Debbie Stabenow

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. With all due respect, I am trying to figure out the new math in my head because the math that the Senator is talking about certainly does not add up to anything that I have seen. I would encourage folks who are watching to go to democrats.gov and use the calculator based on a 6-percent rate of growth that some financial folks put together where they can put in their date of birth and their average yearly earnings and find out for themselves how they would do. So far we have not found anybody who does better under these privatized accounts. So when one is talking about what we ought to do, we need to start with the reality that the privatized accounts turn Social Security from a guaranteed benefit into a guaranteed gamble, No. 1. Secondly, there is nothing in what the Senator is talking about that has a relationship to what we are hearing about these private accounts. I said to Secretary Snow in a committee hearing that I understand folks have to pay some of this back, so let me give an example. My daughter is 25. Let us say I give her $1,000. At retirement I tell her I want the $1,000 back, 3-percent interest, plus inflation. Is that what you are talking about? And he basically said yes. He did not disagree with that. What we are seeing is a lot of hocus-pocus, a lot of where is the pea on the table moving things around. Of course, we have nothing specifically in writing yet from the President, which is one of the problems. But what we are seeing is a lot of talk that does not have a relationship to reality. The reality is that for the first time, in 2017 we begin to dip into the surplus that the Senator and I have been paying into as baby boomers all of our working lives. It is a commitment. It is a secured obligation and we are going to pay that to folks. So the question is, what happens in 2052 when that surplus is no longer available? And if we can take privatization off the table, the Senator has very willing and able colleagues on this side of the aisle who want to work with the Senator to do those things that will secure it for the future.

Ms. STABENOW. First, thanks to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for arranging in this incredibly important debate, Senator Kyl and Senator Dorgan, for bringing us together in this way. Social Security is a great American success story. Senator Durbin and I, while we were not around when it was created, are very proud of the fact that we as Democrats led the way to create a great American success story. Our goal today is to keep the security in Social Security. That is the fundamental issue, I believe, for each American family. We are very proud of the fact that Social Security is a great American success story because prior to Social Security, half of the seniors in our country, half of older Americans, were in poverty. Today it is about 10 percent. We still need to work on the 10 percent but this is a great American success story. We want to make sure nothing is done to unravel this. It is important we have this debate, though, and we talk about the fact that Social Security is America's insurance policy. It is our families' insurance policy because it is more than just retirement, which is so critical. But it is also a disability policy. Most of us do not have a private disability policy. In fact, 75 percent of us do not. It is a disability policy; it is a survivors policy. Heaven forbid if mom or dad lose their life, where they are not there to care for their children. In fact, in my husband's own family, when he was 10 years old, his father died. His mom was older and not well, and he and his mom literally survived on Social Security. This is a great American success story. Anything we do that pulls dollars out of an insurance policy will cut those who are left. No matter how forcefully the President or our colleagues say that somehow some folks can be protected, when you pull dollars out of an insurance system, it is not possible. I think it is very important for us to understand that as well. Also, we can each have our own opinions but not our own facts. There are a couple of different numbers floating around, but I would suggest to you that the folks whom we are obligated to look to, the Congressional Budget Office--the folks where nobody is appointed by the President, such as the Social Security trustees--those who are the nonpartisan folks we refer to all the time, they tell us, as has been said, that the trust fund can pay 100 percent of its obligations until 2052, and after that, if nothing was done, it would be about 80 percent, maybe 78, 80 percent the trust fund could pay. There is no question there is a gap, and we are here to say we want to work with you to address that gap. That is what we ought to be doing. What we know, and the President has already admitted, as have others, is the privatization scheme proposed does nothing to fix this; nothing. It does not add a day, does not add an hour to 2052. In fact, it makes it worse. There is a solution. In fact, there are a number of things we can talk about. But 2 weeks ago we had a vote on the floor on the budget resolution. This was a vote