Barack Obama

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, amendment No. 2605 deals with Hurricane Katrina contracting. This sense-of-the-Senate amendment I offer with Senators Coburn, Lautenberg, Ensign, and Johnson is a simple effort to enforce some accountability and transparency into the contracting process. FEMA needs to reopen its no-bid contracts. FEMA representatives testified before Senate committees they would do so. They have now backed away from that. That is unacceptable. I hope my colleagues will support this amendment.

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in favor of the amendment offered by Senator Feingold. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of the amendment. In recent years, the philosophy in Washington has been that you can spend without consequence or sacrifice. That we can fight a war in Iraq and a war on terror, protect our homeland, provide our citizens with Medicare and Social Security, and maintain our domestic priorities, all while cutting taxes for the wealthy and funding every local project there is. If you are wondering how Congress pays for all this, it doesn't. Instead, billions of dollars are borrowed from other countries and put on a credit card for our children to pay off. Yet, when it comes time to pay these bills, no one can seem to agree on any tax cuts to defer or any programs to cut. Every family knows that it is one thing to use a credit card; it is another thing to keep spending money you don't have. You have to pay as you go, which is a rule most Americans live by. Washington once did too, until the White House and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle abandoned it to push through the President's tax breaks. This attempt to pass $60 billion in tax breaks despite record breaking deficits is just the latest example of the fiscal irresponsibility in this city. The amendment offered by Senator Feingold is about restoring responsible budgeting. Previously, PAYGO rules applied equally to increases in mandatory spending and tax cuts. Unfortunately, the rules were changed, and now the requirements of budget discipline apply to only half of the budget--the spending part. The problem is, that there is no such thing as half a budget. Budget discipline requires enforcing control over both sides of the ledger. The original PAYGO rules were abandoned to provide for a series of unfunded tax breaks. In order to pay for these tax breaks, the Government had to borrow money from countries like Japan and China. And we borrowed from the Social Security Trust Fund. In the process, our national debt shot up to $8 trillion, and it is still rising. Last year, for example, our national commitments exceeded our national resources by more than $550 billion. Americans deserve better financial leadership. Washington could learn a lot from the American people about fiscal responsibility. The people I talk to in Illinois are not fooled by what's going on. They know what is happening with higher deficits and reduced levels of Government service. They understand that, in this life, you get what you pay for and if you don't pay for it today, it will cost you more tomorrow. The people I have met with know that if you need to spend more money on something, you also need to make more money, and if your income falls, your spending must fall, too. This is the essence of the PAYGO rules we are trying to reinstate today. Changes in spending must be offset by changes in revenue, and vice versa. The people I talk to understand that when you have massive costs coming down the road, you need to prepare for them. There is no excuse for ignoring the financial consequences of foreseeable expenses-- whether it is the rising costs of health care, the retirement of the baby boom generation, or the growing inequality of wealth in our society. So when you are already deep in debt--as the Federal Government is now--and you are facing a mountain of debt in the future, it is just not the right time to be giving out $60 billion in tax cuts, even if many of these cuts have merit. And if you are intent on giving out these tax cuts, let's find a way to pay for them. And that is why it is so important that we reinstate PAYGO in a way that meaningfully enforces the budget discipline that both sides of the aisle need in order to honestly tackle our short-term and long-term fiscal challenges. It is time for some adult supervision to return to the budgeting process. PAYGO provides a necessary tool at a necessary time. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, in the immediate aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, there was an enormous urgency, not only in Congress but all across the Nation, to respond to the needs of the people of the gulf coast region. Although the sense of urgency appears to have subsided, unfortunately, somewhat in Congress, that sense of urgency remains all too real for the hundreds of thousands of Americans who are still dealing with the loss of jobs, the loss of family, and the loss of homes that too many Hurricane Katrina survivors have suffered. I am pleased the bill we are debating today includes tax relief for those affected by Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma. I am fully supportive of those provisions. I also believe that before we go home for Thanksgiving to enjoy our homes and our families, we need to take some meaningful action to help those who might not have as much to be thankful for. Nearly 2 months after Hurricane Katrina devastated the people of the gulf coast, we are seeing that our Government is still leaving too many Americans behind. Let me give some examples. This week, FEMA is telling 150,000 evacuees who are currently in hotels that they have to be out of their hotels in 15 days. Imagine, someone has lost their home, and they have 15 days to get out of the shelter they are currently in. Yesterday, we heard a story on NPR that shelter residents in Iberville, LA, will soon be transitioned to a tent city when the shelter closes. That's right--a tent city. Thousands in Mississippi are currently living in two-person tents, without running water or adequate heat, because FEMA has not provided the mobile homes they promised. There are concerns that contractors participating in the gulf coast reconstruction are exploiting immigrant labor. There are stories from Mississippi and Louisiana of immigrant laborers being lured to the gulf by promises of good pay, only to be stiffed their salaries and charged for their temporary housing. In addition to these stories--we are hearing enormous complaints--and I am getting them in Illinois, despite the fact that I do not represent the region--that local companies are being shut out of the reconstruction bidding process. According to the Washington Post, companies outside the States most affected by Katrina have received more than 90 percent of the Federal contracts for recovery and reconstruction. Ninety percent of the contracts have gone to companies that do not maintain a place of business in the affected States. This is unacceptable. The American taxpayers and this Congress provided $62 billion for the reconstruction effort precisely so that the people of the gulf coast region, including some of the most vulnerable citizens of our society, would be left behind no more. Yet right now we have no idea where that money is being spent, how that money is being spent, why it is not being spent on fixing the problems I mentioned and why FEMA is still sitting on nearly $40 billion that has not been spent at all. Now think about that. The managers of this bill have been struggling with the fiscal constraints we are trying to deal with and we have $40 billion that is not spent and we do not know where the other $20 billion has gone. There is absolutely no accountability to this process at all, no accountability to the taxpayers and no accountability to the people who need this help the most. I am a freshman in the minority party. I am accustomed sometimes to not knowing what is going on around here, but this is, unfortunately, one of those situations in which I do not get a sense that neither the majority party nor the administration has a clear idea of how our money is being spent. The Hurricane Katrina contracting process has been rife with problems from the very beginning. Rather than use the reconstruction process to help companies and workers in the regions most affected, we are seeing many of the prime