Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Manufacturing Opportunities to Revitalize our Economy's JOBS Act, or the MORE JOBS Act. We are facing a manufacturing job crisis in this country, and that is why I am introducing this bill to help our U.S. manufacturers to create manufacturing jobs here at home.

Since January of 2001, the State of Michigan has faced devastating losses in the manufacturing sector. While the U.S. has lost 3.3 million private sector jobs--2.5 million in the manufacturing sector, Michigan has lost 162,300 manufacturing jobs. That is 18 percent of the state's manufacturing employment. In other words, 1 in 6 Michiganians has lost their manufacturing job in the last 2 years.

It is an unfortunate fact that Michigan is one of the leading states in the country in manufacturing job loss. Indeed, while the U.S. employment rate is around 6 percent, Michigan's unemployment rate is currently around 7.6 percent. In some parts of Michigan, the unemployment rate is as high as 12 percent.

The people of Michigan and the people of the United States need relief to help revitalize our economy. In the midst of these troubling times, we are faced with a new challenge: complying with a World Trade Organization (WTO) decision finding that our Foreign Sales Corporation (FSC) and Extraterritorial Income (ETI) tax code must be reformed to meet international trade law requirements. I understand that our colleagues on the Senate Finance Committee have been and continue to work diligently on this issue. Our country is one that plays by the rules and we will ultimately fix our tax code.

The tax benefits of the FSC and ETI, however, are valued at nearly $50 billion over 10 years. We cannot just take away these benefits to our American manufacturers without creating new tax relief for them. The practical effect of that would be a $50 billion tax increase. And, that is why we must create a new tax credit for our U.S. manufacturers.

The MORE JOBS Act that I am introducing today lays out a vision on how I believe we should reform the code. First of all it, it phases out the non-compliant FSC/ETI tax code over the next three years.

Then, to help our U.S. manufacturers, the bill creates a Manufacturers' Tax Credit for domestic companies. A company, under my proposal, would be allowed to deduct 9 percent of its domestic production income before it has to figure its tax liability. In effect, this would result in a new tax rate for our U.S. manufacturers that are 3 percent lower--32 percent instead of 35 percent. And, my bill would make this effective immediately, not phased in as others have suggested.

The credit would be extended to a wide array of companies: small businesses, large businesses and agricultural cooperatives. So whether it is a small furniture manufacturer in western Michigan, a tool and die company in Grand Rapids, or one of our automakers in metro Detroit, companies will be rewarded for their domestic production. And, our farmers will benefit, too.

I often say that we in Michigan pride ourselves on what we make and what we grow. These two activities are vital to a strong economy, and our farmers would also benefit under my bill.

Farmers themselves, if they have at least one employee, will directly benefit under my bill, since they qualify for the tax benefit as manufacturers. In addition, agricultural cooperatives would also receive this tax benefit. Farmers often belong to an agricultural cooperative which is covered under my bill. Agricultural cooperatives do the processing, handling, storing, and marketing for their members. For example, a farmer will sell his specialty crop to the cooperative. The cooperative then takes the farmer's crop and puts it with other farmers' produce and then stores and prepares the produce for sale to a food processing company. The coop passes its profits on to the members of the cooperative based on the amount of business each member does with the cooperative. So the tax benefits for the cooperative can be passed-through to farmer members of the coop.

Finally, one of the cornerstones of my legislation is that my bill would create incentives for companies to keep jobs in the U.S. and to bring more jobs to our country. The MORE JOBS Act would encourage companies to keep their manufacturing in the U.S. by basing the amount of their tax credit on how much of their manufacturing is done in the U.S. Companies that have all of their manufacturing in the U.S. would receive the full 3 percent tax credit. Companies that have much their manufacturing outside of the U.S. would receive a reduced credit in proportion to their U.S. manufacturing. While other proposals being circulated eventually eliminate this incentive, my bill would make this incentive permanent.

Why would we want to reward companies if they send their jobs overseas? We want to reward those who are contributing to our economy and putting Americans to work here at home.

I want to work closely with my colleagues to reform our manufacturing

tax code. In doing so, we will make our country stronger, our economy more resilient, and we can create millions of new good jobs in the manufacturing and agricultural sector. But we must do it carefully and with a priority on our U.S. manufacturing base. I urge my colleagues to support the MORE JOBS Act.

Mr. President, without objection, I yield myself 5 minutes from the time of those in opposition.

Mr. President, we have a very important vote coming up shortly on whether or not to proceed with the bill or to continue working, whether or not to stop our efforts to continue to try to improve this bill or to begin the clock to a final vote. Many colleagues have pointed out that this is the bill--this is the bill. The bottom line of all of this paperwork is that it does not take effect, in terms of prescription drug coverage for seniors, until 2006. So this is the bill we are asking for time to thoroughly go through, line by line, and to be able to fix what does not work for our seniors.

We are being told we have to rush this; this is the last time we are going to be able to do it; we don't have any more time to be able to put this together. Yet the bottom line of all this, for seniors' prescription drug help, if there is any in here--and there is a little--doesn't even start until 2006.

I am going to be voting against the effort to stop debate and move to a final vote because I believe we need to take the time to get it right. I believe there are critical issues we need to fix.

Let me first say a positive aspect in all of this is important efforts to help our rural providers, our doctors and hospitals, home health agencies, and nursing homes. On Saturday I put forward a bill that would actually pull out those positive provisions that are critical for our providers, to vote separately on that. I believe we would have, if not unanimous, overwhelming bipartisan support for those efforts that help our providers.

While I do not believe this bill, on balance, is good at all for our seniors, it is a bad deal for seniors, there are good provisions in it. I hope if this bill does not go forward, we can pull those provider pieces out and support them.

Why don't I support this bill as written? In this bill as written, 2.7 million retirees lose their coverage. One out of four folks who worked hard during their lives, maybe have taken a pay cut here or there to get good health coverage, would actually lose coverage as a result of the provisions, the way this bill is written for private employers.

Mr. President, 6.4 million low-income seniors, the folks we all talk about, the folks we are desperately concerned about, who really are sitting down today at the table and saying, Do I eat today or do I take my medicine, they will end up paying more because of the way this is changed between Medicaid and Medicare. That doesn't make any sense. It is a bad deal for too many of our low-income seniors who need help the most. It is a bad deal for 2.7 million folks who have private insurance and will lose it. My fear is they will not just lose the prescription drug coverage; they will lose their entire health care coverage.

To add insult to injury, this bill locks in the highest possible prices in the world. It keeps drug prices high, which is why the pharmaceutical industry is so strongly supporting it.

They changed their strategy a few years ago. They have been trying to stop prescription drug coverage because they didn't want Medicare to use its clout as a group purchaser to be able to get a good discount, as we do for the veterans, and lower prices. They fought it, but then they decided they couldn't fight it anymore because seniors are desperate and we do need to do something. We are long past doing something real for our seniors. So they changed the strategy. They said: Let's write a bill that gets a whole bunch more customers, 40 million more customers potentially, and let's make sure we lock in the highest prices so they can't compete; they can't lower prices; they can't go to Canada or other countries where there are safe, FDA- approved processes right now to be able to bring drugs back across the border.

That is a big deal for us in Michigan. It is 5 minutes across a bridge or 5 minutes through a tunnel to be able to get lower prices--in half or more. So they made sure we are not going to be able to do that and they made sure we are not going to be able to negotiate for lower prices.

What do we have in the end? We have a whole new group of customers for the pharmaceutical industry who will be forced to pay the highest possible prices.

This is not a good deal for our seniors. We can do better than this. People don't have to lose coverage. People don't have to pay more. People don't have to be locked into the highest possible prices in the world. We have time. This bill doesn't take effect until 2006 for our seniors. I urge us to take the time to get it right.

Mr. President, first, I thank my friend and colleague from the State of Washington for her eloquence this evening in laying out where this is not a good deal for seniors. We wish it was a good deal for seniors. Both of us have been here since 2001, speaking in the Chamber frequently about the need to provide prescription drug coverage for seniors, real coverage, and about the need to lower prices for everybody.

In fact, I have been working on senior issues for a long time. Actually that was the very first opportunity I had to get involved in public service. I won't say when, but it was about 25 years ago. I came into county government, which is a part-time position in Michigan. But what brought me into the Ingham County Board of Commissioners was the issue of senior citizen health care. I have been involved in that issue ever since.

Nothing would please me more than to be able to stand on the floor this evening and say: We did it. We have put together a voluntary, comprehensive prescription drug benefit under Medicare for seniors and the disabled. Nothing would please me more. And nothing would please me more than to say: We did it. We have put in place the ability to lower prices for everyone.

As colleagues have said, this is not just about Medicare and just about our seniors and the disabled--although certainly they are very important people. They use the majority of the prescription drugs. But we know right now the explosion in prices of prescription drugs is driving the entire cost of the health care system.

When I talk to those who are in the auto industry, or when I talk to small businesses, when I talk to those who are in the furniture business in Michigan, or in retail sales or work in State government, I hear the same thing, which is at least half the cost increases in health care are a result of the explosion in prescription drug prices.

So this is an issue that affects everybody. As we look at this question under Medicare, this is also an issue that affects everyone, every taxpayer as well as every person who is paying for Medicare. So this is a big deal. It is important that we get this right. It is important that we be able, at the end of the day, to say we have strengthened one of the great American success stories called Medicare, and that we have put in place the competition and the accountability to bring prices down. This bill absolutely does not do that. It doesn't do either one of those things.

First of all, it starts from the premise that seniors want something other than traditional Medicare. When we look at what seniors have said when they have had a choice, here is what they said. Eighty-nine percent of those who have a choice right now between Medicare+Choice, which is an HMO, private insurance, or traditional Medicare, 89 percent said: We will take traditional Medicare. Eleven percent said: We will take the private insurance.

Seniors have already said what choice they want. When I hear folks talking about what they want in Medicare, they are not asking for more bureaucracy, or more insurance paperwork, or more insurance companies to choose from. They just want to update Medicare for prescription drugs, that is all--just update Medicare for prescription drugs. Eighty-nine percent of the Medicare beneficiaries have already told us what they want to do. They want traditional Medicare.

This bill basically sets in place--some of it is immediate with prescription drug coverage where you have to choose from private insurance plans if they are in your area, and some of it is down the road a bit in 2010 when the entire unraveling of Medicare begins. In some areas, people will have a very different system that will attempt to move them into private insurance.

That is not what folks have said to me. People say we should do that because it costs less. Medicare is in trouble financially down the road. We need to do something to lower costs.

When you look at this, Medicare costs about 2 percent to administer and private HMOs cost 15 percent. So that can't be the reason we are doing this. It costs more to go into private plans than it does with traditional Medicare.

For many of the reasons colleagues said on the floor, traditional Medicare has a very large insurance pool--those who are sick, those who are well, those who are older, those who are younger, all together--the bigger the pool, the bigger the risk pool, the lower the price.

It is not because it would cost less, because it doesn't cost less; it will cost us more. It will cost taxpayers more. It costs more for services under the private sector than it does under traditional Medicare.

Why are we doing this? I think we are doing this for one reason: Unfortunately, the driving reason behind this legislation is that the pharmaceutical lobby has decided, instead of continuing to fight Medicare coverage and the Medicare prescription drug benefit as they have done for many years--they decided they don't want to stop it anymore because it is too big an issue for people. It is a critical life-and-death issue in order to pay for your medicine. That is not to say people got up today and decided to eat or get their medicine. That is not rhetoric; it is real. So they changed their approach and thought they couldn't stop it anymore because it is too real for people: This is a real problem. Let us create a benefit that is done in a way that divides people up into private insurance plans and in a way that doesn't allow Medicare to use all of its leverage to be able to lower prices.

So behind all of this, there are I think two things. There are those who really do believe it ought to be done in the private sector, that we ought to go back to private insurance. But you couple that with an industry that wants to make sure that: No matter what, we can't lower their prices; let us make sure that no matter what, people have to pay the highest prices.

That is why there is no reimportation, which is really important in my State. The idea that you can have a local pharmacist in Michigan be able to do business with a pharmacist in Canada, be able to bring prescription drugs back into the local pharmacy in Michigan at half the price, many of them made in the United States, they are safe, they are FDA approved, bring them back, and create a way to lower prices--they don't want that. That is not in the bill. They do not want a strong provision to tighten patent loopholes so competitors can be able to get into the marketplace with generic drugs. That is not in the bill.

We have a weakened version of that. Amazingly, as colleagues have said,

they were actually able to get language into the bill that says Medicare is prohibited from group purchasing on behalf of seniors and the disabled. It is amazing. That is just amazing. The private insurance companies can try to get the best price. Everybody else can try to get the best price. But Medicare on behalf of our seniors is prohibited from trying to get the best price.

That would only be in the bill for one reason; that is, because the industry has been successful in creating a whole new group of customers who will be forced to pay the highest possible price.

