Debbie Stabenow

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I urge adoption of the amendment.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from North Dakota for his outstanding leadership on this issue. I join in his characterization of this entire budget resolution as reckless and out of touch with the lives of the American people. While I disagree with the chairman, I first want to say I appreciate the way he has conducted himself with the Budget Committee and the resolution. I appreciate very much his giving us the opportunity to debate all of these issues. But I could not disagree more with the characterization of what is going on or with what is happening in terms of playing politics. I start by saying that this amendment puts Social Security first. It gets our priorities straight. Second, Social Security is our money-- your money, individual money. Each one of us pays into Social Security. It is our American insurance policy so that we know we have a sense of dignity and a foundation for retirement. Then if we become disabled, there is a disability policy or, Heaven forbid, a worker loses their life, something is there for their family. It is your money. It is my money. There is not a penny of the general fund. This is our money that goes into Social Security, and we are saying we want to keep it secure. The American public is counting on us to keep it secure for the future. And we are saying, with all the talk about Social Security these days, it is time to step up and to fix it and to put Social Security first. I also say to my chairman, it is so easy to demagog on tax cuts. It is so easy. It is the easiest thing for an elected official to do: Don't worry about paying the bills; don't worry about how the schools are; don't worry about enough police and firefighters; don't worry if you cannot drink the water or breathe the air let's just talk about tax cuts. You know what, we know it is your money. For those watching, it is all of our individual money, but we also know something else. It is your schools. It is your roads. It is your health care system. It is your military fighting so courageously for us overseas. It is your veterans who are coming home. It is your communities asking us to partner with them so they can provide jobs, economic development in your communities. It is your debt--the largest deficit in the history of the country. You could wipe out every penny of nondefense spending, discretionary spending, and just about pay off this debt this year. It is astounding. This is reckless, it is irresponsible, and to demagog, always to demagog, and say, Do you want to keep your families safe? Here, have another tax cut. And by the way, you are not going to get it, but the most blessed in your community will. To say we are not going to focus on schools, we do not care about opportunities for the future, to say we do not care about keeping ourselves safe or creating jobs is just plain reckless and the ultimate in demagoguery. When we had the largest budget surplus in the history of the country 4 years ago, I joined, on the Budget Committee, with our esteemed colleague from North Dakota to support a reasonable future, to Take a third of that surplus and put it into tax cuts focused on middle-income people, small businesses, to drive the economy. Let's do tax cuts, I am all for it, and I have voted for many. But let's also take a third of that and take care of Social Security. We could prefund the baby boomers' liability coming and take care of Social Security for the next 75 years with just a third of that. Then how about taking the other third to make sure our kids have world-class schools, to make sure they have the technology they need, to make sure they can afford to go to college, to make sure our communities have the police and firefighters so when you dial 911, you are going to get the fastest response possible. And, by the way, let's make sure my city can talk to your city and the next city through an up-to-date communications system. And let's make sure that our seniors have a quality nursing home and can get the dignity of home health care, that we are focused on health care, both for those most in need and vulnerable, and to support those providing that health care in our businesses. We have a lot of work to do. We have not only an aging population, we have an aging infrastructure. Not only individually do we need a face- lift, but our cities need a face-lift--water systems, sewers, roads, and bridges. It is reckless for us, in defining priorities of the future of this country, not to be responsible in addressing each piece of it. There is a lot of demagoguery going on around here, and unfortunately it is because the easy way for an elected official is not to pay the bills but to talk about tax cuts. Let me suggest something else. I agree with our esteemed chairman that the bulk of Americans are not getting the tax cuts they need. They are paying too much in taxes. Why? Because the tax cuts that were passed are not going to them. They are going to the most blessed, the wealthiest among us. I do not begrudge people working hard and doing well, but I think they ought to pay for schools as well, and security and roads and health care, the military, war, and the veterans. We all have a stake in America, and we all have a responsibility to do our part. What I see is the overwhelming majority of the people in my State are getting a twofer. They sure are not getting these tax cuts that are talked about. They are not going to them. But they are going to pay more for schools, get less quality, and have fewer police officers. There are fewer police officers today in most of the cities in my State than there were on 9/11/2001. What is with that? So my folks are going to have to pay more for their kids going to college because we are cutting support for the colleges and programs for folks to be able to afford to go to college. They are going to have to be taking less in the way of services that are basic services. We are talking about basic quality of life in America. Everyone else looks at America and wants to be like us. What we are seeing in this budget is an effort to roll us back. We don't want to be like China, where they can't drink the water. Our quality of life has been the gold standard for the world. We have a responsibility to do the right thing and to have a balanced strategy that strategically focuses on tax cuts to move the economy forward, investments as well as the responsibility of paying down this debt and securing Social Security for the future. How many people here would take the tradeoff of saying we are not going to fund health research? It doesn't matter who you are, you can get cancer, Alzheimer's disease, diabetes, a multitude of health concerns and diseases in this country. Research will make the difference. Who would say that research into health, into cures and technology for the future is not important in the greatest country in the world? Yet all the demagoguery on tax cuts is about removing revenue so that down the road the answer will be: We would love to do that, it would be great, but we are really sorry, there is no funding. That is what this is about, and it is wrong. This is about a balance. We need to work together to get it right. This amendment begins to get that right because it says we are going to put Social Security first. The President is going all over the country talking about Social Security and what needs to be done. We could start by a value statement about what is important to us. We could start by saying over the next 75 years, we will take a look at the costs of tax cuts that have been passed--$11.6 trillion. I supported some of those that go directly to our small businesses, to our families, and to stimulate the economy. But the overwhelming majority of this goes, again, to those most blessed who have benefited by the greatness of America in our infrastructure and our opportunity. If we just said, instead of $11.6 trillion over 75 years, how about we take 3.7, about a third of that--just a third of it, about 30 percent of that--and we secure Social Security for 75 years, and then you can have the rest? You can have 70 percent of it. But let's secure Social Security first. Social Security is a great American success story. Everyone is benefited by it. Even those right now who are doing very well, who knows what will happen in the future? I remember folks from Enron sitting in my office, folks who had been wiped out, who said: Thank God for Social Security. I never thought I would need it, but it is the only thing I have left. Social Security is meant to be there as security for our families-- for everybody. It works. What we are saying is, if we want to talk about a solution, we don't have to ask folks to pay more in payroll taxes, folks who are already being taxed too much and are being asked to have their services cut. We don't have to cut benefits. We can say it is a priority for the American people and we in the Senate are going to make it a priority for us. That is what this amendment does. Social Security is a great American success story. Prior to Social Security, 50 percent of the seniors in this country were in poverty. Today it is 10 percent. That is worth fighting for. That is a success story. Again: Honor thy father and thy mother. It is not just words. We should act on it. This budget does not, in a number of ways, act on that premise. It is also important, again, to note that Social Security, in fact, is more than retirement. It is our families' insurance policy. It has worked. It costs a half a percent to administer, it has been there, and it will be there if we do the right thing. But it is important to know about not only the retirees but the disabled, and there are survivors benefits. How many folks who work here in the Senate have a story to tell about survivors benefits? My husband, at 10 his father died. He was the youngest in the family. His mother was older and not well. He survived on Social Security and went on to college and was very successful because of our country's commitment to each other. I happen to believe caring about other people, caring about community, is a good thing, not a bad thing. Social Security represents what is best about us. Creating a system that we all pay into, you work hard all your life, it is there at retirement or if you need it in case of a financial disaster in your family; it works. Other countries look to us, to this great system of Social Security. There is no way the President's proposals do not undermine this system. You can't protect people 55 or older or the disabled, the survivors, when you take an insurance system and begin to pull out dollars. I don't care how many times they say it, it is not true. You can't do that. We know that. Regarding Social Security, if we go the route of what the President is talking about with privatized accounts, we know three things will happen. We are going to drastically increase the national debt, which is already the highest in our Nation's history. We will have high administrative costs--instead of a half percent to administer Social Security, we will see anywhere from 10, 15, 20 percent or more. And the folks, by the way, you would pay to administer the accounts are some of the folks we are seeing here at the Capitol now who want very much to make the change. And deep benefit cuts, there is no way to avoid benefit cuts under the President's proposal. So we are saying this doesn't work. We don't like this. What we have is an alternative. We have the power to put Social Security first in this budget. We have the power to do that. That is what this amendment does. If you don't want to see increased national debt, you don't want to see higher administrative costs, or deep benefit cuts, join our amendment. Our amendment is the responsible approach, unless your goal is to eliminate Social Security. If the goal is to unravel Social Security for Americans, then you will not support this amendment because this amendment is about fixing Social Security for the future, securing it for the future.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Medicare Prescription Drug Price Reduction Act of 2005, and am pleased to be joined by my colleagues, Senators Carper, Kennedy, Schumer, Bingaman, and Johnson. This legislation is very simple and very straightforward: it would allow the Secretary of Health and Human Services to negotiate directly with pharmaceutical manufacturers on behalf of our seniors and the disabled to get the lowest possible prices. Last week we learned that the Medicare prescription drug benefit will cost more than 1 trillion dollars--$1.2 trillion to be exact--just for the years 2006 through 2015. Some of our colleagues are responding to the news of the $1.2 trillion price tag with plans to reduce the benefit. But the benefit as currently structured is far from comprehensive. Seniors are responsible for $420 in premiums, and a $250 deductible before they get one penny's worth of help towards the cost of their prescription drugs. Once the benefit kicks in, they will face a hefty copayment, and many will fall into the infamous ``hole'' in the benefit and--at the same time they continue to pay premiums--not get any assistance at all. Even with a $1.2 trillion pricetag, our seniors will have to shoulder two-thirds of the cost of their prescription drugs. Neither the seniors and disabled, nor the taxpayers, should be paying so much for so little. Last week's news of the cost of the benefit makes it clear that we must give Medicare the ability to use the market power of 41 million people to secure the lowest prices possible for seniors, the disabled, and the American taxpayer. Our response to the new cost estimate shouldn't be to reduce the already meager benefit but to use our dollars more efficiently. The change that my colleagues and I are seeking would allow us to improve the drug benefit--by lowering the cost of the drugs, we could fill in the gaps in coverage and provide a more meaningful benefit. Former HHS Secretary Thompson said at his December 3rd resignation press conference that he would have liked to have had the opportunity to negotiate lower drug prices. I expect Secretary Thompson knows what every smart buyer knows: the more you are buying of anything, the better deal you get. We all know that Sam's Club gets the best prices on breakfast cereal, batteries, and paper towels because they represent a huge market. And now that Secretary Leavitt is tasked with running the program, we should give him as many tools as possible to run this program at the lowest possible cost. Today the only entity in this country that cannot bargain for lower group prices is Medicare. The States, Fortune 500 companies, large pharmacy chains, and the Veterans' Administration use their bargaining clout to obtain lower drug prices for the patients they represent. Medicare should have that same ability. It doesn't make any sense to prohibit the Secretary from using the clout of our 41 million seniors to help get them the best possible prices on prescription drugs. I urge my colleagues to join me in passing this commonsense approach to providing real savings for our seniors and the disabled, and ensuring the most efficient use of taxpayer dollars. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Medicare Prescription Drug Price Reduction Act of 2005, and am pleased to be joined by my colleagues, Senators Carper, Kennedy, Schumer, Bingaman, and Johnson. This legislation is very simple and very straightforward: it would allow the Secretary of Health and Human Services to negotiate directly with pharmaceutical manufacturers on behalf of our seniors and the disabled to get the lowest possible prices. Last week we learned that the Medicare prescription drug benefit will cost more than 1 trillion dollars--$1.2 trillion to be exact--just for the years 2006 through 2015. Some of our colleagues are responding to the news of the $1.2 trillion price tag with plans to reduce the benefit. But the benefit as currently structured is far from comprehensive. Seniors are responsible for $420 in premiums, and a $250 deductible before they get one penny's worth of help towards the cost of their prescription drugs. Once the benefit kicks in, they will face a hefty copayment, and many will fall into the infamous ``hole'' in the benefit and--at the same time they continue to pay premiums--not get any assistance at all. Even with a $1.2 trillion pricetag, our seniors will have to shoulder two-thirds of the cost of their prescription drugs. Neither the seniors and disabled, nor the taxpayers, should be paying so much for so little. Last week's news of the cost of the benefit makes it clear that we must give Medicare the ability to use the market power of 41 million people to secure the lowest prices possible for seniors, the disabled, and the American taxpayer. Our response to the new cost estimate shouldn't be to reduce the already meager benefit but to use our dollars more efficiently. The change that my colleagues and I are seeking would allow us to improve the drug benefit--by lowering the cost of the drugs, we could fill in the gaps in coverage and provide a more meaningful benefit. Former HHS Secretary Thompson said at his December 3rd resignation press conference that he would have liked to have had the opportunity to negotiate lower drug prices. I expect Secretary Thompson knows what every smart buyer knows: the more you are buying of anything, the better deal you get. We all know that Sam's Club gets the best prices on breakfast cereal, batteries, and paper towels because they represent a huge market. And now that Secretary Leavitt is tasked with running the program, we should give him as many tools as possible to run this program at the lowest possible cost. Today the only entity in this country that cannot bargain for lower group prices is Medicare. The States, Fortune 500 companies, large pharmacy chains, and the Veterans' Administration use their bargaining clout to obtain lower drug prices for the patients they represent. Medicare should have that same ability. It doesn't make any sense to prohibit the Secretary from using the clout of our 41 million seniors to help get them the best possible prices on prescription drugs. I urge my colleagues to join me in passing this commonsense approach to providing real savings for our seniors and the disabled, and ensuring the most efficient use of taxpayer dollars. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce the Canadian Waste Import Ban Act of 2005, to address the rapidly growing problem of Canadian waste shipments to Michigan. Michigan has been known for its beautiful waters, lush forests, and now unfortunately as a top importer of international trash. My colleagues may be surprised to learn that the biggest source of waste to Michigan is not from another State, but from our neighbor to the north, Canada. The rapid increase in waste shipments is stunning. In 2003, 180 trash trucks crossed the Ambassador and Blue Water bridges into Michigan. Today, that number has more than doubled to 415 trucks per day. You can see these trucks lined up for miles waiting to cross into Michigan, polluting the air and creating traffic congestions. The city of Toronto alone sends over 1 million tons of trash annually to Michigan. This waste dramatically decreases Michigan's own landfill capacity, and has an incredible negative impact on Michigan's environment and the public health of its citizens. The waste also poses a tremendous homeland security threat, as trucks loaded with garbage are harder for Customs agents to inspect than traditional cargo. I fought and was successful in the installation of radiation equipment at these crossings. As a result of this equipment, the Blue Water Bridge port director reports that three to four Canadian trash trucks per week are being turned back at the border for containing dangerous radioactive materials such as medical waste. But we need the trash shipments to stop completely. Michigan already has protections contained in an international agreement between the United States and Canada, but are being ignored. Under the Agreement Concerning the Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Waste, which was entered into in 1986, shipments of waste across the Canadian-U.S. border require government-to-government notification. The Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, as the designate authority for the United States would receive the notification and then would have 30 days to consent or object to the shipment. Not only have these notification provisions not been enforced, but the EPA has indicated that they would not object to the municipal waste shipments. Michigan citizens have spoken loud and clear on this issue. More than 165,000 people signed my on-line petition urging the EPA to use their power to stop the Canadian trash shipments. Residents from all 83 Michigan counties have signed the petition--an unprecedented response. I've presented these signatures to both former EPA Administrator Mike Leavitt and Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge. But despite these efforts, EPA has not stopped these trash shipments. That is why I'm reintroducing my bill today. The Canadian Waste Import Ban of 2005 would stop the Canadian trash shipments by placing an immediate Federal ban on the importation of Canadian municipal solid waste. Any State that wishes to receive Canadian trash can opt out of the ban by giving notice to the EPA. The ban will be in place until the EPA enforces the notice and consent provision contained in the binational agreement. This legislation would also give Michigan residents the protection they deserve from these shipments. In enforcing the agreement, the EPA would have to obtain the consent of the receiving State before consenting to a Canadian municipal solid waste shipment. So if the State of Michigan says no, the EPA must object to the trash shipment. The EPA would also have to consider the impact of the shipment on homeland security, environment, and public health. These waste shipments should no longer be accepted without an examination of how it will affect the health and safety of Michigan families. Michigan residents deserve the protections provided by this international agreement and should be provided the ability to stop these dangerous and unhealthy trash shipments. I urge my colleagues to support the Canadian Waste Import Ban of 2005. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce the Canadian Waste Import Ban Act of 2005, to address the rapidly growing problem of Canadian waste shipments to Michigan. Michigan has been known for its beautiful waters, lush forests, and now unfortunately as a top importer of international trash. My colleagues may be surprised to learn that the biggest source of waste to Michigan is not from another State, but from our neighbor to the north, Canada. The rapid increase in waste shipments is stunning. In 2003, 180 trash trucks crossed the Ambassador and Blue Water bridges into Michigan. Today, that number has more than doubled to 415 trucks per day. You can see these trucks lined up for miles waiting to cross into Michigan, polluting the air and creating traffic congestions. The city of Toronto alone sends over 1 million tons of trash annually to Michigan. This waste dramatically decreases Michigan's own landfill capacity, and has an incredible negative impact on Michigan's environment and the public health of its citizens. The waste also poses a tremendous homeland security threat, as trucks loaded with garbage are harder for Customs agents to inspect than traditional cargo. I fought and was successful in the installation of radiation equipment at these crossings. As a result of this equipment, the Blue Water Bridge port director reports that three to four Canadian trash trucks per week are being turned back at the border for containing dangerous radioactive materials such as medical waste. But we need the trash shipments to stop completely. Michigan already has protections contained in an international agreement between the United States and Canada, but are being ignored. Under the Agreement Concerning the Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Waste, which was entered into in 1986, shipments of waste across the Canadian-U.S. border require government-to-government notification. The Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, as the designate authority for the United States would receive the notification and then would have 30 days to consent or object to the shipment. Not only have these notification provisions not been enforced, but the EPA has indicated that they would not object to the municipal waste shipments. Michigan citizens have spoken loud and clear on this issue. More than 165,000 people signed my on-line petition urging the EPA to use their power to stop the Canadian trash shipments. Residents from all 83 Michigan counties have signed the petition--an unprecedented response. I've presented these signatures to both former EPA Administrator Mike Leavitt and Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge. But despite these efforts, EPA has not stopped these trash shipments. That is why I'm reintroducing my bill today. The Canadian Waste Import Ban of 2005 would stop the Canadian trash shipments by placing an immediate Federal ban on the importation of Canadian municipal solid waste. Any State that wishes to receive Canadian trash can opt out of the ban by giving notice to the EPA. The ban will be in place until the EPA enforces the notice and consent provision contained in the binational agreement. This legislation would also give Michigan residents the protection they deserve from these shipments. In enforcing the agreement, the EPA would have to obtain the consent of the receiving State before consenting to a Canadian municipal solid waste shipment. So if the State of Michigan says no, the EPA must object to the trash shipment. The EPA would also have to consider the impact of the shipment on homeland security, environment, and public health. These waste shipments should no longer be accepted without an examination of how it will affect the health and safety of Michigan families. Michigan residents deserve the protections provided by this international agreement and should be provided the ability to stop these dangerous and unhealthy trash shipments. I urge my colleagues to support the Canadian Waste Import Ban of 2005. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I thank the dean of our women in the Senate, the woman who was first and blazed the way for all of us, the distinguished Senator from Maryland. I thank her so much for her leadership on this and other issues. Our dean has said so many times, honor thy father and thy mother. They are not just important words in the Bible, but they are important words to live by. This debate about Social Security certainly reflects our values in honoring our fathers and our mothers. So I thank her for that. I rise with my colleagues to speak today about the greatest American success story of our time, Social Security. Prior to Social Security, 50 percent of our retirees lived in poverty. Today, it is 10 percent. If that is not a great American success story, I don't know what is. We are here unified to say that we want to keep that success story by keeping the ``security'' in Social Security. That is what this is about. We join in advocating for additional ways for people to save. I know my 20-something-year-old children are tired of hearing from me about the fact that they need to be putting dollars aside for the future and not just rely on Social Security. There are ways we can come together. I was, frankly, disappointed last evening that we did not hear more from the President about ways we can come together to be able to develop those opportunities for everyone to create wealth and retirement security. But we don't do that by undermining the ``security'' of Social Security. Social Security represents the best of who we are, the best in American values. Our belief is that if you work hard and you play by the rules, you earn retirement security. We pay into that, all of us together pay into this insurance policy called Social Security. We deserve a basic quality of life and dignity in older years. Everyone does. And that comes from a joint community effort called Social Security, into which we all pay. I think it is also important to look at the fact that Social Security is not just about tomorrow. It is an insurance policy, whether you are a 25-year-old like my daughter who is starting a career or you are a 78-year-old like my mother, whom I can barely keep up with, and who is in her retirement years. The fact is, Social Security is there for both of them. Heaven forbid that something were to happen to one of my children and they become permanently disabled. But Social Security would be there as a disability policy. When they have children, if something were to happen and they would no longer be able to care for their children, Social Security steps in as a life insurance policy. Think about it. This great American success story is a retirement policy, a life insurance policy, and a disability policy. We all do this together. That is what the ``I'' in FICA means. It is an insurance system. We want to build upon that just as Federal employees are able to build upon that with thrift savings, and there are others, such as 401(k)s, and so on. By the way, that is on top of Social Security--not in the place of Social Security. But we stand here today, particularly because we know this insurance plan is of particular importance to women in the country. In fact, 60 percent of all Social Security recipients are women; 1 in 10 adult women receive Social Security disability benefits. As we get older, since we tend to live longer--I think once you get over age 85, you in fact see that the vast majority of people on Social Security are women. This is a fundamental women's issue of economic security. We stand here unified to say we will fight to keep the ``security'' in Social Security for every woman and their families. In my home State of Michigan, many Social Security recipients, of course, are retired. We also have 64,000 people who receive benefits either as a widow or widower, a spouse or child of a retired worker or disabled worker. Again, the majority of those are women and children. We know that strengthening Social Security will require a lot of hard choices. We stand ready to join with colleagues on the other side of the aisle and the President to do that. But first we have to get this notion of privatizing Social Security and undermining it, unraveling it, off the table. I suggest one approach for us to look at. This is something I feel very strongly about because we make decisions every day on values and priorities. Just like all of us do, we open our checkbook and we pay the bills and write checks. That reflects our values and priorities. Right now, when we look at the overall Federal revenue in the budget, as I do as a member of the Budget Committee, we have to reflect and look at what we are really saying about our values and priorities for the future. Consider the fact that keeping Social Security secure for 75 years requires only one-third--about 33 percent--of the costs of the tax plan enacted by the Congress and President Bush for the wealthiest Americans. Think about that. In other words, if we were to ask those who are most blessed in this country through hard work, through inheritance, through other means, those who are most blessed with retirement security, if we asked them to keep 70 percent of that instead of 100 percent--70 percent is huge. It is billions of dollars in tax cuts. But if they kept only 70 percent of that over the next 75 years, you could keep the ``security'' of Social Security for 75 years. To me, that makes sense. If we are really about making decisions and investments for all Americans, it certainly makes sense. And it certainly makes more sense than privatizing Social Security. Here is why. Privatization will cut benefits by one-third to one- half, even for working women who choose not to risk their money in privatized accounts. This is important. We are not just talking about cutting benefits for those who choose to privatize accounts but for those who do not choose to go this direction. The average retiree would lose more than $152,000 in benefits over the course of a 20-year retirement--$152,000 in benefits over 20 years. An insurance policy was never meant to be a high-risk investment. We encourage people, on top of Social Security, to make investments. But this was meant to be the foundation for retirement. I wonder where women would be without the ``security'' in Social Security today. Beyond the deep benefit cuts and added risks, privatization would add $2 trillion in debt over 10 years. That is almost a 50-percent increase of the debt we have now, which is the largest in the history of the country. It is unbelievable. Unfortunately, much of that would be borrowed from countries such as China and Japan. That raises a whole range of issues economically in terms of our national security. I think most women would agree that we don't want to pass the debt on to our children and grandchildren, forcing them to bear the burden of ever more debt and higher taxes. I stand here today with by colleagues to say we will fight to keep Social Security secure, and then we will join in those efforts to both strengthen Social Security in the long run but also to create other opportunities for people to be able to save, people to be able to create wealth, to be able to have retirement security. If we take privatization off the table, which we know doesn't solve any of the problems of Social Security--it only creates more risk and uncertainty--we can then work together to get something done. That is what people expect us to do. That is what we are here today to pledge to do. The women in this country, every one of our daughters and our granddaughters, and our mothers and our aunts, and all of those girls yet to come, as well as their brothers, deserve a secure retirement. They deserve that under Social Security. They earned that. They pay into it, and they are counting on it. We are going to stand ready to make sure Social Security remains secure.