Barack Obama

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague from South Carolina, Senator Jim DeMint, in introducing the Education Opportunity Act. We often hear that many students who graduate from high school are not ready for the academic rigors of college. This is especially problematic for students from low-income families. For these students to succeed in the transition to college, they must have opportunity, and a continuity of classroom experiences that prepare them for success. Academic rigor in a high school curriculum is essential in establishing the momentum necessary for a student to progress toward a bachelor's degree. The unfortunate fact is that not all students have access to a challenging high school curriculum. Low-income students are often disadvantaged by a lack of rigorous courses in their high school, especially in subjects such as the advanced mathematics courses that are so important for college success. Universities and community colleges have increasingly provided such courses to high school students. But the cost of such classes can be a barrier to low-income students, who are the very students most likely to be enrolled in high schools that provide the most limited access to challenging college preparatory curricula. This legislation will provide a program for grant support to allow thousands of students with limited exposure to college-level programs in their high schools to earn college credit at their local university or community college. I urge my colleagues to join us in extending opportunities for college success to deserving low-income high school students.

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, for forty years the civil rights activist Fannie Lou Hamer rallied the Nation with her statement ``I am sick and tired, of being sick and tired.'' She would be disheartened to know the extent to which her words are still resonating with millions of Americans today. Whether we are talking about African Americans, Latinos, Asians or American Indians, the fact is that minorities continue to suffer a greater burden of disease and die prematurely. African Americans are one-third more likely than all other Americans to die from cancer, and have the highest rate of new HIV infection. One in 3 Latinos has no insurance coverage. Fifty percent of Americans suffering from chronic hepatitis B are Asian. And among many American Indian tribes, the rate of diabetes has hit epidemic proportions, with rates near 50 percent in certain tribes. The state of minority health in this Nation is deplorable, and by many measures, is getting worse. Researchers have contributed a substantial body of work that has increased our understanding of the factors contributing to poor health. Higher rates of uninsurance are one such factor. Racial and ethnic minorities, particularly African Americans and Latinos, are significantly more likely to be uninsured. This lack of access to care leads to delayed or foregone care, and according to the Institute of Medicine, is the 6th leading cause of death in this Nation for adults aged 25-64. But equally disturbing, an overwhelming number of studies have shown that regardless of insurance status, minorities are more likely to receive low quality health care, and as a consequence, suffer worse health outcomes. The Institute of Medicine's 2002 historic report, Unequal Treatment: Confronting Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Healthcare, documented persistent and pervasive disparities in health care for minority groups, even after adjusting for differences in insurance status and socioeconomic factors. The American Journal of Public Health has reported that more than 886,000 deaths could have been prevented from 1991 to 2000 if African Americans had received the same level of health care as whites. In contrast, the same study estimates that technological improvements in medicine--including better drugs, devices and procedures--prevented only 176,633 deaths during the same period. African Americans are not the only minorities getting worse care. Data has shown, for example, that compared to white Americans, Mexican Americans receive 38 percent fewer heart medications, and American Indians get recommended care for only 40 percent of quality measures. The bottom line is that although the level of health care quality is mediocre at best for all Americans, it is much worse for minority groups. And this is unacceptable. For these reasons, I am joining my colleagues Senator Frist and Senator Kennedy in introducing the Minority Health Improvement and Health Disparity Elimination Act. This critical legislation has a number of important provisions to help address the dismal health status of minority and other underserved populations. First, this bill strengthens education and training in cultural competence and communication, which is the cornerstone of quality health care for all patients. It also reauthorizes the pipeline programs in Title VII of the Public Health Service Act, which seek to increase diversity in the health professions. We all know that the door to opportunity is only half open for minority students in the health professions. The percentage of minority health professionals is shockingly low--African Americans, Hispanics and American Indians account for one-third of the Nation's population but less than 10 percent of the Nation's doctors, less than 5 percent of dentists and only 12 percent of nurses. We can do better, and we must. Lack of workforce diversity has serious implications for both access and quality of health care. Minority physicians are significantly more likely to treat low-income patients, and their patients are disproportionately minority. Studies have also shown that minority physicians provide higher quality of care to minority patients, who are more satisfied with their care and more likely to follow their doctor's recommendations. Second, this bill expands and supports a number of initiatives to increase access to quality care. Specifically, the legislation authorizes demonstration projects to help address health disparities in the U.S.-Mexico border region, increase health coverage and continuity of coverage, identify and implement effective disease management strategies, train community health workers, and increase enrollment of minorities in clinical trials. The REACH program at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Health Disparity Collaboratives at the Bureau of Primary Health Care are authorized in statute. And I am pleased that the Community Health Initiative has also been authorized. This new environmental public health program is modeled after the Health Action Zones in the Healthy Communities Act, S. 2047, that I introduced a year ago, and guides and strengthens community efforts to improve health in comprehensive and sustained fashion. A third area of focus is expansion and acceleration of data collection and research across the agencies, including the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the National Institutes of Health, with special emphasis on translational research. The tremendous advances in medical science and health technology, which have benefited millions of Americans, have remained out of reach for too many minorities, and translational research will help to remedy this problem. The National Center on Minority Health and Health Disparities, which has a leadership role in establishing the disparities research strategic plan at the National Institutes of Health, is reauthorized, and a new advisory committee has been established at the Food and Drug Administration, to focus on pharmacogenomics and its safe and appropriate application in minority populations. Last but not least, I want to highlight that the bill reauthorizes the Office of Minority Health and Health Disparity Elimination. This Office has been critical in providing the leadership, expertise and guidance for health improvement activities within the agencies of the Department of Health and Human Services, and has helped to ensure coordination, collaboration and integration of such efforts as well. In conclusion, I want to note that this is the first bipartisan effort on minority health and health disparities since 2000, when the Congress passed the last minority health bill. That bill accelerated the research that documented the full scope and magnitude of disparities in health and health care in this Nation, and more importantly, helped us understand why these disparities occur. But it is time for the next step. We've got to translate the knowledge we have gained into practical and effective interventions that will improve minority health and eliminate disparities, and this bill will help us do just that. I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring and passing this critical legislation. Regardless of how you measure it--whether by needless suffering, lost productivity, financial costs, or lives lost-- disparities in health and health care are a tremendous problem and moral imperative for our Nation, and one that is within our power to address right now. On behalf of the millions of Americans who continue to be sick and tired of being sick and tired, I ask you to join me in voting yes to pass this bill.