Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the budget resolution.

A budget is about choices. It is about tradeoffs. It is about weighing competing priorities and conflicting objectives and figuring out what matters most for Americans.

Unfortunately, the budget we have before us makes the wrong choices. Instead of tackling Federal deficits and rising debt, this budget worsens them. Instead of strengthening our schools so America can be competitive in a global economy, this budget weakens them. Instead of taking bold action against poverty as the President promised after Katrina, this budget cuts important services that Americans depend on.

Budgets matter because the tradeoffs we make matter, and this budget makes the wrong tradeoffs. It extends tax breaks aimed at millionaires while doing nothing to expand opportunity for working Americans. It claims to be fiscally responsible while ignoring billions of dollars of Government spending for ongoing military operations overseas.

At a time when we have maxed out our borrowing, this budget has us borrowing more. At a time when we have already cut certain programs beyond the level of efficiency, this budget cuts them some more. At a time when we have already lavished tax breaks on the wealthiest people and corporations, this budget lavishes even more.

As I talk to families in Illinois--farmers and small businesspeople, teachers and veterans, salespeople and service workers, doctors and senior citizens, people prospering and those struggling at the margins--I see people dealing with real issues and real problems. I see people concerned about our national security and our domestic security. I see people worried about what they see and what they don't see happening here in Washington.

Unfortunately, this budget that we are debating today gives Americans little reason to have confidence in their Government. This budget gives them little reason to think that their elected leaders are paying attention.

Many of my Democratic colleagues and I have been offering amendments over the last few days. Together we are troubled by this budget and doing our best to ensure that it reflects at least some of America's cherished values. A few of my Republican colleagues have also joined us in trying to improve this bill.

I was disappointed on Tuesday by the failure of the Senate to pass the Pay-go amendment to restore discipline to our budgeting process. That vote was bipartisan and very close, and I hold out hope that this body will soon restore budget rules that work to reduce deficits and restrain debt. But there are still opportunities to make this resolution more responsive to the needs and concerns of the people in Illinois.

For example, I appreciate the willingness of Senator Gregg and Senator Conrad, as the managers of this bill, to accept an important amendment of mine that addresses the problem of homeless veterans.

Each and every night, more than 200,000 of our Nation's veterans are homeless. More than 400,000 will experience homelessness over the course of a year. In my hometown of Chicago, as many as 38,000 veterans spend a night homeless over the course of a year.

It is one the great tragedies of this Nation that brave men and women who risked their lives for us have no place to turn to and no place to call home.

There is no single cause for homelessness among veterans. Homeless vets are men and women, single and married. They have served in every conflict since World War II. Many suffer from posttraumatic stress disorder or were physically and mentally battered in combat. A large number left the military without job skills that could be easily transferred to the private sector. Regardless of the cause, we know that there are ways to combat this crisis.

My amendment devotes a small amount to begin addressing this problem by building on existing proven programs. For nearly 20 years, the Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program has helped get veterans off the streets with intensive services that are unavailable elsewhere and really get to the heart of the causes of homelessness.

HVRP grant recipients provide clothing and food to help stabilize veterans, they provide mental health and substance abuse counseling, and they provide employment services and housing assistance to allow them to reenter society. Some HVRP programs even employ formerly homeless veterans to serve as counselors and role models to other veterans. HVRP offers specialized

support for veterans who are turned away from other programs. In short, HVRP is a cost-effective and proven way to help veterans who have no place else to turn.

The budget currently flatlines spending for the HVRP at $22 million, which is only 44 percent of the authorized level. At this amount, we will only be able to serve 16,250 veterans next year.

My amendment increases HVRP to its full authorized amount, an increase of $28 million. This will help us reach approximately 36,820 homeless veterans. This is still less than 10 percent of the total need, but it is an important start. My amendment will also devote an additional $12 million to the Department of Labor to improve jobs services for hard-to-place veterans. This is a modest increase of 6 percent over last year.

Every day, we walk past men and women on street corners with handwritten signs like ``Homeless Veteran--Need Food.'' Sometimes we give a dollar, sometimes we just keep walking. These are soldiers who fought in World War II, Vietnam, and Iraq.

We cannot allow the proud shoulders that have carried the weight of liberty to be broken by the terrible burden of homelessness and hopelessness. We owe our veterans more than an emergency shelter cot or a cardboard box beneath an overpass. We owe them a chance to enjoy the dignity and respect they earned fighting for our freedom.

These men and women served us without fail when we needed them, and now we must do the same for them.

I thank Senators Gregg and Conrad for accepting this amendment.

Mr. President, I hope we can continue to improve this budget. But, until we have a fiscally responsible budget that makes the right choices for America, I owe it to the people of Illinois to reject it.

I hope it won't be too long before this body can get serious about solving the real problems we face as a country and preparing for the new challenges and opportunities we will face in the years ahead.

vote explanation

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill--the ``Innovation Districts for School Improvement Act''--to establish grants to 20 school districts across the country. Through competitive grants, these districts would be offered new resources in return for systematic reforms and measurable results.

Today, in my own state, out of every 100 African-American or Latino males in the Chicago schools at age 13, only 3 or fewer will continue on to earn a degree from a 4-year college. The chances of success for a young man of color in many of our urban school districts are the same as the chance of a soldier in Napoleon's Grand Army surviving in the dismal march to Moscow. That is considered a great historical folly, a waste of a generation of young talent. How will we be judged?

Today, a good education is parceled out to some and denied to others, handed down, as a privilege, from generation to generation. A good education is denied not only to children of color in our cities, but also to children living in poverty in our rural areas.

Today, 6 million middle and high school students are reading with skills far below their grade level. Half of all teenagers are unable to understand basic fractions, and half of all 9 year olds are unable to perform basic multiplication or division. We now have one of the highest high school dropout rates of any industrialized country.

This is a folly and a failure that hurts us all. As we continue in this failure, other nations are moving ahead of us. We know that China and India are training more skilled engineers, who are developing new technologies and innovating in ways that result from their investments in education. We live in a world where few American jobs are secure, and we know that to compete successfully, we must better educate our students. All our students: urban and rural, black and white, rich and poor.

In fact, America's richest untapped source of talent may be in our underserved cities and poor rural areas, among students now trapped in inadequate schools. The best strategy for maintaining America's economic preeminence is to give more students the knowledge and the skills to innovate. To achieve this, our schools, too, must innovate.

That is why today I am introducing the Innovation Districts for School Improvement Act. We need to make sure there is an effective teacher in every classroom and an effective principal in every school. We need to make sure teachers are not distributed in a way that disproportionately places inexperienced and untrained teachers in classrooms with students who need the best teachers. We need to help young teachers get the training and coaching they need, and make sure that experienced teachers have the career opportunities that make use of their talents, giving the best ones a chance to train younger teachers, and a reason to stay in their schools and take on added roles.