How do we know this? This is not just me talking. The Boston University School of Health has looked at this legislation and estimates there will be $139 billion in increased profits over the next 8 years for the world's most profitable industry. At $17 billion annually, this means about a 38 percent rise in drugmaker profits.

I am all for folks making a profit. I have a major pharmaceutical company in Michigan. They do wonderful research. I am very proud of them for doing this research. But we are talking about an industry that is already one of the most heavily subsidized by taxpayers, because they do not make shoes, or chairs, or cars, they make lifesaving medicine. We want them to make it. We want them to do research. So we help them pay for it. We give them protection. We have patent protection so that they are protected from competition. We give them the ability to write off their research and write off their advertising. They get a lot of support and help. Why? Because we want to be able to afford the product.

At the end of the day, when, by the way, they are spending 2\1/2\ times more on advertising and marketing and administration rather than research, which is a big concern of mine, but at end of the day we are seeing not prices going down so people can afford them but efforts to actually protect prices and allow them to go up.

We are looking at about a 38 percent rise in drugmaker profits. Certainly any business would welcome that. But that is on the backs of American citizens. This is on the backs of American taxpayers who are paying the bill--American seniors who just want to know that they can count on Medicare, get the medicine they need, pick their own doctor, live a healthy life, and visit grandkids and great grandkids. They trust us to look beyond the 650 lobbyists, or however many there are in the drug industry now. I know it is over six lobbyists for every one Member of the Senate. Imagine, more than six lobbyists for the drug companies for every Member of Congress. They are counting on the Senate to look beyond the swarm and to look at what they need. They are counting on us to look at what they are asking for.

I know at the end of the day it is our obligation and responsibility to make sure we put together something that actually helps people get their medicine at affordable prices, is responsive to the taxpayers of this country, and is something that protects one of the great American success stories called Medicare.

The No. 1 reason I am opposing this legislation, there is nothing in here to lower prices for anyone. Profits will continue to go up and they are locked in. This legislation sanctions that.

Second, we are putting into place a system that will unravel by privatizing Medicare, or will allow Medicare to wither on the vine as former Speaker Newt Gingrich said. It took a while. He said that in 1995 and here we are in 2003 with a bill that does that.

It does a couple of other things that make no sense to me. I would assume that the first rule would be: do no harm. Yet under this legislation, it is estimated that over and above what is happening right now in the marketplace, 2.7 million retirees will lose their coverage, people with private coverage. That is one in four. That means three out of four employers will wrap around and keep the coverage going, but one out of four, which is too high--we could make that zero if we wanted to, if we had legislation I cosponsored a year ago that made it--but right now one out of four in this bill are estimated to lose their private retiree coverage.

My guess is a lot of those folks gave up pay increases over the years to get good coverage, gave up other things so in their retirement they would have private coverage.

On top of keeping prices high and unraveling Medicare, it is estimated by a study group that 143,000 people in the State of Michigan would lose their private coverage. I don't know how in the world I can support that. And I will not.

The last thing this does, there are 6.4 million low-income seniors and disabled who will lose access to the drugs they need. Many of them will actually pay more. How in the world does it make any sense that we would have a prescription drug benefit that has been described as helping our low-income seniors the most, but actually costs people more out of pocket, people who are currently on Medicaid, who find themselves under Medicare with a different system, a different asset test, different copays, and would actually pay more.

We should be focusing on and helping the people who really are choosing every day whether or not to eat or get their medicine or pay the electric bill.

When we look at this whole picture, as much as I would love to say this is a great deal, this is a bad deal. My colleagues say this is a first step. There is an old saying: Beware of the first step. I think the first step is right off the cliff on this legislation for too many people.

In closing, there is one important piece in this bill that has strong if not unanimous bipartisan support that I wish we were passing separately this evening. That is the issue I have talked about a number of times: what is happening to our doctors, our hospitals, our home health agencies, nursing homes, and others who have been cut consistently in the reimbursements they receive, whether they be rural or urban providers.

Those who care for our seniors and the disabled have seen resources cut. That, in turn, is cutting access. We have known that cuts were coming now for the last 3 years, and instead of doing something about it sooner because our doctors and other providers desperately needed us to, it gets rolled into this legislation that is highly controversial. I regret that. I have offered separate legislation pulling out all of these provisions. I offered it on Saturday, and I asked unanimous consent we take it up immediately and pass it. It was objected to on the other side. I regret that, as well.

The reality is, in the middle of this bill I believe there are some very important providers being held hostage, folks I want to support, whom I have supported, and I will support in the future; folks for whom I have fought, and unfortunately because of the fact that this is in the middle of this bill to unravel Medicare and hurt them in the long run and increase cuts in the long run for all of them, I am not going to be able to support this bill. However, I do want the record to reflect that our doctors and hospitals and others who have been cut too much are cancer care providers. They are still cut too much in this legislation. I am extremely upset that is the case.

But we do have in this bill provisions for rural hospitals, urban hospitals, and others that are desperately needed. I am at least pleased there are provisions there recognizing the desperate needs our providers feel.

In conclusion, when we look at the broad bill before the Senate that unravels Medicare, keeps prices high, causes people to lose their health insurance in the private sector, and causes the most vulnerable seniors to pay more, this is a bad deal. I am hopeful, still, that those listening this evening will call their Members before the vote that I believe is coming tomorrow morning. Tell the Members to go back to the drawing board. We can do better than this for people. I am still very hopeful this will be stopped and we will get back to the drawing board and get it right.

Section 641

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Barbara Boxer be the next Democrat to speak after Senator Harkin, who I believe is the last person at the moment we have unanimous consent for in terms of speaking order.

Mr. President, it is interesting to listen to the debate with colleagues today on both sides of the aisle concerning this legislation. To hear the discussion from the other side of the aisle, there would be no reason at all to oppose the bill; there would be no reason at all, last night, to have to hold the voting boards open for 3 hours to twist arms to be able to change votes, to be able to get the votes to actually pass the bill; there would be no reason that overwhelmingly Members on the Democratic side of the House and the Senate who crafted and led the creation of Medicare would be opposed to this bill.

On its surface, what is happening makes no sense if, in fact, this is a good bill for seniors. There is no way, if this were a good bill for seniors and for the disabled in this country, that I would be standing here opposing it. There is no way my colleagues in the House of Representatives--some of whom were there when Medicare was passed, some of whom have championed health care and senior citizen services for decades--would have stood on the House floor and voted no if it was good for seniors and for the disabled.

On its face, that makes no sense.

For those who have worked for years on this issue, Mr. President, I actually came into public service over 25 years ago; I often joke that I was 5 at the time--I came into public service over the issue of senior health care in Michigan. That is what brought me into public service. Since that time, I have worked very hard to continue to improve services, access to care, expand home health care, to be able to modernize health care as we have changed with new technology, new medicines, and new opportunities. I was very pleased that the first bill I introduced coming to the Senate was a bill to lower prescription drug prices by allowing our local pharmacist to do business across the border in Canada and other States to lower prices. So I care very deeply about this issue.

Nothing would please me more than to be able to stand here today and declare a victory for our seniors and a victory for all Members because we have finally done the right thing. Seniors have waited too long, there is no question. They have waited way too long.

Unfortunately, under this plan, they are still waiting. Not only will an awful lot of people continue to wait, some of them will find instead of a step

forward--which we all would like this to be--a step forward that I supported with the Senate bill, even though it was not all that I wanted it to be, but it was a bipartisan bill. It was truly a step forward. I supported it as something we could build on. Instead of this being a step forward for seniors, for too many it is a step off the cliff.

Let's look at what we are talking about, just the facts. For someone who is putting out $5,100 worth of prescription drugs in a year--which, unfortunately, is not a high amount given what people are having to pay for prescription drugs--if they are paying $5,100 for prescription drugs, they would have to have out of pocket under this bill $4,020 of that $5,100. They would still pay $4,020 for that $5,100.

Some would say--and I respect that--Well, at least it is something. It may not be much, but at least it is something. The question is, What are you giving up to get that less than $1,100 in help when you have a $5,100 drug bill? The first thing, you may be giving up your coverage altogether to get that benefit. Estimates are that 2.7 million retirees will lose their coverage as a result of this bill. That is about one out of four people in Michigan.

Some would say: Well, 75 percent will not lose coverage. That is great, if you are one of the 75 percent. But what if you are one of the 25 percent of folks who worked all their life, probably along the way gave up some pay raises to get a good health care benefit, may have made a number of tradeoffs to make sure in your retirement you and your family had quality health care?

To get a very meager amount of money for prescription drug help, one out of four folks will lose their benefits. We do not have to do that under a bill we passed when there was a Democratic majority in this Senate. That bill was brought forward under Senator Bob Graham's leadership and sponsorship. I was pleased to be a cosponsor. We had a bill where nobody lost their coverage. We do not have to write a bill where 25 percent of the retirees lose their private insurance coverage. It is all in how it is designed.

This is designed in a way to give incentives, unfortunately, for some employers to drop their coverage--not everyone, but if you are that fourth person when it is one out of four, that is 100 percent of you, 100 percent of your coverage and your family's coverage. So for those folks, this is not a good deal.

Well, let's look at some more. Who else isn't it a good deal for? Well, we are told that about 6.4 million people are low-income seniors who will have less access to the drugs they need, and possibly pay more. These are folks who are the poorest of the poor seniors. These are the folks who really are sitting down tonight at the kitchen table and deciding, do they eat or do they get their medicine?

This is not some platitude, some rhetoric. This is real for people where a dollar or two-dollar or five-dollar copay on a prescription makes the difference between eating, paying their electric bill, or having a roof over their head.

We understand from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities that many of these 6.4 million low-income and disabled Medicare beneficiaries would pay more for their prescription drugs, possibly much more because they would be moved from Medicaid for low-income seniors--where many only have a one-dollar copay for their prescriptions--to a system where they would be paying more. In addition to that, there are certain drugs now that seniors need or the disabled need that they receive under Medicaid that may not be available under the private insurance plans.

So when they move this system to private plans, which is the intent as much as possible--where there is one or more private insurance plans, plus an HMO or PPO--when they move in that direction, they possibly limit the prescription drug choices of our seniors.

So under this bill, if you have folks who have a bill of $5,100, they still pay $4,020 of it. On top of that, they may be one of the folks who loses all of their benefits. And they may be one of the folks who actually ends up paying more and having less choice about the prescriptions they will receive.

On top of that, what do folks get? Well, they get the pleasure of knowing there is no new competition put in this bill to lower prices. There, in fact, is language which is stunning to me, absolutely stunning, that prohibits Medicare from bulk purchasing, group purchasing, and negotiating on behalf of all Medicare beneficiaries to lower prices.

So no wonder the pharmaceutical lobbyists are thrilled. I have spent a lot of time on this floor talking about how there are at least six drug company lobbyists for every one Member of the Senate. They earned their pay in this bill, that is for sure. I am sure they are high- fiving it all the way to the bank because what has been done in this bill is lock in a whole new group of customers, millions--39 million customers potentially--locked in at the highest possible prices. That is what we get.

So on top of continuing to get very little prescription drug benefit--and you could pay more; you could lose your coverage, but you might get some; you might get $1,000 out of about a $5,000 drug bill-- but you are hooked into the highest prices because of the inability to negotiate as broadly as possible to lower prices, the inability to go to Canada.

For Michigan that is a pretty big deal. That is 5 minutes across the bridge and the tunnel, and you can drop the prices in half--or 60 percent or 70 percent. We have, for years, been saying: Let the local pharmacists be able to do business to bring back safe FDA-approved drugs, with a closed supply chain so all the safety is there, to bring them back to the local pharmacies just as the drug companies do every single day. We are not talking about mail order. We are not talking about the Internet. We are talking about licensed pharmacists bringing back lower priced drugs, many of which we have helped to pay to make, to the local drugstores to lower prices.

So we are not seeing that. We are not going to see that in this bill. The prohibition continues. We are not going to see a strong bill to close patent loopholes, to be able to allow more generic drugs on the market to increase competition. There is some language, but it has been weakened. We actually have in the bill a prohibition on Medicare using their clout to lower prices.

The VA uses its clout for our veterans, and we do not pay retail for our veterans for prescription drugs. We get a 30- to 40-percent discount because, on behalf of the veterans, we use our clout, through the VA and the Federal Government, to negotiate a group price.

Well, the drug companies do not want that. I understand that. Their sole mission is to make sure their profits and their prices stay as high as possible, that they stop any competition and keep the prices high. I understand that. That is not our job. That is not our job. The seniors in this country, the families, the workers, the businesses that would benefit by more competition to lower prices--the taxpayers expect us to be fighting for them. When I look at this bill, it is shocking the extent to which that is not the case.