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today to oppose the nomination of Judge Alberto Gonzales to be the Attorney General of the United States. The Attorney General is the chief law enforcement officer for our country with tremendous legal powers. He or she is responsible for enforcing our laws and for making important decisions on how they will be interpreted. The Attorney General can decide what person will be charged with a crime or detained. This is a job that requires sound legal judgment and impartiality because the Attorney General's duty is to uphold the Constitution and the rule of law. But this job is not just about our laws; it is also about the ideals of our country. It is about what we stand for. It is about our freedom and liberty and justice as embodied in our Constitution. It is about representing these fundamental types of democracy, not just to Americans but to the world. During the inauguration, we heard the wonderful words from President Bush about the cause of freedom. I was pleased to hear him talk about our history as a country that has led the world in the cause of freedom. These are the ideals that our children learn about every day. We should be proud of our history. But our words must match our deeds. I am deeply concerned not only about Mr. Gonzales's judgment, but that his confirmation would send the wrong message to the world about the value we place on our basic constitutional rights. Judge Gonzales has played a prominent role in shaping this administration's policy on detention and torture. Some of these policies have not only damaged our country's reputation and moral leadership, but they have also placed our troops in greater danger. Judge Gonzales holds legal positions that violate treaties the United States has ratified and supported, and he helped to provide the justification for the treatment of prisoners that led to the abuses at Abu Ghraib. He also advocated and advised the President on legal positions that circumvented the Geneva Conventions. In following Judge Gonzales's advice to circumvent the Geneva Conventions, this administration clearly set the stage for the abuses at Abu Ghraib, the torture scandal, and this opinion ignored decades of U.S. support for humane treatment of prisoners. Such a reckless disregard for human rights laws not only violates international law but, again, it puts our own troops at additional peril. The Convention Against Torture, which was ratified by the United States in 1994, prohibited torture and cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment. The Senate defined such treatment as abuse that would violate the 5th, the 8th, or 14th amendment to our Constitution. This standard was formally accepted by the Bush administration. During Judge Gonzales's testimony it became clear that under his watch the administration twisted this straightforward standard to make it possible for the CIA to subject detainees to practices such as simulated drowning and mock execution. The standard he approved defined torture as inflicting pain equivalent to ``serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function or even death.'' In his testimony he told the committee that these constitutional amendments do not apply to foreigners held abroad; therefore, in his view, the torture treaty does not bind intelligence interrogators operating on foreign soil. Such a distortion is unacceptable and, again, is dangerous to our troops who are serving us on foreign soil. How can someone who has sought to find the loopholes in the law be entrusted to be the chief law enforcement officer of our land? These attempts to circumvent the very laws he will be called upon to enforce not only show a reckless disregard for the law, put our troops in further danger, but they have damaged our position in the world. Since World War II, the United States has been a moral authority in the world, an effective leader on the world stage. Such damage not only tarnishes our reputation in the world, but it negatively affects our very ability to enlist our allies in the critical war on terror. How can we hope to reclaim the moral leadership we once had with this person as our chief law enforcement officer? What signal does this send to the world? For more than 10 years, Judge Gonzales has served as President Bush's legal counsel, but now he must represent a higher authority, the Constitution of the United States of America, and he must do so with integrity and independence from his former long-term client. The Attorney General of the United States cannot be a spokesperson for the President. The Attorney General is the highest ranking law enforcement officer in the land. The Attorney General has responsibilities for enforcing, interpreting, and creating the laws that govern our democratic way of life in the United States. It is, therefore, imperative that the person who holds this position be someone who has the confidence of the American people. Our laws must come first. He or she must look not for the political rationale or the loophole but, rather, always seek the appropriate legal path, as guided by the U.S. Constitution. This is the people's attorney. I was disturbed that during the confirmation hearings Judge Gonzales restated his belief that the Commander in Chief can override--can override--the laws of our country and immunize others to perform what would otherwise be unlawful acts. This is wrong. No one person can stand above the laws that govern our Nation. The rule of law applies to every one of us, including the President of the United States. I had hoped that during his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Judge Gonzales would have used the opportunity to address these questions and concerns, and that he would have also used it as an opportunity to demonstrate an understanding that the Attorney General does not represent the President but, rather, the American people, the laws of our Nation, and the Constitution of the United States. I am troubled by the many questions that remain by his refusal to state categorically that the President may not authorize the use of torture in violation of U.S. law and the Geneva Conventions. On Sunday, Iraqis took an important step toward democracy by holding their first free elections in decades. We applaud and celebrate with them. Let's not take a step backwards now in America by confirming a nominee who does not represent the fundamental rights that the word ``democracy'' represents. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, today I am introducing the ``Keep the Promise of Medicare Act'' of 2005, and am pleased to be joined by my colleagues Senators Kennedy, Boxer, Lautenberg, Rockefeller, Dayton, and Corzine. Our Medicare beneficiaries were greeted in the New Year by the largest premium increase in Medicare's history--17.5 percent. At the same time, the Social Security COLA increased by only 2.7 percent. What are the implications of such a discrepancy? More than 2 million beneficiaries nationwide have lost their entire COLA to the Medicare premium increase, and almost 13 million seniors and disabled Americans will have over 50 percent of their COLA consumed by the Medicare premium increase. This dramatic increase could have been avoided--CMS Administrator McClellan has acknowledged that provisions included in the 2003 Medicare law designed to privatize the program directly contributed to the premium increase. Therefore, my legislation will limit, retroactively, the 2005 Part B premium increase to the same level as the Social Security COLA. The result will be nearly a $10 monthly savings for our seniors--the Bush Administration has given seniors a monthly $78.20 premium; under our legislation the premium would be $68.40. Older Americans have been struggling under the relentless increases in the cost of their health care and prescription drugs. Rather than alleviating the challenges they are facing, the 2005 premium increase has made their situation even direr. Adjusting the current premium is a first step, and one we must take immediately. Additionally, we should use this year to revise an outdated law that has led to record increase in Medicare premiums in the last four years. The promise of Medicare must include protection from dramatic increases in the Part B premium. I urge my colleagues to join me on this important piece of legislation.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, today I am introducing the ``Keep the Promise of Medicare Act'' of 2005, and am pleased to be joined by my colleagues Senators Kennedy, Boxer, Lautenberg, Rockefeller, Dayton, and Corzine. Our Medicare beneficiaries were greeted in the New Year by the largest premium increase in Medicare's history--17.5 percent. At the same time, the Social Security COLA increased by only 2.7 percent. What are the implications of such a discrepancy? More than 2 million beneficiaries nationwide have lost their entire COLA to the Medicare premium increase, and almost 13 million seniors and disabled Americans will have over 50 percent of their COLA consumed by the Medicare premium increase. This dramatic increase could have been avoided--CMS Administrator McClellan has acknowledged that provisions included in the 2003 Medicare law designed to privatize the program directly contributed to the premium increase. Therefore, my legislation will limit, retroactively, the 2005 Part B premium increase to the same level as the Social Security COLA. The result will be nearly a $10 monthly savings for our seniors--the Bush Administration has given seniors a monthly $78.20 premium; under our legislation the premium would be $68.40. Older Americans have been struggling under the relentless increases in the cost of their health care and prescription drugs. Rather than alleviating the challenges they are facing, the 2005 premium increase has made their situation even direr. Adjusting the current premium is a first step, and one we must take immediately. Additionally, we should use this year to revise an outdated law that has led to record increase in Medicare premiums in the last four years. The promise of Medicare must include protection from dramatic increases in the Part B premium. I urge my colleagues to join me on this important piece of legislation.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the nomination of former EPA Administrator and Utah Governor Michael Leavitt to be the Secretary of Health and Human Services. I respect Governor Leavitt. He and I have enjoyed a good working relationship when he was the EPA administrator. Governor Leavitt always kept an open door, and he worked closely with me on important Michigan issues such as Canadian trash and air quality standards. But today, he stands ready to take a new role. This is an immense honor and carries even greater responsibility. HHS oversees many of the agencies that affect Americans' lives the most. For example, the Secretary oversees Medicare and Medicaid, which covers over 70 million people, from children and mothers to seniors and the disabled. The National Institutes of Health drives our Nation's biomedical research, and the Food and Drug Administration works to make sure what we eat is safe. Unfortunately, HHS also has a series of missteps. In today's Washington Post, we learned that HHS, like the Department of Education, paid a journalist to write supportive statements about administration policy in her column. This is on top of findings that HHS improperly used federal money for political purposes. HHS officials also stopped the CMS actuary from giving important information to Congress about the true cost of the Medicare drug bill. I urge Governor Leavitt to work to correct these abuses. I intend to vote to confirm Governor Leavitt, but I do want to use this opportunity to raise some major concerns about health care. First, I am concerned about Governor Leavitt's position on Medicaid. My State has made great strides in stretching each Medicaid dollar, including an innovative drug purchasing plan with other States. We should encourage States to find innovative ways to save money, but having flexibility and innovation does not mean cutting people's benefits. I am concerned about rumors about ``block granting'' Medicaid. That would be a dangerous proposition to our most vulnerable populations that rely on this important State-Federal partnership. Second, we need to have a full and open debate about reimportation. Last Congress, I was deeply disappointed that after numerous bipartisan attempts to bring the issue of drug reimportation to the Senate floor, the leadership blocked a fair discussion on a sensible way to bring down drug prices. I am glad that my friend and colleague Senator Dorgan secured an agreement with Senators Frist and Enzi on having a HELP committee hearing on reimportation by April 25. We urgently need to have a reimportation bill brought to the floor. I am very troubled by allegations of delays while our seniors and businesses pay the price. For example, there are allegations that the administration is putting strong pressure on our neighbors to the north to block reimportation. In fact, we have heard complaints that almost immediately after U.S. trade officials visited Canada in December, the Canadian health minister began looking into ways to block reimportation. I have heard too many stories from my constituents that without lower priced, FDA-approved drugs from Canada, they would not be able to afford their rent or buy their groceries. In the America that we want for ourselves and our children, no one should ever have to choose between paying their rent or their medicine. It is unacceptable that they cannot purchase their medicine here in the United States. In this great Nation, a pharmacist in Detroit should be able to do business safely and securely with a pharmacist in Windsor. I am glad that Governor Leavitt is keeping a more open mind about reimportation than others in the administration . . . so far! In fact, during his nomination hearing in the Finance Committee, he stated: ``If it can be shown that it can be done safely, then it's a discussion we should have.'' I hope Governor Leavitt will continue to keep an open mind as we