Debbie Stabenow

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Yes. I will gladly yield to my friend from Illinois.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise to join so many of my colleagues and friends in paying tribute to the great Senator from West Virginia. As my friend from Illinois indicated, we are praising and honoring him today not just for the number of votes he has cast but for the courage of his votes. It is one thing to cast 17,000 votes; it is another to look at the quality and the integrity behind those votes. So I join with my colleagues in saying thank you to Senator Byrd. I was proud to join with Senator Byrd as he spoke out on the Iraq resolution and what our role in the Senate should be and is. I went home, as did my colleagues, and over and over again people asked me did I know Senator Byrd; did I work with Senator Byrd; listen to what he is saying because he is speaking for all of us. I also thank Senator Byrd for helping me as one of the 12 Members who came in 2000. When we were in the majority, we had the opportunity to preside over the Senate, and I am very grateful for all I learned about the Senate, about the process, about the importance of being dutiful in our responsibilities, and also about the important role we play in governing our country. I will forever be grateful to Senator Byrd for the lessons that I have learned and continue to learn. One of the most wonderful images I have of being in the Senate actually occurred during orientation when I was first elected and coming here in December of 2000. I had the opportunity to invite my son to join me in the Old Senate Chamber where we heard from Senator Byrd, some wonderful, eloquent words and stories from the early days in the Senate. It was captivating. It was inspirational. It was motivating. It was a wonderful opportunity for me to share with my son, the new venture I was undertaking and the responsibilities I was undertaking as a Senator from Michigan. I thank the great Senator from West Virginia for his friendship, for his courage, for his role in the Senate in helping us to understand our responsibilities and our duties to the country.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I want to speak about Medicare today, and the fact that one of those who stood up and was prepared to give us information is the Medicare actuary Richard Foster. We now know he was told if he gave up information about the cost of the Medicare bill that passed last year before we voted on it, he would face being fired. We have heard this repeated over and over in different ways about people who had the courage to stand up and disagree--or in this case a career public servant who was trying to do his job. We find now on this Medicare bill that as we look more closely, over and over we are deeply disturbed by what has unfolded relating to the Medicare bill. As I indicated over and over on the floor before we passed the final version, this is clearly about what is in the interest of the pharmaceutical industry and the insurance industry in this country--not in the best interests of seniors, not in the best interests of consumers or taxpayers. Piece by piece, we are seeing major flaws in this law; in fact, so much so that we are seeing comments from colleagues. Our colleague from Mississippi, Senator Lott, has indicated now if it were to be done over he would in fact change his vote. I wonder how many others would be doing the same thing given what we have found. This law does nothing to lower prices for Medicare recipients and families, which should be one of the primary goals. That should have been at the top of the list for us to do. Despite the passage, in fact, of something that would lower prices--what we call the reimportation of prescription drugs or the ability to allow the local pharmacist, say, in Michigan or across the country to do business with pharmacists in other countries such as Canada to bring back prescription drugs at half the price; most of them are made in the United States, and American taxpayers helped subsidize the research to make them. But instead of allowing that to happen--to lower prices, in fact, up to 70 percent in some cases--we saw nothing in the final bill. The law prohibits the Medicare program from using its purchasing power to lower prices, which is stunning. What organization doesn't want to purchase in bulk in order to lower prices? Yet the Medicare legislation that passed specifically prohibits that from happening. There is only one group that benefits from that. The law, as we know, would also lead to about one in four retirees losing their private coverage, if they have retiree coverage, given the way it is designed. My latest concern relates to what is happening with the discount cards in the legislation. One thing we thought at least would be helpful--not as much as allowing us to bring back lower cost prescription drugs from Canada and from other countries, but something we had hoped would help a little bit--would be the discount card that was put in place which was supposed to provide from a 10 percent up to a 25-percent discount on prescription drugs. But just as Health and Human Services announced which companies would be providing the discount cards, we also learned the meager savings these cards might offer is being eaten up by the continued explosion in prescription price increases. As reported in the Wall Street Journal, the prescription drug provision for our seniors and the disabled increased nearly 3\1/2\ times faster than the overall inflation rate in 2002. Because there are no checks or controls or accountability on these prices, the discount cards are very vulnerable to gaming by the pharmaceutical industry. What do I mean by that? For example, the wholesale price for Lipitor or Zoloft went up 19 percent in the last 2 years. The pain reliever Celebrex went up 23 percent. Their producer has said these increases are among the most moderate pricing in the industry. We are seeing great increases so that any kind of a discount now will be based on an inflated price, not providing relief for seniors. I am very concerned. We are hearing from Families USA, which we know is a consumer health care advocacy group. They have now laid out four concerns they have which I will share regarding discount cards. Their first concern is they say neither the new law nor the legislation specifies the base price on which the discounts will apply. Gains in the base price are going up dramatically, and we are going to give a 10 or 15-percent discount, or even a 30-percent discount. But the price has gone up 40 percent. You are not getting much of a deal. Second, under the Discount Card Program, sponsors are required to pass on to cardholders only an undefined share of the rebates they get from drug manufacturers, and they can keep the remaining savings as profits. They are not required to pass on the entire amount of savings from the manufacturers to our seniors. I know our leader Senator Daschle has a bill that would correct that, of which I am cosponsor, and I hope very strongly we will be able to pass it. The regulations foster, in fact, also what is called bait-and-switch schemes so that people go into a particular card, and then things are switched. What is amazing is while the senior is locked into a specific card for 7 days, the size of a discount can change. Seniors are locked in but the provider is not. Finally, there is a $600 credit, which is positive for low-income seniors, that is applied to these cards. However, with the low-income asset tax and new, very cumbersome paperwork involved, we are not sure how many low-income seniors will actually receive the discount. We can do better than that. If we were simply to do what the House of Representatives did in a strong bipartisan vote a number of months ago, we would be able to immediately drop prices at least in half with reimportation. I urge my colleagues to get serious and pass that bill. Thank you, Mr. President.

