Debbie Stabenow

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 10 minutes.

Ms. STABENOW. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, today I wish to debunk the myths we have heard and are going to keep hearing so that we can get through what is fact and what is myth and focus on what we need to be doing, which is to strengthen Medicare to cover prescription drugs. I agree with Secretary Thompson who says we need to focus more on prescriptions. We can do that through traditional Medicare in which seniors overwhelmingly have voted to remain. We can make sure they have their own doctor, the stability of knowing what their cost is for their premium and their copay, and still update the system to modernize it, using more technology, making sure we have more prevention, and making sure we have prescription drugs. Fundamentally, I do not believe that is what this debate is about. If we can agree that we are going to do it through Medicare, then I believe we can sit down with the dollars available and work up something together, and I hope we will because the seniors of this country have waited long enough. I am very hopeful we will be able to do that. I will briefly debunk what we are going to hear, unfortunately, and that we have to get beyond. First, seniors want the choice to be in a private plan. Obviously, not true. The private sector plans will offer seniors more choices, including prescription drugs. Unfortunately, many seniors do not have access to the private plans, and there is not one offered in 80 percent of the counties nationwide. So the choice is not available to them. I find it interesting that my mother, who is a very healthy 77-year- old woman and plays on three golf leagues--I am so glad I have her genes. I am very hopeful I will have the same opportunity she has had to enjoy her retirement. As a retired nurse, she chose an HMO. She is very healthy. She wanted prescription drug coverage. She could get it through an HMO, so she chose a Medicare HMO. The problem was she got dropped. This has happened to thousands of seniors where the HMO decides it is no longer financially viable for them to cover older adults under Medicare, and so they drop them. So my mother lost her doctor. She liked the HMO she was in. It worked for her. She lost that opportunity. So even in situations where people chose Medicare+Choice, the HMOs go in and out of the market. Forty-one thousand people in Michigan chose Medicare+Choice, and they were dropped because the plans go in and out. So it is not dependable, it is not reliable. That is why the majority of seniors did not pick it--because they wanted the reliability of their own doctor, knowing it would be there, knowing it was not going to be complicated by new systems and new paperwork. They like Medicare. We also hear that private plans will give seniors more choices while letting them continue to use their own doctor. Of course, that is not true because if one goes into an HMO or even a PPO and their doctor is not part of that system, they do not have the opportunity to go to that doctor or they may have to pay more to go to that doctor. The private sector Medicare plans will save money; how many times have we heard that? We hear that they are more efficient. In fact, it is just the opposite. They are not more efficient and, in fact, cost more money than being in traditional Medicare. In the year 2000, the General Accounting Office estimated that payments to Medicare HMOs exceeded the costs that would have been incurred by treating patients directly through traditional Medicare by an annual average of 13.2 percent. So it cost more for the folks who went into the HMO, it cost Medicare more than if they had stayed in traditional Medicare. Two recent studies found that private health plan fees are about 15 percent higher than Medicare: This is the other part of the myth. Frankly, I think our providers would love it if we funded Medicare at the same level as private insurance does because on average they would get 15 percent more dollars. We are cutting our doctors, hospitals, home health agencies, and nursing homes. In the private sector, on average, in some cases it is much higher than 15 percent more for the same services. Surgical procedures I believe are closer to 25 percent more in the private sector. So in terms of dollars, we would see higher costs and higher rates. The private sector plans have lower administrative costs than traditional Medicare: How many times have we heard that? Many studies have shown that Medicare has a lower overhead rate than private plans. Medicare has a 2 to 3 percent administrative cost. Private Medicare HMOs, on average, spend 15 percent on administrative costs, and some spend as much as 30 or 32 percent. So, again, it does not cost less. The administrative costs are not less under private plans. Finally, the myth that we can provide a Medicare drug plan like Federal employees benefits for under $400 million over 10 years, which is in the budget resolution--in fact, the numbers we have been given indicate to us that it would cost twice as much as what is in this budget resolution. When given the opportunity, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle voted no on funding the same level that we receive through Federal employee health insurance. So let's talk about myth, let's talk about facts, and let's get beyond all of this and say seniors of this country have chosen overwhelmingly to stay in Medicare. They like Medicare. It works. It just does not cover prescription drugs.

Ms. STABENOW. I am happy to yield.

Ms. STABENOW. That is correct.

Ms. STABENOW. Absolutely.

Ms. STABENOW. Well, I think my colleague is very wise in pointing that out. I often say that seniors made their choice and now our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have said: We do not like that choice. Pick again. You cannot have this choice. Door No. 1 is closed and locked. You can only pick door No. 2. That is really what is happening. Even among the fancy words, now we are hearing that under Medicare there will be the same prescription drug proposal, the same plan as our private plans; we are going to give the same prescription drug plan. But then we hear, but other things will be better in the private sector plans, such as we will have more prevention; we will have a better catastrophic cap; we will have other things that are better. So they are moving the words around. It may appear that the prescription drug part is the same, but other things will be better because of the belief--and there is a genuine philosophical difference, there is a divide, about what is the best way to proceed. There are colleagues who believe that probably Medicare should never have been enacted. I have heard it said it is a big government program, it should be private insurance run, and they would like very much to get back as close as they can to a privately run system.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I believe ``home'' is one of the warmest words in the English language. At the end of a long day, I think the favorite phrase of every hardworking working man and woman in this country is: ``Well, I'll see you tomorrow. I'm going home now.'' That is why I rise today to introduce the First Time Homebuyers' Tax Credit Act of 2003. The bill I am introducing will spread that warmth by opening the door to homeownership to millions of hardworking families, helping them cover the initial down payment and closing costs. This initiative is in keeping with our longstanding national policy of encouraging homeownership. Owning a home has always been a fundamental part of the American dream. We, in Congress, have long recognized the social and economic value in high rates of homeownership through laws that we have enacted, such as the mortgage interest tax deduction and the capital gains exclusion on the sale of a home. Over the life of a loan, the mortgage interest tax deduction can save homeowners thousands of dollars that they could use for other necessary family expenses such as education or health care. These benefits, however, are only available to individuals who own their own home. It is important also to note that owning a home is a principle and reliable source of savings as homeowners build equity over the years and their homes appreciate. For many people, it is home equity--not stocks--that help them through the retirement years. In addition, owning a home insulates people from spikes in housing costs. Indeed, while rents may go up, the costs of a monthly mortgage payment, in relative terms, will go down over the course of the mortgage. In my own State of Michigan, the homeownership rate of 74 percent is the third highest in the Nation and well above the national rate of 66 percent. In Oregon, the home State of my bill's lead Republican sponsor, Senator Gordon Smith, the homeownership rate is 64.3 percent--about 2 percent below the national average. However, as impressive as these numbers may initially sound, not everyone enjoys the benefits of homeownership. For example, homeownership in Michigan among whites is 78 percent; Native Americans 60 percent; Hispanics 55 percent; African Americans 51 percent; and Asians 50 percent. A national study by the Fannie Mae Foundation found that in the top third of income levels, 44 percent of people under the age of 31 owned their own home. But, for the lowest third on the income scale, only 15.6 percent owned their own home--a 28 percent gap! Why do we face these disparities? Clearly, one of the biggest barriers to homeownership for working families is the cost of a down payment and the costs associated with closing a mortgage. According to the Mortgage Bankers Association, typical closing costs on an average sized loan of $175,000 can approach approximately $4,000. Even with relatively recent mortgage products that allow a downpayment of as little as 3 percent of the value of a home, total costs can quickly approach over $9,000. This is an impossible amount to save for those who are scraping