Floor Statements

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.

Mr. President, 4 years ago, following one of the most devastating attacks in our Nation's history, Congress passed the USA PATRIOT Act to give our Nation's law enforcement the tools they needed to track down terrorists who plot and lurk within our own borders and all over the world--terrorists who, right now, are looking to exploit weaknesses in our laws and our security to carry out even deadlier attacks than we saw on September 11th.

We all agreed that we needed legislation to make it harder for suspected terrorists to go undetected in this country. Americans everywhere wanted that.

But soon after the PATRIOT Act passed, a few years before I ever arrived in the Senate, I began hearing concerns from people of every background and political leaning that this law didn't just provide law enforcement the powers it needed to keep us safe, but powers it didn't need to invade our privacy without cause or suspicion.

Now, at times this issue has tended to degenerate into an ``either- or'' type of debate. Either we protect our people from terror or we protect our most cherished principles. But that is a false choice. It asks too little of us and assumes too little about America.

Fortunately, last year, the Senate recognized that this was a false choice. We put patriotism before partisanship and engaged in a real, open, and substantive debate about how to fix the PATRIOT Act. And Republicans and Democrats came together to propose sensible improvements to the Act. Unfortunately, the House was resistant to these changes, and that's why we're voting on the compromise before us.

Let me be clear: this compromise is not as good as the Senate version of the bill, nor is it as good as the SAFE Act that I have cosponsored. I suspect the vast majority of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle feel the same way. But, it's still better than what the House originally proposed.

This compromise does modestly improve the PATRIOT Act by strengthening civil liberties protections without sacrificing the tools that law enforcement needs to keep us safe. In this compromise:

We strengthened judicial review of both national security letters, the administrative subpoenas used by the FBI, and Section 215 orders, which can be used to obtain medical, financial and other personal records.

We established hard-time limits on sneak-and-peak searches and limits on roving wiretaps.

We protected most libraries from being subject to national security letters.

We preserved an individual's right to seek counsel and hire an attorney without fearing the FBI's wrath.

And we allowed judicial review of the gag orders that accompany Section 215 searches.

The compromise is far from perfect. I would have liked to see stronger judicial review of national security letters and shorter time limits on sneak and peak searches, among other things.

Senator Feingold has proposed several sensible amendments--that I support--to address these issues. Unfortunately, the Majority Leader is preventing Senator Feingold from offering these amendments through procedural tactics. That is regrettable because it flies in the face of the bipartisan cooperation that allowed the Senate to pass unanimously its version of the Patriot Act--a version that balanced security and civil liberty, partisanship and patriotism.

The Majority Leader's tactics are even more troubling because we will need to work on a bipartisan basis to address national security challenges in the weeks and months to come. In particular, members on both sides of the aisle will need to take a careful look at President Bush's use of warrantless wiretaps and determine the right balance between protecting our security and safeguarding our civil liberties. This is a complex issue. But only by working together and avoiding election-year politicking will we be able to give our government the necessary tools to wage the war on terror without sacrificing the rule of law.

So, I will be supporting the PATRIOT Act compromise. But I urge my colleagues to continue working on ways to improve the civil liberties protections in the PATRIOT Act after it is reauthorized.

Mr. President, as our Nation faces staggering healthcare costs, rising rates of chronic conditions, and a growing wage gap between the haves and the have-nots, we must acknowledge the vital importance of this Nation's safety net--the Medicaid program. The Medicaid program is the provider of healthcare for more than 50 million Americans--young and old, black and white, and the disabled.

As many of us would argue, and as stated by the President in this year's State of the Union Address, the government has a responsibility to help provide healthcare for the poor and the elderly. I ask you to question whether we meet that responsibility with section 6036 of the Deficit Reduction Act that requires citizenship documentation for individuals seeking Medicaid. In order for our country to have healthy children, a healthy workforce and healthy communities, we must not deter Americans from seeking medical care, and yet this provision would do just that.

Much of the public scrutiny on Medicaid spending has focused on the costs of providing care to undocumented immigrant populations. Some believe that requirements for documentation of citizenship will curtail alleged abuse of the Medicaid program by illegal immigrants. Yet, a study conducted by the HHS Inspector General failed to find any substantial evidence that illegal immigrants are fraudulently getting Medicaid coverage by claiming they are citizens, and he did not recommend any new requirements for documentation of citizenship.

If the requirement to document citizenship will not affect illegal immigrants, who are in fact not using the Medicaid program, than we must ask ourselves who will be affected by this requirement?

Let's think about the senior with Alzheimer's disease and the difficulty she experiences in remembering the name of her daughter, let alone where she placed her birth certificate. Let us think about the families who survived Hurricane Katrina, who lost their homes with all their possessions, including their passports. Let us think about the children being raised by cash-strapped grandparents and other relatives, who will incur additional costs for obtaining required documents.

About one out of every twelve U.S.-born adults, or 1.7 million Americans, who have incomes below $25,000 report that they do not have a U.S. passport or birth certificate in their possession. In addition, studies have shown that there are up to 2.9 million Medicaid-eligible children without such documentation.

These figures are even higher for other populations. While 5.7 percent of all adults at all income levels report they lack birth certificates or passports, this percentage rises to 7 percent for senior citizens age 65 or older, and 9 percent each for African American adults, adults without a high school diploma and adults living in rural areas. Notably, these figures do not include many other groups who would also experience difficulty in securing these documents, such as Native Americans born in home settings, nursing-home residents, Hurricane Katrina survivors, and homeless individuals. The documentation requirements in section 6036 would apply to all current beneficiaries and future applicants, allowing for no exceptions, even for those with serious mental or physical disabilities such as Alzheimer's disease or those who lack documents due to homelessness or a disaster such as Hurricane Katrina.

