Barack Obama

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, today I am introducing the Attacking Viral Influenza Across Nations Act of 2005, or the AVIAN Act. The Nation is becoming increasingly aware of the very serious threat we face from avian flu. This virus is found primarily in chickens, ducks, and other birds. Despite major efforts to eradicate this virus, the virus has become endemic in poultry and birds in some countries and is spreading rapidly in others. Humans can contract the virus when they come into contact with infected birds, and when this happens, the consequences are often deadly. Of the 88 humans infected with avian influenza in Vietnam, Thailand, and Cambodia, only 37 have survived. Right now, avian flu is thought to only pass from birds to humans. However, doctors and scientists have expressed the very real concern that this virus will mutate into a form that can spread easily from human to human. If this happens, the world could face its next pandemic, which could cause more illness and death than virtually any other natural health threat. The Nation experienced 3 pandemics in the 20th Century--the Spanish flu pandemic in 1918, the Asian flu pandemic in 1957, and the Hong Kong flu pandemic in 1968. The Spanish flu pandemic was the most severe, causing over 500,000 deaths in the United States and more than 20 million deaths worldwide. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has estimated that up to 207,000 Americans could die, and up to 734,000 could be hospitalized during the next pandemic. The costs of the pandemic, including the medical costs and the costs associated with infected Americans being unable to work and dying early, are estimated at between $71 billion and $166.5 billion. These costs do not include the impact of a pandemic on commerce and society. On February 21, 2005, Dr. Julie Gerberding, Director of the CDC, discussed the possibility of a pandemic and stated that ``this is a very ominous situation for the globe . . . the most important threat that we are facing right now.'' We are in a race against time. The Nation's health officials have made some progress in preparing for pandemic influenza. Yet, we have much work to do. The Department of Health and Human Services has not released its final pandemic preparedness plan nor have about half of the states. A survey by the Association of State and Public Health Laboratory Directors found that 20 percent of States had no State public health laboratory capacity to isolate viruses, and 25 percent reported no ability to subtype influenza isolates. We know antivirals can prevent flu infection and treat those already infected, but we have not stockpiled enough doses to cover even the high-risk populations. We need more research to improve the effectiveness and the safety of vaccines against avian flu and other strains. Many of our hospital emergency rooms and clinics are already bursting at the seams, and it is unclear how they would care for a dramatically increased influx of patients during a pandemic. The AVIAN Act is a comprehensive measure to deal with an influenza pandemic by emphasizing domestic and international cooperation and collaboration. It creates a high-level inter-agency policy coordinating committee tasked with creating an integrated plan for the nation, with attention to health, agriculture, commerce, transportation, and international relations. Similarly, states are required to finalize pandemic preparedness plans that address surveillance, medical care, workforce, communication, and maintenance of core public functions. Private health providers and hospitals will play a critical role in diagnosing and treating their patients for flu, and this bill provides grants to make sure their efforts and information networks are coordinated with those by the state. Health and veterinary officials are encouraged to work with our international partners on all of these initiatives. This bill provides for a public education and awareness campaign and health professional training for a pandemic. The CDC is tasked with researching communication strategies, and developing and implementing a public, non-commercial, and non-competitive broadcast system. The NIH is required to expand and intensify its research on vaccines, antivirals, and other protective measures. An economics advisory committee is established to assess and make recommendations on how to finance pandemic preparedness, while minimizing its economic impact. Finally, the AVIAN Act provides for an Institute of Medicine study to study the legal, ethical, and social implications of pandemic influenza. Americans may be asked to isolate themselves, to stay home from work, to share their medical diagnoses, and to take certain medications. All of these actions may be critical in preventing millions of Americans from getting sick, spreading disease, and dying. Yet, we must make sure that we are fully cognizant of how these decisions will affect the rights of every American. We face a terrible threat from pandemic avian influenza, and we must not squander the opportunity before us to plan and prepare. In endorsing the AVIAN Act, the Trust for America's Health states: ``The avian flu is a real and dangerous threat to the health to our nation and the world. If the virus mutates slightly, we could have a million Americans hit by the first wave of a pandemic.'' The time to act is now, and I urge my colleagues to join me and pass the AVIAN Act of 2005. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Attacking Viral Influenza Across Nations Act of 2005, or the AVIAN Act. The Nation is becoming increasingly aware of the very serious threat we face from avian flu. This virus is found primarily in chickens, ducks, and other birds. Despite major efforts to eradicate this virus, the virus has become endemic in poultry and birds in some countries and is spreading rapidly in others. Humans can contract the virus when they come into contact with infected birds, and when this happens, the consequences are often deadly. Of the 88 humans infected with avian influenza in Vietnam, Thailand, and Cambodia, only 37 have survived. Right now, avian flu is thought to only pass from birds to humans. However, doctors and scientists have expressed the very real concern that this virus will mutate into a form that can spread easily from human to human. If this happens, the world could face its next pandemic, which could cause more illness and death than virtually any other natural health threat. The Nation experienced 3 pandemics in the 20th Century--the Spanish flu pandemic in 1918, the Asian flu pandemic in 1957, and the Hong Kong flu pandemic in 1968. The Spanish flu pandemic was the most severe, causing over 500,000 deaths in the United States and more than 20 million deaths worldwide. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has estimated that up to 207,000 Americans could die, and up to 734,000 could be hospitalized during the next pandemic. The costs of the pandemic, including the medical costs and the costs associated with infected Americans being unable to work and dying early, are estimated at between $71 billion and $166.5 billion. These costs do not include the impact of a pandemic on commerce and society. On February 21, 2005, Dr. Julie Gerberding, Director of the CDC, discussed the possibility of a pandemic and stated that ``this is a very ominous situation for the globe . . . the most important threat that we are facing right now.'' We are in a race against time. The Nation's health officials have made some progress in preparing for pandemic influenza. Yet, we have much work to do. The Department of Health and Human Services has not released its final pandemic preparedness plan nor have about half of the states. A survey by the Association of State and Public Health Laboratory Directors found that 20 percent of States had no State public health laboratory capacity to isolate viruses, and 25 percent reported no ability to subtype influenza isolates. We know antivirals can prevent flu infection and treat those already infected, but we have not stockpiled enough doses to cover even the high-risk populations. We need more research to improve the effectiveness and the safety of vaccines against avian flu and other strains. Many of our hospital emergency rooms and clinics are already bursting at the seams, and it is unclear how they would care for a dramatically increased influx of patients during a pandemic. The AVIAN Act is a comprehensive measure to deal with an influenza pandemic by emphasizing domestic and international cooperation and collaboration. It creates a high-level inter-agency policy coordinating committee tasked with creating an integrated plan for the nation, with attention to health, agriculture, commerce, transportation, and international relations. Similarly, states are required to finalize pandemic preparedness plans that address surveillance, medical care, workforce, communication, and maintenance of core public functions. Private health providers and hospitals will play a critical role in diagnosing and treating their patients for flu, and this bill provides grants to make sure their efforts and information networks are coordinated with those by the state. Health and veterinary officials are encouraged to work with our international partners on all of these initiatives. This bill provides for a public education and awareness campaign and health professional training for a pandemic. The CDC is tasked with researching communication strategies, and developing and implementing a public, non-commercial, and non-competitive broadcast system. The NIH is required to expand and intensify its research on vaccines, antivirals, and other protective measures. An economics advisory committee is established to assess and make recommendations on how to finance pandemic preparedness, while minimizing its economic impact. Finally, the AVIAN Act provides for an Institute of Medicine study to study the legal, ethical, and social implications of pandemic influenza. Americans may be asked to isolate themselves, to stay home from work, to share their medical diagnoses, and to take certain medications. All of these actions may be critical in preventing millions of Americans from getting sick, spreading disease, and dying. Yet, we must make sure that we are fully cognizant of how these decisions will affect the rights of every American. We face a terrible threat from pandemic avian influenza, and we must not squander the opportunity before us to plan and prepare. In endorsing the AVIAN Act, the Trust for America's Health states: ``The avian flu is a real and dangerous threat to the health to our nation and the world. If the virus mutates slightly, we could have a million Americans hit by the first wave of a pandemic.'' The time to act is now, and I urge my colleagues to join me and pass the AVIAN Act of 2005. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the budget resolution. I think that the budget process is one of those issues that doesn't translate too well outside of Washington. Most Americans know it involves a lot of fighting over a lot of numbers, but other than that what goes on here is largely obscured from public view. Sometimes I think that is why Washington gets away with passing a budget like this one. See, a budget is fundamentally about choices--not just choosing where to allocate funding--but where to place our most important values and priorities. And there are no free lunches here either. We must choose--do we want to run up our debt with tax cuts and give the bill to our children, or do we want to get our fiscal house back in order? Do we want to hand more corporate tax breaks to companies with record profits while handing our veterans higher health care bills, or do we want to keep our promise to those willing to sacrifice in defense of our freedom? These are the very real choices a budget asks us to make. And they have equally real consequences on people's lives. When we cut $10 billion from Medicaid, what does that say to the 53 million Americans--25 million of whom are children--who rely on this program as their only source of health care? The thousands of seniors and kids in Illinois who will be turned away from a doctor's office when they get sick because we chose to end their coverage, what does that say to those Americans? When we cut out a proposal to increase Pell grants that will send more kids to college, what does that say to the 220,000 who didn't attend last year for the simple reason that they couldn't afford it? What does it say to our kids who will have to compete with kids in India and China for jobs when we cut out proposals to provide new math and science teachers? When we cut $351 million in funding for veterans' nursing homes and eliminate $100 million in State grants for VA facilities, what does that say to the veterans who have sacrificed for this Nation but who cannot seem to get this Nation to sacrifice anything for them? What does it say to these veterans when we provide only around 100 new employees to deal with a backlog of 480,000 compensation and pension claims that haven't even been looked at yet? And what does it say to the men and women who are willing to fight and die for this country when we are not doing much about the nearly 300,000 veterans who go to sleep without a roof over their heads every single night? What does that say to them? What do we say to them? Maybe we tell them that the budget process is complicated; that we are in some tough times and have tough decisions to make; that we are not happy about the choices, but we have a huge deficit and no money left to spend. Or maybe we tell them that we couldn't afford to do anything about these important problems because we chose to give out over $100 billion in tax breaks. $100 billion on top of the trillions in tax cuts we have already given out most of which have gone to those few who already have so much. These tax cuts have driven us into the deepest debt in America's history and squandered our opportunity to deal with Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and the true costs of the war in Iraq. And yet when we try to do something fiscally responsible like pass an amendment that forces Congress to pay as it goes, we get rejected by those who want to keep borrowing and spending. Right now, there are millions of middle-class families who are deeply in debt and struggling to pay the bills. This body couldn't wait to pass a bankruptcy bill to make sure they paid every penny of that debt, and yet it has now maxed out the country's credit card many times over. What does this say to Americans about taking responsibility for themselves? A budget is about choices, and I believe the choices we have made here are just plain wrong. In this budget, we should be meeting our responsibilities to our fellow Americans while still paying down the debt so we can meet our responsibilities to our children too. It doesn't have to be either-or-- we can do both as long as we get our priorities in order. Many of us-- Democrats and Republicans--have been trying to do this during the budget process. Unfortunately, the final product does not reflect those efforts. In the future, I hope that both parties can find a way to come together and make sure that America's budget reflects Americans' priorities.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, we have all heard from folks back home about the high price of gasoline. When you pull into a gas station to fill up your tank, you're now paying some of the highest prices of all time. And when you turn on the news, you see that our dependence on foreign oil keeps us tied to one of the most dangerous and unstable regions in the world. With oil at more than $50 per barrel, some argue that the best way to deal with high gasoline prices is to wait it out--to wait until the world market dynamics change. I disagree with that mindset. For too long now, we've relied too heavily on foreign oil to fuel our energy needs in this country. This is not good for the United States--not for our economy, not for our national security, and not for our people. The bill I am introducing today, along with my distinguished colleagues from Illinois and Missouri, is designed to do something about fuel prices and our reliance