Floor Statements

Mr. President, today, I am introducing legislation, along with Senator Durbin, to honor the lifetime achievements and legacy of one of Illinois' most treasured figures, Katherine Dunham, who passed away on May 21, 2006. Our bill would name the post office on Missouri Avenue in East St. Louis, the ``Katherine Dunham Post Office Building.''

Katherine Dunham was born in Glen Ellyn, IL, on June 22, 1909, to Albert Millard Dunham and Fanny June Taylor. Her father was a descendant of slaves from Madagascar and West Africa, and her mother was French Canadian. Her diverse background would foreshadow her lifelong commitment to exploring and teaching the history of culture around the world.

Katherine Dunham's trailblazing life began at an early age when she entered the University of Chicago as one of the first African Americans to attend the school. She eventually earned bachelor, master's and doctoral degrees in anthropology, and participated in the Rosenwald Fellowship. Under this program she completed work on Caribbean and Brazilian dance anthropology, the first time significant work was done in the field. In 1931, Dunham opened her first dance school, which would become one of the most successful dance programs in American and European theater, and eventually led to her lead role in musicals, operas, and cabarets throughout the world.

Dunham first appeared in London in June 1948 with her company in ``Caribbean Rhapsody'' as part of the first tour to bring black dance as an art form, and American modern dance to the European public. After her return to the U.S., Dunham continued to dance, choreograph and direct on Broadway with her production, ``Katharine Dunham and Her Company and Bamboche.''

When ``Aida'' premiered in 1963, Dunham became the first African American to choreograph for the Metropolitan Opera, further establishing her stature in the dance community. Beginning in 1940, Dunham also appeared in several films, including, ``Carnival of Rhythm'', ``Cabin in the Sky'', ``Star Spangled Rhythm'', ``Stormy Weather'', and ``Casbah''. Dunham also produced the choreography for ``Pardon My Sarong''.

What's more, Katherine Dunham's legacy doesn't stop on the dance stage. She used her notoriety to focus the public's attention to social injustices around the world. At the age of 82, Ms. Dunham undertook a 47-day hunger strike in 1993, which helped shift public awareness to the international relationship between America and Haiti, ultimately assisting in the return of Haiti's first democratically elected President.

In 1967, Dunham moved to East St. Louis, where she helped open a performing arts training center and established a dance anthropology program at the innercity branch of southern Illinois University that was eventually named the Katherine Dunham Centers for the Arts and Humanities.

Katherine Dunham was a woman far ahead of her time and her contributions earned her the recognition and admiration of her peers. Among her many honors are the Presidential Medal of Arts, Kennedy Center Honors, French Legion of Honor, Southern Cross of Brazil, Grand Cross of Haiti, NAACP Lifetime Achievement Award, Lincoln Academy Laureate, and the Urban League's Lifetime Achievement Award. Dunham was one of 75 women whose lives were celebrated in the book, ``I Have A Dream''.

At one of the major highlights of her career, Dunham received the Albert Schweitzer Music Award ``for a life's work dedicated to music and devoted to humanity,'' in front of a packed house at New York's Carnegie Hall.

I ask my colleagues to join me in celebrating the life and legacy of Katherine Dunham and her efforts to bring the cultures of the world to the community of East St. Louis, by naming the post office on Missouri Avenue in East St. Louis, the ``Katherine Dunham Post Office Building.''

Mr. President, today, I am introducing legislation, along with Senator Durbin, to honor the lifetime achievements and legacy of one of Illinois' most treasured figures, Katherine Dunham, who passed away on May 21, 2006. Our bill would name the post office on Missouri Avenue in East St. Louis, the ``Katherine Dunham Post Office Building.''

Katherine Dunham was born in Glen Ellyn, IL, on June 22, 1909, to Albert Millard Dunham and Fanny June Taylor. Her father was a descendant of slaves from Madagascar and West Africa, and her mother was French Canadian. Her diverse background would foreshadow her lifelong commitment to exploring and teaching the history of culture around the world.

Katherine Dunham's trailblazing life began at an early age when she entered the University of Chicago as one of the first African Americans to attend the school. She eventually earned bachelor, master's and doctoral degrees in anthropology, and participated in the Rosenwald Fellowship. Under this program she completed work on Caribbean and Brazilian dance anthropology, the first time significant work was done in the field. In 1931, Dunham opened her first dance school, which would become one of the most successful dance programs in American and European theater, and eventually led to her lead role in musicals, operas, and cabarets throughout the world.

Dunham first appeared in London in June 1948 with her company in ``Caribbean Rhapsody'' as part of the first tour to bring black dance as an art form, and American modern dance to the European public. After her return to the U.S., Dunham continued to dance, choreograph and direct on Broadway with her production, ``Katharine Dunham and Her Company and Bamboche.''

When ``Aida'' premiered in 1963, Dunham became the first African American to choreograph for the Metropolitan Opera, further establishing her stature in the dance community. Beginning in 1940, Dunham also appeared in several films, including, ``Carnival of Rhythm'', ``Cabin in the Sky'', ``Star Spangled Rhythm'', ``Stormy Weather'', and ``Casbah''. Dunham also produced the choreography for ``Pardon My Sarong''.

What's more, Katherine Dunham's legacy doesn't stop on the dance stage. She used her notoriety to focus the public's attention to social injustices around the world. At the age of 82, Ms. Dunham undertook a 47-day hunger strike in 1993, which helped shift public awareness to the international relationship between America and Haiti, ultimately assisting in the return of Haiti's first democratically elected President.

In 1967, Dunham moved to East St. Louis, where she helped open a performing arts training center and established a dance anthropology program at the innercity branch of southern Illinois University that was eventually named the Katherine Dunham Centers for the Arts and Humanities.

Katherine Dunham was a woman far ahead of her time and her contributions earned her the recognition and admiration of her peers. Among her many honors are the Presidential Medal of Arts, Kennedy Center Honors, French Legion of Honor, Southern Cross of Brazil, Grand Cross of Haiti, NAACP Lifetime Achievement Award, Lincoln Academy Laureate, and the Urban League's Lifetime Achievement Award. Dunham was one of 75 women whose lives were celebrated in the book, ``I Have A Dream''.

At one of the major highlights of her career, Dunham received the Albert Schweitzer Music Award ``for a life's work dedicated to music and devoted to humanity,'' in front of a packed house at New York's Carnegie Hall.

I ask my colleagues to join me in celebrating the life and legacy of Katherine Dunham and her efforts to bring the cultures of the world to the community of East St. Louis, by naming the post office on Missouri Avenue in East St. Louis, the ``Katherine Dunham Post Office Building.''

Mr. President, I am the parent of two young daughters. And as a parent, it is my sincere hope that my daughters will always feel they can come to me or my wife with any problem. So, even though I strongly believe in a woman's right to choose, I also believe that young women, if they become pregnant, should talk to their parents before considering an abortion.

But I also know that the reality is different for many young women. Some don't live in a traditional two-parent household. Others don't have a parent in whom they are comfortable confiding. For these young women, the most trusted adult in their life may be a grandparent, an aunt, or a clergy member.

I certainly hope these trusted adults would want to help a young person through a difficult time like a pregnancy. Unfortunately, this bill all but eliminates this option for young women. Instead of encouraging pregnant teens to seek the advice of adults, this bill criminalizes adults who attempt to help a young woman in need and essentially abandons them to confront a difficult issue on their own.

In fact, this bill would criminalize adults even if they were not attempting to help a young woman in need. Under this bill, if a grandparent gave a young woman a ride across a state line--say from South Dakota into neighboring Iowa--and that young woman ended up seeking an abortion, that grandparent could spend up to a year in prison.

Now, there are a lot of other problems with the bill: there is no health exception, no judicial bypass, and the notion that one State's laws can take precedence over another State's laws is unconstitutional and unacceptable. But the fundamental flaw with the bill is its criminalization of compassion. At a time when teenagers most need help, this bill would instead force caring and trusted adults--whether it's an older sister, an aunt or grandparent, or health professionals, social workers, or a minister--to stand to the side and watch the young woman go it alone.