The costs to individuals applying for Medicaid coverage is matched by the overwhelming administrative costs associated with the documentation requirements. If birth certificates or passports are required for Medicaid enrollment, approximately 50 percent of

state officials have reported that they would have to hire additional personnel to handle the increased workload with significant, additional administrative and financial costs. The National Association for Public Health Statistics and Information Systems predicts a 50 percent increase in the volume of birth certificate requests if requirements for birth certificates or passports for Medicaid applications are imposed, resulting in significant delays in processing all birth certificate applications. State resources are already stretched too thin, and we should not impose additional and unnecessary burdens.

At a time when this administration is touting health care tax breaks, which will benefit those who need the least help, it is critical that members of Congress remember the worst off and the most vulnerable members of our society. Medicaid is their lifeline to a healthy and productive future, and we should not obstruct access to this program.

Senator Akaka, Senator Bingaman and I have introduced this bill to eliminate requirements for citizenship documentation from Medicaid, and I urge all of my colleagues to support us in passing this critical act.

Mr. President, as our Nation faces staggering healthcare costs, rising rates of chronic conditions, and a growing wage gap between the haves and the have-nots, we must acknowledge the vital importance of this Nation's safety net--the Medicaid program. The Medicaid program is the provider of healthcare for more than 50 million Americans--young and old, black and white, and the disabled.

As many of us would argue, and as stated by the President in this year's State of the Union Address, the government has a responsibility to help provide healthcare for the poor and the elderly. I ask you to question whether we meet that responsibility with section 6036 of the Deficit Reduction Act that requires citizenship documentation for individuals seeking Medicaid. In order for our country to have healthy children, a healthy workforce and healthy communities, we must not deter Americans from seeking medical care, and yet this provision would do just that.

Much of the public scrutiny on Medicaid spending has focused on the costs of providing care to undocumented immigrant populations. Some believe that requirements for documentation of citizenship will curtail alleged abuse of the Medicaid program by illegal immigrants. Yet, a study conducted by the HHS Inspector General failed to find any substantial evidence that illegal immigrants are fraudulently getting Medicaid coverage by claiming they are citizens, and he did not recommend any new requirements for documentation of citizenship.

If the requirement to document citizenship will not affect illegal immigrants, who are in fact not using the Medicaid program, than we must ask ourselves who will be affected by this requirement?

Let's think about the senior with Alzheimer's disease and the difficulty she experiences in remembering the name of her daughter, let alone where she placed her birth certificate. Let us think about the families who survived Hurricane Katrina, who lost their homes with all their possessions, including their passports. Let us think about the children being raised by cash-strapped grandparents and other relatives, who will incur additional costs for obtaining required documents.

About one out of every twelve U.S.-born adults, or 1.7 million Americans, who have incomes below $25,000 report that they do not have a U.S. passport or birth certificate in their possession. In addition, studies have shown that there are up to 2.9 million Medicaid-eligible children without such documentation.

These figures are even higher for other populations. While 5.7 percent of all adults at all income levels report they lack birth certificates or passports, this percentage rises to 7 percent for senior citizens age 65 or older, and 9 percent each for African American adults, adults without a high school diploma and adults living in rural areas. Notably, these figures do not include many other groups who would also experience difficulty in securing these documents, such as Native Americans born in home settings, nursing-home residents, Hurricane Katrina survivors, and homeless individuals. The documentation requirements in section 6036 would apply to all current beneficiaries and future applicants, allowing for no exceptions, even for those with serious mental or physical disabilities such as Alzheimer's disease or those who lack documents due to homelessness or a disaster such as Hurricane Katrina.

The costs to individuals applying for Medicaid coverage is matched by the overwhelming administrative costs associated with the documentation requirements. If birth certificates or passports are required for Medicaid enrollment, approximately 50 percent of

state officials have reported that they would have to hire additional personnel to handle the increased workload with significant, additional administrative and financial costs. The National Association for Public Health Statistics and Information Systems predicts a 50 percent increase in the volume of birth certificate requests if requirements for birth certificates or passports for Medicaid applications are imposed, resulting in significant delays in processing all birth certificate applications. State resources are already stretched too thin, and we should not impose additional and unnecessary burdens.

At a time when this administration is touting health care tax breaks, which will benefit those who need the least help, it is critical that members of Congress remember the worst off and the most vulnerable members of our society. Medicaid is their lifeline to a healthy and productive future, and we should not obstruct access to this program.

Senator Akaka, Senator Bingaman and I have introduced this bill to eliminate requirements for citizenship documentation from Medicaid, and I urge all of my colleagues to support us in passing this critical act.

Mr. President, today, I am introducing new legislation to address a growing problem in our country, one that is robbing thousands of Americans of their dream of homeownership, and costing the mortgage industry hundreds of millions of dollars each year.

I am talking about the problem of mortgage fraud--the practice of defrauding individuals of their rightful property, and using tricks and schemes to steal from banks and other financial institutions. Mortgage fraud comes in a variety of forms, from inflated appraisals to the use of straw buyers, but the net result is the same: financial institutions lose out to the tune of approximately $1.01 billion each year, and consumers lose their savings, their good credit, and their homes.

Although the data in this area is limited, mortgage fraud is clearly on the rise. According to the FBI, mortgage fraud cases were up 25 percent last year, and 400 percent since 2002. Further, in 2004, the mortgage industry noted 12,000 cases of suspicious activity, three times the amount reported in 2001. This is due largely to the housing boom which is driving up housing prices across the country. Nearly $2.5 trillion in mortgage loans were made during 2005, and the number is only expected to rise this year.

But mortgage fraud is about more than just dollars and statistics; it's about real people, real homes, and real lives. My hometown Chicago Tribune has featured a series of articles about mortgage fraud in Illinois, which, along with Georgia, South Carolina, Florida, Missouri, Michigan, California, Nevada, Colorado and Utah, is among the FBI's top-ten mortgage fraud `hot spots.'

