Barack Obama

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside so I may call up amendment No. 664.

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. OBAMA. I ask unanimous consent that Senators Casey, Baucus, and Durbin be added as cosponsors.

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, we gather on another occasion to bring the Iraq war to its fateful end. While this effort may fall short again, we will continue to try to do what is in the national security of our country. The Iraq war should never have been authorized. I was proud to say so in 2002, but I am even more proud of the plan I have offered that calls for combat to begin redeploying on May 1 with the goal of all combat troops out of Iraq by March 2008. We also must make sure that we are not as careless getting out of this war as we were getting in, and that is why this withdrawal should be gradual, and keep some U.S. troops in the region to prevent a wider war in the region and go after al-Qaida and other terrorists. Those who would have us continue this war in perpetuity like to say that this is a matter of resolve on behalf of the American people. But the American people have been extraordinarily resolved. They have seen their sons and daughters killed or wounded on the streets of Fallujah. They have spent hundreds of billions of dollars on this effort--money that could have been devoted to strengthening our homeland security and our competitive standing as a nation. No, it has not been a failure of resolve that has led us to this chaos, but a failure of strategy--a strategy that has only strengthened Iran's strategic position; increased threats posed by terrorist organizations; reduced U.S. credibility and influence around the world; and placed Israel and other nations friendly to the United States in the region in greater peril. Iraq has been a failure of strategy and that strategy must change. It is time to bring a responsible end to this conflict because there is no military solution to this war. Before we send our best off to battle in the future, we must remember what led us to this day and learn from the principles that follow. We must remember that ideology is not a foreign policy. We must not embark on war based on untested theories, political agendas or wishful thinking that have little basis in fact or reality. We must focus our efforts on the threats we know exist, and we must evaluate those threats with sound intelligence that is never manipulated for political reasons again. We must remember that the cost of going it alone is immense. It is a choice we sometimes have to make, but one that must be made rarely and always reluctantly. We must remember that planning for peace is just as critical as planning for war. Iraq was not just a failure of conception, but a failure of execution. So when a conflict does arise that requires our involvement, we must try to understand that country's history, its politics, its ethnic and religious divisions before our troops ever set foot on its soil. We must understand that setting up ballot boxes does not automatically create a democracy. Real freedom and real stability come from doing the hard work of helping to build a strong police force, and a legitimate government, and ensuring that people have food, and water, and electricity, and basic services. And we must be honest about how much of that we can do ourselves and how much must come from the people themselves. And finally, we must remember that when we send our service men and women to war, we make sure we have given them the training they need, and the equipment that will keep them safe, and a mission they can accomplish. And when our troops come home, it is our most solemn responsibility to make sure they come home to the services, and the benefits, and the care they deserve. The cause to defend our country and our interests around the world will never end. It will be one of our country's constant threads through the ages. It is our sacred trust to ensure that those moments, those times of great struggle, are the right ones. And when they are not, we must continue to try and end those conflicts for the sake of our country, our service men and women, and the ideals we hold dear. For these reasons, I strongly support the provision in the supplemental bill that calls for the withdrawal of American combat troops by March 31, 2008, and I will oppose any efforts to strip that provision from the bill.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the budget resolution that the U.S. Senate adopted last Friday. Every year, Congress considers a budget resolution, setting the Government's priorities for the coming year. For the past 2 years since my election to the Senate, I have been compelled to vote against budget resolutions that I believed were out of touch with our fiscal realities and national priorities. This year, I was proud to support the resolution. I commend the outstanding leadership of Chairman Conrad, who helped to produce a resolution that makes great progress getting our Nation's priorities back on track. Instead of deepening our fiscal hole with irresponsible tax giveaways to the wealthy, this budget makes an important departure from the Republican budgets of the recent past and brings our budget back into balance. Instead of gutting programs that help our most vulnerable citizens and communities, this budget allows these programs--like the State Children's Health Insurance Program, the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, Medicare, COPS, and others-- to keep serving those who rely on the important moral commitments our Nation has made. Instead of budget gimmicks and deferred responsibility, this budget brings greater transparency and responsibility back to Washington. It does so first by reinstating pay-go. In a Democratic Senate, new mandatory spending, just like new tax cuts, must be paid for by offsetting spending reductions or revenue increases. Pay-go will require tough choices and difficult tradeoffs. We will not be able simply to pass along the debt to future generations for the choices we make today. We will have to be accountable for paying our own bills and collecting our own revenue. Pay-go by itself will not bring our budget back to balance, but it will prevent deficits from getting worse. Pay- go by itself cannot resolve our Nation's long-term liabilities, but it will restore the budget discipline that has been lacking in Washington for too long. When I travel around the country or talk to families in Illinois, I hear about the same priorities again and again. People from all walks of life--farmers and small businesspeople, teachers and veterans, salespeople and service workers, doctors and senior citizens, people prospering and those struggling at the margins--all share a common set of concerns and aspirations. They want affordable health care for themselves and their children. They want a quality education for their children. They want to retire with dignity. They are concerned about our national security and our domestic security. Unfortunately, many Americans are not convinced that their voices are heard here in Washington. They are not convinced because the President proposed a budget that ignores their priorities. They are not convinced because they don't see enough serious efforts to reduce their health care costs or to improve educational opportunities. They are not convinced because it appears that for too long no one in Government has been held accountable for incompetent leadership and neglect of the public interest. Fortunately, the budget resolution we adopted last week responds to their voices. It demonstrates to families across the Nation that we are once again paying attention to their concerns. They have a reason to start once again to have confidence in their Government. Let me give a few reasons, why I supported this resolution. The failure of our Nation to guarantee access to affordable health care for children is shameful, and the President's budget threatened to worsen the situation for children in working families. This budget rejects the President's proposed cuts to the State Children's Health Insurance Program, extends care to 6 million additional eligible children, and makes children's healthcare a priority for Congress. This budget also makes progress to ensure that preschool children from disadvantaged backgrounds will receive quality care and education; that children, no matter where they go to school, will have an equal opportunity for quality education; and will make college more affordable so that our children can compete in a global marketplace. By rejecting the President's proposed cuts in education and training, this budget shores up the Federal end of the bargain to support No Child Left Behind and support programs that educate individuals with disabilities. This budget also includes $100 million for grants to establish summer learning programs in local school districts through the Summer Term Education Program. I thank Chairman Conrad for his assistance in getting my amendment to fund these programs included in the final resolution. These grants will help students in early elementary grades by supporting their participation in 6 weeks of summer school. Teachers tell us that students return to school each September at levels below their successes of the previous spring. Educators know this as ``summer learning loss,'' and research has shown that students, on average, lose more than 1 month of reading skills and 2 months of math skills during the summer. The impact of summer learning loss is greatest for children living in poverty, children with learning disabilities, and children who do not speak English at home. The achievement gap in education begins early in life and remains a burden for too many throughout their time in school. The Summer Term Education Program funded by this resolution will help to bridge this gap through structured summer learning opportunities. The security of our Nation at home and abroad is also a critical priority, and honoring our veterans should be considered a sacred obligation. This budget fully funds our defense and homeland security funding needs and respects our duty to support our veterans. These brave men and women have sacrificed so much for us and for our Nation. Sadly, as uncovered by the Walter Reed scandal, our Government is failing them. This budget makes it possible to provide the quality health care and services that our veterans deserve. We cannot ignore the reality that there are financial and human costs to war. This budget recognizes that reality. I am also pleased that the budget resolution includes an important bipartisan amendment that I offered with my colleagues, Senators Bunning, Bingaman, Lugar, and Boxer, to triple the administration's recommendation for carbon sequestration. This amendment provides an additional $200 million for Department of Energy efforts on carbon sequestration, for a total of $279 million in that account. Both environmental groups and the coal industry acknowledge the importance of better technology for carbon sequestration and control. The International Panel on Climate Change, environmental groups like NRDC, and the mining industry all are on record that the long-term deep geological storage of carbon is possible and is happening now on a small scale. But for it to occur on a far larger scale, we must redouble Federal efforts to make technologies widespread and economical in the next 15 years. A recent report by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology recommended a $5 billion program over the next 10 years to achieve that goal. My amendment today provides a significant increase down that path. Too many Americans say they lack confidence in our tax system because they hear about well-connected individuals and corporations getting away without paying their fair share. I believe this budget will begin to restore the confidence necessary for a fair and effective tax system. Instead of reaching deeper into the pockets of hard-working Americans, this budget will collect taxes where taxes are due. This budget calls for strong new measures to close the tax gap, shut down tax scams, and address offshore tax havens. I am proud of my efforts with Senator Levin and the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations to stop tax haven abuses, and I look forward to working with my colleagues in the 110th Congress to improve the fairness of our Tax Code. The budget resolution we passed last week demonstrates that we can rise above ideology and gimmicks and begin tackling the serious challenges we face as a nation. It demonstrates that vision matters and leadership matters. I am grateful for Chairman Conrad's extraordinary leadership and the terrific work of his talented, dedicated, and hard- working staff. They worked well in committee and on the floor to help assemble a budget resolution that a majority of us in the Senate could vote for in good conscience and with confidence that America's fiscal policies have a chance, at long last, to get back on track.