I wish this bill was an honest effort to confront the real issue here: unwanted teen pregnancies. No one in this body--whether pro- choice or pro-life--wants young women to seek abortions. But this bill does not address this serious issue. I hope we can work to pass legislation that will provide young people today with the information they need to prevent unwanted teen pregnancies. I regret that I am unable to support this bill today.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I rise today both humbled and honored by the opportunity to express my support for renewal of the expiring provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. I thank the many people inside and outside Congress who have worked so hard over the past year to get us here. We owe a great debt of gratitude to the leadership on both sides of the aisle. We owe special thanks to Chairmen Sensenbrenner and Specter, Ranking Members Conyers and Leahy, and Representative Mel Watt. Without their hard work and dedication, and the support of voting rights advocates across the country, I doubt this bill would have come before us so soon.

I thank both Chambers and both sides of the aisle, as well, for getting this done with the same broad support that drove the original act 40 years ago. At a time when Americans are frustrated with the partisan bickering that too often stalls our work, the refreshing display of bipartisanship we are seeing today reflects our collective belief in the success of the act and reminds us of how effective we can be when we work together.

Nobody can deny we have come a long way since 1965. Look at the registration numbers. Only 2 years after the passage of the original act, registration numbers for minority voters in some States doubled. Soon after, not a single State covered by the Voting Rights Act had registered less than half of its minority voting-age population.

Look at the influence of African-American elected officials at every single level of government. There are African-American Members of Congress. Since 2001, our Nation's top diplomat has been African American. In fact, most of America's elected African-American officials come from States covered by section 5 of the Voting Rights Act--States such as Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, and Georgia.

But to me, the most striking evidence of our progress can be found right across this building in my dear friend Congressman John Lewis, who was on the front lines of the civil rights movement, risking life and limb for freedom. On March 7, 1965, he led 600 peaceful protesters, demanding the right to vote, across the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, AL. I have often thought about the people on the Edmund Pettus Bridge that day, not only John Lewis and Hosea Williams, who led the march, but the hundreds of everyday Americans who left their homes and their churches to join it--Blacks and Whites, teenagers, children, teachers, bankers, shopkeepers; what Dr. King called a beloved community of God's children ready to stand for freedom.

I wonder sometimes: Where did they find that kind of courage? When you are facing row after row of State troopers on horseback, armed with billy clubs and tear gas--when they are coming toward you spewing hatred and violence--how do you simply stop, kneel down, and pray to the Lord for salvation?

But the most amazing thing of all is that after that day, after John Lewis was beaten within an inch of his life, after people's heads were gashed open and their eyes were burned, and they watched their children's innocence literally beaten out of them--after all that, they went back and marched again. They marched again. They crossed the bridge. They awakened a nation's conscience, and not 5 months later the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was signed into law. It was reauthorized in 1970, in 1975, and in 1982.

Now, in 2006, John Lewis--the physical scars of those marches still visible--is an original cosponsor of the fourth reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act. He was joined last week by 389 of his House colleagues in voting for its passage.

There were some in the House, and there may be some in the Senate, who argue that the act is no longer needed, that the protections of section 5's ``preclearance'' requirement--a requirement that ensures certain States are upholding the right to vote--are targeting the wrong States. Unfortunately, the evidence refutes that notion.

Of the 1,100 objections issued by the Department of Justice since 1965, 56 percent occurred since the last reauthorization in 1982. Over half have occurred since 1982. So despite the progress these States have made in upholding the right to vote, it is clear that problems still exist.

There are others who have argued we should not renew section 203's protection of language minorities. These arguments have been tied to debates over immigration and they tend to muddle a noncontroversial issue--protecting the right to vote--with one of today's most contentious debates.

But let's remember, you cannot request language assistance if you are not a voter. You cannot be a voter if you are not a citizen. And while voters, as citizens, must be proficient in English, many are simply more confident that they can cast ballots printed in their native languages without making errors. It is not an unreasonable assumption.

A representative of the Southwestern Voter Registration Project is quoted as saying:

Citizens who prefer Spanish registration cards do so

because they feel more connected to the process; they also

feel they trust the process more when they understand it.

These sentiments--connection to and trust in our democratic process-- are exactly what we want from our voting rights legislation.

Our challenges, of course, do not end at reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act. We have to prevent the problems we have seen in recent elections from happening again. We have seen political operatives purge voters from registration rolls for no legitimate reason, prevent eligible ex-felons from casting ballots, distribute polling equipment unevenly and deceive voters about the time, location, and rules of elections. Unfortunately, these efforts have been directed primarily at minority voters, the disabled, low-income individuals, and other historically disenfranchised groups.

The Help America Vote Act, or HAVA, was a big step in the right direction. But we have to do more. We need to fully fund HAVA if we are going to move forward in the next stage of securing the right to vote for every citizen. We need to enforce critical requirements such as statewide registration databases. We need to make sure polling equipment is distributed equitably and equipment actually works. We need to work on getting more people to the polls on election day.

We need to make sure that minority voters are not the subject of some deplorable intimidation tactics when they do go to the polls. In 2004, Native American voters in South Dakota were confronted by men posing as law enforcement. These hired intimidators joked about jail time for ballot missteps and followed voters to their cars to record their license plates.

In Lake County, OH, some voters received a memo on bogus board of election letterhead, informing voters who registered through Democratic and NAACP drives that they could not vote.

In Wisconsin, a flier purporting to be from the ``Milwaukee Black Voters League'' was circulated in predominantly African-American neighborhoods with the following message:

If you've already voted in any election this year, you

can't vote in the presidential election. If you violate any

of these laws, you can get ten years in prison and your

children will get taken away from you.

Now, think about that. We have a lot more work to do. This occasion is a

cause for celebration. But it is also an opportunity to renew our commitment to voting rights.

As Congressman Lewis said last week:

It's clear that we have come a great distance, but we still

have a great distance to go.

The memory of Selma still lives on in the spirit of the Voting Rights Act. Since that day, the Voting Rights Act has been a critical tool in ensuring that all Americans not only have the right to vote but have the right to have their vote counted.

Those of us concerned about protecting those rights cannot afford to rest on our laurels upon reauthorization of this bill. We need to take advantage of this rare, united front and continue to fight to ensure unimpeded access to the polls for all Americans. In other words, we need to take the spirit that existed on that bridge, and we have to spread it across this country.

Two weeks after the first march was turned back, Dr. King spoke, and he told a gathering of organizers and activists and community members that they should not despair because the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice. The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice. That is because of the work that each of us does that it bends toward justice. It is because of people such as John Lewis and Fannie Lou Hamer and Coretta Scott King and Rosa Parks--all the giants upon whose shoulders we stand--that we are beneficiaries of that arc bending toward justice.

That is why I stand here today. I would not be in the Senate had it not been for the efforts and courage of so many parents and grandparents and ordinary people who were willing to reach up and bend that arc in the direction of justice. I hope we continue to see that spirit live on not just during this debate but throughout all our work here in the Senate.

Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the Water Resources Development Act. First, let me commend my colleague from across the Mississippi River, Senator Bond, for his efforts in bringing this bill to the floor. I was pleased to support his efforts in the Environment and Public Works Committee and to be an original cosponsor of this bill.

Last year, Senator Bond and I worked together on a letter, signed by 40 of our colleagues, saying it was time for this bill to be considered on the floor of the Senate. When we were told that 40 was not enough, that we needed 60 signatures, we came back and got 81.

That was 7 months ago, and I am pleased that the Senate is now on the verge of passing this bill because this is an important bill both to my State of Illinois and to the entire country. It authorizes and revises the policies and practices of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in waterway navigation, including the construction of locks and dams, the construction of levees and wetlands restoration to promote flood control, and other ecosystem and environmental mitigation activities.

For two decades, Congress has enacted revisions and updates to WRDA roughly every 2 years. It is now been 6 years since the last WRDA bill and, in light of the devastation wrought by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita last year, this bill is long overdue.

Recently, the American Society of Civil Engineers conducted a report card of the Nation's infrastructure and gave a D-minus to our navigable waterways. More than 50 percent of our lock and dam systems in the United States are functionally obsolete, and that figure will rise to 80 percent in the next 10 years.

Now, if you are not from a farm State, you might not understand why navigable waterways are important to all of us. But a major component of the cost of farm commodities is the cost of transportation. That affects both the price of food that we buy in grocery stores and the price of homegrown fuels that fuel our cars. If U.S. agriculture is to remain competitive in the worldwide market during the 21st century, we need to improve our transportation infrastructure.

