Floor Statements

Madam President, I rise in strong support of the Durbin amendment.

First, I thank my colleagues and friend from Illinois for his passion and his eloquence and his persistence over and over on the floor, speaking up for those around the world who have no voice in this Chamber and who desperately need our help.

I also congratulate Senator DeWine for his leadership in getting us up to this point.

We are talking about 8,500 people being killed by disease every day-- 8,500 people today, 8,500 people tomorrow, 8,500 people the next day, and 6,500 in Africa alone. We are seeing HIV/AIDS produce 14,000 new infections every day, and 9,500 which occur in Africa.

If that doesn't tell us there is a sense of urgency to do all that we can do, I don't know what does. When we look at the facts of the more than 30 million people in Africa alone with HIV, only 50,000 have the medicine they need--we hear over and over again from the organizations in Africa that they have the capacity; they just need the resources; they just need our help.

There is no question when you look at the number. Less than 1 in 20 pregnant women have access to services to prevent mother-to-child transmission. The numbers are going on and on.

I urge colleagues to step up and support the promise that we made a few months ago--the promise that we made of $3 billion a year over 5 years, a total of $15 billion, and join together to send a message that we understand the sense of urgency from the people around the world who are so desperate for our help.

I remember just a couple of weeks ago on the Senate floor when we were talking about the Iraqi supplemental and reconstruction, I spoke about delaying a portion of the reconstruction dollars because it was clear from all of the evidence and studies that only $6 billion to $8 billion could be spent the first year. We wanted to divert some of those dollars in another direction for things here at home. We were told on the Senate floor that we needed to keep our full commitment, whether or not the capacity was there, and that we needed to immediately let them know what they had to work with so they could move as quickly as possible. I suggest this is no less; I believe the capacity is there now.

The reality is we need to let the people around the world, and the people of Africa and Americans who are working there desperately trying to make a difference and save lives, know that we in Congress will keep our commitment on behalf of the people of our country.

We are talking about a relatively small amount of dollars for saving literally thousands and thousands of lives.

As the Senator from Illinois said, we have a responsibility to do what we can do. We don't want to be in a position of looking back when the picture is clear about what has been going on and say where were we when we had the chance to save as many lives as possible.

The Durbin amendment needs to be passed, and it needs to be passed now.

Mr. President, this week marks the close of National Breast Cancer Awareness Month, and today is a time for many of us to reflect on how cancer has touched virtually every American's life. According to the American Cancer Society, one in two men and one in three women will be diagnosed with cancer. We have made important advances in treating cancer victims, but we are not yet at our ultimate goal of finding a cure.

I am pleased to announce that my alma mater, Michigan State University, is one of the leaders in finding a cure for breast cancer. Michigan State was one of only four institutions nationwide to receive a grant from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and the National Cancer Institute to study the prenatal-to-adult environmental exposures that may predispose a woman to breast cancer.

But this is just a down-payment in ending breast cancer. It is generally believed that the environment plays some role in the development of breast cancer, but the extent of that role is not understood. If we can identify those risks, we can stop the disease. More research needs to be done to determine the impact of the environment on breast cancer, which has been understudied in the past.

To do so, I urge my colleagues to support S.983, the Breast Cancer and Environmental Research Act, to ensure that this research continues. This legislation would create a new mechanism for environmental health research and provide a unique process by which centers are selected. Modeled after the Defense Department's Breast Cancer Research Program, which has been so successful, it would also include consumer advocates in the peer review and programmatic review process.

It would be amazing if the research about to be conducted at Michigan State led to a cure for breast cancer. But that dream can only happen if scientists, doctors, and others have the right resources. Let's continue to fight the war against cancer.

Mr. President, I rise today to ``speak up'' and support ``Speak Up Day,'' a national event where students of all ages and grades, from communities and schools across the country, will go online from their classrooms and share their opinions, ideas and thoughts about how technology should be used in schools. NetDay, a national non-profit organization dedicated to connecting every child to a brighter future through the use of technology, is hosting this inaugural event of student participation in the governmental process.

``Speak Up Day'' is being held as the U.S. Department of Education works on the development the Nation's third National Education Technology Plan as mandated by the No Child Left Behind Act. The Plan will establish a national strategy supporting the effective use of technology to improve student academic achievement and to prepare students for the 21st century.

Today's ``Speak Up Day'' activities will allow the student voice to be heard and involved in crafting this new Technology Plan. NetDay will summarize the student ``Speak Up Day'' comments into a written report that will be submitted for the National Education Technology Plan and will be available online for public discussion. This report will also be a call to action for national, State, and local education leaders to recognize the importance of student input in discussions about how schools and instruction impact their educational experiences.

I think we can all agree that using technology in schools has become a necessity. With the expansion and prevalence of the Internet in our society, it is critical that we teach our children how to use computers, the Internet, and the various other forms of interactive technology that exist today. Yet beyond the necessity of `learning' technology, it is important that educators and communities understand that so many of our youth today are already `one' with technology. The challenge lies in understanding how to connect this technological know- how with classroom instruction so that all our children have the best educational experience possible to prepare them for the future. ``Speak Up Day'' is a real life lesson on the impact of technology in the classroom, a forum for students to be civically engaged, and an outlet for our Nation's youth to express their empowerment when technology is paired with education.

Since October 1, over 1,000 schools from all 50 States, the District of Columbia, and over 25 Department of Defense schools have preregistered for NetDay's ``Speak Up Day'' initiative, with over 170,000 students planning to participate. I am pleased that schools across the State of Michigan have registered to take part in this event. Over 5,000 students from small rural schools in Middleville, MI, to suburban schools in West Bloomfield and high schools in Detroit will have the opportunity to express their thoughts on technology in schools. I highly commend NetDay for sponsoring this progressive event, and I look forward to hearing the outcome of the discussion.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the issue of Medicare and prescription drugs and where we are as we have been working to develop a prescription drug benefit for seniors and put in place plans that would lower prices on prescription drugs for everyone: Businesses, individuals, workers, families.

We are at a crossroads. We have been working many hours in a bipartisan way in this body, trying to come to a positive conclusion on the question of Medicare and prescription drugs. There are wide differences in philosophy and approach, particularly with our colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle in the House of Representatives. I am deeply concerned about the direction that the conference committee appears to be going as it relates to the fundamental issue of whether we will continue to have Medicare as we know it in the future.

We all know that Medicare was put into place in 1965 because at least half of our seniors could not find or could not afford prescription drug coverage and health care in the private sector. They could not find or afford health care in the private sector. So this Congress and the President at that time came together and did something I think is one of the most significant actions of modern age for the people of the country, and that is to create health care for seniors, for those over age 65, and for the disabled of this country, a guarantee that we would make a commitment together and fund a system for older Americans and the disabled to have access to health care in this country. It has made all the difference in terms of quality of life for our citizens.

