Barack Obama

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise briefly to support the amendment offered by Senator Reid. I also support the amendment that was introduced by Senator Dodd and Senator Santorum, of which I am a cosponsor. But let me focus on the particular provision in Senator Reid's bill, the honest leadership bill, that I think all of us should pay attention to, and that is the provision which closes a loophole that would still allow Members and staff to receive free meals from lobbyists up to $50 in value. On my way over to the floor, I passed a couple of security guards and Capitol police. I asked them how often lobbyists had bought them a meal. Surprisingly, they said none. I talked to the young women who help us on the elevators on the way up. I asked them: Has a lobbyist ever bought you a meal? The answer was ``no.'' In cities and towns all across America, it turns out people pay for their own lunches and their own dinners, people who make far less than we do, people who cannot afford their medical bills or their mortgages or their kids' tuitions. If you ask them if they think that people they send to Congress should be able to rack up a $50 meal on a lobbyist's time, what do you think they are going to say? You ask them if they think we should be able to feast on a free steak dinner at a fancy restaurant while they are working two jobs to put food on the table. I don't think we need a poll to find out the answer to that one. I want to be clear. In no way do I think that any of my colleagues or staffers would exchange votes for a meal. But that is not the point. It is not just the meal that is the problem, it is the perception, the access that the meals get you. In current Washington culture, lobbyists are expected to pick up the tab when they meet with Members or staff. It is understood by all sides that the best way to get face time with a Member is to buy them a meal. You don't see many Members eating $50 meals with constituents who come into town to talk about issues on their minds, or with policy experts who are discussing the latest economic theories. Most of these meals that are taken are with lobbyists who are advocating on behalf of special interests. It diminishes perceptions, and it is something that I think has to stop. Let me close by saying this. If people are interested in meeting with lobbyists or having dinner with lobbyists, they can still do so. It is very simple. You pull out your wallet and pay for it. I strongly urge we support the Reid amendment. In addition, I strongly support the Dodd-Santorum amendment, of which I am a cosponsor. I yield my time.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the ethics and lobbying reform bill we will be considering this week. Over 100 years ago, at the dawn of the last century, the Industrial Revolution was beginning to take hold in America, creating unimaginable wealth and sprawling metropolises all across the country. As factories multiplied and profits grew, the winnings of the new economy became more and more concentrated in the hands of a few robber barons, railroad tycoons, and oil magnets. In the cities, power was maintained by a corrupt system of political machines and ward bosses. In the State of New York, there was a young Governor who was determined to give government back to the people. In his first year, he had already begun antagonizing the State's political machine by attacking its system of favors and corporate giveaways. He signed a workers' compensation bill, and even fired the superintendent of insurance for taking money from the very industry he was supposed to be regulating. None of this sat too well with New York's powerful party bosses, who finally plotted to get rid of the reform-minded Governor by making sure he was nominated for the Vice Presidency that year. What no one could have expected is that soon after the election, when President William McKinley was assassinated, the greatest fears of the corrupt machine bosses and power brokers became true when that former Governor became President of the United States and went on to bust trusts, break up monopolies, and return the government to its people. His name, of course, was Theodore Roosevelt. He was a Republican. Throughout his public life, he demonstrated a willingness to put party and politics aside in order to battle corruption and give people an open, honest government that would fight for their interests and for their values. I think today we face a similar crisis of corruption and a similar crisis of confidence. I believe we need similar leadership from those in power as well. The American people are tired of a Washington that is open only to those with the most cash and the right connections. They are tired of a political process where the vote you cast is not as important as the favors you can do. They are tired of trusting us with their tax dollars when they see them spent on frivolous pet projects and corporate giveaways. It is not that the games that are played in this town are new or surprising to the public. People are not naive to the existence of corruption. They know that over the years it has worn both a Republican and a Democratic face. Moreover, the underlying issue of how extensively money influences politics is the ``original sin'' of everyone who has ever run for office, including me. In order to get elected, we need to raise vast sums of money by meeting and dealing with people who are disproportionately wealthy. This is a problem that predates Jack Abramoff. So I agree with those on both sides of the aisle who believe we should not let half measures and partisan posturing on campaign finance reform derail our current efforts on ethics and lobbying, but I also think this is an issue and a conversation we are going to have to have in the months to come--the conversation about campaign financing. That is not, however, the topic that is before us this week. While people know that both parties are vulnerable to these problems, I do not think it is fair to say that the scandals we have seen most recently under the current White House and Congress--both legal and illegal--are entirely predictable or the standard fare. They are worse than most of us could have imagined. Think about it. In the past several months, we have seen the head of the White House procurement office arrested. We have seen some of our most powerful leaders of both the House and the Senate under Federal investigation. We have seen the indictment of Jack Abramoff and his cronies. And, of course, last week, we saw a Member of Congress sentenced to 8 years in prison for bribery. Now, there are some in the media who dismiss these scandals by saying: Everybody does it. The truth is that not everybody does it. We should not lump people together--those of us who have to raise funds to run campaigns but do so in a legal and ethical way with those who invite lobbyists into their offices to write bad legislation. Those are not equivalent. And we are not being partisan by pointing that out. The fact is, since our Federal Government has been controlled by one party, this kind of scandal has become, unfortunately, a regular order of business in this town. For years now, some on the other side of the aisle have openly bragged about stocking K Street lobbying firms with former staffers to increase their power in Washington--a practice that should stop today and never happen again. But what is truly offensive to the American people about all of this goes far beyond people such as Jack Abramoff. It is bigger than how much time he will spend in jail or how many Members of Congress he ends up turning in. It is bigger even than the K Street project and golf junkets to Scotland and lavish gifts for lawmakers. What is truly offensive about these scandals is they do not just lead to morally offensive conduct on the part of politicians; they lead to morally offensive legislation that hurts hard-working Americans. When big oil companies are invited into the White House for secret energy meetings, it is no wonder they end up with billions in tax breaks while most working people struggle to fill up their gas tanks and heat their homes. When a committee chairman negotiates a Medicare bill one day, and after the bill is passed is negotiating for a job with the drug industry, it is hardly a surprise that industry gets taxpayer-funded giveaways in the same bill that forbids seniors from bargaining for better drug prices. When the people running Washington are accountable only to the special interests that fund their campaigns, it is not shocking that the American people find their tax dollars being spent with reckless abandon. I have to point out that since the current administration took office, we have seen the number of registered lobbyists in Washington double. In 2004, over $2.1 billion was spent lobbying Congress. That amounts to over $4.8 million per Member of Congress. How much do you think the American people were able to spend on their Senators or Representatives last year? How much money could the folks back home, who cannot even fill up their gas tanks, spend on lobbying? How much could the seniors forced to choose between their medications and their groceries spend on lobbyists? Not $4.8 million--not even close. This is the bigger story here. The American people believe that the well-connected CEOs and hired guns on K Street who have helped write our laws have gotten what they paid for. They got all the tax breaks and loopholes and access they could ever want. But outside this city, the people who cannot afford the high-priced lobbyists and do not want to break the law are wondering: When is it our turn? When will somebody in Washington stand up for me? We need to answer that call. Because while only some are to blame for the corruption that has plagued this city, we are all responsible for fixing it. As you know, I am from Chicago, a city that has not always had the most stellar reputation when it comes to politics. But during my first year in the Illinois State Senate, I helped lead the fight to pass Illinois' first ethics reform bill in 25 years. If we can do it in Illinois, we can do something like that here. But we have to pass a serious bill that has to go a long way toward correcting some of the most egregious offenses of the last few years and preventing future offenses as well. This is not a time for window dressing or putting a Band-Aid on a problem to score some political points. I think this is a time for real reform. I commend the work the two committees that have dealt with this issue have already put in under the leadership of Senator Lott and Senator Dodd, Senator Lieberman and Senator Collins. I want to note that the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act, which was originally sponsored by those of us on this side of the aisle, has 41 cosponsors and, I think, established a good marker for reform. I commend my leader, Harry Reid, and his staff for their hard work in putting it together. But real reform means making sure that Members of Congress and senior administration officials are dealing with this in as thoughtful and aggressive a fashion as is possible. Let me give you some examples of some provisions that are already in, but also some provisions I would like to see included. Real reform means making sure that Members of Congress and senior administration officials wait until they leave office before pursuing jobs with industries they are responsible for regulating. I understand that former Congressman Billy Tauzin has said he was not negotiating for a job with the drug industry at the same time he was negotiating the Medicare bill, but the fact is this: While he was a Member of Congress, he was negotiating for lobbying jobs with not one but two different industries that he was responsible for regulating-- the drug industry and the motion picture association. That is wrong. This should not happen anymore. Real reform means ensuring that a ban on lobbying after Members of Congress leave this office is real and includes behind-the-scenes coordination and supervision of activities now used to skirt the ban. Real reform means giving the public access to now secret conference committee meetings and posting all bills on the Internet at least a day before they