Barack Obama

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, it is my pleasure to join Senator Clinton to introduce legislation that will help us all find common ground on the debate over patient safety and medical malpractice claims. Today, medical error is the eighth leading cause of death in the United States. Every year, these tragic mistakes cost the lives of up to 98,000 Americans. This is unacceptable in America, and we must do more to ensure that every patient gets the right care, at the right time, in the right way. The debate in Washington over this issue has been centered on caps and lawsuits. But across America, hospitals and medical providers are proving that there's a better way to protect patients and doctors, all while raising the quality of our care and lowering its cost. From the Children's Hospitals and Clinics of Minnesota to the VA hospital in Lexington, Kentucky, doctors and administrators aren't trying to cover up medical errors--They're trying to admit them. Instead of closing ranks and keeping the patient in the dark, they're investigating potential errors, apologizing if mistakes have been made, and offering a reasonable settlement that keeps the case out of court. This program is often known as ``Sorry Works,'' and it's led to some amazing results. When patients are treated with respect and told the truth, they sue less. More are actually compensated for their injuries, but medical providers pay less because the reward is the result of a settlement, not an expensive lawsuit. Malpractice costs for doctors go down, and health care professionals actually learn from their mistakes so they're not repeated and lives are saved. At the VA hospital in Lexington, Kentucky, this program has reduced the average settlement to $16,000, compared with $98,000 nationwide. This ranked in the lowest quartile of all VA facilities for malpractice payouts. At the University of Michigan's hospital system, this program helped them cut their lawsuits in half and save up to $2 million in defense litigation. The bill we're introducing today builds on these hopeful results and incorporates them into a national program. The National Medical Error Disclosure and Compensation Act, or MEDiC Act, will help reduce medical error rates and medical malpractice costs by opening the lines of communication between doctors and patients--encouraging honesty and accountability in the process. The bill will also set up a National Patient Safety Database, which will be used to determine best practices in preventing medical errors, improving patient safety, and increasing accountability in the healthcare system. We expect participants to see a cost savings, and we will require them to reinvest a portion of these savings into patient quality measures that will reduce medical errors. This bill also requires that some of these savings are passed along to providers in the form of lower malpractice insurance premiums. Certainly, these are lofty goals. But what Senator Clinton and I hope to do with this legislation is promote the type of creative thinking that will be required if this country is going to overcome some of the gridlock in the healthcare debate. The MEDiC Act of 2005 brings together some of the best ideas currently out there, and I hope my colleagues in the Senate will work with Senator Clinton and me to put these ideas in action.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, it is my pleasure to join Senator Clinton to introduce legislation that will help us all find common ground on the debate over patient safety and medical malpractice claims. Today, medical error is the eighth leading cause of death in the United States. Every year, these tragic mistakes cost the lives of up to 98,000 Americans. This is unacceptable in America, and we must do more to ensure that every patient gets the right care, at the right time, in the right way. The debate in Washington over this issue has been centered on caps and lawsuits. But across America, hospitals and medical providers are proving that there's a better way to protect patients and doctors, all while raising the quality of our care and lowering its cost. From the Children's Hospitals and Clinics of Minnesota to the VA hospital in Lexington, Kentucky, doctors and administrators aren't trying to cover up medical errors--They're trying to admit them. Instead of closing ranks and keeping the patient in the dark, they're investigating potential errors, apologizing if mistakes have been made, and offering a reasonable settlement that keeps the case out of court. This program is often known as ``Sorry Works,'' and it's led to some amazing results. When patients are treated with respect and told the truth, they sue less. More are actually compensated for their injuries, but medical providers pay less because the reward is the result of a settlement, not an expensive lawsuit. Malpractice costs for doctors go down, and health care professionals actually learn from their mistakes so they're not repeated and lives are saved. At the VA hospital in Lexington, Kentucky, this program has reduced the average settlement to $16,000, compared with $98,000 nationwide. This ranked in the lowest quartile of all VA facilities for malpractice payouts. At the University of Michigan's hospital system, this program helped them cut their lawsuits in half and save up to $2 million in defense litigation. The bill we're introducing today builds on these hopeful results and incorporates them into a national program. The National Medical Error Disclosure and Compensation Act, or MEDiC Act, will help reduce medical error rates and medical malpractice costs by opening the lines of communication between doctors and patients--encouraging honesty and accountability in the process. The bill will also set up a National Patient Safety Database, which will be used to determine best practices in preventing medical errors, improving patient safety, and increasing accountability in the healthcare system. We expect participants to see a cost savings, and we will require them to reinvest a portion of these savings into patient quality measures that will reduce medical errors. This bill also requires that some of these savings are passed along to providers in the form of lower malpractice insurance premiums. Certainly, these are lofty goals. But what Senator Clinton and I hope to do with this legislation is promote the type of creative thinking that will be required if this country is going to overcome some of the gridlock in the healthcare debate. The MEDiC Act of 2005 brings together some of the best ideas currently out there, and I hope my colleagues in the Senate will work with Senator Clinton and me to put these ideas in action.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the ``Hurricane Katrina Fast-Track Refunds for Working Families Act of 2005,'' a bill I am introducing with Senators Murray, Corzine, Kerry, and Levin to accelerate the Earned Income Tax Credit and the Child Tax Credit for some of the neediest victims of Hurricane Katrina. A few weeks ago, I visited some of the victims who had been evacuated to the Reliant Center in Houston. These families have nothing left. Imagine having nothing left. All their belongings have been destroyed or washed away and most of their jobs have simply vanished. We have done a lot of good work here in the Senate so far to bring tax relief and emergency support to these families. And many of us are hard at work now developing strategies for the long-term rebuilding of the Gulf Coast in such a way that doesn't re-create the poverty and inequality of the past but instead builds a more hopeful region with greater opportunity for all of its residents. But there is more we can do quickly to help affected families reestablish and resettle their lives and also to stimulate their local economies. In the past we have accelerated tax refunds with the goal of economic stimulus. In 2001, Congress directed the IRS to provide an ``advance tax rebate'' of 2001 taxes, and, in 2003, Congress accelerated the Child Credit. Now, with the dual goals of economic stimulus and support for needy Americans, we should do it again. Fast-tracking refunds will put money into the hands of parents that they can use for food, clothing, housing, transportation, medical services--whatever they need. How they spend the money is up to them. But it's up to us to make sure they get it as soon as possible. It's up to us to make sure the necessary outreach, systems, and delivery mechanisms are in place. And that's what this legislation does. It directs the Secretary of the Treasury to refund or credit eligible taxpayers from the affected region as rapidly as possible and to take the steps necessary to get the funds into the hands of eligible recipients. Companion legislation has been introduced by Reps. Emanuel, Melancon, Taylor, and Lewis in the House of Representatives. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to join me in supporting this bill now so we can quickly bring relief and support to those who have nothing left. The Earned Income Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit are designed to support working families with children. Let's fast track this support to help these families get back on their feet and help their communities rebuild themselves even stronger than before.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the ``Hurricane Katrina Fast-Track Refunds for Working Families Act of 2005,'' a bill I am introducing with Senators Murray, Corzine, Kerry, and Levin to accelerate the Earned Income Tax Credit and the Child Tax Credit for some of the neediest victims of Hurricane Katrina. A few weeks ago, I visited some of the victims who had been evacuated to the Reliant Center in Houston. These families have nothing left. Imagine having nothing left. All their belongings have been destroyed or washed away and most of their jobs have simply vanished. We have done a lot of good work here in the Senate so far to bring tax relief and emergency support to these families. And many of us are hard at work now developing strategies for the long-term rebuilding of the Gulf Coast in such a way that doesn't re-create the poverty and inequality of the past but instead builds a more hopeful region with greater opportunity for all of its residents. But there is more we can do quickly to help affected families reestablish and resettle their lives and also to stimulate their local economies. In the past we have accelerated tax refunds with the goal of economic stimulus. In 2001, Congress directed the IRS to provide an ``advance tax rebate'' of 2001 taxes, and, in 2003, Congress accelerated the Child Credit. Now, with the dual goals of economic stimulus and support for needy Americans, we should do it again. Fast-tracking refunds will put money into the hands of parents that they can use for food, clothing, housing, transportation, medical services--whatever they need. How they spend the money is up to them. But it's up to us to make sure they get it as soon as possible. It's up to us to make sure the necessary outreach, systems, and delivery mechanisms are in place. And that's what this legislation does. It directs the Secretary of the Treasury to refund or credit eligible taxpayers from the affected region as rapidly as possible and to take the steps necessary to get the funds into the hands of eligible recipients. Companion legislation has been introduced by Reps. Emanuel, Melancon, Taylor, and Lewis in the House of Representatives. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to join me in supporting this bill now so we can quickly bring relief and support to those who have nothing left. The Earned Income Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit are designed to support working families with children. Let's fast track this support to help these families get back on their feet and help their communities rebuild themselves even stronger than before.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise today to support this important piece of legislation. As many of you know, the young soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan are already coming home with post traumatic stress disorder. A recent Army study found that one in six soldiers in Iraq reported symptoms of major depression. Some experts predict that more than 100,000 soldiers may need some kind of mental health treatment when they come home. It is not only our patriotic duty to provide these soldiers with the benefits they deserve; it is our moral duty at the most fundamental level. Unfortunately, PTSD is a disease that is still all too often misunderstood, and as I speak, there are efforts at the VA to require those folks who suffer PTSD to undergo additional scrutiny in the disability benefits process. According to VA, it will review 72,000 cases in which the maximum amount of PTSD disability benefits was awarded. The rationale for reviewing these cases is VA's belief that 2.5 percent of these cases are ``potentially fraudulent.'' But notably, this review will entirely ignore cases in which benefits may have been unjustly denied. This review sends a troubling message to the brave men and women who defended this country. Too many veterans see the VA as a bureaucracy with the singular goal of denying services and benefits to veterans. This decision to reopen only approved PTSD claims merely serves to promote that impression. It is unconscionable for our Government to put the onus on law- abiding veterans to affirmatively demonstrate that they are not engaging in fraud. The process of gathering evidence to prove PTSD disability is extremely time consuming. It requires the compilation of medical records, military service records, and testimony from other veterans who can attest to a person's combat exposure. I cannot fathom why the VA would require veterans to go through this emotionally painful process for a second time. The VA--and our Nation's veterans--would be better served by creating nationwide standards for evaluating PTSD claims. As underscored by the inspector general's report in May that evaluated the chronic disparity between benefits received by veterans in Illinois and veterans in the rest of the country, PTSD is a highly subjective evaluation subject to significant variation. That same report uncovered significant variation in PTSD ratings from State to State--with Illinois consistently in the bottom rung for those ratings. The variation in PTSD ratings across the country may very well be the result of a lack of training or standardized practices on the part of the VA, not fraud on the part of our Nation's veterans. I am pleased that Chairman Hutchison and Ranking Member Feinstein worked with me and Senators Durbin and Murray to include an amendment that prohibits the VA from proceeding with its review unless and until the VA reports to the Appropriations Committee on its plan for implementing this recommendation and outlines the staffing and funding requirements. While this is an important provision, I am disappointed that there was no requirement that the VA look at denials of benefits as well as grants. To get an accurate and fair depiction of PTSD claims in this country, we need to ensure that denials are reviewed as well as grants of benefits. I will continue to work with my colleagues to see that this fundamental issue of fairness is addressed. I also want to thank Chairman Hutchison and Ranking Member Feinstein for their assistance in accepting an amendment to provide notice to veterans in certain States about their right to seek a review of their cases. This provision addresses an important issue in Illinois. As some of you may know, Illinois has for more than two decades ranked 50th out of all 50 States in terms of disability benefit compensation. This staggering disparity in payments may well be the result of poor staffing and a lack of standards for disability payments across the Nation. I have been pleased that Secretary Nicholson has agreed to provide the veterans of Illinois with extra disability raters so that the veterans in Illinois who may have been unjustly denied benefits will have the opportunity to seek a special review of their cases. Unfortunately, up to now, there has been no special effort made to alert veterans to this special opportunity. This amendment will provide the funds for information campaigns in states with less than average disability compensation rates. These campaigns will alert veterans of the past history of below-average disability benefit rates and provide these veterans with information on how to request a review of any past claims. The hiring of additional disability raters is important, but it is meaningless unless veterans know of their right to get their cases reopened. I thank my colleagues for their assistance with these amendments.

Mr. OBAMA

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

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, thank you very much. First of all, let me congratulate Senator Specter and Senator Leahy for moving the process of confirming the nomination of Judge Roberts along with such civility, a civility that I believe speaks well of the Senate. Let me also say that I remain distressed that the White House during this confirmation process, which overall went smoothly, failed to provide critical documents as part of the record that could have provided us with a better basis to make our judgment with respect to the nomination. This White House continues to stymie efforts on the part of the Senate to do its job. I hope with the next nominee who comes up for the Supreme Court that the White House recognizes that in fact it is its duty not just to the Senate but to the American people to make sure we can thoroughly and adequately evaluate the record of every single nominee who comes before us. Having said that, the decision with respect to Judge Roberts' nomination has not been an easy one for me to make. As some of you know, I have not only argued cases before appellate courts but for 10 years was a member of the University of Chicago Law School faculty and taught courses in constitutional law. Part of the culture of the University of Chicago Law School faculty is to maintain a sense of collegiality between those people who hold different views. What engenders respect is not the particular outcome that a legal scholar arrives at but, rather, the intellectual rigor and honesty with which he or she arrives at a decision. Given that background, I am sorely tempted to vote for Judge Roberts based on my study of his resume, his conduct during the hearings, and a conversation I had with him yesterday afternoon. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind Judge Roberts is qualified to sit on the highest court in the land. Moreover, he seems to have the comportment and the temperament that makes for a good judge. He is humble, he is personally decent, and he appears to be respectful of different points of view. It is absolutely clear to me that Judge Roberts truly loves the law. He couldn't have achieved his excellent record as an advocate before the Supreme Court without that passion for the law, and it became apparent to me in our conversation that he does, in fact, deeply respect the basic precepts that go into deciding 95 percent of the cases that come before the Federal court--adherence to precedence, a certain modesty in reading statutes and constitutional text, a respect for procedural regularity, and an impartiality in presiding over the adversarial system. All of these characteristics make me want to vote for Judge Roberts. The problem I face--a problem that has been voiced by some of my other colleagues, both those who are voting for Mr. Roberts and those who are voting against Mr. Roberts--is that while adherence to legal precedent and rules of statutory or constitutional construction will dispose of 95 percent of the cases that come before a court, so that both a Scalia and a Ginsburg will arrive at the same place most of the time on those 95 percent of the cases--what matters on the Supreme Court is those 5 percent of cases that are truly difficult. In those cases, adherence to precedent and rules of construction and interpretation will only get you through the 25th mile of the marathon. That last mile can only be determined on the basis of one's deepest values, one's core concerns, one's broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one's empathy. In those 5 percent of hard cases, the constitutional text will not be directly on point. The language of the statute will not be perfectly clear. Legal process alone will not lead you to a rule of decision. In those circumstances, your decisions about whether affirmative action is an appropriate response to the history of discrimination in this country or whether a general right of privacy encompasses a more specific right of women to