Barack Obama

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise to speak in favor of amendment No. 4371, which is being offered today by my friend, Senator Coburn. Senator Coburn and I have been working tirelessly to improve accountability and transparency in Federal contracting so that the American people can rely on their Government for the excellence and efficiency that they deserve. Award and incentive fees are often used in defense contracts to encourage outstanding performance. But too often these awards are given without regard to performance. That doesn't make sense. This amendment prohibits unsatisfactory performance from being rewarded by the Federal Government. It sets a higher standard for defense contractors and requires them at least to satisfy the basic requirements of a contract in order to be eligible for any award or incentive fee. It is a simple concept. No bonus awards when the work is unsatisfactory. Period. You don't tip a waiter who doesn't bring you your food. You don't give a bonus to an employee who doesn't do his or her job at work. The Government should not permit awards for work that is less than satisfactory. Awards should be used as an incentive for excellence, not as a backdoor for undeserved payments. The authorization bill makes some progress by requiring the Secretary of Defense to provide needed guidance on the use of awards and incentive fees. It requires guidance that award fees be tied to performance outcomes. It requires guidance on designating contractor performance as ``excellent,'' or ``superior.'' It requires standards for when performance awards are appropriate. This amendment just makes it clear that unsatisfactory work should never be eligible for an award. Contractors can and must be held to a higher standard. Our troops deserve no less. American taxpayers deserve no less. Americans should reward excellence, not mediocrity; success, not failure; contract fulfillment, and nothing less. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. amendment no. 4496

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise today to note with pride an accomplishment of one of my constituents. Bonny Jain, of Moline, IL, won the National Geographic Bee here in Washington, DC, on May 24 by correctly identifying the Cambrian Mountains on a map. I don't know if they have ``phone a friend'' in the bee, but it is good that he didn't call me because I thought a Cambri was a small Toyota. His victory in this competition demonstrates a laudable dedication to scholarship. As technology makes the world smaller, knowledge of other peoples and cultures becomes more important. And cultures are shaped by geography. Geography is often the main factor in the path of national borders. Under the influence of geography, wars are won and lost, and civilizations rise and fall. Bonny's path to victory in the 2006 bee was a long one. I am impressed not only by his comprehensive knowledge of geography but by his steady ascent through 4 years of competition. From second place at his individual school's geography bee, he rose to the national competition last year and to victory last month. I am proud to have this young man and his family as constituents. I give them my heartiest congratulations and wish Bonny well in high school and beyond.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise today to honor a brave soldier, PFC Justin King. After graduating college and working as a civilian, Private King enlisted in the Army Reserve so he could, in his words, do something ``for his country and more than himself.'' While in advanced individual training, Justin was diagnosed with terminal cancer. Although his body has not responded to chemotherapy treatments and his hope to serve in the field will go unrealized, his illness has failed to break his ironclad spirit. The first time Private King's commanding officer visited him in the hospital, Private King insisted on getting into full uniform before she entered the room. He said that he wanted to ``look like a soldier and stand like a soldier.'' Since returning to Robinson, IL, to be with his family, Private King told his CO: ``I want to serve in some capacity to the best of my ability and until my health fails, as a soldier. I want to tell other soldiers how to deal with a terminal illness, I want to do something useful.'' I am thoroughly impressed by this young man's desire to serve and the resolve he has displayed when faced with adversity. I admire Private King's patriotism, sacrifice, and strong character. He is a role model for all Americans, and I am proud to recognize him today.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Michigan for managing this fine amendment. In October of 2002, I delivered a speech opposing the war in Iraq. I said that Saddam Hussein was a ruthless man, but that he posed no imminent and direct threat to the United States. I said that a war in Iraq would take our focus away from our efforts to defeat al-Qaida. And, with a volatile mix of ethnic groups and a complicated history, I said that the invasion and occupation of Iraq would require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. In short, I felt the decision unfolding then to invade Iraq was being made without a clear rationale, based more on ideology and politics than fact and reason. It is with no great pleasure that I recall this now. Too many young men and women have died. Too many have been maimed. Too many hearts have been broken. I fervently wish I had been wrong about this war; that my concerns had been unfounded. America and the American people have paid a high price for the decision to invade Iraq and myriad mistakes that followed. I believe that history will not judge the authors of this war kindly. For all these reasons, I would like nothing more than to support the Kerry amendment; to bring our brave troops home on a date certain, and spare the American people more pain, suffering and sorrow. But having visited Iraq, I am also acutely aware that a precipitous withdrawal of our troops, driven by congressional edict rather than the realities on the ground, will not undo the mistakes made by this administration. It could compound them. It could compound them by plunging Iraq into an even deeper and, perhaps, irreparable crisis. We must exit Iraq, but not in a way that leaves behind a security vacuum filled with terrorism, chaos, ethnic cleansing and genocide that could engulf large swaths of the Middle East and endanger America. We have both moral and national security reasons to manage our exit in a responsible way. I share many of the goals set forth in the Kerry amendment. We should send a clear message to the Iraqis that we won't be there forever, and that by next year our primary role should be to conduct counterinsurgency actions, train Iraqi security forces, and provide needed logistical support. Moreover, I share the frustration with an administration whose policies with respect to Iraq seem to simply repeat the simple-minded refrains of ``we know best'' and ``stay the course.'' It's not acceptable to conduct a war where our goals and strategies drift aimlessly regardless of the cost in lives or dollars spent, and where we end up with arbitrary, poll-driven troop reductions by the administration--the worst of all possible outcomes. As one who strongly opposed the decision to go to war and who has met with servicemen and women injured in this conflict and seen the pain of the parents and loved ones of those who have died in Iraq, I would like nothing more than for our military involvement to end. But I do not believe that setting a date certain for the total withdrawal of U.S. troops is the best approach to achieving, in a methodical and responsible way, the three basic goals that should drive our Iraq policy: that is, (1) stabilizing Iraq and giving the factions within Iraq the space they need to forge a political settlement; (2) containing and ultimately defeating the insurgency in Iraq; and (3) bringing our troops safely home. What is needed is a blueprint for an expeditious yet responsible exit from Iraq. A hard and fast, arbitrary deadline for withdrawal offers our commanders in the field, and our diplomats in the region, insufficient flexibility to implement that strategy. For example, let's say that a phased withdrawal results in 50,000 troops in Iraq by July 19, 2007. If, at that point, our generals and the Iraqi Government tell us that having those troops in Iraq for an additional 3 or 6 months would enhance stability and security in the region, this amendment would potentially prevent us from pursuing the optimal policy. It is for this reason that I cannot support the Kerry amendment. Instead, I am a cosponsor of the Levin amendment, which gives us the best opportunity to find this balance between our need to begin a phase-down and our need to help stabilize Iraq. It tells the Iraqis that we won't be there forever so that they need to move forward on uniting and securing their country. I agree with Senator Warner that the message should be ``we really mean business, Iraqis, get on with it.'' At the same time, the amendment also provides the Iraqis the time and the opportunity to accomplish this critical goal. Essential to a successful policy is the administration listening to its generals and diplomats and members of Congress especially those who disagree with their policies and believe it is time to start bringing our troops home. The overwhelming majority of the Senate is already on record voting for an amendment stating that calendar year 2006 should be a period of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty, with Iraqi security forces taking the lead for the security, creating the conditions for the phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq. The Levin amendment builds on this approach. The White House should follow this principle as well. Visiting Iraq for a few hours cannot resuscitate or justify a failed policy. No amount of spin or photo opportunities can change the bottom line: this war has been poorly conceived and poorly managed by the White House, and that is why it has been so poorly received by the American people.. And it is troubling to already see Karl Rove in New Hampshire, treating this as a political attack opportunity instead of a major national challenge around which to rally the country. There are no easy answers to this war. I understand that many Americans want to see our troops come home. The chaos, violence, and horrors in Iraq are gut-wrenching reminders of what our men and women in uniform, some just months out of high school, must confront on a daily basis. They are doing this heroically, they are doing this selflessly, and more than 2,500 of them have now made the ultimate sacrifice for our country. Not one of us wants to see our servicemen and women in harm's way a day longer than they have to be. And that's why we must find the most responsible way to bring them home as quickly as possible, while still leaving the foundation of a secure Iraq that will not endanger the free world.