Debbie Stabenow

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Thank you very much, I say to my friend and colleague and our leader from Nevada. Before asking a question, I first want to rise on behalf of the people of Michigan to thank you today for coming to this floor and speaking about what is most important to the people I represent. As you have said so eloquently, this 30 hours we are going to be doing is about four people who already have jobs who want to be promoted. Well, in Michigan, we, right now, have over 263,000 people without jobs. They are not up for promotions. They do not have work at all because of, primarily, the loss of manufacturing jobs. They are grateful, as I am, that you have come to the floor to speak about this. I want to just share with you today a few headlines from the papers. I have been traveling around northern Michigan this last weekend, and everywhere I go--Baldwin, MI, Reed City, Lake City--all around the State I hear the same thing about the loss of furniture makers, the loss of tool and die makers, the loss of other auto suppliers. Here we have a headline from the Grand Rapids Press: ``2,700 Jobs in Danger as Electrolux Considers Closing Greenville Refrigerator Plant.'' The Holland Sentinel: ``Ford Sets Timetable for Plant Closings.'' Also, GM is laying off one shift in Lansing, my hometown. Here is another headline: ``Straits Steel Closing Sad News for Plant's 180 Employees.'' From the Ann Arbor news: ``Eaton Plant to Become Condos.'' From the Lansing State Journal: ``Jobless Rate Could Rise in Winter.'' I ask my friend, as we look at what is happening, and as they talk about the change in the growth and the positive indicators in the economy, isn't it true that we are not seeing new jobs created? In many States, such as mine, we are seeing the best paying jobs, manufacturing jobs, evaporating for many different reasons? And isn't that something we should be talking about on the floor of the Senate, the loss of manufacturing jobs? They cannot just all be in the service industry. We need to make things in this country. That is what I do. That is what people in my State do very well, and they want to continue. Wouldn't my friend say we should be talking about the loss of manufacturing jobs and the people and the families?

Ms. STABENOW. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Ms. STABENOW. Just one more question for my friend. I thank the Senator again very much for laying out what we ought to be doing, our priorities, all of our debates about values and priorities. The Senator has certainly laid out what the values and priorities should be for our focus of time. As you were reading the list of items, I was thinking about that mom on minimum wage who is caring for her children. She probably has sleepless nights hoping they won't get sick because she is probably not covered for health insurance either. As we look at the number of people in the country and in my State who have lost their jobs, and the number of people on minimum wage, they are not just losing a job; in most cases, they are losing their health care as well. In Michigan now, one out of four people under the age of 65 has no health care. Many, as the Senator has talked about, are low-income people; but many of them are high-income manufacturing workers who have lost their jobs. Would the Senator not agree that what we are seeing now, when people lose their jobs, is not just the loss of the income but a loss of the stability of the families and the ability to care for the health of the family because their health insurance is gone as well? Should we not be talking about what is happening in this country in terms of those who have no health insurance or the businesses that are trying to pay for the health insurance?

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. In fact, I add that over the years, under Democratic and Republican Presidents, the senior Senator from Michigan asked very important questions about contracting. He was the first, I believe, to come forward with the acknowledgement and questions about the $600 wrenches and other questions of excesses at the time in the past from the Pentagon. To Democratic or Republican Presidents, he has asked some pretty ``pesky'' questions.

Ms. STABENOW. Yes.

Ms. STABENOW. We have over 9 million people in the State of Michigan.

Ms. STABENOW. That is correct.

Ms. STABENOW. Absolutely.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, this is a very important issue we have in front of us. I wish to pause for a moment and address an issue I saw in the Washington Post this morning that affects what we are doing here this morning and what we do every single day; that is, our ability to work together to ask questions on behalf of American taxpayers, on behalf of all of the people we represent, to be able to get answers from each other and from the administration, and to have the best information we can so we can make the right decisions. I was quite shocked this morning to see in the Washington Post a headline that says: ``White House Puts Limits On Queries from Democrats.'' Reading this more closely, it says: The Bush White House, irritated by pesky questions from congressional Democrats about how the administration is using taxpayers' money, has developed an efficient solution. It will not entertain any more questions from opposition lawmakers. I thought for sure I was not awake. So I rubbed my eyes again and looked at it again and read the same thing. It went on to say: The decision, one that Democrats and scholars say is highly unusual, was announced in an e-mail on Wednesday to House and Senate appropriations committees. Further down there is a comment from Norm Ornstein, a congressional specialist at the American Enterprise Institute. He said: I've not heard of anything like this happening before. This is obviously an excuse to avoid providing information about some of the things the Democrats are asking for. I appreciate that in these days of debate and the important issues we have in front of us, we have been asking some pesky questions of this administration. Pesky questions such as: How specifically will we spend $87 billion going to Iraq, and what specifically will be done to rebuild? What is the plan for our soldiers? What is the plan in terms of making sure we complete the mission and bring them home safely? We have asked pesky questions such as: Why is it that subsidiaries of Halliburton get billions of dollars in no-bid contracts when our own businesses and our own States are unable to find out about bidding processes and unable to participate in what should be an open, transparent process, given the fact these are American tax dollars, public tax dollars? And we have asked pesky questions about Bechtel.

Ms. STABENOW. That is exactly what it says.

Ms. STABENOW. That is correct.

Ms. STABENOW. Certainly.

Ms. STABENOW. That is how it appears. We have a lot of very serious questions our constituents want us to ask of the administration.

Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, the only question I have is the word ``appropriate.'' We certainly want this to be within constitutional parameters. I would say, at this point, the question I would have would be about ``appropriate.'' Who decides what is ``appropriate,'' given the judgments the administration is making? Possibly we can work together to find something else other than that word. But at this point that would be my concern.

Ms. STABENOW. In the State of Michigan, we have many questions being asked--a lot that we asked of the administration on homeland security, how we are funding our borders and keeping them secure. Why is it we are not providing more for our first responders? We have given some dollars but certainly a very small amount of what they need. Why are we not funding more for communications equipment that allows one city's police department to talk to another city's police department, or the police department to talk to the fire department, or the EMS workers to be able to do their job in a community? Why is it we are not providing more dollars directly for those kinds of responsibilities? They are right on the front lines. When you have a problem, when there is a serious crisis, whether it is homeland security or some other crisis in the community, you pick up and call 911, and we want to know people are prepared. Those are questions about appropriations. Those are questions we asked of the administration. How are you moving forward and designing and implementing a Department of Homeland Security? What are we doing at the borders? In my State, we have other questions we are asking that we are assuming the administration will endeavor to answer. It relates to the issues of Canadian trash trucks now coming across our borders into Michigan--about 200 a day--that are not being thoroughly inspected at the border because there is not a way to do it without putting an inspector in the back of every truck. We have serious concerns about what is happening in terms of homeland security. Those are questions. How can we work together? How can we make sure we are addressing those issues that will allow our citizens to be safe, as it relates to these trash trucks coming across the border. They need to be stopped. Over 165,000 people in my State signed an online petition to support my request to the EPA that they get involved in stopping these trucks and using the authority they have. Now, we go through the appropriations process on this matter. I have been very appreciative of the fact that we have worked together on a bipartisan basis in the Senate to address these issues and put more equipment at the border. I have been pleased to have the support of leaders on the other side of the aisle to support efforts to do that, to work together on behalf of the people we represent and make sure they are safe. But when I see things such as this kind of a story, that e-mails are going out saying the White House doesn't like our ``pesky'' questions about how dollars are spent and suggestions that maybe they could be spent differently and better and more wisely in our States--they don't like those questions, so they sent out an e-mail saying they are not going to answer them anymore. They are only going to answer the questions coming from the Republican committee chairs. They are not going to answer questions coming from us. This is deeply disturbing and it should be disturbing to every single one of the people we represent. It should be, frankly, disturbing to people on both sides of the aisle. I was in the House of Representatives for 4 years under a different administration. I asked a lot of tough questions of a lot of Departments and I expected answers. I expected that when my Republican colleagues asked questions of that Democratic administration, they would be given answers as well. We are a separate branch of Government. We are the appropriators, all of us. The Constitution didn't say, by the way, only the majority party can have access to information and only the majority party is responsible for appropriations and guaranteeing the wise use of American tax dollars. They said the Congress of the United States is responsible, and that is all of us. I think it is very important that we send a message very quickly from the Senate that we object to this, object to it together. We work hard on appropriations. We ask a lot of questions. We have a lot of give and take. Amendments are proposed; they rise, they fall. That is the process. We all respect each other and we all respect that process. At the end of the day, we assume that if we are asking, as they say, ``pesky'' questions, we will get answers regardless of who we are. We may not agree with the answers. That is why we live in a democracy. That is the democratic process. We respect the fact there are differences in views, priorities, and values, but we do not accept--I do not accept--that we will be blocked from receiving information. It would be astounding if every time, as a Member of this body, I had to ask for a freedom of information request from the administration in order to get questions answered on items of importance to the people I represent--whether it be agriculture, manufacturing, homeland security, health care, education, the environment, or transportation. I could go on and on. We have critical issues we are responsible for addressing and responsible for doing it in the most efficient and effective way we can. There is only a limited amount of resources and we have to make sure we make wise decisions with those resources. That is our job. Amendment No. 2141 to Amendment No. 2136

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I simply say this is a very short amendment. In part, it indicates: Since, Congressional oversight of the Executive Branch expenditures of public funds is essential in order to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse of taxpayer dollars; and Since, Congress can only exercise its oversight responsibilities if the White House and Executive Branch agencies are responsive to requests for information about public expenditures; Therefore, it is the Sense of the Senate that, The White House and all Executive Branch agencies should respond promptly and completely to all requests by Members of Congress of both parties for information about public expenditures. I hope we will have unanimous support for this amendment and that we can quickly send a message to the White House and ask that they reverse the policy laid out this morning in this article.

Ms. STABENOW. I am honored to yield to my friend and leader from Nevada.

Ms. STABENOW. Yes.

Ms. STABENOW. Absolutely.

Ms. STABENOW. Yes.

Ms. STABENOW. Absolutely.

Ms. STABENOW. I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. I thank the distinguished ranking member of the subcommittee.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise to engage in a colloquy with the distinguished senior Senator from Michigan and the ranking member of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee. As the ranking member knows, phytophthora root rot is destroying crops and ravaging soil throughout the State of Michigan. Many growers are reporting major losses, despite following recommended control strategies, and it is devastating our cucumber, pole bean and soybean crops. Michigan State University is examining ways to contain and eradicate root rot and they need $184,000 to conduct this critical research. Would the distinguished ranking member work with us in conference to obtain this critical funding?