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, for forty years the civil rights activist Fannie Lou Hamer rallied the Nation with her statement ``I am sick and tired, of being sick and tired.'' She would be disheartened to know the extent to which her words are still resonating with millions of Americans today. Whether we are talking about African Americans, Latinos, Asians or American Indians, the fact is that minorities continue to suffer a greater burden of disease and die prematurely. African Americans are one-third more likely than all other Americans to die from cancer, and have the highest rate of new HIV infection. One in 3 Latinos has no insurance coverage. Fifty percent of Americans suffering from chronic hepatitis B are Asian. And among many American Indian tribes, the rate of diabetes has hit epidemic proportions, with rates near 50 percent in certain tribes. The state of minority health in this Nation is deplorable, and by many measures, is getting worse. Researchers have contributed a substantial body of work that has increased our understanding of the factors contributing to poor health. Higher rates of uninsurance are one such factor. Racial and ethnic minorities, particularly African Americans and Latinos, are significantly more likely to be uninsured. This lack of access to care leads to delayed or foregone care, and according to the Institute of Medicine, is the 6th leading cause of death in this Nation for adults aged 25-64. But equally disturbing, an overwhelming number of studies have shown that regardless of insurance status, minorities are more likely to receive low quality health care, and as a consequence, suffer worse health outcomes. The Institute of Medicine's 2002 historic report, Unequal Treatment: Confronting Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Healthcare, documented persistent and pervasive disparities in health care for minority groups, even after adjusting for differences in insurance status and socioeconomic factors. The American Journal of Public Health has reported that more than 886,000 deaths could have been prevented from 1991 to 2000 if African Americans had received the same level of health care as whites. In contrast, the same study estimates that technological improvements in medicine--including better drugs, devices and procedures--prevented only 176,633 deaths during the same period. African Americans are not the only minorities getting worse care. Data has shown, for example, that compared to white Americans, Mexican Americans receive 38 percent fewer heart medications, and American Indians get recommended care for only 40 percent of quality measures. The bottom line is that although the level of health care quality is mediocre at best for all Americans, it is much worse for minority groups. And this is unacceptable. For these reasons, I am joining my colleagues Senator Frist and Senator Kennedy in introducing the Minority Health Improvement and Health Disparity Elimination Act. This critical legislation has a number of important provisions to help address the dismal health status of minority and other underserved populations. First, this bill strengthens education and training in cultural competence and communication, which is the cornerstone of quality health care for all patients. It also reauthorizes the pipeline programs in Title VII of the Public Health Service Act, which seek to increase diversity in the health professions. We all know that the door to opportunity is only half open for minority students in the health professions. The percentage of minority health professionals is shockingly low--African Americans, Hispanics and American Indians account for one-third of the Nation's population but less than 10 percent of the Nation's doctors, less than 5 percent of dentists and only 12 percent of nurses. We can do better, and we must. Lack of workforce diversity has serious implications for both access and quality of health care. Minority physicians are significantly more likely to treat low-income patients, and their patients are disproportionately minority. Studies have also shown that minority physicians provide higher quality of care to minority patients, who are more satisfied with their care and more likely to follow their doctor's recommendations. Second, this bill expands and supports a number of initiatives to increase access to quality care. Specifically, the legislation authorizes demonstration projects to help address health disparities in the U.S.-Mexico border region, increase health coverage and continuity of coverage, identify and implement effective disease management strategies, train community health workers, and increase enrollment of minorities in clinical trials. The REACH program at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Health Disparity Collaboratives at the Bureau of Primary Health Care are authorized in statute. And I am pleased that the Community Health Initiative has also been authorized. This new environmental public health program is modeled after the Health Action Zones in the Healthy Communities Act, S. 2047, that I introduced a year ago, and guides and strengthens community efforts to improve health in comprehensive and sustained fashion. A third area of focus is expansion and acceleration of data collection and research across the agencies, including the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the National Institutes of Health, with special emphasis on translational research. The tremendous advances in medical science and health technology, which have benefited millions of Americans, have remained out of reach for too many minorities, and translational research will help to remedy this problem. The National Center on Minority Health and Health Disparities, which has a leadership role in establishing the disparities research strategic plan at the National Institutes of Health, is reauthorized, and a new advisory committee has been established at the Food and Drug Administration, to focus on pharmacogenomics and its safe and appropriate application in minority populations. Last but not least, I want to highlight that the bill reauthorizes the Office of Minority Health and Health Disparity Elimination. This Office has been critical in providing the leadership, expertise and guidance for health improvement activities within the agencies of the Department of Health and Human Services, and has helped to ensure coordination, collaboration and integration of such efforts as well. In conclusion, I want to note that this is the first bipartisan effort on minority health and health disparities since 2000, when the Congress passed the last minority health bill. That bill accelerated the research that documented the full scope and magnitude of disparities in health and health care in this Nation, and more importantly, helped us understand why these disparities occur. But it is time for the next step. We've got to translate the knowledge we have gained into practical and effective interventions that will improve minority health and eliminate disparities, and this bill will help us do just that. I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring and passing this critical legislation. Regardless of how you measure it--whether by needless suffering, lost productivity, financial costs, or lives lost-- disparities in health and health care are a tremendous problem and moral imperative for our Nation, and one that is within our power to address right now. On behalf of the millions of Americans who continue to be sick and tired of being sick and tired, I ask you to join me in voting yes to pass this bill.