Debbie Stabenow

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, recently we passed legislation to protect families hurt in this recession by extending unemployment protection for an additional 13 weeks. It was the right thing to do. Now let's finish the job by helping them get back to work. Let's pass a stimulus bill that will jump start the economy and create more employment. I am introducing a bill that will encourage business investment in new equipment and technology by offering a 30-percent depreciation bonus on capital goods with a depreciation life of 20 years for less as defined by IRS. The bonus would apply to purchases made by the end of 2003 to encourage spending now, not years from now. This depreciation bonus is a broad-based incentive that would help businesses both large and small in almost every sector of our economy. The IRS list of qualifying industries and equipment runs nine pages in very small type and there's not much that isn't covered. It would help industries from autos to agriculture, from construction to computers, from energy to electronics, and more. And not only would this bill help the manufacturing industries that make these products, spurring employment, but it would also help the businesses that buy these products by making their workers more productive. I count this as a win/win situation. Let me give you an example of how this depreciation bonus would work. To keep the math simple, let's talk about a business that buys a computer for $1,000. Under IRS regulations, computers have a 5-year deduction life. With the depreciation bonus, the business would immediately take a 30-percent deduction on the $1,000 computer, a deduction of $300, making the computer now worth $700. Now the business would take all the standard depreciation deductions allowed over the 5-years, but at the $700 value. For a computer that would mean another 20-percent deduction in the first year. That's another $140. That means a total deduction of $440, or 44 percent, in just the first year. I support this bill because it is not targeted to specific industries or companies or individuals. Almost every business in America, large, small and in between, can benefit from this depreciation bonus. I support this bill because it would be a needed short-term shot in the arm for the economy, without shooting holes in our long-term goal of fiscal responsibility. I support this bill because it would create jobs, and support existing jobs, bolstering the consumer economy, which is two thirds of our Gross Domestic Product and vital to getting us out of this recession. This bill has the support of a broad range of business and industrial groups. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation as well. Let's rev up the economy without running up debt. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, recently we passed legislation to protect families hurt in this recession by extending unemployment protection for an additional 13 weeks. It was the right thing to do. Now let's finish the job by helping them get back to work. Let's pass a stimulus bill that will jump start the economy and create more employment. I am introducing a bill that will encourage business investment in new equipment and technology by offering a 30-percent depreciation bonus on capital goods with a depreciation life of 20 years for less as defined by IRS. The bonus would apply to purchases made by the end of 2003 to encourage spending now, not years from now. This depreciation bonus is a broad-based incentive that would help businesses both large and small in almost every sector of our economy. The IRS list of qualifying industries and equipment runs nine pages in very small type and there's not much that isn't covered. It would help industries from autos to agriculture, from construction to computers, from energy to electronics, and more. And not only would this bill help the manufacturing industries that make these products, spurring employment, but it would also help the businesses that buy these products by making their workers more productive. I count this as a win/win situation. Let me give you an example of how this depreciation bonus would work. To keep the math simple, let's talk about a business that buys a computer for $1,000. Under IRS regulations, computers have a 5-year deduction life. With the depreciation bonus, the business would immediately take a 30-percent deduction on the $1,000 computer, a deduction of $300, making the computer now worth $700. Now the business would take all the standard depreciation deductions allowed over the 5-years, but at the $700 value. For a computer that would mean another 20-percent deduction in the first year. That's another $140. That means a total deduction of $440, or 44 percent, in just the first year. I support this bill because it is not targeted to specific industries or companies or individuals. Almost every business in America, large, small and in between, can benefit from this depreciation bonus. I support this bill because it would be a needed short-term shot in the arm for the economy, without shooting holes in our long-term goal of fiscal responsibility. I support this bill because it would create jobs, and support existing jobs, bolstering the consumer economy, which is two thirds of our Gross Domestic Product and vital to getting us out of this recession. This bill has the support of a broad range of business and industrial groups. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation as well. Let's rev up the economy without running up debt. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I would like to express my strong support for the Schumer-Wyden amendment to S. 565, the Martin Luther King Jr., Equal Protection of Voting Rights Act of 2001. While one of the important goals of this legislation is to prevent voter fraud, we must be careful that we do not go so far that we keep eligible voters out of the electoral process. This bill currently requires first-time voters who registered by mail to provide either a photo ID or a copy of a utility bill, bank statement, a Government paycheck or other government document that shows the name or address of the voter when they go to cast their vote. While this may sound like a reasonable requirement on the surface, the practical consequences of this requirement could easily prevent countless eligible voters from voting. For example, senior citizens, who vote in large numbers, often do not drive and therefore, do not have a driver's license to use as a photo ID. Voting age high school and college students, a group that we need to encourage to vote and participate in the democratic process, may not have a photo ID, and certainly will not have a Government paycheck or a utility bill in their name. A photo ID requirement also would place a heavy burden on the millions of Americans with disabilities who do not drive or do not live independently so that their name would be listed on a bank statement or utility bill. Finally, a photo ID requirement could have an adverse impact on minority voters. Immigrants who have newly become U.S. citizens and come from countries where governments instill fear instead of trust, could be intimidated by these requirements and might be afraid to vote. The Schumer-Wyden amendment allows States to use signature verification and attestation, in addition to a photo ID and government checks, to verify voters; or a State can opt to use only a signature verification system. This amendment will allow us to be just as tough on voter fraud without turning away eligible voters. In Michigan, we have several laws that effectively prevent voter fraud, without disenfranchising eligible voters. First-time voters who registered by mail are required to vote in person the first time they cast a ballot. Michigan also requires a voter signature for all voters at the polls, and has a signature verification system to confirm a voter's identity. These measures protect our electoral system against fraud, without undermining voter participation. I urge my colleagues to support the Schumer-Wyden amendment that protects our electoral system, without preventing eligible voters from exercising their right to vote.