We now are at a juncture where we have seen a proposal passed as part of the House package that would essentially do away with Medicare as we know it. Instead of it being a defined benefit, meaning it does not matter where a person goes, whether they are going to New Jersey, Iowa, or Michigan, or what part of Michigan they live in, whether they live in the Upper Peninsula, Detroit, Benton Harbor, or Lansing, they could count on Medicare. They know what it will cost. Their provider knows what they will be paid for the service. It is a system that is universal, and it works.

What we are hearing now is that there is a great desire, unfortunately, among, again, predominately our colleagues in the House, in the majority, who are saying that system should be radically changed. Instead of having Medicare, which is dependable, affordable, reliable--we know what it is; seniors can choose their own doctors; providers know what the payment will be--they want to change it to what is called premium support.

Now, what does that mean? Essentially, it is like a voucher. They want Medicare to essentially say a person has X amount of dollars for their health care, and if it costs more than that, they pay that. If, in fact, they want to take that and go to an HMO or PPO, that is what would be encouraged. People would be pushed more and more into an HMO or a PPO in order to save dollars, but for most of our citizens that would not be available.

The House basically wants to say that Medicare, as we know it, will no longer be available, and it will be privatized. Folks will be given a lump sum of dollars, and then they are on their own. If they are sicker, if they need more help, they would not be covered for that additional health care they need. There would only be a set amount of dollars or essentially the equivalent of a voucher. This completely undermines what we have put in place for Medicare. The idea that we would say to our seniors, You have health care; you can rely on it; you can count on it; you don't have to worry about it, that would all be taken away with this proposal to undermine Medicare and to essentially turn it back to the private sector.

This is something I find absolutely unacceptable and I will do whatever I can to stop it, and I know on our side of the aisle there is overwhelming opposition to this notion of doing anything that would undermine and weaken Medicare for our seniors.

We know, according to a study that was just done, this proposal could increase the costs for the majority of our seniors who are in traditional Medicare by as much as 25 percent or more. I should mention the majority of seniors, when given the choice between a private plan-- in this case Medicare+Choice--or staying in traditional Medicare, they have overwhelmingly chosen to stay in traditional Medicare. In fact, 89 percent of our seniors already voted. If we just want to look at who is covered and who we are trying to help for the future, we should look at what they are saying.

Mr. President, 89 percent of our seniors have chosen to stay in traditional Medicare. Only 11 percent have chosen to go into the private sector. Yet we are seeing an overwhelming push to force people to go into the private sector through a scheme that would privatize Medicare, even though it will cost them more money, even though it is not dependable.

We now know, according to the Medicare actuary in Health and Human Services, that in fact there could be sharp differences in cost among individual people or individual regions, depending on the private sector plans and how this would work. The study that was done by the Medicare actuary studied the proposals calling for private plans to compete against one another and against Medicare's traditional Government-run program. It shows that those in Medicare fee-for- service--traditional Medicare--in States such as North Carolina or Oregon would pay as little as $58 a month, well below the projected national average of $107. So they would pay $58 instead of $107. But in high-cost States such as New York or Florida--my good friend from New Jersey is here, I would guess New Jersey would fall in that category as well--they would be paying more like $175 a month for the same benefit. So on one side of the country you would have people paying $58, on the other side you would have people paying $175, for the same coverage, for the same kind of care. That is not fair. That is certainly not what we have now.

They went on to indicate that we would even see parts of States where there would be one payment, one cost, versus other parts of the State. So if you live in Marquette, MI, or Ironwood, MI, in the Upper Peninsula, you could pay a very different price for your health care than if you lived in Detroit or Lansing or Grand Rapids. That is not fair. It does not make sense. Why in the world would we go back to that kind of system?

It is for these reasons I urge my colleagues not to agree to any plan that changes Medicare as we know it, that privatizes Medicare, that takes away what overwhelmingly seniors have told us they want. They want prescription drug coverage--yes. But don't take away their Medicare. That is not a good tradeoff. We need to strengthen Medicare, provide a real benefit for prescription drugs, and do it right.

Mr. President, I call attention to a wonderful sporting event that will be held Friday, Saturday and Sunday in the city of Marquette in Michigan's Upper Peninsula.

On those days the United States Olympic Education Center will host World Cup speedskating at the Berry Events Center at Northern Michigan University.

I am sure you recall how short track speedskating suddenly became the sport of the hour during the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, as we all cheered on the American speedskating phenomenon Apolo Ohno. The excitement of this high-speed sport, where a slip and a fall always seems to be just a step away, became one of the most-talked about events of the games.

When the Olympic games were finished and Apolo left with his medals, I am afraid that for most viewers speedskating slipped back into the sports shadows. It was not likely to be a sport that would bump football, golf or NASCAR from the prime Sunday afternoon viewing slot.

Despite this media eclipse, however, speedskating remains as riveting as it was during the Olympics. Highly-trained athletes still challenge both gravity and centrifugal force on the razor edge of their skates. Strategists on the track still plot their pace, waiting for the right moment to begin a sprint or challenge for the lead. And 150 of the world's best speedskaters from more than 25 countries will thrill crowds of northern Michigan residents who know their winter sports, from dog-sledding to ski-jumping.

The event also promises an economic boost to an area that has been sustained many economic blows, and it will showcase Marquette, MI, an All-American community.

I have long supported the United States Olympic Education Center at Northern Michigan University, and I praise them for their successful effort in matching this world-class event to an area that I have always considered world-class in its natural beauty--Michigan's Upper Peninsula.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague from North Dakota for his comments and associate myself with them as well.

As we move through Appropriations Committees, there are a number of important issues that confront us. I rise to speak to the issue of health care and add my voice to the growing chorus of people who are concerned about our Nation's health and want us to have a sense of urgency about health care.

We have just passed a bill that will allow our tax dollars to be used in Iraq for a universal government-paid health care system for the Iraqis. There are people in the United States asking: What about us; what about making sure each of us has health care as well?

There are businesses seeing their premiums double. The average small business is seeing their premiums double now every 5 years, and that is, in fact, growing even higher. Large businesses, negotiating contracts, find themselves dealing with the issue of health care as the top concern of both the business and employees.

When we look internationally at our ability to compete around the world, the health care system that is tied to employment has created a situation where our large businesses competing in the world are having more difficulties competing successfully in this competitive environment where every dollar counts. We are hearing from unusual places a call for a focus on health care, a focus on a more universal kind of system that will allow us to have the health care we want for our families and our businesses to be able to compete both within our country and around the world.

What is most disturbing is when we look at the numbers in terms of the costs going up and the number of people now without insurance. A new survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research and Education Trust found that employer-sponsored health insurance premiums increased almost 14 percent this year. This is the seventh straight year of premium increases and the largest increase since 1990. Premiums now average over $9,000 a year for the typical family health insurance policy. And for an individual, it is $3,383. Rising premiums are placing a very heavy financial burden on our families and are making it increasingly difficult for families to find and afford health care.