control their reproductive decisions or whether the commerce clause empowers Congress to speak on those issues of broad national concern that may be only tangentially related to what is easily defined as interstate commerce, whether a person who is disabled has the right to be accommodated so they can work alongside those who are nondisabled--in those difficult cases, the critical ingredient is supplied by what is in the judge's heart. I talked to Judge Roberts about this. Judge Roberts confessed that, unlike maybe professional politicians, it is not easy for him to talk about his values and his deeper feelings. That is not how he is trained. He did say he doesn't like bullies and has always viewed the law as a way of evening out the playing field between the strong and the weak. I was impressed with that statement because I view the law in much the same way. The problem I had is that when I examined Judge Roberts' record and history of public service, it is my personal estimation that he has far more often used his formidable skills on behalf of the strong in opposition to the weak. In his work in the White House and the Solicitor General's Office, he seemed to have consistently sided with those who were dismissive of efforts to eradicate the remnants of racial discrimination in our political process. In these same positions, he seemed dismissive of the concerns that it is harder to make it in this world and in this economy when you are a woman rather than a man. I want to take Judge Roberts at his word that he doesn't like bullies and he sees the law and the Court as a means of evening the playing field between the strong and the weak. But given the gravity of the position to which he will undoubtedly ascend and the gravity of the decisions in which he will undoubtedly participate during his tenure on the Court, I ultimately have to give more weight to his deeds and the overarching political philosophy that he appears to have shared with those in power than to the assuring words that he provided me in our meeting. The bottom line is this: I will be voting against John Roberts' nomination. I do so with considerable reticence. I hope that I am wrong. I hope that this reticence on my part proves unjustified and that Judge Roberts will show himself to not only be an outstanding legal thinker but also someone who upholds the Court's historic role as a check on the majoritarian impulses of the executive branch and the legislative branch. I hope that he will recognize who the weak are and who the strong are in our society. I hope that his jurisprudence is one that stands up to the bullies of all ideological stripes. Let me conclude with just one more comment about this confirmation process. I was deeply disturbed by some statements that were made by largely Democratic advocacy groups when ranking member Senator Leahy announced that he would support Judge Roberts. Although the scales have tipped in a different direction for me, I am deeply admiring of the work and the thought that Senator Leahy has put into making his decision. The knee- jerk unbending and what I consider to be unfair attacks on Senator Leahy's motives were unjustified. Unfortunately, both parties have fallen victim to this kind of pressure. I believe every Senator on the other side of the aisle, if they were honest, would acknowledge that the same unyielding, unbending, dogmatic approach to judicial confirmation has in large part been responsible for the kind of poisonous atmosphere that exists in this Chamber regarding judicial nominations. It is tempting, then, for us on this side of the aisle to go tit for tat. But what I would like to see is for all of us to recognize as we move forward to the next nominee that in fact the issues that are confronted by the Supreme Court are difficult issues. That is why they get up to the Supreme Court. The issues facing the Court are rarely black and white, and all advocacy groups who have a legitimate and profound interest in the decisions that are made by the Court should try to make certain that their advocacy reflects that complexity. These groups on the right and left should not resort to the sort of broad-brush dogmatic attacks that have hampered the process in the past and constrained each and every Senator in this Chamber from making sure that they are voting on the basis of their conscience. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise today to commend my colleague, the senior Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, for his work in crafting this legislation, of which I am a cosponsor. This amendment would provide critically needed disaster relief to Illinois farmers who face significant financial jeopardy from crop losses due to this season's historic drought. Illinois agriculture is experiencing one of the driest periods in the last century and certainly one of the most severe droughts in two decades. Illinois is the Nation's leading producer of corn and soybeans. However, U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA, reports show that more than half of the corn crop and almost a third of the soybean crop have been decimated by drought. Of the 102 counties in Illinois, 98 have reported crop damage due to the lack of rainfall. In July, Senator Durbin and I asked the Secretary of Agriculture to declare the affected counties in Illinois an agriculture disaster area. I am pleased that President Bush granted our request to give our Illinois farmers some much-deserved relief, qualifying Illinois farmers for USDA assistance programs, including low-interest emergency loans. While this action provided an important amount of economic assistance, the scope and severity of this year's drought requires that additional measures be taken. At the present time, most of northern and western Illinois remains in a severe or extreme drought. Much of eastern Illinois is classified as abnormally dry. This is particularly alarming because farmers are at a critical point in the growing season. Moreover, the reduction in fuel refining capacity caused by Hurricane Katrina has resulted in Illinois farmers facing a sudden surge in unanticipated fuel costs on top of already escalating fuel prices. The disruption in Mississippi River traffic at gulf ports, where half of the Nation's grain exports are shipped for foreign markets, has spiked shipping costs for farm commodities transported by barge downriver. The threat of an aflatoxin outbreak that affects corn during times of crop stress and drought is also of particular concern in recent weeks; should this condition progress after harvest and storage, farmers may face additional financial consequences in the coming months. I understand that the Senior Senator from Mississippi, Mr. Cochran, has made a commitment to address this issue in the next hurricane supplemental appropriations bill that is sent to Congress. Given that commitment, I support Senator Durbin's decision to withdraw the amendment, and I thank Senator Cochran for his cooperation.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, today I am submitting a resolution to express the Senate's strong disapproval of recent efforts to disenfranchise Americans. In the weeks since Hurricane Katrina ravaged the Gulf Coast, our country has been awakened to the plight of the most vulnerable Americans--the poor, the elderly, the sick, and the disabled. And if we have learned anything from this tragedy, it is that the Government has too often ignored the needs of these citizens in crafting national policy. Whether it is homeland security or education or health care, these Americans have consistently been left behind. Now, we are in danger of proceeding down another path that disregards the needs of our Nation's neediest--the right to vote. This is the most fundamental right protected by the Constitution and the right for which many Americans have fought and died. The last two Presidential elections were tainted by allegations of fraud and abuse. The complaints ranged from long polling lines to faulty machines to confusing ballots. The rampant complaints have shaken people's confidence in our election system. And so it is all of our duty to work to restore and protect the integrity of the electoral process. Unfortunately, in this new millennium, too many electoral reform efforts seem intent on limiting access to the ballot as opposed to expanding it. In the mid-20th century, the poll tax was the preferred means of disenfranchising large minority populations, specifically African Americans. Today, the poll tax is taking on a new form--a photo identification requirement for voters. According to the National Commission on Federal Election Reform, such a requirement would ``impose an additional expense on the exercise of the franchise, a burden that would fall disproportionately on people who are poorer and urban.'' Nevertheless, a number of States, including Georgia, have recently passed laws mandating government-issued photo identification for voters at the polls. In Georgia alone, at least 150,000 senior citizens do not have government-issued photo identification, which can cost up to $85. Nationwide, at least 12 percent of eligible drivers do not have a driver's license. And Georgia has made it difficult for rural and urban folks to obtain their voter photo identification. There are currently only 56 places in all 159 counties where such identification is available, with no places available in Atlanta. For people who already lack transportation, which may be why they do not have driver's licenses, it is far-fetched to think that these same people could easily get to another county to obtain a voter identification card. Earlier today, the Carter-Baker Commission on Federal Election Reform released its recommendations for improving the electoral process. While many of the Commission's recommendations are worthy of consideration, its report recommends the implementation of a national voter identification requirement, despite acknowledging that there is ``no evidence of extensive fraud in U.S. elections or of multiple voting.'' This past weekend, Afghanistan held its second successful national election, and we have seen successes in Iraq's elections as well. If these nascent democracies can commit themselves to bringing any and all citizens to the polls, surely we can do the same. Many of us both here in Washington and around the country have been asking questions over the past three weeks about our Nation's priorities and our commitment to helping our country's most vulnerable citizens. But a major priority should be ensuring that these citizens can exercise the most fundamental right in a democracy--the right to vote. The resolution I am submitting today, along with Senator Dodd and joined by Senators Reid, Corzine, Clinton, Harkin, Feingold, Akaka, Dorgan, Kennedy, Kerry, Mikulski, Lautenberg and others, expresses the Senate's strong disapproval of photo identification requirements for voting. The resolution also urges the Department of Justice to challenge any State law that limits a citizen's ability to vote based on discriminatory photo identification requirements and urges the rejection of any national photo identification requirements for voting. I am honored that Representative John Lewis, a civil rights icon who put his life on the line to fight for the right to vote, will be introducing the same resolution in the House later this week. I urge my colleagues to support this important resolution.