Ms. STABENOW. Thank you, Mr. President. I first want to thank my friend from Illinois for his usual eloquence, and our leader and others who have spoken about what has been happening under an administration that chooses to fight those who state their opinions, face the facts, and give us information rather than working with us to make sure we have the best information; working with us to make sure the decisions we make are the right ones.

Ms. STABENOW

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

Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business.

Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, today I have lost a very dear friend, as have the people of Michigan and hundreds of thousands of people across the country. Millie Jeffery is an icon in the State of Michigan and in our country for civil rights, women's rights, and workers' rights. Her life has epitomized the principles by which we all strive to live our lives--justice, equality, and compassion. Although small in stature, Millie has been a giant among all of us who have known her. Words cannot express the depth of affection and respect in which Millie is held, nor can words quantify the lives that she has touched. Mildred McWilliams Jeffrey, social justice activist, retired UAW Director of the Consumer Affairs Department and a Governor Emerita of Wayne State University, died peacefully surrounded by her family early this morning in the Metro Detroit area. She was 93. In 2000, President William Clinton awarded her the Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian award bestowed by the United States Government. In seeking world peace by ensuring equality for all, Millie spent a lifetime working on labor, civil rights, education, health care, youth employment, and recreation issues. She brought inspiration and humor to the many people she touched--and did so with optimism and undaunted spirit. Millie's list of accomplishments and awards is long but what she is most remembered for is her zest for organizing. She mentored legions of women and men in the labor, civil rights, women's rights, and peace movements. As President Clinton noted: ``Her impact will be felt for generations, and her example never forgotten.'' Millie was one of the most important mentors in my life and I will always be very, very grateful to her. Born in Alton, IA, on December 29, 1910, Millie was the oldest of seven children. She graduated from the University of Minnesota in 1932 with a bachelor's degree in psychology and received a master's degree in social economy and social research in 1934 from Bryn Mawr College. In graduate school, she realized that to improve the lives of working women and men she would have to change the system. In the 1930s, that meant joining the labor movement. Millie became an organizer for the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America in Philadelphia and then Educational Director of the Pennsylvania Joint Board of Shirt Workers. In 1936, she married fellow Amalgamated organizer Homer Newman Jeffrey, and they traveled throughout the South and East organizing textile workers. During World War II, the Jeffreys worked in Washington, DC, as consultants to the War Labor Board, where they became close friends with Walter, Victor, and Roy Reuther. Mildred and Newman Jeffrey moved to Detroit in 1944 when Victor Reuther offered Millie a job as director of the newly formed UAW Women's Bureau. Millie's commitment to equal rights fueled her career at the UAW. She organized the first UAW women's conference in response to the massive postwar layoffs of women production workers replaced by returning veterans. From 1949 until 1954, Millie ran the union's radio station. She moved on to direct the Community Relations Department. She was director of the Consumer Affairs Department from 1968 until her retirement in 1976. Millie joined the NAACP in the 1940s and marched in the south with Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in the 1960s. Former executive secretary of the Detroit Branch of the NAACP, Arthur Johnson, said that ``in the civil rights movement, she knew how to fight without being disagreeable.'' Mildred Jeffrey also was very active in the Democratic Party, preferring to work behind the scenes organizing, canvassing, consulting, and fundraising. She was the consummate strategist. Millie provided savvy advice to Democratic officeholders and presidents from JFK to Bill Clinton. Senator Edward Kennedy--D-MA--observed ``whether it was a worker in a plant or whether it was a Congressman or Senator or President, Millie inspired people.'' As a founding member and chair of the National Women's Political Caucus, Millie supported female candidates for public office. Twenty years ago she led the effort to nominate Geraldine Ferraro as Walter Mondale's running mate. Most recently Millie delighted in being represented by Michigan women she supported, Governor Jennifer Granholm, and myself. Millie is the ``political godmother'' for many of us, and we are extremely grateful for her love and support. Millie ran for public office in 1974 and was elected by the people of the State of Michigan to the Wayne State University Board of Governors, an office she held for 16 years--1974-1990. She was so proud of her role in supporting this wonderful university. She served three terms as board chair. Millie loved Wayne State University and was a long-time resident on campus. She never tired of showing visitors around her ``neighborhood''--the Adamany Undergraduate Library, the Hilberry Theatre, and the Walter P. Reuther Library. Millie thrived in the academic environment enriched by Wayne State University students. Her friendships extended worldwide across all ages and nationalities. Whether discussing math with teenagers in Wayne State's Math Corps or strategizing at the UN Conference on Women about the plight of sweatshop workers, Millie's capacity for connecting with people was unmatched. Millie's capacity for connecting with people was unmatched. As one who traveled with her to the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing, it was amazing to see people from all over the world, hearing we were from Michigan, asking if we knew Millie Jeffrey and if we could tell them where she was; or that their grandmother, their aunt, suggested they meet Millie Jeffrey. I often said the way to world peace was to let Millie loose; sooner or later we would all know Millie Jeffrey and come to understand each other. Millie was inducted into the Michigan Women's Hall of Fame and was an original board member of the Michigan Women's Foundation. She served in various leadership roles in a wide variety of national and State organizations such as the Michigan Women's Political Caucus, the Coalition for Labor Union Women, Americans for Democratic Action, National Abortion Rights Action League, Voters for Choice, EMILY's List, and the American Civil Liberties Union. She served on the peer review board of Blue Cross and was an active member of the First Unitarian Universalist Church in Detroit. She was also an adoring mother of a son and a daughter and adoring grandmother who developed and nourished creativity and curiosity in her two grandchildren who she loved dearly, Erica Jeffrey and Thomas Jeffrey. She encouraged Erica's love of ballet. She urged Thomas to travel to learn about the world and was so proud of his AmeriCorps Service. All of these lists of awards, duties, responsibilities, and committees do not say what Millie is all about: Millie Jeffrey was a one-of-a-kind woman of great passion, of great commitment, of great interest in knowing about each one of us and what we were doing and what we cared about and how she could help. Millie is no longer with us, but she will be with us forever because her spirit will continue in all of us.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Without objection, I ask for an additional 1 minute.

