By now, the only thing as predictable as rising gas prices is the short-term political solutions that come along with them. It seems like every year, as soon as headlines start announcing "Pain at the pump" and Americans start emptying their wallets to fill up their tanks, politicians revert to their Rolodex of responses, from tax rebates and tax holidays to investigations into price gouging by oil companies.

We need solutions designed to lessen our dependence on foreign oil and bring down prices for good. Washington understands this, but so far our leadership has been unwilling to take the hard steps necessary to confront one of the most pressing economic and national security challenges of the 21st century.

The time for excuses is over. Now is not the moment to be afraid of what might seem politically difficult or controversial. Now is the moment to call for innovation and sacrifice from those who can truly make a difference in solving our energy crisis: the auto industry, the oil industry, and the federal government.

We must start by producing cars that use less oil. The auto industry has not been asked to raise fuel economy standards in 17 years, and lately both Republicans and Democrats have stopped asking.

Today, we have no choice. Starting in 2008, we should raise coporate average fuel economy, or CAFE, standards a modest 3 percent a year over the next 12 years, so that by 2020, passenger vehicles average 40.5 mpg and light trucks average 32.6 mpg.

This is by no means a dramatic increase: Five years ago, the National Academy of Sciences concluded that raising CAFE to 33 mpg for passenger cars could easily be done without compromising passenger safety.

But auto executives are right when they say that transitioning to more fuel-efficient automobiles would be costly at a time of sagging profits and stiff competition, and that's precisely why the federal government shouldn't let the industry face these costs on their own.

We should strike a grand bargain with the Big Three automakers whereby the government picks up part of the tab for retiree health care costs -- a tab that ran almost $6.7 billion just last year -- in exchange for the car companies using that savings to invest in more fuel-efficient cars.

Beyond raising CAFE, however, it's time we replace oil altogether as America's fuel of choice. This doesn't just mean singing the praises of ethanol and hoping that it finds its way into our fuel supply on its own. It means taking major steps now to put a national biofuel infrastructure in place.

Already, some cars on the road have the flexible-fuel tanks necessary for them to run on E85, a cheaper, cleaner blend of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline. But millions upon millions of cars still don't have these tanks.

It's time for automakers to install those tanks in every single car they make, and it's time for the government to cover this small cost, which currently runs at just $100 per car.

It's also a time to start making E85 fueling stations more available to the public. Currently, only 681 out of 170,000 fueling stations in America offer E85 pumps. This is not acceptable. Every American should have the choice to fill up their car with E85 at any fueling station. And oil companies should stop standing in the way and join us in making this happen. If the big oil companies would devote just 1 percent of their first quarter profits this year to install E85 pumps, more than 7,000 service stations would be able to serve E85 to hungry motorists.

Finally, we should reduce the risk of investing in renewable fuels by providing loan guarantees and venture capital to those entrepreneurs with the best plans to develop and sell biofuels. And we should create a market for renewable fuels by ramping up the renewable fuel standard and creating an alternative diesel standard in this country that together would blend 65 billion gallons of renewable fuels into the petroleum supply each year.

If we had taken all these steps decades ago, when the call for energy independence was first issued in this country, today we would be immune to the whims of oil-rich dictators and surging gas prices. And if we don't take these steps now, we will someday look back on today's $3 per gallon gasoline as the good ol' days. At that point, there won't be a tax rebate big enough, or a tax holiday long enough, to solve our problems.

The American people should not have to wait for this day to come. When it comes to reducing our dependence on oil, the resources are there. The technology is there. The demand is there. Now we just need the will to get the job done.

Cross-posted at the Houston Chronicle

Today's podcast is the audio from the April 10th town hall meeting at Loyola University. Topics include Iraq, energy policy, education, Darfur, and immigration reform. If you're interested in additional information on any of the topics discussed, please use the links below.

Note: Total run time: 65 minutes.

Related information

Energy
Speech:Energy Independence and the Safety of Our Planet

Speech: Energy Security is National Security

Veterans
Issue Paper: Honoring Our Veterans

Darfur
Podcast: Darfur: Current Policy Not Enough

Iraq
Speech: Moving Forward in Iraq

Immigration
Podcast: Immigration Reform

Education
Speech: 21st Century Schools for a 21st Century Economy

Last Tuesday, the president told us it was time to get serious about America's addiction to oil. Last Wednesday, his advisers told us he didn't mean that literally. To underscore that point, the administration plans to start laying off government researchers who work on the very same renewable energy solutions the president said were our future. Meanwhile, his proposals would bring us back to the same level of renewable energy funding that we had at the beginning of his administration -- before he started cutting it.

Obviously, this isn't a real solution to America's oil addiction. But that doesn't mean we have to settle for more of the same timid approaches. We can put this country on a real path towards energy independence, and we can start with the biggest oil addicts in America today -- the cars we drive.

Meanwhile, the American auto industry is struggling to catch up. Together, GM and Ford have announced plans to lay off up to 60,000 workers. And despite pledges to increase production of fuel-efficient hybrid vehicles, US auto companies will probably continue lagging behind their foreign counterparts. Ford is only making 20,000 Escape Hybrids this year, and GM's brand won't be on the market until 2007.

US automakers have frequently blamed their inability to invest in new technology on having to pay retiree health costs that foreign competitors do not have. GM alone is expected to pay $4 billion this year just to provide retiree healthcare benefits. In fact, healthcare costs represent $1,500 of the price of every GM car that's made, which is more than what they pay for the steel. The company's recent deal with the UAW to reduce retiree benefits helps, but by no means solves its financial difficulties.