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by my distinguished colleagues, the Senator from Mississippi, Mr. Cochran, the Senator from Indiana, Mr. Lugar, and the Senator from Delaware, Mr. Carper, in introducing the Alternative Diesel Standard Act of 2006. Last summer, Congress passed the Energy Policy Act, which included a bold, bipartisan initiative to help wean our Nation from its petroleum dependency. This initiative, known as the Renewable Fuels Standard, established that it is the policy of the United States that the 140 billion gallon national gasoline pool will consist of at least 7.5 billion gallons of ethanol by the year 2012. We have seen tremendous response to this new policy. Almost 30 new ethanol plants have been proposed to be constructed in my State of Illinois alone, and many more are proposed nationwide. By comparison, over the past 30 years, no new petroleum refineries have been built in the United States. The Renewable Fuels Standard is probably one of the single most important legislative actions taken by Congress in recent years to strengthen our domestic energy security, and the legislation we introduce today takes this policy one step further by addressing the 40 billion gallon national diesel pool. Petroleum-based diesel is used in a wide variety of transportation modes: transit buses; semitrucks; ships; heavy duty construction, farming and mining equipment; military vehicles; locomotives; barges; large scale generators; and in a range of cars and trucks. While not as large of a market as gasoline, petrodiesel is enormously significant to our economy, and reducing our reliance on foreign feedstocks for this diesel is of equal importance in our efforts to increase energy security. Our bill, the Alternative Diesel Standard, simply requires that by the year 2015, the national diesel pool must consist of at least 2 billion gallons of alternative and renewable diesels. This is but a modest 1 percent of the national diesel supply--hardly painful for the petroleum industry. It would not in any way dent the oil industry's record-shattering profits. Instead, it establishes certainty to those who know that alternative diesels can provide a real solution to our dependence on foreign oil and who are prepared to invest in alternative diesel production on a commercial scale. Right now, there is an estimated 180 million gallons of biodiesel production capacity in the United States. Fifty-four companies have reported plans to construct dedicated biodiesel plants in the near future, but those plans are dependent upon regional and national demand prospects. Moreover, entrepreneurs across the Nation have proven that we can make diesel from other plant oils, like sunflower seeds, or coal, manure, animal fats, and yes, even from recycled plastics or garbage. This bill sends a signal to those entrepreneurs that a market is planned in the future for these domestically produced fuels, attracting the necessary investment to establish a national infrastructure of domestic fuel production capabilities. If we are serious about reducing our country's dependence on imported petroleum and insulating our economy from future supply disruption shocks--whether from the volatile Middle East or natural disasters such as Katrina--encouraging the construction of more domestic alternative fuel production capacity must be part of that strategy. Several billion gallons of alternative diesels are possible within the timelines proposed in our legislation, making another bold step to create jobs in rural America and strengthen our economic security. An Alternative Diesel Standard is the right course for the Nation's future. I hope my colleagues will join me in cosponsoring this legislation, and I ask their support for swift enactment.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by my distinguished colleagues, the Senator from Mississippi, Mr. Cochran, the Senator from Indiana, Mr. Lugar, and the Senator from Delaware, Mr. Carper, in introducing the Alternative Diesel Standard Act of 2006. Last summer, Congress passed the Energy Policy Act, which included a bold, bipartisan initiative to help wean our Nation from its petroleum dependency. This initiative, known as the Renewable Fuels Standard, established that it is the policy of the United States that the 140 billion gallon national gasoline pool will consist of at least 7.5 billion gallons of ethanol by the year 2012. We have seen tremendous response to this new policy. Almost 30 new ethanol plants have been proposed to be constructed in my State of Illinois alone, and many more are proposed nationwide. By comparison, over the past 30 years, no new petroleum refineries have been built in the United States. The Renewable Fuels Standard is probably one of the single most important legislative actions taken by Congress in recent years to strengthen our domestic energy security, and the legislation we introduce today takes this policy one step further by addressing the 40 billion gallon national diesel pool. Petroleum-based diesel is used in a wide variety of transportation modes: transit buses; semitrucks; ships; heavy duty construction, farming and mining equipment; military vehicles; locomotives; barges; large scale generators; and in a range of cars and trucks. While not as large of a market as gasoline, petrodiesel is enormously significant to our economy, and reducing our reliance on foreign feedstocks for this diesel is of equal importance in our efforts to increase energy security. Our bill, the Alternative Diesel Standard, simply requires that by the year 2015, the national diesel pool must consist of at least 2 billion gallons of alternative and renewable diesels. This is but a modest 1 percent of the national diesel supply--hardly painful for the petroleum industry. It would not in any way dent the oil industry's record-shattering profits. Instead, it establishes certainty to those who know that alternative diesels can provide a real solution to our dependence on foreign oil and who are prepared to invest in alternative diesel production on a commercial scale. Right now, there is an estimated 180 million gallons of biodiesel production capacity in the United States. Fifty-four companies have reported plans to construct dedicated biodiesel plants in the near future, but those plans are dependent upon regional and national demand prospects. Moreover, entrepreneurs across the Nation have proven that we can make diesel from other plant oils, like sunflower seeds, or coal, manure, animal fats, and yes, even from recycled plastics or garbage. This bill sends a signal to those entrepreneurs that a market is planned in the future for these domestically produced fuels, attracting the necessary investment to establish a national infrastructure of domestic fuel production capabilities. If we are serious about reducing our country's dependence on imported petroleum and insulating our economy from future supply disruption shocks--whether from the volatile Middle East or natural disasters such as Katrina--encouraging the construction of more domestic alternative fuel production capacity must be part of that strategy. Several billion gallons of alternative diesels are possible within the timelines proposed in our legislation, making another bold step to create jobs in rural America and strengthen our economic security. An Alternative Diesel Standard is the right course for the Nation's future. I hope my colleagues will join me in cosponsoring this legislation, and I ask their support for swift enactment.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, today marks the anniversary of a joyous day in our Nation's history. It was on this day in 1865 when word finally reached the farthest corner of the Southwest that all slaves were free. More than 2\1/2\ years after President Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation, this was the day freedom became a reality. After hundreds of years of servitude and oppression, this was the day that former slaves claimed their rightful place as equal citizens. Juneteenth was the day our Nation reclaimed its dignity. Today, Juneteenth is still a celebration of freedom. It is an opportunity for engagement and self-improvement, a time to reflect and recommit ourselves to the pursuit of justice and equality. Juneteenth is about acknowledging where we have been as a Nation, looking honestly and critically at our past, and gaining a fresh understanding of the challenges we face as we look toward the future. Half a century after Brown v. Board of Education, this is a day for us to assess the quality of education we are providing to our children. Forty years after the passage of the Voting Rights Act, this is a day for us to think of the injustices that must be overcome, the millions without health care, the families without jobs, and the disparities that continue to divide us. Juneteenth should be a reminder to all Americans that we must not resign ourselves to waiting for a better time to do what we know is right. This is the day we honor previous generations for the great strides they have taken toward creating a more just society. This is the day we honor future generations by undertaking with determination the work that is yet to be done.