Ms. STABENOW. I will simply indicate then I have deep concerns about this whole process, and now we find it affects the bottom line.

Ms. STABENOW. I urge colleagues to relook at this Medicare bill and what is in the best interest of seniors.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today to express tremendous concern about the latest news regarding the Medicare trust fund and the solvency of the trust fund. We are now hearing that Medicare, in fact, will become insolvent 7 years sooner than we had been told last year. During the time between last year and this year, there has been a Medicare bill passed by the Senate. I believe there is a direct correlation between what was passed, which I have deep concerns about, and the new number we are hearing about Medicare being jeopardized and becoming insolvent 7 years sooner. We know that in the bill that was passed last year, there were payments for the first time to private plans so they could compete with traditional Medicare. We know that, according to the Congressional Budget Office, it in fact has cost 13.2 percent more for the private sector through Medicare+Choice to provide the very same services as traditional Medicare. Rather than saying we should go, then, with the most cost-effective way to provide health care services for seniors and use traditional Medicare, the response, unfortunately, from the Congress and the President was to subsidize private insurance companies and HMOs so they could compete more favorably. Originally, it was $14 billion taken away from providing prescription drug coverage for seniors, helping to pay for their medicine, taking those dollars away from other preventive services that could be paid for, other direct services that could be given to our seniors, and it was put into providing subsidies for the private sector. Now we see in the new numbers how all of this has changed with the revelation of the tremendous increase in the cost of the Medicare bill which we were told after it passed. We are now told the first estimate of $14 billion being diverted is now really $46 billion being diverted--$46 billion not going to pay for our seniors receiving help with their medicine, to afford their medicine through Medicare, but being diverted to essentially privatize or help private plans be able to compete because it costs more to provide Medicare coverage and prescription drug coverage under private plans. We see greater costs there. Then right at the time we need to be doing everything possible to leverage and lower our costs, we know this Medicare prescription drug bill actually says in the middle of the bill that Medicare is not allowed to group purchase, to get bulk discounts, which is astounding. Every time I say that to a group of people at home in Michigan, they look at me in bewilderment: What in the world were you thinking that you would not try to get the best possible price through a bulk discount? Yet we know that one of the reasons there is increased costs in this bill is because they are not doing bulk purchasing. Why are they not doing bulk purchasing? Because the pharmaceutical industry does not want that to be done. They do not want us to get lower prices. They want us to pay the highest possible prices. So, unfortunately, this bill says that, which is another reason why I opposed the passage of the Medicare bill. Over and over we are seeing situations unravel that cause me great concern, not only about the new dollar amount, the new substance in this bill, but also about the process that brought us to the passage of the Medicare bill. I will speak now to some of what we have been hearing and reading in recent days and weeks. The Government's top expert on Medicare costs was warned he would be fired if he told key lawmakers about a series of Bush administration cost estimates that could have torpedoed congressional passage of the White House-backed Medicare prescription drug plan. This was written on March 12 of this year, just last week, in the Miami Herald. We know there were new estimates, new actual costs that were identified, and we were not told about them before the passage of this bill. We know that between November 20 and 24 of last year, administration officials repeatedly stated without qualification that the prescription drug bill ``will not cost more than $400 billion over 10 years.'' In making these representations, administration officials relied on CBO estimates without citing the conflicting estimates from their own analysts. This comes from a special report Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson gave at the time, as well as other news reports. We then found out after the new year on January 29--not November, now we move up to January 29--the administration announced the Medicare drug bill would cost at least $534 billion over 10 years--$139 billion more, just as we find the new subsidies for private plans, insurance companies, and HMOs have gone up, and certainly there is no cost containment in this bill. On January 30, the President indicated he learned of the new estimates only 2 weeks earlier, but yet we find on February 12 Secretary Thompson testified to the House Ways and Means Committee that they were given the final higher drug cost on Christmas Eve of 2003, which contradicts the President's earlier statements. Then on top of having conflicting information about the cost and when the administration knew about the cost, we also hear from a colleague of mine in Michigan, Representative Nick Smith, who said last fall unknown GOP colleagues had tried to bribe him into voting for the contentious prescription drug bill on November 22 by promising campaign help to his son who is running to replace his retiring father. This was reported in the Washington Post on March 15 of this year. We now know there is an ethics investigation going on in the House of Representatives regarding this process. We know when this bill first came up in the House, they did not have the votes for it and kept the board open an unprecedented 3 hours plus to change votes, to get the votes for this Medicare bill. Republican colleagues have said that if they had known the true cost at that time, they would not have voted for it. The cost was hidden. We did not find out what the true costs are, and then we see tremendous pressure on colleagues to vote for this bill, and now the Ethics Committee is looking into what happened in at least one circumstance. Then we move to another area of great concern to me, and that is the advertising of this particular legislation, this new Medicare bill. According to the New York Times on March 16: The administration then attempted to rally support and take political credit for the prescription drug plan with Government-produced TV ads masquerading as news reports. Actors were hired by the Department of Health and Human Services to pose as television journalists purveying facts, upbeat ``news'' segments about the expanded Medicare coverage. I also have concerns because in that particular taxpayer-funded advertising, we have found, as a result of a GAO report and a request for investigation that we asked to have done on March 10, the GAO concluded that the Bush administration's Medicare advertisements contain notable omissions and other weaknesses. While they indicate they are not unlawful, they have notable omissions and other weaknesses. One of my concerns about all of this is that we are seeing a lack of truthfulness regarding the cost of this bill. Many of us had great concerns about this bill in the beginning. We had colleagues being told one thing and then finding out another, saying if they had known, they would not have supported the bill; high pressure tactics going on and an ethics investigation now related to what was done in the House; and then we see taxpayers' dollars being used to put forward less than accurate information.