based on an amendment that Senator Kent Conrad and I had to put Social Security first. I know people are concerned about Social Security, those who support continuing it. But the reality is, we had a vote 2 weeks ago on an amendment that simply said, before we permanently extend tax cuts predominantly to those most blessed in our country, who are the least worried about Social Security, or before we add new mandatory spending, we should secure Social Security first. It is staggering when we look at the differences in values and priorities in this Congress and with the administration. Mr. President, $3.7 trillion is a lot of money; $3.7 trillion would secure Social Security for 75 years. That is, what, a third, a third maybe, of what we are going to be asked to vote on later this year and beyond to extend tax breaks predominantly for the wealthiest Americans for 75 years. What are our values? What are our priorities? What does this say about us as a country? We can easily, by putting Social Security first, fill that gap for 75 years. And I believe we ought to do it. Specifically, on why privatization is something that does not make sense. Privatization does three things we are concerned about: It increases the national debt drastically; it increases administrative costs; and it adds deep benefit cuts. No matter who says, ``We'll protect this group or that group, these folks will be OK,'' if you take money out of the insurance system, everybody gets cut. That is the reality. The first thing is the budget deficit, the deficit for the country. When we look at what is happening right now, it is astounding. We have the largest Federal deficit right now in the history of the country. We should all be extremely concerned about it. It is $4.6 trillion, projected. This adds, over 20 years, another $4.9 trillion. It more than doubles the national deficit in order to do privatization. One of the things I am particularly worried about, both as a member of the Banking Committee and a member of the Budget Committee, is who is buying that debt? Who is buying that debt from us? This is at a time when we are concerned about national security and trade deficits and what is happening around the world. Well, the top two folks buying it are Japan and China. But can you imagine, South Korea and OPEC own some of our deficit. What happens when we add more to that deficit? And what happens when foreign countries buy more and more of our debt? This is a bad idea to add more to our debt. Let me add a couple of points.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I thank you and my colleagues very much. This is an important debate, and I appreciate being able to participate in it. The President's privatized accounts, we know, will do three things, and that is why my colleagues and I are opposed to the privatized accounts. First of all, they will greatly increase the national debt. In fact, do you know what folks are going to own with this? Seventeen thousand dollars more in debt for every man, woman, and child in the United States. That is what they are going to own. It is a lot more debt and a lot higher interest rates as a result of this plan. This is a bad idea. The other thing that doesn't make any sense to me is that right now Social Security, which is retirement--and we do have a secured obligation to make sure that we pay it, but it is retirement, disability, and it is a life insurance policy. For that we pay about a half a percent in administration. On average we are told that it could be upwards of 20 percent, maybe 10, maybe 25, but we are told by the experts, 20 percent in order to administer an annuity or other kind of private account. One of the things I find interesting is that among folks who are really pushing for this idea around here are those folks who would be paid to administer these accounts. I understand we now have something like five financial services lobbyists for every one Senator now here on Capitol Hill. Certainly there are folks who will make a lot of money from this, but it is wrong. This system works right now and we pay a half a percent. The final thing I would say is it is estimated that the average person over 20 years, the average retiree, will lose $152,000 under the approach the President is talking about. This is wrong. This is not better for people. This is, in fact, worse. I agree with my colleagues, and in fact let me also say I would welcome folks going to my Web site or any of my colleagues' Web sites to learn more about Social Security and the facts. We do need to be working together, not only to secure Social Security for the future past 2052, but we also need to work on those other ideas that create opportunity for people. One of my great concerns is that one-third of the cuts proposed by the President in the budget are in education. That is opportunity. That is the opportunity for ownership in the future. Why don't we focus on jobs and health care and those things immediately that need to be addressed? We welcome those debates as well and we welcome working with our colleagues to keep the security in Social Security.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. I ask for 2 minutes off the resolution.

Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I appreciate very much having an opportunity to support this amendment and to be a cosponsor. I thank my colleague from Maryland for his leadership. This is a small way in which we support local communities to create jobs, revitalize neighborhoods, support infrastructure, water, sewer, roads--those things that help create jobs. From the highlights of the 2004 CDBG accomplishments, they show very specifically that they created or had the retention of more than 90,000 jobs last year. In a State like Michigan, this is incredibly important. Over 130,000 rental units and single-family homes were rehabbed, 85,000 individuals received employment training, 1.5 million children were served with afterschool enrichment programs, childcare services were provided to over 100,000 children and their families, 700 crime prevention and awareness programs, and 11,000 Americans became homeowners. What is more important to each of us as parents than to be able to make sure we have shelter and a home for our children? These are partnerships with local communities, small amounts of revenue that we bring together with our communities to make major impacts on the quality of life. That is what we are about--to partner with our local communities. I urge the support of the amendment.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise to thank the Senator from Oregon for his leadership. He and the Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Bingaman, have led an effort I am proud to cosponsor. His eloquence is meaningful. This is an opportunity for us to work in a bipartisan way, to lay out a process to achieve what we all want in terms of efficiencies, but to do it in a way that is thoughtful, caring, and appropriate, and to allow us to make the best decisions without hurting the most vulnerable people in this country. I thank the Senator for his leadership.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, will my friend from Oregon yield for a moment?

Ms. STABENOW. This amendment reflects what is best about America. I urge its adoption.

Ms. STABENOW. I thank the Chair. First I say to our esteemed colleague who chairs the Budget Committee, I think, as I have said before, he has done an excellent job on the committee and the floor in allowing important discussions and input. We all know this is about choices and priorities. We last year passed the tax loophole closings, as they have been called, some $23 billion in a business tax bill, a tax bill that I supported that did not end up becoming law. We have already joined saying there are dollars we believe would better be spent in other ways, in fairness from a tax standpoint that tax loopholes should be closed, and those equal more than what we are talking about here in terms of health care for our most vulnerable citizens. We also, as my colleague from New Jersey has said, have choices in this country about where everyone will contribute to the quality of life, what it means to be an American, to the strength of America, to what we are proud of and our best values, or whether only some people will do that. This is a debate about values and choices. That is what a budget resolution is. It is a picture of who we are. It is a picture of our values. I can't think of anything that is worse in this budget resolution than the picture that says for the most vulnerable children, the poorest children, or poorest seniors in the country, we are going to take away health care for them. That doesn't fit with what I know about my faith and beliefs about helping the least of these. It does not reflect what the people of Michigan believe about what is important in supporting each other in community and caring about each other. In a way it balances priorities. Obviously, we want dollars that are spent efficiently and effectively, and we want to give the States flexibility. In my home State, I am very proud of what they have been able to do in bulk purchasing for prescription drugs under Medicaid and working with other States and saving dollars, and we certainly know we want flexibility for them under Medicaid. But we also know that Medicaid is the single greatest provider of health insurance, covering over 21 million children, our future; 800,000 children in Michigan, our future. How many times do we say children are our future? Well, this budget does not reflect that. It does not reflect that as it relates to funding their future skills and technology and education, and it certainly doesn't reflect their future if you are a poor child whose parents do not have health care. Let me speak about a couple of people in Michigan. Betty Counts, who lives in Detroit with her daughter Yvette, who has mental and physical handicaps, is quoted in the Detroit News as saying, ``It's getting more frustrating trying to get the services I need and the help my daughter needs.'' And the budget cuts will certainly make things worse for her. Ask Jimia Williams how much Medicaid means to her. She lives in Flint and has a 19-month-old son who has seizures and asthma. She works 35 to 40 hours a week--and most of the people we are talking about are people who are working; 80 percent of the uninsured are working 1 job, 2 jobs, 3 jobs that do not provide health insurance--but her only source of health insurance right now is Medicaid. Medicaid pays for her young son to see a neurologist and get treatments for his seizures and his asthma, and it also pays for his medication, inhalers for both of them. She said, ``Without Medicaid I would not be able to pay for my son's medical needs.'' I could go on to so many different situations, but the bottom line of this vote is about our values and our choices.