Countries such as Brazil and China understand the importance of efficient commerce for their farmers and have made significant investments in improvements. Unfortunately, American farmers still rely on pre-World War II-era infrastructure when transporting their goods to market. When we talk about the responsibility of Congress and the U.S. Government to create jobs and economic development, upgrading these locks and dams is part of that responsibility.

This bill provides $1.8 billion for lock and dam upgrades along these waterways to replace transportation infrastructure almost 70 years old. This is an important provision to Illinois farmers and to everyone around the world who uses the products that we grow in Illinois.

The bill also provides an unprecedented $1.6 billion in Federal funds for ecosystem restoration along the Illinois and Mississippi Rivers to improve fish and wildlife habitat as well as land and water management.

Finally, there is a small, but important, provision to authorize continued funding for the electric barriers that prevent the Asian carp from entering into the Great Lakes. The Asian carp is an invasive species with a voracious appetite that, if left unchecked, would disrupt the natural ecosystem in the Great Lakes and crowd out the native fish. Senator Voinovich and I were able to get a temporary fix put into the supplemental appropriations bill, but we need a more permanent guarantee of funding, and WRDA will provide just that.

I will also take a minute to discuss the subject of reforming the Army Corps of Engineers. Serious questions have been raised as to how the Corps develops its calculations and analyses for projects. I believe that subjecting some projects to an independent review process is necessary to ensure that taxpayer dollars are used in the most effective manner.

In closing, I commend Chairman Inhofe and Ranking Member Jeffords for their leadership, and I thank the EPW Committee staff for their fine efforts in preparing this bill. I am pleased to cosponsor this bill and urge my colleagues to support it as well.

Mr. President, 33 years ago, this Nation faced a crisis that touched every American. In 1973, in the shadow of a war against Israel, the Arab nations of OPEC decided to embargo shipments of crude oil to the West.

The economic effects were devastating. For American drivers, the price at the gas pump rose from a national average of 38.5 cents per gallon in May 1973 to 55.1 cents per gallon in June 1974. The stock market fell, and countries across the world faced terrible cycles of inflation and recession that lasted well into the 1980s.

Lawmakers in Washington reacted by calling for a nationwide daylight savings time and a national speed limit. They established a new Department of Energy that eventually created a strategic petroleum reserve. Perhaps most important, Congress enacted the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards, or CAFE, the first-ever requirements for automakers to improve gas mileage on the vehicles we drive.

At the time, auto executives protested, saying there was no way to increase fuel economy without making cars smaller. One company predicted that Americans would all be driving sub-compacts as a result of CAFE. But CAFE did work, and under the direction of Congress, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, NHSTA, nearly doubled the average gas mileage of cars from 14 miles per gallon in 1976 to 27.5 mpg for cars in 1985. Today, CAFE standards save us about 3 million barrels of oil per day, making it the most successful energy- saving measure ever adopted.

Now 30 years later, Americans again are feeling the pain at the pump. The price of oil has reached $78 a barrel, and Americans are paying more than $3.00 a gallon for gas. America's 20-million-barrel-a-day habit costs our economy $800 million a day, or $300 billion annually. Because we import 60 percent of our oil, much of it from the Middle East, our dependence on oil is also a national security issue as well. Al-Qaida knows that oil is America's Achilles heel. Osama bin Laden has urged his supporters to ``Focus your operations on oil, especially in Iraq and the gulf area, since this will cause them to die off.''

At a time when the energy and security stakes couldn't be higher, CAFE standards have been stagnant. In fact, because of a long-standing deadlock in Washington, CAFE standards that initially increased so quickly have remained stagnant for the last 20 years.

Since 1985, efforts to raise the CAFE standard have been stymied by opponents who have argued that Congress does not possess the expertise to set specific benchmarks and that an inflexible congressional mandate would result in the production of less safe cars and a loss of American jobs. This has been a bureaucratic logjam that has ignored technological innovations in the auto industry and crippled our ability to increase fuel efficiency.

To attempt to break this two-decade-long deadlock and start the U.S. on the path towards energy independence, I have joined with Senators Lugar, Biden, Smith, Bingaman, Harkin, Coleman, and Durbin to introduce the Fuel Economy Reform Act of 2006. This bill would set a new course by establishing regular, continual, and incremental progress in miles per gallon, targeting 4 percent annually, but preserving NHTSA expertise and flexibility on how to meet those targets.

Over the past 20 years, NHTSA's efforts to improve fuel economy have been encumbered with loopholes and resistance. With this bill, CAFE standards would increase by 4 percent every year unless NHTSA can justify a deviation in that rate by proving that the increase is technologically unachievable, does not materially reduce the safety of automobiles manufactured or sold in the U.S., or can prove it is not cost-effective when comparing with the economic and geopolitical value of a gallon of gasoline saved. We specifically define the grounds upon which NHTSA can determine cost-effectiveness. By flipping the presumption that has served as a barrier to action, we replace the status quo of continued stagnation with steady, measured progress.

Under this system, if the 4 percent annualized improvement occurs over ten years, this bill would save 1.3 million barrels of oil per day--or 20 billion gallons of gasoline per year. If gasoline is just $2.50 per gallon, consumers will save $50 billion at the pump in 2018. By 2018, we would be cutting global warming pollution by 220 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent gases.

The Fuel Economy Reform Act also would provide fairness and flexibility to domestic automakers by establishing different standards for different types of cars. Currently, manufacturers have to meet broad standards over their whole fleet of cars. This disadvantages companies like Ford and General Motors that produce full lines of small and large cars and trucks rather than manufacturers that only sell small cars.

In order to enable domestic manufacturers to develop advanced- technology vehicles, this legislation provides tax incentives to retool parts and assembly plants. This will strengthen the U.S. auto industry by allowing it to compete with foreign hybrid and other fuel efficient vehicles. It is our expectation that NHTSA will use its enhanced authority to bring greater market-based flexibility into CAFE compliance by allowing the banking and trading of credits among all vehicle types and between manufacturers.

Finally, the bill also would expand the tax incentives that encourage consumers to buy advanced technology vehicles. The bill would lift the current 60,000-per-manufacturer cap on buyer tax credits to allow more Americans to buy ultra-efficient vehicles like hybrids.

By ending a 20-year stalemate on CAFE, the Fuel Economy Reform Act will recapture the innovation that Congress and the auto industry launched in response to the OPEC crisis. In the process, we will safeguard our national security, protect our economy, reduce consumer pain at the pump, and protect our climate, environment, and public health. I urge my colleagues to join our bipartisan coalition and support the Fuel Economy Reform Act.

Mr. President, 33 years ago, this Nation faced a crisis that touched every American. In 1973, in the shadow of a war against Israel, the Arab nations of OPEC decided to embargo shipments of crude oil to the West.

The economic effects were devastating. For American drivers, the price at the gas pump rose from a national average of 38.5 cents per gallon in May 1973 to 55.1 cents per gallon in June 1974. The stock market fell, and countries across the world faced terrible cycles of inflation and recession that lasted well into the 1980s.

Lawmakers in Washington reacted by calling for a nationwide daylight savings time and a national speed limit. They established a new Department of Energy that eventually created a strategic petroleum reserve. Perhaps most important, Congress enacted the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards, or CAFE, the first-ever requirements for automakers to improve gas mileage on the vehicles we drive.

At the time, auto executives protested, saying there was no way to increase fuel economy without making cars smaller. One company predicted that Americans would all be driving sub-compacts as a result of CAFE. But CAFE did work, and under the direction of Congress, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, NHSTA, nearly doubled the average gas mileage of cars from 14 miles per gallon in 1976 to 27.5 mpg for cars in 1985. Today, CAFE standards save us about 3 million barrels of oil per day, making it the most successful energy- saving measure ever adopted.

Now 30 years later, Americans again are feeling the pain at the pump. The price of oil has reached $78 a barrel, and Americans are paying more than $3.00 a gallon for gas. America's 20-million-barrel-a-day habit costs our economy $800 million a day, or $300 billion annually. Because we import 60 percent of our oil, much of it from the Middle East, our dependence on oil is also a national security issue as well. Al-Qaida knows that oil is America's Achilles heel. Osama bin Laden has urged his supporters to ``Focus your operations on oil, especially in Iraq and the gulf area, since this will cause them to die off.''