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I appreciate my friend allowing me to speak at this time because of the need for me to preside in a moment. I could not let this time go by without joining my colleagues in saying happy birthday and how I have such respect and admiration for a gentleman who is becoming a wonderful friend. I thank him for that. People ask me what is the biggest surprise or what I am most impressed about after a year in the Senate. I always indicate how impressed I am with my colleagues and their hard work, how much they care, and the intelligence that people bring to the job. I say the person I have been most impressed with--and, frankly, surprised about-- is Senator Kennedy. Not because of his intelligence; we know his intelligence. We know he stands up for those who need a voice and for principle. He is a strong advocate and a wonderful speaker. But what has been a wonderful surprise to me is that this gentleman, who could, essentially, sit in the Senate and have the enjoyment of knowing that people recognize his stature, who could speak when he would like or be involved in such legislation as he would like, is a Senator who, when the door is closed, is in the room counting the votes, working hard on the nitty-gritty that has to be done beyond the glare of the cameras. I have been so impressed with Senator Kennedy's willingness to be in that room. I will never forget, when we were meeting with advocates about the Patients' Bill of Rights; Senator Kennedy was there. He stays there, doing what needs to be done, calling the meeting, putting it together, talking about amendments, negotiating with people--he does the hard work of legislating. This person whom we know and respect and who comes from such a legendary family is there every minute, getting the job done. I have learned so much in the last year and have been so impressed with the wonderful compassion and leadership this man brings to us. I had an opportunity this weekend to see a movie a lot of people are seeing right now, ``John Q,'' a wonderful performance by Denzel Washington. I sat there being enraged and yet feeling a great sense of urgency that many of us experience about health care. But I walked away thinking: Every day, John Q has a fighter for him in the Senate named Senator Ted Kennedy. It is because of this gentleman, whom we are celebrating today and thanking today, that I know we are going to be able to finally make sure that those represented by the movie ``John Q'' will get the health care they need. Thank you and happy birthday.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I rise to invite Members and staff to join me and my staff as we celebrate and thank this evening, in the Mansfield Room, Jean Marie Neal, who has been my chief of staff for the last year, my first year in the Senate. While I understand the rules of the Senate do not allow me to acknowledge her presence in the gallery, I do want to indicate that I believe it is important to recognize the service of this wonderful woman who has spent 21 years in the service of the Congress, the majority of that in the Senate, working for Senator Dick Bryan. It is important to note that when we have someone who is dedicated to the Senate, to helping us achieve our goals, to be able to put forward those matters that allow us to represent our constituents and make our States and our country better places, that when that person decides to retire from their position and move on to other challenges, it is important that we recognize them and say thank you. That is what I want to make sure we are doing officially this evening in the Record of the Senate. We have enjoyed in the last year the wonderful leadership of Jean Marie Neal in my office. As you know, I came from the House of Representatives and, while bringing some outstanding people with me, we had to put together a team of staff. It was under Jean Marie's leadership that we were able to find outstanding people who had been in service both in the Senate as well as in other places and who have come now to be a part of my office and my team. As we come into our second year, we are building on a foundation and a gift that she gave me of putting together a wonderful team that is committed and intelligent and loyal and hard working. We in our office are going to miss her greatly, and we are very grateful for all of her hard work. I know her previous employers, Senator Bryan and Congressman John Spratt, and all of those who have come in contact and have benefited from Jean Marie's intelligence and hard work and loyalty and ability to see and create a vision in terms of the office, as well as issues and advocacy for our States, are really happy for her. Again, I invite anyone who is within earshot to come by until 7 o'clock this evening and join us to have an opportunity to celebrate Jean Marie's service to the Senate and to thank her for that and to wish her well as she moves on to, I am sure, many more successes.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I rise to applaud a provision in the supplemental portion of the Defense appropriations conference report. This conference report includes a bill authored by myself and Senator Kyl that will help honor the victims of the September 11 attacks. It is called the Unity in the Spirit of America Act, or the USA Act. We all witnessed a great national tragedy 3 months ago. While the deaths and damage occurred in New York, Washington, and in the fields of Pennsylvania, a piece of all of us died that day. Many people came up to me in Michigan after the attacks and asked: What can I do? I have given blood, I have donated to relief efforts, but I want to do more. We all shared in the horror and now everyone wants to share in the healing, but how? Then a constituent of mine, Bob Van Oosterhout, wrote me with an idea: Why not have the Federal Government devise a program that will encourage communities throughout the Nation to create something that will honor the memory of one of the victims lost in the attack, one by one by one. Together these local memorials to honor individuals would dot our Nation and collectively honor all of those who were lost in the attacks. What could be simpler or more moving? From that idea came the Unity in the Spirit of America Act. Here is how it works: Communities--they can be as small as a neighborhood block or nonprofit organizations, houses of worship, businesses or local governments--are encouraged to choose some kind of project that will unite and help their communities. It is a way they can give back to their community. Applications and the assigning of names for each project will be handled by the Points of Light Foundation. Basically, we will see a project in a local community dedicated to one of the victims of September 11. The Points of Light Foundation will set up a Web site, applications, and procedures for this. This is privately funded. It is an opportunity for our neighbors, coworkers, and communities across the United States to decide what will be a living legacy to those who died by helping each other. The Points of Light Foundation will track each project's progress on their Web site. The only rule is that qualified projects should be started by September 11, 2002. Then on that day, as all over America we gather to grieve over the first anniversary of the attack that enraged the world, we will be able to look over thousands and thousands of selfless acts that made our country better. In our sadness, we can create thousands of points of light across our Nation and show the world that our resolve was not fleeting and our memories are not short. They will see the unity in the spirit of America. I have many Members to thank for making the USA Act happen. First and foremost, I thank my chief cosponsor, Senator Jon Kyl, for his commitment and hard work. I thank the chairman and ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, Senators Inouye and Stevens, for their support. I also express my gratitude to Senators Mikulski and Bond for their guidance in moving this legislation through the process. Finally, I thank all the cosponsors, who include our Senators from New York and Virginia. I am very pleased we have come together on our last day in a bipartisan way to put forward this important living legacy to the victims of September 11. Mr. President, I now yield to my colleague and friend who has been my partner in the USA Act, and that is Senator Jon Kyl.