contracts going to the largest contractors in the country. These are the same contractors that received reconstruction contracts in Iraq and with only a few exceptions they are not the folks whose businesses were harmed by the ravages of the storm. Small businesses are not being given a fair shake to bid on these projects, and it is unclear how many contracts have been provided to small businesses. Meanwhile, minority contractors have been left almost entirely out of the contracting process. The Congressional Black Caucus has proposed good legislation to address some of these problems and I hope the Senate will consider it, if it passes the House. But let me be clear--this is not simply partisan complaining or political point scoring. At a hearing held on November 3, 2005, the inspector general of the Homeland Security Department, a Bush appointee, said about the reconstruction process: Obligations are being made at a rate of $275 million a day in an unstable environment and in an expedited manner. When you mix it all together, it is a potentially perfect recipe for fraud, waste, and abuse. The GAO's preliminary observations indicate that the Army Corps of Engineers' $39 million purchase of portable classrooms may have resulted in the Army Corps paying more than necessary. The GAO will continue to monitor the reconstruction contracts. I am certain that we are going to keep on seeing these stories surfacing almost daily about how taxpayer money is being wasted, while the people who are supposed to be helped are not getting what they need. One of the most egregious examples of this potential waste, fraud, and abuse is in the Government's refusal to rebid $400 million worth of no-bid contracts that they already promised they would rebid. Immediately following Hurricane Katrina, FEMA awarded four $100 million no-bid contracts for reconstruction efforts. Acting FEMA Under Secretary Paulison made the following statement to the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee on October 6, 2005: I have been a public servant for a long time, and I have never been a fan of no-bid contracts. Sometimes you have to do them because of the expediency of getting things done. I can assure you, we are going to look at all of these contracts very carefully. All of those no-bid contracts, we are going to go back and rebid. That is what Under Secretary Paulison said before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee a month ago. These contracts have not been rebid. In fact, FEMA officials testified on November 11, just a month after the statement by Under Secretary Paulison, that they would not rebid the contracts until February. Here is the only problem: By February, the contracts will have been completed. Today, I am offering a sense-of-the-Senate amendment calling on FEMA to immediately rebid these contracts in a competitive fashion before nearly $400 million of taxpayer dollars are spent in an inefficient and potentially abusive manner. I know this amendment only gets at one element of a multilayer problem, but I firmly believe this body must take a stand to ensure that these Federal agencies that have been entrusted with such a monumental job and so many taxpayer dollars stick to their promises. I am pleased my colleague from Oklahoma, Senator Coburn, has joined me in offering this amendment. Senator Coburn and I have also offered a bill that establishes a chief financial officer to oversee the use of Hurricane Katrina recovery funds so that we do not have further problems of this sort. That bill was voted out of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee and is awaiting a vote. Unfortunately, that bill so far has not seen the light of this floor, so I am forced to offer this amendment today to provide some accountability and transparency into this contracting process. I hope my colleagues will support this amendment. I appreciate the time and the attention of Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Baucus. Before I yield the floor, I ask unanimous consent to call up a pending amendment that has no number yet, submitted by myself and Senator Kerry, filed earlier today by Senator Kerry, which provides relief from the marriage penalty and from the military service penalty faced by many low-income taxpayers who receive the low-income tax credit.

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. OBAMA. I call up amendment No. 2605 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise to speak in favor of the amendment I am offering with Senator Kerry to make two simple yet critical improvements to the earned income credit and to reduce the Federal deficit. Our amendment provides relief from the marriage penalty and from the military service penalty faced by many low-income taxpayers. The EITC is one of the most effective programs to lift working Americans out of poverty. It rewards work, reduces tax burdens, and supplement wages that help a family to be self-sufficient. It is an idea that Republicans and Democrats can agree on because it works. Study after study has demonstrated that the EITC increases employment among single mothers and reduces reliance on cash welfare assistance. The EITC lifts millions of children and families out of poverty each year. Census data show that in 2003, the poverty rate among children would have been nearly 25 percent higher without the EITC. Established by the Ford administration in 1975 and celebrated by Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and Bill Clinton, this is a program that has long enjoyed bipartisan support. President Reagan characterized the EITC as one of the best ``pro-family'' and ``anti- poverty'' programs. Unfortunately, as currently structured, the EITC has a marriage penalty. Working parents receive less tax relief if they marry than if they stay single. If we want to reduce poverty and improve the life chances of poor children, the last thing we should do is penalize marriage. Children with married parents generally have much lower rates of poverty and better educational outcomes. Fixing the marriage penalty is a matter of common sense. It is also something that this body agreed on in the 2001 tax bill. Unfortunately, unlike the marriage penalty relief for middle-income taxpayers, which was accelerated in 2003, full relief for the low- income marriage penalty was delayed until 2008. Our amendment provides full marriage penalty relief in 2006 rather than requiring married taxpayers to endure further delay. Of all the tax breaks that Congress considers important, this should be among the first deserving action. It is relatively inexpensive. It will have the strongest economic stimulus effect. It will improve the fairness of the Tax Code. The second fix proposed by this amendment is to ensure that the families of our men and women in combat are not deprived of their tax benefits. In the midst of war, are we really going to tell our troops that their combat pay doesn't count as earned income for purposes of calculating tax credits? That is hard to image. Our amendment extends the tax protection for combat pay through 2007. Our troops not only earn their combat pay, but they have also earned our respect. They deserve our commitment of support. The combined cost of these important fixes is about 2 percent of the cost of the tax reconciliation package and provides relief to our most needy taxpayers. Nevertheless, it is important that even this tax cut be deficit neutral. Congress has to make choices and set priorities and cannot get away with new spending or tax cuts that are not paid for. American families expect this country to pay for its priorities. To pay for relief from the marriage penalty and relief from the military service penalty, this amendment closes a tax loophole related to foreign entities by changing sale-in and lease-out provisions. This sensible change raises more than the cost of the important EITC fixes. Unlike the tax package as a whole, this amendment does not worsen the deficit, and it does not shift the burden from those in our society fortunate to have the most to those who have the least. Our amendment is fair. It is fiscally responsible. It is an example of the sort of tax policy adjustments that we ought to be focused on in reconciliation. I urge my colleagues to support fiscally responsible relief of the marriage penalty and military service penalty for low-income families, and I ask you to support this amendment.

Mr. OBAMA. Fair enough.