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise today to honor my friend and colleague Robert Byrd, who yesterday officially became the longest serving Member in the history of the Senate. As of June 12, 2006, Senator Byrd had officially served West Virginia in the Senate for 17,327 days. That is an astounding 47\1/2\ years since he took office on January 3, 1959. It was a time when a postage stamp cost $0.04, gasoline was $0.25 per gallon, and you could buy a brand new Ford car for a little over $2,100. Senator Byrd has served through 10 Presidencies, statehood for Alaska and Hawaii, wartime and peacetime, surplus and deficit, the dawn of space travel and the advent of the Information Age. And, as I stand here today, I have to chuckle at the fact that when I was just beginning the first grade, Senator Byrd was already serving his second term in the Senate. However, the indelible mark he has left on this institution has more to do with the quality of his service than the length of his service. Senator Byrd has a deep love for his beloved home state of West Virginia, for the institution of the U.S. Senate, and for our country. Always ready with a copy of the Constitution in his pocket, Senator Byrd understands just how sacred this document truly is, and he fights every day to protect it. He literally wrote the book on the rules and traditions of the Senate, and he teaches by example, offering the kind of eloquent, principled debate that has historically filled this Chamber. His speeches are honest and heartfelt, with a Shakespearean rhythm, peppered with stories from his boyhood in the coalfields of Appalachia. He is never shy about scolding colleagues when they put politics before principles or when they violate the practices of this great institution. And yet he also exemplifies the cordial tradition of the Senate, disagreeing without being disagreeable, and always willing to offer a handshake to a political opponent at the end of hard-fought debate. He is a man of integrity, who has demonstrated that an honest search for truth can lead to a principled change of heart and a desire to seek justice for all. I know this remarkable accomplishment is a bittersweet one, since Senator Byrd is not able to share it with his beloved wife Erma, who passed away in March. Yesterday, the day on which Senator Byrd set this record, was also Erma's birthday. It is fitting that he marks this milestone on the same day he celebrates Erma's life, because he has often credited Erma's unconditional love and support with sustaining him through his years of service. When asked last week about achieving this milestone, Senator Byrd replied that ``records are fine, but what's important is what I do for the people of West Virginia.'' That humble devotion to the people he serves is what brought Robert Byrd to the Senate more than 47 years ago, and it is what continues to drive him each and every day. After I was sworn in last January, one of the first Senators I met with was Senator Byrd. We sat down in his hideaway on the first floor of the Capitol. After we posed for a few photographs, I inquired after his wife, who I had heard had taken a turn for the worse, and asked about some of the figures in the many photos that lined the walls. Eventually I asked him what advice he would give me as a new member of the Senate. ``Learn the rules,'' Senator Byrd said. ``Not just the rules but the precedents as well.'' He pointed to a series of thick binders behind him, each one affixed with a hand-written label. ``Not many people bother to learn them these days. Everything is so rushed, so many demands on a Senator's time. But these rules unlock the power of the Senate. They're the keys to the kingdom.'' We spoke about the Senate's past, the Presidents he had known, the bills he had managed. He told me too many Senators today became quickly fixated on reaching the White House, not understanding that in the constitutional design it was the Senate that was supreme, the heart and soul of the Republic. ``So few people read the Constitution today,'' Senator Byrd said, pulling out a pocket copy from his breast pocket. ``I've always said this document and the Holy Bible, they've been all the guidance I need.'' On many occasions over the past year and a half, I have remembered these wise words as I have performed my duties in the Senate. I am proud to call Robert Byrd a colleague, a friend, and a mentor. I congratulate him on this remarkable achievement and wish him all the best for many more years of service to our country.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Madam President, I rise to speak in opposition to the complete repeal of the estate tax. First of all, let call this trillion-dollar giveaway what it is--the Paris Hilton tax break. It is about giving billions of dollars to billionaire heirs and heiresses at a time when American taxpayers just can't afford it. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have brought out the Paris Hilton tax break in June because they are eager to make it an election issue in November. And I think that is fine. In fact, I am eager for the American people to choose. Because if people want their Government to spend $1 trillion--an amount more than double what we have spent on Iraq, Afghanistan, and the war on terror combined--on tax breaks for multimillionaires and multibillionaires, then the Republican Party is their party. If the American people want to borrow billions more from foreign countries, spend billions more in taxes to pay the interest on our national debt, and watch billions cut from health care and education and gulf coast reconstruction, then the Paris Hilton tax break is your tax break. Now let's be honest. This is not about saving small businesses and family farms. We can reform the estate tax to protect the few farms that are affected. We can set it at a level where no small business is ever affected. We can even repeal the estate tax altogether for the 99.5 percent of families with less than $7 million in taxable assets--that means families with assets almost 100 times greater than the average American household net worth. Democrats have offered to reform the estate tax in these ways time and time again. Reform is possible in a way that doesn cost $1 trillion. But our offers have always been refused, which can only mean that the party in power is really interested in an unprecedented giveaway to the wealthiest of the wealthy. And don't think for a minute that there is any plan to pay for this. Every proposal to enforce pay-as-you-go rules for fiscal responsibility has been rebuffed. This tax cut will have to be paid for in the years ahead by higher taxes on working families and reduced public services in all of our communities. This tax cut will have to be paid for by higher interest rates on homes and student loans. This tax cut will have to be paid for by greater dependence on foreign countries. Alan Greenspan warned us against financing tax cuts with debt. But that is exactly what this bill does. So I would ask the American people one question. At a time like this--a time where America finds itself deeply in debt, struggling to pay for a war in Iraq, a war in Afghanistan, security for our homeland, armor for our troops, health care for our workers, and education for our children--at a time of all this need, can you imagine opening Forbes magazine, looking at its list of the 400 wealthiest Americans, and realizing that our Government gave the people on that list far more than half a trillion dollars worth of tax breaks? I know I can imagine that. And I would bet that most Americans can imagine that either. This is shameful. Are we really going to cut taxes again for the Forbes 400 before we fix the alternative minimum tax which affects middle-class families? Are we really going to cut taxes again for multimillionaires and billionaires before we extend the expiring child tax credit which helps working families? Are we really going to worsen our country's financial future for all Americans just so that a tiny number of the estates--estates that average over $13 million--can escape all taxes? There is no economic justification for repealing the estate tax and certainly no moral justification. This is politics pure and simple. So if the Republicans want to bring up their Paris Hilton tax break to use it as an election issue later, I say go for it. Because I can think of no better statement about where and how we differ in priorities than that.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Homes for Heroes Act of 2006. When we talk about veterans in Washington, I often think about my grandfather, who signed up for duty in World War II the day after Pearl Harbor. He marched across Europe in Patton's army, and when he came home to Kansas, he could have very easily faced some tough times. He could have had trouble paying for college, or finding a job, or even finding a home. But at the time, he lived in a country that recognized the value of his service--a country that kept its promise to defend those who have defended freedom. And so he was able to afford college through the G.I. Bill, and he was able to buy a house through the Federal Housing Administration, and he was able to work hard and raise a family and build his own American dream. And after I think about my grandfather, and the opportunities he had as a veteran, I then think about a veteran I met named Bill Allen, who told me that on a recent trip he took to Chicago, he actually saw homeless veterans fighting over access to the dumpsters. Think about that. Fighting over access to the dumpsters. Each and every night in this country, more than 200,000 of our Nation's veterans are homeless. And more than half a million will experience homelessness over the course of a year. There is no single cause for this. Homeless vets are men and women, single and married. They have served in every conflict since World War II. Many suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder; others were physically and mentally battered in combat. A large number left the military without job skills that