The precariousness of an oil economy, crushing healthcare costs, and the failure to design for the future are killing our auto industry. And so we have a choice. We can sit by and watch it crumble. Or we can do something to save jobs and boost our economy.

It's time to help the auto industry invest in more fuel-efficient cars, and we believe the federal government has a role in helping them do it. We've introduced a proposal called the ''Health Care for Hybrids" Act to address the challenges of the US auto industry and reduce our country's dependence on foreign oil at the same time.

This bill would set up a voluntary program in which automakers could choose to receive federal financial assistance towards their retiree healthcare costs. In return, the automakers would be required to reinvest these savings into developing fuel-efficient vehicles. As a result, our proposal would measurably reduce our nation's dependence on oil. Some of these technologies are already available and awaiting use by the Big Three.

Instead of a no-strings-attached financial bailout of the auto industry that could lead to factories being built overseas, our proposal could jumpstart the industry to commercialize new technology that consumers are demanding. More American hybrid cars also ensure that there is competition in this growing market, and would also help keep car prices low.

Our proposal addresses a complex problem in a way that strengthens the American economy. Autoworkers would get the healthcare they had been promised, the auto industry would be back on a competitive footing, and our reliance on foreign oil would be reduced.

In the State of the Union, we had hoped that the president would take serious steps to address two of the problems weighing on the minds of Americans: the rising costs of healthcare and energy. Unfortunately, his proposals showed that he was more talk than action.

Health for Hybrids would show that we're ready to act on America's oil addiction. It would show that we're not ready to sit by and watch a giant of American industry fail while millions of Americans lose their jobs. And it would show that we're serious about one other goal the president mentioned in his speech: keeping America competitive in a 21st century global economy.

Barack Obama is a Democratic senator from Illinois. Jay Inslee is a Democratic congressman from Washington.

Cross-posted to the Boston Globe.

This bill would require that all legislation introduced in the Senate, including conference reports, be posted on the Internet 72 hours before the legislation is voted on by the full Senate, including specific projects - or "earmarks" - that under current law are anonymously attached to appropriations bills. It would also require conference committee meetings and deliberations to be open to the public or be televised and would require both chambers of Congress to identify any changes made to conference reports and which member made the change.

The legislation has been endorsed by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW). CREW Executive Director Melanie Sloan said: "By creating a more transparent legislative process, the CLEAN UP Act moves us toward the goal of having a truly democratic system of government."

You can read the press release or the full text of S.2179 CLEAN UP Act.

For two years the Bush administration has made commendable efforts to improve the lives of people in Darfur. Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick has become personally invested in the crisis, recently completing his fourth trip to the region in the past seven months. The United States has spent almost $1 billion aiding refugees and displaced persons who might otherwise have died of disease or starvation. And the U.S. military has helped airlift and fund African Union troops stationed in the Darfur region of Sudan.

Yet, despite American engagement, Darfur's humanitarian, security and political conditions are deteriorating. If the United States does not change its approach to Darfur, an already grim situation is likely to spiral out of control.

While the 7,000-strong African Union force in Darfur has undoubtedly reduced the violence, it has become clear in recent weeks that it lacks the resources and manpower to secure a region the size of France. Indeed, the African Union force itself is increasingly being targeted and harassed. Five of its soldiers were killed and 34 were kidnapped in October. As one AU colonel recently said, "We are sitting ducks." Administration officials have publicly expressed doubts that African countries will provide the additional troops needed to create a stable security environment. The African Union also lacks the communications, airlift, logistics and intelligence capabilities to challenge the aggressors in Darfur. A political settlement is clearly critical to resolving these challenges. Unfortunately, the U.S.-facilitated political negotiations are at best sputtering. Having brokered the landmark peace accord between Khartoum and rebels in the south, senior administration officials had hoped that the integration of southerners into the Sudanese government would change Khartoum's stance on Darfur. But there is no balance of power between the rebels, who are disorganized and wracked by infighting, and the Sudanese authorities, who have no incentive to compromise. As a result, the talks are entering their seventh round with no consensus in sight.

Meanwhile, large numbers of vulnerable people in Darfur are confined to camps surrounded by a variety of hostile armed elements, with no effective security force or political process in which to invest hope. Absent a drastic change of course, many Darfurians will take up arms, and far more will die.

It is essential that the Bush administration shift its approach to confront the new and mounting challenges. Only the United States, working in concert with key nations, has the leverage and resources to persuade Khartoum to change its ways:

First, the administration must help transform the African Union protection force into a sizable, effective multinational force.

In the near term, Washington must pressure Khartoum to allow more advisers from Western nations to embed within the African Union's mission so they support intelligence, logistics and communications. It must work with other nations to provide military assets to African Union forces, such as attack helicopters and armored personnel carriers, so they can respond immediately to attacks. And it must urge the African Union to be more aggressive in protecting civilians. More important, Washington must immediately spearhead efforts to create a larger multinational force. The African Union has begun discussions with the United Nations about folding itself into a follow-on U.N. mission, but because of the West's reluctance to offend African sensibilities, all parties seem resigned to muddling along. It has become clear that a U.N.- or NATO-led force is required, and the administration must use diplomacy to override Chinese and Sudanese opposition to such a force and persuade outside troops to join it.

Second, the administration must keep up the pressure on the rebels to unite their negotiating positions, and it must enlist Sudan's allies to increase the pressure on Khartoum to share power and resources.