Mr. OBAMA. I was asked by the Senator from Massachusetts to read that, just to get it into the queue. At this stage I am not speaking on it, and I am not asking for any additional action on it. I just wanted to get it in. If it is a problem, I am willing to defer.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Wastewater Treatment Works Security Act of 2005. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this bill. When Timothy McVeigh drove a rental vehicle up to a Federal building in Oklahoma City, Americans began to look at trucks in a completely new way. So we learned to screen vehicles to safeguard against such a tragedy ever happening again. On September 11, 2001, a thing as ordinary as an airplane became an instrument of destruction and terror, robbing innocent people of the rest of their lives. As a result, we have gotten pretty good at screening people and their luggage at airports, and at keeping planes out of protected air space. While these changes are necessary and prudent, there is another part of the equation to consider: the act of terror not yet committed. We must look at the threats our security experts have identified and address these potential threats. One such threat is a possible attack on our Nation's wastewater treatment plants. Traditionally, wastewater treatment plants have stored chemicals that, if used properly, clean the water of harmful organisms. When most of these plants were built, we did not design them to ward against use as potential weapons of mayhem and destruction. Appropriately, we were only concerned about the environment, safety, and preventing accidents. Since September 11, as security concerns have been identified in this sector, many of these facilities have taken steps on their own to switch to safer alternative treatments or to further secure chemicals and the facilities against deliberate acts of terrorism. But, such changes are expensive. Many of these facilities need assistance to upgrade security at the facility and to switch to these safer alternative forms of treatment. The Wastewater Treatment Works Security Act of 2005 puts in place requirements to assess facilities' vulnerability and provides much needed financial assistance to upgrade security and to switch to safer forms of chemical treatment. My only regret is that the bill does not pick up more of the cost of the assessments and upgrades. I believe the Federal Government needs to take on a larger share of funding these types of homeland security improvements. This is a much needed bill, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I thank Senator Mikulski. Mr. President, I know I speak for all Members of the Senate when I say we wholeheartedly support our Nation's law enforcement officers and we want to do every single thing possible to assist their efforts to keep our communities safe. Unfortunately, the Commerce-Justice-Science conference report before this body today does not send this message. In fact, it sends the exact opposite message. The conference report provides important funding for programs such as the Office on Violence Against Women, the National Science Foundation, and important juvenile justice programs. But I am very troubled by the drastic cuts it makes to an important law enforcement program, the Byrne Justice Assistance Grant Program. This bill further eviscerates a program that has suffered significant cuts in the last few years, despite providing real results and benefits around the country. The conference report cuts the Byrne Program from the $900 million we passed in the Senate to $416 million, which is a 34-percent cut from the fiscal year 2005 funding level. Now, in Illinois, these cuts will have an immediate and direct effect because law enforcement has been using Byrne grant funds to fight one of the gravest drug threats facing the Nation today--methamphetamines. In downstate Illinois, as in other rural communities all across the country, there has been a tremendous surge in the manufacture, trafficking, and use of meth. Illinois State Police encountered 971 meth labs in Illinois in 2003, more than double the number uncovered in 2000. According to the Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority, the quantity of meth seized by the Illinois State Police increased nearly tenfold between 1997 and 2003. This surge is placing enormous burdens on smalltown police forces, which are suddenly being confronted with a large drug trade and the ancillary crimes that accompany that trade. These police departments rely on Byrne grant funding to participate in meth task forces, such as the Metropolitan Enforcement Group or the Southern Illinois Enforcement Group. These task forces allow police in different communities to combine forces to battle a regional problem. There are a total of seven meth task force zones in Illinois, and these task forces have seen real results with Byrne grant funding. In 2004, the Southern Illinois Enforcement Group accounted for more than 27 percent of the State's reported meth lab seizures. This group pays 5 of its 12 agents through Byrne grants. In towns such as Granite City and Alton, cuts in Byrne grant funding will force them to make difficult choices about how to allocate already scarce police resources. Indeed, the chief of police in Granite City told my staff yesterday that cuts in Byrne grant funding will threaten the viability of his meth task force. At a time when meth use is growing, it is inconceivable to me that we would be cutting the resources needed by law enforcement to fight crime and clean up the streets. This is yet another example of the misplaced priorities of our country. We all know that we are facing a real budget crisis. The deficit is growing, and we need to enforce some fiscal discipline. But I don't believe we should be balancing the budget on the backs of our Nation's law enforcement officers who keep our families and communities safe each and every day. I am disappointed by this bill. I hope next year we will be able to find the necessary funding that local law enforcement needs. I would ask those who are on the conference and who are looking at this to recognize that it is going to have an impact not just in Illinois but in rural communities all across the country, particularly farming communities in the Midwest that have been devastated by the plague of meth. This has been primarily a program to help prevent it. It is being cut drastically in this bill. It is a bad decision and reflective of misplaced priorities by this Senate. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise today to thank my colleagues, the senior Senator from Virginia and the Senior Senator from Michigan, for their hard work in getting the fiscal year 2006 Defense authorization bill to the floor and for including in the bill two amendments I offered. These amendments will directly affect the quality of health care we provide our Nation's armed forces. As many of you know, the Department of Veterans Affairs, VA, has created one of the most effective electronic medical records systems in the Nation. Despite a number of problems at the VA--from funding shortfalls to delayed benefits--the electronic medical records system is one of the VA's great successes and serves as a national model. Unfortunately, the Department of Defense, DOD, has not created a similar system for members of the military. Despite a significant expenditure of time and money, the Department of Defense appears to be far from completion of its system, the Composite Health Care System II, CHCS II. Consequently, we have soldiers who have honorably served their country leaving the military and entering the VA system, and yet there is no easy way to transfer their medical records to the new health care system. This lack of compatibility results in severe inefficiencies and delayed benefits for our veterans. This is a problem that the national veterans' service organizations have highlighted over the years, but despite their efforts, the Department of Defense is still lagging behind the VA. The Government Accountability Office, in a report released last year, found that one of the primary reasons for the Defense Department's severe delays in producing a compatible medical records system is the lack of strong oversight of the process. My amendment is an effort to implement some oversight. Pursuant to my amendment, 6 months after enactment of the bill, the DOD would be required to report to Congress on the progress being made on the development of the CHCS II system, the timeframe for implementation of the system, a cost estimate for completion of the system, and a description of the management structure used in the development of the system. I also want to thank Senators Levin and Warner for accepting my amendment requiring that DOD report to the Senate and House Armed Services Committees about its pandemic flu preparedness activities. When pandemic flu strikes, many of our military and civilian personnel will be at high risk for infection, particularly those deployed in Asia where avian flu poses the greatest current risk; military and civilian personnel in this country also will likely be involved in domestic response activities in the event of a pandemic. Our Nation's security is contingent on a healthy military, and we must ensure that these members will be protected. It is Congress's duty to oversee the delivery of health care to our Nation's soldiers, and these amendments will help in our efforts to exercise this oversight. I hope to work with the conferees on this authorization bill to retain these provisions in conference.