Floor Statements

Mr. President, I appreciate the leadership role Senator Bingaman and Senator Alexander are playing on this critical bill, as well as Senator Domenici and others who have worked on putting together this legislation.

It makes no sense to eliminate the Advanced Technology Program. In fact, the House is renaming it but extending the very same approach in terms of a partnership for the kind of research that takes place after basic research.

I might say that 65 percent of the ATP awards have gone to small businesses, many of them small- and medium-sized manufacturers. The reality is that, yes, our large employers and small have joined together with universities, with the Federal Government, and with Federal labs to do partnerships where the Federal Government puts up half the money and they put up half the money to do the kinds of research to move the industry forward in order to be able to compete in a global economy.

Frankly, this is one of the areas where we are woefully behind, I would suggest to my friend from Oklahoma. We are woefully behind. One example of this is in advanced battery technology. While we are developing the basic science in the United States, it is Japan and China and South Korea that are taking the next steps to make those batteries. A $50 million investment in Japan alone; a 5-year commitment from China of over $100 million; a 5-year commitment from South Korea of over $100 million. Yet in our budget in the United States we have $11 million to focus on what is one of the most critical parts of technology to move forward on alternative fuels and new breakthroughs.

ATP is different. It is unique among Federal research programs. Most research is focused on advanced scientific knowledge, but there is a very long road from scientific discovery in a university lab to the commercialization of that product. This is in between that. You might call it a bridge project, or a bridge loan. This is that in-between period before industry feels confident enough to pick it up and move forward with it.

The goal of ATP is to push basic research knowledge into the innovation pipeline. That is what it is all about. When we add more dollars to increase basic research, we have to make sure we are also not creating a bottleneck in that innovation pipeline. We have to be able to fund the next step in that partnership. I would suggest this has been a tremendous investment in terms of what has actually happened.

The ATP programs have succeeded in a wide range of fields. There is no question, when you are doing this research it is basic research. By the way, we give the R&D tax credit to those same large companies my colleagues spoke about. We give it to large companies and small companies to do basic research--no different. This is the next step.

We have seen wide-ranging successes. They have already delivered on cheaper, better bone marrow transplants, mammograms, cartilage repair. They are enabling companies to make biodegradable plastics from corn, improving manufacturing, and powering longer lasting lightweight fuel cells, all of which are critical for our future.

The Advanced Technology Program has made investments in nanotechnology. They were making them long before anybody knew what nanotechnology was, along with investments in homeland security and bringing fuel cells and solar cells and microturbines to the marketplace.

In 2003, the White House sponsored a fuel cell demonstration, and the President tested a long-life mobile phone. The phone the President tested was powered by advanced fuel cell technology. Without the advanced technology program, MTI microfuel cells would not have been developed. This breakthrough technology was developed to power the very phone the President was holding. It would not have happened without that joint partnership with ATP.

There are certainly other companies where ATP projects have not been successful. That is the nature of high-risk, high-payoff research programs, and people around the world know that. Governments around the world know that. Right now, I should add, our companies are competing with governments around the world, governments that own companies, governments that are doing these kinds of research.

Let's put the successes and failures in the overall context. A 2003 survey of over 350 companies indicates the actual economic value resulting from ATP joint ventures exceeded $7.5 billion. The ATP annual report showed the program has generated $17 billion in economic benefits from just 41 of the 736 completed projects.

In conclusion, this is a program that works. We should not be cutting off this investment in innovation in America.

Mr. President, I thank my friend from New Mexico, who is doing such a wonderful job on the legislation that is in front of us. I wish to compliment everyone who is involved with this legislation for working so hard, including Senator Alexander and Senator Bingaman. This is a wonderful bill. So we congratulate them for that.

Iraq Supplemental

I wish to speak this evening about the supplemental appropriations bill the Senate will vote on later this week. I also wish to rise with great concern and, frankly--I am not sure what the word is; ``disappointment'' is not strong enough for how I feel about what the Vice President has said today about our leader, our great leader in the Senate, who has spoken so passionately and cares so deeply about the troops who are serving us overseas, their families who are here at home, who wants to make sure the strategy is right for them.

We all know--and our military experts have told us time and again-- that a military victory is not going to happen, that it has to be a political victory, a political strategy of the Iraqis stepping up and taking control and making the tough decisions they need to make to take control of their own security. We have heard that from many experts within the military and without. Yet today the Vice President was here, not far from this Chamber, unleashing his wrath, as only he seems to be able to, about our leader, calling him names and mischaracterizing his positions. That is extremely unfortunate because while the men and women are serving us right now in Iraq, over there doing their best to focus on the mission, they expect us to be at home focusing on the strategy, the resources, and the equipment they need.

I had an opportunity to talk to a young man not long ago who had come home from Iraq. I asked him how he felt about the debate going on about the strategy, the debate we were having in the Senate and the House. He said, frankly, he would expect us to be doing that because that is our job. That is our job. They are doing their job. As my husband, who was in the Air Force and Air National Guard, reminds me continually, their job is to implement the mission. They are doing it. Our job is to get it right, to have the right strategy, and to back them up and give them the resources they need.

The name calling coming from the Vice President is not going to get the job done. What is going to get the job done is our ability to work together and look at the facts, not some stubborn sense of unwillingness to change or to do more of the same which, unfortunately, is what is happening now with this surge. It is more of the same. Instead of doing that, we need to be joining together to say: Let's look at the reality of what is going on on the ground. More and more Americans and Iraqis are being killed every day. Let's look at the reality of what we need to do to be successful, to bring our troops home safely, to address the success we all would like to see happen in terms of a democracy that works, the Iraqi Government being able to step up and to govern their country, which is an incredibly difficult and complicated thing to do, obviously.

