Debbie Stabenow

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, there are those who think they can play games with this and there are no consequences. This is not, tonight, about Democrats and Republicans. It is not about auto executives versus workers. This is about the economy of this country. We are in serious trouble, ladies and gentlemen. If one of our auto companies goes down, we are going to pick up the paper and begin to see the suppliers of this country go down. And they supply not only the folks in my State, they supply Toyota, Nissan, and Honda. They supply the Army. The same folks who make the axles for the trucks that our brave men and women are driving in Iraq and Afghanistan today make the axles put on our trucks and our cars. The reality is, our national defense and our economy and the middle class of this country are hanging in the balance by this vote. Shame on us if we walk away cavalierly thinking that we can do this another time. Now is the time. People are watching, not just in Michigan but all across the country, businesses large and small, families in their homes, retirees who have done nothing but work hard their whole lives and now want to know their pensions or their health care, as part of something they worked for all of their lives, is protected. This is about whether we are going to make a commitment to the middle class and a commitment to American manufacturing. You cannot walk away from the American auto industry and not affect every part of manufacturing in this country. It is not too late. I know we assume the votes are not there, but the votes can be there. There are enough votes in this room. There are enough votes in this room to give them the chance, just the chance to restructure. And if folks do not believe in the end that what they have come up with, 3 months from now, is good enough, then that is it. But don't 2.5 million people and the major auto presence and manufacturing in this country deserve 3 months, 3 months of time to be able to restructure, for advanced manufacturing in the future? If we do not do that, we are going to change our dependence on foreign oil for a dependence on foreign automobiles. We will be asking other countries to send us their tanks, send us their automobiles, send us their trucks for our defense. That makes no sense. People of good will know better. I would ask my colleagues to join with us in voting for the future and the economy of this country.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, obviously we have been in negotiations with a tremendous amount of work going on around the question of the American auto industry and the position they find themselves in as a result of, first of all and foremost, a global credit crisis. So I stand here today on behalf of hundreds of thousands of incredibly smart, productive, working men and women in Michigan and the millions of others around the country who design, build, service, finance, and sell American-made automobiles and have done so now for over a generation--the people who not only build the parts that are given to the auto industry but to the vehicles that our brave men and women drive right now in Iraq and around the globe, those who have built America and the American middle class, those who advertise and market and are engaged in so many different ways in the foundation of American manufacturing, which is the American auto industry. I also wish to speak on behalf of Americans today who have benefited from a great American middle class, built on the notion that we don't just move paper around on Wall Street, we actually make things and we grow things. I know the distinguished occupant of the chair, from Pennsylvania, understands that, coming from a great State that makes things, grows things, adds value to it, people who work hard every day. The shower they may take is after work rather than before work, but they are just as valuable--and, I argue, maybe more valuable--in terms of creating economic vitality and strength of an American middle class. That is why every other country in the world looks to us and is rushing to support their auto industry and manufacturing, to create what we have had in America as a result of hard-working men and women in the auto industry and other parts of manufacturing. So that is really why we are here. I thank our leader for his incredible diligence and patience. Senator Reid understands the importance of this issue. He understands what is at stake in terms of 3 million Americans and their jobs and the broader impact on the economy. I thank him for his incredible leadership. I thank the Speaker of the House for coming forward and being willing to negotiate and be a part of the solution and for the great leadership she is now providing and will be providing in the House. I also thank our chairman, Chris Dodd, who has had, as chairman of the Banking Committee, so many things he has had to confront, from the housing crisis, where he was way ahead in calling for action that we now know should have been done back when he called for it to be done, as well as his willingness to work with us now on the other piece for Americans. Most Americans invest in a home, and they hope they will have equity that will help them in retiring or taking care of their children's college education or will be there in an emergency. The next thing they buy is their automobile to get them to work, to get the kids to school, to go on vacation, to be able to enjoy the American dream. I thank Chairman Dodd because he has had crises in both of these incredibly important industries to our economy and to American families placed at his doorstep. He and his staff have done an amazing job. I also say that for Chairman Barney Frank, for the same efforts and willingness to focus on people on Main Street--the majority of Americans--not just on Wall Street. That is what this is really all about. I thank the Republican colleagues who have been and will continue to be involved. Senator McConnell has been working and raising legitimate issues relating to accountability, transparency, things that are resolved, I believe, in this work that will be coming before us. I thank the White House for working with us in good faith, and Senator Voinovich and Senator Kit Bond--all of those who care deeply and have come together in what is a bipartisan bill that is in front of us. Mr. President, how did we get here? There are a lot of scenarios. I understand people who are mad at the industry for making the Hummer and are mad at decisions made 10, 15, 20 years ago, and some think workers get paid too much. I don't agree with them. All kinds of perspectives have come together to make this a difficult issue to deal with. What is lost, unfortunately, in all this is the real story of today's auto industry. This is not your father's factory. These are people producing the marquee vehicles in quality, competing, winning awards, and are highly productive. They are the envy of the world in productivity. These are companies that have turned the corner and are rushing to the fuel efficiency vehicles. We could argue that it is not fast enough. I argue it is not fast enough. The early decisions should have been different, but they now find themselves in a situation where they are doing exactly what we want them to do. We have passed a 40- percent increase in fuel efficiency standards. We put in place in the fall funding for a provision, which I was proud to champion, in the Energy bill to help keep the jobs here in America, poised to take major costs off of the industry by the United Auto Workers stepping up and being willing to take the risk on retiree health care, to move it off of the employer, and a major focus on a year from now when the new vehicles will be coming out and retooling is happening. Everything is moving just as we would want it to be. And then a global credit crisis. We know about that because of the major debate and what we were asked to do by this administration, to step up in an unprecedented way to be able to address this crisis. Unfortunately, money that was given to the banks has not been lent. I have suppliers that I have met who are not able to get the financing they need. We know dollars given to Wall Street have not made their way to the financing arms of the auto industry, to people needing the loans, to auto dealers, and so on. We also know in a global credit crisis that this is not just in America. All around the world now, we are in a situation where there is the perfect storm that is occurring. So we look at a result of the tight credit crisis and low consumer confidence right now and the concern, frankly, we start seeing that someone may go bankrupt and people hold back on buying a car. So the whole debate we are having is actually making it worse, unfortunately, even though we have to have a debate. In November, auto sales dropped more than 30 percent--can you imagine any business that sees a 30-percent drop from a year ago--the worst month in 25 years for the second straight month. This is not just the domestic automakers. Yes, GM sales dropped 41 percent; Chrysler, 47; Ford, 31. Toyota dropped 34 percent, the folks they are always compared to, as somehow they are magically more efficient, which is not true. Toyota dropped 44 percent; Honda, 32 percent. The reality is, this is a global credit crisis. We have a severe global credit crisis, consumers unwilling or unable because they have lost their job--they are cutting back--to purchase a vehicle, and it has hit capital-intensive companies the hardest. We can talk to those who make washing machines or refrigerators or furniture and so on. These are capital-intensive companies. Here we go, we can say, we shouldn't make anything anymore. Instead of worrying about foreign oil, let's worry about foreign tanks. See how many folks want to give us a tank in the war. Let's worry about foreign furniture, refrigerators, batteries. We are America, the greatest country in the world. We don't need to make anything. We can trade credit swaps. Obviously, that makes no sense. This is about where we go as a country in terms of our basic industries. Automakers in Great Britain, China, Japan, Brazil, and the European Union have all asked for help and are getting it, by the way. They are receiving it. French President Sarkozy has introduced a $25 billion strategic investment fund because they understand they want an automobile industry in France and how important it is to their economy, and they want to compete with us. The European Investment Bank is considering $51 billion in loans. China has done the same kind of thing for Chery Automobile. Brazil has stepped up. Australia has stepped up. You can go right around the globe. It seems that everybody, but some here understand this is more than just penalizing a company you are mad at. This is about the underpinnings of our economy and fundamentally whether we are going to compete with every other country and make things in an advanced manufacturing economy that we are in right now. Everyone understands we are in a race. Everybody else is racing, giving hundreds of millions of dollars to their companies, government funding for innovation. We don't do that. We put it on the backs of the companies. Every other country funds health care differently. Their companies don't have to have health care costs. Our companies pay for it. We can go right across the board when we talk about parity, how we need to get parity. I am all for parity, if we look at the full picture. Parity includes saying to South Korea that sold over 700,000 vehicles to us last year: You have to let more than 6,300 American cars into your country. We did have a big discussion about parity. I welcome it. I have stood on this floor more times than I can count to talk about parity. But that is not what this is about. This is about a global credit crisis. The question is: Does it matter if we have an American auto industry? Is it important to make cars in America, trucks in America, tanks, the Stryker? Is it important to make airplanes? Or as long as we can buy them it doesn't matter? I hope the answer is, yes, we need in America a manufacturing base, an auto industry. One out of 10 jobs in this country is auto related--1 out of 10. In the middle of the biggest recession since the Great Depression, can we afford to say: 1 out of 10, it doesn't matter. I certainly hope not. Our country lost 533,000 jobs just in November, bringing our unemployment rate nationally to 6.7 percent, which, by the way, we in Michigan would take that 6.7 percent and I bet you would too. We are in the heart of where this global economic crisis has hit. The domestic auto companies provide health care and pensions to over a million retirees and their families which, by the way, if anybody goes bankrupt, open your checkbook because the Federal Government is going to take over those payments. When we talk about what happens if only one of these companies goes bankrupt and the cost to the taxpayers, it will make the numbers we are asking for in a loan look like pennies, look like nothing. That is the reality of where we are. Motor vehicle parts suppliers provide over 780,000 direct employment jobs, contributing 4.5 million private industry jobs and 5.5 percent of all manufacturing jobs. When we stop and think about it, there is more computer power in our automobiles than anything else we own. When we talk about Silicon Valley, their customers are automation alley-- Michigan. Think about what is in your automobile--the computer power, the radios, the leather, and the cloth for the seats, the tires, the glass. I can go on and on. It is all connected. In fact, the U.S. military relies, for instance, on Chrysler Cummins B series engine, which is commonly known as the Dodge Ram, for uses as both propulsion and electric generator power. This is one example of a production line that has to be kept open for our national security. Let me give other examples for the military. Even for my colleagues who don't care about the domestic auto industry but care very much about defense and national security and what is happening to our brave men and women around the world, ArvinMeritor, a major supplier to all three automakers, has been a major supplier of axles to the Army for its 2\1/2\ and 5-ton vehicles for over 50 years. Axles--it makes sense--tank axles, truck axles. It makes sense. Do you think their major auto customer can go bankrupt and not pay them and have them continue to do business in this economy. Highly unlikely. Goodyear Tire, GM's second largest tire supplier, has supplied tires for the U.S. military for over 100 years. Navis, a key supplier of engine technology to Ford, produces a variety of widely deployed military trucks and light vehicles, including the MRAP. Where have we heard about the MRAP? A key supplier of Ford supplies the MRAP, the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicle, the deployment of which was, by all accounts, pivotal in the Iraq campaign. Ford supplied technology--the joint light tactical vehicle and the future tactical truck system. Dana Corporation is a leading supplier of highly specialized axles to both the American auto industry and the military. I could go on and on. The point is, you don't shut down one piece of this and not have it affect everything else. This is a case of dominos going right across the