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise today joined by my colleague Senator Richard Burr, to reintroduce the Genomics and Personalized Medicine Act of 2007. This bill will expand and accelerate scientific advancement in the field of genomics, which is already beginning to change the paradigm of medical practice as we know it, and has profound implications for health and health care in this nation. The ``miracles of medicine'' have been demonstrated since early man. Many of the traditional medicines used today, such as aspirin and morphine, are derivatives of plants ancient people used to treat illnesses and injuries centuries ago. Since those ancient times, our knowledge of medicine and disease has expanded tremendously. Today, modern breakthroughs in the fields of genetics and genomics have uncovered another layer of complexity in the way we treat and prevent disease. Over the past decade, we have unlocked many of the mysteries about DNA and RNA, their structure, and how their code is translated into the proteins that make up the tissues and organs of the human body. Researchers have also made discoveries about the various functions of DNA such as replication, genetic recombination and regulation, just to name a few, and have developed the necessary technologies to do all of this work. This knowledge isn't just sitting in books on the shelf nor is it confined to the work benches of laboratories. We have used these research findings to pinpoint the causes of many diseases, such as sickle cell anemia, cystic fibrosis, and chronic myelogenous leukemia. Moreover, scientists have translated this genetic knowledge into several treatments and therapies prompting a bridge between the laboratory bench and the patient's bedside. We've made so many achievements and come a long way in our understanding and application of genetics knowledge. And yet, we are just beginning to realize the full potential of this science to predict the onset of disease, diagnose earlier, and develop therapies that can treat or cure Americans from so many afflictions. Just 4 years ago, scientists at the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Energy reached another major landmark, with the completion of the sequencing of the entire human genome, our genetic blueprint described by many as the Holy Grail of biology and hailed as one of the greatest scientific achievements to date. The completion of the Human Genome Project has paved the way for a more sophisticated understanding of disease causation. The HGP has expanded focus from the science of genetics, which refers to the study of single genes, to include genomics, which describes the study of all the genes in an individual, as well as the interactions of those genes with each other. The role environmental factors play in promoting disease and the potential influence they have at the genetic level is also an area of interest. We know that all human beings are 99.9 percent identical in genetic makeup, but differences in the remaining 0.1 percent hold important clues about the causes of disease and response to drugs. Simply put, the study of genomics will help us learn why some people get sick and others do not, and use this information to better prevent and treat disease. The relatively new field of genomics is key to the practice of personalized medicine. Personalized medicine is the use of genomic and molecular data to better target the delivery of health care, facilitate the discovery and clinical testing of new products, and help determine a patient's predisposition to a particular disease or condition. Personalized medicine represents a revolutionary and exciting change in the fundamental approach and practice of medicine Pharmacogenomics, or the study of how genes affect a person's response to drugs, is a critical component of personalized medicine. Currently, so-called blockbuster drugs are typically effective in only 40 to 60 percent of patients who take them. Other studies have found that up to 15 percent of hospitalized patients experience a serious adverse drug reaction, causing an estimated 100,000 deaths each year. Pharmacogenomics has the potential to dramatically increase the effectiveness and safety of drugs, both of which are major health care concerns. We have a growing number of examples of how pharmacogenomics research has helped to save lives. For example, the chemotherapy Purinethol is a lifesaver for kids with leukemia, but in some cases, patients suffer severe, sometimes fatal, side effects. In the 1990's, researchers identified the gene variant that prevents affected patients from properly breaking down Purinethol, allowing doctors to screen patients and adjust dosages for safer use of the drug. Herceptin, another example, is a breast cancer drug that initially failed in clinical trials. However, researchers discovered that 1 in 4 breast cancers have too many copies of a certain gene, which helps cells grow, divide and repair themselves. Extra copies of this gene cause uncontrolled and rapid growth resulting in tumor formation. As it turns out, Herceptin is an effective drug for patients with this type of cancer, with significantly improved survival for affected women. Herceptin offers a clear illustration of the power of personalized medicine and highlights the importance of incorporating genetic analysis in the development and application of new therapies. Realizing the promise of personalized medicine will require continued Federal leadership and agency collaboration; expansion and acceleration of genomics research; a capable genomics workforce; incentives to encourage development of genomic tests and therapies; and greater attention to the quality of genetic tests, direct-to-consumer advertising and use of personal genomic information. The Genomics and Personalized Medicine Act of 2007 will address many of these issues. The bill requires the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to establish the Genomics and Personalized Medicine Interagency Working Group to expand and accelerate genomics research through enhanced communication, collaboration and integration of relevant activities. Genetic and genomics research will be expanded, to increase the collection of data that will advance both fields, through the support of the biobanking initiative aimed at increasing and improving genomic screening tools, diagnostics and therapeutics. The Secretary will also establish a national distributed database so data finding can be shared. This bill requests that the Secretary support efforts to improve the adequacy of genetics and genomics training through modernized curricula and review of relevant certifications, and by identifying alternative education options such as distance or on-line learning programs. In addition, the Secretary will promote initiatives to increase the integration of genetics and genomics into all aspects of medical and public health practice, with specific focus on training and guideline development for providers without expertise or experience in the field of genomics. This bill also requests the National Academies of Science to formally study the development of companion diagnostic tests and to provide expert guidance about the level of incentives and potential approaches to really move this area forward. Last but not least, the bill focuses on the safety, efficacy and availability of information about genetic tests, including pharmacogenetic and pharmacogenomics tests. The Secretary will contract with the Institute of Medicine to conduct a study and make recommendations regarding Federal oversight and regulation of genetic tests. After this study is complete, the Secretary will develop a decision matrix to help determine which types of tests require review and the level of review needed for such tests as well as the responsible agency. The Secretary will also establish a specialty area for molecular and biochemical genetics tests at CMS and direct a review by the CDC of direct-to-consumer marketing practices. In conclusion, we stand at this new and expansive frontier of personalized medicine we must explore and test the hypotheses and innovations in the area of genomics that can protect and promote our health. Genomics holds unparalleled promise for public health and for medicine, and the Genomics and Personalized Medicine Act of 2007 will help us to fulfill this promise. I urge my colleagues to support me in passing this critical legislation.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise today joined by my colleague Senator Richard Burr, to reintroduce the Genomics and Personalized Medicine Act of 2007. This bill will expand and accelerate scientific advancement in the field of genomics, which is already beginning to change the paradigm of medical practice as we know it, and has profound implications for health and health care in this nation. The ``miracles of medicine'' have been demonstrated since early man. Many of the traditional medicines used today, such as aspirin and morphine, are derivatives of plants ancient people used to treat illnesses and injuries centuries ago. Since those ancient times, our knowledge of medicine and disease has expanded tremendously. Today, modern breakthroughs in the fields of genetics and genomics have uncovered another layer of complexity in the way we treat and prevent disease. Over the past decade, we have unlocked many of the mysteries about DNA and RNA, their structure, and how their code is translated into the proteins that make up the tissues and organs of the human body. Researchers have also made discoveries about the various functions of DNA such as replication, genetic recombination and regulation, just to name a few, and have developed the necessary technologies to do all of this work. This knowledge isn't just sitting in books on the shelf nor is it confined to the work benches of laboratories. We have used these research findings to pinpoint the causes of many diseases, such as sickle cell anemia, cystic fibrosis, and chronic myelogenous leukemia. Moreover, scientists have translated this genetic knowledge into several treatments and therapies prompting a bridge between the laboratory bench and the patient's bedside. We've made so many achievements and come a long way in our understanding and application of genetics knowledge. And yet, we are just beginning to realize the full potential of this science to predict the onset of disease, diagnose earlier, and develop therapies that can treat or cure Americans from so many afflictions. Just 4 years ago, scientists at the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Energy reached another major landmark, with the completion of the sequencing of the entire human genome, our genetic blueprint described by many as the Holy Grail of biology and hailed as one of the greatest scientific achievements to date. The completion of the Human Genome Project has paved the way for a more sophisticated understanding of disease causation. The HGP has expanded focus from the science of genetics, which refers to the study of single genes, to include genomics, which describes the study of all the genes in an individual, as well as the interactions of those genes with each other. The role environmental factors play in promoting disease and the potential influence they have at the genetic level is also an area of interest. We know that all human beings are 99.9 percent identical in genetic makeup, but differences in the remaining 0.1 percent hold important clues about the causes of disease and response to drugs. Simply put, the study of genomics will help us learn why some people get sick and others do not, and use this information to better prevent and treat disease. The relatively new field of genomics is key to the practice of personalized medicine. Personalized medicine is the use of genomic and molecular data to better target the delivery of health care, facilitate the discovery and clinical testing of new products, and help determine a patient's predisposition to a particular disease or condition. Personalized medicine represents a revolutionary and exciting change in the fundamental approach and practice of medicine Pharmacogenomics, or the study of how genes affect a person's response to drugs, is a critical component of personalized medicine. Currently, so-called blockbuster drugs are typically effective in only 40 to 60 percent of patients who take them. Other studies have found that up to 15 percent of hospitalized patients experience a serious adverse drug reaction, causing an estimated 100,000 deaths each year. Pharmacogenomics has the potential to dramatically increase the effectiveness and safety of drugs, both of which are major health care concerns. We have a growing number of examples of how pharmacogenomics research has helped to save lives. For example, the chemotherapy Purinethol is a lifesaver for kids with leukemia, but in some cases, patients suffer severe, sometimes fatal, side effects. In the 1990's, researchers identified the gene variant that prevents affected patients from properly breaking down Purinethol, allowing doctors to screen patients and adjust dosages for safer use of the drug. Herceptin, another example, is a breast cancer drug that initially failed in clinical trials. However, researchers discovered that 1 in 4 breast cancers have too many copies of a certain gene, which helps cells grow, divide and repair themselves. Extra copies of this gene cause uncontrolled and rapid growth resulting in tumor formation. As it turns out, Herceptin is an effective drug for patients with this type of cancer, with significantly improved survival for affected women. Herceptin offers a clear illustration of the power of personalized medicine and highlights the importance of incorporating genetic analysis in the development and application of new therapies. Realizing the promise of personalized medicine will require continued Federal leadership and agency collaboration; expansion and acceleration of genomics research; a capable genomics workforce; incentives to encourage development of genomic tests and therapies; and greater attention to the quality of genetic tests, direct-to-consumer advertising and use of personal genomic information. The Genomics and Personalized Medicine Act of 2007 will address many of these issues. The bill requires the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to establish the Genomics and Personalized Medicine Interagency Working Group to expand and accelerate genomics research through enhanced communication, collaboration and integration of relevant activities. Genetic and genomics research will be expanded, to increase the collection of data that will advance both fields, through the support of the biobanking initiative aimed at increasing and improving genomic screening tools, diagnostics and therapeutics. The Secretary will also establish a national distributed database so data finding can be shared. This bill requests that the Secretary support efforts to improve the adequacy of genetics and genomics training through modernized curricula and review of relevant certifications, and by identifying alternative education options such as distance or on-line learning programs. In addition, the Secretary will promote initiatives to increase the integration of genetics and genomics into all aspects of medical and public health practice, with specific focus on training and guideline development for providers without expertise or experience in the field of genomics. This bill also requests the National Academies of Science to formally study the development of companion diagnostic tests and to provide expert guidance about the level of incentives and potential approaches to really move this area forward. Last but not least, the bill focuses on the safety, efficacy and availability of information about genetic tests, including pharmacogenetic and pharmacogenomics tests. The Secretary will contract with the Institute of Medicine to conduct a study and make recommendations regarding Federal oversight and regulation of genetic tests. After this study is complete, the Secretary will develop a decision matrix to help determine which types of tests require review and the level of review needed for such tests as well as the responsible agency. The Secretary will also establish a specialty area for molecular and biochemical genetics tests at CMS and direct a review by the CDC of direct-to-consumer marketing practices. In conclusion, we stand at this new and expansive frontier of personalized medicine we must explore and test the hypotheses and innovations in the area of genomics that can protect and promote our health. Genomics holds unparalleled promise for public health and for medicine, and the Genomics and Personalized Medicine Act of 2007 will help us to fulfill this promise. I urge my colleagues to support me in passing this critical legislation.

