Barack Obama

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I am pleased to join as a cosponsor of the Fuels Security Act of 2005, which sets a renewable fuels standard for the years 2006 to 2012. To lessen our dependence on foreign oil and strengthen our economy here at home, renewable fuels like ethanol ought to be a larger part of our domestic fuel supply. This bill will contribute to that objective, and I commend Senators Lugar and Harkin for their leadership in crafting this legislation. Yesterday, during the markup of a similar bill in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, I expressed strong support for establishing a meaningful renewable fuels standard as an important part of a comprehensive national energy policy. The bill before the Committee set targets at 3.8 billion gallons in 2006 and 6 billion gallons in 2012, improving upon last year's RFS provision in the energy bill conference report that set targets at 3.1 billion gallons and 5 billion gallons, respectively. I voted for the chairman's mark yesterday because it gets the RFS debate rolling in the new Congress. However, I also noted that it has been widely reported in the trade press that the 30-state Governors Ethanol Coalition has recommended to the President that refiners be required to purchase a minimum volume of ethanol of at least 4 billion gallons in 2006, rising to 8 billion gallons in 2012. This recommendation adds weight to the view expressed by me and others that the committee's targets are too conservative. Why are these specific targets so important? They are important if we are to maximize the ethanol industry's ability to boost farm income by providing a new market for corn; to promote economic growth in rural communities by increasing production in existing plants and attracting investment in new community-sized ethanol facilities; and to reduce our alarming dependence on imported oil by expanding the volume of ethanol in our transportation fuel mix. These are important objectives. They matter. And that is why it is important to get the specific targets right. In committee yesterday, I suggested that since ethanol production is expected to reach 4 billion gallons this year, we ought to adjust the committee bill's RFS targets on the Senate floor to reflect current market reality. I am pleased that Chairman Inhofe seemed open to that debate. I think the Governors Ethanol Coalition recommendation of at least 4 billion gallons in 2006 and 8 billion gallons in 2012 is a good place to start this debate. I think any RFS legislation enacted by Congress should contain these levels. That is why I am pleased to cosponsor the Fuels Security Act introduced by Senators Lugar and Harkin today. The ethanol volume targets in this bill--4 billion gallons in 2006 and 8 billion gallons in 2012--are in much greater alignment with expected ethanol production in future years than those in the Committee bill. Earlier this week, I had the opportunity to tour the Aventine ethanol plant in Pekin, IL. My visit reminded me of the work of a Pekin native more than 50 years ago. That person--Senator Everett Dirksen-- encouraged federal lawmakers to consider ``processing our surplus farm crops into an alcohol . . . to create a market in our own land for our own people.'' Today, farmers across Illinois, including farmers near Pekin, are growing corn for fuel, both strengthening our energy security and providing an economic boost to rural communities. By enacting a meaningful RFS, we are displacing more foreign oil with homegrown energy. We are expanding the market for Illinois corn. And we are promoting the use of renewable fuel. Remember, unlike other energy sources, when you run out of ethanol, you can simply grow more. For too many years, America has been overly dependent on foreign oil to meet its domestic energy needs. And, despite rising crude oil prices and unsettling volatility in the Persian Gulf, that trend is increasing, not declining. Renewable fuels such as ethanol can help address this dangerous dependence on foreign oil. And a strong renewable fuels standard will maximize this contribution.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I am pleased to join as a cosponsor of the Fuels Security Act of 2005, which sets a renewable fuels standard for the years 2006 to 2012. To lessen our dependence on foreign oil and strengthen our economy here at home, renewable fuels like ethanol ought to be a larger part of our domestic fuel supply. This bill will contribute to that objective, and I commend Senators Lugar and Harkin for their leadership in crafting this legislation. Yesterday, during the markup of a similar bill in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, I expressed strong support for establishing a meaningful renewable fuels standard as an important part of a comprehensive national energy policy. The bill before the Committee set targets at 3.8 billion gallons in 2006 and 6 billion gallons in 2012, improving upon last year's RFS provision in the energy bill conference report that set targets at 3.1 billion gallons and 5 billion gallons, respectively. I voted for the chairman's mark yesterday because it gets the RFS debate rolling in the new Congress. However, I also noted that it has been widely reported in the trade press that the 30-state Governors Ethanol Coalition has recommended to the President that refiners be required to purchase a minimum volume of ethanol of at least 4 billion gallons in 2006, rising to 8 billion gallons in 2012. This recommendation adds weight to the view expressed by me and others that the committee's targets are too conservative. Why are these specific targets so important? They are important if we are to maximize the ethanol industry's ability to boost farm income by providing a new market for corn; to promote economic growth in rural communities by increasing production in existing plants and attracting investment in new community-sized ethanol facilities; and to reduce our alarming dependence on imported oil by expanding the volume of ethanol in our transportation fuel mix. These are important objectives. They matter. And that is why it is important to get the specific targets right. In committee yesterday, I suggested that since ethanol production is expected to reach 4 billion gallons this year, we ought to adjust the committee bill's RFS targets on the Senate floor to reflect current market reality. I am pleased that Chairman Inhofe seemed open to that debate. I think the Governors Ethanol Coalition recommendation of at least 4 billion gallons in 2006 and 8 billion gallons in 2012 is a good place to start this debate. I think any RFS legislation enacted by Congress should contain these levels. That is why I am pleased to cosponsor the Fuels Security Act introduced by Senators Lugar and Harkin today. The ethanol volume targets in this bill--4 billion gallons in 2006 and 8 billion gallons in 2012--are in much greater alignment with expected ethanol production in future years than those in the Committee bill. Earlier this week, I had the opportunity to tour the Aventine ethanol plant in Pekin, IL. My visit reminded me of the work of a Pekin native more than 50 years ago. That person--Senator Everett Dirksen-- encouraged federal lawmakers to consider ``processing our surplus farm crops into an alcohol . . . to create a market in our own land for our own people.'' Today, farmers across Illinois, including farmers near Pekin, are growing corn for fuel, both strengthening our energy security and providing an economic boost to rural communities. By enacting a meaningful RFS, we are displacing more foreign oil with homegrown energy. We are expanding the market for Illinois corn. And we are promoting the use of renewable fuel. Remember, unlike other energy sources, when you run out of ethanol, you can simply grow more. For too many years, America has been overly dependent on foreign oil to meet its domestic energy needs. And, despite rising crude oil prices and unsettling volatility in the Persian Gulf, that trend is increasing, not declining. Renewable fuels such as ethanol can help address this dangerous dependence on foreign oil. And a strong renewable fuels standard will maximize this contribution.