country to every single person's State. The failure of our industry would have debilitating ramifications for our entire industrial base and undermine our ability to respond to current and future military challenges. As I indicated, other countries understand and have been investing huge amounts of money to get ahead of us in a number of areas, including the battery technology we all want in America for that next generation of hybrid vehicle, that electric vehicle about which we are all talking. Germany has announced the Great Battery Alliance which will invest $160 million in advanced lithium-ion batteries, South Korea will spend $700 million; China also. India has developed an automotive mission plan. We don't even have a manufacturing strategy today for America. Our strategy is: Hey, they can't make it on their own, we will go buy it somewhere else. That is just batteries. That is not all the other pieces. We could go into health care and what is happening in trade and what has happened. I have heard colleagues--and I am sure we are going to hear it again--say: Just let them go into bankruptcy. They will reorganize, restructure, come out a stronger company, and go forward. Unfortunately, in the automobile industry, it is not the same as a bankrupt airline. I flew on an airline in bankruptcy. You buy a ticket, you take one flight. That is it. That is different. This is the second most important purchase a family makes. You want to look at whether parts will be available, will they be able to meet their warranties. It is a whole different situation in automobiles. The Center for Automotive Research, in looking at this very closely, found that if one or more of the top three automotive companies files for bankruptcy, we can expect about 2.5 million lost jobs, direct job losses, as well as a number of other industries about which I talked. How tragic and, I say, outrageous, at a time when we have a wonderful visionary new President coming in, carrying all the hopes and dreams of all of us, talking about creating 2.5 million jobs next year, to have all that wiped out by our inability to come together and address this situation this week. I am optimistic we will come together and do that. It would certainly be a blow to the hopes and dreams of the American public of creating new jobs for next year and beyond. I talked about the fact that suppliers would be affected. I have had very specific conversations with those who indicated very specifically the companies--and I will not name them, but if we saw a company go into bankruptcy now, the suppliers that would immediately begin to follow suit, suppliers that supply the Department of Defense, aerospace, other parts of the economy. We are seeing that suppliers, particularly with all the talk of bankruptcy now, find themselves in a situation where matters are even worse, of banks not being willing to give loans. The questions in the hearings I would like to have of the folks who have already gotten taxpayer money is where are they in trying to be a part of the solution right now, people who have not had to go through what this industry has had to go through. I certainly welcome accountability and transparency. It would be nice if it was on everybody getting Federal money. But the reality is we have suppliers that cannot get their upfront funding. They are now having to turn to the automakers to ask for prepayment, where in the past they waited until the product was shipped and then they would have 120 days or longer to make the payment. From a cash-flow standpoint, suppliers are saying: We need the money upfront, which makes the situation even worse. This is a complicated situation which is, in fact, only going to be made worse if we cannot provide a short-term bridge loan. Let me also say, as I wrap up, I mentioned before about taxpayer funding, the billions of dollars in liability we will assume in pensions, health care, unemployment costs, Medicare and Medicaid, and the lost taxpayer dollars. Bankruptcy would result in the reduction of personal income of $276 billion--much more than $15 billion in a bridge loan we are talking about--which would lead to a total Government loss of $108 billion over 3 years, not to mention States borrowing. The reality is this bill, I believe, is a fair and reasonable compromise that reflects the global credit crisis that allows a short- term bridge loan until the end of the first quarter but then sets up rigorous oversight and transparency with requirements to come to the table to make the changes that are being talked about by colleagues, legitimate issues that have been raised about the need to restructure, deal with lower capacity, and continue to deal with costs on all sides. That structure is being put in place to do just that. The overseer, or the person now being dubbed the ``car czar,'' can actually recommend that the dollars not continue during that time period if they are not making progress on all of the areas that have been put together in terms of criteria. And no additional dollars would be given unless people were satisfied by March 31 that in fact there was long-term viability, that restructuring had been done. This gives us an opportunity to have the restructuring that is needed to create or to sustain an American automotive industry and American manufacturing in this country. It makes sense. A lot of tough negotiations have gone on. This is a tough bill on accountability, it is tough on oversight. It is much tougher than anything that anyone on Wall Street has been asked to do, that is for sure. At the same time, it recognizes that we are in a global credit crisis and that the ability for them to borrow--to get a loan for a short period of time--is essential if we are going to have American manufacturing. Mr. President, I hope we are going to come together. I know the House intends to vote, and we will be coming together to vote on this issue. I hope we will see a resoundingly bipartisan ``yes'' for a commitment to the middle class of this country to advance manufacturing for the future and that we will make sure people's feet are kept to the fire, that the right things are done, but that we will not give up on the middle class of this country. We are not going to give up on 2\1/2\ to 3 million people who are watching everything we are doing now to determine whether they have a future for their families that will give them a living wage and allow them to continue to be a part of this great American dream. I hope we are going to come together. I am optimistic that we will come together in the next couple of days and say yes and allow a whole lot of people to have a holiday season, a Christmas, that will allow them to know they have a future. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I rise today to bring to my colleagues' attention a recent article in the respected Journal of American Medicine on generic medicines. The article comes at a critical time as we begin to tackle the important issue of health care reform. There is no doubt that health care reform must include offering solutions that reduce skyrocketing health care costs. One solution to reducing costs is to increase access to generic medicines, which offer savings of up to 80 percent over brand drug costs. The new JAMA article provides specific evidence on the benefits of generic medicines. The analysis, which included U.S. scientists reviewing more than 20 years of research on generic versus brand name drugs, found that there is no clinical evidence showing that brand name cardiovascular drugs were superior to their generic versions. Moreover, the lead author of the report noted that generics can lead to better outcomes because they cost less, which means patients can afford to take them and stay on them. As our economy continues to struggle, Americans across the country are looking for ways to make ends meet. We hear too often about older Americans rationing their medicines and even mothers watering down infant formula to make it last longer, not knowing of the dangerous health impact this can have. A recent survey conducted by BearingPoint, Inc., and Zogby found that an alarming number of consumers admitted that they would consider denying themselves or their children health care to save money during this difficult economic time. As we consider the critical and interrelated issues regarding the economic crisis and reform of national health care, the new JAMA study supports every effort we can make now to increase the use of generic medicines. We should remove the numerous barriers to getting generic medicines to consumers sooner rather than later, and we must prevent the creation of new barriers that will impede greater use of generics. We also should consider how to create a workable pathway for biogenerics, a pathway that actually gets these safe and affordable lifesaving medicines to patients in a timely manner. Generic medicines save consumers and State and Federal governments billions of dollars annually. At the same time, generic medicines are FDA approved, guaranteeing their safety and effectiveness. When the new Congress tackles the important health care initiatives that lie ahead, the safety and effectiveness of prescription drugs must remain a top priority. As the medical evidence concludes, Congress can have confidence in the fact that increasing access to generic medicines will provide high-quality care at significant cost savings for consumers and the government. I ask unanimous consent to have the article to which I referred printed in the Record.

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 in morning business and to use as much time as I may consume.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, today I honor a truly great man and a good friend, Dr. Ronald Davis, who died on November 6, 2008 at his home near East Lansing, MI. Dr. Davis was an outstanding physician, a great leader, and an effective, impassioned advocate for the uninsured. As President of the American Medical Association, Ron helped focus our attention on making sure health care was available and affordable for all Americans. We worked together earlier this year on the Farm Bill--an unusual issue for physicians to get involved in--but Ron and I were committed to making sure our Federal farm policy promoted health and nutrition. With his help, we passed a truly groundbreaking farm bill that increased the Federal commitment to fresh fruits and vegetables. Last February, Ron was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. This cancer, which affects over 37,000 Americans each year, is unfortunately one of the hardest to treat. But Ron didn't see it that way. He told his fellow doctors, ``Never take away someone's hope,'' and he lived by those words. Even while undergoing painful and difficult cancer treatments, Ron was on the front lines, educating the public about support Web sites for cancer patients that allow families to stay informed while building a support network for the patient. A champion for preventative medicine and public health, Dr. Davis was a leading advocate for healthier lifestyles. He traveled the country urging Americans to quit smoking, exercise more, and eat better. He also led the effort for the historic apology by the AMA to African-American doctors for the organization's past exclusion of Black physicians. He believed that ``by confronting the past we can embrace the future,'' and pushed to increase enrollments by minorities in medical schools and health professions. I want to express my deepest sympathies to his wife Nadine and his three sons, Jared, Evan, and Connor. America has lost a great doctor, and his family has lost a great man. Ron's extraordinary record of community service, dedication, and courage should serve as an inspiration to us all.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. I thank the Chairman. By getting credit back into the hands of our motor vehicle industry, we can help Main Street survive the credit crunch. We can get people back to work. And we can get cars and trucks moving again throughout the country. definition of a financial institution

Ms. STABENOW. First, I want to commend Chairman Dodd for his leadership on this bill. The credit crisis is having a significant impact on the hard-working men and women at GM in Michigan and throughout the country who proudly build American-made cars and trucks; the men and women who sell and finance Chrysler vehicles; and the individuals who service Ford vehicles in dealerships throughout the country. With the credit markets having largely frozen up, domestic automobile manufacturers and finance companies face the most difficult conditions they have faced in decades. They have been hit with a double whammy: high gasoline and diesel prices, coupled with evaporating credit. Considering the importance of the auto industry to our country I wanted to reiterate the points raised by my colleague, by clarifying that the Treasury has the authority to purchase auto loans and that auto financing companies could participate in the program if determined necessary by the Treasury, after consulting with the Chairman of the Federal Reserve System, to promote market stability.