Floor Statements

Mr. President, I first want to thank the chairman and ranking member of the HELP Committee--Senator Kennedy and Senator Enzi--for their leadership in bringing this important legislation to the floor. I also appreciate their willingness to incorporate the ideas and concerns of the various committee members. I am pleased to urge my colleagues to support this comprehensive package to improve higher education. This is a worthy conclusion to the discussion that began last week, with the passage of the Higher Education Access Act, to make college more affordable and more accessible.

Education is the centerpiece of a deal America has entered into with its students: if you work hard, if you gain the right set of skills, and if you accept responsibility for your learning, you have a chance for a better life. That is the basic premise of education in our country.

And this deal includes a college degree. A college education and a diploma improve the chance of getting a good job, increase earning potential, and ease entry into the middle class.

Last week, we passed legislation making a college degree more accessible for many students, by increasing student financial aid. Today, we must move forward on the remainder of a comprehensive package for college students and their families. In this legislation, we are asking colleges themselves to look more closely at the increases in their costs, and to report more information, so that students and families have a clearer picture of the cost of attendance.

We are reforming the student loan system, by shedding more light on the process, illuminating more clearly the arrangements between colleges and lenders, and prohibiting payments that give some lenders an unfair advantage. Instead, we must make sure that the system works to the advantage of students. We must act to curb the financial abuses that have been so widely reported at a few institutions, and that have hurt too many students. In this legislation, we have also increased access for many by making the process more user-friendly, by simplifying the financial aid application process, and by helping students plan for their college education earlier in their high school career. All these provisions of the Higher Education Amendments are worthy of the support of my colleagues.

There are two provisions in this legislation which I would especially like to thank my colleagues on the HELP Committee for supporting, and advancing. The first establishes an innovative method for teacher preparation. We know that teachers are the most important resource for students in our schools. And yet, too many students in high-need schools are taught by inadequately prepared teachers, who are often not ready for the challenges they face, and who often choose to leave the classroom too soon.

We must recruit talented Americans to become teachers, and we must help transform teaching, restoring its luster as a profession. We must better prepare prospective teachers, so that when they join the profession, they are successful and choose to stay, so that their students may share in that success. As we ask teachers and school leaders to accept more responsibility for student learning, we must do our part to adequately prepare teachers to achieve success.

Research shows that good preparation programs can make novice teachers effective more rapidly. This legislation includes a provision for residency programs to effectively prepare teachers for the reality of challenging classrooms. Teaching Residency Programs are school-based programs in which prospective teachers teach alongside a mentor teacher for one year, while undertaking coursework to attain teacher certification. Graduates of the program are placed in high-needs schools and continue to receive strong mentoring and support for their first years of teaching.

I am particularly proud that such Teaching Residency Programs are included in title II of these Higher Education Amendments, because it is a model of effective teacher preparation that I have advocated since before I was elected to the Senate. I have seen firsthand the success of such a program in Chicago.

Teaching Residency Programs are based on what we know works best to prepare teachers. We know that mentoring is critical to help novice teachers improve their skills, and to retain many who might otherwise leave the profession within their first few years. We can no longer afford to lose high quality teachers because they are not adequately supported, or because they realize that they are not progressing in their chosen profession.

I am also pleased that the Higher Education Amendments we consider today contain a provision to support predominantly Black institutions-- a proposal first suggested by my good friend, Representative Danny Davis. These are colleges which serve a growing number of African- American students, most of whom are the first in their families to go to college and most of whom receive student financial aid. It is appropriate that we support such institutions, to help ensure that these colleges, in turn, support the efforts and talents of these students. Over the years, Congress has acknowledged the key role of similar institutions through provisions supporting historically Black colleges and universities, Hispanic-serving institutions, and other colleges and universities whose mission includes educational opportunities for minority students.

The Higher Education Amendments we consider today contain much that will help our students be more successful. I am proud to have been involved in developing this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support its passage.

Madam President, I first want to thank my colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, for his leadership in bringing a bill to the floor to make college more affordable for millions of students. I also want to thank him for the example he has set over many years in standing up repeatedly to protect the interests of the students of America, and in so doing, to work tirelessly for the future benefit of our economy and our country. I am fortunate to now serve on the Senate HELP Committee and have seen first hand the efforts of Senator Kennedy and his counterpart on the minority side, Senator Enzi. I appreciate their effort, the hard work of their capable staffs, and the bipartisan collegiality that allows us today to provide much needed support to the college students of America.

The success of our Nation's youth increasingly requires a college diploma. But that diploma is becoming, for many, ever more difficult to attain. That difficulty arises not from lack of ambition or lack of ability. Increasingly, the difficulty arises from lack of any realistic way for many American families to afford the college education needed for the success of their daughters and sons.

The math here is simple. College costs have increased, but family incomes have not, nor has the Federal commitment to provide financial aid. The cost of college continues to increase for many reasons. Over the past 5 years, the cost of a 4-year public college in my State increased 47 percent. At private colleges in Illinois, the increase was 27 percent. Incomes have increased little, and so even with financial aid, 35 percent of a family's income is needed each year to pay for attendance at a 4-year public university in my State.

Federal student aid has not kept pace with these increased costs. The proportion of college expenses met by Pell grants decreased from 47 percent to 29 percent over a recent 5-year period for students in my State. Students are increasingly forced to rely on loans, and college graduates are increasingly burdened by debt. Graduates from a 4-year college in Illinois owe, on average, over $17,000 in student loan debt. That is the average.

The resulting difficulty in financing a college education impacts not only the dreams of millions of students but also the future of our country. Capable high school graduates from low- and moderate-income families are much less likely to earn a college degree than their wealthier peers. Yet competition in the global economy requires that our students attain a college degree, whether to become engineers or entrepreneurs, in order to maintain the creative and competitive workforce America needs. And for those students who do make it through college, their large debt loads make it difficult for them to choose occupations which might serve the public good but might not pay enough. Student debt is too often limiting options for those very students who should have the greatest opportunities and whose talents might provide the greatest good to society.

We must change this. The bill we are considering here today is a step in that direction. With it, we expand loan forgiveness for graduates who enter public service, we increase the threshold for income that may be earned by students receiving financial aid, and we make other significant changes. But most importantly, we increase college access by increasing the amount of support for students through increased grant aid.

My support of this legislation today echoes the first piece of legislation I introduced in the Senate. That was the Higher Education Opportunity through Pell grant Expansion Act of 2005 the HOPE Act, which called for a significant increase in the maximum Pell Grant to $5,100, financed by decreased Federal subsidies to banks and lenders. The bill we debate today would provide that increase to $5,100 by next year and further increase the maximum to $5,400 by 2011. I applaud Mr. Kennedy and my colleagues on the HELP Committee for keeping this the main focus of the benefits provided in this package.

I realize that we are asking lenders to dig a little a deeper to help students, to come up with innovative ways to continue to provide services students, even while receiving lower subsidies from the Federal Government. But I have faith that they can do this, to the benefit of our students and our country.

I look forward to soon considering the remainder of the comprehensive package to improve higher education contained in the Higher Education Amendments of 2007. But for today, I am proud today to support this bill to bring needed assistance to college students, and I urge my colleagues to join in this effort.

Mr. President, today I reintroduce legislation initially inspired by an indepth report published in late 2005 by the Chicago Tribune that highlighted the extent of mercury contamination in the fish eaten by the American people.