I find it very disappointing. I work with our leader, as we all do every day. There is no one who has spent more time thinking and focusing and discussing and listening on these issues around the war than he has--no one who is more thoughtful or more caring, no one who is more concerned about our veterans coming home.

We welcome, certainly, the Vice President coming and meeting with us and joining in the discussion. But I certainly hope we are not going to see more of what we saw today. It was an effort to attack a great leader and, essentially, instead of moving the ball forward, make it more difficult for us to do what we need to do to come together.

On this particular bill, the supplemental appropriations bill, I certainly hope the President will sign this legislation, will reconsider the position that has been taken and sign this legislation. We are going to be sending a bill to the President that will fund the troops--in fact, it adds dollars to do that--as well as veterans, as well as addressing a number of other critical issues. The question before the President will be, Will he sign this bill? We are not trying to play games. We are sending him an emergency supplemental for the war and for other critical American needs--our communities, our families' needs, just as we do every year in an appropriations bill, in a supplemental. The question is whether the President will step up and do his duty and sign this bill so that those dollars can get to the troops.

This legislation represents the best opportunity for us to change the course in Iraq as well as protect our troops and our veterans and to give them what they need now. Unfortunately, the President has put our troops in the middle of an endless Iraqi civil war. We know this to be true. People in my great State know this is true.

Unfortunately, we find ourselves in a situation where our troops are in an endless civil war. The American people are paying a huge price for this war, most importantly, in lives, not only family members lost but people coming home with permanent disabilities, with head injuries, with mental health problems. There is a huge price being paid by Americans for what is occurring and has been occurring.

We are also paying a huge price in dollars, $10 billion a month, and then we look at the fact that we could fund a program to cover every child with health care in America for $10 billion a year. We know while lives are the most important issue, resources for Americans to address our needs at home is also a critical issue.

We also know we are paying a huge price as it relates to our own security interests. The majority of Americans, a bipartisan majority in Congress, military experts, and the Iraq Study Group believe this war cannot be won militarily and that the current path is not sustainable. The supplemental appropriations bill recognizes it is long past time to change course. The American people know that. That is really what last November was about. People want a change. They know this isn't working. It is not sustainable. They expect us to step up together and make that change.

This bill fully funds our troops. We are passing a bill agreed to by the House and Senate that fully funds our troops and provides a plan to responsibly end the war and bring them home safely. I don't know what more we could ask of the proposal. We are providing the resources and also putting in place a responsible way to provide benchmarks and measurements and bring a responsible end to the war.

Our bill holds the Iraqis accountable for securing their own Nation and forging political reconciliation. We know more of the same--more surges, more efforts that have been tried and tried time after time--is not working. I don't believe they can work. But what can work is holding the Iraqis accountable for securing their own nation and making the tough decisions that one has to make when they want to have a democracy. It is not easy. We know that. They are in a very difficult situation. But it is their country, and they

need to step up and make those decisions and bring all parties together and find some way to live together.

Our bill ensures our troops are combat ready before being deployed to Iraq. I can't imagine that there is one individual in the armed services or one mom or dad or brother or sister or son or daughter of a combat troop that would not want us, and doesn't expect us already, to be making sure that our troops are combat ready before being deployed.

It provides them with all the resources needed on the battlefield and when they return. We are very committed and, in fact, I am very proud of the fact that in our budget resolution passed a few weeks ago, for the first time we meet the dollars needed for veterans health care and other critical veterans services identified by the veterans organizations themselves. For the first time ever, we put forth the dollars that are needed when our troops are coming home. A Presidential veto will deny our troops the resources and the strategy they need and send exactly the wrong message to the Iraqi political leaders. We hope the President will join us in giving our troops the resources and strategy they need and deserve. That is what this bill is about.

After more than 4 years of a failed policy, it is time for this Nation to change course and Iraq to take responsibility for its own future.

This is a good bill we will have before us. Overall, it provides more than $100 billion for the Department of Defense, primarily for continued military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. It includes a $1 billion increase for the National Guard and Reserves for equipment desperately needed and $1.1 billion for military housing. It provides $3 billion for the purchase of mine-resistant, ambush-protected vehicles, vehicles designed to withstand roadside bombs. Every day we pick up the paper and see where more lives have been lost, injuries have been sustained as a result of roadside bombs. It contains more than $5 billion to ensure that returning troops and veterans receive the health care they have earned with their service so that we don't ever have to have another Walter Reed incident.

It has $6.9 billion for the victims of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita as well. We know when we are doing an emergency supplemental, just as in every other year when our colleagues were in the majority, as well as when we are in the majority, there are a number of emergency needs for the country.

One thing in the supplemental has been funding the troops. We have added funding for our veterans and also understand there are some critical needs at home, critical needs that Americans have. Certainly, we all know the resources and the focus on those families who were hit by the hurricanes have been shamefully slow in going to that region to rebuild American communities, American homes, to support American families. Our bill does that.

It provides emergency funding also for the Children's Health Insurance Program because we have a number of places in the country where the resources are running out, and we want to make sure children can continue to get health care. That is an emergency at home.

Ask any family who is worried about whether their children are going to get sick tonight, say a little prayer: Please God, don't let the kids get sick because what are we going to do. Our bill addresses children's health care emergency funding.

It also includes homeland security investments totaling $2.25 billion for port security and mass transit security, for explosives detection equipment at airports, and for several initiatives in the 9/11 bill that recently passed the Senate. I am very proud of the fact that our new majority placed a priority on passing the 9/11 Commission recommendations. It was long overdue, but it was a priority for us in the first few weeks of our new majority, and we did it. Now we have the resources that go with that. It is not enough to pass the recommendations. We have to make sure the resources are there to keep us safe at home.