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, oil companies recently announced record profits. Those of us who drive cars and trucks could feel our wallets shrink at the news. Throughout most of this year, American drivers have paid the highest gas prices of all time--more so in the wake of refinery disruptions caused by Hurricane Katrina. While petroleum company shareholders enjoy healthy stock dividends, the rest of us hemorrhage the cash. Industry analysts explain it away as ``business is business.'' Sound familiar? In the 1970s, political conflicts compelled Middle East oil sheiks to tighten their reins on oil production, sending shockwaves throughout our economy and creating long lines at the gas pump. Congress responded with laws promoting energy conservation and fuel efficiency that we thought would reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Unfortunately, 30 years later, here we are again. The Middle East remains in turmoil, and the engines of America remain firmly fueled on foreign oil. Exacerbating the problem is that the economies of China and India--two nations totaling over 2 billion citizens--are quickly expanding, and they are competing with the U.S. for the same pool of oil. Quite simply, worldwide production capacity cannot keep pace. And that means U.S. gas prices likely will remain high for the foreseeable future. More so than at any other time in a generation, our economy is exposed. In the year 2035, will the American market be shackled still to foreign oil? Will we question whether bolder past policies could have prevented future crisis? The response to these questions can be ``no'' if we begin now. For about $100 worth of hoses and sensors, we can make our cars run on ethanol made from homegrown corn. Automakers made 1 million of these cars this year. We have the technology, and it is proven. With 200 million cars on the road, and 17 million more each year, why can't more cars run on ethanol? The answer is they can, and that is why I am pleased to join my colleagues from Iowa and Indiana, Senators Harkin and Lugar, in introducing legislation to require all cars made in the United States to be ethanol-capable vehicles within 10 years. Making ethanol cars is not expensive. It is less than the cost of airbags. It is less than the cost of a sunroof. It is less than the cost of foglights. It is less than the cost of a fancy CD player. It is less than the cost of heated seats. Making ethanol cars is not restrictive. These cars are known as flexible fuel vehicles. Where ethanol is not yet available, you simply fill up with regular gas. And making ethanol cars is good for American automakers, because American automakers have a head start. Already, 5 percent to 7 percent of their fleet can run on ethanol. We are only asking for an increase over a decade. I remind my colleagues that the renewable fuels standard enacted in the Energy bill of 2005 will incorporate enough ethanol into our fuel supply to reduce the use of foreign oil. The Harkin-Lugar-Obama bill, if enacted, would accelerate that reduction. And we can do it without hardship, without requiring drivers to purchase matchbox cars, without proposing futuristic technologies that only our great-great- grandchildren's children will see. The Harkin-Lugar-Obama bill transforms existing, inexpensive, and simple technology into a genuine movement towards energy independence for the United States within a time period that we all can witness. I urge my colleagues' swift approval of this legislation.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise today in support of a resolution submitted by Mr. Leahy, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Feingold, and myself on the 10th anniversary of Ken Saro-Wiwa's death. On November 10, 1995, a terrible injustice occurred when Mr. Saro-Wiwa and eight of his countrymen were hanged by Sani Abacha's regime in Nigeria. While we cannot undo that tragedy, we must never forget it. Mr. Saro-Wiwa led the Movement for the Survival of the Ogoni People, dedicated to defending the rights of his fellow Ogoni in the Niger Delta through nonviolent means. Over the course of his life, he had dozens of opportunities to take a different path, to stop speaking out, to let someone else intervene. Instead, he risked everything, over and over again, to call the world's attention to suffering and injustice, to demand action. In May 1994, Abacha responded by imprisoning Mr. Saro-Wiwa and eight other Ogoni men, the Ogoni Nine, and unjustly accusing them of murder. Ten years ago on this day, Mr. Saro-Wiwa is said to have told his executioners: ``Lord, take my soul, but the struggle continues.'' Sadly, the struggle has indeed continued for the Ogoni people, whose standard of living is among the lowest in the world, and whose oil rich land remains severely polluted. The names of the Ogoni Nine have yet to be cleared, and they remain convicted of the crime for which they were unfairly tried and hanged. This resolution acknowledges not only the tremendous legacy left by Ken Saro-Wiwa, but also the battles that remain to be fought in the Niger Delta and beyond. I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort to honor his memory, his vision, and his struggle which continues today.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, oil companies recently announced record profits. Those of us who drive cars and trucks could feel our wallets shrink at the news. Throughout most of this year, American drivers have paid the highest gas prices of all time--more so in the wake of refinery disruptions caused by Hurricane Katrina. While petroleum company shareholders enjoy healthy stock dividends, the rest of us hemorrhage the cash. Industry analysts explain it away as ``business is business.'' Sound familiar? In the 1970s, political conflicts compelled Middle East oil sheiks to tighten their reins on oil production, sending shockwaves throughout our economy and creating long lines at the gas pump. Congress responded with laws promoting energy conservation and fuel efficiency that we thought would reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Unfortunately, 30 years later, here we are again. The Middle East remains in turmoil, and the engines of America remain firmly fueled on foreign oil. Exacerbating the problem is that the economies of China and India--two nations totaling over 2 billion citizens--are quickly expanding, and they are competing with the U.S. for the same pool of oil. Quite simply, worldwide production capacity cannot keep pace. And that means U.S. gas prices likely will remain high for the foreseeable future. More so than at any other time in a generation, our economy is exposed. In the year 2035, will the American market be shackled still to foreign oil? Will we question whether bolder past policies could have prevented future crisis? The response to these questions can be ``no'' if we begin now. For about $100 worth of hoses and sensors, we can make our cars run on ethanol made from homegrown corn. Automakers made 1 million of these cars this year. We have the technology, and it is proven. With 200 million cars on the road, and 17 million more each year, why can't more cars run on ethanol? The answer is they can, and that is why I am pleased to join my colleagues from Iowa and Indiana, Senators Harkin and Lugar, in introducing legislation to require all cars made in the United States to be ethanol-capable vehicles within 10 years. Making ethanol cars is not expensive. It is less than the cost of airbags. It is less than the cost of a sunroof. It is less than the cost of foglights. It is less than the cost of a fancy CD player. It is less than the cost of heated seats. Making ethanol cars is not restrictive. These cars are known as flexible fuel vehicles. Where ethanol is not yet available, you simply fill up with regular gas. And making ethanol cars is good for American automakers, because American automakers have a head start. Already, 5 percent to 7 percent of their fleet can run on ethanol. We are only asking for an increase over a decade. I remind my colleagues that the renewable fuels standard enacted in the Energy bill of 2005 will incorporate enough ethanol into our fuel supply to reduce the use of foreign oil. The Harkin-Lugar-Obama bill, if enacted, would accelerate that reduction. And we can do it without hardship, without requiring drivers to purchase matchbox cars, without proposing futuristic technologies that only our great-great- grandchildren's children will see. The Harkin-Lugar-Obama bill transforms existing, inexpensive, and simple technology into a genuine movement towards energy independence for the United States within a time period that we all can witness. I urge my colleagues' swift approval of this legislation.