Ms. STABENOW. To my colleagues, I rise to speak in support of the Talent-Stabenow amendment. It is very simple, as my colleague indicated. It is extremely important as the Senate begins the work of SAFETEA transportation legislation. As in past resolutions, the current budget resolution in the reserve fund section allows the budget chairman to make adjustments to the surface transportation allocation. However, this budget resolution as written ties the hands of the Finance Committee and restricts the transportation funding options available to them such as using interest from the highway trust fund and drawing down the trust fund balance. All the Talent-Stabenow amendment would do is modify the language to put all the funding options on the table. This change would be identical to the provision in the current House budget resolution and what has been included in past House and Senate budget resolutions. We all know how critical SAFETEA is. Transportation issues in each of our States are absolutely critical. The transportation bill creates jobs. It supports communities. It uplifts all of our roads and highways and bridges in a critically important way. I am hopeful this amendment will receive strong bipartisan support so we can pass a strong safety bill with all the options on the table and make sure we have the options available to make it the very best bill we possibly can, given all of the concerns regarding funding.

Ms. STABENOW. As the cosponsor with my colleague from Missouri, I would appreciate a couple of minutes to speak on the Talent-Stabenow amendment before proceeding with the other amendments.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the Cantwell amendment. First, as a member of the Senate Budget Committee, I strongly believe that the Arctic Refuge language does not belong in the budget bill and I am deeply concerned about the precedent this sets. The Arctic Refuge provision in the budget resolution provides special reconciliation protection to a major piece of environmental legislation. This is wrong and an abuse of the budget process. Reconciliation was designed to help Congress pass a large package of measures to reduce the deficit, not to be used to resolve one major policy issue. If this provision is allowed to stand, those who advocate drilling in Alaska could pass a bill opening up Arctic Refuge and we would not be able to offer amendments to increase our use of renewable fuels unless we got 60 votes. This is unfair and would not allow for a full debate on energy and environmental policy like we had in last Congress. Now let's talk about the facts when it comes to drilling in the Arctic refuge. First, the Arctic Refuge would provide a 6-month supply of oil--which would not be available for 10 years. This is not a political argument but one based on nonpartisan scientific analysis of this issue. According to the 1998 U.S. Geological Survey study, there is estimated to be 3.2-5.2 billion barrels of economically recoverable oil in the Arctic Refuge. This is equivalent to the amount of oil the U.S. consumes in about 6 months. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, production from the Arctic refuge would not even come on line for 10 years or more. The Arctic Refuge would not affect current oil or gasoline prices. The price of oil is a world price and is largely determined by the international market. Given the U.S. share of the global market, the amount of oil available from Arctic Refuge production would not significantly impact global oil prices, or U.S. oil or gasoline prices. Ninety-five percent of Alaska's North Slope is already open to oil and gas drilling. Ninety-five percent of the potential oil reserves of Alaska's North Slope are already designated for potential leasing or open to exploration and drilling. The last 5 percent--the coastal plain of the Arctic Refuge--is the only wild stretch of the coast of Alaska's North Slope that remains off-limits. Established by President Dwight Eisenhower in 1960, the Arctic Refuge remains the only conservation area in North America that protects a complete range of arctic and sub-arctic landscapes. The Arctic Refuge would not reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil. According to the Energy Information Administration, EIA, the independent analytical agency within the Department of Energy, drilling in the Arctic Refuge is projected to reduce the amount of foreign oil consumed by the U.S. in 2020 from 62 to 60 percent--only a 2 percent decrease! Drilling in the Arctic Refuge will not make a dent on our dependence on foreign oil. One of the arguments I have heard from across the aisle is that drilling in Arctic Refuge would create jobs. My home State of Michigan currently has the second highest unemployment rate in the country. There is nothing more that I would like to see on the Senate floor than a bill to create jobs and I would vote wholeheartedly for such a proposal. But that's not what we have before us now. We are not debating a well-funded highway bill that would create jobs. Last