So, yes, this is a supplemental bill to support our troops abroad, to support their efforts while they are in theater in combat, but we also know we have folks on the front lines at home, our police officers and firefighters and others, and security needs here. We address that.

We also know there have been a group of folks waiting for way too long for some disaster assistance related to agriculture, including my home State of Michigan where apple and cherry growers have been waiting. In this legislation, $3.5 billion is provided to help relieve the enormous pressure on farmers and ranchers as a result of severe drought and agricultural disasters. Again, this is about helping people at home, putting Americans first when we know there is a disaster. Whether it is Hurricane Katrina or whether it is cherry growers in northern Michigan, our job is to also focus on our people here and their emergency needs.

The conference agreement also includes emergency funding for forest firefighting, low-income home energy assistance, and pandemic flu preparations, which we should all be concerned about--again, critical needs for Americans, American families.

Finally, there are other items in this bill that are good for workers and small business. The bill has an increase in the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour, giving hard-working Americans a much deserved raise after 10 years--10 years. It provides almost $5 billion in tax cuts for small businesses as well. We know the majority of jobs come from small business. This supports their efforts as well.

So I would say to President Bush: Sign this bill. Sign this bill. This is a bill which funds our troops, which keeps our commitments to our veterans, and which addresses other American priorities for our communities and our families.

Mr. President, if you do, we will change course in Iraq, give our troops the equipment they need, the health care they deserve, and provide much needed investments here at home in America.

President Bush, if you veto this bill, you are denying funds to the troops in the field and going against the wishes of the majority of the American people.

It is time for the administration to stop saying no to troops and no to the American people. We need the President to say yes to working with us, to support our troops and what they need, which this legislation does, to support the American people, American families, and critical emergency needs here at home, and to put in place a strategy for success--a real strategy for success--by focusing on efforts that empower and send a message to the Iraqi Government to step up. While we are willing to support them, we will not continue to send our brave men and women into the middle of a civil war day after day after day and continually say it is OK, everything is going great. It is not going great.

It is time for a new strategy. We have put forward a strategy in a very responsible way in this legislation, along with meeting our obligations and responsibilities to our troops, our veterans, their families, and to America as a whole.

I hope when President Bush reads this bill--and I hope he will--I hope he will look at what is in here with an open mind, and agree with us that this is a bill which makes sense for America at home and abroad.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, we have a very important vote we are going to take in a few minutes about whether we are going to be allowed to proceed--even to proceed--to a bill that would give the Secretary of Health and Human Services a very important tool to lower prices for prescription drugs.

With all due respect to my friends on the other side of the aisle, I hear very differently from seniors. First of all, they don't like, in Michigan, wading through 50, 60, 70 different insurance plans and all the paperwork to figure out what plan they are going to sign up for. They wanted us to go directly to Medicare which is, by the way, a Government-run program, one of the most successful in the U.S. Government.

They wanted us to be able to set up prescription drug coverage through Medicare. That wasn't done. Instead, we have this privatized system that was geared to making sure the industry would have the maximum amount of profit. That has been the focus, unfortunately, of this legislation, which

is why we would see, in the middle of a prescription drug bill for seniors, actual language that says: You cannot negotiate for lower prices.

Now, we have an opportunity to change that, to take that language away. What are we hearing? Well, we are hearing all kinds of things, all kinds of things. On the one hand we hear: This will do nothing for seniors. It will not help seniors. It will not lower prices. On the other hand we hear: It is going to do all kinds of things that are very terrible for people.

Well, it can't be both. What we have going on is an orchestrated effort by the industry to keep things the way they are.

If we were able to get better prices for seniors, there would not be that big gap in coverage that I guess some folks think the seniors like. Seniors in Michigan do not like that. After they have paid some $2,100 in drug costs, going into a gap where the average price has actually gone up, they have no help. This is a very different world I am hearing from, the people in Michigan, rather than what we are hearing from the industry and from others who support this plan the way it is.

We can do better than this Medicare prescription drug benefit. Today is the opportunity to decide whose side you are on, either on the side of the industry that is doing great under this bill, record profits, or you are going to be on the side of the seniors who are asking us to help them, whatever way we can, get the best deal for them by lowering their prices.

I wish to go through a few of the myths and the scare tactics that have been out there, and there have been many, there is no question about it. First of all, we are hearing from the industry now in big ads--by the way, I should say, $135,000 an ad a day--by folks who say this bill would not do anything. It is the Washington Post and another Washington Post. We go on and we can see all of the papers that we read. We have seen these ads in the Congressional Daily--daily, millions and millions of dollars.

I woke up this morning to an ad on television I have seen many times: The Medicare prescription drug benefit, yes, it is doing great for them. It is not doing great for our seniors.

Here is one of the things they are saying: that 89 percent of the folks oppose negotiation, if it could limit access to new prescription drugs. What they are saying is, they are telling people they are going to limit access to new drugs, they are not going to be able to do research anymore.

In fact, this bill would not limit access to prescription medication. I have to say, with all due respect, the industry spends about 2\1/2\ times more on advertising and marketing than they do on research. We have a long way to go. We could cut out a couple of ads. One ad for $135,000, if it was not done, I wonder how much medicine that would buy for people? This is not about doing away with research. We know that. CBO says that. We know that as a fact. This is not about taking away access to medicine for people.

We are being told it will have an effect on other purchasers. The Congressional Budget Office, I asked them to put in writing, after our Finance hearing, whether this bill would do that. CBO anticipates that S. 3--the bill in front of us, the Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act of 2007 as reported by the Finance Committee--would not have an effect on drug prices for other purchasers.

Unfortunately, my good friends, the veterans for whom we work hard, whom we have raised health care dollars for, have been told something different. That is very unfortunate. It is not true. It is a scare tactic. This bill does not do that. CBO, in fact, has indicated it does not do that.