Ms. STABENOW. I ask for an additional 1 minute.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. I thank the Senator from North Dakota. In Michigan, 154 different businesses have been involved with 68 completed and ongoing partnerships. They are joint ventures as well as single business applicants. These are exactly what we hear from the administration we ought to be doing: partnerships, public-private sector, working with the universities, small investment, big results. The other important part of this amendment that relates to moving forward and being positive is the manufacturing extension partnership. It is interesting; some of us have been involved with agriculture and cooperative extension. This program is based on that model of bringing together the best management practices, cutting-edge information, and working with manufacturers to increase productivity and efficiency to compete in a global economy. A very small amount of dollars is involved in this particular program, and it yields tremendous results. In Michigan, the Manufacturing Extension Partnership funding is credited with more than $80 million in sales impact, more than $32 million in cost reductions, and through the regional offices they have assisted over 250 companies in my State alone in achieving certification to industry quality standards. This is important. It helps our small and medium-size manufacturers. It has had, in the past, strong bipartisan support. I was deeply disappointed in the Budget Committee when I offered an amendment to restore funding for MEP and ATP, and we did not have bipartisan support. It was a party-line vote. We certainly can correct that today because I know in the past there has been good bipartisan support for this amendment. I simply say to my colleagues this amendment gives us an opportunity in a very broad sense to focus on what is the most critical issue facing our families and our businesses today, and that is the ability to compete in a global economy in a way that keeps jobs and our standard of living in the United States. There is not a business I talk with that does not say: Give us a level playing field and we will do the rest. We know if, in fact, we have the right kind of policies and the right kind of investments, we can do that. This budget is all about choices. It always is. We are asking for a small change rather than investing, once again, in the success of those privileged few who have been getting tax cuts and are set to get the most tax cuts right on down the line; that we take a portion of that and invest it back in the health of our U.S. economy and the strength of the economy for the future and in the quality of life of every American, and in those policies that will allow us to have the strongest possible businesses, the best workers, and the most successful workers in the world, because the Boxer amendment gives us the ability to do what we need to do to put us on the right track for the future and to continue the quality of life we all want for our families. I strongly support the Boxer amendment. I thank my colleague from North Dakota for yielding me time. I am very hopeful we will see a strong bipartisan vote.

Ms. STABENOW. Absolutely. This is an issue we have to address. We have to make sure our tax policy rewards those who create jobs here. As the Senator from California was speaking about individuals, I would like to share for the record two of literally hundreds of letters I have received from people in Michigan speaking about their personal situation. This is not economic theory. These are real-life experiences of businesses and individuals in Michigan who are desperately impacted right now by our unwillingness to have policies that are good for American businesses and jobs at home. One example: A Michigan resident from Union City, MI, writes: My wife and I own a small machine shop in Union City, MI. At one time, we had seven employees. Now my wife, my son, and myself are all that's left. Most of the time we don't even have enough work for ourselves. I watched as many of my friends and competitors have gone out of business and just closed their doors or filed for bankruptcy. While we fight the war on terrorism, if we are not careful, we will lose a much bigger war to the rest of the world without firing a shot. This economic war, this need to fight for a level playing field for our businesses and workers, is every bit as serious to our quality of life as what is happening abroad. One other part of a letter I will share, and this is from a resident in Clyde, MI: My husband, a 25-year mechanical engineer, designer of automotive special machines, has been laid off seven months. The company he worked for was bought by Fiat and within two years, began outsourcing the engineering to countries such as Bosnia where engineers will work for $6 hourly. Our workers can't compete with that obviously. The engineering department is now closed completely, everything outsourced. He is 55, laid off 2\1/2\ weeks short of his retirement vesting at 100 percent, can't draw social security and has been unable to find work. The market is flooded with engineers because outsourcing is happening all over . . . . If we want to maintain the quality of our environment and keep our families fed, we need legislation to address the inequities in manufacturing standards globally, balancing tariffs, something. Our workers can't compete with the salaries outsourcing provides from other countries . . . . And maintain our standard of living. I hear this story every single day in my State. Before my time is up, I wish to address a couple of very important provisions from which Michigan has greatly benefited, in addition to the issues on tax policy and health care, and the other provisions. The Advanced Technology Program is exactly the kind of program we ought to be doing in this country and we have been doing, although we have been fighting to keep it going. Now the President this year has zero in his budget for this program, even though we hear from the administration rather than tackling issues such as smart trade policies and currency manipulation, they say we should focus on education and innovation. Great. But when we have the innovative programs, such as ATP, they have zero in the budget to fund them. What does this do? It allows industries, such as the automotive industry, to come together and partner with our universities on programs and research projects that allow them to be more competitive. It allows them to do activities such that got a headline yesterday in the Detroit Free Press: Detroit-based automakers can take pride in a report on the latest issue of influential and assiduously objective Consumer Reports magazine that they have surpassed the Europeans in vehicle reliability. I know some of the ways they do that have been to come together in projects funded by the ATP to allow them to create greater reliability, greater efficiencies, to compete in the world economy. The Boxer amendment makes sure we continue this important partnership. It is partly funded by the Federal Government and partly funded by the businesses. It is critical. Madam President, I ask for an additional 5 minutes from my esteemed colleague on the Budget Committee.

Ms. STABENOW. Yes.

Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I rise to speak in strong support of this amendment. I am pleased to be a cosponsor. I, first, thank my friend from California for her ongoing leadership, her eloquence, her understanding of these issues, and also my friend from New Jersey, who speaks with such common sense about what this is all about. There are several pieces to this amendment that are critical for my State. Frankly, there is nothing more important right now in Michigan than creating a level playing field for our businesses and our workers, helping them to lower the cost of their health care, helping and supporting those efforts to invest in innovation and education, and the ability to move forward with increased skills and productivity and compete in the world economy. I am very pleased that in this amendment is the type of manufacturing tax credit I first introduced last fall and have been working with the Finance Committee on to make sure we are rewarding those who are creating manufacturing jobs in the United States of America. We need to make sure they have a lower tax rate, and we need to make sure our tax system does not encourage those who wish to take our jobs and export them. We want to export products, not our jobs. That is what this amendment does. It allows us to focus on those things that create jobs in America, good-paying jobs, that focus on work, not wealth, in our country. It is very common sense to say, rather than another tax cut for the privileged few, we want to invest in jobs and strong businesses in America for everyone. That is what this amendment is all about. In speaking about this, I want to, once again, raise concern that after 6 months of the President talking about putting someone in the Department of Commerce to focus specifically on manufacturing, we have yet to see that person appointed. My deep concern is that I read in the paper today the person now being considered, after we have been encouraging this month after month, is someone who actually has--I don't know this gentleman and this is certainly not a personal attack. I certainly don't know him, but I do know of my concern that his company, Behlen Manufacturing, of Columbus, NE, laid off 75 workers in 2002, 4 months after announcing plans for a $3 million factory in northwest Beijing. As Yogi Berra said: It's deja vu all over again. This is the kind of headline we get every day now in my State. I don't want somebody heading up the manufacturing effort who is doing that. I want to see someone who has made a commitment to America and American jobs and to help American businesses stay here and be productive. That means fighting for a level playing field on trade policy, currency manipulation, and tackling health care issues. It also means focusing on those issues that help our companies be more competitive, more efficient. Two of those programs, which I have been deeply involved in now for over 7 years, in the House and now in the Senate, are the Manufacturing Extension Partnership and the Advanced Technology Program.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Twenty-seven hundred jobs.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for his eloquence, as usual. My friend from Illinois has addressed concerns we have in Michigan as well. There is nothing more important to us than making sure everyone has a good-paying job and the health benefits, pensions, and other job security that go along with it. Last year Michigan lost more jobs than any other State. We understand what needs to happen for our families and how to create real economic security and to create jobs, to support a level playing field in trade, to tackle the rising cost of health care, to invest in education innovation. All of the things that make for the creation of a strong economic policy are what we should be doing. I thank my friend from Illinois for speaking to some very important issues. One of my concerns as a member of the Budget Committee is in fact this budget does not adequately fund education. It eliminates some important areas of technology innovation. A program called the Advanced Technology Program, which we have used in Michigan with the auto industry and other manufacturing industries, partnering with our universities to create new, cutting-edge technologies that will allow us to compete in the global economy, has been proposed for elimination in this budget, and that is of great concern to me. Those who don't support tackling the trade issues and creating a level playing field, those who say free trade, anything goes, point to education and innovation and say: That is how we compete. That is how we create jobs. Yet we see in this budget areas of tremendous need to invest in our people and create opportunity, areas that in fact are cut. I wanted to speak for just a moment on some things that have been said in the debate about the challenge for us in total as it relates to the budget. We are told the problem is domestic spending, that, in fact, if we were to have only a small amount of growth in our domestic programs--education, protecting the environment, family health care, law enforcement, homeland security--somehow that is what we ought to be debating because that will make the biggest difference in reducing the deficit. Certainly we want to fund programs in a way that provides accountability and efficiency and supports every precious dollar being used as wisely as possible. It is important to look at one comparison in terms of numbers when we look at where to go to focus our time to reduce the massive red ink that has been created in the last 3 years. First, if you exclude the Department of Defense, all discretionary spending--so we are not talking about Medicare and Medicaid but all discretionary funding, education, Head Start, children's health care, family health care, senior programs, environmental protection, homeland security, the COPS Program, supporting firefighters, the Justice Department, everything we do outside of defense, everything we do outside of defense in the discretionary domestic budget--is costing $445 billion this year. The deficit projected for this year, 1 year, the deficit during the same time period is $521 billion. We could eliminate every penny of investment in our children, every penny invested in protecting the environment, every penny for law enforcement and firefighters and homeland security, and every penny we provide to protect our parks and all of the other things we do in the domestic budget, we could eliminate every penny and we would still have a debt. This is extraordinary. I was fortunate to be in the House of Representatives in 1997 when we balanced the budget for the first time in 30 years. I was very proud of that vote. It was tough because we had to make choices about how to balance the budget. But we did it. We saw at the end of the decade, and as I began my term in the Senate, a debate about the largest budget surpluses in the history of the country, $5.6 trillion in surpluses. In 3 years we have gone to the largest deficit, over $3 trillion in deficit in just 3 years. There is something else that has been talked about. We could wipe out every penny in domestic spending for the United States and not eliminate this deficit. So surely something else is at play. We have to look at the larger picture of what is going on. That relates to the number shown on this chart. We have tax cuts that have been voted upon by this body in 2001 and 2003. Both enacted and proposed tax cuts over the next 10 years will take $2.5 trillion of revenue. So we remove that from the Federal ledger, $2.5 trillion. That almost equals--it is pretty darn close--$2.4 trillion in Social Security surpluses. We have surpluses built up here. We take dollars away here. Now we are being told, because Social Security surpluses are essentially being used to fund these tax cuts, we have a surplus on one side, we have a deficit on the other. They pretty much equal each other. Common sense would say the Social Security surplus is in fact funding these tax cuts. Another way to look at that is, when we look at the amount of Social Security surplus that is saved in the