Third, the United States and other nations must place additional pressure on key nations -- Chad, Eritrea and Libya -- to stop playing a destructive role in the conflict.

Fourth, the administration needs to place its weight behind the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act, which would impose targeted sanctions on the leading perpetrators of the genocide.

The Bush administration has helped reduce suffering in Darfur, but the situation is dangerously adrift. And when the history of this tragedy is written, nobody will remember how many times officials visited the region or how much humanitarian aid was delivered. They will only remember the death toll.

Reprinted in The Washington Post

Barack Obama is a Democratic senator from Illinois. Sam Brownback is a Republican senator from Kansas.

Like millions of Americans, the immigrant story is our story. We understand the allure of freedom and opportunity in the U.S. From this very personal vantage point, and because millions of immigrants live and work in Illinois and Florida, we take a special interest in the current debate on the reform of our immigration policies.

When Congress last addressed this issue comprehensively in 1986, there were approximately four million illegal immigrants living here. Today, it is estimated there are more than 11 million. We are a generous and welcoming people, but those who enter our country illegally, and those who employ them, disrespect the rule of law. And because we live in an age where terrorists are challenging our borders, we simply cannot allow people to pour into the U.S. undetected, undocumented and unchecked. Americans are right to demand better border security and better enforcement of the immigration laws.

American employers also need to take responsibility. Too often illegal immigrants are lured here with the promise of a job, only to receive unconscionably low wages. In the interest of cheap labor, unscrupulous employers look the other way when employees provide fraudulent U.S. citizenship documents. These acts hurt both American workers and immigrants whose sole aim is to work hard and get ahead. That's why we need a simple, foolproof and mandatory mechanism for all employers to check the legal status of new hires.

If we hope to bring the 11 million undocumented immigrants out into the open, we must give them a reason. This means granting them an interim legal status to work with the opportunity to eventually earn citizenship. We can do this, without amnesty, by imposing a hefty fine for having illegally entered our country, and by forcing the undocumented to go to the back of the line in their pursuit of citizenship. The interim status should only apply to those already here, so as not to open the door for others.

We simply cannot claim to have dealt with the problems of illegal immigration if we ignore the illegal resident population or pretend that they will leave voluntarily. Some of the proposed ideas in Congress provide a temporary legal status and call for deportation, but fail to answer how the government would deport 11 million people. If temporary legal status is granted but the policy says these immigrants are never good enough to become Americans, then the policy makes little sense.

We believe successful, comprehensive immigration reform can be achieved by combining the strongest elements of Chuck Hagel's border-security proposals with the realistic workplace and earned-citizenship program proposed by John McCain and Ted Kennedy. We will work on both sides of the aisle to ensure that both are incorporated into the reform process, and we welcome new voices and new ideas in the debate.

As FDR reminded the nation at the 50th anniversary of the dedication of the Statue of Liberty, those who landed at Ellis Island "were the men and women who had the supreme courage to strike out for themselves, to abandon language and relatives, to start at the bottom without influence, without money, and without knowledge of life in a very young civilization." Today's immigrants seek to follow in that tradition. We do ourselves and them a disservice if we do not recognize the contributions of these individuals. And we fail to protect our children if we do not regain control over our immigration system immediately.

Reprinted in the Wall Street Journal

Mr. Obama is a Democratic senator from Illinois whose father was from Kenya. Mr. Martinez is a Republican senator from Florida and an immigrant from Cuba.

We can quickly find $100 billion for Gulf Coast reconstruction with a balanced approach on spending and cuts

With an expected price tag of well over $100 billion, the cost of rebuilding the devastated areas of the Gulf Coast already is putting a significant strain on our federal budget. Yet in Washington, fiscally irresponsible policies have been piling up deficits since long before Katrina came ashore.

For too long, the philosophy in Washington has been that you can spend without consequence or sacrifice. That we can fight a war in Iraq and a war on terror, protect our homeland, provide our citizens with Medicare and Social Security and maintain our domestic priorities, all while cutting taxes for the wealthy and funding every local project there is.

Yet, when it comes time to pay these bills, no one seems to agree on any tax cuts to defer or any programs to cut. You don't have to be a deficit hawk to know that growing entitlement spending combined with tax breaks for billionaires is not a sustainable future for America.

Every family knows that it's one thing to use a credit card; it's another thing to keep spending money you don't have. You have to "Pay as You Go," which is a rule most Americans live by. Washington once did too, until the White House and Senate Republicans abandoned it to push through the president's tax breaks.

The latest example of this irresponsibility is Congress' plan to pass $70 billion in additional tax breaks despite record-breaking deficits. Clearly, old habits are hard to break.

It's time for a return to responsibility in the budget process.

I know there are Democrats who don't want to give up spending, Republicans who don't want to give up any tax breaks for the wealthy and members of both parties who don't want to give up pet projects back home, but now is a time for shared sacrifice. Americans want members of both parties to put all options on the table to start solving this problem.

I believe that we can quickly find $100 billion for Gulf Coast reconstruction with a balanced approach that finds half the money in spending cuts and half the money in the delay and repeal of tax breaks, primarily for millionaires.

To cut $50 billion in spending, we could put a two-year moratorium on all pet projects and other local spending. We could defer projects such as the $10 billion mission to Mars or eliminate unnecessary business subsidies.

We could drop funding that gives private companies extra incentives to participate in the new Medicare drug program--as the Senate already has agreed to do, though the White House has refused thus far.