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, over the last century, the Nation has witnessed tremendous advances in medical science and technology. We now have treatments and cures for diseases and conditions that were at one time surely fatal. Thirty years ago, if children developed cancer, doctors couldn't save their lives. Today, more than three-quarters of children with cancer survive. Heart disease is no longer the leading cause of death because of significant improvements in medical treatment and surgical procedures. Americans with AIDS are living many years longer and spending more time at home and not in hospitals because of new drug cocktails that prevent infections and other deadly complications. The unfortunate and bitter irony is that while the number of medical breakthroughs continues to increase, so does the number of Americans who will never benefit from them. Right now, 45 million Americans have no health care coverage, and this number continues to rise. Over a 2- year period, over 85 million Americans have not had continuous insurance coverage. In this land of plenty and opportunity, 350,000 uninsured children with earaches and sore throats will never see a doctor. Sixteen million uninsured Americans cannot afford to fill prescriptions. Uninsured women who develop breast cancer are 40 percent more likely to die, as are 50 percent of uninsured men with prostate cancer. The Institute of Medicine has reported that 18,000 adults die every year because they are uninsured. For many Americans, Medicaid represents their only real hope of obtaining health care. Nationally, 53 million people rely on Medicaid coverage, including 25 million children, 13 million low-income adults, and 15 million disabled and elderly Americans. Nearly 16 percent of people who live in rural areas have Medicaid coverage, including more than 1 in 4 children in these areas. One quarter of African Americans and 20 percent of Hispanics rely on Medicaid, as do 9 percent of women. In my home State of Illinois, Medicaid provides health coverage for 2 million residents. Over 30 percent of children in Illinois receive health care through KidCare. Nearly 65 percent of nursing home residents rely on Medicaid coverage. Despite Medicaid's critical role in providing access to care, the Republican budget proposes to cut Medicaid by $15 billion. This cut translates into an estimated $287 million loss for Illinois. Experts report this funding could provide health care coverage for 200,000 children or 135,000 working parents in my State. Some of my colleagues argue that we have no choice but to make large cuts to Medicaid because of the deficit. But these deficits were created by huge tax breaks for the rich, not by Medicaid, and we should not balance the budget at the expense of health care for low-income children, their parents, pregnant women and seniors. We cannot keep tax cuts for the rich and cut basic health care for the poor. We cannot retreat from our Federal commitment to Medicaid and leave the States holding the bag. I agree the Medicaid Program is not perfect. The Smith-Bingaman amendment to create a commission to study the program and make recommendations for improvement is a reasonable approach. Sound policy, not politics or deficit concerns, should guide any changes to the Medicaid Program, and I am not convinced that we have examined or discussed the full range of Medicaid-related issues and options before us. We cannot and should not deny millions of Americans access to basic health care. Medicaid is the Nation's safety net, and we should strengthen it, not destroy it. I am going to vote yes for the Smith- Bingaman amendment to strike proposed cuts in funding for Medicaid, and I urge my colleagues to join me. Amendment No. 229

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise to discuss an issue on which I hope we can find common ground. Today, we have thousands of brave men and women risking their lives for us halfway around the world. At home, we have millions more who were equally courageous in defending our freedom during generations past. When it comes to honoring these soldiers and these veterans, there is never any shortage of words and praise from leaders of both parties, and there should not be. I commend the previous speaker, the outstanding Senator from Idaho, who is also chairman of the Veterans Committee, for his deep concern and regard for our veterans. But I have to contest some of the statements that were made because, unfortunately, based on our analysis, this budget has a very real and unacceptable shortage of funding for the benefits and health care that our heroes have earned. Make no mistake, these are not just complaints coming from Washington; these are complaints we are hearing from veterans all across the country--in Illinois, Washington, Hawaii, and Idaho. Senator Ensign's amendment increases the veterans health care budget by $410 million. That is a modest improvement and to be commended, compared to the original budget offered by the President. Yet, these dollars, I should point out, come directly out of important international programs that fund child health care, global AIDS assistance, disaster, famine assistance, and more. We can have a further discussion as to whether it is wise for us to rob Peter to pay Paul. But even if we go ahead and take this money from these vital programs and place it into veterans, it is still $2.5 billion short of sufficiently funding veterans health care services. That is why I am joining my colleagues on the Veterans' Affairs Committee, ranking member Akaka and Senator Murray, to support an amendment to increase funding for veterans health care by $2.85 billion. Today, the state of care for America's veterans is not worthy of their service to this country. There are roughly 480,000 compensation and pension claims still unprocessed. This budget provides for 113 new employees to help deal with this backlog. There are thousands of veterans who cannot afford to get the health care they need, and I am glad to see the Ensign amendment eliminates the copayments. But the budget in front