next 10 years, it is zero. It is another way of saying the same thing. We save zero. It is being used. It is not being saved. It is not being put aside in the infamous lockbox we used to talk about and I still think is a good idea. Instead we save zero, and the amount of Social Security surplus that is spent is in fact the whole amount, $2.4 trillion. At the same time this is happening, we hear from the Chairman of the Federal Reserve that because of the challenge in Social Security, because of the fact the surplus is being used because of the baby boomers and the long-time obligations that are coming, we should look at raising Social Security taxes or lowering benefits. There is another option. The other option is don't use this money. Don't use the Social Security trust fund to fund tax cuts primarily for the privileged few. There are some tax cuts--the child tax credit, the marriage penalty repeal, small business efforts, the lowest income tax bracket being lowered--that are helpful to everyone, and they make sense to help grow the economy. But the vast majority of the tax cuts are geared to the privileged few in this country at a time of war, at a time when we need to ask everyone to be sacrificing together so that we are not leaving mounds of red ink for our children. When we look long term at the budget cuts as compared to Social Security, other people say, that is not true. Let's look at the reality over 75 years. The actuaries look over a 75-year period at the soundness of Social Security. Let's look over the next 75 years. If all of the tax cuts that have passed are made permanent, with those being proposed by the President, we will see a cost of $12.1 trillion over 75 years; $12.1 trillion of revenues essentially pulled out of the Federal Government. What is the shortfall in Social Security? Shockingly, a Social Security shortfall over 75 years is $3.8 trillion. So it is absolutely accurate to say, as we look to the future and plan, as we know the baby boomers are coming, of which I am one, and we know the challenges of having more people in retirement and fewer people working, that we better pay attention to these numbers and understand that, unfortunately, the hole that has been dug as it relates to jeopardizing Social Security is one that was dug consciously. We, in fact, can stop that. We can reverse it. We can protect Social Security for the future, as our leader on the Budget Committee tried to do in the last amendment where he said we are not going to use Social Security until we can totally protect Social Security; that we are not going to add to that deficit through either spending or tax cuts. That was the right amendment to adopt, and I commend him for it. I am deeply disappointed it was not adopted. The budget is all about choices. It is all about our values and our priorities. I believe at a time of challenge and national security concerns, a time of war, it is all about being in this together as Americans as well, not asking some to sacrifice greatly and others not to sacrifice at all. What is great about our country is that we come together and we chip in, and we certainly saw that after 9/11. We saw the wonderful spirit of what it means to be an American: people willing to chip in, be part of the positive solution, be part of helping each other. I believe they want a budget for the United States that reflects the same attitude-- all of us chipping in, all of us being willing to be responsible for the future for our children and not leave them trillions of dollars in red ink that they will then have to figure out how to pay for after we are gone. That is not the legacy I want to leave for my children and grandchildren yet to come. I am very interested in having us put forward a budget that reflects the values and priorities of all Americans, not just a privileged few. That is what this debate will be about every day this week: What choices are we going to make? Are we going to do more tax cuts for the privileged few or are we going to keep everybody safe by fully funding all of the homeland security needs we have? Are we going to give more tax cuts for the privileged few or are we going to protect Social Security for the next 75 years, for the next generation? We have choices to make, and I am very hopeful that the choices we will make will be ones that will make us proud when we look at the faces of our children in the future. Thank you, Mr. President.

Ms. STABENOW. Greenville, MI.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I was hoping to have 15 minutes if that is possible.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, if I might respond to my colleague's comments, we certainly have heard similar comments before. There are a couple of concerns that I have. Like everything, it depends on how you look at the numbers and how you look at what is happening in terms of tax burden. The debate that has gone on relates to the income tax. It has nothing to do, first, with all of the taxes. In this debate, there is always a conscious desire not to look at the payroll tax, which everybody pays and, in fact, it is skewed more to lower and middle-income people, because above a certain income you don't pay the payroll tax anymore. So let's look at who is paying the payroll tax. Let's look at who pays sales tax, which is based on what you buy. It has no relationship to your income specifically, in terms of what the sales tax burden is. We know it falls more on low- and moderate-income individuals. We can also look at property taxes. We look at a wide array of taxes in this country and we see that low- and middle-income people have a huge burden. When taxes get cut, it is not on the things they are paying; it is on those taxes--in this case, the income tax--which is paid by those who make higher incomes, higher percentages. When we look at the total tax burden, we see that it is the middle- income people in this country who get squeezed on all sides. We should not add to that by extending a tax cut that continues to do that. Let us look at the numbers, how the tax breaks stack up. The combined effect of the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003, if you make over $1 million a year--that is in a year and a half--if you make over $1 million a year, your combined tax cut is $140,369. The average middle-income-tax payer will get a tax cut of $566. Look at these numbers. This is more than the majority of people in the country earn working hard every single year for their family. They work hard, they play by the rules, they are struggling with sending their kids to college and making sure they can buy their homes and pay the property taxes, and all of the other pressures on them. They are worried about losing their job now to overseas competition. Instead of selling products overseas, they are worried their jobs are going to go overseas. We have individuals who work hard every day, play by the rules, and the vast majority of them are earning less per year than what one person is going to get in an income tax cut who earns over $1 million a year. I do not begrudge in any way someone who earns over $1 million a year. That is not the point. The point is we are looking at this kind of a tax cut of $140,000 versus $566. There is a major issue of who is getting the tax benefit and who drives the economy, from where does the economic growth come. We know it is from middle-income-tax payers who are as consumers purchasing in the economy, but more broadly we look at this in terms of choices. We know if we were to give them two-thirds of their tax cut this year instead of all of it, we could fully fund what has been reported is needed to keep us safe with homeland security--every single penny. It is a large number. We are told by Warren Rudman and the members who came together to look at all of our homeland security needs--not only police and fire and bioterrorism, borders and ports and chemical plants, but all of it--it will cost $15 billion, which is one-third of what those at the top are going to get back this year in a tax cut. Would folks be willing to take a little bit less to know they are safe, that their family is safe, that the borders