At a time when the energy and security stakes couldn't be higher, CAFE standards have been stagnant. In fact, because of a long-standing deadlock in Washington, CAFE standards that initially increased so quickly have remained stagnant for the last 20 years.

Since 1985, efforts to raise the CAFE standard have been stymied by opponents who have argued that Congress does not possess the expertise to set specific benchmarks and that an inflexible congressional mandate would result in the production of less safe cars and a loss of American jobs. This has been a bureaucratic logjam that has ignored technological innovations in the auto industry and crippled our ability to increase fuel efficiency.

To attempt to break this two-decade-long deadlock and start the U.S. on the path towards energy independence, I have joined with Senators Lugar, Biden, Smith, Bingaman, Harkin, Coleman, and Durbin to introduce the Fuel Economy Reform Act of 2006. This bill would set a new course by establishing regular, continual, and incremental progress in miles per gallon, targeting 4 percent annually, but preserving NHTSA expertise and flexibility on how to meet those targets.

Over the past 20 years, NHTSA's efforts to improve fuel economy have been encumbered with loopholes and resistance. With this bill, CAFE standards would increase by 4 percent every year unless NHTSA can justify a deviation in that rate by proving that the increase is technologically unachievable, does not materially reduce the safety of automobiles manufactured or sold in the U.S., or can prove it is not cost-effective when comparing with the economic and geopolitical value of a gallon of gasoline saved. We specifically define the grounds upon which NHTSA can determine cost-effectiveness. By flipping the presumption that has served as a barrier to action, we replace the status quo of continued stagnation with steady, measured progress.

Under this system, if the 4 percent annualized improvement occurs over ten years, this bill would save 1.3 million barrels of oil per day--or 20 billion gallons of gasoline per year. If gasoline is just $2.50 per gallon, consumers will save $50 billion at the pump in 2018. By 2018, we would be cutting global warming pollution by 220 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent gases.

The Fuel Economy Reform Act also would provide fairness and flexibility to domestic automakers by establishing different standards for different types of cars. Currently, manufacturers have to meet broad standards over their whole fleet of cars. This disadvantages companies like Ford and General Motors that produce full lines of small and large cars and trucks rather than manufacturers that only sell small cars.

In order to enable domestic manufacturers to develop advanced- technology vehicles, this legislation provides tax incentives to retool parts and assembly plants. This will strengthen the U.S. auto industry by allowing it to compete with foreign hybrid and other fuel efficient vehicles. It is our expectation that NHTSA will use its enhanced authority to bring greater market-based flexibility into CAFE compliance by allowing the banking and trading of credits among all vehicle types and between manufacturers.

Finally, the bill also would expand the tax incentives that encourage consumers to buy advanced technology vehicles. The bill would lift the current 60,000-per-manufacturer cap on buyer tax credits to allow more Americans to buy ultra-efficient vehicles like hybrids.

By ending a 20-year stalemate on CAFE, the Fuel Economy Reform Act will recapture the innovation that Congress and the auto industry launched in response to the OPEC crisis. In the process, we will safeguard our national security, protect our economy, reduce consumer pain at the pump, and protect our climate, environment, and public health. I urge my colleagues to join our bipartisan coalition and support the Fuel Economy Reform Act.

Mr. President, a few weeks ago I was visited by two of my constituents--Mary Schneider and her son Ryan.

When Ryan was just 2 years old, his parents and doctors noted severe delays in his motor and speech development, and he was diagnosed with cerebral palsy. His parents were devastated, as the prognosis for any children with cerebral palsy is quite grim, and given the severity of Ryan's condition, his doctors didn't have much hope for his improvement.

Yet, his parents had hope. Because when Ryan was born, his parents had saved his cord blood, a viable but limited source of stem cells. They found a doctor at Duke University who was willing to perform an experimental infusion with these cells to see if they might improve his condition.

They did. In fact, they seem to have cured him.

Within months of the infusion, Ryan was able to speak, use his arms, and eat normally, just like any other child--a miracle his family had once only dreamed of.

Ryan's story exemplifies the power and the promise of stem cells to treat and cure the millions of Americans who are suffering from catastrophic, debilitating and life-threatening diseases and health conditions.

Each year, 100,000 Americans will develop Alzheimer's disease. Over 1 million adults will be diagnosed with diabetes this year, which can lead to complications such as blindness, damaged nerves and loss of kidney function. And there are far too many individuals with spinal cord injuries who are struggling to maintain mobility and independence.

For most of our history, medicine has offered little hope of recovery to individuals affected by these and other devastating illnesses and injuries. Until now.

Recent developments in stem cell research may hold the key to improved treatments, if not cures, for those affected by Alzheimer's disease, diabetes, spinal cord injury and countless other conditions.

Many men, women and children who are cancer survivors are already familiar with the life-saving applications of adult stem cell research. Patients with leukemia or lymphoma often undergo bone marrow transplants.

One of my old law partners back in Chicago underwent a bone marrow transplant at the age of 30. It is a type of stem cell transplant which can significantly prolong life or permanently get rid of cancer. This is what happened, fortunately, to my partner. He is now cancer free. This therapy has been used successfully for decades and is saving lives every day.

Now, here is the problem. This particular breakthrough of adult stem cells has its limitations. Adult stem cells, as has already been mentioned by the distinguished Senator from Iowa, such as those which are used in bone marrow transplants can only be collected in small quantities. They may not be a match for the patient. They have limited ability to transform into specialized cells.

Cord blood, like the kind Ryan used, has limitations as well. If, for example, Ryan's condition should deteriorate or he should have another illness, there is simply not enough cord blood cells left for a second use. His mother has told us that the few remaining cells would have to be cloned to get enough cells for future use or they would have to obtain stem cells from another source.

These and other difficulties are the reason scientists have started to explore other types and other sources of stem cells, including embryonic stem cell research. Embryonic stem cells can be obtained from a number of sources, including in vitro fertilization. At this very moment, there are over 400,000 embryos being stored in over 400 facilities throughout the United States. The majority of these are reserved for infertile couples. However, many of these embryos will go unused, destined for permanent storage in a freezer or disposal. It makes sense for us to expand and accelerate research using these embryos, just as we should continue to explore the viability of adult stem cell use and cord blood use.

All over the country, exciting progress is being made in the area of embryonic stem cell research. At the University of Illinois, they are discovering that stem cells have the potential to treat blood disorders, lung diseases, and heart damage. At Johns Hopkins, researchers use mouse embryonic stem cells to restore damaged nerves and restore mobility in paralyzed rats. One cannot help but think it is a matter of when, not if, the research will be able to help those who have lost the ability to walk.

For these reasons, I am proud to be a longtime supporter of greater stem cell research. While I was a member of the Illinois Senate, I was the chief cosponsor of the Ronald Reagan Biomedical Research Act, which would specifically permit embryonic stem cell research in Illinois and establish a review of this research by the Illinois Department of Public Health.

I am proud to be a cosponsor of the stem cell bill before the Senate today. This bill embodies the innovative thinking we as a society demand and medical achievement requires. By expanding scientific access to embryonic stem cells which would be otherwise discarded, this bill will help our Nation's scientists and researchers develop treatments and cures to help people who suffer from illnesses and injuries for which there currently are none.

The bill is not without limits. It requires that scientific research also be subject to rigorous oversight. I recognize there are serious moral and ethical issues surrounding this debate. I am respectful of those on the other side. I also realize that we are not talking about harvesting cells that would

have been used to create life. We are not talking about cloning humans. We are talking about using stem cells that would otherwise have been discarded and lost forever. We are talking about using those stem cells to possibly save the lives of millions of Americans.

Democrats want this bill passed. Conservative pro-life Republicans want this bill passed. By large margins, the American people want this bill passed. It is only the White House right now that is standing in the way of progress, standing in the way of so many potential cures.

I ask, after this bill passes--because I am confident it will pass in the Senate--that the President think about this before he picks up his pen to deliver his first veto in 6 years. I ask that he think about Ryan Schneider and his parents and all the other families sitting and waiting and praying for a cure, hoping that somewhere a researcher or scientist will find an answer.