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, every year, the Inter-Association Task Force on Alcohol and Other Substance Abuse Issues, IATF, gives awards to three universities for their programs against underage drinking and over-consumption of alcoholic beverages. Bradley University, which is located in Peoria, IL, is among the three universities being commended and has the honor of being a National Collegiate Alcohol Awareness Week Winner for 2004-2005. I applaud the Wellness Program at Bradley University for its commitment to reduce underage drinking. Alcohol misuse on college campuses is not a new problem. It is entrenched in the culture of many institutions of higher learning and in students' social lives. The abuse of alcohol among college students is taking its toll not only on the students who drink alcohol in excess but also their student peers, college administrators, health care personnel who counsel student drinkers, and the community at large. Help, Encourage, and Teach, HEAT, and Social Norming, SONOR, are two programs that have proven to be effective at Bradley University. HEAT strives to provide students with opportunities to promote positive lifestyle choices, such as peer-led workshops and demonstrations. The SONOR program utilizes creative marketing and advertising strategies to disseminate information about healthy living. These programs are making a difference in the lives of our youth by encouraging college students to make healthy and responsible decisions. Congratulations to Dr. Alan Galsky, Associate Provost for Student Affairs; Melissa Sage-Bollenbach, the Wellness Program Coordinator at Bradley University; Kelcy Hale, the President of Social Norming; and Chrisandra Ashby, the former president of HEAT for their tireless efforts and outstanding leadership. Bradley University is to be commended for its innovative and influential alcohol-abuse programs. Representatives of Bradley University recently came to Washington, DC, and visited their Senator's offices to present their alcohol awareness programs. These award recipients also received a plaque and an award check from Dr. Edward Hammond, chairman of the IATF. I wish the Wellness Program and its leadership the best of luck in their future endeavors and applaud their outstanding achievement.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, one of the most striking things about the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina is that the majority of stranded victims were our society's most vulnerable members--low-income families, the elderly, the homeless, the disabled. Many did not own cars. Many believed themselves unable to flee the city, unable to forego the income from missed work, unable to incur the expenses of travel, food and lodging. Some may have misunderstood the severity of the warnings, if they heard the warnings at all. Some may have needed help that was unavailable. Whatever the reason, they were not evacuated and we have seen the horrific results. This failure to evacuate so many of the most desperate citizens of the Gulf Coast leads me to introduce today a bill to require states and the nation to consider the needs of our neediest citizens in times of emergency. It appears that certain assumptions were made in planning and preparing for the worst case scenario in the Gulf Coast. After all, most of those who could afford to evacuate managed to do so. They drove out of town and checked into hotels or stayed with friends and family. But what about the thousands of people left behind because they had special needs? How many of us will forget the tragedy that occurred at St. Rita's Nursing Home in St. Bernard Parish, LA, where an estimated 32 of the 60 residents perished in the rising floodwaters in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina? Our charge as public servants is to worry about all of the people. I am troubled that our emergency response and disaster plans were inadequate for large segments of the Gulf Coast population. I wonder whether the plans in other regions are adequate. Perfect evacuation planning is obviously impractical, but greater advance preparation can ensure that the most vulnerable are not simply forgotten or ignored. That's why the bill I am introducing today, along with co-sponsors Senators Bayh, Murray, Harkin, Levin, Corzine, Feingold, Bingaman and Kennedy, requires the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security to mandate each State to include plans for the evacuation of individuals with special needs during times of emergency. Such plans should not only include an explanation of how these people--low income individuals and families, the elderly, the disabled, those who cannot speak English--will be evacuated out of the emergency area and how the states will provide shelter, food, and water, to these people once evacuated. Communities with special needs may be more challenging to accommodate, but they are every bit as important to protect and serve in the event of an emergency. What we saw in the Gulf Coast cannot be repeated. We may not be able to control the wrath of Mother Nature, but we can control how we prepare for natural disasters. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, one of the most striking things about the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina is that the majority of stranded victims were our society's most vulnerable members--low-income families, the elderly, the homeless, the disabled. Many did not own cars. Many believed themselves unable to flee the city, unable to forego the income from missed work, unable to incur the expenses of travel, food and lodging. Some may have misunderstood the severity of the warnings, if they heard the warnings at all. Some may have needed help that was unavailable. Whatever the reason, they were not evacuated and we have seen the horrific results. This failure to evacuate so many of the most desperate citizens of the Gulf Coast leads me to introduce today a bill to require states and the nation to consider the needs of our neediest citizens in times of emergency. It appears that certain assumptions were made in planning and preparing for the worst case scenario in the Gulf Coast. After all, most of those who could afford to evacuate managed to do so. They drove out of town and checked into hotels or stayed with friends and family. But what about the thousands of people left behind because they had special needs? How many of us will forget the tragedy that occurred at St. Rita's Nursing Home in St. Bernard Parish, LA, where an estimated 32 of the 60 residents perished in the rising floodwaters in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina? Our charge as public servants is to worry about all of the people. I am troubled that our emergency response and disaster plans were inadequate for large segments of the Gulf Coast population. I wonder whether the plans in other regions are adequate. Perfect evacuation planning is obviously impractical, but greater advance preparation can ensure that the most vulnerable are not simply forgotten or ignored. That's why the bill I am introducing today, along with co-sponsors Senators Bayh, Murray, Harkin, Levin, Corzine, Feingold, Bingaman and Kennedy, requires the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security to mandate each State to include plans for the evacuation of individuals with special needs during times of emergency. Such plans should not only include an explanation of how these people--low income individuals and families, the elderly, the disabled, those who cannot speak English--will be evacuated out of the emergency area and how the states will provide shelter, food, and water, to these people once evacuated. Communities with special needs may be more challenging to accommodate, but they are every bit as important to protect and serve in the event of an emergency. What we saw in the Gulf Coast cannot be repeated. We may not be able to control the wrath of Mother Nature, but we can control how we prepare for natural disasters. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. OBAMA

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