are safe, that the ports are safe, that they can call 9-1-1 and know they can get a first responder at their home if there is an emergency, or that the community can respond, that police and firefighters can talk to each other on the radio, have interoperability, which they do not have now? All across Michigan, we do not have one system where everybody can talk to each other in case of an emergency. I think most of the people who do very well in this country would say, yes, that is important for my family, and that is a tradeoff I am willing to make; that is a choice I am willing to make. This is about choices. It is not about class warfare. There are huge differences in what people will be getting back. It is not about penalizing or in any way demonizing people who make over $1 million a year. This is about choices. When we see red for as far as the eye can see, when we see that this year's projected deficit, just this year's deficit of $521 billion is more than the entire investments outside defense--take defense away--all of our domestic investments, all of our domestic budget: homeland security, education, health care, law enforcement, protecting the environment, parks--we could wipe out the entire domestic budget, except for defense, and not equal the deficit hole that the administration has put us in just this year. It is a matter of choices and saying to someone who is doing very well: We need you to help. We need you to be willing to make sacrifices just as every family is, just as our men and women in the armed services are making in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is about choices. If the choice is keeping every American safe, making sure we can protect ourselves from terrorist attacks across this country, and asking those doing very well, who have reaped the benefits of this country, to help share in paying for that, I think the majority of them would say yes. That is something we all are willing to do. This is always a question of choices. It is a question of priorities. It is a question of values. As the chart shows, it is also a question of fairness for people. If we look at the difference in the average middle-income-tax payer and the cut they will get in 2006, and those with incomes over $1 million and the cut they will get, we see that in addition to this disparity, this middle-income-tax payer is paying a payroll tax, sales taxes, property taxes, and contributing greatly to the payment of services in their community. This budget is about what is fair for everybody, what is the right thing to do to keep us strong fiscally, how do we put ourselves on a path of not asking our children to pay the burden of the debt that is being accumulated, how do we make sure we are smart in terms of our investments in the economy to grow jobs, put money in the pockets of middle-income people, small businesses that drive the economy--the majority of new jobs are coming from small business--how do we make sure that is a priority for us, and how do we make sure we are creating a set of priorities and a vision for the future that our families are asking us to do? Thank you, Mr. President.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the budget. I first commend my ranking member, the Senator from North Dakota, for his incredible leadership and the way in which he has presented all of these issues and the challenges facing our country. There is no question that a huge hole has been dug with deficits as far as the eye can see. I remember coming onto the Budget Committee as a new Member of the Senate in 2001, when the debate was what to do with the largest surplus in the history of the country. I remember when the Senator from North Dakota was talking about the baby boomers retiring and the need to put money aside to meet our obligations under Social Security and Medicare, and the need to look to the future. Unfortunately, instead, what we saw were very short-term decisions that turned the largest budget surplus in the history of the country into the largest budget deficit in the history of the country, in only 3 years. It is astounding to see what has happened in the last 3 years. But I thank him for his courage and his willingness to fight for what is important to my family and the people of Michigan and the people of North Dakota and people all across the country, for fighting for the right priorities for the future of our country. I also want to take a moment to thank our chairman, who convened his last budget hearing and budget resolution markup this year. I appreciate the fact that he conducted a fair markup, as he has done since being chairman. We came to the conclusion and voted on a budget resolution that now is in front of us. He did it in a very fair way. I also commend him for a couple of tough decisions he made that the administration was not willing to make. Chairman Nickles, unlike the administration, put funding in the budget for ongoing activities in Iraq. He put in a reserve fund of $30 billion. While I am concerned that is not enough to meet the request that will come back to us, I commend him for his leadership in understanding the number certainly is not zero, that there needs to be an amount that is put aside into a reserve fund. But this budget is so flawed in the end analysis, I am not sure where to begin in talking about it. It reminds me of Yogi Berra when he said: This is deja vu all over again. Because that is exactly where we are, given the direction we have gone in the last 3 years. Once again, we see a budget that is skewed to a privileged few while leaving middle- income families behind. It fails the credibility test, and it does not reflect our Nation's values and priorities. I hope the Senate will decide to reject it and go back to the drawing board and get it right. Our Nation's budget is our chief economic tool. This is the fourth time President Bush has submitted a budget to Congress containing his economic plan for the Nation. Unfortunately, the President's last three budgets have led to major job loss, soaring deficits, rising debt, the looting of the Social Security and Medicare trust funds, and have failed to provide the necessary resources for our domestic priorities. It seems every day we hear more and more economic bad news. Certainly in the State of Michigan every day there are headlines of job loss. On Friday, the Labor Department said there were only 21,000 jobs created in February. This is anemic, according to many economists, and 285,000 jobs short of what the President said would happen just a couple of months ago. At this rate, it will take 9 years to recover all of the jobs lost under President Bush. Unfortunately, the people of the State of Michigan can't wait that long. Our people need jobs now. Under the Bush Presidency, we have lost 2.8 million manufacturing jobs, many of them in the State of Michigan. Our manufacturing sector is in crisis. Every day we hear about another company shipping its jobs overseas to China or India or Mexico. In fact, the State of Michigan had the highest number of jobs lost last year. Just last Friday, our Democratic Policy Committee held a hearing on the topic of shipping jobs overseas. At that hearing we heard testimony from Dave Doolittle who works at the Electrolux Refrigerator plant, Greenville, MI. They announced they were going to close and export 2,700 jobs to Mexico. Despite major concessions offered by the workers and over $70 million in economic incentives from the State and the community--the community did everything right; the workers did everything right--Electrolux announced it will close next year, and 2,700 workers will be out of a job. That means 2,700 families will be without a breadwinner in a town of 9,000 people; 2,700 people losing their jobs out of 9,000. This type of job loss is devastating to these families. In addition to that, when we look at the ripple effect and the suppliers involved and others, this can reach as high as 8,000 good- paying jobs with health care and pension plans throughout the entire region. This type of job loss is devastating for our families, and it is devastating to Dave Doolittle. Mr. Doolittle has worked at the plant