Mr. OBAMA

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

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I was hoping for 10 minutes.

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, on Thursdays, Senator Durbin and I hold a constituent coffee so we can hear from the folks back home. A young man came a few months ago who was about 25, 26 years old. He had been back from Iraq for a year. The first 6 months of that year he spent in a coma. An explosion had shattered his face, blinded him in both eyes, and has left him without the use of one arm. He told us about how he was going through rehab, and he introduced us to his family. He has a wife and two young daughters like I do, and his wife talked for a bit about the adjustments they were making at home since dad got hurt. I found myself looking at not just him, but at his wife, who loves him so much, and I thought about how their lives were forever changed because of the decision that was carried out 4 years ago. The sacrifices of war are immeasurable. I first made this point in the fall of 2002, at the end of the speech I gave opposing the invasion of Iraq. I said then that I certainly do not oppose all wars, but dumb wars--rash wars. Because there is no decision more profound than the one we make to send our brave men and women into harm's way. I have thought about these words from time to time since that speech, but never so much as the day I saw that young man and his wife. The sacrifices of war are immeasurable. Too many have returned from Iraq with that soldier's story--with broken bodies and shattered nerves and wounds that even the best care may not heal. Too many of our best have come home shrouded in the flag they loved. Too many moms and dads and husbands and wives have answered that knock on the door that is the hardest for any loved one to hear. And the rest of us have seen too many promises of swift victories, and dying insurgencies, and budding democracy give way to the reality of a brutal civil war that goes on and on and on to this day. The sacrifices of war are immeasurable. It was not impossible to see back then that we might arrive at the place we are at today. I said then that a war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics would lead to a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I believed that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale or strong international support would only strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaida and erode the good standing and moral authority that took our country generations to build. There were other experts, and leaders, and everyday Americans who believed this too. I wish we had been wrong. I wish we weren't here talking about this at the beginning of the war's fifth year. Because the consequences of this war have been profound. And the sacrifices have been immeasurable. Those who would have us continue this war in perpetuity like to say that this is a matter of resolve on behalf of the American people. But the American people have been extraordinarily resolved. They have seen their sons and daughters killed or wounded on the streets of Fallujah. They have spent hundreds of billions of dollars on this effort--money that could have been devoted to strengthening our homeland security and our competitive standing as a nation. No, it has not been a failure of resolve that has led us to this chaos, but a failure of strategy--a strategy that has only strengthened Iran's strategic position; increased threats posed by terrorist organizations; reduced U.S. credibility and influence around the world; and placed Israel and other nations friendly to the United States in the region in greater peril. Iraq has not been a failure of resolve, it has been a failure of strategy--and that strategy must change. It is time to bring a responsible end to this conflict is now. There is no military solution to this war. No amount of U.S. soldiers not 10,000 more, not 20,000 more, not the almost 30,000 more that we now know we are sending--can solve the grievances that lay at the heart of someone else's civil war. Our troops cannot serve as their diplomats, and we can no longer referee their civil war. We must begin a phased withdrawal of our forces starting May 1, with the goal of removing all combat forces by March 30, 2008. We also must make sure that we are not as careless getting out of this war as we were getting in, and that is why this withdrawal should be gradual, and keep some U.S. troops in the region to prevent a wider war and go after al Qaida and other terrorists. But it must begin soon. Letting the Iraqis know that we will not be there forever is our last, best hope to pressure the Iraqis to take ownership of their country and bring an end to their conflict. It is time for our troops to start coming home. History will not judge the architects of this war kindly. But the books have yet to be written on our efforts to right the wrongs we see in Iraq. The story has yet to be told about how we turned from this moment, found our way out of the desert, and took to heart the lessons of war that too many refused to heed back then. For it is of little use or comfort to recall past advice and warnings if we do not allow them to guide us in the challenges that lie ahead. Threats loom large in an age where terrorist networks thrive, and there will certainly be times when we have to call on our brave servicemen and women to risk their lives again. But before we make that most profound of all decisions--before we send our best off to battle, we must remember what led us to this day and learn from the principles that follow. We must remember that ideology is not a foreign policy. We must not embark on war based on untested theories, political agendas or wishful thinking that has little basis in fact or reality. We must focus our efforts on the threats we know exist, and we must evaluate those threats with sound intelligence that is never manipulated for political reasons again. We must remember that the cost of going it alone is immense. It is a choice we sometimes have to make, but one that must be made rarely and always reluctantly. That is because America's standing in the world is a precious resource not easily rebuilt. We value the cooperation and goodwill of other nations not because it makes us feel good, but because it makes all the world safer--because the only way to battle 21st century threats that race across borders--threats like terror, and disease, and nuclear proliferation--is to enlist the resources and support of all nations. To win our wider struggle, we must let people across this planet know that there is another, more hopeful alternative to the hateful ideologies the terrorists espouse--and a renewed America will reflect and champion that vision We must remember that planning for peace is just as critical as planning for war. Iraq was not just a failure of conception, but a failure of execution, and so when a conflict does arise that requires our involvement, we must do our best to understand that country's history, its politics, its ethnic and religious divisions before our troops ever set foot on its soil. We must understand that setting up ballot boxes does not a democracy make--that real freedom and real stability come from doing the hard work of helping to build a strong police force, and a legitimate government, and ensuring that people have food, and water, and electricity, and basic services. And we must be honest about how much of that we can do ourselves and how much must come from the people themselves. Finally, we must remember that when we send our servicemen and women to war, we make sure we have given them the training they need, and the equipment that will keep them safe, and a mission they can accomplish. We must respect our commanders' advice not just when its politically convenient but even when it is not what we want to hear. And when our troops come home, it is our most solemn responsibility to make sure they come home to the services, and the benefits, and the care they deserve. As we stand at the beginning of the fifth year of this war, let us remember that young man from Illinois, and his wife, and his daughters, and the thousands upon thousands of families who are living the very real consequences and immeasurable sacrifices that have come from our decision to invade Iraq. We are so blessed in this country to have so many men and women like this--Americans willing to put on that uniform, and say the hard goodbyes, and risk their lives in a far off land because they know that such consequences and sacrifices are sometimes necessary to defend our country and achieve a lasting peace. That is why we have no greater responsibility than to ensure that the decision to place them in harm's way is the right one. And that is why we must learn the lessons of Iraq. It is what we owe our soldiers. It is what we owe their families. And it is what we owe our country--now, and in all the days and months to come. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, the events of the last few days in Zimbabwe are outrageous and warrant universal condemnation. It is time for the government of Robert Mugabe to cease its repressive and divisive actions and to allow Zimbabweans to pursue their hopes for legitimate political change and opportunity. Since Sunday, the world has watched with horror and outrage as the Mugabe government has cracked down on legitimate opposition, detained 50 Zimbabweans attending a peaceful prayer meeting outside of Harare, and brutalized opposition leaders and ordinary citizens alike. A protestor was shot and killed. Morgan Tsvangirai, the leader of the Movement for Democratic Change, has been badly beaten and suffered severe head injuries. Lovemore Madhuku, the leader of the National Constitutional Assembly, reportedly has a broken arm and numerous other wounds. Many of their colleagues in opposition remain in Harare hospitals. The Government has responded to the outrage prompted by these attacks on human rights and legitimate expression with characteristic bluster. Once again, we are told that the opposition is to blame. Once again, we hear ominous warnings that the opposition is ``set to pay a very heavy price, regardless of who they are.'' Meanwhile, the true cause of the strife--President Mugabe's disastrous rule--remains unaddressed. To the dismay even of his own party, he has declared his intention to run for a new term in office in 2008. These events are shocking, but sadly they do not come as a surprise. For years, it has been increasingly apparent that the Mugabe government is interested only in its own survival and enrichment, not the welfare of the people of Zimbabwe. International observers--including the United States--concluded that the Presidential election of 2002 and the parliamentary elections of 2005 were not free and fair. The State Department reported just last week in its country report on human rights in Zimbabwe that: ``The government engaged in the pervasive and systematic abuse of human rights. The ruling party's dominant control and manipulation of the political process through intimidation and corruption effectively negated the right of citizens to change their government.'' Meanwhile, the Government's corruption and mismanagement has brought the Zimbabwean economy to the brink of ruin. Estimates place inflation at a world high of 1,700 percent, and the IMF forecasts that this could pass 4,000 percent by the end of the year. Unemployment stands at 80 percent. Poverty rates are soaring. Zimbabwe's economy is shrinking faster than any other country in the world that is not at war. I am heartened, though, that this political and economic deterioration has been met with growing calls for change. Within Zimbabwe, the opposition to Mugabe is showing resilience and courage. Factions of Mugabe's own party have indicated that they want a transition in 2008, and ordinary citizens are increasingly voicing their hopes for a new chapter. Beyond Zimbabwe, frustration with the Mugabe government is mounting. The head of the African Union has expressed his embarrassment at the situation in Zimbabwe. South Africa and the Southern African Development Community, which have been slow to criticize Zimbabwe in the past, seem to be losing patience. The United States, European Union, and the United Nations were swift in condemning this latest outrage and have been consistent in their calls for change. The United States must continue to stand strongly against the Mugabe government's abuses of power in Zimbabwe. We must join with our European allies, the United Nations, and--most importantly--the countries and institutions of the region to press for positive change in Zimbabwe. That means a peaceful democratic transition in 2008 and support for economic growth and opportunity--including the lifting of sanctions--once the dark cloud of Mugabe's rule is lifted and Zimbabweans are able again to reach for the new horizon they deserve. I call on President Mugabe to immediately release all political detainees and repeal the ban on political rallies, to end the use of violence and torture in the jails, permit a free media and abide by the rule of law. His government must also urgently address the humanitarian crisis that has put the mass of his population in dire need of assistance. Zimbabwe is a nation rich in history and rich in resources. Its talented people have known great hardship just as they have achieved great heights. When Robert Mugabe became President over a quarter century ago, there was great hope. Zimbabwe had emerged from British rule, claiming its freedom and its future for itself. Sadly, the freedom and opportunity for which Zimbabweans fought have been eclipsed in the last decade by repression and uncertainty. Instead of peaceful self-determination, we see Zimbabweans intimidated and beaten in the streets. Instead of the responsible management of Zimbabwe's state institutions, we see state-sanctioned corruption, violence, and property seizures. Instead of economic self-sufficiency, we see what was once one of Africa's most promising economies in a free-fall. Yet I am confident that the people of Zimbabwe will once again claim for themselves a better future. As they seek to hold their leaders accountable, as they try to rebuild their lives and their country, they must know that they have a strong and steady friend in the United States. The events of the last few days--and the Mugabe regime--must belong to the past, and the United States must work with the international community to help all Zimbabweans forge a better future.