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, today I wish to speak in support of what I consider to be the people's benefit, the people's bailout we have in front of us--a jobs stimulus--that we are going to be voting on shortly to invest in jobs in Michigan and all across the country and why we need to be doing that, why we need the President to finally support us in doing that, and why we need to have bipartisan support to do that. But first I wish to share with you some of what the people in Michigan are feeling right now about what is going on. We in Michigan have known for a long time that things were not going well, that the fundamentals of the economy were not strong. We have known for a long time. I have been sounding the bell. Other colleagues of mine here in the majority have been sounding the bell. We have been putting forward solutions in the last 18 months, holding investigative hearings, proposing strategies to address the housing market and what needs to be done for jobs in the future. All we have heard from the other side of the aisle, from this President, has been: The fundamentals of the economy are strong. And now, all of a sudden, they come to us and say we are at the edge of a cliff. Well, unfortunately, I believe we are. Contrary to all of the information or misinformation that was given to us in leading up to the war in Iraq, where, after listening very carefully and intently, I did not believe what was being said about the crisis or sense of urgency and voted no, in this case, where we are hearing from people around the country and I am hearing from people around Michigan in terms of what is happening--the inability to get credit to be able to start a business, what is happening in terms of potentially more job loss--I think this is, in fact, a crisis. But what is outrageous to me is that this is not an accident. This is a crisis that has been brought forward because of a failed philosophy and a failed set of policies that have got us to this point. People in Michigan are mad about it. And I am mad about it. I am mad about the position in which we now find ourselves because, in fact, if people cannot get a car loan, my auto dealers are not going to be able to stay in business, my auto workers are not going to be able to have the opportunity to build those great automobiles. So I know this is serious. If, in fact, folks cannot get a college loan, that impacts the families whom I represent. If they cannot get a line of credit, if somebody takes an early out at one of our auto companies and decides they are going to set up their own small business and they cannot get credit, they cannot get a line of credit to set up that business, they are in trouble. My communities are in trouble. But what is an outrage is what has gotten us to this point and the fact that when families in Michigan have been not only on the edge of the cliff but falling off the cliff--thousands of them a month, losing jobs, losing homes, can't get the health care they need for their family, squeezed on all sides-- we haven't been able to get the support from this administration or the bipartisan support we have needed to be able to help the families who fall off a cliff every day. So the people in Michigan are mad, and I don't blame them, because I am mad too. We have had a failed set of philosophies that has gotten us to this point. While we know now--or I believe that--unfortunately, we do have to do something because the people in my State are ultimately going to see their jobs gone if we don't. I also believe it is incredibly important that we investigate, and that we demonstrate that we know what happened, the policies that failed, and that we are not going to let it happen again. I believe, frankly, there is only one way to do that, and that is by changing the philosophy, changing the White House in this country. But let's look at where we are: massive deregulation. I know from the great State of Ohio, the Presiding Officer faces the very same concerns I do. Massive deregulation: Let's not watch what is going on. No accountability. Tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans, while middle- class people lose their jobs, and then step back and let greed roll. Let greed reign, with no accountability. Now, that is what has gotten us to this point. People can try to mask it over in a thousand different ways, but the facts are the facts. This philosophy--the Republican philosophy of deregulation, coupled with more concern about tax cuts for the wealthy than what is happening to our country in terms of debt or investment, has gotten us where we are. The reality is that the American people one more time are in a situation where they are going to pay for it if we act and they are going to pay for it if we don't act. So we have to sort through what is the most responsible way to proceed when we know that American families are counting on us to get it right. I received an e-mail from my brother last night--a small businessman in Michigan, working hard every day. He raised two great daughters; one is in college and one is out. He understands what it is like to try to pay the bills. He sent me an e-mail from a friend of his who has been going around--and this will give you an idea about what people in Michigan feel about all this. Just with AIG alone, what was done in terms of the bailout for AIG--$85 billion, my brother's friend sent an e-mail that said: You know, they figured out that if you looked at every American 18 years of age or older and you divided that money up, and then you took minus taxes, because everybody in America is playing by the rules and is stepping up and paying their taxes, and what you would end up with for every American 18 years of age or older, just from that one company: $297,500--Mr. President, $297,500, just from that one company, or a husband and wife: $595,000. Now, what could a family do with $595,000? Could they buy a house? Could they start a business? Could they make sure their kids can go to school and come out without a bunch of debt? Maybe it is as simple as making sure you can pay the gas payment, the heating payment, and put food on the table and know you don't have to go to sleep at night and say: Please, God, don't let the kids get sick. We know financial markets are complicated and it is not that easy. I wish it were that easy, because I would be happy to do that. I wish it were that easy, but we know it is not. We know what has been built here, because of deregulation and lack of oversight and irresponsibility, has been a house of cards, and it is complicated. People don't even know who holds their mortgage now and, chances are, it is divided up and lots of different folks have it somewhere, and you can't even figure out how to negotiate to be able to keep your home. But we know it is complicated, and we also know the reality is in the American marketplace that if credit is not available, then businesses can't keep the payrolls going, which is where the rubber meets the road, and what I care about, and I know the Presiding Officer cares about. So this is serious. This is serious. We do need to fix it in a responsible way. But you know what. We also need to express the outrage people feel about getting us to this point. We have seen 605,000 people and counting since January alone lose their jobs, a lot of them in my State of Michigan where we have 8.9 percent unemployment and counting; 605,000 people since January. I have been on the floor I can't even count how many times talking about the fact that we need to focus on good-paying jobs. For those who lost their jobs, we need to extend unemployment compensation so they can pay the mortgage and stay in their house while they are trying to find another job. Our economic stimulus plan that is before us now, put forward by our leader, Senator Harry Reid, and Senator Byrd and the Democrats, extends that unemployment compensation and is absolutely critical. But it is even worse than that, because we have had 8 years--8 years--of not paying attention to middle-class families. In manufacturing alone, in the great State of Michigan, in the great State of Ohio, people who not only make automobiles but appliances and furniture and all the things that keep the economy running, have been overlooked. We have lost 3.5 million jobs; in fact, that number is going up. Even as we have this chart, I think I saw a new number that said 3.8 million. This number keeps going up and up and up, of lost manufacturing jobs since this failed Republican strategy started in 2001. So we all understand we are at the edge of a cliff, but we have a lot of people who have fallen off already and are saying: What about me? What about my family? What are you going to do about my family? Don't I count anymore? Is it only the wealthy people who count? Is it only the people on Wall Street who count? What about me, and what about my family? That leads me to the economic stimulus plan that has been put before us, because this is our downpayment as the Democratic majority, and I am so hopeful it is going to be bipartisan. I am so hopeful. This is a downpayment on the fiscal relief for the help the American people need. Now, it is about 8 percent of the bailout of the fiscal crisis situation that we are being asked to deal with; about 8 percent of the $700 billion is what we are asking for with this amount. Mr. President, if I might receive unanimous consent for an additional 2 minutes. I realize you have the gavel.

Ms. STABENOW. Thank you very much. What we have in front of us is the ability to come together and--I see people of goodwill. I see our leader on finance, our ranking member, and we work together all the time. I am hopeful we are going to come together on this one. We have in front of us the ability to create jobs with this package. Overall, the cost of it is only 8 percent of what we are being asked to do to deal with the overall financial crisis. It is not clear whether it is going to work, what we are being asked to do in the broader sense, but I tell you what: This will work, because this will put people back to work. This will extend unemployment compensation. It will invest--and I wish to thank our leadership for taking my recommendation--in advanced battery technology research, which is part of how we get to the advanced vehicles, to invest $300 million so we can claim that technology, so it is not being made overseas. Jobs and rebuilding America are in this plan. It is only 8 percent of what we are being asked to do to be able to deal with the crisis in the financial markets. I know that is real. I know it is. I know we have to deal with a responsible plan. But, frankly, this is about making sure we deal with the crisis in the lives of families every day, and it is the least we can do. We need a responsible plan for the broader crisis: No golden parachutes for CEOs; we need to help homeowners; We need to have accountability. Frankly, we need to investigate and find out exactly what happened and who is responsible and hold them accountable. Because the American people are watching to see if we are going to also pay attention to what is happening; the crisis in their lives. This stimulus package we have in front of us right now is a first step to doing that, to say: We hear you. We get it. It matters what happens in people's lives. I hope we are going to support it. I thank the Chair.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the recent collapse in the financial markets and the Republican economic policies that have brought us to this point. On Monday, Lehman Brothers filed for the largest bankruptcy in American history. This collapse will hurt hardworking Americans' ability to access credit and could deteriorate their pension plans. For example, the city of Detroit's general retirement system that had invested in the bank could lose up to $25 million. Can you imagine what would have happened if Social Security had been privatized? This failure occurs as Bank of America announced that it was buying Merrill Lynch and the Federal Reserve announced it was taking over the world's largest insurer, AIG, for the staggering cost of $85 billion. Washington Mutual is still struggling to survive their investments tied to the mortgage market. As a result of these events, the Dow Jones dropped more than 500 points on Monday--the biggest drop since September 11, and Wednesday it dropped almost 450 points. These announcements come as middle-class families face the highest unemployment rate in 5 years, record home foreclosures, and skyrocketing gas and grocery prices. Despite these conditions, our colleague, Senator McCain responded that ``the fundamentals of our economy are strong.'' I would like him to tell that to the 84,000 Americans who lost their jobs, or the 91,000 families who lost their homes last month, or the 605,000 Americans who have lost their job since January. And now, Senator McCain's solution is to create a commission to study the problem. Middle-class families don't need a study to tell them that we're in an economic crisis. They see it every day when they try to fill up their gas tanks or put food on the table. They have known it for the past 8 years, as they have watched jobs sent overseas and their pensions disappear. Unlike Senator McCain's economic adviser, Phil Gramm, middle-class families don't need a study to tell them that this isn't a ``mental recession.'' What they need are real economic solutions and not 4 more years of the same failed economic policies. So one of the question I know Michigan families have is, how did we get here? Unfortunately, these failed policies go back for some time. One example can be seen under the Republican Congress, when McCain's former economic adviser Senator Phil Gramm slipped a provision known as the ``Enron loophole'' into the 11,000-page appropriations bill on a Friday night before recess. This provision allowed financial institutions to trade an unlimited amount of energy commodities on dark, over-the-counter markets that are beyond the jurisdiction of the Commodities Futures Trading Commission. Only now, with Democrats in the majority, are we seeing any accountability as we closed the Enron loophole. However, trading on the bilateral swaps markets and the electronic trading facilities are still conducted on these dark markets with no transparency or regulation. The Commodities Futures Trading Commission only has the power to get information on these markets on an ad hoc basis so speculative investors continue to pour money into the markets without any oversight. Yet Republicans continue to oppose providing more authority and resources to the CFTC. Authority that would allow necessary regulation of our commodities markets and protection against manipulative behavior that could influence the price of food and gas for every American. This just reiterates the failed philosophy of President Bush, John McCain and Republican economics that believe in less oversight, less accountability--more greed--at the expense of American families. Nowhere is this seen clearer than what is happening in the housing market-- the root of our current crisis. The lack of regulation and oversight by the Bush administration allowed for predatory lending to flourish. In 1994, Congress gave the Federal Reserve the authority to prohibit these unfair and deceptive lending practices. The Fed waited 14 years before implementing regulations. Senators Schumer, Sarbanes, and Dodd introduced legislation to protect homeowners from predatory lending. No Republicans cosponsored these bills. Then in 2004, despite warnings, the Fed actually promoted nontraditional mortgages over fixed-rate mortgages, resulting in the skyrocketing use of ARM and subprime mortgages. In 2006, regulators finally finalized rules over nontraditional mortgage products, but it did not apply to subprime mortgages. The Democratic-led Congress held oversight hearings, spoke out time and time again, and yet the administration still sat back and did nothing. In 2007, the Treasury was still downplaying the subprime crisis by explaining that it was ``largely contained'' and admitting they ``could have done more sooner.'' The Republican philosophy of no public accountability and unlimited greed created markets where these risky mortgages, that they promoted, were packaged and sold as complex debt securities without any oversight. Then, without any regulation, credit rating agencies were allowed to inflate the value of these complex securities and assign triple-A ratings despite their inherent risks. Greed continued to fuel the vicious cycle until our financial industry was completely entangled in these risky securities. When homeowners defaulted on their loans, it sent ripple effects throughout the entire economy, bringing down the large banks that had invested in the mortgage market, such as Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers. Time and time again, Democrats have tried to enact changes, but every attempt has been blocked by Republicans. In 2005, the House of Representatives passed a bill that would have created a new regulator to oversee government sponsored enterprises-- providing the authority to set capital requirements and limit portfolio size. When I was on the Banking Committee, we worked to enact this legislation, but we were blocked by the Bush administration. This session Democrats introduced legislation to strengthen regulation over government sponsored enterprises, to keep families in their homes and help communities struggling with foreclosures. Republicans opposed this