Floor Statements

Mr. President, I thank the senior Senator from Alaska for joining me to discuss an issue of growing importance for our service members wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Recently, USA Today reported that many of our injured soldiers are returning from Iraq with a condition known as traumatic brain injury, or TBI. Even though new technology and better body armor are helping soldiers survive bomb and rocket attacks, the blasts are still causing brain damage to them. As of January, 437 cases have been diagnosed in Army hospitals alone, and some doctors are saying that it could become the ``signature wound of the Iraq war.''

TBI is the greatest risk factor for developing epilepsy. In fact, a study of Vietnam vets showed that 51 percent of those who suffered TBI went on to develop this disorder. That is why I filed an amendment to provide $1 million to the Department of Defense Peer Reviewed Medical Research Program for epilepsy research--including research on the relationship between TBI and epilepsy. The Epilepsy Foundation of America supports the amendment.

However, I understand that this important issue is more appropriately addressed in the fiscal year 2006 appropriations process. With that understanding, I will not offer the amendment at this time.

I look forward to working with the Senator from Alaska on this issue. Because epilepsy is a disorder that remains latent for many years, it is important that we work now to better understand the relationship between TBI and epilepsy and prevent the onset of epilepsy in these service members.

I thank the Senator.

Amendment No. 440, As Modified

Mr. President, I ask that the quorum call be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 390 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, today I am offering an amendment to the fiscal year 2005 emergency supplemental which I am pleased to announce is being cosponsored by Senators Corzine, Bingaman, and Graham. This amendment would meet certain needs of our injured service members in recognition of the tremendous sacrifice they have made in defense of our country.

The other day I had the opportunity to visit some of our wounded heroes at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. I know many of you have made the same trip. I heard about their visits, but there is nothing that can fully prepare you for what you see when you take that first step into the physical therapy room.

These are kids in there, our kids, the ones we watched grow up, the ones we hoped would live lives that were happy, healthy, and safe. These kids left their homes and families for a dangerous place halfway around the world. After years of being protected by their parents, these kids risk their lives to protect us. Now some of them have come home from that war with scars that may change their lives forever, scars that may never heal. Yet they sit there in the hospital so full of hope and still so proud of their country. They are the best that America has to offer, and they deserve our highest respect, and they deserve our help.

Recently, I learned that some of our most severely wounded soldiers are being forced to pay for their own meals and their own phone calls while being treated in medical hospitals. Up until last year, there was a law on the books that prohibited soldiers from receiving both their basic subsistence allowance and free meals from the military. Basically, this law allowed the Government to charge our wounded heroes for food while they were recovering from their war injuries. Thankfully, this body acted to change this law in 2003 so that wounded soldiers would not have to pay for their meals. But we are dealing with a bureaucracy here and, as we know, nothing is ever simple in a bureaucracy. So now, because the Department of Defense does not consider getting physical rehabilitation or therapy services in a medical hospital as being hospitalized, there are wounded veterans who still do not qualify for the free meals other veterans receive. After 90 days, even those classified as hospitalized on an outpatient status lose their free meals as well.

Also, while our soldiers in the field qualify for free phone service, injured service men and women who may be hospitalized hundreds or thousands of miles from home do not receive this same benefit. For soldiers whose family members are not able to take off work and travel to a military hospital, hearing the familiar voice of mom or dad or husband or wife on the other side of the phone can make all the difference in the world. Yet right now our Government will not help pay for these calls, and it will not help pay for these meals.

Now, think about the sacrifices these young people have made for their country, many of them literally sacrificing life and in some cases limb. Now, at $8.30 a meal, they could end up with a $250 bill from the Government that sent them to war, and they could get that bill every single month. This is wrong, and we have a moral obligation to fix it. The amendment I am offering today will do this.

The amendment will expand the group of hospitalized soldiers who cannot be charged for their meals to include those service members undergoing medical recuperation, therapy, or otherwise on ``medical hold.'' The number of people affected by this amendment will be small. Only about 4,000 service members are estimated to fall under the category of non-hospitalized. The amendment is retroactive to January 1, 2005, in an effort to provide those injured service members who may have already received bills for their meals with some relief from these costs.

The amendment will also extend free phone service to those injured service members who are hospitalized or otherwise undergoing medical recuperation or therapy. I am very proud this amendment is supported by the American Legion, and I hope my colleagues will join them in that support. I ask all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment. It should be something that is very simple for us to do. These are our children and they risked their lives for us. When they come home with injuries, we should be expected to provide them the best possible service and the best possible support. This is a small price to pay for those who have sacrificed so much for their country.

I want to mention and extend my thanks to the senior Senator from Alaska and my colleague from Mississippi for working with me on this issue. I am hoping that we can reach an agreement on this bill.

Yes, I do. DOD currently charges soldiers $8.30 per day for meals at the nondiscounted rate. So if all the eligible soldiers ate all of their meals at military facilities through the end of this fiscal year, the amendment would cost about $10.2 million. Now, that is probably a high estimate because my expectation would be these wounded soldiers would not be eating all of their meals at the hospital. So it would probably end up being lower, but the upper threshold would be $10.2 million.

I thank my colleague, the Senator from Mississippi, for that offer, and I believe all of us feel the same way. These are the soldiers that are most severely wounded. We want to take the very best care of them, and I very much appreciate the consideration of the Senator from Mississippi.

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 urge my colleagues to think about the implications of what has been called the nuclear option and what effect that might have on this Chamber and on this country. I urge all of us to think not just about winning every debate but about protecting free and democratic debate.

