February 28, 2006
In this year's State of the Union address, President Bush told us that it was time to get serious about America's addiction to foreign oil. The next day, we found out that his idea didn't sit too well with the Saudi Royal Family. A few hours later, Energy Secretary Bodman backtracked and assured the world that even though the President said he planned to reduce the amount of oil we import from the Middle East, he actually didn't mean that literally.
If there's a single example out there that encapsulates the ability of unstable, undemocratic governments to wield undue influence over America's national security just because of our dependence on oil, this is it.
Now, I could stand up here and give you all plenty of reasons why it's a good idea for this country to move away from an oil-based economy. I could cite studies from scientists and experts and even our own State Department detailing the dangers of global warming - how it can destroy our coastal areas and generate more deadly storms. I could talk forever about the economic consequences of dependence - how it's decimating our auto industry and costing us jobs and emptying our wallets at the pump. And I could talk about the millions of new jobs and entire new industries we could create by transitioning to an alternative-fuel economy.
But all we really need to know about the danger of our oil addiction comes directly from the mouths of our enemies:
"[Oil] is the umbilical cord and lifeline of the crusader community." These are the words of Al Qaeda.
"Focus your operations on oil, especially in Iraq and the Gulf area, since this will cause them to die off [on their own]." These are the words Osama bin Laden.
More than anything else, these comments represent a realization of American weakness shared by the rest of the world. It's a realization that for all of our military might and economic dominance, the Achilles heel of the most powerful country on Earth is the oil we cannot live without.
Oil single-handedly fuels 96% of our transportation needs, and it's also critical to the manufacture of millions of goods and products in this country. As we saw during Hurricane Katrina, this kind of dependency means that the loss of even a small amount of oil and refining capacity for just a few days can cause economic panic and soaring prices. A serious embargo or permanent loss could cause untold disaster.
It would be nice if we could produce our way out of this problem, but it's just not possible. We only have 3% of the world's oil reserves. We could start drilling in ANWR today, and at its peak, which would be more than a decade from now, it would give us enough oil to take care of our transportation needs for about a month.
As a result, every single hour we spend $18 million on foreign oil. It doesn't matter if these countries are budding democracies, despotic regimes, or havens for the madrassas that plant the seeds of terror in young minds - they get our money because we need their oil.
One need only glance at headlines around the world to understand how dangerous this addictive arrangement truly is.
In Iran, Islamic fundamentalists are forging ahead with their nuclear program, knowing full well that the world's response to their actions will be influenced by our need for their oil. In fact, reports of a $100 billion oil deal between Iran and China were soon followed by China's refusal to press for sanctions against Iran over its nuclear intentions.
In Nigeria, militant rebels have been attacking the country's oil pipelines in recent weeks, sending prices soaring and calling into question the political stability of a country that represents America's fifth-largest source of oil imports.
In Saudi Arabia, Al Qaeda has been attempting attacks on that country's poorly defended oil refineries for years. On Friday, they almost succeeded as a truck full of explosives was detonated by the shots of security guards just before it entered the refinery. Even this minor damage caused oil prices to jump $2 in a single day. But a former CIA agent tells us that if terrorists ever succeeded in destroying an entire oil complex, it could take enough oil off the market to cause economic catastrophe in the United States.
Our enemies are fully aware that they can use oil as a weapon against America. And if we don't take this threat as seriously as the bombs they build or the guns they buy, we will be fighting the War on Terror with one hand tied behind our back.
Now, the good news about the President's decision to finally focus on energy independence after five years is that it helps build bipartisan consensus that our reliance on foreign oil is a problem and shows that he understands the potential of renewable fuels to make a difference.
The bad news is that the President's energy policy treats our dependence on oil as more of a nuisance than a serious threat.
Just one day after he told us in the State of the Union that renewable fuels were the key to an energy independent future, we learned that the President's budget cuts would force layoffs at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Last week, this made for a rather awkward situation when the President wanted to use the lab for a photo-op - so awkward that the White House actually re-hired the laid-off researchers just to avoid the embarrassment.
This is only one example, but it tells the story of a larger weakness in the President's energy policy: it's simply not commensurate to the challenge.
There's a reason that some have compared the quest for energy independence to the Manhattan Project or the Apollo moon landing. Like those historic efforts, moving away from an oil economy is a major challenge that will require a sustained national commitment.
During World War II, we had an entire country working around the clock to produce enough planes and tanks to beat the Axis powers. In the middle of the Cold War, we built a national highway system so we had a quick way to transport military equipment across the country. When we wanted to beat the Russians into space, we poured millions into a national education initiative that graduated thousands of new scientists and engineers.