Ms. STABENOW. It will be my honor, Mr. President, to add the distinguished Senator's name.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I congratulate and thank Senator Kennedy and Senator Gregg for their leadership and the tremendous amount of manhours to bring this legislation to this point. I thank all my colleagues deeply involved in this issue. It is said that knowledge is power. We know that our country's economic engine is fueled by a skilled workforce. It is critical we focus on education. I know the main goal of the compromise bill is to narrow, over a 12-year period, the educational achievement gap between the poor, disadvantaged students and their more affluent peers, and between minority and nonminority students. Wide achievement gaps between these groups have been tolerated for decades at great personal and social cost. We need to constantly repeat the fact that accountability is not just a test. It is parents, teachers, administrators, communities, and, yes, it is resources. I appreciate the fact there are additional resources designated in this bill. However, while I intend to support this legislation, I am deeply disturbed and disappointed that we are not taking the opportunity to finally fulfill a 25-year promise regarding special education in this country. Fully funding IDEA is something whose time is past due. While it is not in this legislation, I am very concerned that we continue the fight so next year IDEA is reauthorized and we finally get it done. As I talk to schools in Michigan, they tell me there would have been an additional $460 million available to children in Michigan this year if we had just kept our promise. Congratulations to all involved. We have more work to do and I look forward to working together.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today to commend the students of Durand Middle School in Durand, MI, for showing the kind of spirit that will get our nation through the economic aftershocks of September 11. When the attack of September 11 sent our airline industry into an economic tailspin, the students of Durand Middle School created the Invest in America Project to show their faith in the travel and transportation industries. Under the Invest in America project, families across the Nation were encouraged to buy at least one share of stock in the transportation or travel company of their choice. The students believed this would show the world that we have faith in our economy and that Americans are ready to travel again. Given the fact that the travel and tourism industry is worth about $93 billion to our economy, renewed confidence in the industry by both investors and consumers is important. This project will also give the students and their families valuable first-hand experience in how the stock market works. I hope you will all join me in wishing these students good luck with their investments and thank them for their show of confidence in our economy.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, first I inquire of the Chair as to the amount of time remaining.

Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, while I rise to oppose the Cochran- Roberts amendment, I want to congratulate my colleagues for their dedication as members of the Agriculture Committee. I have great respect for both Senator Cochran and Senator Roberts and realize they come to this from their respective States and how they view the needs of agriculture in our country. I come from the great State of Michigan. We have more diversity of crops than any other State, other than California. It is very heartening for me to have worked on a bill coming out of committee that for the first time addresses a number of crops and concerns of Michigan farmers that have not been addressed before. Our farmers stock the kitchen tables of America and the world, as we know, but they have the right to put food on their own family's table as well. That is what we are debating, the best way to make that happen. I was a member of the House Agriculture Committee for 4 years, and now I am honored to be on the Senate Agriculture Committee. Every year I have been in the Congress, we have had to pass an emergency supplemental because the Freedom to Farm Act was not enough to address the needs of American agriculture. I think now is the time to correct what was not working in the past farm bill. In Michigan this year, we have had such an extensive drought that 82 of the 83 counties have been declared disaster areas. We have seen 30 percent of our corn crop wiped out as a result of the drought. Everything from Christmas trees--and as a caveat, I indicate to my colleagues we are proud that the Capitol Christmas tree this year is from the Upper Peninsula in Michigan. We have had tough times for our Christmas tree farmers. Dry beans, potatoes, and hay all have been hurt by the drought. One farm official said there is no difference between what has happened to us and watching your house burn. These are pretty dramatic times. Besides the drought, Fireblight has killed between 350,000 and 450,000 apple trees in Michigan at a cost of millions of dollars. It has just not been a good time for our farmers. According to the Department of Agriculture, between 1992 and 1997 in Michigan we lost over 215,000 acres of productive farmland. As part of that loss, 500 family farms vanished and 2,400 full-time farmers literally left the fields. We can do better than we have done for agriculture and the farmers of our country. I argue that the best approach is the bill before the Senate, as the committee reported it out, where every title we worked on in committee was reported out unanimously except the commodity title. I will speak about the commodity title in a moment. For the first time, we address in the commodity title of the U.S. farm bill the issue of specialty crops through a commodity purchase. We have been able to put in place what I believe is a win-win situation: A commodity purchase every year of fresh fruits and vegetables for our School Lunch Program and for our other food programs. It is a win-win for our farmers. It supports our specialty crops, and it is a win-win for our children and for families and seniors who benefit by the nutritional programs. Unfortunately, this substitute wipes out all the work that we did, putting together this commodity purchase program for the first time, with $780 million in commodity purchases for specialty crops. I very much want to see that continued in this legislation. We know the bill that came out of committee is a four-pronged approach: Marketing loans, fixed payments, countercyclical payments, and conservation security payments. The Conservation Security Act, now, what everybody calls the innovative act of payments for all farmers on working lands, is another way we address specialty crops that have not been addressed before. I was pleased as a Member of the House of Representatives to help fashion crop insurance to begin to move it in a direction to address specialty crops. But it has only been moving in a very small direction. The Conservation