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I thank my dear friend and colleague from West Virginia. I am proud to be sponsoring this amendment with the senior Senator from West Virginia. He is absolutely right that Congress has abrogated its oversight responsibilities, and one way to reverse that troubling trend is to adopt a sunset provision in this bill. We did it in the PATRIOT Act, and that allowed us to make important revisions to the bill that reflected our experience about what worked and what didn't work during the previous 5 years. We should do that again with this important piece of legislation. It is important to note that this is not a conventional war we are fighting, as has been noted oftentimes by our President and on the other side of the aisle. We don't know when this war against terrorism might end. There is no emperor to sign a surrender document. As a consequence, unless we build into our own processes some mechanism to oversee what we are doing, then we are going to have an open-ended situation, not just for this particular President but for every President for the foreseeable future. And we will not have any formal mechanism to require us to take a look and to make sure it is being done right. This amendment would make a significant improvement to the existing legislation, and it is one of those amendments that would, in normal circumstances, I believe, garner strong bipartisan support. Unfortunately, we are not in normal circumstances. Let me take a few minutes to speak more broadly about the bill before us. I may have only been in this body for a short while, but I am not naive to the political considerations that go along with many of the decisions we make here. I realize that soon--perhaps today, perhaps tomorrow--we will adjourn for the fall. The campaigning will begin in earnest. There are going to be 30-second attack ads and negative mail pieces criticizing people who don't vote for this legislation as caring more about the rights of terrorists than the protection of Americans. And I know that this vote was specifically designed and timed to add more fuel to the fire. Yet, while I know all of this, I am still disappointed because what we are doing here today, a debate over the fundamental human rights of the accused, should be bigger than politics. This is serious and this is somber, as the President noted today. I have the utmost respect for my colleague from Virginia. It saddens me to stand and not be foursquare with him. I don't know a more patriotic individual or anybody I admire more. When the Armed Services bill that was originally conceived came out, I thought to myself: This is a proud moment in the Senate. I thought: Here is a bipartisan piece of work that has been structured and well thought through that we can all join together and support to make sure we are taking care of business. The fact is, although the debate we have been having on this floor has obviously shown we have some ideological differences, the truth is we could have settled most of these issues on habeas corpus, on this sunset provision, on a whole host of issues. The Armed Services Committee showed us how to do it. All of us, Democrats and Republicans, want to do whatever it takes to track down terrorists and bring them to justice as swiftly as possible. All of us want to give our President every tool necessary to do this, and all of us were willing to do that in this bill. Anyone who says otherwise is lying to the American people. In the 5 years the President's system of military tribunals has existed, the fact is not one terrorist has been tried, not one has been convicted, and in the end, the Supreme Court of the United States found the whole thing unconstitutional because we were rushing through a process and not overseeing it with sufficient care. Which is why we are here today. We could have fixed all this several years ago in a way that allows us to detain and interrogate and try suspected terrorists while still protecting the accidentally accused from spending their lives locked away in Guantanamo Bay. Easily. This was not an either-or question. We could do that still.

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 more minutes.

Mr. OBAMA. I will conclude, then. I appreciate the Senator from Virginia. Instead of allowing this President--or any President--to decide what does and does not constitute torture, we could have left the definition up to our own laws and to the Geneva Conventions, as we would have if we passed the bill that the Armed Services committee originally offered. Instead of detainees arriving at Guantanamo and facing a Combatant Status Review Tribunal that allows them no real chance to prove their innocence with evidence or a lawyer, we could have developed a real military system of justice that would sort out the suspected terrorists from the accidentally accused. And instead of not just suspending, but eliminating, the right of habeas corpus--the seven century-old right of individuals to challenge the terms of their own detention, we could have given the accused one chance--one single chance--to ask the Government why they are being held and what they are being charged with. But politics won today. Politics won. The administration got its vote, and now it will have its victory lap, and now they will be able to go out on the campaign trail and tell the American people that they were the ones who were tough on the terrorists. And yet, we have a bill that gives the terrorist mastermind of 9/11 his day in court, but not the innocent people we may have accidentally rounded up and mistaken for terrorists--people who may stay in prison for the rest of their lives. And yet, we have a report authored by sixteen of our own Government's intelligence agencies, a previous draft of which described, and I quote, ``. . . actions by the United States government that were determined to have stoked the jihad movement, like the indefinite detention of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay . . .'' And yet, we have al-Qaida and the Taliban regrouping in Afghanistan while we look the other way. We have a war in Iraq that our own Government's intelligence says is serving as al-Qaida's best recruitment tool. And we have recommendations from the bipartisan 9/11 commission that we still refuse to implement 5 years after the fact. The problem with this bill is not that it is too tough on terrorists. The problem with this bill is that it is sloppy. And the reason it is sloppy is because we rushed it to serve political purposes instead of taking the time to do the job right. I have heard, for example, the argument that it should be military courts, and not Federal judges, who should make decisions on these detainees. I actually agree with that. The problem is that the structure of the military proceedings has been poorly thought through. Indeed, the regulations that are supposed to be governing administrative hearings for these detainees, which should have been issued months ago, still haven't been issued. Instead, we have rushed through a bill that stands a good chance of being challenged once again in the Supreme Court. This is not how a serious administration would approach the problem of terrorism. I know the President came here today and was insisting that this is supposed to be our primary concern. He is absolutely right it should be our primary concern--which is why we should be approaching this with a somberness and seriousness that this administration has not displayed with this legislation. Now let me make clear--for those who plot terror against the United State, I hope God has mercy on their soul, because I certainly do not. For those who our Government suspects of terror, I support whatever tools are necessary to try them and uncover their plot. We also know that some have been detained who have no connection to terror whatsoever. We have already had reports from the CIA and various generals over the last few years saying that many of the detainees at Guantanamo shouldn't have been there--as one U.S. commander of Guantanamo told the Wall Street Journal, ``Sometimes, we just didn't get the right folks.'' And we all know about the recent case of the Canadian man who was suspected of terrorist connections, detained in New York, sent to Syria, and tortured, only to find out later that it was all a case of mistaken identity and poor information. In the future, people like this may never have a chance to prove their innocence. They may remain locked away forever. The sad part about all of this is