by, working hard to make ends meet. To address this problem, I am introducing the First Time Homebuyers' Tax Credit Act of 2003. My bill authorizes a one-time tax credit of up to $3,000 for individuals and $6,000 for married couples. This credit is similar to the existing mortgage interest tax deduction in that it creates incentives for people to buy a home. To be eligible for the credit, taxpayers must be first-time homebuyers who were within the 27 percent tax bracket or lower in the year before they purchase their home. That is $67,700 for single filers, $96,700 for heads of household, $112,850 for joint returns. There is a dollar-for-dollar phase-out beyond the cap. Normally, tax credits like this are an after-the-fact benefit. They do little to get people actually into a home. What is particularly innovative and beneficial about the tax credit in this bill, however, is that, for the first time, the taxpayer can either claim the credit in the year after he or she buys a first home or the taxpayer can transfer the credit directly to a lender at closing. The transferred credit would go toward helping with the down payment or closing costs. This is cash at the table. As mandated in the bill, the eligible homebuyer would have the money for the lender from the Treasury within 30 days of application. I am happy to say that this legislation already has strong support. Among those who have already written to me in support of this concept are: The American Bankers Association; America's Community Bankers; the Housing Partnership Network; the National Housing Conference; the National Congress for Community Economic Development; the National Council of La Raza; the National Association of Affordable Housing Lenders; the Manufactured Housing Institute; Fannie Mae; Freddie Mac; National Community Reinvestment Coalition; Standard Federal Bank; Habitat for Humanity, and, the National American Indian Housing Council. I ask unanimous consent that copies of their letters be printed in the Record.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I believe ``home'' is one of the warmest words in the English language. At the end of a long day, I think the favorite phrase of every hardworking working man and woman in this country is: ``Well, I'll see you tomorrow. I'm going home now.'' That is why I rise today to introduce the First Time Homebuyers' Tax Credit Act of 2003. The bill I am introducing will spread that warmth by opening the door to homeownership to millions of hardworking families, helping them cover the initial down payment and closing costs. This initiative is in keeping with our longstanding national policy of encouraging homeownership. Owning a home has always been a fundamental part of the American dream. We, in Congress, have long recognized the social and economic value in high rates of homeownership through laws that we have enacted, such as the mortgage interest tax deduction and the capital gains exclusion on the sale of a home. Over the life of a loan, the mortgage interest tax deduction can save homeowners thousands of dollars that they could use for other necessary family expenses such as education or health care. These benefits, however, are only available to individuals who own their own home. It is important also to note that owning a home is a principle and reliable source of savings as homeowners build equity over the years and their homes appreciate. For many people, it is home equity--not stocks--that help them through the retirement years. In addition, owning a home insulates people from spikes in housing costs. Indeed, while rents may go up, the costs of a monthly mortgage payment, in relative terms, will go down over the course of the mortgage. In my own State of Michigan, the homeownership rate of 74 percent is the third highest in the Nation and well above the national rate of 66 percent. In Oregon, the home State of my bill's lead Republican sponsor, Senator Gordon Smith, the homeownership rate is 64.3 percent--about 2 percent below the national average. However, as impressive as these numbers may initially sound, not everyone enjoys the benefits of homeownership. For example, homeownership in Michigan among whites is 78 percent; Native Americans 60 percent; Hispanics 55 percent; African Americans 51 percent; and Asians 50 percent. A national study by the Fannie Mae Foundation found that in the top third of income levels, 44 percent of people under the age of 31 owned their own home. But, for the lowest third on the income scale, only 15.6 percent owned their own home--a 28 percent gap! Why do we face these disparities? Clearly, one of the biggest barriers to homeownership for working families is the cost of a down payment and the costs associated with closing a mortgage. According to the Mortgage Bankers Association, typical closing costs on an average sized loan of $175,000 can approach approximately $4,000. Even with relatively recent mortgage products that allow a downpayment of as little as 3 percent of the value of a home, total costs can quickly approach over $9,000. This is an impossible amount to save for those who are scraping by, working hard to make ends meet. To address this problem, I am introducing the First Time Homebuyers' Tax Credit Act of 2003. My bill authorizes a one-time tax credit of up to $3,000 for individuals and $6,000 for married couples. This credit is similar to the existing mortgage interest tax deduction in that it creates incentives for people to buy a home. To be eligible for the credit, taxpayers must be first-time homebuyers who were within the 27 percent tax bracket or lower in the year before they purchase their home. That is $67,700 for single filers, $96,700 for heads of household, $112,850 for joint returns. There is a dollar-for-dollar phase-out beyond the cap. Normally, tax credits like this are an after-the-fact benefit. They do little to get people actually into a home. What is particularly innovative and beneficial about the tax credit in this bill, however, is that, for the first time, the taxpayer can either claim the credit in the year after he or she buys a first home or the taxpayer can transfer the credit directly to a lender at closing. The transferred credit would go toward helping with the down payment or closing costs. This is cash at the table. As mandated in the bill, the eligible homebuyer would have the money for the lender from the Treasury within 30 days of application. I am happy to say that this legislation already has strong support. Among those who have already written to me in support of this concept are: The American Bankers Association; America's Community Bankers; the Housing Partnership Network; the National Housing Conference; the National Congress for Community Economic Development; the National Council of La Raza; the National Association of Affordable Housing Lenders; the Manufactured Housing Institute; Fannie Mae; Freddie Mac; National Community Reinvestment Coalition; Standard Federal Bank; Habitat for Humanity, and, the National American Indian Housing Council. I ask unanimous consent that copies of their letters be printed in the Record.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Fair and Impartial Rights, FAIR, for Medicare Act and bring attention to growing concerns I have heard about the possible politicization of the Medicare appeals process. The Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, has indicated that the Administration would like to alter the current practice of requiring that Medicare beneficiaries or Medicare providers be granted a hearing before an independent Administrative Law Judge, ALJ, when their initial claim is denied. Instead of taking the side of beneficiaries and providers, this proposed action would seek to inject political interference in the Medicare appeals process to try to deny benefits to claimants. When Medicare beneficiaries and Medicare providers are denied payment for services, the 2000 BIPA law allows them a five-step process for them to appeal this decision. Unfortunately, the first two steps of this appeals process has been working against beneficiaries and providers. In the last five years, ALJs have reversed 53 percent of these preliminary rulings. This means that 53 percent of all cases were decided incorrectly by the preliminary steps in the Medicare appeals process. It was only when beneficiaries or providers appealed to an independent ALJ that they received the proper ruling. ALJs serve an essential role in the claims review process because there is often conflicting and confusing information to guide beneficiaries and providers. In its 2001 report as part of its ongoing review of CMS communications, the General Accounting office described the information CMS's carriers gives to providers as ``often incomplete, confusing, out of date, or even incorrect.'' GAO found that ``the norm'' for many carriers were documents over 50 pages that ``often contained long articles, written in dense language and printed in small type.'' Documents ``were also poorly organized, making it difficult for a physician to identify relevant or new information.'' ALJs base their decisions on administrative rules, which have the benefit of being open to public comment and review, as well as case law and statutes. Unfortunately, the Administration is seeking to undermine the independent role of ALJs who hear Medicare cases and replace ALJs with Federal employees, perhaps even political appointees, with closer ties to the Administration's policy goals. The Administration's plan is not just an abstract proposal. It would hurt Medicare beneficiaries and Medicare providers. The FAIR for Medicare Act would stop this political attempt to weaken the role of independent ALJs. Specifically, it would: Prohibit non- ALJs, like political appointees, from performing the duties of ALJs. Transfer Medicare ALJs from the Social Security Administration to the Department of HHS, just like a bipartisan bill introduced in the House by Congresswoman Nancy Johnson. Ensure ALJs are organizationally and functionally separated from CMS and all other political appointees other than the Secretary of HHS. Similar legislation has been introduced in the House by Representative Nancy Johnson, and it received bipartisan support. I hope that my proposal will achieve the same result. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and several articles be printed in the Record.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Fair and Impartial Rights, FAIR, for Medicare Act and bring attention to growing concerns I have heard about the possible politicization of the Medicare appeals process. The Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, has indicated that the Administration would like to alter the current practice of requiring that Medicare beneficiaries or Medicare providers be granted a hearing before an independent Administrative Law Judge, ALJ, when their initial claim is denied. Instead of taking the side of beneficiaries and providers, this proposed action would seek to inject political interference in the Medicare appeals process to try to deny benefits to claimants. When Medicare beneficiaries and Medicare providers are denied payment for services, the 2000 BIPA law allows them a five-step process for them to appeal this decision. Unfortunately, the first two steps of this appeals process has been working against beneficiaries and providers. In the last five years, ALJs have reversed 53 percent of these preliminary rulings. This means that 53 percent of all cases were decided incorrectly by the preliminary steps in the Medicare appeals process. It was only when beneficiaries or providers appealed to an independent ALJ that they received the proper ruling. ALJs serve an essential role in the claims review process because there is often conflicting and confusing information to guide beneficiaries and providers. In its 2001 report as part of its ongoing review of CMS communications, the General Accounting office described the information CMS's carriers gives to providers as ``often incomplete, confusing, out of date, or even incorrect.'' GAO found that ``the norm'' for many carriers were documents over 50 pages that ``often contained long articles, written in dense language and printed in small type.'' Documents ``were also poorly organized, making it difficult for a physician to identify relevant or new information.'' ALJs base their decisions on administrative rules, which have the benefit of being open to public comment and review, as well as case law and statutes. Unfortunately, the Administration is seeking to undermine the independent role of ALJs who hear Medicare cases and replace ALJs with Federal employees, perhaps even political appointees, with closer ties to the Administration's policy goals. The Administration's plan is not just an abstract proposal. It would hurt Medicare beneficiaries and Medicare providers. The FAIR for Medicare Act would stop this political attempt to weaken the role of independent ALJs. Specifically, it would: Prohibit non- ALJs, like political appointees, from performing the duties of ALJs. Transfer Medicare ALJs from the Social Security Administration to the Department of HHS, just like a bipartisan bill introduced in the House by Congresswoman Nancy Johnson. Ensure ALJs are organizationally and functionally separated from CMS and all other political appointees other than the Secretary of HHS. Similar legislation has been introduced in the House by Representative Nancy Johnson, and it received bipartisan support. I hope that my proposal will achieve the same result. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and several articles be printed in the Record.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, the contributions of women in the U.S. Armed Forces stretches back to the battlefields of our Revolution and continues in the deserts of Iraq today. But those contributions have not always been recognized. Today, I rise to note another milestone for women in the military and pay tribute to COL Mandi Murray who recently became the first woman to command a brigade in Michigan's Army National Guard Colonel Murray now commands the 2,433 soldiers of the 63rd Troop Command based in Jackson, MI. The missions of the 63rd Troop Command include maintenance, transportation, administration, Army aviation, and Airborne Ranger duties. One unit of the 63rd Troop Command is now serving in Iraq and-- sadly--one of its servicemen was killed there last month. Colonel Murray has had a remarkable career as both a civilian and an officer in her 22 years with the Army National Guard. She joined the Guard when she was 17. At one time she juggled full- time duties as a neonatal intensive care nurse, full-time studies at the University of Detroit Law School, and her obligations to the military. She is married to a fellow officer--LTC Martin Murray with the Michigan Army National Guard's State Area Command--and now outranks him. But that is not a problem for this couple. ``My husband and I are truly in this as a team,'' Colonel Murray said recently. ``Sometimes one has to step back for the other. He knows I wouldn't be here without him.'' The Murray's have two children, and both hold demanding full-time careers. She works as a lawyer for the St. Joseph Health System, and he is an operations director of a 23-physician medical practice. Our Nation is grateful to have such fine men and women willing to serve, and I am proud this couple hails from my home State. Women have come a long way since 1778, when Mary Ludwig Hays--also known as Molly Pitcher--manned a cannon at the Battle of Monmouth in place of her wounded husband. For her bravery, General George Washington made her a noncommissioned officer, and for the rest of her days she was known as Sergeant Molly. Now, when the armed services are called to duty, almost 200,000 women from all branches of the armed services stand ready to defend their Nation--women like Colonel Murray. I salute their bravery and their sense of duty as I do all who choose to wear our Nation's uniform with pride.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today to reflect on this year's Memorial Day commemorations and the importance of this holiday in American life. As I attend Memorial Day parades and commemorations, I'm struck by the spirit of national unity on display because I know that across Michigan--and across our Nation--our fellow Americans are taking part in similar gatherings where we take the time to reflect on our history and the sacrifice that brought us to where we are today. Memorial Day is unique among American holidays. On Memorial Day we do not honor a particular date or event--a battle or the end of a war. On Memorial Day we do not honor an individual leader--a president or a general. On Memorial Day we do not even honor ourselves--at least not in the present tense. On Memorial Day we pay homage to the thousands and thousands of individual acts of bravery and sacrifice that stretch back to the battlefields of our Revolution and are on display today in the deserts of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan. We honor the brave men and women who answered their Nation's call to duty. And--making that ultimate sacrifice--never returned to their families and loved ones. As part of this year's Memorial Day commemorations, I have been paying special respects to our Korean war veterans because this July marks the 50th Anniversary of the armistice that ended that war. Notice I said Korean war. I did not say ``the Korean Conflict.'' I did not call it a police action. I've met too many Korean war veterans. I've heard too many of their stories. It was the Korean war. About 2 million Americans served on active duty with the United States Armed Forces during the Korean war. And nearly 55,000 never came home. The Korean war is often called ``the forgotten war.'' Well, it is not forgotten by me. I've met too many Korean war veterans and heard the stories of the hardships they endured defending--in the words of the plaque at the Korean War Memorial--``a country they never knew, and a people they never met.'' So I think that one of the most fitting ways to pay homage to our fallen patriots is to treat their living comrades with the respect and honor they deserve. Michigan is home to 875,000 veterans, and in personal conversations, letters, phone calls and e-mails I have heard from many who are not being treated fairly by the veterans' health care system or by present pension regulations. Right now, we are underfunding veterans' health care by close to $2 billion. This means it can take months to see a doctor and delays of a year or longer for some surgical procedures. I am cosponsoring the Veterans Health Care Funding Guarantee Act of 2003--S. 50--that would order a 20 percent increase in funding for the Veteran's Health Administration by 2005, and adjust the amount upwards every year after that to take into account new enrollees. Also, antiquated laws have also created an unfair situation wherein a veteran's pension can be reduced by the amount of their disability payment for a service-related disability. In some cases the pension can be wiped out entirely. This is unfair. Pension and disability payments are two separate and distinct benefits. Our veterans have earned their pensions. And if they also suffered a service-related disability that has cut their ability to earn money outside the military, they are entitled to a separate disability payment as well. I am cosponsoring the Retired Pay Restoration Act of 2003--S. 392. This bill would require that veterans receive their full pension plus all disability payments to which they are entitled. This issue is also known as full concurrent receipt. As we observe this holiday we call Memorial Day, let us remember the centuries of sacrifice by thousands and thousands of men and women that this day represents. And let's make sure that all who served with honor are honored in return.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Mikulski be added as a cosponsor of the amendment.