legislation and, while more families lost their homes to foreclosures, they continued to block the bill for months. Only after Fannie and Freddie reached the point of crisis did the administration finally lift their opposition, further highlighting the inherent problems with the Bush/McCain economic philosophy--it is always too little too late. Now while Republicans have let the markets ``work it out,'' small businesses and families are faced with tightening credit markets, job losses, increased foreclosures and a loss of confidence in our economy. Each of these examples shows the fundamental failures of the Bush/ McCain economic policies. Policies that are based on greed as a national virtue and high profits at any cost. Policies that send American jobs overseas while increasing tax breaks for big oil. Our economy cannot take another 4 years of this failed policy; American families cannot take another 4 years. Out country can do better. It is time for a change. We are in a very important discussion right now, not only about what we need to do together to move our country forward, but it is important to talk about how we got here, because how we got here matters. Critiquing the philosophy that got us here matters, if we are not going to repeat it in the future. When we sum it up, when I look at what I call ``Republican economics 101,'' it is more deregulation. We heard it again today. I heard it from one of my colleagues today, the problem with all of this is that we need more deregulation, more deregulation. Lack of accountability, I call it, lack of transparency. More home foreclosures have come from Republican economics 101, more jobs lost, more tax breaks for the wealthy. That seems to be the answer to everything: Lose your job, let's have another tax cut for the wealthy. Lose your house, let's have another tax cut for the wealthy. Can't pay for gas at the pump? How about another tax cut for the wealthy. Financial markets exploding? Let's have another tax cut for the wealthy. That seems to be the mantra of the Republican economics 101 theme. More excessive profits for oil companies which have translated into $5 at the pump. The bottom line is, we don't want more of the same. That is why it does matter how we got here. We do not want more of the same. The American people cannot take more of the same. Enough is enough. That is certainly what the people in Michigan are saying. Let me specifically speak to what has occurred this week. On Monday, Lehman Brothers filed for the largest bankruptcy in American history. This collapse will hurt the people of Michigan, hard-working Americans' ability to access credit, and could very well deteriorate pension plans. For example, we heard yesterday the city of Detroit's general retirement system that has invested in the bank could lose as much as $25 million. I am sure that is only one example. Imagine what would have happened if President Bush had succeeded, with John McCain's support, in privatizing Social Security. I will never forget what happened after Enron, when I had former employees come in to me who had lost everything, trusted the company, invested in the company, lost everything. They said: Thank God for Social Security. It is the only thing I have left. Imagine if the Republican philosophy of privatizing had happened. One of the things I am most proud about in working with our Democratic leadership and our majority is we were totally together in blocking the President from proceeding. It was one of the most important achievements as a Democratic majority, stopping the President, John McCain, and others who wanted to privatize Social Security. We now know that the failure of Lehman Brothers occurred as Bank of America announced it was buying Merrill Lynch and the Federal Reserve announced it was taking over the world's largest insurer, AIG, for the staggering cost of $85 billion. Washington Mutual is still struggling to survive their investments tied to the mortgage market. As a result, we have all seen the Dow Jones drop more than 500 points on Monday, the biggest drop since September 11, 2001. Wednesday it dropped almost 450 points. Most importantly is how this affects families, how it affects middle- class Americans who are working hard every day. They are playing by the rules. They expect our Government to enforce the rules and enforce accountability. They are being hit with the highest unemployment rate in 5 years. It went up again yesterday, unbelievably, to now in Michigan an 8.9 percent unemployment rate. That doesn't count people who have been unemployed so long they are not a part of the system anymore, or the people who are working one job, two jobs, three jobs, part-time jobs trying to hold it all together, hoping maybe one of them will have health insurance, maybe just one of them, for their families. We have seen record home foreclosures for families, skyrocketing gas and grocery prices. These are the consequences of the reckless policies I am most concerned about. Despite these conditions, our colleague John McCain responded--and he said it more than once; 16, 17 times at least that I know of--the fundamentals of the economy are strong. He is now saying that he meant the American people, the American worker. I know the American worker is strong and productive and hard-working. But we all know that is not what was meant by that comment, the fundamentals of the economy are strong. He and Herbert Hoover share those comments, the gilded age of the 1920s, when the wealthy got wealthier and wealthier and wealthier, until the system crashed and a great Democratic leader, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, came into office and put the American people first, put people back to work and created Social Security and began to rebuild the country. We are at one of those times where we need that kind of leader to rebuild for the American people and create jobs and put people back to work. I would like Senator McCain and others who believe the fundamentals of the economy are strong to tell that to 84,000 Americans who lost their jobs or the 91,000 families who lost their homes last month, or 605,000 people who lost their jobs since January, 605,000 good-paying American jobs and counting since January. Now we hear the solution is to create a commission or to study the problem. That is what we need, to study the problem. We know what the problem is. The problem is, we need to get people back to work. We need to stop this failed Republican philosophy that has made the rich richer, while picking the pockets of every middle-class American and making those in poverty find more and more desperation every day. We know what is happening. We don't need an economic study to tell us that Phil Gramm, a former colleague of mine, chairman of the Banking Committee, was wrong when he said it is a mental recession. We are not making this up. We certainly are not a nation of whiners. So the question is, how did we get here? Unfortunately, this does relate to failed policies. One example was under the Republican Congress when Senator McCain's former economic adviser and friend, Senator Phil Gramm, slipped a provision called the Enron loophole into an 11,000-page appropriations bill on a Friday night before a recess. That provision allowed financial institutions to trade an unlimited amount of energy commodities in the dark in over-the-counter markets that are beyond the jurisdiction of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Only now, with our Democratic majority, have we begun to get accountability back because we have closed that Enron loophole. However, trading on the bilateral swaps markets, the complicated financial markets, the electronic trading facilities are still being conducted in the dark with no transparency, no regulation, no accountability for investors, no accountability for the American people. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission only has the power to get information on these markets on an ad hoc basis. So speculative investors continue to pour money into markets without any oversight. Yet Republicans continue to oppose more authority and resources to the CFTC. We have a bill on the Senate floor right now, a speculation bill to stop speculation, that includes providing more authority and resources to the CFTC, and it has been filibustered by Republican colleagues. This just reiterates the failed philosophy of this President, President Bush, of John McCain, and Republican economics that believes in less oversight, less accountability, and more greed at the expense of the American people. Mr. President, we have had enough. Nowhere is it seen more clearly than in the housing market, which is the root of the crisis. The lack of regulation and accountability by the Bush administration has allowed predatory lending to flourish. It is important to note that clear back to 1994, Congress gave the Federal Reserve the authority to prohibit these unfair, deceptive lending practices, and they waited 14 years to implement this authority--14 years. Mr. President, I know my time has come to a close, so I will not go through all of the other things that have happened--the times the Democrats have proposed legislation, the warnings we have given, the fact we have tried over and over and over again to pass housing legislation. I was here on the floor of the Senate when a Republican colleague talked about the fact that we finally passed housing legislation. But do you know what? We took way too long. The bottom line is this: We have been trying time and time again to enact changes, to bring accountability on behalf of the American people, and we have been blocked over and over again. It is important the American people understand we can do better than these failed Republican policies. It is time for a change. Thank you, Mr. President.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I thank my friend from New Hampshire, Senator Judd Gregg, for allowing me to speak, rather than going back and forth. I ask unanimous consent that he be recognized following my remarks.

Ms. STABENOW

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

Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I come to the floor, as many of my colleagues have on this side of the aisle, to express my outrage and my amazement at the continued comments of one of our colleagues, who is not here but is running for President, Senator John McCain, when even as Wall Street now is crumbling--we have seen the actions of the last couple days--he continues to say the fundamentals of the economy are strong. No matter what caveats he puts on it, he says the fundamentals of the economy are strong. That shows how out of touch he is, as is the President whom he works with, George Bush, and those who support this view that the fundamentals of the economy are strong. I remember a while back coming to the floor after comments were made, as well, about at that time the chief economic adviser for Senator McCain. Even though this person has now stepped down--also a former colleague--from that position, we know he is still very close to Senator McCain and is involved in his efforts and so on. That is Senator Phil Gramm, whom I served with on the Banking Committee. He was the chairman of the committee when I was first taking my place in the Senate. To hear Senator Phil Gramm, who worked so closely with Senator McCain--we assume, based on their long relationship and the positive things Senator McCain has said, that he would play a major role in a new administration under John McCain, and he has said as well, in addition to Senator McCain repeating that the fundamentals of the economy are strong, we also remember former Senator Phil Gramm's comment that this is just a psychological recession; it is all in our minds. He said it is psychological and Americans have become a nation of whiners--a nation of whiners. I am wondering if people made it up or if they were hallucinating when they lost their jobs this year; 605,000 Americans have lost good- paying jobs this year, since this past January. Were they hallucinating? Was this a figment of their imagination? Is it a figment of their imagination that they cannot make their mortgage payment or put food on the table or pay their electric bill or go to the gas pump and be able to refuel with outrageously high gas prices? Of course not. Of course not. We have seen the economy unfolding in a way so that only those who are very wealthy, who have the ability to take their capital anywhere in the world, can succeed under this philosophy that has been in place, this Republican philosophy of no accountability, no transparency, no one watching in the public interest as people have made decisions that have undermined pensions of working people. Heaven forbid, can you imagine if Lehman Brothers had been managing Social Security payments for millions of senior citizens, which is, by the way, something else Senator McCain wishes to see happen, privatizing Social Security. What we have seen is an undermining of the fundamentals of what has been the strength of our economy--good jobs, not just supply, but supply and demand, putting money in people's pockets so they can afford to take care of their families and keep the economy going. In addition to 605,000 people who have lost their jobs since the beginning of this year, we had 3.5 million manufacturing jobs lost, and counting, since 2001, since President Bush came into office. Madam President, 3.5 million people were not hallucinating. It was not a figment of their imagination that they lost their job and that their families have been put into a tailspin as they are now trying to figure out where they go from here to try to keep some semblance of the American dream. The fundamentals of the economy are strong, says Senator John McCain. We are, in fact, looking at an example of what it means to live under a philosophy of President Bush, John McCain, and the Republicans, and what actually happens if their philosophy comes into being, in terms of actions. For the first time, in the time I can remember, we saw from 2001 until 18 months ago a time when the House, the Senate, and the Presidency were all in the hands of the same party. We had a chance to see what they believe in, what are their values, what are their philosophies. What we have seen is a philosophy that has raised greed to a national virtue, that has viewed public regulation and accountability in the public interest, to protect public resources or public funds, as something to be scoffed at and to be unwound, to deregulate, to make sure that the areas of Government that have responsibility, that are accountable for our financial systems, our monetary systems, our energy resources and other areas, in fact, are not held accountable. We have seen an administration and a Republican philosophy that doesn't work for the majority of Americans. It works for a few. If you are one of the folks who is out there trying to make sure you can make as much money as possible for yourself and your friends, you may have done pretty well. But there has been no willingness to understand the consequences for the majority of Americans or to accept any responsibility to make sure that the majority of Americans can benefit from the resources and opportunities and wealth of this great country. This culture of greed and corruption, supported by