Security Act is a way to provide security again and focus on conservation and support for our specialty crops. The farm program, unfortunately, under the Cochran-Roberts amendment does not include a countercyclical program that will help farmers in times of low prices. Without such a program, there is simply no way the program can provide an adequate safety net. That is what I believe ought to be the goal. Under the substitute, when prices are high, farmers get large payments. In bad times, when prices are low, farmers will suffer, since there will not be a mechanism to respond to those conditions. That makes no sense to me. Fixed payments may seem attractive and bankers certainly want to know exactly what to expect each year, but we ought to be responding to the highs and lows of the marketplace and providing the help when it is needed. Fixed payments are not responsive to market conditions. They are not budget responsive. The taxpayers should save money when crop prices are higher. We should be paying less when they are higher and more when they are lower. I believe the substitute is not balanced. It is weighted toward fixed payments. The loan rates are low and would be allowed to go even lower. The committee bill phases down fixed payments and phases in a countercyclical program that is market and budget sensitive. Despite overwhelming calls for reforming Freedom to Farm, this substitute, in my opinion, is little more than a continuation of the existing program of marketing loans and fixed payments. In Michigan, this policy has left our farmers without income protection and necessitated over $30 billion of supplemental payments over the past few years. The substitute loan rates are low, as I indicated. The committee bill, on the other hand, sought to help farmers by making modest increases in the loan rates. The other point I make is in the area of conservation. Conservation is the most significant problem with the amendment other than, in my mind, what is left out in terms of specialty crops which are so critical to Michigan. The committee bill includes the Conservation Security Program which is a new innovative program that provides payments to farmers who make the effort to practice good conservation on working farmlands. It has received growing enthusiasm. I hope that will be included in the final document. The Cochran-Roberts amendment provides significantly less funding for conservation. Under the substitute, my own farmers in Michigan would receive $40 million less in conservation payments than under the committee bill. I believe we have reported out a balanced bill that reflects the diversity of American agriculture and the diversity of Michigan agriculture. It addresses innovative new approaches in energy. It encourages a number of different new options and alternative energy sources that are not only good for farmers but are good for all Americans in terms of foreign energy dependence. It addresses conservation and nutrition and the commodity program in a way I think makes the most sense. Despite my great respect for the authors of the amendment, and I do mean that sincerely, I rise to encourage my colleagues to support the bill reported from committee, to oppose the substitute, and to join in an approach that broadly supports agriculture and provides the safety net necessary for our farmers. I yield the floor.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, will the distinguished Senator yield for a moment?

Ms. STABENOW. Thank you, very much. As a Senator from Michigan, I wanted to rise to agree totally with what Senator Byrd is saying today about the pressure on our northern borders and our law enforcement officials who are now donating overtime on the borders. In Michigan, we have four different border crossings. We have the busiest bridge in the country through Detroit. We are stretching our local law enforcement to the limit, and we are using our National Guard as well. But we certainly have tremendous pressures on us. I wanted to congratulate the Senator from West Virginia for what he is proposing. I also wanted to quote for the Record part of an article that was in the Detroit Free Press, entitled ``State's Health Care System Unready for Major Bio-Terror.'' It says: The call came late the evening of Oct. 25 to the top health officer for two Upper Peninsula counties. Dr. John Petrawsky was told that a woman who had exhibited only mild cold symptoms the previous day had died. Her relatives said she had received a stranger letter with powder in it the week before. Was this anthrax? A pathologist at Marquette General Hospital refused to do an autopsy, fearing his facility couldn't contain lethal bacteria. No one at the state Department of Community Health in Lansing knew where the nearest properly ventilated autopsy room might be, Petrasky said. Finally, a pathologist tracked down by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention advised doing a limited autopsy. The Marquette doctor agreed, and 19 hours later, Petrasky had his answer: It wasn't anthrax. The woman had died of something completely unrelated, and the crisis was averted. Or was it? In the weeks since Sept. 11, many Michigan hospitals and public health agencies are realizing how ill-prepared they are for biological or chemical warfare. Many hospitals lack proper decontamination and laboratory facilities. Public health departments are strapped by low staffing levels and inadequate communication between the departments and the state. Doctors are learning they may not know how to spot rarely diagnosed diseases like anthrax. After years of hospitals and public health departments being pushed to run lean, some say what's left is a system that can be overburdened by a bad flu season. ``We don't have enough beds. We don't have enough nurses.'' This is a very serious situation. I cannot imagine a greater urgency. I wanted to thank the Senator for his leadership on this issue. I cannot imagine why we would not be coming together 100 Members strong in this Senate. We understand more than anyone else, given what has happened in our own complex with anthrax and the difficulties and challenges of finding out how to respond to it. We can only imagine how small communities in northern Michigan are struggling when they believe they may have, in fact, encountered something related to bioterrorism. I congratulate the Senator from West Virginia. There is a tremendous sense of urgency in my State of Michigan and around the country. People assume we are acting. We are acting together in the defense of our country overseas. It is now time to act in defense of our homeland. That is what the Senator from West Virginia is proposing, and I am hopeful that our Senate colleagues will join in supporting the plan that he has put forward, and which is so needed for all of our families.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, December 4, 2001, at 9:30 a.m., in open session to consider the nomination of Claude M. Bolton, Jr. to be Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology and, following the open session, to meet in executive session to consider certain pending nominations.