debate reimportation under the agreement with leadership. Again, we need to have an open debate here in Congress about reimportation. Finally, I hope that Governor Leavitt would keep an open mind about allowing the Federal Government to negotiate drug purchases on behalf of Medicare. Even outgoing HHS Secretary Thompson said at his December 3 resignation press conference that he would have liked to have had the opportunity to negotiate lower drug prices. I know that Secretary-designate Leavitt has said he does not believe that the Secretary should have the power to negotiate with drug manufacturers to secure lower prices for Medicare beneficiaries. Rather, he believes that the Medicare law provides enough safeguards to keep drug prices in check. How is that possible when researchers at Boston University have found that the pharmaceutical industry will actually make $139 billion more under this plan? In fact, a recent study published in the prestigious Health Affairs journal found that if Medicare could negotiate and bring drug prices more in line with other nations' costs, we could close the doughnut hole. I am disappointed that Governor Leavitt does not believe in using the market power of over 40 million people to get the best prices for seniors, the disabled, and the American taxpayer. It is a good market- based solution. More than ever, we need to work to keep down the costs of drugs. It is hurting our businesses, it is hurting our families, and it is going to hurt every American taxpayer when the new Medicare drug program begins in 2006. Yesterday the Wall Street Journal published a sampling of this month's prescription drug price increases, finding that the prices of 31 of the 50 biggest selling medications have increased dramatically since our November elections. These drugs included popular drugs such as the cholesterol-lowering drugs Lipitor and Pravachol; the pain- killer Celebrex; the antidepressant Zoloft; and the blood-thinner Plavix. One health research group stated that pharmaceutical companies are marking up their prices now in anticipation of the Medicare drug program coming out in 2006. It is outrageous that Medicare can't negotiate prices just like businesses, states, and even other Federal agencies can. This is a great nation, and in the past month, we have seen how strong our democracy is. But we also have room for debate and discussion. I urge Governor Leavitt to keep an open mind and to work with all Members of Congress to bring down the cost of prescription drugs for all Americans. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. STABENOW

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

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise to speak to the American people about the values and priorities of the Senate Democratic caucus. Today Senate Democrats introduced 10 ambitious leadership bills that will make our country more secure, expand opportunity for all, and honor our responsibility to future and past generations. The Democratic agenda stands in stark contrast to the priorities advanced by Republicans. Democrats understand that putting America's security first means providing troops and their families with the resources they have told us they need to protect our freedom. Where Republican mismanagement has put our country's security at risk, Democrats will stand with our troops and step up efforts against terrorists by targeting and shutting down the institutions that create them. Where Republicans have stood with big corporations and put the needs of the special interests ahead of the American people, Democrats will work to expand opportunity for families by bringing down health care costs, strengthening education, and creating good-paying jobs. Democrats will promote fiscal responsibility in Washington with a return to commonsense budgeting. But our most urgent priority is to protect our Nation's security. That is why we will stand up for our troops. We believe that putting America's security first means standing up for our troops and their families. We will work to increase our military end strength by up to 40,000 by 2007, and we will create a Guard and Reserve bill of rights to protect and promote the interests of our dedicated citizen soldiers. That includes making sure our troops have the body armor and equipment they need and that their families receive health care and their pay on time while their loved ones are serving abroad. This bill would increase survivor benefits from $12,000 to $100,000 for their families, if, God forbid, a loved one loses his or her life while serving our country. We will also target the terrorists more effectively. We will keep America secure by stepping up the fight against the radical terrorists. We will work to increase our special operations forces by 2,000 to attack the terrorists where they are and to protect our freedoms here at home. Democrats are also united to ensure that the world's most dangerous weapons stay out of the hands of terrorists. We will expand the pace and scope of programs to eliminate and safeguard nuclear materials, enhance efforts to keep these and other deadly materials out of the hands of terrorists, and assist State and local governments in equipping and training those responsible for dealing with the effects of terrorist attacks involving weapons of mass destruction. When our veterans come home, we will not abandon them. We will keep our promise to them. We now have a new generation of veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. We will ensure that all veterans get the health care they deserve. We will make sure that no veteran is forced to choose between a retirement and a disability check. We will also make the same commitment to the soldiers of today that was made to past veterans with a 21st century GI bill. We understand that one of the most effective ways to increase opportunities for our families is a high quality, good-paying job. The promise of America is that if you work hard and play by the rules, you should have a real opportunity to provide for yourself and your family. For too many Americans, this promise is out of reach today. We must ensure that it is within their grasp. We must expand economic opportunity for all Americans by protecting American workers and ensuring that we are creating good jobs for today and for the future. Our plan creates new jobs with an expansion of infrastructure programs, encourages innovation, and ensures fair wages. It also eliminates tax incentives for companies that move jobs overseas. It ensures that we enforce our trade policies. The Stabenow-Corzine bill ensures fair wages for our American workers. It restores overtime wages to 6 million workers and increases the Federal minimum wage over the next 2 years so that we can ensure a livable wage for every American worker. These are the people who serve our food and stock the shelves of our local grocery stores, care for our children and our elderly parents, and it is incredibly important that we honor, respect, and support them and the dignity of work. It also provides relief to multi-employer pension plans to make them more solvent. These plans are used predominantly by small businesses to provide pension benefits to an estimated 9.7 million American workers. The Stabenow-Corzine bill creates good jobs for today and new jobs for the future, with an expansion of infrastructure programs and the encouragement of innovation. Across America, thousands of infrastructure projects, from our smallest rural communities, to our biggest cities, await the Capitol to move forward. Making these investments in our roads, bridges, and buses, will enable our quality of life to improve and protect public health and safety. These investments will also create a huge boost to our economy. For each $1 billion in investment, we create 47,000 good- paying American jobs. We also need to make investments in technology. Too many communities, mostly in rural and economically disadvantaged areas, lack access to broadband Internet service. More and more, Internet access is a critical part of our economy and our schools. This bill expands broadband access to those underserved areas by allowing broadband service providers to immediately deduct one-half of the cost of their investment in equipment to provide broadband access to rural and underserved areas. This is not just the right thing to do, it is the smart thing to do. We are a nation of innovators, of ideas. The key to our economic strength is our leadership in science and technology. The U.S. is losing ground today to our foreign competitors. Research and development helps create higher quality jobs, better and safer products and higher productivity among American businesses. It makes permanent a tax credit for entities that increase their research activities, which is so critical; and it makes credit available for collaborative partnerships, for research done by a group of businesses or other entities. We also want to ensure that we continue to lead and educate future leaders in science and technology. Our bill also supports increases in federally funded research at the National Science Foundation, the Office of Science at the Department of Energy, the National Institutes of Health, and the National Institute of Science and Technology, as well as investments in math and science and technology programs at our secondary education institutions. The Stabenow-Corzine bill eliminates tax incentives for companies that move jobs overseas--a critically important feature today for workers in every State, and I would certainly say in my State of Michigan, where we make things. We make things and grow things and do it well, and we don't want to see incentives in our Tax Code for companies to move jobs overseas. We must eliminate tax incentives that actually give companies a tax incentive to move production facilities and jobs overseas. It doesn't make sense to reward a company for moving jobs overseas and, in effect, for pushing the promise of America farther away, farther out of reach. Let me give you an example. In Greenville, MI--I have spoken about Greenville many times on the floor--is Electrolux. In Greenville, MI, they had three different shifts going and added over $100 million in new investments in equipment at the Greenville Electrolux plant. They are efficient, effective, and they are doing the job. They are selling refrigerators. Electrolux decided they could make a bigger profit if they moved the plant to Mexico and paid $1.57 an hour and no health benefits. We are losing 2,700 jobs as a result of that and we, unfortunately, have incentives in the law today that encourage that to happen. That is wrong. We need to tackle the issues of health care, and we are doing that in our legislation, with a lower cost for prescription drugs and a lower cost of health care for our businesses. Ultimately, we cannot compete and have a middle class in this country if we are telling everyone they need to work for $1.57 an hour in order to have a job and we will create incentives for their businesses to move to another country. Our bill would require companies to immediately pay tax on the profits they earn abroad for products that are imported back to the United States. We think that is fair. The Stabenow-Corzine bill ensures that America has a trade policy that addresses our now record trade deficit by enforcing our trade agreements, maintaining a level playing field, and helping workers who have lost their jobs due to unfair labor practices of other nations. We are determined to pursue a trade policy that protects American workers and addresses our record trade deficit. This bill requires the administration to identify the most important export markets that remain closed to U.S. products and provides the tools needed to open them. As I have said so many times, if we create a level playing field--all we ask for are the same rules. If we have the same rules for our businesses and our workers that we see in other countries, we will compete and we will win. But it is our job to make sure that happens. That is why this legislation also creates the office of chief enforcement investigator/negotiator, whose sole responsibility will be to police our trading partners' performance of their obligations. This bill will force China to stop manipulating its currency and force China to choose between revaluing its currency to its market value or face a tough tariff on all Chinese imports to the United States, equal to the unfair trade advantage China currently enjoys. Let me give you an example of what I think is important. There are many in Michigan, but let me share this. I met with a group of people from Rexair Company in Cadillac, MI, a couple of weeks ago. They produce vacuum cleaners. The company's vice president claimed that the Chinese-made motors for the vacuum cleaners are cheaper because of currency manipulation. The motor is $28.80 in the United States and $21.30 in China. The company would prefer to use U.S.-made motors, but they have to go with the lower cost alternative in order to be competitive. There is no reason for that difference, except for currency manipulation. When jobs are moved overseas it doesn't just hurt individuals, it hurts families, communities like Greenville, MI, and it hurts all of us. Trade adjustment assistance has helped thousands of manufacturing workers get retraining, keep their health insurance, and make a new start. This bill will expand TAA to cover service workers who lose their jobs when companies move jobs overseas. It will also provide health coverage for unemployed workers who are in training programs so that they can complete their training and help rebuild communities affected by outsourcing or exporting jobs, by coordinating Federal, State, and local resources to develop a new plan and a new future for the people who live there. We have a ceiling of a national debt, but we don't have a ceiling on the U.S. foreign debt, or the annual trade deficits that feed it. That is wrong. It is irresponsible, particularly if you consider that America is now the world's largest debtor nation. We will have serious consequences if our trade deficits continue. In the 109th Congress we are going to change that and put America on the path of a more responsible approach. Our bill will require the administration to convene an emergency interagency meeting and provide Congress with a trade deficit reduction plan, to lower debt levels below the statutory ceiling, whenever the overall foreign debt reaches 25 percent of our GDP or when the annual trade deficit reaches 5 percent of GDP. Another component of expanding opportunity for everybody is to provide our children with the best education possible. We talk a lot about that. We have an opportunity in the 109th Congress to put in place those opportunities and mean it for our children. That is why we are going to keep our promise to our children by increasing support for preschool education, fully funding No Child Left Behind, and improving its implementation. We are committed to finally meeting the Federal commitment to children with disabilities. How long have we talked about that on the Senate floor? We will also address the shortfall of math, science, and special education teachers by creating tuition incentives for college students to major in these critical fields. We will help expand educational opportunities for college by providing relief from skyrocketing college tuition, increasing the size and access to Pell grants, and supporting proven programs that encourage more young people to attend and succeed in college. We will also work to make health care more affordable. Spiraling health care costs are putting the opportunity of America at risk, making it harder for families to buy health insurance and placing a difficult burden on our small and large businesses, our manufacturers, certainly. We will address these concerns by making prescription drugs more affordable. How often have I spoken about this on the Senate floor? We will make prescription drugs more affordable through the legalization of prescription drug reimportation--in other words, allowing the pharmacists in America, in Michigan, to do