Mercury is a potent neurotoxin that can cause serious developmental problems in children, ranging from severe birth defects to mental retardation. As many as 630,000 children born annually in the U.S. are at risk of neurological afflictions related to mercury. In adults, mercury can cause problems affecting vision, motor skills, blood pressure and fertility. As many as 10 percent of women in the U.S. of childbearing age have mercury in their blood at a level that could put a baby at risk.

Sampling conducted by the Tribune showed surprisingly high levels of mercury concentrations in freshwater and saltwater fish purchased by Chicago area consumers, fish like tuna, swordfish, orange roughy, and walleye. The Tribune also reported on how existing programs at the Food and Drug Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency have failed to adequately test and evaluate mercury levels in fish.

For all Americans, especially pregnant women and other at-risk groups, there are risks to eating fish with high mercury levels. That is why we need to work harder to get at the root causes of mercury contamination. In the short term, some have proposed strategies that include eating less fish, or issuing consumption advisories, or printing labels on tuna cans, or posting placards at the supermarket. Each of those strategies have their respective merits, but if we are really serious about making fish safer to eat, we need to actually reduce the amount of mercury in fish, and that means reducing the amount of mercury used in industry.

When policymakers focus on addressing mercury sources, often coal- fired power plants and incinerators are at the top of the list. I think it is important that we not overlook other sources, however, where new policies could yield notable mercury reductions in the short term using methods that are achievable and affordable. One such source is the chlor-alkali industry.

Chlor-alkali facilities manufacture chlorine gas and caustic soda, important chemicals that serve as the building blocks of many of the products and plastics essential to modem everyday life. For more than 100 years, mercury has been a key component in the chlorine process. Since 1974, however, about 115 plants worldwide have converted to better technologies such as membrane and diaphragm cells. Today in the U.S. more than 90 percent of the chlor-alkali industry has switched from using mercury to using these alternative catalysts. Moreover, of the 8 plants in the U.S. that still use mercury, 3 are in the process of stopping. The remaining 5, however, have made no such commitment. It is also worth noting that in 2005 alone, the 5 uncommitted mercury using plants released more than 4,400 pounds of mercury into the air, on average four times the average mercury releases of a standard coal- fired power plant.

The time has come to finish these upgrades and end the use of mercury in the chlor-alkali process, especially since these remaining plants rank among the largest mercury emitters in their respective states.

The bill I introduce today, the Missing Mercury in Manufacturing Monitoring and Mitigation Act, or M5 Act, prohibits using mercury cells in the chlorine or caustic soda manufacturing process by the year 2012. The M5 Act also puts procedures in place by mid-year 2008 to track and report mercury input and output in the chlor-alkali industry. The evidence suggests that between 2000 and 2004, the industry could not account for more than 130 tons of mercury. The EPA calls this ``an enigma.'' The M5 Act addresses this enigma by tightening up mercury tracking requirements. My bill also establishes an advisory committee to study and recommend methods for transfer and long-term storage of mercury from closed or closing facilities. And the bill directs the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Register to conduct a health assessment at those facilities that still use mercury after 2008.

It is important to point out that there are alternatives to mercury in the chlor-alkali process, more than 100 plants worldwide have converted to better technologies. We also know that these alternatives are not cost-prohibitive. Statistics compiled in a recent report by the group Oceana demonstrate that conversion costs are substantially similar to the cost of the continued use of mercury, for example, the cost of waste disposal, treatment, monitoring, fines, and higher energy consumption associated with using the old technology.

If there were simply no alternatives to mercury for this industry, if other technologies had not been proven on a commercial scale, or if switching from mercury was simply too expensive, then I could understand if there were strong arguments against this legislation. But here we actually have a situation where mercury use could actually be phased out within a rather short period of time, improving the health of children and families. So the choice is whether we want to wait another decade and hope that improvements happen, or whether we want to ensure that mercury is phased out beginning today. I hope my colleagues will choose the latter, and I urge their support of this bill.

Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce the Hospital Quality Report Card Act, a quality-focused initiative that will actively engage all relevant stakeholder groups--patients, providers, administrators, and payers--and increase availability of information about the quality of health care services in local hospitals and health systems.

We know that overall performance in our Nation's hospitals can vary tremendously, and is mediocre at best in many institutions. The academic literature has documented serious issues in health care quality for treatment of a number of conditions, including cardiac arrhythmias, hip replacements, and alcohol dependence to name just a few. But discussions of health care quality are not limited to academic exercises; patients and their families experience medical errors and substandard hospital care every day. Just last month, the L.A. Times reported an extreme case involving Ms. Edith Isabel Rodriguez. Ms. Rodriguez, a 43-year old American woman with a perforated bowel, suffered an excruciating and possibly preventable death, after lying unattended on the floor of an emergency room for 45 minutes. Our Nation's hospitals can do better and must do better.

One step towards improving health care quality is collecting, analyzing, and reporting on health care quality, using measures that have been developed, validated, and accepted by the medical community. Not only will such measures assist hospitals by identifying problem areas and facilitating monitoring for improvement, but the transparency through public reporting will also help consumers and payers make informed decisions about where to obtain health services.

The Hospital Quality Report Card Act grants the Secretary of Health and Human Services the power to collect hospital information related to the staffing levels of nurses and health professionals, the accreditation of hospitals, the quality of care for vulnerable populations, the availability of specialty services and intensive care units, hospital acquired infections, measures of crowding in emergency rooms, and other indicators of quality care. This information--focused on health care effectiveness, safety, timeliness, efficiency, patient- centeredness, and equity--will be electronically accessible to the public. The report card initiative builds upon current work at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, as well as initiatives in a number States including my own home State of Illinois. I am proud to report that I was the primary sponsor of the Illinois Hospital Report Card Act that passed into law in 2003 and took effect in 2004.

Our Nation's reputation of having one of the best health care systems in the world needs to be restored, and this won't happen until we can assure the American people that our hospitals are doing a better job offering top-notch quality care. The Hospital Quality Report Card Initiative will help by expanding and reporting quality measurement, which will provide an incentive for hospitals to do better and valuable information to patients and consumers. I ask that you support the Hospital Quality Report Card Act and help my efforts to pass this legislation.

Mr. President, today I reintroduce legislation initially inspired by an indepth report published in late 2005 by the Chicago Tribune that highlighted the extent of mercury contamination in the fish eaten by the American people.

Mercury is a potent neurotoxin that can cause serious developmental problems in children, ranging from severe birth defects to mental retardation. As many as 630,000 children born annually in the U.S. are at risk of neurological afflictions related to mercury. In adults, mercury can cause problems affecting vision, motor skills, blood pressure and fertility. As many as 10 percent of women in the U.S. of childbearing age have mercury in their blood at a level that could put a baby at risk.

Sampling conducted by the Tribune showed surprisingly high levels of mercury concentrations in freshwater and saltwater fish purchased by Chicago area consumers, fish like tuna, swordfish, orange roughy, and walleye. The Tribune also reported on how existing programs at the Food and Drug Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency have failed to adequately test and evaluate mercury levels in fish.