So we have a situation where one out of four people could lose their coverage. In a State such as mine, where we have a lot of retirees who have good benefits, this is a big deal. We have very low-income seniors, the poorest of the poor, living on Social Security, with no pension, trying to make it. They could pay more. Many of them will pay more. And we have everybody locking in to these high prices so that more and more we will see the Medicare dollars--the precious dollars we have--going for those high prices rather than helping more people on Medicare.

Then, to add insult to injury, in 2010--which is not that far away, much as we would like to think it is; basically, 6 years away or so, 7 years--this plan opens up a Pandora's box. It allows the beginning to experiment with privatizing Medicare.

It says--even though when folks, who had a choice between picking a private plan and traditional Medicare, 89 percent of them said, I like my Medicare, I am going to stay right where I am, only 11 percent picked private plans--even though that is the case, this bill now moves to put more people in the 11 percent.

This bill even says: We are going to take precious money from Medicare and give it to HMOs and insurance companies and we are going to actually

pay them so they can compete with traditional Medicare. We are going to pay them more. We are going to spend more over here to get people over here.

Now, that would not seem to make sense if you are trying to look at the fact, as many have lamented, that we have a financial crisis with Medicare. We have a concern about not enough dollars under Medicare. Why would we set up a system that would cost more rather than less? Why would we set up a system that people have said they do not want? That does not make any sense, either.

This, starting in 2010, begins the process. It is called a pilot, but it begins a process where--instead of being in this column, where you can pick your own doctor and you know what you are going to pay, and you know what the copay is, and you know what the premium is; it does not matter where you live, you can have access to Medicare; in Michigan you can be up in Iron Mountain or Marquette or Houghton or Escanaba or Sault Sainte Marie in the upper peninsula or in northern Michigan or Detroit or Three Rivers or Lansing or Grand Rapids; you know you have Medicare; you know you can go to the doctor of your choice, the hospital of your choice; and you have health care coverage--now what they are putting in place, starting in 2010, is a system where the folks who look at analyzing this have said, for those who go into this privatizing process, you would be given, essentially, a defined contribution instead of a defined benefit.

You would be given what some call a voucher, some call it a contribution, X amount of money that you could then purchase between a private plan, an HMO, or traditional Medicare. It would begin to diffuse and pull people out into different kinds of plans. Some people have asked: What is wrong with that?

Unfortunately, what happens is that if you are healthy, you are a younger senior, you are going to get a better rate going to a private insurance company or into an HMO. So you may go in that direction. And gradually what happens is that they all have different rates, different costs, cover different things, cover different doctors. In some, you have your own doctor; in some, you can't have your own doctor.

What happens with traditional Medicare? Those who are the sickest, the most elderly, the most disabled, who can't get a good rate outside of traditional Medicare, will stay. The experts tell us the cost of Medicare will go up; because there are sicker, older, more disabled people here, and we are going to see increases. It has been estimated there will be a 25-percent increase over time in those costs.

What happens in the long run in that system? Gradually Medicare will have more and more costs, fewer and fewer people, and we will have what Newt Gingrich said he was hoping would happen or he expected to happen; that is, Medicare will wither on the vine.

It will take a few years. We can say: We are not going to be around then. It doesn't matter to me.

But what we vote on in the next couple days will begin a process that will unravel what has been one of the greatest American success stories ever--Medicare. That is what we are seeing happen here. Someone like myself, who cares so deeply about Medicare, who cares so deeply about providing prescription drug coverage and lowering prices, has to say, no way, no way will I support this.

I understand that there is a major philosophical difference--I respect that--between those who never supported Medicare, who view it as a big government program. I know that. I know that when Medicare originally passed, there were only 12 Republicans who supported it. There is a big philosophical difference.

I say Medicare is a big success story, so is Social Security. Other colleagues say: Big government program, it needs to be privatized or eliminated. Let folks go to the private sector. Let them buy insurance.

Prior to Medicare, half the seniors couldn't find or afford health insurance. They couldn't find it or afford it. Ask folks today, ask a small business person who is trying to find or afford health care, ask somebody who is a single entrepreneur or in a small nonprofit or single business person in their own private consulting business how easy it is to find and afford health insurance. We need to be addressing those issues.

I find it ironic that when we need to be addressing that and creating bigger insurance pools so that we can actually lower prices and create more access to health care and work with the business community to do so, this bill does exactly the opposite. It unravels the only piece we have had that has worked because it takes 39 million people, puts them in one plan--the sick, the healthy, the older, the younger. Because it spreads the costs and the risks in such a large pool, they have been able to keep the administration down, keep the growth in the program down. It has worked.

On the face of it, we would say: Why in the world would we want to change that? Why in the world would we want to create a system where it costs 2 percent right now to administer Medicare; private HMOs, it costs 15 percent? And we would set up a way to begin to move to this?

If we have a financial crisis with Medicare, I would argue it is because of a self-inflicted set of decisions. The tax cuts passed 2\1/ 2\ years ago were paid for by Medicare and Social Security. We would have dollars to be able to take care of everything we want to do with Medicare right now, and Social Security, if it were not for a decision that was more important--to give to those who already have great opportunity and have done well with it. It was decided it was better to give to them and hope it would trickle down to everybody else rather than keeping our promises to Medicare and Social Security.

So now folks say: We have to change it because the resources are gone. Well, the resources are a problem because of decisions made by this Congress and this President.

Even with that, if you say, well, we can't sustain Medicare as we know it, why would you then say, I have an idea: because Medicare is in crisis and because there is going to be a problem down the road funding it, let's make it more expensive? That doesn't make any sense. It doesn't make any sense at all.

It only makes sense in two ways: One, if you just consider Medicare a big government program and you believe everything should be done in the private sector, then from your standpoint, paying 15 percent instead of 2 percent is OK. But I think there is a broader issue at stake. The underlying focus, unfortunately, is that the folks who want to move us away from Medicare are the folks who benefit by this system. And even more than the insurance companies and the HMOs, that are going to have to be paid more to entice them into this, the folks who are benefiting are in the pharmaceutical industry.

What this battle has always been about is making sure that if we are going to provide prescription drug coverage, we are not doing it under one plan where all 39 million seniors are in one plan and they can get together and have the clout to force a group discount.

That is what all this is about. All of it is about the pharmaceutical industry that fought for years to try to make sure we would not have a prescription drug benefit because we could then get a group discount.

But then a couple years ago they changed their strategy. They said: OK, well, if we are going to have a benefit--because it is clear that seniors need help and we are not going to be able to stop it because seniors need help, something is going to happen--let's change our strategy and make sure that this is a plan that is putting seniors in a lot of different pots, lot of different insurance and HMO pots, so they can group purchase a little bit but they won't have the clout of 39 million people, they will have the clout of just a few, a little bit here, a little bit here, a little bit here; and let's make sure we don't allow any new competition; and if we were really good, we would even write in the bill that Medicare can't negotiate on behalf of everyone for a group discount.

I am sure that was their big wish list. And, lo and behold, in this great big bill, most of which has nothing to do with prescription drug coverage, they got it. They got it.

Because they got it, someone like me, who wants more than anything to see seniors helped in paying for their

medicine, has to stand up and say, no, no way, no way is this thing a good deal for the seniors of this country.

(Mr. BOND assumed the Chair.)

Mr. President, I want to speak briefly to one thing that I believe in the bill is a good deal. There are positive things. I don't think it is all a negative bill. I think there are positive things in it. I know there are people who have worked hard, including our occupant of the chair, who led efforts to work in a bipartisan way and tried hard to get the right thing done.

On balance, there is no way I can support this bill, but there are some good provisions in it. I believe there are provisions in this bill that, right now, we could pass overwhelmingly, on a bipartisan basis, if we were to pull them out, take away all the bad provisions, and start over on prescription drugs.

I would simply say that to have no bill is better than to have a bad bill. Let's go back to work and get it right for our seniors. Absolutely, they have waited too long. They have waited so long to get this, and they are saying, I waited so long and this is what I got? So let's go back to the drawing board. We can do it quickly if we want to and get it right--lower prices, real prescription drug coverage.

But there is one section I believe we have a tremendous sense of urgency on right now. I know that my distinguished colleague in the chair has been a leader in this effort, and that is our rural providers and what happened with our hospitals, home health agencies, and doctors, and the cuts they have had to take. I want to speak to the fact that I am frustrated that we have not, before now, been able to help our providers.

I was in the House of Representatives in 1997 when we passed the balanced budget agreement at that time, putting into place certain reductions for providers. Unfortunately, since that time, they have seen cuts of twice as much as was originally suggested would happen at that time. It is the health care delivery organizations that will lose reimbursement. Frankly, the citizens of Michigan, indeed the citizens of the country, lose care when our providers are not given the assistance--the dollars to cover the care they need to be able to deliver.

I have been working since that balanced budget agreement in 1997 to turn that around. In fact, the very first amendment I offered on the floor of the Senate to the budget bill was to stop the 15 percent cut in home health care that was scheduled to take place. We have known about this latest round of cuts since December of 2000. We knew it was coming. At that time, we enacted a Medicare relief package, but we knew there was going to be another 15 percent cut in home health or a $1,500 cap on physical therapy services.

Unfortunately, there were a number of cuts that were just postponed at that time. We have known for 3 years that these cuts were coming, and there is no question that the portion of the bill that deals with help for our rural and urban hospitals, help for our doctors, nursing homes, home health agencies, physical therapists, all of the other providers of Medicare services need to be addressed. We need to fix that. We need to stop the cuts that are stopping services from being provided.

If health care providers are not able to get reimbursed for their services at a reasonable rate, we know they are going to simply decide not to serve Medicare recipients. Too many of them have made that decision--not because they wanted to but because they felt they had to. We know patients cannot simply decide not to seek care. It is our responsibility to make sure that providers are available in every community, every rural community, urban, or suburban area.

In the past 5 years, the numbers of physicians accepting Medicare patients has declined by 10 percent. I know there is a sense of desperation now as we look at this package. I have physicians saying to me: We know in the long run that this is not a good deal for seniors, not even a good deal for us; but we are so desperate for something that we feel we have to say yes to this package and then come back and fix it.

Of course, I say to them, I don't know if we can fix it. If we cannot get it right now, I have no confidence that we can come back and get the votes to fix this later and stop the bad things that I talked about earlier.

But I know that there is a sense of desperation. I know the annual increases in Medicare payment rates from my State of Michigan are less than the rate of inflation. In 2000, more than half of Michigan hospitals lost money helping Medicare patients. One of the things that happens when Medicare is cut and not covering the costs, as well as Medicaid, is that those costs--what it takes to care for people--is shifted to people who have insurance. So the providers are private sector providers now, and they are saying now that they have a stake in making sure that hospitals and doctors and other providers are reimbursed at a fair rate, covering their costs, so that those costs don't shift over onto our large businesses, small businesses, and so on. So we all have a stake in making sure that Medicare is paying a fair rate. Certainly our small businesses, which have seen their insurance rates at least double in the last 5 years, have a stake in this.

In my State, our big three automakers and other manufacturers struggle with issues of health care. So I am deeply concerned that the provisions in the bill that deal with our providers be passed.

This next round of cuts in 2004 to Michigan providers would be about $69 million to our hospitals; $53 million to teaching hospitals; $70 million to nursing homes; $120 million to physicians; and for independent home health care agencies, $16 million. Altogether, it is about a $329 million cost.

My concern is that these desperately needed funds are being held hostage in this bill. If we were addressing this package independently, I believe we would have overwhelming bipartisan support, if not unanimous support, for these provisions. They are long overdue. Many of us have been saying now for 3 years that this needs to get fixed. Our hospitals desperately need help, as do doctors, home health agencies, nursing homes, et cetera. And we need to do this now. But I am concerned that it is put in the middle of a bill that is not in the long-term best interest of these same providers.

I spoke a minute ago about how the highest possible pharmaceutical prices are locked into this bill. Because the highest possible prices are locked into this Medicare bill, as soon as the increases to providers are done with in this legislation, and because of the increases in pharmaceutical prices every year--we are seeing 12, 13, 14, 18 percent increases every year--I believe our providers will be in great jeopardy of being cut significantly once again, because an explosion in prescription drug prices will not have any accountability. There will be nowhere to go but back to the doctor to cut, back to the hospital, back to the home health agency, back to the nursing home, the physical therapist, the cancer services. There will be no place else to go. So even though my good friends, who are desperate, feel they have to support this package, which they know is not good for them a few years down the road, I believe we can do better by pulling that language out and today making it clear that we are not going to hold those who provide health care to seniors and the disabled hostage in this legislation.

We are not going to hold them hostage to a broader bill where there is such disagreement and controversy. I believe it is up to us to pass this legislation today.

Unanimous Consent Request--S. 1926

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Finance Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 1926, which is cosponsored not only by myself but Senators Graham, Clinton, Murray, Leahy, Daschle, Pryor, Levin, Cantwell, and Schumer--this is a bill to restore Medicare cuts to providers--that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; that the bill be read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. President, if I may take another moment, that is

very disappointing to me. I believe our providers need help now. We can do this in a bipartisan way. My legislation would allow that to happen immediately. I will continue to work to make sure that happens.

