Debbie Stabenow

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Yes.

Ms. STABENOW. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, this amendment would create a deficit- neutral reserve fund to provide seniors with the one prescription drug choice that they want, which they don't currently have, and that is an affordable prescription drug benefit administered directly through Medicare. As you know, the current system has a lot of headaches right now. There are a lot of private plans--over 70 in Michigan--and there has been mass confusion. A lot of folks are actually paying more for drugs under this Part D program than they were before. My amendment would give our seniors a new option, a Medicare- guaranteed option. Seniors today can get their Part A and Part B benefits either through a private plan or a traditional Medicare benefit plan. But they don't have that choice for their medicine. This would give them that choice. It would also direct the Secretary of HHS to negotiate drug prices on behalf of seniors choosing to get their medicines through Medicare. This amendment simply gives seniors and disabled persons the real choice they want, which is a Medicare prescription drug benefit, where you go to Medicare and you can sign up and you know the copay and the premium. You go to the pharmacy and get your medicine. I ask for your support.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, my amendment is about guaranteeing that every veteran in America has the health care they were promised and they deserve. Over the last 2 years, we have seen a 500-percent increase in the number of veterans seeking care from the VA who served in Iraq and Afghanistan alone. But this budget falls over 35,000 veterans short of the number of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans whom the VA currently treats. And remarkably, the President's budget projects fewer vets will seek mental health care, which is absolutely incorrect. If you believe, as I do, the men and women who have fought for our country should not have to fight every day, every year, for the health care they need, I urge you to vote yes on this amendment.

Ms. STABENOW. Yes.

Ms. STABENOW. Thank you, Senator Conrad. Again, thank you for your leadership on the Budget Committee.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment to make veterans health care funding assured and mandatory. Real security means supporting our troops abroad and making sure they have the body armor and the equipment they need, but it also means supporting them when they come home. It means giving our current and our future veterans the health care they need and deserve. The amendment I am offering today provides full funding for veterans medical care to ensure that the VA has the resources necessary to provide quality health care in a timely manner to our Nation's sick and disabled veterans. The problem we face today is that resources for veterans health care are falling behind demand, and we know this because every year we are trying to address the shortfall. In 1993, there were about 2.5 million veterans in the VA health care system. Today there are more than 7 million veterans enrolled in the system, over half of whom receive care on a regular basis. Despite the 160-percent increase in patients over the last decade, the VA has received an average of only a 5-percent increase in appropriations during this administration. Some of my colleagues will say this amendment isn't necessary because there have been funding increases over the last several years. They also say we do not need to create another entitlement program. Over the last 2 years, we have seen a 500-percent increase in the number of veterans seeking care from the VA who have been serving in Iraq and serving in Afghanistan. But the administration's budget projects that the VA will treat 109,191 veterans next year, and this falls over 35,000 veterans short of the number of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans the VA currently treats. So we see a 500-percent increase in the number of veterans coming home after serving us bravely in Iraq and Afghanistan, and yet their budget assumes that there are 35,000 fewer--fewer than last year--fewer Iraq and Afghanistan veterans we are going to treat next year. These numbers do not make sense. Last year's budget is also a case study on why we need to have assured funding for VA health care. In total, Congress provided an additional $3 billion for veterans health care because the administration grossly miscalculated the need for veterans health care. We need to finally move this into a category where every year those veterans coming home who need health care will know that the dollars are there based on their eligibility, based on their service, based on their need--not based on a debate on the floor in the Congress about how much we are willing to spend to address their health care needs. This should not be a year-to-year debate and commitment; this should be an assured commitment that the dollars will be there. Just as they are for Medicare, for Medicaid, our veterans ought to know that every year, their funding for critical health care services will be assured. Today's soldiers are tomorrow's veterans. America has made a promise to these brave men and women to provide them with the care they need-- not based on a debate on how much we want to spend or calculations year to year on the numbers that folks think may or may not seek care. This ought to be about making sure that every one of our brave men and women coming home, whether it is from the current wars or whether it is our World War II vets or any other war or conflict in which our soldiers have been serving--when they need health care as veterans, we will fulfill our promises to make sure it is there for them. I urge my colleagues to support this very important amendment, supported by all of the major veterans organizations in this country. It is time to get this done and get it done right. I yield the floor.

Ms. STABENOW. If I might ask, are we asking for 2 minutes per side?