For all Americans, especially pregnant women and other at-risk groups, there are risks to eating fish with high mercury levels. That is why we need to work harder to get at the root causes of mercury contamination. In the short term, some have proposed strategies that include eating less fish, or issuing consumption advisories, or printing labels on tuna cans, or posting placards at the supermarket. Each of those strategies have their respective merits, but if we are really serious about making fish safer to eat, we need to actually reduce the amount of mercury in fish, and that means reducing the amount of mercury used in industry.

When policymakers focus on addressing mercury sources, often coal- fired power plants and incinerators are at the top of the list. I think it is important that we not overlook other sources, however, where new policies could yield notable mercury reductions in the short term using methods that are achievable and affordable. One such source is the chlor-alkali industry.

Chlor-alkali facilities manufacture chlorine gas and caustic soda, important chemicals that serve as the building blocks of many of the products and plastics essential to modem everyday life. For more than 100 years, mercury has been a key component in the chlorine process. Since 1974, however, about 115 plants worldwide have converted to better technologies such as membrane and diaphragm cells. Today in the U.S. more than 90 percent of the chlor-alkali industry has switched from using mercury to using these alternative catalysts. Moreover, of the 8 plants in the U.S. that still use mercury, 3 are in the process of stopping. The remaining 5, however, have made no such commitment. It is also worth noting that in 2005 alone, the 5 uncommitted mercury using plants released more than 4,400 pounds of mercury into the air, on average four times the average mercury releases of a standard coal- fired power plant.

The time has come to finish these upgrades and end the use of mercury in the chlor-alkali process, especially since these remaining plants rank among the largest mercury emitters in their respective states.

The bill I introduce today, the Missing Mercury in Manufacturing Monitoring and Mitigation Act, or M5 Act, prohibits using mercury cells in the chlorine or caustic soda manufacturing process by the year 2012. The M5 Act also puts procedures in place by mid-year 2008 to track and report mercury input and output in the chlor-alkali industry. The evidence suggests that between 2000 and 2004, the industry could not account for more than 130 tons of mercury. The EPA calls this ``an enigma.'' The M5 Act addresses this enigma by tightening up mercury tracking requirements. My bill also establishes an advisory committee to study and recommend methods for transfer and long-term storage of mercury from closed or closing facilities. And the bill directs the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Register to conduct a health assessment at those facilities that still use mercury after 2008.

It is important to point out that there are alternatives to mercury in the chlor-alkali process, more than 100 plants worldwide have converted to better technologies. We also know that these alternatives are not cost-prohibitive. Statistics compiled in a recent report by the group Oceana demonstrate that conversion costs are substantially similar to the cost of the continued use of mercury, for example, the cost of waste disposal, treatment, monitoring, fines, and higher energy consumption associated with using the old technology.

If there were simply no alternatives to mercury for this industry, if other technologies had not been proven on a commercial scale, or if switching from mercury was simply too expensive, then I could understand if there were strong arguments against this legislation. But here we actually have a situation where mercury use could actually be phased out within a rather short period of time, improving the health of children and families. So the choice is whether we want to wait another decade and hope that improvements happen, or whether we want to ensure that mercury is phased out beginning today. I hope my colleagues will choose the latter, and I urge their support of this bill.

Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce the Hospital Quality Report Card Act, a quality-focused initiative that will actively engage all relevant stakeholder groups--patients, providers, administrators, and payers--and increase availability of information about the quality of health care services in local hospitals and health systems.

We know that overall performance in our Nation's hospitals can vary tremendously, and is mediocre at best in many institutions. The academic literature has documented serious issues in health care quality for treatment of a number of conditions, including cardiac arrhythmias, hip replacements, and alcohol dependence to name just a few. But discussions of health care quality are not limited to academic exercises; patients and their families experience medical errors and substandard hospital care every day. Just last month, the L.A. Times reported an extreme case involving Ms. Edith Isabel Rodriguez. Ms. Rodriguez, a 43-year old American woman with a perforated bowel, suffered an excruciating and possibly preventable death, after lying unattended on the floor of an emergency room for 45 minutes. Our Nation's hospitals can do better and must do better.

One step towards improving health care quality is collecting, analyzing, and reporting on health care quality, using measures that have been developed, validated, and accepted by the medical community. Not only will such measures assist hospitals by identifying problem areas and facilitating monitoring for improvement, but the transparency through public reporting will also help consumers and payers make informed decisions about where to obtain health services.

The Hospital Quality Report Card Act grants the Secretary of Health and Human Services the power to collect hospital information related to the staffing levels of nurses and health professionals, the accreditation of hospitals, the quality of care for vulnerable populations, the availability of specialty services and intensive care units, hospital acquired infections, measures of crowding in emergency rooms, and other indicators of quality care. This information--focused on health care effectiveness, safety, timeliness, efficiency, patient- centeredness, and equity--will be electronically accessible to the public. The report card initiative builds upon current work at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, as well as initiatives in a number States including my own home State of Illinois. I am proud to report that I was the primary sponsor of the Illinois Hospital Report Card Act that passed into law in 2003 and took effect in 2004.

Our Nation's reputation of having one of the best health care systems in the world needs to be restored, and this won't happen until we can assure the American people that our hospitals are doing a better job offering top-notch quality care. The Hospital Quality Report Card Initiative will help by expanding and reporting quality measurement, which will provide an incentive for hospitals to do better and valuable information to patients and consumers. I ask that you support the Hospital Quality Report Card Act and help my efforts to pass this legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 1 minute.

Mr. President, we have had an extensive debate, obviously, on the floor of the Senate. I was scheduled originally to speak at 6 a.m. Because there was an enormous backlog, I have not had an opportunity to speak on this issue.

I rise this morning in strong support of the amendment offered by Senators Levin and Reed. I am proud to join them as a cosponsor of this amendment.

We have heard from the administration and from many of our colleagues in this Chamber that we need to give the President's surge more time, that we need to wait to hear the report in September before we make a binding decision to redeploy our troops. Yet, we learned just last week that the Iraqi political leaders have not met a single benchmark that they had agreed to in January. Not one.

We do not need to wait for another report. We have seen the results of a failed policy in the form of multiple deployments, more sacrifice from our military families, and a deepening civil war in Iraq that has caught our troops in the middle.

It is long past time to turn the page in Iraq, where each day we see the consequences of fighting a war that should never have been authorized and should never have been waged. The single most important decision a President or Member of Congress can make is the decision to send our troops into harm's way.

It is that decision that determines the fate of our men and women in uniform, the course of nations, and the security of the American people. It is that decision that sets in motion consequences that cannot be undone.

Since this war began, 3,618 Americans have been killed--532 since the President ignored the will of the American people and launched his surge. Tens of thousands more have been wounded,

suffering terrible injuries seen and unseen.

Here is what else we know: We know that the surge is not working, that our mission in Iraq must be changed, and that this war must be brought to a responsible conclusion.

We know Iraq's leaders are not resolving their grievances. They are not stepping up to their security responsibilities. They are not improving the daily lives of Iraqis.

We know that the war in Iraq costs us $370 million a day and $10 billion each month. These are resources that could be spent to secure our ports and our borders, and to focus on a resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan and the wider war on terrorism that is yet to be won.

We know that because of the war in Iraq, America is no safer than it was on 9/11. Al-Qaida has gained the best recruiting tool it could ask for. Tens of thousands of terrorists have been trained and radicalized in Iraq. And terrorism is up worldwide.

