Government has decided to go on a fishing expedition through every personal record or private document, through the library books you read, the phone calls you have made, the e-mails you have sent, this legislation gives people no rights to appeal the need for such a search in a court of law. No judge will hear your plea; no jury will hear your case. This is plain wrong. There are Republican Senators as well as Democratic Senators who recognize it is plain wrong. Giving law enforcement the tools they need to investigate suspicious activities is one thing and it is the right thing. But doing it without any real oversight seriously jeopardizes the rights of all Americans and the ideals America stands for. Supporters of this conference report have argued we should hold our noses and support this legislation because it is not going to get any better. That is not a good argument. We can do better. We have time to do better. It does not convince me I should support this report. We owe it to the Nation, we owe it to those who fought for our civil liberties, we owe it to the future and our children to make sure we craft the kind of legislation that would make us proud, not legislation we would settle for because we are in a rush. We do not have to settle for a PATRIOT Act that sacrifices our liberties or our safety. We can have one that secures both. There have been proposals on both sides of the aisle and in both Houses of Congress to extend the PATRIOT Act for 3 months so we can reach an agreement on this bill that is well thought through. I support these efforts and will oppose cloture on what I consider to be this unacceptable conference report. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Madam President, I support Senator Carper's motion to instruct reconciliation conferees to reject the House TANF provisions. Assisting needy families is too important an issue for this Chamber to cede its legislative authority to the House of Representatives. The TANF Program affects millions of American children and families. It deserves a full and fair debate. The reconciliation process does not permit that debate. Reconciliation is not the place for policy changes. The right starting point for Senate debate is the PRIDE bill. PRIDE is not a perfect bill. But it is a reasonable bipartisan effort that addresses childcare, transitional medical assistance, and certain educational opportunities. Mr. President, we should have a full debate on the PRIDE bill. We should consider what the evidence actually says about moving people from welfare to work, from dependence to independence, from poverty to prosperity. We should have a full debate about what is really required to provide all Americans with equal opportunity. Unfortunately, reconciliation does not permit that debate. Worse yet, the House provisions are based not on evidence and experience but on ideology. The cynical increase in the work hour requirement, for example, is a Federal mandate with no basis in the reality of what works to promote work and reduce poverty. The data shows that people meeting the current 30-hour requirement work about 35 hours now. That is a bit more than the national average for ``full time'' work for all employees, whether they receive TANF or not. Indeed, among all mothers with children under the age of 6, only 43 percent work as much as 35 hours. People who don't meet the 30-hour TANF requirement now--for whatever reason--are not going to work more just because the requirement has been increased. What will happen is that Congress will punish the States and reduce State flexibility to do what works. In my own State of Illinois, we are committed to moving people off welfare and into work. And Illinois is not cynical about it. This isn't about pinching pennies but about providing opportunity. Illinois is serious about the need for work. Tens of thousands of families have worked their way off assistance. But we understand why people find themselves in need of assistance. We have adopted flexible rules to accommodate families where the wage earner was medically unable to work, where a spouse or child was disabled, where the worker was finishing up a training program. Illinois requires work but allows people to work part time while they take care of their obligations. And to get mothers out of their homes and into the workforce in a productive way, we have improved the child care subsidy system. We have invested in it. And you know what? People in Illinois have not lingered on TANF. If they could work their way off the program, they have done so. Unfortunately, the House TANF provisions which raise participation rates to 75 percent will make it harder for States to deal with family sickness, the realities of raising children, and natural disasters. To avoid penalties, States will have to find make-work activities even for TANF recipients who are working full time. Another problem is that raising work hours and participation rates will increase the need for childcare well beyond the funding provided in the House bill. Childcare funding makes work possible for many women. If we want people to work and be responsible parents, we have to worry about who will care for their kids. Under the House proposal, States will be forced to fund other activities that will leave them with less money for childcare. That makes no sense. The House TANF provisions make it harder for States to support working families. I