Debbie Stabenow

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I am very pleased to introduce the ``Preserving Patient Access to Physicians Act'' with my friend and colleague from Arizona, Senator Kyl. This legislation is critical to ensuring that our Nation's 42 million Medicare beneficiaries continue to have access to high quality physician care. The Medicare program is one of the most successful Federal programs of all time. It has lifted countless seniors out of poverty, and it has ensured access to necessary, affordable, quality medical care for our most vulnerable citizens for the last 40 years. However, that success is threatened because the Medicare physician payment formula is fundamentally flawed. At a time when the doctors who treat our seniors are facing increasing practice costs, they are looking at a payment cut of 4.3 percent in 2006 for the Medicare services they provide that simply doesn't make sense. And the cuts don't stop in 2006: if Congress doesn't act, physicians will be hit with devastating cuts totaling 22 percent over the next 5 years. Those cuts represent over $44 billion dollars nationwide, and a staggering $126 billion over the next 10 years. Currently, over 20,000 MDs and DOs in Michigan treat over 1.4 million Medicare-eligible Michiganians with very high quality care. But if the doctors in my State receive their scheduled cut of $109 million next year, and over $5 billion over the next ten years, it's not hard to imagine that they may be forced to limit the number of Medicare patients they serve. Numbers in the billions are indeed staggering--but the critical need for this legislation is even better demonstrated by getting down to the specifics: a Detroit physician currently is reimbursed $56.88 for an office visit. But while we all know medical inflation will continue to increase, under current law, that same physician will receive only $41.86 in 2011 for that same visit. And while an orthopedic surgeon in Detroit is now reimbursed $1,813.10 for performing a knee arthroplasty--a knee repair necessary to ensure full mobility--she is scheduled to receive $478.66 less for performing that same procedure in 2011! The examples go on and on: a cardiologist inserting a stent in a Medicare patient to prevent heart problems receives $873.85 today. The same surgeon inserting a stent in 2011 will be reimbursed only $643.15. The ``Preserving Patient Access to Physicians Act of 2005'' provides physicians with a minimum update in 2006 and 2007. Specifically, the legislation overrides the Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR) formula in these years: the update to the single conversion factor in 2006 would be 2.7 percent, and a formula based on input prices and a productivity adjustment is used for 2007--the likely update for 2007 will be 2.6 percent. Kevin Kelly, Executive Director of the Michigan State Medical Society, tells me that the minimum updates provided in this legislation are essential to both physicians and patients in Michigan in terms of assuring access to Medicare services. And Robert Stomel, D.O., President of the Michigan Osteopathic Association, said that introduction of this legislation ``is an important step in efforts to protect the availability and access to physician services for millions of Medicare beneficiaries.'' Dr. Stomel went on to say, ``This bipartisan legislation represents a continued recognition that physician payment under Medicare must keep pace with the increasing cost of providing care.'' Yet I know that this is just the beginning. We cannot continue to use stop-gap measures but must replace the SGR with a payment system that actually makes sense and reflects the costs of providing physician care to Medicare beneficiaries. Through the bipartisan partnership Senator Kyl and I have begun today, we can--and must--fix the physician payment formula and continue to provide access to high-quality Medicare services for all of our seniors and people with disabilities. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the record letters of support from the American Medical Association and the American Osteopathic Association. I urge my Colleagues to join us in this effort, and I thank the Chair.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about both the pending nomination and also the overall process involved in the debate on free speech and checks and balances. Let me first thank and support the efforts of our Democrat minority leader from Illinois and thank him for his eloquence on this issue and indicate that despite concerns about the process now and the lack of bipartisanship in the Sixth Circuit for the last 4\1/2\ years and the lack of ability to come together in a way to jointly support nominees given the context of this larger debate right now and the critical importance of maintaining the minority views in the Senate and our ability to fight for our States and what is important for us both, Senator Levin and I have agreed to allow us to move forward in a show of bipartisan cooperation, a show of good faith with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, to move forward with three nominees for the Sixth Circuit. It is very disappointing to once again see that motion has an objection rather than moving ahead. In fact, last week, when our leader, Senator Reid, made that motion to move forward on three judges in order to be able to get us moving in the right direction in terms of bipartisanship, the majority leader objected to moving forward on the three Michigan nominees and immediately went to a press conference with House Republicans from Michigan to criticize us for not being willing to compromise and move forward on Sixth Circuit nominees. This kind of politics is very disturbing and very unfortunate when we are trying very much to move forward and to break this gridlock and create an atmosphere where we can continue to work together on the issue of judges. Again, let me say that it is very unfortunate that the majority leader said that three out of four judges was not enough. There is an objection, a concern on both sides of the aisle, of one of the nominees, but we have been willing in good faith to move forward with three of the nominees and have for 4\1/2\ years been meeting with the administration, with colleagues on both sides of the aisle, offering bipartisan solutions such as what other States do in terms of bipartisan commissions to be able to move us forward. At every turn we have been told, ``no.'' Now when we come forward and say, let's move to three of those judges in the interest of the larger picture in terms of what is happening in the attempt to eliminate checks and balances in our constitutional process, we, once again, are hearing, ``no.'' I find that very unfortunate. But I think it points to the fact that what we are seeing is a fundamental debate, not about judges, but it is about free speech. It is about our constitutional system of checks and balances. We have to constantly refer to the fact, as has been said before on the floor, that if it was about judges, the administration should be celebrating the best record in 25 years of Presidents of either party: 208 to 10. There have been 208 judges confirmed on a bipartisan basis, to 10 whom we have objected to because they are incredibly outside of the mainstream of American thought. The best record in 25 years: 208 to 10. What is this debate about? Well, unfortunately, it is about the fact that we have one party--we respect that. We understand one party is in control of the White House, the House, and the Senate, but they do not have 100 percent. There are people who elected others, elected Democratic Senators or Democratic House Members. They want their views to be represented as well in this democracy, where we work together to find compromise and balance and what is best, ideally, for everyone but certainly for the majority of Americans on any one decision. But we are hearing, instead: No, we want total, absolute, complete power over what happens in the United States. That is not a democracy. In fact, we are very fortunate that our Founders understood the importance of checks and balances in putting together not only a House of Representatives, that reflects the instant will of the people, but also a Senate, with a longer term--instead of a 2-year term, a 6-year term--that is charged with carefully evaluating the impact of legislation in a longer term view. In other words, the House is the ``gas pedal,'' and the Senate was designed as the ``brake.'' So we can have the important debates occurring in the House, and in the Senate have them as well, but allow minority views to be represented in a different kind of way. On the issue of judges, our Founders were very clear. It is the third branch of Government, with lifetime appointments. It is not the President's