If we hope to strengthen our security and control our own foreign policy, we can offer no less of a commitment to energy independence.
But so far, President Bush seems like he is offering less - much less.
His funding for renewable fuels is at the same level it was the day he took office.
He refuses to call for even a modest increase in fuel-efficiency standards for cars and trucks.
His latest budget funds less then half of the energy bill he himself signed into law - leaving hundreds of millions of dollars in under-funded energy proposals.
And while he cannot seem to find the funding for any of these energy proposals, he has no problem allowing the oil companies to stiff taxpayers $7 billion in royalties that they owe us for drilling on public lands. These are the same oil companies that are currently enjoying the highest profits on record.
Again, this is just not a serious commitment to energy independence. The solutions are too timid - the reforms too small. America's dependence on oil is a major threat to our national security, and the American people deserve a bold commitment that has the full force of their government behind it.
This isn't to lay the blame for our energy problems entirely at the feet of our President. This is an issue that politicians from both parties clamor about when gas prices are the headline of the month, only to fall back into a trance of inaction once things calm down. And so we all need to get serious here. Automakers need to get serious about shifting their technology to greater fuel-efficiency, consumers need to get serious about buying hybrid cars, and Washington needs to get serious about working together to find a real solution to our energy crisis.
Such a solution is not only possible, it's already being implemented in other places around the world. Countries like Japan are creating jobs and slowing oil consumption by churning out and buying millions of fuel-efficient cars. Brazil, a nation that once relied on foreign countries to import 80% of its crude oil, will now be entirely self-sufficient in a few years thanks to its investment in biofuels.
So why can't we do this? Why can't we make energy security one of the great American projects of the 21st century?
The answer is, we can. The President's energy proposal would reduce our oil imports by 4.5 million barrels per day by 2025. Not only can we do better than that, we must do better than that if we hope to make a real dent in our oil dependency. With technology we have on the shelves right now and fuels we can grow right here in America, by 2025 we can reduce our oil imports by over 7.5. million barrels per day - an amount greater than all the oil we are expected to import from the entire Middle East.
We can do this by focusing on two things: the cars we drive and the fuels we use.
First, the cars. For years, we've hesitated to raise fuel economy standards as a nation in part because of a very legitimate concern - the impact it would have on Detroit. The auto industry is right when they argue that transitioning to more hybrid and fuel-efficient cars would require massive investment at a time when they're struggling under the weight of rising health care costs, sagging profits, and stiff competition.
But it's precisely because of that competition that they don't have a choice. China now has a higher fuel economy standard than we do, and Japan's Toyota is doubling production of the popular Prius to sell 100,000 in the U.S. this year.
There is now no doubt that fuel-efficient cars represent the future of the auto industry. If American car companies hope to be a part of that future - if they hope to survive - they must start building more of these cars.
But that's not to say we should leave the industry to face these costs on its own. Yes, we should raise fuel economy standards by 3% a year over the next fifteen years, starting in 2008. With the technology they already have, this should be an achievable goal for automakers. But we can help them get there.
Right now, one of the biggest costs facing auto manufacturers isn't the cars they make, it's the health care they provide. Health care costs make up $1,500 of the price of every GM car that's made - more than the cost of steel. Retiree health care alone cost the Big 3 automakers nearly $6.7 billion just last year.
So here's the deal we can make with the auto companies. It's a piece of legislation I introduced called "Health Care for Hybrids," and it would allow the federal government to pick up part of the tab for the auto companies' retiree health care costs. In exchange, the auto companies would then use some of that savings to build and invest in more fuel-efficient cars. It's a win-win proposal for the industry - their retirees will be taken care of, they'll save money on health care, and they'll be free to invest in the kind of fuel-efficient cars that are the key to their competitive future.
Now, building cars that use less oil is only one side of the equation. The other involves replacing the oil we use with home-grown biofuels. The Governors in this room have long known about this potential, and all of you have been leading the way on ethanol in your own states.
This coalition also knows that corn-based ethanol is only the beginning. If we truly want to harness the power of these fuels and the promise of this market, we can and must generate more cellulosic ethanol from agricultural products like corn stocks, switch grass and other crops our farmers grow.
Already, there are hundreds of fueling stations that use a blend of ethanol and gasoline known as E85, and there are millions of cars on the road with the flexible-fuel tanks necessary to use this fuel - including my own.