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in favor of the Second Chance Act, a bill to strengthen community safety by improving the reintegration of people returning from prison. I am pleased to work with Senators Specter, Biden, and Brownback and to be an original cosponsor of this bill. This year, approximately 650,000 prisoners will be released into communities across America communities in which all of us live. They will have paid their debt to society and will now return to their homes and neighborhoods, to their families, and back to their lives. Their communities are our communities; their success is an important part of our success as a larger community and a nation. The problem is that for most of these men--and more than 9 out of 10 of them are men--their families, neighborhoods, and prior lives often lack what it takes to ensure successful reintegration. If we punish crime, as we should, then we must also recognize that when punishment is concluded, there are lives that must be resumed constructively. We only hurt ourselves and our own communities if we fail. That is why the Second Chance Act is so important. It is the leading edge of a smart community response to the challenges we all face from this inevitable feature of our justice system. In the best of cases, incarcerated individuals maintain contact with their families and receive rehabilitation services while in prison; they are released to a network of law-abiding peers and quickly find a rewarding job that provides the skills and career development for long- term opportunity. Released prisoners can help support their families, become active in their churches and other community organizations, stay off drugs, away from trouble, on track, and out of jail. Unfortunately, that rarely happens. Up to two-thirds of all released prisoners nationwide end up back in prison within just 3 years. That means that of the 1,800 people released from prisons every single day in this country, almost 1,200 fail to make a successful transition into the world of work and responsibility. They do not manage to find and keep effective jobs and to care for themselves and their families. Many become a drain on their families and a drain on the system. They are more likely to resort to criminal activity and to perpetuate poverty and family dysfunction. And their failure is our failure since we all share the high cost and other burdens of unemployment, crime, community failure, and cycles of recidivism. The Illinois Department of Corrections released almost 40,000 people in 2004. A recent Chicago study found that only 30 percent of former prisoners were employed when interviewed 4 to 8 months after release, and of those who succeeded in finding at least some form of legal employment, the average cumulative length of employment was 13 weeks. The same study found that 81 percent of former prisoners were uninsured, and only 29 percent of those working full time had health insurance. Of the people released by the Illinois Department of Corrections three years ago, almost 55 percent of adults and 47 percent of juveniles have already returned to custody. This is a revolving door of failure that must stop. Fortunately, smart people in hundreds of communities and community organizations all across the country have figured out ways to improve this performance and create constructive places for former prisoners in society. It is in the best interest of all of us and the communities we live in to provide the resources to take these effective strategies to scale. That is what the Second Chance Act does. In Illinois, dozens of organizations are involved in safely reintegrating former prisoners into their communities, and many have been funded by the Illinois Department of Corrections through grants from the U.S. Department of Justice. As one example, the Safer Foundation has managed to cut the State's recidivism rate by almost 50 percent for the people who receive Safer's supportive employment services. And Safer has further demonstrated that ex-prisoners who are still employed after 12 months of supportive services have a recidivism rate of lower than 10 percent. One of Safer's program models, funded by the U.S. Department of Labor, provides participants with job placement and support services, and matches them with mentors from the neighborhoods where the participants reside. Only 2 percent of the participants in this community and faith-based program have recidivated over a 2-year period. One of the most effective strategies that Safer, the Heartland Alliance for Human Needs and Human Rights, and other nonprofit organizations have devised is transitional jobs, a strategy that worked for welfare to work, and is now working for prison returnees. In a transitional jobs program, former prisoners with employment challenges are hired and paid a wage for legitimate employment in a time-limited, subsidized job. The program not only offers real work, income, skill development, and a letter of reference and experience to add to their resume, it also offers coaching and support services to help participants overcome substantial barriers to employment, such as substance abuse or mental health issues. The program focuses heavily on placement into unsubsidized work at the earliest possible time and job retention services after placement. Studies of successful transitional jobs programs have found that transitional jobs result in a 33 percent increase in employment when compared to other types of employment preparation programs, and that 81 percent to 94 percent of transitional job graduates go on to unsubsidized employment at wages between $7 and $10 per hour. The participants gain an immediate source of legitimate income upon release. They also gain paid work experience, access to professional counseling and training services, and a clear path to unsubsidized employment in the community. Employers gain access to a pipeline of supported workers who have demonstrated an ability to do the job and remain employable. Most of all, our communities gain by creating a productive place for ex-prisoners, where they contribute positively to family, neighborhood, and the larger environment rather than the opposite. The ex-prisoner population is a challenging one to serve. It is estimated that 95 percent of unskilled jobs in this country require a high school diploma or some work experience. But 40 percent of released prisoners lack a high school diploma or GED--more than twice the rate for the general population over 18. And 38 percent of prisoners without high school degrees were unemployed just prior to being incarcerated, compared to 25 percent for those with high school diplomas. In prison, only about one-third of inmates receive vocational training or work experience designed to improve their ability to obtain legitimate employment once released. And very few former incarcerated individuals receive job counseling and placement services after their release. Because of the low pay, lack of benefits, and lack of advancement potential of many formal work activities, informal and illegal activities may be tempting. Especially considering that an estimated 70 percent of State prison inmates have a history of regular drug use, and very few receive formal treatment in prison. Most communities where prisoners go upon release already struggle with high poverty, unemployment, fragile families, and a dearth of jobs. In Illinois, for example, 54 percent of those released from prison return to just seven communities around Chicago. These communities are among the poorest in Chicago and are ill prepared for the additional burden of reintegrating young men with criminal records, spotty employment histories, low skills and education. Former prisoners also face employer resistance to hiring people with criminal backgrounds. One study found that applicants with criminal records experienced a 50 percent reduction in job offers for entry level jobs, compared to those without records. This was compounded by racial bias as black former inmates experienced at 64 percent reduction in offers. Other barriers include one documented by a recent study in Illinois in which only 22 percent percent of the prisoners had a photo identification card at the time of release. And most prisoners have financial and other obligations, including child support and the conditions of their release, that require immediate attention. Notwithstanding the barriers to successful reentry, however, faith based and community based organizations have been achieving positive results with the released prisoner population for years. The Second Chance Act celebrates the potential of nonprofit community organizations working with State and local authorities and corrections departments to promote responsible parenting and sustainable employment, and to reduce recidivism. This bill will make funding available to the Attorney General to support and evaluate the efforts of innovative communities and local service providers. Grants can be used to expand access to transitional jobs programs and to transitional and permanent housing, to support health services, to support the children of incarcerated parents and the maintenance of healthy parent-child relationships, to address literacy and educational needs, and to ensure that appropriate job training, placement, and retention services are available. Priority under the Second Chance Act will be given to projects that serve geographic areas with large ex-prisoner populations, to projects that include partnerships with nonprofit organizations, and to projects that provide consultations between victims and ex-prisoners. Priority will also be given to projects that consider appropriate reforms of sanctions for technical post-release violations, and to projects that establish pre-release procedures to connect participants to the State and Federal benefits and referrals to social and health services for which they are eligible. And by maintaining a strict focus on measurable results and data collection, the Second Chance Act will help us learn what works and what does not work. Too many people are caught up in the criminal justice system. Especially within the African American community where 32 percent of black males will enter State or Federal prison sometime during their lifetime. Communities are protected and strengthened when people who break the law are punished appropriately. But communities--all communities, including yours and mine are weakened if we neglect the challenges of rehabilitation and reentry. To improve the integration of former prisoners and to reduce recidivism is in all of our best interests. A well-designed reentry system can enhance public safety, reduce recidivism, reduce costs, and help prisoners achieve long-term integration. Former prisoners who are engaged in lawful work after they have returned to the community are less likely to commit new crimes and are more likely to be involved in their children's lives. The Second Chance Act is an important effort to strengthen America's communities. The bill is supported by a wide range of organizations, and I urge my colleagues to join us in passing this important legislation.