Many schools do this and achieve encouraging results. The Innovation Districts for School Improvement Act would apply lessons from these successes, with school districts from across the country becoming seedbeds for further reform. Innovation Districts will focus on teacher recruitment, training, and retention, using successful residency-based programs as a model. They would offer performance pay increases to high-performing teachers, and financial incentives to teachers willing to work in low income schools.

Innovation Districts would partner with local universities, charitable foundations or community institutions to develop, execute, and evaluate their reforms. Most importantly, Innovation Districts would look at new ways to do things better, identify current practices that prevent them from innovating, and show us that if we are willing to support and rethink our schools, all our children can learn, all our children can compete, and our schools can be the best in the world.

I hope my colleagues will support this important legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill--the ``Innovation Districts for School Improvement Act''--to establish grants to 20 school districts across the country. Through competitive grants, these districts would be offered new resources in return for systematic reforms and measurable results.

Today, in my own state, out of every 100 African-American or Latino males in the Chicago schools at age 13, only 3 or fewer will continue on to earn a degree from a 4-year college. The chances of success for a young man of color in many of our urban school districts are the same as the chance of a soldier in Napoleon's Grand Army surviving in the dismal march to Moscow. That is considered a great historical folly, a waste of a generation of young talent. How will we be judged?

Today, a good education is parceled out to some and denied to others, handed down, as a privilege, from generation to generation. A good education is denied not only to children of color in our cities, but also to children living in poverty in our rural areas.

Today, 6 million middle and high school students are reading with skills far below their grade level. Half of all teenagers are unable to understand basic fractions, and half of all 9 year olds are unable to perform basic multiplication or division. We now have one of the highest high school dropout rates of any industrialized country.

This is a folly and a failure that hurts us all. As we continue in this failure, other nations are moving ahead of us. We know that China and India are training more skilled engineers, who are developing new technologies and innovating in ways that result from their investments in education. We live in a world where few American jobs are secure, and we know that to compete successfully, we must better educate our students. All our students: urban and rural, black and white, rich and poor.

In fact, America's richest untapped source of talent may be in our underserved cities and poor rural areas, among students now trapped in inadequate schools. The best strategy for maintaining America's economic preeminence is to give more students the knowledge and the skills to innovate. To achieve this, our schools, too, must innovate.

That is why today I am introducing the Innovation Districts for School Improvement Act. We need to make sure there is an effective teacher in every classroom and an effective principal in every school. We need to make sure teachers are not distributed in a way that disproportionately places inexperienced and untrained teachers in classrooms with students who need the best teachers. We need to help young teachers get the training and coaching they need, and make sure that experienced teachers have the career opportunities that make use of their talents, giving the best ones a chance to train younger teachers, and a reason to stay in their schools and take on added roles.

Many schools do this and achieve encouraging results. The Innovation Districts for School Improvement Act would apply lessons from these successes, with school districts from across the country becoming seedbeds for further reform. Innovation Districts will focus on teacher recruitment, training, and retention, using successful residency-based programs as a model. They would offer performance pay increases to high-performing teachers, and financial incentives to teachers willing to work in low income schools.

Innovation Districts would partner with local universities, charitable foundations or community institutions to develop, execute, and evaluate their reforms. Most importantly, Innovation Districts would look at new ways to do things better, identify current practices that prevent them from innovating, and show us that if we are willing to support and rethink our schools, all our children can learn, all our children can compete, and our schools can be the best in the world.

I hope my colleagues will support this important legislation.

I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3086

Mr. President, I speak in favor of the PAYGO amendment introduced by my friend, and ranking member of the Budget Committee, Senator Conrad. This amendment, of which I am a cosponsor, seeks to fully reinstate the pay-as-you-go requirement for direct spending and revenue legislation in the Senate through 2011.

During the 1990s, the Senate's PAYGO rule worked well to reduce Federal deficits, and the rule is badly needed today. Back then, PAYGO applied equally to increases in mandatory spending and decreases in revenue. It neither forced tax increases nor spending cuts but rather enforced fiscal balance and budget discipline. New spending or tax cuts could only become law if they were offset or found 60 votes in support.

Unfortunately, the original PAYGO rules were abandoned to provide for a series of unfunded tax breaks. Those tax breaks were not paid for by reductions in Federal spending and there was only one way to pay for them--by increasing our deficit to historically high levels and borrowing more and more money. Now we have to pay for those tax breaks plus the cost of borrowing for them.

Instead of reducing the deficit, as some people claim, the fiscal policies of this administration and its allies in Congress will add more than $600 million in debt for each of the next 5 years. This budget does nothing to reduce our deficits and, in fact, makes them worse.

Americans deserve better financial leadership. The people I talk to in Illinois are not fooled by what's going on. Working families understand that the same principles that apply to their family budgets should apply to our national budget as well. They understand that, in this life, you get what you pay for and if you don't pay for it today, it will cost you more tomorrow.

You don't have to be a deficit hawk to be disturbed by the growing gap between revenues and expenses. Americans are willing to share in the hard choices required to get us back on track, as long as they know that everyone is pulling their weight and doing their fair share. That's why it is so important that we reinstate PAYGO in a way that meaningfully enforces the budget discipline that both sides of the aisle need in order to honestly tackle our country's short-term and long-term fiscal challenges.

This is an important amendment at an important time for our country. I am pleased to once again join Senators Conrad and Feingold on this amendment and to be part of a bipartisan group of cosponsors. I urge my colleagues to vote for fiscal responsibility and for good budget leadership. I urge my colleagues to support this PAYGO amendment.

Mr. President, I rise to discuss an issue on which I hope we can find common ground--veterans care.

At this moment, we are debating two different amendments; one is very good, the other is significantly better. I remind my colleagues that we were in the same position almost exactly 1 year ago.

In March of last year, we stood here and debated competing veterans amendments. The Senate voted down an amendment by Senator Akaka 47 to 53. It instead embraced a smaller amendment by Senator Ensign. Just a few months later, we learned the VA would face a billion-dollar budget shortfall. This shortfall was avoidable, regrettable, and threatened care for our veterans.

I know that none of us wants to relive the experience of last summer. We don't want to have to explain to our veterans why we didn't support them, why we didn't demand a budget that matched their sacrifice, why we yet again took the President's word on how much funding our veterans needed.

Senator Burns' amendment is a good step forward. It eliminates, for the fourth year in a row, the President's proposal to establish a new enrollment fee and double prescription drug copayments for Priority 7 and 8 veterans. That proposal would have balanced the budget on the backs of moderate-income veterans. It sends the wrong message to our troops in Iraq. I urge my colleagues to vote for Senator Burns' amendment.