Because there is no successful plan to stimulate the economy right now, we are seeing more and more Americans go without health care and other basic needs. According to a recently released U.S. Census Report, the number of Americans without health insurance has jumped by 5.7 percent to almost 44 million people. That equals the populations of 24 States plus Washington, DC. Think about that. The number of people who are uninsured now equals the population of 24 States and Washington, DC. If this is not a crisis, if we do not need a sense of urgency, I don't know when we will, when we look at what is happening.

Families U.S.A. has done their 2001-2002 survey and determined that in Michigan 2.3 million Michiganians under age 65 went without health insurance sometime within that year. That means one in four people in my great State of Michigan, under the age of 65, went without health care during this time period. This is not acceptable and we need a sense of urgency about these issues.

Who are these people? Well, the majority of them are working. Actually, more than 80 percent of the uninsured live in working families. The majority of those who are uninsured are working. So this is a small business issue. This is an issue of people who are working but are not in businesses that can afford health insurance themselves for their employees, which is why we need to tackle this issue working with our small business community as well as our large business community.

When one member of a family is uninsured, it can affect all of the family and their quality of life. We know many young people going out into their first jobs are not insured and run a high risk of something happening and of their not being able to deal with it in a productive way.

One of my major concerns right now, as we move forward in the work on a Medicare prescription drug benefit, is that we not forget that there are important parts of cost containment in that legislation that would affect all of those who need health insurance, or have health insurance. We know that about half of the reason the cost of insurance premiums is going up for businesses right now is because of the cost of prescription drugs.

So one of the primary ways we can help businesses to be able to afford health insurance and be able to provide more opportunities for people to have health insurance is to lower the price of prescription drugs. The average prescription brand name drug is going up faster than three and a half times the rate of inflation. So when we look at what we are debating right now under Medicare, there are two very important focus areas for us. One is to eliminate patent loopholes that stop patents from coming to an end and allow lower cost, unadvertised brands to be able to go on the market through our generic drug process.

We passed a bipartisan bill in the Senate not once but twice since I have been here in the last 2\1/2\ years. This needs to be passed by the entire Congress and put on the President's desk this year, whether it is part of the Medicare conference report or whether it is done separately.

We also know that if we create more competition by tearing down this artificial border which doesn't allow Americans to purchase safe FDA- approved prescriptions from other countries, particularly Canada, where we know their supply chain and safety processes are virtually equivalent to ours, if we do that, we can also create great competition to lower prices.

There are a lot of stories right now in the paper about concerns about the safety of prescription drugs at home as well as abroad-- legitimate issues that deal with what is happening with

wholesalers in our country, issues that need to be addressed by the FDA and all of us. We need to be increasing the ability for the FDA to have the inspectors and enforcement powers against those kinds of activities that create unsafe medication.

But when you talk about the issue of what has been called importation, we are talking about a process that allows the local pharmacist, the licensed pharmacist at the local pharmacy or the local hospital, to have the same ability to do what every part of the pharmaceutical industry does right now, which is to do business with those in another country and bring a supply chain of prescription drugs back to the local pharmacies.

The reason we are seeing so much activity now, so many ways people are trying to find prescription drugs that are affordable to them, is because prices are too high. The fact is that people cannot afford their cancer medicine, their blood pressure medicine, and those other kinds of medicines they need to be able to live productive lives or, in many cases, be able to survive.

The reason we are seeing so many people looking for other ways to find prescription drugs is because the prices are too high. We need to work together to have a system with integrity and with safety, that creates a product that is affordable, that creates a product that can be available to our citizens who desperately need these lifesaving medicines.

If we do that, we address half the reason health care costs are rising. We then need to focus on the question of the uninsured and how we partner to be able to make sure people have access to health care, so we can bring those prices down.

In closing, we need a sense of urgency about health care. We need a sense of urgency here just as every business, every employee, every family has a sense of urgency about health care now and whether it will be available to their families. I hope we will make that a top priority for this Senate.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendments be set aside and I call up amendment No. 1823.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about an amendment I am calling ``A Month for America.'' This amendment will delay approximately $5 billion in Iraq reconstruction funds and put them into funding our high priorities at home, such as job creation, veterans health, health care for the uninsured, and education.

I thank the cosponsors of this amendment--Senators Durbin, Boxer, Johnson, and Schumer--for their leadership and support.

Two weeks ago, I was meeting with a group of constituents in Michigan, and we started to talk about the President's request for $87 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan. I shared with my constituents that we were spending about $5 billion a month now, in addition to the slightly over $20 billion in reconstruction funds contained in the bill in front of us.

My constituents in Michigan were startled at the enormity of this figure, as I believe our constituents are across the country, so much so that one gentleman who is on a local school board, sitting in the back, exclaimed: How about a month for America? This rang very true to me, and when I returned here, I decided to take this idea and draft an amendment focused on our needs at home called ``A Month for America.''

Before I fully explain the details of my amendment, I wish to go through

what this amendment does not do. This is very important.

First, it does not cut 1 penny of funding for our troops.

Second, it does not cut any funds for security in Iraq. It specifically exempts the approximately $5 billion in police and security funds for Iraq. I believe this is very important. The sooner they are able to have their own police force, their own security force, the sooner we will be able to bring our troops home, and I support that effort.

Third, it does not cut any funds for reconstruction. It only delays them. Therefore, this money is fully offset.

We are asking for $5.03 billion for America in this amendment and ask that we simply take a portion--the equivalent of 1 month's spending, $5.03 billion--and delay it until next year.

Even the administration admits that it does not need much of the $20 billion in reconstruction until next year. So it is not an emergency. We do not need the full $20 billion right now, and yet we have real emergencies at home.

There will be plenty of opportunities to provide this $5 billion for Iraq in the next appropriations cycle. In fact, last Thursday's New York Times reported that a team of World Bank economists has concluded that, as a practical matter, Iraq can absorb only about $6 billion in aid next year for its infrastructure needs. We are being asked to allocate more than $20 billion on reconstruction, and yet we are told, as a practical matter, they will not be able to use or spend over $6 billion in the next year. One administration official was even quoted as saying:

Where the Iraq aid numbers are not so reasonable is the

timeframe for how much can be spent. This money cannot be

spent overnight.

They are admitting the fact this timeframe is not reasonable, and yet we know in ongoing debates in this Chamber with colleagues on every appropriations bill coming before us that we have critical needs for jobs and education, veterans health care, and those who are losing their insurance because of losing their job. We have many needs that are critical at home.

Specifically, the ``A Month for America'' amendment would take this $5.03 billion and allocate it in the following ways: First, $1 billion for school construction; $1.8 billion for veterans health care; $103 million for full funding of community health centers; and finally, $2.1 billion for transportation projects and job creation, saving 90,000 jobs.

The United States is spending a little over $1 billion a week right now in Iraq, not counting the $87 billion. However, when an amendment was recently offered to the 2004 Labor-HHS appropriations bill to increase funding for school construction at home by $1 billion, it was defeated on a party-line vote with only one of our Republican colleagues supporting the increased funding. This is very unfortunate because investing in our schools and in education should not be a partisan issue.