We could save Medicaid money by increasing the rebates that brand-name drug manufacturers owe the program.

Rather than this measured approach, some in Congress have advocated indiscriminate across-the-board cuts. This is an irresponsible approach.

In their own budgets, Americans don't cut back on essentials such as food, heating and health care before first forgoing luxuries, and Congress shouldn't either.

Others intent on cutting spending have pointed to Alaska's "Bridge to Nowhere" as a wasteful project. I agree and believe that it represents the first type of project we should cut. But it's wrong to single out one state's pork project. If we're serious about shared responsibility, let's eliminate all pork projects in all states. To find $50 billion in tax breaks, we could postpone a planned tax break for millionaires, and we could temporarily roll back one of the tax cuts for those who make an income of more than $2 million per year.

With the challenges we face in Iraq and at home, asking more of those who have so much doesn't just make fiscal sense, it makes moral sense. No one likes to make hard choices on spending, and everyone has an argument about why their priorities are most important. But we are in this together, and government is about choices.

The American people are willing to sacrifice for their country--they're willing to give when there is need, to contribute where they can help. People also know what it's like to live within your means--to spend only what you can and be responsible for what you owe.

Americans expect their government to act that way too. It's time for all of us in Washington to put away old habits and rise above partisan politics so that we can meet those expectations.

If we can collaborate on paying for Gulf Coast reconstruction in a bipartisan manner now, we'll have a model for tackling our long-term budgetary challenges in the future.

Let me start by saying how much I appreciated all the energetic responses to my previous post. Time didn't permit me to respond immediately, but I personally read most of them - positive and negative - and found them thoughtful and challenging.

Rather than belabor some of the points I made in the original post, let me just offer a few quick reactions to some of the responses to my message.

I also agree that it is the job of Democratic elected officials to help shape public opinion, and not just respond passively to opinion thats been aggressively shaped by the Republicans PR machinery. I am simply suggesting, based on my experience, that people will respond to a powerfully progressive agenda when its couched in optimism, pragmatism and our shared American ideals.

Finally, some of you wondered whether I wrote the post myself. I did.

Again, thanks for the comments. I look forward to continued dialogue in the future.

He talks about his favortie team, the Chicago White Sox, and throwing out the first pitch at Game 2 of the American League Championship Series. He also talks about the nomination of Harriet Miers to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Click here to subscribe via iTunes.

To the Daily Kos Crew:

I read with interest your recent discussion regarding my comments on the floor(1, 2, 3) during the debate on John Roberts' nomination. I don't get a chance to follow blog traffic as regularly as I would like, and rarely get the time to participate in the discussions. I thought this might be a good opportunity to offer some thoughts about not only judicial confirmations, but how to bring about meaningful change in this country.

Maybe some of you believe I could have made my general point more artfully, but it's precisely because many of these groups are friends and supporters that I felt it necessary to speak my mind.

According to the storyline that drives many advocacy groups and Democratic activists - a storyline often reflected in comments on this blog - we are up against a sharply partisan, radically conservative, take-no-prisoners Republican party. They have beaten us twice by energizing their base with red meat rhetoric and single-minded devotion and discipline to their agenda. In order to beat them, it is necessary for Democrats to get some backbone, give as good as they get, brook no compromise, drive out Democrats who are interested in "appeasing" the right wing, and enforce a more clearly progressive agenda. The country, finally knowing what we stand for and seeing a sharp contrast, will rally to our side and thereby usher in a new progressive era.

I think this perspective misreads the American people. From traveling throughout Illinois and more recently around the country, I can tell you that Americans are suspicious of labels and suspicious of jargon. They don't think George Bush is mean-spirited or prejudiced, but have become aware that his administration is irresponsible and often incompetent. They don't think that corporations are inherently evil (a lot of them work in corporations), but they recognize that big business, unchecked, can fix the game to the detriment of working people and small entrepreneurs. They don't think America is an imperialist brute, but are angry that the case to invade Iraq was exaggerated, are worried that we have unnecessarily alienated existing and potential allies around the world, and are ashamed by events like those at Abu Ghraib which violate our ideals as a country.

It's this non-ideological lens through which much of the country viewed Judge Roberts' confirmation hearings. A majority of folks, including a number of Democrats and Independents, don't think that John Roberts is an ideologue bent on overturning every vestige of civil rights and civil liberties protections in our possession. Instead, they have good reason to believe he is a conservative judge who is (like it or not) within the mainstream of American jurisprudence, a judge appointed by a conservative president who could have done much worse (and probably, I fear, may do worse with the next nominee). While they hope Roberts doesn't swing the court too sharply to the right, a majority of Americans think that the President should probably get the benefit of the doubt on a clearly qualified nominee.

A plausible argument can be made that too much is at stake here and now, in terms of privacy issues, civil rights, and civil liberties, to give John Roberts the benefit of the doubt. That certainly was the operating assumption of the advocacy groups involved in the nomination battle.

I shared enough of these concerns that I voted against Roberts on the floor this morning. But short of mounting an all-out filibuster -- a quixotic fight I would not have supported; a fight I believe Democrats would have lost both in the Senate and in the court of public opinion; a fight that would have been difficult for Democratic senators defending seats in states like North Dakota and Nebraska that are essential for Democrats to hold if we hope to recapture the majority; and a fight that would have effectively signaled an unwillingness on the part of Democrats to confirm any Bush nominee, an unwillingness which I believe would have set a dangerous precedent for future administrations -- blocking Roberts was not a realistic option.