But like last year, Senator Akaka's bill offers a better option, grounded in real estimates of the VA's need. In addition to blocking the new fees, Senator Akaka's amendment would add $231 million for treating Iraq and Afghanistan veterans. The underestimation of this workload was one of the major contributors to the shortfall crisis last year.

It also would add $321 million for mental health initiatives. A recent Army report indicates that more than one-third of soldiers and marines who served in Iraq have subsequently sought mental health care. This is a rate that is higher than in other recent conflicts. The report may even understate the issue because two-thirds of Iraq veterans who screened positive for PTSD and other psychiatric disorders are not receiving treatment, according to The Washington Post.

It would add $122 million for readjustment counseling at vet centers, and rehabilitative care. These are areas that desperately need additional resources.

Today, we have thousands of brave men and women risking their lives for us halfway around the world. At home, we have millions more who were equally courageous in defending our freedom in previous wars and conflicts. When it comes to honoring these soldiers and these veterans, we can and must do more.

Today, the state of care for America's veterans is not worthy of their service to this country. The VA, for example, continues to insist on banning new Priority 8 enrollments. Through this ban, the VA has denied health care to 260,000 vets who assumed upon enlistment that a working class salary of $25,000 wouldn't prevent them from receiving the health care they were promised. In Illinois, 8,944 Illinois veterans were denied health care through the ban just in the last year.

When it comes to America's veterans, it is not only our patriotic duty to care, it is also our moral duty. When our troops return from battle, we should welcome them with the promise of opportunity, not the threat of poverty.

Senator Burns' amendment is an improvement over the President's original budget. But given this President's record of underestimating veterans' budgets in the past, we must do more.

It is time to reassess our priorities. A budget is more than a series of numbers on a page; it is the embodiment of our values. I urge my colleagues to support the Akaka amendment.

Mr. President, I know I speak for the entire Senate when I say we fully understand the importance of supporting our Nation's law enforcement officers and that we all want to do everything possible to make the safety of our communities one of our top budgetary priorities. This is why I rise today to support the amendment offered by my colleagues, Senators Dayton and Chambliss, to restore funding for the Byrne Justice Assistance grants program.

Unfortunately, once again, the President's budget request for fiscal year 2007 does not recognize this priority. In fact, it cuts the entire program for the second year in a row.

During Senate debate on the fiscal year 2006 Department of Commerce, Justice, Science and State Appropriations Act, I cosponsored a Byrne grant amendment with Senators Dayton and Chambliss that would have increased the funding for the JAG program to $900 million. That amendment passed the Senate, but was stripped in conference.

I am disappointed that the President's fiscal year 2007 budget request once again cuts this important law enforcement program, a program that has suffered significant cuts in the last few years, despite providing real results and benefits around the country. For fiscal year 2005, the Byrne/JAG program was appropriated $634 million, an overall cut of 12 percent for both programs from fiscal year 2004, and a 30 percent cut from the fiscal year 2003 funding.

As for fiscal year 2006, the President's budget request proposed the elimination of the Byrne/JAG program, but Congress refused. However, the Byrne/JAG program still received a $218 million cut from fiscal year 2005 level.

This year, the President's budget request once again eliminates the Byrne/JAG program from the $416 million--a 34 percent cut from fiscal year 2005 funding level--passed by Congress last year.

In Illinois, these cuts will have an immediate and direct effect on the ability of law enforcement to use Byrne grant funds to fight one of the gravest drug threats facing the nation today--methamphetamine.

In downstate Illinois, as in other rural communities around the country, there has been a tremendous surge in the manufacture, trafficking, and use of meth. Illinois State Police encountered 971 meth labs in Illinois in 2003, more than double the number uncovered in 2000. According to the Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority, the quantity of meth seized by the Illinois State Police increased nearly tenfold between 1997 and 2003. This surge is placing enormous burdens on smalltown police forces which are suddenly being confronted with a large drug trade and the ancillary crimes that accompany that trade.

These police departments rely on Byrne grant funding to participate in meth task forces, such as the Metropolitan Enforcement Group or the Southern Illinois Enforcement Group. These task forces allow police in different communities to combine forces to battle a regional problem. There are a total of seven meth taskforce zones in Illinois, and these task forces have seen real results with Byrne grant funding.

In 2004, the Southern Illinois Enforcement Group accounted for more than 27 percent of the State's reported meth lab seizures, and in that same year alone, Byrne/JAG grants helped Illinois cops make over 1,200 meth-related arrests and seize nearly 350,000 grams of meth.

In towns like Granite City and Alton, cuts in Byrne grant funding will force them to make difficult choices about how to allocate already scarce police resources. Indeed, the chief of police in Granite City told my staff last year that cuts in Byrne/JAG grant funding would threaten the fundamental viability of his meth task force.

While meth use continues to grow, it is inconceivable to me that the President would propose another cut to the resources needed by law enforcement to fight crime and clean up the streets. To me, this is yet another example of the misplaced priorities of this administration.

We all know that we are facing a real budget crisis in this Nation. The deficit is growing, and we must enforce some fiscal discipline. But I don't believe we should be balancing the budget on the backs of our Nation's law enforcement officers who keep our families and communities safe every day.

I am disappointed by the President's fiscal year 2007 budget request and hope that the Senate will support my colleagues' amendment and find the necessary funding that local law enforcement needs.

Mr. President, I rise to speak in favor of a bill I am proud to introduce today with Senators Bayh, Kerry, and Carper to help close the tax gap by improving the reporting of capital gains income. This bill requires brokerage firms and mutual fund companies to track and report the adjusted cost basis of their clients' stock, bond, and mutual fund investments.

This bill is a simple, commonsense solution to a serious problem. Many taxpayers have a hard enough time filing their taxes. One of the most complex parts of an individual's tax return is the schedule for capital gains income. And what makes capital gains particularly difficult is the challenge of figuring out the adjusted basis of a security that has been sold.

Many taxpayers do not have the proper records or they don't know how to calculate adjusted basis for a stock that has split or been exchanged as part of a company's merger or acquisition. And right now, the IRS does not have the ability to monitor the accuracy of taxpayer calculations. As a result, there is a risk of error or fraud. In some cases, taxpayers may end up paying too much in taxes. More often, they report too little income and pay too little in taxes.

In 2001, the IRS estimated that underreporting cost the Treasury $11 billion annually. Today the loss is even greater.

Because the IRS fails to collect these funds, the taxes that the rest of us have to pay are greater than they should be. Most people pay their taxes honestly and follow the law to the best of their ability. But a small number of tax frauds--who often owe great amounts of taxes--cheat the system. And it's hard now for the IRS to stop them.