The ``A Month for America'' amendment will increase funding for school construction for the next year by $1 billion so that we can place more dollars into investing in our children walking into a quality school building with the technology and the infrastructure they need. Shame on us if we have even one classroom in America where there is a bucket in the corner to catch the water coming in. We have too many of those right now.

This amendment will help eliminate those buckets of water and create the modern school buildings our children need now in America.

Our schools are definitely in a state of emergency. According to a GAO report entitled ``School Facilities: America's School Report, Differing Conditions,'' at least one-third of schools are in need of extensive repair or replacement. This is not in Afghanistan or Iraq. This is in the United States of America. One-third of the schools are in need of extensive repair or replacement and at least two-thirds have unhealthy environmental conditions. So two out of three schools in the United States of America have unsafe environmental conditions. I argue this is an emergency equal to anything that is in front of us that relates to Iraq.

An estimated 14 million American children attend deteriorating schools. According to the National Education Association's 2000 survey, Michigan schools need at least $9.9 billion in building improvements. That is just in my State, given all of the needs we have from one end of Michigan to the other. Many Michigan educators believe that estimate in fact is too low, considering the Detroit public schools alone need an estimated $5 billion to fix leaky roofs, replace boilers, wire computers, and other repairs. This is truly an emergency.

How do we tell our children to stay in school, do not go on drugs, do not drop out of school and move to a life of crime, stay with it because education is so important, and then they walk into a building that is falling down, they walk into a building that does not have the computers they need in this day and age to be successful? What message are we sending to our children? This is an emergency.

These poor conditions also affect how well our children learn. A recent study showed students learning in substandard classrooms have test scores that are anywhere from 5 to 17 percent lower than their peers who are in good buildings. So when we are talking about leave no child behind and raising test scores and standards, the quality of the building, the science labs, the math labs, the technology that is available, makes a difference in a child's ability to learn. In addition, without this additional $1 billion in funding and with the significant State cuts in education funding, Americans will have to pay more in property taxes just to maintain the current level of services. Schools will not have the resources to make the necessary repairs. I argue this is an emergency for America.

Now on to veterans health care, which is of deep concern to me as well. The administration's budget for veterans health care falls far short of needs. We all know this. Despite the current crisis in veterans health care, some 130,000 are waiting 6 months or more for appointments at VA hospitals or clinics. President Bush submitted a budget for next year that is $1.8 billion below what is needed, according to the independent budget produced by AMVETS, Disabled Americans, Paralyzed Veterans of America, and the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States.

In this legislation, we are funding efforts to support the men and women who are fighting overseas on our behalf, who are on active duty. They come home, they become veterans, and they have to wait 6 months to see a doctor. What sense does this make? If we cannot keep basic promises to our veterans to make sure they have the health care they need, deserve, and we said they would receive, how in the world are we going to be credible in meeting other commitments?

Unfortunately, the House bill included the same shortfall, which is $1.8 billion lower than the budget resolution promise of a $3.4 billion increase over last year's level. The VA health care system is strained. Its budget has consistently been underfunded and does not address the health needs of our service men and women.

I am pleased to support Senator Johnson's bill to make health care spending for our veterans mandatory. This needs to happen, instead of being slighted by the administration and the Congress year after year. Right now, over 130,000 veterans wait 6 months or more for their primary care appointments. The system is so underfunded that category 8 veterans, nonservice-connected veterans who make above a certain income threshold, are prohibited from enrolling for benefits.

In my State, veterans officials are talking about losing another hospital, Saginaw VA facility, which means that some veterans in northern Michigan and the Upper Peninsula of Michigan will have to drive over 200 miles to Ann Arbor or Detroit for inpatient care. I am extremely hopeful they will not proceed with this proposal.

This amendment commits Congress to keeping our promises to our veterans who have earned the right to access to health care that was created to serve their needs. Our veterans deserve better than a chronically underfunded system, long waits for care, and a Nation that has asked them to pay the price for our freedom, only to be shortchanged at home.

Item 3 in Month for America, according to the recently released U.S. Census Report, the number of Americans

without health care has jumped 5.7 percent to 43.6 million Americans. This is the largest single increase in the number of the uninsured in the last decade. According to Families USA, a health care consumer organization, there were 2.3 million people in my own State of Michigan under the age of 65 who went without health insurance some time in the past year. That means one in four people in Michigan under the age of 65 was uninsured. Think about that. In the greatest country in the world, those without insurance often delay or avoid needed services, which results in a direct increase in more costly emergency room care.

Who are these people? Seventy-five percent of them are working. They are working in small businesses that would provide health insurance but for the explosion in prices. These are people who work in every part of our economy. In recent studies, the sagging economy suggests these numbers are only going to increase if relief is not in sight. I tell folks we are going to be funding a Government-funded universal system in Iraq for every Iraqi to have health care and yet in my home State, and I would venture it is comparable across the country, one out of four people does not have health care. Last year, community health centers across the country served nearly 5 million uninsured Americans. Community health centers have a 30-year track record of success, and that is where these dollars would go. Study after study has shown that health centers effectively and efficiently improve our Nation's health.

In the last 3 years, they have served nearly 800,000 American citizens. We need to fully fund community health centers at the level necessary for them to do their work and serve working families who are not lucky enough to have health insurance from their employers.

The Month for America amendment would provide $103 million for full funding of federally qualified community health centers to help deal with the number of Americans who lack health insurance. This is such a small investment that obviously yields great rewards. For every $100 the Federal Government has been able to allocate to community health centers, these centers have been able to serve one additional new patient. Think about that. For $100, another child can be served, another mom, or another dad who has lost his job or lost his insurance.

The Month for America amendment would allow an additional 1.03 million Americans to receive access to primary care services; 1.03 million people could have access to a doctor and the health care they need.

We know this is not a complete solution to the issue of health care. I certainly have been very involved in a number of ways to bring down costs and to address the concerns of small and large businesses and those who do not have insurance, but it surely would help to be able to fully fund our health centers.

As my colleagues know, in the final item in the Month for America, the TEA-21 transportation bill expired at the end of September, but Congress has not passed a new 6-year bill which is critical to the needs of communities, to jobs, and to the economy. A new 6-year bill would provide hundreds of thousands of jobs to help the economy and improve the safety of our Nation's roads and bridges. Instead, Congress passed a short-term, 5-month extension of TEA-21. According to the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, a short-term extension rather than passage of the 6-year bill will compound State budget problems and result in delayed projects, added project costs, and lost jobs. They indicate that a delay in passing a new 6-year bill would mean the loss of more than 90,000 jobs and $2.1 billion in project delays.

This is about jobs. We need those jobs for American citizens. A 6- year bill would create hundreds of thousands of jobs. We know that passing a 6-year $311 billion highway bill would create more than 650,000 jobs in America and almost 23,000 jobs in Michigan alone.