are voted on so the public can scrutinize what is in them. Real reform means passing a bill that eliminates all gifts and meals from lobbyists, not just the expensive ones. And real reform has to mean real enforcement because no matter how many new rules we pass, it will mean very little unless we have a system to enforce them. I commend Senators Lieberman and Collins for their efforts to create such an enforcement mechanism through an independent office of public integrity. While this proposal doesn't go quite as far as my proposal for an outside ethics fact-finding commission, it is still very good, and I am looking forward to working with them to try to get it included in the bill that has been marked up. But to truly earn back the people's trust, to show them we are working for them and looking out for their interests, we have to do more than just pass a good bill this week; we are going to have to fundamentally change the way we do business around here. That means instead of meetings with lobbyists, it is time to start meeting with the 45 million Americans who don't have any health care. Instead of finding cushy political jobs for unqualified buddies, it is time to start finding good-paying jobs for hard-working Americans trying to raise a family. Instead of hitting up the big firms on K Street, it is time to start visiting the workers on Main Street who wonder how they will send their kids to college or whether their pension is going to be around when they retire. All these people have done, our constituents, to earn access and gain influence is to cast their ballot. But in this democracy, that is all anyone should have to do. A century ago that young, reform-minded Governor of New York, who later became our 26th President, gave us words about our country that everyone in this town would do well to listen to today. Here is what Teddy Roosevelt said back then: No republic can permanently endure when its politics are corrupt and base . . . we can afford to differ on the currency, the tariff, and foreign policy, but we cannot afford to differ on the question of honesty. There is a soul in the community, a soul in the Nation, just exactly as there is a soul in the individual; and exactly as the individual hopelessly mars himself if he lets his conscience be dulled by the constant repetition of unworthy acts, so the Nation will hopelessly blunt the popular conscience if it permits its public men continually to do acts which the Nation in its heart of hearts knows are acts which cast discredit upon our whole public life. I have come to know the Members of this body and know that the people who serve here are hard-working, thoughtful, and honorable men and women. But the fact is, the entire Congress has been marred and is under a cloud. Our consciences have been dulled by the activity of the few. We have to make certain we are sending a strong signal to the American public that we are no longer going to tolerate that kind of activity, that our conscience has been sharpened, and we are willing to take the steps necessary to restore credibility to this August body. I hope this week we in the Senate will take the first step towards strengthening this Nation's soul and bringing credit back to our public life. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in favor of greater funding for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, LIHEAP. As I have traveled around Illinois this winter, I have heard from many low-income families and senior citizens about the burden of rising heating costs. These families are being forced to spend considerable portions of their incomes on gas bills, and many of them simply cannot afford it. Some families are having to keep their thermostats low just so they can buy groceries. It is essential that States have the funding they need through LIHEAP to help these families pay their heating bills during the cold months. That is why, last year, I joined a number of my Senate colleagues in sending a letter to the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee requesting $3 billion in funding so that low-income families, disabled individuals, and senior citizens who live on fixed incomes have access to affordable energy when they need it most. We also asked that advance funding be allocated in the budget for LIHEAP. This would allow States to plan more economically in preparing for the winter heating season by purchasing fuels during the spring and summer months. Unfortunately, our request was denied. Months later, during consideration of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Congress reauthorized the LIHEAP program from fiscal year 2005 to 2007, providing for a yearly appropriation of $5.1 billion. However, in the fiscal year 2006 Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services Appropriations Act, Congress provided $2.2 billion for LIHEAP funding-- the same allotment given to the program in fiscal year 2005. During Senate consideration of several bills in the final weeks of 2005, I voted for a number of amendments providing more funding for LIHEAP, but those amendments were defeated. Funding for LIHEAP has remained level for the past 20 years, but energy prices are at an all-time high. According to the Department of Energy, DOE, natural gas prices in the Midwest were expected to rise between 69 percent and 77 percent during the winter heating season. The National Energy Assistance Directors Association estimates that for families using natural gas, heating bills would average well over $1,500 per consumer, an increase of over $600 per consumer as compared to the winter of 2004-2005. As a result, we have seen an unprecedented rise in requests for LIHEAP assistance across the country. In Illinois, requests in 2005 were up 41.4 percent from the year before. That is nearly a quarter of a million Americans asking for help in my State alone. I think we often forget how much our working families need this program, and just how heavy the burden of heating one's home can be these days. In a thank-you note to the staff at Illinois LIHEAP, a woman in Lake County, IL, wrote: Having you help me and my mother this year with our utility bill was a godsend. It was over my head and I didn't know what I was going to do . . . My mother is on oxygen 24-hours a day, and we couldn't be without electricity, so you see it was a matter of life and death also for me. I commend Senator Snowe for her tenacity in pushing this legislation, and I commend Senator Jack Reed for his longstanding commitment to this issue. I hope my colleagues will recognize the importance of this problem and support this measure, as well as greater LIHEAP funding in the future. With natural gas prices increasing so severely, more Americans than usual are expected to apply for LIHEAP assistance in paying their heating bills.

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

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

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I wish to discuss the genocide in Darfur. While there have been many speeches given on this critical subject, I want to take a moment to talk about a subject that has all too often been overlooked--the efforts of the African Union, AU. At present, the Bush administration is helping to spearhead discussion on how to absorb the African Union force in Darfur into a larger U.N. contingent with a far greater capacity to protect civilians. I wholeheartedly agree with the administration that the current formula for combating brutality in Darfur is insufficient. In fact, in December, Senator Brownback and I wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post advocating this very course of action. At the same time, many government officials, and outside observers, have given little regard to the efforts of the African Union Mission in Sudan, AMIS. We must start reversing this trend. I tip my hat to AMIS for its strong efforts, under the most difficult of circumstances, over the course of the last 2 years. The AU leadership, along with individual troop contributing countries--such as Rwanda, Senegal, and Nigeria--made a decision to put African lives on the line when the campaign of terror waged against civilians was at its height. The AU leadership just as easily could have said ``its too difficult, its too dangerous, this is somebody else's problem.'' Instead, they took action. In a geographically diverse and inhospitable terrain, the AU built its operations--the most complex in the organization's history--from scratch, at a time when thousands of Darfurian civilians were being ethnically cleansed every month. Although AMIS has just 5,000 troops and 2,000 observers and police spread out over a region the size of France, it has made a difference. Civilians on the ground in Darfur have reported that, where AU forces are present, they feel safer. An estimated 2 million civilians are now living in camps. These civilians depend on humanitarian aid for their survival, and aidworkers report that their convoys would not be able to navigate key areas without the invaluable escorts supplied by AMIS. As security has deteriorated in Darfur over the last 4 months, lightly armed AMIS troops are increasingly the targets of assault, kidnapping, and murder. Mr. President, has AMIS been a perfect mission? No. Is there room for improvement? Yes. But, I know that those of us in the Senate who follow this issue closely support what the AU is doing and want the AU to do more of it. In July, I traveled to the United Nations and met with representatives of the AU and their member-states. There is no question that it is a young organization in need of capacity-building. But, I sensed that there was great resolve to ensure AMIS succeeded. Moving forward, I think it is important to recognize that the AMIS has been an important first step for the AU. At the same time, I think there is widespread recognition--belatedly in my view--that the genocide in Darfur is an international, not only an African, issue. I will use an analogy, albeit an imperfect one, with U.S. efforts in Afghanistan. While the United States is heavily involved in this nation, I believe that this is a situation with international ramifications; a key reason that the international community should be doing more to help stabilize this nation. The same holds true for Darfur, where the challenges presented by a savage conflict spilling across international borders outstrip the resources currently in place to effectively deal with it. The United Nations and NATO should become more active. This is not to take anything away from the efforts of the AU, who stepped in on their own to try to fill the security vacuum in Darfur. The AU will be indispensable in the coming year at a time when security conditions are deteriorating, but before additional troops can be deployed. As discussions progress about follow-on forces, it is clear that those same African countries leading the current AU efforts in Darfur will be the essential core of any successor mission. In my view, it is essential that the United States government take the lead in rallying for AMIS the financial, military, and political support it needs to continue its essential work in Darfur and to transform itself into the backbone of a larger, more mobile UN mission. Again, I thank the AU for its efforts and believe now more than ever that African leadership will be key to international success in Darfur.