The stories highlight, for example, the plight of the good folks on May Street in Chicago, who saw a block's worth of homes go boarded up in the span of a just few years, as swindlers

racked up hundreds of thousands of dollars in bad loans, and left shells of houses behind. The Tribune stories highlighted the plight of 75-year-old Ruth Williams, who had to spend her personal funds to clear the title to her home after fraudsters secured $400,000 in loans on three buildings they didn't own. And two doors down from Ms. Williams, Corey Latimer can't sell his building or borrow against it, because a lending company hasn't released a phony mortgage that Corey didn't authorize.

Law enforcement, consumer groups and many in the mortgage industry are doing what they can to combat fraud, and I applaud their good work. Now, Congress needs to come to the table and do its part.

I, along with Senator Durbin and Senator Menendez, am introducing the STOP FRAUD Act today to address the critical problem of mortgage fraud. STOP FRAUD (Stopping Transactions which Operate to Promote Fraud, Risk and Under-Development) would provide the first Federal definition of mortgage fraud and authorize stiff criminal penalties against fraudulent actors. STOP FRAUD requires a wide range of mortgage professionals to report suspected fraudulent activity, and gives these same professionals safe harbor from liability when they report suspicious incidents. It also authorizes several grant programs to help State and local law enforcement fight fraud, provide the mortgage industry with updates on fraud trends, and further support the Departments of Treasury, Justice and Housing and Urban Development's fraud-fighting efforts.

The STOP FRAUD Act will build upon the good work of the FBI, the Treasury Department, HUD, consumer groups, many in the mortgage industry, and State and local law enforcement, giving them the tools they need to stop mortgage fraud in its tracks. The cost of this bill is well worth the benefit to American taxpayers and companies, and it has been endorsed by a range of law enforcement and consumer groups. The Illinois Attorney General's office and the Chicago Police Department have told me how valuable this bill would be to their enforcement efforts, and ACORN, the Center For Responsible Lending, the National Association of Consumer Advocates, the National Community Reinvestment Coalition, National Consumer Law Center, and U.S. PIRG said in a recent letter that this bill would ``help protect consumers from fraudulent and abusive practices in the mortgage industry.''

The STOP FRAUD Act is a tough, cost-effective, and balanced way to address the serious problem of mortgage fraud in our country. I urge my colleagues to join me in this important effort.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the ``Equality for Two-Parent Families Act of 2006'' that I am introducing with Senator Bayh. When Congress reauthorized the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program as part of the Spending Reconciliation bill two weeks ago, we failed to eliminate a pernicious disincentive to marriage that was contained in that bill. The Equality for Two-Parent Families Act will correct that unfortunate error.

Republicans and Democrats often have different ideas about how best to promote self sufficiency and economic mobility for low-income families. But one thing on which we all can agree is that children are better off when they grow up with two responsible parents.

The evidence shows that, on average, children in two-parent families do better in school and are more likely to lead successful, independent lives. That is why recent TANF legislation, including the bipartisan PRIDE Act in the Senate and H.R. 240 in the House, and Administration proposals have recognized that the separate two-parent work participation standard, which introduces an anti-marriage bias in TANF, should be eliminated.

Unfortunately, the recent TANF reauthorization failed to reflect this long-standing consensus. Instead, the new law compels States to meet an unequal work participation standard with their own State-funded programs. Whereas States must ensure that 50 percent of their single parents satisfy the work requirements, they will be penalized if fewer than 90 percent of their two-parent families meet what are even greater work requirements.

As a result, many States, including Illinois which until now has successfully served two-parent families in its state program, may now face an unfortunate choice: stop serving two-parent families or face a penalty. I even heard one welfare official joke that States may be better off paying couples to split up in order to avoid possible penalties. What kind of incentive is that?

Requiring States to treat two-parent families differently undermines efforts on both the state and federal level to promote and strengthen two-parent families. It is especially ironic that the policy is part of a bill that includes funding for marriage promotion and fatherhood programs.

The remedy for this contradiction is clear; we must eliminate the separate two-parent work participation standard. Senator Bayh and I have introduced the ``Equality for Two-Parent Families Act of 2006'' to eliminate this standard and rectify the inequity in current TANF policy. Our bill does not change two-parent work requirements or interfere with State efforts to promote employment and reduce caseloads. Instead, our bill reinforces State efforts to support two- parent families in the ways that they know best.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and join us in promoting stronger families. Thank you for your attention to this important matter.

Mr. President, today, I am introducing new legislation to address a growing problem in our country, one that is robbing thousands of Americans of their dream of homeownership, and costing the mortgage industry hundreds of millions of dollars each year.

I am talking about the problem of mortgage fraud--the practice of defrauding individuals of their rightful property, and using tricks and schemes to steal from banks and other financial institutions. Mortgage fraud comes in a variety of forms, from inflated appraisals to the use of straw buyers, but the net result is the same: financial institutions lose out to the tune of approximately $1.01 billion each year, and consumers lose their savings, their good credit, and their homes.

Although the data in this area is limited, mortgage fraud is clearly on the rise. According to the FBI, mortgage fraud cases were up 25 percent last year, and 400 percent since 2002. Further, in 2004, the mortgage industry noted 12,000 cases of suspicious activity, three times the amount reported in 2001. This is due largely to the housing boom which is driving up housing prices across the country. Nearly $2.5 trillion in mortgage loans were made during 2005, and the number is only expected to rise this year.

But mortgage fraud is about more than just dollars and statistics; it's about real people, real homes, and real lives. My hometown Chicago Tribune has featured a series of articles about mortgage fraud in Illinois, which, along with Georgia, South Carolina, Florida, Missouri, Michigan, California, Nevada, Colorado and Utah, is among the FBI's top-ten mortgage fraud `hot spots.'