could be easily used in the private sector. All have risked their lives for their country. All deserve--at the very least--the basic dignity of going to sleep at night with a roof over their head. And every day we allow them to go without, it brings shame to every single one of us. This is wrong. It is because we're quick to offer words of praise for our troops when they were abroad, but quick to forget about their needs when they come home. It's wrong because we have the resources and the programs in place to help solve this problem. And it is wrong on a fundamentally moral level--the idea that we would allow such brave and selfless citizens to suffer in such biting poverty. And so it is now our responsibility--it is now our duty--to make this right. Last year, I introduced the Sheltering All Veterans Everywhere Act, S. 1180--the SAVE Act--to strengthen services for homeless veterans. The SAVE Act would reauthorize and expand two of the most successful programs in dealing with homeless veterans: the Homeless Providers Grant and Per Diem Program and the Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program. In addition, the SAVE Act would expand the reach of the Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program to also include veterans at risk of homelessness, so that we can work to prevent homelessness before it happens. And while it is one thing to get veterans off the streets temporarily; it is another to keep them off--to place veterans in real, permanent homes. In fact, the VA has consistently identified permanent housing as one of the top three unmet needs in the fight against veteran homelessness. That is why I'm introducing a bill today called the Homes for Heroes Act. This is a bill that would help expand access to long-term, affordable housing by creating a fund so that the community and nonprofit organizations could purchase, build, or rehabilitate homes and apartments for veterans. So that we don't just leave them, to face their personal challenges on their own, the organizations would also provide services like counseling, employment training, and child care to the veterans who live in this housing. And the Homes for Heroes Act would expand the number of permanent housing vouchers for veterans from the current number of less than 2,000 to 20,000. These are vouchers that have been highly successful in giving veterans the chance to afford a place to live. Every day in America, we walk past men and women on street comers with handwritten signs that say ``Homeless Veteran--Will Work For Food.'' Sometimes we give a dollar; sometimes we just keep walking. These are soldiers who fought in World War II, Vietnam, and Iraq. They made a commitment to their country when they chose to serve--and now we must keep our commitment to them. Because when we make the decision to send our troops to war, we also make the decision to care for them, to speak for them, and to think of them--always--when they come home. This kind of America--an America of opportunity, of collective responsibility for each other--is the kind that any of our parents and grandparents came home to after the Second World War. Now it is time for us to build this America for those sons and daughters who come home today.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, today, we take up the valuable time of the Senate with a proposed amendment to our Constitution that has absolutely no chance of passing. We do this, allegedly, in an attempt to uphold the institution of marriage in this country. We do this despite the fact that for over 200 years, Americans have been defining and defending marriage on the State and local level without any help from the U.S. Constitution at all. And yet, we are here anyway because it is an election year--because the party in power has decided that the best way to get voters to the polls is not by talking about Iraq or health care or energy or education but about a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage that they have no chance of passing. Now, I realize that for some Americans, this is an important issue. And I should say that, personally, I do believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. But let's be honest. That is not what this debate is about. Not at this time. This debate is an attempt to break a consensus that is quietly being forged in this country. It is a consensus between Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives, red States and blue States, that it is time for new leadership in this country--leadership that will stop dividing us, stop disappointing us, and start addressing the problems facing most Americans. It is a consensus between a majority of Americans who say: You know what, maybe some of us are comfortable with gay marriage right now and some of us are not. But most of us do believe that gay couples should be able to visit each other in the hospital and share health care benefits; most of us do believe that they should be treated with dignity and have their privacy respected by the federal government. We all know that if this amendment were to pass, it would close the door on much of this--because we know that when similar amendments passed in places such as Ohio and Michigan and Utah, domestic partnership benefits were taken away from gay couples. This is not what the majority of the American people want. And this is not about trying to build consensus in this country; it is not about trying to bring people together. This is about winning an election. That is why the issue was last raised in July of 2004, and that is why we haven't heard about it again until now. And while this is supposedly a measure that the other party raised to appeal to some of its core supporters, I don't know how happy I would be if my party only talked about an issue I cared about right around election time--especially if they knew it had no chance of passing. I agree with most Americans, with Democrats and Republicans, with Vice President Cheney, with over 2,000 religious leaders of all different beliefs, that decisions about marriage, as they always have, should be left to the States. Today, we should take this amendment only for what it is--a political ploy designed to rally a few supporters and draw the country's attention away from this leadership's past failures and America's future challenges. There is plenty of work to be done in this country. There are millions without health care and skyrocketing gas prices and children in crumbling schools and thousands of young Americans risking their lives in Iraq. So don't tell me that this is the best use of our time. Don't tell me that this is what people want to see talked about on TV and in the newspapers all day. We wonder why the American people have such a low opinion of Washington these days. This is why. We are better than this, and we certainly owe the American people more than this. I know that this amendment will fail, and when it does, I hope we can start discussing issues and offering proposals that will actually improve the lives of most Americans.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2005. Although I am a proud Illinoisan, proud to be the junior Senator from Illinois, many of you know that I was born and raised in Hawaii. Anyone who has been fortunate enough to visit or call Hawaii home, as I once did, and as my grandmother and sister and adorable niece still do, anybody who has spent time in Hawaii cannot help but recognize the uniqueness of the place. In addition to its scenic landscapes and rich history, it is the living legacy of aloha--the spirit of openness and friendliness that is ingrained in the shared, local culture that shapes and enhances each island encounter and experience. Throughout Hawaii's history, individuals of all nationalities, races and creeds have found solace in Hawaii. In large part this stems from the culture of Native Hawaiians, who have always acknowledged and celebrated diversity. This incorporation of new cultures and practices over the years has strengthened and unified the community. And as the child of a black father and a white mother, I know firsthand how important Native Hawaiian efforts are to foster a culture of acceptance and of tolerance. For this reason, I am proud to join Senator Daniel Akaka to extend the Federal policy of self-governance and self-determination to Native Hawaiians. Native Hawaiians are a vital part of our Nation's cultural fabric, and they will continue to shape our country in the years to come. The Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act provides both the process and opportunity for Native Hawaiian communities to engage themselves in and reorganize their governing entity to establish a federally recognized government-to-government relationship with the United States of America. The process set forth in the bill empowers Native Hawaiians to explore and address the longstanding issues resulting from the overthrow of the kingdom of Hawaii. There are three main provisions of the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act. First, the bill establishes the Office of Native Hawaiian Relations in the Department of the Interior to serve as a liaison between the Native Hawaiians and the United States. Second, the bill establishes the Native Hawaiian Interagency Coordinating Group that will be comprised of Federal officials from agencies that administer Native Hawaiian programs. These provisions are intended to increase coordination between Native Hawaiians and the Federal Government. And third, the bill provides a process for reorganizing the Native Hawaiian government entity. Once the entity is reorganized and recognized, there is a process of negotiations to resolve longstanding issues such as the transfer of and jurisdiction over lands, natural resources, and assets. Support for this bill comes not only from the people of Hawaii but from people all across America. This bill also is supported by the indigenous peoples of America, including American Indians and Alaska natives. As Americans, we pride ourselves in safeguarding the practice and ideas of liberty, justice, and freedom. By supporting this bill, we