that this betrayal of American values is unnecessary. We could have drafted a bipartisan, well-structured bill that provided adequate due process through the military courts, had an effective review process that would've prevented frivolous lawsuits being filed and kept lawyers from clogging our courts, but upheld the basic ideals that have made this country great. Instead, what we have is a flawed document that in fact betrays the best instincts of some of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle-- those who worked in a bipartisan fashion in the Armed Services Committee to craft a bill that we could have been proud of. And they essentially got steamrolled by this administration and by the imperatives of November 7. That is not how we should be doing business in the U.S. Senate, and that is not how we should be prosecuting this war on terrorism. When we are sloppy and cut corners, we are undermining those very virtues of America that will lead us to success in winning this war. At bare minimum, I hope we can at least pass this provision so that cooler heads can prevail after the silly season of politics is over. I conclude by saying this: Senator Byrd has spent more time in this Chamber than many of us combined. He has seen the ebb and flow of politics in this Nation. He understands that sometimes we get caught up in the heat of the moment. The design of the Senate has been to cool those passions and to step back and take a somber look and a careful look at what we are doing. Passions never flare up more than during times where we feel threatened. I strongly urge, despite my great admiration for one of the sponsors of the underlying bill, that we accept this extraordinarily modest amendment that would allow us to go back in 5 years' time and make sure what we are doing serves American ideals, American values, and ultimately will make us more successful in prosecuting the war on terror about which all of us are concerned. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Lead Poisoning Reduction Act of 2006. I am pleased that Senator Clinton is joining me in this effort. Lead is a poison we have known about for a long time. Studies have long linked lead exposure to learning disabilities, behavioral problems, and, at very high levels, seizures, coma, and even death. Lead is particularly damaging to children because their developing brains are more susceptible to harm. A study released last week found that children with even very low levels of lead exposure have four times the risk of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) than normal and that childhood lead exposure leads to 290,000 cases of ADHD. The major source of lead exposure among U.S. children is lead-based paint. In 1978, the Consumer Product Safety Commission recognized this hazard and banned leaded paints. But today, 30 years later, about 24 million older homes, and millions of other buildings, have deteriorating lead paint and elevated levels of lead-contaminated dust. We know how children are typically exposed. We know what the health effects from exposure are. And we know how to fix the source of the exposure. The one thing we don't know how to do is reverse the brain damage once it has occurred. So, otherwise healthy children wind up facing a lifetime of disadvantage because we have failed to eradicate this insidious problem. Every day, millions of American parents drop their children off at child care facilities on their way to work. Nearly 12 million children under age 5 spend 40 hours a week in child care. And every day, many of those children in older buildings may be exposed to lead poisoning. While many child care facilities have taken steps to ensure sources of potential lead exposure are eliminated, too many operate in older buildings that need repair or remodeling to ensure these sources are contained. These facilities may be in wealthy communities, but more often than not, they are in poor communities where parents have few choices for child care. I'm sure many of these facilities would fix the problem if they only had the resources. The Lead Poisoning Reduction Act protects our children in two ways. First, the bill establishes a five-year, $42.6 million grant program to help communities reduce lead exposure in facilities such as day care centers, Head Start centers, and kindergarten classrooms where young children spend a great deal of time. Communities could use the funds for testing, abatement, and communicating the risks of lead to children and parents. Second, the bill requires the Environmental Protection Agency to establish regulations to eliminate sources of lead exposure in child care facilities, starting with new facilities in 18 months and all facilities in five years. It's a straightforward fix to a straightforward problem. I hope my colleagues join me in helping to create lead-safe environments in all child care facilities.

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise today, with my good friend and colleague, the senior Senator from the great State of Illinois, to introduce the Patriot Employers Act of 2006. This measure is designed to help businesses and American workers seeking to compete in the global economy. By reducing corporate taxes for those firms that invest in America and American employees, the Patriot Employers Act rewards companies that, among other things, pay decent benefits, provide health coverage and support our troops by paying a full differential salary for deployed National Guard employees. Too often we hear troubling news reports of American companies outsourcing jobs and exploiting corporate tax loopholes--by setting up incorporated offices, for example, in the Cayman Islands to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. Such companies fail to see that they are connected to the markets in which they operate, and by dodging their financial responsibilities, they are harming the very economy that they, too, will need to rely on in the future. Recognizing these challenges, this bill says that we are going to align our corporate tax policy with the corporate practices we want to encourage. The Patriot Employers Act cuts taxes for American companies that: maintain headquarters in the U.S.; pay at least 60 percent of employees' healthcare premiums; maintain or increase their U.S. workforce relative to their workforce located abroad; pay an hourly rate several dollars above the outdated minimum wage; provide either a defined benefit retirement plan or a defined contribution plan with an employer match; and provide full differential salary and benefits for National Guard employees called into active duty. It is important that our American firms remain competitive and innovate, in part by investing in the long-term health of those workers and communities in which they operate and impact. Increasing corporate shareholder value and acting in the interests of the public good are not mutually exclusive goals, and this legislation recognizes that point. All of us have a stake in improving returns to all corporate stakeholders, including investors, managers, employees, consumers, and our communities. To this end, I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this bill and I hope that it will renew attempts by lawmakers--both legislative and otherwise--to engage productively with the business community to address their long-term market concerns while promoting the well-being of American workers. Government does not create jobs; entrepreneurs and businesses do. The future of the American economy requires that American businesses continue to grow and improve their productivity and competitiveness. It requires that American companies have the very best workforce and infrastructure to compete and win in every market they enter. Ensuring American competitiveness will demand new thinking from leaders in business, labor, education, and government: it will demand new responses and roles, new coalitions and collaborations, among these stakeholders. Long-term American competitiveness will demand bipartisan commitment to strengthening all parts of our economy and improving opportunities for all Americans. The Patriot Employers Act is an important step in this process. Let's align business incentives with the investments we need in the future of the American workforce. Let's begin the conversation about how to ensure American competitiveness for the 21st century and beyond. I urge quick support for this important legislation.