Our Nation's transportation infrastructure needs our help now. This really is an emergency.

According to the Texas Transportation Institute's 2003 Urban Mobility Study, the cost of congestion continues to skyrocket, and in 2001 traffic congestion cost the Nation $69.5 billion--$4.1 billion more than in the year 2000--5.7 billion gallons of wasted fuel, and 3.5 billion hours of lost productivity sitting in our cars on those roads. We each understand that. Traffic congestion cost southeastern Michigan over $2.1 billion in 2001 and cost the average Detroiter $523 per person.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for 5 additional minutes.

I thank the chairman very much for his graciousness.

The Month for America amendment will provide $2.1 billion in highway and transit funds to high-priority projects that can begin within 90 days. This will create immediate jobs. Not only will this prevent the project delays resulting from the lack of a 6-year transportation bill, but it will, again, create over 90,000 jobs. We all know we need more jobs in America, and we need them now. This is an emergency for every single individual and every family who finds themselves in a situation now where there has been a job loss in the family.

Some people will say that modernizing our schools, providing health care to veterans and those without insurance, and creating jobs is not an emergency. I completely disagree. These are crises in America that need immediate attention.

At the same time, when I looked through Ambassador Bremer's report entitled ``The Coalition Provisional Authority Request to Rehabilitate and Reconstruct Iraq,'' I found billions of dollars for projects which neither I nor the American people believe are emergencies. They may be worthy, but they are not as much of an emergency as these needs here at home. I want to point out just a few to my colleagues.

The first item I found was $161 million for wireless networks, computer training, and equipment. We would love to have this in Michigan. I have many businesses that would love to have wireless networks. There is no question that this is a laudable goal. But is it an emergency? I don't think so. Couldn't this wait until next year while we try to establish security and basic services in Iraq?

The second item is $20 million for business training for Iraqis. This money will provide 4 weeks of business courses to Iraqis for a whopping $10,000 a person. If I might plug my alma mater, this is more than it would cost for a full year at the Michigan State University Business School. We welcome people coming to Michigan State.

The third item is $43 million for job training and 22 new Iraqi job employment centers. Iraq may have a problem with unemployment, but we also have a problem with unemployment here at home. Since 2001, we have lost 2.5 million manufacturing jobs in this country, many of them in my home State--162,300 of them, in fact, in Michigan. This is a loss of 18 percent of Michigan's manufacturing employment--one out of six of our manufacturing jobs.

Other items include $9 million to establish ZIP Codes in Iraq--a nice thing to do, but I think it could wait--and $50 million for marshes. I am anxious to go see them since I thought this was a desert.

These do not seem to be emergencies. We are saying, can these please wait until next year so that health care for our families and jobs for our families will not have to wait and veterans will not have to wait a month to see a doctor.

School construction and jobs are certainly a high priority. Why should these Iraqi projects get special treatment in an emergency supplemental bill while funds for our infrastructure and our needs have to wait and compete with other priorities next year? It seems to me the money for our roads and schools should get special budgetary treatment and Iraq projects can wait.

We are not asking for all of them to wait. The administration has indicated they can use about $6 billion in the coming year. I am suggesting they get the $15 billion. We are just asking for $5 billion--1 month for America. I

think these so-called emergency items for Iraq can wait and we can involve ourselves in the normal budget process to determine whether they are needed.

We need to act now here at home. We need jobs now. We need health care now. We need to rebuild our schools now and we need to support our troops when they come home and put on their veterans hats when they will need health care.

Some people say we can't do both. I believe we can. Let us send a message today that while we support our troops unanimously, we want to have 1 month of funding for America here at home. If we agree to this amendment, we can do both. I ask my colleagues before they vote on this amendment to think about those who would be impacted by this.

I urge support for this amendment.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Providing Our Support to Troops or POST Act of 2003. This bill would provide free mailing privileges for letters and packages sent from within the United States to members of the Armed Forces serving on active duty abroad who are engaged in military operations involving armed conflict against a hostile foreign force. This bill is a companion bill to Representative Lucas's H.R. 2705, a bill with 31 bipartisan cosponsors in the House of Representatives.

Our troops overseas can send mail and packages to their loved ones at no cost, but their families must pay postage to do the same. As the holidays approach, the families back here in the States are not only not able to give their Christmas or Hanukah presents to their loved ones in person, but they have to pay postage to do so.

Two constituents of mine, both mothers of servicemen in Iraq, brought this inequity to my attention. Renee Walton from Lincoln Park, MI, mother of twins Jeremy and Joshua who are serving in the Marine Corps, writes, ``I believe this is something all the troops' families will benefit from and most especially the soldier who is waiting patiently for a package from home.''

Suzann Sareini, a Dearborn resident, says, ``As a mother of one of the brave individuals in our armed forces fighting for this country, I believe this act exhibits a tremendous amount of patriotic gratitude for the sacrifices being made by members of the military and their families. This small gesture would be invaluable in its contribution to the morale of our soldiers waiting patiently for packages from back home.''

I wholeheartedly agree with these two Michigan moms.

Currently 2,500 Michigan Guard and Reserves are on active duty, many of whom are serving in Iraq or Afghanistan or fighting the war against terrorism around the globe. That means that there are thousands of families who will have an empty seat at the Thanksgiving table and will be missing a loved one during the holidays. But, by providing free postage for these families, we are making it easier for them to stay in touch with their loved ones and provide them with moral support. This is only fair since our service men and women have so unselfishly made great sacrifices to protect us and our country. This is a small gesture, but one that will speak loudly in the hearts of our troops and their families.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Providing Our Support to Troops or POST Act of 2003. This bill would provide free mailing privileges for letters and packages sent from within the United States to members of the Armed Forces serving on active duty abroad who are engaged in military operations involving armed conflict against a hostile foreign force. This bill is a companion bill to Representative Lucas's H.R. 2705, a bill with 31 bipartisan cosponsors in the House of Representatives.

Our troops overseas can send mail and packages to their loved ones at no cost, but their families must pay postage to do the same. As the holidays approach, the families back here in the States are not only not able to give their Christmas or Hanukah presents to their loved ones in person, but they have to pay postage to do so.

Two constituents of mine, both mothers of servicemen in Iraq, brought this inequity to my attention. Renee Walton from Lincoln Park, MI, mother of twins Jeremy and Joshua who are serving in the Marine Corps, writes, ``I believe this is something all the troops' families will benefit from and most especially the soldier who is waiting patiently for a package from home.''

Suzann Sareini, a Dearborn resident, says, ``As a mother of one of the brave individuals in our armed forces fighting for this country, I believe this act exhibits a tremendous amount of patriotic gratitude for the sacrifices being made by members of the military and their families. This small gesture would be invaluable in its contribution to the morale of our soldiers waiting patiently for packages from back home.''

I wholeheartedly agree with these two Michigan moms.