During my Senate campaign, I had the privilege and opportunity to meet Americans from all walks of life and both ends of the political spectrum. They told me about their lives, about their hopes, about the issues that matter to them, and they also told me what they think about Washington.

Because my colleagues have heard it themselves, I know it will not surprise many of them to learn that a lot of people do not think much gets done around here on issues about which they care the most. They think the atmosphere has become too partisan, the arguments have become too nasty, and the political agendas have become too petty.

While I have not been here too long, I have noticed that partisan debate is sharp, and dissent is not always well received. Honest differences of opinion and principled compromise often seem to be the victim of a determination to score points against one's opponents.

But the American people sent us here to be their voice. They understand that those voices can at times become loud and argumentative, but they also hope we can disagree without being disagreeable. At the end of the day, they expect both parties to work together to get the people's business done.

What they do not expect is for one party, be it Republican or Democrat, to change the rules in the middle of the game so they can make all the decisions while the other party is told to sit down and keep quiet.

The American people want less partisanship in this town, but everyone in this Chamber knows that if the majority chooses to end the filibuster, if they choose to change the rules and put an end to democratic debate, then the fighting, the bitterness, and the gridlock will only get worse.

I understand that Republicans are getting a lot of pressure to do this from factions outside the Chamber, but we

need to rise above ``the ends justify the means'' mentality because we are here to answer to the people--all of the people, not just the ones who are wearing our particular party label.

The fact is that both parties have worked together to confirm 95 percent of this President's judicial nominees. The Senate has accepted 205 of his 214 selections. In fact, we just confirmed another one of the President's judges this week by a vote of 95 to 0. Overall, this is a better record than any President has had in the last 25 years. For a President who received 51 percent of the vote and a Senate Chamber made up of 55 percent of the President's party, I would say that confirming 95 percent of their judicial nominations is a record to be proud of.

Again, I urge my Republican colleagues not to go through with changing these rules. In the long run, it is not a good result for either party. One day Democrats will be in the majority again, and this rule change will be no fairer to a Republican minority than it is to a Democratic minority.

I sense that talk of the nuclear option is more about power than about fairness. I believe some of my colleagues propose this rule change because they can get away with it rather than because they know it is good for our democracy.

Right now we are faced with rising gas prices, skyrocketing tuition costs, a record number of uninsured Americans, and some of the most serious national security threats we have ever had, while our bravest young men and women are risking their lives halfway around the world to keep us safe. These are challenges we all want to meet and problems we all want to solve, even if we do not always agree on how to do it. But if the right of free and open debate is taken away from the minority party and the millions of Americans who ask us to be their voice, I fear the partisan atmosphere in Washington will be poisoned to the point where no one will be able to agree on anything. That does not serve anybody's best interest, and it certainly is not what the patriots who founded this democracy had in mind. We owe the people who sent us here more than that. We owe them much more.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Higher Education Opportunity Through Pell Grant Expansion Act of 2005, or HOPE Act.

Right now, in schools, playgrounds, and backyards across America, children are dreaming about what they want to be when they grow up. As tomorrow's astronauts, doctors, and teachers dream about their futures, their parents know that so many of those dreams are dependent on a college diploma.

The families I have met in Illinois are worried that they might not be able to give their kids a chance at that diploma. Everywhere I go, I hear the same story: we work hard, we pay our bills, we cut corners, and we put away savings, but we just don't know if it is going to be enough when the tuition bill comes in the mail.

The facts and statistics are not encouraging. College tuition is rising at a stunning rate of almost 10 percent a year, and over the last 25 years it is gone up an astounding 519 percent. Because of these rising prices, over 200,000 students were priced out of a college education last year.

In a country with so much wealth and opportunity for education, it is difficult to imagine there are parents who are forced to say to their kids: ``We're sorry. We can't afford to send you to college.'' None of us in the Senate should rest until those parents can start saying ``yes'' to their kids.

This bill would start us down that path by increasing access to Pell grants. Today, these need-based awards are used by 5.3 million undergraduate students to fund their education. Unfortunately, the awards just haven't kept up with the rising price of tuition or even inflation. As a result, the current $4,050 Pell grant maximum is $700 less in real terms than the maximum grant 30 years ago. Pell grants now cover only 23 percent of the total cost of the average 4-year public college.

The HOPE Act would correct this problem by raising the Pell grant maximum to $5,100, and it would continue to raise this maximum in future years to keep up with inflation. The bill also would make sure that no student sees a reduction in Pell grant assistance due to recent changes in the eligibility formula.

Because working families are already burdened with too many taxes, this bill would not add to the deficit or raise a dime of taxes. Instead, it will close two loopholes that guarantee banks and private lenders an additional $2 billion in taxpayer subsidies every year on top of the interest that college students and their families are already paying on their loans. In a country where 200,000 students were priced out of college last year, our tax dollars shouldn't be spent subsidizing banks that are already making record profits.

When our children dream about their future, they need to know those dreams are within their reach. A college education forms the foundation of the opportunity society that will keep this country strong and growing in the 21st century. I know we can work together to get this done, and I look forward to doing so.

I urge my colleagues to support the HOPE Act.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Higher Education Opportunity Through Pell Grant Expansion Act of 2005, or HOPE Act.

Right now, in schools, playgrounds, and backyards across America, children are dreaming about what they want to be when they grow up. As tomorrow's astronauts, doctors, and teachers dream about their futures, their parents know that so many of those dreams are dependent on a college diploma.

The families I have met in Illinois are worried that they might not be able to give their kids a chance at that diploma. Everywhere I go, I hear the same story: we work hard, we pay our bills, we cut corners, and we put away savings, but we just don't know if it is going to be enough when the tuition bill comes in the mail.