But the challenge we face with these biofuels is getting them out of the labs, out of the farms, and onto the wider commercial market. Every scientific study in the world could sing the praises of biofuels, but you might still be hard-pressed to find an investor willing to take the risk on a cellulosic ethanol plant or a brand-name petroleum company willing to build an E85 fueling station.
The federal government can help in two ways here. First, we can reduce the risk of investing. We already do this in a number of ways by funding projects critical to our national security. Energy independence should be no different. By developing an Energy Technology Program at the Defense Department, we can provide loan guarantees and venture capital to those with the best plans to develop and sell biofuels on a commercial market. The Defense Department will also hold a competition where private corporations get funding to see who can build the best new alternative-fuel plant. The Department can then use these new technologies to improve the energy security of our own military.
Once we take the risk out of investing, the second thing the government can do is to let the private sector know that there will always be a market for renewable fuels. We can do this in a few ways.
First, we should ramp up the renewable fuel standard and create an alternative diesel standard in this country so that by 2025, 65 billion gallons of alternative fuels per year will be blended into the petroleum supply.
Second, Washington should lead the way on energy independency by making sure that every single automobile the government purchases is a flexible-fuel vehicle - starting today. When it becomes possible in the coming years, we should make sure that every government car is a plug-in hybrid as well.
Third, I'm supporting legislation that would make sure every single new car in America is a flexible-fuel vehicle within a decade. Currently it costs manufacturers just $100 to add these tanks to each car. But we can do them one better. If they install flexible-fuel tanks in their cars before the decade's up, the government should provide them a $100 tax credit to do it - so there's no excuse for delay.
Fourth, there are already millions of people driving flexible-fuel vehicles who don't know it. The auto companies shouldn't get CAF'E credit for making these cars if they don't let buyers know about them, so I'd like to ask the industry to follow GM's lead and put a yellow gas cap on all flexible fuel vehicles starting today. Also, they should send a letter to those people who already have flexible-fuel vehicles so they can start filling up their tank at the closest E85 station.
Finally, since there are only around 500 fueling stations that pump E85 in the country, we recently passed legislation that would provide tax credits of up to $30,000 for those who want to install E85 pumps at their station. But we should do even more - we should make sure that in the coming years, E85 stations are as easy to find as your gas station is now.
Make no mistake - none of these reforms will come easy, and they won't happen overnight. But we can't continue to settle for piecemeal, bite-sized solutions to our energy crisis. We need a national commitment to energy security, and to emphasize that commitment, we should install a Director of Energy Security to oversee all of our efforts. Like the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the National Intelligence Director, this person would be an advisor to the National Security Council and have the full authority to coordinate America's energy policy across all levels of government. He or she would approve all major budget decisions and provide a full report to Congress and the country every year detailing the progress we're making toward our 2025 goal.
In the days and months after September 11th, Americans were waiting to be called to something bigger than themselves. Just like their parents and grandparents of the Greatest Generation, they were willing to serve and defend their country - not only on the fields of war, but on the homefront too.
This is our chance to step up and serve. The war against international terrorism has pitted us against a new kind of enemy that wages terror in new and unconventional ways. At home, fighting that enemy won't require us to build the massive war machine that Franklin Roosevelt called for so many years ago, but it will require us to harness our own renewable forms of energy so that oil can never be used as a weapon against America. From farmers and scientists to entrepreneurs and governors, everyone has a role to play in this effort. In fact, this afternoon I'm sitting down with business and military leaders to discuss this very topic.
Now is the time for serious leadership to get us started down the path of energy independence. Now is the time for this call to arms. I hope some of the ideas I've laid out today can serve as a basis for this call, but I also hope that members of both parties and all levels of government can come together in the near future to launch this serious quest for energy independence. Thank you.
Floor Statement of Senator Barack Obama S.2271 - USA PATRIOT Act Reauthorization
February 16, 2006
Mr. President, four years ago, following one of the most devastating attacks in our nation's history, Congress passed the USA PATRIOT Act to give our nation's law enforcement the tools they needed to track down terrorists who plot and lurk within our own borders and all over the world - terrorists who, right now, are looking to exploit weaknesses in our laws and our security to carry out even deadlier attacks than we saw on September 11th.
We all agreed that we needed legislation to make it harder for suspected terrorists to go undetected in this country. Americans everywhere wanted that.
But soon after the PATRIOT Act passed, a few years before I ever arrived in the Senate, I began hearing concerns from people of every background and political leaning that this law didn't just provide law enforcement the powers it needed to keep us safe, but powers it didn't need to invade our privacy without cause or suspicion.