of us still tells veterans who make as little as $30,000 a year they are too wealthy to enroll in the VA health care system. There are VA hospitals on the brink of closing down around the country. But this budget cuts $351 million in funding for veterans nursing homes and eliminates more than $100 million in State grants that are desperately needed by VA facilities. When the troops who are fighting bravely in Iraq and Afghanistan return home as veterans, what kind of care will they find? Already we know that soldiers are coming home with post traumatic stress disorder, with traumatic brain injury that could lead to epilepsy, and with conditions that may result in over 100,000 soldiers requiring mental health treatment when they come home. If we cannot care for the veterans who are already here, how will we take care of the veterans who will be returning in a few years? I urge my colleagues to join me in sending veterans the right message. Our amendment will provide funds for VA staff so veterans who are waiting to file disability claims are not waiting months to have their case heard. It will provide adequate funding so that veterans of all incomes can access the VA system, as was promised. When it comes to America's veterans, it is not only our patriotic duty to care, it is also our moral duty. When our troops return from battle, we should welcome them with the promise of opportunity, not the threat of poverty. Senator Ensign's amendment is a modest improvement over the President's original budget. But as Senator Akaka has already stated, it still leaves the veterans short. It is time to reassess our priorities. A budget is more than a series of numbers on a page; it is the embodiment of our values. The President and everyone in this Chamber never hesitate to praise the service of our veterans and acknowledge the debt we owe them for their service, and I commend my colleagues and the President for that. But this budget does not reflect that praise or repay that debt. Neither does the budget resolution on the floor today.

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support the Byrd amendment to restore funding to Amtrak--a critical mode of transportation in Illinois. I want to emphasize that there are serious inefficiencies with Amtrak operations. I do not support the restoration of Amtrak funding because I believe in a return to the status quo. I do believe, however, that the elimination of all funding, as the President has proposed, and as this budget resolution reflects, will lead Amtrak not to reform but to ruin. A strong national rail system is not just a convenience for travelers. It also serves other important national objectives, such as ensuring multiple travel options in the event of regional or national emergency, reducing our heavy dependence on foreign oil, and improving air quality. In recent years, Amtrak has increased the number of trains it operates and has achieved a record level of ridership, with more than 25 million passengers using Amtrak last year. In Illinois alone, more than 3 million people use one or many of the 50 daily Illinois trains, including business leaders traveling to and from smaller cities and towns; tourists who visit Illinois attractions, and students who attend world-class Illinois colleges and universities. Responding to calls for reform, Amtrak's leadership has streamlined its operating costs, engaged in ongoing discussions to evaluate current policies and increase efficiency, and created a strategic plan for future improvements. The proposed cuts in Federal funds would cripple Amtrak beyond repair. We cannot--and should not--allow that to occur. I urge my colleagues to support the Byrd amendment and restore Federal funding for Amtrak to this year's budget.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I have come to the floor as a cosponsor on the Sarbanes amendment to the budget to protect funding for the community development block grant CDBG administered at the Department of Housing and Urban Development. This program is crucial to the development of low income communities across America. As you know, the administration has proposed a plan in the 2006 budget to consolidate 18 existing economic and community development programs into a single program administered by the Department of Commerce. The HUD community development block grant program--also called the CDBG program--is the largest of those 18 programs. The grants previously awarded under these 18 programs would be awarded in the name of a single, newly formed strengthening America's communities, SAC, grant program. But when examined, it becomes clear that the President's proposal will mean less assistance for low-income communities and a dismantling of relationships within a community development infrastructure of public servants and community-based organizations that we have built over the last 30 years. Under the proposal, the total budget for these 18 programs would drop 30 percent from $5.31 billion in 2005 to a proposed $3.71 billion in 2006. That means less money for home ownership, less money for economic development, less money for communities struggling in changing economy. To give you a sense of what that means for State and local governments, consider that in 2005 the community development block grant, CDBG, program alone was funded at $4.15 billion, $450 million more than the $3.7 billion requested for the total 18 programs being consolidated under the new strengthening America's communities grant program in 2006. That is not a consolidation of programs. It is a direct attempt to dismantle those programs. That is why the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National Association of Counties, and the National League of Cities all oppose this. As those groups have pointed out, the Commerce Department lacks the capacity to administer the newly proposed program. HUD has 1,100 urban, suburban, and rural CDBG grantees, constituting a strong infrastructure for program administration. And, HUD's $4.7 billion CDBG program dwarfs the Commerce Department's $257 million economic development program. HUD has skills and experience Commerce lacks. On March 4, 2005, I wrote a letter to Chairman Gregg and Ranking Member Conrad supporting full funding for the CDBG and objecting to its transfer to the Department of Commerce from HUD. Those who are closest to the needs of low-income communities our Nation's Governors, community based organizations in Illinois, and local government officials from Illinois have all come out in support of the Sarbanes amendment. They know the CDBG program works and have shared success stories of communities strengthened with CDBG funds. They respect the public servants that administer the program, and they have developed a working partnership with them. In Illinois, communities large and small are making the most of this assistance. The city of Chicago, for example, which has already seen its formula share of CDBG funds reduced by $14 million over the last 3 years, has focused its CDBG priorities on five specific program areas: affordable housing, youth programming, health clinics, job training, and support services to groups with