The facts and statistics are not encouraging. College tuition is rising at a stunning rate of almost 10 percent a year, and over the last 25 years it is gone up an astounding 519 percent. Because of these rising prices, over 200,000 students were priced out of a college education last year.

In a country with so much wealth and opportunity for education, it is difficult to imagine there are parents who are forced to say to their kids: ``We're sorry. We can't afford to send you to college.'' None of us in the Senate should rest until those parents can start saying ``yes'' to their kids.

This bill would start us down that path by increasing access to Pell grants. Today, these need-based awards are used by 5.3 million undergraduate students to fund their education. Unfortunately, the awards just haven't kept up with the rising price of tuition or even inflation. As a result, the current $4,050 Pell grant maximum is $700 less in real terms than the maximum grant 30 years ago. Pell grants now cover only 23 percent of the total cost of the average 4-year public college.

The HOPE Act would correct this problem by raising the Pell grant maximum to $5,100, and it would continue to raise this maximum in future years to keep up with inflation. The bill also would make sure that no student sees a reduction in Pell grant assistance due to recent changes in the eligibility formula.

Because working families are already burdened with too many taxes, this bill would not add to the deficit or raise a dime of taxes. Instead, it will close two loopholes that guarantee banks and private lenders an additional $2 billion in taxpayer subsidies every year on top of the interest that college students and their families are already paying on their loans. In a country where 200,000 students were priced out of college last year, our tax dollars shouldn't be spent subsidizing banks that are already making record profits.

When our children dream about their future, they need to know those dreams are within their reach. A college education forms the foundation of the opportunity society that will keep this country strong and growing in the 21st century. I know we can work together to get this done, and I look forward to doing so.

I urge my colleagues to support the HOPE Act.

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

Today I wish to commend Congressman Bobby Rush and other members of the Congressional Black Caucus for their work on behalf of Afro-Colombians. The consistent advocacy of the CBC on this human rights issue has been critical to increasing consciousness and activism in the U.S. and Colombia. Significant progress has made through this alliance, and I look forward to working with the CBC and other community groups on this issue.

Throughout Latin America, Afro-Latino communities remain marginalized--socially, economically and politically. In the case of Colombia, the violence and disruption of the country's 40-year civil conflict have disproportionately affected Afro-Colombians. Many are now refugees in their own country after being forced to leave their homes, and they face widespread racial discrimination as they try to rebuild their lives. Although Colombia's 1991 Constitution granted Afro- Colombians territorial rights to the land they historically held, these rights are now being increasingly violated, as this land is taken from them. With little or no economic and educational opportunities available, many Afro-Colombian youths have turned to coca cultivation or joined guerrilla forces.

With the rise of Afro-Colombian advocacy groups and NGOs in Colombia, I believe it is possible to foster meaningful partnerships and alliances for positive change in this region. In addition to the CBC, there are many members of the religious community--in my home State of Illinois and across our country--who are working on behalf of Afro- Colombians. I commend them on their dedication to this important cause. Together we can and will make a difference.

Mr. President, over the last century, the Nation has witnessed tremendous advances in medical science and technology. We now have treatments and cures for diseases and conditions that were at one time surely fatal. Thirty years ago, if children developed cancer, doctors couldn't save their lives. Today, more than three-quarters of children with cancer survive. Heart disease is no longer the leading cause of death because of significant improvements in medical treatment and surgical procedures. Americans with AIDS are living many years longer and spending more time at home and not in hospitals because of new drug cocktails that prevent infections and other deadly complications.

The unfortunate and bitter irony is that while the number of medical breakthroughs continues to increase, so does the number of Americans who will never benefit from them. Right now, 45 million Americans have no health care coverage, and this number continues to rise. Over a 2- year period, over 85 million Americans have not had continuous insurance coverage. In this land of plenty and opportunity, 350,000 uninsured children with earaches and sore throats will never see a doctor. Sixteen million uninsured Americans

cannot afford to fill prescriptions. Uninsured women who develop breast cancer are 40 percent more likely to die, as are 50 percent of uninsured men with prostate cancer. The Institute of Medicine has reported that 18,000 adults die every year because they are uninsured.

For many Americans, Medicaid represents their only real hope of obtaining health care. Nationally, 53 million people rely on Medicaid coverage, including 25 million children, 13 million low-income adults, and 15 million disabled and elderly Americans. Nearly 16 percent of people who live in rural areas have Medicaid coverage, including more than 1 in 4 children in these areas. One quarter of African Americans and 20 percent of Hispanics rely on Medicaid, as do 9 percent of women.

In my home State of Illinois, Medicaid provides health coverage for 2 million residents. Over 30 percent of children in Illinois receive health care through KidCare. Nearly 65 percent of nursing home residents rely on Medicaid coverage.

Despite Medicaid's critical role in providing access to care, the Republican budget proposes to cut Medicaid by $15 billion. This cut translates into an estimated $287 million loss for Illinois. Experts report this funding could provide health care coverage for 200,000 children or 135,000 working parents in my State.

Some of my colleagues argue that we have no choice but to make large cuts to Medicaid because of the deficit. But these deficits were created by huge tax breaks for the rich, not by Medicaid, and we should not balance the budget at the expense of health care for low-income children, their parents, pregnant women and seniors. We cannot keep tax cuts for the rich and cut basic health care for the poor. We cannot retreat from our Federal commitment to Medicaid and leave the States holding the bag.