There was a time in the middle of the last century when America watched helplessly as a mysterious disease left thousands, especially children, disabled for life. The medical community worked tirelessly to fight to try to find a cure, but they needed help. They needed funding to make their research possible.

With a world war raging and the country still emerging from the Depression, the Federal Government could hav ignored their plight or told them to find their own cure, let it be funded privately, but that is not what happened. Instead, FDR helped to galvanize a community of compassion and organized the March of Dimes to find the cure for polio. While Roosevelt knew that his own polio would never be cured by the discovery of a vaccine, he also knew that at its best, the Government can be used as a force to accomplish together what we cannot achieve on our own. So the people began to care. The dimes piled up, and the funding started to flow. And 50 years ago, Jonas Salk discovered the polio vaccine.

Americans are looking for that kind of leadership today. All over the country, patients and families are waiting today for Congress and the President to open the door to the cures of tomorrow. At the dawn of this new century, we should approach this research with the same passion, the same commitment that has led to so many cures and saved so many lives throughout our history. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I want to thank the managers of the fiscal year 2007 Homeland Security appropriations bill, the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Gregg, and my friend from West Virginia, Senator Byrd, for accepting two amendments that will help remedy some of the Government's failures in disaster response.

The first amendment, cosponsored by my colleague from Connecticut, Senator Lieberman, will require the Department of Homeland Security, DHS, to develop a robust system to help people locate family members after a disaster. Immediately after Hurricane Katrina, people searched the Astrodome and combed the Internet, hoping to locate their loved ones. Unfortunately, many of these people continue their search today.

My amendment requires DHS, in consultation with the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Attorney General of the United States, to review the methods used by the Louisiana Family Assistance Call Center and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children to assist in the location of friends and family displaced by Hurricane Katrina. DHS must then report on these models and provide Congress with a detailed plan for the swift implementation of a family locator program for future disasters that reflects the lessons learned from these two models. The Department's plan should lead to the creation of an efficient means of helping those displaced by future disasters locate their friends and family.

My second amendment is a commonsense attempt to stop the abuse of no-

bid contracting in the aftermath of a disaster. After Hurricane Katrina, the Federal Emergency Management Agency relied upon the ``unusual and compelling urgency'' exception to allow no-bid contracts for everything from collecting debris to hauling and installing housing trailers. Unfortunately, some of these no-bid contracts were not merely emergency stop-gap measures--they were open-ended agreements and resulted in significant waste and abuse.

My amendment, cosponsored by my colleague from Oklahoma, Senator Coburn, prohibits the use of no-bid contracts under the ``compelling urgency'' exception, unless these contracts are limited in time, scope and value, and notification is provided to the congressional oversight committees. This amendment will end the abuse of noncompetitive contracts by setting real and reasonable limits to the emergency exception. This amendment does nothing to inhibit a rapid response to emergencies; rather it closes a loophole that threatens the integrity of our Federal response, and it will save taxpayer money. I thank the Senators for accepting this amendment into the bill.

I am pleased that these amendments have been accepted into the bill, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that the failures of the Government's response to Hurricane Katrina are not repeated.

Mr. President, the Oman Free Trade Agreement is not a threat to American workers, and it could help us build better relations in the Middle East. I believe that the administration has handled its relationship with Congress on this agreement poorly, but our foreign policy interests in the region require greater engagement with it. For this reason, I am voting for this agreement.

The economics of the agreement are negligible. U.S. exports entering Oman today face tariffs that this agreement will remove. As a result, American sales to that country will increase by about 14 percent, or $41 million. This increase is a very small share of U.S. exports to the world--less than .05 percent--making the effect on U.S. output and employment minimal. On the import side, according to the International Trade Commission, ``the expected changes in U.S. trade with Oman . . . would likely be very small and, therefore, have almost no effect on U.S. imports, employment, or welfare.'' In other words, imports would be so small that they don't even register.

Because the economic impact on the United States is not a compelling factor, I believe that we must base our vote on the kind of message it sends about our approach to trade generally and the potential effects of trade agreements on our foreign policy. In general, I believe that more trade between the U.S. and other countries is good. It helps build constructive political relationships and can create wealth both here and abroad. And I would like to see us build better relationships with countries like Oman and its neighbors.

I have been informed by the State Department that Oman has been a valuable partner for the United States in a volatile part of the world. I will not take the time to list all of the areas of cooperation between our two governments, but this relationship is important and is the main reason I am voting for this agreement today. I believe we have a strategic interest in working to enhance our relationships with friendly governments in the region.

I should also point out that Oman, with respect to the Arab world, is forward leaning on a range of economic and political issues, including women's suffrage. This is not to gloss over some of the problems in Oman, including restrictions on the press and a lack of a free and independent judiciary; one only needs to look at the State Department's Human Rights Report to know that there is room for improvement. With this vote, I want to send a signal to the government of Oman that we respect the progress it is making, but expect that there is much more to come.

I would caution the administration, however, not to take for granted Congress' support for trade agreements. We give the President streamlined authority to negotiate trade agreements and send them to Congress to make it easier for Presidents to conclude negotiations. We do that to encourage trade. But that does not mean that he can or should ignore this co-equal branch of government.

The Senate Finance Committee specifically directed the administration to exclude from the Oman agreement goods that were produced with slave labor or benefited from human trafficking. The administration refused to do so. That sends a loud message to Congress that the administration believes fast track authority is the authority to ignore Congress. It is not, and I caution the President that such an approach to trade policy will lead to the death of Trade Promotion Authority and a wave of protectionist policies.

I support this agreement because I believe in the potential of the Middle East and our responsibility to engage and build partnerships in the region.

But I will continue to work to make trade agreements better for workers and the environment as we move forward with the Nation's trade agenda.

Mr. President, today, I wish to join my good friend, Senator Bayh, in introducing the Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act of 2006. This bill addresses a crisis afflicting too many communities and shortchanging the opportunities of too many kids in America: the absence of supportive fathers.

If we are serious about breaking the cycle of poverty in America and raising healthy kids, we have to get serious about the breakdown of families. We can do that without blame or fingerpointing. We can do it an openness to new ideas.

It is the same story all across America. More than a quarter of all families with children have only one parent present, and more than a third live without their father. And 40 percent of children who live without their father have not seen him their father in over a year.

Many single mothers are doing a heroic job raising their kids. They are working two and three jobs, dropping the kids off at school and daycare, and, quite simply, being both a mother and a father to their children. I appreciate the work of single mothers, because my own father was not around during my life, and my mother and grandparents had to step up to the plate to fill my father's role. But most people would agree that children are almost always better off with a father contributing his fair share, and the data shows this. Children are more likely to be poor and to do worse in school without a father in their life. And a healthy relationship between children and their father is important to healthy growth and development.

The Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act addresses these problems by removing government barriers to healthy relationships and responsible fatherhood. It improves the economic stability of parents who accept their parenting responsibility. Our bill sets a high standard for parents and helps them to reach it with incentives, support, and tougher enforcement of child support obligations.

We can't simply legislate healthy families and expect all parents to get and stay married. We can't legislate good parenting skills or good behavior role models. We can't legislate economic success for all families. But we can eliminate some of the roadblocks that parents face, roadblocks often created by the government. And we can provide some tools to help these parents succeed.

The first way this act removes governmental roadblocks is by eliminating a perverse disincentive to marriage in the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families Program. Congress is now telling States that they may be penalized for serving married couples. That is the wrong message to send. There should be equality for two-parent families receiving TANF, and States should not be required to meet a separate work participation rate for the two-parent families in their caseload.

Second, this act makes important improvements to the child support system which affects noncustodial fathers as much or more than any other government program. We restore funding for child support enforcement and we require States to pass the full amount of child support collected along to the family. A father is more likely to pay child support if he knows that the money is going to his kids. Research from States that have implemented a ``full pass through'' confirm this.

We also require States to review the amount of child support arrears that are owed to the State and we clarify existing State authority to forgive such arrearages. A father who earns only $10,000 per year, and who has $20,000 of child support debt because the State billed him for the Medicaid birthing costs of his child, is probably going to work underground and avoid paying child support altogether. He needs an incentive to get a legitimate job and to begin taking care of his family. It is in everybody's best interest.