If America is attacked again, it will be in no small measure a consequence of our failure to destroy al-Qaida at its roots in Afghanistan and our failure to adequately secure the homeland. The decision to authorize and fight a misguided war in Iraq has created a new cadre of experienced terrorists bent on the destruction of the United States and our allies.

If there is still any question about whether Iraq has been a distraction from this critical war in Afghanistan and Pakistan, that should have been resolved yesterday with the release of the most recent national intelligence estimate. That report said that al-Qaida ``has protected or regenerated key elements of its Homeland attack capability, including: a safe haven in the Pakistan Federally Administered Tribal Areas, operational lieutenants, and its top leadership.''

And last week, a new threat assessment concluded that al-Qaida is as strong today as it was before 9/11.

Seeing yet another report like this, I can only repeat what I said nearly 5 years ago, during the runup to this war. We are fighting on the wrong battlefield. The terrorists who attacked us and who continue to plot against us are resurgent in the hills between Afghanistan and Pakistan. They should have been our focus then. They must be our focus now.

I opposed this war from the beginning, before the Congress voted to authorize the war in 2002. I said then that I could not support a war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. I worried that it would lead to a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.

I believed then--and I still believe now--that being a leader means that you'd better do what's right and leave the politics aside. Because there are no do-overs on an issue as important as war. You cannot undo the consequences of that decision.

In January, I introduced a plan that would have already started bringing our troops home and ending this war, with a goal of removing all combat brigades by March 31, 2008. Seventy-eight days ago, President Bush vetoed a bipartisan plan that passed both Houses of Congress that shared my goal of changing course and ending this war.

During those 78 days, 266 Americans have died, and the situation in Iraq has continued to deteriorate.

It is time to set a hard date to signal a new mission in Iraq and to begin to bring our troops home. It is time to ensure that we complete the change in mission and the drawdown of our forces, by the end of April 2008--a date that is consistent with the date in my plan back in January.

As we redeploy from Iraq--as I believe we must do--we have to redouble our efforts on all fronts in Afghanistan to ensure we do not lose ground there.

Certainly, we have had some success there over the last 5\1/2\ years, whether it is the five-fold increase in the number of Afghan boys and girls now attending schools or the free elections of a president and parliament.

Yet the remaining challenges in Afghanistan are enormous:

Opium production is expected to reach a record high this year, with revenues helping to fuel the Taliban and al-Qaida; the Taliban has increased its campaign of suicide attacks and roadside bombings in recent months; most troubling is this simple fact: The leaders of al- Qaida--Osama bin Laden and his lieutenant Ayman Al-Zawahiri, and the leader of the Taliban, Mullah Omar, remain at large. They are now free to operate in a safe haven in northwest Pakistan.

That has to change.

First, the United States must increase reconstruction efforts, on both the civilian and military side. If we are serious about winning the war on terror, we must shift to greater investments in winning the hearts and minds of Afghans. The U.S. should allocate money in a way that allows more flexibility in our spending, permitting funding of local projects that benefit communities and promising local governments.

Second, the United States and NATO must turn around the security situation so that average Afghans regain their faith in the ability of their government and the international forces to ensure their security. Despite more than 5 years of an international military presence in their country, the sad reality is that most Afghans do not believe their government can guarantee their safety.

Taliban violence is on the rise, and is reaching into areas of the country, like the north, that had been relatively stable until a few months ago. Secretary Gates' commitment of an additional 3,200 American combat troops and the U.K. commitment of at least 1,000 new troops were positive steps. But we must also encourage other NATO allies to supply more troops and withdraw the caveats that prevent some NATO forces from assisting allies in the most dangerous parts of Afghanistan.

Third, the Afghan Government, with our help, must do more to respond to the needs of its people, starting by combating its culture of impunity and rampant corruption. The Afghan people will never trust their government unless it begins effectively to combat the lawlessness that has long plagued the Afghan countryside.

Fourth, in order to make headway against corruption, the United States and our allies must revamp our counternarcotics efforts. For too long, the United States and NATO have combated this issue with, at best, half measures, and we now face a situation where the drug trade is exacerbating instability with drug revenues funding the insurgency.

Finally, any possibility of long-term stability in Afghanistan depends on addressing cross-border issues with Pakistan and other neighbors.

Simply put, Pakistan is not doing enough to deal with al-Qaida and Taliban safe havens within its borders. In the past months, Pakistan has arrested or killed several high value targets, but its overall record remains poor. Any solution must take the fiercely independent tribal culture of the border region into account. And we should ensure that when we provide money to reimburse the Pakistani military for fighting al-Qaida and the Taliban along the Afghanistan border, the Pakistani military is meeting that commitment.

The central front in the war on terrorism is not in Iraq; it is in Afghanistan and Pakistan. As we change course in Iraq, we must correct course in South Asia. And it is long past time that we did so.

But to make that change, the American people need real leadership from this Chamber--not empty rhetoric.

We are engaged in important work in the Senate. If only the willingness to work toward solutions were commensurate with the importance of the topic we are undertaking, we might make some progress. I hope that our colleagues do not choose further obstruction over progress, delay over decision.

The only point I wish to add is all of us are patriots. The Senator who is managing for the minority at this point is a certified American hero. All of us want to see our troops come home safely. All of us want the best possible result in Iraq. The only thing I would say is, given that we have no good options at this point, that we have bad options and worse options, I think it is very important for us to take this debate seriously and to recognize that none of us are interested in dictating military strategy to the President but, rather, in setting a mission for the military, and that is what this debate is about.

Given the National Intelligence Estimate that has come out, I think it is

important for us to be prudent and consider what the best steps forward are now, and that is something I hope emerges from this debate. It is my belief the best thing to do now is to vote for Reed-Levin.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce the Lead Poisoning Reduction Act.

Two weeks ago, the Washington Post featured an article on lead research by the economist Rick Nevin. Mr. Nevin's work demonstrates a strong link between lead exposure and criminal activity in our country. Specifically, he found that national spikes in rates of children with lead poisoning were significantly correlated with spikes in criminal activity two decades later. Notably, this finding was not unique to the U.S., he found a similar association in 9 other countries, despite differences in economics, demographics, and values. Although many readers, myself included, were surprised by Nevin's findings, the scientific community was not, having known for many years that lead poisoning leads to irrevocable, toxic effects on brain development of young children. These effects lead to changes such as impulsivity and impaired cognition, which appear to contribute to criminal behavior in later years.

Mr. Nevin's work underscores the critical importance of eliminating lead poisoning in children, which is completely preventable and has tragic consequences. In the U.S., over 300,000 children have blood lead levels of 10

micrograms or higher, the level traditionally considered to indicate ``lead poisoning''. Yet, even this level is now considered unsafe as newer research has indicated that lead-related damage starts at much lower levels. We must remain vigilant in tackling all sources of lead exposure, to save future generations of children from harm, and the Lead Poisoning Reduction Act will help to do just that.