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise in support of Senator Dayton and Senator Chambliss's amendment. In the wake of the devastation of Hurricane Katrina and the massive displacement of hundreds of thousands of people, the country has once again relied on the strong efforts of the Nation's first responders to provide aid during a time of national tragedy. Although the Federal response to this disaster may have been too slow, there can be no doubt that the men and women on the nation's front lines have valiantly come to the aid of their fellow citizens. Police officers from New York City, NY, to Alton, IL, have answered the call of duty and volunteered to go to New Orleans to assist in rescue, recovery, and reconstruction efforts. These brave men and women are the Nation's heroes, and this body should do all it can to provide them with the resources they need to do their jobs. Unfortunately, at a time when we are relying on the Nation's first responders--our law enforcement, our fire fighters, our emergency technicians--to protect us against terrorism, to respond to natural disasters, to protect us from the normal everyday ravages of crime and drug use that do not abate just because the Nation is at war--it is shocking to me that Washington is contemplating major cuts to important law enforcement assistance programs. That is why I am proud to be joining Senators Dayton and Chambliss in cosponsoring an amendment to the Commerce, Justice, Science appropriations bill to increase funding for the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program. The Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program, provides an important source of funding for state and local law enforcement to make communities safer and improve criminal justice. In Illinois, these dollars are put to good use. They help fight the scourge of methamphetamine, which has traveled from the West Coast to the Midwest and is ruining rural communities across the country. The meth problem has grown exponentially in the last few years. Police in Illinois encountered 971 meth labs in 2003--more than double the number seen in the year 2000. The quantity of meth seized by the Illinois State Police increased nearly ten-fold between 1997 and 2003. The meth problem is taking over communities--depleting already limited resources, taxing the police, the judicial system, social services, and the schools. Every aspect of the local communities are touched and harmed by meth. Luckily, one program has proven helpful in Illinois' battle against meth--the Byrne Justice Assistance Grant Program. In 2004 alone, Byrne Justice Assistance Grant dollars helped make 1,267 methamphetamine drug arrests in Illinois. That same year, Byrne Justice Assistance Grant dollars helped seize 348,923 grams of methamphetamine. For rural Illinois, Justice Assistance Grant dollars have provided a much-needed life raft, funding important multi-jurisdictional programs that have allowed various counties and communities to join together, combine resources and work to stop the onslaught of meth. The Southern Illinois Enforcement Group--a coalition of three Southern, predominantly rural Illinois counties, is one of these task forces. The unit has responded to 84 meth labs so far this year, more than 40 percent of all meth labs in the greater Southern Illinois 33- county region for 2005. When I visited with law enforcement from the Metropolitan Enforcement Group of Southwestern Illinois, another one of these task forces, this August, they shared with me how important these dollars are to their efforts. They fear that any cuts will mean a reduction in the number of officers, or even worse, the loss of the task force, either of which will mean that they will have to battle a growing meth problem with fewer resources. Now, this body is proposing to flatfund the Byrne Grant Program at $625 million. While this is much better than the alternative proposed by the President--who wanted to eliminate the program--and it is better than the House option, which has voted to fund the Justice Assistance Grant Program at $366.4 million--this is woefully short of the funding provided this program only 3 years ago. The amendment I cosponsor today would fund the Justice Assistance Grant program at $900 million, the same amount provided the Byrne Formula Grants and the Local Law Enforcement Block Grants, which comprise the Justice Assistance Grant program in fiscal year 2003. I hope my colleagues will join me and Senators Dayton and Chambliss in supporting our Nation's law enforcement--and giving them the resources they need to do their jobs. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President. I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by Senator Harkin to increase funding for the Legal Services Corporation. I am proud to be a cosponsor of the amendment. The Legal Services Corporation provides vital legal assistance to the poor around the country. It was created in 1974 with bipartisan congressional sponsorship and the support of the Nixon administration. In Chicago, the Legal Services Corporation funds make it possible for the Legal Assistance Foundation to help my constituents navigate the foster care system and receive compensation after violent crimes. In Galesburg and Peoria, these funds make it possible for the Prairie State Legal Services organization to help people dealing with domestic violence issues and elder abuse. In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, you can bet that Legal Services Corporation will be in Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, and the many States where hurricane victims are being relocated helping newly impoverished citizens obtain food and shelter assistance, health care and insurance benefits, unemployment insurance, Social Security benefits, and FEMA assistance. This program makes a real difference in people's lives. Take the story of Irene and her family for example, who live in Section 8 housing and needed help. They visited the Prairie State Legal Services office in Illinois. Every day, Irene had to get two wheelchair-bound grandchildren up the stairs and into a second floor apartment. Both her grandchildren have cerebral palsy and are confined to wheelchairs. The oldest is now 14 and weighs 160 lbs. And after 11 years, as I am sure you can imagine, Irene was having a hard time getting her grandchildren up those stairs. But when she tried to make this difficult situation better, it only got worse. Irene applied for and received a transfer certificate from Section 8 to allow her to move to a new apartment. But she could not find a first-floor apartment to transfer to within the 60 days that the transfer allowed. Irene tried calling the Section 8 offices to let them know of the delay, but she was forced to leave messages. When she finally sent a letter asking for a response to her messages, she was informed that she was too late--not only was the Public Housing Agency terminating her transfer, it was also terminating the Section 8 subsidy for her current apartment. But that is when Prairie State and Legal Services Corporation intervened. A staff attorney represented Irene in an administrative appeal, and pointed out that under the Fair Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act, Irene had not been provided the support needed to assist her in finding an apartment. As a result of her attorney's efforts, Irene's subsidy was reinstated, she was given a new transfer certificate and was provided with active assistance in helping her find a new apartment. Legal Services Corporation helps folks like Irene all across the country, from South Carolina to South Dakota, Illinois to Iowa. And when someone displaced by Hurricane Katrina cannot afford a lawyer but is having trouble getting her unemployment insurance or Social Security benefits, or getting her utilities turned back on, Legal Services Corporation will be right there. Legal Services Corporation-funded organizations have won dozens of awards, and groups ranging from AARP to the American Bar Association have voiced their strong support of LSC. We should do the same. Over the last decade, the LSC budget has suffered $196 million in cuts. The Appropriations Committee proposed this year to cut $6 million more. I do not think this is the time to deny legal services to those who need them most. I believe that in light of the pressing crises confronting individuals in the gulf coast, we should be increasing funding for the Legal Services Corporation, not decreasing it. So I strongly support Senator Harkin's amendment, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, earlier this week I traveled with former Presidents Bush and Clinton to Houston and met countless hurricane survivors who shared heart-wrenching stories about their experiences. Too many of the hurricane survivors have lost their jobs, their homes, and for some, beloved friends and family members. Hurricane Katrina served as another important reminder of man's inability to control the wrath of Mother Nature. Yet, our response to such calamitous events is completely within our control. Hurricane Katrina was the first disaster, the Nation's emergency response to Hurricane Katrina was the second disaster. We have all watched TV reports of residents stranded, abandoned really, without food or water and medical care, while those charged with emergency response delayed and fumbled their duties. Many of the sick and elderly were left behind at the makeshift hospital inside the New Orleans airport, and others faced uncertainties regarding their own medical care while staying at temporary shelters in Houston. The Nation's generous outpouring of support for the survivors of Hurricane Katrina is heart-warming. Yet, many of those who would volunteer their services have been thwarted by bureaucratic red tape from antiquated laws and regulations. My own office has received numerous complaints from constituents whose offers of service were refused. In particular, medical professionals, which are still so desperately needed in affected areas, were turned away from FEMA and not informed about alternative mechanisms for volunteering. These doctors also expressed concerns relating to licensure, liability, and their ability to take leaves of absence from their jobs. The Federal Government should be doing everything possible to streamline the process by which trained medical personnel around the country can volunteer their services in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and any of the States where evacuees have been relocated. I have introduced legislation today, entitled the Hurricane Katrina Emergency Health Workforce Act of 2005, that will start this process. There are five components to this bill. It would create a national emergency health professional volunteer corps, so that we will have a ready pool of volunteer doctors and nurses who are willing, trained, and certified to serve in times of disaster. My bill would provide liability protections to qualified health professionals and provide the same job protections that many Federal employees and members of the National Guard already have. Requirements for State licensure would be lifted for licensed doctors who travel to disaster stricken areas outside of their home States. In addition, the CDC would establish a national and easily accessible database with the names and contact information of doctors and nurses, as well as their specialties and licensures, around the Nation. Finally, recognizing that emergencies are often unpredictable, this legislation would grant the Secretary broad authority to suspend rules and regulations in order to get health professionals where they are needed and when they are needed. Although we live in a changing and uncertain world, one constant remains--whether it be earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes, or sadly even terrorist attacks, the nation will surely face future devastating and cataclysmic events. We know now that the Nation's preparedness for such events in no way matches our ability to respond and mitigate human suffering and economic collapse. We must do better. I urge each of my colleagues to join me in passing this legislation.