This bill makes it easier to stop them and it helps reduce the amount of Federal tax dollars that the IRS fails to collect each year. Brokerage firms and mutual fund companies will be required to keep track of a taxpayer's cost basis and to report that information to the IRS. This will make it easier for honest taxpayers to calculate their taxable capital gain, and harder for dishonest ones to lie about it. Based on information from the Taxpayer Advocate, reporting to the IRS can improve compliance of capital gains reporting from an estimated 50 percent today to 90 percent.

Fortunately, this new reporting requirement will not pose an undue burden to the financial firms affected. First, the firms will have plenty of time to put the necessary systems in place since the reporting requirement will not take effect until 2009, and then will only apply to securities acquired starting in 2008. Second, technology has made tracking by financial firms simple and efficient. More than 80 percent of all retail accounts already subscribe to a national reporting service for transferring basis information at a nominal cost per account. Finally, in cases where it is impossible to track basis, the Treasury Secretary may develop regulations to require alternative information.

It is estimated that $345 billion of Federal taxes goes uncollected each year. This bill doesn't solve that full problem, but it is a step in the right direction. It reduces the Federal deficit without raising taxes or cutting spending. It simplifies the tax filing process and reduces the chance of error or fraud. It applies what we know about the benefits of automatic reporting to the IRS--which is required now for wage income--to capital gains income as well.

This bill makes sense. It's good policy. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting it and to helping to improve our tax code.

Mr. President, I rise to speak in favor of a bill I am proud to introduce today with Senators Bayh, Kerry, and Carper to help close the tax gap by improving the reporting of capital gains income. This bill requires brokerage firms and mutual fund companies to track and report the adjusted cost basis of their clients' stock, bond, and mutual fund investments.

This bill is a simple, commonsense solution to a serious problem. Many taxpayers have a hard enough time filing their taxes. One of the most complex parts of an individual's tax return is the schedule for capital gains income. And what makes capital gains particularly difficult is the challenge of figuring out the adjusted basis of a security that has been sold.

Many taxpayers do not have the proper records or they don't know how to calculate adjusted basis for a stock that has split or been exchanged as part of a company's merger or acquisition. And right now, the IRS does not have the ability to monitor the accuracy of taxpayer calculations. As a result, there is a risk of error or fraud. In some cases, taxpayers may end up paying too much in taxes. More often, they report too little income and pay too little in taxes.

In 2001, the IRS estimated that underreporting cost the Treasury $11 billion annually. Today the loss is even greater.

Because the IRS fails to collect these funds, the taxes that the rest of us have to pay are greater than they should be. Most people pay their taxes honestly and follow the law to the best of their ability. But a small number of tax frauds--who often owe great amounts of taxes--cheat the system. And it's hard now for the IRS to stop them.

This bill makes it easier to stop them and it helps reduce the amount of Federal tax dollars that the IRS fails to collect each year. Brokerage firms and mutual fund companies will be required to keep track of a taxpayer's cost basis and to report that information to the IRS. This will make it easier for honest taxpayers to calculate their taxable capital gain, and harder for dishonest ones to lie about it. Based on information from the Taxpayer Advocate, reporting to the IRS can improve compliance of capital gains reporting from an estimated 50 percent today to 90 percent.

Fortunately, this new reporting requirement will not pose an undue burden to the financial firms affected. First, the firms will have plenty of time to put the necessary systems in place since the reporting requirement will not take effect until 2009, and then will only apply to securities acquired starting in 2008. Second, technology has made tracking by financial firms simple and efficient. More than 80 percent of all retail accounts already subscribe to a national reporting service for transferring basis information at a nominal cost per account. Finally, in cases where it is impossible to track basis, the Treasury Secretary may develop regulations to require alternative information.

It is estimated that $345 billion of Federal taxes goes uncollected each year. This bill doesn't solve that full problem, but it is a step in the right direction. It reduces the Federal deficit without raising taxes or cutting spending. It simplifies the tax filing process and reduces the chance of error or fraud. It applies what we know about the benefits of automatic reporting to the IRS--which is required now for wage income--to capital gains income as well.

This bill makes sense. It's good policy. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting it and to helping to improve our tax code.

Mr. President, it is my pleasure and privilege to honor an exceptional Marine, MAJ Jeff Jurgensen. Major Jurgensen has served our Nation for more than 20 years. Rising from the rank of Marine Private, he has served around the globe in both war and peace. Major Jurgensen was born in Oak Park, IL, and spent much of his youth in the Chicago area.

He began his Marine Corps service at the Marine Corps Recruit Depot, Parris Island, SC. He also completed the School of Infantry, Camp Lejeune. Assigned duties as a Marine Corps Combat Correspondent, he subsequently graduated from the Military Print and Broadcast Journalist Program at the Defense Information School.

Major Jurgensen was then stationed in Tokyo, Japan, as a Correspondent for the Armed Forces Radio and Television Service. Promoted to Corporal while in Japan, Major Jurgensen was selected for the Enlisted Commissioning Program and transferred to Quantico, VA, where he attended Officer Candidate School and the Basic School-- graduating with Honors. As a Marine Officer, Major Jurgensen has served in North Carolina, Missouri, Louisiana, and Washington, DC. In addition, during his career, he has deployed in support of Hurricane Andrew Relief Operations in Dade County, FL, Operation Enduring Freedom in the Horn of Africa, and Operation Iraqi Freedom in Bahrain, Kuwait, and Iraq.

Since 2004, Major Jurgensen has been assigned to the Marine Corps' Office of Legislative Affairs as a Congressional Liaison Representative. Responding to more than 4,000 inquiries from Members of Congress, Major Jurgensen has worked aggressively to provide our Nation's elected leaders with critical information regarding Marine Corps operations, policies, programs, and personnel. His efforts have measurably contributed to the mission of the Marine Corps, U.S. House of Representatives, and Senate. His skill, judgment, and complete dedication to duty are in keeping with the highest traditions of the United States Marine Corps and the United States Naval Service.

I wish Major Jurgensen, his wife Kamlyn--also from Illinois--and their wonderful family the very best as they begin a new life. I am particularly proud that residents of the great State of Illinois choose to join the Marine Corps and serve this Nation. Major Jurgensen has done so with distinction. On behalf of the Senate, I wish to extend my heartfelt thanks and gratitude. May he have many more years of continuing success.

Mr. President, I rise today to support H.R. 1053, legislation to extend permanent normal trade relations with Ukraine. This is the House companion to the bill, S. 632, that Senator Lugar and I introduced and shepherded through the Senate last year.

Senator Lugar just forcefully outlined the issues in only the way that the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee can. I agree with what he said and cannot say it any better. So, I will be brief.