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, December 4, 2001, at 2:15 p.m. to hold a nomination hearing. Agenda Nominees: Adolfo Franco, of Virginia, to be an Assistant Administrator (Latin America and the Caribbean) of the United States Agency for International Development; Frederick Schieck, of Virginia, to be Deputy Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development; and Roger Winter, of Maryland, to be an Assistant Administrator (Democracy, Conflict, and Humanitarian Assistance) of the United States Agency for International Development.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, December 4, 2001, at 4:30 p.m. to hold a nomination hearing. Agenda Nominees: William R. Brownfield, of Texas, to be Ambassador to the Republic of Chile; and Charles S. Shapiro, of Georgia, to be Ambassador to the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet on Tuesday, December 4, 2001, at 9:30 a.m. to conduct a hearing on the remediation process of biologically contaminated buildings. Specifically, the Committee is interested in the challenges of, and technologies available for, remediating buildings contaminated by biological contaminants. The hearing will be held in the Rm. SD-406.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``Department of Justice Oversight: Preserving Our Freedoms While Defending Against Terrorism,'' Tuesday, December 4, 2001, at 2 p.m. in Dirksen Room 226. Witness List Panel I: Viet D. Dinh, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Policy, U.S. Department of Justice. Panel II: Ali Al-Maqtari, New Haven, CT; Michael J. Boyle, Esq., Law Offices of Michael J. Boyle, North Haven CT; Steven Emerson, The Investigative Project, Washington, DC; Gerald H. Goldstein, Esq., Goldstein, Goldstein & Hilley, San Antonio, TX; Nadine Strossen, President, American Civil Liberties Union, Professor, New York Law School, New York, NY; and Victoria Toensing, Esq., DiGenova & Toensing, Washington, DC.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``Department of Justice Oversight: Preserving Our Freedoms While Defending Against Terrorism,'' Tuesday, December 4, 2001, at 10 a.m. in Dirksen Room 226. Tentative Witness List Panel I: The Honorable Pierre-Richard Prosper, Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes Issues, Department of State, Washington, DC. Panel II: George J. Terwilliger III, Partner, White and Case, former Deputy Attorney General, Washington, DC; Professor Laurence H. Tribe, Harvard Law School, Cambridge, MA; Major General Michael J. Nardotti, Jr., Partner, Patton Boggs LLP, former Army Judge Advocate General, Washington, DC; Professor Cass R. Sunstein, University of Chicago Law School, Chicago, IL; and Timothy Lynch, Esq., Director, Project on Criminal Justice, Cato Institute, Washington, DC.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. I am happy to yield to my good friend from California.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today to express great concern about recent events and comments that have been made in this Chamber and in the House of Representatives that I believe are not in keeping with the sense of cooperation and bipartisanship that we have seen since September 11. I remember, after the horrible attacks that we all grieved about and have focused on, on that day of September 11 we joined together on the Capitol steps, and one of our colleagues spontaneously started singing ``God Bless America,'' and we all joined in. And there was a sense of purpose and dedication and commitment as Americans. We all said that while we may have had differences--that is what it is all about in a democracy--we were going to put aside the partisan bickering and the personal assaults and do as our President asked, which was to come together and focus on the needs of the country and to set a new tone. And then a few weeks later we saw our own majority leader and his staff under another kind of attack, that of anthrax. It came to be an attack on those of us in the Hart Building. And we have now seen other letters. But we have seen our majority leader and his staff operating with incredible dedication, with poise, with tremendous leadership. And the hard work of the staff is continuing. In fact, all of our staffs are continuing under very difficult circumstances. My own staff operates out of a room in the loading dock at Russell. We see people who are in various situations around this complex of the Capitol, but they continue to serve. We have done a lot of things. We immediately responded to the attacks with a commitment of resources for New York and for the Pentagon. Yesterday I had the opportunity to visit the Pentagon and see the incredible changes that have taken place since September 11. They are rebuilding the Pentagon with speed that is amazing. Everyone involved in that should be commended for the work they are doing to rebuild this important part of our country and our national security and leadership. We have responded to that. We have passed airport security bills. Yes, there were differences, but they were worked out to move us forward in terms of airport and airline security. We have passed economic legislation to support the airlines and passed a sweeping antiterrorism bill that has included the ability to track the money through money laundering provisions--I was pleased to be a part of it in the Banking Committee--as well as upgrading the tools available to law enforcement officials and create the kinds of opportunities to reach out and prevent terrorism as well as to respond to it. We have continued to move the appropriations bills through this process. We are coming to the conclusion of that in the next couple of weeks. But we are still debating economic recovery, how best to do that. What should be our priorities? Should we, in fact, invest in additional homeland security, beefing up our public health infrastructure, as I hope we will do? But we are now seeing a constant drone of attacks and comments being made about our Senate majority leader, and I just have to rise today to express deep disappointment and concern about that. We have seen personal comments being made. Last week the chair of the House Ways and Means Committee made statements about our leader saying there was nothing inside the leader's head on which to focus. There have been implications, with all kinds of derogatory statements that have been made about his leadership and calls for him to step aside because he may be putting forward a different vision or set of values and priorities than someone on the other side--statement after statement, attacks about someone's sincerity and their patriotism and their leadership that are just not helpful and not necessary and, by the way, absolutely absurd. I found it offensive, when we were listening to the debate on the energy bill on Friday; over and over again it was laced with personal comments, comments that are unbecoming to this body or the body on the other side of the building from which I came as a House Member.