for over 23 years. He has a pension. He has health benefits. He has one child in college and two in high school. The plant closing will devastate his family. He asked us, who will pay for his two high school children to go to college? What is he going to do about health care for his family? Will they be able to keep their home? To add insult to injury, Dave Doolittle and other employees will be working on an assembly line that has just received major investments of $100 million to improve it so the company can see what problems it has so they can then rebuild that and take it to Mexico. This highly productive, highly skilled workforce is working out all the kinks in the equipment that they will then pack up and send to Mexico. Unfortunately, the President's budget and the budget before us will do nothing for Dave Doolittle and his family. He is a one of a growing number of hard-working families making up a part of another America. The other America includes not only the unemployed but millions of workers who have simply given up trying to find a job. If you include them in the unemployment rate, these discouraged workers push the unemployment numbers up to 9.6 percent, almost 1 in 10 of our workers. People such as Dave Doolittle are not interested in a handout. This is a hard-working, skilled individual. What he is looking for is a good job and a chance to give his children and his grandchildren-to-be a better future. They want to provide their children with health care and an education so they can live the American dream. Isn't that what we all want for ourselves and for our children? They want the country to be strong and safe from terrorist attacks. They are counting on us to do what is right at home and abroad. Unfortunately, the Bush economic policies have failed Dave Doolittle and his family on all counts. The President's budget has no plan to create jobs. It does nothing to help the uninsured and make health care more affordable. It contains proposed cuts for our schools, our police officers, our firefighters who are trying to protect us on the front lines against terrorist attacks. On these priorities and more, Democrats tried to improve this budget in committee but were voted down on a party-line vote every time. This budget also lacks credibility. For the last 3 years we were told one thing; yet something very different has happened over and over. The first tax cut produced massive deficits and harmed our economy. Despite all that, the President continues to push the same trickle-down economics that have failed. If these tax cuts were done by trial and error, they were an error. Consider everything that was said and what actually has happened. We were told that the administration's tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 would create jobs, but we have lost jobs, almost 3 million. We were told we would have a surplus, but we now have the largest deficit in the history of the country. We were told we would pay off the national debt, but now our national debt is higher than when President Bush took office. We were told the President's budget would not use Social Security trust funds, but now we are using every penny of the Social Security surplus to pay for tax cuts for the privileged few. We were told we needed to modernize Medicare and add a prescription drug benefit, with which I agree, but now we have a law that will privatize Medicare, hurt one in four seniors on Medicare, and cause them to lose their private insurance. It does little to help seniors purchase prescription drugs and does nothing to lower prices for all Americans. We were told we would fund Leave No Child Behind and special education, but now we have failed to fully fund them. School districts are making cuts, shortening their school years, and laying off teachers. We were told we would have a new Department of Homeland Security that would help protect us, but in only the second budget cycle for this agency, we are already seeing budget cuts from last year, and we are falling far short of what is needed to protect our country. We tried to make some changes to this budget in committee to have it better reflect our Nation's values and priorities. Unfortunately, we were unsuccessful. We tried to add fiscal discipline and reduce the deficit, but we lost on a party-line vote. We tried to fully fund Leave No Child Behind, but we lost on a party-line vote. We tried to restore the cuts to our firefighters, but we lost on a party-line vote. Unfortunately, the Democrats were not the real losers, though. The American people were the losers by those votes. We are in this budget and economic mess because this administration has valued wealth over work and the privileged few over our children's future. For the privileged few, this administration has given so much: most of the tax breaks, subsidies for insurance companies and HMOs, and $139 billion in profit for the pharmaceutical industry. For working families there has been very little. In fact, working men and women and their families are worse off than they were 3 years ago. Three million workers have lost their jobs. As of the end of January, we have over 400,000 people who have lost their jobs who have been cut off of unemployment insurance. Eight million will see their pay cut because of new overtime regulations. Seven million people who work for the minimum wage have seen their pay eroded, and 12 million children were too poor to get the child tax credit. Three years ago, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan gave the go- ahead for massive tax cuts for the top 1 percent, and this Congress, in conjunction with the President, enacted them, and now we have the largest deficits in history. Unfortunately, now Chairman Greenspan is urging Congress and the President to make cuts in Social Security because we have these deficits. This means tax cuts for the privileged few are paving the way for cuts in Social Security for middle-income families. This is wrong. How can we ask people who have worked their entire lives to have their Social Security cut to pay for tax cuts for our privileged few? I mentioned earlier that budgets are all about values and priorities, and I truly believe that. We have to decide, do we want more tax cuts for the privileged few or do we want all Americans to be safe by providing full funding for firefighters, police officers, and other first responders? Do we want more tax cuts for the privileged few or do we want a real comprehensive Medicare prescription drug benefit and lower prescription drug prices for everyone? Do we want more tax cuts for the privileged few or quality schools with highly educated teachers and small class sizes and state-of-the- art technology for all of our children? More tax cuts or quality education? More tax cuts or quality health care for our veterans who have served us and continue to serve us today? More tax cuts or hundreds of thousands of new jobs, rebuilding our Nation's highways? We need a new vision. We need new priorities for America. We need a positive budget that will help all Americans raise their families, get access to health care, and enjoy their lives and their retirement. We need to restore our fiscal discipline, make critical investments to create jobs, and strengthen Medicare and Social Security. In short, we need to make the needs of American families our top priority again. I will be supporting a number of amendments that will do that in this budget debate. I am hopeful we will be able to get bipartisan support to be able to do those things that American families are asking us to do, so at the end of the day we will have a budget that reflects what is important to the people we represent. I yield the floor.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Will the Senator yield?

Ms. STABENOW. Would the Senator agree on its face that it would appear his amendment is about whether folks support that report and if, in fact, they believe, as the Senator said, that exporting jobs is a good idea, folks can vote against your amendment. This is really a time to stand up and say yes or no.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Will my friend yield?