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that is significant both in the problems it seeks to address and the man it seeks to honor. Since the day he arrived in Congress more than two decades ago, Lane Evans has been a tireless advocate for the men and women with whom he served. When Vietnam vets started falling ill from Agent Orange, he led the effort to get them compensation. Lane was one of the first in Congress to speak out about the health problems facing Persian Gulf war veterans. He's worked to help veterans suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, and he's also helped make sure thousands of homeless veterans in our country have a place to sleep. Lane Evans has fought these battles for more than 20 years, and even in the face of his own debilitating disease, he kept fighting. Today, veterans across America have Lane Evans to thank for reminding this country of its duty to take care of those who have risked their lives to defend ours. I am very proud today to introduce the Lane Evans Veterans Healthcare and Benefits Improvement Act of 2006. This bill honors a legislator who leaves behind an enduring legacy of service to our veterans. The legislation also is an important step towards caring for our men and women who are currently fighting for us. Today, nearly 1.5 million American troops have been deployed overseas as part of the global war on terror. These brave men and women who protected us are beginning to return home. Six hundred thousand people who served in Iraq and Afghanistan are now veterans, and at least 184,400 have already received treatment at the VA. That number is increasing every day. Many of these fighting men and women are coming home with major injuries. As a country, we are only beginning to understand the true costs of the global war on terror. For instance, last week, the Government Accountability Office reported that VA has faced $3 billion in budget shortfalls since 2005 because it underestimated the costs of caring for Iraq and Afghanistan veterans. The VA wasn't getting the information it needed from the Pentagon and was relying on outdated data and incorrect forecasting models. We cannot let these kind of bureaucratic blunders get in the way of the care and support we owe our servicemembers. To avoid these costly shortfalls in the future, we have to do a better job keeping track of veterans. That's why the first thing the Lane Evans Act does is to establish a system to track global war on terror veterans. The VA established a similar data system following the Persian Gulf War. That effort has been invaluable in budget planning as well as in monitoring emerging health trends and diseases linked to the gulf war. The Gulf War Veterans Information System also has been important to medical research and improved care for veterans. The sooner we begin keeping accurate track of our fighting men and women in Iraq, Afghanistan and beyond, the better and more efficiently we will be able to care for them. The Lane Evans Act also tackles Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. Mental health patients account for about a third of the new veterans seeking care at the VA. The VA's National Center for PTSD reports that ``the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are the most sustained combat operations since the Vietnam War, and initial signs imply that these ongoing wars are likely to produce a new generation of veterans with chronic mental health problems.'' This bill addresses PTSD in 2 ways. First, it extends the window during which new veterans can automatically get care for mental health from 2 years to 5 years. Right now, any servicemember discharged from the military has up to 2 years to walk into the VA and get care, no questions asked. After that, vets have to prove that they are disabled because of a service-connected injury, or they have to prove their income is below threshold levels. Unfortunately, it can take years for symptoms of PTSD to manifest themselves. The time it takes to prove service-connection for mental health illness is valuable time lost during which veterans are not receiving critically needed treatment. The Lane Evans Act allows veterans to walk into a VA any time 5 years after discharge and get assessed for mental health care. This both extends the window and shortens the wait for vets to get care. Second, the legislation makes face-to-face physical and mental health screening mandatory 30 to 90 days after a soldier is deployed in a war zone. This will ensure that our fighting force is ready for battle, and that we can identify and treat those at risk for PTSD. By making the exams mandatory, we can help eliminate the stigma associated with mental health screening and treatment. Another problem veterans face is that the VA and DoD do not effectively share medical and military records. Older veterans often have to wait years for their benefits as the Department of Defense recovers aging and lost paper records. Under the Lane Evans Act, the Department of Defense would provide each separating service member at the time of discharge with a secure full electronic copy of all military and medical records to help them apply for healthcare and benefits. DoD possesses the technology to do this now. The information could be useful to VA to quickly and accurately document receipt of vaccinations or deployment to a war zone. The electronic data will also be helpful in future generations when family members of veterans seek information about military service, awards, and wartime deployment that goes well beyond the existing single-sheet DD-214 discharge certificate, which is all veterans currently receive. Finally, the legislation improves the transition assistance that guardsmen and reservists receive when they return from deployment. A 2005 GAG report found that because demobilization for guardsmen and reservists is accelerated, reserve units get abbreviated and perfunctory transition assistance including limited employment training. VA should provide equal briefings and transition services for all service members regarding VA healthcare, disability compensation, and other benefits, regardless of their duty status. Lane Evans dedicated his life to serving this country and dedicated his time in Congress to serving veterans. The legislation I am introducing today, honors both the man and his mission, and will continue his legacy to the next generation of American veterans.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise today to acknowledge the extraordinary career of Senator Jim Jeffords. For the past 32 years, Jim Jeffords has served the citizens of Vermont and the American people with integrity, intellectual honesty, and diligence. When faced with the choice between political convenience or protecting the interests of his constituents, Jim Jeffords always stood for Vermont and the concerns of hard-working Americans. When others decided to do what was popular in Washington or among the chattering classes, Jim remained true to his values. He has been a model of principled leadership, often ahead of his time. Long before protecting our environment and precious natural resources occupied America's consciousness, Jim was leading on these issues. Working across party lines throughout his career, including as chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Jim Jeffords urged the President to strengthen antipollution measures, investigated the effects of greenhouse gas emissions, and promoted increased fuel efficiency. During his time in the U.S. Senate he introduced the Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act, the High-Performance Green Buildings Act, and the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Investment Act. Jim Jeffords has never lost sight of his constituents and their needs. He loyally stood by farmers in Vermont and all over the Nation when he fought President Bush's dairy tax, extended the Milk Income Loss Contracts--MILC--program, and supported the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act. Jim Jeffords has also committed his career to improving education, which he has treated as one of the great callings of our time. Speaking at a Rally for Education in 2002, Jim Jeffords said of education funding that ``it is not an option, it is a necessity, for our children, for our schools and for the future of our great Nation.'' Jim Jeffords championed the Head Start Program, increased funding for elementary, secondary, and higher education, and sponsored the Better Education for Students and Teachers Act. He has also provided unwavering support to American children with disabilities that face a unique set of challenges in navigating our education system. Even as a freshman Congressman some 30 years ago, Jim Jeffords managed to marshal his colleagues in order to pass the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. As a member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I have had the opportunity to work closely with Senator Jeffords and his capable staff. His office and his standards of professionalism inspire great respect. On a personal level, I continue to admire a public servant that has so consistently followed his conscience. Time magazine recognized Jim Jeffords as the ``Person of the Week'' for his ``revolutionary'' party switch in 2001. I do not believe that Jim necessarily set out to start a revolution; rather he invoked what might be considered a revolutionary idea to some in Washington: government ought to serve the concerns and interests of ordinary Americans instead of catering to fringe groups or election year antics. In hindsight, most will hail Jim Jeffords' principled decision to switch parties, though I know the decision was a difficult one for him and strained his relationship with many in this body. But Jim Jeffords did what he thought was right, and I applaud his courage and his example of leadership. So I thank Senator Jeffords not only for his lifetime of service and accomplishments but for having raised the bar for all of us. I wish Jim Jeffords and his family many happy years ahead.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. If I could, I do not think I will need more than 15 minutes. It may be a little more than 10 minutes.