Cabinet. I supported nominees to the President's Cabinet who personally I would not have selected. But the President has a right, within every reason, to his team for his 4 years. I have supported those. But this is a third branch of Government, with lifetime appointments, so our Founders said: We are going to give half of that responsibility to the President and half of that responsibility to the Senate. So given our half of the responsibility, again, we have agreed to 208 judges on a bipartisan basis. And using our half of the responsibility, we have objected to 10. That is the record: objected to 10. And why? Because those individuals, again, do not represent mainstream thought and would be filling lifetime appointments--not for 3 or 4 years, but for three or four decades--long beyond any of us in our participation here in the Senate or this President. So it is important to remember that in putting together our Constitution and our Bill of Rights, our Founders, were very wise. I think we are very fortunate we had a group of people come together to create these checks and balances. It is not about just partisanship, Democrats and Republicans, it is about big States and small States. It is about Great Lakes States and States that do not have water. The reality is, we have a system of checks and balances that has allowed us to come together and create compromise, allowed us to create more mainstream decisions, because we have something called a filibuster which says a Senator can stand up, and as long as their legs will allow or their voice will allow, they can stand up and speak their mind on behalf of the people they represent, and they have the opportunity to put forward their view. It is the minority view--not the minority party view. It may be a single person's view, but the minority view can be heard. And because a Senator or two or three or four believe so passionately about something, the rules then require you have to get a few more people to agree, you have to get 60 votes, rather than 51, because of the strong concerns raised by individual Members. Now, what does that mean for us in Michigan? This is not just about judges. In Michigan, we are very proud of our Great Lakes. We are proud of the fact that we not only have our Great Lakes for drinking water, but for boating and tourism and economic activity. But one of the things we are concerned about in Michigan is the fact that someday the States in the West and the South that do not have a lot of water may decide they might want our water. Well, we do not like that very much. Right now, I feel very confident that Senator Levin and I, and other Great Lakes Senators, would be able to stand up and present the minority view, to be able to use the rules of the Senate to protect our water. What happens if that is gone? What happens if we no longer can express as to and fight for our State because the checks and the balances have changed? This is not just about judges. What about Social Security? If, in fact, the rules can be changed on judges, what about privatizing Social Security? Right now, we have a significant number of people to be able to stop the movement to dismantle Social Security, the great American success story. But what if the rules change and the checks and balances change? The whole point of checks and balances, the whole point of allowing extended debate and forcing compromise and people coming together, is to bring people with calmer minds to be able to listen to each other and to be able to forge a bipartisan compromise. For Senators, whether it is their view as a Democrat or Republican or their view from their State or their view because of some other consideration which causes them to feel so passionately that what is being put forward is wrong, it forces us to work together. That is a great thing. That is something we have benefited from as a country. We need to protect that as Americans. Let me say also that it is very ironic, as we are talking about the filibuster--I find particularly in Michigan--that when we talk about the filibuster, and so on, as if it has never been done before, colleagues of mine who have been around for a while may remember Abe Fortas who was nominated for Chief Justice back in 1968. I will not tell you where I was in 1968, but it is a little before my time here. But it is interesting to note that one of the Senators who filibustered the Justice at that time, in 1968, was a Michigan Republican Senator, Senator Robert Griffin. What is particularly noteworthy is that he is the father of one of the nominees to the Sixth Circuit who, in fact, we just tried to move forward right now and were stopped in so doing. But it is important to note that Senator Griffin, on the floor, in his debate, in his speech about why it is appropriate for Senators to be able to stand up and object and to filibuster on judiciary nominations, said: It is important to realize that it has not been unusual-- This is 1968. it has not been unusual for the Senate to indicate its lack of approval for a nomination by just making sure that it never came to a vote on the merits. And as I said before, 21 nominations to the court have failed to win Senate approval. This is Senator Griffin in 1968: But only nine of that number have been rejected on a direct up-or-down vote. In other words, Senator Griffin acknowledged, back in 1968, that it was not unusual for this Senate to filibuster judicial nominees. I think there is a lesson here. If the Republicans are currently concerned about filibusters, they should listen to what the father of one of the pending nominees, a Republican, said about filibusters and checks and balances. Once again, the reality is, I do not believe this is about filibusters in the context of judges because, look: 208 to 10; 208 approved, on a bipartisan basis, to 10. This is about whether we will have free speech in the Senate and, I believe, in our country through its elected Senators. This is about whether there will be checks and balances in our Government that allow those rare occasions--with the 10--for people to say: No. You have gone too far, Mr. President. With all due respect, your nominations have gone too far. And on behalf of the people we represent, we have the responsibility to stand up and say, stop, send us another nominee. Send us someone in the mainstream. Send us someone who will, in fact, represent the interests of a majority of Americans. That is not what is happening today. We are being told: It is all or nothing. In the Sixth Circuit it is all or nothing. Three out of four judges is not good enough. We are being told here: It is all or nothing. It is about complete and absolute power, no checks and balances. In other countries they call that a dictatorship. We have a democracy. We respect and allow other views to be heard. We do not have to agree with them, but we allow them to be heard in our country's democracy. And we create a way, through the Senate, to force people to come together and listen to each other, and to be able to compromise in the very best sense of the word so we can create decisions, whether it be nominations for judges, or whether it be other decisions that affect the families we represent, in a way that has balance and common sense. That is what we are talking about. We are talking about the ability to fight for your State, the ability to stand up for your values and principles, to fight for what you believe is right, the ability to ask others to join you in that, the ability to say to the President of the United States: Ninety-five percent is a great record. Two hundred eight is a great record. But, Mr. President, these 10 go too far. These 10 will turn us back in terms of protecting the rights of Americans, and we are asking you to work with us on these 10. That is not an unreasonable request. Fundamentally, what we are talking about is whether we are going to continue to value free speech in our country. Doing away with the ability for us to speak and to be able to require a majority vote of 60 votes in order to be able to move forward on controversial issues is the first step of taking away free speech. I am very hopeful when the vote comes that men and women of dignity and respect and good conscience on both sides of the aisle will say, no, this is not about party. It should not be about party. It should be about what is best for the country. It should be about protecting the greatest Constitution in the world, the greatest Bill of Rights in the world. We have men and women of good conscience on both sides of the aisle who I know want to do what is right. I hope it is going to be a very proud day, if this comes to a vote, and we have the bipartisan support of folks standing together and saying: We can do better than this. We can work together and maintain the ability for the minority view to be heard in the Senate on behalf of the people of this country. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Senate SAFETEA bill that is before us, the Transportation bill. I first want to thank my colleague from Washington State for her leadership on so many different issues, including provisions in the Transportation bill. I thank Senators Inhofe and Jeffords for drafting a good bill for the country and a good bill for Michigan. I am pleased the Senate is passing this critical bill today. Unfortunately, this has been delayed for over 20 months and Congress has passed six TEA-21 extensions. It is my hope that we will not have to pass a seventh and this bill will be completed before the end of the month. We have already lost one spring construction season in Michigan, and we certainly don't want to lose another. During the budget debate, I worked with Senator Talent on a successful amendment to help the Senate produce a well-funded highway bill and keep all the funding options on the table. This amendment was included in the final budget resolution, and I am pleased to say it helped pave the way for the additional $11 billion that was added to the Senate bill. As my colleagues know, this bill isn't just about improving our roads, transit systems, and buses, but it is also about creating jobs. The Department of Transportation estimates that for every $1 billion of highway spending, we are creating 47,500 new jobs, and this generates more than $2 billion in economic activity. Mr. President, we need this bill. Michigan needs this bill. Over the last 4 years, Michigan has lost jobs. The SAFETEA bill will create good-paying jobs and help thousands of Michigan families make ends meet. So it is absolutely critical we pass this bill today. We are not talking about minimum-wage jobs, we are talking about well-paying jobs that help Michigan families pay their mortgages, save for retirement, and pay for their children's education. The SAFETEA bill will create over 59,000 jobs in Michigan alone. Mr. President, this delay has also cost Michigan additional highway funding that we desperately need. Our communities are growing, congestion is getting worse, and our roads are worn down through increased wear and tear, but we are still working under funding formulas that are over 7 years old. In fact, Detroit ranks ninth nationally for having the worst traffic congestion. That is even worse than the delays in Boston and Philadelphia. The Senate bill would provide Michigan with over $6.65 billion in highway funding and $600 million in transit investment to help address our congested roads and increase bus service throughout our State. This also is desperately needed. We cannot fix these problems without a well-funded highway bill. Unfortunately, the House TEA-LU doesn't provide the resources we need to address our aging roads and transit systems. This also would mean fewer jobs for Michigan and the country. I also add that the Senate bill continues to move us forward for Michigan to get its fair share. We are not there in terms of dollar for dollar, and I will continue to fight in every Transportation bill until we get there. But we need to move forward so Michigan gets a better share in this bill and a better opportunity to have the resources and jobs we need. As this bill goes to conference with the House, I urge my colleagues to stand behind the Senate bill. Once again, this Senate will be passing a bill that is better than what has been passed in the House. It is more fair. I am very hopeful we will stand together on a bipartisan basis and insist that the Senate version ultimately be the version that is passed. We also need for the bill to be fair and for it to meet the needs of our communities, and we need to make sure we are creating as many jobs as possible. It is time to invest in the best possible resources for our Nation's transportation needs. I am pleased that because of the bipartisan effort in the Senate we will be having a vote today on final passage of this desperately needed bill. Hopefully, we will see it going to the President in a form that is fair for Michigan, for all of our States, and that it is something that will address the future needs of our country. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise this evening to strongly oppose this budget resolution, and I do so regretfully as a Member of the Budget Committee. I appreciate the courtesies of our chairman. I also very much appreciate the leadership of our ranking member, who has been so articulate and so committed throughout this process to a responsible budget resolution. The individual pages of this budget resolution contain a lot of numbers and complicated legislative language, but, taken as a whole, this budget resolution is our Nation's values document. It is about the values and priorities of the American people, our shared values and priorities. This budget reflects the wrong values and the wrong priorities for our country. The guiding values in our country are responsibility, opportunity, community, and security. This budget is not responsible. In fact, it is incredibly irresponsible. It contains the largest deficits in the history of our country. Think about that: the largest deficits in the history of our country. It will add $1.4 trillion to the national debt over the next 5 years. This budget will force our children and our grandchildren to pay for the misplaced priorities of this President and this Congress. This is reckless, this is wrong, and it does not reflect real American values. The idea of America is based on optimism, that tomorrow can be better than today. We all want our children to have it better than we did. We all want to leave them with a good economy, not a stagnant one saddled with a large national deficit. We want our children to have great jobs, not a great big debt. Unfortunately, since 2001, this administration and the Republican majority have turned a surplus of $5.6 trillion, created under the Clinton administration, into a deficit of $5.2 trillion. Back in 2001, I was very pleased to be part of a bipartisan group of Senators, including Senator Snowe and Senator Bayh, who urged our colleagues to put in place something that would prevent us from sliding into this massive debt. We warned our colleagues and the administration about the possibility that our $5.6 trillion projected surplus may not hold up if we enacted large tax breaks for our wealthiest Americans. In order to prevent this from happening, Senator Snowe and Senator Bayh and I offered an amendment that created a trigger to the 2001 budget resolution that would have prevented overspending on either tax cuts or new spending. Despite support from Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan and a few of our Republican colleagues, our trigger was rejected by the majority. I might add that, in coming before our Budget Committee, Chairman Greenspan once again talked about some kind of a mechanism that would get us back into balance, something like a trigger that should have been put in place at the time. Unfortunately, as a result of the administration's reckless economic policies, we now have the highest deficits in the history of the country. We are borrowing money at a record pace, much of it coming from countries such as China and Japan who now hold 50 percent or more of our foreign debt, which has implications economically for us in our ability to bring trade actions and hold them responsible for following the rules. That has implications in our national security policy. The value of the dollar is weak overseas, and our economy is basically stagnant after record job losses in the last 4 years. Our manufacturing sector, quite literally, is in a depression in my home State of Michigan, despite hard-working businesses and individuals. These large budget deficits and the stagnant economy are ruining opportunity in our country--opportunity, one of the basic values on which America was founded. Older workers are losing their jobs and their health insurance. Younger workers have less hope for employment in most of our traditional industries that pay well and provide health insurance and other benefits. There is nothing worse than ruining the American dream for our children. We can do better than this. Unfortunately, this budget undermines our children's chances to succeed by taking away opportunity. This budget saddles them with a massive national debt and a bad economy. It cuts the very programs that help them succeed, such as education and job training and, I might add, over the objections of this Senate, where the majority of people voted against many of these education cuts before the resolution passed the Senate. This final document underfunds our public schools. It eliminates critical student financial aid programs for college students. As most people