Barack Obama

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I support the nomination of Judge Frederick J. Kapala to serve as a judge on the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Judge Kapala's career exemplifies a strong commitment to public service. He currently serves as an appellate judge on the Second District Appellate Court in Illinois, a position he has held since 2001. Prior to his service on the Second District Appellate Court, Judge Kapala was a circuit court judge for the 17th Judicial Circuit for Winnebago and Boone Counties for 7 years. Prior to that service, Judge Kapala was an Associate Circuit Court Judge for the same circuit for 12 years. After graduating from the University of Illinois College of Law in 1976, Judge Kapala became an assistant State's attorney in Winnebago County. He made a brief foray into private practice, joining the law firm of Pedderson, Menzimer, Conde, Stoner, and Killoren in Rockford from 1977 to 1982. Judge Kapala is a magna cum laude graduate of Marquette University. He proudly served his country in the U.S. Army on both Active and Reserve duty from 1970 to 1980. Judge Kapala has dedicated his life and career to the public good. Whether it was his military service or his judicial service to the good people of Rockford and the counties of Winnebago and Boone, Judge Kapala has served with compassion and distinction. I am pleased to join the Senate in confirming him to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, yesterday, the Senate took two rollcall votes. The first vote was on Senator Cochran's second degree amendment, S.A. 1010, to Senator Dorgan's prescription drug importation amendment, S.A. 990. The Cochran amendment passed the Senate by a 49 to 40 vote. The second vote was on the motion to invoke cloture on the committee substitute amendment to the Prescription Drug User Fee Amendment Act of 2007, S. 1082, which was agreed to by an 82 to 8 vote. Although I was unable to be present for these two votes, I would like to state for the record how I would have voted. I would have opposed Senator Cochran's amendment which requires the Secretary of HHS to certify that drug importation would not pose any safety risk to consumers. As a matter of practice, the Secretary is not able to certify that any drug from any facility, here in the United States or abroad, would not pose a safety risk. As such, this amendment effectively would block the implementation of Senator Dorgan's amendment. The fact that the Cochran amendment passed is unfortunate. It is unconscionable that Americans are paying on average twice as much for lifesaving drugs as citizens of other countries, and our State and Federal health programs are struggling to bear these costs. Finally, my HELP Committee colleagues have spent months negotiating and drafting the Prescription Drug User Fee Amendment Act, which contains a number of critical reauthorizing and drug safety provisions. I would have voted in favor of cloture on this bill and look forward to its passage later this week.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, we heard from a panel of top climate change experts from around the world earlier this year that global warming is a certainty and that most of the temperature increase is very likely due to rising greenhouse gas concentrations. Reducing America's dependence on oil should be one of our top priorities, but any policy that affects our production and consumption of fuel must also address the pressing problem of global warming. Because the oil used in the U.S. transportation sector accounts for about one-third of our nation's emissions of greenhouse gases, we must adopt a policy that curtails these emissions in an effective manner. Today, along with Senator Harkin, I am introducing the National Low- Carbon Fuel Standard Act of 2007, which calls for a reduction in the lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of the transportation fuels sold in the U.S. of 5 percent in 2015 and 10 percent in 2020. These reductions can play an important role in stemming the dangerous transformation of our climate. According to one estimate, the National Low-Carbon Fuel Standard, NLCFS, would reduce annual greenhouse gas emissions by about 180 million metric tons in 2020. This is the equivalent of taking over 30 million cars off the road. If enacted in conjunction with the bill I introduced earlier this year to raise fuel efficiency standards, the NLCFS would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by about 530 million metric tons in 2020, the equivalent of taking over 50 million cars off the road. The effect on our oil imports would also be dramatic. By making greater use of home-grown, renewable fuels, the NLCFS could reduce the annual consumption of gasoline derived from foreign oil imports by about 30 billion gallons in 2020. The NLCFS will greatly expand the market for domestic renewable fuels such as corn-based ethanol, cellulosic ethanol, and biodiesel. By one estimate, the NLCFS will create a market for over 40 billion gallons of biofuels by 2020. To provide near-term demand certainty for renewable fuel producers, the bill expands the Renewable Fuel Standard established in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to require 15 billion gallons of renewable fuel by 2012. The bill also contains a minimum requirement for fuels with lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions that are 50 and 75 percent lower than gasoline. This requirement signals to investors that there will be a market for advanced fuels with ultra-low carbon emissions, but still allows significant leeway for fuel blenders to choose the optimal mix of fuels to meet their overall greenhouse gas emissions targets. Because the NLCFS will encourage a rapid expansion of our domestic renewable fuels production capacity, the bill contains provisions that protect sensitive areas like national wildlife refuges, national parks, old-growth forests, national grasslands, and national forests. The bill calls for an assessment of the impacts of the expansion compared to the business-as-usual scenario of continued reliance on petroleum-based transportation fuels, and the development of standards by 2012 to protect air, land, and water quality. This approach strikes a balance between the need to rapidly expand our domestic renewable fuel production capacity and the need to ensure sustainability and environmental protection. I urge my colleagues to support the National Low-Carbon Fuel Standard Act.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, we heard from a panel of top climate change experts from around the world earlier this year that global warming is a certainty and that most of the temperature increase is very likely due to rising greenhouse gas concentrations. Reducing America's dependence on oil should be one of our top priorities, but any policy that affects our production and consumption of fuel must also address the pressing problem of global warming. Because the oil used in the U.S. transportation sector accounts for about one-third of our nation's emissions of greenhouse gases, we must adopt a policy that curtails these emissions in an effective manner. Today, along with Senator Harkin, I am introducing the National Low- Carbon Fuel Standard Act of 2007, which calls for a reduction in the lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of the transportation fuels sold in the U.S. of 5 percent in 2015 and 10 percent in 2020. These reductions can play an important role in stemming the dangerous transformation of our climate. According to one estimate, the National Low-Carbon Fuel Standard, NLCFS, would reduce annual greenhouse gas emissions by about 180 million metric tons in 2020. This is the equivalent of taking over 30 million cars off the road. If enacted in conjunction with the bill I introduced earlier this year to raise fuel efficiency standards, the NLCFS would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by about 530 million metric tons in 2020, the equivalent of taking over 50 million cars off the road. The effect on our oil imports would also be dramatic. By making greater use of home-grown, renewable fuels, the NLCFS could reduce the annual consumption of gasoline derived from foreign oil imports by about 30 billion gallons in 2020. The NLCFS will greatly expand the market for domestic renewable fuels such as corn-based ethanol, cellulosic ethanol, and biodiesel. By one estimate, the NLCFS will create a market for over 40 billion gallons of biofuels by 2020. To provide near-term demand certainty for renewable fuel producers, the bill expands the Renewable Fuel Standard established in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to require 15 billion gallons of renewable fuel by 2012. The bill also contains a minimum requirement for fuels with lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions that are 50 and 75 percent lower than gasoline. This requirement signals to investors that there will be a market for advanced fuels with ultra-low carbon emissions, but still allows significant leeway for fuel blenders to choose the optimal mix of fuels to meet their overall greenhouse gas emissions targets. Because the NLCFS will encourage a rapid expansion of our domestic renewable fuels production capacity, the bill contains provisions that protect sensitive areas like national wildlife refuges, national parks, old-growth forests, national grasslands, and national forests. The bill calls for an assessment of the impacts of the expansion compared to the business-as-usual scenario of continued reliance on petroleum-based transportation fuels, and the development of standards by 2012 to protect air, land, and water quality. This approach strikes a balance between the need to rapidly expand our domestic renewable fuel production capacity and the need to ensure sustainability and environmental protection. I urge my colleagues to support the National Low-Carbon Fuel Standard Act.