The major source of lead exposure among U.S. children is lead-based paint and lead-contaminated dust found in deteriorating buildings. The Lead Poisoning Reduction Act will provide $42.6 million in grants to communities that wish to develop and implement lead amelioration programs for their childcare facilities. It directs EPA to promulgate regulations within 18 months that require new child-occupied facilities to be certified lead-safe before opening for business. Additionally, EPA would also promulgate regulations within 5 years of enactment to require that all non-home-based childcare facilities be lead-safe. Further, my bill requires EPA to conduct a study of State, tribal and local programs designed to protect children from lead exposure in child-occupied facilities; to establish baseline studies, based on the results of this study; and to create a model program, that can be adapted for use by State, tribal and community officials, for testing, abatement, and communication of risks of lead to children and parents.

Reducing lead hazards in our communities, especially in child- occupied facilities, is critical, with impact reaching beyond individual children in preschools in any given city, to our society as a whole. It is the right thing to do, and the smart thing to do, and it should have been done years ago.

I call on my colleagues to support the Lead Protection Reduction Act, which will help to ensure that every child has access to safe, lead- free childcare facilities in this Nation.

Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce the Lead Poisoning Reduction Act.

Two weeks ago, the Washington Post featured an article on lead research by the economist Rick Nevin. Mr. Nevin's work demonstrates a strong link between lead exposure and criminal activity in our country. Specifically, he found that national spikes in rates of children with lead poisoning were significantly correlated with spikes in criminal activity two decades later. Notably, this finding was not unique to the U.S., he found a similar association in 9 other countries, despite differences in economics, demographics, and values. Although many readers, myself included, were surprised by Nevin's findings, the scientific community was not, having known for many years that lead poisoning leads to irrevocable, toxic effects on brain development of young children. These effects lead to changes such as impulsivity and impaired cognition, which appear to contribute to criminal behavior in later years.

Mr. Nevin's work underscores the critical importance of eliminating lead poisoning in children, which is completely preventable and has tragic consequences. In the U.S., over 300,000 children have blood lead levels of 10

micrograms or higher, the level traditionally considered to indicate ``lead poisoning''. Yet, even this level is now considered unsafe as newer research has indicated that lead-related damage starts at much lower levels. We must remain vigilant in tackling all sources of lead exposure, to save future generations of children from harm, and the Lead Poisoning Reduction Act will help to do just that.

The major source of lead exposure among U.S. children is lead-based paint and lead-contaminated dust found in deteriorating buildings. The Lead Poisoning Reduction Act will provide $42.6 million in grants to communities that wish to develop and implement lead amelioration programs for their childcare facilities. It directs EPA to promulgate regulations within 18 months that require new child-occupied facilities to be certified lead-safe before opening for business. Additionally, EPA would also promulgate regulations within 5 years of enactment to require that all non-home-based childcare facilities be lead-safe. Further, my bill requires EPA to conduct a study of State, tribal and local programs designed to protect children from lead exposure in child-occupied facilities; to establish baseline studies, based on the results of this study; and to create a model program, that can be adapted for use by State, tribal and community officials, for testing, abatement, and communication of risks of lead to children and parents.

Reducing lead hazards in our communities, especially in child- occupied facilities, is critical, with impact reaching beyond individual children in preschools in any given city, to our society as a whole. It is the right thing to do, and the smart thing to do, and it should have been done years ago.

I call on my colleagues to support the Lead Protection Reduction Act, which will help to ensure that every child has access to safe, lead- free childcare facilities in this Nation.

Mr. President, I rise to welcome Polish President Lech Kaczynski to Washington. Recognizing the rich history of cooperation between our two countries, I am happy to say, Witam Serdecznie w Washingtonie, Welcome to Washington.

The Polish President's visit reminds us that for the last 200 years America and Poland have been linked in the struggle for freedom. Today there is a strong legacy of sacrifice between the two nations-- sacrifice for the cause of American and Polish freedom alike.

As early as the Revolutionary War, Polish patriots like Casimir Pulaski and Tadeusz Kosciuszko fought alongside American patriots--from Germantown to Saratoga--to help win our country's independence.

During World War I, Ignacy Paderewski, an unparalleled musician, helped lead the fight for a free and independent Poland. He became Prime Minister after the war, only to be forced into exile by the Nazi Occupation. After he died in exile in the United States, America gave this great friend of freedom a place alongside our honored dead in Arlington National Cemetery. There he would rest, in the words of President Franklin Roosevelt, ``until Poland would be free.''

It was a moving sight when, in 1992, President George H. W. Bush escorted Paderewski's ashes home to Poland. No one will forget seeing thousands of Poles lining the streets over the miles from the airport to the city center, waiting to see the horse drawn carriage.

It was the world's good fortune that a Pole infused with this same dedication to freedom and the dignity of all people was elected Pope at such a critical time. Polish Americans were thrilled at the election of Karol Wojtyla as Pope, a man who kept the faith when faith was forbidden.

At the same time, American Polonia's dedication to freedom in their native Poland was vital in ensuring that Soviet totalitarianism would not succeed. Millions of personal packages were sent to friends and family back home, and each package was a message of hope in dark days like--the imposition of martial law in 1981--of the Soviet Union.

The razing of the Iron Curtain provided opportunities to renew the linkage between Poland and America. Two centuries after the deaths of Pulaski and Kosciuszko, Poland and America became formal allies in NATO, institutionalizing the faith in freedom our countries have shared for centuries.

Since joining NATO in 1997, Poland has become one of America's most important strategic partners, dedicating troops and resources to our operations in Afghanistan and Iraq.

We now have an opportunity to build on this long and deep relationship. Here is how we can:

Renew the unity of purpose of the Transatlantic Relationship. The Bush administration's policy of splitting Europe into ``old'' and ``new'' was not just wrong, it was counterproductive. Poland should not have to choose between its vital interest in closer integration with Europe and its alliance with the United States. America must repair its relationship with Europe as a whole, so that Poland and our other Central European allies are never put in that position again.

Finish building a Europe whole and free. Poland has been a steadfast champion of liberty in the countries to its east. America and Poland should stand together to help Ukraine build a strong and stable democracy, and to help the people of Belarus regain their human rights. We also share an interest in working with Russia to meet common security threats and to encourage Russia's integration into Western institutions. But we should also embrace, not abandon, those in Russia working to preserve their hard won liberty, and draw clear lines against Russia's intimidation of its neighbors. Mr. President, 21st century Europe cannot be divided into 19th century spheres of influence.

Meet global challenges together. Not long ago, we looked to Poland as a country that needed American help in its own efforts to be free and secure; now we look to Poland as a critical partner in building a safer, freer world. We should work with Poland to secure more European troops, with stronger rules of engagement, to stabilize Afghanistan. And we should work together to send an unmistakable signal to Iran that its insistence in pursuing a nuclear weapons program is a profound mistake.

Energize the alliance to confront new challenges. From Poland to the United States, we are facing a new kind of threat in the form of energy insecurity and climate change. The North Atlantic community has always joined forces to confront and defeat new challenges, and we should be doing the same now by, among other things, sharing best practices on energy conservation, inviting India and China to join the International Energy Agency, and dedicating our significant resources to establishing a global cap and trade on greenhouse gas pollution.

Prudently but decisively prepare for emerging threats. The Bush administration has been developing plans to deploy interceptors and radar systems in Poland and the Czech Republic as part of a missile defense system designed to protect against the potential threat of Iranian nuclear armed missiles. If we can responsibly deploy missile defenses that would protect us and our allies we should--but only when the system works. We need to make sure any missile defense system would be effective before deployment. The Bush administration has in the past exaggerated missile defense capabilities and rushed deployments for political purposes. The Bush administration has also done a poor job of consulting its NATO allies about the deployment of a missile defense system that has major implications for all of them. We must not allow this issue to divide ``new Europe'' and ``old Europe,'' as the Bush administration tried to do over Iraq.