Ms. STABENOW. I couldn't agree more with my friend from California. I know the families I represent in Michigan are saying to me: We know there are differences in approaches. That is a reason why they sent me here. And I am of a different party, a different philosophy, on economic questions possibly, or other domestic issues, than those on the other side of the aisle. They expect us to operate with civility, with respect. I believe and in fact have been telling people in Michigan that there is a new day, that since September 11 we have come together. Yes, we have differences in priorities. We are Americans. Under the Constitution, we have a right, an obligation, to give our point of view. There will be differences. The personal attacks, the vicious partisan attacks that we have heard recently are just the same old thing we have seen for too long around here. People don't want to see that happening. I will not question someone's patriotism. I will not say because they differ with my thoughts that there is nothing between their ears or that they are somehow a child who wants a recess and that they are a third grader--whatever the comments were last week. Those kinds of things, frankly, demean all of us. That is my concern. We have a lot of work to do in this next couple of weeks. People expect us to be focused on their needs and on the needs of the country, the safety of the country, the economy. It is legitimate for us to debate, and we have legitimate differences on how to move the economy forward. I have spoken before in this Chamber about whether it is supply side economics or demand side economics, what is the best mix? That is legitimate. People expect us to do that. We would not be fulfilling our own responsibilities as individual Senators not to come forward with our own ideas. But when it goes on and we hear our leader being attacked for abrogating his responsibility or that every day someone is in pain should be laid at the foot of Tom Daschle, that is uncalled for. I was particularly concerned that there are actually ads being run now attacking our leader in the Senate because of a meeting he had in Mexico with the President of Mexico. Our President has met with Vicente Fox. President Fox has been here. We have welcomed him to the Capitol. They are our neighbors to the south. We have important work to do with them. Certainly part of what happens economically relates to trade and the relationship of our two countries. Yet we have those who have actually paid for partisan ads back in our leader's home State to imply that while a weekend in Mexico might be a nice break from the attacks at hand, in fact, this trip was the wrong thing to do. I hope we can decide we are going to dedicate the time between now and the end of this session to the serious, vital business at hand and the priorities about which we can disagree. We can disagree about whether or not to drill in Alaska's national wildlife refuge. We can disagree about appropriations priorities. As someone who has tremendous respect for the leader of this body, I will continue to object when there are personal comments made either about our leader or about the Republican leader or about others on the Senate floor. We have been through too much together since September 11 to turn back to the personal kinds of derogatory statements that were a part of the past. We can do better than that. The American people deserve better. The American people expect us to do better than that. I call on the President of the United States and the Republican leadership to join us in a vigorous, sincere debate on the priorities for the country, the best way to achieve economic recovery and security, and to do that with the highest and best that is in us. We have a great body and people of wonderful good will on both sides of the aisle in both Houses, as well as the White House. We can do what the people expect us to do. We can do it right. I hope in fact we will get about the business of doing it. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I was to speak next, but I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Vermont be given 3 minutes and then I have the opportunity to address the Senate after that.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise to commend my colleague from Illinois for his comments. I wish to associate myself with the comments of both Senator Durbin and Senator Domenici, who are involved in advocating common-sense approach to put money in people's pockets immediately. I congratulate them for doing that. I also rise to speak about what needs to happen in terms of economic recovery and an economic stimulus package. I commend our leader, Senator Daschle, for bringing together the leaders for discussions. I thank the leaders on both sides of the aisle for sitting down together to move this measure because we do need to move quickly on a stimulus and recovery package. But we all know it has to be the right thing. I am very concerned about what the House Republicans passed and the fact their approach is so very different from what mainstream economists are telling us needs to be done in terms of moving this economy forward quickly. What we saw in the House was an attempt to place into law another round of large tax cuts for the top 1 percent of the public, and literally billions of dollars in tax cuts for the largest multinational corporations--supply-side economics at its best-- hoping that it would trickle down somehow in time to help small businesses, workers, professionals, middle-income people, somehow that it would trickle down in order for people to be able to receive some kind of assistance during this recession. We know in the past that approach has not worked. I am here today to encourage us to do what mainstream economists across the board have suggested we do, which is to put something in place that is immediate, temporary, and stimulates the economy by putting money directly into people's pockets. I think the payroll tax holiday is one good way to do that. It would certainly support small businesses. We hear a lot of talk about big business in the Congress. Yet small business is the fastest growing part of our economy, employing millions of people. They, too, have been affected--many times more so by what happened in terms of the recession. We need to make sure we are focusing on support for small business, whether it is being able to write off investments more quickly, whether it is a payroll tax holiday. I think supporting small business in this equation is very important. I want to share some facts. We know that if we focus on those who have lost their jobs, whether it is through the airline industry since September 11 or other jobs in our economy, when we give dollars directly to those who are unemployed, they turn around and buy groceries for the family, school supplies, Christmas, or other holiday gifts. Those activities are important to keep the economy going. It moves the economy along, and it helps our families. It is a win-win situation for everyone. Studies have also shown that for every $1 invested in unemployment insurance, we