States are also providing funding to assess any other barriers to healthy family formation or sustainable employment created by their child support and criminal justice systems. They are encouraged to establish commissions to propose State law changes that would be in the best interest of children.

Another important aspect of this act is fostering economic stability for fathers and their families. This act establishes three employment demonstration programs. One program is supervised by courts or State child support agencies that serve parents who are determined to be in need of employment services in order to pay child support obligations. The court can arrange temporary employment services for the father rather than throwing him in jail for nonpayment of support. The second is a transitional jobs program that combines temporary subsidized employment with activities that help fathers develop skills and remove barriers to employment. The third program establishes public-private partnerships to provide fathers with ``career pathways'' that help them advance from jobs at low skill levels to jobs that require greater skills and provide family-sustaining wages and benefits.

These programs are modeled on successful initiatives in Indiana and Illinois and will be subject to rigorous evaluations to ensure the goals are being achieved.

This bill fixes the earned-income tax credit to increase the incentive for fathers to engage in full-time work and paying child support obligations. The EITC is one of the most successful anti- poverty programs because it rewards work and supplements wages that may be too low to support a family. Our bill ensures that the work incentives under the EITC also apply to noncustodial parents who pay child support. To be eligible for the enhanced credit, a low-income parent must be working and current on all child support obligations. We also accelerate marriage penalty relief for families who receive the earned-income tax credit. Perversely under the U.S. Tax Code, these families have been the last to get such relief.

Finally, this bill improves the Responsible Fatherhood and Marriage Promotion Programs that were funded by the Deficit Reduction Act. Funding is increased and all fatherhood and marriage programs are required to coordinate with domestic violence prevention services to reduce instances of

domestic violence and promote healthy, nonviolent relationships.

This bill takes these steps because Congress needs to get serious about the problem of family breakdown. This is a problem that cuts across all income levels, religions, races and ethnicities, and communities across this country. There is no segment of our population that is immune to these challenges.

But some segments of the population are worse off than others. I would like to speak specifically, for a moment, about family breakdown in the African-American community--and not just because I, myself, am an African American. I am addressing this because I know, as Senator Bayh knows, and as most of my colleagues know, that a problem for one community is a problem for all of America. Hope deferred for one group is hope delayed for us all.

Around 70 percent of Black children are born outside of marriage. Of the 30 percent born to married parents, more than half experience a divorce. That means that about 85 percent of Black children spend some or all of their childhood in a home without their father. Fewer than 6 of every 10 young Black men are employed, and in some of our urban and rural areas the rate of unemployment is over 50 percent. Roughly one- third of young Black men are involved in some way with the criminal justice system. And young Black men have the lowest educational attainment among Black and White men and women.

These factors contribute to low marriage rates among African-American men. But by age 34, nearly half of Black men are fathers. And roughly two-thirds of all Black men leaving prison are fathers. I could quote statistics all day, but the bottom line is, as hard as some of these men try, it is likely that their children will also be denied the advantages of healthy parental relationships and married families. Their children will be more likely to live in poverty and to become young, unmarried parents themselves. Their children's life chances will be limited. The cycle of despair will continue.

But there is reason for hope. At the time of the birth of the child, most fathers are close to both the mother and their child. The challenge is to maintain healthy relationships between parents and to strengthen the early bonds between fathers and their children. The challenge is to improve economic opportunity for all parents so they can support themselves and their families. The challenge is to break the cycle by strengthening America's most vulnerable and fragile families.

That is what this bill does, and it is fully paid for by revenue raised by closing abusive corporate tax loopholes and blocking the exploitation of tax havens. This is a solid first step forward in removing government barriers to healthy family formation, and addressing the crisis of fatherhood among our Nation's low-income populations. I urge you to support the Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act of 2006.

Mr. President, last December, the Chicago Tribune published an in-depth report on the extent of mercury contamination in the fish eaten by the American people.

As I am sure my colleagues know, mercury is a potent neurotoxin that can cause serious developmental problems in children, ranging from severe birth defects to mental retardation. As many as 630,000 children born annually in the U.S. are at risk of neurological problems related to mercury.

In adults, mercury can cause major neurological problems affecting vision, motor skills, blood pressure and fertility. As many as 10 percent of women in the U.S. of childbearing age have mercury in their blood at a level that could put a baby at risk.

Mercury, in short, is a poison, and it often reaches humans through the fish that we eat.

Sampling conducted by the Tribune showed surprisingly high levels of mercury concentrations in freshwater and saltwater fish purchased by Chicago area consumers--fish like tuna, swordfish, orange roughy, and walleye. The Tribune series 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.

As someone who regularly eats fish, I was surprised at the range of species with high mercury levels in the Tribune tests. Fish is an excellent source of nutrients and other compounds indispensable for good health. More of us should eat more fish. But for all Americans-- and especially pregnant women and other at-risk groups--there are risks to eating fish with high mercury levels. That's why we need to work harder to get at the root causes of mercury contamination.

You see, the long-term solution isn't eating less fish, or issuing consumption advisories, or printing labels on tuna cans, or posting placards at the supermarket. If we're really serious about making fish safer to eat, we need to reduce the amount of mercury in fish, which means reducing the amount of mercury used in industry.

But, the solution can't be just a U.S. one. Half of mercury settles near where it is emitted and the other half gets transported around the globe--often settling in oceans, lakes, and rivers nowhere near mercury sources. For that reason, we need a comprehensive, global strategy, and the two bills I am introducing today are designed to be part of that strategy.

My first bill, the Mercury Market Minimization Act, or M3 Act, establisbes a ban on U.S. exports of mercury by the year 2010. Such a ban, when coupled with a European Union proposal to ban mercury exports by 2011, will constrain global supply of commercially available mercury in sufficient quantities that developing nations that still use mercury will be compelled to switch to affordable alternatives to mercury that are already widespread in industrialized nations.

My second bill, the Missing Mercury in Manufacturing Monitoring and Mitigation Act, or M5 Act, requires the remaining eight of more than 30 chlor-alkali plants in the United States to complete the transition from mercury to alternative technologies.

Chlor-alkali facilities manufacture chlorine gas and caustic soda, important chemicals that serve as the building blocks of many of the products and plastics essential to modem everyday life. For decades, mercury was a key component in the chlorine process, but today, more than 90 percent of the chlor-alkali industry has switched to an alternative catalyst. Only eight chlor-alkali plants remain in the U.S.

that still use mercury. The chlorine industry has instituted voluntary policies to help capture and reduce mercury missions into the atmosphere--with laudable success. The time has come, however, to finish these upgrades and end the use of mercury in the chlor-alkali process.

The amount of mercury emitted or lost by these eight chlor-alkali plants rivals the amount of mercury emitted by all of the coal-fired plants in the United States. In 2003, the average chlor-alkali facility released 1,055 lbs. of mercury into the air--six times as much as the 183 lbs. of mercury released by the average coal-fired powerplant. And it is likely that the actual amount of mercury released by chlor-alkali plants is even higher because of emissions that escape through unmonitored ventilation systems and other leaks.

The M5 Act also solves another gap in the current system; it puts procedures in place to track and report mercury input and output statistics in the chlor-alkali industry. The evidence suggests that between 2000 and 2004, the industry could not account for more than 130 tons of mercury, in addition to the 29 tons that were released into the environment. The EPA calls this ``an enigma.'' The M5 Act puts an end to this enigma and requires documented tracking of mercury.

Although this bill deals with chlor-alkali plants, it's important to acknowledge that coal-fired powerplants are a significant contributor to the mercury in our atmosphere. We must continue to pursue balanced policies that address those emissions, but our policy approaches on mercury cannot single out coal-fired power plants alone. In truth, the largest source of global mercury contamination is the continued worldwide use of mercury in developing countries, particularly in gold mining and general industry, even thought there are proven and economically viable mercury substitutes.

Mr. President, I believe these two bills will go a long ways towards improving the health of the American people. I urge the swift enactment of these bills.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today, I wish to join my good friend, Senator Bayh, in introducing the Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act of 2006. This bill addresses a crisis afflicting too many communities and shortchanging the opportunities of too many kids in America: the absence of supportive fathers.

If we are serious about breaking the cycle of poverty in America and raising healthy kids, we have to get serious about the breakdown of families. We can do that without blame or fingerpointing. We can do it an openness to new ideas.