specific needs, such as domestic violence, emergency food aid, and meals on wheels. Let me give you a specific example of CDBG funds in action. Mujeres Latinas en Accion is an organization in Chicago's Pilsen community that serves Latinas and their families. The total they receive in CDBG funds both through the city of Chicago and the city of Cicero is close to $170,000. Mujeres Latinas en Accion depends on CDBG funds to support services such as rental assistance for program participants to prevent homelessness. They also provide comprehensive services for victims of domestic violence including crisis intervention, court advocacy, individual counseling, group counseling, 24-hour crisis hotline, and referrals to shelters. And, the group also uses CDBG funds to provide services to young people promoting the development of peaceful relationships, open communication with peers and family, and school success. The goal of the program is to provide youth a variety of age appropriate structured activities during nonschool hours to help prevent teen involvement in gangs, alcohol and drug use, sexual activity, pregnancy, and other problems facing adolescents in low- income communities. In Champaign, IL, CDBG funds have been used to help low-income families become homeowners, make homes accessible for the disabled, provide credit counseling, construct emergency and transitional shelters for the homeless, and provide a broad range of services to people in need. A number of towns in St. Clair County, IL, are using CDBG funds for housing rehabilitation grants and loans for their low to moderate income residents. As you can see, these proposed cuts in the CDBG program affect big cities and smaller towns. Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daley wrote me that, ``significant reductions in CDBG funds . . . would have a serious effect on the network of community-based organizations throughout the city which rely on CDBG for their existence. A number of them would likely close their doors.'' And, in the words of Eric Kellogg, the mayor of Harvey, IL, population 30,000, ``Many have characterized CDBG as the best federal domestic program ever enacted because of its flexibility and adaptability in meeting the needs of a diverse America.'' The CDBG program works. Let's not destroy it. I urge my colleagues to support the Sarbanes amendment.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, as the Peace Corps celebrates its 44th anniversary this month, I would like to take this opportunity to commend its many wonderful volunteers, past and present, and the remarkable work they do. I am very pleased to report that three universities in Illinois--the University of Illinois at Champaign- Urbana, Northwestern University, and the University of Chicago--are three of the top Peace Corps-volunteer producing colleges and universities in the country. There are currently 295 volunteers from Illinois working in countries around the world, and I am tremendously proud of the service provided by each and every one of them. The work of the Peace Corps in promoting mutual understanding between our country and the rest of the world has never been more relevant than it is today. The Peace Corps began in 1961 under President John F. Kennedy as a unique experiment in humanitarian service and cultural exchange and has grown to become one of the most widely respected American institutions in the world. Since the founding of the Peace Corps, over 178,000 volunteers have served in 138 countries. Peace Corps volunteers share their knowledge, skills, and enthusiasm by serving as health educators, youth and agricultural workers, teachers, and business advisors. Of the 7,700 volunteers currently serving, over 3,100 are working on HIV/AIDS education and prevention projects, and I commend them on their critically important work on this global crisis. I also would like to honor past volunteers who have helped to build this wonderful program into what it is today, who have empowered and given voice to individuals and communities in developing countries around the world. Individually and collectively, Peace Corps volunteers represent the very best of our great country, and I am proud to salute them on their 44th anniversary.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Thank you, Mr. President. I have come to the floor today to briefly address the pending legislation. This issue forces us to face a fundamental question about who we are as a country, how we progress as a society, where our values lie as a people, how do we treat our fellow Americans who have fallen on hard times, and what is our responsibility to cushion those falls when they occur. We do so not only out of compassion for others but also knowing that hard times might at any moment fall on ourselves. The proponents of this bill claim it is designed to curb the worst abuses of our bankruptcy system. I think that is a worthy goal shared by all those in this Chamber, and we can all agree that bankruptcy was never meant to serve as a ``get out of jail free'' card for use when you foolishly gamble away all your savings and don't feel like taking responsibility for your actions. But to accomplish that, this bill would take us from a system where judges weed out the abusers from the honest to a system where all the honest are presumed to be abusers, where declaring chapter 7 bankruptcy is made prohibitively expensive for people who have already suffered financial devastation. With this bill, it doesn't matter if you run up your debt on a trip to Vegas or a trip to the emergency room; you are still treated the same under the law. You still face the possibility that you will never get a chance to start over. It would be one thing if most people were abusing the system and falling into bankruptcy because they were irresponsible with their finances. I think we need more responsibility with our finances in our society as well as from our Government. But we know that for the most part bankruptcies are caused as a result of bad luck. We know from a recent study, which was mentioned by the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, that nearly half of all bankruptcies occur because of an illness that ends up sticking families with medical bills they can't keep up with. Let me give you as a particular example the case of Suzanne Gibbons, a constituent of mine. A few years back, Suzanne had a good job as a nurse, and a home on Chicago's northwest side. Then she suffered a stroke that left her hospitalized for 5 days. Even though she had health insurance through her job, it only covered $4,000 of the $53,000 in hospital bills. As a consequence of that illness, she was soon forced to leave her full-time nursing job and take a temporary job that paid less and didn't offer health insurance. Then the collection agencies started coming after her for her hospital bills that she couldn't keep up with. She lost her retirement savings, she lost her house, and eventually she was forced to declare bankruptcy. If this bill passes as written without amendment, Suzanne will be treated by the law the same as any scam artist who cheats the system. The decision about whether she