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that would expand and improve quality reporting for our Nation's hospitals through the establishment of a national Hospital Quality Report Card Initiative. Study after study has documented that health care quality in the United States is inconsistent and inadequate. The landmark 2003 RAND report by Beth McGlynn found that the chance of Americans getting recommended care is not much greater than the flip of coin. For many conditions, the chances are even worse--only about a third of diabetics and a quarter of patients with atrial fibrillation and hip fractures receive the right treatment, as do only about 10 percent of patients with alcohol dependence. Patients are suffering, and the financial costs of poor care are staggering. We can and must do more to ensure that every patient gets the right care, at the right time, in the right way. One way to help improve health care quality is to measure and report the quality of care in our nation's hospitals. Hospital quality reports can help patients and consumers choose the hospital that will best serve their health needs. Purchasers and payers can use hospital quality information to help their decision-making about where employees and members can go for care. Hospitals and health care professionals would similarly benefit from identification of areas of need, and opportunities for quality improvement and cost containment. And finally, with greater quality reporting and transparency, we can begin to have an honest dialogue about health care quality and how to reform our health care system. Several States have already developed and implemented hospital report card initiatives, and I am proud to say that Illinois began its own report card initiative in January of this year--an initiative that I spearheaded when I served in the Illinois State Senate. On the national level, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and the Hospital Quality Alliance have partnered to identify and encourage submission of quality measures for several health conditions, on a voluntary basis, in exchange for greater federal reimbursement. The Deficit Reduction Act codified this initiative earlier this year. The Hospital Report Card Act, which I am introducing today, takes quality measurement one step further, by mandating that the Secretary expand and improve upon current quality reporting for hospitals. Within 18 months, the Secretary would establish a formal Hospital Report Card Initiative, and publish reports on individual hospital quality using data submitted for the value based purchasing program at CMS, but also including other data available to the Secretary. The report cards would report quality measures that align with those used in the National Healthcare Quality Report, including measures of effectiveness, safety, timeliness, efficiency, patient-centeredness, and equity. In addition, the report cards would provide information on other quality priorities for patients, such as staffing levels of nurses, rates of infections acquired in hospitals, volume of procedures performed, and availability of specialized care. The Secretary would also report measures of relevance to a number of priority populations, including women, children and minorities. The bill requires the Secretary to take steps to ensure that all reported data is accurate and fairly represents hospital quality, and that hospitals have an opportunity to participate in the development of the report card initiative. I also want to make sure that sick patients have full access to the best hospitals, and so the report cards will risk-adjust quality data, so that hospitals are not inadvertently penalized for caring for more challenging patient populations. We are hearing a lot of rhetoric about patient empowerment and consumer-driven health plans. However, we can't expect patients to make the best choices for their health care in the absence of accurate information on quality and costs. Similarly, we can't expect hospitals to recognize their areas of deficiencies or strengths without a critical look inwards. Finally, we can't expect the Nation at large to support and embrace healthcare reform without greater awareness of quality problems. The Hospital Quality Report Card Act will help the Nation take one step closer to improving health care quality and containing costs, and I hope my colleagues will join me in passing this critical legislation.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that would expand and improve quality reporting for our Nation's hospitals through the establishment of a national Hospital Quality Report Card Initiative. Study after study has documented that health care quality in the United States is inconsistent and inadequate. The landmark 2003 RAND report by Beth McGlynn found that the chance of Americans getting recommended care is not much greater than the flip of coin. For many conditions, the chances are even worse--only about a third of diabetics and a quarter of patients with atrial fibrillation and hip fractures receive the right treatment, as do only about 10 percent of patients with alcohol dependence. Patients are suffering, and the financial costs of poor care are staggering. We can and must do more to ensure that every patient gets the right care, at the right time, in the right way. One way to help improve health care quality is to measure and report the quality of care in our nation's hospitals. Hospital quality reports can help patients and consumers choose the hospital that will best serve their health needs. Purchasers and payers can use hospital quality information to help their decision-making about where employees and members can go for care. Hospitals and health care professionals would similarly benefit from identification of areas of need, and opportunities for quality improvement and cost containment. And finally, with greater quality reporting and transparency, we can begin to have an honest dialogue about health care quality and how to reform our health care system. Several States have already developed and implemented hospital report card initiatives, and I am proud to say that Illinois began its own report card initiative in January of this year--an initiative that I spearheaded when I served in the Illinois State Senate. On the national level, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and the Hospital Quality Alliance have partnered to identify and encourage submission of quality measures for several health conditions, on a voluntary basis, in exchange for greater federal reimbursement. The Deficit Reduction Act codified this initiative earlier this year. The Hospital Report Card Act, which I am introducing today, takes quality measurement one step further, by mandating that the Secretary expand and improve upon current quality reporting for hospitals. Within 18 months, the Secretary would establish a formal Hospital Report Card Initiative, and publish reports on individual hospital quality using data submitted for the value based purchasing program at CMS, but also including other data available to the Secretary. The report cards would report quality measures that align with those used in the National Healthcare Quality Report, including measures of effectiveness, safety, timeliness, efficiency, patient-centeredness, and equity. In addition, the report cards would provide information on other quality priorities for patients, such as staffing levels of nurses, rates of infections acquired in hospitals, volume of procedures performed, and availability of specialized care. The Secretary would also report measures of relevance to a number of priority populations, including women, children and minorities. The bill requires the Secretary to take steps to ensure that all reported data is accurate and fairly represents hospital quality, and that hospitals have an opportunity to participate in the development of the report card initiative. I also want to make sure that sick patients have full access to the best hospitals, and so the report cards will risk-adjust quality data, so that hospitals are not inadvertently penalized for caring for more challenging patient populations. We are hearing a lot of rhetoric about patient empowerment and consumer-driven health plans. However, we can't expect patients to make the best choices for their health care in the absence of accurate information on quality and costs. Similarly, we can't expect hospitals to recognize their areas of deficiencies or strengths without a critical look inwards. Finally, we can't expect the Nation at large to support and embrace healthcare reform without greater awareness of quality problems. The Hospital Quality Report Card Act will help the Nation take one step closer to improving health care quality and containing costs, and I hope my colleagues will join me in passing this critical legislation.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, less than 2 months ago, it was announced by Exelon Nuclear that an environmental monitoring program discovered higher than normal concentrations of tritium in the groundwater near the Nuclear Generating Station in Braidwood, IL. Indications are that this tritium plume is the result of an accidental radioactive wastewater release that occurred approximately 6 to 8 years ago, and now the tritiated water has migrated underground into several drinking wells of nearby residents. While most of the issues associated with this situation are still under investigation, one issue is clear. Community residents, particularly the State and local officials responsible for the safety and health of their constituents, did not receive full or immediate notification of this contamination--either from Exelon, or the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NRC, the Federal agency with oversight over nuclear plant operations. I was surprised to learn, that while Federal law requires State and local officials to be notified immediately upon a ``declared emergency,'' Federal law does not require State and local officials to be notified of any other accidental, unplanned, or unintentional radioactive substance releases that may occur if those releases do not immediately rise to a public health or safety threat. And while those incidents must be documented with the NRC and made available to the public, accessing that information is contingent upon the public and State and local officials actually knowing that these incidents ever occurred. When radioactive substances are released into the environment outside of normal operating procedures, notifying State and local officials should not be a courtesy; it should be the law. That's why today I am introducing the Nuclear Release Notice Act of 2006, a bill designed to expand the public's right to know when radioactive substances are released from a reactor. Specifically, the bill is designed to accomplish the following: (1) to ensure that the licensees notify State and local officials at the same time the NRC is notified regarding unplanned incidents that occur at local nuclear power plants; (2) to add State and local reporting requirements not just on incidents regarding fissionable material releases, but on all unplanned radioactive substance releases that are outside of normal operating limits; (3) to add State and local reporting requirements when releases exceed not just NRC limits for normal operation, but also when they exceed other Federal limits and standards for groundwater and other types of contamination; (4) to ensure than any repeat unplanned releases of radioactive substances--even if within allowable limits-- that occur more than twice within 2 years are reported to State, local and NRC officials--so that we all know when poor maintenance, malfunctions of poor design are going unfixed; and (5) to provide that violations of this provision could result in the revocation of the operating license of the licensee. As energy demand throughout the Nation increases in the coming decades, we will be challenged in how best to meet these consumption demands without sacrificing the environment. That means using all of our energy resources fully and wisely, including wind, solar, and other important renewable power-generating resources. Moreover, as Congress considers policies to address air quality and the deleterious effects of carbon emission's on the global ecosystem, it is reasonable--and realistic--for nuclear power to remain on the table for consideration. Illinois has 11 nuclear power plants--the most of any State in the country--and nuclear power provides more than half of Illinois' electricity needs. The people of Illinois--and all residents who live near nuclear power plants--have a right to know when actions are taken that might affect their safety and well-being. This bill furthers this commonsense goal, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, less than 2 months ago, it was announced by Exelon Nuclear that an environmental monitoring program discovered higher than normal concentrations of tritium in the groundwater near the Nuclear Generating Station in Braidwood, IL. Indications are that this