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I congratulate Senator Bingaman and Senator Alexander for the passage of America COMPETES, legislation which they crafted carefully to enhance American innovation and competitiveness. I also thank them for accepting three amendments which I offered, which will help expand the range of innovative possibilities by which America faces its competitive challenges. Let me explain this. The president of the National Academy of Engineering once said that innovation is a profoundly creative process, and that like other creative processes, it depends on the life experiences of the people involved. If we include a more diverse sample of our population, we will derive more varied and more innovative design options. We become more competitive by embracing our diversity, by involving a more representative cross-section of our populace in science, technology, and engineering endeavors. To increase participation, I have offered three amendments that have been accepted into America COMPETES. The first establishes a mentoring program to support women and underrepresented groups as they progress through science and technology education programs, increasing the likelihood of their success. I also propose that groups representing women and minority scientists and engineers be involved as strategies are developed to increase America's competitiveness. Also accepted was an amendment to increase the math and problem solving skills of young learners, by providing summer learning opportunities for students in elementary grades. This amendment springs from legislation I introduced earlier, with Senator Mikulski, the STEP UP Act, S. 116. This legislation responds to evidence showing that students may lose several months equivalent of math skills during the summer, if not provided learning opportunities when not in school. This is particularly important for children of poverty, for whom summer learning losses are greatest. Summer programs combat this loss in knowledge and skills, and well-designed programs can fuel the curiosity of children, helping them become active problem solvers and learners when they return to school in the fall. I thank my colleagues for their support of these amendments.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, there is concern that America is losing its competitive leadership. I am proud to cosponsor the America COMPETES Act because it proposes a meaningful response to that loss of leadership, and I compliment the bill managers on the bipartisan manner in which the Senate is addressing this issue. America COMPETES is a strong piece of legislation, but I wish to propose amendments that I believe will strengthen this legislation in several areas. As our Nation becomes more diverse, scientists, engineers, and technology professionals continue to be recruited from a narrowing segment of our population. If we were able to increase the participation of underrepreseneted groups, including women, to a level reflective of their representation in the population, we would diminish the workforce issues that restrict our economic progress and generate a pool of talent that could refresh our ability to innovate. If we do not tap the diversity of our Nation as a competitive strength, we will diminish our capacity to innovate. Full participation by all segments of our populace would do more than just increase the number of workers in high technology fields; full participation would bring fresh perspectives and inventive solutions. To increase participation, I have offered several amendments to America COMPETES. The first establishes a mentoring program to support women and underrepresented groups as they progress through education programs being proposed at the Department of Energy. Mentoring is an effective means for experienced scientists to provide professional assistance and advice to developing scientists, and such a program would ensure the success of these education programs. I also propose that women and minority scientists and engineers be represented and consulted as strategies are developed to increase America's competitiveness. This inclusion should occur at the proposed National Science and Technology Summit, on the President's Council on Innovation and Competitiveness, and elsewhere. If the concerns of diverse groups of technology professionals are not heard, it will be too easy to overlook the advantages these groups can bring to the innovation landscape. I have also proposed that, to profit from the strength of our diversity, we must start with America's young students. Summer is a time when, as a result of summer learning loss, young students may lose several months in math skills. The summer learning loss is greatest for children living in poverty. Summer programs combat this loss, accelerate learning, and can serve to close the achievement gap in mathematics and problem-solving that currently robs us of the talents of too many children. I have introduced an amendment that supports summer learning opportunities, with curricula that emphasize mathematics and problem solving, aligned to the standards of school- year classes. Finally, I propose that one of the major challenges facing us is an issue we understand on the basis of science; an issue that can be solved, at least partially, through technology; an issue that has the potential to greatly affect our competitiveness. It is an issue offering both challenges and great opportunities. Therefore, I am proposing an amendment to create a Climate Change Education Program to broaden our understanding of climate change. The program would emphasize information to help us comprehend climate change and to promote implementation of new technologies that would ensure our place as an international leader, willing to use science to understand our world, willing to apply technologies to address the serious challenges facing us. I urge my colleagues to support these amendments.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, today I extend my welcome to Prime Minister Shinzo Abe of Japan, who is making his first trip to the United States as Prime Minister this week. The U.S. Japan alliance has been one of the great successes of the postwar era, and Japan's remarkable achievements and constructive role in world affairs over the past 60 years are a great testament to the Japanese people. As the world's two wealthiest democracies, the U.S. and Japan, have a shared interest in promoting security and prosperity in Asia and around the world--shared interests that rest on a bedrock of shared values: in democracy, the rule of law, human rights, and free markets. As one of America's closest allies, Japan today plays a vital role in working with the United States in maintaining regional security and stability, promoting prosperity, and meeting the new security challenges of the 21st century. Japan's role in the Six Party Talks--supporting efforts to persuade North Korea to abandon its nuclear weapons program and return to the nonproliferation treaty and IAE safeguards--has been essential. And beyond North Korea, Japan today is playing a leading role in the architecture of the Asia-Pacific region, including participating in peace keeping operations, and in building stable and enduring structures for cooperative regional security. In the face of such threats as North Korea's nuclear and missile programs, Japan, in partnership with the United States, has also sought to reinvigorate its security profile in the region. Japan's efforts to develop a more capable Self-Defense Forces, as well as the Prime Minister's elevation of the Japan Defense Agency to a Ministry, are, in my view, both to be welcomed as signs of a ``normal'' Japan, able and willing to play a leading and responsible role in the region. The U.S.-Japan alliance must remain at the core of efforts to revitalize Japan's role in ensuing stability and security in the region. One key aspect of this effort is the realignment of forces currently in Japan, making certain that America's ability to respond to threats in the region is not diminished. Japan has shown that it is not only playing a responsible leadership role in its own region, but globally as well. The occasion of the Prime Minister's visit provides an opportunity for the people of the United States to express our deep appreciation to Japan for its contributions to our efforts to combat al-Qaeda and other international terrorist organizations. In Afghanistan, Japan has donated over $1 billion in development funds to rebuild vital infrastructure precisely the sort of effort to transform the environment in Afghanistan that will be key to defeating al-Qaeda and the Taliban. And Japan has provided critical support--often unseen--in multilateral efforts to thwart the growth of terrorist organizations in Southeast Asia. Japan has also proved to be an invaluable partner in providing humanitarian response and relief in the Southeast Asia. Japan joined with the United States in responding to the tragic December 2005 tsunami, and has worked with others across the region to develop an effective tsunami early warning system. And Japan has worked with the United States and others in the international community to develop the infrastructure and institutions we need in order to face new transnational challenges like the threat of avian influenza. Also, although Japan's foreign assistance level declined earlier in the decade, as part of the 2005 G8 global development discussions, Japan announced it would increase foreign aid by $10 billion in aggregate over the next 5 years, and double its assistance to Africa over the next 3 years. With newspaper headlines that remind us on a daily basis of the risk the planet faces from climate change, we must also recognize the critical leadership role in the international community that Japan has played on environmental issues and climate change. The Kyoto Protocol, which was negotiated in Japan's ancient capital of Kyoto in 1997, has now been ratified by over 160 nations. Japan has also played a key role in