The stories highlight, for example, the plight of the good folks on May Street in Chicago, who saw a block's worth of homes go boarded up in the span of a just few years, as swindlers

racked up hundreds of thousands of dollars in bad loans, and left shells of houses behind. The Tribune stories highlighted the plight of 75-year-old Ruth Williams, who had to spend her personal funds to clear the title to her home after fraudsters secured $400,000 in loans on three buildings they didn't own. And two doors down from Ms. Williams, Corey Latimer can't sell his building or borrow against it, because a lending company hasn't released a phony mortgage that Corey didn't authorize.

Law enforcement, consumer groups and many in the mortgage industry are doing what they can to combat fraud, and I applaud their good work. Now, Congress needs to come to the table and do its part.

I, along with Senator Durbin and Senator Menendez, am introducing the STOP FRAUD Act today to address the critical problem of mortgage fraud. STOP FRAUD (Stopping Transactions which Operate to Promote Fraud, Risk and Under-Development) would provide the first Federal definition of mortgage fraud and authorize stiff criminal penalties against fraudulent actors. STOP FRAUD requires a wide range of mortgage professionals to report suspected fraudulent activity, and gives these same professionals safe harbor from liability when they report suspicious incidents. It also authorizes several grant programs to help State and local law enforcement fight fraud, provide the mortgage industry with updates on fraud trends, and further support the Departments of Treasury, Justice and Housing and Urban Development's fraud-fighting efforts.

The STOP FRAUD Act will build upon the good work of the FBI, the Treasury Department, HUD, consumer groups, many in the mortgage industry, and State and local law enforcement, giving them the tools they need to stop mortgage fraud in its tracks. The cost of this bill is well worth the benefit to American taxpayers and companies, and it has been endorsed by a range of law enforcement and consumer groups. The Illinois Attorney General's office and the Chicago Police Department have told me how valuable this bill would be to their enforcement efforts, and ACORN, the Center For Responsible Lending, the National Association of Consumer Advocates, the National Community Reinvestment Coalition, National Consumer Law Center, and U.S. PIRG said in a recent letter that this bill would ``help protect consumers from fraudulent and abusive practices in the mortgage industry.''

The STOP FRAUD Act is a tough, cost-effective, and balanced way to address the serious problem of mortgage fraud in our country. I urge my colleagues to join me in this important effort.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the ``Equality for Two-Parent Families Act of 2006'' that I am introducing with Senator Bayh. When Congress reauthorized the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program as part of the Spending Reconciliation bill two weeks ago, we failed to eliminate a pernicious disincentive to marriage that was contained in that bill. The Equality for Two-Parent Families Act will correct that unfortunate error.

Republicans and Democrats often have different ideas about how best to promote self sufficiency and economic mobility for low-income families. But one thing on which we all can agree is that children are better off when they grow up with two responsible parents.

The evidence shows that, on average, children in two-parent families do better in school and are more likely to lead successful, independent lives. That is why recent TANF legislation, including the bipartisan PRIDE Act in the Senate and H.R. 240 in the House, and Administration proposals have recognized that the separate two-parent work participation standard, which introduces an anti-marriage bias in TANF, should be eliminated.

Unfortunately, the recent TANF reauthorization failed to reflect this long-standing consensus. Instead, the new law compels States to meet an unequal work participation standard with their own State-funded programs. Whereas States must ensure that 50 percent of their single parents satisfy the work requirements, they will be penalized if fewer than 90 percent of their two-parent families meet what are even greater work requirements.

As a result, many States, including Illinois which until now has successfully served two-parent families in its state program, may now face an unfortunate choice: stop serving two-parent families or face a penalty. I even heard one welfare official joke that States may be better off paying couples to split up in order to avoid possible penalties. What kind of incentive is that?

Requiring States to treat two-parent families differently undermines efforts on both the state and federal level to promote and strengthen two-parent families. It is especially ironic that the policy is part of a bill that includes funding for marriage promotion and fatherhood programs.

The remedy for this contradiction is clear; we must eliminate the separate two-parent work participation standard. Senator Bayh and I have introduced the ``Equality for Two-Parent Families Act of 2006'' to eliminate this standard and rectify the inequity in current TANF policy. Our bill does not change two-parent work requirements or interfere with State efforts to promote employment and reduce caseloads. Instead, our bill reinforces State efforts to support two- parent families in the ways that they know best.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and join us in promoting stronger families. Thank you for your attention to this important matter.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Montana for the excellent work he has been doing.

I send a motion to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, 2 weeks ago, in a debate on the Senate version of the tax reconciliation bill, I proposed an amendment to provide tax relief for victims of Katrina, paid for by restricting the extension of capital gains and dividend tax cuts only to people with incomes under $100 million. My amendment would have made all children of working parents in the disaster area eligible for at least a partial credit.

For the convenience of my colleagues, I agreed not to demand a vote on that amendment. But I rise again to urge my colleagues not to forget Katrina and her victims who continue to struggle. In a bill with $70 billion of tax cuts, surely we can find $274 million to do something for the most vulnerable members of our society.

In the weeks after Katrina made landfall, President Bush vowed to do what it takes to help the region recover. We wanted to believe him. We had witnessed the devastation caused by the hurricane, and we saw the terror of poor families with their lives turned upside down, homes destroyed, jobs and businesses lost, families separated, and lives permanently changed.

At the time, the President said:

We have a duty to confront this poverty with bold action.

Almost 6 months later, the Government's actions have not matched the President's rhetoric. Evacuees are getting kicked out of their hotel rooms this week because FEMA stopped paying the bill. Thousands of temporary mobile homes ordered by FEMA are sitting empty in nearby Southern States. The Federal response continues to be inadequate to get the families back on their feet.