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined today by my esteemed colleague from Alaska, Ms. Murkowski, in introducing the Mercury Market Minimization Act of 2007. As most of us in this Chamber know, elemental mercury is a poisonous neurotoxin that can cause serious disability or death if ingested. Unfortunately, many people in the United States, and many millions more worldwide, do indeed ingest mercury--unintentionally, however, as a result of industrial emissions or practices, or poor waste management and storage techniques. When mercury enters into the environment, it often shows up in plants and animals, and that means a major source of mercury ingestion for humans comes as a result of eating certain types of fish. That, in turn, causes serious developmental problems in half a million children in our country, and similar health problems in adults, especially women at childbearing age. Last year, an investigative report published in the Chicago Tribune outlined the extent of mercury contamination in fish. After concluding that the fish sampling efforts conducted by the Federal Government were limited and outdated, the Tribune conducted its own sampling, and the results showed surprisingly high levels of mercury concentrations in freshwater and saltwater fish purchased by consumers in the Chicago region--higher levels than had been documented by the Federal Government. Mercury was found in both freshwater and saltwater species--tuna, swordfish, orange roughy, and walleye, to name a few examples. The Tribune also reported on how existing programs at the Food and Drug Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency have failed to adequately test and evaluate mercury levels in fish. For those of us who like fish, it causes us to pause when we first learn of the range of species with high mercury levels. For pregnant women and other at-risk groups, however, this doesn't just cause pause, it creates serious concerns about health consequences. Meanwhile, experts tell us that fish is an excellent source of critical nutrients and other compounds indispensable for good health. More of us should eat more fish. So the real long-term solution is not to eat less fish, or to criticize those who commercially provide us with fish as food. It's not about issuing advisories, or printing labels on tuna cans, or posting placards at the supermarket, or creating inspection bureaucracies, or collecting statistics. If we're serious about eliminating mercury from fish, we need to reduce mercury in the environment. Half of mercury settles where it is emitted, and the other half gets transported around the globe where we lose track of it, and it winds up in oceans, lakes, and rivers nowhere near mercury sources. From there, up it goes, through the food chain. If mercury is both local, and global, then the solution is not up to one state, or one nation, but up to all states and nations. The bill we introduce today was crafted based on that premise. The Mercury Market Minimization Act, or M3 Act, establishes a ban on U.S. exports of mercury by the year 2010. Such a ban, when coupled with goal of the European Union to ban mercury exports by 2011, and the insufficient capacity in the world's mercury mines to respond, will result in a tightening of the global supply of commercially available elemental mercury in sufficient quantities that developing nations that still use mercury will be compelled to switch to the affordable alternatives that are already widespread in industrialized nations. The M3 Act also requires those Federal agencies that now hold mercury in stockpiles to keep that mercury. Right now, the Department of Energy, and the Department of Defense, possess tons of mercury left over from various operations over the years. While it is the policy of these agencies to keep this mercury--not to sell it, not to transfer it, not to release it from their possession--it is not the law. The M3 act codifies these policies. In December of 2006, it was widely understood that the Department of Energy was considering the sale of its mercury stockpiles. After various inquiries into the matter, the Department of Energy ultimately announced that it would not sell its stockpiles. That underscores why a prohibition of stockpile sales must be enacted into law by the M3 act if we are to be assured that mercury remains safely stored, away from the environment, and not sold overseas to places where tracking and emissions and waste disposal laws may be inadequate. Finally, the M3 Act calls for the creation of a committee to explore and make recommendations on the issues associated with the development of a permanent repository of mercury collected as a result of an export prohibition. Mercury is not like spent nuclear fuel, or other substances that may create community concerns, in that when mercury is stored in stainless steel containers in refrigeration, it remains benign. Every community must be provided the opportunity to evaluate for themselves if and when mercury is stored nearby in secure and stable storage. I do believe, however, that when mercury is safely and permanently stored, it means less microscopic mercury on one's dinner plate, less mercury in our kids' tuna fish sandwiches, and less mercury in the air we breathe. Last month, a United States delegation, led by the State Department, participated in an international meeting in Kenya, sponsored by the United Nations Environmental Programme, where world representative discussed how to reduce mercury pollution. Two years ago, the U.S. Government could have taken a bolder stance, and did not. This time, with the decision of the E.U. to ban mercury exports, the United States had an opportunity to partner with its allies to eliminate a major part of worldwide elemental mercury contamination. Again, the State Department did not. It is not often that policy options, such as this, might be considered ``low-hanging fruit''--in that a small act of international leadership by the United States government could have far reaching benefits for the health of our kids, as well as millions of low-income hardworking artisanal gold miners whom we will never meet. But the United States, so far, has not acted. This bill, the M3 bill, is designed to change that course and the mark the beginning of the end of a global market of an outdated and obsolete poison. I hope my colleagues will support this bill, and I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined today by my esteemed colleague from Alaska, Ms. Murkowski, in introducing the Mercury Market Minimization Act of 2007. As most of us in this Chamber know, elemental mercury is a poisonous neurotoxin that can cause serious disability or death if ingested. Unfortunately, many people in the United States, and many millions more worldwide, do indeed ingest mercury--unintentionally, however, as a result of industrial emissions or practices, or poor waste management and storage techniques. When mercury enters into the environment, it often shows up in plants and animals, and that means a major source of mercury ingestion for humans comes as a result of eating certain types of fish. That, in turn, causes serious developmental problems in half a million children in our country, and similar health problems in adults, especially women at childbearing age. Last year, an investigative report published in the Chicago Tribune outlined the extent of mercury contamination in fish. After concluding that the fish sampling efforts conducted by the Federal Government were limited and outdated, the Tribune conducted its own sampling, and the results showed surprisingly high levels of mercury concentrations in freshwater and saltwater fish purchased by consumers in the Chicago region--higher levels than had been documented by the Federal Government. Mercury was found in both freshwater and saltwater species--tuna, swordfish, orange roughy, and walleye, to name a few examples. The Tribune also reported on how existing programs at the Food and Drug Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency have failed to adequately test and evaluate mercury levels in fish. For those of us who like fish, it causes us to pause when we first learn of the range of species with high mercury levels. For pregnant women and other at-risk groups, however, this doesn't just cause pause, it creates serious concerns about health consequences. Meanwhile, experts tell us that fish is an excellent source of critical nutrients and other compounds indispensable for good health. More of us should eat more fish. So the real long-term solution is not to eat less fish, or to criticize those who commercially provide us with fish as food. It's not about issuing advisories, or printing labels on tuna cans, or posting placards at the supermarket, or creating inspection bureaucracies, or collecting statistics. If we're serious about eliminating mercury from fish, we need to reduce mercury in the environment. Half of mercury settles where it is emitted, and the other half gets transported around the globe where we lose track of it, and it winds up in oceans, lakes, and rivers nowhere near mercury sources. From there, up it goes, through the food chain. If mercury is both local, and global, then the solution is not up to one state, or one nation, but up to all states and nations. The bill we introduce today was crafted based on that premise. The Mercury Market Minimization Act, or M3 Act, establishes a ban on U.S. exports of mercury by the year 2010. Such a ban, when coupled with goal of the European Union to ban mercury exports by 2011, and the insufficient capacity in the world's mercury mines to respond, will result in a tightening of the global supply of commercially available elemental mercury in sufficient quantities that developing nations that still use mercury will be compelled to switch to the affordable alternatives that are already widespread in industrialized nations. The M3 Act also requires those Federal agencies that now hold mercury in stockpiles to keep that mercury. Right now, the Department of Energy, and the Department of Defense, possess tons of mercury left over from various operations over the years. While it is the policy of these agencies to keep this mercury--not to sell it, not to transfer it, not to release it from their possession--it is not the law. The M3 act codifies these policies. In December of 2006, it was widely understood that the Department of Energy was considering the sale of its mercury stockpiles. After various inquiries into the matter, the Department of Energy ultimately announced that it would not sell its stockpiles. That underscores why a prohibition of stockpile sales must be enacted into law by the M3 act if we are to be assured that mercury remains safely stored, away from the environment, and not sold overseas to places where tracking and emissions and waste disposal laws may be inadequate. Finally, the M3 Act calls for the creation of a committee to explore and make recommendations on the issues associated with the development of a permanent repository of mercury collected as a result of an export prohibition. Mercury is not like spent nuclear fuel, or other substances that may create community concerns, in that when mercury is stored in stainless steel