In conclusion, I say to all of my colleagues, we can do better for our seniors than what is in this bill. I would like very much if we would all vote no and go back to work and get it done right. I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would prevent the closure of the Saginaw Veterans Administration Medical Center in Saginaw, MI.

As of August 2003, there were almost one million veterans in lower Michigan and Northwestern Ohio. These one million veterans are served by four V.A. Medical Centers--Saginaw, Detroit, Ann Arbor and Battle Creek--and 12 Community Based Outpatient Clinics (CBOCs), all located in lower Michigan or Toledo, OH.

Regrettably, the Department of Veterans Affairs' Capitol Asset Realignment for Enhanced Services (CARES) Commission is recommending closing all acute care beds at the Aleda E. Lutz Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Saginaw, MI. The geographic range for the acute services in Saginaw is vast. The facility essentially covers half of Michigan's Lower Peninsula. Therefore, closing these inpatient beds in Saginaw would have a devastating impact on veterans who live in Central and Northern Michigan.

If the Saginaw facility were to close, a veteran who lived in Mackinaw City would have to drive 281 miles to the Detroit facility or 272 miles to the Ann Arbor facility for medical care. Under ideal conditions these trips would take six hours instead of the current two hour trip that it would take to reach the existing Saginaw facility. Asking a veteran to go from Mackinaw City to Detroit is like asking a veteran to go from southeast Michigan to Buffalo, New York to get acute care.

How can we ask veterans, many of whom are sick and frail, to travel six hours to get necessary inpatient services? Going through a major illness is tough enough for our veterans. The closing of this hospital would add insult to injury.

This bill seeks to stop this closure and ensure that the thousands of veterans who live in central and northern Michigan have access to the medical services they deserve. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would allow us to help our providers and patients now.

If we immediately pass this bill, we can make our providers whole and then go back to the drawing board to get a better Medicare prescription drug benefit bill.

The bill includes all of the provider givebacks in the Conference Report accompanying H.R. 1, the Medicare Prescription Drug and Modernization Act of 2003.

It includes all adjustments, word for word, for the rural provisions, physician updates, graduate medical education, GME, and home health services.

It does not add new language.

It does not include any provider cuts or premium increases in H.R.1.

Congress should pass these provisions on their own to help hospitals, physicians, and patients and not hold them hostage to a prescription drug bill that privatizes Medicare and provides a mediocre benefit to most seniors.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would prevent the closure of the Saginaw Veterans Administration Medical Center in Saginaw, MI.

As of August 2003, there were almost one million veterans in lower Michigan and Northwestern Ohio. These one million veterans are served by four V.A. Medical Centers--Saginaw, Detroit, Ann Arbor and Battle Creek--and 12 Community Based Outpatient Clinics (CBOCs), all located in lower Michigan or Toledo, OH.

Regrettably, the Department of Veterans Affairs' Capitol Asset Realignment for Enhanced Services (CARES) Commission is recommending closing all acute care beds at the Aleda E. Lutz Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Saginaw, MI. The geographic range for the acute services in Saginaw is vast. The facility essentially covers half of Michigan's Lower Peninsula. Therefore, closing these inpatient beds in Saginaw would have a devastating impact on veterans who live in Central and Northern Michigan.

If the Saginaw facility were to close, a veteran who lived in Mackinaw City would have to drive 281 miles to the Detroit facility or 272 miles to the Ann Arbor facility for medical care. Under ideal conditions these trips would take six hours instead of the current two hour trip that it would take to reach the existing Saginaw facility. Asking a veteran to go from Mackinaw City to Detroit is like asking a veteran to go from southeast Michigan to Buffalo, New York to get acute care.

How can we ask veterans, many of whom are sick and frail, to travel six hours to get necessary inpatient services? Going through a major illness is tough enough for our veterans. The closing of this hospital would add insult to injury.

This bill seeks to stop this closure and ensure that the thousands of veterans who live in central and northern Michigan have access to the medical services they deserve. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would allow us to help our providers and patients now.

If we immediately pass this bill, we can make our providers whole and then go back to the drawing board to get a better Medicare prescription drug benefit bill.

The bill includes all of the provider givebacks in the Conference Report accompanying H.R. 1, the Medicare Prescription Drug and Modernization Act of 2003.

It includes all adjustments, word for word, for the rural provisions, physician updates, graduate medical education, GME, and home health services.

It does not add new language.

It does not include any provider cuts or premium increases in H.R.1.

Congress should pass these provisions on their own to help hospitals, physicians, and patients and not hold them hostage to a prescription drug bill that privatizes Medicare and provides a mediocre benefit to most seniors.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Madam President, will my friend yield for a question?

I thank my friend from Rhode Island for laying out in a clear and concise way what our concerns are about this bill.

Madam President, wouldn't the Senator agree that our first goal should be to do no harm, rather than the items he is talking about? That the first goal of any plan to provide Medicare prescription drug coverage should be to make sure people are paying less and getting more coverage and getting more help? This bill doesn't do that, does it?

If I may ask another question, what the Senator is saying is there are billions of dollars being used in this plan on items that have nothing to do with helping pay for medicine, helping people get their care; is that right? The Senator is talking about billions of dollars going to HMOs, to insurance companies to help them compete against Medicare, which costs less, and that money could be used to buy medicine for people?

If I may continue with questions, when the Senator is saying this shifts money to HMOs and to insurance companies, I assume-- at least my understanding of HMOs is--you don't choose your own doctor. We

are talking about seniors who now can go anywhere. I know in Michigan, they can go from the Upper Peninsula over to Detroit over to the west coast and the cost is the same. They can choose their doctor and go to the hospital they want.

Madam President, is it true that what Senator Reed is talking about will take away people's ability to choose their own doctor and hospital?

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Clinton be allowed to speak following my remarks.

I first want to again commend my friend from Rhode Island for his comments in laying out the concerns that many of us have. In thinking about this and thinking about my coming to the Senate, I came with a very important goal. One of my top priorities has been to help create a real comprehensive Medicare prescription drug benefit. Part 2 of that is to lower prices for everyone, for our seniors, so that the Medicare dollars, those precious dollars, can be stretched farther, but also for our businesses who are paying for very high health care costs.

We know about half of that is due to the explosion of prescription drug prices. So for businesses, for workers, for families, we have, I believe, an obligation to do everything we can to create more competition and more accountability to bring prices down. I came to the Senate with those two goals for health care for our seniors, as well as lowering prices for everyone.

Even though the bill that passed the Senate was not at all what I would personally have written, it had good bipartisan give-and-take. We passed a bill that I was willing to support in the Senate. Even though I believed it was just a first step, there was much more that could be done. We did include a strong bill to close patent loopholes and allow unadvertised brands, called generic brands, on the marketplace for better competition. We did create a low-income benefit that I believe was very good for seniors and a number of other provisions, helping our rural health providers, as well as all of our doctors and hospitals and other providers.

Now we are in a situation where, unfortunately, instead of the bipartisan effort that we came forward with in the Senate, we have seen a plan put forward primarily by only one side, and, unfortunately, one that goes way beyond the scope of any bill dealing with prescription drugs.

On the positive side, it does have positive provisions that can be pulled out if we choose not to move forward with this bill. I would hope in a bipartisan way we could pull out providing for rural health, pull out provisions for our physicians who continue to be cut and threatened with cuts as they are providing care for our hospitals and home health and nursing homes. We can do that if we want to. We can pull that out and pass that. It is very positive.

When we look more broadly at this bill, it is not a comprehensive prescription benefit under Medicare. It is not even a good first step. As my colleague from Rhode Island said, it feels like bait and switch. We are talking about prescription drug coverage, and we are going to end up dismantling Medicare. We started out talking about: How do we help seniors pay for their medicine? How do we make sure folks are not choosing between food and medicine and paying the utility bill? How do we make sure we do not continue to have the explosion in prescription drug pricing that is affecting every part of our economy and every family in this country? That is what we started out to do.

Now we find ourselves in a situation where the fight that started to add a drug benefit to Medicare is turning into a fight to save Medicare as we know it, to save it as a universal health care benefit, the only one we have in this country.

I view this as a matter of values and priorities. I am very proud of the fact that in 1965, this Congress and the President of the United States came together and decided that we, as Americans, were going to say to those 65 and older and the disabled in this country that health care would be there for them; regardless of where they live, regardless of their situation, health care would be for them.

Now, what has happened? Well, we have seen the quality of life improve for older Americans. We have seen people live longer as a result of the benefits of Medicare. Those over the age of 85 are the fastest growing part of the older generation. Why? Because Medicare has made sure that health care is available, the doctor is available, the hospital is available, and so on. This is not a bad thing. This is a good thing. This is a great American success story that we should be celebrating together, not beginning the process of unraveling the promise of Medicare.

When I explain to folks what is before us, they look at me, frankly, like I am crazy. When we say, well, we have a deal for you; a quarter of Medicare beneficiaries would pay more for their prescription drugs under this plan, not less, not even the same but more. That is because 6 million seniors who are the poorest of the poor, who are on Medicaid, 6 million seniors who really are choosing between their food and their medicine would end up paying more under this plan than they would staying under Medicaid.

Another issue of particular concern to my State, up to 3 million seniors could lose their current coverage. In Michigan, I have a whole lot of folks who have worked hard their whole life,

sometimes giving up a pay raise to get good health care and to get a good pension. In fact, in my State of Michigan, it is estimated that 138,810 Medicare beneficiaries would lose their retiree health benefits under this plan. How in the world can that be a good idea? How in the world can we say to people, ``We have a deal for you; you are going to lose your coverage as a result of this plan''? We started out saying we are going to put together a voluntary prescription drug benefit under Medicare, and now we are seeing a situation where people would actually lose benefits.

In Michigan, 183,200 Medicaid beneficiaries, the poorest of the poor seniors, will pay more for their prescription drugs that they need, and 90,000 fewer seniors in Michigan will qualify for low-income protections--90,000 fewer than in the Senate bill that we worked on, on a bipartisan basis, because of the assets test and the lower qualifying income levels.

I see my friend from Iowa, who I know has worked very hard on this legislation and who led the effort in the Senate that resulted in a bill that many of us embraced because it was a true, honest, bipartisan effort. I thank him again for that. This bill does not reflect what we did in the Senate. It does not reflect what we did on a bipartisan basis.

Unfortunately, even though hours and hours have been spent on this issue, we find ourselves in a situation where too many of the folks we represent will be worse off than they are now. That is of deep concern to me.

I am also very concerned that we are not seeing the competition put into this bill that would lower prices. When we talk about bringing prescription drugs back from Canada in particular, which is right next to my State of Michigan, that is something near and dear to me and the people I represent. It takes only 5 minutes to cross a bridge or a tunnel to go to Canada to bring back prescription drugs. Many of them are made in the United States. In fact, most of them are made in the United States, sold in Canada for 50, 60, 70 percent less, and then brought back.

In some cases they are prescription drugs that are made by American companies but actually manufactured in other countries--Lipitor, manufactured in Ireland; Viagra, manufactured in Ireland. They have a way to safely bring those back to the United States, working with the FDA and the companies. With a closed supply chain, they can do that.

There is absolutely no reason we cannot do that through our licensed pharmacists in the local drugstore or the licensed pharmacists in the hospital. There is no reason we cannot do that if we want to do that. It is just as safe. It can be crafted to be exactly the same, and just as safe, by allowing our local pharmacists to bring back these lower priced drugs to the local pharmacy rather than doing what is happening today, which is too many folks getting in a car or a bus and going to Canada.

I do have concerns about folks going through the Internet more and more, or mail order where they are not working with a physician, not working with a pharmacist, and don't know the interactions of their drugs and may not know, in fact, where those drugs are coming from. That is something we ought to be tackling as well from a safety standpoint, but that is different from reimportation. That is different than giving licensed pharmacists the ability to do business with a licensed pharmacist in other countries and, in particular, Canada where their system is so much like ours in terms of safety.

I am very concerned that that provision is not in this bill, despite a heroic effort among House Members, a bipartisan effort to pass a bill that would do what needed to be done to create that competition.

Also, I am very concerned that we have a lessened provision in here relating to closing patents and allowing more generic drugs to compete on the market because those things would really bring prices down.

Although we have yet to see everything in final form, it is my understanding there is actually language that doesn't allow Medicare to bulk purchase, to negotiate on behalf of all of our 39 million seniors to get a big group discount to lower prices.

Essentially, on top of our poorest seniors paying more, those with coverage possibly losing their coverage, we are being told that our precious tax dollars and Medicare dollars are going to be forced to pay the highest prices for prescription drugs. In fact, because our uninsured pay the highest prices in the world, I think it is fair to say we would be paying the highest prices in the world for Medicare prescription drugs. That means the dollars are spread even thinner than they would be. In order for us to really spread these precious dollars as far as they can be spread, we need to bring prices down. This bill not only does not allow competition, it stops Medicare from group purchasing in order to bring the price down.