We can do better for these families. At a time when we are debating $70 billion of tax cuts, most of which will benefit corporations and people who need help the least, why not set aside a small fraction to help those who need it most?

One way to help those who need help the most is to enhance the refundable portion of the child tax credit. Under current law, families who earn less than $11,000 get no benefit from the refundable child credit. That means that a child does not get any benefit from the credit even if her parents work full time at the minimum wage. And the child doesn't get the full benefit of the $1,000 credit until her parents earn close to $18,000, or even more if the child has siblings. As a result, almost 17 million children get less than the full credit. Wouldn't it make sense to recognize the damage wrought by the hurricane and to eliminate the income threshold that excludes the poorest of children from getting the credit? Wouldn't it make sense to say to the children affected by Katrina that they will no longer be denied at least a partial credit so long as their parents are working?

The cost of this fix is estimated at $274 million over 2 years. To get a sense of perspective, that is less than one-half of 1 percent of the cost of this entire bill. It is a matter of common sense and fairness--the least we can do when we are cutting taxes for wealthy Americans. If we do this, hundreds of thousands of this country's most disadvantaged children will see an increase in their credit--not as a handout but because their parents work.

I hope we don't forget the images we witnessed in the aftermath of the hurricane--the people, their suffering, and the devastation. We shouldn't forget the daily struggles families right now are going through trying to rebuild their lives. Let us not forget our Government's promise to do what it takes for families along the gulf coast. Let us not forget our duty, as the President put it, to confront poverty with bold action.

I urge my colleagues to join me in instructing the Senate managers to provide tax relief for the most vulnerable members of our society. Together, let us urge them to remember the low-income victims of Katrina and the children and families too poor to benefit fully from the refundable child credit. Obviously, this is a modest piece of legislation. It is a motion to instruct. My suspicion is that even if it passed, other priorities would move to the fore.

Let me say in closing that it is shameful, what is happening in the gulf coast right now. I think all of us recognize the scope of the devastation. All of us were embarrassed at the slow response immediately after the hurricane. It has now been 6 months. We have not shown the sense of urgency that the American people did privately after the hurricane. I would hope that at least we can send some small signal that we are concerned about the kids who are languishing, who have been uprooted, who aren't in the schools they were attending and in the neighborhoods in which they grew up.

This is one way to send that signal, and I urge my colleagues to support my motion.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Hurricane Katrina Working Family Tax Relief Act of 2006. I am proud to introduce this bill, along with Senators Landrieu, Durbin, and Kerry, to keep a promise the President made to rebuild the Gulf Coast in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. Last week the Senate approved a $70 billion bill laden with tax cuts for the wealthy and well-connected. This bill, which costs less than 1 percent as much, uses a proven tool in our tax code--the child tax credit--to extend aid to low-income working families affected by Hurricane Katrina.

Currently, the child credit allows families with qualifying children to receive a credit of $1,000 per child against their Federal income tax. Unfortunately, families that earn less than $11,000 get no benefit from the refundable child credit. That means that a child is left out of the credit even if her parent works full time at minimum wage, which has not increased since 1997. And the child doesn't get the full benefit of the $1,000 credit until her parent earns close to $18,000, or even more if the child has siblings. And if her parents' income does not keep up with inflation, for any reason, the

value of the credit drops or even disappears.

We all know of the devastation wrought by Hurricane Katrina. It will be a long time before families on the Gulf Coast can rebuild their lives. Many of them have seen their homes destroyed, their jobs eliminated, their families separated, and their lives irrevocably changed. Unfortunately, the Federal response so far has been inadequate to get these families effectively back on their feet. We are now learning of thousands of evacuees getting kicked out of their hotel rooms because FEMA has stopped paying the bills.

We can do better for these families. Life was hard for many of them even before Katrina hit. Prior to the hurricane, there were over 2 million people living below poverty in the affected States. In some of the affected counties and parishes, more than 1 in 4 children lived below the poverty level.

In Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama, for example, more than 900,000 children under 17-years-old were so poor that they got no child tax credit or only a partial credit. These States had among the highest rates in the Nation of children too poor to get the full credit.

This bill will provide necessary assistance to many of these families. The bill eliminates the income threshold that excluded all children in families with less than $11,000 of income. With this bill, the children of low-income working parents affected by Hurricane Katrina will no longer be denied the child credit.

It's simple: if you work, your kids get a benefit. This bill provides a partial credit starting with the first dollar of a parent's income for families who lived in the areas affected by Hurricane Katrina. You work, your kids get a benefit. If you don't work, no benefit.

That's a commonsense way to support families with children, especially families that have experienced the huge cost--psychological and financial--of a natural disaster.

This bill is also narrowly tailored and fiscally responsible. It provides short-term support targeted at families affected by the hurricane, and its costs can easily be absorbed within the $97 billion already committed to hurricane relief.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill, which will enable hundreds of thousands of this country's most disadvantaged children to see an increase in their credit. Katrina offered a reminder of poverty in our own country. Let's not forget so quickly. We owe it to the American people to do something to provide a chance for our neediest children to rebuild their lives with dignity, hope, and opportunity.

Mr. President, today, I am introducing new legislation to build on the excellent work my colleagues began with the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act.

That bill would close the revolving door between Capitol Hill and lobbying jobs. It would end all lobbyist-funded gifts, meals, and travel, and it would shine a bright light of monitoring and public disclosure on lobbyists' operations, secret conference committee negotiations and last-minute special-interest provisions.

These are important steps forward that should be approved by this Congress and signed into law. The first bill I am introducing now builds on these steps by focusing on enforcement. We can pass all the new ethics rules in the world, but if we don't establish a body that can monitor and enforce those rules, it'll be easy to break them.