forging the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate, through which the U.S., Japan, and others in the region seek to marshal the scientific and technical expertise needed to develop cleaner and more efficient technologies and bring about a carbon-neutral Asia-Pacific region without sacrificing economic growth. As the world's second-largest economy, Japan is a vital source of growth and dynamism for the rest of the world. In this regard, the reemergence of Japan from its ``lost decade'' of virtually no economic growth is a most welcome development. There is nonetheless still more Japan can do at home to improve the structure of its economy, from removing regulations that stifle business competition and innovation to further develop Tokyo as a global financial market. And the Japanese economy is still not open enough to imports in key sectors or to foreign direct investment. The United States has an interest in seeing Japan address these challenges so that the Japanese economy can continue to play a leading role in sustaining global economic growth. Although not without its challenges--as is natural in any normal bilateral relationship--the United States and Japan today have a strong and deep relationship and the basis for close cooperation and partnership which will allow us to work together to meet the challenges of the decades ahead. But I would be remiss in my duties as a friend of Japan if I did not note that for Japan to be able to play a leading role in Asia and be perceived by its neighbors as a ``normal'' nation it must deal forthrightly with its history. It is important for Japan to face these issue fully, openly, and honestly. A Japan that is mindful of its past can and should play a leading role in Asia's future. So let me, in turn, close with some thoughts on the future of the U.S.-Japan relationship. First, I believe that it is important for Americans, so used to a close partnership with Japan, to embrace the complex realities of a Japan that is a ``normal nation''--one that has its own identity, vision, and goals. Such a Japan should be welcomed by the United States as a true partner and friend, even while understanding that it may mean that there will be differences on certain issues. Given the new regional realities, United States can no longer take managing the U.S.-Japan alliance for granted. Second, although the U.S.-Japan relationship remains the centerpiece of both U.S. and Japanese policy in the Asia-Pacific region, in recent years the Bush administration has let its attention to this critical relationship drift as it has been distracted by other issues. The alliance demands, and is deserving of, close political cooperation and coordination at every level, reflecting the key role Japan plays as an anchor of U.S. economic and security interests in the region and across the globe. Third, recognizing the important role that Japan now plays around the globe--on peacekeeping, economic development, global warming and new transnational threats--I believe the time has long since passed for Japan to have a role commensurate with its responsibilities, including in the U.N. Security Council. The visit of Prime Minister Abe provides us an opportunity to rededicate ourselves to the U.S.-Japan partnership, with the same spirit that has governed our relations for over 60 years. America benefits greatly from a close and productive partnership with a Japan that is confident about its future and willing and able to play a leading role in creating a peaceful and prosperous Asia.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce legislation to protect American consumers and homeowners from fraudulent and abusive mortgage lending practices. Mortgage fraud and abuse are growing problems in this country, problems that are depriving thousands of Americans of their dream of homeownership and often their hard-earned life savings. These problems are also costing the mortgage industry hundreds of millions of dollars each year and making the housing market, which is critical to our economy and the stability of our neighborhoods, more vulnerable. Although the data in this area is limited, mortgage fraud, which takes a variety of forms from inflated appraisals to the use of straw buyers, is a growing problem. In September of 2002, the FBI had 436 mortgage fraud investigations. Currently, they have more than 1,036--an increase of 137 percent in less than 5 years. And of the 1,036 current cases, more than half have expected losses of more than $1 million. This is due largely to the housing boom which has driven up housing prices across the country. Nearly $2.37 trillion in mortgage loans were made during 2006, and the number may be even higher this year. But mortgage fraud is not just about dollars and statistics; it's about real people, real homes, and real lives. I first introduced this legislation last year after my hometown Chicago Tribune featured a series of articles about mortgage fraud in Illinois, which, along with Georgia, South Carolina, Florida, Missouri, Michigan, California, Nevada, Colorado and Utah, is among the FBI's top-ten mortgage fraud ``hot spots.'' The Tribune stories highlighted the plight of the good folks on May Street in Chicago, who saw a block's worth of homes go boarded up in the span of a just few years, as swindlers racked up hundreds of thousands of dollars in bad loans. The shells of houses were left behind as sad reminders of broken dreams. The Tribune highlighted the plight of 75-year-old Ruth Williams, who had to spend her personal funds to clear the title to her home after fraudsters secured $400,000 in loans on three buildings they didn't own. A recent Tribune investigation turned up a 91-year-old woman defrauded into signing away her brick Chicago home, her sole asset, leaving her with nothing. Law enforcement, consumer groups and many in the mortgage industry are working extremely hard to combat fraud and abusive lending practices. I applaud their good work. Now, Congress should come to the table and do its part, and I'm pleased to introduce legislation today with my good friend Senator Durbin to address this important issue. The STOP FRAUD Act, which was first introduced in February 2006, is aimed at stopping mortgage transactions which operate to promote fraud, risk, abuse and underdevelopment. This year, the bill includes new provisions to protect the legal rights of borrowers with particularly risky subprime loans. The Act provides the first Federal definition of mortgage fraud and authorizes stiff criminal penalties against fraudulent actors. STOP FRAUD requires a wide range of mortgage professionals to report suspected fraudulent activity, and gives these same professionals safe harbor from liability when they report suspicious incidents. It also authorizes several grant programs to help State and local law enforcement fight fraud, provide the mortgage industry with updates on fraud trends, and further support the Departments of Treasury, Justice and Housing and Urban Development's fraud-fighting efforts. At a time when many homeowners are concerned about losing their home to foreclosure, and policymakers are worried about fraudulent, deceptive, and even just plain confusing lending practices that are roiling communities across the country, STOP FRAUD provides $25 million for housing counseling. The Department of Housing and Urban Development will contract with public or private organization to provide information, advice, counseling, and technical assistance to tenants, homeowners, and other consumers with respect to mortgage fraud and other activities that are likely to increase the risk of foreclosure. The Act also protects the legal rights of borrowers with risky, subprime loans. The greatest growth in the mortgage lending market is in subprime loans and some have estimated that more than 2 million homeowners with subprime mortgages are at risk of losing their homes. If a borrower receives a subprime mortgage with any one of several high-risk characteristics, the Act protects the rights of borrowers to challenge lending practices in foreclosure proceedings. The high-risk characteristics targeted by this Act include loans for which the borrower does not have the ability to repay at the maximum rate of interest, loans whose true long-term costs are not clearly disclosed to the borrower, stated-income and no-documentation loans, and loans with unreasonable prepayment penalties. Many States are actively trying to prevent a wave of expected foreclosures as housing prices stop rising while adjustable rates on many risk loans start rising. STOP FRAUD instructs the Government Accountability Office to evaluate the various State initiatives and report to Congress on lending practices and regulations related to mortgage fraud and deception, predatory lending, and homeownership preservation efforts. We cannot sit on the sidelines while increasing numbers of American families face the risk of losing their homes. There is excellent work being done by the Banking Committees in the House and Senate to tackle some of the thorniest and most challenging problems affecting the mortgage industry today. I look forward to working with my colleagues on comprehensive legislation to protect consumers and strengthen the housing market. The STOP FRAUD Act is just the beginning of an important Federal response. It is a tough, cost-effective, and balanced way to address the serious problem of mortgage fraud in our country and to provide additional protections for vulnerable borrowers. I urge my colleagues to join me in this important effort.