containers in refrigeration, it remains benign. Every community must be provided the opportunity to evaluate for themselves if and when mercury is stored nearby in secure and stable storage. I do believe, however, that when mercury is safely and permanently stored, it means less microscopic mercury on one's dinner plate, less mercury in our kids' tuna fish sandwiches, and less mercury in the air we breathe. Last month, a United States delegation, led by the State Department, participated in an international meeting in Kenya, sponsored by the United Nations Environmental Programme, where world representative discussed how to reduce mercury pollution. Two years ago, the U.S. Government could have taken a bolder stance, and did not. This time, with the decision of the E.U. to ban mercury exports, the United States had an opportunity to partner with its allies to eliminate a major part of worldwide elemental mercury contamination. Again, the State Department did not. It is not often that policy options, such as this, might be considered ``low-hanging fruit''--in that a small act of international leadership by the United States government could have far reaching benefits for the health of our kids, as well as millions of low-income hardworking artisanal gold miners whom we will never meet. But the United States, so far, has not acted. This bill, the M3 bill, is designed to change that course and the mark the beginning of the end of a global market of an outdated and obsolete poison. I hope my colleagues will support this bill, and I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise, first, to offer strong words of support for the statement that was just offered by the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts. I also rise today to speak in support of the Iraq resolution the Senate will consider tomorrow. The news from Iraq is very bad. Last week, a suicide bomber stood outside a bookstore and killed 20 people. Other attacks killed 118 Shia pilgrims. On Sunday, a car bomb went off in central Baghdad, and more than 30 people died. The road from the airport into Baghdad is littered with smoldering debris, craters from improvised explosive devices, and the memories of our sons and daughters. The civil war in Iraq rages on. The insurgents have started to change their tactics. They hide in buildings and along the streets and wait for our helicopters. They have shot down at least 8 U.S. helicopters in the last month. More of our soldiers are dying or coming home with their bodies broken and their nerves shattered to a VA system completely unprepared for what they need to rebuild their lives. It is not enough for the President to tell us victory in this war is simply a matter of American resolve. The American people have been extraordinarily resolved. They have seen their sons and daughters killed or wounded in the streets of Fallujah. They have spent hundreds of billions of dollars on this effort--money they know could have been devoted to strengthening our homeland security and our competitive standing as a nation. The failure has not been a failure of resolve. That is not what has led us into chaos. It has been a failure of strategy, and it is time that the strategy change. There is no military solution to the civil war that rages on in Iraq, and it is time for us to redeploy so that a political solution becomes possible. The news from Iraq is very bad, and it has been that way for at least 4 years. We all wish the land the President and the Vice President speak of exists. We wish there were an Iraq where the insurgency was in its last throes, where the people work with security, where children play outside, where a vibrant new democracy lights up the nighttime sky. We wish for those things, but there is no alternative reality to what we see and read about in the news, to what we have experienced these long 4 years. I repeat, there is no military solution to this war. At this point, no amount of soldiers can solve the grievances at the heart of someone else's civil war. The Iraqi people--Shia, Sunni, and Kurd--must come to the table and reach a political settlement themselves. If they want peace, they must do the hard work necessary to achieve it. Our failed strategy in Iraq has strengthened Iran's strategic position, reduced U.S. credibility and influence around the world, and placed Israel and other nations in the region that are friendly to the United States in greater peril. These are not signs of a well-laid plan. It is time for a profound change. This is what we are trying to do here today. We are saying it is time to start making plans to redeploy our troops so they can focus on the wider struggle against terrorism, win the war in Afghanistan, strengthen our position in the Middle East, and pressure the Iraqis to reach a political settlement. Even if this effort falls short, we will continue to try to accomplish what the American people asked for last November. I am glad to see, though, that this new effort is gaining consensus. I commend Senator Reid for his efforts. He took the time to listen to so many of us from both Chambers of Congress to help develop this plan. The decision in particular to again begin a phased redeployment, with the goal of redeploying all our combat forces by March 30, 2008, is the right step. It is a measure the Iraq Study Group spoke of, an idea I borrowed from them, an idea that, in a bill I introduced, now has more than 60 cosponsors from the House and Senate and from both sides of the aisle. They have supported this plan since I announced a similar plan in January. The decision to allow some U.S. forces to remain in Iraq with a clear mission to protect U.S. and coalition personnel, conduct counterterrorism operations, and to train and equip Iraqi forces is a smart decision. President al-Maliki spoke at a conference and warned that the violence in Iraq could spread throughout the region if it goes unchecked. By maintaining a strong presence in Iraq and the Middle East, as both my bill and the leadership bill does, we can ensure that the chaos does not spread. I should also add that the decision to begin this phased redeployment within 120 days is a practical one. Our military options have been exhausted. It is time to seek a political solution to this war, and with this decision we send a clear signal to the parties involved that they need to arrive at an accommodation. While I strongly believe this war never should have been authorized, I believe we must be as careful in ending the war as we were careless getting in. While I prefer my approach as reflected in my bill, I believe this resolution does begin to point U.S. policy and Iraq in the right direction. An end to the war and achieving a political solution to Iraq's civil war will not happen unless we demand it. Peace with stability does not just happen because we wish for it. It comes when we never give in and never give up and never tire of working toward a life on Earth worthy of our human dignity. The decisions that have been made have led us to this crossroad, in a moment of great peril. We have a choice. We can continue down the road that has weakened our credibility and damaged our strategic interests in the region or we can turn toward the future. The road will not be smooth. I have to say there will be risks with any approach, but this approach is our last best hope to end this war so we can begin to bring our troops home and begin the hard work of securing our country and our world from the threats we face. The President has said he will continue down the road toward more troops and more of the same failed policies. The President sought and won authorization from Congress to wage this war from the start. But he is now dismissing and ignoring the will of the American people who are tired of years of watching the human and financial tolls mount. The news from Iraq is very bad, but it can change if we in this Chamber say ``enough.'' Let this day be the day we begin the painful and difficult work of moving from the crossroad. Let this day be the day we begin pulling toward the future with a responsible conclusion to this painful chapter in our Nation's history. Let this be the day when we finally send a message that is so clear and so emphatic that it cannot be ignored. I yield the floor.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the amendment offered by my good friend from Oklahoma that would sunset the provisions of this bill after 5 years. In general, I think this is a very good bill. But I have serious reservations about the method by which this bill allocates State homeland security grants. Last week, I came to the floor to offer an amendment to make this funding allocation more based on risk. My amendment was an attempt to meet the 9/11 Commission's recommendation that ``[h]omeland security assistance should be based strictly on an assessment of risks and vulnerabilities [and] federal homeland security assistance should not remain a program for general revenue sharing.'' That is why my amendment sought to send the most dollars to those areas at the greatest risk of an attack. As compared to the funding formula in the underlying bill, my amendment would have better protected our borders, our ports, our railroads, our subways, our chemical plants, our nuclear power plants, our food supply, and our firefighters, police officers and EMTs. Unfortunately, my amendment was defeated, as was a similar amendment offered by Senators Feinstein and Cornyn. I think this was an unfortunate mistake by the Senate, and I am hopeful that this mistake will be corrected in conference. If the funding formula is not fixed, however, I believe it is perfectly appropriate for us to reexamine this issue 5 years from now to ensure that the allocation of homeland security funding provides the necessary resources to communities most at risk. For this reason, I will support the amendment offered by my colleague from Oklahoma.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, later today, President Bush will start on a 6-day visit to five countries in the Western Hemisphere: Brazil, Uruguay, Colombia, Guatemala, and Mexico. The trip comes at an important time for the region and for U.S. relations with our hemispheric neighbors. In an historic convergence, during a 13-month period beginning in November 2005 and ending this past December, a dozen countries throughout Latin America and the Caribbean held Presidential elections. Those elections are a testament to the tremendous democratic strides made throughout the Americas during the past two decades and saw governments elected to power that span the ideological spectrum. In many ways, the election results symbolize the important political, economic, and social change occurring throughout the Americas. As many have noted, the elections gave voice to a yearning across the hemisphere for social and economic development--a yearning among tens of millions of people for a better life. This is a welcome development and a challenge to all of us who wish to see the Americas continue down a path of democracy with justice, because, while we should welcome this democratic call for change, we must recognize that hard and steady work lies ahead to make these hopes a reality. That a desire for fundamental change has been expressed through the ballot box is an enormous stride forward. Too often, change in the Americas has occurred in an anti-democratic fashion. Those days must permanently be put to rest. All citizens of the Americas have a fundamental right to live in freedom and to express themselves through robust democratic institutions. That a desire for expanded prosperity has been given such clear voice raises the stakes. Governments must now do more to address the basic needs and aspirations of their people in an effective, democratic, and sustainable way. A failure to fulfill the most basic functions of government, and a failure to create the conditions in which tens of millions across the Americas can realize their hopes and break free of poverty could undo these gains. The denial of opportunity is now the most significant threat to the consolidation of democracy in the region. Unfortunately, the elections and this desire for change have occurred at a time when U.S. prestige and influence have fallen to depths not seen in at least a generation. As has been the case throughout the world, our standing in the Americas has suffered as a result of the misguided policies and actions of the Bush administration. It will take significant work to repair the damage wrought by 6 years of neglect and mismanagement of relations. The United States can ill afford this deterioration of our standing. With each passing day, we draw closer together to our neighbors to the south. This convergence creates new challenges, but it also opens the door to a more hopeful future. If we pay careful attention to developments throughout the region and respond to them in a thoughtful and