can continue this great American tradition and fulfill this promise by affording Native Hawaiians the opportunity to recognize their governing entity and have it recognized by the Federal Government. As someone who grew up in Hawaii and has enormous love for the Hawaiian culture, I also think it is important, as I know the two Senators from Hawaii will acknowledge, that there have been difficulties within the community of Native Hawaiians, oftentimes despite the fact that we are visitors to Hawaii; that many times particularly young Native Hawaiians have had difficulties in terms of unemployment, in terms of being able to integrate into the economy of the islands, that some of the historical legacies of what has happened in Hawaii continue to burden the Native Hawaiians for many years into the future. This bill gives us an opportunity not to look backward but to help all Hawaiians move forward and to make sure that the Native Hawaiians in that great State are full members and not left behind as Hawaii continues to progress. This is an important piece of legislation. I take a minute to commend the senior Senator from Hawaii, Mr. Inouye, and most of all Senator Akaka, particularly, for his tireless efforts to bring this to the floor. When people all across the country didn't know about this issue, Senator Akaka was the one who made sure we did. He has been a champion for the people of Hawaii. He is always working hard and thinking big to realize this ideal for the native population of his State. They are truly fortunate to have Senator Akaka as their Senator. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to vote for the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2005. I will be proud to add my vote to the roll call. I yield the floor.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Homes for Heroes Act of 2006. When we talk about veterans in Washington, I often think about my grandfather, who signed up for duty in World War II the day after Pearl Harbor. He marched across Europe in Patton's army, and when he came home to Kansas, he could have very easily faced some tough times. He could have had trouble paying for college, or finding a job, or even finding a home. But at the time, he lived in a country that recognized the value of his service--a country that kept its promise to defend those who have defended freedom. And so he was able to afford college through the G.I. Bill, and he was able to buy a house through the Federal Housing Administration, and he was able to work hard and raise a family and build his own American dream. And after I think about my grandfather, and the opportunities he had as a veteran, I then think about a veteran I met named Bill Allen, who told me that on a recent trip he took to Chicago, he actually saw homeless veterans fighting over access to the dumpsters. Think about that. Fighting over access to the dumpsters. Each and every night in this country, more than 200,000 of our Nation's veterans are homeless. And more than half a million will experience homelessness over the course of a year. There is no single cause for this. Homeless vets are men and women, single and married. They have served in every conflict since World War II. Many suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder; others were physically and mentally battered in combat. A large number left the military without job skills that could be easily used in the private sector. All have risked their lives for their country. All deserve--at the very least--the basic dignity of going to sleep at night with a roof over their head. And every day we allow them to go without, it brings shame to every single one of us. This is wrong. It is because we're quick to offer words of praise for our troops when they were abroad, but quick to forget about their needs when they come home. It's wrong because we have the resources and the programs in place to help solve this problem. And it is wrong on a fundamentally moral level--the idea that we would allow such brave and selfless citizens to suffer in such biting poverty. And so it is now our responsibility--it is now our duty--to make this right. Last year, I introduced the Sheltering All Veterans Everywhere Act, S. 1180--the SAVE Act--to strengthen services for homeless veterans. The SAVE Act would reauthorize and expand two of the most successful programs in dealing with homeless veterans: the Homeless Providers Grant and Per Diem Program and the Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program. In addition, the SAVE Act would expand the reach of the Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program to also include veterans at risk of homelessness, so that we can work to prevent homelessness before it happens. And while it is one thing to get veterans off the streets temporarily; it is another to keep them off--to place veterans in real, permanent homes. In fact, the VA has consistently identified permanent housing as one of the top three unmet needs in the fight against veteran homelessness. That is why I'm introducing a bill today called the Homes for Heroes Act. This is a bill that would help expand access to long-term, affordable housing by creating a fund so that the community and nonprofit organizations could purchase, build, or rehabilitate homes and apartments for veterans. So that we don't just leave them, to face their personal challenges on their own, the organizations would also provide services like counseling, employment training, and child care to the veterans who live in this housing. And the Homes for Heroes Act would expand the number of permanent housing vouchers for veterans from the current number of less than 2,000 to 20,000. These are vouchers that have been highly successful in giving veterans the chance to afford a place to live. Every day in America, we walk past men and women on street comers with handwritten signs that say ``Homeless Veteran--Will Work For Food.'' Sometimes we give a dollar; sometimes we just keep walking. These are soldiers who fought in World War II, Vietnam, and Iraq. They made a commitment to their country when they chose to serve--and now we must keep our commitment to them. Because when we make the decision to send our troops to war, we also make the decision to care for them, to speak for them, and to think of them--always--when they come home. This kind of America--an America of opportunity, of collective responsibility for each other--is the kind that any of our parents and grandparents came home to after the Second World War. Now it is time for us to build this America for those sons and daughters who come home today.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, on May 1, I was in Chicago to witness a monumental event. There were close to half a million people marching for comprehensive immigration reform. They were mostly people of Mexican origin, but among them were also Nigerians, Polish, Irish, Central American immigrants, and their American-born friends, family, and supporters. By now, most Americans are familiar with the issues surrounding immigration. We have a system of legal immigration under which 1 million people apply for legal residency each year and eventually pursue citizenship if they choose. Another 500,000 come across the border illegally and evade our border patrol. There are an estimated 12 million undocumented persons here working mostly in backbreaking jobs in agriculture, construction, packing plants, restaurants, and elsewhere. Some in the media have presented them as an invading hoard. But I spoke to the marchers who gathered 3 weeks ago, and what I saw was nothing to fear. They have come here for the same reason other immigrants have come for generations: to pursue the notion that they can make a better life for themselves, and most importantly for their children, if they work hard and apply themselves. Our country is ambivalent about this influx of undocumented immigrants. Many Americans, including myself, believe that these people are doing what many of us would do for our own children in the same situation. They take immense risks to get here and would not have come illegally if they could have come legally through the limited visas we issue each year. But while Americans understand the human desire to pursue a better life, they know we do not have an infinite capacity to absorb everyone who would like to come here. Ours is a nation of laws. And we cannot perpetuate a system that continues to have people coming here outside the law. Economists debate the effect undocumented workers have on the economy and opportunities available to Americans. There are areas where immigrants are doing jobs Americans would not do. But there are other circumstances where employers are bringing in workers for jobs that Americans would fill if employers paid fair wages. In the African- American community, where unemployment rates often remain high, there is some tension about whether we should be importing large numbers of workers to compete with American workers. What I say to them is that immigrants in illegal status have no ability to fight for fair pay and fair treatment. African-American workers and Latinos at the bottom of the wage ladder will all be better off if these workers can come out hiding and defend themselves. Today, under Chairman Specter, Senator Leahy, Senator McCain, and Senator Kennedy's leadership, we will pass a bill that provides stronger border security, meaningful enforcement in the workplace, and a long, earned pathway to citizenship. The idea for the undocumented is that they would jump through multiple hoops over an 11-year period to earn the right to stay and eventually become citizens of the United States. The Senate bill upholds our tradition as a nation of immigrants and proposes reforms in a comprehensive, commonsense manner, and it imposes new, strict but sensible enforcement mechanisms. The opponents of this effort have called it amnesty. They would prefer a punitive House bill that builds a wall across our southern border, deports the 12 million people here illegally, and makes any undocumented worker a felon. That kind of approach