year's Senate bill would have created over 830,000 jobs across this country--99,000 jobs in Michigan alone--but it died in conference because of the Bush administration's opposition. We are not debating the rising cost of health care and how it's hurting our manufacturers. In 2003, General Motors, the largest private purchaser of health care in the world, spent more covering 1.2 million individuals than it did on steel. We are not debating how to stop Chinese currency manipulation which unfairly taxes our U.S. goods overseas, and is forcing our American manufacturers to close their doors. We are not even debating the construction of the Alaska natural gas pipeline which would create more than 400,000 new jobs and provide a huge opportunity for our steel industry. Instead we are debating drilling in one of the most environmentally pristine areas in the world just for a 6 month supply of oil. This isn't an energy solution and it certainly isn't a jobs solution. I urge my colleagues to support the Cantwell amendment.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I appreciate my colleagues allowing additional time for me to speak. I thank my friends who have introduced this amendment, which I am so pleased to be cosponsoring, Senators Snowe and Wyden, for their ongoing leadership. I very much appreciate their leadership and eloquence in talking about this issue. I find it interesting in this debate that Senator Daschle is used in quotes from the other side, from the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee. The reality is that was a different proposal. That was a Medicare prescription drug benefit very different than what we ended up passing. What is most important is that the former Secretary of Health and Human Services, Tommy Thompson, said as he left office that he would have liked to have had the opportunity to negotiate lower prices. If that was in the bill, why, when he left, did he say he wished he had the ability to negotiate lower prices? I am sure it is because the former Secretary knows what every smart buyer knows, that in the marketplace, the more you buy of anything, the better deal you get. That is what we are talking about. Right now, today, the only entity in the country that cannot negotiate for lower group prices is Medicare. What sense does that make when we are talking about precious dollars going to seniors and the disabled to buy medicine in this country. What sense does that make? States, Fortune 500 companies, large pharmacy chains, the Veterans Administration--they can all use bargaining clout to obtain lower drug prices for the patients they represent. In fact, the Veterans Administration has had great success in negotiating lower prices; in some cases, as much as 65 percent. I am told, and I have seen studies that show, if we gave the same bargaining authority to Medicare that the VA has, you could actually close the gap in the prescription drug benefit. There is enough savings that you could close the gap so that everyone would be receiving prescription drugs without what has been commonly called the donut hole. These are huge savings. As a member of the Budget Committee, I have watched the numbers go up for the Medicare bill. We thought it was $400 billion. Now CBO says $593 billion and counting over the next 10 years. We have to do something, provide the tools for Health and Human Services to be able to negotiate, to be able to lower those prices. Right now we have a situation where that is not allowed. It makes absolutely no sense. When I talk to people at home and they ask me, Why in the world Medicare is prohibited from using their full force to be able to negotiate, I say it is crazy. This makes absolutely no sense, unless you are one of those folks who does not want them negotiating, in terms of the prices. So I urge the adoption of this amendment and thank my colleagues again for doing an outstanding job in putting it together. I urge the Snowe-Wyden amendment giving the Secretary of Health and Human Services the authority to negotiate drug prices on behalf of seniors and the people of our country with disabilities be agreed to. It would be wonderful to see a very strong bipartisan vote in favor of this very important amendment.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. I appreciate that. I know we have important matters to discuss on the floor. Let me take the final few moments and speak about the realities of Social Security and what is happening now, what we know to be true about the facts. There has been a lot of misinformation about the situation with Social Security, in terms of its financial security. I think it is important. We all can have different opinions and views and thoughts about what should happen, but we should not have different facts. The folks we all rely on, as we know, really have no philosophical position. These are the number crunchers whose responsibility it is to tell it to us like it is, the Congressional Budget Office. They tell us this: The Social Security trust fund can pay 100 percent of