urge my colleagues to reject those provisions in reconciliation, and I look forward to an honest debate about TANF and the PRIDE bill here on the Senate floor. I also rise today to speak in favor of the motion to instruct offered by Senator Kohl. This motion expresses the Senate's view that the Senate conferees should not accept the cuts to the child support program that have been proposed by the Committee on Ways and Means in the House of Representatives. The child support program is an effective and efficient way to enforce the responsibility of noncustodial parents to support their children. For every public dollar that is spent on collection, more than four dollars are collected to support children. That is a good return on our investment in families. Moreover, these families are then less likely to require public assistance and more likely to avoid or escape poverty. This is a program that works. The evidence is compelling. For example, in 2004, enforcement efforts helped collect almost $22 billion in child support. Our aggressive State and Federal efforts have translated into $1 billion in collected child support payments in Illinois alone this year. That means 386,000 Illinois families will be better equipped to provide for their children. Preliminary budget estimates suggest the cuts proposed by the Ways and Means Committee will translate into $7.9 billion in lost collections within 5 years, increasing to a loss of over $24 billion within 10 years. This proposal is not even penny-wise, and it is certainly pound-foolish. Today, the State of Illinois reports a 32 percent child support collection rate. Let's not take a step backward in the progress that has been made by stripping the States of necessary Federal support. The welfare of too many is at stake. Child support is the second largest income source for qualifying low- income families. We should not balance our budget on the backs of families that rely on child support to remain out of poverty. I urge my colleagues to support this motion as well. Thank you.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, today I rise in support of Senator Clinton's bill which would provide tax credits of $1,000 to $3,000 to property owners who eliminate or contain lead-based paint hazards in homes where low-income young children or women of childbearing age live. Children who eat lead paint chips ingest a highly toxic substance that can produce a range of health effects including reduced IQ, reading and learning disabilities, reduced attention spans, kidney damage, and hyperactivity. The sad fact is that there are still over 400,000 children suffering from lead poisoning in this country, many of them poor and many of them minorities. My home State, Illinois, is the State with the highest number of these children. The loss of IQ and ability to learn affects these children and their families for the rest of their lives and imposes an economic burden on the rest of us because of their reduced productivity. I urge my colleagues to join Senators Clinton, Smith, DeWine, and me in preventing future lead poisonings by giving property owners a tax incentive to eliminate this problem.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, today I rise in support of Senator Clinton's bill which would provide tax credits of $1,000 to $3,000 to property owners who eliminate or contain lead-based paint hazards in homes where low-income young children or women of childbearing age live. Children who eat lead paint chips ingest a highly toxic substance that can produce a range of health effects including reduced IQ, reading and learning disabilities, reduced attention spans, kidney damage, and hyperactivity. The sad fact is that there are still over 400,000 children suffering from lead poisoning in this country, many of them poor and many of them minorities. My home State, Illinois, is the State with the highest number of these children. The loss of IQ and ability to learn affects these children and their families for the rest of their lives and imposes an economic burden on the rest of us because of their reduced productivity. I urge my colleagues to join Senators Clinton, Smith, DeWine, and me in preventing future lead poisonings by giving property owners a tax incentive to eliminate this problem.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Lead Free Toys Act of 2005, which directs the Consumer Product Safety Commission to intensify efforts to reduce lead exposure for children. The unfortunate reality for many children--particularly in low-income and minority households--is the continued presence of high blood lead levels. Over 400,000 children in this country have elevated blood lead levels, with my own hometown of Chicago having the largest concentration of these children. Lead is a highly toxic substance that can produce a range of health problems in young children, including IQ deficiencies, reading and learning disabilities, impaired hearing, reduced attention spans, hyperactivity, and damage to the kidneys, brain and bone marrow. Even low levels of blood lead in pregnant women, infants and children can lead to impaired cognitive abilities, fetal organ development and behavioral problems. We know that lead poisoning is completely preventable. As the Nation has increased efforts to reduce environmental lead exposure, the number of children with high blood levels has steadily dropped. Restricting lead in gasoline