Ms. STABENOW. Due to the fact the budget resolution does not contain enough revenue to do what our distinguished chairman has just indicated, this amendment is necessary to make that happen. Pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable sections of that act and the budget resolution for the consideration of the pending amendment. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this very important amendment for the seniors of this country. This does that. First and foremost, before we pass the dividend tax cut and the top rate tax cut, we will proceed to develop and pass a comprehensive prescription drug benefit that is equivalent to what we receive in the Senate. I have heard many colleagues express the concern I share, which is that the seniors and the disabled of this country ought to have the same ability to have the prescription drug coverage we as Federal employees do. This amendment simply sets our priorities straight. It says before we proceed with these two tax cuts, we will pass a comprehensive prescription drug benefit based on FEHBP, the most common portion of which is used by Senate and House Members. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today to support the United States Leadership against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and malaria Act of 2003. This legislation authorizes $15 billion over 5 years, $3 billion per year through 2008. This bill also establishes an HIV/AIDS response coordinator and advisory panel, and requires a 5-year comprehensive, integrated, global strategy to fight this deadly disease. I am pleased to join a bipartisan group of Senators supporting this legislation. According to the United Nations, more than 65 million people worldwide have been infected with HIV, more than 25 million have died of the disease, and more than 14 million children have been orphaned. At the end of 2002, an estimated 42 million people were infected with HIV or were living with AIDS, of which more than 75 percent live in Africa or the Caribbean. AIDS is the leading cause of death in sub- Saharan Africa, where more than 19.4 million have died. Basic interventions to prevent new HIV infections and to bring care and treatment to people living with AIDS have achieved meaningful results. Nonetheless, of the more than 30 million people in Africa with HIV, only 50,000 receive necessary medicines. We must do everything to reverse this horrible trend and fight this pandemic. But we can't do it on the cheap. Fighting this disease will take a lot of money because the problem is so widespread. The Global H.I.V. Prevention Working Group, funded jointly by the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Gates Foundation, has issued a report stating that: ``Globally, fewer than one in five people have access to basic HIV prevention programs--the information and services that can help save lives and reverse the AIDS epidemic.'' The Working Group's analysis of global HIV prevention funding finds that annual spending from all sources in 2002 was $3.8 billion short of what will be needed by 2005. The report also finds that access to proven prevention interventions is extremely limited, and highly variable, depending on region and the intervention. As you can see, this problem is bigger than what our response will be here today. We must view this legislation as the first step in an ongoing battle to end the AIDS epidemic once and for all. The bill before us is an important bill, but it is only an authorization bill. Now, we must focus on the upcoming appropriations bills to make good on the promise of the bill before us today.

Ms. STABENOW

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

Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I rise this evening to offer an amendment that seeks to set the right priorities for us in the Senate and in the Congress as we move forward this year with the budget. My amendment is simple. It says before the dividend tax cut and the acceleration of the top tax rate go into effect, Congress must pass a Medicare prescription drug bill that is actuarially equivalent to the value of the Blue Cross standard option under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, known as FEHBP, for all Medicare beneficiaries. This is a question of our values and priorities. My amendment is a promise to our Nation's seniors. It says you are as important as the elite in this country; we are finally going to get something done; and that it will be something that is equal to what we receive in the U.S. Senate. This is the third consecutive Congress that has considered adding an outpatient prescription drug benefit under Medicare. In the last two Congresses we were unsuccessful. To be fair, we were unsuccessful with a Democratic President, a Republican President, a Democratic Congress, a Republican Congress. The reality is we have not yet been able to deliver for our seniors the promise of prescription drug coverage under Medicare. I believe the time is up. Our seniors and those who are disabled, who depend on Medicare, are counting on us to get this done this year. In order to be able to do that, we need to impose some discipline on ourselves. We have to hold our feet to the fire in order to get this done. This amendment says to the House and Senate and the administration that we must all work together to pass a meaningful prescription drug benefit or a major component of the tax cut that is supported by the majority will not go into effect. I would like to make it clear that my amendment does not eliminate the tax cuts on dividends or those for the people who pay the highest rates. As long as we pass a meaningful prescription drug benefit, these tax cuts would take effect as scheduled. Having said that, I want to also indicate that I do not believe, from an economic standpoint, that is the best way to stimulate the economy. I agree with the over 450 economists who have said this will not create jobs; it will not create growth. But if in fact there is support to pass the tax breaks geared to the elite in the country, I ask my colleagues to at least be willing to hold off. At least be willing to hold off until we can fulfill the promise of an outpatient prescription drug benefit under Medicare. My amendment says this should be available to all seniors, not just seniors in private insurance, as has been proposed by the President and by others, but all seniors should be able to get the same prescription drug coverage. In addition, this amendment says the prescription drug benefit we pass should be actuarially equivalent to the plan that is most often used by Federal employees, including Members of Congress. In other words--and I have heard other colleagues say this--the seniors of this country should get no less in prescription drug help than we get through our insurance plan. That is what my amendment says, simply. The tax cuts geared to the most wealthy among us, the elite in the country, should wait until we can fulfill the promise of a prescription drug benefit that is equal to what we receive as Members of the Senate. I have heard many friends on the other side of the aisle extol the virtues of our plan, the FEHBP plan. I have also heard the President and members of his administration make similar comments. They say a new prescription drug benefit should be modeled after the benefit in the Federal employee plan. In fact, on May 6 my distinguished colleague from Idaho, Senator Craig, held a hearing in the Aging Committee, which I am on, that highlighted the Federal employee program, its benefits, and so on. While the witnesses disagreed on whether it would be appropriate to go to the structure of that plan--and I have great concerns about anything outside of Medicare--they all agree that this plan that we and other Federal employees have offers excellent prescription drug coverage for Federal employees. I think most of us agree our seniors deserve the same opportunity to have prescription drug coverage equal to what we or other Federal employees receive. However, the current budget resolution does not allow for that. It does not provide for the resources to do that. So despite the comments I have heard on a number of occasions from colleagues that, in fact, we ought to be providing similar coverage, the budget resolution does not provide the resources. So this, again, is a question of priorities. It is a question of values. What should come first, fulfilling the promise of a quality prescription drug benefit for our seniors under Medicare or proceeding with a tax cut geared to the elite in this country? I think it is particularly of concern that we focus on this, particularly in light of the overwhelming evidence that those particular tax cuts will not stimulate the economy in the short run, will not create jobs, will not create growth. No matter how many times Members say that, with all due respect, we have overwhelming evidence-- 450 economists, 10 Nobel laureates, concerns by Chairman Greenspan--and only 13 economists on the side, saying it is a good idea. Before we go ahead with something we know