In such circumstances, attacks on Pat Leahy, Russ Feingold and the other Democrats who, after careful consideration, voted for Roberts make no sense. Russ Feingold, the only Democrat to vote not only against war in Iraq but also against the Patriot Act, doesn't become complicit in the erosion of civil liberties simply because he chooses to abide by a deeply held and legitimate view that a President, having won a popular election, is entitled to some benefit of the doubt when it comes to judicial appointments. Like it or not, that view has pretty strong support in the Constitution's design.

The same principle holds with respect to issues other than judicial nominations. My colleague from Illinois, Dick Durbin, spoke out forcefully - and voted against - the Iraqi invasion. He isn't somehow transformed into a "war supporter" - as I've heard some anti-war activists suggest - just because he hasn't called for an immediate withdrawal of American troops. He may be simply trying to figure out, as I am, how to ensure that U.S. troop withdrawals occur in such a way that we avoid all-out Iraqi civil war, chaos in the Middle East, and much more costly and deadly interventions down the road. A pro-choice Democrat doesn't become anti-choice because he or she isn't absolutely convinced that a twelve-year-old girl should be able to get an operation without a parent being notified. A pro-civil rights Democrat doesn't become complicit in an anti-civil rights agenda because he or she questions the efficacy of certain affirmative action programs. And a pro-union Democrat doesn't become anti-union if he or she makes a determination that on balance, CAFTA will help American workers more than it will harm them.

Or to make the point differently: How can we ask Republican senators to resist pressure from their right wing and vote against flawed appointees like John Bolton, if we engage in similar rhetoric against Democrats who dissent from our own party line? How can we expect Republican moderates who are concerned about the nation's fiscal meltdown to ignore Grover Norquist's threats if we make similar threats to those who buck our party orthodoxy?

I am not drawing a facile equivalence here between progressive advocacy groups and right-wing advocacy groups. The consequences of their ideas are vastly different. Fighting on behalf of the poor and the vulnerable is not the same as fighting for homophobia and Halliburton. But to the degree that we brook no dissent within the Democratic Party, and demand fealty to the one, "true" progressive vision for the country, we risk the very thoughtfulness and openness to new ideas that are required to move this country forward. When we lash out at those who share our fundamental values because they have not met the criteria of every single item on our progressive "checklist," then we are essentially preventing them from thinking in new ways about problems. We are tying them up in a straightjacket and forcing them into a conversation only with the converted.

Beyond that, by applying such tests, we are hamstringing our ability to build a majority. We won't be able to transform the country with such a polarized electorate. Because the truth of the matter is this: Most of the issues this country faces are hard. They require tough choices, and they require sacrifice. The Bush Administration and the Republican Congress may have made the problems worse, but they won't go away after President Bush is gone. Unless we are open to new ideas, and not just new packaging, we won't change enough hearts and minds to initiate a serious energy or fiscal policy that calls for serious sacrifice. We won't have the popular support to craft a foreign policy that meets the challenges of globalization or terrorism while avoiding isolationism and protecting civil liberties. We certainly won't have a mandate to overhaul a health care policy that overcomes all the entrenched interests that are the legacy of a jerry-rigged health care system. And we won't have the broad political support, or the effective strategies, required to lift large numbers of our fellow citizens out of numbing poverty.

The bottom line is that our job is harder than the conservatives' job. After all, it's easy to articulate a belligerent foreign policy based solely on unilateral military action, a policy that sounds tough and acts dumb; it's harder to craft a foreign policy that's tough and smart. It's easy to dismantle government safety nets; it's harder to transform those safety nets so that they work for people and can be paid for. It's easy to embrace a theological absolutism; it's harder to find the right balance between the legitimate role of faith in our lives and the demands of our civic religion. But that's our job. And I firmly believe that whenever we exaggerate or demonize, or oversimplify or overstate our case, we lose. Whenever we dumb down the political debate, we lose. A polarized electorate that is turned off of politics, and easily dismisses both parties because of the nasty, dishonest tone of the debate, works perfectly well for those who seek to chip away at the very idea of government because, in the end, a cynical electorate is a selfish electorate.

Let me be clear: I am not arguing that the Democrats should trim their sails and be more "centrist." In fact, I think the whole "centrist" versus "liberal" labels that continue to characterize the debate within the Democratic Party misses the mark. Too often, the "centrist" label seems to mean compromise for compromise sake, whereas on issues like health care, energy, education and tackling poverty, I don't think Democrats have been bold enough. But I do think that being bold involves more than just putting more money into existing programs and will instead require us to admit that some existing programs and policies don't work very well. And further, it will require us to innovate and experiment with whatever ideas hold promise (including market- or faith-based ideas that originate from Republicans).

Our goal should be to stick to our guns on those core values that make this country great, show a spirit of flexibility and sustained attention that can achieve those goals, and try to create the sort of serious, adult, consensus around our problems that can admit Democrats, Republicans and Independents of good will. This is more than just a matter of "framing," although clarity of language, thought, and heart are required. It's a matter of actually having faith in the American people's ability to hear a real and authentic debate about the issues that matter.

Finally, I am not arguing that we "unilaterally disarm" in the face of Republican attacks, or bite our tongue when this Administration screws up. Whenever they are wrong, inept, or dishonest, we should say so clearly and repeatedly; and whenever they gear up their attack machine, we should respond quickly and forcefully. I am suggesting that the tone we take matters, and that truth, as best we know it, be the hallmark of our response.