Senator McCain and President Bush and others for 6 years running, has led to Enron. I remember having people sitting in my office who had everything in their company's pension. They worked for Enron. They lost it all. They lost it all because of the schemes and the lack of accountability and oversight. They lost everything in their pension plans and they sat in my office and said: Thank goodness for Social Security because that is all I have left. The same folks who gave us the Enron debacle want to privatize Social Security, including John McCain. No-bid contracts, such as Halliburton in Iraq; continual tax cuts only for the wealthiest Americans; weak oversight of public industries, regulated industries, regulated in the public interest; a disregard for the Constitution; and now the latest economic crisis we see. Fundamentally, the question is: Who are we as a country and do we want to continue these failed philosophies? That is not by accident. I suggest this is the result of a world view, a set of values and philosophies that does not put the majority of Americans and our country first, but basically puts in place the idea that greed is good and you should make it while you can, and we are going to make sure we strip away any public protections so your ability is unfettered to do what you want to do for yourself as opposed to what needs to be done on behalf of the American people. If we don't have a change in this country, we are going to see the same failed blueprint with more of the same failed results, disastrous results. That is why I believe so strongly we need a change in direction and a change of values to put the American people first. Again, our colleague, Senator McCain, who has said that the fundamentals of the economy are strong, has worked to deregulate markets, has called himself a deregulator. Unfortunately, it is those policies that have gotten us to where we are today. This is the most serious financial crisis since the Great Depression. And what is the plan at this point? To study the problem. Senator McCain has said today we should study the problem. We don't need another commission. What we need are people who will make sure that the accountability, the oversight, the power that is here to stop price gouging, to bring oversight to what is going on is actually used. It hasn't been used under this administration. For 6 of the last 7\1/2\ years there was every effort, in fact, to pull back on who was put on boards and commissions, the regulators, the overseers. They essentially were made up of people who didn't believe in the mission, who didn't believe they were there for the public interest. Right now we have a situation where there are 84,000 Americans who lost their jobs last month, 90,000 Americans who lost their homes last month. They don't want another study. They don't want another commission. They want leaders who get it. They want leaders who understand their role in this Government of ours, this public trust we have, not on behalf of just ourselves and our friends but on behalf of everybody in this country, to make sure the rules are fair, that they are followed, and that everybody has a chance to make it. That is what it is supposed to be about. I am also reminded that Senator McCain has chaired the Commerce Committee and oversaw a massive deregulation scheme that gutted our oversight of these markets. Where is the accountability? Instead of protecting consumers and preventing abuse, the special interests ruled. And Chairman McCain oversaw that effort. The same economic philosophy of the Bush administration joined by Senator McCain for the last 8 years has been to give more and more to those who have the most, ignore the ability of others to make sure they can have what they have earned--their job, their pension, that Social Security is strong, they can afford to put food on the table and pay for the gas and be able to have what we all expect as Americans that will be available to us if we work hard and follow the rules. We have had the same philosophy in place, the same philosophy that has brought us 8 straight months of job loss, the same economic philosophy that has left incomes stagnant while families find themselves spending twice as much on the basics of their life. Real household income is down. Imagine, we were lower in 2007 than in the year 2000. Incomes were lower in 2007 than they were in 2000. We are in a generation of having real concerns, and rightly so, that our children's lives and economic circumstances will not be as good as our own. The same philosophy has led to gasoline inching upwards to $5 a gallon, and the same economic philosophy that leaves 47 million people without health insurance, leaving them worried about whether their children will be cared for when they are sick. The same philosophy has been in place since 2001 with this President with 6 years of no balance and accountability, just one world view, 18 months of our coming in now and slowing the trend down, working hard to bring in some accountability, even though there are unprecedented Republican filibusters to stop us. But we have seen a philosophy that has failed. We need to be taking actions to stop the fraudulent, risky, and abusive lending practices, and that has been proposed over and over again. I commend Chairman Dodd of the Banking Committee and Chairman Baucus of the Finance Committee and all those who have brought forward proposals that will make a difference. We need to modernize the rules for a 21st century marketplace that will protect American investors and consumers. We have been proposing those changes. We also know we have in place a series of mechanisms that would hold special interests accountable and be able to make sure that people's incomes and pensions and the economy in general are protected. We just haven't used it. I stand with another colleague of ours, Senator Barack Obama, who has said if you borrow from the Government, you should be regulated. There should be public accountability, transparency, if you are borrowing from the Government. If we want to stop abuses of the public trust, we need to have openness, we need to know what is going on in the markets, we need to know what is going on. If we want to protect the American people, we need to regulate dangerous practices, such as predatory lending. We know there is so much that we need to do right now. First is to address the hole we are in economically, and the next is to stop digging, stop making it worse. Stop tax breaks for those who have already done so well, even in these terrible circumstances. We need to make sure we are focusing on those who have worked so hard all their lives, and their families who are looking for the opportunity to be successful in America. They want to know they are going to have a fair chance to do that, that the rules are going to be fair, they are not going to be stacked against them and in the interest of a special few, which is what has been happening since 2001 over and over. Let me go back to my original comment and look at the 3.5 million manufacturing jobs lost since 2001. Our colleague, John McCain, says the fundamentals of the economy are strong. I beg to differ. The fundamentals of the economy for Americans working hard every day making a paycheck, trying to make ends meet, worrying about whether they are going to have a job, health care, send the kids to college, put food on the table, pay for the gas and all the other things, for them the economy is not strong. People are working too hard, making too little, and paying too much every day, and we do not need another study or another commission. We need leaders who get it, who have the right values, who understand, who have the intestinal fortitude to stand up and fight for the American people, the middle-class families who are sick and tired of what has been going on. I can tell you, coming from the great State of Michigan, the people of Michigan have had enough. We have had enough. We can't take more of this. We can't take 4 more years of this. We can't take 4 more days of this. We have had enough. But to change it, I believe strongly that we need to understand this is not just an accident that we are where we are. It is a conscious philosophy. It is actions and inactions that have been taken by those in charge--by this President, supported by Senator John McCain, supported by Republicans in the House and the Senate--that have created the situation that has fostered the circumstances in which we find ourselves. We can't do this anymore. We need to make sure government works for real people, real people who have had enough. I can't say it more strongly: We have to stop traveling down the road we are on, following this philosophy that has run us into extremely dangerous economic territory. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today to issue a challenge on the need to reform health care. The resolution I am introducing today with my friend and colleague, Representative Jan Schakowsky, calls on Congress to send a plan to the next President that will ensure high- quality and affordable health care for women and for all. I also am proud to be joined by my colleagues, Senators Obama, Klobuchar, Cantwell, McCaskill, Mikulski, Murray, Clinton, Boxer, and Kennedy. We spend twice as much on health care as any other industrialized nation, yet we have an unacceptably high number of Americans without health insurance--nearly 50 million. Millions more are also underinsured and have less coverage than they need. We are blessed with the best doctors, nurses, and other health providers in the world but rank 43rd in the world in infant mortality. We are all in this together. From working families to the uninsured, from multinational corporations to small businesses, we all face challenges in making sure Americans get the quality, affordable health care they need, when they need it. Rising costs are crippling our businesses and our economy. Health care costs make large businesses, like Michigan's automakers, less competitive globally and threaten the survival of small firms. We must ensure that no child is denied doctor visits, no pregnant woman has to choose between prenatal care and her rent, and no working family pays high premiums every month only to find that the care they most need isn't covered. And we need to end health care disparities that affect women. For example, heart disease is a leading cause of death for both women and men but women are less likely to receive lifestyle counseling or other medical intervention and more likely to die or have a second heart attack. Women understand these hard choices and are calling on Congress to find a solution. As mothers with young children, women with aging parents, small business owners, health professionals and health care consumers, women confront problems in our health care system every day. We are pleased to have the support of numerous groups representing physicians, women, and families, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Planned Parenthood, the National Women's Law Center, and the National Partnership for Women and Families. There is much work to be done to change our health care system and it is going to take everyone's best effort, working together, to achieve it. America's families, businesses, and providers cannot wait any longer. This resolution is a first step and a signal that we need to roll up our sleeves and get to work.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, a little earlier this afternoon, our leader came to the floor with colleagues and offered six different opportunities for the Senate to bring before it bills that include responsible drilling, investments in alternatives, investments in areas that will create jobs right away, which relate to my great State of Michigan, which is investing immediately in advanced battery technology research and development and retooling our plants for the new vehicles, which will create, within 2 years--not 15 years--changes that will allow us to move aggressively to hybrids and plug-in automobiles. We saw legislation put forward to deal with energy speculation and what is going on in the marketplaces. Each of those times, there was an objection to even moving ahead to consider those bills. Twice this week, we have tried to move forward on tax incentives for production, for alternative energy, and other options that will get us off foreign oil and bring down gas prices for good. Each time there were objections. In the month of June, two other times--we can go back a year--objection, objection, objection. Frankly, people watching the Senate get sick of this because they want action. They want something to be done. The question is: Who benefits by this blocking continually, by this stopping of us moving forward to alternatives to compete with oil companies or to tackle oil speculation or windfall profits tax proposals that would require you to pay an extra tax if you don't reinvest in alternatives or in drilling in America to create more supply? Who would benefit by these things? I think it is very clear from the announcement in the paper today. Today ExxonMobil reported second quarter profits of $11.68 billion, the highest ever for an American company. It did that last month--the last quarter: highest profits ever--ever--ever for an American company. All together, since President George Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, two oilmen, have been in the White House over the last 8 years, all together ExxonMobil has reached $212 billion in profits. That is a lot of zeroes: $212 billion in profits. I wonder who benefits from the inability of the Senate to get agreement to move to bills that would create competition with this company or deal with oil speculation or deal with other policies that would hold them accountable? It is right here. It is right here. This is very clear. As my kids say, it is as clear as the nose on your face of what this is all about. This is about an oil company agenda that has run wild for 8 years, and the American people are paying a huge price. Our economy is paying a huge price. Along with ExxonMobil, Shell has also reported profits of $11.56 billion, bringing their grand total since this administration took office to over $157 billion. The total combined net profits of the big five oil companies since President Bush and Dick Cheney took office are upwards of $641 billion. What have they done with those profits? Well, oil companies have spent $188 billion in stock buy-backs and other spending, rather than investing it in supply here at home and abroad. We have heard so many times on this floor that there are 68 million acres available right now for exploration that are not being used. I have supported responsible drilling as part of the solution. We know there is no silver bullet, but we also know we have to be aggressively moving to the future and not stuck in what is an oil company agenda for this country. We also know we are in a global marketplace. Nobody knows that more than the people in my great State of Michigan. We are competing in a global economy. So that as there is supply created, as there is drilling, it goes into the global marketplace. If they drill in Alaska, it goes to China. To add insult to injury, we don't even know where the oil will be going. However, here is what we do know: In February of this year, according to