Currently 2,500 Michigan Guard and Reserves are on active duty, many of whom are serving in Iraq or Afghanistan or fighting the war against terrorism around the globe. That means that there are thousands of families who will have an empty seat at the Thanksgiving table and will be missing a loved one during the holidays. But, by providing free postage for these families, we are making it easier for them to stay in touch with their loved ones and provide them with moral support. This is only fair since our service men and women have so unselfishly made great sacrifices to protect us and our country. This is a small gesture, but one that will speak loudly in the hearts of our troops and their families.

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

Mr. President, I offer a resolution congratulating the Detroit Shock for winning the Women's National Basketball Association Championship.

In a remarkable display of talent, hard work and tenacity, the Shock captured the championship in the very next year after placing last in their league. Over the last 100 years, not a single other team in any major sport has been able to accomplish this feat.

Last Tuesday, in front of a WNBA record crowd of 22,000 people at the Palace in Auburn Hills, the Detroit Shock defeated the two-time defending champion Los Angeles Sparks to win Detroit's first WNBA title. Ruth Riley, the game's Most Valuable Player, led the Shock by playing the best game of her career. She scored 27 points and guarded another all-star center. This season's Rookie of the Year, Cheryl Ford, also played a great game. Ms. Ford is the only WNBA rookie ever to average more than 10 points and 10 rebounds a game.

Bill Laimbeer, in his first season as a coach, led the Shock during this remarkable season. Mr. Laimbeer has also brought two back-to-back championship titles to Detroit with the NBA's Detroit Pistons. Soon, the address of the Palace at Auburn Hills will be renamed ``Three Championship Drive'' to honor these accomplishments.

I would like to congratulate all of the players, coaches and support staff that have made this championship possible. This was truly a great victory for fans in Detroit and across the state of Michigan. And next year, we are hoping for a repeat.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add my name as a cosponsor to the Harkin-Clinton amendment.

Mr. President, I commend my colleague from Iowa for his stalwart commitment year after year and month after month as it relates to education. I thank Senator Harkin for his leadership particularly on this issue, as well as special education, as well as other critical needs for our children and our communities.

I rise today to lend my support--and it is a pleasure being a cosponsor--to the Harkin-Clinton amendment and to indicate my support for and cosponsorship of the Dodd-Jeffords amendment supporting special education which is long overdue. If we can do one thing to help our schools increase operating dollars, it would be to keep a commitment that was made over 25 years ago for 40 percent of the cost of special education to be borne by the Federal Government. That has never actually happened. If we were to do that, in 1 year alone, it would be close to $500 million additional resources coming in for Michigan children, not only to help special education but to help general education students as well. This is critical, as is the Harkin amendment.

I also wish to speak as a cosponsor to an additional amendment, the Kennedy-Collins amendment, to increase Pell grants.

First, as in anything else we do in this Senate or in the Congress, this is an issue of priorities. It is an issue always of values. I am a member of the Budget Committee, and this week we heard a midterm review of where we are in terms of the budget, with huge looming budget deficits. In fact, we are paying this year $322 billion in interest. That does not fix one school. It does not send one more young person to college. It does not fix a road. It does not help pay for Medicare prescription drugs. It is $322 billion in interest which, by the way, is almost as much as the entire--if you take away defense--nondefense discretionary budget of our country. It is amazing, astounding, that the interest on the publicly held debt now almost equals the entire spending on health, education, the environment, law enforcement, and most of the homeland security efforts.

Why do I mention that in the context of these amendments? Because it is an issue of values and priorities, and in the Budget Committee--and we hear over and over from esteemed witnesses, from the Chairman of the Federal Reserve to the head of the CBO, from whom we heard this week-- we hear over and over talk about what drives the economy. It is increased productivity, which is education and innovation. It is being able to have more technology, more people who have the skills, the brain power, and the training to create that innovation in technology. It means more opportunity for children to receive a quality education and for people to be able to afford higher education. That is how we get to increased productivity which drives the economy.

Instead of the policies that have been used in this administration of focusing on supply-side economics--in other words, you give to a few at the top; you give tax breaks to a few at the top; you focus only on the needs of a few at the top of our income levels in our country, which, by the way, is a policy that has now created the largest single-year deficit in the history of the country and an interest payment of $322 billion this year. Instead of that, if we were to focus and invest very small amounts of money, relatively speaking, in educating our children in safe, quality schools where they do not have buckets in the corner to catch the water, that have the latest technology at each and every desk, if we make sure the funds that have been committed through special education, through Leave No Child Behind, through the commitments of the Government that are actually kept, small amounts of money, comparatively speaking, with huge results in increasing opportunities for everyone, increasing productivity, increasing jobs, lowering the Federal deficit--all of these things happen by focusing on opportunity and education and innovation, and that is what these important amendments do.

Think of the comparison now: $322 billion paid in interest on the debt this year versus $1 billion for more school construction so that children not only hear us say education is important, but they see it when they walk into a quality school building with technology, with the infrastructure they need, or special education.

I am pleased to be a cosponsor of the amendment Senators Kennedy and Collins offered, to give more opportunities for young people to go to college and to receive something called a Pell grant. Right now there are 145,151 students in Michigan who have the opportunity to receive some assistance to get a higher education, to go to college. It is an investment not only in the students but it is an investment in us, in our country, in our future.

Under the amendment proposed by Senator Kennedy and Senator Collins, in Michigan another 5,371 students would be able to afford to go to college--5,371 new opportunities for people to receive Pell grant assistance, and we would increase the average amount from $4,050 to $4,500 just to keep pace with the rising cost of higher education. We raise the amount a little less than $500 per grant per student, and we give more people an opportunity to go to college.

What would that do and what would that cost? That would cost $2.2 billion. I would say that is a very small investment for a very huge impact in terms of opportunity, growth, and productivity in the economy and strengthening our country.

Let me make one other comparison because right now, again, focusing on values and priorities, as we look at putting together this budget, we know that, in fact, $1 billion a week is being spent in Iraq to rebuild their infrastructure, to help them have health care, to help rebuild their schools.

While I certainly hope and pray that we will be successful in helping to rebuild Iraq and creating the climate for a Democratic process and an economy that can work in Iraq, should we do less at home? If we can spend a billion

dollars a week in Iraq, and we are asking for a little over $2 billion for a year to increase the opportunity for Americans to be able to get higher skills, to get higher paid jobs, to increase that productivity we are hearing about from the experts that drives the economy and hopefully helps to lower this debt, is that not a small investment to make?

Two weeks in Iraq would address the funding needs in this amendment for students to be able to have Pell grant opportunities to be able to go to college.

One week in Iraq would fund the Harkin-Clinton amendment on school construction that is so critical. We can go right on down the line. We are talking about small investments, relatively speaking, for major impacts on real people. In the end it is, in fact, education and innovation that increases productivity and drives this economy and creates jobs that all of us want to make sure are there for ourselves and our families.