I agree the Medicaid Program is not perfect. The Smith-Bingaman amendment to create a commission to study the program and make recommendations for improvement is a reasonable approach. Sound policy, not politics or deficit concerns, should guide any changes to the Medicaid Program, and I am not convinced that we have examined or discussed the full range of Medicaid-related issues and options before us.

We cannot and should not deny millions of Americans access to basic health care. Medicaid is the Nation's safety net, and we should strengthen it, not destroy it. I am going to vote yes for the Smith- Bingaman amendment to strike proposed cuts in funding for Medicaid, and I urge my colleagues to join me.

Amendment No. 229

Mr. President, I am pleased to join as a cosponsor of the Fuels Security Act of 2005, which sets a renewable fuels standard for the years 2006 to 2012.

To lessen our dependence on foreign oil and strengthen our economy here at home, renewable fuels like ethanol ought to be a larger part of our domestic fuel supply. This bill will contribute to that objective, and I commend Senators Lugar and Harkin for their leadership in crafting this legislation.

Yesterday, during the markup of a similar bill in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, I expressed strong support for establishing a meaningful renewable fuels standard as an important part of a comprehensive national energy policy. The bill before the Committee set targets at 3.8 billion gallons in 2006 and 6 billion gallons in 2012, improving upon last year's RFS provision in the energy bill conference report that set targets at 3.1 billion gallons and 5 billion gallons, respectively.

I voted for the chairman's mark yesterday because it gets the RFS debate rolling in the new Congress. However, I also noted that it has been widely reported in the trade press that the 30-state Governors Ethanol Coalition has recommended to the President that refiners be required to purchase a minimum volume of ethanol of at least 4 billion gallons in 2006, rising to 8 billion gallons in 2012. This recommendation adds weight to the view expressed by me and others that the committee's targets are too conservative.

Why are these specific targets so important? They are important if we are to maximize the ethanol industry's ability to boost farm income by providing a new market for corn; to promote economic growth in rural communities by increasing production in existing plants and attracting investment in new community-sized ethanol facilities; and to reduce our alarming dependence on imported oil by expanding the volume of ethanol in our transportation fuel mix.

These are important objectives. They matter. And that is why it is important to get the specific targets right.

In committee yesterday, I suggested that since ethanol production is expected to reach 4 billion gallons this year, we ought to adjust the committee bill's RFS targets on the Senate floor to reflect current market reality. I am pleased that Chairman Inhofe seemed open to that debate.

I think the Governors Ethanol Coalition recommendation of at least 4 billion gallons in 2006 and 8 billion gallons in 2012 is a good place to start this debate. I think any RFS legislation enacted by Congress should contain these levels.

That is why I am pleased to cosponsor the Fuels Security Act introduced by Senators Lugar and Harkin today. The ethanol volume targets in this bill--4 billion gallons in 2006 and 8 billion gallons in 2012--are in much greater alignment with expected ethanol production in future years than those in the Committee bill.

Earlier this week, I had the opportunity to tour the Aventine ethanol plant in Pekin, IL. My visit reminded me of the work of a Pekin native more than 50 years ago. That person--Senator Everett Dirksen-- encouraged federal lawmakers to consider ``processing our surplus farm crops into an alcohol . . . to create a market in our own land for our own people.''

Today, farmers across Illinois, including farmers near Pekin, are growing corn for fuel, both strengthening our energy security and providing an economic boost to rural communities. By enacting a meaningful RFS, we are displacing more foreign oil with homegrown energy. We are expanding the market for Illinois corn. And we are promoting the use of renewable fuel. Remember, unlike other energy sources, when you run out of ethanol, you can simply grow more.

For too many years, America has been overly dependent on foreign oil to meet its domestic energy needs. And, despite rising crude oil prices and unsettling volatility in the Persian Gulf, that trend is increasing, not declining. Renewable fuels such as ethanol can help address this dangerous dependence on foreign oil. And a strong renewable fuels standard will maximize this contribution.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join as a cosponsor of the Fuels Security Act of 2005, which sets a renewable fuels standard for the years 2006 to 2012.

To lessen our dependence on foreign oil and strengthen our economy here at home, renewable fuels like ethanol ought to be a larger part of our domestic fuel supply. This bill will contribute to that objective, and I commend Senators Lugar and Harkin for their leadership in crafting this legislation.

Yesterday, during the markup of a similar bill in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, I expressed strong support for establishing a meaningful renewable fuels standard as an important part of a comprehensive national energy policy. The bill before the Committee set targets at 3.8 billion gallons in 2006 and 6 billion gallons in 2012, improving upon last year's RFS provision in the energy bill conference report that set targets at 3.1 billion gallons and 5 billion gallons, respectively.

I voted for the chairman's mark yesterday because it gets the RFS debate rolling in the new Congress. However, I also noted that it has been widely reported in the trade press that the 30-state Governors Ethanol Coalition has recommended to the President that refiners be required to purchase a minimum volume of ethanol of at least 4 billion gallons in 2006, rising to 8 billion gallons in 2012. This recommendation adds weight to the view expressed by me and others that the committee's targets are too conservative.

Why are these specific targets so important? They are important if we are to maximize the ethanol industry's ability to boost farm income by providing a new market for corn; to promote economic growth in rural communities by increasing production in existing plants and attracting investment in new community-sized ethanol facilities; and to reduce our alarming dependence on imported oil by expanding the volume of ethanol in our transportation fuel mix.

These are important objectives. They matter. And that is why it is important to get the specific targets right.

In committee yesterday, I suggested that since ethanol production is expected to reach 4 billion gallons this year, we ought to adjust the committee bill's RFS targets on the Senate floor to reflect current market reality. I am pleased that Chairman Inhofe seemed open to that debate.