the Department of Energy, shipments outside this country were 1.8 million barrels a day--1.8 million barrels a day. Overall, in the first 4 months of this year, the shipments of American oil outside this country--drilling here, going somewhere else in the world--were up 33 percent. So clearly, the great oilman who has been all over our television sets, T. Boone Pickens, is right. We are not going to drill our way out of this in a global economy where you can drill here and it can go anywhere to the highest bidder. Here is also what we know: We know we have to get extremely serious-- and quickly--about those things that will make a difference, such as bringing accountability to the energy markets and addressing speculation, and focusing aggressively on those areas that will give us real alternatives and competition for these guys who have been doing so well. To add insult to injury, we take a look at the other ways in which this industry has received so many benefits from this administration. Eighteen months ago, we heard in the New York Times that the Bush administration was allowing oil and gas companies to forgo royalty payments. They didn't have to pay their royalty payments on leases in Federal waters in the Gulf of Mexico. This decision by the Department of the Interior can cost up to $60 billion. They were supposed to make payments. Those payments were waived, for whatever reason, costing us up to $60 billion. Sixty billion dollars is the equivalent of 38 days of free gas for every American. Right now, I know a lot of folks who would take that gladly. The reality is we have seen at every turn efforts to support this industry for the last 8 years, and where has it gotten us? Where has it gotten us? I wish to share with my colleagues some stories of folks from Michigan in terms of where it has gotten us--not only $4 a gallon at the pump, but when we look at what has happened to real people, it is an outrage, where this 8 years of a policy that has put oil companies first has gotten us. We know that everybody is affected. The folks going to work are affected. Yesterday I read a letter from a young woman who works after school and was concerned because she takes the bus to school and now the buses are being cut because they can't afford to put gas into the schoolbuses. What an outrage in the United States of America. Let me share today an article that was in the New York Times. Older poor people and those who are homebound are doubly squeezed by rising gas prices and food prices because they rely not just on social service agencies but also on volunteers. We have heard from our home health care agencies that do such a wonderful job in this country helping people to be able to remain at home and allowing them to receive services. In a survey of home health agencies, more than 70 percent said it was more difficult to recruit and to keep volunteers. We have heard that from Meals on Wheels. We have heard that from other kinds of volunteer programs that go into homes to help seniors, to help the disabled, to help those who need some assistance. Let me share with my colleagues one letter. Mrs. Fair, who has limited mobility because of diabetes, lives on $642 a month of Social Security widow's benefits, and relies on care from her son who often works odd hours, especially during blueberry season. We grow a lot of blueberries, and they are terrific, they are the best, in Michigan. It says: ``You belong in a nursing home.'' This is what her son said. ``I can't take care of you.'' The delivered meals she has been receiving have allowed her to eat at normal hours which helped her control her blood sugar levels. Last year, she lost her balance during a change in blood sugar and spent a month in a nursing home. With no meal delivery in her area now, she is going to have to find someone to pick up the frozen meals from the center in the next town. She says: ``If my aide can't get the meals''--a person who has been helping her--``maybe I can get my pastor to pick them up. I can't travel even to the drop-off center.'' In Union, MI, a town among flat corn and soybean farms near the Indiana border, Bill Harman, who is 77, relies on a home health aide to take care of his wife Evelyn, who is 85 years old and she has Alzheimer's disease. Mr. Harman has had to use a wheelchair since 2000 because of hip problems. Unfortunately, the person who has been coming to their house, Katie Clark, who is 26, may have to give up her job. She lives 25 miles away and drives 700 miles a week to provide twice daily visits, helping Mrs. Harman dress in the morning, get to bed at night, feeding her, doing chores around the house, and then she laughs, saying ``putting up with a grumpy old man.'' I am sure he is not that grumpy. Her weekly income of $250 is being eaten up by gas expenses, which come to $100 a week. ``Some weeks I have to borrow money to get here,'' says Ms. Clark, a single mom of two, ``but they are just like family to me.'' For her work she receives $9 an hour and if she leaves, Mr. Harman has said he will not be able to care for his wife. He said when they married, she raised his five children as if they were her own. Mrs. Harman started to develop Alzheimer's 8 to 10 years ago. He said, ``I promised her, don't worry, I will take care of you as long as I can.'' But without a home health aide, he said, he was going to have to put his wife in a nursing home and he probably would need to live there himself. In the greatest country in the world, we have folks who are not able to get their Meals on Wheels. They are not able to get their home health aide now. Why? Because they can't afford gas. We have school buses that can't run because they can't afford gas. Let me share with my colleagues one other story. Sandra Prediger, who is 70 years old and who still drives a car, said higher gas prices hit her every time she needs to go to the doctor. From her senior apartment in South Haven, MI, she was barely able to pay her bills because gas prices rose. She said: ``I try to help some of the ladies around here, driving them to the doctor or to the store.'' But a round trip to her doctor or the beauty shop now costs $26 in gas. She has had to ask her friends to pay half. She said, ``I hate to ask because they have less than I do.'' Her Social Security check arrives on the 3rd of the month. For the first few days before, her local gas station lets her write a postdated check to fill up. On July 2 she had no money and owed money to the gas station and she knew that in a few minutes her friend would be calling saying, could you please take me to the store to get the meals for my diabetes. What am I going to do? There is something wrong when we are in a situation where we have seen an agenda benefiting a special interest in this country, and in the world right now, where we have seen the highest profits in the history of the country that are creating numbers such as $641 billion in profits and we have seniors who have to write a postdated check at a gas station so they can pay for gas to get themselves and their friends to the doctor. The reality is that to be able to change that, we have to do more than drill more so the oil companies can make more of a profit in a global economy. We have to be able to create a situation where there is competition with other kinds of alternative energies so we have more than a choice of whatever price they put up at the pump. That is what this is about. That is what the crux of this is about, because if it weren't about this, we would have a compromise. We would have a solution. If it weren't about this, there wouldn't be objections going on day after day after day to be able to take up legislation on this floor, because under normal circumstances, if there weren't this huge amount of money at stake, people would come together. If they weren't backing up these huge interests, people would be willing to come together to be able to solve this problem. There are things we can do. I am very proud to be part of a group of people in the Democratic majority who have been working very hard to create an alternative vision for the future. Yesterday the Senate leadership, including Senator Byrd, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, laid out a jobs stimulus that we intend to bring forward for a vote in September. In there is a major investment of $300 million in advanced battery technology research and development. We are so close to having the electric vehicle on the road and mass produced. We are so close. There is work that needs to be done, but we are so close. Within 18 months to 2 years, we can have a real alternative to oil on the road. Part of this package also includes a commitment to Americans and American jobs by helping to retool and make capital available, make credit available to companies to retool our plants for these new vehicles, so that we keep those jobs here. Our companies are competing with countries right now. Come to China, we will build a plant for you. Come to Korea, we will build a plant for you. We want those jobs here. I am very proud that the stimulus that has been put forward shows a commitment to American jobs and American manufacturing. I am very proud that is part of the stimulus package we will be working on and voting on in September. Around the world, everybody else gets it that it is not just about oil and drilling. Everybody else understands. Every other country is racing to alternatives. Germany announced the great advanced battery alliance that will invest over $650 million in advanced batteries to help German automobile makers. South Korea spent over $700 million in advanced batteries and developing hybrid vehicles. We are in a race with them to get to the future, not the past. China has invested over $100 million in advanced battery research and development. In the next 5 years, Japan will have spent $230 million on this research, as well as $278 million on hydrogen research for zero- emission fuel-cell vehicles. That is the future. That is the real competition, so when you go to the pump and look up and see that price for traditional gas, you have another choice. That is the future. We are working very hard to get us to that future. We need a White House that will help us get to that future. We need support from the other side of the aisle, not just to talk about it. In conclusion, part of what is talked about on the other side of the aisle in terms of supporting advanced battery research is a prize. If you go out and spend all this money--and Germany spends $650 million-- but if you, an individual or a business in America, figure out a way to get the capital to do this, we will give you a prize at the end. It is insulting that the presumptive Republican nominee and his colleagues on the other side of the aisle have decided to run our economy like a game show. We have said we have to invest upfront in America, in American jobs. That is the future. That is the only way to create the opportunity for schoolbuses to be able to run, for seniors to be able to get to the doctor, for folks to be able to get home health, for folks to be able to get to a job, and to create the jobs we need in the future in advanced manufacturing. I hope before this week is out, our colleagues will come to the floor, stop objecting, and work with us. What we know is right in front of us--what we know can be done to bring down gas prices and create jobs in America. I yield the floor.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the majority control the time until 12:30, the Republicans control the next 30 minutes, the majority control the next 30 minutes, and the time until 6 p.m. be controlled in 30 minute blocks in an alternating fashion.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I wish to thank my colleagues, our assistant majority leader from Illinois and the Senator from California, for speaking today, because we are quite astounded, I have to tell my colleagues. Coming from the great State of Michigan where we care about jobs--and I know the Presiding Officer does, coming from the great State of Pennsylvania--our folks are desperate for good-paying jobs, middle-class jobs that allow them to pay that mortgage and pay those outrageous gas prices and to be able to keep their families afloat and put food on the table. What we had happen in front of us today was an effort to once again block the future of alternative energy jobs and block today, by stopping it, an investment in the highway trust fund that would keep 400,000 jobs going in our country. That is a lot of jobs--400,000 jobs. Now, why would they do that? When you look around, since this President and Vice President have taken office, gas prices have tripled. Oil prices are four times higher. Families and businesses are being squeezed on every side. Why can't we get action? Who benefits? I wonder who would like this picture. Well, let's look at who would like this picture. I only pick on one company because they happen to be the ones showing the highest profits. During this time that families and truckers on the road are trying to make a living, and businesses, small and large, are trying to hold it together, during this time of crisis, $185 billion profit since our President and the Vice President--two oilmen from Texas--took office. Mr. President, $185 billion in profits. What we have here is an oil agenda. We have had an oil company agenda since they took office on every step of the way. The bill that was turned down today--it wasn't just turned down today; it was, in fact, turned down on June 10 of this year, June 17 of this year, July 29, and today. This isn't the only time. We have gone back as far as last year, a year ago. Tax incentives in the Energy bill were blocked twice by Republican colleagues on behalf of big oil on June 21, 2007, and December 13, 2007. We can go on. February 7 of this year, Republicans blocked adding critical energy production tax incentives to the stimulus that was passed. They are willing to give everybody a little bit of a check, a little bit of a rebate check, but when we are talking about creating jobs and investing in competition with the oil companies, oh, no. Oh, no. Who wouldn't want that competition? Let me see. Maybe these folks wouldn't want that competition. Maybe they were the ones who said: No, no, we don't want to be focusing on electric vehicles and investing in battery technology or consumer credits for new vehicles. No, no, we don't want to be investing in solar and wind and geothermal. No, no. Getting off of oil? No, no, no, no. This is the oil administration. We don't want to get off of oil; we want to embrace it. We want to continue it. Unfortunately, that is exactly what has happened. Record profits. The total combined net profits of the big five oil companies since our President took office are upwards of $556 billion. If I sound a little upset, I am because I have folks in my State who are just struggling to try to make it. Are they investing here at home with that $556 billion? The oil companies spent $188 billion buying back their own stock in the last 5 years. Exporting. A record 1.6 million barrels a day were exported, 33 percent higher than before. We are in a global economy. Unfortunately, even though I think it is important to have a domestic oil supply, it is in a global economy. It is not necessarily going to stay here. The drill-only, the