on foreign oil--something rooted in reality, something achievable in the short term, and something that actually works. Last week, I visited a gasoline station in Springfield, IL, where along with regular gasoline, a new kind of fuel is offered for consumers--a fuel known as E-85. E-85 is a clean, alternative form of transportation fuel consisting of a blend of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline. Ethanol is made from renewable, Midwestern corn, and it is 40-60 cents cheaper per gallon than standard gasoline. Last week, at this Springfield station, regular gasoline was listed at $2.06 and E-85 was selling for $1.69. Not every car can run on E-85 fuel--but there are millions of cars that can. They're known as ``flexible-fuel vehicles,'' and the auto industry is turning out hundreds of thousands of them every year. And if any of you are wondering whether cars will run as well on E-85 as they would on regular gas, just ask the Indy 500, which recently announced that all of their cars will soon run on E-85 fuel. The only problem we have now is that we're in short supply of E-85 stations. While there are more than 180,000 gas stations all over America, there are only about 400 E-85 stations. And although E-85 has many environmental benefits and is a higher performing fuel, the fuel economy of E-85 is slightly lower than that of regular gasoline. An additional incentive is needed to help ensure that the cost of this clean fuel remains competitive with that of regular gasoline. That is why I'm introducing a bill to provide a tax credit of 50% for building an E-85 fuel station and a tax credit of 35 cents per gallon of E-85 fuel. This provision is similar to a provision that already has passed the Senate three times. I hope my colleagues will pass this provision again. We've talked for too long about energy independence in this country, and I think this bill gives us an opportunity to actually get something done about it. I urge the support of my colleagues of this bill, and I thank the Chair. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, we have all heard from folks back home about the high price of gasoline. When you pull into a gas station to fill up your tank, you're now paying some of the highest prices of all time. And when you turn on the news, you see that our dependence on foreign oil keeps us tied to one of the most dangerous and unstable regions in the world. With oil at more than $50 per barrel, some argue that the best way to deal with high gasoline prices is to wait it out--to wait until the world market dynamics change. I disagree with that mindset. For too long now, we've relied too heavily on foreign oil to fuel our energy needs in this country. This is not good for the United States--not for our economy, not for our national security, and not for our people. The bill I am introducing today, along with my distinguished colleagues from Illinois and Missouri, is designed to do something about fuel prices and our reliance on foreign oil--something rooted in reality, something achievable in the short term, and something that actually works. Last week, I visited a gasoline station in Springfield, IL, where along with regular gasoline, a new kind of fuel is offered for consumers--a fuel known as E-85. E-85 is a clean, alternative form of transportation fuel consisting of a blend of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline. Ethanol is made from renewable, Midwestern corn, and it is 40-60 cents cheaper per gallon than standard gasoline. Last week, at this Springfield station, regular gasoline was listed at $2.06 and E-85 was selling for $1.69. Not every car can run on E-85 fuel--but there are millions of cars that can. They're known as ``flexible-fuel vehicles,'' and the auto industry is turning out hundreds of thousands of them every year. And if any of you are wondering whether cars will run as well on E-85 as they would on regular gas, just ask the Indy 500, which recently announced that all of their cars will soon run on E-85 fuel. The only problem we have now is that we're in short supply of E-85 stations. While there are more than 180,000 gas stations all over America, there are only about 400 E-85 stations. And although E-85 has many environmental benefits and is a higher performing fuel, the fuel economy of E-85 is slightly lower than that of regular gasoline. An additional incentive is needed to help ensure that the cost of this clean fuel remains competitive with that of regular gasoline. That is why I'm introducing a bill to provide a tax credit of 50% for building an E-85 fuel station and a tax credit of 35 cents per gallon of E-85 fuel. This provision is similar to a provision that already has passed the Senate three times. I hope my colleagues will pass this provision again. We've talked for too long about energy independence in this country, and I think this bill gives us an opportunity to actually get something done about it. I urge the support of my colleagues of this bill, and I thank the Chair. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Just for the record, the $100 million figure is important for our purposes here today. Before the Appropriations Committee put together the supplemental, we discussed the importance of immediately addressing the avian flu before the situation spirals out of control, and that $25 million is an appropriate amount to deal with this critical emergency. I am correct?