know, the cost of a college education is soaring. Now is not the time to be cutting assistance. Now is the time to increase it. This is about creating opportunity for our children to succeed in a new global economy where skills are more important than ever. I remember Chairman Greenspan coming again before our committee, and in his written statement he expressed great concern about the growing skills gap between those who now have skills and those who do not have the skills they need to compete. This document does not invest in our future. It takes away opportunity rather than investing in opportunity. When the cost of a college education becomes out of reach for our families, it will be harder and harder for our children to contribute to our economy and live the American dream. That is what this is all about. It needs to be what it is all about, making sure we are making critical investments as an entity together, as a Congress, as a Federal Government, as we do in our own families making investments for the future, as a businessperson would do making investments for the future. This budget also helps break up our country's sense of community. It does so by undermining the commitments we have made to our veterans, our seniors, as well as our farmers. When our service men and women risk their lives overseas, we make a promise to them. We make a promise to them that, God willing, they will come back alive and we will provide them the quality health care they need and deserve. In essence, we are saying, as a country: Thank you for your service. We want to help you as you come back and resume a civilian life. Unfortunately, this budget makes cuts in veterans health care programs. Unbelievably, at a time of war, when more and more people are coming home and changing one cap for another, this conference report does not provide the full funding for veterans health care. Even though more and more of our brave men and women are coming home with extensive medical needs, even though many veterans have to wait up to 6 months to get into certain hospital services, this budget still cuts veterans health care. I believe this is morally wrong. This budget also makes cuts in Medicaid health care. The Medicaid Program not only provides health care for low-income working families, but the majority of our Medicaid spending goes to pay for long-term care for our seniors and people with disabilities. Again, we stood, a majority of us here in the Senate, and said no to that proposal when it was in the Senate budget resolution. Now it comes back to us in final form, and we see billions of dollars eliminated from critical health care services. Many people who are in long-term care facilities are seniors who worked hard their entire lives. They paid their taxes. They provided for their children. And now many of them are living out the twilight of their lives in nursing homes. They deserve to do this with dignity. As my colleagues know, seniors are not eligible for long-term care under the Medicaid health program until they have spent down almost all of their assets. That means many of these seniors have already spent all of their savings and all of their retirement. They have sold their house, and every month they turn over most of their Social Security check to the nursing home. They are basically broke. All they are asking is to live out their lives in dignity, with the health care they need. We can do better than that. We can do better than this resolution. These cuts in Medicaid health care jeopardize their nursing home care, especially when States already are faced with major budget problems, making it tougher for them to provide quality care for our seniors. Right now in my State of Michigan, 26 percent of the budget is Medicaid health care, and now we are going to add more burden to the State and force more cuts in care. The cuts in Medicaid health care in this budget are devastating. This budget also cuts assistance to our struggling family farmers, many of whom could be forced to give up their homes and their farms. Currently they are struggling with unfair foreign competition and low prices. So these cuts will only make their already bad situation worse. The American people know that farmers are the backbone of our rural economy. They are small town community leaders. They work hard every day and are simply trying to survive in today's harsh economic climate. I know because I grew up in one of those small towns in Clare, and many of my family members have been in farming. Family farmers need our support to help deal with unexpected low prices and natural disasters. Unfortunately, this budget will make it harder for them to pass down their farms to their sons and daughters who could someday become our next community leaders. Breaking our promise to veterans, taking away health care for our low-income seniors and families, and additional hardships on family farmers who grow our Nation's food is not consistent with our real American values. This budget also makes cuts in assistance to our first responders. I had an amendment, both in committee and on the floor, that would have stopped these cuts. Unfortunately, there was not the support to do it. But our first responders work hard every day protecting our families. Despite the 2-year-old bipartisan Rudman report that identified our Nation's substantial homeland security unmet needs, we continue to provide $15 billion less than what is needed to adequately defend our Nation with first responders. This is according to a bipartisan report. We are not doing what we need to do to support our police officers and firefighters and emergency responders to keep us safe. What sense does that make? What is the response in this budget? Decreasing funding for first responders. Again, what sense does that make? This makes our Nation less secure. This budget goes against our real American values-- responsibility, opportunity, community, security. Some of my friends on the other side of the aisle will downplay the size of the deficits and provide a myriad of statistics on why these deficits don't matter. But we need to make sure the American people know the reality of the deficits. The reality is that these deficits are massive. We are not going to balance the budget by cutting nondefense, nonhomeland domestic discretionary spending. In fact, only if we eliminated all of our domestic spending, every single penny, eliminating everything from the National Institutes of Health in health research, the Justice Department, all of our transportation spending, veterans health care, education, the list goes on and on, only if we eliminated every penny would we just barely be able to balance the budget. We would have to eliminate all of it except defense in order to balance the budget because the deficit is so huge. Slashing critical investments in our future, in our American quality of life will not make a dent in the deficit, but at the same time it will take away our opportunities for the future for our children. We can do better than this budget resolution. Americans deserve better than this budget resolution. I believe our budget should reflect our values and our priorities as a nation. When we do our household budget, we have to make tough decisions and forgo some things to balance the books. We all have to go through that in our daily lives. We do this because we don't want our children to have to pay for our debts. Parents across the country work hard to build up a nest egg for their children so they can have an opportunity to get a good education, the skills they need, and a start in life as adults with a great chance to succeed. That is what we all want for our children. This budget does exactly the opposite of what we want for our children, for our parents, for our communities. It does nothing to close egregious tax loopholes or ask our wealthiest Americans to pay their fair share of the costs of wars in Iraq or Afghanistan. At the same time, it pushes all of our soaring debt onto the shoulders of our children and grandchildren. This doesn't represent who we are as Americans. We believe we should help make a better country for our children and grandchildren. Because of the reckless budget priorities of the last 4 years, our children and grandchildren will inherit massive debt, high interest rates, and a sluggish economy. We can do better. We can move toward a balanced budget. We can make critical investments in the future--in opportunity, education, innovation, homeland security, health care. We balanced the budget in the 1990s. We can do it again if we work together. American families deserve better than this budget resolution. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today to show my strong support for the Bayh amendment on countervailing duties, and I ask unanimous consent to be added as a cosponsor.