Now, at times this issue has tended to degenerate into an "either-or" type of debate. Either we protect our people from terror or we protect our most cherished principles. But that is a false choice. It asks too little of us and assumes too little about America.
Fortunately, last year, the Senate recognized that this was a false choice. We put patriotism before partisanship and engaged in a real, open, and substantive debate about how to fix the PATRIOT Act. And Republicans and Democrats came together to propose sensible improvements to the Act. Unfortunately, the House was resistant to these changes, and that's why we're voting on the compromise before us.
Let me be clear: this compromise is not as good as the Senate version of the bill, nor is it as good as the SAFE Act that I have cosponsored. I suspect the vast majority of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle feel the same way. But, it's still better than what the House originally proposed.
This compromise does modestly improve the PATRIOT Act by strengthening civil liberties protections without sacrificing the tools that law enforcement needs to keep us safe. In this compromise:
We strengthened judicial review of both National Security Letters, the administrative subpoenas used by the FBI, and Section 215 orders, which can be used to obtain medical, financial and other personal records.
We established hard time limits on sneak-and-peak searches and limits on roving wiretaps.
We protected most libraries from being subject to National Security Letters.
We preserved an individual's right to seek counsel and hire an attorney without fearing the FBI's wrath.
And we allowed judicial review of the gag orders that accompany Section 215 searches.
The compromise is far from perfect. I would have liked to see stronger judicial review of National Security Letters and shorter time limits on sneak and peak searches, among other things.
Sen. Feingold has proposed several sensible amendments - that I support - to address these issues. Unfortunately, the Majority Leader is preventing Sen. Feingold from offering these amendments through procedural tactics. That is regrettable because it flies in the face of the bipartisan cooperation that allowed the Senate to pass unanimously its version of the Patriot Act - a version that balanced security and civil liberties, partisanship and patriotism.
The Majority Leader's tactics are even more troubling because we will need to work on a bipartisan basis to address national security challenges in the weeks and months to come. In particular, members on both sides of the aisle will need to take a careful look at President Bush's use of warrantless wiretaps and determine the right balance between protecting our security and safeguarding our civil liberties. This is a complex issue. But only by working together and avoiding election-year politicking will we be able to give our government the necessary tools to wage the war on terror without sacrificing the rule of law.
So, I will be supporting the Patriot Act compromise. But I urge my colleagues to continue working on ways to improve the civil liberties protections in the Patriot Act after it is reauthorized.
I thank the chair and yield the floor.
Mr. President, four years ago, following one of the most devastating attacks in our nation's history, Congress passed the USA PATRIOT Act to give our nation's law enforcement the tools they needed to track down terrorists who plot and lurk within our own borders and all over the world - terrorists who, right now, are looking to exploit weaknesses in our laws and our security to carry out even deadlier attacks than we saw on September 11th.
We all agreed that we needed legislation to make it harder for suspected terrorists to go undetected in this country. Americans everywhere wanted that.
But soon after the PATRIOT Act passed, a few years before I ever arrived in the Senate, I began hearing concerns from people of every background and political leaning that this law didn't just provide law enforcement the powers it needed to keep us safe, but powers it didn't need to invade our privacy without cause or suspicion.
Now, at times this issue has tended to degenerate into an "either-or" type of debate. Either we protect our people from terror or we protect our most cherished principles. But that is a false choice. It asks too little of us and assumes too little about America.
Fortunately, last year, the Senate recognized that this was a false choice. We put patriotism before partisanship and engaged in a real, open, and substantive debate about how to fix the PATRIOT Act. And Republicans and Democrats came together to propose sensible improvements to the Act. Unfortunately, the House was resistant to these changes, and that's why we're voting on the compromise before us.
Let me be clear: this compromise is not as good as the Senate version of the bill, nor is it as good as the SAFE Act that I have cosponsored. I suspect the vast majority of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle feel the same way. But, it's still better than what the House originally proposed.
This compromise does modestly improve the PATRIOT Act by strengthening civil liberties protections without sacrificing the tools that law enforcement needs to keep us safe. In this compromise:
We strengthened judicial review of both National Security Letters, the administrative subpoenas used by the FBI, and Section 215 orders, which can be used to obtain medical, financial and other personal records.
We established hard time limits on sneak-and-peak searches and limits on roving wiretaps.
We protected most libraries from being subject to National Security Letters.