tritium plume is the result of an accidental radioactive wastewater release that occurred approximately 6 to 8 years ago, and now the tritiated water has migrated underground into several drinking wells of nearby residents. While most of the issues associated with this situation are still under investigation, one issue is clear. Community residents, particularly the State and local officials responsible for the safety and health of their constituents, did not receive full or immediate notification of this contamination--either from Exelon, or the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NRC, the Federal agency with oversight over nuclear plant operations. I was surprised to learn, that while Federal law requires State and local officials to be notified immediately upon a ``declared emergency,'' Federal law does not require State and local officials to be notified of any other accidental, unplanned, or unintentional radioactive substance releases that may occur if those releases do not immediately rise to a public health or safety threat. And while those incidents must be documented with the NRC and made available to the public, accessing that information is contingent upon the public and State and local officials actually knowing that these incidents ever occurred. When radioactive substances are released into the environment outside of normal operating procedures, notifying State and local officials should not be a courtesy; it should be the law. That's why today I am introducing the Nuclear Release Notice Act of 2006, a bill designed to expand the public's right to know when radioactive substances are released from a reactor. Specifically, the bill is designed to accomplish the following: (1) to ensure that the licensees notify State and local officials at the same time the NRC is notified regarding unplanned incidents that occur at local nuclear power plants; (2) to add State and local reporting requirements not just on incidents regarding fissionable material releases, but on all unplanned radioactive substance releases that are outside of normal operating limits; (3) to add State and local reporting requirements when releases exceed not just NRC limits for normal operation, but also when they exceed other Federal limits and standards for groundwater and other types of contamination; (4) to ensure than any repeat unplanned releases of radioactive substances--even if within allowable limits-- that occur more than twice within 2 years are reported to State, local and NRC officials--so that we all know when poor maintenance, malfunctions of poor design are going unfixed; and (5) to provide that violations of this provision could result in the revocation of the operating license of the licensee. As energy demand throughout the Nation increases in the coming decades, we will be challenged in how best to meet these consumption demands without sacrificing the environment. That means using all of our energy resources fully and wisely, including wind, solar, and other important renewable power-generating resources. Moreover, as Congress considers policies to address air quality and the deleterious effects of carbon emission's on the global ecosystem, it is reasonable--and realistic--for nuclear power to remain on the table for consideration. Illinois has 11 nuclear power plants--the most of any State in the country--and nuclear power provides more than half of Illinois' electricity needs. The people of Illinois--and all residents who live near nuclear power plants--have a right to know when actions are taken that might affect their safety and well-being. This bill furthers this commonsense goal, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, as our Nation faces staggering healthcare costs, rising rates of chronic conditions, and a growing wage gap between the haves and the have-nots, we must acknowledge the vital importance of this Nation's safety net--the Medicaid program. The Medicaid program is the provider of healthcare for more than 50 million Americans--young and old, black and white, and the disabled. As many of us would argue, and as stated by the President in this year's State of the Union Address, the government has a responsibility to help provide healthcare for the poor and the elderly. I ask you to question whether we meet that responsibility with section 6036 of the Deficit Reduction Act that requires citizenship documentation for individuals seeking Medicaid. In order for our country to have healthy children, a healthy workforce and healthy communities, we must not deter Americans from seeking medical care, and yet this provision would do just that. Much of the public scrutiny on Medicaid spending has focused on the costs of providing care to undocumented immigrant populations. Some believe that requirements for documentation of citizenship will curtail alleged abuse of the Medicaid program by illegal immigrants. Yet, a study conducted by the HHS Inspector General failed to find any substantial evidence that illegal immigrants are fraudulently getting Medicaid coverage by claiming they are citizens, and he did not recommend any new requirements for documentation of citizenship. If the requirement to document citizenship will not affect illegal immigrants, who are in fact not using the Medicaid program, than we must ask ourselves who will be affected by this requirement? Let's think about the senior with Alzheimer's disease and the difficulty she experiences in remembering the name of her daughter, let alone where she placed her birth certificate. Let us think about the families who survived Hurricane Katrina, who lost their homes with all their possessions, including their passports. Let us think about the children being raised by cash-strapped grandparents and other relatives, who will incur additional costs for obtaining required documents. About one out of every twelve U.S.-born adults, or 1.7 million Americans, who have incomes below $25,000 report that they do not have a U.S. passport or birth certificate in their possession. In addition, studies have shown that there are up to 2.9 million Medicaid-eligible children without such documentation. These figures are even higher for other populations. While 5.7 percent of all adults at all income levels report they lack birth certificates or passports, this percentage rises to 7 percent for senior citizens age 65 or older, and 9 percent each for African American adults, adults without a high school diploma and adults living in rural areas. Notably, these figures do not include many other groups who would also experience difficulty in securing these documents, such as Native Americans born in home settings, nursing-home residents, Hurricane Katrina survivors, and homeless individuals. The documentation requirements in section 6036 would apply to all current beneficiaries and future applicants, allowing for no exceptions, even for those with serious mental or physical disabilities such as Alzheimer's disease or those who lack documents due to homelessness or a disaster such as Hurricane Katrina. The costs to individuals applying for Medicaid coverage is matched by the overwhelming administrative costs associated with the documentation requirements. If birth certificates or passports are required for Medicaid enrollment, approximately 50 percent of state officials have reported that they would have to hire additional personnel to handle the increased workload with significant, additional administrative and financial costs. The National Association for Public Health Statistics and Information Systems predicts a 50 percent increase in the volume of birth certificate requests if requirements for birth certificates or passports for Medicaid applications are imposed, resulting in significant delays in processing all birth certificate applications. State resources are already stretched too thin, and we should not impose additional and unnecessary burdens. At a time when this administration is touting health care tax breaks, which will benefit those who need the least help, it is critical that members of Congress remember the worst off and the most vulnerable members of our society. Medicaid is their lifeline to a healthy and productive future, and we should not obstruct access to this program. Senator Akaka, Senator Bingaman and I have introduced this bill to eliminate requirements for citizenship documentation from Medicaid, and I urge all of my colleagues to support us in passing this critical act.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, 4 years ago, following one of the most devastating attacks in our Nation's history, Congress passed the USA PATRIOT Act to give our Nation's law enforcement the tools they needed to track down terrorists who plot and lurk within our own borders and all over the world--terrorists who, right now, are looking to exploit weaknesses in our laws and our security to carry out even deadlier attacks than we saw on September 11th. We all agreed that we needed legislation to make it harder for suspected terrorists to go undetected in this country. Americans everywhere wanted that. But soon after the PATRIOT Act passed, a few years before I ever arrived in the Senate, I began hearing concerns from people of every background and political leaning that this law didn't just provide law enforcement the powers it needed to keep us safe, but powers it didn't need to invade our privacy without cause or suspicion. Now, at times this issue has tended to degenerate into an ``either- or'' type of debate. Either we protect our people from terror or we protect our most cherished principles. But that is a false choice. It asks too little of us and assumes too little about America. Fortunately, last year, the Senate recognized that this was a false choice. We put patriotism before partisanship and engaged in a real, open, and substantive debate about how to fix the PATRIOT Act. And Republicans and Democrats came together to propose sensible improvements to the Act. Unfortunately, the House was resistant to these changes, and that's why we're voting on the compromise before us. Let me be clear: this compromise is not as good as the Senate version of the bill, nor is it as good as the SAFE Act that I have cosponsored. I suspect the vast majority of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle feel the same way. But, it's still better than what the House originally proposed. This compromise does modestly improve the PATRIOT Act by strengthening civil liberties protections without sacrificing the tools that law enforcement needs to keep us safe. In this compromise: We strengthened judicial review of both national security letters, the administrative subpoenas used by the FBI, and Section 215 orders, which can be used to obtain medical, financial and other personal records. We established hard-time limits on sneak-and-peak searches and limits on roving wiretaps. We protected most libraries from being subject to national security letters. We preserved an individual's right to seek counsel and hire an attorney without fearing the FBI's wrath. And we allowed judicial review of the gag orders that accompany Section 215 searches. The compromise is far from perfect. I would have liked to see stronger judicial review of national security letters and shorter time limits on sneak and peak searches, among other things. Senator Feingold has proposed several sensible amendments--that I support--to address these issues. Unfortunately, the Majority Leader is preventing Senator Feingold from offering these amendments through procedural tactics. That is regrettable because it flies in the face of the bipartisan cooperation that allowed the Senate to pass unanimously its version of the Patriot Act--a version that balanced security and civil liberty, partisanship and patriotism. The Majority Leader's tactics are even more troubling because we will need to work on a bipartisan basis to address national security challenges in the weeks and months to come. In particular, members on both sides of the aisle will need to take a careful look at President Bush's use of warrantless wiretaps and determine the right balance between protecting our security and safeguarding our civil liberties. This is a complex issue. But only by working together and avoiding election-year politicking will we be able to give our government the necessary tools to wage the war on terror without sacrificing the rule of law. So, I will be supporting the PATRIOT Act compromise. But I urge my colleagues to continue working on ways to improve the civil liberties protections in the PATRIOT Act after it is reauthorized.