Invite Poland to join the Visa Waiver Program. We should work to include countries like Poland that are members of both the EU and NATO into the Visa Waiver Program. Today's visa regime reflects neither the current strategic relationship nor the close historic bonds between our peoples, and is out of date.

These are important steps and I look forward to working with my colleagues to implement them.

It is wonderful to welcome the Polish President at a time in which America and Poland share the same freedom. Our two nations share a common legacy and destiny, and I am honored to welcome President Kaczynski to Washington.

Mr. President, the new intelligence assessment is a chilling reminder that the American people are less secure than we were on 9/11. According to press reports of the assessment, al-Qaida has reconstituted, rebuilt its training and command and control capabilities, and is better positioned to strike the West. Meanwhile, Osama bin Laden and his top deputy are still on the loose.

If America is again attacked, it will be in no small measure a consequence of the Bush administration's failure to destroy al-Qaida at its roots in Afghanistan and to adequately secure the homeland. The decision to authorize and fight a misguided war in Iraq also created a new cadre of experienced terrorists bent on the destruction of the United States and our allies. The recent attacks in Britain are likely only the beginning of an Iraqi ``blowback,'' which may haunt us for years to come. Since we invaded Iraq, the number of Islamic extremist terrorist attacks--excluding those in Iraq and Afghanistan--has risen by 35 percent worldwide.

We cannot win a war against the terrorists if we are on the wrong battlefield. America must urgently begin redeploying from Iraq and take the fight more effectively to the enemy's home by destroying al-Qaida's leadership along the Afghan-Pakistan border, eliminating their command and control networks, and disrupting their funding. To counter their ability to rebuild these capabilities, we must convince Pakistan to pursue an effective strategy, with our assistance, to deny the terrorists sanctuary in Pakistan's northwest territories. We must also finish the job and secure Afghanistan, where the Taliban is resurgent.

But it will take more than force to defeat this threat. It will take wisdom and patience to restore America's credibility in the Muslim world and reduce both passive and active support for extremists. We need to partner with the vast majority of Muslims in their struggle against those who would distort their religion, create oppressive theocracies, and kill innocents. We must demonstrate through action, not mere words, that America is not at war with Islam, and that we will stand with those Muslims who seek a better future.

Abu Ghraib served as a recruiting poster for violent Islamic extremists. Guantanamo has diminished America's standing in the Muslim world and with our closest allies. The needless violation of our civil liberties at home has damaged our moral authority abroad. All these actions have undercut our fight against terrorists. This is not America, this is not who we are. We must close Guantanamo, renounce torture, and respect the rule of law to be faithful to our own values, prosecute the war on terrorism more effectively, and begin to engender renewed admiration for America in the Muslim world. American values and liberties must be seen as a source of our strength, not as a liability, in the fight against terrorism.

Finally, we must take many long-overdue steps to better secure our homeland. We need to lock down loose nuclear material around the world, upgrade port, transport and chemical plant security, allocate homeland security dollars according to risk, and give local law enforcement the resources and intelligence support to help prevent rather than simply respond to terrorist attacks.

The administration argues this intelligence assessment proves its case for doing more of the same. On the contrary, the American people cannot afford more of the same. This intelligence assessment reminds us once again of the consequences of the decision to authorize and fight the war in Iraq, and to direct our resources away from the wider war on terrorism that was yet to be won. It underscores the urgent need for a new, more effective counterterrorism strategy at home and abroad.

Mr. President, all across the country, Americans are anxious about their future. In a global economy with new rules and new risks, they have watched as their Government has shifted those risks onto the backs of the American worker, and they wonder how they are ever going to keep up.

In coffee shops and town meetings, in VFW halls and all along the towns that once housed the manufacturing facilities that built our country, the questions are all the same. Will I be able to leave my children a better world than I was given? Will I be able to save enough to send them to college? Will I be able to plan for my retirement? Will my job even be there tomorrow? Who will stand up for me in this new world?

The Employee Free Choice Act can alleviate some of these concerns. I support this bill because in order to restore a sense of shared prosperity and security, we need to help working Americans exercise their right to organize under a fair and free process and bargain for their fair share of the wealth our country creates.

The current process for organizing a workplace denies too many workers the ability to do so. The Employee Free Choice Act offers to make binding an alternative process under which a majority of employees can sign up to join a union. Currently, employers can choose to accept--but are not bound by law to accept--the signed decision of a majority of workers. That choice should be left up to workers and workers alone.

Moreover, workers who want to form a union today are vulnerable to a concentrated period of union-busting tactics by employers. Far too often, workers petition to form a union, the employer is notified, and then the employer uses the time between notification and the vote to force workers into closed-door meetings where they might

mislead and scare their employees into opposing the organizing drive. In thousands of cases, employers just start firing prounion employees to send a message. And they consider any penalties that result from that behavior an acceptable cost of doing business.

The Employee Free Choice Act would give workers the right to collect signed cards from a majority of their colleagues to form a union and would require the employer to respect and accept that decision. It increases penalties to discourage employers from punishing workers trying to organize their colleagues, and it encourages both sides to negotiate the first contract in good faith by sending stalemates to binding arbitration.

As executive compensation skyrockets and money managers rake in millions in income annually, American workers are wondering if the rules aren't tilted against them. They question whether their vote and their efforts matter. They feel they have an increasingly weaker voice in the decisions their employers and their Government make. They find themselves competing against workers abroad who lack fair pay and benefits. And they feel ill-equipped to challenge employers who are cutting wages or refusing to raise wages at the same time as they are shedding their health care and retirement contributions.

What the history of America's middle class teaches us--and what we have to make real today--is the idea that in this country, we must value the labor of every single American. We must be willing to respect that labor and reward it with a few basic guarantees--wages that can raise a family, health care if we get sick, a retirement that is dignified, working conditions that are safe.

To protect that labor, we need a few basic rights: organization without intimidation, bargaining in good faith, and a safe workplace. These are commonsense principles, and this bill affirms those principles. For this reason, I stand in solidarity with working people around the country as an original cosponsor of the Employee Free Choice Act, and I urge my colleagues to pass it.

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 to speak about the compromise amendment that has been offered by Senator Stevens. I appreciate the hard work and the long hours expended by the proponents of this amendment to craft an approach that bridges the significant differences on this issue. I commend all who were involved for their good work, their diligent work.

This amendment is a good start, and I intend to support it. I also believe we can and should do more to improve the fuel efficiency of our cars and our trucks. With this bill, we have a great opportunity to finally end a 20-year stalemate and accomplish something that will benefit all of us--require our cars to go further on a tank of gas. This is the moment. The window is open, and I believe a bold approach is needed to achieve a major reduction in our Nation's dependence on foreign oil and the emission of greenhouse gases. A bold approach is what made all of the difference almost three decades ago when Congress first established the Corporate Average Fuel Economy, or CAFE, program. At the time, auto executives protested, much as they protest today, saying there is no way to increase fuel economy without making cars smaller. One company predicted Americans would all be driving subcompact cars as a result of CAFE. Anyone can see today that some of our SUVs are the size of about three or four subcompacts put together.