Ms. STABENOW. I commend my friend and colleague from Indiana for his vision on the issue of what we need to do to create a level playing field for our businesses and workers. This is an important amendment. I have spoken forcefully about our need to address the unfair trade practices of those with whom we trade. A necessary step in this process is to change those U.S. laws that hinder our industries from operating on a level playing field. That is what this amendment addresses. Our businesses, our workers have an expectation that we will provide a level playing field for them, and we need to deliver on that. This amendment is a good step in that direction. Unfair trade practices are hurting our U.S. manufacturers and costing jobs. In my State of Michigan, I regret to say, we now have the highest unemployment rate in the country. At the time when our Nation's countervailing duty laws were approved in 1979, the Department of Commerce decided it was impracticable to apply those laws to nonmarket economies such as China due to the difficulty of determining what defines a government subsidy within the context of a state-controlled economy. However, since that time, many nonmarket economies have undertaken significant economic reforms that have liberalized the state control over their economies. Unfortunately, however, some of these nations, such as China, refuse to comply with standard international trading rules and practices and use subsidies and other economic incentives to give their producers an unfair competitive advantage. This has a direct impact on job loss in Michigan, as well as in other States. As we all know--and it has been documented--these subsidies range from currency manipulation, to providing below interest rate loans to less than creditworthy companies, to providing preferential access to raw materials and other input. I should mention that I was very proud to be a part of the effort to get a very strong vote a few weeks ago; 67 Members on both sides of the aisle joined to send a message both to the White House and to China that we expect China to stop manipulating their currency, which means it costs more for us to sell to them than for them to sell to us. It is part of what we need to do to level the playing field. I hope that because we have joined together in the vote we had on a very strong bipartisan basis, we will see the same kind of vote on this Bayh amendment. I will give you a few examples of how this hurts Michigan manufacturers and workers directly. Counterfeit automotive products are a very big problem in Michigan. Not only does it kill American jobs, but it has the potential to kill Americans as cheap, shoddy automotive products replace legitimate ones of higher quality. The American automotive parts components industry loses an estimated $12 billion in sales on a global basis to counterfeiting. This must stop. We don't even keep statistics on the potential loss of life. The United States is losing manufacturing jobs as a direct result of China's policies. China's policies have cost our economy 1.5 million jobs in the last 15 years and 51,000 jobs alone in Michigan. These job losses are hurting all of our manufacturers, from apple juice, to auto parts, to clothing, to furniture. At this stage, U.S. industries have no direct recourse to combat subsidies used by nonmarket economies. They must rely upon the Federal Government to negotiate a settlement, or on the dispute settlement processes of international organizations, such as the WTO. Why do we put such a strain on our own businesses? The remedies available currently might eventually lead to relief, but it takes years to see relief. We are losing jobs every day. There are headlines every day in Michigan about job loss. We have to have a sense of urgency here in the Senate and in the Congress and in the White House. The Bayh amendment would change the situation to ensure that nonmarket economies are subject to the same countervailing duty laws as all other trading nations. At a recent Finance Committee hearing on his nomination, Congressman Portman said he thinks ``we . . . need an additional focus on China. After a top-to-bottom review, I would plan to shift some resources, including some people to that effort.'' I certainly encourage him to do that. I also want to indicate at this time that Congressman Portman indicated support for a focus on creating an international trade prosecutor, or some people in his office who would focus on the role of prosecutor more broadly on those other countries that are violating rules. Senator Bayh has been a champion of that effort, and I am very proud he has joined with me and Senator Graham in South Carolina in introducing specific legislation that relates to creating an international trade prosecutor as well. All of these pieces are important. We have taken one step to sending a message to China and to the administration that we expect them to address the issue of currency manipulation. Now, this amendment is a very important piece in leveling the playing field for our businesses and our workers. I also urge that we incorporate an international trade prosecutor who will be our American voice for business and for workers on the broad issue of continuing to make sure the rules are fair. I think these pieces together create hope for the people we represent, whom we, in fact, would stand up for and stand up for American jobs. While I have the floor, I want to speak briefly about something else that also relates to American jobs. In addition to this important amendment, we will be focusing on the broader issue of a strong SAFETEA Transportation bill. I am hopeful that we are going to get this done as quickly as possible. I am pleased that we have begun the process of debating this critical issue. The snow finally has melted in Michigan--at least for the moment--and we are in the beginning of a new construction season. During the budget debate, I was pleased to join with Senator Talent to lead an effort on an amendment to help the Senate produce a well-funded Transportation bill. I know Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus are working hard to help strengthen this bill that is in front of us. As my colleagues know, this bill isn't just about improving roads and transit systems and buses, but it is about creating jobs. Again, it is absolutely critical that we do everything possible to create American jobs and do it as quickly as possible. The Transportation bill is one of the fastest ways that we can bring good-paying jobs back to our States. The Department of Transportation estimates that every $1 billion of highway spending creates 47,500 new, good-paying jobs, and it generates more than $2 billion in economic activity. Mr. President, we need this bill now. If there are efforts to extend it, we need to have it be a short extension beyond May 31. My preference is to get this done before the end of May because we are going to lose another construction season if we do not. We in Michigan have projects ready to go the minute this bill is signed. It is absolutely critical that we get this done as soon as possible. Over the last 4 years, Michigan has lost jobs. This bill, as I said, would create good-paying jobs that would help thousands of our families in Michigan. We are not talking about minimum wage jobs, we are talking about well-paying jobs, good-paying jobs that help families pay their mortgages and save for retirement and put their children through school. Last year's bipartisan Senate bill that passed overwhelmingly would have created over 99,000 jobs in Michigan alone. It is my hope that the Senate will pass another strong bill. I understand that the House and the White House did not support the effort that we passed. Even though it was an important bipartisan effort and it showed in the Senate the best about governing, in my opinion, and people worked very hard on both sides of the aisle, it is very unfortunate that this was not supported by the House or the White House. Now we have a bill back in front of us and we need to make it the best we can possibly make it so that we are creating jobs and meeting the needs of our communities. We cannot fix the problems that we have in our States in terms of infrastructure and traffic congestion and issues of jobs and so on without the very best bill possible. I am very hopeful--and I will do everything within my power, working with colleagues on both sides of the aisle--to get the fairest, best bill that we can for the people we represent and to get that as quickly as we possibly can. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support the Bayh amendment and to move on to put together the final bill in the best way possible for both those States such as mine, which are donor States, as well as for the other States around the country, so that we can create the jobs that are needed as quickly as possible. I yield the floor.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I thank the Senator.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Durbin) and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama) are necessarily absent.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Durbin) and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama) are necessarily absent.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Durbin) and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama) are necessarily absent.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), the Senator from Illinois, (Mr. Durbin), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), the Senator from Louisiana (Ms. Landrieu), and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama), are necessarily absent. I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Durbin) and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama) would each vote ``aye.''