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, as our Nation faces staggering healthcare costs, rising rates of chronic conditions, and a growing wage gap between the haves and the have-nots, we must acknowledge the vital importance of this Nation's safety net--the Medicaid program. The Medicaid program is the provider of healthcare for more than 50 million Americans--young and old, black and white, and the disabled. As many of us would argue, and as stated by the President in this year's State of the Union Address, the government has a responsibility to help provide healthcare for the poor and the elderly. I ask you to question whether we meet that responsibility with section 6036 of the Deficit Reduction Act that requires citizenship documentation for individuals seeking Medicaid. In order for our country to have healthy children, a healthy workforce and healthy communities, we must not deter Americans from seeking medical care, and yet this provision would do just that. Much of the public scrutiny on Medicaid spending has focused on the costs of providing care to undocumented immigrant populations. Some believe that requirements for documentation of citizenship will curtail alleged abuse of the Medicaid program by illegal immigrants. Yet, a study conducted by the HHS Inspector General failed to find any substantial evidence that illegal immigrants are fraudulently getting Medicaid coverage by claiming they are citizens, and he did not recommend any new requirements for documentation of citizenship. If the requirement to document citizenship will not affect illegal immigrants, who are in fact not using the Medicaid program, than we must ask ourselves who will be affected by this requirement? Let's think about the senior with Alzheimer's disease and the difficulty she experiences in remembering the name of her daughter, let alone where she placed her birth certificate. Let us think about the families who survived Hurricane Katrina, who lost their homes with all their possessions, including their passports. Let us think about the children being raised by cash-strapped grandparents and other relatives, who will incur additional costs for obtaining required documents. About one out of every twelve U.S.-born adults, or 1.7 million Americans, who have incomes below $25,000 report that they do not have a U.S. passport or birth certificate in their possession. In addition, studies have shown that there are up to 2.9 million Medicaid-eligible children without such documentation. These figures are even higher for other populations. While 5.7 percent of all adults at all income levels report they lack birth certificates or passports, this percentage rises to 7 percent for senior citizens age 65 or older, and 9 percent each for African American adults, adults without a high school diploma and adults living in rural areas. Notably, these figures do not include many other groups who would also experience difficulty in securing these documents, such as Native Americans born in home settings, nursing-home residents, Hurricane Katrina survivors, and homeless individuals. The documentation requirements in section 6036 would apply to all current beneficiaries and future applicants, allowing for no exceptions, even for those with serious mental or physical disabilities such as Alzheimer's disease or those who lack documents due to homelessness or a disaster such as Hurricane Katrina. The costs to individuals applying for Medicaid coverage is matched by the overwhelming administrative costs associated with the documentation requirements. If birth certificates or passports are required for Medicaid enrollment, approximately 50 percent of state officials have reported that they would have to hire additional personnel to handle the increased workload with significant, additional administrative and financial costs. The National Association for Public Health Statistics and Information Systems predicts a 50 percent increase in the volume of birth certificate requests if requirements for birth certificates or passports for Medicaid applications are imposed, resulting in significant delays in processing all birth certificate applications. State resources are already stretched too thin, and we should not impose additional and unnecessary burdens. At a time when this administration is touting health care tax breaks, which will benefit those who need the least help, it is critical that members of Congress remember the worst off and the most vulnerable members of our society. Medicaid is their lifeline to a healthy and productive future, and we should not obstruct access to this program. Senator Akaka, Senator Bingaman and I have introduced this bill to eliminate requirements for citizenship documentation from Medicaid, and I urge all of my colleagues to support us in passing this critical act.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the ``Equality for Two-Parent Families Act of 2006'' that I am introducing with Senator Bayh. When Congress reauthorized the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program as part of the Spending Reconciliation bill two weeks ago, we failed to eliminate a pernicious disincentive to marriage that was contained in that bill. The Equality for Two-Parent Families Act will correct that unfortunate error. Republicans and Democrats often have different ideas about how best to promote self sufficiency and economic mobility for low-income families. But one thing on which we all can agree is that children are better off when they grow up with two responsible parents. The evidence shows that, on average, children in two-parent families do better in school and are more likely to lead successful, independent lives. That is why recent TANF legislation, including the bipartisan PRIDE Act in the Senate and H.R. 240 in the House, and Administration proposals have recognized that the separate two-parent work participation standard, which introduces an anti-marriage bias in TANF, should be eliminated. Unfortunately, the recent TANF reauthorization failed to reflect this long-standing consensus. Instead, the new law compels States to meet an unequal work participation standard with their own State-funded programs. Whereas States must ensure that 50 percent of their single parents satisfy the work requirements, they will be penalized if fewer than 90 percent of their two-parent families meet what are even greater work requirements. As a result, many States, including Illinois which until now has successfully served two-parent families in its state program, may now face an unfortunate choice: stop serving two-parent families or face a penalty. I even heard one welfare official joke that States may be better off paying couples to split up in order to avoid possible penalties. What kind of incentive is that? Requiring States to treat two-parent families differently undermines efforts on both the state and federal level to promote and strengthen two-parent families. It is especially ironic that the policy is part of a bill that includes funding for marriage promotion and fatherhood programs. The remedy for this contradiction is clear; we must eliminate the separate two-parent work participation standard. Senator Bayh and I have introduced the ``Equality for Two-Parent Families Act of 2006'' to eliminate this standard and rectify the inequity in current TANF policy. Our bill does not change two-parent work requirements or interfere with State efforts to promote employment and reduce caseloads. Instead, our bill reinforces State efforts to support two- parent families in the ways that they know best. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and join us in promoting stronger families. Thank you for your attention to this important matter.

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, today, I am introducing new legislation to address a growing problem in our country, one that is robbing thousands of Americans of their dream of homeownership, and costing the mortgage industry hundreds of millions of dollars each year. I am talking about the problem of mortgage fraud--the practice of defrauding individuals of their rightful property, and using tricks and schemes to steal from banks and other financial institutions. Mortgage fraud comes in a variety of forms, from inflated appraisals to the use of straw buyers, but the net result is the same: financial institutions lose out to the tune of approximately $1.01 billion each year, and consumers lose their savings, their good credit, and their homes. Although the data in this area is limited, mortgage fraud is clearly on the rise. According to the FBI, mortgage fraud cases were up 25 percent last year, and 400 percent since 2002. Further, in 2004, the mortgage industry noted 12,000 cases of suspicious activity, three times the amount reported in 2001. This is due largely to the housing boom which is driving up housing prices across the country. Nearly $2.5 trillion in mortgage loans were made during 2005, and the number is only expected to rise this year. But mortgage fraud is about more than just dollars and statistics; it's about real people, real homes, and real lives. My hometown Chicago Tribune has featured a series of articles about mortgage fraud in Illinois, which, along with Georgia, South Carolina, Florida, Missouri, Michigan, California, Nevada, Colorado and Utah, is among the FBI's top-ten mortgage fraud `hot spots.' The stories highlight, for example, the plight of the good folks on May Street in Chicago, who saw a block's worth of homes go boarded up in the span of a just few years, as swindlers racked up hundreds of thousands of dollars in bad loans, and left shells of houses behind. The Tribune stories highlighted the plight of 75-year-old Ruth Williams, who had to spend her personal funds to clear the title to her home after fraudsters secured $400,000 in loans on three buildings they didn't own. And two doors down from Ms. Williams, Corey Latimer can't sell his building or borrow against it, because a lending company hasn't released a phony mortgage that Corey didn't authorize. Law enforcement, consumer groups and many in the mortgage industry are doing what they can to combat fraud, and I applaud their good work. Now, Congress needs to come to the table and do its part. I, along with Senator Durbin and Senator Menendez, am introducing the STOP FRAUD Act today to address the critical problem of mortgage fraud. STOP FRAUD (Stopping Transactions which Operate to Promote Fraud, Risk and Under-Development) would provide the first Federal definition of mortgage fraud and authorize stiff criminal penalties against fraudulent actors. STOP FRAUD requires a wide range of mortgage professionals to report suspected fraudulent activity, and gives these same professionals safe harbor from liability when they report suspicious incidents. It also authorizes several grant programs to help State and local law enforcement fight fraud, provide the mortgage industry with updates on fraud trends, and further support the Departments of Treasury, Justice and Housing and Urban Development's fraud-fighting efforts. The STOP FRAUD Act will build upon the good work of the FBI, the Treasury Department, HUD, consumer groups, many in the mortgage industry, and State and local law enforcement, giving them the tools they need to stop mortgage fraud in its tracks. The cost of this bill is well worth the benefit to American taxpayers and companies, and it has been endorsed by a range of law enforcement and consumer groups. The Illinois Attorney General's office and the Chicago Police Department have told me how valuable this bill would be to their enforcement efforts, and ACORN, the Center For Responsible Lending, the National Association of Consumer Advocates, the National Community Reinvestment Coalition, National Consumer Law Center, and U.S. PIRG said in a recent letter that this bill would ``help protect consumers from fraudulent and abusive practices in the mortgage industry.'' The STOP FRAUD Act is a tough, cost-effective, and balanced way to address the serious problem of mortgage fraud in our country. I urge my colleagues to join me in this important effort.