Thank goodness we don't include that language for the VA and our veterans. In the VA, we negotiate for our veterans for prescription drug coverage. We don't pay retail as the Federal Government. We don't pay retail. We get somewhere between a 30 percent and a 40 percent discount.

That is exactly what the pharmaceutical industry doesn't want to happen under Medicare, which is exactly why there is no competition in here. There is no ability to group purchase in terms of overall Medicare leverage.

This is a bill celebrated by the large pharmaceutical companies, because they know they are going to get a whole new group of folks, their customers, who will be locked into the highest possible prices.

I know they have a reason to celebrate. I understand. There are six drug company lobbyists--probably more with this bill but at least six-- to every one Senator. They must be celebrating. But I know the seniors of this country and the disabled, when they see what is really happening--unfortunately, it doesn't take effect until 2006 so they won't really be able to see what is happening until then--but once they see it, they are not going to be celebrating. They are, in fact, going to be very angry.

We can do better than this. We have to do better than this. There is no reason we can't come together, as we did when this bill was before the Senate, and work out something that makes sense. People are counting on us to do that. They are trusting us to do that.

Unfortunately, what is in front of us is much more about making sure we are protecting special interests than the people's interests. This is much more about HMOs and insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies than what seniors are going to be doing tonight when they decide if they are going to be able to have dinner or they are going to have to wait because they have to buy the medicine tomorrow.

We can do better. I hope we will. If what comes before us is what we have heard and what I have described tonight, I will strongly oppose it and do everything I possibly can to join others to oppose this and send this back to the drawing board.

I saw some numbers this morning of a poll done in the last couple of days of those 55 and older, describing this plan. It was interesting to me, of those polled, 65 percent who were members of AARP said: Go back and go to work and get it right. Don't pass this.

I agree with those 65 percent of the people. I know they reflect the people I represent in Michigan. I urge we go back to work and get it right.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, every debate we have in the Senate comes down to a question of values and priorities for all of us, how we spend our time personally, how we spend our time in the Senate, where we choose to put our efforts.

I wish to speak today about where I believe we should be putting our efforts if we are going to spend 30 hours of time speaking on the floor of the Senate.

First, I remind colleagues again, lest we get lost in all of the discussion of what we are talking about, we have, since I have been in the Senate, approved 168 judges. We have confirmed 168 judges, and we have said no to 4--168 to 4. Almost every one of those 168 I voted for.

We are talking about four people who currently have jobs who want to be promoted to lifetime positions as Federal judges. What I would like to spend my time talking about today are the 3 million people who don't have jobs. Three million Americans have lost their jobs during this same time period, in the last 2\1/2\ years.

What I want to spend my time speaking about are the 162,000 people and more who have lost their jobs in the great State of Michigan, most of those in the manufacturing sector.

I am very proud of the fact that Michigan is first in the Nation in the manufacturing of automobiles. About 31 percent of all of the automobiles that are made in this country and almost 17 percent of all the trucks made in this country are made in the great State of Michigan.

I am proud of the fact that we produce about half the office furniture. Three leading office furniture manufacturers in the Nation are based in Michigan. I am proud of our tool and die makers. I am proud of everyone in our small manufacturing businesses. Most of our businesses are very small with under 20 people in auto supply and in the tool and die industry. I know they are under severe crisis today.

We are under severe crisis in Michigan and in this country as it relates to our manufacturing economy. That is worth 30 hours of debate on the floor of the Senate. That is worth 30 hours of action on the floor of the Senate.

We cannot afford to lose our ability to make products in this country. That is what we do in Michigan. I am proud of the fact that we make products, we grow products, and we do it well. Give us a level playing field for our businesses and our workers, and we will compete and win. That is not happening, and I am deeply concerned about the stories after stories I have heard.

I wish to share a couple stories today. I look at the headlines: ``2,700 jobs in danger as Electrolux considers closing Greenville refrigerator plant.'' This is in the Grand Rapids Press:

Electrolux Home Products announced today it may eliminate

2,700 jobs at Greenville refrigerator plant and shift

production to Mexico.

That is all too common a headline, and it is something that is going on in Michigan.

Such a move would be a huge blow to the city of Greenville

and Montcalm County, where Electrolux and its predecessors

have long been the largest employers and among the largest

taxpayers.

That is what we should be talking about: What is happening in Greenville and Electrolux.

``Ford sets a timetable for plant closings. Revitalization plan called for cutting 35,000 jobs.''

Ford Motor Co. will close plants in Ohio and Michigan by

year's end and another in New Jersey in the first quarter of

next year.

It goes on:

Another factory in Ohio will end production in the next

four years.

Not four people who already have jobs, but people who right now are working hard every day, 9 to 5 or longer, to earn a paycheck so they can have a good-paying job in the United States of America and send their kids to college, to afford their health care, to afford their house, maybe a cottage up north, which is something we like to do in Michigan, maybe a boat, maybe a snowmobile--those things that allow a good quality of life in our country. We are in danger of losing that when we lose manufacturing jobs.

``Straits Steel closing sad news for plant's 180 employees.'' This comes from Ludington.

We read in the Lancing State Journal: ``Jobless rate could rise in the winter.'' There is more concern about what happens when we lose construction jobs in the wintertime.

I receive a lot of letters from people writing me and asking for help. They would love to see us spending 30 hours on the floor of the Senate not only talking but actually doing something to save their jobs and to support our manufacturers.

I would like to read you just one letter from Walker, MI:

I am writing to you in the hope you will read my letter.

What I want to write you about is how much of our industry is

disappearing. Factories continue to close or lay off.

Often they leave the State and, even worse, they leave the

country. A lot of these are American companies, like

Lifesavers plant in Zeeland.

Yes, we need bankers, lawyers, doctors, and computer

consultants. I am one. But that is not our strength. Our

strength is in our industry, in our farms, in our shops. I

live in Grand Rapids, MI, and I see a lot of construction,

but it is all retail and restaurants. How can we continue to

grow if we are all making only $8 to $10 an hour? Most of the

time you can't even make that. Henry Ford knew that he had to

pay his employees a living wage so that they could afford to

buy his cars.

There is story after story coming from the State of Michigan, across the Midwest, and all across our country. They are asking for our help. With over 3 million jobs that have been lost--3 million, not 4--3 million jobs that have been lost, what is the response of the administration? We have had to fight to stop them from taking people's overtime pay. Can you imagine, 3 million people lose their jobs and what is the response? Take away the other people's overtime pay.

Then we have to fight to extend unemployment compensation for the people who have lost their jobs and are having difficulty finding new jobs. Of deep concern to me is what is happening as relates to a lack of a level playing field in China and Japan and other Asian countries. We know in the Banking Committee--and the esteemed Senator presiding today I know has expressed concerns as well as to what is happening to the currency manipulation in China and Japan. Effectively, we are seeing a tax on American goods and services sold in China and Japan, and they get a tax break here or a price break because of what they are doing. We need a level playing field.

We asked the administration to do something; join us; we know it is happening, and yet they refuse to step up and join us in the tough efforts that need to happen to give our businesses the level playing field they need to keep jobs in America.

We have seen a refusal to address the high health insurance costs. We need to create more competition with pharmaceutical drugs. We need to be working with our employers to lower health care costs, the No. 1 pressing issue that has caused layoffs, that has caused people to pay more in deductibles and premiums and has caused businesses to struggle to survive.

Let's talk about those issues that create jobs, that relate to our ability to have a standard of living that we have been accustomed to and deserve in this country. If people are willing to put in a day's work, they ought to be able to know there will be a good-paying job there so they can care for themselves and their families and they can do those things that will allow them to have the best possible life in this great country of ours.

Finally, we have seen a continual block over and over on the issue of increasing the minimum wage. An awful lot of folks working for minimum wage are women. They are women with children. They are working minimum- wage jobs, most often without insurance. They are paying for daycare. They are wanting to work and yet finding themselves in a situation that, no matter how hard they try, working 40, 50, 60 hours, they just can't make it because the minimum wage has not kept up.

So it is very concerning that we have seen a continual effort to block a simple $1.50 increase in the minimum wage for 7 million people living in the United States of America, who work hard and play by the rules and assume that if they do that, they will be able to succeed and care for their families. Seven million people need our help today with a $1.50 increase in the minimum wage.

Thirty-seven percent of those folks right now are seeking emergency food aid, and they are working. They are working, and yet they cannot make it and are having to ask for food assistance. So we over and again have asked for the support of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to address those 7 million individuals who work hard every day and believe in America and want to be able to be successful.

So I am very hopeful that we will be able to do that.

Unanimous Consent Request--S. 224

At this time, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now return to legislative session and proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 3, S. 224, the bill to increase the minimum wage; that the bill be read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I would object.

No.

Mr. President, I am going to turn in a moment to my esteemed colleague from Connecticut who has been in this Chamber time and again, not only addressing the issue that brought us here but other issues as well. He is someone who has been fighting for those good- paying jobs. He is a consensus builder and problem solver and somebody who knows how to get things done. I am very grateful to be sharing this time with him today because of the wonderful leadership he brings to the Senate and the way in which his work has touched so many lives of people in Michigan as well as across the country.

In conclusion, I end as I started by saying what we do around here always relates to values and priorities. I hope we will choose to focus our time and attention on those things that affect the most people in our country, those things that are best to move our country forward and to keep the economic engine moving forward for all of us, that will at the end of the day allow us to say that what we did on the Senate floor today gave people an opportunity to work hard and create a better life for themselves and their families.

We are losing the manufacturing sector in this country. We need a sense of urgency about that. We need to act to give our businesses and employees a level playing field and address those issues that will allow them to keep jobs in this country. I hope as we are debating about 4 people, we will remember 3 million people who are counting on us to act.

I now yield time to my colleague from Connecticut.

Reserving my right to object, my colleague, I appreciate the time, but in order for us to stay on schedule and given the fact I have been waiting here at this point, I would appreciate his wrapping it up. If he would like to take 1 minute to wrap up, I would not object to that.

Mr. President, as I said before on the floor, all the statements that are being made, and all the time we spend in relation to our values and our priorities, I also believe we get things done when we work together, when we work in a bipartisan way. That is what our constituents expect us to do.

I see the esteemed chairman of the Judiciary Committee on the floor. I thank him publicly for working with the senior Senator from Michigan as we work through difficult issues that relate to Michigan. I appreciate his willingness to do that. That is how we get things done-- when we work together.

When we look first at the record of legislation taken up on this floor, I think it shows we work together. I think when we have worked together to confirm 168 judges, most of those I have voted for overwhelmingly, and when we see that we have only had a disagreement on 4, I think that shows bipartisan cooperation. I think that shows what the people of this country, and certainly the people of Michigan, want to see done. There is no question in my mind that this demonstrates our willingness to roll up our sleeves, to be fairminded, to look at the facts, to look at the nominees, and to work together.

It also shows, though, that we are willing to make a critique, that we are not a rubberstamp for this administration, nor should we be for any administration of either party. It shows we are willing to make a judgment. When the nominees go too far, we say no. That is what happened four times.

What I am most concerned about now, though, in this 30 hours--which now, instead of ending at midnight, is going to go until 9 in the morning--is that we are saying our values and priorities are spending time talking about four people who already have jobs and want to get a promotion that will last a lifetime. These are lifetime appointments.

My concern is that we need to be spending time on this floor not only talking but doing something about the 3 million people who have lost their jobs in the last 2\1/2\ years--3 million people. They do not have a lifetime job. They would just like to know they have a job tomorrow for their families. They would like to know that the job probably carries health care with it and will be there so they can put food on the table and they can pay the mortgage, the car payment, send their kids to college, and know they can have a good life in America that they assume if they work hard they will be able to achieve.

That is the debate I have said a number of times that we need to be having. One-hundred and sixty-thousand-plus of these 3 million are people who have lost their jobs in Michigan; people who have lost good- paying jobs, good-paying jobs with health care and pensions. They find themselves in very difficult circumstances and they are asking us to help them.

I am very proud of the fact that Michigan is the first in the production of automobiles. Thirty-one percent of all the automobiles in this country are produced in the State of Michigan.

My dad and my grandfather owned a Cadillac dealership in Claire, MI. We have been proud to be a part of supporting the Michigan automakers.

We also are first in the production of trucks, producing l7 percent of trucks. We have the three leading office furniture manufacturers in Michigan and produce nearly half of the office furniture.

Why do I say this? Because we have a crisis in manufacturing in this country that we need to be addressing in this Senate. Jobs can't all be in the service industry. We need to make things and we need to grow things. That is what we do in Michigan. We make things and we do it well. We will compete with anybody any time. Just give us a level playing field. We also grow things. We are willing to compete with anybody any time. Just give us a level playing field. We don't have that right now. We don't have that level playing field. We are not addressing that.