My legislation will establish a nonpartisan, independent Congressional Ethics Enforcement Commission that would investigate ethics violations and report their findings to the public.

The idea of an independent Commission to conduct initial investigations is not new. It is modeled on successful efforts in a number of States including Kentucky, Florida, and Tennessee. Similar commissions in those States have a track record of working well and making the ethics enforcement process much more effective.

My commission would be staffed with former judges and former members of Congress, and it would allow any citizen to report a possible ethics violation by lawmakers, staff, or lobbyists. It would have the authority to conduct investigations, issue subpoenas, and provide public reports to the Senate Ethics Committee or Department of Justice so that any wrongdoing can be punished accordingly.

To prevent this Commission from being manipulated for partisan political purposes, the bill establishes stiff sanctions for the filing of frivolous complaints, and prohibits the filing of complaints three months before an election.

Although, the ultimate power to reprimand members would remain with the Ethics Committees in Congress and the Department of Justice, the new Congressional Ethics Enforcement Commission would make these bodies more effective by removing political pressure from the initial fact- finding phase of ethics investigations. In addition, the Commission's independent capacity to issue public findings would encourage the Ethics Committees to act.

I am proud that this legislation has support across the political spectrum, earning the endorsement of both Common Cause and Norm Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute. Ornstein said this about my enforcement bill: ``This approach to ethics enforcement is just the kind of balanced and reasonable alternative we need. . . . It deserves strong bipartisan support.''

I strongly encourage my colleagues to join me in creating this Commission to restore credibility to the body on the enforcement of ethics.

I am also introducing legislation to build on the CLEAN UP Act (S. 2179) that I introduced last month.

The CLEAN UP Act was written to provide for greater transparency in the legislative process and in conference committees in particular. It has won the support of eight of my colleagues, and I hope the Transparency and Integrity in Earmarks Act that I am introducing today will gain their support, as well as the rest of my colleagues.

The Transparency and Integrity in Earmarks Act would require that information about all earmarks, including the name of the lawmaker requesting it and a justification of why they want it, be disclosed 72 hours before they are considered by the full Senate.

The bill would also place some common-sense limits on earmarks. Members would be prohibited from advocating for an earmark if they have a financial interest in the project or its recipient. Earmarks also could not be used to secure promises from lawmakers in exchange for a vote on a bill. Finally, earmark recipients would have to disclose the amount that they spent on lobbyists in order to get their project passed. These earmark reforms won't solve every abuse, but the idea is this: if you're proud enough about an earmark to issue a press release about it, then you should be able to defend it to the public.

Several of these ideas are contained in a bill introduced by Rep. David Obey. I am grateful for his leadership on this issue in the House.

I know this is not the only proposal on earmarks before the Senate. But I believe this combines the best ideas without creating procedural roadblocks to legitimate projects in our communities. This is a balanced approach that I believe a majority of the Senate can--and should--support. Thank you.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Hurricane Katrina Working Family Tax Relief Act of 2006. I am proud to introduce this bill, along with Senators Landrieu, Durbin, and Kerry, to keep a promise the President made to rebuild the Gulf Coast in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. Last week the Senate approved a $70 billion bill laden with tax cuts for the wealthy and well-connected. This bill, which costs less than 1 percent as much, uses a proven tool in our tax code--the child tax credit--to extend aid to low-income working families affected by Hurricane Katrina.

Currently, the child credit allows families with qualifying children to receive a credit of $1,000 per child against their Federal income tax. Unfortunately, families that earn less than $11,000 get no benefit from the refundable child credit. That means that a child is left out of the credit even if her parent works full time at minimum wage, which has not increased since 1997. And the child doesn't get the full benefit of the $1,000 credit until her parent earns close to $18,000, or even more if the child has siblings. And if her parents' income does not keep up with inflation, for any reason, the

value of the credit drops or even disappears.

We all know of the devastation wrought by Hurricane Katrina. It will be a long time before families on the Gulf Coast can rebuild their lives. Many of them have seen their homes destroyed, their jobs eliminated, their families separated, and their lives irrevocably changed. Unfortunately, the Federal response so far has been inadequate to get these families effectively back on their feet. We are now learning of thousands of evacuees getting kicked out of their hotel rooms because FEMA has stopped paying the bills.

We can do better for these families. Life was hard for many of them even before Katrina hit. Prior to the hurricane, there were over 2 million people living below poverty in the affected States. In some of the affected counties and parishes, more than 1 in 4 children lived below the poverty level.

In Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama, for example, more than 900,000 children under 17-years-old were so poor that they got no child tax credit or only a partial credit. These States had among the highest rates in the Nation of children too poor to get the full credit.

This bill will provide necessary assistance to many of these families. The bill eliminates the income threshold that excluded all children in families with less than $11,000 of income. With this bill, the children of low-income working parents affected by Hurricane Katrina will no longer be denied the child credit.

It's simple: if you work, your kids get a benefit. This bill provides a partial credit starting with the first dollar of a parent's income for families who lived in the areas affected by Hurricane Katrina. You work, your kids get a benefit. If you don't work, no benefit.

That's a commonsense way to support families with children, especially families that have experienced the huge cost--psychological and financial--of a natural disaster.

This bill is also narrowly tailored and fiscally responsible. It provides short-term support targeted at families affected by the hurricane, and its costs can easily be absorbed within the $97 billion already committed to hurricane relief.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill, which will enable hundreds of thousands of this country's most disadvantaged children to see an increase in their credit. Katrina offered a reminder of poverty in our own country. Let's not forget so quickly. We owe it to the American people to do something to provide a chance for our neediest children to rebuild their lives with dignity, hope, and opportunity.

Mr. President, today, I am introducing new legislation to build on the excellent work my colleagues began with the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act.