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, thank you very much. And I thank my dear friend from Utah.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I would like to address the habeas corpus amendment that is on the floor and that we just heard a lengthy debate about between Senator Specter and Senator Warner. A few years ago, I gave a speech in Boston that people talk about from time to time. In that speech, I spoke about why I love this country, why I love America, and what I believe sets this country apart from so many other nations in so many areas. I said: That is the true genius of America--a faith in simple dreams, an insistence on small miracles; that we can tuck in our children at night and know that they are fed and clothed and safe from harm; that we can say what we think, write what we think, without hearing a sudden knock on the door. . . . Without hearing a sudden knock on the door. I bring this up because what is at stake in this bill, and in the amendment that is currently being debated, is the right, in some sense, for people who hear that knock on the door and are placed in detention because the Government suspects them of terrorist activity to effectively challenge their detention by our Government. Now, under the existing rules of the Detainee Treatment Act, court review of anyone's detention is severely restricted. Fortunately, the Supreme Court in Hamdan ensured that some meaningful review would take place. But in the absence of Senator Specter's amendment that is currently pending, we will essentially be going back to the same situation as if the Supreme Court had never ruled in Hamdan, a situation in which detainees effectively have no access to anything other than the Combatant Status Review Tribunal, or the CSRT. Now, I think it is important for all of us to understand exactly the procedures that are currently provided for under the CSRT. I have actually read a few of the transcripts of proceedings under the CSRT. And I can tell you that oftentimes they provide detainees no meaningful recourse if the Government has the wrong guy. Essentially, reading these transcripts, they proceed as follows: The Government says: You are a member of the Taliban. And the detainee will say: No, I'm not. And then the Government will not ask for proof from the detainee that he is not. There is no evidence that the detainee can offer to rebut the Government's charge. The Government then moves on and says: And on such and such a date, you perpetrated such and such terrorist crime. And the detainee says: No, I didn't. You have the wrong guy. But again, he has no capacity to place into evidence anything that would rebut the Government's charge. And there is no effort to find out whether or not what he is saying is true. And it proceeds like that until effectively the Government says, OK, that is the end of the tribunal, and he goes back to detention. Even if there is evidence that he was not involved in any terrorist activity, he may not have any mechanism to introduce that evidence into the hearing. Now, the vast majority of the folks in Guantanamo, I suspect, are there for a reason. There are a lot of dangerous people. Particularly dangerous are people like Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. Ironically, those are the guys who are going to get real military procedures because they are going to be charged by the Government. But detainees who have not committed war crimes--or where the Government's case is not strong--may not have any recourse whatsoever. The bottom line is this: Current procedures under the CSRT are such that a perfectly innocent individual could be held and could not rebut the Government's case and has no way of proving his innocence. I would like somebody in this Chamber, somebody in this Government, to tell me why this is necessary. I do not want to hear that this is a new world and we face a new kind of enemy. I know that. I know that every time I think about my two little girls and worry for their safety--when I wonder if I really can tuck them in at night and know that they are safe from harm. I have as big of a stake as anybody on the other side of the aisle and anybody in this administration in capturing terrorists and incapacitating them. I would gladly take up arms myself against any terrorist threat to make sure my family is protected. But as a parent, I can also imagine the terror I would feel if one of my family members were rounded up in the middle of the night and sent to Guantanamo without even getting one chance to ask why they were being held and being able to prove their innocence. This is not just an entirely fictional scenario, by the way. We have already had reports by the CIA and various generals over the last few years saying that many of the detainees at Guantanamo should not have been there. As one U.S. commander of Guantanamo told the Wall Street Journal: Sometimes, we just didn't get the right folks. We all know about the recent case of the Canadian man who was suspected of terrorist connections, detained in New York, sent to Syria--through a rendition agreement--tortured, only to find out later it was all a case of mistaken identity and poor information. In this war, where terrorists can plot undetected from within our borders, it is absolutely vital that our law enforcement agencies are able to detain and interrogate whoever they believe to be a suspect, and so it is understandable that mistakes will be made and identities will be confused. I don't blame the Government for that. This is an extraordinarily difficult war we are prosecuting against terrorists. There are going to be situations in which we cast too wide a net and capture the wrong person. But what is avoidable is refusing to ever allow our legal system to correct these mistakes. By giving suspects a chance--even one chance-- to challenge the terms of their detention in court, to have a judge confirm that the Government has detained the right person for the right suspicions, we could solve this problem without harming our efforts in the war on terror one bit. Let me respond to a couple of points that have been made on the other side. You will hear opponents of this amendment say it will give all kinds of rights to terrorist masterminds, such as Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. But that is not true. The irony of the underlying bill as it is written is that someone like Khalid Shaikh Mohammed is going to get basically a full military trial, with all of the bells and whistles. He will have counsel, he will be able to present evidence, and he will be able to rebut the Government's case. The feeling is that he is guilty of a war crime and to do otherwise might violate some of our agreements under the Geneva Conventions. I think that is good, that we are going to provide him with some procedure and process. I think we will convict him, and I think he will be brought to justice. I think justice will be carried out in his case. But that won't be true for the detainees who are never charged with a terrorist crime, who have not committed a war crime. Under this bill, people who may have been simply at the wrong place at the wrong time-- and there may be just a few--will never get a chance to appeal their detention. So, essentially, the weaker the Government's case is against you, the fewer rights you have. Senator Specter's amendment would fix that, while still ensuring that terrorists like Mohammed are swiftly brought to justice. You are also going to hear a lot about how lawyers are going to file all kinds of frivolous lawsuits on behalf of detainees if habeas corpus is in place. This is a cynical argument because I think we could get overwhelming support in this Chamber right now for a measure that would restrict habeas to a one-shot appeal that would be limited solely to whether someone was legally detained or not. I am not interested in allowing folks at Guantanamo to complain about whether their cell is too small or whether the food they get is sufficiently edible or to their tastes. That is not what this is about. We can craft a habeas bill that says the only question before the court is whether there is sufficient evidence to find that this person is truly an unlawful enemy combatant and belongs in this detention center. We can restrict it to that. And although I have seen some of those amendments floating around, those were not amendments that were admitted during this debate. It is a problem that is easily addressed. It is not a reason for us to wholesale eliminate habeas corpus. Finally, you will hear some Senators argue that if habeas is allowed, it renders the CSRT process irrelevant because the courts will embark on de novo