is not a short-term stimulus, doesn't create jobs, doesn't create growth, and, in fact, created red ink as far as the eye can see, I ask that we stop. Whether Members wish to have a dividend tax cut and a top rate cut or wish not to, we should come together and agree we would not proceed until we provide prescription drug coverage that is quality and is similar to what we have as Members of the Senate. This is a trigger. As I indicated, it is not eliminating those parts of the tax bill. It is simply a trigger on those. If I might take just another moment on the broader issues of Medicare, on this question of whether we will have the resources to update Medicare to provide a real prescription drug benefit, one that we could probably support because it would be similar to what we are able to receive as Members of the Senate. The larger issue is where we are going in terms of the huge national debt projected for the future. The actual question is whether we will be able to meet our obligations overall for Medicare and Social Security in the long run without going into more and more deficit. I refer to the study that was recently done that indicates if we were to take the proposals that have been put forward by the President--I realize in the Senate there is a modified version of that. We don't have exactly this amendment in front of us. But if we are to take what the President has suggested in totality over the next 75 years, we would see a cost of over $14 trillion. At the same time, the projected Medicare and Social Security deficit is $10 trillion. I go back again to my concern that this an issue of priorities. We have one proposal that creates a $14 trillion cost. At the same time that we know we have an unfunded liability in Social Security and Medicare of $10 trillion, why in the world would we do that? Why in the world would anybody? This is what the economists are talking about. Over 450 economists have come out against this, saying it will not create jobs; it will just create more massive debt; it will create instability long term in the economy; it jeopardizes Medicare and Social Security. These are the numbers they are looking at. Why in the world would anybody with common sense looking at this say we ought to go in this direction? If we didn't go in this direction, and if we agreed to the amendment we are talking about, we would be sending a clear message that we are committed to really providing Medicare prescription drug coverage and not just talking about it for another session but really providing it for our seniors and for the disabled. And we would be sending a message that we are making a long-term commitment to Medicare and Social Security. My fear is, if we proceed down the road as we currently are as a Congress, that we are creating a situation which will lend itself to the argument of those who say we can't afford Medicare and Social Security anymore. We heard that. We heard we can't afford prescription drug coverage; we can't afford Medicare as we know it; we can't afford Social Security as we know it. We can afford to update it for prescription drugs if we do not pass irresponsible tax policy that creates trillions and trillions of dollars in debt. That is my concern overall. I am hopeful that we will reconsider this. I am very hopeful that in the meantime, regardless of the broader picture, colleagues will join to be able to send a strong message that we are going to put the seniors of the country first and a real prescription drug benefit first. As many colleagues have said, our seniors deserve the same kind of benefit that we receive in the Senate. This amendment would allow that to happen. With the passage of these other provisions, it then would allow them to take effect after the prescription drug benefit is passed. I reserve the remainder of my time. I yield to my colleagues who are possibly wishing to speak. I would like the opportunity to respond at the appropriate time. I yield the floor.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today as we are beginning the discussion in earnest about how to create jobs in our country, how to help the economy, how to be responsible as we do that and how to help the States. Certainly my home State of Michigan, as most States, is finding financial crisis. As we do that, we hear a lot of words, a lot of rhetoric, a lot of slogans. One of those is that the President's proposal is a job and growth package and that colleagues on the other side of the aisle are involved in a job and growth package. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, we have 450 well-known economists in the country, 10 Nobel laureates, Chairman Greenspan, many around the country, saying this will not create jobs and it will not create growth. It is not a jobs program. It is not a growth program. We have 13 economists saying it is; 450 economists versus 13 economists. I suggest the overwhelming opinion of those who have studied this question of how to create jobs, how to move the economy, and how to do it in a responsible manner, without creating a sea of red ink as far as the eye can see, the majority of those who have locked at this issue, the vast majority have said the plan by the White House and by the Republican majority does not do that. In fact, it adds to what we unfortunately are on track to do, which is to see the worst job creation in 58 years. It is astounding what has happened in a very short time, going from budget surpluses, a boom in the economy in the 1990s, and now, in a very short time, to a turnaround where we are plummeting into debt. We are seeing close to the worst job creation in 58 years. What we are seeing from this record, over and over again, is the plan to give tax breaks for the privileged few will not create jobs. It did not create jobs in the 1980s when it was done. The bill that was passed 2 years ago, in 2001, was the first round of the Bush tax breaks for the privileged few, and it has not created jobs. Now they are saying do it again. In my home State just this last month, 17,700 workers lost their jobs. That is 17,700 families who lost income, possibly--probably losing health care, losing the opportunity to pay into a pension fund, losing the opportunity to buy that new home, that new car squeezing them in terms of being able to send their children to college. Mr. President, that is 17,700 people in just 1 month in Michigan. In fact, we have had, since this administration came into power, over 178,000 people who have lost their jobs in my home State alone-- 178,000-plus people. Again, many of them lost their health care, lost the ability to care for their families and do what they need to do to create opportunity and security for their families. In the last 2\1/2\ years we have seen an astounding 2.5 million private sector jobs lost. You have to go back over 50 years to see that kind of a record in this country. We certainly do not want to be going in that direction as a country. What should we do? We do need to work together. We need to work across the aisle to do what is necessary to get the economy going, create jobs, and protect Social Security and Medicare for the long haul. Unfortunately, what we are seeing is a replay of the 1980s that put us into double digit unemployment, double digit interest rate increases, and tripled the national debt. We are seeing a replay of what was passed 2 years ago now that has caused us to plummet in terms of the budget situation and the economy and unemployment. My question is, Why in the world are we going to do this again? Why in the world would we use the same policies that have not worked? We have this saying we use a lot in Michigan: The first step in getting out of a hole is to stop digging. What we are seeing is the digging of a deeper and deeper hole. In fact, we have seen a $7 trillion fiscal collapse in just the last 2 years. I find this most disturbing. It is extremely worrisome, and every single American I know shares this concern. When we combine the tax policies 2 years ago, the tax cut for the privileged few passed 2 years ago--and by the way, I am all for putting money in people's pockets. The question is, Whose pockets? We want to make sure it goes into the pockets of the majority of Americans who will spend and drive this economy. That is not what happened 2 years ago. But if we were to make that permanent and we were to take the other proposals that have come forward in some variation, certainly from the President, what we see as we look to the future is that $14.2 trillion is taken out of Federal resources. There is $14.2 trillion of projected loss or deficit. Compare that to the projected Medicare and Social Security deficit over the same time. That is $10 trillion. So we are talking about a hole that is bigger than Social Security and Medicare combined, in terms of the deficit for the future. I sit on the Budget Committee. We look at these numbers. We are seeing red ink proposed as far as the eye can see, red ink that is far greater than what is projected on Medicare and Social Security. We see the baby boomers retiring in just a few