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce legislation to protect American consumers and homeowners from fraudulent and abusive mortgage lending practices. Mortgage fraud and abuse are growing problems in this country, problems that are depriving thousands of Americans of their dream of homeownership and often their hard-earned life savings. These problems are also costing the mortgage industry hundreds of millions of dollars each year and making the housing market, which is critical to our economy and the stability of our neighborhoods, more vulnerable. Although the data in this area is limited, mortgage fraud, which takes a variety of forms from inflated appraisals to the use of straw buyers, is a growing problem. In September of 2002, the FBI had 436 mortgage fraud investigations. Currently, they have more than 1,036--an increase of 137 percent in less than 5 years. And of the 1,036 current cases, more than half have expected losses of more than $1 million. This is due largely to the housing boom which has driven up housing prices across the country. Nearly $2.37 trillion in mortgage loans were made during 2006, and the number may be even higher this year. But mortgage fraud is not just about dollars and statistics; it's about real people, real homes, and real lives. I first introduced this legislation last year after my hometown Chicago Tribune featured a series of articles about mortgage fraud in Illinois, which, along with Georgia, South Carolina, Florida, Missouri, Michigan, California, Nevada, Colorado and Utah, is among the FBI's top-ten mortgage fraud ``hot spots.'' The Tribune stories highlighted the plight of the good folks on May Street in Chicago, who saw a block's worth of homes go boarded up in the span of a just few years, as swindlers racked up hundreds of thousands of dollars in bad loans. The shells of houses were left behind as sad reminders of broken dreams. The Tribune highlighted the plight of 75-year-old Ruth Williams, who had to spend her personal funds to clear the title to her home after fraudsters secured $400,000 in loans on three buildings they didn't own. A recent Tribune investigation turned up a 91-year-old woman defrauded into signing away her brick Chicago home, her sole asset, leaving her with nothing. Law enforcement, consumer groups and many in the mortgage industry are working extremely hard to combat fraud and abusive lending practices. I applaud their good work. Now, Congress should come to the table and do its part, and I'm pleased to introduce legislation today with my good friend Senator Durbin to address this important issue. The STOP FRAUD Act, which was first introduced in February 2006, is aimed at stopping mortgage transactions which operate to promote fraud, risk, abuse and underdevelopment. This year, the bill includes new provisions to protect the legal rights of borrowers with particularly risky subprime loans. The Act provides the first Federal definition of mortgage fraud and authorizes stiff criminal penalties against fraudulent actors. STOP FRAUD requires a wide range of mortgage professionals to report suspected fraudulent activity, and gives these same professionals safe harbor from liability when they report suspicious incidents. It also authorizes several grant programs to help State and local law enforcement fight fraud, provide the mortgage industry with updates on fraud trends, and further support the Departments of Treasury, Justice and Housing and Urban Development's fraud-fighting efforts. At a time when many homeowners are concerned about losing their home to foreclosure, and policymakers are worried about fraudulent, deceptive, and even just plain confusing lending practices that are roiling communities across the country, STOP FRAUD provides $25 million for housing counseling. The Department of Housing and Urban Development will contract with public or private organization to provide information, advice, counseling, and technical assistance to tenants, homeowners, and other consumers with respect to mortgage fraud and other activities that are likely to increase the risk of foreclosure. The Act also protects the legal rights of borrowers with risky, subprime loans. The greatest growth in the mortgage lending market is in subprime loans and some have estimated that more than 2 million homeowners with subprime mortgages are at risk of losing their homes. If a borrower receives a subprime mortgage with any one of several high-risk characteristics, the Act protects the rights of borrowers to challenge lending practices in foreclosure proceedings. The high-risk characteristics targeted by this Act include loans for which the borrower does not have the ability to repay at the maximum rate of interest, loans whose true long-term costs are not clearly disclosed to the borrower, stated-income and no-documentation loans, and loans with unreasonable prepayment penalties. Many States are actively trying to prevent a wave of expected foreclosures as housing prices stop rising while adjustable rates on many risk loans start rising. STOP FRAUD instructs the Government Accountability Office to evaluate the various State initiatives and report to Congress on lending practices and regulations related to mortgage fraud and deception, predatory lending, and homeownership preservation efforts. We cannot sit on the sidelines while increasing numbers of American families face the risk of losing their homes. There is excellent work being done by the Banking Committees in the House and Senate to tackle some of the thorniest and most challenging problems affecting the mortgage industry today. I look forward to working with my colleagues on comprehensive legislation to protect consumers and strengthen the housing market. The STOP FRAUD Act is just the beginning of an important Federal response. It is a tough, cost-effective, and balanced way to address the serious problem of mortgage fraud in our country and to provide additional protections for vulnerable borrowers. I urge my colleagues to join me in this important effort.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, during rollcall vote No. 137 today, I was at a speaking engagement in another part of the city and was unable to return in time for the vote. Had I been able to vote, I would have voted for the amendment offered by Senator DeMint.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I am extremely disappointed by the Senate's failure to consider a bill that would have placed the needs of seniors ahead of the profits of the health industry. Once again, a minority of the Senate has allowed the power and the profits of the pharmaceutical industry to trump good policy and the will of the American people. We have a major crisis in this Nation, and that is the rising cost of health care. Over the last century, the Nation has witnessed tremendous advances in medical science and technology, and we now have treatments and cures for diseases and conditions that were at one time surely fatal. Yet we are paying the price for this success. Health care, particularly the cost of drugs, is becoming increasingly unaffordable. Over the last decade the cost of drugs has quintupled, now totaling almost $200 billion. In 2005, the drug companies' profit was 16 percent of their revenues, compared to only 6 percent for all Fortune 500 firms. The total profit of the top 7 U.S. based drug companies was $34 billion in 2004, and, if you add it up, their CEOs were paid $91 million that same year. Clearly, the new drug benefit in Medicare has been a tremendous boon for the drug companies, adding to these extreme profits. The growth in the cost of drugs has slowed in recent years, in part because of greater use of generic drugs. But given the pricetag, and the financial challenges of our health care system, we can--and must-- take additional steps to curb how much we are spending on drugs. Allowing the Federal Government to negotiate for lower drug prices in the Medicare Program would have been an important step forward in this regard. When you look at the prices the Federal Government has negotiated for our veterans and military men and women, it is clear that the government can--and should--use its leverage to lower prices for our seniors as well. Drug negotiation is the smart thing to do and the right thing to do, and it is unconscionable that we were not able to take up this bill today.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the situation concerning the upcoming elections in Nigeria. The people of Nigeria have a historic achievement within their grasp: their country's first peaceful, democratic transfer of power from one elected civilian government to another. To secure this victory for themselves and for Africa, and to retain the kind of international confidence in Nigeria's future that is essential for the country's growth, Nigerians need and deserve the strongest possible international support for free, fair, and peaceful elections on April 14 and 21. Successful elections are not guaranteed. Political violence and serious irregularities have tarnished past polling in parts of the country, denying some Nigerians their democratic rights. No one truly interested in Nigeria's long-term stability and prosperity can accept repeats of these incidents as regular features of the country's political landscape. There is already cause for concern this time around. Regrettably, preparations for this month's elections have been sluggish, and the independence of the electoral commission has been compromised. Important national discussions about corruption and accountability have been temporarily hijacked by elaborate preelection maneuvering. But the Nigerian people can still succeed in exercising their democratic rights and taking control of their national destiny. The rule of law, not the wishes of the powerful, can resolve outstanding questions about the electoral process. American interests in working with a strong and democratic Nigerian partner will remain powerful regardless of who is victorious when the returns come in, which is precisely why we should use our voice now, not to favor any party or candidate, but to support Nigeria's democracy.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I stand in full support of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act as I did when this bill was introduced and sent to the President's desk in the 109th Congress. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this bill. I am frustrated by the opposition this bill has generated and saddened that we are preventing the advancement of important science that could potentially impact millions of suffering Americans. The study of stem cells holds enormous promise for the treatment of debilitating and life-threatening diseases. However, in order to reach this level of medical achievement, much more research is necessary to understand, and eventually harness, the amazing potential of stem cells. Instead of creating roadblocks, we must all work together to expand Federal funding of stem cell research and continue moving forward in our fight against disease by advancing our knowledge through science and medicine. Each year, 100,000 Americans will develop Alzheimer's disease, with impaired memory, ability to understand, and judgment. Over 1 million adults will be diagnosed with diabetes this year, and risk complications that include blindness, damaged nerves, and loss of kidney function. We all know or have met individuals with spinal cord injuries, including national celebrities, local war heroes, and loved ones from our own families and circles of friends, who are struggling to maintain mobility and independence. For most of our history, medicine has offered little hope of recovery to the 100 million individuals affected by these and other devastating illnesses and injuries. Until now. Recent developments in stem cell research may hold the key to improved treatments, if not cures, for those affected by Alzheimer's disease, diabetes, spinal cord injury, and countless other conditions. Many men, women, and children who are cancer survivors are already familiar with the lifesaving applications of adult stem cell research. Patients with leukemia or lymphoma often undergo bone marrow transplants, a type of stem cell transplant, which can significantly prolong life or permanently get rid of the cancer. This therapy has been used successfully for decades, and is saving lives every day. Yet this breakthrough has its serious limitations. Adult stem cells, such as those used in bone marrow transplants, can only be collected in small quantities, may not be a match for the patient, which can lead to rejection, and have limited ability to differentiate or transform into specialized cells. Similarly, the promising advances of stem cell use from a patient's own cord blood, as illustrated by the success stories of Dr. Joanne Kurtzberg from Duke University, also have their limitations. If, for example, a young cord blood recipient's condition should deteriorate after his or her initial treatment or should develop another illness, there simply are not enough cord blood cells left for a second use. The few remaining cells would have to be cloned to get enough cells for future treatment, or stem cells would have to be obtained from another source. Two of my constituents, Mary Schneider and her son Ryan, are well aware of the potential of cord blood treatments. Her son, diagnosed with cerebral palsy at 2 years of age, has made what appears to be a full recovery after treatment with his own cord blood. Despite the compelling results witnessed by the Schneider family, they also firmly believe and support expanded research of embryonic stem cells to combat disease. A recent scientific paper about stem cells derived from amniotic fluid has drawn much attention. While this offers an exciting alternative to regenerative medicine therapies, the author of that report, Dr. Anthony Atala, has himself urged that his work on amniotic stem cells will not replace the continued need for investigation into treatments with stem cells derived from embryos. All of these alternative treatments are just that, alternatives, and are not substitutes for embryonic stem cell research. Embryonic stem cells can be obtained from a number of sources, including in vitro fertilization. At this very moment, there are over 400,000 embryos being stored in over 400 facilities throughout the United States. The majority of these are reserved for infertile couples. However, many of these embryos will go unused, destined for permanent storage in a freezer or disposal. We should expand and accelerate research using these embryos, just as we should continue to explore the viability of adult stem cell use, cord blood use, and amniotic fluid use. The promise of embryonic stem cells has come to light in a recent achievement by researchers at Johns Hopkins. They were able to repair damaged nerves and restore mobility in paralyzed rats through embryonic stem cells. One can't help but wonder when, not if, this research will be translated into techniques that will help human patients who have lost the ability to walk. Of course, any work in this area must have appropriate oversight. Embryonic stem cell research demands comprehensive, thoughtful, and carefully crafted ethical and scientific guidelines. We must not only look to guidance from the National Institutes of Health and the Food and Drug Administration but also to our reason, our morals, and our compassion. The President's veto of the stem cell bill proposed in the last Congress prevents Government funding beyond 78 previously established stem cell lines. However, recent estimates on the number of viable cell lines bring the numbers down closer to 20. Clearly, we are moving backward in our efforts with these current restrictions. Stymieing embryonic stem cell research is a step in the wrong direction. It closes the door on many Americans awaiting new treatments that could potentially provide a better quality of life or, perhaps, even save their life. My hope, and the hope of so many in this country, is to provide our researchers with the means to explore the uses of embryonic stem cells so that we can begin to turn the tide on the devastating diseases affecting our Nation and the world.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in favor of the Recidivism Reduction and Second Chance Act, a bill to strengthen community safety and reduce poverty by improving the reintegration of people returning from prison. I am pleased to work with Senators Biden, Specter, Brownback, and Leahy as a cosponsor of this very important bill. It is estimated that approximately 650,000 prisoners are released into communities across America every year. They have paid their debt to society and now return to their homes and neighborhoods, to their families, and back to their lives. The problem is that for most of these returning prisoners, their families, neighborhoods, and prior lives often lack what it takes to ensure successful reintegration. In the best of cases, incarcerated individuals maintain contact with their families and receive rehabilitation services while in prison; they are released to a network of law-abiding peers and quickly find a rewarding job that provides the skills and career development for long- term opportunity. Released prisoners can help support their families, become active in their churches and other community organizations, stay off drugs, away from trouble, on track, and out of jail. Unfortunately, that rarely happens. Up to two-thirds of all released prisoners nationwide end up back in prison within just 3 years. They don't manage to find and keep effective jobs and to care for themselves and their families. Many become a drain on their families and a drain on the system. They are more likely to resort to criminal activity and to perpetuate poverty and family dysfunction. Their failure is our failure since we all share the high cost, lost opportunities, and other burdens of unemployment, crime, community failure, and cycles of recidivism. Fortunately, people have been hard at work in hundreds of communities and community organizations all across the country to improve the process of reintegrating prisoners. As one example, the Safer Foundation in Illinois has managed to cut the State's recidivism rate by almost 50 percent for the people who receive Safer's supportive employment services. And Safer has further demonstrated that ex- prisoners who are still employed after 12 months of supportive services have a recidivism rate of lower than 10 percent. One of Safer's program models, funded by the U.S. Department of Labor, provides participants with job placement and support services, and matches them with mentors from the neighborhoods where the participants reside. Only 2 percent of the participants in this community and faith- based program recidivated over a 2-year period. One of the most effective reentry strategies that Safer, the Heartland Alliance for Human Needs and Human Rights, and other nonprofit organizations have devised is transitional jobs, a strategy that worked for welfare to work, and is now working for prison returnees. In a transitional jobs program, former prisoners with employment challenges are hired and paid a wage for legitimate employment in a time-limited, subsidized job. The program not only offers real work, income, skill development, and a letter of reference and experience to add to their resume, it also offers coaching and support services to help participants overcome substantial barriers to employment, such as substance abuse or mental health issues. The program focuses heavily on placement into unsubsidized work at the earliest possible time and job retention services after placement. The participants in transitional jobs programs gain an immediate source of legitimate income upon release. They also gain paid work experience, access to professional counseling and training services, and a clear path to unsubsidized employment in the community. Employers gain access to a pipeline of supported workers who have demonstrated an ability to do the job and remain employable. Most of all, our communities gain by helping ex-prisoners to contribute positively to family, neighborhood, and the larger environment. Too many people are caught up in the criminal justice system. Especially within the African-American community where nearly a third of Black males will enter State or Federal prison sometime during their lifetime. Communities are protected and strengthened when people who break the law are punished appropriately. But communities--all communities, including yours and mine--are weakened if we neglect the challenges of rehabilitation and reentry. To improve the integration of former prisoners and to reduce recidivism is in all of our best interests. A well-designed reentry system can enhance public safety, reduce recidivism, reduce costs, and help prisoners achieve long-term integration. The Second Chance Act is an important effort to strengthen America's communities. The bill is supported by a wide range of organizations, and I urge my colleagues to join us in passing this important legislation.