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, today millions of Americans will exercise their most fundamental right under the Constitution the right to vote. As in every election, I hope all eligible Americans go to the polls to exercise this right. Voter participation is fundamental to our democracy, and we must do all we can to encourage those who can to vote. After seeing what happened over the last two presidential elections, I have some other hopes for this Election Day. I hope all voters who go to the polls find voting machines that work, non-partisan poll workers who understand the law and enforce it without bias, lines that move smoothly, and ballots that make sense and are easy to understand. I also hope voters go to the polls today with accurate information about what is on the ballot, where they are supposed to vote, and what our Nation's voting laws are. It might surprise some of you to know, but even in this awesome age of technological advancement and easy access to information, there are folks who will stop at nothing to try to deceive people and keep them away from the polls. These deceptive practices all too often target and exploit vulnerable populations, like minorities, the disabled, or the poor. Think about the story of the 2004 presidential election when voters in Milwaukee received fliers from the non-existent ``Milwaukee Black Voters League,'' warning that voters risk imprisonment for voting if they were ever found guilty of any offense--even a traffic violation. In that same election, in a county in Ohio, some voters received mailings misinforming voters that anyone registered to vote by the Kerry Campaign or the NAACP would be barred from voting. Deceptive practices often rely on a few tried and true tricks. Voters are often warned that an unpaid parking ticket will lead to their arrest or that folks with family members who have been convicted of a crime are ineligible to vote. Of course, these warnings have no basis in fact, and they are made with one goal and one goal only to keep Americans away from the polls. I hope voters who go to the polls today are not victims of such malicious campaigns, but I know hoping is not enough. That is why I am introducing the Deceptive Election Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act of 2005 to provide voters with real protection from deceptive practices that aim to keep them away from the polls on Election Day. The bill I am introducing today provides the clear statutory language and authority needed to get allegations of deceptive practices investigated. It establishes harsh penalties for those found to have perpetrated them. And the bill seeks to address the real harm of these crimes--voters who are discouraged from voting by misinformation--by establishing a process for reaching out to these misinformed and intimidated voters with accurate and full information so they can cast their votes in time. Perhaps just as important, this bill creates strong penalties for deceptive election acts, so people who commit these crimes suffer more than just a slap on the hand. This legislation has the support of groups like the NAACP, the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Common Cause, the Arc of the United States, United Cerebral Palsy, People for the American Way and the National Disability Rights Network. Deceptive practices and voter intimidation are real problems and demand real solutions like those offered in my bill. I hope my colleagues will join me and support this bill and work to ensure that all eligible voters have the opportunity to have their votes count. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, today millions of Americans will exercise their most fundamental right under the Constitution the right to vote. As in every election, I hope all eligible Americans go to the polls to exercise this right. Voter participation is fundamental to our democracy, and we must do all we can to encourage those who can to vote. After seeing what happened over the last two presidential elections, I have some other hopes for this Election Day. I hope all voters who go to the polls find voting machines that work, non-partisan poll workers who understand the law and enforce it without bias, lines that move smoothly, and ballots that make sense and are easy to understand. I also hope voters go to the polls today with accurate information about what is on the ballot, where they are supposed to vote, and what our Nation's voting laws are. It might surprise some of you to know, but even in this awesome age of technological advancement and easy access to information, there are folks who will stop at nothing to try to deceive people and keep them away from the polls. These deceptive practices all too often target and exploit vulnerable populations, like minorities, the disabled, or the poor. Think about the story of the 2004 presidential election when voters in Milwaukee received fliers from the non-existent ``Milwaukee Black Voters League,'' warning that voters risk imprisonment for voting if they were ever found guilty of any offense--even a traffic violation. In that same election, in a county in Ohio, some voters received mailings misinforming voters that anyone registered to vote by the Kerry Campaign or the NAACP would be barred from voting. Deceptive practices often rely on a few tried and true tricks. Voters are often warned that an unpaid parking ticket will lead to their arrest or that folks with family members who have been convicted of a crime are ineligible to vote. Of course, these warnings have no basis in fact, and they are made with one goal and one goal only to keep Americans away from the polls. I hope voters who go to the polls today are not victims of such malicious campaigns, but I know hoping is not enough. That is why I am introducing the Deceptive Election Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act of 2005 to provide voters with real protection from deceptive practices that aim to keep them away from the polls on Election Day. The bill I am introducing today provides the clear statutory language and authority needed to get allegations of deceptive practices investigated. It establishes harsh penalties for those found to have perpetrated them. And the bill seeks to address the real harm of these crimes--voters who are discouraged from voting by misinformation--by establishing a process for reaching out to these misinformed and intimidated voters with accurate and full information so they can cast their votes in time. Perhaps just as important, this bill creates strong penalties for deceptive election acts, so people who commit these crimes suffer more than just a slap on the hand. This legislation has the support of groups like the NAACP, the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Common Cause, the Arc of the United States, United Cerebral Palsy, People for the American Way and the National Disability Rights Network. Deceptive practices and voter intimidation are real problems and demand real solutions like those offered in my bill. I hope my colleagues will join me and support this bill and work to ensure that all eligible voters have the opportunity to have their votes count. 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 speak in favor of the Harkin amendment, which expresses the sense of the Senate that this body will 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. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this amendment. 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 $4 is 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 pennywise, 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 backwards in the progress that has been made by stripping the States of necessary Federal support. Moreover, the welfare of too many is at stake. Child support is the second largest income source for qualifying low-income families. We cannot balance our budget on the backs of families who rely on child support to remain out of poverty. This Congress claims that strengthening the family is a priority. Senator Harkin's amendment is a firm expression that we are serious about this worthwhile investment. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. OBAMA. Madam President, I rise today to speak in favor of fiscal responsibility. This pay-go amendment introduced by Ranking Member Conrad of the Budget Committee, of which I am a cosponsor, seeks to fully reinstate the pay-as-you-go requirement for direct spending and revenue legislation in the Senate through 2010. This is about restoring responsible budgeting. Previously, pay-go rules applied equally to increases in mandatory spending and decreases in revenue. New spending or tax cuts could only become law if they were offset or found 60 votes in support. This enforced a badly needed budget discipline. It said, either pay for your priorities whether entitlement spending or tax cuts or both or find a supermajority of colleagues willing to override the rule. Simple logic. Simple balance. Common sense. Pay-go worked well in the 1990s to reduce deficits and it can work well today. Unfortunately, the rules were changed, and the balance was overturned. Now, the requirements of budget discipline apply to only half of the budget. Tax breaks are exempt from the logic and balance and common sense of budget discipline. The problem is that there is no such thing as half a budget. Budget discipline requires enforcing control over both sides of the ledger. You can't fill a bath tub just by plugging the drain. You can't drive a car just by pressing on the brakes. The original pay-go rules were abandoned to provide for a series of unfunded tax breaks. And since the tax breaks were unfunded, the Government had to borrow money to pay for them. So we borrowed from countries like Japan and China. And we borrowed from the Social Security trust fund. In the process, our national debt shot up to $8 trillion, and it is still rising. Last year, for example, our national commitments exceeded our national resources by more than $550 billion. And we continue to borrow. Some have argued that this first chapter of reconciliation is an effort to reduce the deficit. They tout the reductions in spending, many of which I would support. But later this month, the Senate will get to chapter two of reconciliation, which proposes further unfunded tax breaks and guarantees additional deficits and growing debt. So much debt, in fact, that the third chapter of budget reconciliation, which no one really wants to talk about, will involve raising our country's debt ceiling to almost $9 trillion. Americans deserve better financial leadership. The people I talk to in Illinois are not fooled by what is going on. They know what is happening with higher deficits and reduced levels of government service. They understand that, in this life, you get what you pay for and if you don't pay for it today, it will cost you more tomorrow. Washington could learn a lot from the American people about fiscal responsibility. The people I have met with know that if you need to spend more money on something, you also need to make more money, and if your income falls, your spending must fall, too. This is the essence of the pay-go rules we are trying to reinstate in the Senate. Changes in spending must be offset by changes in revenue, and vice versa. Americans know that when you are already deep in debt, it is not the optimal time to be gutting your revenue stream, whether it's a few hundred dollars in the case of a family or a $70 billion tax break in the case of the Federal Government. They also understand the difference between a home mortgage, a student loan, a credit card debt for uninsured health care expenses, and an unpaid tab at the bar. They know that some debts are good investments or may be unavoidable. But some debts are irresponsible the result of spending more than you can afford on purchases you could postpone or do without. The people I have met with know that you do not respond to emergencies by indiscriminately cutting all parts of the family budget. You make choices and forego luxuries before cutting back on essentials like food, heating, education, and healthcare. They understand that across the board cuts are neither fair nor responsible. Such cuts sound bold, but they represent a lack of leadership, not an example of it. The American people also know that the whole family must share in sacrifice--it is not right to pick on any one member of the family, or any one State in our Union. We are in this together. Singling out Alaska's bridge projects or any one State's earmarked funds is the wrong approach. If Congress is going to eliminate frivolous pork projects, as we should to support the gulf coast, let's eliminate all of them, in all States, together. Finally, the people I talk to understand that when you have massive costs coming down the road, you need to prepare for them. There is no excuse for ignoring the financial consequences of foreseeable expenses whether it is the rising costs of health care, the retirement of the baby boom generation, or the growing inequality of wealth in our society. You don't have to be a deficit hawk to be disturbed by the growing gap between revenues and expenses. This makes sense to people because the same principles that apply to our national budget apply to their family budgets as well. Americans are willing to share in the hard choices required to get us back on track, as long as they know that everyone is pulling their weight and doing their fair share. That is why it is so important that we reinstate pay-go in a way that meaningfully enforces the budget discipline both sides of the aisle need to honestly tackle our short-term and long-term fiscal challenges. Mr. President, it is time for fiscal responsibility to return to Washington. Adult supervision must return to the budgeting process. Pay-go provides a necessary tool at a necessary time. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Amendment No. 2352, As Modified

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business.

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise first to commend Senators Specter and Harkin for their diligence and hard work on what is an enormous bill, particularly given the tight budget they had to work with. I also personally thank Senators Specter and Harkin for adopting an amendment into the managers' bill relating to scholarships for low-income and minority students and for expansion of positive behavioral interventions and support within schools to encourage better discipline. I thank them and their staffs for working with us on this amendment. In addition, it is my understanding that there has been a meeting of the minds between the two sides of the aisle around what may end up being the most significant aspect of the Labor H appropriations bill. Yesterday, I joined Senators Harkin, Kennedy, and a number of my colleagues in introducing an avian flu amendment. I know we had been able to attach an amendment to the DOD appropriations bill that made significant headway in funding the work that needs to be done to prepare this nation for pandemic flu. Obviously, this Labor H bill was the more appropriate vehicle to fund preparedness activities. The fact that Senator Specter and Senator Harkin have agreed to work something out on this issue is extremely important. I will mention a couple of things that I believe make this avian flu amendment so significant. A number of Senators have talked on the Senate floor very eloquently about the threat of avian flu and the lack of preparedness and relative inactivity in the United States compared to our European and Asian allies. In the United States, we do not have a national preparedness plan for a pandemic. We do not have a stockpile of antivirals. Our public health system is weak, and the vaccine infrastructure is fragile. All of these areas desperately need attention, and the amendment that I hope will be adopted unanimously will provide the funding to do just that. I am not going to rehash what was discussed earlier, but instead I wanted to spend a few minutes on the non-health aspects of avian flu, because it is important to fully understand the scope of the potential problems that a pandemic might cause. Obviously, the health concerns should be our immediate focus, and the Harkin amendment and the avian flu bill I introduced back in April do just that. However, we cannot ignore the economic and social implications of the pandemic flu. They deserve our urgent attention. As Dr. Michael Osterholm has warned us, the arrival of a pandemic flu would trigger a reaction that would change the world overnight. We know that a vaccine would not be available for at least 6 months after the pandemic started. We also know that we only have enough antivirals in our stockpile to treat 1 percent of the Nation's population. As such, if an avian flu pandemic hits, foreign trade and travel would be reduced or even suspended in a desperate but fruitless attempt to stop the virus from entering new countries. This is not speculation. Some will recall that Hong Kong's Secretary for Health, Welfare and Food has already threatened to close the border with the Chinese mainland if the H5N1 strain of avian influenza moves into the human population. Domestically, transportation would also be significantly curtailed as States or communities seek to keep the disease contained, and unaffected areas try to keep infection out. Such efforts at self- protection would have a devastating effect on the world economy, which relies on the speedy distribution of products. There would be major shortages of food, medicines, light bulbs, gasoline, and spare parts for military equipment. Potentially, we would have shutdowns in the production of microchips that fuel so much of our technology. To use just one example, currently, two U.S.