years in large numbers. Many of us ask the question: How in the world can this be justified? How in the world can anyone look at these numbers and say we are going to put our country in this huge debt, greater than the liability of Medicare and Social Security, and then meet our obligations to our seniors, to those retiring, those who have paid in throughout their working years into a system that has, in fact, brought people out of poverty and guaranteed health care once you are age 65 or are disabled? The pattern I have heard back too many times, and it is extremely worrisome, is that you assume Medicare and Social Security will be there as we know it. I do assume Medicare and Social Security will be there as we know it. Fundamental to this debate right now on this tax cut, when we know economists say overwhelmingly say it is not going to work, it is not going to create growth, it is going to give tax cuts to the privileged few in our country at the expense of everyone else--why in the world, then, would someone propose this? Why in the world would someone propose something that would create massive debt, jeopardize Social Security and Medicare, for a tax break for only a few people? I believe the real purpose is to privatize Medicare and Social Security. We see over and over again disparaging comments being made, particularly now, about Medicare. Just recently Tom Skully, the administrator of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, said when he was in Pennsylvania at a public meeting--this was quoted in the press and others who were there heard this and responded accordingly; many seniors were very upset and were disagreeing with this, but Mr. Scully said, when talking about the Medicare Program: It was an unbelievable disaster. And: We think it's a dumb system. So we have a situation now where we are seeing a setup to create this huge debt and then we are being told we can't afford Medicare and Social Security as we know it. We can't afford to provide real prescription drug coverage for our seniors on Medicare right now. That is too expensive to do. We can't afford it. We can't afford Medicare as we know it. I believe what is fundamentally happening is a situation to set up the ability to eliminate Medicare as we know it because of a belief that it is ``an unbelievable disaster'' and ``a dumb system.'' I do not believe Medicare is a dumb system. I believe that Medicare and Social Security are great American success stories. They have brought the majority of seniors out of poverty in this country. They have created a safety net so when an Enron employee finds that his or her entire life savings are wiped out, there is at least a foundation on Social Security that they have paid into throughout their life. I also believe that when we are seeing millions of Americans without health care, an explosion in prices on private sector health care for large and small businesses, Medicare seeing a smaller rate of growth-- the only part of universal health care we have where you are guaranteed that when you reach age 65, you will have health care, or if you are disabled, you will have health care--this is not the time to be rolling back that system or eliminating that system. When we hear the words ``reform,'' ``dumb system,'' it is a ``disaster,'' it ``doesn't work and we can't afford it,'' I would say to my colleagues that the only reason we will have to have a discussion about the financial viability and whether or not we can afford it is the tax proposals currently on this floor. If we choose as an American value to put the quality of life of all of our citizens first and access to health care first for seniors, prescription drug coverage, a foundation of Social Security that will be there for all of us--if we put that as a value first, we can make sure that it is there for the future. I believe we need to modernize Medicare. I believe, as Secretary Thompson said in our Budget Committee, that we need to focus more on prevention. I share his belief that this is a system which needs to be moved and modified, focusing more on prevention; that there are ways to streamline it with less bureaucracy and paperwork for our doctors and hospitals and other providers. And it needs to be updated to cover medication. There is not a health care policy today that would be designed without prescription drugs coverage, if it is going to be a real health care policy. That is the major way we provide health care today. There is no question, it needs to be updated. But it is not a ``dumb'' system, it is not an ``unbelievable disaster,'' and it is not unaffordable if we make the right decision. I ask my colleagues to consider what is really going on in the broadest sense as we debate the tax bill. We have an alternative. We don't have to set up a situation where we take $14.2 trillion out of Federal resources at a time when we will have a projected deficit in Medicare and Social Security of $10 trillion. We don't have to do that. We have an alternative. I am proud to be supporting the Democratic alternative that in fact creates more jobs, gives a tax cut to every taxpayer--not just a privileged few--and that helps our States so they don't have to raise local taxes, creates a situation where we can help small business and help individuals in the short run but does it responsibly. We can create jobs, opportunity, and prosperity without creating a situation where Medicare and Social Security are jeopardized for the future. That is what this is about. This tax bill cannot be debated in isolation. I know what is going to happen. If this tax bill passes, we will have another debate on Medicare, and we will be told we can't really provide prescription drug coverage to everybody, we don't have the money, and, by the way, we have to change Medicare, we have to reform Medicare, we have to privatize it, and we have to put it back in the private sector because we can't afford to provide Medicare as we know it anymore for our seniors. That debate will have been done after we have created this deep hole, which would be done on purpose. I urge that we take another look. There is a way to create jobs. There is a way to create opportunity. There is a way to create prosperity. We would very much like to join with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to do that. There is a way to do that which is fiscally responsible and which protects Medicare and Social Security. I urge the support of all of my colleagues for that approach which will be put forward. I urge my colleagues to take another look at what is being suggested here and stand with us to protect the long-term solvency of Medicare and Social Security.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today to celebrate the life and mourn the passing of a friend, a mentor, and a personal hero: Martha Wright Griffiths, who dedicated more than 40 years of her life in public service to her State and her Nation. But her death last month at 91 does not mean the loss of a flame. Rather it is the passing of a torch, for her causes continue. Isaac Newton was once asked to explain the inspiration behind his many scientific discoveries that advanced our understanding of the world. He said: ``If I have been able to see further, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants.'' As I stand here today and speak as a proud member of the United States Senate, I understand Newton's humility. I know I stand on the shoulders of giants who advanced our understanding of what our world can be. Martha Wright Griffiths--Michigan's first woman Lieutenant Governor-- is one of those giants in the cause of equal rights and social justice in our Nation. Consider her remarkable career. When Martha was born in 1912, women didn't even have the right to vote, let alone have the chance to serve their country as legislators, judges or elected executive officials. A generation of women fought to change that and women like Martha stepped up and accepted the new leadership responsibilities that came with their new duties. Martha's public service career began in 1948 with two terms in the Michigan Legislature. From there she went on to become the first woman judge in Detroit's old criminal court system. In 1954, she became the second woman elected to the United States House of Representatives from Michigan, and began a distinguished 20- year career as a legislator. In the House, Martha became an advocate for reviving our cities, increasing aid to education, promoting tax relief for struggling families and making sure that every man, woman and child in America had access to health care. But Martha was best known for her work in civil rights and the rights of women. She was not only an early and avid supporter of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, but she got Congress to approve an amendment she authored to include women in the bill by shaming the men in the House Chambers into voting for it. ``A vote against this amendment today by a man is a vote against his wife or his widow or his daughter or his sister,'' she told them. In 1970, Martha gathered the 218 signatures needed for a rare discharge petition that forced the Equal Rights Amendment to the floor of the House after it had languished in committee for nearly 50 years. Martha left the House in 1974, and joined several corporate boards including the former Chrysler Corporation and Consumers Power Company-- companies that had never had women on their boards before. In 1982, Martha began her final tour of public service when she was sworn in as Michigan's first woman Lieutenant Governor. I had the pleasure of working with her as a member of the Michigan House of Representatives through much of her tenure. And the day she was sworn in as lieutenant governor, Martha also became the first woman in Michigan's history to serve in all three branches of government. Giants such as Martha Wright Griffiths moved us closer to realizing our Nation's promise of equal justice and opportunity for each and every citizen. Her passing reminds us that it is now our turn to square our shoulders and stand tall for the generations of Americans to come.