We are not addressing what is happening with the fact that China is violating the WTO or that China and Japan basically have put a tax on American goods and services sold in this country by manipulating their currency. We are not doing anything about that.

As a member of the Banking Committee, I sit and listen to the Treasury Secretary basically acknowledging that something is not right but not wanting to step up and take the tough action on behalf of American manufacturers and American workers.

We need to be talking on this floor and taking action on behalf of the men and women who have been the backbone of this country in manufacturing and have created the middle class that separates us from other countries around the world.

Why aren't we having that debate? Not a debate about 4 people who already have jobs, who want to get promoted. Three million people do not have a job and are now struggling with their families.

I want to share a few comments that I have heard. Earlier today I shared some headlines from newspapers in Michigan about what is going on. I want to share one of those this evening with my colleagues. It is from the Ludington Daily News, in northwest Michigan. It says: ``Tough Loss, Straits Steel closing sad news for plant's 180 employees.'' Then it starts out by saying:

Despite the looming possibility over the past few months

that their plant might close, workers at Straits Steel & Wire

Co. kept their production quality high and their attitudes

positive, said General Manager Tyndall.

But on Friday, Tyndall was forced to tell his co-workers

and friends that corporate officials decided to close the

Ludington plant, 56 years after it began operations in 1947.

Making the announcement twice--to the first shift in the

morning, then the second shift in the afternoon--was not easy

for Tyndall, who joined workers on the floor of the

production plant as he shared the bad news with the group.

``People are down,'' he said Friday afternoon. But he

stressed the plant's closing is not related to performance.

``When we walk out, we can hold our heads high and go chest

to chest with anyone on the street and say we did our jobs

well.''

They did their jobs well. But because of what is happening and the unfair competition around the world and the stress and struggle as it relates to cost, the plant closed.

Why aren't we dealing with issues that will help this Straits Steel and Wire Company in Ludington, MI? Those are the jobs I want to be talking about. Those are the jobs people in my State want us to be trying to fill.

Let me mention a few letters I have been receiving from people in Michigan that say it better than I can. First from a gentleman who says: I am writing you regarding the health of my business. I have a high tech business servicing industrial lasers, much like the ones that are no doubt cutting metal subassemblies for our armed services use as well as civilian businesses. My business has the flu. It is feverish and sluggish almost to the point of no business at all. Our country was initially built on small businesses providing services and employment. Our government encourages small business growth yet at the same time small businesses are being destroyed one by one because our economy is in such dire straits that business orders are essentially flat, which in turn is causing my business to fail. Occasionally I call the few customers I have left and ask questions about how they feel about the economy and what they think will happen in the near future. They say they are very concerned about the future. Some are laying off personnel. Others take pay cuts to keep their jobs. Still others feel they are sinking with no relief in sight. My business is now on the verge of collapsing and the only reason is the economy. I find it extremely difficult to believe that because of a few positive economic reports showing up here and there that our economy is getting better. The only real indicator of an improving, recovering economy, in my opinion, are reports coming in of companies rehiring people and putting them back to work. No other indicators, in my opinion, mean a thing until people start going back to work.

I agree with that. It is about putting people to work and having businesses recover from the flu.

Also from a Michigan resident: I am a tool die maker for over 40 years. I now find myself out of a job and unable to find one in my field. I have no health insurance. Why has America farmed most of our manufacturing jobs out to other countries? I think America has got to be not only the greatest thinking country in the world but we have to also regain our status as the greatest producing country in the world, as we did in World War II. That is, as you remember, the reason we won.

From Bridgman, MI: I would like to say I have worked in manufacturing for 20 years. This is the first time in my career that my hours have been reduced. I have a house payment, utility bills, children to feed and clothe, doctor bills, car payment, insurance, school lunches and preschool. This is just a few of my expenses. We are hanging on by a thread, day by day living. This is not the way Americans should have to live, especially in this day and age.

I agree. If people work hard, they get up in the morning and they go to work and they work all day, they ought to be able to know they are going to be paid a good wage, that they can count on that job being there, that we want them to be able to have health care. We want them to be able to put money aside for a pension, and we want them to know they will have the security of being able to take care of their families and plan for the future as part of the great middle class of America.

Our manufacturing economy has given us that. We are losing that. We

are losing that. We need to pay attention. We need to talk for 30 hours on the floor about jobs and how to help our manufacturing sector. We need to talk for 60 hours or 90 hours. More importantly, we need to act to do something so we can level the playing field. As I have said before, I will put our workers and our businesses up against anybody, if it is a level playing field. Just make it fair and we will compete. We need to address issues of health care. We know one of the biggest challenges right now for our manufacturers is the explosion in the prices of health care. I also know from talking to our automakers about half of that is because of prescription drug prices, the lack of competition, and the explosion in prices. We ought to be doing something about that.

We have bills in front of us right now in the Medicare conference where we could do something, if we wanted to, about that to lower prices. I would love to have a 30-hour debate on that because there is nothing right now more challenging to businesses and workers than the issues of health care. Workers are finding they are being asked to pay more in premiums and deductibles or their salary is capped in order to pay for health care increases or, worse yet, they are losing their jobs because of the increases. That is a debate worth having. That is a debate that would result in our focusing on something that means something very important to the people of this country. I would look forward to that debate.

Let me read a couple more letters: I've worked in manufacturing for 23 years, and this is the first time in my career I have had my hours reduced. I am worried about losing my job. My family is suffering because of my reduced income and planning for the future of my trade. I am a mold maker, and this has always been a solid trade. My trade is faltering, not only because of the economy but also because of foreign competition. How can we compete with countries that pay drastically reduced wages with no benefits?

We have to address that, not by saying you have to work for less, Michigan workers. You have to work for less and you have to take no health care and no benefits. We have to be fighting for our middle class and creating a way to raise the standards of living around the world instead of lowering ours, which is exactly what is happening right now. It is probably the most serious threat to our future in terms of maintaining our economy and our middle class. That is worthy of a 30-hour debate.

There are many more letters I could read that are the same. So where are we, when we are talking about 3 million jobs lost and counting just in the last 2\1/2\ years, a little less than 3 years. What is the response from the administration to this number? Are we pulling everybody together to figure out what we can do to lower health care costs? Are we figuring out what we can do to level the playing field and stop China and Japan from using advantages and manipulating their currency and creating a situation that is unfair to us? Are we looking for ways to stop the small manufacturers from going and moving their plants overseas? No.

What is the response from the administration? The first thing is to propose to cut people's overtime pay, people who already are working. We are going to cut their overtime pay. That is one of the major points the administration is fighting for right now in the appropriations process. They fight every effort to extend unemployment for the people who are currently unemployed. In the past, on a bipartisan basis, every President from Nixon and Carter and Reagan and Clinton, every President we have during times of recession, we have extended unemployment compensation for those who are unemployed. We have to fight now at every turn on behalf of the unemployed. I have mentioned earlier the administration has not been willing to get tough with China, has not been willing to deal with what is happening in Japan as well, that has so affected our automobile industry and our manufacturing economy.

We need leadership to step up and do more than just words to get tough on them, to create a level playing field. We have seen the administration not be willing to address the high cost of health insurance and do those things that will bring prices down. Earlier today I offered a unanimous consent request to increase the minimum wage $1.50 an hour so 7 million people, a large share of them women with children who are working for the minimum wage and trying to make it and don't have health insurance, paying their child care every day, trying to make it, trying to do what we are asking them to do in this country, could get a raise. It was objected to by colleagues. So we are seeing the people who earn the least can't get a raise. The administration won't support 7 million folks getting a raise. They want to take overtime away from the folks who are already working, not wanting to deal with those who are out of work with unemployment, not wanting to level the playing field so we can keep our manufacturers here and keep those good-paying jobs.

Over and over again, we see efforts that block what we need to turn this number around of 3 million jobs lost and counting.

That is the reality of what is happening. Frankly, I am disappointed we are not willing to spend time. If we are going to ask people to stay up all night and the staff to be here and so on, let's address something that affects them and their families and everyone who is listening and watching, and that is how we move this economy forward, how we protect manufacturing, how we support our businesses large and small, and our workers working harder and harder every day just to make ends meet, so we can make sure the quality of life and standard of living we want for our families is maintained in this country.

We are the greatest country in the world. But we are truly in crisis, I believe, as it relates to what is happening in our economy and with our manufacturing sector.

Let me take an opportunity to read a few more of the letters I get every day, unfortunately, from the people of Michigan. A letter that says: I have never written to a Michigan Senator before, but for me, now is the time. You see, I am one of the discouraged unemployed in Michigan. After over a year of fruitless searching for a nonexistent job in my field as a CAD designer, I have given up. It breaks my heart to leave the field I love. I must just ask you this: Where are all the automotive engineering jobs? Is it true that we in Michigan have lost much of our employment base as it relates to engineering through outsourcing? I know many colleagues who are also out of work and many who have left the field altogether, as I am contemplating. I just want you to know how one of your constituents is feeling about the employment situation here in Michigan.

Of the 3 million jobs that have been lost, over 2.5 million of them are in manufacturing. These are jobs that pay well, that bring health care with them, that bring a pension, that create middle-class America, those folks who can buy the houses and the cars--we want them to all buy them American made--who buy the boats and the snowmobiles and the cottage up north, who send the kids to college and believe in the American dream: that if you work hard, you can be successful in this country and you will have the opportunity to have the dignity of work.

From Union City, MI: I am writing this letter because there seems to be some confusion about our economy. Our government seems to think that a tax cut will help but I don't think so. Since the year 2000, there has been over 3 million manufacturing jobs that have been lost, gone to China. My wife and I own a small machine shop in Union City, Michigan. At one time we had 7 employees. Now my wife, my son and myself are all that is left. Most of the time we don't even have enough work for ourselves. I have watched as many of my friends and competitors have gone out of business and just closed their doors or filed 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 a shot being fired.

From Clyde, MI: My husband, a 25-year mechanical engineer, designer of automotive special machines, has been laid off for 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 an hour. Our workers can't compete with that obviously. The engineering department is now closed completely,

everything is 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. I work two jobs and a third when I can get the work. 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 but for which foreign workers can maintain their own standard of living.

Again, I have received letter after letter after letter saying the same kinds of things. I also receive letters from furniture makers. I have had the opportunity to be in Grand Rapids, MI, and talk with furniture makers who have lost their contracts to Chinese contractors or subcontracting has moved over to China. They say: Well, it is because they can't compete. It is just the way the economy works.

Well, no, it is not. China manipulates their currency and it amounts to about a 40 percent tax on goods and services we send to China. They are not playing by the rules. They don't play by the rules. Why aren't we standing up for us? My constituents are saying: What about us? What about our jobs? We appreciate the fact that four people who wanted to be promoted as judges have not had the opportunity to do that. One hundred sixty-eight, yes; four, no.

But I hear from people representing this 3 million people saying: What about us? What about a marathon for us? What about spending time on the floor debating solutions that will create jobs for the people in this country that represent the majority who believe in this country, who work hard every day, who want to work hard, who want the dignity and respect of work? They don't want a handout. They want to work. They are finding their jobs are leaving, and they need our help.

Our manufacturers, large and small, and the people who work for them, need our help. They are asking us to work on a bipartisan basis. These folks are not Democrats or Republicans. They are Americans. They are Michigan citizens. They are asking us to turn our focus to those families, those people in our country who need our help. What we do is always about values and priorities--always. It is always about values and priorities.

I believe this debate is about misplaced priorities and we need to return to what is most important in the precious hours we have here and the time we have to get something done for the American people, because there is a lot at stake, including the quality of our way of life as a country. We cannot afford to lose our manufacturing base. We cannot afford to lose the middle class of this country, which has made us strong. If we are not careful, that is exactly what is going to happen.

I call on my colleagues to spend this time on how we move forward and take this number of 3 million jobs down to 2 million and to 1 million and get it down to zero, because that is the number that truly counts for all of us.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Michigan Lighthouse and Maritime Heritage Act, a bill to promote and protect Michigan's Great Lakes history including its lighthouses and maritime museums.

Before I discuss this bill, I want to say that it is extremely fitting that we are discussing the importance of Michigan's Great Lakes history, because today is an important day in that long history. Two years ago today, President Bush signed into law the FY 2003 Energy and Water Appropriations bill, which included a provision which I authored to place a two year ban on oil and gas drilling in the Great Lakes and protect them from the imminent threat of drilling.

At the time, Governor Engler's administration was moving forward with plans to issue permits for oil and gas drilling in the Great Lakes despite the overwhelming opposition of the citizens of Michigan and the Great Lakes region. The Great Lakes drilling ban had overwhelming bipartisan support of the Great Lakes Senators and House members; so much so, that Senator Voinovich and I worked together to re-extend the drilling ban for an additional two years, through the end of FY 2005, in last year's Omnibus Appropriations bill.