and paint represent two major accomplishments in this regard. But much work remains to be done. Earlier today I introduced the Healthy Communities Act of 2005, to strengthen Federal, State and local efforts to address environmental health issues in communities already affected by lead and other toxins. However, we need to take greater proactive steps to prevent contamination, and the Lead Free Toys Act of 2005 will help us do just that. Disturbingly, lead is present in a number of toys and other frequently used objects by young children. According to research conducted by the National Center for Environmental Health, about half of tested lunch boxes have unsafe levels of lead. The highly popular Angela Anaconda lunch box was found to have 56,400 parts per million of lead, which is more than 90 times the 600 parts per million legal limit for lead in paint for children's products. Other lunch boxes showed levels of lead between two and twenty-five times the legal limit for lead paint in children's products. In most cases, the highest lead levels were found in the lining of lunch boxes, where lead could come into direct contact with food. This problem is not limited to lunchboxes. One study found that 60 percent of more than 400 pieces of costume jewelry purchased at major department stories contain dangerous amounts of lead. From September 2003 through July 2004, there were 3 recalls of nearly 150 million pieces of toy jewelry because of toxic levels of lead. This past August the Centers for Disease Control updated their ``Preventing Lead Poisoning in Young Children'' statement calling for the elimination of all nonessential uses of lead in children's products. Specifically, the CDC urged a more systematic approach to identifying lead-contaminated items and prohibiting their sale before children are exposed, rather than usual recall efforts after exposure has occurred. The Consumer Product Safety Commission leads our national efforts to safeguard our children from potentially dangerous objects. However, the Commission has dragged its feet in aggressively addressing the problem of lead in toys. The Lead Free Toys Act, introduced by my colleague Congressman Henry Waxman earlier this year, requires the Consumer Product Safety Commission to prescribe regulations classifying any children's product containing lead as a banned hazardous substance under the Hazardous Substances Act. It defines ``children's product containing lead'' as any consumer product marketed or used by children under age 6 that contains more than trace amounts of lead as determined by the Commission and prescribed by regulations. The Act also requires the Commission to issue standards for reduction in lead in electronic devices. It's a national disgrace that toys that could pose a serious and significant danger to children are readily available in our department stores and markets. The Lead Free Toys Act of 2005 will help us keep our children safe and healthy, and contribute to national efforts to reduce lead exposure. I ask each of my colleagues to help support this Act.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, today, I am introducing the Healthy Communities Act of 2005, and I am pleased to have the support of my good friend and colleague Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. Over the last few decades, our medical researchers and scientists have developed increasingly sophisticated and high tech methods to diagnose and treat disease. Yet, this approach has caused us to lose sight of the need for preventing diseases on the front-end, with greater investment in basic public health interventions that too often get short shrift. Today, I would like to bring it back to the basics and talk about environmental quality. The air we breathe, the food we eat, the houses in which we live, and the parks in which our children play--all of these factors contribute to our health. Environmental health, as defined by the World Health Organization, includes both the direct, damaging effects of chemicals, radiation, and some biological agents, and the effects on health and well-being of the broad physical, psychological, social, and aesthetic environment. The legislation that I have introduced draws attention to that aspect of the environment that is the physical environment--the toxicants and pollutants that we may not notice, but are present in our everyday surroundings and taking a toll on our health. My home State of Illinois faces a number of environmental challenges, including high levels of lead poisoning. It is estimated that over 400,000 children in this country suffer from elevated blood lead levels. Chicago has the unfortunate distinction of ranking number 1 for children with elevated blood lead levels. 