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about recent remarks made by the Director of the CMS, Mr. Tom Scully. Last month, speaking to an audience of health care providers in Lancaster, PA, Mr. Scully made the following comments on the Medicare Program. Mr. Scully has the agency that oversees the Medicare Program, so this is particularly disconcerting given the way he described the Medicare Program. He used the phrase ``an unbelievable disaster.'' The person who is the administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services said: Medicare is an unbelievable disaster. We think it is a dumb system. I could not disagree more. While I disagree with his views, at least I admire his candor because when it comes to Medicare, a lot of people are pretending to strengthen it and improve it when in fact they agree with Mr. Scully. Medicare, along with Social Security, is a great American success story. Medicare has been in place since 1965. It is the only part of our health care system that is a universal system, meaning that once a person is age 65, they have access to health care. Regardless of who they are in this country or if they are disabled, they have access to health care. This is the only part of our system, the only group of people, who know that there is a guarantee of health care for them; that is, those who are under Medicare. We have almost 40 million people now under Medicare, and because of Social Security and Medicare, we have brought millions of seniors and the disabled out of poverty into a better quality of life. I call that a great American success story. I do not call it a ``dumb system.'' It is important to talk about what is happening right now in the debate about Medicare and where we are. The day after the State of the Union Address this year, President Bush went to Grand Rapids, MI. We always welcome a President of the United States to my home State. He came to promote his Medicare reform plan. However, he barely mentioned it during his speech. When he did mention it, he indicated that only those who choose to go into private Medicare plans--not Medicare as we know it but private sector plans--would be allowed to get prescription drug coverage. Those who could not get into a private plan or who wanted to stay in traditional Medicare to see their own doctor, would be, unfortunately, out of luck under this plan. So we have a system that has been in place and has worked for seniors and the disabled since 1965, providing health care. Now we are hearing about proposals which say that if someone wants to get help for prescription drugs, they have to go back to the system the way it was before, they have to go back to private insurance plans. When the President said that, Republicans, Democrats, and health care providers roundly criticized this particular plan. Many pointed to the fact that private sector Medicare plans are currently not a viable option in most of the country. They are just not there, let alone in rural areas. In fact, the President, ironically, went to Grand Rapids, MI, to talk about the virtue of private Medicare plans when even in the area where he was, in western Michigan, there are no private sector plans. So everyone listening to him would not have access to help pay for their prescription drugs under the proposal that was made because the proposal that was made was based on something called Medicare+Choice, which has been a failure in Michigan as well as across the country. The overall experience of the private sector plan, in fact, is that it has not worked. I will share the numbers. Nationwide, 2.5 million seniors have been dropped from private sector HMOs under Medicare+Choice plans. In fact, I have to say my mother was one of them in an HMO. She was having a good experience in a Medicare HMO, and they dropped Medicare. Out of the blue, she had to go look for another insurance plan and other doctors because they pulled out. In Michigan, 35,000 seniors have been dropped from these private plans, including, as I said, my own mother. Currently, only four Medicare+Choice plans operate in my State. They are available to only 2 percent of the population of my State, and they are all in the eastern part of the State none in the central part of the State, in Lansing where I live, none in west Michigan, in Grand Rapids, none in upstate Michigan or the Upper Peninsula only in one geographic area. Given this fact and the fact that Democrats, Republicans, and many other people stood up and said, wait a minute, this is a plan that does not make any sense, after a great deal of discussion the Bush administration did release a new set of principles for adding prescription drugs to Medicare. This time, their plan allows those who remain in traditional Medicare to get only a minimal catastrophic coverage and possibly a discount card. We understand from analysis it would be an average of a little over $3 that would come off a prescription based on a discount card. However, if the senior citizen wanted real prescription drug help, really wanted to be able to pick between food and their medicine, they would have to, again, abandon traditional Medicare and possibly give up seeing their own doctor in order to go into a private plan. In all sincerity, I believe this drive to privatize Medicare is simply wrong. Since its inception in 1965, the Medicare system has worked well for seniors. In fact, back then 29 percent of the seniors of our country lived in poverty and now it is 11 percent. I call that a success, although we still need to be worried about the 11 percent. I agree that Medicare should be updated. I agree it should be modernized to cover prescription drugs and also focus more on prevention. We heard Secretary Thompson who came before the Budget Committee to talk about prevention. I agree with him. We need to change the system to be more focused on prevention. We need to update Medicare to cover prescription drugs. But seniors should not be forced into private sector HMOs or other plans to obtain this kind of coverage. Mr. Scully was honest about his beliefs. He spoke his mind. He expressed the belief of many that Medicare is dumb and is a disaster. These quotes are similar to those that were spoken by then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich when he said he wanted to let Medicare wither on the vine. These comments have been made before. It is very clear to me that Mr. Scully, Mr. Gingrich, and many others want to replace Medicare with a private sector system. I urge my colleagues to stand up against this assault. I am particularly concerned about what is happening and how it relates to the tax plans that are in front of us, and what is happening now in the economy. As a member of the Budget Committee, when many of us bring up concerns about falling further into deficit through the tax plans that were passed last year giving tax cuts to the elite, another round that is being proposed this year, and we see that we have 450 economists across the country, including 10 Nobel laureates who say this will not create jobs, it will just add to weakening in the economy and, in fact, be devastating because of the red ink it will create--when we see that, when we ask, how can you possibly support this when the first big round of baby boomers are coming very soon, in the next 6 to 8 years, how do we do both? How in the world can we afford to place ourselves in such jeopardy, trillions of dollars in debt, the result of a policy that says tax cuts should be given to the elite, while building up national debt. How can we afford that? I am told by colleagues, you assume Medicare and Social Security will be there as you know it now. I do assume Medicare and Social Security will be there as we know it now. When I look at the numbers, I am deeply concerned. The Center of Budget and Policy Priorities released a report recently that basically said if we just took the tax cuts for the elite passed in 2001 and made those permanent and carried that out, it would cost about $10 trillion--if we carried that