One of the reasons the Great Lakes drilling ban had such broad support is that as the elected stewards of this precious natural resource, we all understood how important the Great Lakes are to our region and the Nation. The Great Lakes make up 20 percent of the world's fresh water supply, and thirty-three million people rely on the Great Lakes for their drinking water, including 10 million for Lake Michigan alone. The Great Lakes' coastlines also are home to wetlands, dunes and endangered species and plants. Lake Michigan alone contains over 417 coastal wetlands, the most of any Great Lake.

The Great Lakes are not just an important natural resource, but they are a critical part of Michigan's economy and quality of life. Millions of people use the Great Lakes each year to enjoy their beaches, good fishing and boating. The latest U.S. Fish and Wildlife estimate shows that recreational fishing totals an $839 million boost to Michigan's tourist economy alone. Michigan has over one million registered boaters on file, more than any other State.

The Michigan Lighthouse and Maritime Heritage Act would help preserve the history of this precious natural resource for generations to come. The bill would require the National Park Service (NPS) to study and make recommendations as to the best way to promote and protect Michigan's lighthouses and maritime resources. After 18 months, the NPS would submit the study to Congress with its recommendations to link these wonderful resources such as establishing a lighthouse and maritime heritage trail, and to identify financial resources for Michigan's communities to preserve and restore their lighthouses, museums and other maritime resources. Congress could then move forward with establishing the lighthouse and maritime heritage trail, and implementing the NPS's recommendations. Hopefully, a Michigan lighthouse and maritime heritage trail would lead to increased visitors and tourism to these wonderful sites, which also would help bolster the local economy in these communities.

The Great Lakes are an inseparable part of Michigan's identity and cultural history, and Michigan's landscape reflects that bond. Michigan is home to over 120 lighthouses, more than any other state in the U.S. The oldest Michigan lighthouses are over 180 years, dating back to the 1820's. Michigan is also home to the country's only fresh water marine sanctuary, the Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary. This marine sanctuary is designated to protect over 100 shipwrecks through an area of Lake Huron known as shipwreck alley. Michigan is also home to numerous maritime museums and lighthouse museums which are located throughout the State.

The Michigan Lighthouse and Maritime Heritage Act will help protect these precious Great Lakes resources for future generations of Michiganians, and promote the wonderful history of the Great Lakes for all who visit Michigan to enjoy.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Michigan Lighthouse and Maritime Heritage Act, a bill to promote and protect Michigan's Great Lakes history including its lighthouses and maritime museums.

Before I discuss this bill, I want to say that it is extremely fitting that we are discussing the importance of Michigan's Great Lakes history, because today is an important day in that long history. Two years ago today, President Bush signed into law the FY 2003 Energy and Water Appropriations bill, which included a provision which I authored to place a two year ban on oil and gas drilling in the Great Lakes and protect them from the imminent threat of drilling.

At the time, Governor Engler's administration was moving forward with plans to issue permits for oil and gas drilling in the Great Lakes despite the overwhelming opposition of the citizens of Michigan and the Great Lakes region. The Great Lakes drilling ban had overwhelming bipartisan support of the Great Lakes Senators and House members; so much so, that Senator Voinovich and I worked together to re-extend the drilling ban for an additional two years, through the end of FY 2005, in last year's Omnibus Appropriations bill.

One of the reasons the Great Lakes drilling ban had such broad support is that as the elected stewards of this precious natural resource, we all understood how important the Great Lakes are to our region and the Nation. The Great Lakes make up 20 percent of the world's fresh water supply, and thirty-three million people rely on the Great Lakes for their drinking water, including 10 million for Lake Michigan alone. The Great Lakes' coastlines also are home to wetlands, dunes and endangered species and plants. Lake Michigan alone contains over 417 coastal wetlands, the most of any Great Lake.

The Great Lakes are not just an important natural resource, but they are a critical part of Michigan's economy and quality of life. Millions of people use the Great Lakes each year to enjoy their beaches, good fishing and boating. The latest U.S. Fish and Wildlife estimate shows that recreational fishing totals an $839 million boost to Michigan's tourist economy alone. Michigan has over one million registered boaters on file, more than any other State.

The Michigan Lighthouse and Maritime Heritage Act would help preserve the history of this precious natural resource for generations to come. The bill would require the National Park Service (NPS) to study and make recommendations as to the best way to promote and protect Michigan's lighthouses and maritime resources. After 18 months, the NPS would submit the study to Congress with its recommendations to link these wonderful resources such as establishing a lighthouse and maritime heritage trail, and to identify financial resources for Michigan's communities to preserve and restore their lighthouses, museums and other maritime resources. Congress could then move forward with establishing the lighthouse and maritime heritage trail, and implementing the NPS's recommendations. Hopefully, a Michigan lighthouse and maritime heritage trail would lead to increased visitors and tourism to these wonderful sites, which also would help bolster the local economy in these communities.

The Great Lakes are an inseparable part of Michigan's identity and cultural history, and Michigan's landscape reflects that bond. Michigan is home to over 120 lighthouses, more than any other state in the U.S. The oldest Michigan lighthouses are over 180 years, dating back to the 1820's. Michigan is also home to the country's only fresh water marine sanctuary, the Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary. This marine sanctuary is designated to protect over 100 shipwrecks through an area of Lake Huron known as shipwreck alley. Michigan is also home to numerous maritime museums and lighthouse museums which are located throughout the State.

The Michigan Lighthouse and Maritime Heritage Act will help protect these precious Great Lakes resources for future generations of Michiganians, and promote the wonderful history of the Great Lakes for all who visit Michigan to enjoy.

Mr. President, on this Veterans Day, I rise to recognize a group of truly deserving American veterans--the Tuskegee Airmen of World War II.

This heroic group of African American flyers fought in two types of battles--the battle of World War II and the battle against racism at home.

The Tuskegee airmen were dedicated, determined young men who enlisted to become America's first black military airmen, at a time when rampant racism led many people to falsely assume that black men lacked intelligence, skill, and patriotism. And boy, were they proved wrong.

The military feats of this group can be described as nothing less than phenomenal.

In Order to enter the training program, the young men were held to the same demanding physical and mental standards as all other military pilots and soldiers of supporting fields. And between 1942 and 1946, 992 black American pilots graduated from the rigorous program offered at Tuskegee Army Air Field, not to mention the black navigators, bombardiers, and gunnery crews that were trained at selected military bases elsewhere due to a lack of facilities at Tuskegee.

Four-hundred and fifty of the Tuskegee trained pilots headed to the Selfridge Air Base in Michigan for combat preparation, before bravely heading overseas as proud members of either the 99th Fighter Squadron or the 332nd Fighter Group, later to be conjoined. As the only four- squadron fighter group performing bomber escort missions in the 15th Air Force, the 332nd Fighter Group had extraordinary and unprecedented success. They flew all of their bomber escort missions--over 200-- without the loss of a single bomber to enemy aircraft.

The bomber escort missions of the famed 332nd ``Red Tail'' fighters were so daunting to the enemy that they served as an immensely strong deterrent to challenges. The bomber crews that the group escorted offered abundant expressions of appreciation since they faced far fewer challenges than other crews in the 15th Air Force.

Sadly, while these men were defending liberty for the people half a world away, they were also fighting for their own liberation right here in the United States. Despite their valiant deeds abroad, racism and bigotry impeded their success at home. Due to strict segregationist policies, their assignments were restricted to only two fighter groups, and one fighter wing. Their morale suffered more damage due to the lack of opportunities for advancement than their air fleet did by enemy fire.

Despite this setback, these soldiers still performed splendidly. In 1949, Tuskegee pilots took first place in the Air Force National Fighter Gunnery Meet, surpassing the performances of all the white units.

The bigotry against these men only served to hurt America. During the war, many white units badly needed additional qualified soldiers, but could not draw upon the superb skills of the Tuskegee airmen due to the military's segregationist policies.

But this cloud had its silver lining. The willpower and skill that brought success for the Tuskegee airmen abroad also helped in the war against racism at home. President Harry Truman, recognizing the need for an integrated air force, enacted an executive order demanding equality of treatment and opportunity in all of the armed forces.

The Tuskegee airmen were instrumental in the passing of this executive order, which paved the way for broader victories later on, including the end of racial segregation in all military forces, and eventually in the United States as a whole.

These soldiers are a vibrant part of America's history and a part of Michigan's. Not only did many of the soldiers train at Selfridge Air Base, but the cadet classes drew heavily from the Detroit citizenry. One such citizen made Michigan understand the value of the Tuskegee program to its own history.

Lieutenant Coleman Young, later to become a long-time mayor of Detroit, was a product of the Tuskegee experience. Assigned to the 477th bombardier, he and his colleagues were never sent into combat due to racism from senior officers. Determined to preserve the memory of the Tuskegee airmen, with the help of other Detroit members, he fostered what has become the National Tuskegee Airmen Historical Museum, housed at historic Fort Wayne. This small but dignified museum, occupying an old officer's quarters, perpetuates the great story the Tuskegee have to tell.

A story I believe we should all listen to. All in all, these soldiers gave over 150 lives in the name of their country and in the name of freedom. I now call on that country, the United States, to provide them the recognition they deserve on this Veterans Day.

According to existing records, 155 Tuskegee soldiers originated from Michigan, I wish to recognize each one of them:

Tuskegee Airmen

Kermit Bailer; Clarence Banton; James Barksdale of Detroit;

Hugh Barrington of Farmington Hills; Naomi Bell; Thomas

Billingslea; Lee Blackmon; Charles Blakely of Detroit, Robert

Bowers of Detroit; James Brown of Ypsilanti; Willor Brown of

Ypsilanti; Ernest Browne of Detroit; Archibald Browning; Otis

Bryant; Joseph Bryant, Jr. of Dowagiac; Charles Byous; Ernest

Cabule of Detroit; Waldo Cain; Clinton Canady of Lansing;

Carl Carey of Detroit; Gilbert Cargil; Nathaniel Carr of

Detroit; Donald Carter of Detroit; Clifton Casey; David

Cason, Jr; Peter Cassey of Detroit; Robert Chandler of

Allegan; Pembleton Cochran of Detroit; Alfred Cole of

Southfield; James Coleman of Detroit; William Coleman of

Detroit; Eugene Coleman; Matthew Corbin of Detroit; Charles

Craig of Detroit; Herbert Crushshon; John Cunningham of

Romulus; and John Curtis of Detroit.

Donald Davis of Detroit; Cornelius Davis of Detroit; Eugene

Derricotte of Detroit; Taremund Dickerson of Detroit; Walter

Downs of Southfield; John Egan; Leavie Farro, Jr.; Howard

Ferguson; Thomas Flake of Detroit; Harry Ford, Jr. of

Detroit; Luther Friday; Alfonso Fuller of Detroit; William

Fuller of West Bloomfield; Frank Gardner; Robert Garrison of

Muskegon; Thomas Gay of Detroit; Charles Goldsby of Detroit;

Ollie Goodall, Jr. of Detroit; Quintus Green, Sr.;

Mitchell Greene; James Greer of Detroit; Alphonso Harper of

Detroit; Bernard Harris of Detroit; Denzal Harvey; James

Hayes of Detroit; Ernest Haywood of Detroit; Minus Heath;

Milton Henry of Bloomfield Hills; Mary Hill; Charles Hill,

Jr. of Detroit; Lorenzo Holloway of Detroit; Lynn Hooe of

Farmington Hills; Heber Houston of Detroit; Ted Hunt; and

Hansen Hunter, Jr.

Leonard Isabelle Sr., Leonard Jackson; Lawrence Jefferson

of Grand Rapids; Alexander Jefferson of Detroit; Silas

Jenkins of Lansing; Richard Jennings of Detroit; Louie

Johnson of Farmington; Ralph Jones; William Keene of Detroit;

Laurel Keith of Cassopolis; Hezekiah Lacy of River Rouge;

Richard Macon of Detroit; Albert Mallory; Thomas Malone;

Ralph Mason of Detroit; J. Caulton Mays of Detroit; William

McClenic; Arthur Middlebrooks; Oliver Miller of Battle Creek;

Vincent Mitchell of Mt. Clemens; Wilbur Moffett of Detroit;

Dempsey Morgan of Detroit; Russell Nalle, Jr. of Detroit;

Robert O'Neil of Detroit; Frederick Parker; Robert Pitts of

Detroit; Wardell Polk of Detroit; Walter Poole; Calvin Porter

of Detroit; Calvin Porter; Leonard Proctor; Della Rainey;

Sandy Reid of Southfield; Edward Rembert; Harry Riggs of

Bloomfield Hills; Walter Robinson of Detroit; Major Ross of

Oak Park; Washington Ross of Detroit; John Roundtree of

Westland; Calude Rowe of Detroit; William Ruben; William

Rucker; Jesse Rutledge of Detroit; and Issac Rutledge.