Mr. OBAMA. I see that the distinguished ranking member of the State and Foreign Operations Subcommittee, Senator Leahy is here on the Senate floor. I am wondering it he would take just a moment to discuss with me the critical issue of the avian flu. Mr. President, an outbreak of the avian flu would be an international calamity. In this age when you can get on a plane in Bangkok and arrive in Chicago or Burlington in hours, we must face the reality that this threat is not a problem isolated half a world away, but is one that could affect people in Illinois, Vermont, and all across America. The director of the Centers for Disease Control recognized the grave consequences this virus could pose to international health when she recently stated that ``this is a very ominous situation for the globe . . . [this is] the most important threat we are facing right now.'' It is something that is clearly an emergency and is appropriately addressed in the Iraq Supplemental. At this point, humans contract the virus overwhelmingly by coming into contact with infected animals, and once contracted, the virus is extremely deadly--a 65 to 75 percent mortality rate for humans-- especially because there is no proven vaccine for the H5N1 strain. Further, effective treatments for this strain of the virus are not widely available and must be delivered within 24 hours. The recent trends with respect to the spread of the avian flu are very alarming. Over the last few months, there is growing evidence which suggests that the virus may be mutating and could eventually result in a form that is transmittable from human to human. If this were to occur, it could cause the deaths of millions of people, seriously damage economic activity in Southeast Asia, and cause panic and instability throughout the region. Moreover, because of the dynamic nature of Southeast Asia, with all sorts of commerce and transport in and out of the region, the virus would likely spread around the world-- including to the United States, in a matter of hours or days. I would ask my good friend, the senior Senator from Vermont, who has a long history of leadership on international health issues. for his assessment of what needs to be done.

Mr. OBAMA. I also know that USAID has already formulated a rapid response plan to use this $25 million, if it is ultimately appropriated.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I speak in favor of the amendment offered by the distinguished chairman and ranking member of the Veterans Affairs Committee. A few weeks ago, I met with Sergeants Ryan Kelly, Jeremy Feldbusch, and Heath Calhoun, all of whom had recently returned from Iraq. They served their country bravely in battle, and in doing so, each of these men sustained a disabling injury that will change their lives forever. When they came home, it would have been easy for them to go about their own business or feel sorry for themselves. But they did not. Instead, they decided that their service to our country would not end on the battlefields of Iraq. They would speak out for their fellow soldiers--the ones who also may come home without a leg, or an arm, or their sight, but may not have the resources to carry on and support their families. This amendment is their tribute to their brothers and sisters-in- arms. For only about $3 per month, it allows service members to purchase group disability insurance that would award them a maximum of $100,000 if they are deemed seriously injured. For disabled veterans who may not be able to work when they come home, this insurance could help them obtain long-term care, send their kids to school, or simply make sure that they can pay the bills and still put food on the table. It won't cost the Government a dime. It simply needs our approval to allow it to happen. The blessings of modern technology have saved the lives of many service members who would otherwise have died from their wounds. Yet, it also means there will be more wounded who need care. Every single one of us has a fundamental moral duty to take care of those men and women who've sacrificed to safeguard our freedom. This amendment offers us one way to do that, and I thank Senators Craig and Akaka for their cooperation in moving this issue forward.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I thank the senior Senator from Alaska for joining me to discuss an issue of growing importance for our service members wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Mr. OBAMA. I thank the Senator. Amendment No. 440, As Modified

Mr. OBAMA. I look forward to working with the Senator from Alaska on this issue. Because epilepsy is a disorder that remains latent for many years, it is important that we work now to better understand the relationship between TBI and epilepsy and prevent the onset of epilepsy in these service members.