That bill would close the revolving door between Capitol Hill and lobbying jobs. It would end all lobbyist-funded gifts, meals, and travel, and it would shine a bright light of monitoring and public disclosure on lobbyists' operations, secret conference committee negotiations and last-minute special-interest provisions.

These are important steps forward that should be approved by this Congress and signed into law. The first bill I am introducing now builds on these steps by focusing on enforcement. We can pass all the new ethics rules in the world, but if we don't establish a body that can monitor and enforce those rules, it'll be easy to break them.

My legislation will establish a nonpartisan, independent Congressional Ethics Enforcement Commission that would investigate ethics violations and report their findings to the public.

The idea of an independent Commission to conduct initial investigations is not new. It is modeled on successful efforts in a number of States including Kentucky, Florida, and Tennessee. Similar commissions in those States have a track record of working well and making the ethics enforcement process much more effective.

My commission would be staffed with former judges and former members of Congress, and it would allow any citizen to report a possible ethics violation by lawmakers, staff, or lobbyists. It would have the authority to conduct investigations, issue subpoenas, and provide public reports to the Senate Ethics Committee or Department of Justice so that any wrongdoing can be punished accordingly.

To prevent this Commission from being manipulated for partisan political purposes, the bill establishes stiff sanctions for the filing of frivolous complaints, and prohibits the filing of complaints three months before an election.

Although, the ultimate power to reprimand members would remain with the Ethics Committees in Congress and the Department of Justice, the new Congressional Ethics Enforcement Commission would make these bodies more effective by removing political pressure from the initial fact- finding phase of ethics investigations. In addition, the Commission's independent capacity to issue public findings would encourage the Ethics Committees to act.

I am proud that this legislation has support across the political spectrum, earning the endorsement of both Common Cause and Norm Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute. Ornstein said this about my enforcement bill: ``This approach to ethics enforcement is just the kind of balanced and reasonable alternative we need. . . . It deserves strong bipartisan support.''

I strongly encourage my colleagues to join me in creating this Commission to restore credibility to the body on the enforcement of ethics.

I am also introducing legislation to build on the CLEAN UP Act (S. 2179) that I introduced last month.

The CLEAN UP Act was written to provide for greater transparency in the legislative process and in conference committees in particular. It has won the support of eight of my colleagues, and I hope the Transparency and Integrity in Earmarks Act that I am introducing today will gain their support, as well as the rest of my colleagues.

The Transparency and Integrity in Earmarks Act would require that information about all earmarks, including the name of the lawmaker requesting it and a justification of why they want it, be disclosed 72 hours before they are considered by the full Senate.

The bill would also place some common-sense limits on earmarks. Members would be prohibited from advocating for an earmark if they have a financial interest in the project or its recipient. Earmarks also could not be used to secure promises from lawmakers in exchange for a vote on a bill. Finally, earmark recipients would have to disclose the amount that they spent on lobbyists in order to get their project passed. These earmark reforms won't solve every abuse, but the idea is this: if you're proud enough about an earmark to issue a press release about it, then you should be able to defend it to the public.

Several of these ideas are contained in a bill introduced by Rep. David Obey. I am grateful for his leadership on this issue in the House.

I know this is not the only proposal on earmarks before the Senate. But I believe this combines the best ideas without creating procedural roadblocks to legitimate projects in our communities. This is a balanced approach that I believe a majority of the Senate can--and should--support. Thank you.

Mr. President, the American people are facing two, major health care crises--lack of health insurance and the soaring costs of medical care. Nearly 46 million Americans are uninsured, and the number one reason is because they can't afford it. Even those with health insurance are struggling to pay their medical bills. Family incomes can't keep up with rising health costs--health premiums alone have increased 73 percent over the past 5 years, while wages have only risen 15 percent. Unfortunately, we can't fix either of these crises without addressing the other. As health care costs rise, more employers will drop coverage for their employees. As the number of uninsured rise, the cost of their care is subsidized by those individuals that have insurance. It's a vicious cycle, and the longer we wait to act, the more difficult it will be to successfully intervene.

There are many drivers of health care costs, but perhaps the easiest one to tackle is the wasteful, administrative costs associated with health care. Health care is one of the least efficient industries in America. Processing a single transaction in health care can cost as much as $25, whereas banks and brokerages spend less than a penny per transaction. Indeed, administrative costs account for 31 percent of total health care spending, or roughly $465 billion each and every year.

Today, I am introducing a bill that would help to reduce health care administrative costs in the Nation's largest employer-sponsored health insurance program, the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program. FEHBP serves over 8 million Federal Government employees, retirees, and their families, who can choose from over 200 health plan options. The FEHBP Efficiency Act of 2006 would require all health plans participating in FEHBP to develop systems for hospitals and doctors to submit their bills electronically within 4 years.

Ken Thorpe, a health economist at Emory University, has reported that if all FEHBP participating health plans switched to electronic systems for submission of bills, the program could save up to 2 percent of the $31 billion in

total premiums, or over $600 million every year. That is a tremendous amount of savings--money that could be used to expand FEHBP benefits, increase the number of eligible employees, or lower premiums for FEHBP beneficiaries. Using its tremendous purchasing power, the Federal Government could help spur the health care industry to move to a completely paperless system for processing transactions in all government health programs as well as the private sector.

I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort to increase efficiency and reduce costs. Every American should have access to affordable health care, and this bill is one step towards making that a reality.

Mr. President, the American people are facing two, major health care crises--lack of health insurance and the soaring costs of medical care. Nearly 46 million Americans are uninsured, and the number one reason is because they can't afford it. Even those with health insurance are struggling to pay their medical bills. Family incomes can't keep up with rising health costs--health premiums alone have increased 73 percent over the past 5 years, while wages have only risen 15 percent. Unfortunately, we can't fix either of these crises without addressing the other. As health care costs rise, more employers will drop coverage for their employees. As the number of uninsured rise, the cost of their care is subsidized by those individuals that have insurance. It's a vicious cycle, and the longer we wait to act, the more difficult it will be to successfully intervene.