is not realistic. We are not going to deport 12 million people. Millions of them have American children. Many have been here for many years and have deep roots. It is hard to imagine that we would have police and immigration officials invading people's homes, separating families, and forcibly sending people home. But Americans are right to demand that we end illegal immigration going forward. The draconian House legislation led to the marches. But what started as marches of fear on the part of immigrant workers has turned into a movement of hope. People are hoping they have an opportunity to legalize their status in some way. Their hope and our hope is that we can move forward together. This was and will continue to be an emotional debate. What we saw in the marches was the face of a new America. The face of our country is changing, and we cannot be threatened by it. I strongly believe that we are going to be better off united than divided. But I also believe in a common culture. I told the immigrants at the marches that citizenship involves a common language, a common faith in the country, a common sense of purpose, and a loyalty to a common flag. I believe that this is what the immigrant community wants. They want to follow in the steps of the millions who came before them and helped our country meld from many peoples into one Nation. In diversity we come together as one. To those who fear immigrants, I say we cannot have a country in which you have a servant class picking our lettuce, mowing our lawns, and caring for our children, but who never have the full rights and obligations of citizenship. Today, the Senate will respond to the call for action from not only these marchers but all Americans who want to uphold our finest traditions. It has been a tough few weeks, but I am proud of this body today. We worked hard, conducted a civil debate, and have taken a big step toward fixing our immigration system. My hope is the conferees will put their stamp of approval on the Senate bill we are passing today. Let me say that while I support this bill, it is not perfect. I have serious reservations about several of the provisions in the bill, most notably the guest worker provision. I voted for two amendments offered by Senator Dorgan that would have eliminated or sunsetted the provision, but these amendments failed. I am pleased, however, that the Senate adopted an amendment by Senator Bingaman that lowers the number of guest workers that could enter the country under this bill. I also am concerned about the changes we have made to the diversity visa program that will end up disadvantaging potential immigrants from underrepresented countries, such as African countries. On balance, however, this is a very good bill. It gives us strong border security, makes hiring illegal workers virtually impossible, and provides all those families, children, mothers, and fathers I saw in that amazing march with the opportunity to become full members of the American community. I was pleased that two amendments I offered were included in the bill. One amendment strengthened the prevailing wage requirements in the bill for all American workers and all jobs. It also ensured that communities where the American unemployment rate is high will not experience unnecessary competition from guest workers. The second amendment was a collaborative effort with Senators Grassley, Kennedy, and Baucus to create a new employment eligibility verification system. We are making it simple but mandatory for employers to verify that their employees are legally eligible to work here. This amendment will have a far greater impact on stopping the flow of illegal immigrants into this country than simply building a fence along the border. I commend my colleagues for their work on this legislation. Together, with faith in the values that unite our country, we are moving forward true to our tradition as a nation of immigrants that is capable of coming together to resolve difficult challenges. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, let me start by saying that the nomination of General Hayden is a difficult one for me. I generally, as a rule, believe the President should be able to appoint members of his Cabinet, of his staff, to positions such as the one General Hayden is nominated for without undue obstruction from Congress. General Hayden is extremely well qualified for this position. Having previously served as head of the National Security Agency and as Deputy Director of National Intelligence under John Negroponte, he has 30 years of experience in intelligence and national security matters. And he was nearly universally praised during his confirmation to Deputy DNI. There are several members of the Intelligence Committee, including Senator Levin, who I hold in great esteem, who believe General Hayden has consistently displayed the sort of independence that would make him a fine CIA Director. Unfortunately, General Hayden is being nominated under troubling circumstances, as the architect and chief defender of a program of wiretapping and collection of phone records outside of FISA oversight. This is a program that is still accountable to no one and no law. Now, there is no one in Congress who does not want President Bush to have every tool at his disposal to prevent terrorist attacks--including the use of a surveillance program. Every single American--Democrat and Republican and Independent--who remembers the images of falling towers and needless death would gladly support increased surveillance in order to prevent another attack. But over the last 6 months, Americans have learned that the National Security Agency has been spying on Americans without judicial approval. We learned about this not from the administration, not from the regular workings of the Senate Intelligence Committee, but from the New York Times and USA Today. Every time a revelation came out, President Bush refused to answer questions from Congress. This is part of a general stance by this administration that it can operate without restraint. President Bush is interpreting article II of the Constitution as giving him authority with no bounds. The Attorney General and a handful of scholars agree with this view, and I do not doubt the sincerity with which the President and his lawyers believe in their constitutional interpretation. However, the overwhelming weight of legal authority is against the President on this one. This is not how our Constitution is designed, to give the President unbounded authority without any checks or balances. We do not expect the President to give the American people every detail about a classified surveillance program, but we do expect him to place such a program within the rule of law and to allow members of the other two coequal branches of Government--Congress and the judiciary-- to have the ability to monitor and oversee such a program. Our Constitution and our right to privacy as Americans require as much. Unfortunately, we were never given the chance to make that examination. Time and again, President Bush has refused to come clean to Congress. Why is it that 14 of 16 members of the Intelligence Committee were kept in the dark for 4\1/2\ years? The only reason that some Senators are now being briefed is because the story was made public in the newspapers. Without that information, it is impossible to make the decisions that allow us to balance the need to fight terrorism while still upholding the rule of law and privacy protections that make this country great. Every democracy is tested when it is faced with a serious threat. As a nation, we have had to find the right balance between privacy and security, between executive authority to face threats and uncontrolled power. What protects us, and what distinguishes us, are the procedures we put in place to protect that balance; namely, judicial warrants and congressional review. These are not arbitrary ideas. They are not new ideas. These are the safeguards that make sure surveillance has not gone too far, that somebody is watching the watchers. The exact details of these safeguards are not etched in stone. They can be reevaluated, and should be reevaluated, from time to time. The last time we had a major overhaul of the intelligence apparatus was 30 years ago in the aftermath of Watergate. After those dark days, the White House worked in a collaborative way with Congress through the Church Committee to study the issue, revise intelligence laws, and set up a system of checks and balances. It worked then, and it could work now. But, unfortunately, thus far, this administration has made no effort to reach out to Congress and tailor FISA to fit the program that has been put in place. I have no doubt that General Hayden will be confirmed. But I am going to reluctantly vote against him to send a signal to this administration that even in these circumstances, even in these trying times, President Bush is not above the law. No President is above the law. I am voting against Mr. Hayden in the hope that he will be more humble before the great weight of responsibility that he has not only to protect our lives but to protect our democracy. Americans fought a Revolution in part over the right to be free from unreasonable searches--to ensure that our Government could not come knocking in the middle of the night for no reason. We need to find a way forward to make sure we can stop terrorists while protecting the privacy and liberty of innocent Americans. We have to find a way to give the President the power he needs to protect us, while making sure he does not abuse that power. It is possible to do that. We have done it before. We could do it again. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Thank you very much, Mr. President. Let me echo Senator Kennedy's strong opposition to the amendment offered by the Senator from Kentucky. There is no more fundamental right accorded to United States citizens by the Constitution than the right to vote. And the unimpeded exercise of this right is essential to the functioning of our democracy. Unfortunately, history has not been kind to certain citizens in their ability to exercise this right. For a large part of our Nation's history, racial minorities have been prevented from voting because of barriers such as literacy tests, poll taxes, and property requirements. We have come a long way in the last 40 years. That was clear just a few weeks ago when Democrats and Republicans, Members of the Senate and the House, stood on the Capitol steps to announce the introduction of a bill to reauthorize the Voting Rights Act. That rare and refreshing display of bipartisanship reflects our collective belief that more needs to be done to remove barriers to voting. Right now, the Senate is finishing a historic debate about immigration reform. It has been a difficult discussion, occasionally contentious. And it has required bipartisan cooperation. After several weeks, and many, many amendments, we are less than an hour away from voting for cloture. Considering our progress and the delicate balance we are trying to maintain, this amendment could not come at a worse time. Let's be clear, this is a national voter identification law. This is a national voter identification law that breaks the careful compromise struck by a 50-50 Senate 4 years ago. It would be the most restrictive voter identification law ever enacted, one that could quite literally result in millions of disenfranchised voters and utter chaos at the State level. Now, I recognize there is a certain simplistic appeal to this amendment. After all, why shouldn't we require people to present a photo identification card when they vote? Don't we want to ensure that voters are actually who they claim to be? And shouldn't we at least make sure that noncitizens are not casting ballots and changing the outcomes of elections? There are two problems with that argument. First, there has been no showing that there is any significant problem of voter fraud in the 50 States. There certainly is no showing that noncitizens are rushing to try to vote. This is a solution in search of a problem. The second problem is that historically disenfranchised groups--minorities, the poor, the elderly and the disabled--are most affected by photo identification laws. Let me give you a few statistics. Overall, 12 percent of voting-age Americans do not have a driver's license, most of whom are minorities, new U.S. citizens, the indigent, the elderly, or the disabled. AARP reports that 3.6 million disabled Americans have no driver's license. A recent study in Wisconsin found that white adults were twice as likely to have driver's licenses as African Americans over 18. A study in Louisiana found that African Americans were four to five times less likely to have photo identification than white residents. Now, why won't poor people be able to get photo identifications or REAL IDs? It is simple: Because it costs money. You need a birth certificate, passport, or proof of naturalization, and that can cost up to $85. Then you need to go to a State office to apply for a card. That requires time off work, possibly a long trip on public transportation, assuming there is even an office near you. Imagine if you only vote once every 2 or 4 years, it is not very likely you are going to take time off work, take a bus to a far-off government office to get an identification, and pay $85 just so you can vote. That is not something most folks are going to be able to do. The fact of the matter is, this is an idea that has been batted around, not with respect to immigration, but with respect to generally attempting to restrict the approach for people voting throughout the country. This is not the time to do it. The Carter-Baker Commission on Federal Election Reform found that in the 2002 and 2004 elections, fraudulent votes made up .00003 percent of the votes cast. That is a lot of zeros. So let me say it a different way: Out of almost 200 million votes that were cast during those elections, 52 were fraudulent. To put that in some context, you are statistically more likely to get killed by lightning than to find a fraudulent vote in a Federal election. This is not the appropriate time to be debating this kind of amendment. We have a lot of serious issues to address with respect to immigration. I ask all my colleagues to reject this amendment so we can move on to the important business at hand. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise to discuss a small amendment that deals with a problem each one of us has heard about in our States--the extremely long backlog at the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services. One of the privileges of being a Senator is being able to help constituents. In my State offices, I get thousands of requests from Illinoisans trying to get their VA benefits or clear up a problem with their Social Security check or deal with any number of government bureaucracies. It is great when we can get involved and help folks cut through the redtape. We are helping make government work, one case at a time. If your office is like mine, a large number of the cases involve immigration. And if your office is like mine, the most common complaint involves FBI name checks. I have only been in office 16 months, but in that time I have received 2,211 requests for assistance on immigration; 426 of these cases, almost 1 in 5 deal with the FBI name check. One step that legal immigrants have to take to stay in the country lawfully is going through a security check by the FBI. This is a standard procedure, and it is critically important to screen the folks to which we are granting citizenship and permanent residence. Unfortunately, the system is overwhelmed. The FBI's National Name Check Program is asked to review 62,000 names a week--62,000 a week. In 2005, the FBI was asked to check 3.3 million names, a 20-percent jump from 2001. A great majority of these people are cleared automatically by computer, but for many, FBI agents have to comb through paper records spread across more than 265 sites across the country. According to a November 2005 GAG report, the FBI background check is one of the top factors beyond the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services' control that contributes to long wait times and an extended backlog. The report found that 11 percent of applications studied took longer than 3 months, and a significant portion of those took much longer. The Department of Homeland Security has taken many steps to try to speed up this process, but unfortunately there are just too many requests being sent to the FBI, and not enough analysts to deal with them. Many of my constituents have reported waiting as long as 2 years to get cleared by the FBI. These are innocent people who have jumped through every legal hoop we have put in front of them. But because of a bureaucratic mess, they are put in legal limbo. My amendment isn't overly ambitious. It just gives the FBI a small amount of resources to start tackling this problem. It authorizes $3.125 million a year for the next 5 years to allow FBI to hire additional staff and take other steps to improve the speed and accuracy of the background checks. It also requires the FBI to report back to Congress on the size of the backlog and the steps it is taking to reduce it. This is a problem we can do something about. And at a time when we are trying to stem the flow of immigrants entering the country illegally, this is a problem we must address. We should not punish the folks who have been responsible and applied to enter the country legally. We should make the system as efficient as possible. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise today to salute Lloyd Bentsen, a dearly departed former Member of this body. Senator Bentsen died yesterday at the age of 85, and he leaves behind a legacy of fiscal responsibility, steadfast service, and unwavering statesmanship. Senator Bentsen was born in Mission, TX, in 1921, a descendant of Danish immigrants. From a young age, he excelled in nearly all his endeavors: he was an Eagle Scout, a distinguished graduate of the University of Texas Law School, and a fighter pilot, flying B-24 combat missions during World War II. At the young age of 23, Senator Bentsen was promoted to the rank of major, a post that gave him command of over 600 men. For his valiant service during the war, the Army Air Corps, now the Air Force, awarded him the Distinguished Flying Cross, one of the military's highest honors. Senator Bentsen went on to serve the people of Texas as Hidalgo county judge, U.S. Congressman, and, beginning in 1970, as U.S. Senator. He was overwhelmingly reelected to this body three times, in 1976, 1982, and 1988. As a Senator, Lloyd Bentsen was a champion of sound national economic policy and fiscal responsibility. He served as chairman of the Joint Economic Committee and the Committee on Finance, and balanced his keen eye on progressive causes such as women's rights with a dogged determination to cut taxes and support our Nation's businesses. As his contemporaries will no doubt attest, Senator Bentsen's political acumen was unmatched, and the coalitions he built crossed party, ideological, and even international boundaries. Bentsen resigned his seat in the Senate in 1993 to serve as the 69th Secretary of the Treasury under President Bill Clinton. He helped President Clinton set the course for what would be our country's strongest fiscal climate in recent memory. As Treasury Secretary, Bentsen was known to be a firm and sound counselor on economic policy; the Houston Chronicle reports that an autographed picture from President Clinton was inscribed: ``To my friend Lloyd Bentsen, who makes me study things until I get it right.'' President Clinton went on to award Bentsen the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1999. Throughout his career, Lloyd Bentsen set a standard for no-nonsense service, responsible business practice, and judicious public policy. I honor his good work today, and the memory of a life lived strong and full.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, if it would be acceptable, I ask unanimous consent that I have a total of 5 minutes and that the 1 minute also be retained by the Senator from Vermont.