Mr. OBAMA. Recently, USA Today reported that many of our injured soldiers are returning from Iraq with a condition known as traumatic brain injury, or TBI. Even though new technology and better body armor are helping soldiers survive bomb and rocket attacks, the blasts are still causing brain damage to them. As of January, 437 cases have been diagnosed in Army hospitals alone, and some doctors are saying that it could become the ``signature wound of the Iraq war.'' TBI is the greatest risk factor for developing epilepsy. In fact, a study of Vietnam vets showed that 51 percent of those who suffered TBI went on to develop this disorder. That is why I filed an amendment to provide $1 million to the Department of Defense Peer Reviewed Medical Research Program for epilepsy research--including research on the relationship between TBI and epilepsy. The Epilepsy Foundation of America supports the amendment. However, I understand that this important issue is more appropriately addressed in the fiscal year 2006 appropriations process. With that understanding, I will not offer the amendment at this time.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, today I am offering an amendment to the fiscal year 2005 emergency supplemental which I am pleased to announce is being cosponsored by Senators Corzine, Bingaman, and Graham. This amendment would meet certain needs of our injured service members in recognition of the tremendous sacrifice they have made in defense of our country. The other day I had the opportunity to visit some of our wounded heroes at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. I know many of you have made the same trip. I heard about their visits, but there is nothing that can fully prepare you for what you see when you take that first step into the physical therapy room. These are kids in there, our kids, the ones we watched grow up, the ones we hoped would live lives that were happy, healthy, and safe. These kids left their homes and families for a dangerous place halfway around the world. After years of being protected by their parents, these kids risk their lives to protect us. Now some of them have come home from that war with scars that may change their lives forever, scars that may never heal. Yet they sit there in the hospital so full of hope and still so proud of their country. They are the best that America has to offer, and they deserve our highest respect, and they deserve our help. Recently, I learned that some of our most severely wounded soldiers are being forced to pay for their own meals and their own phone calls while being treated in medical hospitals. Up until last year, there was a law on the books that prohibited soldiers from receiving both their basic subsistence allowance and free meals from the military. Basically, this law allowed the Government to charge our wounded heroes for food while they were recovering from their war injuries. Thankfully, this body acted to change this law in 2003 so that wounded soldiers would not have to pay for their meals. But we are dealing with a bureaucracy here and, as we know, nothing is ever simple in a bureaucracy. So now, because the Department of Defense does not consider getting physical rehabilitation or therapy services in a medical hospital as being hospitalized, there are wounded veterans who still do not qualify for the free meals other veterans receive. After 90 days, even those classified as hospitalized on an outpatient status lose their free meals as well. Also, while our soldiers in the field qualify for free phone service, injured service men and women who may be hospitalized hundreds or thousands of miles from home do not receive this same benefit. For soldiers whose family members are not able to take off work and travel to a military hospital, hearing the familiar voice of mom or dad or husband or wife on the other side of the phone can make all the difference in the world. Yet right now our Government will not help pay for these calls, and it will not help pay for these meals. Now, think about the sacrifices these young people have made for their country, many of them literally sacrificing life and in some cases limb. Now, at $8.30 a meal, they could end up with a $250 bill from the Government that sent them to war, and they could get that bill every single month. This is wrong, and we have a moral obligation to fix it. The amendment I am offering today will do this. The amendment will expand the group of hospitalized soldiers who cannot be charged for their meals to include those service members undergoing medical recuperation, therapy, or otherwise on ``medical hold.'' The number of people affected by this amendment will be small. Only about 4,000 service members are estimated to fall under the category of non-hospitalized. The amendment is retroactive to January 1, 2005, in an effort to provide those injured service members who may have already received bills for their meals with some relief from these costs. The amendment will also extend free phone service to those injured service members who are hospitalized or otherwise undergoing medical recuperation or therapy. I am very proud this amendment is supported by the American Legion, and I hope my colleagues will join them in that support. I ask all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment. It should be something that is very simple for us to do. These are our children and they risked their lives for us. When they come home with injuries, we should be expected to provide them the best possible service and the best possible support. This is a small price to pay for those who have sacrificed so much for their country. I want to mention and extend my thanks to the senior Senator from Alaska and my colleague from Mississippi for working with me on this issue. I am hoping that we can reach an agreement on this bill.

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 390 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. OBAMA. I thank my colleague, the Senator from Mississippi, for that offer, and I believe all of us feel the same way. These are the soldiers that are most severely wounded. We want to take the very best care of them, and I very much appreciate the consideration of the Senator from Mississippi.

Mr. OBAMA. Yes, I do. DOD currently charges soldiers $8.30 per day for meals at the nondiscounted rate. So if all the eligible soldiers ate all of their meals at military facilities through the end of this fiscal year, the amendment would cost about $10.2 million. Now, that is probably a high estimate because my expectation would be these wounded soldiers would not be eating all of their meals at the hospital. So it would probably end up being lower, but the upper threshold would be $10.2 million.