business with pharmacists across the border in Canada and in other places where we know it can be done safely. In our legislation, we will be making sure prescription drugs are safe by ensuring that drugs are monitored after they are approved for use. We will ensure all children and pregnant women will have health care. We understand how critical it is that we protect Medicaid and work with the States across this country to make sure that health care is available through Medicaid. We will also reduce the growing cost of health care to small businesses by offering tax credits, while also modernizing health care to cut costs for patients and businesses. While we are lowering health care costs, we are going to revamp the last Congress' Medicare bill--if we have the opportunity to do so, that is certainly our wish as Democrats--and take the special interests out of the Medicare bill by repealing the provision that makes no sense at all that prevents Medicare from negotiating the best possible price for our seniors. While we will eliminate the slush fund for HMOs, we will also improve the prescription drug benefit by phasing out the current coverage gap where seniors pay a premium but do not get a benefit. I am told that if, in fact, we negotiated in Medicare the same price cuts that we do through the VA for the veterans, we would not have a gap in the Medicare prescription drug law at all. There would not be a gap in benefit. We need to make that change so our seniors have the very best possible Medicare prescription drug benefit. We as Democrats will work to lower Part B premiums so premium increases are not as steep as the one that took effect in January. We will address incentives that encourage employers to drop retiree benefits and ensure that our seniors will not be forced into HMOs while other seniors transition into a new benefit. In the United States, the foundation of our incredible democracy is the fundamental right to vote. That is another important part of the legislative package we have put forward today. It does not matter if one is rich or poor, black, brown or white, all Americans have the right to one vote. It is the great equalizer. When one is voting and walks out of the voting booth, each one of us walks out as an equal. Unfortunately, we have had major problems in our voting systems in the last few elections, as we all know. We have determined, as Democrats, to reform the voting system in this country to create Federal standards for our elections and to be able to add verification, accountability, and accuracy to this system. Together we should be moving as quickly as possible to do this. Our legislation increases access to the polls with election day registration, shorter lines, early voting. The bill also aims to modernize our election equipment and increase impartiality and provides the resources to our States to implement the bill. While our agenda is ambitious, we have a plan to pay for every single initiative we are proposing at the beginning of this session, our vision of keeping America's promise. Unfortunately, in the past 4 years, colleagues on the other side of the aisle and the administration have turned a large surplus, in fact the largest surplus in the history of the country, into the largest debt. We know that fiscal mismanagement today only leads to greater problems for our children and our grandchildren. It is our responsibility to address the fiscal irresponsibility of the current administration by imposing discipline today and we invite our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to make that a new priority, a fresh priority, in this new Congress. We are united to strengthen our budgeting rules that require the Government to live within its means. The bottom line is that we today, the first day, we can introduce bills in the new session, have come together as Democrats to put forward our vision of keeping the promise of America. It is rooted in security. We must be safe. Our families must be safe. We must make sure we are providing all that we must for our troops and those who have served us and are now our veterans. We are also committed to creating opportunity for everyone who works hard and plays by the rules, cares about their children, to create opportunity to be successful. We want everyone to dream big dreams and be able to reach for the stars and touch them and be successful within the American dream. We also understand that when we create opportunity, with that comes responsibility. We each have responsibility to step up and work hard, but we also know we have responsibility for each other. We have responsibilities as parents to our children to create the security they need, the opportunity they need, and to instill responsibility in them, and that as a community we have responsibility one to another, just as we do for our family, and our country has a responsibility to make sure those opportunities are present. This is an important day. It is the beginning of the new session, a new opportunity. We stand ready to work with the administration and our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to truly keep the promise of America, not just for some but for everyone in our country who is working hard every day and counting on us to make sure that dream is available and that promise is kept for them and their families. I yield the floor.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the most fundamental right in our democracy, the right to vote. Every election day, millions of people in America from different social, economic, and ethnic backgrounds converge on polling stations to cast their ballots. And as they leave the polling booths, they emerge, one by one, as equals. They are equals because the power of our Constitution resides with the people who delegate power to the Government. Our Constitution guarantees the right of every American to be heard equally about whom they want to lead their Government. We, as their elected leaders, have a responsibility to ensure that those constitutional freedoms are honored and protected. We have heard from some voters in Ohio and across the country about the election in November. They feel that their voices were not heard. Thousands of voters waited in line for up to 10 hours to cast their ballots. Some waited until 4 in the morning, and some waited for hours in the rain. Many voters with job, family, and other responsibilities simply could not wait any longer, and they left without voting. It is unreasonable to expect voters to wait 10 hours to exercise their constitutional right to vote. Some soldiers and other Americans living overseas believe their ballots were not counted. Without question, every legal ballot should count, whether it is cast overseas or here in the United States. Many precincts across the country continue to use outdated punch-card ballots and decades-old voting machines that are more prone to error or simply do not work properly. That is disturbing enough--machines from the 1950s being used in 2004--but even more disturbing is that urban areas are disproportionately affected. More urban areas do not have the modern voting machines and equipment that is available in other areas of the country. This disparity affects voting for a large number of minorities, and that is unacceptable. Even those precincts with electronic voting machines had problems. Some machines malfunctioned, causing votes to be counted more than once or not at all. Anyone who has used a computer at home or at work knows that even saved data can be lost. Yet most electronic voting machines do not have a paper record to back up the system. It could be as simple as a paper receipt like the one you get when you withdraw money from an ATM machine. In Nevada, electronic voting machines have a paper trail, and we need it for all electronic voting machines. We must ensure the integrity of our voting process. Many voters felt intimidated at the polls. When they went to vote, so-called election observers demanded that they provide more than the required form of identification. Others read flyers that directed them to the wrong polling places. These are real people with real concerns, and we need to listen to them. Our Constitution requires that we listen to them. As elected leaders of these people and all of those in our States who have delegated to us the power to represent them, we have an obligation to listen. After voters experienced similar problems in the last election, we addressed many of those issues. Congress passed, and I supported, the Help America Vote Act, which required the use of provisional ballots for voters who went to the wrong location so ballots would be sealed and counted later in the proper precinct, and each State received funding to update their voting systems. But in Ohio, the provisional ballot was rendered virtually worthless in the November 2004 election. Ohio's Secretary of State ruled that provisional ballots were valid only if they were cast in the proper precinct. So today we talk about the problem, but I think we also need to talk about the solution. Voting is fundamental to our democracy. The process should be fair, honest, and easy. I do not support holding up the results of our November election to address the concerns many voters have raised about the process because I believe we need to move on with the business of the country. But I do support the GAO investigation into these concerns. When we find out what the GAO has to say, we have an obligation to address the problems they uncover. I do support true election reform that will create a 21st century voting system that we can all be proud of.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the brave men and women of the U.S. armed forces who have given their lives during the military operations in Iraq. Of the over 1,270 casualties to date in Operation Iraqi Freedom, 42 of these fallen heroes are from or have family in my home state of Michigan. My heartfelt sympathies go out to the families and friends of these great Americans. On behalf of the State of Michigan, I offer my deepest gratitude for the service, sacrifice, and commitment of these men and women in upholding the ideals of this Nation. These men and women represent the finest of our citizens. They have revealed their unyielding courage, sense of duty, and patriotism. For this, their service to this Nation will never be forgotten. I would like to honor the following men and women of the U.S. Armed Forces that have Michigan ties and have bravely made the ultimate sacrifice while serving in Iraq: Army PVT Brandon Sloan, 19, of Bedford Heights, OH, was killed when his unit, the 507th Maintenance Co., was ambushed near Nasiriyah on March 23, 2003. Sloan's mother, Kimberly, lives in Fraser. Marine MAJ Kevin Nave, 36, formerly of Oakland County's White Lake Township, was killed when he was run over by a military vehicle on March 26, 2003. Nave was a veteran of the 1991 Persian Gulf War and lived in Oceanside, CA. He is survived by his wife and two children. Army SGT Todd James Robbins, 33, formerly of Pentwater, died after the Bradley fighting vehicle he manned with eight other soldiers was bombed on April 2, 2003, possibly by friendly fire. Robbins, a veteran of the first gulf war, was stationed at Fort Sill, OK. He is survived by a wife and a 13-year-old son. Army SGT Michael Pedersen, 26, formerly of Flint, was one of six soldiers killed in the crash of an Army Black Hawk helicopter on April 2, 2003, during a fire fight in Iraq. He served as a helicopter crew chief with the Army's 3rd Infantry Division based in Fort Stewart, GA. Army PFC Jason Meyer, 23, was killed on April 7, 2003, when his personnel carrier came under fire. He graduated from Howell High School in 1999 and joined the Army in 2001. Meyer was based in Fort Stewart, GA, and had celebrated his first wedding anniversary 2 weeks before his death. Marine PFC Juan Garza, 20, of Temperance was killed by sniper fire on April 8, 2003. Garza graduated from Summerfield High School in 2002 and was married the day after Christmas. Air Force SSGT Scott Sather, 29, of Clio was killed in action in Iraq on April 8, 2003. He was assigned to the 24th Special Tactics Squadron, based out of Pope Air Force Base, NC. Army SPC Richard A. Goward, 32, of Midland was killed on April 14, 2003, when his truck entered a dust cloud and collided with another truck in Iraq. Goward was assigned to the Midland-based 1460th Transportation Company of the Michigan Army National Guard. The father of two daughters served on active duty with the Army from 1990 to 1996, then joined the Michigan Guard after the Sept. 11 terror attacks. Army SGT Sean Reynolds, 25, was killed on May 3, 2003, in an apparent accident involving his own weapon in northern Iraq. He grew up in Detroit and graduated from East Lansing High School in 1995. Reynolds was assigned to the Army's 173rd Airborne Brigade, deployed near Kirkuk. The 173rd is based in Vicenza, Italy. Army MSG William Lee Payne, 46, who joined the Army shortly after graduating from Otsego High School in 1975, died on May 16, 2003, in Haswah, Iraq. He was killed in an explosion. Payne was an intelligence officer for the 2nd Battalion, 70th Armor Regiment of the 3rd Brigade, 1st Armored Division. Army SSG Brett J. Petriken, 30, of Flint, a military police officer, was one of two soldiers killed on May 26, 2003, when a heavy equipment transporter crossed a median and struck his vehicle in Samawah, Iraq. He was part of the 501st Military Police Unit of the 1st Armored Division. Army CPT Paul J. Cassidy, 36, of Laingsburg died in Camp Babylon as a result of non-combat injuries on July 13, 2003. He was part of the 432nd Civil Affairs Battalion based in Ashwaubenon, WI, a suburb of Green Bay. Cassidy, a reservist, was in Iraq performing humanitarian services. He also served as department secretary for the Meridian Township clerk's office. Army SGT Trevor A. Blumberg, 22, of Wayne County's Canton Township, a paratrooper, died on Sept. 14, 2003, when a roadside bomb hit a convoy and destroyed his Humvee in Fallujah, Iraq. Blumberg was an 82nd Airborne paratrooper with the 1st Battalion of the 504th Parachute Infantry Regiment. Army SPC Donald L. Wheeler, 22, of Concord died as a result of the injuries he sustained on October 13, 2003, in Tikrit, Iraq, when his unit came under attack from insurgent forces. Wheeler was assigned to A Company, 1st Battalion, 22nd Infantry Regiment, 4th Infantry Division, Fort Hood, TX. Army SSG Paul J. Johnson, 29, of Calumet was killed when Iraqi fighters ambushed his patrol in Fallujah, Iraq, on October 20, 2003. Johnson served in the 82nd Airborne Division, based at Fort Bragg, NC. He was a member of the 1st Battalion, 505th Parachute Infantry Regiment. Army SPC Artimus D. Brassfield, 22, of Flint was killed in a mortar attack while he played basketball at an outpost on October 24, 2003. Army SSG Mark D. Vasquez, 35, of Port Huron was killed when the Bradley Fighting Vehicle in which he was riding was struck by an improvised explosive device on November 8, 2003. Vasquez was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 16th Infantry Regiment, 1st Infantry Division based in Fort Riley, KS. U.S. Army SSG Paul Neff II, 30, of Fort Mill, SC, on November 7, 2003, in Tikrit. The Black Hawk was shot down by unknown enemy ordnance. Neff was assigned to 5th Battalion, 101st Aviation Regiment, 101st Airborne Division based in Fort Campbell, KY. He is survived by his father in West Branch. Army PFC Damian S. Bushart, 22, of Oakland County's Waterford Township was killed on November 22, 2004, when a tank collided with his vehicle in Baghdad. Bushart was assigned to A Troop, 1st Squadron, 1st Cavalry Regiment, 1st Armored Division; Armstrong Barracks, Germany. Army PFC Jason G. Wright, 19, of Luzerne was killed on December 8, 2003, when his vehicle came under fire while he was providing security at a gas station in northern Iraq. Wright was a mortarman assigned to Headquarters Company, 1st Battalion, 502nd Infantry Regiment. He entered the Army in June 2002, and arrived at Fort Campbell, KY, the following December. Army SSG Thomas W. Christensen, 42, of Atlantic Mine was killed