its obligation until 2052. Beyond that, if we do not do anything, and we need to, they can pay about 80 percent, maybe slightly less, of all the benefits that are currently in law. We know we have a cap. We know we have a problem. The President's proposal does nothing to fix this. It actually makes it worse. It makes it worse by adding to the massive debt. It doesn't add anything to the trust fund and, as the Senator from North Dakota was indicating, the accounts are not even fully given to the individual. There is also a lot of misunderstanding of even how that would work. I would welcome anyone to go to either my Web site or to a number of my Democratic colleagues' Web sites where we have a calculator on the Web site where you can put in your date of birth and average yearly wages over your lifetime, and you can find out for yourself how you would do under the President's proposal. But the reality is we do have a gap. We know that. That is why this amendment is so important. This amendment basically says that in order to address this gap in funding that comes after 2052, we want to put Social Security first before extension of or any new additional revenue losses, before new tax cuts or any new mandatory spending, that we secure Social Security, that we close that gap for the next 75 years, that we put it at the front of the line before we talk about revenue spending on new things, that we put it at the front of the line. If in fact this issue has such a high priority for the President, traveling around the country for 60 days to 60 cities, all the effort and debate going on, you would think we would have universal support for this amendment; that it would be a bipartisan vote for this amendment. The only reason not to do it is if you do not support Social Security. If you do not support Social Security as it stands as an insurance policy, then you won't like this amendment. You will not want this amendment. If you prefer to privatize the whole system, then you won't like this amendment. But if you support Social Security as being there for all of our families, if you believe, as I do, that it is a great American success story and we should celebrate it, strengthen it, and secure it, then this amendment is the right amendment for you. I will go back to the very beginning and say this is always about values and priorities. In fact, the budget resolution is our value document. Just as looking at our own personal checkbooks tells us a little bit about ourselves, looking at the budget resolution of the Federal Government, tells us something about all of us and the people we represent. Right now this budget resolution is out of balance. This budget resolution is reckless because it adds to the national debt. It does nothing to pay down in a real way the deficit that doesn't even include all of the expenditures. And it is out of touch with American families. It is plain out of touch. When we are talking about a third of those cuts being in education and workforce development and vocational education, we are talking about massive cuts in Medicaid to our families and our children and our seniors in nursing homes, this does not represent the values of the majority of Americans. We need some balance. That is not reflected in this budget resolution. I will go back to the final point, that this is about values and priorities. As an example, if we were to look at the next 75 years and the costs without new tax cuts that are being proposed, the current costs of the tax cuts for the next 75 years, it is $11.6 trillion, and to save Social Security is $3.7 trillion. I would say to ask those most blessed in our country, receiving the majority of the benefits, to be willing to share in some way and to leave Social Security secure is the right thing to do.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, this amendment is about keeping our families safe and our communities safe. It would restore the $1.6 billion in cuts to first responders, our police, firefighters, and emergency workers. These cuts are included in the President's budget and in this mark. With this amendment, we would restore those funds, as well as add $1.6 billion to reduce the deficit. There is an offset we are proposing that we close tax loopholes that were dropped from last year's FSC bill in order to pay for this. In my State of Michigan, and I am sure in your States as well, every police chief told me they have fewer officers on the streets today than on 9/11/2001. This is wrong. They are counting on us to provide them the resources in partnership with them to keep our citizens safe. Also, the Byrne grants we restored will provide for additional law enforcement personnel in our county courthouses, where we have seen recent violence. I urge that we adopt the amendment.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I am very proud to be joining my colleague on this amendment. For all of us who have talked about Social Security, this is the way to put it first in the budget process. This is the way to secure it for 75 years.