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I ask that the quorum call be dispensed with.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to think about the implications of what has been called the nuclear option and what effect that might have on this Chamber and on this country. I urge all of us to think not just about winning every debate but about protecting free and democratic debate. During my Senate campaign, I had the privilege and opportunity to meet Americans from all walks of life and both ends of the political spectrum. They told me about their lives, about their hopes, about the issues that matter to them, and they also told me what they think about Washington. Because my colleagues have heard it themselves, I know it will not surprise many of them to learn that a lot of people do not think much gets done around here on issues about which they care the most. They think the atmosphere has become too partisan, the arguments have become too nasty, and the political agendas have become too petty. While I have not been here too long, I have noticed that partisan debate is sharp, and dissent is not always well received. Honest differences of opinion and principled compromise often seem to be the victim of a determination to score points against one's opponents. But the American people sent us here to be their voice. They understand that those voices can at times become loud and argumentative, but they also hope we can disagree without being disagreeable. At the end of the day, they expect both parties to work together to get the people's business done. What they do not expect is for one party, be it Republican or Democrat, to change the rules in the middle of the game so they can make all the decisions while the other party is told to sit down and keep quiet. The American people want less partisanship in this town, but everyone in this Chamber knows that if the majority chooses to end the filibuster, if they choose to change the rules and put an end to democratic debate, then the fighting, the bitterness, and the gridlock will only get worse. I understand that Republicans are getting a lot of pressure to do this from factions outside the Chamber, but we need to rise above ``the ends justify the means'' mentality because we are here to answer to the people--all of the people, not just the ones who are wearing our particular party label. The fact is that both parties have worked together to confirm 95 percent of this President's judicial nominees. The Senate has accepted 205 of his 214 selections. In fact, we just confirmed another one of the President's judges this week by a vote of 95 to 0. Overall, this is a better record than any President has had in the last 25 years. For a President who received 51 percent of the vote and a Senate Chamber made up of 55 percent of the President's party, I would say that confirming 95 percent of their judicial nominations is a record to be proud of. Again, I urge my Republican colleagues not to go through with changing these rules. In the long run, it is not a good result for either party. One day Democrats will be in the majority again, and this rule change will be no fairer to a Republican minority than it is to a Democratic minority. I sense that talk of the nuclear option is more about power than about fairness. I believe some of my colleagues propose this rule change because they can get away with it rather than because they know it is good for our democracy. Right now we are faced with rising gas prices, skyrocketing tuition costs, a record number of uninsured Americans, and some of the most serious national security threats we have ever had, while our bravest young men and women are risking their lives halfway around the world to keep us safe. These are challenges we all want to meet and problems we all want to solve, even if we do not always agree on how to do it. But if the right of free and open debate is taken away from the minority party and the millions of Americans who ask us to be their voice, I fear the partisan atmosphere in Washington will be poisoned to the point where no one will be able to agree on anything. That does not serve anybody's best interest, and it certainly is not what the patriots who founded this democracy had in mind. We owe the people who sent us here more than that. We owe them much more. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

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

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Higher Education Opportunity Through Pell Grant Expansion Act of 2005, or HOPE Act. Right now, in schools, playgrounds, and backyards across America, children are dreaming about what they want to be when they grow up. As tomorrow's astronauts, doctors, and teachers dream about their futures, their parents know that so many of those dreams are dependent on a college diploma. The families I have met in Illinois are worried that they might not be able to give their kids a chance at that diploma. Everywhere I go, I hear the same story: we work hard, we pay our bills, we cut corners, and we put away savings, but we just don't know if it is going to be enough when the tuition bill comes in the mail. The facts and statistics are not encouraging. College tuition is rising at a stunning rate of almost 10 percent a year, and over the last 25 years it is gone up an astounding 519 percent. Because of these rising prices, over 200,000 students were priced out of a college education last year. In a country with so much wealth and opportunity for education, it is difficult to imagine there are parents who are forced to say to their kids: ``We're sorry. We can't afford to send you to college.'' None of us in the Senate should rest until those parents can start saying ``yes'' to their kids. This bill would start us down that path by increasing access to Pell grants. Today, these need-based awards are used by 5.3 million undergraduate students to fund their education. Unfortunately, the awards just haven't kept up with the rising price of tuition or even inflation. As a result, the current $4,050 