can file for chapter 7 bankruptcy would not account for the fact that she fell into financial despair because of her illness. With all that debt, she would have to hire a lawyer and pay hundreds of dollars more in increased paperwork. After all that, she still might be told she is ineligible for chapter 7 bankruptcy. As much as we like to believe that the face of this bankruptcy crisis is credit card addicts who spend their way into debt, the truth is it is the face of people such as Suzanne Gibbons. It is the face of middle-class Americans. Over the last 30 years, bankruptcies have gone up 400 percent. We have had 2,100 more in Illinois this year. We also know what else has gone up: the cost of childcare, the cost of college, the cost of home ownership, and the cost of health care which is now at record highs. People are working harder and longer for less, and they are falling farther and farther behind. We are not talking about only the poor or even the working poor here. These are middle-class families with two parents who both work at good- paying jobs that put a roof over their heads. They are saving every extra penny they have so their children can go to college and do better than they did. But with just one illness, one emergency, one divorce, these dreams are wiped away. This bill does a great job helping the credit card industry recover profits they are losing, but what are we doing to help middle-class families to recover the dreams they are losing? The bankruptcy crisis this bill should address is not only the one facing credit card companies that are currently enjoying record profits. We have to look after those hard-working families who are dealing with record hardships. As Senator Dodd, Senator Feinstein, and others have pointed out, this bill also fails to deal with the aggressive marketing practices and hidden fees credit card companies have used to raise their profits and our debt. Charging a penalty to consumers who make a late payment on a completely unrelated credit card is but one example of these tactics. We need to end these practices so that we are making life easier not only for the credit card companies but for honest, hard-working, middle-class families. If we are going to crack down on bankruptcy abuse, which we should, we should also make it clear we intend to hold the wealthy and the powerful accountable as well. One example: In my own State, we had a mining company by the name of Horizon that recently declared bankruptcy and then refused to pay its employees the health benefits it owed them. A Federal bankruptcy judge upheld the right of Horizon to vacate the obligations it had made to its workers. The mine workers involved had provided a total of 100,000 years of service and dedication and sacrifice to this company. They had spent their entire lives working hard. They had deferred part of their salaries because there was an assurance that health care would be available for them. These are men and women with black lung disease, with bad backs, with bad necks, and the company made a decision to go back on their promise, saying we will not pay the debt we owe these workers. And a Federal bankruptcy judge said that is OK, you are permitted to do that. These same workers now are going to have a tough time as a consequence of this bill filing for bankruptcy. The irony should not be lost on this Chamber. It is wrong that a bill would make it harder for those unemployed workers to declare bankruptcy while doing nothing to prevent the bankrupt company that puts them in financial hardship in the first place from shirking its responsibilities entirely.

Mr. OBAMA. That is an accurate statement by the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts. He characterizes it correctly. I add that all the statistics I have seen indicate one of the fastest growing segments engaged in bankruptcy is senior citizens who I don't think are any different than they were back in the day when we think people were more responsible and more thrifty. I think they are still thrifty and responsible. What has happened is they are experiencing extremely tough times partly because they are having difficulty paying for prescription medicines that are not covered under Medicaid.

Mr. OBAMA. I yield.

Mr. OBAMA. That is an accurate assessment by the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts. I appreciate that amplification. The central point is, what kind of message does it send when we tell hard-working, middle-class Americans, you have to be more responsible with your finances than the companies you work for? They are allowed to be irresponsible with their finances and we give them a pass when they have bad management decisions, but you do not have a pass when confronting difficulties outside of your control. We need to reform our Bankruptcy Code so corporations keep their promises and meet their obligations to their workers. I remain hopeful our companies want to do the right thing for workers. Doing so should not be a choice, it should be a mandate. Senator Rockefeller and I have proposed two amendments to ensure this. I strongly urge my colleagues' support. One will increase the required payments of wages and employee benefit plans to $15,000 per individual from the current level of $4,925. It requires companies that emerge from bankruptcy to immediately pay each retiree who lost health benefits an amount of cash equal to what a retiree would be expected to have to pay for COBRA coverage for 18 months. The second amendment prevents bankruptcy courts from dismissing companies' Coal Act obligations to pay their workers the benefits they were promised. These companies made a deal to their mine workers. They should be forced to honor that deal. That will be an amendment that hopefully will be added to the pending bill. This bill gives a rare chance to ask ourselves who we are here to protect, for whom we are here to stand up, for whom we are here to speak. We have to curb bankruptcy abuse and demand a measure of personal responsibility from all people. We all want that. We also want to make sure we are helping middle-class families who are loving their children and doing anything they can to give them the best possible life ahead. To wrap up, in the 10 minutes I have been speaking, about 30 of those middle class families have had to file for bankruptcy. We live in a rapidly changing world, with an economy that is moving just as fast. We cannot always control this. We cannot promise the changes will always leave everyone better off. But we can do better than 1 bankruptcy every 19 seconds. We can do better than forcing people to choose between the cost of health care and the cost of college. We can do better than big corporations using bankruptcy laws to deny health care and benefits to their employees. And we can give people the basic tools and protections they need to believe that in America your circumstances are no limit to the success you can achieve and the dreams you may fulfill. While, unfortunately, I cannot support this bill the way it is currently written, I do look forward to working with my colleagues in amending this bill so we can still keep the promise alive.