I think the Governors Ethanol Coalition recommendation of at least 4 billion gallons in 2006 and 8 billion gallons in 2012 is a good place to start this debate. I think any RFS legislation enacted by Congress should contain these levels.

That is why I am pleased to cosponsor the Fuels Security Act introduced by Senators Lugar and Harkin today. The ethanol volume targets in this bill--4 billion gallons in 2006 and 8 billion gallons in 2012--are in much greater alignment with expected ethanol production in future years than those in the Committee bill.

Earlier this week, I had the opportunity to tour the Aventine ethanol plant in Pekin, IL. My visit reminded me of the work of a Pekin native more than 50 years ago. That person--Senator Everett Dirksen-- encouraged federal lawmakers to consider ``processing our surplus farm crops into an alcohol . . . to create a market in our own land for our own people.''

Today, farmers across Illinois, including farmers near Pekin, are growing corn for fuel, both strengthening our energy security and providing an economic boost to rural communities. By enacting a meaningful RFS, we are displacing more foreign oil with homegrown energy. We are expanding the market for Illinois corn. And we are promoting the use of renewable fuel. Remember, unlike other energy sources, when you run out of ethanol, you can simply grow more.

For too many years, America has been overly dependent on foreign oil to meet its domestic energy needs. And, despite rising crude oil prices and unsettling volatility in the Persian Gulf, that trend is increasing, not declining. Renewable fuels such as ethanol can help address this dangerous dependence on foreign oil. And a strong renewable fuels standard will maximize this contribution.

Mr. President, I rise to discuss an issue on which I hope we can find common ground. 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 during generations past. When it comes to honoring these soldiers and these veterans, there is never any shortage of words and praise from leaders of both parties, and there should not be.

I commend the previous speaker, the outstanding Senator from Idaho, who is also chairman of the Veterans Committee, for his deep concern and regard for our veterans. But I have to contest some of the statements that were made because, unfortunately, based on our analysis, this budget has a very real and unacceptable shortage of funding for the benefits and health care that our heroes have earned.

Make no mistake, these are not just complaints coming from Washington; these are complaints we are hearing from veterans all across the country--in Illinois, Washington, Hawaii, and Idaho.

Senator Ensign's amendment increases the veterans health care budget by $410 million. That is a modest improvement and to be commended, compared to the original budget offered by the President. Yet, these dollars, I should point out, come directly out of important international programs that fund child health care, global AIDS assistance, disaster, famine assistance, and more. We can have a further discussion as to whether it is wise for us to rob Peter to pay Paul. But even if we go ahead and take this money from these vital programs and place it into veterans, it is still $2.5 billion short of sufficiently funding veterans health care services.

That is why I am joining my colleagues on the Veterans' Affairs Committee, ranking member Akaka and Senator Murray, to support an amendment to increase funding for veterans health care by $2.85 billion.

Today, the state of care for America's veterans is not worthy of their service to this country. There are roughly 480,000 compensation and pension claims still unprocessed. This budget provides for 113 new employees to help deal with this backlog.

There are thousands of veterans who cannot afford to get the health care they need, and I am glad to see the Ensign amendment eliminates the copayments. But the budget in front of us still tells veterans who make as little as $30,000 a year they are too wealthy to enroll in the VA health care system.

There are VA hospitals on the brink of closing down around the country. But this budget cuts $351 million in funding for veterans nursing homes and eliminates more than $100 million in State grants that are desperately needed by VA facilities. When the troops who are fighting bravely in Iraq and Afghanistan return home as veterans, what kind of care will they find? Already we know that soldiers are coming home with post traumatic stress disorder, with traumatic brain injury that could lead to epilepsy, and with conditions that may result in over

100,000 soldiers requiring mental health treatment when they come home. If we cannot care for the veterans who are already here, how will we take care of the veterans who will be returning in a few years?

I urge my colleagues to join me in sending veterans the right message. Our amendment will provide funds for VA staff so veterans who are waiting to file disability claims are not waiting months to have their case heard. It will provide adequate funding so that veterans of all incomes can access the VA system, as was promised.

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 Ensign's amendment is a modest improvement over the President's original budget. But as Senator Akaka has already stated, it still leaves the veterans short. 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. The President and everyone in this Chamber never hesitate to praise the service of our veterans and acknowledge the debt we owe them for their service, and I commend my colleagues and the President for that. But this budget does not reflect that praise or repay that debt. Neither does the budget resolution on the floor today.

Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support the Byrd amendment to restore funding to Amtrak--a critical mode of transportation in Illinois.

I want to emphasize that there are serious inefficiencies with Amtrak operations. I do not support the restoration of Amtrak funding because I believe in a return to the status quo. I do believe, however, that the elimination of all funding, as the President has proposed, and as this budget resolution reflects, will lead Amtrak not to reform but to ruin.

A strong national rail system is not just a convenience for travelers. It also serves other important national objectives, such as ensuring multiple travel options in the event of regional or national emergency, reducing our heavy dependence on foreign oil, and improving air quality. In recent years, Amtrak has increased the number of trains it operates and has achieved a record level of ridership, with more than 25 million passengers using Amtrak last year.

In Illinois alone, more than 3 million people use one or many of the 50 daily Illinois trains, including business leaders traveling to and from smaller cities and towns; tourists who visit Illinois attractions, and students who attend world-class Illinois colleges and universities.

Responding to calls for reform, Amtrak's leadership has streamlined its operating costs, engaged in ongoing discussions to evaluate current policies and increase efficiency, and created a strategic plan for future improvements. The proposed cuts in Federal funds would cripple Amtrak beyond repair.