My dear friend Paul Simon used to consistently win the votes of much more conservative voters in Southern Illinois because he had mastered the art of "disagreeing without being disagreeable," and they trusted him to tell the truth. Similarly, one of Paul Wellstone's greatest strengths was his ability to deliver a scathing rebuke of the Republicans without ever losing his sense of humor and affability. In fact, I would argue that the most powerful voices of change in the country, from Lincoln to King, have been those who can speak with the utmost conviction about the great issues of the day without ever belittling those who opposed them, and without denying the limits of their own perspectives.

In that spirit, let me end by saying I don't pretend to have all the answers to the challenges we face, and I look forward to periodic conversations with all of you in the months and years to come. I trust that you will continue to let me and other Democrats know when you believe we are screwing up. And I, in turn, will always try and show you the respect and candor one owes his friends and allies.

You may be asking yourself:

What is a podcast?
A podcast is just an audio file that you download and listen to with your computer or a portable device such as an iPod. The word itself comes from the combination of two other words: iPod and broadcast.

(The full definition of podcast is longer and more techinical, read about it here if you want to know more.)

How do I listen to a podcast?
Below each of our podcast posts they'll be a "click here to listen" link, click that and file should start playing on your computer. The real beauty of podcasting is subscribing, though. By subscribing, your computer will automatically download future podcasts and you can listen to them on your computer or transfer them to your MP3 player without checking the website everyday.

How do I subscribe to a podcast?
The simplest method is using Apple iTunes. The software is free and runs on both Windows and Apple computers. After you have it installed, you can just click this:
  
Subscribe to the Barack Obama Podcast

and then click the subscribe button in iTunes.

There are many other services and software programs to subscribe to the podcast. In those cases, you'll need to copy and paste the podcast XML feed:

http://obama.senate.gov/podcast/index.xml

If you don't know what any of that means, go with the iTunes method.

How can I find out more?
Chicago Tribune: Navigating the podcast concept

Wikipedia: Podcasting

IPodder: What is iPodder

Apple: iTunes and Podcasting

Over the last few decades, tremendous advances in science and technology have led us to a moment of unparalleled promise in health and medicine. Today, cures and treatments that were once barely imagined are now imminently possible.

And yet, while some of the biggest potential breakthroughs continue to lie just around the corner, our ability to solve one of our biggest medical challenges still seems far away. Today, the greatest single threat to the health of our nation is not a scarcity of genius or a failure of discovery; it is our inability, after years of talk and gridlock, to finally do something about the crushing cost of health care.

A new study tells us that the United States spends more on health care per person than any country in the world - and yet we're not getting more health care for all that extra money. Forty-five million Americans are uninsured, and health-care costs are increasing at almost double-digit rates. And millions of Americans are suffering from diseases such as diabetes or AIDS that could have been prevented or delayed with the proper care.

These health care issues are as complex as are the solutions. But one way we can start cutting costs is by bringing the health-care system into the 21st century. In our lifetimes, we've seen some of the greatest advances in the history of technology and the sharing of information. Yet, in our health-care system, too much care is still provided with pen and paper. Too much information about patients isn't shared between doctors or readily available to them in the first place.

Mistakes are easily made - medical errors alone kill up to 98,000 people a year, more people than the number who die from AIDS each year.

But embracing 21st century technology is not just about reducing errors and improving the quality of medical care. It's also about cost.

We spend nearly $1.5 trillion a year on health care in America. But one out of every four dollars is spent on non-medical costs, like bills and paperwork. Bank transactions now cost them less than a penny. Yet, because we haven't updated technology, health-care transactions still cost up to twenty-five dollars.

That's why I'm pleased to join Republican and Democratic senators in introducing the Wired for Health Care Quality Act of 2005.

This legislation will help bring down costs, improve quality, and bring the health-care system into the 21st century. It establishes a National Coordinator for Information Technology to help promote the use of health technology all across the nation. It would make sure that no matter where a patient is treated, information can be shared by doctors to make sure the right care is given. It provides support and funding to help hospitals buy and put these IT systems into place. Finally, it makes sure that doctors are using these systems to actively measure, monitor and improve the quality of care Americans receive.

It is estimated we would save $140 billion per year from this use of technology in our health-care system, a savings that could be passed along to families to cut the cost of an insurance policy by more than $700.

But this will not only cut costs, it could save thousands of lives. Just imagine if every doctor could sit by a patient's bedside with a laptop and pull up their entire medical history with the click of a mouse.

We know all of this is possible - so what are we waiting for? It's time for this country to start taking on the big challenges again - and it doesn't get bigger than ensuring that every American finally has access to health care they can afford. It won't be easy or come quickly, but taking steps to bring our health-care system into the 21st century is a great place to start.

It was a homecoming of sorts. I had lived in New York for five years while attending Columbia University and had actually worked across the street from the UN as a journalist for a year after graduation. But during my entire time in Manhattan, I had never actually entered the UN building. So it was both gratifying and sobering to visit the UN for the first time on an issue of such importance.

This is an issue that troubled me since reports first emerged and one that I pledged to work on during my Senate campaign.

The situation in Darfur, despite a reduction in violence, remains dire. According to the U.N., 2.9 million people in Darfur and Eastern Chad have been impacted by the conflict. There are over two million refugees and internally displaced persons (IDP) in the region, and as a result, numerous refugee and IDP camps are present throughout the countryside. (Refugees are individuals who have crossed an international border, while IDPs remain displaced within their own country). Humanitarian organizations are providing much-needed food aid to the 2+ million people in the camps and elsewhere, but over the long-term, this situation is not sustainable and the international community must work towards a viable solution that will let the IDPs and refugees return to their homes and lands without threat of violence.