on December 25, 2003, when his living quarters in Baqouba, Iraq, came under mortar attack. Christensen was assigned to the 652nd Engineer Battalion, U.S. Army Reserve, a bridge-building unit based in Harvey. The detachment is a multi-role bridge-building outfit with administrative ties to Ellsworth, WI. Army SSG Stephen C. Hattamer, 43, of Gwinn was killed on December 25, 2003, when his living quarters in Baqouba, Iraq, came under mortar attack. Hattamer was assigned to the 652nd Engineer Battalion, U.S. Army Reserve, a bridge-building unit based in Harvey. The detachment is a multi-role bridge-building outfit with administrative ties to Ellsworth, WI. Army PFC Holly J. McGeogh, 19, of Taylor was among three soldiers killed when a homemade bomb exploded on January 31, 2004, along a road near Kirkuk, Iraq, as their convoy passed by. She was assigned to Company A, 4th Forward Support Battalion, 4th Infantry Division, from Fort Hood, TX. Army SPC Richard K. Trevithick, 20, of Gaines was killed on April 14, 2004, when an improvised explosive device exploded near his convoy vehicle in Balad, Iraq. He was part of the 9th Engineer Battalion, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 1st Infantry Division out of Schweinfurt, Germany. Army SFC Bradley C. Fox, 34, who grew up in Adrian, died on April 20, 2004, of wounds suffered March 14 when a roadside bomb detonated near his vehicle. He was serving with the 1st Armored Division. Army PFC Richard H. Rosas, 21, of St. Louis was one of two soldiers killed on May 25, 2004, when their patrol was hit by an improvised explosive device in Fallujah, Iraq. He was serving with the 3rd Battalion, 62nd Air Defense Artillery, 10th Mountain Division, Light Infantry, based in Fort Drum, NY. Army SGT Aaron Elandt, 23, of Port Hope died on May 30, 2004, when the Humvee he was in struck a land mine while responding to a mortar attack. Elandt was a cavalry scout with the 1st Armored Division and had been in Iraq for about 14 months. Army SPC Craig S. Frank, 24, of Lincoln Park, a Michigan National Guard military police officer, died on July 17, 2004, after his vehicle was hit by an improvised explosive device near Baghdad. Frank was serving with the 1775th Military Police Company out of Pontiac. He was studying education at Eastern Michigan University before his call-up. Army SFC David A. Hartman, 41, of Akron died on July 17, 2004, in Beiji after the vehicle he was driving was hit by an improvised explosive device. Hartman was assigned to the Army Reserve's 401st Transportation Company out of Battle Creek. Army PFC Nicholas H. Blodgett, 21, of Wyoming died on July 21, 2004, in Abdalluyah, Iraq. He was killed when his patrol vehicle hit an improvised explosive device. He was assigned to the 4th Cavalry Regiment of the Army's 1st Squadron and stationed in Schweinfurt, Germany. Army SPC Donald R. McCune, 20, of Ypsilanti died on August 5, 2004, in Landstuhl, Germany, of injuries he received when an improvised explosive device detonated near his patrol in Balad. McCune was assigned to the Army National Guard's 1st Battalion, 161st Infantry Regiment, 81st Brigade Combat Team and stationed in Moses Lake, WA. Army SPC Dana Wilson, Hudsonville, 26, of Fountain, CO, died on July 11, 2004, near Al Hillah when the vehicle Wilson was riding in was involved in a head-on collision with another vehicle. Wilson was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 94th Field Artillery Brigade in Baumholder, Germany. Wilson's mother lives in Hudsonville. Army SSG Donald N. Davis, 42, of Saginaw died on August 24, 2004, when a tractor and a tanker trailer rolled over an embankment in Fallujah, Iraq. Davis was assigned to the U.S. Army Reserve's 660th Transportation Company in Zanesville, OH. Army SGT Carl Thomas, 29, a native of Detroit who lived in Phoenix before being stationed at Fort Hood, TX, died on September 13, 2004, when a homemade explosive detonated near his Army observation post in Baghdad. Thomas was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 12th Cavalry Regiment. Army PVT Mark Barbret, 22, of Macomb County's Shelby Township died on October 14, 2004, when the Humvee he was riding in hit a roadside bomb near Ramadi, Iraq. Barbret was an Army mechanic with the 2nd Infantry Division. Army SPC Don A. Clary, of Troy, Kansas died on November 8, 2004, in Baghdad when a vehicle-borne improvised explosive device detonated near his convoy. He was assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 130th Field Artillery, Kansas National Guard in Horton, KS. Clary's mother resides in Flint. Army PFC Dennis Miller Jr., 21, of La Salle died on November 10, 2004, after his unit came under attack and a rocket-propelled grenade struck his tank in Ramadi, Iraq. Miller was assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 72nd Armor Regiment, 2nd Infantry Division. Marine LCpl Justin D. Reppuhn, 20, of Hemlock died on November 11, 2004, as a result of enemy action in Al Anbar Province. Reppuhn was assigned to motor transport duties with the 3rd Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion, 1st Marine Division. Marine LCpl Justin M. Ellsworth, 20, of Mount Pleasant died on November 14, 2004, while on reconnaissance during the U.S. assault on Fallujah. He was assigned to a Combat Service Support Battalion 1 in the First Marine Expeditionary Force in Camp Pendleton, CA. Marine LCpl Michael Wayne Hanks, 22, of Gregory, died on November 17, 2004, as a result of enemy action in Al Anbar Province. He was assigned to 3rd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, in the First Marine Expeditionary Force. The Marines issued him a formal commendation on May 11, 2003, for saving the life of an Iraqi civilian in Ash Shatra, 170 miles south of Baghdad. Marine Cpl Gentian Marku, 22, of Warren, died on November 25, 2004, as a result of enemy action in Al Anbar Province. Marku was assigned to 1st Battallion, 8th Marine Regiment, 2nd Marine Division, II Marine Expeditionary Force and stationed at Camp Lejeune, NC. He was awarded medals for good conduct, humanitarian service, combat action, and other activities. Marku moved to the United States from Albania when he was 14. Army SPC Corey Hubbell, Holly, 20, of Urbana, Illinois died on June 26, 2004, in Camden Yards, Kuwait, in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Hubbell died from a non-combat related cause. Hubbell was assigned to Company B, 46th Engineer Battalion, Fort Rucker, AL. Hubbell's father resides in Holly. This list was provided by the Detroit Free Press on December 1, 2004.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to some of my colleagues who will be leaving the Senate at the end of this session. tom daschle I particularly want to pay tribute to a great Senator, someone who I am proud to call a friend, our leader, Tom Daschle. Senator Daschle is truly one of the giants in the history of the United States Senate and it has been a privilege to serve with him for the last 4 years. Tom Daschle has given his entire life to public service. After serving in the Air Force, he came to Washington to work for South Dakota Senator James Abourezk. A few years later, he won election to the House and later won three terms in the Senate. Senator Daschle has been through some tough elections and tough battles on the floor of this Senate. But he has always conducted himself with grace, integrity and respect for his opponents. He has been a leader in the Senate on health care, veterans' benefits, ethanol, agriculture and rural development and has fought hard for the people of South Dakota. He is known all over South Dakota for his down-to-earth manner and the personal relationships he has with his constituents. Every year, Tom Daschle would go on a driving tour of all 66 counties in South Dakota, stopping in at diners, bowling allies, Elks clubs and feed stores. He would talk to his constituents on a one-on-one basis and really feel the pulse of different communities. Therefore, when he debated an issue here on the Senate floor, he knew firsthand what his constituents thought. He represented them so well, the way our founding fathers would have envisioned a model Senator. He was also a great leader. He worked with all members of our caucus and did the hard work to develop a consensus on many difficult issues. And he was always willing to listen. Tom Daschle would work across the aisle to get things done for his State and the country. I remember how he rose to the occasion after September 11th and worked hand-in-hand with President Bush to protect our country, rebuild New York and keep the airlines from going bankrupt. If you were trying to get something done here in the Senate, you always wanted Tom Daschle on your side. fritz hollings The Senate is also losing a legend with the retirement of Senator Fritz Hollings. For 38 years, he has fought for South Carolina, bringing home jobs and economic development, and he has made a lasting impression on the lives of Americans across this country. Senator Hollings helped start the Women Infants Children-WIC program, one of the most successful Government health care measures ever undertaken, helping reduce infant mortality, low birth weights, and premature births nationwide. He is the father of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration--NOAA. Senator Hollings pushed through the legislation that created NOAA during his very first term as a Senator. And he co-authored Gramm-Rudman-Hollings, the landmark legislation that broke budget gridlock in the mid-80s. By making automatic spending cuts, it reversed 20 years of increased Federal spending and cut tens of billions from the budget deficit. Senator Hollings strong leadership and sense of humor will be deeply missed in this chamber. bob graham We will also miss the leadership and service of Senator Bob Graham. Senator Graham has dedicated his life to public service, serving in the Florida State house and State senate, and as Governor of Florida before his 18 years here in the U.S. Senate. Senator Graham and I share a passion for healthcare. And he has been a tireless advocate and leader on the need for a prescription drug benefit for America's seniors. As founder of the New Senate Democrats, Senator Graham has worked to bring together coalitions on issues ranging from education to the national debt and fiscal responsibility. john breaux The Senate will be saying goodbye to another great centrist, Senator John Breaux. Senator Breaux has a well-earned reputation on the Hill of being able to bring both sides together and forge bipartisan compromises. In a time of blue States and red States, Senator Breaux has been a leader in bringing Americans together in the mainstream middle, instead of dividing Americans with the ideological extremism. john edwards And finally, Mr. President, the Senate is also losing a champion for America's working families with the retirement of Senator John Edwards. Senator Edwards is the embodiment of the American dream. Raised in a small town in North Carolina by hard-working parents--his father was textile mill worker for 36 years--Senator Edwards learned the real American values of getting a good education, of hard work, fairness and playing by rules. He was the first member of his family to go to college. And after graduating from law school, he fought for the values his parents taught him and by working for justice on behalf of those who couldn't fight for themselves--working families and their children who were seriously injured by irresponsible corporate actions. I was proud to work with Senator Edwards on the Patients' Bill of Rights where he brought that same passion to help working families by ensuring that doctors and not HMOs make our medical decisions. I know Senator Edwards will continue to fight for working families and be a national leader on these important issues. I also want to wish his wife Elizabeth the best at this difficult time. She is a strong, amazing woman and a fighter like her husband, and the entire Edwards family is in my thoughts and prayers. I am proud to have served with these great Senators and I know that they will be remembered long after the tribute speeches are given and the farewell parties end, because of their leadership, their compassion, and their hard work on behalf of all Americans. I yield the floor.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Stabenow-Craig Rural and Part-time Firefighter Training Fairness Act. This bill would ensure that our part-time and rural firefighters are not being treated as second class citizens. I want to thank Senator Craig for his hard work on this very important issue, and Senators Levin, Crapo, Rockefeller, and Jeffords for their support of this bill. Mr. President, many part-time and volunteer firefighters in rural and small communities across the country are not attending Office of Domestic Preparedness-approved terrorism response training courses because Federal guidelines do not allow them to be reimbursed for the time they are away from their full-time jobs. Our bill would simply direct the ODP to allow part-time and volunteer first responders, to receive a reasonable stipend when they participate in ODP-approved terrorism response courses. The Federal Government should not penalize rural and small communities and their firefighters from receiving training necessary to respond to a terrorist attack. In several counties in northern lower Michigan, State Homeland Security Grant funds sit unused because their fire departments are composed entirely of volunteer or part-time firefighters. Last year, the State of Michigan set aside $9 million in Homeland Security grants to prepare firefighters, including ODP training courses, to respond to terrorist incidents. However, this grant money is being underutilized since 72 percent of the firefighters in Michigan are volunteer or part-time and are not attending terrorism response training sessions. All firefighters need the capability to respond to all types of emergencies. When Americans call 9-1-1, the fire department doesn't send only their full-time firefighters, they send everyone regardless of their status. Most part-time firefighters in rural areas hold full- time jobs in addition to serving and protecting their communities. It is unreasonable to expect them to take leave from their regular jobs, and forgo their pay from their full-time jobs, to attend terrorism response training courses that include incident command, civil action management, and radiological response. Mr. President, many of our small, rural communities face the same homeland security challenges as larger cities with more resources. For example, Michigan has a long international border with Canada, and many of these small and rural border communities rely on part-time and volunteer firefighters. These responders must be capable of protecting these borders against the same terrorist threats that urban areas face. When there is an accident in the future and, God forbid, if there is a terrorist attack, we're not going to send only full-time firefighters to save people's lives. This bill was included as a bipartisan amendment to the Senate version of the fiscal year 2005 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations bill, but was removed by the House Republican leadership in conference. This issue is too important for Congress to ignore, and I am going to keep fighting until our volunteer and part-time firefighters are treated fairly and receive the terrorism response training they need. Mr. President, I'm pleased to note that the change in Federal guidelines this bill requires will not cost the Government any funding. It will not affect the distribution of State Homeland Security grants. It will just enable communities that have been awarded these grants to use them to pay their firefighters a reasonable stipend when they leave their full-time jobs and attend these terrorism response course. This is a matter of fairness to ensure that those that we rely on to respond to emergencies have the training they need. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to proceed for up to 15 minutes from the time under the control of the Democratic manager.