Mr. OBAMA. I yield.

Mr. OBAMA. It would be prohibitive.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise to recognize an important anniversary in the history of this Nation. One hundred and thirty-five years ago on this day, Hiram R. Revels was sworn in as a U.S. Senator from Mississippi. On that day, February 25, 1870, Senator Revels became the first African American to ever serve in the U.S. Congress. But Hiram Revel's story started in a place very far from Washington, DC. He was born to free parents in 1822 and grew up as an apprentice to a barber in North Carolina. But Hiram wanted to learn more and see more, and so he left for Indiana and then Ohio, where he furthered his education. He was soon ordained a minister by the African Methodist Church, and traveled to congregations all over the Midwest and the South until he finally ended up in Baltimore. At the beginning of the Civil War, he helped recruit African-American troops for the Union, and he ended up serving as a chaplain for a Mississippi regiment of free Blacks. He stayed in Mississippi after the war, and continued serving as a pastor at various local churches. In 1868, and he ran and was elected alderman. Respected by both Whites and African Americans, he was soon elected as a Mississippi State senator. Then, in 1870, just 5 years after the end of the very war fought for his freedom, Hiram Revels was elected the first African-American U.S. Senator in history. Like so many of our own, Hiram's story is America's story. The story of the seemingly impossible occurring in a land where good people will give everything to make it possible. The story of hope winning out against all odds. The story of one man's improbable achievement paving the way for so many others. Did Hiram ever know what he was destined for in that barber shop? When he was sweeping that floor in North Carolina and so many of his brothers and sisters were enslaved, did he ever dream that he would end up a U.S. Senator? We don't know. But we do know that he did dream of bigger things. He dreamed of an education, and so even though many kids like him didn't do it, he went to college. He dreamed of helping others, and so even though it involved sacrifice, he became a minister. He dreamed of a free America, and so even though it could have cost him his life, he joined the Union. And he dreamed of lifting up his community, and so even though it wasn't done by people of his color, he ran for office. He dreamed of making this world a better place, and in doing so, he found a place in history. And so we remember this day--his day--as a symbol of what is possible for those of us who are willing to make it so in this magical place we call America.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise to recognize and remember the life of Earl Langdon Neal. Mr. Neal was one of the finest lawyers and civic leaders Chicago has ever known. From mayors to citizens, business leaders to college students, he was a trusted friend and inspiring mentor to many-- including myself. Earl earned his law degree from Michigan Law School in 1952. Following graduation, he served his country in the U.S. Army until 1955, when he returned to Chicago to join his father's law firm, Neal & Neal. On their very first case, Earl and his father were forced to commute 170 miles from Chicago to Lincoln simply because there were no hotels in Lincoln that would accept African Americans. But he went anyway because, as his son has said, it wasn't just a job for Earl--it was a way of life. It was a way of life that led him to serve the city of Chicago as a special assistant corporation counsel responsible for countless land acquisition projects, including the Dan Ryan Expressway, O'Hare's expansion, and the Chicago city colleges, a way of life that led him to start his own practice and earn a place on the University of Illinois board of trustees, a way of life that made almost every person who came to know him speak of him as a warm, compassionate man who put the well- being of his clients above all else. Earl's passion for his work wasn't complicated. He simply looked around his community and wanted to make it better. And in so many ways, from the places he made possible, to the people's lives he touched, he did. We honor his life, pray for his family, and will miss him dearly.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005. As both a lawyer and a citizen, I am a strong believer in class actions as a way for ordinary people who have been wronged by a corporation to band together and seek justice. Some of our great advances in civil rights and consumer protections have come from these actions. But there is overwhelming evidence that there are abuses in the class action system that should be addressed. When multimillion dollar settlements are handed down and all the victims get are coupons for a free product, justice is not being served. And when cases are tried in counties only because it's known that those judges will award big payoffs, you get quick settlements without ever finding out who's right and who's wrong. Every American deserves their day in court. This bill, while not perfect, gives people that day while still providing the reasonable reforms necessary to safeguard against the most blatant abuses of the system. I also hope that the Federal judiciary takes seriously their expanded role in class action litigation, and upholds their responsibility to fairly certify class actions so that they may protect our civil and consumer rights. Senator Specter has pledged to work on these issues and address these serious concerns in the future, and I look forward to joining him so we can improve this law.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I speak today to recognize three gifted students from the State of Illinois: Alison Nichols, Brittany Saltiel, and Sara Siegal, all students at Stevenson High School in Lincolnshire, IL. These three students created a National History Day project on the Mississippi Burning legal case. Alison, Brittany, and Sara's efforts to examine the circumstances of this case have led to not only a reopening of the case but also the overdue indictment of Edgar Ray Killen for the murder of three young civil rights activists: James Chaney, Andrew Goodman, and Michael Schwerner. As a former civil rights attorney and constitutional law lecturer, I know firsthand the importance of ensuring that justice and the principles of our Constitution are always upheld. I am proud to represent Alison, Brittany, and Sara in the Senate as they serve as a reminder of why all of us have committed our lives to public service. These students have demonstrated their tremendous potential in scholarship and leadership in public affairs. They serve as shining examples for our Nation's young people of how a small group of committed individuals can truly change a community, nation, and the world. Alison, Brittany, and Sara deserve not only our congratulations; they deserve our gratitude for making this country stronger.