-based companies supply most of the protective face masks for health care workers around the world. Neither company would be able to meet increased demand during a pandemic, in part because the companies depend on multiple suppliers in multiple countries for the parts to make the masks. Businesses today rely on the world's real time economy, and have not established alternative supply chains nor emergency plans for production and distribution. In a time of pandemic, the labor source could be severely affected as well, compounding the supply chain problem. Our Government officials also have not yet addressed the social implications of a pandemic. We had a taste of that in what tragically happened with Hurricane Katrina. We witnessed desperation and confusion as people scrambled to survive and to find their loved ones. We are going to have to develop protocols and plans now so we can prepare the public for whatever public health measures may be needed, including possible quarantine or isolation. The closest the world has come to this scenario in modern times was the SARS epidemic in 2003. Over a period of 5 months, about 8,000 people were infected and about 10 percent of those infected died. Once SARS emerged in China, it spread to 5 countries within 24 hours, and to 30 countries on 6 continents within several months. The economic consequences of SARS were staggering. The 6-month epidemic costs to the Asian-Pacific region alone were estimated at over $40 billion. As avian flu is significantly more contagious and more deadly, you can only imagine the potential scope of economic devastation that we might face. Senator Harkin has mentioned that the warning bell is ringing and we need to heed its urgent call to action. Time is running out and this administration must act now if it is to prevent the severe economic, security, and health consequences from pandemic flu. Let me close with one last comment. I heard some colleagues in discussions, both in the media and on the floor of the Senate, suggest that we should not succumb to panic. I know at one point an analogy was drawn between what we are calling for with respect to investments in pandemic flu preparedness and Y2K. Let me just make two points. No. 1, we are absolutely certain that some form of pandemic will occur in our lifetime. We do not know if it will be caused by a H5N1 virus that mutates and spreads by human-to- human contact, similar to the 1918 pandemic. But unless history has completely taught us the wrong lessons, we can expect some form of pandemic that has severe consequences, and right now, we do not have the infrastructure to deal with it. What that means is whatever investment we make now--for example, in developing a cell-based technology rather than an egg-based technology to develop vaccines--that is a sound investment even if we are lucky and this H5N1 virus does not end up mutating in such a way that it can cause a pandemic, because we will now be prepared for whatever pandemic occurs. We will have the infrastructure to rapidly produce the sort of vaccines that are necessary. This is a smart investment for us to make on the front end. The second point is one that, again, I think has been highlighted by what happened in New Orleans and the gulf coast. Sometimes the costs of doing nothing are so high that in the same way that you or I buy catastrophic health insurance hoping that we never have to use it, this is one of those situations where we have to devote the dollars to prepare and develop a plan, hoping that we never have to use it. I am extraordinarily grateful that Senator Harkin, Senator Specter, and other leaders on this committee have been able to come to an agreement that should allow us to finally fund the preparedness and readiness activities that are going to be necessary for us to meet the challenge of avian flu. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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 as a Senator, as an Illinoisan, and as a proud resident of the South Side of Chicago to congratulate the Chicago White Sox for winning the 2005 World Series. As my fellow South Siders know, it has been a long time coming. A little bit of history: Founded in 1900 as the Chicago White Stockings, this year's team reached the World Series for the first time since 1959, and this is a '59-style cap that I have here with me. Over a century of White Sox fans have cheered for superstars such as Luke Appling, Nellie Fox, Carlton Fisk, Luis Aparicio, Harold Baines, and, of course, Big Frank Thomas. But we haven't savored the sweet taste of a World Series championship since 1917--until now. Back in 1917, Woodrow Wilson was President, and the Great War was raging in Europe. The White Sox were a bright spot in tough times. The Sox won last night the way they have won all season--by playing aggressively, scrapping for every base and every run. When Juan Uribe threw to Paul Konerko for the final out, it was fitting that the ball beat the runner by only half a step. The four games against the Astros were decided by a total of six runs. Winning by the skin of your teeth has been our style. Win or die trying, that is our motto this year. I congratulate my colleague from Texas. The Houston Astros were an outstanding team. But it just so happened that this year they ran into the buzz saw of the Chicago White Sox. I congratulate Jermaine Dye, who is the World Series MVP. But I am sure he will be the first to say that everyone on this year's team deserves a part of that award. This is a team with so many great players but no undisputed leader on the field. I don't claim to be a baseball expert or particularly unbiased on this matter, but this is one of the most balanced and selfless teams any of us have seen. A team of unlikely heroes. Scott Podsednik, who hadn't hit a home run all season, stepped up and hit two in the playoffs, including the walk-off winner in game two on Sunday. Willie Harris, who barely played in the playoffs, got a pinch hit to get on base and bring home the only run last night. Geoff Blum, a former Astro, who got a pinch hit homer in the 14th inning to give us the margin of victory in game three. And the pitching--four complete games to close out the American League Championship Series. An 11 and 1 record in the playoffs. 15 scoreless innings to finish the World Series. Before the season started, the Sox were a consensus .500 team. Even as we built and maintained the best record in the American League all season, there were many doubters. Towards the end of the season, we hit a rough patch, and the doubters grew louder. They said Cleveland had more playoff experience. They said even if we held on to make the playoffs, we would get embarrassed in the first round. But during the stretch run, manager Ozzie Guillen and his ``kids,'' as he calls them, were calm and relaxed. Even as Cleveland came on strong and our lead in the Central Division dwindled, Ozzie's kids continued to play pranks on each other in the clubhouse, and continued to run hard on the basepaths. Once the playoffs started, there was no looking back. That difficult September was gone in an instant. We silenced the doubters by sweeping the World Champion Boston Red Sox. We silenced the Angels during the ALCS in five games. And we swept the Astros in four games. I had the privilege of attending game one of the World Series on Saturday, and the fans in and around the park were a cross-section of the city. There were plenty of folks old enough to remember the `59 team. Almost everyone remembered the 2000 team that made the playoffs. A few were even alive in 1917. I don't want to belabor this issue. I know those of you who had to listen to Red Sox fans last year may have gotten a little weary of those of us who have all this pent-up energy when we finally win the championship. But I do want to say that the entire city of Chicago and the entire State of Illinois are extraordinarily proud. I congratulate the entire White Sox organization, in particular Jerry Reinsdorf, Kenny Williams, and Ozzie Guillen. We will be celebrating this victory for a long time on the South Side, around the city of Chicago, and around the entire State of Illinois. Let me make one last point. While we were watching the game the other night, in the drenching rain Sunday evening there was a sign held up by an elderly woman 92 years old. She said: I've been waiting for this for 88 years. I think it gave you some sense of how much this means to the city of Chicago and to those blue-collar neighborhoods made up of Black, White, and Hispanic who were represented so ably by their team. It spoke to the diversity of this country and the fact that we work together in ways that make us all proud. Senator Durbin and myself will be introducing a resolution later today. I want to turn it over to my senior colleague from the great State of Illinois to maybe add a few other remarks regarding this outstanding team.