We hear something else that I think is very important. We hear: Well, we should not compare this to the VA; the Veterans' Administration negotiates group prices for our veterans. In fact, the average difference in price is 58 percent.

Now, some go up to as high as 1,000 percent, a 1,000-percent difference. On Zocor, there is a 1,000-percent difference. It seems to me there is a little room for us to negotiate for those on Medicare within that 1,000 percent.

But we are told no. The problem is that the VA, first of all, gets lower prices because they do not offer as many drugs; you cannot go to the VA and get the drugs you need, which is also not true.

From a presentation overview of the VA pharmacy benefit, in a presentation that was made, comparing apples to apples, now they have compared on the other side of this argument chemical compounds as opposed to actual drugs.

But the fact is, under Medicare there are 4,300 different drugs available, 4,300. Under the VA, they dispense 4,700--not 4,300--4,778 specific drug products, specific drug products which represent the chemical compounds that have been used on the other side of the argument.

In fact, in addition to that, if you go to the VA and if on the list, the approved list, there is not the medicine you need, you can ask for an exception to get the medicine you need. In addition to the 4,778 different medicines available from the VA, last year they dispensed prescriptions for an additional 1,416 different drugs so our seniors, our veterans were able to get what they needed from the VA.

When we hear concerns about veterans health care, with all due respect--I hear a lot about driving too far to get tests, waiting too long to see a doctor--I do not hear about not being able to get medicine.

The fact is, the VA dispenses more different prescriptions at a lower price than this privatized system, what I view as a dismantling of Medicare that has taken place through the prescription drug benefit that is before us.

What we have is the ability today to take a vote on proceeding to a bill that 87 percent of the American public wants to see us pass. And this is the AARP. Now, I find it very interesting, on the one hand, we have got all the folks representing the industry doing well under this bill, putting in ads, doing surveys, talking to us through the television and the radio saying that seniors do not want to negotiate the best price because of all these scare tactics.

But when the group who represents seniors, the AARP, speaks, they tell us 87 percent of voters want us to move ahead. This is a tool. This is giving the Secretary the ability to use that tool in a way that is responsible and will lower prices for our seniors. This is a motion to proceed.

I hope we are not going to see what we have seen, unfortunately, too many times this year, as we have--in the new majority--worked hard to change the direction of this country. I hope we do not see our efforts stopped from even moving forward to debate this critical piece of legislation. Eighty seven percent of the American public has some common sense. They are saying: What are you doing? What are you doing that you would not give the Secretary the ability to negotiate the best price?

I hope we will join together overwhelmingly and vote to give us the opportunity to consider this bill, to be able to move forward on a basic policy of common sense to help our seniors, people on Medicare, get the lowest possible price for their medicine.

Mr. President, first, I thank my distinguished colleague from West Virginia for his insight, as always, and wisdom on so many issues. He epitomizes what it means to be a Senator, and we are honored and appreciative of his leadership.

Prescription Drugs

Mr. President, I do want to speak today as it relates to prescription drugs and the very important vote we will be having tomorrow, but I also first want to speak to what is happening as it relates to Blacksburg, VA,

and Virginia Tech University, just to indicate that we know there was a memorial service today; that all of us, even as we carry on the normal business of the Senate, are very mindful and aware of what has occurred in the massacre at Virginia Tech University. My thoughts and prayers go out to everyone who has been affected throughout the university, most particularly the families.

Certainly, I think I can speak for the people of my great State of Michigan when I say that we are deeply, deeply sorrowful, and our prayers go out to each and every one of the people who have been affected.

Mr. President, we have a very important vote tomorrow, which is whether to proceed to legislation that would begin the process of allowing the Secretary of Health and Human Services to be able to negotiate the very best price for our seniors under Medicare. I want to take this opportunity to commend our majority leader for getting us to this point, Senator Reid, and the Finance Committee for getting us to this point, for bringing the issue of Medicare drug pricing to the Senate floor. I hope tomorrow we are going to see a strong bipartisan vote to proceed with the bill.

Frankly, it is very unfortunate we are having to vote on whether to proceed to this bill, but since that vote is occurring, I hope we will have a resounding yes tomorrow for something that is so clear to the American people. The direction we will hopefully take tomorrow is the direction that the voters asked us to take. Their message last November was crystal clear: that they want to make sure we are making health care decisions in the best interests of people--the best interests of seniors, of children, of families--and not the special interests that make money off the system. Tomorrow is going to be a vote on that.

Tomorrow will be the first step in the process. We are removing the provision that prohibits Medicare from using its negotiating clout. What we are going to be voting on tomorrow is whether we will proceed. And why are we doing that? Well, first of all, this Medicare bill that was put in place a few years ago actually prohibited the Secretary from negotiating to get the best price for seniors, amazingly. People to this day ask: How in the world did that happen? Well, it happened because, unfortunately, there were too many provisions in that bill that were put in on behalf of the special interests rather than our seniors.

The step we take tomorrow is good for our seniors, it is good for families, and it is good for taxpayers. It is good for taxpayers to get the best deal so that our dollars can go as far as possible under Medicare. So tomorrow is an important day.

I have been fighting for this provision ever since the Medicare prescription drug program was passed in late 2003. I wish I could have supported that bill. I did not, in part because of the prohibition that was put into place. That bill was written and designed with a huge gap in coverage--it has often been called the doughnut hole--that, frankly, wouldn't be there if we were able to get the very best pricing and stretch those Medicare dollars as far as they should go.

In fact, I joined a group of Senators to introduce legislation on December 12, 2003, to repeal the prohibition on negotiation, which is what we are talking about now, because we knew then what we know today. If the Secretary of Health and Human Services negotiates Medicare prescription drug prices, seniors will pay the lowest possible price. That should be what we are all focused on as it relates to Medicare prescription drugs. More than 3 years later, we are taking the first step toward getting this done. It is about time. I think that is what the American people are saying to us.