We preserved an individual's right to seek counsel and hire an attorney without fearing the FBI's wrath.
And we allowed judicial review of the gag orders that accompany Section 215 searches.
The compromise is far from perfect. I would have liked to see stronger judicial review of National Security Letters and shorter time limits on sneak and peak searches, among other things.
Sen. Feingold has proposed several sensible amendments - that I support - to address these issues. Unfortunately, the Majority Leader is preventing Sen. Feingold from offering these amendments through procedural tactics. That is regrettable because it flies in the face of the bipartisan cooperation that allowed the Senate to pass unanimously its version of the Patriot Act - a version that balanced security and civil liberties, partisanship and patriotism.
The Majority Leader's tactics are even more troubling because we will need to work on a bipartisan basis to address national security challenges in the weeks and months to come. In particular, members on both sides of the aisle will need to take a careful look at President Bush's use of warrantless wiretaps and determine the right balance between protecting our security and safeguarding our civil liberties. This is a complex issue. But only by working together and avoiding election-year politicking will we be able to give our government the necessary tools to wage the war on terror without sacrificing the rule of law.
So, I will be supporting the Patriot Act compromise. But I urge my colleagues to continue working on ways to improve the civil liberties protections in the Patriot Act after it is reauthorized.
I thank the chair and yield the floor.
Senator Barack Obama Remarks on Darfur: Current Policy Not Enough Security
February 15, 2006
Hello, this is Senator Barack Obama, and today is Wednesday, February 15, 2006. For more than two years now, we have been watching a rolling genocide take place in Darfur, western Sudan. Many of you I'm sure are aware of the tragedy that has been unfolding there. For those of you who are not, essentially what we have seen is a systematic targeting on the part of the Khartoum government and the Janjaweed Arab militia that have systematically uprooted, killed, murdered, pillaged, raped, Africans, driven them from their homes into enormous displaced-person camps. Refugee camps, within Sudan. It's estimated that at least 300,000 people have been killed. It's known that at least 2 million people have been displaced. The administration early on in this tragedy acknowledged that this was genocide that was taking place. I think there has been broad recognition in the international community that the behavior of the Sudanese government has been scandalous. The rationale that has provided from the Sudanese government for what has been taking place is that there is a battle going on between Sudanese government and rebels that operate within the area. But, the real victims have not been rebel sympathizers, or the rebels themselves, they've been innocent men, women and children.
For more than a year now, I've been working with other Senators to see what we can do to really push the Administration to take this as seriously as it warrants. To the Administration's credit, the United States government has probably paid more attention to this issue than some of our European allies. We have been a major contributor of aid to the region; we have helped to finance the African Union, to provide peace-keeping forces in the Darfur area. So, in a lot of ways, the United States government has been much more on top of this than Europeans, Canadians, and others, who oftentimes accuse the Untied States of being indifferent to the problems of the third world. On the other hand, what has been done is not enough. The few thousand African Union troops who have been placed in Darfur are primarily providing witness to some of the atrocities that are taking place there, but they don't have clear rules of engagement, they are under-armed, under-trained, they don't really provide the sort of protective force that would be needed to not only ensure that existing villages aren't ravaged by the Janjaweeds, but more importantly, that the 2 million displaced people could actually safely start returning home.
Recent reports indicate that in the past few weeks alone, more than 20,000 people have been displaced. There are also indications that the Janjaweed, recognizing that the AU forces, the African Union forces, are not particularly effective, have started targeting them. So there is a sense of deterioration in Darfur, the situation may be getting worse, rather than better. And, what's most disturbing is that the United States government seems to be backing off a little bit, the commitment that it made to deal with the problem. There was a quote from the under-secretary for African Affairs, Secretary Frasier, in which she indicated that, maybe this was not a genocide after all. And, if that ends up being the United State's attitude, then we could see continuing problems of a scale that might eventually reach the same scale in which happened in Rwanda.
So, here are a couple of things that we think need to happen. Number one: we need a UN peace-keeping mission in Darfur. There have been conversations; the UN Secretary General, Koffee Annan, the AU forces, and the Bush Administration have all acknowledged this. There's got to be a sense of urgency in which the US diplomatic efforts are focused on getting this UN peace-keeping force up to about 20,000 troops, and placing them in Darfur as quickly as possible with a strong protection mandate, rather than a monitoring one. In the mean time, it's going to take about year, at best, to get a UN peace-keeping force in place. We're going to have to supply and rally, bridging money and forces for the AU throughout this year, because, since it's sort of in lame-duck status, the Janjaweed recognize that AU forces are not particularly effective, they may become more and more of a target. We're going to have to provide this successor UN force with our own lift and logistic assets. We're going to have to provide our military hardware, like transport and attack helicopters, and so forth. And, we're going to have to really force other countries like Canada, Australia, some of the European countries that are not engaged in peace-keeping in other places, or at least are not immediately involved in major activity in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, as we are, to deliver the troops that are needed.