review, meaning they will completely retry these cases, take new evidence. So whatever findings were made in the CSRT are not really relevant because the court is essentially going to start all over again. I actually think some of these Senators are right on this point. I believe we could actually set up a system in which a military tribunal is sufficient to make a determination as to whether someone is an enemy combatant and would not require the sort of traditional habeas corpus that is called for as a consequence of this amendment, where the court's role is simply to see whether proper procedures were met. The problem is that the way the CSRT is currently designed is so insufficient that we can anticipate the Supreme Court overturning this underlying bill, once again, in the absence of habeas corpus review. I have had conversations with some of the sponsors of the underlying bill who say they agree that we have to beef up the CSRT procedures. Well, if we are going to revisit the CSRT procedures to make them stronger and make sure they comport with basic due process, why not leave habeas corpus in place until we have actually fixed it up to our satisfaction? Why rush through it 2 days before we are supposed to adjourn? Because some on the other side of the aisle want to go campaign on the issue of who is tougher on terrorism and national security. Since 9/11, Americans have been asked to give up certain conveniences and civil liberties--long waits in airport security lines, random questioning because of a foreign-sounding last name--so that the Government can defeat terrorism wherever it may exist. It is a tough balance to strike. I think we have to acknowledge that whoever was in power right now, whoever was in the White House, whichever party was in control, that we would have to do some balancing between civil liberties and our need for security and to get tough on those who would do us harm. Most of us have been willing to make some sacrifices because we know that, in the end, it helps to make us safer. But restricting somebody's right to challenge their imprisonment indefinitely is not going to make us safer. In fact, recent evidence shows it is probably making us less safe. In Sunday's New York Times, it was reported that previous drafts of the recently released National Intelligence Estimate, a report of 16 different Government intelligence agencies, describe: . . . actions by the United States Government that were determined to have stoked the jihad movement, like the indefinite detention of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. . . . This is not just unhelpful in our fight against terror, it is unnecessary. We don't need to imprison innocent people to win this war. For people who are guilty, we have the procedures in place to lock them up. That is who we are as a people. We do things right, and we do things fair. Two days ago, every Member of this body received a letter, signed by 35 U.S. diplomats, many of whom served under Republican Presidents. They urged us to reconsider eliminating the rights of habeas corpus from this bill, saying: To deny habeas corpus to our detainees can be seen as a prescription for how the captured members of our own military, diplomatic, and NGO personnel stationed abroad may be treated. . . . The Congress has every duty to insure their protection, and to avoid anything which will be taken as a justification, even by the most disturbed minds, that arbitrary arrest is the acceptable norm of the day in the relations between nations, and that judicial inquiry is an antique, trivial and dispensable luxury. The world is watching what we do today in America. They will know what we do here today, and they will treat all of us accordingly in the future--our soldiers, our diplomats, our journalists, anybody who travels beyond these borders. I hope we remember this as we go forward. I sincerely hope we can protect what has been called the ``great writ''--a writ that has been in place in the Anglo-American legal system for over 700 years. Mr. President, this should not be a difficult vote. I hope we pass this amendment because I think it is the only way to make sure this underlying bill preserves all the great traditions of our legal system and our way of life. I yield the floor.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the Secure Fence Act. The bill before us will certainly do some good. It will authorize some badly needed funding for better fences and better security along our borders, and that should help stem some of the tide of illegal immigration in this country. But if we think that putting up a few more miles of fence is by any means the whole answer to our immigration problems, then I believe we are seriously kidding ourselves. This bill, from my perspective, is an election-year, political solution to a real policy challenge that goes far beyond November. It is great for sound bites and ad campaigns, but as an answer to the problem of illegal immigration, it is unfinished at best. Yes, we need tougher border security and stronger enforcement measures. Yes, we need more resources for Customs and Border agents and more detention beds. Democrats and Republicans in both the House and the Senate agree on these points. But immigrants sneaking in through unguarded holes in our border are only part of the problem. As a host of former Bush immigration officials and Members of Congress said in today's Washington Post, we must ``acknowledge that as much as half of the illegal-immigration problem is driven by the hiring of people who enter the United States through official border points but use fraudulent documents or overstay visas.'' This serves as a reminder that for the last 15 years, our immigration strategy has consisted of throwing more money at the border. We have tripled the size of the Border Patrol and we strengthened fences. But even as investments in border security grew, the size of the undocumented population grew as well. So we need to approach the immigration challenge from a different perspective. This is why for months Democrats and Republicans have been working together to pass a comprehensive immigration bill out of this Congress because we know that in addition to greater border security, we also need greater sanctions on employers who illegally hire people in this country. We need to make it easier for those employers to identify who is legally eligible to work and who is not. And we need to figure out how we plan to deal with the 12 million undocumented immigrants who are already here, many of whom have woven themselves into the fabric of our communities, many of whom have children who are U.S. citizens, many of whom employers depend on. Until we do, no one should be able to look a voter in the face and honestly tell them that we have solved our immigration problem. A model for compromise on this issue is in the Senate bill that was passed out of this Chamber. In the new electronic employment verification system section of that bill that I helped write with Senator Grassley and Senator Kennedy, we agreed to postpone the new guest worker program until 2 years of funding is made available for improved workplace enforcement. We could extend that framework and work together to first ensure the money is in place to strengthen enforcement at the border and then allow the new guest worker program to kick in. We can do all of that in one bill, but we are not. So while this bill will probably pass, it should be seen only as one step in the much greater challenge of reforming our immigration system. Meeting that challenge will require passing measures to discourage people from overstaying their visas in the country and to help employers check the legal status of the workers applying for jobs. It seems it was just yesterday that we were having celebratory press conferences and the President and the Senate leadership were promising to pass a bill that would secure our borders and take a tough but realistic approach to the undocumented immigrants who are already here. Today that promise looks empty and that cooperation seems like a thing of the past. But we owe it to the American people to finish the job we are starting today. And we owe it to all those immigrants who have come to this country with nothing more than a willingness to work and a hope for a better life. Like so many of our own parents and grandparents, they have shown the courage to leave their homes and seek out a new destiny of their own making. The least we can do is show the courage to help them make that destiny a reality in a way that is safe, legal, and achievable. So when we actually start debating this bill, I hope the majority leader will permit consideration of a wide range of amendments. 