The fact is, CAFE worked. It nearly doubled the average gas mileage of cars from 14 miles per gallon in 1976 to 27.5 miles per gallon in 1985. The increase in fuel economy saves us almost 3 million barrels of oil per day and prevents the emission of over 1 million tons of carbon dioxide per day.

But our oil dependence has only gotten worse, and that is why we need a major improvement in fuel economy standards. Americans are now paying more than $3 a gallon for gas. We are importing 60 percent of our oil, much of it from the Middle East. Osama bin Laden has identified this dependence as a weakness, urging his supporters to ``focus your operations on oil, especially in Iraq and the gulf area, since this will cause [the Americans] to die off.''

The environmental effects of our oil dependence are also severe. The oil used in transportation accounts for a third of our Nation's emissions of greenhouse gases. Just in the last few months, we heard from a panel of top climate change experts from around the world that global warming is a certainty and that most of the temperature increase is likely due to rising greenhouse gas concentrations.

All this, and yet the CAFE standards have not changed in 20 years. This deadlock deepens our dependence on foreign oil and impedes our efforts to address global climate change. Since 1985, efforts to raise the CAFE standards have been blocked by opponents who argued Congress does not possess the expertise to set specific benchmarks and that an inflexible congressional mandate would result in a sacrifice of safety.

I am confident we could achieve higher fuel efficiency standards, and we could do this in a cost-effective manner without sacrificing safety. According to a recent report by the International Council on Clean Transportation, technologies exist today that can improve light-duty vehicle fuel economy by up to 50 percent over the next 10 years without any sacrifice in safety, through improvements in engines, transmissions, aerodynamics, and tires. Fuel savings would be more than enough to cover the cost of these improvements when gas is at $3 per gallon.

Last year, I first joined with Senators Lugar, Biden, Smith, Bingaman, Harkin, Coleman, and Durbin to introduce the Fuel Economy Reform Act. This bill set a new course by establishing regular, continual, and incremental progress on fuel economy standards, targeting a 4-percent annual increase but preserving some flexibility for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to determine how to meet those targets.

I also believe we should look for ways to help automakers meet higher CAFE standards. The Health Care for Hybrids Act that I introduced is an example of how we can offer constructive assistance. This bill would establish a voluntary program in which automakers could choose to receive Federal financial assistance toward their retiree health care costs in return for investing the savings into developing fuel- efficient vehicles. This proposal could jump-start the industry's efforts to develop new technology, improve the competitiveness of U.S. automakers in the growing market for hybrid vehicles, and help auto workers to get the health care they have been promised.

Today's agreement makes long overdue progress on weaning America off our dependence on foreign oil and fighting climate change. It is an important step forward but bolder action will be necessary if we want to solve the dual problem facing our country.

I will support this bill and this increase in fuel efficiency standards.

Again, I commend all those who have worked so diligently to move this amendment forward. I do have to say, though, that I regret we have missed an opportunity to do more today. I will continue to work in the months to come to see if we can make some further progress on this front.

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

Mr. President, I was unable to be present during the vote on the Gregg amendment due to a previously scheduled conflict. But had I been present, I would have voted against waiving the Budget Act in relation to the Gregg amendment to eliminate the 54-cents-per-gallon tariff on imported ethanol.

This amendment to lift the tariff against Brazilian ethanol would merely replace our dependence on foreign oil with a new dependence on foreign ethanol. If we are serious about addressing national and economic security, we need to develop a robust renewable fuels industry in this country. This amendment would frustrate that goal.

Mr. President, yesterday, just days before Father's Day, I was pleased to join my colleague and good friend Senator Bayh in reintroducing the Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act. Within the next few days companion legislation will be introduced in the House of Representatives by Congresswoman Carson of Indiana and my friend from Chicago, Congressman Danny Davis.

It is time to address the crisis of absentee fathers. We must ask ourselves why more than a quarter of all American families have only one parent present, and more than a third live without their father. We must get a handle on why 40 percent of the children in America who live without their father have not seen him in over a year.

There is no question that most single mothers are doing a heroic job raising their kids. They are working two and three jobs, dropping their kids off at school or daycare or with friends or relatives, responding to their illnesses, and, quite frankly, doing the work that is often a challenge these days for even two parents. My appreciation for single mothers is unwavering. My own father was not around when I was growing up, and my mother and grandparents had to step up to the plate to fill my father's role.

But most people would agree that children are almost always better off with both parents contributing their fair share, and the data shows this. Children are more likely to be poor and to do worse in school without both parents in their life. And a healthy relationship between children and their father is important to healthy growth and development.

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

It takes courage to raise a child. We can't simply legislate that courage and expect all parents to get and stay married. We can't legislate good parenting skills or good behavior role models. We can't legislate economic success for all families. But we can help those who are trying to do the right thing and eliminate some of the roadblocks they face. And we can provide some tools to help these courageous parents succeed.

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

This act also makes vital improvements to the child support system, which affects noncustodial fathers as much or more than any other government program. It will restore funding for child support enforcement and require States to pass the full amount of child support collected along to the family. Research has confirmed that a father is more likely to pay child support if he knows that the money is going to his kids.

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

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

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

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

In both the Illinois State Senate and the Senate, I have led efforts to expand the earned-income tax credit, EITC, which is one of the most successful antipoverty programs in the country to date. It rewards work and supplements wages that may be too low to support a family. The Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act would double the number of working single adults eligible for EITC benefits, increase the benefit, reward and support parents who are current on their child support payments, and reduce the EITC marriage penalty which hurts low- income families. Under this plan, full-time workers making minimum wage would get an EITC benefit up to $555, more than three times greater than the $175 benefit they get today. If the workers are responsibly supporting their children on child support, this bill would give those workers a benefit of $1,110.

Additionally, this bill improves the Responsible Fatherhood and Marriage Promotion programs that were funded by the Deficit Reduction Act. Funding is increased, and all Fatherhood and Marriage programs are required to coordinate with domestic violence prevention services to reduce instances of domestic violence and promote healthy, nonviolent relationships.

I would like take a final few moments to talk about the breakdown of families in the African-American community, because the epidemic of absentee fathers runs deep. Today, around 70 percent of Black children are born outside of marriage. Of the 30 percent born to married parents, more than half experience a divorce. That means that about 85 percent of Black children spend some or all of their childhood in a home without their father. As our children grow up, statistics continue to paint a bleak picture. Fewer than 6 of every 10 young Black men are employed, and in some of our urban and rural areas the rate of unemployment is over 50 percent. Roughly one-third of young Black men are involved in some way with the criminal justice system. And young Black men have the lowest educational attainment among Black and White men and women.

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

It is important to remember that there is no segment of our population no income level, no religion, and no race--that is immune to these challenges. Some segments of the population are worse off than others. However, I believe there is reason for hope. At the time of the birth of the child, most fathers are close to both the mother and their child. The challenge is to maintain healthy relationships between parents and to strengthen the early bonds between fathers and their children. The challenge is to improve economic opportunity for all parents so they can support themselves and their families. The challenge is to break the cycle by strengthening America's most vulnerable and fragile families.

That is what this bill does, and it is fully paid for by revenue raised by closing tax loopholes. This is a solid first step forward in removing government barriers to healthy family formation, and addressing the crisis of fatherhood among our Nation's low-income populations. I urge my colleagues to support the Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act of 2007.