Our first meeting was with the Acting Permanent Representative for the U.S. Mission, Anne Patterson. Although currently shorthanded, (she is the only ambassador out of five slots that are normally filled), Ambassador Patterson represents the best of the Foreign Service, with extensive experience in both Republican and Democratic administrations.

Our discussion began with a general look at UN reform efforts and then turned specifically to the US commitment to halting the killing in Darfur as well as the broader multilateral efforts to broker a peace between the Sudanese government and the rebel factions in Darfur that will ultimately allow the 2 million IDPs and refugees to return to their homes.

Ambassador Patterson emphasized that as a consequence of the intensive efforts of Former Special Envoy and UN Representative John Danforth, the United States was hopeful that the new coalition government between the predominantly Arab government in the north and southern peoples led by John Garang would hold and form the basis for a more comprehensive peace throughout the country. She also emphasized that the United States was highly supportive of the African Union's deployment of peacekeepers in the Darfur region and emphasized US willingness to provide logistical and airlift support for the African Union (AU). But she recognized that there could be limits on the capacity of the African Union.

After the initial briefing from Patterson, I met with the Undersecretary General for Humanitarian Affairs Jan Egeland. A native of Norway, Mr. Egeland is an energetic and passionate advocate for humanitarian efforts around the world and his assessment of the situation in Darfur mirrored what I had heard from most of the experts that I spoke to previously - that although the massive killing had abated, the situation of the IDPs and the refugees was unsustainable and rendered them extraordinarily vulnerable to future attacks, as well as starvation and disease. He also noted that although there are 11,000 humanitarian workers on the ground in Darfur, in the absence of a political agreement and significant security assurances, these 2+ million people possess no tools for long-term self-sufficiency. Perhaps the most disturbing part of the meeting was a map that Mr. Egeland passed out showing the scope of the IDP problem. There are over 10 IDP camps within Sudan with more than 100,000 people, as well as scores from other camps with between 10,000 and 75,000 people.

It was with this knowledge that I then met separately with Ambassador Erwa, Permanent Representative from the Sudan and Ambassador Wang, Permanent Representative to the People's Republic of China. To Mr. Erwa, I delivered a blunt message that the genocide that has taken place is unconscionable and that status quo - 2+ million internally displaced people and refugees who remain vulnerable to rape and murder - is simply unacceptable.

In the short term, I said in unequivocal terms that Khartoum should do the following: halt the Janjaweed militias; agree to a tougher mandate for AU troops or an expanded "Blue Helmeted" peacekeeping mission in Darfur; allow the AU access to verify that Sudanese offensive military aircraft are not entering Darfur; and cooperate fully with international efforts to bring to justice the perpetrators of the genocide.

I also stressed that, over the longer term, the Sudanese must not engage in any more attacks or facilitate Janjaweed attacks on the citizens of Darfur. Moreover, it is not enough that the large scale attacks stop - the government of Sudan must continue to negotiate with the rebel groups to find a viable political solution to the problem. I made it clear that these negotiations must be serious and on an expedited timetable - we cannot wait decades for this situation to improve and people to return to their homes.

As expected, I got no firm commitments from Ambassador Erwa, but I emphasized to him that Senate terms were six years long and that I would do everything in my power both in the Senate and as a member of the Foreign Relations Committee to keep the spotlight on this issue.

My meeting with Ambassador Wang was important because of China's role in supporting the Sudanese government. China now receives a sizeable portion of all its oil imports from Sudan, has been the primary bankroller of the Sudanese oil industry and is their principle protector on the Security Council. I indicated to Ambassador Wang that as someone who believes that the US and China can work together on a number of issues, I would hope that China would use its influence to press the Sudanese on coming to a political accord and reigning in the Janjaweed militias.

Following these two meetings, I had lunch with the Under-Secretary for Peacekeeping, Jean-Marie Guéhenno and Under-Secretary for Political Affairs Gambari. Both men were extraordinarily prescient, and it was a reminder that despite some of the ongoing problems of mismanagement and ineffectiveness in the United Nations, there are people at the top of the institution who are extraordinarily qualified and very passionate about the issues at hand.

What was perhaps most striking was Under-Secretary Guéhenno's acknowledgement that in a country the size of France, significantly more troops will be needed to stabilize the country. His hope is that even as the African Union countries ramp up their capacity as a regional force, other nations continue to provide resources and supplement the African Union force with bilateral and multinational resources necessary to stop the killing.

This conversation informed my meeting with the African Union troop contributors. Representatives from Rwanda, Nigeria, Gambia, Senegal, South Africa, Chad and Kenya were all present and we had a frank and honest discussion about the steps we need to be taking in Darfur.

The African Union effort is in many ways groundbreaking - an effort on the part of the African countries to create a sustained joint military capacity that can intercede in regional conflicts and humanitarian crises. My message to them was simple: the US is rooting for their success, and I for one believe that more resources need to be given to them. In exchange, these countries need to use these resources wisely, manage them with transparency, and be accountable for them. Certain AU nations also need to show restraint in what have been reports of playing rebel groups against each other for short-term strategic interests.