The best way to get the lowest possible prices on prescription drugs is to use the negotiating clout of 43 million seniors and people with disability who are under Medicare. That negotiating clout needs to be used. We are considering this bill right now because the American people want it. According to a poll conducted by the AARP, 87 percent of all Americans said they want Medicare to negotiate prescription drug prices--87 percent. That is a pretty big number. Eighty-seven percent of the seniors, according to AARP, when asked, have said: Yes, of course, we want the Federal Government to negotiate to get the very best price.

Why do consumers want Medicare to negotiate for lower drug prices? Because they know what everybody knows: large purchasers are getting deep discounts for prescription drugs, and they want the same from Medicare.

This bill does not do the same thing as the VA, but the VA is a good example of what can be done when there is negotiation, when the Federal Government brings its clout as it does for our veterans. It gives us some idea of the kinds of discounts that can be achieved.

For example, we know that on average, the VA health system gets prescription drugs for approximately 58 percent less than their retail prices--58 percent--and on some medicines, it is up to a 1,000-percent difference. Now, I would say, if the VA can do this and get 58 percent, we can get a better deal if we negotiate, knowing again that this bill does not reflect what the VA does, but it gives you a sense of what can be done when we have that kind of clout.

Let's be clear about what we are doing right now with this bill. We are opening the door to lower drug prices so Medicare beneficiaries can afford the medicines they need and we can save taxpayers money. We all know how many times we have heard the stories--I hear them all the time--of folks trying to juggle between keeping the lights on, buying food, and getting their medicine. Our top goal should be, as a Medicare Program, to make sure people can get the medicine they need at the very best price. This bill moves us in that direction.

Let's be clear also about what we are not doing. This legislation does not create a national drug formulary, nor does it establish price controls. Seniors will have access to all of the drugs they do today, and possibly more. The prescription drug industry will continue to thrive, and R&D will not be affected. The change we will see is a change we have been asking for for the last 3 years, that seniors and families have been asking for for the last 3 years.

It is also important to note because we will hear from our friends on the other side of the aisle that somehow, if Medicare is going to have the opportunity to negotiate or if the Secretary can negotiate at appropriate times for lower prices, we are going to see the prices of the VA go up. Well, I asked the Congressional Budget Office to submit to me in writing if that were, in fact, true under this bill. They, in fact, said: No, under this bill, that is not the case. We are not going to see veterans or any other group see their prescription drug prices go up under this legislation. So that is one good thing we need to make clear and debunk as we begin this debate.

Now, what we do know is we have a very interesting thing going on. We have two kinds of debate going on right now in opposition from those who are major beneficiaries of the current system, the special interest groups that have the benefit right now of seeing huge profit increases as a result of this prescription drug bill. On the one hand, we are seeing ads that say: This legislation will do nothing. Do not pass it; it will not do anything. Then, on the other hand, the very same people are saying: But it will cause seniors to not be able to get the choice of medicines they want, it will cause veterans to see their medicine costs go up, it will cost R&D and we won't be able to do research and development into new prescription drugs anymore. I find it so interesting that the same people are arguing both sides: It will not do anything, and it will have all of these devastating effects.

At the same time, we are seeing huge amounts of money, millions and millions of dollars--for months, I have seen ads on TV and radio, newspaper ads telling us these people do not want negotiation or that it will not do anything, all paid for by the same people who benefit by the current system. I might just say that just today, a full-page, single-color ad running in the Washington Post on page A5 today, costs about $135,000--this is today, this is yesterday. We have ad after ad after ad being run and paid for by people who tell us this bill will not do anything. It will not do anything, but yet they have spent millions of dollars on TV, millions of dollars on the radio, in ads we

have seen, ads for our benefit, ads telling us people do not want negotiation.

I might add that in this ad which is running right now, where they say people really do not want Medicare to negotiate, what they say in the fine print is that, in fact, 89 percent oppose Government negotiation if it could limit access to new prescription medicine--if it could limit access to new prescription medicine. This bill does not limit access to new prescription medicine--or old prescription medicine, for that matter. That is not what we are talking about.

In fact, what I find interesting, and the subtle part of this is, if we negotiate for a better deal, they won't be able to do research anymore. We know that right now the drug industry spends 2\1/2\ times more on marketing and advertising than they do on research.

I would suggest we can negotiate to get a little better price. And I wonder how much $135,000 would buy in medicine for somebody today instead of one ad? Let's cut down a little bit on the marketing and advertising, and we won't have to worry about whether Medicare can negotiate for the very best price.

So I hope that tomorrow we are going to have a vote to proceed to this very important public policy issue, this very important bill. I hope we are going to, in fact, do what 87 percent of voters are saying they want us to do--negotiate the very best price for prescription drugs.

I would ask my colleagues to vote to allow us to proceed to the bill. We can continue to work together on exactly what the language should look like, but the idea that you would stop it before we can even have the debate would be extremely disturbing. People in this country do not understand why it is that decisions are made too often for those who happen to have the lobbyists here or the ads on TV or in the newspaper and not enough for the folks who are working hard every day or are retired on a fixed income trying to make ends meet.

Tomorrow is a chance for us to show that those folks are not making the decisions, that we are going to move forward on a bill which is positive for seniors, which is going to give us an opportunity to open the door to negotiating good prices and make a real difference for people, a real difference for people whom the system is supposed to help, the Medicare prescription drug benefit for our seniors, for people on Medicare. They deserve the best price. Tomorrow, we will have a chance to vote to go to that debate and work together to get a bill that will do that. I hope we are going to vote to do that.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Senior Nutrition Act, which will make needed improvements to the Commodity Supplemental Food Program to prevent our seniors from having to make the terrible choice between food and medicine as they try to balance their budgets.