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, earlier this week I traveled with former Presidents Bush and Clinton to Houston and met countless hurricane survivors who shared heart-wrenching stories about their experiences. Too many of the hurricane survivors have lost their jobs, their homes, and for some, beloved friends and family members. Hurricane Katrina served as another important reminder of man's inability to control the wrath of Mother Nature. Yet, our response to such calamitous events is completely within our control. Hurricane Katrina was the first disaster, the Nation's emergency response to Hurricane Katrina was the second disaster. We have all watched TV reports of residents stranded, abandoned really, without food or water and medical care, while those charged with emergency response delayed and fumbled their duties. Many of the sick and elderly were left behind at the makeshift hospital inside the New Orleans airport, and others faced uncertainties regarding their own medical care while staying at temporary shelters in Houston. The Nation's generous outpouring of support for the survivors of Hurricane Katrina is heart-warming. Yet, many of those who would volunteer their services have been thwarted by bureaucratic red tape from antiquated laws and regulations. My own office has received numerous complaints from constituents whose offers of service were refused. In particular, medical professionals, which are still so desperately needed in affected areas, were turned away from FEMA and not informed about alternative mechanisms for volunteering. These doctors also expressed concerns relating to licensure, liability, and their ability to take leaves of absence from their jobs. The Federal Government should be doing everything possible to streamline the process by which trained medical personnel around the country can volunteer their services in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and any of the States where evacuees have been relocated. I have introduced legislation today, entitled the Hurricane Katrina Emergency Health Workforce Act of 2005, that will start this process. There are five components to this bill. It would create a national emergency health professional volunteer corps, so that we will have a ready pool of volunteer doctors and nurses who are willing, trained, and certified to serve in times of disaster. My bill would provide liability protections to qualified health professionals and provide the same job protections that many Federal employees and members of the National Guard already have. Requirements for State licensure would be lifted for licensed doctors who travel to disaster stricken areas outside of their home States. In addition, the CDC would establish a national and easily accessible database with the names and contact information of doctors and nurses, as well as their specialties and licensures, around the Nation. Finally, recognizing that emergencies are often unpredictable, this legislation would grant the Secretary broad authority to suspend rules and regulations in order to get health professionals where they are needed and when they are needed. Although we live in a changing and uncertain world, one constant remains--whether it be earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes, or sadly even terrorist attacks, the nation will surely face future devastating and cataclysmic events. We know now that the Nation's preparedness for such events in no way matches our ability to respond and mitigate human suffering and economic collapse. We must do better. I urge each of my colleagues to join me in passing this legislation.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, today I introduce a bill to provide some assistance to those tens of thousands of Americans who have found themselves in one of the worst nightmares I can imagine--they are separated from their spouses, their children, and their parents. These Americans are struggling to locate their loved ones displaced by the horrors of Hurricane Katrina. They are searching the Astrodome, combing the Internet, hoping that their family members have survived the storm and will get in touch with them. A similar plight is faced by those victims who have weathered the storm and want to tell their family and friends that they are okay. I have received dozens of calls to my offices in Illinois from constituents asking my caseworkers to help them locate their relatives lost in the Gulf Coast. Greta from Chicago was looking for her Aunt Perra Lee. John from Romeoville was looking for his children and grandchildren in Biloxi. The calls kept coming, but my staff could only point these constituents to various nonprofit organizations doing their best to provide locator services. There was no centralized Federal Government system in place to deal with this issue. Such a system should be in place. The government must provide these people with a means to let their families know that they are out of harm's way. Various non-profit organizations and news services have done a stellar job at using the Internet to connect displaced people with their families. Our government, through the Department of Homeland Security, should synthesize the best aspects of these services, so that after an emergency, displaced individuals can call one phone number or go to one website, and post their location and condition. Family members and law enforcement officials should be able use this same secure, centralized system to check the status of missing loved ones. I am introducing a bill--the National Emergency Family Locator System Act that will instruct the Department of Homeland Security to create such a system. I hope that the next time our country experiences a disaster like Katrina, this system will provide worried families with some sense of relief. I hope my colleagues will support this legislation and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. There being no objection the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follow:

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, today I speak in honor of Chief Justice William Rehnquist. The Chief Justice served this Nation's highest court with distinction and honor for more than three decades, and his career in public service started years earlier. Even as he battled cancer over the past year, he continued to be an example of personal strength, dignity, and fortitude. I join my colleagues in mourning his passing and offering my prayers to his family. The Chief Justice was a staunch defender of the Supreme Court and an active, independent judiciary. He was admired as a warm and helpful colleague, a thoughtful mentor, and an extremely effective administrator of the federal court system. The courts were well cared for under his distinguished leadership. Justice Rehnquist also engaged directly with many of the toughest constitutional controversies of the twentieth century. Although I often disagreed with his decisions, Justice Rehnquist's opinions have been the source of important scholarship and litigation. Like the Chief Justice he followed, the late Earl Warren, Justice Rehnquist will be remembered as an important historical figure whose legacy will impact generations of Americans. I knew the Chief Justice only at a distance. As a lawyer and a constitutional law instructor, I was required to wrestle intellectually with his ideas and arguments, and to press my students to divine his judicial instincts and motivations. My regret is that I never got to know him personally, or even to join one of his legendary walks around the Capitol or monthly poker games. I know that his warmth and humor have touched many of my colleagues, and he will be missed. Of course, the strength of our constitutional structure--is that it is greater than any individual. Each of us plays but a small role in designing or building or repairing that structure it is greater and more important than any of us. We mourn the passing of Justice Rehnquist and now look to the future and the important work to be done.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, today I introduce a bill to provide some assistance to those tens of thousands of Americans who have found themselves in one of the worst nightmares I can imagine--they are separated from their spouses, their children, and their parents. These Americans are struggling to locate their loved ones displaced by the horrors of Hurricane Katrina. They are searching the Astrodome, combing the Internet, hoping that their family members have survived the storm and will get in touch with them. A similar plight is faced by those victims who have weathered the storm and want to tell their family and friends that they are okay. I have received dozens of calls to my offices in Illinois from constituents asking my caseworkers to help them locate their relatives lost in the Gulf Coast. Greta from Chicago was looking for her Aunt Perra Lee. John from Romeoville was looking for his children and grandchildren in Biloxi. The calls kept coming, but my staff could only point these constituents to various nonprofit organizations doing their best to provide locator services. There was no centralized Federal Government system in place to deal with this issue. Such a system should be in place. The government must provide these people with a means to let their families know that they are out of harm's way. Various non-profit organizations and news services have done a stellar job at using the Internet to connect displaced people with their families. Our government, through the Department of Homeland Security, should synthesize the best aspects of these services, so that after an emergency, displaced individuals can call one phone number or go to one website, and post their location and condition. Family members and law enforcement officials should be able use this same secure, centralized system to check the status of missing loved ones. I am introducing a bill--the National Emergency Family Locator System Act that will instruct the Department of Homeland Security to create such a system. I hope that the next time our country experiences a disaster like Katrina, this system will provide worried families with some sense of relief. I hope my colleagues will support this legislation and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. There being no objection the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follow:

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise to address what has been a heartbreaking week for all of us. As was mentioned by my distinguished colleague from Washington, I just returned from a trip from Houston with former Presidents Clinton and Bush as part of a fund-raising effort to deal with the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. As we wandered through the crowd, we heard in very intimate terms some of the heart- wrenching stories that all of us have witnessed on television over the past several days: Mothers separated from their babies; adults mourning the loss of elderly parents; descriptions of the heat, filth, and fear of the Superdome and of the convention center in New Orleans. There was an overriding sense of relief in Houston, and the officials in Houston and in the entire State of Texas deserve great credit for the outstanding job they have done in creating a clean and stable place for the tens of thousands of families who have been displaced. A conversation I had with one woman captured the realities that are settling into the families as they face the future. She said to me: We had nothing before the hurricane, and now we have less than nothing. We had nothing before the hurricane, now we have less than nothing. In the coming weeks, as the images of the immediate crisis fade and this Chamber becomes consumed with other matters, we will be hearing a lot about lessons learned and steps to be taken. I will be among those voices who will be calling for action. In the most immediate term, we will have to assure that the efforts at evacuating families from the affected States proceed--they are not finished yet--that these Americans who are having to flee their homes, their cities, their counties, and their towns are fed, clothed, housed, and provided with the medical care and medicine they need. We are also going to have to make sure we cut through the redtape that has inexcusably prevented so much help from getting to the places where it is needed. I can say from personal experience over the last week how frustrating it has been, how unconscionable it has been to be unable to find somebody in charge so that we can get medical supplies, doctors, nurses, and other supplies down to the affected areas quickly enough. We are going to have to make sure in this Chamber that any impediments that may continue to exist in preventing relief efforts from moving forward rapidly are eliminated. Once we stabilize the situation, this country is going to face the enormous challenge in providing stability for displaced families over the months and years that it is going to take to rebuild. Already the State of Illinois has committed to accepting 10,000 displaced families. There are stories in Illinois, as there are all across the country, of churches, mosques, synagogues, and individual families welcoming people with open arms and no strings attached. Indeed, if there is any bright light that has come out of this disaster, it is the degree to which ordinary Americans have responded with speed and determination, even as their Government has responded with what I consider to be unconscionable ineptitude, which brings me to the next point. Once the situation is stable, once families are settled for at least the short term, once children are reunited with their parents and enrolled in school and the wounds both on the outside and on the inside have healed, we are going to have to do some hard thinking about how we could have failed our fellow citizens so badly and how we will prevent such failures from ever occurring again. It is not politics to insist that we have an independent commission to examine these issues. It is not politics. Indeed, one of the heartening things about this crisis has been the degree of outrage that has come from across the political spectrum--from across races, across incomes; the degree to which the American people sense that we can and we must do better, and a recognition that if we can't cope with a crisis that has been predicted for decades, a crisis in which we were given 4 to 5 days' notice, then how can we ever hope to respond to a serious terrorist attack in a major American city in which there is no notice and in which the death toll and the panic and the fear may be far greater? That brings me to my final point. There has been a lot of attention in the media about the fact that those who were left behind in New Orleans were disproportionately poor and disproportionately African American. I have said publicly that I do not subscribe to the notion that the painfully slow response of FEMA and the Department of Homeland Security was somehow racially based. I do not agree with that. I think the ineptitude was colorblind. But what must be said is that whoever was in charge of planning and preparing for the worst-case scenario seemed to assume that every American has the capacity to load up the family in a SUV, fill it up with $100 worth of gasoline, stick some bottled water in the trunk, and use a credit card to check into a hotel on safe ground. I see no evidence of active malice, but I see a continuation of passive indifference on the part of our Government toward the least of us. So I hope that out of this crisis we all begin to reflect--Democrats and Republicans, Black and White, young and old, poor and wealthy. I hope we all begin to reflect, not only on our individual responsibilities to our families and ourselves but on our mutual responsibilities to our fellow Americans, mutual responsibilities that reflect themselves in church and community organizations and block clubs but also express themselves through our Government. I hope we realize the people of New Orleans were not just abandoned during the hurricane, they were abandoned long ago--to murder and mayhem in their streets, to substandard schools, to dilapidated housing, to inadequate health care, to a pervasive sense of hopelessness. That is the deeper shame of this past week, that it has taken a crisis such as this to awaken in us the understanding of the great divide that continues to fester in our midst. That is what all Americans are truly ashamed about. That is what I am ashamed about. And the fact that we are ashamed about it is a good sign. The fact that all of us don't like to see such a reflection of this country that we love tells me that the American people have better instincts and a broader heart than our current politics would indicate. ``We had nothing before the hurricane,'' the woman told me. ``Now we have even less.'' I hope we all take the time to ponder the truth of that message.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I am pleased that the conference report on H.R. 3, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, protects an important program administered by the Department of Transportation the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program also known as the DBE Program. The DBE Program ensures that small businesses owned and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals are able to compete on a level playing field for federally funded highway and transit contracts. I strongly endorse the DBE Program and am pleased that this program continues to enjoy bipartisan support. Since the DBE Program was started in 1982, the field of highway contractors has grown more racially diverse. The DBE Program was expanded to include women in 1987, and that improvement to the program has opened the doors for women contractors to join what has traditionally been an all-male field. Despite the increased fairness and greater opportunity for minority and women contractors since the inception of DBE, there continues to be a strong need for the DBE Program. Unfortunately, studies have shown that when DBE Programs end, many contractors simply revert to their old practices, denying contracts to small companies owned by minorities or the economically disadvantaged. It is clear that the DBE Program is still needed to secure the gains made and encourage even greater opportunity for these small businesses, and I am pleased that the conferees have recognized that continuing need and have retained this program. Federally funded highway and transit contracts are big business, and it is imperative that we give everyone the big guys and the little guys a fair opportunity to take part. The DBE is vital to increasing participation in our federally funded highway projects.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the ``Tax Shelter and Tax Haven Reform Act of 2005,'' of which I am a cosponsor. This bill seeks to improve the fairness of our tax system by deterring the use of tax avoidance strategies with no economic justification other than to reduce tax liability and shirk responsibility. Abusive tax shelters and tax havens cost this country tens of billions of dollars each year and may be the largest single source of the $300 billion tax gap between what is owed and what is collected by the U.S. Treasury. The investigation by my colleagues on the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations found that more than half of all federal contractors may have subsidiaries in tax havens and that almost half of all foreign profits of U.S. corporations in a recent year were in tax havens. My esteemed colleagues also heard testimony that between 1-2 million individual taxpayers may be hiding funds in offshore tax havens. Many of these tax havens refuse to cooperate with U.S. tax enforcement officials. This is not a political issue of how low or high taxes ought to be. This is a basic issue of fairness and integrity. Corporate and individual taxpayers alike must have confidence that those who disregard the law will be identified and adequately punished. Those who enforce the law need the tools and resources to do so. We cannot reasonably expect an American business to subject itself to a competitive disadvantage by following the law while watching its competitors defy the law without repercussion. This bill