Ms. STABENOW. I thank the Chair.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I am so concerned about this. I appreciate being reminded that I needed to send the amendment to the desk. This is so serious. This morning I had a meeting with our city council members from around the State of Michigan. I hear stories about the fact that one police department cannot talk to the city next to them or, in some cases, the police department cannot talk to the fire department. The whole question of communications and interoperability and the training that is needed to go with that is absolutely critical. This is not the time to be cutting first responder dollars to our communities. We ought to be, in fact, increasing those dollars because when the terrorist experts talk to us, they do not say if we are attacked in the future, they say when we will be attacked in the future. So it is absolutely irresponsible to be cutting the dollars for our local police, fire departments, and emergency responders. We need to make homeland security a priority. That is what my amendment does. I remind my colleagues that 2 years ago, we received a report that was authored by a blue ribbon panel chaired by former Republican Senator Warren Rudman. Their findings were daunting about the inadequacies in our homeland security efforts. They indicated that we needed a total of $98.4 billion over the next 5 years to truly be able to tell the families we represent that we have done everything possible to keep them safe. But instead of adding those dollars to make sure the radio equipment is there and the officers are there and to make sure the training is available, what is happening is we are seeing a $1.6 billion cut. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. We should not be ignoring this panel's recommendations. We should, in fact, be following them. As I said before, after 9/11, I did meetings all around Michigan. To a person, I was told that they did not have the resources they needed, and then coming back to them in the last year, I have asked, How is it going? They said we are worse off than we were before, which makes absolutely no sense. I will add one important point, given the current situation as it relates to violence in our courthouses, that we should recognize is in this budget cut. The Byrne grants, which my amendment restores, can be used to hire, equip, and train additional law enforcement personnel in our courthouses. With the recent tragedy in Atlanta, GA, now is not the time to be cutting resources to our courthouses. All we have to do is look around, look at the headlines day after day, watch the news on television, listen on the radio and we know there has been a series of ongoing violent efforts in our country. Now is not the time to be cutting back on police or fire, whether it is to prepare for a terrorist attack or to keep our citizens safe today. When the President talks about overwhelming cuts, basically eliminating the COPS Program which has been so important in putting police officers on the streets, this makes absolutely no sense. I have supported funding for our military men and women who are serving us so bravely in Iraq and Afghanistan because we said it is important that we come together and provide the resources that are necessary. We have done that on a bipartisan basis. We need to do the same thing for our men and women who are on the home front who are working hard every day to keep us safe. That is what my amendment will do. I would like to provide several examples of the deficiencies the Independent Task Force on Emergency Responders detailed in the Rudman report: On average, our fire departments have only half the number of radios needed on a shift, and only enough breathing apparatuses for one-third of their firefighters. Police departments across America do not have the protective gear to respond to a weapons of mass destruction attack. Our public health laboratories lack the basic equipment to respond to a chemical and biological attack and most report that they are overwhelmed with testing requests. Finally, our first responders do not have the equipment they need to determine what kind of hazardous material they may be facing. Why have we ignored this panel's recommendations? The administration's support for first responders has been on a steady decline. For example, last year funding for Michigan's State Homeland Security grants program dropped from $47 million to $29.7 million, In this budget, the administration eliminates the Law Enforcement Terrorism Training Program, cutting another $400 million from our first responders. I have spoken with police and fire chiefs across my State, and to a person they all tell me that they have fewer police officers and firefighters on their forces than they did before 9/11 because of funding cuts. During a series of 11 meetings in the summer of 2003 I met with first responders and community leaders in Michigan. They told me in no uncertain terms that they are woefully underfunded and underequipped. Over the last year and a half, they have continued to remind me of that fact. The situation in Michigan is of particular importance to me but this is not solely a Michigan problem. This is a national problem and one that has been ignored for far too long. My amendment would restore the cuts to the first responder services in the President's Department of Homeland Security budget. The amendment is fully offset and will also help reduce the deficit. The amendment is paid for by closing tax loopholes