I am pleased to have the support of my friend, Senator Domenici of New Mexico, who has been one of the Senate's strongest supporters of

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Senior Nutrition Act, which will make needed improvements to the Commodity Supplemental Food Program to prevent our seniors from having to make the terrible choice between food and medicine as they try to balance their budgets.

I am pleased to have the support of my friend, Senator Domenici of New Mexico, who has been one of the Senate's strongest supporters of

Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to vote yes on S. 5. This is a bill that will bring hope to millions of Americans and their families. This is the bill, this is the opportunity for us to move forward on critically needed research. By passing the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, we can make a major step forward in scientific research and bring hope and help to millions of Americans fighting a debilitating disease every day.

I think we all have members of our own families who can speak to those issues--Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, juvenile diabetes, other kinds of diseases--where we know with a little bit of help and focus, both in terms of stem cell research but also in terms of funding research, we can see huge changes, huge opportunities for treatment and for possible cures. That is what this bill is all about. It is so important we move forward in a positive way and pass this bill as quickly as possible.

It is very sad we have this issue up before us again. In the last Congress, we passed legislation by wide bipartisan margins to lift the President's restriction on Federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. By wide margins, the majority of Americans supported this legislation, and still support this legislation. Unfortunately, the President issued his first and, so far, only veto to strike down our legislation. So we are back here again.

I see Mr. Harkin, a great Senator from Iowa, on the floor. I commend him for his leadership, and so many of my other colleagues. Earlier today, Senator Feinstein was on the floor, and I thank her, certainly, for her leadership, as well as Senator Kennedy. So many people have worked so hard in bringing us to this point. I thank our leader, our Senate majority leader, Senator Harry Reid, for making this a priority as an agenda item for us in the Senate.

I know how deeply personal this issue is for many people. I respect that many of my colleagues have different views on stem cell research. I have also studied this issue very extensively. Over the past several years, I have met with people from all different faiths, all different backgrounds, from religious figures to medical researchers on the cutting edge of breakthrough technology. I have met with mothers who have to give multiple daily injections to their children to help them make it through the day.

They argue that many diseases and chronic conditions--as I have mentioned before, diabetes, and also ALS, Parkinson's, spinal cord injuries, many types of cancers--will be treated or even possibly cured with stem cell research. Too many families are struggling to care for children with diabetes or watching elderly parents succumb to Alzheimer's disease, like my husband did, or like my grandmother, who died of Parkinson's disease.

Too many Americans suffer from illnesses that make ordinary things such as daily household chores nearly impossible. As cochair of the Senate bipartisan Parkinson's Caucus, I receive letters and calls from people all across our great Nation on how important stem cell research is to them, how important this legislation, this opportunity at this time is to them and their families.

I have met many Michigan families dealing with chronic health issues every single day. For example, a wonderful advocate and friend, Bob Kullgren, from Grand Rapids, shared with me his daughter Kate's story.

When she was 12 years old, she was diagnosed with juvenile diabetes. Her family took her for multiple visits to the hospital and injected her with insulin three to four times every single day. These routines only helped to manage Kate's disease, not cure it.

As a teenager, Kate worked as a counselor at a camp for children with diabetes. She watched as some of her fellow counselors began experiencing the early stages of blindness caused by their juvenile diabetes. I cannot imagine how terrifying it must be to begin to go blind when you should be thinking about going to the prom or graduating from high school. None of us wants that for our children.

Another bright young woman who has visited my office several times is Julielyn Gibbons. For over 12 years, Julielyn has lived with Crohn's disease. It is a disease that causes intense abdominal pain. For her, stem cell research offers the promise of not only curing this lifelong debilitating disease but also the hope of being able to live a normal life. She e-mailed me:

I want to be able to bring children into the world knowing

that they will never have to suffer as I have, and that

possibility best exists through stem cell research.

S. 5, a strong bipartisan bill, is an important and, in fact, a critical step forward toward giving Julielyn and Kate that hopeful future we all want for our children. S. 5 expands Federal financing of research on additional stem cell lines created from embryos freely donated from in vitro fertilization clinics under strict ethical guidelines. These embryos are frozen and will likely be destroyed. Think about that. These are frozen embryos that will likely be thrown in the garbage can. They are being thrown away. Which is better: To have the opportunity to use those cells, those precious cells to be able to create life, to create cures, or to see them thrown away? That is what is happening right now.

This bill also would authorize the National Institutes of Health to look at other ways of creating new stem cell lines. This does not preclude other opportunities for research. In fact, this is a bill to make it clear we want to use every possibility to save life, to be able to cure diseases, and that we will continue to see that is done with the highest ethical standards, which is what is guaranteed under this legislation.

The current administration's policy, frankly, is tying the hands of scientists and impeding their progress on treatments and cures for diseases that families every day are waiting for. Sean Morrison, the director for the University of Michigan's Center for Stem Cell Biology, told me the federally approved lines are of limited use because they are not genetically diverse enough to realize the full potential of this research--so many more are needed. In other words, we don't have enough right now. We can't do what needs to be done, what families are asking for across this country.

While we look toward the future, we should remember those who have passed while we have had this debate as well. Every day the clock is ticking on somebody who is ill. Every day the clock is ticking on somebody with a fatal disease who could be helped in some way or cured if we were doing everything we could to provide the research and the cures and the treatments. What pains me the most is that some of the brave advocates I have had the privilege to meet during my congressional career are no longer here today. They are no longer here this week to see this vote. Hopefully we will not have many more people who will be seeing their lives deteriorate or lose their lives before we are able to actually begin to do what needs to be done with this research.