Ms. STABENOW. Thank you very much. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues and I appreciate the eloquence of the Senator from Massachusetts in speaking about the serious challenges that face our country. And I rise today to oppose the legislation in front of us that would raise the debt limit. This bill will enable this Congress to incur the largest national debt in the history of our country. I remember in 1997 coming to the U.S. House of Representatives. I was in my first term, and I had the opportunity, within 6 months of being elected, to vote on balancing the budget for the first time in 30 years. That was one of my proudest votes as a Member of the House and remains one of my proudest votes as a Member of Congress. When it comes to fiscal irresponsibility, though, at this time, this administration has broken all records and turned the clock back from that historic moment in 1997 when we balanced the budget for the first time in 30 years. They have rolled back the clock now to a huge fiscal mess with redtape and red ink as far as the eye can see. Despite inheriting the largest 10-year surplus in the history of our country, this administration turned a $5.6 trillion surplus into a $3.5 trillion deficit. That is a lot of money. This $9.1 trillion turnaround is the largest we have ever seen. It is absolutely historic and extremely disturbing to all of us. Also, in fiscal year 2004, this administration was responsible for the largest deficit in the history of the country--$413 billion, the largest deficit in the history of the country. To make matters worse, the President is proposing even more debt over the next 10 years. So we have in front of us an effort to raise the debt ceiling instead of efforts to, in fact, lower the debt. And there are proposals on the horizon that will increase the debt even more. Proposals to make tax breaks for the privileged few permanent will add approximately $1.2 trillion more to the debt. The administration's Social Security privatization scheme would cost somewhere between $1 trillion and $2 trillion more. We need to take heed and the administration needs to take heed of the old saying that when you are in a hole, the first thing you need to do to get out of it is to stop digging. We are in the middle of a war in Afghanistan and in Iraq. We must provide our troops with whatever they need. Unfortunately, every time Congress has considered proposals to pay for these war costs, the leadership and the administration has pulled out all the stops to defeat them, preferring not to budget for the war, still incurring the costs; and we have the resulting deficit, rather than planning and budgeting to make sure our troops have what they need. Congress now has no budget discipline requirement. There has been a bipartisan proposal pending in Congress, which I support, to enact the pay-as-you-go system of budget discipline. This passed earlier this year as an amendment to the Senate budget resolution. It was dropped then in conference committee and, as a result, this Congress never passed a final budget resolution. Therefore, Congress can go on cutting revenue, having spending increases that are not budgeted, with no discipline whatsoever. These massive deficits are pushing interest rates higher. This means that American families will have to pay more for mortgage payments and car payments and student loans. Talk about a hidden tax. Every time we see increases in interest rates, we are taking more money out of the pockets of our middle-income taxpayers, working families, those who are trying to have the American dream, to have a home for their families, send kids to college, buy a new automobile, and pay for other costs that involve borrowing. Those interest rates are a direct tax on our families, and particularly hit hard are those in middle America. If we don't have the fiscal discipline to be able to bring this deficit down and bring this budget back into balance, as we did in 1997, we will continue to see the hidden tax of interest rates hitting our families and our businesses. Worst of all, fiscal recklessness means that, as adults, our children will be hit with the needed tax increase to pay our bills. In fact, every child born in America today effectively has over a $20,000 bill handed to them to pay for the country's national debt. Our national debt really ought to be called a birth tax on our children and grandchildren. These large deficits are bad for our economy and they do not represent real American values. American families know they need to pay their bills. We need to pay our bills. We all do. We sit down with our families to figure out how to pay the bills. They cannot pass an increase in their own personal debt limit every time they want to spend more, which is what the Senate is doing today. Families have to live within a budget. They must make tough choices every month. They often must decide between things such as new school clothes for the children, saving for a college education, or buying the medicine they desperately need for their families. Parents are responsible for their household budgets. They pay mortgages and tuition either by working another job or doing without something. In other words, families must borrow responsibly, live within their means. In other words, they must play by the rules. We should be doing the same. Unfortunately, the Republican majority does not think the Congress should have to play by the same rules as families. This is dead wrong. I believe it is hypocritical for us to talk about families needing to make tough choices in balancing their budgets if we are not willing to balance our own. An increasing national debt also violates one of our most important values--that we want our children to be better off than we were. We want to leave them a better country than we inherited. Parents all over America care about this and do this every day. They work hard to pay for their children's college so they can be successful, to build a business so they can pass it on to their children; they build a little nest egg so that when they pass on, their children will get a small inheritance to help raise their own children and be able to have the American dream. These are true American values. They are our responsibility, playing by the rules, thinking about others other than yourself. Instead of making life better for our children, we are doing just the opposite by focusing on raising the debt limit rather than paying down the debt. We are leaving them a country that is worse off financially, and we are saddling them with a debt that will have consequences for them throughout their lifetimes. Again, they will have to pay our bills. That is not the way it should be in the greatest country in the world. Our President talks about an ownership society, where Americans are financially independent and responsible. We need this same principle applied to this administration's fiscal policies. Unfortunately, what the President's ownership society really means is that our children will own all of the national debt. This is immoral, I believe. I believe it does not reflect our values as Americans. I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation. You know, it is kind of like a ``get out of jail free'' card for a fiscally irresponsible situation here, led by our colleagues on the other side of the aisle and this administration. I believe we need to stay and take whatever time it takes in order to make the tough decisions to deal with the budget and spending priorities. We need to focus on the real values and real priorities of the people we represent, the families who are out there trying to balance their budgets and make ends meet and provide for their families every single day. They are making tough choices. They are making even tougher choices because of the decisions that are made here. I believe that continuing a situation that will only raise interest rates on families and on businesses, which is really a tax, is not what we ought to be doing in the Senate. I yield the floor. (At the request of Mr. Daschle, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today in support of designating October 14, 2004 as Lights On Afterschool Day. Next Thursday will serve as a national celebration of afterschool programming, a day to celebrate the initiatives that offer quality afterschool programs in the lives of children, their families and their communities. On this day, communities around our Nation will engage in innovative afterschool programs and activities to ensure that the lights stay on and the doors stay open for all children after school. Quality afterschool programs provide safe, engaging and fun learning experiences to help children and youth develop their social, emotional, physical, cultural and academic skills. Such programs also support working families by ensuring their children are safe and productive after the regular school day ends. Afterschool programs also build stronger communities by involving our students, parents, business leaders and adult volunteers in the lives of our young people, thereby promoting positive relationships among children, youth, families and adults. The welfare of our children is also advanced because of the engagement of the families, schools and diverse community partners. More than 28 million children in the United States have parents who work outside the home, and 14.3 million of them have no place to go after school. In addition, many afterschool programs across the country are facing funding shortfalls so severe that they are being forced to close their doors and turn off their lights. I implore my colleagues to support designating October 14, 2004, as Lights On Afterschool Day, and ask the President to issue a proclamation calling on the communities of this Nation to engage in innovative afterschool programs and activities for all children after school. S. Res. 457

Ms. STABENOW

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

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleague Senator Craig in introducing The Specialty Crop Competitiveness Act of 2004. This legislation would help increase the production and consumption of fruits and vegetables in the United States. I would like to thank my colleague Senator Craig for his hard work and leadership on this legislation, and his outstanding commitment to the specialty crop community. Fruits and vegetables are vital to good health, and far too many Americans do not consume enough of the fresh fruits and vegetables that they desperately need. Increased consumption of fresh produce will provide tremendous health and economic benefits to consumers and growers. For far too long, specialty crops have been ignored by the United States Department of Agriculture. The majority of crops grown in America, from apples, pears, and cherries, to tomatoes, carrots, cucumbers, and nursery plants do not receive the same subsidies or USDA consideration as program crops. All of our farmers work hard and take a great gamble every year to produce and receive a return on their crops. They gamble against heat, drought, frost, storms, and more recently a flood of foreign produce to our markets. I represent a diverse agricultural State, and I want American farmers to understand that this legislation is in no way designed to take away funding from program crops, but rather to bring specialty crops up to the status of program crops. This legislation would address a number of issues critical to our nation's specialty crop growers. First, it would create a specialty crop block grant to state agriculture departments to support production-related research, commodity production, nutrition, food safety and inspection and other competitiveness enhancing programs. The legislation would also improve our growers' access to foreign markets. Thus far, many of our trade agreements have failed to open new markets to our growers, but rather have created new headaches. Our markets have faced problems from new invasive species, currency manipulation, and a flood of products, such as apple juice concentrate, which have invaded hurt our Nation's growers. Therefore, this legislation would require the Animal Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) to create a division that would handle industry petitions on sanitary and phytosanitary barriers to specialty crop exports. It would increase the technical assistance funding for specialty crop and study the effects of recent trade agreements and propose a strategy for specialty crop producers to more effectively benefit from international trade opportunities. In order to benefit our farmers, we must ensure that free trade is fair trade. Also important to my home State of Michigan is the Tree Assistance Program (TAP), which is designed to provide financial relief to growers who lose trees and vines due to natural causes. This past summer in Michigan, a number of our fruit growers suffered damage from hail storms on the western side of our State. TAP funds will be critical to restoring trees and vines damaged in the storms. However, it take a number of years to obtain a return on new fruit trees. Because of the high per acre cost of establishing perennial crops, our legislation would increase the limitation on assistance under the TAP from $75,000 to $150,000 for each eligible farm. In addition, this legislation would correct a two year old misinterpretation by the USDA. The 2002 Farm Bill states that at least $200 million must be spent annually on the purchase of specialty crops. The Farm Bill Conference Report emphasizes that the allocated $200 million is to be used for additional purchases, over and above the purchases made under current law. For example in 2001, the USDA purchased $243 million in fresh fruits and vegetables; therefore the new total under the Farm Bill should be $443 million in purchases. Unfortunately, the USDA is not complying with this provision. Instead of adding the $200 million on top of baseline spending for school lunch and senior programs, USDA has eliminated the baseline spending so there is no guarantee of any new spending on fruits and vegetables for our children. In fact, in 2002 USDA did not even meet the minimum purchase requirement; only $181 million in fresh fruits and vegetables were purchased. The Specialty Crops Competitiveness Act will correct this discrepancy and provide our Nation's children with much needed fruits and vegetables. Supporting our Nation's specialty crop growers and providing nutritious fruits and vegetables to our nation's consumers is vital to ensuring our own health and the health of our economy. I am proud to introduce this legislation and I hope that my colleagues will join me in its support.