As the chairman mentioned, this bill comes at a critical time for Ukraine--on the heels of dramatic presidential elections and shortly before important elections in the Rada. This legislation grew out of our trip to Ukraine last August, as we saw firsthand the key role that the United States must play in consolidating prodemocracy, pro-free market reforms. I believe it is critical that we continue to send a clear message to the Ukrainian people that there are tangible benefits to continuing down this path. This bipartisan legislation does just that.

It is my honor to be the lead cosponsor of the Senate companion bill and I look forward to this legislation enhancing the U.S.-Ukraine relationship. I look forward to the President signing this bill into law.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise briefly to support the amendment offered by Senator Reid. I also support the amendment that was introduced by Senator Dodd and Senator Santorum, of which I am a cosponsor. But let me focus on the particular provision in Senator Reid's bill, the honest leadership bill, that I think all of us should pay attention to, and that is the provision which closes a loophole that would still allow Members and staff to receive free meals from lobbyists up to $50 in value.

On my way over to the floor, I passed a couple of security guards and Capitol police. I asked them how often lobbyists had bought them a meal. Surprisingly, they said none.

I talked to the young women who help us on the elevators on the way up. I asked them: Has a lobbyist ever bought you a meal? The answer was ``no.''

In cities and towns all across America, it turns out people pay for their own lunches and their own dinners, people who make far less than we do, people who cannot afford their medical bills or their mortgages or their kids' tuitions. If you ask them if they think that people they send to Congress should be able to rack up a $50 meal on a lobbyist's time, what do you think they are going to say? You ask them if they think we should be able to feast on a free steak dinner at a fancy restaurant while they are working two jobs to put food on the table. I don't think we need a poll to find out the answer to that one.

I want to be clear. In no way do I think that any of my colleagues or staffers would exchange votes for a meal. But that is not the point. It is not just the meal that is the problem, it is the perception, the access that the meals get you. In current Washington culture, lobbyists are expected to pick up the tab when they meet with Members or staff. It is understood by all sides that the best way to get face time with a Member is to buy them a meal. You don't see many Members eating $50 meals with constituents who come into town to talk about issues on their minds, or with policy experts who are discussing the latest economic theories. Most of these meals that are taken are with lobbyists who are advocating on behalf of special interests. It diminishes perceptions, and it is something that I think has to stop.

Let me close by saying this. If people are interested in meeting with lobbyists or having dinner with lobbyists, they can still do so. It is very simple. You pull out your wallet and pay for it.

I strongly urge we support the Reid amendment. In addition, I strongly support the Dodd-Santorum amendment, of which I am a cosponsor.

I yield my time.

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

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

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the ethics and lobbying reform bill we will be considering this week.

Over 100 years ago, at the dawn of the last century, the Industrial Revolution was beginning to take hold in America, creating unimaginable wealth and sprawling metropolises all across the country.

As factories multiplied and profits grew, the winnings of the new economy became more and more concentrated in the hands of a few robber barons, railroad tycoons, and oil magnets. In the cities, power was maintained by a corrupt system of political machines and ward bosses. In the State of New York, there was a young Governor who was determined to give government back to the people.

In his first year, he had already begun antagonizing the State's political machine by attacking its system of favors and corporate giveaways. He signed a workers' compensation bill, and even fired the superintendent of insurance for taking money from the very industry he was supposed to be regulating.

None of this sat too well with New York's powerful party bosses, who finally plotted to get rid of the reform-minded Governor by making sure he was nominated for the Vice Presidency that year.

What no one could have expected is that soon after the election, when President William McKinley was assassinated, the greatest fears of the corrupt machine bosses and power brokers became true when that former Governor became President of the United States and went on to bust trusts, break up monopolies, and return the government to its people.

His name, of course, was Theodore Roosevelt. He was a Republican. Throughout his public life, he demonstrated a willingness to put party and politics aside in order to battle corruption and give people an open, honest government that would fight for their interests and for their values.

I think today we face a similar crisis of corruption and a similar crisis of confidence. I believe we need similar leadership from those in power as well.

The American people are tired of a Washington that is open only to those with the most cash and the right connections. They are tired of a political process where the vote you cast is not as important as the favors you can do. They are tired of trusting us with their tax dollars when they see them spent on frivolous pet projects and corporate giveaways.

It is not that the games that are played in this town are new or surprising to the public. People are not naive to the existence of corruption. They know that over the years it has worn both a Republican and a Democratic face.

Moreover, the underlying issue of how extensively money influences politics is the ``original sin'' of everyone who has ever run for office, including me. In order to get elected, we need to raise vast sums of money by meeting and dealing with people who are disproportionately wealthy. This is a problem that predates Jack Abramoff.

So I agree with those on both sides of the aisle who believe we should not let half measures and partisan posturing on campaign finance reform derail our current efforts on ethics and lobbying, but I also think this is an issue and a conversation we are going to have to have in the months to come--the conversation about campaign financing. That is not, however, the topic that is before us this week.

While people know that both parties are vulnerable to these problems, I do not think it is fair to say that the scandals we have seen most recently under the current White House and Congress--both legal and illegal--are entirely predictable or the standard fare. They are worse than most of us could have imagined.

Think about it. In the past several months, we have seen the head of the White House procurement office arrested. We have seen some of our most powerful leaders of both the House and the Senate under Federal investigation. We have seen the indictment of Jack Abramoff and his cronies. And, of course, last week, we saw a Member of Congress sentenced to 8 years in prison for bribery.

Now, there are some in the media who dismiss these scandals by saying: Everybody does it. The truth is that not everybody does it. We should not lump people together--those of us who have to raise funds to run campaigns but do so in a legal and ethical way with those who invite lobbyists into their offices to write bad legislation. Those are not equivalent. And we are not being partisan by pointing that out.

The fact is, since our Federal Government has been controlled by one party, this kind of scandal has become, unfortunately, a regular order of business in this town. For years now, some on the other side of the aisle have openly bragged about stocking K Street lobbying firms with former staffers to increase their power in Washington--a practice that should stop today and never happen again.

But what is truly offensive to the American people about all of this goes far beyond people such as Jack Abramoff. It is bigger than how much time he will spend in jail or how many Members of Congress he ends up turning in. It is bigger even than the K Street project and golf junkets to Scotland and lavish gifts for lawmakers.

What is truly offensive about these scandals is they do not just lead to morally offensive conduct on the part of politicians; they lead to morally offensive legislation that hurts hard-working Americans.

When big oil companies are invited into the White House for secret energy meetings, it is no wonder they end up with billions in tax breaks while most working people struggle to fill up their gas tanks and heat their homes.

When a committee chairman negotiates a Medicare bill one day, and after the bill is passed is negotiating for a job with the drug industry, it is hardly a surprise that industry gets taxpayer-funded giveaways in the same bill that forbids seniors from bargaining for better drug prices.