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

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

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

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

Ms. STABENOW. Yes.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays and also simply indicate it is unfortunate to hear that kind of personal inaccurate attack.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished ranking member from North Dakota, who does such an outstanding job every single day, speaking about the real values and priorities of the American people. I commend him for his leadership. I rise today to express grave concern about this historic increase that is before us in America's national debt. Today, we owe $8,270,260,017,805.93, and counting, on the national debt. That is a long string of debt that isn't going to go away--over $8.2 trillion. In fact, it continues to grow. Just last month, we paid $21 billion in interest alone. Earlier today, I offered an amendment for $5 billion to make sure that the radios in this country are connected, interoperable, so they can communicate in case of a terrorist attack or a national disaster or other emergency. This was turned down by the body as being too much. Yet we spent $21 billion last month in interest alone on the national debt. The legislation before us allows this administration to continue to rack up another $800 billion on the Nation's credit card. That means we are allowing the debt to exceed $8.9 trillion. That is unbelievable. That is trillion with a capital ``T.'' Tragically, 5 years ago, we were sitting on top of the largest surplus in the Nation's history. The year I came into the Senate as a member of the Budget Committee, we were debating what to do with the largest surplus in the Nation's history, $5.6 trillion. At that time, the Senator from North Dakota suggested--and I supported it--a strategy that would divide that surplus into thirds: one-third for strategic tax cuts in order to grow the economy; one-third for investment in our people, education, health care, science, research, law enforcement, those kinds of things; and one-third to go to paying down the liability we know is coming with Social Security. We would not be debating that gap in Social Security funding on down the road if we had in fact used that strategy. But that is not what happened. Instead, all of that was put into a supply-side tax cut geared only to the wealthiest Americans, and leaving everybody else to pick up the tab. Deficits have spiraled out of control since that time. The budget we are debating only makes the national debt worse. It increases another $4 trillion in debt over the next 10 years. That is the budget resolution that is in front of us. That doesn't reflect our values. As Americans, we want our children and grandchildren to do better than we did. It is not about leaving them debt; it is about creating opportunity and about leaving them good jobs, and health care, and air they can breathe, and water they can drink, and a strong national security so they are safe. Unfortunately, because of our soaring national debt, our children and grandchildren are going to have to pay our bills. I find that simply outrageous. In essence, we are going to max out on the Nation's credit card and then send the monthly bill to our children. As most people know, this is a tough time for the people of Michigan. Anybody who has read the newspaper lately knows that companies such as Delphi and General Motors and Ford are struggling. Due to problems such as unfair trade practices, we are literally losing our manufacturing base in this country, coupled with the fact that we need to fundamentally change the way we fund health care in order to get health care costs off the back of business so they can be more competitive in a global economy. Manufacturing has been the key to building a solid middle class and creating a way of life that is extraordinary for Americans. If we lose our manufacturing industries, such as automobiles, we are going to lose our middle class in this country and lose our way of life. You might wonder what do unfair trade practices have to do with the increasing national debt. The answer is: A lot. That is because many foreign countries own our national debt. That means we have to borrow from other countries to pay our bills. And we are borrowing more and more from foreign countries in recent years. Unfortunately, many of those countries that own our debt also refuse to follow the international trade rules. They cheat. They want to be a part of the international community, but they don't follow the rules. In fact, China and Japan own approximately half of all of our foreign debt. At the same time, they continue to take our patents and to manipulate their currencies so their products cost less, in violation of international law. This hurts our manufacturing sector because it makes it easier for them to sell their products in America and tougher for American businesses to export our products to their countries. For example, a $20,000 car imported from Japan has an unfair subsidy of as much as $7,000 over a U.S. automobile. At the same time, U.S. exports to China face a $7,000 tax. This cost advantage directly subsidized over 1.7 million cars and trucks exported to the U.S. last year, as well as every component imported by Japanese manufacturers for use in their U.S. assembly plants. China has been pegging its currency and is responsible for producing a $12 billion market of counterfeit auto parts, which has cost us the equivalent of 200,000 jobs in America--many in Michigan. We should be getting tough with China and Japan on these trade violations that are costing Americans their jobs and threatening our middle-class way of life in this country. They are illegal. We should insist that they stop. But our Government is weak-kneed because we have borrowed so much money from them. There is a connection between the budget deficit and our trade deficit, both of which are out of control. When I look at what families in Michigan are having to go through, men and women who have worked hard all their lives and have paid into a pension, and they may not have it now, and their cost of health care is going up, or maybe they won't have it anymore and they may be losing their jobs, and their dreams for sending their kids to college are going away, the American dream that says you can buy a house and have a good home and dream big dreams, and maybe in Michigan you can buy a cottage up north and a snowmobile, and you make sure you can live a good life and care for your families--those dreams are going away for too many people. Part of the reason is because of unfair trade practices. We don't have a level playing field. We do not make sure other countries are following the rules. They are cheating and they are getting away with it. When we look at what is happening, we see that China and Japan own half of our foreign debt. They are the same people who are not following the rules and are costing us jobs. There is a direct connection between what is happening here in terms of raising this debt limit and what is happening in my home State of Michigan in terms of jobs, and the fight we have right now to keep our way of life. There is a better way than what is before us now. I yield the floor.