respectful way, then we can advance our many and varied national interests at stake in the Americas. I welcome the President's decision to travel to five important countries in Latin America, and to reaffirm the importance of our relationship with the more than 500 million people who live to our south. I am, however, disappointed that the President has fallen so short in his promise to transform U.S. relations with the Americas. Our regional relationships cannot be properly attended to with one 6-day trip, a series of photo opportunities, and some lofty rhetoric on collaboration. Nor does the Bush administration's declaration of 2007 as the year of engagement with the Americas suffice. One year of engagement out of seven is simply not good enough. In light of the Bush administration's woeful record, creating false expectations does more harm than good. We must be realistic about the challenges we face, and what we are doing to address them. We must devote our full time and our respectful attention to our relations within the hemisphere. Earlier this week, President Bush spoke of a ``social justice'' agenda for the Americas. He was right to underscore the importance of addressing the basic needs of millions of our neighbors languishing in poverty. The primary responsibility for doing so, of course, lies with the governments and societies throughout the hemisphere. Yet helping to lift people out of widespread poverty is in our interests, just as it is in accord with our values. When instability spreads to our south, our security and economic interests are at risk. When our neighbors suffer, all of the Americas suffer. The United States has an important role to play. Yet the President sends a mixed message when he makes his call for a social justice agenda after presenting the Congress with a budget for fiscal year 2008 that, with the exception of HIV/AIDS funding, slashes both assistance for economic development and health programs in the Americas. At a time when our standing in the hemisphere is so low, we cannot afford to send this kind of message. Our commitment to justice in the Americas must be expressed in more than one thoughtful expression in one pre-trip speech. Our commitment must be matched by our deeds, not just our words. It is my hope that the President will break from his practice of touting the importance of the Americas during his travels only to turn his back upon his return. Each stop on the President's trip presents an opportunity to move beyond rhetoric, to renew relations in the hemisphere, and to set a new course for sustained followthrough in a way that advances important U.S. interests. In Brazil, it has been reported that President Bush is expected to join with President Inacio Lula de Silva to announce greater ethanol cooperation between the United States and Brazil. Together, the United States and Brazil are the world's largest ethanol producers and consumers. Brazil's more than 30 years of renewable fuel technology investments allowed it to achieve energy independence last year. Ethanol now accounts for 40 percent of Brazil's fuel usage. More than 80 percent of cars sold in Brazil today are flex-fuel vehicles capable of running on gasoline, ethanol, or a mixture thereof. Greater Brazilian production of renewable fuels could boost sustainable economic development throughout Latin America and reshape the geopolitics of energy in the hemisphere, reducing the oil-driven influence of Venezuela's Hugo Chavez. The more interhemispheric production and use of ethanol and other biofuels occurs, and the more such indigenously produced renewable fuels are used to replace fossil fuels, the better it is for our friends in the hemisphere. As it relates to our country's drive toward energy independence, it does not serve our national and economic security to replace imported oil with Brazilian ethanol. In other words, those who advocate replacement of US-based biofuels production with Brazilian ethanol exports, however well intentioned they may be, are both misunderstanding our long-term energy security challenge and ignoring a valuable foreign policy opportunity. The U.S. needs to dramatically expand domestic biofuels production, not embrace a short term fix that discourages investment in the expansion of the domestic renewable fuels in industry. Also, accelerating technology advances and transferring the technology to our neighbors in the Caribbean and South America will help them employ their own resources to produce environmentally clean ethanol to reduce their imported oil bill, thereby promoting economic stability in the Caribbean and South and Central America and strengthen the U.S.-Brazil relationship. It is vital that President Bush keeps the Congress involved each step forward in a U.S.-Brazil relationship based on renewable fuels. This relationship must be structured so as not to hamper the domestic production of renewable fuels, or the development of new technologies here at home that can enhance our energy security. In Uruguay, President Bush has the opportunity to forge closer ties with President Tabare Vazquez and to show that the United States is ready, willing, and able to work productively with democratic-left governments. That this ability is in question and that it requires explaining underscores how badly the President and his administration have misunderstood and mismanaged the political, economic, and social change occurring throughout the Americas. The United States is seen as supporting democracy when it produces a desired result. It is vital to reverse that trend. I hope the President can begin that process, even if we have a long way to go. The United States has invested a great deal--nearly $5 billion during the past 7 years--to help stabilize Colombia. A more peaceful, just, and stable Colombia is undoubtedly in our national interest. It is imperative, however, that greater peace and stability contribute to a reduction in the flow of drugs from Colombia to the United States. Thus far, we have not seen the kind of dropoff that the effective pursuit of our interests demands. President Bush's closest ally in the region--Colombian President Alvaro Uribe--is embroiled in a controversy that has led to the arrest of eight of his supporters in the Colombian Congress and his former confidant and former chief of Colombia's secret police for ties to the country's narco-terrorist paramilitaries. President Bush must be careful to keep the pursuit of U.S. interests in Colombia distinct from specific personalities, or personal relationships. The further consolidation of legitimate governing institutions in Colombia--and the extension of their reach throughout Colombia are clearly in the national interest of the United States, and the interest of Colombia. Guatemala shares deep connections with the United States. Nearly 1 in 10 Guatemalans now lives in the United States. Nearly $3 billion were remitted from the United States to Guatemala in 2005, representing approximately 10 percent of that country's gross domestic product. Having emerged from decades of internal conflict that left as many as 200,000 of its citizens dead, Guatemala finds itself struggling with a new scourge of violence that is causing instability. Gang and drug- related criminal violence and the country's staggering levels of poverty pose enormous challenges--challenges that affect our country as well. I am encouraged to see the Bush administration's new commitment to supporting a Central American regional approach to combat transnational gangs. This initiative should incorporate the most effective techniques and practices from the United States and from throughout the region. The United States must take the lead in rolling back the detrimental influence of these gangs in our own society and in Central America. The relationship between the United States and Mexico is among our most important in the world. Getting it right is vital to advancing our core economic and security interests. To do that, a great deal of work needs to be done. Mexico is making strong efforts to address the drug trade and is working cooperatively with the United States on a number of security issues. But our complex relationship with Mexico has become captive to a single issue: the immigration debate in our country. There is consensus that our immigration system is broken. It is past time to fix it, and I am proud of my own support for a workable solution. We need a comprehensive approach to illegal immigration that stops the flow of illegal immigrants across our borders, better manages immigration flows going forward, and deals fairly with the illegal immigrants already living and working in our country. A workable solution will require bipartisan support, and I will work to build it. The President has consistently voiced his support, for comprehensive immigration reform. It is my hope that upon his return from Mexico he will get to work, converting his words into deeds to help push comprehensive immigration reform forward. A great deal of work needs to be done. We need to restore U.S. relations in the hemisphere. We need to consolidate the gains that have been made in the sweeping change of the last few years. We need to sustain our commitment to democracy, to social justice, and to opportunity for our neighbors to the south. The Western Hemisphere is too important to our core economic and security interests to be treated with the neglect and mismanagement that have defined the past 6 years. It is my hope that President Bush's trip marks the opening of a new chapter of cooperation and partnership a chapter of partnership with our neighbors to promote democracy with social and economic development for the benefit of all of us who live in the Americas. It is time for the United States to reclaim and renew its historic role as a leader in the hemisphere and an example of hope for all who seek opportunity in the Americas.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, today is International Women's Day, a day to celebrate the social, economic, and political achievements of women around the world. We have come a long way in equality for women since that first International Women's Day in 1909. Yet, even as we celebrate these victories, we must acknowledge and increase awareness of the myriad struggles that women continue to face today. The battle against HIV/AIDS is one such struggle, and one that women in this Nation and across the world are losing. And that is why today, I am reintroducing the Microbicide Development Act, to help women protect themselves against deadly HIV infection. The devastation that HIV/AIDS is causing around the world is, sadly, not news to any of us. During a visit to Africa last August, I was reminded of this tragedy. I visited an HIV/AIDS hospital in South Africa that was filled to capacity with people who walked hours--even days--just for the chance to seek help. I saw just a few of the 15 million orphans in Africa who lost their parents to this epidemic. All the while, I remembered in the back of my mind that in some areas, 90 percent of those infected with HIV are unaware of their status, and this epidemic will only continue to get worse. But what we don't always focus on is the particular devastation HIV/ AIDS is bringing to women worldwide. As of 2006, nearly half of the over 37 million adults living with HIV/AIDS worldwide were women. In sub-Saharan Africa, the prevalence of HIV/AIDS is 3 times higher among women ages 15 to 24 than among men of that age group. The severity of the problem hits close to home as well, with HIV/AIDS being the leading cause of death for African American women ages 25 to 34. Women have unique biological vulnerabilities that make them twice as likely as men to contract HIV from an infected partner during intercourse. And for many women, particularly in the developing world, social and cultural norms deny them the ability to insist on mutual monogamy or condom use, thus limiting their tools for prevention. In many situations, women who become infected have only one partner--their husband. In fact, studies in India have shown that among women infected with HIV, 93 percent were married, and 91 percent overall had only one partner--their husbands. Focusing solely on ABC's--abstain, be faithful, use condoms--is clearly failing these women. There is a naivety in thinking that abstinence and fidelity are real options for all men and women around the world, and so we have a moral obligation to expand prevention tools. Yet despite the fact that women have been increasingly devastated by this disease, female-initiated methods of prevention are limited and current prevention options are not enough. Topical microbicides represent a woman-initiated method of prevention that would put the power of prevention in the hands of women. Mathematical models predict that even a partially effective microbicide could prevent 2.5 million infections over 3 years and that gradual introduction of