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, today marks a victory for government transparency and a victory for democratic accountability. By passing the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006, the House of Representatives and the Senate have brought a little much- needed sunlight to the world of government spending. This bill requires the Office of Management and Budget to ensure that a free, searchable Web site is available to Americans to access information about Federal grants, contracts, loans, and other financial assistance. The Web site will make public important oversight information including the name and location of an entity receiving an award, a description of the purpose of the funding, the amount of funding, the type of transaction, the primary location of performance under the award, the funding agency, and any other relevant information specified by the Office of Management and Budget. Existing Federal databases, such as the Federal Procurement Data System, FPDS, the Federal Assistance Award Data System, FAADS, and Grants.gov, contain other public information that may also be made available through the new Web site. Current law requires that certain information related to the use of competitive or noncompetitive procedures in procurements be included in FPDS. Executive agencies must provide competition information for each procurement transaction, including the extent to which the procurement was subject to competitive procedures, the type of solicitation procedure used, whether the procurement was awarded using a socioeconomic program set-aside, and, when applicable, the reason for a non-competitive procurement. This information is available to the public through FPDS. It is my expectation that the Office of Management and Budget will ensure that all relevant information on the use of competitive or noncompetitive procedures will be included in the information made available through the Web site. Since the collection of this information is already mandated and the information is made publicly available, its inclusion on the searchable, user-friendly Web site should not cause any additional burden or complexity. Mr. President, I would like to ask my friend from Oklahoma and the author of this legislation, who has tirelessly fought to improve government accountability, if he shares my expectation that the new Web site will include information on the use of competitive procedures.

Mr. OBAMA. I thank the Senator from Oklahoma for his leadership on this issue. I am grateful for our partnership to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of government services. I am confident that our efforts to reduce the use of noncompetitive procedures will save taxpayer money and improve the quality of contracted goods and services. I would also like to inquire of the distinguished chair and ranking member of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee who were instrumental in bringing this legislation through committee and ensuring its passage by the Senate. I would ask Madam Chairman, if it is her expectation that information on the use of competitive or noncompetitive procedures for the financial transactions reported on the Web site created through the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 will be available on the Web site, so that citizens will have straightforward access to comprehensive information on federal awards?

Mr. OBAMA. I thank the distinguished chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. The American people are well served by her leadership and the diligence of her excellent staff. Let me further note that all of us are well served by the productive working relationship that the chairman shares with the ranking member. The bipartisan nature of this bill is a testament not only to the broad support for the idea itself but also to the cooperative manner in which the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee conducts its business. So let me ask the committee's ranking member and my good friend from the State of Connecticut, who has long been a champion of good government and transparency, whether he shares our understanding that this new Web site will include information on the competitive or noncompetitive procedures used in government contracting for goods and services.

Mr. OBAMA. I thank the Senator from Connecticut. It has been my privilege to work with him on this issue. Transparency is the first step to holding government accountable. We can't reduce waste, fraud, and abuse or improve fairness and efficiency without knowing how, where, and why Federal money is being spent. And we cannot ensure that Americans are getting the best quality and the best prices on government contracts without being able to evaluate the types of procedures used to procure goods and services. Whether you believe the government ought to spend more money or spend less, we can all agree that the government ought to spend every penny efficiently and transparently. If the procedures by which the government spends money, or those expenditures themselves, can't withstand public scrutiny, then the taxpayers' money shouldn't be spent. The American people deserve no less.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside.

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 4972, as modified, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, what is the pending business?

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment that would supplement the steps we are taking through this port security bill and increase our preparedness for a potential terrorist attack. My amendment is fairly modest. It requires FEMA to mandate that each State have a plan for the evacuation of individuals with special needs during times of emergency. Such plans would include an explanation of how these people--particularly low-income individuals and families, the elderly, the disabled, and those who cannot speak English--will be evacuated out of the emergency area and how the States will provide shelter, food, and water to these people once evacuated. This amendment was included in S. 1725 and passed out of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee in September of 2005. This amendment obviously grows out of the tragedy of Hurricane Katrina, which devastated the gulf coast a little more than a year ago. One of the most striking aspects of the devastation caused by Katrina is the majority of stranded victims who were our society's most vulnerable members. As I indicated, after the tragedy, I think the government officials who called for the evacuation of the gulf coast-- and this is true not just for Federal folks but also State and local officials--seemed to assume that all residents could pack up their families into an SUV, fill up the gas tank, drive out of town, and find a hotel in which to ride out the storm. As we learned, that was not the case. Many people were forced to find shelter in the Superdome or convention center because they did not own cars. They didn't have the money for a tank of gas or a hotel room. They might not have wanted to leave their jobs or their belongings. Maybe they were in nursing homes or maybe they misunderstood the warnings because they didn't speak English. Whatever the reasons, thousands of people were not evacuated, and we saw the horrific results of that mistake. This failure to evacuate so many of the most desperate citizens in the gulf coast could easily happen again if we are faced with another natural disaster such as Katrina or a terrorist attack that struck one of our cities. That is why I have come to the floor to offer this amendment. Our charge as public servants is to worry about all people. I was troubled that our emergency response and disaster plans were inadequate for large segments of the gulf coast. I have serious doubts at this point whether the plans in other regions are adequate as well. Perfect evacuation planning is obviously not possible, but greater advanced preparation can ensure the most vulnerable are not simply forgotten or ignored. Even the Department of Homeland Security recognizes the urgent need for action, and the Department's nationwide plan review published this June found: Significant weaknesses in evacuation planning are an area of profound concern. Congress can and should act to address this concern by passing this amendment. I hope my colleagues will support this amendment which, as I said, passed the Homeland Security Committee on a bipartisan basis. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Salazar be added as a cosponsor.

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I yield the floor.