Later, when I returned, I was able to work with other Senators in drafting an amendment to the Foreign Operations Appropriations bill that would provide an additional $50 million to the AU Mission in Sudan. This amendment was attached as part of the annual Foreign Operations Appropriations bill which passed the Senate earlier this week. It is my hope that this additional funding will enable the AU to rapidly increase their presence throughout Darfur, leading to a further reduction in violence.

I wrapped up with a meeting with Mark Malloch Brown, chief of staff to Secretary General Kofi Annan. Secretary Annan was in the hospital recovering from a shoulder surgery, so unfortunately he could not meet with me. Mr. Brown has a reputation for being a no-nonsense, highly capable and thoughtful leader at the UN. He emphasized not only his commitment to the Darfur issue but also his recognition that broader issues of UN reform had to be resolved if the UN was to continue to serve a vital role in averting these crises in the future.

On my way out from Mr. Brown's office, I walked past the hall of flags and the Grand General Assembly Hall. I recalled standing in the hall earlier in the day during a brief tour and seeing the names of all the countries represented there. I thought about the crises that had been averted when the world came to together to act. I also thought about crises that accelerated as a consequence of the failures of countries to find common ground.

I thought about the tragedies and conflicts, the hunger and deprivation, but also the hope and promise and courage that were represented and given voice to in that hall. I can't say for certain that my visit had any impact on what takes place inside the United Nations, but I hope that my sustained efforts over the next several years can help tilt the balance in places like Darfur in favor of those who believe in a peaceful resolution to the conflicts in this world.

But I'm happy to report that today wasn't one of those days.

Today, the Senate passed my proposal, which will be included in the transportation bill, that would make it easier for people to fill their cars with a cheaper alternative to gasoline.

Now, I know most of you are as tired as I am of pulling into a gas station and seeing that the prices are even higher than they were the last time you filled up. It's $2.19, then it's $2.24, then it's $2.35, and up and up. When will it stop? As long as we're dependent on oil from the Middle East, we don't know.

That's why we need to stop just talking about energy independence and actually do something about it.

If someone told you that you could fill your cars and trucks with fuel that's 50 cents cheaper than current gas prices, you'd jump at the chance. But what a lot of people don't know is that this option is already out there. It's called E-85, and it's a fuel made of 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline. It's cleaner than gasoline, it's cheaper, and most importantly, it reduces our dependence on oil from the Middle East. In fact, the Indianapolis 500 thought it was such a good alternative that pretty soon, their entire fleet will run on E-85.

Right now, there are millions of cars and trucks that can run on E-85. You might even have one yourself. They're known as "flexible fuel vehicles," and the auto industry is turning out hundreds of thousands of them every year.

Of course, the reason you're not seeing more cars run on E-85 is that we've got a severe shortage of E-85 fuel stations. While there are more than 180,000 gas stations all over America, only about 400 offer E-85.

This is where my proposal comes in. It's going to cost stations to install E-85 pumps, so we thought we'd give them a tax credit that would encourage them to do so. As more and more stations realize how popular this cheap alternative to gas is becoming, more will utilize this tax credit and install their own pumps.

We've got to get serious about energy independence. You've all heard politician after politician making speeches about it, but we shouldn't have to wait any longer to finally see progress, especially since there's so much technology out there that we can use right now to make us less dependent on oil that comes from the Mideast and more reliant on fuel that we can grow in Illinois.

The New Deal gave the laid-off worker a guarantee that he could count on unemployment insurance to put food on his family's table while he looked for a new job. It gave the young man who suffered a debilitating accident assurance that he could count on disability benefits to get him through the tough times. And Franklin Roosevelt's greatest legacy promised the couple who put in a lifetime of sacrifice and hard work that they could retire in comfort and dignity because of Social Security.

This basic concept of social insurance saved American capitalism while also saving millions from a life of poverty and indignity.

Of course, standing there with James Roosevelt also reminded me of how the rhetoric attacking this concept has remained more or less unchanged since Social Security was first signed into law. Then, FDR's opponents were calling it a hoax that would never work, and some even likened it to communism.

Today, we have White House memos that say the following: "For the first time in six decades, the Social Security battle is one we can win - and in doing so, we can help transform the political and philosophical landscape of the country."

That's what this debate is really about for them. It's a continuation of movement after movement that have been trying to get rid of the program for purely ideological reasons since it was first signed into law.

Fortunately, the American people aren't buying it. In the nineteen town hall meetings I've held across the state since I've been elected - many in heavily Republican counties - voters have expressed skepticism about the president's plan. Instead, they'll talk about how Social Security helped an aunt or cousin survive the death of a spouse. How it allowed a disabled nephew live in dignity. How their grandparents relied on their checks every single month. And it's because of these very personal experiences with Social Security that people aren't buying the usual Washington spin.

Now, let me be clear. There are serious problems with Social Security, and Democrats are absolutely united in the desire to strengthen the program and make it solvent for future generations. As I said in the press club, this isn't an issue we want to play politics on. We want to work together with Republicans on this, and I believe we can.

After the Press Club, we attended a rally for Social Security on Capitol Hill. It was a beautiful day, and Democrats in the House and the Senate joined together to pledge unity around strengthening the Social Security system. And as I looked out over the crowd, at the union workers and young people and senior citizens that had gathered there...people of modest means who've worked hard all their lives...people who can't expect golden parachutes or trust funds waiting for them at the twilight of their years...I was encouraged by this visible representation of what's best in America - encouraged by people willing to come together for a cause and participate in their democracy for the good of their country. And if anyone wonders how we'll save Social Security, they have to look no further than the crowd I saw yesterday.