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Homes for Heroes Act of 2007. I am pleased to be joined by Senators Schumer, Menendez, Brown and Cantwell in offering this legislation. As we respond to the moral question of how we honor our sacred trust to care for our returning servicemembers and veterans, I am reminded of my grandfather, who signed up for duty in World War II the day after Pearl Harbor. He marched across Europe in Patton's army, and when he came home to Kansas, he could have very easily faced some tough times. He could've had trouble paying for college, or finding a job, or even finding a home. But at the time, he lived in a country that recognized the value of his service--a country that kept its promise to defend those who have defended freedom. And so he was able to afford college through the GI Bill, and he was able to buy a house through the Federal Housing Administration, and he was able to work hard and raise a family and build his own American Dream. And after I think about my grandfather, and the opportunities he had as a veteran, I then think about a veteran I met named Bill Allen, who told me that on a trip he took to Chicago, he actually saw homeless veterans fighting over access to the dumpsters. Think about that. Fighting over access to the dumpsters. Each and every night in this country, more than 200,000 of our Nation's veterans are homeless. And nearly twice as many will experience homelessness over the course of a year. There is no single cause for this. Homeless vets are men and women, single and married. Many suffer from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder; others were physically and mentally battered in combat. A large number left the military without job skills that could be easily used in the private sector. All have risked their lives for their country. All deserve--at the very least--the basic dignity of going to sleep at night with a roof over their head. And every day we allow them to go without, it brings shame to every single one of us. This is wrong. It's wrong because we're quick to offer words of praise for our troops when they're abroad, but quick to forget about their needs when they come home. It's wrong because we have the resources and the programs in place to help solve this problem. And it's wrong on a fundamentally moral level--the idea that we would allow such brave and selfless citizens to suffer in such biting poverty. And so it is now our responsibility--it is now our duty--to make this right. These heroes often have not connected to vital housing and supportive services that could make all of the difference. Many more low income veterans and veteran families live at the margins and are at risk of becoming homeless in the absence of permanent housing solutions and supportive services. While it's one thing to get veterans off the streets temporarily, it's another to keep them off--to place veterans in real, permanent homes. In fact, the VA has consistently identified permanent housing as one of the top three unmet needs in the fight against veteran homelessness. And despite the tremendous demand for homeless services, the federal government serves only a tiny fraction of those who are in need. That's why I'm introducing a bill today called the Homes for Heroes Act. This is a bill that would help expand access to long-term, affordable housing by creating a fund so that the community and nonprofit organizations could purchase, build, or rehabilitate homes and apartments for veterans. So that we don't just leave them to face their personal challenges on their own, the organizations would also provide services like counseling, employment training, and child care to the veterans who live in this housing. And the Homes for Heroes Act would expand the number of permanent housing vouchers for veterans from the current number of less than 2,000 to 20,000, and make this authorization permanent. These are vouchers that have been highly successful in giving veterans the chance to afford a place to live. Every day in America, there are men and women on street corners with handwritten signs that say ``Homeless Veteran--Will Work For Food.'' Sometimes we give a dollar, sometimes we just keep walking. These are soldiers who fought in World War II, Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq. They made a commitment to their country when they chose to serve and now we must keep our commitment to them. Because when we make the decision to send our troops to war, we also make the decision to care for them, to speak for them, and to think of them--always--when they come home. This kind of America--an America of opportunity, of collective responsibility for each other--is the kind that so many of our parents and grandparents came home to after the Second World War. Now it's time for us to build this America for those sons and daughters who come home today.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Homes for Heroes Act of 2007. I am pleased to be joined by Senators Schumer, Menendez, Brown and Cantwell in offering this legislation. As we respond to the moral question of how we honor our sacred trust to care for our returning servicemembers and veterans, I am reminded of my grandfather, who signed up for duty in World War II the day after Pearl Harbor. He marched across Europe in Patton's army, and when he came home to Kansas, he could have very easily faced some tough times. He could've had trouble paying for college, or finding a job, or even finding a home. But at the time, he lived in a country that recognized the value of his service--a country that kept its promise to defend those who have defended freedom. And so he was able to afford college through the GI Bill, and he was able to buy a house through the Federal Housing Administration, and he was able to work hard and raise a family and build his own American Dream. And after I think about my grandfather, and the opportunities he had as a veteran, I then think about a veteran I met named Bill Allen, who told me that on a trip he took to Chicago, he actually saw homeless veterans fighting over access to the dumpsters. Think about that. Fighting over access to the dumpsters. Each and every night in this country, more than 200,000 of our Nation's veterans are homeless. And nearly twice as many will experience homelessness over the course of a year. There is no single cause for this. Homeless vets are men and women, single and married. Many suffer from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder; others were physically and mentally battered in combat. A large number left the military without job skills that could be easily used in the private sector. All have risked their lives for their country. All deserve--at the very least--the basic dignity of going to sleep at night with a roof over their head. And every day we allow them to go without, it brings shame to every single one of us. This is wrong. It's wrong because we're quick to offer words of praise for our troops when they're abroad, but quick to forget about their needs when they come home. It's wrong because we have the resources and the programs in place to help solve this problem. And it's wrong on a fundamentally moral level--the idea that we would allow such brave and selfless citizens to suffer in such biting poverty. And so it is now our responsibility--it is now our duty--to make this right. These heroes often have not connected to vital housing and supportive services that could make all of the difference. Many more low income veterans and veteran families live at the margins and are at risk of becoming homeless in the absence of permanent housing solutions and supportive services. While it's one thing to get veterans off the streets temporarily, it's another to keep them off--to place veterans in real, permanent homes. In fact, the VA has consistently identified permanent housing as one of the top three unmet needs in the fight against veteran homelessness. And despite the tremendous demand for homeless services, the federal government serves only a tiny fraction of those who are in need. That's why I'm introducing a bill today called the Homes for Heroes Act. This is a bill that would help expand access to long-term, affordable housing by creating a fund so that the community and nonprofit organizations could purchase, build, or rehabilitate homes and apartments for veterans. So that we don't just leave them to face their personal challenges on their own, the organizations would also provide services like counseling, employment training, and child care to the veterans who live in this housing. And the Homes for Heroes Act would expand the number of permanent housing vouchers for veterans from the current number of less than 2,000 to 20,000, and make this authorization permanent. These are vouchers that have been highly successful in giving veterans the chance to afford a place to live. Every day in America, there are men and women on street corners with handwritten signs that say ``Homeless Veteran--Will Work For Food.'' Sometimes we give a dollar, sometimes we just keep walking. These are soldiers who fought in World War II, Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq. They made a commitment to their country when they chose to serve and now we must keep our commitment to them. Because when we make the decision to send our troops to war, we also make the decision to care for them, to speak for them, and to think of them--always--when they come home. This kind of America--an America of opportunity, of collective responsibility for each other--is the kind that so many of our parents and grandparents came home to after the Second World War. Now it's time for us to build this America for those sons and daughters who come home today.