When the people running Washington are accountable only to the special interests that fund their campaigns, it is not shocking that the American people find their tax dollars being spent with reckless abandon.

I have to point out that since the current administration took office, we have seen the number of registered lobbyists in Washington double. In 2004, over $2.1 billion was spent lobbying Congress. That amounts to over $4.8 million per Member of Congress.

How much do you think the American people were able to spend on their Senators or Representatives last year? How much money could the folks back home, who cannot even fill up their gas tanks, spend on lobbying? How much could the seniors forced to choose between their medications and their groceries spend on lobbyists? Not $4.8 million--not even close.

This is the bigger story here. The American people believe that the well-connected CEOs and hired guns on K Street who have helped write our laws have gotten what they paid for. They got all the tax breaks and loopholes and access they could ever want. But outside this city, the people who cannot afford the high-priced lobbyists and do not want to break the law are wondering: When is it our turn? When will somebody in Washington stand up for me?

We need to answer that call. Because while only some are to blame for the corruption that has plagued this city, we are all responsible for fixing it.

As you know, I am from Chicago, a city that has not always had the most stellar reputation when it comes to politics. But during my first year in the Illinois State Senate, I helped lead the fight to pass Illinois' first ethics reform bill in 25 years. If we can do it in Illinois, we can do something like that here.

But we have to pass a serious bill that has to go a long way toward correcting some of the most egregious offenses of the last few years and preventing future offenses as well. This is not a time for window dressing or putting a Band-Aid on a problem to score some political points. I think this is a time for real reform.

I commend the work the two committees that have dealt with this issue have already put in under the leadership of Senator Lott and Senator Dodd, Senator Lieberman and Senator Collins. I want to note that the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act, which was originally sponsored by those of us on this side of the aisle, has 41 cosponsors and, I think, established a good marker for reform. I commend my leader, Harry Reid, and his staff for their hard work in putting it together.

But real reform means making sure that Members of Congress and senior administration officials are dealing with this in as thoughtful and aggressive a fashion as is possible. Let me give you some examples of some provisions that are already in, but also some provisions I would like to see included.

Real reform means making sure that Members of Congress and senior administration officials wait until they leave office before pursuing jobs with industries they are responsible for regulating.

I understand that former Congressman Billy Tauzin has said he was not negotiating for a job with the drug industry at the same time he was negotiating the Medicare bill, but the fact is this: While he was a Member of Congress, he was negotiating for lobbying jobs with not one but two different industries that he was responsible for regulating-- the drug industry and the motion picture association.

That is wrong. This should not happen anymore. Real reform means ensuring that a ban on lobbying after Members of Congress leave this office is real and includes behind-the-scenes coordination and supervision of activities now used to skirt the ban. Real reform means giving the public access to now secret conference committee meetings and posting all bills on the Internet at least a day before they are voted on so the public can scrutinize what is in them. Real reform means passing a bill that eliminates all gifts and meals from lobbyists, not just the expensive ones. And real reform has to mean real enforcement because no matter how many new rules we pass, it will mean very little unless we have a system to enforce them.

I commend Senators Lieberman and Collins for their efforts to create such an enforcement mechanism through an independent office of public integrity. While this proposal doesn't go quite as far as my proposal for an outside ethics fact-finding commission, it is still very good, and I am looking forward to working with them to try to get it included in the bill that has been marked up. But to truly earn back the people's trust, to show them we are working for them and looking out for their interests, we have to do more than just pass a good bill this week; we are going to have to fundamentally change the way we do business around here.

That means instead of meetings with lobbyists, it is time to start meeting with the 45 million Americans who don't have any health care. Instead of finding cushy political jobs for unqualified buddies, it is time to start finding good-paying jobs for hard-working Americans trying to raise a family. Instead of hitting up the big firms on K Street, it is time to start visiting the workers on Main Street who wonder how they will send their kids to college or whether their pension is going to be around when they retire.

All these people have done, our constituents, to earn access and gain influence is to cast their ballot. But in this democracy, that is all anyone should have to do.

A century ago that young, reform-minded Governor of New York, who later became our 26th President, gave us words about our country that everyone in this town would do well to listen to today. Here is what Teddy Roosevelt said back then:

No republic can permanently endure when its politics are

corrupt and base . . . we can afford to differ on the

currency, the tariff, and foreign policy, but we cannot

afford to differ on the question of honesty. There is a soul

in the community, a soul in the Nation, just exactly as there

is a soul in the individual; and exactly as the individual

hopelessly mars himself if he lets his conscience be dulled

by the constant repetition of unworthy acts, so the Nation

will hopelessly blunt the popular conscience if it permits

its public men continually to do acts which the Nation in its

heart of hearts knows are acts which cast discredit upon our

whole public life.

I have come to know the Members of this body and know that the people who serve here are hard-working, thoughtful, and honorable men and women. But the fact is, the entire Congress has been marred and is under a cloud. Our consciences have been dulled by the activity of the few. We have to make certain we are sending a strong signal to the American public that we are no longer going to tolerate that kind of activity, that our conscience has been sharpened, and we are willing to take the steps necessary to restore credibility to this August body.

I hope this week we in the Senate will take the first step towards strengthening this Nation's soul and bringing credit back to our public life.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak in favor of greater funding for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, LIHEAP.

As I have traveled around Illinois this winter, I have heard from many low-income families and senior citizens about the burden of rising heating costs. These families are being forced to spend considerable portions of their incomes on gas bills, and many of them simply cannot afford it. Some families are having to keep their thermostats low just so they can buy groceries. It is essential that States have the funding they need through LIHEAP to help these families pay their heating bills during the cold months.

That is why, last year, I joined a number of my Senate colleagues in sending a letter to the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee requesting $3 billion in funding so that low-income families, disabled individuals, and senior citizens who live on fixed incomes have access to affordable energy when they need it most. We also asked that advance funding be allocated in the budget for LIHEAP. This would allow States to plan more economically in preparing for the winter heating season by purchasing fuels during the spring and summer months. Unfortunately, our request was denied.

Months later, during consideration of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Congress reauthorized the LIHEAP program from fiscal year 2005 to 2007, providing for a yearly appropriation of $5.1 billion. However, in the fiscal year 2006 Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services Appropriations Act, Congress provided $2.2 billion for LIHEAP funding-- the same allotment

given to the program in fiscal year 2005. During Senate consideration of several bills in the final weeks of 2005, I voted for a number of amendments providing more funding for LIHEAP, but those amendments were defeated.

Funding for LIHEAP has remained level for the past 20 years, but energy prices are at an all-time high. According to the Department of Energy, DOE, natural gas prices in the Midwest were expected to rise between 69 percent and 77 percent during the winter heating season. The National Energy Assistance Directors Association estimates that for families using natural gas, heating bills would average well over $1,500 per consumer, an increase of over $600 per consumer as compared to the winter of 2004-2005. As a result, we have seen an unprecedented rise in requests for LIHEAP assistance across the country. In Illinois, requests in 2005 were up 41.4 percent from the year before. That is nearly a quarter of a million Americans asking for help in my State alone.