So, it is absolutely critical that we start focusing on this now. The situation, as bad as it is, could deteriorate further. This is something that is of interest, I think, to all of us, not just for humanitarian reasons, although when you read the accounts of women being raped when they are out collecting firewood, when you read just horrendous accounts of entire villages being decimated and children being murdered, that it just breaks your heart, and humanitarian concerns should be sufficient, but we also have a strong national security interest. If you start seeing more and more failed states, more and more displaced persons, more and more refugees, all of that becomes a breeding ground for terrorist activity, it becomes a breeding ground for disease, and it creates refugees that put pressure on our own borders. In an inner-connected world we can't insulate ourselves from these tragedies. So, we're going to, over time, have to develop some strategy as the world's remaining super-power to address these issues, and Darfur is an important test case. We've already failed one test in Rwanda, we shouldn't fail another.
Anyway, if you are interested in the issues related to Darfur, you can always contact my office, or get on the website. Your voice is obviously critical in this issue. I appreciate you, as always listening in. Thank you for downloading, and I will talk to you next week. Bye bye.
Hello, this is Senator Barack Obama, and today is Wednesday, February 15, 2006. For more than two years now, we have been watching a rolling genocide take place in Darfur, western Sudan. Many of you I'm sure are aware of the tragedy that has been unfolding there. For those of you who are not, essentially what we have seen is a systematic targeting on the part of the Khartoum government and the Janjaweed Arab militia that have systematically uprooted, killed, murdered, pillaged, raped, Africans, driven them from their homes into enormous displaced-person camps. Refugee camps, within Sudan. It's estimated that at least 300,000 people have been killed. It's known that at least 2 million people have been displaced. The administration early on in this tragedy acknowledged that this was genocide that was taking place. I think there has been broad recognition in the international community that the behavior of the Sudanese government has been scandalous. The rationale that has provided from the Sudanese government for what has been taking place is that there is a battle going on between Sudanese government and rebels that operate within the area. But, the real victims have not been rebel sympathizers, or the rebels themselves, they've been innocent men, women and children.
For more than a year now, I've been working with other Senators to see what we can do to really push the Administration to take this as seriously as it warrants. To the Administration's credit, the United States government has probably paid more attention to this issue than some of our European allies. We have been a major contributor of aid to the region; we have helped to finance the African Union, to provide peace-keeping forces in the Darfur area. So, in a lot of ways, the United States government has been much more on top of this than Europeans, Canadians, and others, who oftentimes accuse the Untied States of being indifferent to the problems of the third world. On the other hand, what has been done is not enough. The few thousand African Union troops who have been placed in Darfur are primarily providing witness to some of the atrocities that are taking place there, but they don't have clear rules of engagement, they are under-armed, under-trained, they don't really provide the sort of protective force that would be needed to not only ensure that existing villages aren't ravaged by the Janjaweeds, but more importantly, that the 2 million displaced people could actually safely start returning home.
Recent reports indicate that in the past few weeks alone, more than 20,000 people have been displaced. There are also indications that the Janjaweed, recognizing that the AU forces, the African Union forces, are not particularly effective, have started targeting them. So there is a sense of deterioration in Darfur, the situation may be getting worse, rather than better. And, what's most disturbing is that the United States government seems to be backing off a little bit, the commitment that it made to deal with the problem. There was a quote from the under-secretary for African Affairs, Secretary Frasier, in which she indicated that, maybe this was not a genocide after all. And, if that ends up being the United State's attitude, then we could see continuing problems of a scale that might eventually reach the same scale in which happened in Rwanda.