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the ``Equality for Two-Parent Families Act of 2006'' that I am introducing with Senator Bayh. When Congress reauthorized the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program as part of the Spending Reconciliation bill two weeks ago, we failed to eliminate a pernicious disincentive to marriage that was contained in that bill. The Equality for Two-Parent Families Act will correct that unfortunate error. Republicans and Democrats often have different ideas about how best to promote self sufficiency and economic mobility for low-income families. But one thing on which we all can agree is that children are better off when they grow up with two responsible parents. The evidence shows that, on average, children in two-parent families do better in school and are more likely to lead successful, independent lives. That is why recent TANF legislation, including the bipartisan PRIDE Act in the Senate and H.R. 240 in the House, and Administration proposals have recognized that the separate two-parent work participation standard, which introduces an anti-marriage bias in TANF, should be eliminated. Unfortunately, the recent TANF reauthorization failed to reflect this long-standing consensus. Instead, the new law compels States to meet an unequal work participation standard with their own State-funded programs. Whereas States must ensure that 50 percent of their single parents satisfy the work requirements, they will be penalized if fewer than 90 percent of their two-parent families meet what are even greater work requirements. As a result, many States, including Illinois which until now has successfully served two-parent families in its state program, may now face an unfortunate choice: stop serving two-parent families or face a penalty. I even heard one welfare official joke that States may be better off paying couples to split up in order to avoid possible penalties. What kind of incentive is that? Requiring States to treat two-parent families differently undermines efforts on both the state and federal level to promote and strengthen two-parent families. It is especially ironic that the policy is part of a bill that includes funding for marriage promotion and fatherhood programs. The remedy for this contradiction is clear; we must eliminate the separate two-parent work participation standard. Senator Bayh and I have introduced the ``Equality for Two-Parent Families Act of 2006'' to eliminate this standard and rectify the inequity in current TANF policy. Our bill does not change two-parent work requirements or interfere with State efforts to promote employment and reduce caseloads. Instead, our bill reinforces State efforts to support two- parent families in the ways that they know best. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and join us in promoting stronger families. Thank you for your attention to this important matter.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, today, I am introducing new legislation to address a growing problem in our country, one that is robbing thousands of Americans of their dream of homeownership, and costing the mortgage industry hundreds of millions of dollars each year. I am talking about the problem of mortgage fraud--the practice of defrauding individuals of their rightful property, and using tricks and schemes to steal from banks and other financial institutions. Mortgage fraud comes in a variety of forms, from inflated appraisals to the use of straw buyers, but the net result is the same: financial institutions lose out to the tune of approximately $1.01 billion each year, and consumers lose their savings, their good credit, and their homes. Although the data in this area is limited, mortgage fraud is clearly on the rise. According to the FBI, mortgage fraud cases were up 25 percent last year, and 400 percent since 2002. Further, in 2004, the mortgage industry noted 12,000 cases of suspicious activity, three times the amount reported in 2001. This is due largely to the housing boom which is driving up housing prices across the country. Nearly $2.5 trillion in mortgage loans were made during 2005, and the number is only expected to rise this year. But mortgage fraud is about more than just dollars and statistics; it's about real people, real homes, and real lives. My hometown Chicago Tribune has featured a series of articles about mortgage fraud in Illinois, which, along with Georgia, South Carolina, Florida, Missouri, Michigan, California, Nevada, Colorado and Utah, is among the FBI's top-ten mortgage fraud `hot spots.' The stories highlight, for example, the plight of the good folks on May Street in Chicago, who saw a block's worth of homes go boarded up in the span of a just few years, as swindlers racked up hundreds of thousands of dollars in bad loans, and left shells of houses behind. The Tribune stories highlighted the plight of 75-year-old Ruth Williams, who had to spend her personal funds to clear the title to her home after fraudsters secured $400,000 in loans on three buildings they didn't own. And two doors down from Ms. Williams, Corey Latimer can't sell his building or borrow against it, because a lending company hasn't released a phony mortgage that Corey didn't authorize. Law enforcement, consumer groups and many in the mortgage industry are doing what they can to combat fraud, and I applaud their good work. Now, Congress needs to come to the table and do its part. I, along with Senator Durbin and Senator Menendez, am introducing the STOP FRAUD Act today to address the critical problem of mortgage fraud. STOP FRAUD (Stopping Transactions which Operate to Promote Fraud, Risk and Under-Development) would provide the first Federal definition of mortgage fraud and authorize stiff criminal penalties against fraudulent actors. STOP FRAUD requires a wide range of mortgage professionals to report suspected fraudulent activity, and gives these same professionals safe harbor from liability when they report suspicious incidents. It also authorizes several grant programs to help State and local law enforcement fight fraud, provide the mortgage industry with updates on fraud trends, and further support the Departments of Treasury, Justice and Housing and Urban Development's fraud-fighting efforts. The STOP FRAUD Act will build upon the good work of the FBI, the Treasury Department, HUD, consumer groups, many in the mortgage industry, and State and local law enforcement, giving them the tools they need to stop mortgage fraud in its tracks. The cost of this bill is well worth the benefit to American taxpayers and companies, and it has been endorsed by a range of law enforcement and consumer groups. The Illinois Attorney General's office and the Chicago Police Department have told me how valuable this bill would be to their enforcement efforts, and ACORN, the Center For Responsible Lending, the National Association of Consumer Advocates, the National Community Reinvestment Coalition, National Consumer Law Center, and U.S. PIRG said in a recent letter that this bill would ``help protect consumers from fraudulent and abusive practices in the mortgage industry.'' The STOP FRAUD Act is a tough, cost-effective, and balanced way to address the serious problem of mortgage fraud in our country. I urge my colleagues to join me in this important effort.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, 2 weeks ago, in a debate on the Senate version of the tax reconciliation bill, I proposed an amendment to provide tax relief for victims of Katrina, paid for by restricting the extension of capital gains and dividend tax cuts only to people with incomes under $100 million. My amendment would have made all children of working parents in the disaster area eligible for at least a partial credit. For the convenience of my colleagues, I agreed not to demand a vote on that amendment. But I rise again to urge my colleagues not to forget Katrina and her victims who continue to struggle. In a bill with $70 billion of tax cuts, surely we can find $274 million to do something for the most vulnerable members of our society. In the weeks after Katrina made landfall, President Bush vowed to do what it takes to help the region recover. We wanted to believe him. We had witnessed the devastation caused by the hurricane, and we saw the terror of poor families with their lives turned upside down, homes destroyed, jobs and businesses lost, families separated, and lives permanently changed. At the time, the President said: We have a duty to confront this poverty with bold action. Almost 6 months later, the Government's actions have not matched the President's rhetoric. Evacuees are getting kicked out of their hotel rooms this week because FEMA stopped paying the bill. Thousands of temporary mobile homes ordered by FEMA are sitting empty in nearby Southern States. The Federal response continues to be inadequate to get the families back on their feet. We can do better for these families. At a time when we are debating $70 billion of tax cuts, most of which will benefit corporations and people who need help the least, why not set aside a small fraction to help those who need it most? One way to help those who need help the most is to enhance the refundable portion of the child tax credit. Under current law, families who earn less than $11,000 get no benefit from the refundable child credit. That means that a child does not get any benefit from the credit even if her parents work full time at the minimum wage. And the child doesn't get the full benefit of the $1,000 credit until her parents earn close to $18,000, or even more if the child has siblings. As a result, almost 17 million children get less than the full credit. Wouldn't it make sense to recognize the damage wrought by the hurricane and to eliminate the income threshold that excludes the poorest of children from getting the credit? Wouldn't it make sense to say to the children affected by Katrina that they will no longer be denied at least a partial credit so long as their parents are working? The cost of this fix is estimated at $274 million over 2 years. To get a sense of perspective, that is less than one-half of 1 percent of the cost of this entire bill. It is a matter of common sense and fairness--the least we can do when we are cutting taxes for wealthy Americans. If we do this, hundreds of thousands of this country's most disadvantaged children will see an increase in their credit--not as a handout but because their parents work. I hope we don't forget the images we witnessed in the aftermath of the hurricane--the people, their suffering, and the devastation. We shouldn't forget the daily struggles families right now are going through trying to rebuild their lives. Let us not forget our Government's promise to do what it takes for families along the gulf coast. Let us not forget our duty, as the President put it, to confront poverty with bold action. I urge my colleagues to join me in instructing the Senate managers to provide tax relief for the most vulnerable members of our society. Together, let us urge them to remember the low-income victims of Katrina and the children and families too poor to benefit fully from the refundable child credit. Obviously, this is a modest piece of legislation. It is a motion to instruct. My suspicion is that even if it passed, other priorities would move to the fore. Let me say in closing that it is shameful, what is happening in the gulf coast right now. I think all of us recognize the scope of the devastation. All of us were embarrassed at the slow response immediately after the hurricane. It has now been 6 months. We have not shown the sense of urgency that the American people did privately after the hurricane. I would hope that at least we can send some small signal that we are concerned about the kids who are languishing, who have been uprooted, who aren't in the schools they were attending and in the neighborhoods in which they grew up. This is one way to send that signal, and I urge my colleagues to support my motion. I yield the floor.