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise to recognize the life and service of Mr. Warren V. Hileman, who passed away recently at the Illinois Veterans Home in Anna. Last week, the Southern Illinoisan reported that the State believes Mr. Hileman was the last World War I veteran to have lived in Illinois. He joined the U.S. Army in 1919, and served with the American Expeditionary Force in Siberia from September of 1919 to March 1920. Traveling thousands of miles across Siberia in temperatures that often reached 30 below, Mr. Hileman and the 27th infantry served long after the Armistice was signed in Europe. In Posolskaya, their unit was involved in a hostile encounter that later won Mr. Hileman the World War I Victory Medal, which he was awarded in January of 2004. After the war, he came home to Illinois where he worked in a North Chicago veterans hospital. Later, he and his wife moved back down south to Union County, where they spent the rest of their lives. Warren was only 17 years old when he first landed in Vladivostok, Russia. Perhaps he was anxious about the war ahead of him; perhaps he already missed the home that lay behind. But above all, he was ready and eager to serve this country. At just 17, he was ready to make the ultimate sacrifice in the defense of freedom. Today, we honor his service and remember a man who returned from war to live over a century on this Earth. Through more wars and depression, through great advances for civil rights and great struggles for freedom, Mr. Hileman was there--a patriot who had proudly written his own page in the story of 20th century America. It is said that whether a life is long or short, its completeness depends on what it was lived for. And so, while Warren Hileman left us at the age of 103, the true completeness of his life comes from what he lived it for--for his friends, for his family, and for the defense of the country he loved. May his memory serve as a reminder for all of us to keep faith with our Nation's veterans, and may Warren Hileman rest in eternal peace.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, a few days ago, the world watched as the seeds of democracy began to take root in Iraq. As a result of the sheer courage of the Iraqi people and the untold sacrifices of American soldiers, the success of the elections showed just how far people will go to achieve self-government and rule of law. As Americans, we can take enormous pride in the fact that this kind of courage has been inspired by our own struggle for freedom, by the tradition of democratic law secured by our forefathers and enshrined in our Constitution. It is a tradition that says all men are created equal under the law and that no one is above it. That is why even within the executive branch there is an office dedicated to enforcing the law of the land and applying it to people and to Presidents alike. In this sense, the Attorney General is not like the other Cabinet posts. Unlike the Secretary of State, who is the public face of the President's foreign policy, or the Secretary of Education, whose job it is to carry out the President's education policy, the Attorney General's job is not just to enforce the President's laws, it is to tell the President what the law is. The job is not simply to facilitate the President's power, it is to speak truth to that power as well. The job is to protect and defend the laws of freedoms for which so many have sacrificed so much. The President is not the Attorney General's client; the people are. And so the true test of an Attorney General nominee is whether that person is ready to put the Constitution of the people before the political agenda of the President. As such, I cannot approach this nomination for Attorney General the same way I approached that of Secretary of State Rice or Veterans Affairs Secretary Nicholson or any other Cabinet position. The standard is simply higher. Like the previous speaker, Senator Dodd, I wanted to give Alberto Gonzales the benefit of the doubt when we began this process. His story is inspiring, especially for so many of us--like me--who shared in achieving the American dream. I have no question that as White House Counsel, he has served his President and his country to the best of his ability. But in my judgment, these positive qualities alone are not sufficient to warrant confirmation as the top law enforcement officer in the land. I had hoped that during his hearings, Judge Gonzales would ease my concerns about some of the legal advice he gave to the President, and I had hoped he would prove that he has the ability to distance himself from his role as the President's lawyer so that he could perform his new role as the people's lawyer. Unfortunately, rather than full explanations during these hearings, I heard equivocation. Rather than independence, I heard an unyielding insistence on protecting the President's prerogative. I did not hear Judge Gonzales repudiate 2\1/2\ years of what appears to be official U.S. policy that has defined torture so narrowly that only organ failure and death would qualify, a policy that he himself appears to have helped develop and at least has condoned. Imagine that, if the entire world accepted the definition contained in the Department of Justice memos, we can only imagine what atrocities might befall our American POWs. How in the world, without such basic constraints, would we feel about sending our sons and daughters off to war? How, if we are willing to rationalize torture through legalisms and semantics, can we claim to our children and the children of the world that America is different and represents a higher moral standard? This policy is not just a moral failure, it is a violation of half a century of international law. Yet while Judge Gonzales's job was White House Counsel, he said nothing to that effect to the President of the United States. He did not show an ability to speak with responsible moral clarity then, and he has indicated that he still has no intention to speak such truths now. During his recent testimony, he refused to refute a conclusion in the torture memo which stated that the President has the power to override our laws when acting as Commander in Chief. Think about this. The Nation's top law enforcement officer telling its most powerful citizen that if the situation warrants, the President can break the law from time to time. The truth is, Mr. Gonzales has raised serious