Mr. OBAMA. Thank you very much. Mr. President, I come to the floor to briefly discuss amendment No. 4177. It pertains to title III and I believe will be called in short order. It is a bipartisan effort to create the kind of employment verification system that will ensure that American workers are protected. It is an amendment that I worked on with Senator Grassley, as well as Senator Kennedy. And as I indicated, it will be offered shortly. One of the central components of immigration reform is enforcement. This bill contains a number of important provisions to beef up border security. But that is not enough. Real enforcement also means drying up the pool of jobs that encourages illegal immigration. That can only happen if employers do not hire illegal workers. Unfortunately, our current employer enforcement system does little to nothing to deter illegal immigrants from finding work. Just a few statistics: Overall, the number of workplace arrests of illegal immigrants fell from 17,552 in 1997 to 451 in 2002, even as illegal immigration grew during that time. Moreover, between 25 percent to 40 percent of all undocumented immigrants are people who have overstayed their visas. They are not folks who will be stopped by a wall. Rather, the only way to effectively deter overstays is to reduce their access to employment. When Congress last passed an immigration bill in 1986, we did not provide any meaningful way for employers to check legal eligibility to work. Currently, employees can prove their legal status by showing a variety of documents, and employers are supposed to record their inspection of such documents by filling out an I-9 form for each employee. As a consequence, the market for fraudulent documents--fake Social Security cards, driver's licenses, birth certificates--has exploded. Unfortunately, with more than 100 million employees in more than 6 million workplaces, and only about 788 Wage and Hour investigators, employer sanctions have basically become a nuisance requirement to maintain records, not a serious risk of penalty. As a result, the number of ``intent to fine'' notices issued to employers for hiring undocumented workers dropped from 417 in 1999 to just 3 in 2004. I want to repeat that. There were three employers in the entire United States in 2004 who were fined for hiring undocumented workers. Now, understandably, employers cannot always detect forged documents. And employers who reject workers with questionable documents risk employment discrimination suits. That is why we need a better alternative. We need an electronic verification system that can effectively detect the use of fraudulent documents, significantly reduce the employment of illegal workers, and give employers the confidence that their workforce is legal. When Congress first considered comprehensive immigration reform in April, the legislation on the floor addressed this problem by creating a national employment eligibility verification system. Senators Grassley, Kyl, and I all thought this was a good idea in theory, but we had concerns with the design of the system. Senators Grassley and Kyl proposed that a verification system be implemented nationally within 18 months. Senators Kennedy and I proposed that the system be phased in over 5 years but that it also included additional accuracy and privacy standards, as well as strict prohibitions on the use of the system to discriminate against legal workers. Over the past few weeks, we have been in discussions to try to negotiate a compromise. I am pleased that we have reached an agreement by which all employers would have to participate by 18 months after the Department of Homeland Security receives the appropriations necessary to receive the funds needed to fund the system. All new employees hired would have to be run through a system. A series of privacy and accuracy standards would protect citizens and legal immigrants from errors in the system and breaches of private information. To make sure that employers take the system seriously, we strengthen civil penalties for employers who hire unauthorized workers, and we establish criminal penalties for repeat violators. I think we worked in a constructive, bipartisan manner to design an employment verification system that is fair to legal workers and tough on illegal workers. I think it is a good amendment. I urge my colleagues to support it. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I congratulate Senator Grassley and all who worked on this amendment. This is probably the single most important thing we can do in terms of reducing the inflow of undocumented workers--making sure we can actually enforce in a systematic way rules governing who gets hired. It is an amendment that has bipartisan support, as Senator Grassley indicated. It will increase fines. It will provide for an electronic data system that is effective. I urge all colleagues on my side of the aisle to vote for the amendment.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Thank you very much, Mr. President. Amendment No. 3971, as Modified Mr. President, while the staff is consulting--we thought that the modifications had been agreed to--what I would like to do is tell you the essence of the amendment that I plan to offer. As soon as we get the go-ahead, we will offer it for immediate consideration. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss amendment No. 3971, which pertains to the guest worker provisions in the bill. I have some significant concerns with respect to the guest worker provisions. I am concerned that the guest worker provisions are premised on the idea that American workers are not available to fill the jobs that are currently being filled by undocumented workers or foreign guest workers. I am not certain that is the case. Recently, I was on vacation in Arizona. I was staying at a hotel, and I noticed that all the individuals who were serving drinks and lunch at the swimming pool appeared to be from the West Indies. So I asked one of them: Where are you from? He said: I am from Jamaica. I asked: Are all the guys here from Jamaica? He said: Yes. I asked: How do you come here? He said: Well, I work for a company that essentially brings us in for 9 months during the high season. Then during the low season of vacation we will go back. And they take care of all their paperwork and handle all their immigration issues. And he said: Did you notice that all the women who are cleaning the rooms are from China? I said: You know, I happened to notice that. It turned out they have the same arrangement. What it indicated was essentially you have a situation in which international temp agencies are being set up where workers will come in for 9 months, doing jobs that I think many Americans would be willing to do if they were available. Now, having said that, there are some industries in which guest workers and agricultural workers are absolutely necessary. So the question is: How do we create this program but make sure it is tight enough that it does not disadvantage workers? To do that we are going to have to make the prevailing wage requirements of this bill real for all workers and all jobs. We have to ensure that communities where American unemployment rates are high will not experience unnecessary competition from guest workers. So to that end, I will be offering an amendment, as modified, along with Senators Feinstein and Bingaman, to strengthen the prevailing wage language and to freeze the guest worker program in communities with unemployment rates for low-skilled workers of 9 percent or greater. This amendment would establish a true prevailing wage for all occupations to ensure that guest workers are paid a wage that does not lower American wages. The bill on the floor requires that employers advertise jobs to American workers at a prevailing wage before offering that job to a guest worker. And it requires that employers pay guest workers a prevailing wage. But the bill, currently, without the amendment, does not clarify how to calculate the prevailing wage for workers not covered by a collective bargaining agreement or the Service Contract Act of 1965, which governs contracts entered into by the Federal Government. That leaves most jobs and most workers unprotected. The bill currently before us simply states that an employer has to provide working conditions and benefits such as those provided to workers ``similarly'' employed. So as a consequence, a bad employer could easily game the system by offering an artificially low wage to American workers and just count on those workers not taking the job. The employer could then offer that job at below-average wages to guest workers, knowing they would take it to get here legally. That is not good for American workers, and it is not good for guest workers. My amendment fixes that language. It directs the employer to use Department of Labor data to calculate a prevailing wage in those cases in which neither a collective bargaining agreement nor the Service Contract Act applies. That would mean an employer would have to make an offer at an average wage across comparable employers instead of just an average wage that she or he is willing to pay. The amendment also would establish stronger prohibitions on the guest worker program in high unemployment areas. The bill currently bars use of the program if the unemployment rate for low-skilled workers in a metropolitan area averages more than 11 percent. Our amendment would lower that unemployment rate to 9 percent of workers unemployed with a high school diploma or less. There is no reason any community with large pockets of unemployed Americans needs guest workers. This is a good, commonsense amendment which is endorsed by SEIU, the Laborers Union, the AFL-CIO Building and Construction Trades Department, and the National Council of La Raza. I urge my colleagues to support it. I will actually call up the amendment to be read as soon as it comes back. I think there are some discussions taking place right now.

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

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, we have been having some discussion. My understanding is that the concerns that have been raised have to do with the underlying bill and not my amendment. As a consequence, I ask unanimous consent to send to the desk amendment No. 3971, as modified, and ask for its immediate consideration. I also ask unanimous consent to add Senators Lieberman and Landrieu as cosponsors of the amendment.

Mr. OBAMA. Yes.