that were originally included in the Senate version of the FSC/ETI bill, but were taken out in the final conference bill. Closing these loopholes will generate $3.2 billion in revenue, half of which will be used to restore the $1.6 billion in first responder program cuts, and the remaining $1.6 billion will be put towards reducing the deficit. The assistance to firefighters grants, the State Homeland Security grants and the Urban Area Security Initiative are critically important. Also important are the COPS Program and the Byrne justice assistance grants. While some may not think these services help keep our homeland secure against terrorism, I believe that every police officer we put on the street with the proper training is one more set of eyes that could stop a terrorist attack from ever happening or respond to one, God forbid we are attacked again. The President's cuts to these programs not only impair our ability to prevent and respond to terrorist attacks, but are a more fundamental assault on the safety of our communities. These programs help in unexpected ways. For example, Byrne grants, which my amendment restores, can be used to hire, train, and equip additional law enforcement personnel in our courthouses. With the recent tragedy in Atlanta, GA, now is not the time to cut the resources that keep our citizens safe. The COPS Program has brought results in Michigan and the rest of the Nation. COPS grants have put more officers on our streets and in our schools to make our communities safer. These officers have helped reduce crime throughout the country. According to the Department of Justice, every $1 increase per resident of COPS grant funding contributes to a decline of 10 violent crimes and 27 property crimes per 100,000 residents. When it comes to providing funding for our military men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan, we have provided the resources necessary. Unfortunately, we have not done the same when it comes to protecting us here at home. When it comes to protecting our communities, we should not be penny wise and pound foolish. Therefore, we must strengthen our resolve and do whatever it takes to keep us safe. Can we tell our fellow Americans that we have provided our first responders with the equipment and training they need to respond quickly to a terrorist incident and prevent loss of life? If we cut $1.6 billion from the men and women on the front lines of our homeland security, the answer must be no. I remind my colleagues that when you call 9-1-1, you do not get someone at the Homeland Security Department in Washington, DC. You get your local police or fire department. Local police and firefighters are ready and waiting to try to stop a terrorist attack or help save lives if one happens. If we do not adopt this amendment, I believe we are not doing everything we can to keep our country safe. I urge my colleagues, before they vote on this amendment, to ask themselves are we doing enough here at home to keep us safe?

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

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I again thank my colleague from North Dakota for his incredible leadership on this issue and speaking about what is responsible and what should be the priorities for our country. I understand the senior Senator from Iowa is also waiting to speak. I appreciate him allowing me to offer this amendment first. As we are talking about priorities, of course our first priority is to keep Social Security secure for the future. Putting Social Security first is one of the very first amendments we will be voting on today. But we also have another priority which is to keep Americans safe. And that is what my amendment will do. My amendment will restore the $1.6 billion in cuts to first responder services that are included in this budget resolution as proposed by the President. It also will put $1.6 billion towards paying down the national debt. These are two worthy goals: pay down the national debt and restore the resources we need at a minimum to keep us where we are in terms of the resources for our communities to keep us safe. I am very concerned that 4 years past 9/11/2001 when I visit my police chiefs around the State of Michigan and I speak with fire departments and first responders, almost all of them tell me they have fewer officers today than they did on 9/11/2001. I think the public would be shocked to understand that. I know I was shocked. They expect more from us than that, with all of the alerts and codes and concerns that have been raised--and legitimate concerns that have been raised-- about what is happening in terms of terrorism, to know that we have fewer police officers on the streets now than before the attack on 9/11 is simply reckless and irresponsible. I am very concerned that we are seeing cuts in a number of very important programs. I am told I need to send the amendment to the desk. I apologize for not having done that sooner, Mr. President. I send the amendment to the desk, and then I will continue. I ask unanimous consent to add Senators Levin, Mikulski, Kerry, Corzine, Harkin, Biden, Pryor, Clinton, and Akaka as cosponsors of the amendment.

Ms. STABENOW. That is correct.

Ms. STABENOW. Let's say 5 minutes, and we will see.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I would appreciate 5 minutes to offer an amendment.

Ms. STABENOW. I am happy to proceed for a moment.

Ms. STABENOW. I appreciate that very much, but I notice a colleague here as well and I would not proceed.