6,691 children have elevated blood lead levels, which is 50 percent higher than the number of children in the second ranked city of Philadelphia. Elevated blood levels are known to cause behavioral and learning problems, slowed growth, impaired hearing and damage to the kidneys, brain and bone marrow. Adults are not exempt from lead toxicity--poisoned adults suffer pregnancy difficulties, high blood pressure, digestive problems, nerve disorders, memory and concentration problems, and muscle and joint pain. Lead poisoning is completely preventable, and although our agencies have made good progress, we can and must do more to address this issue. Obviously lead is only one of many toxicants and pollutants with which we must contend. Different areas of the U.S. face unique challenges--States like California are grappling with the repercussions of air pollution, while Massachusetts and others in the Northeast are challenged with high levels of mercury in the water. As much as we know about these hazards, the effects of many chemicals are unknown. Less than half of the chemicals produced in this country in quantities greater than 10,000 pounds have been tested for their potential human toxicity, with less than 10 percent studied to assess effects on development. This lack of knowledge has serious health repercussions--in children, environmental toxins are estimated to cause up to 35 percent of asthma cases, up to 10 percent of cancer cases, and up to 20 percent of neurobehavioral disorders. Overall, an estimated 25 percent of preventable illnesses worldwide can be attributed to poor environmental quality. Diseases such as cancer, heart disease, asthma, birth defects, infertility, and obesity are all caused or exacerbated by toxicants or pollutants in the environment. Minority Americans are significantly more likely to be affected than other Americans. Some studies have found that 3 of every 5 African- and Latino Americans live in communities with one or more toxic waste sites. Communities with existing incinerators, and those that are proposed for placement of new incinerators, have substantially higher numbers of minority residents. Minority Americans are already plagued with higher rates of death and disease, and fewer health resources in their neighborhoods. As we focus our efforts on environmental health, we must be cognizant that some groups are disproportionately affected by federal policies and decision-making, and deserve careful attention. The Healthy Communities Act of 2005 addresses environmental health concerns in a comprehensive fashion, building upon many of the successful federal initiatives and filling in gaps in other critical areas. The bill establishes an independent advisory committee to provide recommendations across all relevant Federal agencies. It asks the CDC and the EPA to assess and report the environmental public health of the nation, and each State. The Health Action Zone Program will provide intense Federal attention and resources to clean up and address the health needs of the nation's most blighted communities. Environmental research is expanded, including biomonitoring and health tracking initiatives. Finally, the Act promotes environmental health workforce programs at the CDC and the NIH. The Healthy Communities Act of 2005 will increase national attention on the importance of the environment, and its relationship to good health. As we work to make our future stronger for our communities, let us look to our past. In the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, Congress wrote that it is the continuing responsibility of the Federal Government to assure that all Americans live in ``safe, healthful and aesthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings.'' Almost forty years later, our responsibility to the American people continues. I encourage all of my colleagues to join me and support passage of this bill.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, today, Senator Burr and I are introducing a resolution that reaffirms the importance of the Medicaid prospective payment system for federally qualified health centers. Federally qualified health centers--community, migrant, public housing, and homeless health centers--form the backbone of the Nation's health care safety net. FQHC's provide cost-effective, high-quality health care to the Nation's poor and medically underserved, including the working poor, the uninsured, and many high-risk and vulnerable populations. Federally qualified health centers serve nearly 1 of 5 low-income children. Two-thirds of health center patients are members of racial and ethnic minority groups. And over 675,000 homeless persons receive care at health centers every year. FQHC's play a particularly critical role in serving patients enrolled in Medicaid. Health centers provide care to nearly 6 million of the 53 million people enrolled in the Medicaid Program nationwide. Thirty-six percent of all FQHC patients are Medicaid beneficiaries compared to 12 percent nationally. Notably, the cost of treating Medicaid patients at FQHCs is about one-third less than the cost for those receiving care elsewhere, with drug costs alone about 25 percent lower. In 2000, a bipartisan majority of the Congress established a prospective payment system, or PPS, to ensure that FQHC's receive fair Medicaid reimbursement. This system strikes a balance between protecting Federal investment in such health centers and allowing State flexibility in designing the payment system for these centers. The PPS allows health centers to provide and expand primary care services to more people in need, promotes efficient operation of FQHC's, and ensures they receive adequate Medicaid reimbursement. Today, PPS has allowed health centers to provide quality health care to nearly 15 million people nationally, while also delivering significant cost savings to the Medicaid Program. Congress should recognize the critical role of such health centers as the primary source of care for millions of Medicaid recipients and uninsured Americans and support continuation of the prospective payment system.