It is for them and for all the families I have met that I will cast my vote this week, a vote for life, for hope, for a bright future. I know the cures won't come tomorrow, but they may never come if we do not act now. I urge all of my colleagues to vote yes on S. 5, and I urge the President of the United States to do what is right, to do what the overwhelming majority of the American people are asking him to do and asking us to do, which is to say yes to lifesaving research, to say yes to that which will provide hope for a cure. I hope we will say yes in a very large margin to S. 5.

Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to commend the Michigan State University Spartans on winning the 2007 Men's National Collegiate Hockey Championship.

On Saturday, April 7, 2007, the Michigan State University Men's Hockey Team won the 2007 Men's Hockey National Collegiate Athletic Association Championship by defeating Boston College by a score of 3 to 1.

In a hard-fought game, and going into the final period with a one- goal deficit, the Spartans charged ahead to tie the game, and then triumphantly scored a game-winning goal with only 18.9 seconds remaining of play.

This victory constituted MSU Hockey's third national championship, and the first since 1986. Each member of the MSU Hockey organization made essential contributions to the team's success.

MSU Spartans' Head Coach Rick Comley has become only the third coach in college hockey history to win national titles at two institutions, and has earned over 700 career wins.

A record crowd of over 19,000 people attended the Frozen Four Championship game in St. Louis, and the enthusiasm shown by the people of Michigan and the students of MSU demonstrate Michigan's strong support for the MSU Hockey organization.

I know how important the families and friends of the team have been in providing unwavering support and always cheering on their Spartans.

In the final weeks of the season, with an uncertain forecast of their playoff position, the Spartans rallied together with unrivaled team character and focus, and starting with the 1st round playoffs in Grand Rapids, MI, they went on undefeated to clinch the championship.

Michigan State University has always stood as a center for excellence in both athletics and scholarship, especially with the guidance of University President Lou Anna K. Simon, and athletic director and renowned former MSU Hockey coach, Ron Mason.

I am a proud MSU alumnus myself, and was beyond delighted to see this great team win the national championship.

The MSU Spartans displayed unparalleled team camaraderie, and have shown their ability to unite both on and off the ice has led them to well-fought victories.

The Spartan Hockey Team demonstrated superior strength, skill, perseverance and determination and has made Michigan State University and the entire State of Michigan proud.

I congratulate the MSU Spartan Hockey Team on winning the 2007 NCAA Championship and recognize all the players, coaches, staff, fans, and others who were instrumental in this great achievement.

Again, this is a wonderful day for Michigan State University. We are very proud of our hockey members and particularly proud of a member of my staff, Jeff Muich, whose brother Steve is a member of that team. So with pride we congratulate Michigan State University on this wonderful achievement.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to urge the Bush administration to look beyond the next 48 hours. Right now, in Seoul, Korea, U.S. negotiators are meeting nonstop with South Korean officials to finish up the so-called Korean Free Trade Agreement. They are rushing because if they don't finish it by Saturday night at midnight, the trade agreement would not be eligible for fast-track authority. My colleagues understand what that means. They would not be eligible to move it through in a way that would not allow us to change the agreement in any way but puts it on fast-track authority so that if many of us believe there are concerns with it, we would not have the full range of options that we normally do in the Senate to be able to correct it or object to it.

Mr. President, these negotiators are not discussing some minor trade deal. They are debating what could be the largest U.S. trade agreement since NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement. I urge the White House and its negotiators to look beyond the final hours left on the fast-track clock. What happens in the next 48 hours could affect the American economy, American businesses, the American auto industry, and American workers for decades to come. The goal is not to race to the finish line. The goal should be to have the very best possible trade agreement--an agreement that raises the standards of living for everybody by creating a level playing field, an agreement that ensures market access for both countries--not just South Korea.

This cannot be a one-way deal. It has to be an opening of markets for both American businesses, American agriculture, as well as South Korean agriculture and business, and so on, including the industry that has built the middle class of this country, which is the U.S. auto industry.

There seems to be an agreement that upholds the value of what has made this country successful. Fair competition, competition that rewards hard work, deserves our attention, and it is based very simply on what we happen to think in Michigan is just plain common sense, having the rules be the same. It is pretty simple, but even though they are basic, right now there is a question as to whether they will be included in this rush to this final trade agreement, to beat the clock.

We don't need an agreement that sells out American workers or pits American companies against foreign governments that cheat the system. In this rush to the finish line, this administration has failed to remember that there is an alternative. This Congress will pass good trade agreements without fast track. We have done it before. I have supported good trade agreements. I want to vote for good trade agreements. We want to export our products, not our jobs. That is fundamentally what is at stake in this negotiation that is going on right this minute.

I believe we must be a key player in the global economy. We are a key player, and trade agreements are part of that role. In fact, the old argument of protectionism versus free trade doesn't fit anymore. When you Blackberry your phone, the Internet can jump any wall that could be put up. There is a fundamental question for us today: How are we going to compete in a global economy and keep the middle class of this country, keep our way of life in this country? That is what is at stake in the negotiations going on right now.

Unfortunately, fast-track authority has been used in the past to pass bad agreements through Congress. We undermine the integrity of our trade policy if the administration's agreements sell out our workers or export our middle class.

Sadly, this administration makes it even worse by not enforcing our trade laws. We all know about what is happening when other countries, such as China or Japan, manipulate their currency--or, in some cases, even South Korea. We all know what happens when there are counterfeit products brought into this country and our ideas and patents are stolen, when other countries don't follow the rules. We need to make sure the rules are working and they are being enforced right now as we look to expand any agreements.