newer and better microbicides could ultimately save a generation of women. Topical microbicides, therefore, represent a critical element in a comprehensive strategy to fight the HIV/AIDS pandemic. A number of groups, including the International Partnership for Microbicides, the Alliance for Microbicide Development, the National Women's Health Network, the Global Campaign for Microbicides, and the Gates Foundation, have led the effort to develop a prevention tool for use by women. The National Institutes of Health has invested in microbicides research, including support for the newly formed Microbicides Trial Network. I would be remiss if I did not also recognize the efforts of the CDC and USAID in microbicide development. With 10 microbicide candidates currently in clinical development and over 30 in preclinical development, we are making headway in this field. But we cannot let this momentum slow. We must continue to prioritize microbicide research and development. Increased Federal support and coordination, which is provided for in the Microbicide Development Act, will give a clear sign that the Federal Government is willing to put forth the effort critical to the development of an effective product to protect our mothers, daughters, sisters, and other loved ones. I echo the words of Dr. Anthony Fauci, Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, who said that, ``with leadership, collaborative effort, sufficient financial resources, and product development expertise, a microbicide is within reach.'' Congress should support our Federal health agencies and their partners in their efforts, and passage of the Microbicide Development Act would give an unambiguous indication that this work is a priority for all of us. In closing, I point out that we have made tremendous strides in medical treatment for individuals infected with HIV/AIDS. But this treatment comes with a price tag that is unsustainable. Between 2003 and 2005, for every one person receiving anti-retroviral treatment, ten more individuals became infected. We are not able to treat all of those currently infected let alone this exponentially growing number of individuals who will need treatment down the line. Universal treatment today would cost roughly $7 billion. Given that we only fund PEPFAR and the Global Fund at $2 billion, that $7 billion price tag, which is only going to grow, appears rather daunting. This financial situation serves to underscore the moral obligation we have to invest in microbicides and other prevention tools. Let us hope that during International Women's Days to come, we will be celebrating tremendous success in the fight against HIV/AIDS rather than the loss of yet another generation of women. I thank you for this time, and I urge my colleagues to support the Microbicide Development Act.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, today is International Women's Day, a day to celebrate the social, economic, and political achievements of women around the world. We have come a long way in equality for women since that first International Women's Day in 1909. Yet, even as we celebrate these victories, we must acknowledge and increase awareness of the myriad struggles that women continue to face today. The battle against HIV/AIDS is one such struggle, and one that women in this Nation and across the world are losing. And that is why today, I am reintroducing the Microbicide Development Act, to help women protect themselves against deadly HIV infection. The devastation that HIV/AIDS is causing around the world is, sadly, not news to any of us. During a visit to Africa last August, I was reminded of this tragedy. I visited an HIV/AIDS hospital in South Africa that was filled to capacity with people who walked hours--even days--just for the chance to seek help. I saw just a few of the 15 million orphans in Africa who lost their parents to this epidemic. All the while, I remembered in the back of my mind that in some areas, 90 percent of those infected with HIV are unaware of their status, and this epidemic will only continue to get worse. But what we don't always focus on is the particular devastation HIV/ AIDS is bringing to women worldwide. As of 2006, nearly half of the over 37 million adults living with HIV/AIDS worldwide were women. In sub-Saharan Africa, the prevalence of HIV/AIDS is 3 times higher among women ages 15 to 24 than among men of that age group. The severity of the problem hits close to home as well, with HIV/AIDS being the leading cause of death for African American women ages 25 to 34. Women have unique biological vulnerabilities that make them twice as likely as men to contract HIV from an infected partner during intercourse. And for many women, particularly in the developing world, social and cultural norms deny them the ability to insist on mutual monogamy or condom use, thus limiting their tools for prevention. In many situations, women who become infected have only one partner--their husband. In fact, studies in India have shown that among women infected with HIV, 93 percent were married, and 91 percent overall had only one partner--their husbands. Focusing solely on ABC's--abstain, be faithful, use condoms--is clearly failing these women. There is a naivety in thinking that abstinence and fidelity are real options for all men and women around the world, and so we have a moral obligation to expand prevention tools. Yet despite the fact that women have been increasingly devastated by this disease, female-initiated methods of prevention are limited and current prevention options are not enough. Topical microbicides represent a woman-initiated method of prevention that would put the power of prevention in the hands of women. Mathematical models predict that even a partially effective microbicide could prevent 2.5 million infections over 3 years and that gradual introduction of newer and better microbicides could ultimately save a generation of women. Topical microbicides, therefore, represent a critical element in a comprehensive strategy to fight the HIV/AIDS pandemic. A number of groups, including the International Partnership for Microbicides, the Alliance for Microbicide Development, the National Women's Health Network, the Global Campaign for Microbicides, and the Gates Foundation, have led the effort to develop a prevention tool for use by women. The National Institutes of Health has invested in microbicides research, including support for the newly formed Microbicides Trial Network. I would be remiss if I did not also recognize the efforts of the CDC and USAID in microbicide development. With 10 microbicide candidates currently in clinical development and over 30 in preclinical development, we are making headway in this field. But we cannot let this momentum slow. We must continue to prioritize microbicide research and development. Increased Federal support and coordination, which is provided for in the Microbicide Development Act, will give a clear sign that the Federal Government is willing to put forth the effort critical to the development of an effective product to protect our mothers, daughters, sisters, and other loved ones. I echo the words of Dr. Anthony Fauci, Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, who said that, ``with leadership, collaborative effort, sufficient financial resources, and product development expertise, a microbicide is within reach.'' Congress should support our Federal health agencies and their partners in their efforts, and passage of the Microbicide Development Act would give an unambiguous indication that this work is a priority for all of us. In closing, I point out that we have made tremendous strides in medical treatment for individuals infected with HIV/AIDS. But this treatment comes with a price tag that is unsustainable. Between 2003 and 2005, for every one person receiving anti-retroviral treatment, ten more individuals became infected. We are not able to treat all of those currently infected let alone this exponentially growing number of individuals who will need treatment down the line. Universal treatment today would cost roughly $7 billion. Given that we only fund PEPFAR and the Global Fund at $2 billion, that $7 billion price tag, which is only going to grow, appears rather daunting. This financial situation serves to underscore the moral obligation we have to invest in microbicides and other prevention tools. Let us hope that during International Women's Days to come, we will be celebrating tremendous success in the fight against HIV/AIDS rather than the loss of yet another generation of women. I thank you for this time, and I urge my colleagues to support the Microbicide Development Act.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I am proud to introduce the Citizenship Promotion Act (CPA) of 2007 with my good friend Congressman Luis Gutierrez. In the Senate, we are joined by Senator Salazar, Senator Menendez, and Senator Bingaman. The CPA will encourage the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to charge fees for services to legal immigrants that are fair and reasonable, and it would remove other potential bureaucratic barriers to the pursuit of citizenship. Immigration policy remains one of the most contentious and divisive issues in our politics. And it is contentious and divisive because our policies are full of mixed messages. We must state clearly what our immigration policy should achieve--a legal, orderly, and secure immigration system that values immigrants, recognizes our right to control who enters our country, and promotes the legal pursuit of citizenship. Most recently, the unanimous declarations of our support for legal immigrants has run head on into a USCIS proposal to dramatically increase immigration application fees beyond the reach of many working class legal immigrants. For a family of four that is working hard and legally pursuing the American dream, the new fees could put citizenship out of reach for many immigrants. For a family of four, the new fees would raise the cost of the application for citizenship by 80 percent to more than $2,400 dollars. And the fees for all other services will rise as well. The Administration argues that people will pay any fee to become Americans. For many people, that is true. But for others, the new fee will send the message that they need only apply if they can afford it. It sends the message that we measure character based on income. Our government has never provided services based on what people are willing to pay. That is why we are introducing the Citizenship Promotion Act to ensure that immigration application fees are both reasonable and fair and that the citizenship process itself respects the individuality of each applicant. For immigrants who choose to come to America and pursue citizenship, there are numerous barriers. First, family, friends, and community are left behind. The new communities they enter come with the challenge of a new language, different social norms, and sometimes discrimination. And yet, every year, thousands of immigrants fully embrace the values and ideals that make us all Americans and unite us in our common pursuit of a better, more democratic society. The dues we charge legal immigrants for joining the American family, from application fees to naturalization tests to background checks are all necessary, but should not eliminate people on the basis of income, age, or ethnicity. Excessive fees, testing that asks trivial questions or is administered without consideration for the applicant's circumstances, and background checks that take years to complete tell us more about ourselves than they do about those wishing to enter. We believe that there are ways to help cushion the blow to immigrants from increased costs without hurting the agency. The CPA would make it clear to the USCIS that application fees do not need to fund all direct and indirect costs. We would maintain fees at their current levels and require that before raising fees any further, the agency report to Congress on its direct and indirect costs and how much in appropriations it would need to establish reasonable and fair fees. In addition to ensuring that fees are fair, we want to make sure that other aspects of pursuing citizenship are fair as well. Our bill requires that citizenship tests be administered with consideration for the applicant, that the agency work with the FBI to move background checks through the process more quickly, and that any new application procedure make it possible for people without Internet access to continue submitting their applications on paper. The bill also creates a new grant program to give community based organizations the resources necessary to prepare and equip immigrants to become citizens. Let's stop sending mixed messages. Let's work together and set immigration fees at a level that are fair and consistent with our commitment to being an open, democratic, and egalitarian society.