Calvin Sharp; Albert Simeon, Jr. of Detroit; Paul Simmons,

Jr. of Detroit; Leon Smith; Chauncey Spencer; William

Stevenson; Chester Stewart of Detroit; Harry Stewart of

Bloomfield Hills; Roosevelt Stiger of Jackson; Howard Storey;

Willie Sykes of Detroit; Willis Tabor; Kenneth Taitt of

Detroit; William Taylor, Jr. of Inkster; Lucius Theus of

Bloomfield Hills; Donald Thomas of Detroit; Austin Thomas;

Wm. Horton Thompson of Detroit; Jordan Tiller; Paul Tucker of

Detroit; Edward Tunstall of Detroit; Allen Turner of Ann

Arbor; Cleophus Valentine of Detroit; Charles Walker of

Jackson; Robert Walker; Roderick Warren of Detroit; Theodore

Washington of Detroit; Richard Weatherford of Aibion; Jimmie

Wheeler of Detroit; William Wheeler of Detroit; Cohen White

of Detroit; Harold White of Detroit; Paul White; Peter

Whittaker of Detroit; Leonard Wiggins of Detroit; David

Williams of Bloomfield Hills; Willie Williamson of Detroit;

Robert Wolfe; William Womack; and Coleman Young.

Will my friend yield?

Thank you very much, I say to my friend and colleague and our leader from Nevada.

Before asking a question, I first want to rise on behalf of the people of Michigan to thank you today for coming to this floor and speaking about what is most important to the people I represent.

As you have said so eloquently, this 30 hours we are going to be doing is about four people who already have jobs who want to be promoted.

Well, in Michigan, we, right now, have over 263,000 people without jobs. They are not up for promotions. They do not have work at all because of, primarily, the loss of manufacturing jobs. They are grateful, as I am, that you have come to the floor to speak about this.

I want to just share with you today a few headlines from the papers. I have been traveling around northern Michigan this last weekend, and everywhere I go--Baldwin, MI, Reed City, Lake City--all around the State I hear the same thing about the loss of furniture makers, the loss of tool and die makers, the loss of other auto suppliers.

Here we have a headline from the Grand Rapids Press: ``2,700 Jobs in Danger as Electrolux Considers Closing Greenville Refrigerator Plant.'' The Holland Sentinel: ``Ford Sets Timetable for Plant Closings.'' Also, GM is laying off one shift in Lansing, my hometown.

Here is another headline: ``Straits Steel Closing Sad News for Plant's 180 Employees.'' From the Ann Arbor news: ``Eaton Plant to Become Condos.'' From the Lansing State Journal: ``Jobless Rate Could Rise in Winter.''

I ask my friend, as we look at what is happening, and as they talk about the change in the growth and the positive indicators in the economy, isn't it true that we are not seeing new jobs created? In many States, such as mine, we are seeing the best paying jobs, manufacturing jobs, evaporating for many different reasons? And isn't that something we should be talking about on the floor of the Senate, the loss of manufacturing jobs?

They cannot just all be in the service industry. We need to make things in this country.

That is what I do. That is what people in my State do very well, and they want to continue. Wouldn't my friend say we should be talking about the loss of manufacturing jobs and the people and the families?

Will the Senator yield for a question?

Just one more question for my friend. I thank the Senator again very much for laying out what we ought to be doing, our priorities, all of our debates about values and priorities. The Senator has certainly laid out what the values and priorities should be for our focus of time. As you were reading the list of items, I was thinking about that mom on minimum wage who is caring for her children. She probably has sleepless nights hoping they won't get sick because she is probably not covered for health insurance either.

As we look at the number of people in the country and in my State who have lost their jobs, and the number of people on minimum wage, they are not just losing a job; in most cases, they are losing their health care as well.

In Michigan now, one out of four people under the age of 65 has no health care. Many, as the Senator has talked about, are low-income people; but many of them are high-income manufacturing workers who have lost their jobs.

Would the Senator not agree that what we are seeing now, when people lose their jobs, is not just the loss of the income but a loss of the stability of the families and the ability to care for the health of the family because their health insurance is gone as well? Should we not be talking about what is happening in this country in terms of those who have no health insurance or the businesses that are trying to pay for the health insurance?

Mr. President, this is a very important issue we have in front of us. I wish to pause for a moment and address an issue I saw in the Washington Post this morning that affects what we are doing here this morning and what we do every single day; that is, our ability to work together to ask questions on behalf of American taxpayers, on behalf of all of the people we represent, to be able to get answers from each other and from the administration, and to have the best information we can so we can make the right decisions.

I was quite shocked this morning to see in the Washington Post a headline that says: ``White House Puts Limits On Queries from Democrats.'' Reading this more closely, it says:

The Bush White House, irritated by pesky questions from

congressional Democrats about how the administration is using

taxpayers' money, has developed an efficient solution.

It will not entertain any more questions from opposition lawmakers.

I thought for sure I was not awake. So I rubbed my eyes again and looked at it again and read the same thing. It went on to say:

The decision, one that Democrats and scholars say is highly

unusual, was announced in an e-mail on Wednesday to House and

Senate appropriations committees.

Further down there is a comment from Norm Ornstein, a congressional specialist at the American Enterprise Institute. He said:

I've not heard of anything like this happening before. This

is obviously an excuse to avoid providing information about

some of the things the Democrats are asking for.

I appreciate that in these days of debate and the important issues we have in front of us, we have been asking some pesky questions of this administration. Pesky questions such as: How specifically will we spend $87 billion going to Iraq, and what specifically will be done to rebuild? What is the plan for our soldiers? What is the plan in terms of making sure we complete the mission and bring them home safely?

We have asked pesky questions such as: Why is it that subsidiaries of Halliburton get billions of dollars in no-bid contracts when our own businesses and our own States are unable to find out about bidding processes and unable to participate in what should be an open, transparent process, given the fact these are American tax dollars, public tax dollars? And we have asked pesky questions about Bechtel.

I am honored to yield to my friend and leader from Nevada.

Yes.

Absolutely.

Yes.

Absolutely.

Yes.

That is exactly what it says.

We have over 9 million people in the State of Michigan.

That is correct.

Absolutely.

In fact, I add that over the years, under Democratic and Republican Presidents, the senior Senator from Michigan asked very important questions about contracting. He was the first, I believe, to come forward with the acknowledgement and questions about the $600 wrenches and other questions of excesses at the time in the past from the Pentagon. To Democratic or Republican Presidents, he has asked some pretty ``pesky'' questions.

That is how it appears. We have a lot of very serious questions our constituents want us to ask of the administration.

In the State of Michigan, we have many questions being asked--a lot that we asked of the administration on homeland security, how we are funding our borders and keeping them secure. Why is it we are not providing more for our first responders? We have given some dollars but certainly a very small amount of what they need. Why are we not funding more for communications equipment that allows one city's police department to talk to another city's police department, or the police department to talk to the fire department, or the EMS workers to be able to do their job in a community? Why is it we are not providing more dollars directly for those kinds of responsibilities? They are right on the front lines. When you have a problem, when there is a serious crisis, whether it is homeland security or some other crisis in the community, you pick up and call 911, and we want to know people are prepared.

Those are questions about appropriations. Those are questions we asked of the administration. How are you moving forward and designing and implementing a Department of Homeland Security? What are we doing at the borders?

In my State, we have other questions we are asking that we are assuming the administration will endeavor to answer. It relates to the issues of Canadian trash trucks now coming across our borders into Michigan--about 200 a day--that are not being thoroughly inspected at the border because there is not a way to do it without putting an inspector in the back of every truck.

We have serious concerns about what is happening in terms of homeland security. Those are questions. How can we work together? How can we make sure we are addressing those issues that will allow our citizens to be safe, as it relates to these trash trucks coming across the border. They need to be stopped.

Over 165,000 people in my State signed an online petition to support my request to the EPA that they get involved in stopping these trucks and using the authority they have. Now, we go through the appropriations process on this matter. I have been very appreciative of the fact that we have worked together on a bipartisan basis in the Senate to address these issues and put more equipment at the border. I have been pleased to have the support of leaders on the other side of the aisle to support efforts to do that, to work together on behalf of the people we represent and make sure they are safe.

But when I see things such as this kind of a story, that e-mails are going out saying the White House doesn't like our ``pesky'' questions about how dollars are spent and suggestions that maybe they could be spent differently and better and more wisely in our States--they don't like those questions, so they sent out an e-mail saying they are not going to answer them anymore. They are only going to answer the questions coming from the Republican committee chairs. They are not going to answer questions coming from us. This is deeply disturbing and it should be disturbing to every single one of the people we represent. It should be, frankly, disturbing to people on both sides of the aisle.

I was in the House of Representatives for 4 years under a different administration. I asked a lot of tough questions of a lot of Departments and I expected answers. I expected that when my Republican colleagues asked questions of that Democratic administration, they would be given answers as well.

We are a separate branch of Government. We are the appropriators, all of us. The Constitution didn't say, by the way, only the majority party can have access to information and only the majority party is responsible for appropriations and guaranteeing the wise use of American tax dollars. They said the Congress of the United States is responsible, and that is all of us.

I think it is very important that we send a message very quickly from the Senate that we object to this, object to it together. We work hard on appropriations. We ask a lot of questions. We have a lot of give and take. Amendments are proposed; they rise, they fall. That is the process. We all respect each other and we all respect that process. At the end of the day, we assume that if we are asking, as they say, ``pesky'' questions, we will get answers regardless of who we are. We may not agree with the answers.

That is why we live in a democracy. That is the democratic process. We respect the fact there are differences in views, priorities, and values, but we do not accept--I do not accept--that we will be blocked from receiving information. It would be astounding if every time, as a Member of this body, I had to ask for a freedom of information request from the administration in order to get questions answered on items of importance to the people I represent--whether it be agriculture, manufacturing, homeland security, health care, education, the environment, or transportation. I could go on and on. We have critical issues we are responsible for addressing and responsible for doing it in the most efficient and effective way we can.

There is only a limited amount of resources and we have to make sure we make wise decisions with those resources. That is our job.

Amendment No. 2141 to Amendment No. 2136

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

I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I simply say this is a very short amendment. In part, it indicates:

Since, Congressional oversight of the Executive Branch

expenditures of public funds is essential in order to prevent

waste, fraud, and abuse of taxpayer dollars; and

Since, Congress can only exercise its oversight

responsibilities if the White House and Executive Branch

agencies are responsive to requests for information about

public expenditures;

Therefore, it is the Sense of the Senate that,

The White House and all Executive Branch agencies should

respond promptly and completely to all requests by Members of

Congress of both parties for information about public

expenditures.

I hope we will have unanimous support for this amendment and that we can quickly send a message to the White House and ask that they reverse the policy laid out this morning in this article.

Madam President, the only question I have is the word ``appropriate.'' We certainly want this to be within constitutional parameters. I would say, at this point, the question I would have would be about ``appropriate.'' Who decides what is ``appropriate,'' given the judgments the administration is making? Possibly we can work together to find something else other than that word. But at this point that would be my concern.

Certainly.

That is correct.

Mr. President, I rise to engage in a colloquy with the distinguished senior Senator from Michigan and the distinguished ranking member of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee. As the ranking member knows, on September 4, 2003, the Asian long-horned beetle was discovered in Woodbridge, Ontario, and the area is under quarantine as the Canadians try to eradicate the infestations. Despite the quarantine in Ontario, the Asian long-horned beetle presents a real threat to Michigan. Currently, there are 180 trash trucks from Ontario that are sent to Michigan's landfills every day. Despite the fact that it is illegal to dump yard waste in Michigan's landfills, these trash trucks have been found to contain this illegal waste. According to a September 22, 2003 report by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, MDEQ, entitled, ``Report on Waste Inspections at Michigan Landfills,'' more than 25 percent of the Ontario waste inspected contained yard waste. Waste originating in Ontario had the highest percentage of loads containing yard waste of all out-of-state waste that comes into Michigan, despite Michigan's prohibition. Our Michigan communities are extremely concerned that APHIS has not thoroughly examined the potential threat of infestation that these Canadian trash trucks present.

I thank the distinguished ranking member of the subcommittee.

phytophthora root rot

Mr. President, I rise to engage in a colloquy with the distinguished senior Senator from Michigan and the ranking member of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee. As the ranking member knows, phytophthora root rot is destroying crops and ravaging soil throughout the State of Michigan. Many growers are reporting major losses, despite following recommended control strategies, and it is devastating our cucumber, pole bean and soybean crops. Michigan State University is examining ways to contain and eradicate root rot and they need $184,000 to conduct this critical research. Would the distinguished ranking member work with us in conference to obtain this critical funding?

I thank the distinguished ranking member of the subcommittee.