cracks down on those individuals and businesses that establish virtual residences in tax havens abroad while taking unfair advantage of the very real advantages of actual residence here in the United States. This bill clarifies that the sole purpose of a transaction cannot legitimately be to evade tax liability. This bill increases the penalties for those who profit by manipulating and exploiting our tax laws, resulting in higher rates and greater complexity for the rest of us. My mother taught me that there is no such thing as a free lunch-- someone always has to pay. And when one of us shirks our duty to pay, the burden gets shifted to others, in this case to ordinary taxpayers and working Americans without access to sophisticated tax preparers or corporate loopholes. This bill strengthens our ability to stop shifting the tax burden to working families. The money saved by this bill, for example, can reduce the burden on American children of unnecessary budget deficits being financed by rising debt to foreign nations. The money saved by this bill can also be used to protect children in low income families from unfair tax increases caused by inequities in the child tax credit. In fact, this fall, I intend to introduce legislation to ensure that the child tax credit is not reduced solely because a family's income fails to keep pace with inflation. With less than half of the savings generated by this bill, we can shield more than four million children from the annual tax increase their families face as a result of stagnant wages and inflation under current law. All of us should pay our fair share of American taxes. There is no excuse for benefiting from the laws and services, institutions and economic structure of our nation while evading your responsibility to do your part for this country. I believe it is our job to keep the system fair, and that's what this bill seeks to do. I commend Senator Levin and Senator Coleman for their leadership on this important issue. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this bill and urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the ``Tax Shelter and Tax Haven Reform Act of 2005,'' of which I am a cosponsor. This bill seeks to improve the fairness of our tax system by deterring the use of tax avoidance strategies with no economic justification other than to reduce tax liability and shirk responsibility. Abusive tax shelters and tax havens cost this country tens of billions of dollars each year and may be the largest single source of the $300 billion tax gap between what is owed and what is collected by the U.S. Treasury. The investigation by my colleagues on the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations found that more than half of all federal contractors may have subsidiaries in tax havens and that almost half of all foreign profits of U.S. corporations in a recent year were in tax havens. My esteemed colleagues also heard testimony that between 1-2 million individual taxpayers may be hiding funds in offshore tax havens. Many of these tax havens refuse to cooperate with U.S. tax enforcement officials. This is not a political issue of how low or high taxes ought to be. This is a basic issue of fairness and integrity. Corporate and individual taxpayers alike must have confidence that those who disregard the law will be identified and adequately punished. Those who enforce the law need the tools and resources to do so. We cannot reasonably expect an American business to subject itself to a competitive disadvantage by following the law while watching its competitors defy the law without repercussion. This bill cracks down on those individuals and businesses that establish virtual residences in tax havens abroad while taking unfair advantage of the very real advantages of actual residence here in the United States. This bill clarifies that the sole purpose of a transaction cannot legitimately be to evade tax liability. This bill increases the penalties for those who profit by manipulating and exploiting our tax laws, resulting in higher rates and greater complexity for the rest of us. My mother taught me that there is no such thing as a free lunch-- someone always has to pay. And when one of us shirks our duty to pay, the burden gets shifted to others, in this case to ordinary taxpayers and working Americans without access to sophisticated tax preparers or corporate loopholes. This bill strengthens our ability to stop shifting the tax burden to working families. The money saved by this bill, for example, can reduce the burden on American children of unnecessary budget deficits being financed by rising debt to foreign nations. The money saved by this bill can also be used to protect children in low income families from unfair tax increases caused by inequities in the child tax credit. In fact, this fall, I intend to introduce legislation to ensure that the child tax credit is not reduced solely because a family's income fails to keep pace with inflation. With less than half of the savings generated by this bill, we can shield more than four million children from the annual tax increase their families face as a result of stagnant wages and inflation under current law. All of us should pay our fair share of American taxes. There is no excuse for benefiting from the laws and services, institutions and economic structure of our nation while evading your responsibility to do your part for this country. I believe it is our job to keep the system fair, and that's what this bill seeks to do. I commend Senator Levin and Senator Coleman for their leadership on this important issue. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this bill and urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise to commend the chief sponsors of this bill in the Senate, Senators Domenici and Bingaman, who I think have displayed the sort of statesmanship and civility in working out this difficult legislation that I think all of us expect from this body. I also want to indicate the degree to which this bill takes significant steps in the right direction on energy policy. It helps us realize the promise of ethanol as a fuel alternative by requiring 7.5 billion gallons to be mixed with gasoline over the next few years. It provides a tax credit for the construction of E85 stations all over America--E85, a blend of ethanol and gasoline that can drastically increase fuel efficiency standards for our cars. It will provide funding for the clean coal technologies that will move America to use its most abundant fossil fuel in a cleaner, healthier way, including more low emission transportation fuels, and it will support the development of what we hope ultimately will be a 500- mile-per-gallon automobile technology. All of these things are wonderful and worthy of support. But I do have to say we have missed an opportunity and that is not the fault of the sponsors of this bill who have done yeoman's work. Rather, I think it is the timidity of all of us as a body in not addressing what has to be one of the most significant problems we face as a nation. The Department of Energy predicts that American demand for fossil fuels will jump 50 percent over the next 15 years. The Heritage Foundation says this bill will do virtually nothing to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Even President Bush and supporters of the bill in Congress concede as much. As we debate this bill today, the price of crude oil has surpassed a record high of $60 a barrel, and gas is now up to $2.28 per gallon. At this price, the United States is sending $650 million overseas every single day. As demand continues to skyrocket around the world, other countries have started to realize that guzzling oil is not a sustainable future. What is more, these countries have realized that by investing early in the energy-efficient technology that exists today, they can create millions of tomorrow's jobs and build their economies to rival ours. China now has a higher fuel economy standard than we do, and it has 200,000 hybrids on its roads. Japan's Toyota is doubling production of the popular Prius in order to sell 100,000 in the U.S. next year, and it is getting ready to open a brand new plant in China. At the same time, Ford is only making 20,000 Escape Hybrids this year, and GM's brand won't be on the market until 2007. So here we are. People paying record prices at the pump and America sending billions overseas to the world's most volatile region. We have countries like China and India using energy technology to create jobs and wealth, while our own businesses and workers fall further and further behind. And we have the energy bill that is before us today. So I ask, is this the best America can do? The country that went to the moon and conquered polio? The country that led the technological revolution of the 1990s? It would be one thing if the solutions to our dependence on foreign oil were pie-in-the-sky ideas that are years away. But the technology is right at our fingertips. Today, we could have told American car companies, we will help you produce more hybrid cars. We could have made sure there were more flexible fuel tanks in our cars. And so America has a choice. We can continue to hang on to oil as our solution. We can keep passing energy bills that nibble around the edges of the problem. We can hope that the Saudis will pump faster and that our drills will find more. And we can just sit on our hands and say that it is too hard to change the way things are and so we might as well not even try. Or we could accept and embrace the challenge of finding a solution to one of the most pressing problems of our time, our dependence on foreign oil. It will not be easy and it will not be without sacrifice. Government cannot make it happen on its own, but it does have a role in supporting the initiative that is already out there. I vote for this bill reluctantly today, disappointed that we have missed our opportunity to do something bolder that would have put us on the path to energy independence. This bill should be the first step, not the last, in our journey towards energy independence. I close by saying I hope we do not wait another 5 years before we work on the important issue of energy independence. I plan to support this bill because of the fine work that was done by the sponsors, but I would insist that in the next year or two we immediately address the issue of how we can wean ourselves off of Middle Eastern oil.