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

Ms. STABENOW. No more than 10 minutes.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will join me in beginning to fix the issue of connecting our radios, radio interoperability. Last December, the 9/11 Commission gave us failing grades in this area, as well as other areas. Back in November of 2003, the White House Office of Management and Budget said there were insufficient funds to do what needs to be done in terms of communications interoperability. They said it would take at least $16 billion to do this right. My amendment would provide $5 billion to jump-start what is happening now. Our esteemed chairman of the Budget Committee has spoken about the fact that there is $1 billion or $2 billion available now, but that simply is not enough. That is not enough to do it as quickly as we need to do this. Right now, homeland security grants also in this budget are being cut. We are seeing fewer police officers on the streets. We have not done what we need to do regarding radios and communications, and this simply is not good enough. My amendment says we can do better, and it will provide a jump-start to do so.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, is that the time on my side or the time in total?

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment to this budget resolution that would provide $5 billion for our first responders so they can effectively and reliably communicate with each other with equipment that can speak to each other: interoperable communications equipment. I regret to say this administration has been dangerously incompetent in providing homeland security funding, and particularly when we talk about what is happening for our first responders in their ability to communicate, whether it is a terrorist attack, whether it is in the gulf and what has happened with our natural disasters, or any other kind of emergency in our communities. We have seen a dangerously incompetent situation that has put our families and our communities at risk. We have known for a long time that too many of our police and fire and emergency medical workers and transportation officials cannot communicate with each other or they are not able to link up with State or Federal agencies. The September 11 attacks highlighted this problem, when New York police and fire personnel were on different radio systems, couldn't communicate, people running into buildings when they should have been running out. The 9/11 Commission found that the inability to communicate was a critical element at the World Trade Center, at the Pentagon, and in Somerset County, PA, where multiple agencies and multiple jurisdictions responded. Last December, the 9/11 Commission gave Congress a failing grade--an F--because it had not set a date for the transfer of analog spectrum to first responders for their interoperable communications needs. A June 2004 U.S. Conference of Mayors survey found that 98 percent of cities do not have interoperable communications. In other words, the police department can't talk to the fire department or can't talk to emergency medical personnel, or they can't talk to folks at the county or the city or the township or the State. And 60 percent of the cities do not have the ability to talk with their State emergency operations centers. This is not acceptable. I believe this shows a dangerously incompetent situation. Almost half of the cities that responded to the survey said that a lack of interoperable communications had made a response to an incident within the last year difficult. The most startling finding was that 80 percent of the cities don't have interoperable communications with the Department of Homeland Security or the Department of Justice--80 percent of our cities not wired to be able to talk to Homeland Security or the Justice Department. This is a dangerously incompetent situation. Despite these warnings, the Federal Government still has not taken decisive action to solve the problem, and we saw the devastating cost of this with Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. In New Orleans, the police departments and three nearby parishes were on different radio systems. Police officers were calling Senator Landrieu's office here in DC because they couldn't reach the commanders on the ground in New Orleans. That is unacceptable. We can do better than this, and we must. During my visit to the region with the Senate leadership, I had the opportunity to speak to many men and women who were working very hard in those initial days. Sitting in front of the New Orleans Convention Center talking to someone from the Michigan Army National Guard and the Michigan Coast Guard, which were both there working very hard, I asked them if they had radios, and they said yes. I asked if the radios could talk to each other, and they said no. I said: What happens when you are out in a boat? What happens when you are trying to communicate? One gentleman said: We use hand signals. In the United States of America, in 2006, that is a dangerously incompetent situation. We know this is an ongoing problem, not only because police and firefighters tell us that it is, but high-ranking Government officials concede this is a problem. In November of 2003, the White House Office of Management and Budget testified before a House committee that there was insufficient funding in place to solve the Nation's communications interoperability problem. It would cost over $15 billion to begin to fix the problem. Yet again we have been dangerously incompetent in addressing this critical threat. The Federal Government must make a substantial financial commitment to solve this problem. At this time, our State and local governments are stretched too thin and have too many urgent and competing priorities to effectively and completely solve this on their own. In fact, we have an obligation. As we talk about security, as we talk about making sure we are safe, how in the world can we do that if we in 2006 have not figured out how to have the radios connected to each other so folks can talk to each other in an emergency? The Federal Government has not made the necessary commitment. My amendment begins to do that. It takes a major step in the right direction. According to the Department of Homeland Security, from 9/11 through 2005, the Federal Government has spent only $280 million directly on interoperable communications. But none of those funds has been provided to help State and local emergency responders purchase equipment they need to talk to each other. I know our esteemed leader on the Budget Committee will argue that Congress has provided Homeland Security grants to our State and local emergency responders and that interoperable communications are an eligible expense. Saying that radio equipment is an eligible expense for funding and actually providing the funding are two different things. The problem is, these Homeland Security grants have also been subjected to repeated cuts, including in this year's budget. Our first responders are being given less overall support in funding to try to meet a growing list of homeland security needs that includes radio communications. That is not a real solution. We can do better, and we must. We need direct funding to solve this problem. That is what my amendment does. God forbid there is another terrorist attack or a natural disaster. Are we going to tell the American people that we didn't provide direct funding to fix a failed communications system because it was eligible under another underfunded grant program? This is a dangerously incompetent response to a critical threat to our families' safety. I understand fixing our first responders' interoperability crisis is not only a funding problem but also a problem of allocating necessary spectrum. I know this is a difficult issue to solve. I believe we need to eliminate these barriers as quickly as possible. I also agree that nationwide standards must be set to ensure that any money spent is spent wisely. I am a cosponsor of legislation introduced by Senator Lieberman and approved by the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. The Assure Emergency and Interoperable Communications for First Responders Act not only begins to provide the resources necessary to solve this problem but ensures that the Federal Government takes a strong role in leading our State, local, and Federal assets toward true communications interoperability. I have offered several amendments since 9/11 to provide our first responders with the equipment they need to keep our communities safe. Last year, I offered this same amendment to the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill and the Science-State-Justice-Commerce appropriations bill. While I have not yet been successful, I assure you, I will continue to fight until the men and women in Michigan and all across our country and their families, the people on the front lines of our homeland security, have the equipment they need and the ability to communicate effectively and reliably when we have an emergency. This is one of the most fundamental issues for us in making sure our families are safe. I am hopeful that my colleagues will support this amendment. May I ask how much time remains on the amendment?