drill- forever crowd, that is the oil agenda. It is the oil profits agenda in a global economy. Let me share for a moment some folks who are suffering under the oil agenda of this President and Vice President and the Republicans who have been in charge. In South Haven, MI, a beautiful little town along Lake Michigan, this was in the paper. Early last month, Jeanne Fair, who is 62 years old, got her first hot meals delivered to her home in this little lake community in the rural southwestern part of the State. After two deliveries of meals, they stopped because the volunteers couldn't afford the gas to get her the food. ``They called and said I was outside of the delivery area,'' said Mrs. Fair, who is homebound and hasn't been able to use her left arm since a stroke in 1997. Faced with soaring gasoline prices, agencies around the country that provide services to the elderly say they are having to cut back on programs such as Meals on Wheels, transportation assistance, and home care, especially in rural areas that depend on volunteers to provide their own gas. In a recent survey by the National Association of Area Agencies on Aging, more than half said they already cut back on programs because of gas prices. Ninety percent say they are expected to cut them back in 2009. This is the United States of America, and we have volunteers who have to stop giving meals to people in rural Michigan so these folks can keep up this agenda here: $185 billion profit since George Bush took office. And our folks can't afford gas. Let me share something else, a letter from a gentleman: As my family's only breadwinner, I drive over an hour each day to my job at LifeWays in Jackson . . . The reason I drive over an hour each way is because jobs for professionals are extremely rare in Hillsdale County where I live. Over 16 car industry-related plants have closed in Hillsdale County in the past 10 years, leaving the unemployment rate sky high and wages extremely low. The newest hit is the high prices for energy which are hurting me and my family. Not even looking at the 55-cent increase per gallon of propane we were just notified of, my commute costs me $28 a day and I drive a midsized car. I urge Congress to act immediately. Mr. President, we had a chance to act immediately today to do something that would make a difference, a real difference, and Congress didn't do it. I also have one other letter from a 17-year-old high school student who has a job. She says: I make $7.15 an hour and put in about 20 hours a week. My job sometimes interferes with my education because I am trying to make money that I need. My job affects school because I need to work. It makes it difficult for me. I am paid every 2 weeks and spend about $100 a week on gas to get back and forth to school and work. She says: Even during school time, I ride the bus to try to save money, but now I probably won't be riding the bus because school districts are cutting back on transportation to school. They are doing this because they don't have enough money to fill up the buses' gas tanks. What is going on? What is going on here? We are fighting for the people of this country who expect to be able to put gas in the schoolbus, who expect to be able to have seniors get Meals on Wheels, who expect to be able to drive to work. That is what this is about. It is about time we change the agenda of this country and who decisions are being made for. The reality is--I think it is, unfortunately, way too simple, but it is true--we have had 8 years of two oilmen in the White House and it has gotten us paying $4-a-gallon gasoline, maybe a little less, maybe a little more. That is the reality. We have seen over and over not only efforts on this floor to block what we are doing but on top of that, to add insult to injury, a free ride for the oil companies. In January of 2006, the New York Times reported that the Bush administration was allowing oil and gas companies to forgo royalty payments--forgo royalty payments--on leases in Federal waters, public waters in the Gulf of Mexico. It would cost American taxpayers more than $60 billion. Sixty billion dollars would equal 38 days of free gas for every American. How about that. So not only are they blocking us from creating alternatives, not only are they blocking us from taking taxpayer money--the same people I just read about are subsidizing the oil companies because we can't stop these subsidies going to the most profitable companies in the world--the world. We can't get that stopped when we are trying to say: Take those dollars and move them over to the future, which is alternative energy that will allow gas prices to go down, that will free us from foreign oil, get us off of a policy that depends on those around the world who aren't exactly our friends, and make us stronger in terms of national security. We can't get that done. Then, to add insult to injury, they waive oil and gas leases--$60 billion. I would love to have been able to waive some house payments. I would love to have been able to say to folks who were trying to make it and not lose their house in foreclosure: We will give you 90 days, don't worry about it, because we care about families and we want to make sure you keep your house. We finally have a housing bill. It is too late for many people, but we finally have one, thank goodness, that the President would sign. Where are the priorities of this country? Who are we making decisions for? That is the question. Who are we making decisions for? So I have extreme concern about the direction in which we are going. I have to tell my colleagues, as somebody who comes from a State where there is such a little bit of support right now, it would give us a whole lot more impact in the short run if we were to invest--and I know that. I am so grateful to our Senate leadership for supporting our efforts to retool our auto plants, to keep jobs in America for new vehicles. We are now focusing our talk so many times on this floor on what we are doing to support the advanced battery research and development so we are making those new batteries in America, not only for automobiles but for energy storage, and making sure we are the energy producers and creating the jobs of the future. A few investments we can do immediately within the next couple of years would tremendously impact us. I know my time is up. Let me just indicate that it is time to change the agenda. The American people have had enough. This big-oil agenda which has been driving the train here on the Senate floor and which has been driving the train in the White House has to stop. We have to take away their track and turn this thing around, so that we are focusing on what the American people want us to focus on to help them and their families in this country. I yield the floor.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. I object.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, let me indicate my strong support for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program and the motion to proceed under which we are currently working. I hope we will have a strong vote. We know regardless of the debate we are having on solutions or causes for how we got here, seniors, families, those we represent are being affected by this every single day. Making sure that LIHEAP is increased and that we have support for families in paying their heating bills is absolutely critical. I very much appreciate our majority leader making this a top priority and Senator Sanders for his advocacy. I look forward to what I hope will be a strong bipartisan vote in support of improving and strengthening LIHEAP. I want to speak further today about the reality of what is happening for families, businesses all across America, certainly in my great home State of Michigan. Since President Bush and Vice President Cheney, two oilmen, two people from the oil industry, took office, gas prices have nearly tripled. Oil prices have gone up four times higher than before the current administration came into office. The average family is spending a record 6 percent of their income, and counting, paying for gas to get to work, to get the kids to childcare, to try and maybe take a little vacation up north in beautiful northern Michigan or Rhode Island. I can't leave out beautiful Rhode Island, the State of our Presiding Officer. But the reality is, families are making incredibly tough choices. At the same time, energy prices certainly are taking a toll on the economy. We are seeing the level of unemployment going up. People are losing their jobs or are underemployed or are working three jobs, trying to get to work, paying more for gas. It is outrageous. I go home every weekend, and it is amazing. It makes you want to scream as you stand at the pump and the price goes $50, $60, $70, $80, to fill up a gas tank. It is unbelievable. Families are trying to figure out what to do about it. Unemployment rises, and we have now 12 States with unemployment rates over 6 percent. My State has an unemployment rate of 8.5 percent, 45 out of 50 States have seen job loss and unemployment numbers going up. One of the challenges, if we are going to talk about what to do about this, is we need to be talking about how we got here. How did we get here? We have had 8 years and two oilmen leading us in the White House, and it is not, unfortunately, a surprise, based on their agenda, that we have ended up with $4 and higher per gallon of gasoline. That is the shorthand way of talking about what has been happening. For the folks they represent, for the folks who met with the Vice President to put together his energy policy, what has been happening for them, while families are seeing their wages go down, if they have a job at all, every cost they have going up--what has been happening to them? The total combined net profits of the big five oil companies since this President took office are upwards of $556 billion. That is net profits. ExxonMobil alone has had, since this President took office, $185 billion in profits. One could say, well, businesses want to be profitable. I want them to be profitable, and I am working hard to make sure our manufacturers who, by the way, pay a lot of these costs and are impacted by gas prices when it comes to what is happening in the economy, I want them to be profitable as well. This is not about whether companies should be profitable. This is about the fact that we have had an energy policy put forward by two oilmen in the White House that has focused on supporting an industry and their backers, their supporters, that has now created a crisis in America, a crisis in the economy. To add insult to injury, it is one thing if there are profits and they are put back into creating more oil and gas exploration, alternative energy exploration, if this was reinvested to strengthen America, the folks who are helping to subsidize this, taxpayer money. The folks I represent who have lost their jobs, they are subsidizing this right now because of tax policy. To add insult to injury, are they putting this back into the economy to make us energy independent? No. The oil companies have spent $188 billion in stock buybacks over the last 5 years, instead of investing in increasing supply at home or in supporting a man who has now become very well known to everyone, T. Boone Pickens, an oilman his whole life, who is now investing in alternative energy. Instead of going in that direction because they care about America, the American people, American businesses, American economy--no, that is not what is happening. That is what adds such insult to injury about what is happening to the people of Michigan and around the country. It is the fact that people are taking this and having stock buybacks or adding another corporate jet or putting it into their pockets as opposed to investing in America and the ability for us to have energy independence. Then, on top of that, with what is being drilled for--and we know we are in a global market. We understand that. We are in a global economy where commodities move around the world. But it is important to know that when our colleagues put forward the oil agenda of drill, drill, drill, let's keep doing what we have always done and hope maybe something will change, maybe we will get out of the hole we are in if we just keep digging--when they talk about that, they are not acknowledging the fact that a record 1.6 million barrels a day from U.S. refineries, 1.6 million barrels a day in refined petroleum products were exported in the first 4 months of this year, up 33 percent. So we are paying more. We are being told the problem is we are not drilling more, and then 33 percent more of the oil drilled in America leaves America. Why? We are in a global marketplace. It goes to the highest bidder. We understand that. We understand the fact that China is using more, the fact that the weak dollar impacts that and oil speculation, the whole question of energy speculation which, again, I appreciate Senator Reid and all the leadership of my colleagues-- Senator Durbin, Senator Dorgan, so many people--who have been focused on this as a piece of the problem, but we are being told: Use the old solution over and over and over, knowing that we don't even know if that oil is going to stay here. I have supported drilling in the gulf. I have supported efforts to add to our domestic supply. But this is not the way we are going to create energy independence by only focusing on that. According to the Department of Energy, shipments this February topped 1.8 million barrels a day, shipments outside the country, the highest for the first time in any given month. We are being told that we should do the same old thing, add to it, but do the same old strategy, and somehow we will get a different result. I suggest that the same old strategy, first of all, has achieved great results for friends of the administration, for friends of my colleagues, the Republican leadership that has been fighting for the oil agenda of this country. It has achieved a goal but not a goal for the American people. This is a question of who you are fighting for, whose side you are on. These folks are doing well. We know whose side the current administration and those who support the administration are on. Unfortunately, it is not the side of the folks in Michigan who are worrying about whether they can buy enough gas to get to work. We have, in fact, a formula the Presiding Officer is very well aware of: 8 years divided by 2 oilmen in the White House has gotten us this result: $4 and counting. So what has been the energy plan of the administration that has gotten us to this situation? Well, for one thing, we have seen a free ride for the oil companies. In January 2006, the New York Times reported that the Bush administration was allowing oil and gas companies to forego royalty payments--so they were not having to pay their royalty payments they should be paying--on oil and gas leases in Federal waters in the Gulf of Mexico. This decision by the Department of Interior could cost American taxpayers more than $60 billion. So to go back again to another chart--they are not paying oil and gas leases, which costs American taxpayers up to $60 billion. I wonder how much of these profits came from that decision. I wonder how much. We all know that the administration and, unfortunately, those who support the administration's