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I appreciate those comments. I actually would not be here asking to do this if it were not for the earlier comments of the Senator from Pennsylvania, speaking as in morning business, as it relates to Senator Kerry's health care plan. I felt in fairness, as someone who works extensively on health care, that it was important to come down and speak to the errors that were presented earlier as my colleague spoke on the other side of the aisle. First, it is important to know that it does not matter who we talk to today, it does not matter who comes into my office or what conversation I have with people throughout the great State of Michigan, the issue of health care always comes up. Right now the big three automakers, struggling to compete internationally with their business competitors around the world, are talking about the need to address the high cost of health care. They have indicated to me on more than one occasion that this needs to be one of our top priorities of the Congress and the President of the United States: to tackle the explosion in health care costs. We also know that half of those costs is the explosion in prescription drug prices, and that specifically needs to be addressed. We have proposals we have been consistently bringing to this body and bringing to the President of the United States that will bring prices down. So when we talk to our manufacturers in Michigan, this is a huge issue. If I talk to the workers who work for our manufacturers, it is a huge issue for them. They are being asked to pay more copays, more premiums, to take pay cuts, in some cases layoffs, as a result of the high cost of health care and the fact that there has been no action to address this while premiums and costs continue to go up faster and faster. I could talk to a group of seniors in Michigan and certainly talk about medicine and the fact that the bill that passed this last year for Medicare is more about helping the prescription drug industry than it is about helping our seniors in this country. They know what we need to be doing. They want to see the pharmacists be able to do business with pharmacists in Canada, be able to bring prices down, cut them in half or, in some cases, 70 percent. Seniors understand we have a crisis as it relates to the cost of medicine and health care in this country, and they certainly know when we look at the fact that this administration has announced the largest Medicare premium increase--17\1/2\ percent--in the history of the program since 1965 when it was instituted even though it is estimated that Social Security will go up possibly only as much as 3 percent. I have a bill that has been introduced with colleagues of mine to cap that Medicare increase at the cost of Social Security increases, and up to now we have not been able to get a vote on this. Yet this will be taking effect in January and taking more out of the pockets of our seniors. We know that one of the major reasons for the increase--it is not just normal inflation--is because of the costs that are being rolled into the premium increases relating to privatization that was part of the prescription drug bill. We were told privatization would save money. The reality is, we have the highest Medicare increases in the history of the program. So we can talk to seniors. We can talk to families who are struggling every day and seeing their costs go up. We see the real household income in 2000 has gone down $1,535. Family health care premiums have gone up, $3,000 on average, to $3,599. This is not what ought to be happening. We have a crisis going on in our country. I can talk to young people getting out of college who find themselves no longer eligible to be on their parents' insurance, who now go into their first job and maybe do not have health insurance on their first job. This is a very real story for me in my own family. Young people are hoping and praying they remain healthy, that nothing happens to them until they can get into a job that has some health care. We know that the majority of people, about 80 percent of the people who do not have health insurance in this country, are working. We are not talking about people who are not working; we are talking about people who are working one job, two jobs, three jobs, working for small businesses. I can go to any small business in Michigan and, I would guess, across our great country, and they want to talk to me about what is happening in health care and health insurance, an explosion in pricing. The average premium for small businesses has more than doubled in the last 5 years. This is a crisis, and I am proud of the fact that John Kerry and John Edwards are stepping up to say this will be one of our highest priorities, to address this crisis. Everybody knows we have it. Everybody, from manufacturers to small businesses to seniors to workers to young families to students right out of college, everybody understands that we have a crisis in this country. I believe it is one of the major moral issues of our time. In the last 4 years we have seen this over and over again. Whenever it was a choice between the pharmaceutical lobby and the people of our country, the pharmaceutical lobby has won. Whenever it was a choice between the insurance industry and the people of this country, the insurance industries have won, the HMOs have won. Frankly, on behalf of the people of my great State, we want somebody fighting for us, for the people of our country. The proposals that are put forward by Senator Kerry and Senator Edwards address the costs of health care and the access to health care. It is overdue for families. Again, this chart shows incomes going down, family health care premiums going up. We can do something about this. A big piece of this is the cost of prescription drugs. Frankly, the rest of the premiums that we see going up are because of folks who do not have insurance. Our Secretary of Health and Human Services said, when asked about why--I believe it was in the context of why our Government is supporting the development of a health care system in Iraq with American tax dollars, but why we did not see the administration having the same sense of passion and urgency about Americans and health care. The Secretary of Health and Human Services said: Well, we kind of have universal health care coverage in our country because if someone is sick and goes into an emergency room, they get treated. Well, that is true. When folks go into the emergency room and they go in sicker than they should be, go in instead of going to the doctor or instead of getting preventive care, they get treated. And what happens? The hospital then is forced to turn around and put those costs back on folks with insurance, resulting in family health care premiums skyrocketing. This is not by accident. Part of this is a result of the fact that we have folks walking into the emergency room sicker than they should be or inappropriately getting care that should be in a doctor's office, that should be on the front end where it is more effective, more efficient, costs less. In Michigan alone, last year my hospitals tell me that they spent over $1 billion in uncompensated care for folks walking into the emergency room. We now see it materializing in requests to expand emergency rooms. I have all kinds of requests from hospitals that are bulging at the seams to expand their emergency rooms. So we are paying for this on the back end. Families are paying through family health care premiums rising more. We all pay because of emergency rooms being expanded. Businesses are paying in loss of competitiveness. Seniors are paying. What John Kerry and John Edwards are saying is we need to face that, we can do better than that, and we need to tackle it on the front end. So what are they suggesting? Well, I will mention just a few things. First, half of the premium increases are prescription drugs. It is very simple. They say Medicare, first, ought to be able to negotiate group discounts. Everybody else can. The VA can on behalf of veterans. Any other insurance system negotiates group discounts, but Medicare is prohibited under the new bill. We know why. The insurance lobby did their job. The prescription drug lobby did their job. So they are going to go back and change that. We negotiate group discounts. We can actually close the gap in coverage so it is a better benefit. We also have seen from both John Kerry and John Edwards a complete commitment to allow us to do, on a bipartisan basis, what we have the votes to do in the Senate if we could ever get this up for a vote, and that is to open the border to Canada and to other countries where it is safe, under strict FDA rules and regulations, to allow our pharmacists to do business with pharmacists in Canada and in other countries to bring back prescription drugs to the local pharmacy at half the price. I am tired of putting seniors on a bus. Just a week ago I was involved, again with AARP, out at the Ambassador Bridge in Detroit. We had people at the other two bridges in Michigan, talking about and demonstrating the difference in prices. I am, frankly, tired of seeing in my State people who have to drive across the bridge or through the tunnel in order to be able to demonstrate lower prices or be able to purchase at lower prices. The Kerry-Edwards administration will bring back those prices to the local pharmacy. It will make a major difference. What else are they suggesting? I hear this all the time. We know one of the major problems right now under the insurance system is, particularly for a small business, for example, a small business may have 10 employees, and they may have low rates. Then one person gets very ill--gets cancer, has a car accident, something else happens--and they have a tremendous amount of costs for their care. That one case throws the insurance rates of the business up dramatically. What the Kerry-Edwards administration is talking about is having the Federal Government come in and, when the costs exceed $50,000 for an individual, the Federal Government would serve as reinsurance, to cover those few cases that are very expensive and throw the entire cost off for the business. It makes sense. We can do that. We have also indicated we need to make a commitment to cover all children in our country--and we do. This is a moral obligation. It is all about priorities. It is always about priorities. It is always about our values and priorities. If we make the right choices, we can make sure every child has the health care they need. Then they have also said that every person in this country ought to have the same ability to buy into the Federal employee health care system as we do. In our country we have the employer, meaning taxpayers or American citizens, who have less health care than the employees--us or other Federal employees. They want to change that. They can do that through an umbrella, allow people to buy in, businesses to buy in. They can choose either traditional programs or HMOs, but they would have the benefit of sharing administrative costs and bulk purchasing and sharing other efficiencies to bring costs down. They have a number of very specific proposals that will allow greater access, that will allow costs to come down, and will directly tackle the stranglehold that has been occurring in this country, where a few special interests have been able to stop this body and this administration and others from making choices about what is best for American families. We know there are folks who benefit by the current system. The pharmaceutical industry and insurance industry do well. They control what the price will be, what the access will be, and they don't want to change. They and their spokespeople will come forward and scare people, that somehow to do any change at all means some big, bureaucratic, top- down government system and socialized medicine, and they use all these other words, but it is used to scare people and to stop us from moving together and doing what needs to be done. We need to be working together, partnering with business, with communities, with local governments and State and Federal Government to create a system where we make better decisions, provide health care to people on the front end rather than when they are very sick and walking into an emergency room, and bringing prices down by designing a system that works for us. There is no doubt in my mind that we are capable of doing that. If we have the will, the political will and the right leadership in this country, there is no question that we cannot sit down, figure out a system that provides and maintains the best of what is great about American medicine and American health care, and also create some new opportunities to benefit from what is the best and yet create a better system for everyone. We can do that. But first we have to have the right leadership, which is why I am supporting John Kerry and John Edwards. They understand. Senator Kerry has said his first initiative to come forward to the Congress as President of the United States will be on health care. My biggest concern since coming here, related to health care, has been there is not the sense of urgency we need to sit down and get this done. We need the political will to stand up to folks, the special interests with a lot of money who benefit from the way the system is today. We need to have the courage and the leadership to be able to design a system and tackle this in a way that makes sense for people. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that this can be done. There is also absolutely no doubt in my mind that it must be done. If our businesses are going to survive in a global economy, if our families are going to survive, in terms of providing health care for their children and moms and dads and grandpas and grandmas, if we are going to survive in terms of older care and care for the disabled in this country, if we are going to continue to have the quality of life Americans need and deserve, we have to tackle the health care issue and have more than just slogans and scare tactics for people. We have to do better than the last 4 years. Real household income is down. Family health care premiums are up. This is the wrong direction. We can do better and with a change in administrations, working together in a bipartisan way, we will do better.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleague Senator Craig in introducing The Specialty Crop Competitiveness Act of 2004. This legislation would help increase the production and consumption of fruits and vegetables in the United States. I would like to thank my colleague Senator Craig for his hard work and leadership on this legislation, and his outstanding commitment to the specialty crop community. Fruits and vegetables are vital to good health, and far too many Americans do not consume enough of the fresh fruits and vegetables that they desperately need. Increased consumption of fresh produce will provide tremendous health and economic benefits to consumers and growers. For far too long, specialty crops have been ignored by the United States Department of Agriculture. The majority of crops grown in America, from apples, pears, and cherries, to tomatoes, carrots, cucumbers, and nursery plants do not receive the same subsidies or USDA consideration as program crops. All of our farmers work hard and take a great gamble every year to produce and receive a return on their crops. They gamble against heat, drought, frost, storms, and more recently a flood of foreign produce to our markets. I represent a diverse agricultural State, and I want American farmers to understand that this legislation is in no way designed to take away funding from program crops, but rather to bring specialty crops up to the status of program crops. This legislation would address a number of issues critical to our nation's specialty crop growers. First, it would create a specialty crop block grant to state agriculture departments to support production-related research, commodity production, nutrition, food safety and inspection and other competitiveness enhancing programs. The legislation would also improve our growers' access to foreign markets. Thus far, many of our trade agreements have failed to open new markets to our growers, but rather have created new headaches. Our markets have faced problems from new invasive species, currency manipulation, and a flood of products, such as apple juice concentrate, which have invaded hurt our Nation's growers. Therefore, this legislation would require the Animal Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) to create a division that would handle industry petitions on sanitary and phytosanitary barriers to specialty crop exports. It would increase the technical assistance funding for specialty crop and study the effects of recent trade agreements and propose a strategy for specialty crop producers to more effectively benefit from international trade opportunities. In order to benefit our farmers, we must ensure that free trade is fair trade. Also important to my home State of Michigan is the Tree Assistance Program (TAP), which is designed to provide financial relief to growers who lose trees and vines due to natural causes. This past summer in Michigan, a number of our fruit growers suffered damage from hail storms on the western side of our State. TAP funds will be critical to restoring trees and vines damaged in the storms. However, it take a number of years to obtain a return on new fruit trees. Because of the high per acre cost of establishing perennial crops, our legislation would increase the limitation on assistance under the TAP from $75,000 to $150,000 for each eligible farm. In addition, this legislation would correct a two year old misinterpretation by the USDA. The 2002 Farm Bill states that at least $200 million must be spent annually on the purchase of specialty crops. The Farm Bill Conference Report emphasizes that the allocated $200 million is to be used for additional purchases, over and above the purchases made under current law. For example in 2001, the USDA purchased $243 million in fresh fruits and vegetables; therefore the new total under the Farm Bill should be $443 million in purchases. Unfortunately, the USDA is not complying with this provision. Instead of adding the $200 million on top of baseline spending for school lunch and senior programs, USDA has eliminated the baseline spending so there is no guarantee of any new spending on fruits and vegetables for our children. In fact, in 2002 USDA did not even meet the minimum purchase requirement; only $181 million in fresh fruits and vegetables were purchased. The Specialty Crops Competitiveness Act will correct this discrepancy and provide our Nation's children with much needed fruits and vegetables. Supporting our Nation's specialty crop growers and providing nutritious fruits and vegetables to our nation's consumers is vital to ensuring our own health and the health of our economy. I am proud to introduce this legislation and I hope that my colleagues will join me in its support.