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, next week is National Public Health week--a week to raise awareness about the importance of public health all around this Nation. I applaud the efforts of the American Public Health Association in organizing events across the country to assist in this awareness building. We all know the alarming statistics demonstrating the worsening health status in both children and adults in this Nation. Without intervention, 1 in 3 children born in 2000 can expect to develop diabetes in their lifetime because of obesity resulting from poor nutrition and sedentary lifestyles. In my home State of Illinois, we have the highest number of lead-poisoned children in the Nation because of the large amount of older housing in places like Chicago. And asthma rates are on the rise in minority populations, reflecting worsening air quality in many areas. But what many don't know is how, and the degree to which, changes in the environment are contributing to this health decline. Yet, study after study has shown that environmental factors can be just as problematic as poor genes in causing disease. While working as a community organizer in the mid-1980s on Chicago's south side, I became intimately aware of the impact of the built environment on public health. One of the neighborhoods in which I worked was bordered by the highly polluted Calumet River on one side and railroad tracks on the other side. People didn't just grow up in this neighborhood--generation after generation stayed in a community with pollutants and extremely limited access to physical activity and healthy living. This image stays with me and is a motivating force to improve community design that includes all members of society. The American Public Health Association and countless other expert organizations have shown us that if we make a real commitment to, and investment in, building healthy communities, we can substantially improve the health of children and adults. There are many simple ways we can do this. Whenever we build a new highway or a new condo complex, we could also build a park where kids can play. Whenever we plan new communities, we could put grocery stores, restaurants and post offices within easy walking distance. We could take steps to ensure that factories or power plants aren't located near schools. We could ensure that kids are not exposed to lead hazards. And we could encourage the development of ``green'' homes and buildings that decrease energy consumption. And that is why I come to the floor today to reintroduce the Healthy Places Act, and the Healthy Communities Act. The Healthy Places Act would help State and local governments assess the health impact of new policies or projects, whether it's a new highway or a shopping center. And once the health impact is determined, the bill gives grant funding and technical assistance to help address the potential health problems. And while we already know a great deal about the relationship between the built environment and the health status of residents, the bill supports additional research so we can look into new environmental health hazards. The Healthy Communities Act goes hand in hand with the Healthy Places Act, calling for the assessment of the impact of federal policies on environmental health and justice. To make sure our policy decisions are not hurting public health, this legislation requires an Environmental Health Report Card for each state and the Nation at large. Since areas with poor environmental health tend to be disproportionately fiscally poor as well, this legislation establishes health action zones that qualify for grant assistance to address these problems. And since much more remains to be understood in this arena, the bill calls for environmental health research and for environmental health workforce development. We as a society are moving in the direction of designing communities with healthy living and public health in mind. For example, in Chicago, city leaders recognized the lack of grocery stores in many lower income neighborhoods, forcing families to go without fresh foods. To address this issue, the city's Department of Planning and Development developed a program called Retail Chicago, which used redevelopment funds to attract local developers to build grocery stores in low-income neighborhoods. While we celebrate the success of such local efforts, we must call upon the Federal Government to provide adequate support. And we must ensure that all segments of society reap the rewards of building and maintaining healthy communities. I thank you for this time, and I urge my colleagues to support the Healthy Places Act and the Healthy Communities Act.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, next week is National Public Health week--a week to raise awareness about the importance of public health all around this Nation. I applaud the efforts of the American Public Health Association in organizing events across the country to assist in this awareness building. We all know the alarming statistics demonstrating the worsening health status in both children and adults in this Nation. Without intervention, 1 in 3 children born in 2000 can expect to develop diabetes in their lifetime because of obesity resulting from poor nutrition and sedentary lifestyles. In my home State of Illinois, we have the highest number of lead-poisoned children in the Nation because of the large amount of older housing in places like Chicago. And asthma rates are on the rise in minority populations, reflecting worsening air quality in many areas. But what many don't know is how, and the degree to which, changes in the environment are contributing to this health decline. Yet, study after study has shown that environmental factors can be just as problematic as poor genes in causing disease. While working as a community organizer in the mid-1980s on Chicago's south side, I became intimately aware of the impact of the built environment on public health. One of the neighborhoods in which I worked was bordered by the highly polluted Calumet River on one side and railroad tracks on the other side. People didn't just grow up in this neighborhood--generation after generation stayed in a community with pollutants and extremely limited access to physical activity and healthy living. This image stays with me and is a motivating force to improve community design that includes all members of society. The American Public Health Association and countless other expert organizations have shown us that if we make a real commitment to, and investment in, building healthy communities, we can substantially improve the health of children and adults. There are many simple ways we can do this. Whenever we build a new highway or a new condo complex, we could also build a park where kids can play. Whenever we plan new communities, we could put grocery stores, restaurants and post offices within easy walking distance. We could take steps to ensure that factories or power plants aren't located near schools. We could ensure that kids are not exposed to lead hazards. And we could encourage the development of ``green'' homes and buildings that decrease energy consumption. And that is why I come to the floor today to reintroduce the Healthy Places Act, and the Healthy Communities Act. The Healthy Places Act would help State and local governments assess the health impact of new policies or projects, whether it's a new highway or a shopping center. And once the health impact is determined, the bill gives grant funding and technical assistance to help address the potential health problems. And while we already know a great deal about the relationship between the built environment and the health status of residents, the bill supports additional research so we can look into new environmental health hazards. The Healthy Communities Act goes hand in hand with the Healthy Places Act, calling for the assessment of the impact of federal policies on environmental health and justice. To make sure our policy decisions are not hurting public health, this legislation requires an Environmental Health Report Card for each state and the Nation at large. Since areas with poor environmental health tend to be disproportionately fiscally poor as well, this legislation establishes health action zones that qualify for grant assistance to address these problems. And since much more remains to be understood in this arena, the bill calls for environmental health research and for environmental health workforce development. We as a society are moving in the direction of designing communities with healthy living and public health in mind. For example, in Chicago, city leaders recognized the lack of grocery stores in many lower income neighborhoods, forcing families to go without fresh foods. To address this issue, the city's Department of Planning and Development developed a program called Retail Chicago, which used redevelopment funds to attract local developers to build grocery stores in low-income neighborhoods. While we celebrate the success of such local efforts, we must call upon the Federal Government to provide adequate support. And we must ensure that all segments of society reap the rewards of building and maintaining healthy communities. I thank you for this time, and I urge my colleagues to support the Healthy Places Act and the Healthy Communities Act.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, it is my understanding that at this point we cannot set aside the pending amendment because we are waiting for a floor manager.