Pell grant maximum is $700 less in real terms than the maximum grant 30 years ago. Pell grants now cover only 23 percent of the total cost of the average 4-year public college. The HOPE Act would correct this problem by raising the Pell grant maximum to $5,100, and it would continue to raise this maximum in future years to keep up with inflation. The bill also would make sure that no student sees a reduction in Pell grant assistance due to recent changes in the eligibility formula. Because working families are already burdened with too many taxes, this bill would not add to the deficit or raise a dime of taxes. Instead, it will close two loopholes that guarantee banks and private lenders an additional $2 billion in taxpayer subsidies every year on top of the interest that college students and their families are already paying on their loans. In a country where 200,000 students were priced out of college last year, our tax dollars shouldn't be spent subsidizing banks that are already making record profits. When our children dream about their future, they need to know those dreams are within their reach. A college education forms the foundation of the opportunity society that will keep this country strong and growing in the 21st century. I know we can work together to get this done, and I look forward to doing so. I urge my colleagues to support the HOPE Act. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Higher Education Opportunity Through Pell Grant Expansion Act of 2005, or HOPE Act. Right now, in schools, playgrounds, and backyards across America, children are dreaming about what they want to be when they grow up. As tomorrow's astronauts, doctors, and teachers dream about their futures, their parents know that so many of those dreams are dependent on a college diploma. The families I have met in Illinois are worried that they might not be able to give their kids a chance at that diploma. Everywhere I go, I hear the same story: we work hard, we pay our bills, we cut corners, and we put away savings, but we just don't know if it is going to be enough when the tuition bill comes in the mail. The facts and statistics are not encouraging. College tuition is rising at a stunning rate of almost 10 percent a year, and over the last 25 years it is gone up an astounding 519 percent. Because of these rising prices, over 200,000 students were priced out of a college education last year. In a country with so much wealth and opportunity for education, it is difficult to imagine there are parents who are forced to say to their kids: ``We're sorry. We can't afford to send you to college.'' None of us in the Senate should rest until those parents can start saying ``yes'' to their kids. This bill would start us down that path by increasing access to Pell grants. Today, these need-based awards are used by 5.3 million undergraduate students to fund their education. Unfortunately, the awards just haven't kept up with the rising price of tuition or even inflation. As a result, the current $4,050 Pell grant maximum is $700 less in real terms than the maximum grant 30 years ago. Pell grants now cover only 23 percent of the total cost of the average 4-year public college. The HOPE Act would correct this problem by raising the Pell grant maximum to $5,100, and it would continue to raise this maximum in future years to keep up with inflation. The bill also would make sure that no student sees a reduction in Pell grant assistance due to recent changes in the eligibility formula. Because working families are already burdened with too many taxes, this bill would not add to the deficit or raise a dime of taxes. Instead, it will close two loopholes that guarantee banks and private lenders an additional $2 billion in taxpayer subsidies every year on top of the interest that college students and their families are already paying on their loans. In a country where 200,000 students were priced out of college last year, our tax dollars shouldn't be spent subsidizing banks that are already making record profits. When our children dream about their future, they need to know those dreams are within their reach. A college education forms the foundation of the opportunity society that will keep this country strong and growing in the 21st century. I know we can work together to get this done, and I look forward to doing so. I urge my colleagues to support the HOPE Act. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Today I wish to commend Congressman Bobby Rush and other members of the Congressional Black Caucus for their work on behalf of Afro-Colombians. The consistent advocacy of the CBC on this human rights issue has been critical to increasing consciousness and activism in the U.S. and Colombia. Significant progress has made through this alliance, and I look forward to working with the CBC and other community groups on this issue. Throughout Latin America, Afro-Latino communities remain marginalized--socially, economically and politically. In the case of Colombia, the violence and disruption of the country's 40-year civil conflict have disproportionately affected Afro-Colombians. Many are now refugees in their own country after being forced to leave their homes, and they face widespread racial discrimination as they try to rebuild their lives. Although Colombia's 1991 Constitution granted Afro- Colombians territorial rights to the land they historically held, these rights are now being increasingly violated, as this land is taken from them. With little or no economic and educational opportunities available, many Afro-Colombian youths have turned to coca cultivation or joined guerrilla forces. With the rise of Afro-Colombian advocacy groups and NGOs in Colombia, I believe it is possible to foster meaningful partnerships and alliances for positive change in this region. In addition to the CBC, there are many members of the religious community--in my home State of Illinois and across our country--who are working on behalf of Afro- Colombians. I commend them on their dedication to this important cause. Together we can and will make a difference.