So I urge my colleagues to support these amendments, to advocate with us for a set of priorities to say to the American people we want to put opportunities for you and your children first; that we understand that creating opportunities for everyone to be successful through opportunities to go to college, through quality schools, through full funding of special education that guarantees the full range of opportunities to every child in our school, those things are an important part of making sure that everybody has a chance for the American dream.

We fight for that abroad. We need to make sure it is available at home, for every single young person who works hard, goes to school, plays by the rules, and wants to make it. They deserve a chance. We need them to succeed in order to be successful as a country.

I urge my colleagues to look at these amendments as important investments in the future for all of us.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Financial Literacy Community Outreach Act of 2003. This bill, which I am proud to introduce with my colleague and friend, Mr. Enzi, is the product of several months of work. We have reached out to financial literacy advocates, financial institutions, Federal agencies, and other interested parties to craft a comprehensive bill to streamline, augment, and improve our government's approach to financial literacy.

The need for this legislation is clear. Studies show alarming shortcomings in the state of financial literacy in America. For example, in a survey of consumers 18 years and older conducted by the American Association of Retired Persons in late 1998, only 11 percent of respondents correctly answered 4 basic financial questions. A study by the Jump$tart Coalition for Personal Financial Literacy found that, in 2002, on average, high school seniors could correctly answer only about 50 percent of a set of financial answers put to them a failing grade.

In addition, from 1990 to 2000, the outstanding credit card debt among households more than tripled from $200 billion to $600 billion. And, a 2002 study by John Hancock found that, in a study it did, 50 percent of respondents said they spend half an hour or less per month managing their retirement funds.

These are all very disturbing statistics and, just a few examples of why I feel the need to act to improve our government's approach to this problem. We need a clear and effective strategy to address these problems.

The Federal Government understands that financial literacy is essential to a healthy economy and the protection of consumers. That is why many Federal departments and agencies have employed their resources and expertise to educate the public about how to accomplish such goals as realizing the dreams of homeownership, saving for a child's college education, and planning for a secure retirement. These agencies do this through grant programs, through special training, and by developing financial literacy materials.

Unfortunately, what Mr. Enzi and I, as well as others active on this issue, have come to realize is that these programs are uncoordinated and, in some places, duplicative. There is no mechanism for these agencies to interact and assess the good work they are doing. That is why, in our legislation, we set up a Federal Financial Literacy Commission.

Made up of Federal decision makers with jurisdiction over one or more financial literacy programs, including the Federal Reserve, the FDIC, the Treasury Department, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the Small Business Administration, our Commission, and its constituent members, will take all necessary steps to coordinate, streamline and improve existing programs. The Commission will also make recommendations to Congress on legislation that may be needed to improve financial education.

I am pleased to say that this new Commission will operate as a nexus for all Federal financial literacy materials, grants, and information; spearhead efforts to reach out to the public with financial literacy messages; manage a toll free hotline; operate a website promoting financial literacy and highlighting Federal grants, materials, and programs; and, it may feature private and non-profit resources available to the public.

Improving the state of financial literacy is a common sense thing to do. It is something that we can do through cooperation and strategic thinking about our Federal resources. And, it can be done with the input of all concerned interests. Many people in the Senate have worked diligently on the subject of financial literacy, including Mr. Sarbanes, the Ranking Member of the Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee who has done important work on this subject.

I am pleased that Mr. Enzi is the lead Republican sponsor of this legislation; he is a true leader and cares passionately about this issue. And, I appreciate the leadership of the bipartisan group of Senators who have agreed to cosponsor our bill: Mr. Hagel, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Bayh, Mr. Carper, and Mr. Corzine. I look forward to working with them and all of my other colleagues in the Senate to ensure that we have an effective, coordinated, and comprehensive Federal approach to improving financial literacy in our country.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Financial Literacy Community Outreach Act of 2003. This bill, which I am proud to introduce with my colleague and friend, Mr. Enzi, is the product of several months of work. We have reached out to financial literacy advocates, financial institutions, Federal agencies, and other interested parties to craft a comprehensive bill to streamline, augment, and improve our government's approach to financial literacy.

The need for this legislation is clear. Studies show alarming shortcomings in the state of financial literacy in America. For example, in a survey of consumers 18 years and older conducted by the American Association of Retired Persons in late 1998, only 11 percent of respondents correctly answered 4 basic financial questions. A study by the Jump$tart Coalition for Personal Financial Literacy found that, in 2002, on average, high school seniors could correctly answer only about 50 percent of a set of financial answers put to them a failing grade.

In addition, from 1990 to 2000, the outstanding credit card debt among households more than tripled from $200 billion to $600 billion. And, a 2002 study by John Hancock found that, in a study it did, 50 percent of respondents said they spend half an hour or less per month managing their retirement funds.

These are all very disturbing statistics and, just a few examples of why I feel the need to act to improve our government's approach to this problem. We need a clear and effective strategy to address these problems.

The Federal Government understands that financial literacy is essential to a healthy economy and the protection of consumers. That is why many Federal departments and agencies have employed their resources and expertise to educate the public about how to accomplish such goals as realizing the dreams of homeownership, saving for a child's college education, and planning for a secure retirement. These agencies do this through grant programs, through special training, and by developing financial literacy materials.

Unfortunately, what Mr. Enzi and I, as well as others active on this issue, have come to realize is that these programs are uncoordinated and, in some places, duplicative. There is no mechanism for these agencies to interact and assess the good work they are doing. That is why, in our legislation, we set up a Federal Financial Literacy Commission.

Made up of Federal decision makers with jurisdiction over one or more financial literacy programs, including the Federal Reserve, the FDIC, the Treasury Department, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the Small Business Administration, our Commission, and its constituent members, will take all necessary steps to coordinate, streamline and improve existing programs. The Commission will also make recommendations to Congress on legislation that may be needed to improve financial education.

I am pleased to say that this new Commission will operate as a nexus for all Federal financial literacy materials, grants, and information; spearhead efforts to reach out to the public with financial literacy messages; manage a toll free hotline; operate a website promoting financial literacy and highlighting Federal grants, materials, and programs; and, it may feature private and non-profit resources available to the public.

Improving the state of financial literacy is a common sense thing to do. It is something that we can do through cooperation and strategic thinking about our Federal resources. And, it can be done with the input of all concerned interests. Many people in the Senate have worked diligently on the subject of financial literacy, including Mr. Sarbanes, the Ranking Member of the Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee who has done important work on this subject.

I am pleased that Mr. Enzi is the lead Republican sponsor of this legislation; he is a true leader and cares passionately about this issue. And, I appreciate the leadership of the bipartisan group of Senators who have agreed to cosponsor our bill: Mr. Hagel, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Bayh, Mr. Carper, and Mr. Corzine. I look forward to working with them and all of my other colleagues in the Senate to ensure that we have an effective, coordinated, and comprehensive Federal approach to improving financial literacy in our country.