We cannot--and should not--allow that to occur. I urge my colleagues to support the Byrd amendment and restore Federal funding for Amtrak to this year's budget.

Mr. President, I have come to the floor as a cosponsor on the Sarbanes amendment to the budget to protect funding for the community development block grant CDBG administered at the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

This program is crucial to the development of low income communities across America.

As you know, the administration has proposed a plan in the 2006 budget to consolidate 18 existing economic and community development programs into a single program administered by the Department of Commerce. The HUD community development block grant program--also called the CDBG program--is the largest of those 18 programs.

The grants previously awarded under these 18 programs would be awarded in the name of a single, newly formed strengthening America's communities, SAC, grant program.

But when examined, it becomes clear that the President's proposal will mean less assistance for low-income communities and a dismantling of relationships within a community development infrastructure of public servants and community-based organizations that we have built over the last 30 years.

Under the proposal, the total budget for these 18 programs would drop 30 percent from $5.31 billion in 2005 to a proposed $3.71 billion in 2006. That means less money for home ownership, less money for economic development, less money for communities struggling in changing economy.

To give you a sense of what that means for State and local governments, consider that in 2005 the community development block grant, CDBG, program alone was funded at $4.15 billion, $450 million more than the $3.7 billion requested for the total 18 programs being consolidated under the new strengthening America's communities grant program in 2006.

That is not a consolidation of programs. It is a direct attempt to dismantle those programs. That is why the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National Association of Counties, and the National League of Cities all oppose this.

As those groups have pointed out, the Commerce Department lacks the capacity to administer the newly proposed program. HUD has 1,100 urban, suburban, and rural CDBG grantees, constituting a strong infrastructure for program administration. And, HUD's $4.7 billion CDBG program dwarfs the Commerce Department's $257 million economic development program. HUD has skills and experience Commerce lacks.

On March 4, 2005, I wrote a letter to Chairman Gregg and Ranking Member Conrad supporting full funding for the CDBG and objecting to its transfer to the Department of Commerce from HUD.

Those who are closest to the needs of low-income communities our Nation's Governors, community based organizations in Illinois, and local government officials from Illinois have all come out in support of the Sarbanes amendment. They know the CDBG program works and have shared success stories of communities strengthened with CDBG funds. They respect the public servants that administer the program, and they have developed a working partnership with them.

In Illinois, communities large and small are making the most of this assistance.

The city of Chicago, for example, which has already seen its formula share of CDBG funds reduced by $14 million over the last 3 years, has focused its CDBG priorities on five specific program areas: affordable housing, youth programming, health clinics, job training, and support services to groups with specific needs, such as domestic violence, emergency food aid, and meals on wheels.

Let me give you a specific example of CDBG funds in action. Mujeres Latinas en Accion is an organization in Chicago's Pilsen community that serves Latinas and their families. The total they receive in CDBG funds both through the city of Chicago and the city of Cicero is close to $170,000.

Mujeres Latinas en Accion depends on CDBG funds to support services such as rental assistance for program participants to prevent homelessness. They also provide comprehensive services for victims of domestic violence including crisis intervention, court advocacy, individual counseling, group counseling, 24-hour crisis hotline, and referrals to shelters. And, the group also uses CDBG funds to provide services to young people promoting the development of peaceful relationships, open communication with peers and family, and school success. The goal of the program is to provide youth a variety of age appropriate structured activities during nonschool hours to help prevent teen involvement in gangs, alcohol and drug use, sexual activity, pregnancy, and other problems facing adolescents in low- income communities.

In Champaign, IL, CDBG funds have been used to help low-income families become homeowners, make homes accessible for the disabled, provide credit counseling, construct emergency and transitional shelters for the homeless, and provide a broad range of services to people in need. A number of towns in St. Clair County, IL, are using CDBG funds for housing rehabilitation grants and loans for their low to moderate income residents.

As you can see, these proposed cuts in the CDBG program affect big cities and smaller towns. Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daley wrote me that, ``significant reductions in CDBG funds . . . would have a serious effect on the network of community-based organizations throughout the city which rely on CDBG for their existence. A number of them would likely close their doors.'' And, in the words of Eric Kellogg, the mayor of Harvey, IL, population 30,000, ``Many have characterized CDBG as the best federal domestic program ever enacted because of its flexibility and adaptability in meeting the needs of a diverse America.''

The CDBG program works. Let's not destroy it.

I urge my colleagues to support the Sarbanes amendment.

Mr. President, as the Peace Corps celebrates its 44th anniversary this month, I would like to take this opportunity to commend its many wonderful volunteers, past and present, and the remarkable work they do. I am very pleased to report that three universities in Illinois--the University of Illinois at Champaign- Urbana, Northwestern University, and the University of Chicago--are three of the top Peace Corps-volunteer producing colleges and universities in the country. There are currently 295 volunteers from Illinois working in countries around the world, and I am tremendously proud of the service provided by each and every one of them.

The work of the Peace Corps in promoting mutual understanding between our country and the rest of the world has never been more relevant than it is today. The Peace Corps began in 1961 under President John F. Kennedy as a unique experiment in humanitarian service and cultural exchange and has grown to become one of the most widely respected American institutions in the world. Since the founding of the Peace Corps, over 178,000 volunteers have served in 138 countries.

Peace Corps volunteers share their knowledge, skills, and enthusiasm by serving as health educators, youth and agricultural workers, teachers, and business advisors. Of the 7,700 volunteers currently serving, over 3,100 are working on HIV/AIDS education and prevention projects, and I commend them on their critically important work on this global crisis.