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill on behalf of myself and Senators Graham and Bayh. This bill would create an ambassador-level position within the office of the U.S. Trade Representative entitled: Special Trade Prosecutor. This individual would be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, with the authority to ensure compliance with trade agreements to protect our manufacturers against unfair trade practices. In practical terms, this prosecutor will have the authority to investigate and recommend prosecuting cases before the World Trade Organization and under trade agreements to which the United States is a party. Why this bill? At this time? We have an Executive Branch that is organized in such a way as to make prosecution of unfair trade cases unlikely at best. When you couple this with the fact that our government has sat idle as our domestic manufacturing base has eroded due to unfair trade practices, it becomes very clear that we have put our manufacturers in an impossible situation. Under the current structure of the office of the U.S. Trade Representative, we are asking our Trade Representative to do too much. Quite simply, the office is not able to deliver. The current structure demands that they negotiate trade agreements with foreign nations and simultaneously enforce other agreements with those same countries--all without damaging the U.S.'s ability to negotiate the next trade deal. It's not working. And, while significant portions of our trade imbalances are not caused by lax enforcement, much of it is. In February, the Department of Commerce reported that the merchandise trade deficit reached a record level of $666.2 billion in the 2004, a 21.7 percent increase since 2003. If we can address any portion of this deficit we must do it. This bill represents a straight-forward, common-sense solution. There are many U.S. industries facing unfair trade practices and this bill represents an institutional change that will allow the U.S. to thoroughly and vigorously investigate and prosecute these cases. For instance, China is a textbook case of how a foreign government has used a network of illegal subsidies and government interventions in order to destroy foreign competition, both in the United States as well as in many other countries. According to the U.S. China Economic and Security Commission, these actions have gone virtually unchallenged by the U.S. government, despite the fact that China's actions are in clear violations of both U.S. trade law and WTO rules. These ``anti-competitive actions by China's government include currency manipulation (estimated to provide as much as a 40 percent subsidy for Chinese exporters), illegal direct government subsidies of its money losing state-owned textile and apparel sectors, illegal export tax rebates (13 percent) and the deliberate extension of billions of dollars in non-performing (``free money'') loans by China's central banks in order to award a competitive advantage against foreign competition.'' The Commission goes on to say that ``in the case of China, the dramatic increase in subsidies has caused Chinese prices to drop by an average of 58 percent over the past two years in those product areas where quotas have been removed. As a result, China has gained a near monopoly share in these products over the last 24 months, taking 60 percent of the market.'' However, the U.S. government has failed to file any complaints at the WTO, despite the Chinese government's repeated and widespread violations of WTO rules. Our government's inaction is costing us millions of American jobs, crippling our manufacturing sector, distorting trade and investment patterns globally, and leaving hundreds of millions of Chinese workers vulnerable and mistreated. Let me give you a concrete example of the violations that are occurring. Counterfeit automotive products are a big problem in my home State of Michigan. Not only does it kill American jobs, but it has the potential to kill Americans as cheap shoddy automotive products replace legitimate ones of higher-quality. The American automotive parts and components industry looses an estimated $12 billion in sales on a global basis to counterfeiting. And, we don't even keep statistics on the potential loss of life. As many have said, we should understand that, if left unchecked, penetration by counterfeit automotive products, as well as other manufactured goods, has the potential to undermine the public's confidence and trust in what they are buying. We can't let that happen. In Michigan, we lost 51,000 manufacturing jobs between 1989 and 2003 due to China's unfair trade practices, according to the Economic Policy Institute. Unfortunately, the plant closings continue in Michigan and around the Nation. Over the past three months we see example after example of the damage a ``wait and see'' attitude has on workers in this country. We should not be shirking our responsibilities to enforce trade rules. This Bill helps us reverse the course upon which we find ourselves--it helps us save American jobs. I believe in trade and the benefits it can have for our manufacturers, farmers, and other industries. But, we need to have fair trade first and foremost. A Special Trade Prosecutor would have the power to stand up for our manufacturers and farmers and make sure that other countries are holding up their end of their trade agreements. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill on behalf of myself and Senators Graham and Bayh. This bill would create an ambassador-level position within the office of the U.S. Trade Representative entitled: Special Trade Prosecutor. This individual would be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, with the authority to ensure compliance with trade agreements to protect our manufacturers against unfair trade practices. In practical terms, this prosecutor will have the authority to investigate and recommend prosecuting cases before the World Trade Organization and under trade agreements to which the United States is a party. Why this bill? At this time? We have an Executive Branch that is organized in such a way as to make prosecution of unfair trade cases unlikely at best. When you couple this with the fact that our government has sat idle as our domestic manufacturing base has eroded due to unfair trade practices, it becomes very clear that we have put our manufacturers in an impossible situation. Under the current structure of the office of the U.S. Trade Representative, we are asking our Trade Representative to do too much. Quite simply, the office is not able to deliver. The current structure demands that they negotiate trade agreements with foreign nations and simultaneously enforce other agreements with those same countries--all without damaging the U.S.'s ability to negotiate the next trade deal. It's not working. And, while significant portions of our trade imbalances are not caused by lax enforcement, much of it is. In February, the Department of Commerce reported that the merchandise trade deficit reached a record level of $666.2 billion in the 2004, a 21.7 percent increase since 2003. If we can address any portion of this deficit we must do it. This bill represents a straight-forward, common-sense solution. There are many U.S. industries facing unfair trade practices and this bill represents an institutional change that will allow the U.S. to thoroughly and vigorously investigate and prosecute these cases. For instance, China is a textbook case of how a foreign government has used a network of illegal subsidies and government interventions in order to destroy foreign competition, both in the United States as well as in many other countries. According to the U.S. China Economic and Security Commission, these actions have gone virtually unchallenged by the U.S. government, despite the fact that China's actions are in clear violations of both U.S. trade law and WTO rules. These ``anti-competitive actions by China's government include currency manipulation (estimated to provide as much as a 40 percent subsidy for Chinese exporters), illegal direct government subsidies of its money losing state-owned textile and apparel sectors, illegal export tax rebates (13 percent) and the deliberate extension of billions of dollars in non-performing (``free money'') loans by China's central banks in order to award a competitive advantage against foreign competition.'' The Commission goes on to say that ``in the case of China, the dramatic increase in subsidies has caused Chinese prices to drop by an average of 58 percent over the past two years in those product areas where quotas have been removed. As a result, China has gained a near monopoly share in these products over the last 24 months, taking 60 percent of the market.'' However, the U.S. government has failed to file any complaints at the WTO, despite the Chinese government's repeated and widespread violations of WTO rules. Our government's inaction is costing us millions of American jobs, crippling our manufacturing sector, distorting trade and investment patterns globally, and leaving hundreds of millions of Chinese workers vulnerable and mistreated. Let me give you a concrete example of the violations that are occurring. Counterfeit automotive products are a big problem in my home State of Michigan. Not only does it kill American jobs, but it has the potential to kill Americans as cheap shoddy automotive products replace legitimate ones of higher-quality. The American automotive parts and components industry looses an estimated $12 billion in sales on a global basis to counterfeiting. And, we don't even keep statistics on the potential loss of life. As many have said, we should understand that, if left unchecked, penetration by counterfeit automotive products, as well as other manufactured goods, has the potential to undermine the public's confidence and trust in what they are buying. We can't let that happen. In Michigan, we lost 51,000 manufacturing jobs between 1989 and 2003 due to China's unfair trade practices, according to the Economic Policy Institute. Unfortunately, the plant closings continue in Michigan and around the Nation. Over the past three months we see example after example of the damage a ``wait and see'' attitude has on workers in this country. We should not be shirking our responsibilities to enforce trade rules. This Bill helps us reverse the course upon which we find ourselves--it helps us save American jobs. I believe in trade and the benefits it can have for our manufacturers, farmers, and other industries. But, we need to have fair trade first and foremost. A Special Trade Prosecutor would have the power to stand up for our manufacturers and farmers and make sure that other countries are holding up their end of their trade agreements. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. STABENOW

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

Ms. STABENOW. Will my colleague yield?