It is the same story all across America. More than a quarter of all families with children have only one parent present, and more than a third live without their father. And 40 percent of children who live without their father have not seen him their father in over a year.

Many single mothers are doing a heroic job raising their kids. They are working two and three jobs, dropping the kids off at school and daycare, and, quite simply, being both a mother and a father to their children. I appreciate the work of single mothers, because my own father was not around during my life, and my mother and grandparents had to step up to the plate to fill my father's role. But most people would agree that children are almost always better off with a father contributing his fair share, and the data shows this. Children are more likely to be poor and to do worse in school without a father in their life. And a healthy relationship between children and their father is important to healthy growth and development.

The Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act addresses these problems by removing government barriers to healthy relationships and responsible fatherhood. It improves the economic stability of parents who accept their parenting responsibility. Our bill sets a high standard for parents and helps them to reach it with incentives, support, and tougher enforcement of child support obligations.

We can't simply legislate healthy families and expect all parents to get and stay married. We can't legislate good parenting skills or good behavior role models. We can't legislate economic success for all families. But we can eliminate some of the roadblocks that parents face, roadblocks often created by the government. And we can provide some tools to help these parents succeed.

The first way this act removes governmental roadblocks is by eliminating a perverse disincentive to marriage in the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families Program. Congress is now telling States that they may be penalized for serving married couples. That is the wrong message to send. There should be equality for two-parent families receiving TANF, and States should not be required to meet a separate work participation rate for the two-parent families in their caseload.

Second, this act makes important improvements to the child support system which affects noncustodial fathers as much or more than any other government program. We restore funding for child support enforcement and we require States to pass the full amount of child support collected along to the family. A father is more likely to pay child support if he knows that the money is going to his kids. Research from States that have implemented a ``full pass through'' confirm this.

We also require States to review the amount of child support arrears that are owed to the State and we clarify existing State authority to forgive such arrearages. A father who earns only $10,000 per year, and who has $20,000 of child support debt because the State billed him for the Medicaid birthing costs of his child, is probably going to work underground and avoid paying child support altogether. He needs an incentive to get a legitimate job and to begin taking care of his family. It is in everybody's best interest.

States are also providing funding to assess any other barriers to healthy family formation or sustainable employment created by their child support and criminal justice systems. They are encouraged to establish commissions to propose State law changes that would be in the best interest of children.

Another important aspect of this act is fostering economic stability for fathers and their families. This act establishes three employment demonstration programs. One program is supervised by courts or State child support agencies that serve parents who are determined to be in need of employment services in order to pay child support obligations. The court can arrange temporary employment services for the father rather than throwing him in jail for nonpayment of support. The second is a transitional jobs program that combines temporary subsidized employment with activities that help fathers develop skills and remove barriers to employment. The third program establishes public-private partnerships to provide fathers with ``career pathways'' that help them advance from jobs at low skill levels to jobs that require greater skills and provide family-sustaining wages and benefits.

These programs are modeled on successful initiatives in Indiana and Illinois and will be subject to rigorous evaluations to ensure the goals are being achieved.

This bill fixes the earned-income tax credit to increase the incentive for fathers to engage in full-time work and paying child support obligations. The EITC is one of the most successful anti- poverty programs because it rewards work and supplements wages that may be too low to support a family. Our bill ensures that the work incentives under the EITC also apply to noncustodial parents who pay child support. To be eligible for the enhanced credit, a low-income parent must be working and current on all child support obligations. We also accelerate marriage penalty relief for families who receive the earned-income tax credit. Perversely under the U.S. Tax Code, these families have been the last to get such relief.

Finally, this bill improves the Responsible Fatherhood and Marriage Promotion Programs that were funded by the Deficit Reduction Act. Funding is increased and all fatherhood and marriage programs are required to coordinate with domestic violence prevention services to reduce instances of

domestic violence and promote healthy, nonviolent relationships.

This bill takes these steps because Congress needs to get serious about the problem of family breakdown. This is a problem that cuts across all income levels, religions, races and ethnicities, and communities across this country. There is no segment of our population that is immune to these challenges.

But some segments of the population are worse off than others. I would like to speak specifically, for a moment, about family breakdown in the African-American community--and not just because I, myself, am an African American. I am addressing this because I know, as Senator Bayh knows, and as most of my colleagues know, that a problem for one community is a problem for all of America. Hope deferred for one group is hope delayed for us all.

Around 70 percent of Black children are born outside of marriage. Of the 30 percent born to married parents, more than half experience a divorce. That means that about 85 percent of Black children spend some or all of their childhood in a home without their father. Fewer than 6 of every 10 young Black men are employed, and in some of our urban and rural areas the rate of unemployment is over 50 percent. Roughly one- third of young Black men are involved in some way with the criminal justice system. And young Black men have the lowest educational attainment among Black and White men and women.

These factors contribute to low marriage rates among African-American men. But by age 34, nearly half of Black men are fathers. And roughly two-thirds of all Black men leaving prison are fathers. I could quote statistics all day, but the bottom line is, as hard as some of these men try, it is likely that their children will also be denied the advantages of healthy parental relationships and married families. Their children will be more likely to live in poverty and to become young, unmarried parents themselves. Their children's life chances will be limited. The cycle of despair will continue.

But there is reason for hope. At the time of the birth of the child, most fathers are close to both the mother and their child. The challenge is to maintain healthy relationships between parents and to strengthen the early bonds between fathers and their children. The challenge is to improve economic opportunity for all parents so they can support themselves and their families. The challenge is to break the cycle by strengthening America's most vulnerable and fragile families.

That is what this bill does, and it is fully paid for by revenue raised by closing abusive corporate tax loopholes and blocking the exploitation of tax havens. This is a solid first step forward in removing government barriers to healthy family formation, and addressing the crisis of fatherhood among our Nation's low-income populations. I urge you to support the Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act of 2006.

Mr. President, last December, the Chicago Tribune published an in-depth report on the extent of mercury contamination in the fish eaten by the American people.

As I am sure my colleagues know, mercury is a potent neurotoxin that can cause serious developmental problems in children, ranging from severe birth defects to mental retardation. As many as 630,000 children born annually in the U.S. are at risk of neurological problems related to mercury.

In adults, mercury can cause major neurological problems affecting vision, motor skills, blood pressure and fertility. As many as 10 percent of women in the U.S. of childbearing age have mercury in their blood at a level that could put a baby at risk.

Mercury, in short, is a poison, and it often reaches humans through the fish that we eat.

Sampling conducted by the Tribune showed surprisingly high levels of mercury concentrations in freshwater and saltwater fish purchased by Chicago area consumers--fish like tuna, swordfish, orange roughy, and walleye. The Tribune series 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.

As someone who regularly eats fish, I was surprised at the range of species with high mercury levels in the Tribune tests. Fish is an excellent source of nutrients and other compounds indispensable for good health. More of us should eat more fish. But for all Americans-- and especially pregnant women and other at-risk groups--there are risks to eating fish with high mercury levels. That's why we need to work harder to get at the root causes of mercury contamination.

You see, the long-term solution isn't eating less fish, or issuing consumption advisories, or printing labels on tuna cans, or posting placards at the supermarket. If we're really serious about making fish safer to eat, we need to reduce the amount of mercury in fish, which means reducing the amount of mercury used in industry.

But, the solution can't be just a U.S. one. Half of mercury settles near where it is emitted and the other half gets transported around the globe--often settling in oceans, lakes, and rivers nowhere near mercury sources. For that reason, we need a comprehensive, global strategy, and the two bills I am introducing today are designed to be part of that strategy.

My first bill, the Mercury Market Minimization Act, or M3 Act, establisbes a ban on U.S. exports of mercury by the year 2010. Such a ban, when coupled with a European Union proposal to ban mercury exports by 2011, will constrain global supply of commercially available mercury in sufficient quantities that developing nations that still use mercury will be compelled to switch to affordable alternatives to mercury that are already widespread in industrialized nations.

My second bill, the Missing Mercury in Manufacturing Monitoring and Mitigation Act, or M5 Act, requires the remaining eight of more than 30 chlor-alkali plants in the United States to complete the transition from mercury to alternative technologies.