I also would like to honor past volunteers who have helped to build this wonderful program into what it is today, who have empowered and given voice to individuals and communities in developing countries around the world. Individually and collectively, Peace Corps volunteers represent the very best of our great country, and I am proud to salute them on their 44th anniversary.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I have come to the floor today to briefly address the pending legislation. This issue forces us to face a fundamental question about who we are as a country, how we progress as a society, where our values lie as a people, how do we treat our fellow Americans who have fallen on hard times, and what is our responsibility to cushion those falls when they occur. We do so not only out of compassion for others but also knowing that hard times might at any moment fall on ourselves.

The proponents of this bill claim it is designed to curb the worst abuses of our bankruptcy system. I think that is a worthy goal shared by all those in this Chamber, and we can all agree that bankruptcy was never meant to serve as a ``get out of jail free'' card for use when you foolishly gamble away all your savings and don't feel like taking responsibility for your actions.

But to accomplish that, this bill would take us from a system where judges weed out the abusers from the honest to a system where all the honest are presumed to be abusers, where declaring chapter 7 bankruptcy is made prohibitively expensive for people who have already suffered financial devastation.

With this bill, it doesn't matter if you run up your debt on a trip to Vegas or a trip to the emergency room; you are still treated the same under the law. You still face the possibility that you will never get a chance to start over.

It would be one thing if most people were abusing the system and falling into bankruptcy because they were irresponsible with their finances. I think we need more responsibility with our finances in our society as well as from our Government. But we know that for the most part bankruptcies are caused as a result of bad luck.

We know from a recent study, which was mentioned by the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, that nearly half of all bankruptcies occur because of an illness that ends up sticking families with medical bills they can't keep up with.

Let me give you as a particular example the case of Suzanne Gibbons, a constituent of mine. A few years back, Suzanne had a good job as a nurse, and a home on Chicago's northwest side. Then she suffered a stroke that left her hospitalized for 5 days. Even though she had health insurance through her job, it only covered $4,000 of the $53,000 in hospital bills. As a consequence of that illness, she was soon forced to leave her full-time nursing job and take a temporary job that paid less and didn't offer health insurance. Then the collection agencies started coming after her for her hospital bills that she couldn't keep up with. She lost her retirement savings, she lost her house, and eventually she was forced to declare bankruptcy. If this bill passes as written without amendment, Suzanne will be treated by the law the same as any scam artist who cheats the system. The decision about whether she can file for chapter 7 bankruptcy would not account for the fact that she fell into financial despair because of her illness.

With all that debt, she would have to hire a lawyer and pay hundreds of dollars more in increased paperwork. After all that, she still might be told she is ineligible for chapter 7 bankruptcy.

As much as we like to believe that the face of this bankruptcy crisis is credit card addicts who spend their way into debt, the truth is it is the face of people such as Suzanne Gibbons. It is the face of middle-class Americans.

Over the last 30 years, bankruptcies have gone up 400 percent. We have had 2,100 more in Illinois this year. We also know what else has gone up: the cost of childcare, the cost of college, the cost of home ownership, and the cost of health care which is now at record highs. People are working harder and longer for less, and they are falling farther and farther behind.

We are not talking about only the poor or even the working poor here. These are middle-class families with two parents who both work at good- paying jobs that put a roof over their heads. They are saving every extra penny they have so their children can go to college and do better than they did. But with just one illness, one emergency, one divorce, these dreams are wiped away.

This bill does a great job helping the credit card industry recover profits they are losing, but what are we doing to help middle-class families to recover the dreams they are losing?

The bankruptcy crisis this bill should address is not only the one facing credit card companies that are currently enjoying record profits. We have to look after those hard-working families who are dealing with record hardships. As Senator Dodd, Senator Feinstein, and others have pointed out, this bill also fails to deal with the aggressive marketing practices and hidden fees credit card companies have used to raise their profits and our debt. Charging a penalty to consumers who make a late payment on a completely unrelated credit card is but one example of these tactics. We need to end these practices so that we are making life easier not only for the credit card companies but for honest, hard-working, middle-class families.

If we are going to crack down on bankruptcy abuse, which we should, we should also make it clear we intend to

hold the wealthy and the powerful accountable as well.

One example: In my own State, we had a mining company by the name of Horizon that recently declared bankruptcy and then refused to pay its employees the health benefits it owed them. A Federal bankruptcy judge upheld the right of Horizon to vacate the obligations it had made to its workers. The mine workers involved had provided a total of 100,000 years of service and dedication and sacrifice to this company. They had spent their entire lives working hard. They had deferred part of their salaries because there was an assurance that health care would be available for them. These are men and women with black lung disease, with bad backs, with bad necks, and the company made a decision to go back on their promise, saying we will not pay the debt we owe these workers. And a Federal bankruptcy judge said that is OK, you are permitted to do that.

These same workers now are going to have a tough time as a consequence of this bill filing for bankruptcy. The irony should not be lost on this Chamber. It is wrong that a bill would make it harder for those unemployed workers to declare bankruptcy while doing nothing to prevent the bankrupt company that puts them in financial hardship in the first place from shirking its responsibilities entirely.

I yield.

It would be prohibitive.

That is an accurate assessment by the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts. I appreciate that amplification.

The central point is, what kind of message does it send when we tell hard-working, middle-class Americans, you have to be more responsible with your finances than the companies you work for? They are allowed to be irresponsible with their finances and we give them a pass when they have bad management decisions, but you do not have a pass when confronting difficulties outside of your control.