out the way we usually estimate Social Security and Medicare; over 75 years, $10 trillion in costs for that tax policy. What is the combined Medicare and Social Security deficit projected during the same time? The $10 trillion that we are putting into place if that passes in the House and the Senate and is signed by the President. We will voluntarily be setting ourselves on a course to $10 trillion in debt right when we know Medicare and Social Security will need $10 trillion. If you add to that the current debates about adding to that with the new policies that have been proposed, we end up between $12 trillion and $14 trillion in costs exactly at the same time we have a need for $10 trillion in Medicare and Social Security. This is a conscious choice. For those who vote for the plan proposed by the President, you are putting in place great jeopardy to Social Security and Medicare. It is a conscious choice. I have to assume it comes based on what Mr. Skully was talking about, that people believe Medicare is a dumb system, an unbelievable disaster. Medicare and Social Security are great American success stories. We need a short-term plan for jobs, opportunity, and prosperity, and that is what we are proposing. That really creates jobs. We can give tax cuts responsibly for taxpayers and small businesses and help States without jeopardizing Medicare and Social Security. I am deeply concerned about this and urge colleagues to take another look at what is proposed in the Senate and work together.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the nomination of Priscilla Owen to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. I begin by saying, as have others, that the Senate has a constitutional obligation to advice and consent on a Federal judicial nominee. This is a responsibility I take seriously, as do my Senate colleagues from both sides of the aisle. Unlike other nominations that come before the Senate such as ambassadorships or executive nominees, Federal judicial nominations are lifetime appointments. These are not decisions that will affect our courts for 3 years or 4 years but, rather, 30 years or 40 years, making it even more important that the Senate not act as a rubberstamp. Having said that, to review the record of where we are under this President and his judicial nominations, to date the Senate has confirmed 119 Federal justices and rejected two--not exactly a partisan example of how we are moving forward on judgeships: 119 approved; two rejected. Ironically, one of those already rejected is the person now in front of the Senate again. As a part of the important responsibility we have, I have examined Justice Owen's record. I am concerned that this is a nominee who has repeatedly disregarded the language of the law and has instead substituted her own political and personal views. This is a nominee who has been criticized by her own Republican colleagues on the bench for being a judicial activist. She is one who has consistently overreached in her decisions to justify her extreme personal positions. I begin by talking briefly about the Texas Supreme Court. In Texas, Supreme Court judges are elected for 6-year terms. They run as party candidates, as they do in many States, as Republicans or Democrats. This is a conservative court and currently an all-Republican court. This is important because when one reads Texas Supreme Court opinions, Justice Owen is outside of the mainstream even among those of her own party who have been recognized as serving on a conservative court. In fact, a review of the court's opinions shows that since Justice Owen joined the court in January of 1995 through June of 2002, just prior to her July 2002 judicial committee hearing, she was the second most frequent dissenter among the justices then serving on the court. The content of these dissents also shows that she is often out of touch with the law and significantly more extreme than her Republican colleagues on the court. For example, in the 12 cases before her involving minors seeking judicial bypass to obtain an abortion under Texas parental notification laws, Owen joined the majority in granting a bypass only once. That was a case which was decided after her nomination to the Fifth Circuit. In re Jane Doe 1, where a bypass was granted, the Republican majority opinion sharply rebuked Owen and the other dissenter's attempts to substitute their own personal views for the law instead of interpreting the law itself. They stated: We recognize that judges' personal views may inspire inflammatory and irresponsible rhetoric. Nonetheless, the issue's highly charged nature does not excuse judges who impose their own personal convictions into what must be a strictly legal inquiry. Those are harsh words. As judges, we cannot ignore the statute or the record before us. Whatever our personal feelings may be, we must respect the rule of law. How many times have we heard colleagues speak about respecting the rule of law? Here was someone rebuked by her own Republican colleagues for not respecting the rule of law. In a concurring opinion on the same case, then Justice Alberto Gonzales, the Bush administration's current White House counsel, described the dissenters, including Justice Owen, as attempting to engage in ``an unconscionable act of judicial activism.'' These are the words of the current White House counsel when he was serving with her, that she attempted to engage in ``an unconscionable act of judicial activism.'' Those are very powerful words. This criticism is very serious. It does not come from Senators. It comes from Justice Owen's own Republican colleagues. That is significant. In another parental notification case, In re Jane Doe 3, the minor testified that her father was an alcoholic who would take out his anger toward his children by beating the mother. Justice Owen once again substituted her own personal views for the law and would have required a higher evidentiary standard for showing the possibility of abuse under the law. Republican Justice Enoch wrote, specifically to rebuke Justice Owen and her fellow dissenters for misconstruing the definition of the sort of abuse that may occur under the bypass law--a Republican colleague on the bench--``Abuse is abuse. It is neither to be trifled with nor its severity to be second-guessed.'' Justice Owen's judicial activism extends way beyond these cases. Justice Owen has been out of step with Republican justices of the Texas Supreme Court on everything from environmental cases to consumer protection to workplace discrimination cases. In Read v. Scott Fetzer, Kristi Read was raped in her home by a door-to-door salesman hired by the Kirby vacuum distributor. If the distributor had conducted a background check or even checked the salesman's employment references, they would have learned that women at his previous places of employment had complained about his sexually inappropriate behavior and that he had pled guilty to a charge of sexual indecency with a child and was fired as a result of that incident. The Republican majority in this case ruled that the victim was entitled to damages from the distributor that hired the salesman. Justice Owen, however, joined a dissenting opinion saying the victim was not entitled to any damages from the distributor, arguing that since the salesman was considered an independent contractor, the distributor had no duty to perform any background checks. This is yet another example where Priscilla Owen is out of step with even her colleagues on the Texas Supreme Court, much less mainstream America. President Bush has said he wants judges who are not judicial activists and who will interpret the law, not make the law. Justice Owen fails this test by any measure. When one examines Justice Owen's record, her pattern of judicial activism becomes clear. During her tenure on this conservative Republican court--and I say that only to say that these were Republican colleagues on the court who were making the statements about the inappropriate judicial activism-- Justice Owen has dissented in 66 cases and has been criticized by her colleagues, including White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales, on the bench for her judicial overreaching. This is a nominee who has been divisive not only on the Texas Supreme Court but in the U.S. Senate. I have received over 2,500 letters and e- mails from my constituents in Michigan opposing Priscilla Owen's nomination. I have received letters from over 60 different organizations, including civil rights groups, advocacy groups, women's groups, environmental groups, and other citizens opposing this nomination. In addition, Justice Owen's nomination was rejected last year by the Senate Judiciary Committee, and her reconsideration is unprecedented. Never before has a nominee been voted on and rejected by the committee or the Senate and subsequently renominated for the same seat. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to say yes to a balanced Federal judiciary that will interpret and not make the law, and to say no to the Owen nomination. I yield the floor.