Chlor-alkali facilities manufacture chlorine gas and caustic soda, important chemicals that serve as the building blocks of many of the products and plastics essential to modem everyday life. For decades, mercury was a key component in the chlorine process, but today, more than 90 percent of the chlor-alkali industry has switched to an alternative catalyst. Only eight chlor-alkali plants remain in the U.S.

that still use mercury. The chlorine industry has instituted voluntary policies to help capture and reduce mercury missions into the atmosphere--with laudable success. The time has come, however, to finish these upgrades and end the use of mercury in the chlor-alkali process.

The amount of mercury emitted or lost by these eight chlor-alkali plants rivals the amount of mercury emitted by all of the coal-fired plants in the United States. In 2003, the average chlor-alkali facility released 1,055 lbs. of mercury into the air--six times as much as the 183 lbs. of mercury released by the average coal-fired powerplant. And it is likely that the actual amount of mercury released by chlor-alkali plants is even higher because of emissions that escape through unmonitored ventilation systems and other leaks.

The M5 Act also solves another gap in the current system; it puts procedures in place to track and report mercury input and output statistics in the chlor-alkali industry. The evidence suggests that between 2000 and 2004, the industry could not account for more than 130 tons of mercury, in addition to the 29 tons that were released into the environment. The EPA calls this ``an enigma.'' The M5 Act puts an end to this enigma and requires documented tracking of mercury.

Although this bill deals with chlor-alkali plants, it's important to acknowledge that coal-fired powerplants are a significant contributor to the mercury in our atmosphere. We must continue to pursue balanced policies that address those emissions, but our policy approaches on mercury cannot single out coal-fired power plants alone. In truth, the largest source of global mercury contamination is the continued worldwide use of mercury in developing countries, particularly in gold mining and general industry, even thought there are proven and economically viable mercury substitutes.

Mr. President, I believe these two bills will go a long ways towards improving the health of the American people. I urge the swift enactment of these bills.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak in opposition to the proposed constitutional amendment.

There have been so many moments in our history where the flag was not just a piece of cloth. It was a focal point that united this country through both our most difficult days and our proudest moments. This is the flag that inspired Francis Scott Key in Baltimore Harbor during the War of 1812. It is the flag that Illinois soldiers rallied to during the Battle of Gettysburg. It is the flag that marines raised over Mount Suribachi on Iwo Jima during a battle that claimed 6,800 American lives. It is the flag that Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin planted on the surface of the moon. It is the flag that was draped over the charred Pentagon following the September 11 attack. It is the flag that rests atop the caskets of the men and women who give the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I cannot imagine anything more abhorrent to a veteran than seeing the flag they fought for, or watched their good friends die for, being burned to make a political point. Although I have not served in the military, I too have great pride in our flag, as do the overwhelming majority of Americans. I share outrage at the thought of its being disrespected. I have never seen anyone burn a flag. And if I did, it would take every ounce of restraint I had not to haul off and hit them.

But we live in a country of laws. Laws that stop people from resorting to physical violence to settle disagreements. Laws that protect free speech. The primacy of the law is one of the things that protects us, one of the things that makes us great.

When I took this job last year I was asked to swear an oath of office. It is a short, simple oath, and everyone in this Chamber has repeated it. It begins: ``I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same.'' Our first allegiance here is not to a political party, or to an ideology, or to a President, or even popular opinion, it is to the Constitution and to the rule of law.

Senator Byrd often talks about the Constitution as a remarkable document that transformed a revolutionary movement to a stable government that has lasted more than 200 years and is the envy of the world. He is right.

The Constitution has only been amended 27 times. The amendments include guarantees of our most basic freedoms, the freedom of religion, the right to a trial by jury, the protection against cruel punishment. The amendments also chronicle the great struggles of this country. The 13th amendment abolished slavery in 1865. The 17th provided for the direct election of senators in 1913. The 19th amendment gave women the right to vote in 1920. The 24th eliminated the poll tax in 1964.

The Framers established a high bar for amending the Constitution, and for good reason. It is difficult to amend the Constitution because our founding document should not be changed just because of political concerns or temporary problems. The Constitution should only be amended to address our Nation's most pressing problems that can't be solved with legislation. But even the supporters of this amendment are hard pressed to find more than a few instances of flag burning each year.

Today, there are hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops risking their lives for their country, looking to us to come up with a plan to win the peace so they can come home. Across America, there are millions who are looking for us to do something about health care, about education, about energy. We are only supposed to be in session for about 50 more days for the rest of this year. To spend the precious time we have left battling an epidemic of flag burning that does not exist is a disservice to our country.

Mr. President, 141 years ago, Congress passed--and the States approved--the 13th amendment to end slavery. A century and a half later, Americans can look back at that effort and be proud. What will Americans 141 years from now think if we pass the 28th amendment to ban flag burning? Will they breathe a sigh of relief that we made the world safe from flag burners? Or will they see this for what it is: an effort to distract, an effort to score political points, an effort to use the same flag that should unite us to instead divide us? I believe they will laugh and shake their heads.

During this debate, we have heard much about Colin Powell's opposition to this amendment. I am moved by his statement that:

I would not amend that great shield of democracy to hammer

a few miscreants. The flag will still be flying proudly long

after they have slunk away.

His view is shared by the many calls and letters I have received from Illinois veterans. All of them full of honest passion, and all of them sharing a common love of flag and country. I want to read a bit from a few of the letters I received.

Richard Savage of Bloomington wrote me:

I am a Vietnam veteran and Republican. . . . Those who

would burn the flag destroy the symbol of freedom, but

amending the Constitution would destroy part of freedom

itself.

Marci Daniels from Edwardsville wrote:

I am a veteran and I oppose the flag amendment. I did not

put my life on the line for the flag, but for the

Constitution and the freedoms it guarantees.

Terrence Hutton of Winnetka wrote:

As a Vietnam war veteran, I did not like the steady fare of

flag-burnings we seemed to see on TV and in the print media

back in those unhappy days, but I accepted them as part of

the price we pay as a free society. . . . We have survived

this long without a flag-burning provision in the

Constitution and can go right on surviving without one.

These are all proud Americans, veterans. They know that we should not play politics with the Constitution. We shouldn't distract voters in an election year, when there are so many common challenges we face and so little time to face them.

There is, in fact, another way. There is a way to balance our respect for the flag with reverence for the Constitution. Senators Clinton and Bennett are proposing an amendment to this proposal that would protect the flag without amending the Constitution. Their statutory approach is a new one that doesn't fall into the same constitutional traps that doomed previous flag protection bills. The Clinton-Bennett amendment is narrowly drawn to meet the first amendment tests the Supreme Court has laid out in previous court decisions. It makes it illegal to burn a flag in a threatening way or to incite violence. I believe this statute will pass constitutional muster and be upheld by the Supreme Court.

I will vote for the Clinton-Bennett amendment in an effort to find a way to balance our respect for the flag and our protection of the Constitution. I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. President, I rise to speak in favor of amendment No. 4371, which is being offered today by my friend, Senator Coburn. Senator Coburn and I have been working tirelessly to improve accountability and transparency in Federal contracting so that the American people can rely on their Government for the excellence and efficiency that they deserve.

Award and incentive fees are often used in defense contracts to encourage outstanding performance. But too often these awards are given without regard to performance. That doesn't make sense. This amendment prohibits unsatisfactory performance from being rewarded by the Federal Government. It sets a higher standard for defense contractors and requires them at least to satisfy the basic requirements of a contract in order to be eligible for any award or incentive fee.

It is a simple concept. No bonus awards when the work is unsatisfactory. Period. You don't tip a waiter who doesn't bring you your food. You don't give a bonus to an employee who doesn't do his or her job at work. The Government should not permit awards for work that is less than satisfactory. Awards should be used as an incentive for excellence, not as a backdoor for undeserved payments.

The authorization bill makes some progress by requiring the Secretary of Defense to provide needed guidance on the use of awards and incentive fees. It requires guidance that award fees be tied to performance outcomes. It requires guidance on designating contractor performance as ``excellent,'' or ``superior.'' It requires standards for when performance awards are appropriate.

This amendment just makes it clear that unsatisfactory work should never be eligible for an award. Contractors can and must be held to a higher standard. Our troops deserve no less. American taxpayers deserve no less. Americans should reward excellence, not mediocrity; success, not failure; contract fulfillment, and nothing less.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

amendment no. 4496