We need to reform our Bankruptcy Code so corporations keep their promises and meet their obligations to their workers. I remain hopeful our companies want to do the right thing for workers. Doing so should not be a choice, it should be a mandate.

Senator Rockefeller and I have proposed two amendments to ensure this. I strongly urge my colleagues' support. One will increase the required payments of wages and employee benefit plans to $15,000 per individual from the current level of $4,925. It requires companies that emerge from bankruptcy to immediately pay each retiree who lost health benefits an amount of cash equal to what a retiree would be expected to have to pay for COBRA coverage for 18 months.

The second amendment prevents bankruptcy courts from dismissing companies' Coal Act obligations to pay their workers the benefits they were promised. These companies made a deal to their mine workers. They should be forced to honor that deal. That will be an amendment that hopefully will be added to the pending bill.

This bill gives a rare chance to ask ourselves who we are here to protect, for whom we are here to stand up, for whom we are here to speak. We have to curb bankruptcy abuse and demand a measure of personal responsibility from all people. We all want that. We also want to make sure we are helping middle-class families who are loving their children and doing anything they can to give them the best possible life ahead.

To wrap up, in the 10 minutes I have been speaking, about 30 of those middle class families have had to file for bankruptcy. We live in a rapidly changing world, with an economy that is moving just as fast. We cannot always control this. We cannot promise the changes will always leave everyone better off. But we can do better than 1 bankruptcy every 19 seconds. We can do better than forcing people to choose between the cost of health care and the cost of college. We can do better than big corporations using bankruptcy laws to deny health care and benefits to their employees. And we can give people the basic tools and protections they need to believe that in America your circumstances are no limit to the success you can achieve and the dreams you may fulfill.

While, unfortunately, I cannot support this bill the way it is currently written, I do look forward to working with my colleagues in amending this bill so we can still keep the promise alive.

I yield.

That is an accurate statement by the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts. He characterizes it correctly.

I add that all the statistics I have seen indicate one of the fastest growing segments engaged in bankruptcy is senior citizens who I don't think are any different than they were back in the day when we think people were more responsible and more thrifty. I think they are still thrifty and responsible. What has happened is they are experiencing extremely tough times partly because they are having difficulty paying for prescription medicines that are not covered under Medicaid.

Mr. President, I rise to recognize an important anniversary in the history of this Nation.

One hundred and thirty-five years ago on this day, Hiram R. Revels was sworn in as a U.S. Senator from Mississippi. On that day, February 25, 1870, Senator Revels became the first African American to ever serve in the U.S. Congress.

But Hiram Revel's story started in a place very far from Washington, DC. He was born to free parents in 1822 and grew up as an apprentice to a barber in North Carolina. But Hiram wanted to learn more and see more, and so he left for Indiana and then Ohio, where he furthered his education. He was soon ordained a minister by the African Methodist Church, and traveled to congregations all over the Midwest and the South until he finally ended up in Baltimore.

At the beginning of the Civil War, he helped recruit African-American troops for the Union, and he ended up serving as a chaplain for a Mississippi regiment of free Blacks. He stayed in Mississippi after the war, and continued serving as a pastor at various local churches. In 1868, and he ran and was elected alderman. Respected by both Whites and African Americans, he was soon elected as a Mississippi State senator. Then, in 1870, just 5 years after the end of the very war fought for his freedom, Hiram Revels was elected the first African-American U.S. Senator in history.

Like so many of our own, Hiram's story is America's story. The story of the seemingly impossible occurring in a land where good people will give everything to make it possible. The story of hope winning out against all odds. The story of one man's improbable achievement paving the way for so many others.

Did Hiram ever know what he was destined for in that barber shop? When he was sweeping that floor in North Carolina and so many of his brothers and sisters were enslaved, did he ever dream that he would end up a U.S. Senator?

We don't know. But we do know that he did dream of bigger things.

He dreamed of an education, and so even though many kids like him didn't do it, he went to college. He dreamed of helping others, and so even though it involved sacrifice, he became a minister. He dreamed of a free America, and so even though it could have cost him his life, he joined the Union. And he dreamed of lifting up his community, and so even though it wasn't done by people of his color, he ran for office.

He dreamed of making this world a better place, and in doing so, he found a place in history. And so we remember this day--his day--as a symbol of what is possible for those of us who are willing to make it so in this magical place we call America.

Mr. President, I rise to recognize and remember the life of Earl Langdon Neal.

Mr. Neal was one of the finest lawyers and civic leaders Chicago has ever known. From mayors to citizens, business leaders to college students, he was a trusted friend and inspiring mentor to many-- including myself.

Earl earned his law degree from Michigan Law School in 1952. Following graduation, he served his country in the U.S. Army until 1955, when he returned to Chicago to join his father's law firm, Neal & Neal.

On their very first case, Earl and his father were forced to commute 170 miles from Chicago to Lincoln simply because there were no hotels in Lincoln that would accept African Americans. But he went anyway because, as his son has said, it wasn't just a job for Earl--it was a way of life.

It was a way of life that led him to serve the city of Chicago as a special assistant corporation counsel responsible for countless land acquisition projects, including the Dan Ryan Expressway, O'Hare's expansion, and the Chicago city colleges, a way of life that led him to start his own practice and earn a place on the University of Illinois board of trustees, a way of life that made almost every person who came to know him speak of him as a warm, compassionate man who put the well- being of his clients above all else.

Earl's passion for his work wasn't complicated. He simply looked around his community and wanted to make it better. And in so many ways, from the places he made possible, to the people's lives he touched, he did. We honor his life, pray for his family, and will miss him dearly.