So, here are a couple of things that we think need to happen. Number one: we need a UN peace-keeping mission in Darfur. There have been conversations; the UN Secretary General, Koffee Annan, the AU forces, and the Bush Administration have all acknowledged this. There's got to be a sense of urgency in which the US diplomatic efforts are focused on getting this UN peace-keeping force up to about 20,000 troops, and placing them in Darfur as quickly as possible with a strong protection mandate, rather than a monitoring one. In the mean time, it's going to take about year, at best, to get a UN peace-keeping force in place. We're going to have to supply and rally, bridging money and forces for the AU throughout this year, because, since it's sort of in lame-duck status, the Janjaweed recognize that AU forces are not particularly effective, they may become more and more of a target. We're going to have to provide this successor UN force with our own lift and logistic assets. We're going to have to provide our military hardware, like transport and attack helicopters, and so forth. And, we're going to have to really force other countries like Canada, Australia, some of the European countries that are not engaged in peace-keeping in other places, or at least are not immediately involved in major activity in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, as we are, to deliver the troops that are needed.
So, it is absolutely critical that we start focusing on this now. The situation, as bad as it is, could deteriorate further. This is something that is of interest, I think, to all of us, not just for humanitarian reasons, although when you read the accounts of women being raped when they are out collecting firewood, when you read just horrendous accounts of entire villages being decimated and children being murdered, that it just breaks your heart, and humanitarian concerns should be sufficient, but we also have a strong national security interest. If you start seeing more and more failed states, more and more displaced persons, more and more refugees, all of that becomes a breeding ground for terrorist activity, it becomes a breeding ground for disease, and it creates refugees that put pressure on our own borders. In an inner-connected world we can't insulate ourselves from these tragedies. So, we're going to, over time, have to develop some strategy as the world's remaining super-power to address these issues, and Darfur is an important test case. We've already failed one test in Rwanda, we shouldn't fail another.
Anyway, if you are interested in the issues related to Darfur, you can always contact my office, or get on the website. Your voice is obviously critical in this issue. I appreciate you, as always listening in. Thank you for downloading, and I will talk to you next week. Bye bye.
Senator Obama's Floor Statement Hurricane Katrina Child Assistance Amendment
February 1, 2006
Mr. President, I rise to speak about an amendment to the Tax Reconciliation bill that I intend to offer at the appropriate time.
The Amendment achieves two goals. First, it helps keep a promise the President made to rebuild the Gulf Coast in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. Second, in a $70 billion bill laden with tax cuts for the wealthy and well-connected, it sets aside less than 1 percent for the neediest in our society.
Two weeks after Katrina made landfall, President Bush stood in the ruins of New Orleans and vowed to "do what it takes" to help the region recover. He also acknowledged the terrifying images of abject poverty that struck Americans on their TV screens and said, "We have a duty to confront this poverty with bold action." Five months later, the President's timid actions have not matched his bold rhetoric. He has not lived up to his promises.
My amendment uses a cost-effective and proven tool in our tax code--the Child Tax Credit--to extend aid to low-income working families affected by Hurricane Katrina.
Enacted in 1997, the Child Credit allows families with qualifying children to receive a credit of $1,000 per child against their federal income tax. Unfortunately, the credit is skewed so that many families who need it the most can't get it.
Under current law, families that earn less than $11,000 get no benefit from the refundable child credit. That means that a child is left out of the credit even if her parent works full time at minimum wage, which has not increased since 1997. And the child doesn't get the full benefit of the $1000 credit until her parent earns close to $18,000, or even more if the child has siblings.
What's worse: if her parents' incomes stagnate, are disrupted for any reason, or the economy stalls and work hours or wages are reduced, the value of the credit drops or even disappears. Under current law, almost 17 million children get less than the full credit.
We all know what happened to the families on the Gulf Coast due to Hurricane Katrina, and it will be a long time before these families can rebuild their lives. Many of the families in the affected states were evacuated to other areas, and many of them cannot even afford to go back. And the federal response so far has been inadequate to get these families effectively back on their feet.
We need to do better. At a time when we are debating $70 billion of tax breaks, many of which will benefit those who need the least help, it is critical that we remember the worst off and the most vulnerable members of our society.
When I went to Houston after the Hurricane, I met an evacuee from New Orleans who said to me: "we had nothing before the hurricane, and now we've got less than nothing." Life was hard for many families even before Katrina hit. In Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama, for example, more than 900,000 children under 17 years old were so poor that they got no child tax credit or only a partial credit. These states had among the highest rates of children too poor to get the full credit. In fact, more than 1/3 of the children in Mississippi and Louisiana didn't get the full benefit of the child tax credit.
This amendment, at a cost of less than 1 percent of the overall Tax Reconciliation bill, will provide necessary assistance to many of these families. The amendment eliminates the income threshold that excluded all children in families with less than $11,000 of income.
My amendment sends a simple message: if you work, your kids get a benefit. It provides a partial credit starting with the first dollar of a parent's income for families who lived in the areas affected by Hurricane Katrina.