I think we often forget how much our working families need this program, and just how heavy the burden of heating one's home can be these days. In a thank-you note to the staff at Illinois LIHEAP, a woman in Lake County, IL, wrote:

Having you help me and my mother this year with our utility

bill was a godsend. It was over my head and I didn't know

what I was going to do . . . My mother is on oxygen 24-hours

a day, and we couldn't be without electricity, so you see it

was a matter of life and death also for me.

I commend Senator Snowe for her tenacity in pushing this legislation, and I commend Senator Jack Reed for his longstanding commitment to this issue.

I hope my colleagues will recognize the importance of this problem and support this measure, as well as greater LIHEAP funding in the future. With natural gas prices increasing so severely, more Americans than usual are expected to apply for LIHEAP assistance in paying their heating bills.

Mr. President, I wish to discuss the genocide in Darfur. While there have been many speeches given on this critical subject, I want to take a moment to talk about a subject that has all too often been overlooked--the efforts of the African Union, AU.

At present, the Bush administration is helping to spearhead discussion on how to absorb the African Union force in Darfur into a larger U.N. contingent with a far greater capacity to protect civilians. I wholeheartedly agree with the administration that the current formula for combating brutality in Darfur is insufficient. In fact, in December, Senator Brownback and I wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post advocating this very course of action.

At the same time, many government officials, and outside observers, have given little regard to the efforts of the African Union Mission in Sudan, AMIS.

We must start reversing this trend. I tip my hat to AMIS for its strong efforts, under the most difficult of circumstances, over the course of the last 2 years.

The AU leadership, along with individual troop contributing countries--such as Rwanda, Senegal, and Nigeria--made a decision to put African lives on the line when the campaign of terror waged against civilians was at its height. The AU leadership just as easily could have said ``its too difficult, its too dangerous, this is somebody else's problem.''

Instead, they took action.

In a geographically diverse and inhospitable terrain, the AU built its operations--the most complex in the organization's history--from scratch, at a time when thousands of Darfurian civilians were being ethnically cleansed every month.

Although AMIS has just 5,000 troops and 2,000 observers and police spread out over a region the size of France, it has made a difference. Civilians on the ground in Darfur have reported that, where AU forces are present, they feel safer. An estimated 2 million civilians are now living in camps. These civilians depend on humanitarian aid for their survival, and aidworkers report that their convoys would not be able to navigate key areas without the invaluable escorts supplied by AMIS.

As security has deteriorated in Darfur over the last 4 months, lightly armed AMIS troops are increasingly the targets of assault, kidnapping, and murder.

Mr. President, has AMIS been a perfect mission? No. Is there room for improvement? Yes. But, I know that those of us in the Senate who follow this issue closely support what the AU is doing and want the AU to do more of it.

In July, I traveled to the United Nations and met with representatives of the AU and their member-states. There is no question that it is a young organization in need of capacity-building. But, I sensed that there was great resolve to ensure AMIS succeeded.

Moving forward, I think it is important to recognize that the AMIS has been an important first step for the AU. At the same time, I think there is widespread recognition--belatedly in my view--that the genocide in Darfur is an international, not only an African, issue.

I will use an analogy, albeit an imperfect one, with U.S. efforts in Afghanistan. While the United States is heavily involved in this nation, I believe that this is a situation with international ramifications; a key reason that the international community should be doing more to help stabilize this nation.

The same holds true for Darfur, where the challenges presented by a savage conflict spilling across international borders outstrip the resources currently in place to effectively deal with it. The United Nations and NATO should become more active.

This is not to take anything away from the efforts of the AU, who stepped in on their own to try to fill the security vacuum in Darfur. The AU will be indispensable in the coming year at a time when security conditions are deteriorating, but before additional troops can be deployed. As discussions progress about follow-on forces, it is clear that those same African countries leading the current AU efforts in Darfur will be the essential core of any successor mission.

In my view, it is essential that the United States government take the lead in rallying for AMIS the financial, military, and political support it needs to continue its essential work in Darfur and to transform itself into the backbone of a larger, more mobile UN mission.

Again, I thank the AU for its efforts and believe now more than ever that African leadership will be key to international success in Darfur.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that would expand and improve quality reporting for our Nation's hospitals through the establishment of a national Hospital Quality Report Card Initiative.

Study after study has documented that health care quality in the United States is inconsistent and inadequate. The landmark 2003 RAND report by Beth McGlynn found that the chance of Americans getting recommended care is not much greater than the flip of coin. For many conditions, the chances are even worse--only about a third of diabetics and a quarter of patients with atrial fibrillation and hip fractures receive the right treatment, as do only about 10 percent of patients with alcohol dependence. Patients are suffering, and the financial costs of poor care are staggering. We can and must do more to ensure that every patient gets the right care, at the right time, in the right way.

One way to help improve health care quality is to measure and report the quality of care in our nation's hospitals. Hospital quality reports can help patients and consumers choose the hospital that will best serve their health needs. Purchasers and payers can use hospital quality information to help their decision-making about where employees and members can go for care. Hospitals and health care professionals would similarly benefit from identification of areas of need, and opportunities for quality improvement and cost containment. And finally, with greater quality reporting and transparency, we can begin to have an honest dialogue about health care quality and how to reform our health care system.

Several States have already developed and implemented hospital report card initiatives, and I am proud to say that Illinois began its own report card initiative in January of this year--an initiative that I spearheaded when I served in the Illinois State Senate.

On the national level, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and the Hospital Quality Alliance have partnered to identify and encourage submission of quality measures for several health conditions, on a voluntary basis, in exchange for greater federal reimbursement. The Deficit Reduction Act codified this initiative earlier this year.

The Hospital Report Card Act, which I am introducing today, takes quality measurement one step further, by mandating that the Secretary expand and improve upon current quality reporting for hospitals. Within 18 months, the Secretary would establish a formal Hospital Report Card Initiative, and publish reports on individual hospital quality using data submitted for the value based purchasing program at CMS, but also including other data available to the Secretary. The report cards would report quality measures that align with those used in the National Healthcare Quality Report, including measures of effectiveness, safety, timeliness, efficiency, patient-centeredness, and equity. In addition, the report cards would provide information on other quality priorities for patients, such as staffing levels of nurses, rates of infections acquired in hospitals, volume of procedures performed, and availability of specialized care. The Secretary would also report measures of relevance to a number of priority populations, including women, children and minorities.