generate $2.15 in the gross domestic product. A 1999 study by the Department of Labor estimated that unemployment insurance mitigated the real loss in GDP by 15 percent. That is real, that is measurable, and it is an immediate stimulus to the economy. In the last 5 recessions, real loss of GDP was mitigated by 15 percent, and the average peak number of jobs saved was 131,000 jobs. Economists are telling us that this is not just about doing what is fair; it is the best solution. It is the best way to stimulate the economy. Joseph Stiglitz, co-winner of the 2001 Nobel Prize in Economics, has stated: We should extend the duration and magnitude of the benefits we provide to our unemployed. This is not only the fairest proposal but also the most effective. It is the most effective for the economy. People who become unemployed cut back on their expenditures. Giving them more dollars will directly increase expenditures and improve the economy. We are talking about a demand-side approach. The Republicans in the House of Representatives have said trickle-down economics, supply side, that is the way to get the economy going. Economist after economist has come forward to say the problem is not supply. In my State of Michigan where we make outstanding automobiles, trucks, and SUVs, we want folks to purchase those vehicles. We know the problem is not supply; the problem is demand and people having a job, having income, and being able to purchase that vehicle. It is demand side, and that is what the economists are all telling us. I want to speak about the economy and why we need to expand the unemployment insurance needs and modernize the system and why the Senate Democratic approach is so important to women in our economy. When we look at unemployment insurance today, only 23 percent of unemployed women meet the current unemployment insurance eligibility requirements. Only 23 percent of unemployed women meet the eligibility requirements of unemployment insurance. Women who are heads of households and families dependent upon two incomes are disproportionately and unfairly affected by layoffs and by our current unemployment system. That is why the Senate Democrats have put forward a modernization of unemployment compensation by covering both part-time and low-wage workers. This proportionately helps women more than it does men because women are more likely to be in part-time positions or in lower wage positions. Unfortunately, the administration plan and the House plan do nothing to include part-time or low-wage workers. Sixty percent of low-income workers are women and 70 percent of part-time workers are women. I believe it is important for us to understand that those part-time workers may be care giving for their children, may be care giving for a mom, a dad, a gramps or grandma who need assistance. They are fulfilling other family obligations while providing important income for their family. They should not be left out of the economic picture. When we are looking for ways to support the economy and working men and women, we need to remember those women who are working part time or are in low-wage professions. Women are the majority of workers in industries that have been hardest hit by the economic downturn: 56 percent of retail sales, 69 percent of restaurant and wait staff, 65 percent of kitchen workers, 79 percent of flight attendants. I find it so disconcerting that here we are, long past September 11 when we immediately responded to the concerns--and I supported doing that--of the airline industry to help them recover from what happened on September 11, we have yet to pass a bill to support the people who work in that industry. We were promised that if we dealt with the industry first, we would come back to those hundreds of thousands of airline industry-related workers who had been laid off. Yet we have not done that. Again, we see that this disproportionately affects women. Also, women only earn 76 percent of men's median income, and women of color earn 64 percent of the wages of working men. As a result, women have a greater need for income replacement when they are unemployed. It is important to note that we are talking about women who are providing a significant percentage of their family income, in addition to caring for their children and caring for older adults and all of the other work in which women are involved. For poor female heads of households who work part time, their earnings represent 91 percent of the family income. If they lose their job, we are talking about 91 percent of the family income disappearing. Failure to replace the wages of part-time workers through unemployment insurance benefits detrimentally impacts working women and their families. This is about doing the right thing in stimulating the economy. It is about coming up with ways that support small business, as well as large, and our workers. It is about tax cuts that go to low- and moderate-income people who will put that back into the economy. Also, this is about making sure we remember the large part of our workforce, our women, who are disproportionately affected by the current unemployment system. It is designed in a way that unfairly penalizes women who are working part time while caring for their children and caring for loved ones at home or working in important but very low-wage jobs. This debate about stimulating the economy, about economic recovery, is incredibly important for everyone. We need to keep an eye on the fact that the policies we set may, in fact, have different results for working women than for working men, and we need to remember women and their families as we put together this economic recovery package. I urge we do what is right, what is fair, and most importantly what is effective, what the economists across this country have said we need to do, put money into the pockets of working people and those who are unemployed, and make sure we do not forget our small businesses as part of this economic recovery process.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I agree with our esteemed colleague who just spoke that, in fact, the American people are watching us very closely today to determine whether or not we understand the emergency that so many workers and small businesses and others in our economy are experiencing at this moment. All we have to do is ask the people who have lost their jobs in the airlines alone. We had an emergency in which we had to act immediately to help the airline industry a few days after September 11. We rallied to do that, with the understanding--at least it was my understanding--that we would come back quickly and make sure that not only the companies were helped to the tune of $15 billion, but that the workers with the airlines and the airports would be helped. So all you have to do is ask the people who have been unemployed as a result of September 11, or other economic circumstances, who work for the airlines, the travel agents, the airport venders, the restaurants, and the travel destination cities that have been hurt. All we have to do in Michigan is ask our auto workers, who have found that