The amendment is simple: it says that the children of low-income working parents affected by Hurricane Katrina will no longer be denied the child credit. You work, your kids get a benefit. If you don't work, no benefit. And if you want the full benefit, you have to earn at least $10,000, which is just about the income of a full time job at minimum wage.
That's a common sense way to support families with children, especially families that have experienced the huge cost - psychological and financial - of a natural disaster.
My amendment is also narrowly tailored and fiscally responsible. It is aimed at families affected by the Hurricanes, and it provides short-term support, expiring in 2008.
With this amendment, hundreds of thousands of this country's most disadvantaged children will see an increase in their credit. Katrina offered us a window into America's poverty. Let's not let that window close without doing something to provide a chance for America's children to rebuild their lives with dignity, hope, and opportunity.
I yield the floor.
Mr. President, I rise to speak about an amendment to the Tax Reconciliation bill that I intend to offer at the appropriate time.
The Amendment achieves two goals. First, it helps keep a promise the President made to rebuild the Gulf Coast in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. Second, in a $70 billion bill laden with tax cuts for the wealthy and well-connected, it sets aside less than 1 percent for the neediest in our society.
Two weeks after Katrina made landfall, President Bush stood in the ruins of New Orleans and vowed to "do what it takes" to help the region recover. He also acknowledged the terrifying images of abject poverty that struck Americans on their TV screens and said, "We have a duty to confront this poverty with bold action." Five months later, the President's timid actions have not matched his bold rhetoric. He has not lived up to his promises.
My amendment uses a cost-effective and proven tool in our tax code--the Child Tax Credit--to extend aid to low-income working families affected by Hurricane Katrina.
Enacted in 1997, the Child Credit allows families with qualifying children to receive a credit of $1,000 per child against their federal income tax. Unfortunately, the credit is skewed so that many families who need it the most can't get it.
Under current law, families that earn less than $11,000 get no benefit from the refundable child credit. That means that a child is left out of the credit even if her parent works full time at minimum wage, which has not increased since 1997. And the child doesn't get the full benefit of the $1000 credit until her parent earns close to $18,000, or even more if the child has siblings.
What's worse: if her parents' incomes stagnate, are disrupted for any reason, or the economy stalls and work hours or wages are reduced, the value of the credit drops or even disappears. Under current law, almost 17 million children get less than the full credit.
We all know what happened to the families on the Gulf Coast due to Hurricane Katrina, and it will be a long time before these families can rebuild their lives. Many of the families in the affected states were evacuated to other areas, and many of them cannot even afford to go back. And the federal response so far has been inadequate to get these families effectively back on their feet.
We need to do better. At a time when we are debating $70 billion of tax breaks, many of which will benefit those who need the least help, it is critical that we remember the worst off and the most vulnerable members of our society.
When I went to Houston after the Hurricane, I met an evacuee from New Orleans who said to me: "we had nothing before the hurricane, and now we've got less than nothing." Life was hard for many families even before Katrina hit. In Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama, for example, more than 900,000 children under 17 years old were so poor that they got no child tax credit or only a partial credit. These states had among the highest rates of children too poor to get the full credit. In fact, more than 1/3 of the children in Mississippi and Louisiana didn't get the full benefit of the child tax credit.
This amendment, at a cost of less than 1 percent of the overall Tax Reconciliation bill, will provide necessary assistance to many of these families. The amendment eliminates the income threshold that excluded all children in families with less than $11,000 of income.
My amendment sends a simple message: if you work, your kids get a benefit. It provides a partial credit starting with the first dollar of a parent's income for families who lived in the areas affected by Hurricane Katrina.
The amendment is simple: it says that the children of low-income working parents affected by Hurricane Katrina will no longer be denied the child credit. You work, your kids get a benefit. If you don't work, no benefit. And if you want the full benefit, you have to earn at least $10,000, which is just about the income of a full time job at minimum wage.
That's a common sense way to support families with children, especially families that have experienced the huge cost - psychological and financial - of a natural disaster.
My amendment is also narrowly tailored and fiscally responsible. It is aimed at families affected by the Hurricanes, and it provides short-term support, expiring in 2008.
With this amendment, hundreds of thousands of this country's most disadvantaged children will see an increase in their credit. Katrina offered us a window into America's poverty. Let's not let that window close without doing something to provide a chance for America's children to rebuild their lives with dignity, hope, and opportunity.
I yield the floor.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Subscribe to Speeches
Posts
All Comments