The bill requires the Secretary to take steps to ensure that all reported data is accurate and fairly represents hospital quality, and that hospitals have an opportunity to participate in the development of the report card initiative. I also want to make sure that sick patients have full access to the best hospitals, and so the report cards will risk-adjust quality data, so that hospitals are not inadvertently penalized for caring for more challenging patient populations.

We are hearing a lot of rhetoric about patient empowerment and consumer-driven health plans. However, we can't expect patients to make the best choices for their health care in the absence of accurate information on quality and costs. Similarly, we can't expect hospitals to recognize their areas of deficiencies or strengths without a critical look inwards. Finally, we can't expect the Nation at large to support and embrace healthcare reform without greater awareness of quality problems.

The Hospital Quality Report Card Act will help the Nation take one step closer to improving health care quality and containing costs, and I hope my colleagues will join me in passing this critical legislation.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that would expand and improve quality reporting for our Nation's hospitals through the establishment of a national Hospital Quality Report Card Initiative.

Study after study has documented that health care quality in the United States is inconsistent and inadequate. The landmark 2003 RAND report by Beth McGlynn found that the chance of Americans getting recommended care is not much greater than the flip of coin. For many conditions, the chances are even worse--only about a third of diabetics and a quarter of patients with atrial fibrillation and hip fractures receive the right treatment, as do only about 10 percent of patients with alcohol dependence. Patients are suffering, and the financial costs of poor care are staggering. We can and must do more to ensure that every patient gets the right care, at the right time, in the right way.

One way to help improve health care quality is to measure and report the quality of care in our nation's hospitals. Hospital quality reports can help patients and consumers choose the hospital that will best serve their health needs. Purchasers and payers can use hospital quality information to help their decision-making about where employees and members can go for care. Hospitals and health care professionals would similarly benefit from identification of areas of need, and opportunities for quality improvement and cost containment. And finally, with greater quality reporting and transparency, we can begin to have an honest dialogue about health care quality and how to reform our health care system.

Several States have already developed and implemented hospital report card initiatives, and I am proud to say that Illinois began its own report card initiative in January of this year--an initiative that I spearheaded when I served in the Illinois State Senate.

On the national level, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and the Hospital Quality Alliance have partnered to identify and encourage submission of quality measures for several health conditions, on a voluntary basis, in exchange for greater federal reimbursement. The Deficit Reduction Act codified this initiative earlier this year.

The Hospital Report Card Act, which I am introducing today, takes quality measurement one step further, by mandating that the Secretary expand and improve upon current quality reporting for hospitals. Within 18 months, the Secretary would establish a formal Hospital Report Card Initiative, and publish reports on individual hospital quality using data submitted for the value based purchasing program at CMS, but also including other data available to the Secretary. The report cards would report quality measures that align with those used in the National Healthcare Quality Report, including measures of effectiveness, safety, timeliness, efficiency, patient-centeredness, and equity. In addition, the report cards would provide information on other quality priorities for patients, such as staffing levels of nurses, rates of infections acquired in hospitals, volume of procedures performed, and availability of specialized care. The Secretary would also report measures of relevance to a number of priority populations, including women, children and minorities.

The bill requires the Secretary to take steps to ensure that all reported data is accurate and fairly represents hospital quality, and that hospitals have an opportunity to participate in the development of the report card initiative. I also want to make sure that sick patients have full access to the best hospitals, and so the report cards will risk-adjust quality data, so that hospitals are not inadvertently penalized for caring for more challenging patient populations.

We are hearing a lot of rhetoric about patient empowerment and consumer-driven health plans. However, we can't expect patients to make the best choices for their health care in the absence of accurate information on quality and costs. Similarly, we can't expect hospitals to recognize their areas of deficiencies or strengths without a critical look inwards. Finally, we can't expect the Nation at large to support and embrace healthcare reform without greater awareness of quality problems.

The Hospital Quality Report Card Act will help the Nation take one step closer to improving health care quality and containing costs, and I hope my colleagues will join me in passing this critical legislation.

Mr. President, less than 2 months ago, it was announced by Exelon Nuclear that an environmental monitoring program discovered higher than normal concentrations of tritium in the groundwater near the Nuclear Generating Station in Braidwood, IL.

Indications are that this tritium plume is the result of an accidental radioactive wastewater release that occurred approximately 6 to 8 years ago, and now the tritiated water has migrated underground into several drinking wells of nearby residents.

While most of the issues associated with this situation are still under investigation, one issue is clear. Community residents, particularly the State and local officials responsible for the safety and health of their constituents, did not receive full or immediate notification of this contamination--either from Exelon, or the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NRC, the Federal agency with oversight over nuclear plant operations.

I was surprised to learn, that while Federal law requires State and local officials to be notified immediately upon a ``declared emergency,'' Federal law does not require State and local officials to be notified of any other accidental, unplanned, or unintentional radioactive substance releases that may occur if those releases do not immediately rise to a public health or safety threat. And while those incidents must be documented with the NRC and made available to the public, accessing that information is contingent upon the public and State and local officials actually knowing that these incidents ever occurred.

When radioactive substances are released into the environment outside of normal operating procedures, notifying State and local officials should not be a courtesy; it should be the law.

That's why today I am introducing the Nuclear Release Notice Act of 2006, a bill designed to expand the public's right to know when radioactive substances are released from a reactor. Specifically, the bill is designed to accomplish the following: (1) to ensure that the licensees notify State and local officials at the same time the NRC is notified regarding unplanned incidents that occur at local nuclear power plants; (2) to add State and local reporting requirements not just on incidents regarding fissionable material releases, but on all unplanned radioactive substance releases that are outside of normal operating limits; (3) to add State and local reporting requirements when releases exceed not just NRC limits for normal operation, but also when they exceed other Federal limits and standards for groundwater and other types of contamination; (4) to ensure than any repeat unplanned releases of radioactive substances--even if within allowable limits-- that occur more than twice within 2 years are reported to State, local and NRC officials--so that we all know when poor maintenance, malfunctions of poor design are going unfixed; and (5) to provide that violations of this provision could result in the revocation of the operating license of the licensee.

As energy demand throughout the Nation increases in the coming decades, we will be challenged in how best to meet these consumption demands without sacrificing the environment. That means using all of our energy resources fully and wisely, including wind, solar, and other important renewable power-generating resources.

Moreover, as Congress considers policies to address air quality and the deleterious effects of carbon emission's on the global ecosystem, it is reasonable--and realistic--for nuclear power to remain on the table for consideration. Illinois has 11 nuclear power plants--the most of any State in the country--and nuclear power provides more than half of Illinois' electricity needs.

The people of Illinois--and all residents who live near nuclear power plants--have a right to know when actions are taken that might affect their safety and well-being. This bill furthers this commonsense goal, and I urge my colleagues to support it.