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I am proud to introduce the Citizenship Promotion Act (CPA) of 2007 with my good friend Congressman Luis Gutierrez. In the Senate, we are joined by Senator Salazar, Senator Menendez, and Senator Bingaman. The CPA will encourage the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to charge fees for services to legal immigrants that are fair and reasonable, and it would remove other potential bureaucratic barriers to the pursuit of citizenship. Immigration policy remains one of the most contentious and divisive issues in our politics. And it is contentious and divisive because our policies are full of mixed messages. We must state clearly what our immigration policy should achieve--a legal, orderly, and secure immigration system that values immigrants, recognizes our right to control who enters our country, and promotes the legal pursuit of citizenship. Most recently, the unanimous declarations of our support for legal immigrants has run head on into a USCIS proposal to dramatically increase immigration application fees beyond the reach of many working class legal immigrants. For a family of four that is working hard and legally pursuing the American dream, the new fees could put citizenship out of reach for many immigrants. For a family of four, the new fees would raise the cost of the application for citizenship by 80 percent to more than $2,400 dollars. And the fees for all other services will rise as well. The Administration argues that people will pay any fee to become Americans. For many people, that is true. But for others, the new fee will send the message that they need only apply if they can afford it. It sends the message that we measure character based on income. Our government has never provided services based on what people are willing to pay. That is why we are introducing the Citizenship Promotion Act to ensure that immigration application fees are both reasonable and fair and that the citizenship process itself respects the individuality of each applicant. For immigrants who choose to come to America and pursue citizenship, there are numerous barriers. First, family, friends, and community are left behind. The new communities they enter come with the challenge of a new language, different social norms, and sometimes discrimination. And yet, every year, thousands of immigrants fully embrace the values and ideals that make us all Americans and unite us in our common pursuit of a better, more democratic society. The dues we charge legal immigrants for joining the American family, from application fees to naturalization tests to background checks are all necessary, but should not eliminate people on the basis of income, age, or ethnicity. Excessive fees, testing that asks trivial questions or is administered without consideration for the applicant's circumstances, and background checks that take years to complete tell us more about ourselves than they do about those wishing to enter. We believe that there are ways to help cushion the blow to immigrants from increased costs without hurting the agency. The CPA would make it clear to the USCIS that application fees do not need to fund all direct and indirect costs. We would maintain fees at their current levels and require that before raising fees any further, the agency report to Congress on its direct and indirect costs and how much in appropriations it would need to establish reasonable and fair fees. In addition to ensuring that fees are fair, we want to make sure that other aspects of pursuing citizenship are fair as well. Our bill requires that citizenship tests be administered with consideration for the applicant, that the agency work with the FBI to move background checks through the process more quickly, and that any new application procedure make it possible for people without Internet access to continue submitting their applications on paper. The bill also creates a new grant program to give community based organizations the resources necessary to prepare and equip immigrants to become citizens. Let's stop sending mixed messages. Let's work together and set immigration fees at a level that are fair and consistent with our commitment to being an open, democratic, and egalitarian society.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, what is the pending business?

Mr. OBAMA. I ask unanimous consent to be added as a cosponsor to the amendment just introduced by Senator Specter.

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending business be set aside so I may call up an amendment.

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 338 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, it was a typical fall day in New York City. People were headed to work, cars were stuck in traffic, the subways were packed, and the construction crews were busy rebuilding at Ground Zero. Nearby, Con Ed personnel were at work in a manhole, and they made a tragic discovery: ID tags and human remains not seen since that other fall day 5 years earlier. The city paused again. It launched another effort to recover and identify those taken from us on that dark September day. The recovery is continuing after all this time. The recovery continues 5\1/2\ years later, and just last week more victims were unearthed. After all this time, we are still recovering from September 11. Our prayers remain with the family members and friends who still mourn and miss the fathers and mothers and children who made their lives complete. During the Homeland Security Committee meeting to discuss the underlying bill, I met with some of those loved ones. That is why we are here today. We are here to do the work that ensures no other family members have to lose a loved one to a terrorist who turns a plane into a missile, a terrorist who straps a bomb around her waist and climbs aboard a bus, a terrorist who figures out how to set off a dirty bomb in one of our cities. This is why we are here: to make our country safer and make sure the nearly 3,000 who were taken from us did not die in vain; that their legacy will be a more safe and secure Nation. That is what lies at the heart of this 9/11 bill. It is not just about how we send the money from Washington to States and local governments; it is about saving lives and doing everything in our power to prevent another attack, to prevent another tragedy, to ensure no one climbs down a manhole expecting to do their work only to find the deceased left in darkness 5 years earlier. That is why we are here--to protect our people. Most of us had hoped these steps would have already been taken, would have been taken many years ago, that we would have capitalized on the unity and national spirit we shared after the towers fell, the Pentagon was hit, and the Pennsylvania field smoldered. It is never too late to do, however, what is right for our country. It has been more than 2\1/2\ years since the 9/11 Commission issued its report. Not only did the panel of dedicated American researchers find out what happened that day, but they also gave a list of serious recommendations about how to make our country safer in the future. The 9/11 Commission showed us how to move beyond the politics of division in order to achieve the solemn task of better protecting our country. In its report, the Commission said the following: Homeland security assistance should be based strictly on an assessment of risks and vulnerabilities [and] federal homeland security assistance should not remain a program for general revenue sharing. This is one of the goals of the 9/11 Commission. My amendment that I just introduced moves us closer to a true system of risk-based allocation of State homeland security grants and ensures that funding goes to areas most at risk of terrorist attacks. This is not an issue of big States versus little States or urban States versus rural States. It is about good policy and about maximizing our use of the people's money. Today, the system is set up so that all States receive at least .75 percent of the State Homeland Security Grant Program dollars. After each State receives that minimum level of funding, the dollars are then allocated according to risk. As a result, the current amount of State minimum funding eats up approximately 40 percent of that funding. While the new bill does attempt to address this problem--and I applaud Chairman Lieberman and Senator Collins for trying to bring the .75 percent down to .45 percent--the bill does not go far enough. It is a good first step, but we are already 50 yards behind, sending too much money to areas where there are not real risks, threats, and vulnerabilities. That is why we must use the most dollars in those areas which are at the greatest risk of attack. We cannot afford to waste a single cent on places that do not need immediate help when first responders in major cities still lack the basic communications equipment they need to talk to one another if, Heaven forbid, tragedy strikes again. That is why the families of 9/11 recently issued a statement saying: Reports of air conditioned garbage trucks being purchased with homeland security funds are indicative of the frivolity that results from non risk-based methods. When the threat against our Nation is so real, we cannot afford not to take it seriously. That is why the 9/11 Commission said Congress should not use this money as porkbarrel. That is why in 2005 the Commission issued a report giving the Nation an ``F'' for risk-based funding. That is why 9/11 Commission Chairman Lee Hamilton recently sent me a letter. He wrote: Since 9/11 and since the issuance of our report, the United States has not allocated homeland security resources wisely. Resources for homeland security are not unlimited, so it is thus essential that they be distributed based on a careful analysis of the risk, vulnerability and potential consequences of a terrorist attack. Adopting such a risk- based approach would make the best use of our homeland security resources, and would make the American people safer. That is why 9/11 Commissioner Tim Roemer wrote in support of this amendment, saying: We cannot afford to waste any more money, time or effort. That is why the amendment I offer today, a bipartisan amendment with the support of Senators Warner, Coburn, Landrieu, Kennedy, Menendez, Clinton, and Schumer, reduces the guaranteed State minimum to .25 percent and allows those States on our northern and southern borders to see an increased minimum of .45 percent. This basic framework was adopted by a wide bipartisan margin in the House in January. It is time for all of us to approach homeland security funding not as something we can bring home to the States we represent but funding we can use to better protect the United States of America. As we lower the guaranteed amount, we increase the funding available to protect those places most at risk, and 40 States will receive either the same amount or an increase in the funding they need to better protect our borders, our ports, our railways, our subways, our chemical plants, our nuclear powerplants, our food supply, and our firefighters, police officers, and EMTs. We have waited more than 5 years to better develop our approach to funding our security in a post-9/11 world. Sometimes division and politics have prevented us from doing what we need to do. But I believe those days are finally behind us. We have a real chance to not only learn from our mistakes but to get the job done and better protect our people. That is why we are here--to make our country as safe and secure as we can. That is the common cause we all share. The American people need to see that in us today. The 9/11 Commission experts that from us. The families and friends of the 9/11 victims are owed that from us-- that we will never forget those who died. We will never forget those who are suffering and sick because of their heroism that day. We will never forget that 60 percent of the victims were never identified. We will never forget that we are still recovering from 9/11--and that is why our work goes on. Mr. President, let me add one last point. I recognize it is difficult for some to see any shift of funding because it is difficult if that State potentially sees their funding reduced. But even within Illinois, I confront some of these same issues. The fact of the matter is I have fought at the State level and have said publicly we should make sure risk assessments entirely determine how money within Illinois is allocated. That is the same approach we need to take for the Nation as a whole. Keep in mind my home city of Chicago is actually doing quite well under the current formula. So this is not something that is based solely on any parochial concerns. I ask unanimous consent that the statements of the 9/11 families, the 9/11 Commission chairman, Lee Hamilton, and 9/11 Commissioner Tim Roemer be printed in the Record, as well as a chart showing how each State would fare under my amendment.