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Montana for the excellent work he has been doing. I send a motion to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, today, I am introducing new legislation to build on the excellent work my colleagues began with the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act. That bill would close the revolving door between Capitol Hill and lobbying jobs. It would end all lobbyist-funded gifts, meals, and travel, and it would shine a bright light of monitoring and public disclosure on lobbyists' operations, secret conference committee negotiations and last-minute special-interest provisions. These are important steps forward that should be approved by this Congress and signed into law. The first bill I am introducing now builds on these steps by focusing on enforcement. We can pass all the new ethics rules in the world, but if we don't establish a body that can monitor and enforce those rules, it'll be easy to break them. My legislation will establish a nonpartisan, independent Congressional Ethics Enforcement Commission that would investigate ethics violations and report their findings to the public. The idea of an independent Commission to conduct initial investigations is not new. It is modeled on successful efforts in a number of States including Kentucky, Florida, and Tennessee. Similar commissions in those States have a track record of working well and making the ethics enforcement process much more effective. My commission would be staffed with former judges and former members of Congress, and it would allow any citizen to report a possible ethics violation by lawmakers, staff, or lobbyists. It would have the authority to conduct investigations, issue subpoenas, and provide public reports to the Senate Ethics Committee or Department of Justice so that any wrongdoing can be punished accordingly. To prevent this Commission from being manipulated for partisan political purposes, the bill establishes stiff sanctions for the filing of frivolous complaints, and prohibits the filing of complaints three months before an election. Although, the ultimate power to reprimand members would remain with the Ethics Committees in Congress and the Department of Justice, the new Congressional Ethics Enforcement Commission would make these bodies more effective by removing political pressure from the initial fact- finding phase of ethics investigations. In addition, the Commission's independent capacity to issue public findings would encourage the Ethics Committees to act. I am proud that this legislation has support across the political spectrum, earning the endorsement of both Common Cause and Norm Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute. Ornstein said this about my enforcement bill: ``This approach to ethics enforcement is just the kind of balanced and reasonable alternative we need. . . . It deserves strong bipartisan support.'' I strongly encourage my colleagues to join me in creating this Commission to restore credibility to the body on the enforcement of ethics. I am also introducing legislation to build on the CLEAN UP Act (S. 2179) that I introduced last month. The CLEAN UP Act was written to provide for greater transparency in the legislative process and in conference committees in particular. It has won the support of eight of my colleagues, and I hope the Transparency and Integrity in Earmarks Act that I am introducing today will gain their support, as well as the rest of my colleagues. The Transparency and Integrity in Earmarks Act would require that information about all earmarks, including the name of the lawmaker requesting it and a justification of why they want it, be disclosed 72 hours before they are considered by the full Senate. The bill would also place some common-sense limits on earmarks. Members would be prohibited from advocating for an earmark if they have a financial interest in the project or its recipient. Earmarks also could not be used to secure promises from lawmakers in exchange for a vote on a bill. Finally, earmark recipients would have to disclose the amount that they spent on lobbyists in order to get their project passed. These earmark reforms won't solve every abuse, but the idea is this: if you're proud enough about an earmark to issue a press release about it, then you should be able to defend it to the public. Several of these ideas are contained in a bill introduced by Rep. David Obey. I am grateful for his leadership on this issue in the House. I know this is not the only proposal on earmarks before the Senate. But I believe this combines the best ideas without creating procedural roadblocks to legitimate projects in our communities. This is a balanced approach that I believe a majority of the Senate can--and should--support. Thank you.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Hurricane Katrina Working Family Tax Relief Act of 2006. I am proud to introduce this bill, along with Senators Landrieu, Durbin, and Kerry, to keep a promise the President made to rebuild the Gulf Coast in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. Last week the Senate approved a $70 billion bill laden with tax cuts for the wealthy and well-connected. This bill, which costs less than 1 percent as much, uses a proven tool in our tax code--the child tax credit--to extend aid to low-income working families affected by Hurricane Katrina. Currently, the child credit allows families with qualifying children to receive a credit of $1,000 per child against their Federal income tax. Unfortunately, families that earn less than $11,000 get no benefit from the refundable child credit. That means that a child is left out of the credit even if her parent works full time at minimum wage, which has not increased since 1997. And the child doesn't get the full benefit of the $1,000 credit until her parent earns close to $18,000, or even more if the child has siblings. And if her parents' income does not keep up with inflation, for any reason, the value of the credit drops or even disappears. We all know of the devastation wrought by Hurricane Katrina. It will be a long time before families on the Gulf Coast can rebuild their lives. Many of them have seen their homes destroyed, their jobs eliminated, their families separated, and their lives irrevocably changed. Unfortunately, the Federal response so far has been inadequate to get these families effectively back on their feet. We are now learning of thousands of evacuees getting kicked out of their hotel rooms because FEMA has stopped paying the bills. We can do better for these families. Life was hard for many of them even before Katrina hit. Prior to the hurricane, there were over 2 million people living below poverty in the affected States. In some of the affected counties and parishes, more than 1 in 4 children lived below the poverty level. In Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama, for example, more than 900,000 children under 17-years-old were so poor that they got no child tax credit or only a partial credit. These States had among the highest rates in the Nation of children too poor to get the full credit. This bill will provide necessary assistance to many of these families. The bill eliminates the income threshold that excluded all children in families with less than $11,000 of income. With this bill, the children of low-income working parents affected by Hurricane Katrina will no longer be denied the child credit. It's simple: if you work, your kids get a benefit. This bill provides a partial credit starting with the first dollar of a parent's income for families who lived in the areas affected by Hurricane Katrina. You work, your kids get a benefit. If you don't work, no benefit. That's a commonsense way to support families with children, especially families that have experienced the huge cost--psychological and financial--of a natural disaster. This bill is also narrowly tailored and fiscally responsible. It provides short-term support targeted at families affected by the hurricane, and its costs can easily be absorbed within the $97 billion already committed to hurricane relief. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, which will enable hundreds of thousands of this country's most disadvantaged children to see an increase in their credit. Katrina offered a reminder of poverty in our own country. Let's not forget so quickly. We owe it to the American people to do something to provide a chance for our neediest children to rebuild their lives with dignity, hope, and opportunity.