policy, Republican colleagues, have joined in supporting an effort to block the elimination of taxpayer subsidies to the oil industry so we can take those precious dollars, hard-earned dollars of people working every single day, money that has been going to subsidize the oil companies--we wanted to move that over to real energy independence, to focus on the priorities of the American people, American families, American businesses that are having to pay for all this. We tried to move over $12.5 billion that would be used for real energy independence, for incentives for solar and wind and, yes, our new hybrid and plug-in vehicles that are coming in the next couple years that, frankly, provide a much quicker opportunity for us to be able to get to energy independence than what we are talking about here in terms of a long-term drilling strategy. We have an opportunity to take precious taxpayer money and move it over to invest in the future, to invest in the American people and in the future, rather than in the past and the oil companies. We lost that by one vote, not because we did not have enough to pass it, not that we did not have 51 votes, but unfortunately the Bush administration and the Senate Republican leadership blocked it, filibustered it: Let's filibuster. Let's make sure nothing happens to this. So there was a filibuster that then we were not able to overcome because we were missing one vote. So the solution that has come forward by this administration, the solution that has come over the last 8 years of the leadership in the White House--the two oilmen in the White House--has been simply to have one solution, which is to continue drilling even if, in fact, that oil does not stay in the United States. So between 2001 and 2007, the Bush administration issued leases on over 26 million acres of onshore public lands. There are already 44 million acres, as we know, of onshore Federal lands under lease, but 31 million acres of those are currently not being drilled upon. There are 2,200 producing leases on the Outer Continental Shelf and 6,300 nonproducing leases at this time. So that has been the strategy. That has been the strategy that has gotten us to this--okaying more and more land and not even using it. And in the first 4 months of this year, when we were drilling for domestic production--because we are in a global economy--33 percent more of that went out into the global marketplace. Let me say there is a better way. In addition to supporting the energy speculation bill that is in front of us and in addition to supporting efforts, as I have done before, to have a responsible drilling policy in this country, there is a quicker way to get to where we want to go, and it is one that creates jobs, jobs right now. I am so appreciative of the fact that, through our budget resolution in the Senate, our Democratic majority put jobs as No. 1 and green- collar jobs in support of manufacturing and retooling our auto industry at the top of the list. I am grateful for our leader's support, Senator Reid, and Senator Dorgan, who has been such a leader on these issues, chairing the Energy and Water Subcommittee in Appropriations. I am very grateful for his support. But here is what we could be doing. Oil exploration and drilling will take 7 to 10 years to bring new supplies to market. Some people say longer. But there are technologies we can bring to market in the next 2 years--in the next 2 years--for advanced technology vehicles. The more we invest in technologies such as advanced battery technologies, the quicker we are going to find relief at the pump. That is the way we are going to do it, not by rewarding the oil companies more but by investing in our own energy independence, with innovation, American ingenuity, hard work that allows us to not only create jobs but create a future for us here in terms of energy independence and lowering costs. The facts are simple. Advanced vehicles that run with new batteries are much cheaper to drive than conventional automobiles, and we need to be moving to them as quickly as possible. Currently, the average cost to run a vehicle is 16 cents per mile--16 cents per mile--on the roads. But the cost to run a plug-in hybrid car with advanced lithium-ion batteries is only 3 or 4 cents a mile--a 75- percent reduction. Not only does this save energy, but, as I said before, it creates jobs. This technology is right around the corner. Frankly, there is a huge competition going on in the world today to see who is going to get to that plug-in battery, that lithium-ion battery that is lightweight enough, small enough, with the technologies that will allow it to be mass-produced on the assembly lines so thousands can be produced a day. The prototypes are there. We have probably all driven them. We have prototypes for a variety of different vehicles. The question is not the prototype; the question is being able to get something mass-produced so it is in the realm of price where consumers can afford to buy it and it can be produced in the volumes we need. We are really in a race right now to do that. I am grateful there is support from our Senate Democratic leadership to invest in advanced battery research, R&D, the next generation, to provide low-interest credit to retool our plants, to keep the jobs here in America, and to provide consumer tax credits for plug-ins and hybrids to make sure the price is affordable. All of those things are in legislation right now. They are before us in the tax package. They are before us in Senator Bingaman's amendment, if he has the opportunity to offer it, as it relates to the Energy bills. They are in our appropriations. They are right now in front of us, and we have the ability to act on this and quickly be able to move us to the next generation of vehicles that go from a cost of 16 cents per mile on the road down to 3 or 4 cents--much faster than what is being talked about in terms of drilling. Germany has announced the Great Battery Alliance, which will invest over $650 million in advanced lithium-ion batteries for German vehicles. The German automobile companies are receiving the support of the German Government to be able to be the first ones that are able to get to where we need to be in terms of the new battery technology. South Korea, by 2010, will have spent $700 million on advanced batteries and developing hybrid vehicles. China has invested over $100 million in battery research and development. Over the next 5 years, Japan will spend $230 million on advanced battery research. It is spending $278 million a year on hydrogen research for zero-emission fuel-cell vehicles. We are in a race. We are in a race as it relates to technology. We have the engineers. We have the scientists. We have the skilled workforce here in America to do this. We have not had an administration or a willingness by our Republican colleagues to join with us to be able to partner in the investments that need to be made in the automotive industry of the future. That is just a reality. I believe it was last year when I looked at the President's budget and it was something like $22 million he was suggesting for advanced battery technology research. Unfortunately, they just don't get it about what is going on around us. If we want to see prices go down and have energy independence and be able to move to the future for our country, frankly, that is the fastest way to do it. I am very proud our Democratic majority understands that. We know there is no silver bullet on any of this. But I can tell you what I also know: a game show approach to battery technology research is not the answer. Frankly, both the Republican alternative as well as the candidate who we understand will be the Republican nominee for President have put forward the idea of a prize at the end of the line, a prize for whoever can create the new advanced battery technology research. Well, Mr. President, we do not need a prize. We do not need motivation. We do not need the motivation to get there. We need the capital to get there. We need the investment. We need the partnering. We need the priority of investing in this innovation to get there. The prize is going to be real easy. Whoever gets there first, they are going to get a big enough prize without us in terms of the marketplace. The question is, How do we invest up front? What is it that Germany knows, Japan knows, South Korea knows, China knows that we do not know about this, when they are all racing to put hundreds of millions of dollars into this technology? It is very unfortunate that the approach that has been taken--primarily in the Republican alternative; not completely but primarily; and certainly by the Republican nominee--is to treat our economy and certainly the industry that I care deeply about somehow as a game show, and I find that really appalling. As I conclude, as indicated before, there is no silver bullet to stop the outrageous price increases at the pump. We know that. We have to pass our legislation dealing with energy speculation. I hope we will be able to proceed to do that. We all understand that a responsible drilling policy is part of this. We have, frankly, supported that and made those acres available. But we also know--we also know--if we want America to be energy independent, we have to invest in the future. We have seen this chart before, but I am going to show it again because we have a lifelong oilman now running ads on television who is so concerned about what is happening in our country and this constant policy that has not been working that he has been presenting, through commercials, a message that we should be paying attention to: I've been an oilman all my life, but this is one emergency we can't drill our way out of. . . . ``We can't drill our way out of.'' . . . But if we create a new RENEWABLE energy network, we can break our addiction to foreign oil. There are some folks who are making a lot of money by ignoring this strategy, there is no question about it. There has been an energy strategy in place that has worked for the oil companies. I understand that when somebody comes out of a particular industry, their focus is on that industry. I understand that. But the reality is, we have gone too long--too long--with a strategy: 8 years of a Republican strategy, with two oilmen at the head of this, creating $4-per-gallon gasoline. That is the simple explanation for how we got where we are. We have to stop digging. We have to stop doing more and more of the same and hoping somehow we are going to get a different result. We need a new strategy: Energy independence, investing in American ingenuity, investing in a strategy for the future, and, most importantly, what we need is to put the American people first. That has not happened for the last 8 years. It is time to make it happen. That is what our energy proposals are all about. That is what we are fighting for, and we are going to continue to fight for that until we make it happen. The American people have had enough, and I don't blame them. I have had enough too. It is time for a change, and we are going to work very hard to get that change. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Menendez be the next speaker following the remarks of Senator Snowe.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, in response to my colleague, I would indicate that on behalf of the majority, if that were offered I would object.

Ms. STABENOW

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

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, on Friday, July 11, 2008, I regrettably missed a vote on H.R. 3221 due to a prior commitment in Michigan. If I had been present, I would have voted for Record vote No. 173, the motion to disagree to the amendments of the House adding a new title and inserting a new section to the amendment of the Senate to H.R. 3221. This represented the final hurdle in passing the much-needed Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008. I strongly support this bipartisan, comprehensive bill to address the root of our economic problems--the housing crisis. This bill would strengthen the regulatory oversight of government sponsored enterprises, GSEs, and provide FHA modernization reforms to help stabilize the housing finance system and begin to restore confidence to the market. The bill's Hope for Homeowners FHA refinancing program would help as many as 400,000 homeowners at risk of losing their homes to foreclosure. It also includes foreclosure counseling for families in desperate need of help, assistance for communities hit by foreclosures, an affordable housing trust fund, provisions to help returning soldiers avoid foreclosure and important tax benefits targeted to help the recovery of the housing market. I am especially pleased that the package includes my provision to allow struggling American businesses to invest in the economy and create jobs here at home. This bill is an important first step in helping struggling families in Michigan and throughout the country. I look forward to the swift enactment of this legislation to provide relief to homeowners and to uphold the American dream for all.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, we have a historic opportunity in a few moments to reaffirm the fact that Medicare is a great American success story and to join with our colleagues from the House--383 Members of the House--who voted to override a Presidential veto and squarely side with our seniors, our military families and our veterans and to side with those in the disability community who use Medicare. We have an opportunity to vote to strengthen Medicare, to add mental health services, prevention, to focus on low-income seniors, to modernize Medicare with e-prescribing and telehealth. This is an opportunity to move Medicare into the future. I am very proud to have offered the original bill to extend or block the cuts for 18 months into the future that were to be given to our physicians. I am proud of the work of the Finance Committee. I wish to thank Senator Max Baucus for his leadership and our leader, Senator Reid, for coming to the floor and bringing this back, over and over, until we got it done. This is an opportunity for us to join together on a bipartisan basis to do the right thing, to overturn a very misplaced veto, and to say to all the seniors, our military families, and the disabled in this country that we understand what Medicare is all about and we stand with you to strengthen it, to add to the services available, and to modernize it for the future. I urge a strong bipartisan vote to override this President's veto.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, with all due respect to my friend from Arizona, I wanted to make it clear that there are no rate cuts for any provider in this legislation. As it relates to rate increases, the privatization that has been put into place over the last 3 years has actually raised rates, according to the CBO, for the 85 percent of the seniors and the disabled who use traditional Medicare. But there are no rate cuts. There is a small change, which doesn't even take effect until 2011, to give the opportunity for the private fee-for-service entities to be able to make the changes by 2011. So with all due respect, this is in no way a dramatic change, a cut in services, or rate reductions for any provider, including the private insurance providers.