Ms. STABENOW. I wanted to share with my colleague--and then ask a question--the fact that this is an emergency in Michigan. We have a big State, 10 million people, a very large State geographically, where folks often have to drive a long way in order to get to VA assistance. They are now in a situation of having to wait up to 6 months oftentimes to see a doctor and to get the services they need. I ask my colleague if she is hearing those similar stories around the country--that we wait 6 months, we drive hours and hours to get to a facility right now? Without the additional dollars, that is only going to continue and get worse. I wonder if that is what she is hearing as well.

Ms. STABENOW. I first thank the Senator from Washington State. She is exactly on the mark. I have joined with her on a number of occasions and appreciate her leadership on this issue of veterans health care. Would she not agree that veterans should not have to go through the process every year, fighting every year to try to get what they need and, at the same time, knowing that they give us everything they are asked to do in terms of putting their lives on the line, keeping us safe? Our men and women in Iraq right now are doing that and we have made a promise to them. Would she not agree that as a country, every year it seems as though we are back here trying to keep the promise.

Ms. STABENOW

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

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about an amendment my colleague Senator Lindsey Graham and I have submitted that would create a special trade prosecutor within the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. It is my understanding, working with our leader and the chairman of the Finance Committee, that we are not going to proceed with this amendment and instead will be entering into a colloquy with the chairman of the Finance Committee about his willingness to work with us to add language to create a special trade prosecutor on appropriate legislation coming to the Finance Committee to reauthorize trade laws. We look forward to working with him. I look forward to the colloquy we will be submitting for the Record shortly. I thought it was important to be able to speak about this issue for a moment because I know there are many of us on both sides of the aisle who are deeply concerned about what is happening as it relates to unfair trade practices by other countries. We want to work together on a bipartisan basis in order to address this, and address this as quickly as possible. That is why I am so pleased Senator Graham has joined with me as an author of this amendment. We also have a separate bill as well to do the same thing. We look forward to working with the Finance Committee in order to be able to create the prosecutor and to include legislation in a future bill coming to the Senate. This amendment is based on the concept by Senator Bayh from Indiana. I thank him for being a serious and thoughtful voice in this debate, for his ongoing advocacy, and for providing the Senate with solutions to fix our growing trade deficit. I congratulate Senator Bayh as well. This amendment would create a special trade prosecutor appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate with authority to ensure compliance with trade agreements and to protect our manufacturers as well as our farmers against unfair trade practices. This prosecutor will have the authority to investigate and recommend the prosecution of cases before the WTO, as well as those under trade agreements to which the United States is a party. Currently, we have an executive branch that is organized in such a way as to make prosecution of unfair trade cases unlikely, at best. This trade prosecutor would allow us to fix that. Coupled with the fact that our domestic manufacturing base has eroded due to unfair trade practices, and we have put our manufacturers and others in our economy in an impossible situation, we are asking our U.S. Trade Representative to do too much and the office is not able to deliver. We ask that they negotiate trade agreements with foreign nations at one moment and then turn around and enforce agreements the next, all without damaging the ability of the United States to negotiate the next trade deal. It is not working. While significant portions of our trade imbalances are not caused by lax enforcement, many of them are. In February, the Department of Commerce reported that the merchandise trade deficit reached a record level of $666.2 billion in 2004, a 21.7- percent increase since 2003. That translates into job loss. The aggregate U.S. trade deficit, which includes both goods and services, was $617.7 billion dollars, a 24-percent increase over 2003. We have many trading partners that fulfill their obligations under our agreements, but we also have many that do not. We should address this problem with a straightforward solution, a special trade prosecutor. Yesterday, we finally saw a glimmer of hope on the trade front as the administration began the process of imposing import quotas on shirts, trousers, and underwear. But it could have come much sooner if we had someone in the Government whose job it was to look for these violations and to recommend action. Commerce Secretary Gutierrez, a man whom I respect and strongly supported as Secretary of Commerce, coming from the great State of Michigan, is already having a positive impact. I hope he will pursue this case until our textile industry finally gets the relief it deserves. That is not enough. There are more U.S. industries facing similar unfair trade practices. We are proposing an institutional change that will allow us to thoroughly and vigorously investigate and prosecute these cases. For instance, China is a textbook case of how a foreign government has used a network of illegal subsidies and government interventions in order to destroy foreign competition both in the United States as well as in many other countries. According to the United States-China Economic and Security Commission, these actions have gone virtually unchallenged by the U.S. Government, despite the fact that China's actions are in clear violation of both U.S. trade law and WTO rules. These anticompetitiveness actions by the Chinese Government include currency manipulation. I am very proud to have been a cosponsor of the amendment that overwhelmingly passed earlier today, bipartisan amendment, to send a very strong message to China regarding the fact we will no longer tolerate the manipulation of their currency. It is causing job loss. It is causing pressure on our American businesses. I am pleased we were able to address that. It is estimated that currency manipulation provides as much as a 40- percent subsidy for Chinese exporters. In addition, the Chinese Government also has illegal direct Government subsidies of its state- owned textile and apparel sectors, illegal export tax rebates of about 13 percent, and the deliberate extension of billions of dollars in nonperforming or free money loans by China's central banks in order to award a competitive advantage against foreign competition. The Commission goes on to say that in the case of China, the dramatic increase in subsidies has caused Chinese prices to drop by an average of 58 percent over the past 2 years in those product areas where the quotas have been removed. As a result, China has begun a near monopoly share in these products over the last 24 months, gaining 60 percent of the market. Our businesses in Michigan just ask for a level playing field. They just ask the rules be fair. It is our job to make sure they are. However, our Government has failed to file any complaints at the WTO despite the Chinese Government's repeated and widespread violations of WTO rules. This is of grave concern to colleagues on both sides of the aisle and was reflected again in the vote earlier today as it relates to China's manipulation of their currency. Last year, as is widely reported, our Government refused to criticize China's human rights and labor rights record before the United Nations Human Rights Commission despite overwhelming evidence of human rights violations. Our Government's inaction is costing hundreds of thousands of American jobs--I argue that is rapidly becoming millions crippling our manufacturing sector, distorting trade and investment patterns globally, and