because of the slowdown they are facing layoffs, or have been laid off--and also the small businessowners in Michigan, as well as Michigan farmers. I congratulate the chairman of the Finance Committee for his leadership and work in putting together, with Senator Baucus and Senator Byrd, a package that makes sense for Americans, for American business, for American workers, for our communities. But we know that, frankly, there are two different views of the world at work. We have, first of all, one world that brings us all together behind the President to face the current challenges and threats to our country. We are together on that. I support the President and want him to succeed, as we all need to succeed together. But on the economic front, on the homefront, we have two different views of the world that have been expressed, both in this Chamber and between those of us who support the legislation in front of us and the House Republicans on the other side. Frankly, they are very different kinds of economics. One is supply side economics; give the dollars to those at the top, the largest businesses, the wealthy individuals in the country, and it will trickle down. We say we don't have time for trickle down. We don't even know if it is going to trickle down. I have folks in Michigan still waiting for the 1980s money to trickle down to them. We say put money directly into people's pockets, small businesses, the farmers, the unemployed workers, and the moderate and low-income taxpayers' pockets. We are backed up by those who say this is the right thing to do economically. I think we have the best of all worlds in this proposal. It is the best thing to do economically and it is the right thing to do for people. Joseph Stiglitz, the cowinner of the 2001 Nobel Prize in economics, stated: We should extend the duration and magnitude of the benefits we provide to our unemployed. This is not only the fairest proposal, but it is also the most effective. People who become unemployed cut back on their expenditures. Giving them more money will directly increase their expenditures. Common sense. What is more likely to happen? To give the billions of dollars to the major corporations, which the House does through the alternative minimum tax--and I have a different view of what the alternative minimum tax is about. My understanding is that it was put in place to guarantee that everybody, regardless of how wealthy they are or how many tax credits or deductions they can take, pays some form of contribution--contributions to national defense, to public health and safety, to education, to public services. The alternative minimum tax says that everybody in America ought to make a contribution. The House Republicans say that not only should some folks not have to make a contribution to our current national defense cost, or bioterrorism cost, or efforts to clean up from terrorist attacks, or education, or roads, or health care, and all of the other public services that we have; we should retroactively pay them for 15 years. There is over $45 billion involved in the proposal on the House side, and it goes to two major tax cuts, one of which, the AMT, says not only are we going to take away your tax liability in the future, but we do not think you should have paid anything in the past either, and we are going to retroactively, to the tune of billions of dollars, give you back your contributions. I have a lot of small businesses, a lot of farmers, a lot of auto workers, retailers, service industry folks, waiters, waitresses, all kinds of hard-working folks in Michigan who would love to have someone tell them: We are going to give you back the taxes you paid for the last 15 years. Nationwide, nearly 7 million people are now unemployed. Unemployment in my State of Michigan now totals over 268,000 people, and those are not even the most current numbers as of November. That is a jump of 74,000 people in the last year and a jump of nearly 30,000 people just since July. This is an emergency for them. This is an emergency for 268,000 people, many of whom have children for whom they are caring. They want to make sure their children have what they need and that their families can put food on the table, have the health care they need and that their children have the resources to go to school, possibly pay for mom and dad who need some help in their older years. These are people who have worked hard and believe in the American dream and are now counting on us to believe in them and act in a way that shows they are a priority. Our plan is the best economically, and it is the right thing to do. We help these families by extending unemployment benefits so they can buy groceries and pay their bills. It will provide health insurance, which has been talked about today, by helping pay for COBRA to continue health insurance, and we expand assistance to States through the Medicaid Program. Consumer spending represents two-thirds of our gross domestic product. Any stimulus package that ignores this crucial section of our economy is doomed to fail. Every economist about whom I have been reading and talking to has said the same thing: It is consumer spending, stupid. That means we have to put money in people's pockets so they can turn around and spend that on behalf of their daily needs. It is consumers who are going to buy airline tickets, computers, cars, clothes, and, I might say, coming from the great State of Michigan, we hope they buy a lot of cars. It is consumers who are going to go out to dinner, see a movie, and help get things back to normal, as the President has asked us to do. Unfortunately, the bill passed by the House and endorsed by the President does little to stimulate the economy or to help the unemployed. It does little to energize the consumer sector of our economy. It does little to help our small businesses that are too often overlooked as tax policy is made and as other policies are determined. The House-passed bill overwhelmingly and unfairly gives tax cuts to those, frankly, who are not hurting under this economy: the wealthiest Americans who do not have an economic emergency, and tax cuts to the largest multinational companies that we want to be successful but not at the expense of our small businesses or our working men and women. I congratulate Senator Byrd and my colleagues who have been working to increase our public investments in our homeland security efforts. We all know we have to focus investments on bioterrorism. We have to strengthen our public health system. We need to focus on those areas that will keep us safe at home, as well as supporting our national defense abroad. I encourage and urge all Senators to come together to look at the facts, to look at what works, look at what the economists are saying as to how best to provide an economic stimulus and recovery, to put the people of our country first as we move forward, and to do so quickly. This is an emergency. This is an emergency for American families. This is an emergency for Americans, and we need to act quickly to demonstrate that we understand and that we support them. I yield the floor.