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

Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: It is my understanding that I have been given 10 minutes. Is that right?

Thank you.

Mr. President, I rise today to support the Bond-Levin amendment and I am very pleased to be a cosponsor. I commend both my colleague from Missouri and my senior Senator from Michigan for their work on this issue, and I certainly commend the Senator from Michigan for his statement. He presented the argument very well.

I also rise to oppose the Durbin amendment. I begin by saying this debate is not about whether we should increase vehicle fuel efficiency. That is

not what this is about. I agree with Senator Durbin about the importance of creating more fuel-efficient cars and SUVs, not only because it decreases our consumption of oil and our dependence on foreign oil but because of the important benefits it has to our environment.

This debate is about what is the best way to increase fuel efficiency without punishing U.S. manufacturers and American jobs. We have made significant progress since last year's debate. NHTSA is moving forward with increasing CAFE standards. This past April, it announced its final rulemaking for light trucks for model years 2005 through 2007. This will be the largest CAFE increase in 20 years and

NHTSA has already announced plans to continue with rulemaking for the 2008 model year and beyond, later this year.

While this progress is extremely important, there are significant problems with the current CAFE standards and the way they are calculated. For example, the regulations continue to ignore such basic factors as the adverse competitive impacts of CAFE on our U.S. automakers, impacts on U.S. employment, and technology costs and necessary lead-time--which is very important.

The Bond-Levin amendment addresses these problems and builds on Senator Landrieu's amendment to reduce our dependence on foreign oil by 1 million barrels a day, an amendment I supported.

However, the Durbin amendment not only fails to fix the problems with the current CAFE system, but it makes them significantly worse.

Despite producing vehicles that are as fuel efficient, and often more fuel efficient than their foreign counterparts, our U.S. automakers continue to have a lower CAFE average then their foreign competitors. Why? That doesn't make any sense. Because the CAFE system does not reflect the real fuel economy of the cars and trucks in an automaker's fleet; instead it really reflects what vehicles consumers buy.

Therefore, an automaker can increase the fuel efficiency of all of its vehicles but still have a decline CAFE average depending on what models sell the most.

For example, over the past 4 years, GM has introduced new car and light truck models that are more fuel efficient than the models that they replaced, but GM's light truck CAFE has actually gone down.

In model year 2001, GM's combined car and truck CAFE average was 24.2 miles per gallon. For model year 2002, GM made fuel economy improvements to 18 different vehicles in its fleet, including SUVs and pickup trucks.

Some of these vehicles had 18 percent, 17 percent, 10 percent improvements in fuel economy over the previous year's models. The Chevrolet Silverado, a full size pickup truck, had over a 7 percent improvement on fuel economy.

But do you know what GM's combined car and truck CAFE average was for model year 2002? It was 23.4 miles per gallon, a 0.8 mile per gallon decrease from 2001. GM improved the fuel economy of 18 vehicles and their CAFE actually went down.

How does a system that does not reflect actual improvements in vehicle fuel economy and penalizes automakers for doing the right thing make sense? That is what this debate is about.

During last year's debate on this issue, we discussed in great depth the need for building a real federal partnership with our automakers to develop cleaner, advanced technologies, over arbitrarily picking higher CAFE numbers. The Senate resoundingly supported the first approach with a vote of 62-38 for last year's Levin-Bond amendment which I was pleased to cosponsor.

The Durbin amendment, however, would increase the CAFE standard for passenger cars from 27.5 miles per gallon to 40 miles per gallon--a 45 percent increase--in only 10 years. Incidentally, excluding hybrid and diesel vehicles, there are no cars on the market today that would meet this requirement.

It would also shift SUVs into the passenger car category, requiring SUVs that currently have a 20.7 mile per gallon CAFE standard, to double their fuel efficiency and meet a 40 mile per gallon standard. That would require an almost 100 percent CAFE increase for SUVs in just 10 years.

This amendment will have a disproportionately negative impact on our Big Three automakers, since they make a higher proportion of SUVs and pick up trucks than passenger cars. Furthermore, this CAFE proposal will not guarantee a more fuel efficient SUV, but it will guarantee that the SUV will not be made by an American auto company. How does that make sense?

It is also important to remember that the 40 miles per gallon number in this amendment is not anywhere in the National Academy of Science's 2001 report on CAFE.

Even under the most optimistic scenarios in the NAS report, which assume that consumers are willing to recover the higher costs of the technology over a 14 year period instead of a 3 year period and assume ``low'' technology costs, the highest projected level for any car within the 10-15 year timeframe, is 38.9 miles per gallon and that is for subcompact passenger cars.

And that is less than 40.

So if you assume that everyone gives up the SUV, gives up the truck, gives up the midsize car even, and goes to a subcompact passenger car, even if we all did that, we would not be able to reach the number in the Durbin amendment.

This amendment sets a CAFE number that according to the experts at NAS, not even the smallest passenger car could meet today.

The Bond-Levin amendment increases vehicle fuel efficiency without placing anticompetitive restrictions on our U.S. automakers. The amendment looks to the future, and provides the market incentives and investment in developing technologies that will really revolutionize the automobile industry.

The amendment directs the NHTSA to complete a rulemaking to increase fuel efficiency for passenger cars within the next 30 months, and standards for model year 2008 and beyond for light trucks within the next 32 months, but it also requires NHTSA to consider the flaws in the current CAFE system for this rulemaking.

We need to let the experts at NHTSA continue to do their job. And NHTSA has already moved forward by announcing the recent regulations for light trucks, the largest CAFE increase in 20 years.

Congress also needs to help automakers move in the right direction, instead of pulling them in the wrong one. Our automakers have already invested millions of dollars in developing cleaner, better technologies, and these investments are starting to pay off for the American consumer.

For example, a hybrid electric version of the GM Sierra full size pickup truck is going into production next year. Ford is currently developing a hybrid Ford Escape SUV which will be capable of being driven more than 500 miles on a single tank of gasoline.

In addition to these great technological developments, automakers have been working on fuel cell vehicles which could revolutionize the automobile sector within the next 15 years.

The Durbin amendment will force automakers to divert funding and research away from these important technological advancements and make meeting these incremental CAFE increases a funding and research priority. The Durbin amendment also locks the automakers into a rigid fuel efficiency plan for the next 10 years, setting back the progress they should be making on these important technologies.

Instead of placing restrictions on what our automakers produce, we should be looking for ways to help them introduce these better, cleaner technologies.

The Bond-Levin amendment includes incentives such as federal fleet purchase and alternative fuels requirements and a real federal investment in hybrid and clean diesel research and development.

These incentives will help create and build market demand for the more fuel efficient hybrid, electric or fuel cell vehicles, instead of locking automakers into costly incremental CAFE increases.

I urge my colleagues to vote for Bond-Levin-Domenici-Stabenow amendment and support increased fuel efficiency and a vibrant, economically healthy U.S. auto industry.

I yield the floor.