leaving hundreds of millions of Chinese workers vulnerable and mistreated, as well. Let me give a few examples of the violations occurring. Counterfeit automotive products are a big problem in my home State of Michigan. Not only does it kill American jobs, but it has the potential to kill Americans as cheap, shoddy automotive products replace legitimate ones of higher quality. The American automotive part and components industry loses an estimated $12 billion in sales on a global basis to counterfeiting. We do not even keep statistics on the potential loss of life. We should understand if left unchecked, this penetration of counterfeit automotive products jobs has the potential to undermine the public's confidence and trust in what they are buying. We cannot let that happen. Our amendment, the effort we will work on with the Finance Committee, will give us a voice and a watchdog so we can take appropriate action sooner, more aggressively, more appropriately. In Michigan, we lost 51,000 manufacturing jobs from 1989-2003 due to China's unfair trade practices, according to the Economic Policy Institute. Unfortunately, the plant closings continue in Michigan and around the Nation. Over the past three months we see example after example of the damage a ``wait and see'' attitude has on workers in this country. Lear Corporation continues to cut jobs in Grand Rapids, a total of 300 to date, and the company promises more layoffs this summer. Also, in Grand Rapids, Steelcase will cut 600 jobs. The ripple effect of Lear Corporation's decision will lead Advanced Plastics in Schoolcraft, MI, to layoff more than 100 employees this spring. The City of Edmore recently lost 120 high paying manufacturing jobs at the local Hitachi plant. Those jobs are moving to China. In Alma, 260 employees at Oxford Automotive are now unemployed due to the competitive pressures in the automotive industry, a large part of which is due to current manipulation by Japan and China. And the examples don't end there as we all know. We should not be shirking our responsibilities to enforce trade rules. This amendment helps us do that. And it helps us save American jobs. I believe in trade and the benefits it can have for our manufacturers, farmers, and other industries. But, we need to have fair trade first and foremost. A Special Trade Prosecutor would have the power to stand up for our manufacturers and farmers and make sure that other countries are holding up their end of their trade agreements.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, first I say to my friend and colleague, I am shocked to hear him say the people of America who have paid into the Social Security trust fund, the baby boomers, do not have a secured obligation by all of us. Is the Senator saying whether it is moral or whether it is legal, or is he saying we do not have to pay those benefits? He is actually saying that for the folks who have paid in as baby boomers that we are not obligated to pay those benefits?

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, to follow up on the fact that we are hearing that there is no money in the trust fund, I am quite shocked to hear that because back in the 1980s, when the decision was made to come together, President Reagan, based on Alan Greenspan's commission, with Bob Dole and Tip O'Neill, they came together and on purpose designed a system to create surpluses for all of us baby boomers so there would be more dollars available in a surplus. And, in fact, what the President looks at, of course, just like when you go to a bank, you don't look in and just see dollars because there are investments being made and so on. In the Social Security trust fund, individuals have been given secured bonds, the equivalent of a secured bond, an IOU, each one of us as individuals, with the full faith and credit of the United States behind it. My question is this: We are giving those same kinds of assurances to those who buy our foreign debt, that we have the full faith and credit of the United States behind it. Would you suggest that we would pay China back and Japan back and our foreign creditors before we would pay back the people of America who have paid into the Social Security trust fund and have been given a secured IOU?

Ms. STABENOW. I want to make it clear that we Democrats believe with all our hearts and souls we have a responsibility to pay and we will pay those obligations. To somehow say that it is different to pay a foreign country than it is to pay our own people the obligations when they are both secured obligations--this is not something written down on a little piece of paper. This is a secured obligation with the full faith and credit of the United States of America behind it. So I ask my colleague in return, the simple thing to do here, the very simple thing to do would be to go back and vote again on simply making a policy statement. Why didn't my colleagues, either of my colleagues, vote to say ``put Social Security first,'' let's make sure we secure the obligation, keep it secure for 75 years, and then we can give 70 percent of the tax cuts; to say to those most blessed in this country, will you take 70 percent of $11.6 trillion rather than 100 percent so every single person cannot only have retirement, but have a disability policy, have survivor benefits? Isn't that based on the great values of America in terms of paying into a system, knowing it is going to be there, working hard all your life and creating a way for people to care about each other and have community? To me this would be the easiest thing, and we could do it tomorrow if we had the votes to do it.

Ms. STABENOW. I will do that later. Thank you.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, given the fact the President has indicated that the privatized accounts do not solve the solvency problem for Social Security, and given the fact that at this point colleagues have said they are not interested in putting Social Security first before additional tax cuts or new mandatory spending, what would my colleagues' proposals be at this point? Assuming the privatized accounts, as has been said--that is a philosophical difference; folks may or may not wish to privatize Social Security, but it does not add a day to the solvency of the Social Security trust fund. I ask my colleagues, what would your proposals to protect and secure Social Security be for the future?

Ms. STABENOW. I will answer that for my colleague. As Senator Durbin just said to me on the side, it will not be privatization, and that is absolutely true. The American people, American families, can absolutely count on the fact that it will not be privatizing Social Security. I would argue that the amendment we put up 2 weeks ago that simply says in the overall budget process, which is the value system for our country, the blueprint, is represented in what we do in our Federal checkpoint. The reality is, if we said we were going to take about 30 percent of what is being given over the next 75 years to those most blessed in this country, who are not worried about Social Security or Medicare or other kinds of opportunities, if we just ask them to take a little bit less, we would be able to secure Social Security for 75 years. The other thing I would say about the issue of asking folks about pensions, we have all been told by our folks that retirement is about a three-legged stool: Social Security, pension, and savings. When it comes to savings, the risk is with us to save. I believe we ought to create more opportunities for that. When it comes to pensions today for workers, it is becoming more of a risk for the worker, not a defined benefit but a defined contribution. The leg of the stool that has been secure, that we will fight to keep secure, is Social Security. I will never forget people working for Enron who came into my office 2 years ago, men in their fifties who worked all their lives and played by the rules and invested in their company, and one man with tears in his eyes said to me: Thank God for Social Security. It is the only thing I have left, and I never thought I would be in this situation. Social Security is not a 401(k). It is not meant to be a pension system. It is America's families' life insurance policy, retirement disability, and survivor's benefits. It has worked now for years and years. The issue is how do we keep it going.