There are many drivers of health care costs, but perhaps the easiest one to tackle is the wasteful, administrative costs associated with health care. Health care is one of the least efficient industries in America. Processing a single transaction in health care can cost as much as $25, whereas banks and brokerages spend less than a penny per transaction. Indeed, administrative costs account for 31 percent of total health care spending, or roughly $465 billion each and every year.

Today, I am introducing a bill that would help to reduce health care administrative costs in the Nation's largest employer-sponsored health insurance program, the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program. FEHBP serves over 8 million Federal Government employees, retirees, and their families, who can choose from over 200 health plan options. The FEHBP Efficiency Act of 2006 would require all health plans participating in FEHBP to develop systems for hospitals and doctors to submit their bills electronically within 4 years.

Ken Thorpe, a health economist at Emory University, has reported that if all FEHBP participating health plans switched to electronic systems for submission of bills, the program could save up to 2 percent of the $31 billion in

total premiums, or over $600 million every year. That is a tremendous amount of savings--money that could be used to expand FEHBP benefits, increase the number of eligible employees, or lower premiums for FEHBP beneficiaries. Using its tremendous purchasing power, the Federal Government could help spur the health care industry to move to a completely paperless system for processing transactions in all government health programs as well as the private sector.

I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort to increase efficiency and reduce costs. Every American should have access to affordable health care, and this bill is one step towards making that a reality.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Montana.

Let me begin by congratulating Senator Harkin for his outstanding explanation of some of the flaws in the reconciliation bill that we are receiving from the House. I thank Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus for the fine work they are doing in trying to deal with what is probably the biggest ticking timebomb we have in the Tax Code, and that is the alternative minimum tax. It is absolutely a critical necessity for us to address that.

Mr. President, I rise to speak about an amendment to the tax reconciliation bill that I intend to offer at the appropriate time.

The amendment achieves two goals. First, it helps keep a promise the President made to rebuild the gulf coast in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. Second, in a $70 billion bill laden with tax cuts for the wealthy and well- connected, it sets aside less than 1 percent for the neediest in our society.

Two weeks after Katrina made landfall, President Bush stood in the ruins of New Orleans and vowed to ``do what it takes'' to help the region recover. He also acknowledged the terrifying images of abject poverty that struck Americans on their TV screens and said, ``We have a duty to confront this poverty with bold action.'' Five months later, the President's timid actions have not matched his bold rhetoric. He has not lived up to his promises.

My amendment uses a cost-effective and proven tool in our tax code-- the child tax credit--to extend aid to 1ow-income working families affected by Hurricane Katrina.

Enacted in 1997, the child credit allows families with qualifying children to receive a credit of $1,000 per child against their Federal income tax. Unfortunately, the credit is skewed so that many families who need it the most can't get it.

Under current law, families that earn less than $11,000 get no benefit from the refundable child credit. That means that a child is left out of the credit even if her parent works full time at minimum wage, which has not increased since 1997. And the child doesn't get the full benefit of the $1,000 credit until her parent earns close to $18,000, or even more if the child has siblings.

What's worse, if her parents' incomes stagnate, are disrupted for any reason, or the economy stalls and work hours or wages are reduced, the value of the credit drops or even disappears. Under current law, almost 17 million children get less than the full credit.

We all know what happened to the families on the gulf coast due to Hurricane Katrina, and it will be a long time before these families can rebuild their lives. Many of the families in the affected States were evacuated to other areas, and many of them cannot even afford to go back. And the Federal response so far has been inadequate to get these families effectively back on their feet.

We need to do better. At a time when we are debating $70 billion of tax breaks, many of which will benefit those who need the least help, it is critical that we remember the worst off and the most vulnerable members of our society.

When I went to Houston after the hurricane, I met an evacuee from New Orleans who said to me: ``we had nothing before the hurricane, and now we've got less than nothing.'' Life was hard for many families even before Katrina hit. In Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama, for example, more than 900,000 children under 17 years of age were so poor that they got no child tax credit or only a partial credit. These States had among the highest rates of children too poor to get the full credit. In fact, more than one-third of the children in Mississippi and Louisiana didn't get the full benefit of the child tax credit. That is what our measure is designed to do.

This amendment, at a cost of less than 1 percent of the overall tax reconciliation bill, will provide necessary assistance to many of these families. The amendment eliminates the income threshold that excluded all children in families with less than $11,000 of income.

My amendment sends a simple message: If you work, your kids get a benefit. It provides a partial credit starting with the first dollar of a parent's income for families who lived in the areas affected by Hurricane Katrina.

The amendment is simple. It says that the children of low-income working parents affected by Hurricane Katrina will no longer be denied the child credit. You work, your kids get a benefit. If you don't work, no benefit. And if you want the full benefit, you have to earn at least $10,000, which is just about the income of a full time job at minimum wage.

That's a commonsense way to support families with children, especially families that have experienced the huge cost--psychological and financial--of a natural disaster.

My amendment is also narrowly tailored and fiscally responsible. It is aimed at families affected by the hurricanes, and it provides short- term support, expiring in 2008.

With this amendment, hundreds of thousands of this country's most disadvantaged children will see an increase in their credit. Katrina offered us a window into America's poverty. Let's not let that window close without doing something to provide a chance for America's children to rebuild their lives with dignity, hope, and opportunity. That is what this country is about. I hope that is what this Chamber is about.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I am introducing a resolution honoring the life and contributions of Coretta Scott King. I hope all my colleagues will join me in this effort.

I am happy to.