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, why don't I wait to find out whether it is possible for the Senator from Oregon to potentially call up his amendment. If not, then what I would like to do is speak on my amendment and find out when I can call up my amendment.

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that after I speak, if the Senator from Oregon is able to call up his amendment, I be able to call up my amendment as well thereafter.

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, toward the end of World War II, Norman Rockwell created a cover for the Saturday Evening Post titled ``Homecoming GI.'' It is a picture of a soldier returning from war. He has a duffle bag clutched in his left hand. He is looking up at the back of a brick building with laundry hanging from the back porch. A woman in an apron sees him with outstretched arms, and a young child races down the stairs. Everyone sees that soldier--the neighbors' kids, the man fixing the roof, faces from another window--and everyone welcomes that soldier who has come home from war. That is what our Nation did for the millions of servicemembers who returned from the Atlantic and the Pacific. We watched them come home in waves. Some were just as strong as their first day in battle; others limped. We saw them crowd Times Square. We saw them walk down Main Street and sit on stoops. My grandfather, who fought in Patton's army, would often speak about this time as America at its finest. That homecoming didn't just happen; we were ready for it. Long before the beaches of Normandy were stormed and the last battle was fought, in 1943 President Roosevelt said: Among many other things, we are, today, laying plans for the return to civilian life of our gallant men and women in the armed services. They must not be demobilized into an environment of inflation and unemployment, to a place on a bread line, or on a corner selling apples. We must, this time, have plans ready instead of waiting to do a hasty, inefficient, and ill-considered job at the last moment. These are the words of wisdom that we ignore at our peril. Today we have more than 631,000 veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan and other parts of the global war on terror. According to a recent VA health care report, one-third--more than 205,000--have sought treatment at VA health facilities. Even if the war in Iraq comes to an end soon--and I hope the Senate takes action this week to accomplish that goal--the war will live on with our servicemembers and their families for the rest of our lives. Unfortunately, over the past month, we have all seen the disturbing pictures of neglect at Walter Reed. We have read about bats and bureaucratic redtape at the VA. We have seen too many stories about our veterans who have been forgotten--not greeted by the Nation that asked them to serve. The time has come for us to see this generation of veterans in all their valor and pain. We should provide them with a plan that is worthy of their courage and will help build back the military they love. That is what Senator McCaskill and I are trying to do with the amendment we offer today. First, we provide an additional $41 million to hire more caseworkers to assist servicemembers navigating the military's bureaucracy. The last thing a wounded servicemember should have to face when they return home is a front line of paperwork and delay. Right now, the caseworker- to-service-member ratio at Walter Reed is 1 to 50. Caseworkers help recovering soldiers schedule appointments, take care of their everyday needs, and fill out paperwork. Military caseworkers are overwhelmed. I understand the Army is reducing the caseworker-to-service-member ratio to 1 to 17, and I applaud this move. Our amendment would help the military achieve this goal at all military hospitals. Our amendment also provides $30 million for the Armed Forces to create an Internet-based system for servicemembers to submit their paperwork electronically. No longer will amputees and servicemembers in wheelchairs have to go to countless offices to fill out duplicative forms only to learn that the forms have been lost in Government bureaucracy. We also need to do more to increase the number of mental health crisis counselors available to assist recovering servicemembers and their families. Too many servicemembers are returning home with unmet mental health needs--stresses that are often experienced by their family members. That is why our amendment provides $17 million for more mental health crisis counselors. While we all praise how our country treated the servicemembers returning from World War II, we must remember the lessons after Vietnam. The landmark National Vietnam Veterans Readjustment Study was congressionally mandated in 1983, 15 years after the height of that war. The completed report showed the vast majority of Vietnam veterans had successfully acclimated to postwar life. We can't wait 15 years to plan and prepare for the readjustment needs of the servicemembers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. The average age of a servicemember deployed since September 11 is 27. The average age of our Guard and Reserves is 33. Sixty percent of those deployed have family responsibilities, and 47 percent of those who have died have left families. Mr. President, 160,000 women have been deployed, and 10 percent of those women are single mothers. These men and women are going to face real challenges in readjusting to normal life. Our amendment would provide for a study by the National Academy of Sciences of the mental health and readjustment needs of returning servicemembers. This study will assist the Department of Defense, the Veterans' Administration, and Congress in planning for the long-term needs of our veterans. Last week I met a woman at Walter Reed. She is one of the 160,000 women who have been deployed, and she suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder. Most of us associate PTSD with men in combat, but many of the women in theater face firsthand dangers in their combat support roles. Driving a truck in Baghdad is one of the most dangerous missions around, and it is considered a support role. Women are witnessing the horrors of improvised explosive devices and the horrors of losing fellow servicemembers, and too many are experiencing the trauma of sexual harassment or abuse. This young woman was very scared, and she trembled as we spoke. I asked her what we could do to help. She said that she could not handle group therapy sessions; she could only tolerate one-on-one sessions with counselors. Her experience is shared by many women. Treatment for women with PTSD, especially sexual abuse victims, is very different from treatment for men. That is why as part of our amendment we want to provide $15 million to address the unique mental health needs of women. This funding will ensure the development and implementation of a women's treatment program for mental health conditions, including PTSD. It will also include the hiring and training of sexual abuse counselors so that the servicemembers who suffer from this trauma do not have to suffer in silence. We can do this for the woman I met at Walter Reed and the thousands who suffer like her. The total cost of our amendment is $103 million--less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the total cost of this bill. This is the least we can do for our servicemembers recovering at Walter Reed and other military hospitals. I am proud that Veterans For America has endorsed our amendment, and I ask unanimous consent that their letter of endorsement be printed in the Record.

Mr. OBAMA. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this amendment. At this point I turn the floor back to the Senator from Oregon, Mr. Wyden, and I ask, if the floor managers are prepared, that I be able to call up this amendment after the Senator from Oregon does so with his amendment.

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I apologize. I should have allowed----

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, is it possible for the Senator from Oregon to yield to me briefly so I could call up an amendment? I will call it up, would not discuss it and it can then be set aside and we can immediately go to the Senator from North Carolina.