doubts about whether, given the choice between the Constitution and the President's political agenda, he would put our Constitution first. And that is why I simply cannot support his nomination for Attorney General. I understand that Judge Gonzales will most likely be confirmed, and I look forward to working with him in that new role. But I also hope that once in office, he will take the lessons of this debate to heart. Before serving in this distinguished body, I had the privilege of teaching law for 10 years at the University of Chicago. Among the brilliant minds to leave that institution for Government service was a former dean of the law school named Edward Levi, a man of impeccable integrity who was committed to the rule of law before politics. Edward Levi was chosen by President Ford to serve as Attorney General in the wake of Watergate. The President courageously chose to appoint him not because Dean Levi was a yes man, not because he was a loyal political soldier, but so that he could restore the public's confidence in a badly damaged Justice Department, so that he could restore the public's trust and the ability of our leaders to follow the law. While he has raised serious doubts about his ability to follow this example, Judge Gonzales can still choose to restore our trust. He can still choose to put the Constitution first. I hope for our country's sake that he will, and part of the reason I am speaking in this Chamber today is to suggest three steps that he can take upon assuming his role that would help restore that trust. First, he can immediately repudiate the terror memos in question and ensure that the Department of Defense is not using any of its recommendations to craft interrogation policies. Second, Judge Gonzales can restore the credibility of his former position as legal counsel by appointing an independent-minded, universally respected lawyer to the post. And third, he can provide this Congress regular detailed reports on his efforts to live up to the President's stated zero tolerance policy with respect to torture. Today we are engaged in a deadly global struggle for those who would intimidate, torture, and murder people for exercising the most basic freedoms. If we are to win this struggle and spread those freedoms, we must keep our own moral compass pointed in a true direction. The Attorney General is one figure charged with doing this, but to do it well, he must demonstrate a higher loyalty than just to the President. He must demonstrate a loyalty to the ideals that inspire a nation and, hopefully, the world. I thank the Chair.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I did not anticipate speaking today, but the importance of this issue is enough for me to address this body. During the election, I had the occasion of meeting a woman who had supported me in my campaign. She decided to come to shake my hand and take a photograph. She is a wonderful woman. She was not asking for anything. I was very grateful that she took time to come by. It was an unexceptional moment except for the fact that she was born in 1894. Her name is Marguerite Lewis, an African-American woman who had been born in Louisiana, born in the shadow of slavery, born at a time when lynchings were commonplace, born at a time when African Americans and women could not vote. Yet, over the course of decades she had participated in broadening our democracy and ensuring that, in fact, at some point, if not herself, then her children, her grandchildren, and her great-grandchildren would be in a position in which they could, too, call themselves citizens of the United States and make certain that this Government works not just on behalf of the mighty and the powerful but also on behalf of people like her. So the fact that she voted and her vote was counted in this election was of supreme importance to her and it is the memory of talking to her and shaking her hand that causes me to rise on this occasion. I am absolutely convinced that the President of the United States, George Bush, won this election. I also believe he got more votes in Ohio. As has already been said by some of the speakers in this body, this is not an issue in which we are challenging the outcome of the election. It is important for us to separate the issue of the election outcome with the election process. I was not in this body 4 years ago, but what I observed as a voter and as a citizen of Illinois 4 years ago was troubling evidence of the fact that not every vote was being counted. It is unfortunate that 4 years later we continue to see circumstances in which people who believe they have the right to vote, who show up at the polls, still continue to confront the sort of problems that have been documented as taking place not just in Ohio but places all across the country. I strongly urge that this Chamber, as well as the House of Representatives, take it upon itself once and for all to reform this system. There is no reason, at a time when we have enormous battles taking place ideologically all across the globe, at a time when we try to make certain we encourage democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan and other places throughout the world, that we have the legitimacy of our elections challenged--rightly or wrongly--by people who are not certain as to whether our processes are fair and just. This is something we can fix. We have experts on both sides of the aisle who know how to fix it. What we have lacked is the political will. I strongly urge that, in a circumstance in which too many voters have stood in long lines for hours, in which too many voters have cast votes on machines that jam or malfunction or suck the votes without a trace, in which too many voters try to register to vote only to discover that their names don't appear on the roles or that partisan political interests and those that serve them have worked hard to throw up every barrier to recognize them as lawful, in which too many voters will know that there are different elections for different parts of the country and that these differences turn shamefully on differences of wealth or of race, in which too many voters have to contend with State officials, servants of the public, who put partisan or personal political interests ahead of the public in administering our elections--in such circumstances, we have an obligation to fix the problem. I have to add this is not a problem unique to this election, and it is not a partisan problem. Keep in mind, I come from Cook County, from Chicago, in which there is a long record of these kinds of problems taking place and disadvantaging Republicans as well as Democrats. So I ask that all of us rise up and use this occasion to amend this problem.