Ms. STABENOW. I will take the remaining 4 minutes and then turn it over to the chairman. This evening, there will be an amendment offered by Senators Dayton, Chambliss, and myself to address what is another important part of homeland security or law enforcement funding that the Federal Government provides, and that is through the Byrne/JAG grant program. This was proposed for complete elimination in the administration's budget. It provides critical support as it relates to addressing drug crimes, helping with juvenile delinquency, addressing community policing, other important items that help keep our communities safe. I am very pleased to be a sponsor. It is a bipartisan amendment. I am hopeful that it will pass. In my State, we have 1,543 fewer police officers on the street since 9/11/01. Those are shocking numbers. The Byrne program is critically important in supporting our law enforcement officials. For example, in 2004 alone, Michigan drug task forces rescued 423 children from drug houses and arrested 659 major drug traffickers. They have been able to deal with the meth problem and assist victims of domestic violence. The list goes on and on. The Byrne program is an incredibly important part of supporting law enforcement. My colleagues and I will be offering this later this evening. I am hopeful we will receive support for it. We are seeing too many cases where law enforcement is losing the resources they need to be effective. I am hopeful that the Byrne grant program will be reinstated and that we will join in a bold, effective approach for interoperability communications so that we know, whether it is natural disasters, a terrorist attack, or just keeping us safe in our communities, that, in fact, our local responders will be connected, not only to each other but to State and Federal agencies. It is critical that we get this done.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I was simply explaining the amendment that was adopted.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I want to indicate that this amendment is a bipartisan amendment that is cosponsored by Senators Snowe, Reed, Lieberman, Kohl, DeWine, and Graham. It is an amendment that restores the critical funding for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program, which has helped over 150,000 small- and medium-sized manufacturers in this country. It is based on the cooperative extension model with Agriculture in that it is set up to provide best management practices, efficiencies, and support for our manufacturers as they compete in a global economy. It has helped them to maintain and increase jobs and be able to increase sales by----

Ms. STABENOW. I yield back our time.

Ms. STABENOW. Actually, Mr. President, I think the confusion is that I am speaking for a moment about what was just accepted and wanted to say thank you to the chairman and the ranking member for accepting our restoration of the Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program funding. There was a 60-percent cut proposed by the President. This, in fact, restored it. And I want to say thank you, and then also indicate that the chairman of the committee, while there are not always amendments or policies or approaches we agree on, has been extraordinary as a leader of the Budget Committee. I want to say thank you to him and to our ranking member, Senator Conrad, who have worked so well together. Amendment No. 3056 With that, Mr. President, I send another amendment to the desk.