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

Madam President, I recognize we are in the midst of a debate surrounding the Outer Continental Shelf.

I would ask unanimous consent to speak briefly as in morning business on a related but different topic.

Madam President, the facts about our Nation's energy consumption are not pretty right now. The United States currently consumes one-quarter of the world's oil. Sixty percent of the oil we consume comes from foreign countries, including many countries whose interests are hostile to us.

To make matters worse, the oil used in the U.S. transportation sector accounts for one-third of our Nation's emissions of greenhouse gases. It is long past time for us to take significant steps to use oil more efficiently in order to deal with the dual challenges of climate change and energy dependence.

In January of this year, California took an important first step toward addressing this problem by establishing a low-carbon fuel standard for passenger vehicle fuels sold in the State. Under the California standard, the carbon intensity of these fuels would be reduced by 10 percent by the year 2020.

In signing the executive order creating the low carbon fuel standard, Governor Schwarzenegger noted some of the dangers of his State's excessive reliance on gasoline: volatile oil prices dictated by hostile foreign countries, lack of economic security, American jobs at risk, businesses in jeopardy, and, most importantly, dangerous levels of greenhouse gas emissions. I applauded the Governor's leadership on this issue and want to take his proposal one giant step further.

Today, I rise to suggest that it is time for us to establish a national low carbon fuel standard for the entire transportation fuel pool in the country, whether the fuel is used for cars, trucks, or airplanes. I recognize we will not be able to move this necessarily on the legislation currently pending, but it is important for us to introduce the concept. I have already spoken to Senator Bingaman.

If my proposal were to become law, by the year 2015, the carbon emissions in our national fuel supply would be 5 percent less than they are now. By the year 2020, the carbon emissions would be 10 percent less. The effect of these seemingly modest reductions would be significant. According to one estimate, a national low carbon fuel standard would reduce annual greenhouse gas emissions by about 180 metric tons in 2020. This is the equivalent of taking 30 million cars off the road by 2020.

My amendment would reduce carbon emissions overall in the transportation fuel pool, but it would not dictate what feedstocks could satisfy the low carbon fuel standard or how many gallons of a particular fuel would have to be produced. Instead, fuels could be mixed and matched to achieve the carbon reduction targets. In essence, the market would dictate what pool of fuels would be sold in the United States in order to satisfy requirements. The fuels could be corn-based ethanol, cellulosic ethanol, biodiesel made from soybeans, electricity used by plug-in hybrid vehicles, or perhaps some kind of fuel that has not even been developed yet. The only requirement is that the overall mix of fuels sold in the United States would have to meet the carbon reduction targets set forth in my proposal.

This is a new concept. Indeed, fewer than 6 months have passed since California adopted it. I know some of my colleagues are not familiar with how it would work, so let me address the relationship between the low carbon fuel standard and something we know a lot about, the renewable fuels standard.

Under the able leadership of the two Senators from New Mexico, the Energy Committee has crafted the underlying bill to require greater volumes of biofuels in our national fuel supply. The bill increases national production goals in the RFS over the next 15 years and establishes the first production targets of next-generation fuels such as cellulosics. Under the bill, the RFS target would increase to 36 billion gallons of renewable fuels by the year 2022. When combined with the new advanced biofuels requirement in the bill, this would result in an estimated 2 to 6 percent reduction in carbon emissions in our national fuel pool in 15 years. These are significant reductions, but I believe we can do better.

My low carbon fuel standard would require a 10-percent reduction in carbon emissions by 2020. I know that sounds ambitious, but the magnitude of our Nation's problems demands bold and innovative action. Indeed, the experts with whom we have consulted firmly believe that a 10-percent reduction is realistic, with greater research in advanced biofuels and new fuel sources. But that research will only happen if businesses are assured of a market for their new products. Just as the existing RFS has spurred the construction of ethanol plants, a low carbon fuel standard would incentivize development of new advanced fuels.

We in Congress support biofuels because these fuels strengthen our energy security, support our rural economies, and reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. But our current policy doesn't recognize producers when they do a better job achieving these goals. Our farmers, manufacturers, and investors are ready to produce better biofuels, fuels that are more efficient, fuels that support a broader base of rural communities, fuels that reduce greenhouse gases by 90 percent or more, but they need a signal that their investment in better performance will be recognized in the marketplace.

Let me be clear: A low carbon fuel standard is not intended to replace the RFS. Instead, the two standards would complement each other by encouraging greater use of renewable fuels. Here is an important difference between the two standards: The RFS evaluates renewable fuel based on the feedstock that creates the fuel, while the low carbon fuel standard looks at the carbon emissions produced by the fuel. That is an important distinction as we wrestle with perhaps the greatest challenge of our generation--climate change.

Going forward, it is not enough just to say that a fuel uses homegrown products such as corn or soybeans. We also need to look at what effect the fuel has on carbon emissions. This amendment does that and, in doing so, offers something for everyone. If you support rural America, this approach ensures widespread development and use of biofuels from agricultural products. If you support energy security, this approach reduces our consumption of oil by 30 billion gallons by 2020, 60 percent of which would have to be imported from foreign sources. If you support certainty for industry, this approach provides the market certainty that is critical for investment dollars in key technologies. Most importantly,

if you support the environment, this approach reduces carbon emissions by 180 metric tons by 2020 and ensures that any future billion-dollar capital investment in a fuel plant would have to produce a fuel with better life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions than conventional gasoline because under a low carbon fuel standard there would be no place for carbon-intensive fuels.

The energy debate this week underscores the fact that as we pursue the best course of action for our energy independence, there are no perfect answers. There is no single fuel or feedstock that offers the best combination of affordability, reliability, transportability, and sensitivity to the environment. Even if there were, I am not sure we in this Chamber would be the most qualified to identify it. But our current course; that is, maintaining our dependency on an unstable region of the world for the fuel we cannot live without, is far too great a risk to delay action. That requires us to take aggressive action that will set the stage for the second and third generation of fuels that will truly help us achieve energy independence and fight global warming. A low carbon fuel standard accomplishes these goals.

Finally, let me say a word to my colleagues about climate change. I know that when it comes to the word ``carbon,'' the range of views among my colleagues is varied and complex. I am among those Senators who believe carbon from human activities contributes to climate change, that it is an immediate threat, and that we must immediately require emission reductions through a strong cap-and-trade system. Others among my colleagues agree with some type of carbon-controlled economy but disagree with the various legislative approaches to date. Still others believe the climate is in no imminent danger.

The approach I have suggested here today addresses carbon, but it allows my colleagues to maintain their differences on the larger debate of climate change while coming together to achieve progress on all our multiple policy goals, whether it is ending our energy dependence, attacking the problem of climate change, promoting economic stability, or creating American jobs. I am aware this proposal may be a little bit ahead of its time, but given the magnitude of our problems, we can't afford to be too cautious in our policy solutions.

I am going to be urging my colleagues to learn more about this approach. I have talked to Senator Bingaman. I will be talking to Senator Boxer as well. My hope is that if we are not able to introduce this amendment during the current debate, we reserve time when we have a debate on dealing with global warming and climate change to ensure that this approach gets full consideration.

I thank the Chair and suggest the absence of a quorum.