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, today, I am introducing new legislation to build on the excellent work my colleagues began with the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act. That bill would close the revolving door between Capitol Hill and lobbying jobs. It would end all lobbyist-funded gifts, meals, and travel, and it would shine a bright light of monitoring and public disclosure on lobbyists' operations, secret conference committee negotiations and last-minute special-interest provisions. These are important steps forward that should be approved by this Congress and signed into law. The first bill I am introducing now builds on these steps by focusing on enforcement. We can pass all the new ethics rules in the world, but if we don't establish a body that can monitor and enforce those rules, it'll be easy to break them. My legislation will establish a nonpartisan, independent Congressional Ethics Enforcement Commission that would investigate ethics violations and report their findings to the public. The idea of an independent Commission to conduct initial investigations is not new. It is modeled on successful efforts in a number of States including Kentucky, Florida, and Tennessee. Similar commissions in those States have a track record of working well and making the ethics enforcement process much more effective. My commission would be staffed with former judges and former members of Congress, and it would allow any citizen to report a possible ethics violation by lawmakers, staff, or lobbyists. It would have the authority to conduct investigations, issue subpoenas, and provide public reports to the Senate Ethics Committee or Department of Justice so that any wrongdoing can be punished accordingly. To prevent this Commission from being manipulated for partisan political purposes, the bill establishes stiff sanctions for the filing of frivolous complaints, and prohibits the filing of complaints three months before an election. Although, the ultimate power to reprimand members would remain with the Ethics Committees in Congress and the Department of Justice, the new Congressional Ethics Enforcement Commission would make these bodies more effective by removing political pressure from the initial fact- finding phase of ethics investigations. In addition, the Commission's independent capacity to issue public findings would encourage the Ethics Committees to act. I am proud that this legislation has support across the political spectrum, earning the endorsement of both Common Cause and Norm Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute. Ornstein said this about my enforcement bill: ``This approach to ethics enforcement is just the kind of balanced and reasonable alternative we need. . . . It deserves strong bipartisan support.'' I strongly encourage my colleagues to join me in creating this Commission to restore credibility to the body on the enforcement of ethics. I am also introducing legislation to build on the CLEAN UP Act (S. 2179) that I introduced last month. The CLEAN UP Act was written to provide for greater transparency in the legislative process and in conference committees in particular. It has won the support of eight of my colleagues, and I hope the Transparency and Integrity in Earmarks Act that I am introducing today will gain their support, as well as the rest of my colleagues. The Transparency and Integrity in Earmarks Act would require that information about all earmarks, including the name of the lawmaker requesting it and a justification of why they want it, be disclosed 72 hours before they are considered by the full Senate. The bill would also place some common-sense limits on earmarks. Members would be prohibited from advocating for an earmark if they have a financial interest in the project or its recipient. Earmarks also could not be used to secure promises from lawmakers in exchange for a vote on a bill. Finally, earmark recipients would have to disclose the amount that they spent on lobbyists in order to get their project passed. These earmark reforms won't solve every abuse, but the idea is this: if you're proud enough about an earmark to issue a press release about it, then you should be able to defend it to the public. Several of these ideas are contained in a bill introduced by Rep. David Obey. I am grateful for his leadership on this issue in the House. I know this is not the only proposal on earmarks before the Senate. But I believe this combines the best ideas without creating procedural roadblocks to legitimate projects in our communities. This is a balanced approach that I believe a majority of the Senate can--and should--support. Thank you.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Hurricane Katrina Working Family Tax Relief Act of 2006. I am proud to introduce this bill, along with Senators Landrieu, Durbin, and Kerry, to keep a promise the President made to rebuild the Gulf Coast in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. Last week the Senate approved a $70 billion bill laden with tax cuts for the wealthy and well-connected. This bill, which costs less than 1 percent as much, uses a proven tool in our tax code--the child tax credit--to extend aid to low-income working families affected by Hurricane Katrina. Currently, the child credit allows families with qualifying children to receive a credit of $1,000 per child against their Federal income tax. Unfortunately, families that earn less than $11,000 get no benefit from the refundable child credit. That means that a child is left out of the credit even if her parent works full time at minimum wage, which has not increased since 1997. And the child doesn't get the full benefit of the $1,000 credit until her parent earns close to $18,000, or even more if the child has siblings. And if her parents' income does not keep up with inflation, for any reason, the value of the credit drops or even disappears. We all know of the devastation wrought by Hurricane Katrina. It will be a long time before families on the Gulf Coast can rebuild their lives. Many of them have seen their homes destroyed, their jobs eliminated, their families separated, and their lives irrevocably changed. Unfortunately, the Federal response so far has been inadequate to get these families effectively back on their feet. We are now learning of thousands of evacuees getting kicked out of their hotel rooms because FEMA has stopped paying the bills. We can do better for these families. Life was hard for many of them even before Katrina hit. Prior to the hurricane, there were over 2 million people living below poverty in the affected States. In some of the affected counties and parishes, more than 1 in 4 children lived below the poverty level. In Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama, for example, more than 900,000 children under 17-years-old were so poor that they got no child tax credit or only a partial credit. These States had among the highest rates in the Nation of children too poor to get the full credit. This bill will provide necessary assistance to many of these families. The bill eliminates the income threshold that excluded all children in families with less than $11,000 of income. With this bill, the children of low-income working parents affected by Hurricane Katrina will no longer be denied the child credit. It's simple: if you work, your kids get a benefit. This bill provides a partial credit starting with the first dollar of a parent's income for families who lived in the areas affected by Hurricane Katrina. You work, your kids get a benefit. If you don't work, no benefit. That's a commonsense way to support families with children, especially families that have experienced the huge cost--psychological and financial--of a natural disaster. This bill is also narrowly tailored and fiscally responsible. It provides short-term support targeted at families affected by the hurricane, and its costs can easily be absorbed within the $97 billion already committed to hurricane relief. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, which will enable hundreds of thousands of this country's most disadvantaged children to see an increase in their credit. Katrina offered a reminder of poverty in our own country. Let's not forget so quickly. We owe it to the American people to do something to provide a chance for our neediest children to rebuild their lives with dignity, hope, and opportunity.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, the American people are facing two, major health care crises--lack of health insurance and the soaring costs of medical care. Nearly 46 million Americans are uninsured, and the number one reason is because they can't afford it. Even those with health insurance are struggling to pay their medical bills. Family incomes can't keep up with rising health costs--health premiums alone have increased 73 percent over the past 5 years, while wages have only risen 15 percent. Unfortunately, we can't fix either of these crises without addressing the other. As health care costs rise, more employers will drop coverage for their employees. As the number of uninsured rise, the cost of their care is subsidized by those individuals that have insurance. It's a vicious cycle, and the longer we wait to act, the more difficult it will be to successfully intervene. There are many drivers of health care costs, but perhaps the easiest one to tackle is the wasteful, administrative costs associated with health care. Health care is one of the least efficient industries in America. Processing a single transaction in health care can cost as much as $25, whereas banks and brokerages spend less than a penny per transaction. Indeed, administrative costs account for 31 percent of total health care spending, or roughly $465 billion each and every year. Today, I am introducing a bill that would help to reduce health care administrative costs in the Nation's largest employer-sponsored health insurance program, the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program. FEHBP serves over 8 million Federal Government employees, retirees, and their families, who can choose from over 200 health plan options. The FEHBP Efficiency Act of 2006 would require all health plans participating in FEHBP to develop systems for hospitals and doctors to submit their bills electronically within 4 years. Ken Thorpe, a health economist at Emory University, has reported that if all FEHBP participating health plans switched to electronic systems for submission of bills, the program could save up to 2 percent of the $31 billion in total premiums, or over $600 million every year. That is a tremendous amount of savings--money that could be used to expand FEHBP benefits, increase the number of eligible employees, or lower premiums for FEHBP beneficiaries. Using its tremendous purchasing power, the Federal Government could help spur the health care industry to move to a completely paperless system for processing transactions in all government health programs as well as the private sector. I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort to increase efficiency and reduce costs. Every American should have access to affordable health care, and this bill is one step towards making that a reality.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, the American people are facing two, major health care crises--lack of health insurance and the soaring costs of medical care. Nearly 46 million Americans are uninsured, and the number one reason is because they can't afford it. Even those with health insurance are struggling to pay their medical bills. Family incomes can't keep up with rising health costs--health premiums alone have increased 73 percent over the past 5 years, while wages have only risen 15 percent. Unfortunately, we can't fix either of these crises without addressing the other. As health care costs rise, more employers will drop coverage for their employees. As the number of uninsured rise, the cost of their care is subsidized by those individuals that have insurance. It's a vicious cycle, and the longer we wait to act, the more difficult it will be to successfully intervene. There are many drivers of health care costs, but perhaps the easiest one to tackle is the wasteful, administrative costs associated with health care. Health care is one of the least efficient industries in America. Processing a single transaction in health care can cost as much as $25, whereas banks and brokerages spend less than a penny per transaction. Indeed, administrative costs account for 31 percent of total health care spending, or roughly $465 billion each and every year. Today, I am introducing a bill that would help to reduce health care administrative costs in the Nation's largest employer-sponsored health insurance program, the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program. FEHBP serves over 8 million Federal Government employees, retirees, and their families, who can choose from over 200 health plan options. The FEHBP Efficiency Act of 2006 would require all health plans participating in FEHBP to develop systems for hospitals and doctors to submit their bills electronically within 4 years. Ken Thorpe, a health economist at Emory University, has reported that if all FEHBP participating health plans switched to electronic systems for submission of bills, the program could save up to 2 percent of the $31 billion in total premiums, or over $600 million every year. That is a tremendous amount of savings--money that could be used to expand FEHBP benefits, increase the number of eligible employees, or lower premiums for FEHBP beneficiaries. Using its tremendous purchasing power, the Federal Government could help spur the health care industry to move to a completely paperless system for processing transactions in all government health programs as well as the private sector. I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort to increase efficiency and reduce costs. Every American should have access to affordable health care, and this bill is one step towards making that a reality.