We are talking about the next 48 hours. Simply put, racing to the finish

line right now could very well, and likely will, result in a very bad trade agreement that will not allow our country to continue to have the edge, a bad trade agreement that will allow others to continue to cheat the international system, and a bad agreement for the people who are working hard at this moment, counting on us to get it right, counting on us to fight for a level playing field, so whether they own a business or whether they work for a business or whether they grow crops in the field, they can count on the rules being fair, the playing field level, and that we will enforce those rules on their behalf.

South Korea is really the first test of this administration with the new Congress. Will this administration sell out American workers? Will they ignore the history of bilateral agreements with South Korea? Or will they work with us to get it right? The American people are counting on us to get it right. Eighty-two percent of the trade deficit with South Korea is in the automobile industry. Coming from the great State of Michigan, that matters to me. I hope it matters also to all of my colleagues, since this is the industry on which the middle class of this country has been built.

Eighty-two percent of the trade deficit with South Korea is in the auto industry. That is because we have had two failed agreements with South Korea which have allowed cars to come into the United States while South Korea keeps its markets virtually closed. That doesn't make any sense. In fact, South Korea is the least open market for autos of any industrialized country. Meanwhile, South Korea continues to export 7 out of 10 of their vehicles. So they make 10 and ship 7 outside of the country.

The United States has a 12-year history and two auto-specific bilateral agreements with South Korea in an attempt to open their auto import market so we can sell to them. In 1995 and 1998, the United States attempted to level the playing field by instituting two memoranda of understanding that clearly stated the need to increase ``foreign-made vehicle market access.'' But despite these attempts from the U.S. Government, both Republican and Democratic Presidents, nothing has changed with South Korea as it relates to our automobile industry.

This chart is pretty clear as to what has happened. In 2006, Korea imported to us 749,822 automobiles. That is what came to us. And how many were we allowed to ship to them, built in America? Mr. President, 4,556 vehicles. I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to figure out that is not a level playing field, that is not fair. Who in their right mind would negotiate a continuation of that situation? I can assure my colleagues, if that is what comes back or anything even close to it from this agreement, this Senator from Michigan will do everything I can possibly do to stop it from being enacted.

In addition, South Korea has an 8-percent tariff on U.S. auto imports, three times the U.S. tariff, which is 2.5 percent. We have had two different agreements to fix this situation, and instead, we continue with tariffs that are so different: 8 percent that we pay, 2.5 percent that they pay. Then on top of that, they do things such as make sure that our automobiles, foreign imports, have higher insurance rates or get audited or have other kinds of barriers on them, while we have an open marketplace and they come in unimpeded.

I remind our negotiators, we have plenty of time to develop a good trade agreement. If we fix this situation, if we have something that truly is in the interest of Americans, of American workers, businesses, and farmers, I will be first on the floor to support it. But this is not fair. Something that maybe inches this up from 4,500 to 5,000 or 6,000, while Korean imports continue to go up will not be fair.

We have to have an open process so we have the same kind of access to their market that they have to ours. I thought that is what trade agreements were supposed to be about.

There is no need to rush. There is no need to sell out our auto industry in America or our workers or any other group.

I know there are other concerns as well from rice farmers and beef interests and others. Certainly, I don't think we should be in a situation where any of our American interests are put at risk because of a trade agreement. All we want is a level playing field. All we want is the ability to have the same rules apply no matter where one lives, and to have those rules enforced.

Right now, as I said before, we have a 48-hour time period. We know at this moment there are people negotiating, trying to beat the clock in the next 48 hours. It won't work unless this is an agreement that works for America. And from my standpoint, it won't work unless it works for the American auto industry. These kinds of numbers make no sense whatsoever.

I am very hopeful folks will stop and take a deep breath for a moment and look at what needs to be done, and then have faith in us, in Congress, that we will work with the administration to put together a good deal. If it is a good deal, if it is a good deal for American businesses, if it is a good deal for American workers, then it will sail through. But if it continues the bad deal we have had now for the last 12 years trying to work with South Korea, there are going to be serious objections.

As I said so many times before, American workers and American businesses can compete with anybody, but we have to have a level playing field. We have to require that other countries play by the same rules we do and that we negotiate agreements that make sense, where the tariffs are the same and the rules are the same and the market access is the same. That is all I wish to see happen as a Senator from Michigan, and I know that is what we are all hoping will happen for those we represent.

The next 48 hours are critically important for our working men and women in this country and American businesses, doing business here, that want to remain here, that want to remain in the business of providing good work with good pay and good benefits in the United States. That is what this is about.

Again, we want to export our products, not our jobs. What happens in the next 48 hours will determine whether we are going to be able to work together with the administration to get this right.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today in celebration of my longtime friend and staff member, Sue Glynn. After serving on my staff in the Michigan State Legislature, the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate, Sue has decided to join her husband, Dale, in a well-deserved retirement.

Before joining my staff, Sue worked for the Michigan Democratic Party and other members of the Michigan State Legislature. I consider myself very fortunate that she chose to be a part of my staff and stay with me for over 20 years. She has worn many hats while working for me, including scheduler, regional manager and office manager. She has handled each one with professionalism and grace.

Sue is well known for her incredible organizational skills, and I have relied on her in so many ways. She is leaving very big shoes to fill.

Both Sue and her husband have dedicated themselves to public service--Sue in government and Dale with the public school system. As a couple and individually, they are well-respected community leaders. I know their commitment will continue into retirement.

My staff and I will miss her presence in the office and her outstanding work ethic. She is a woman of strong values and integrity. She approaches her work in a serious manner but also is very fun- loving. I know that the many people in Michigan, whose lives she has touched through her work, will miss her as well.

Upon leaving the Senate, Sue has many exciting plans and will probably be busier than she is now. She enjoys golfing, bowling, gardening, spending time with her daughter and son and their families, traveling and being with friends.

Mr. President, I am sad because I am losing a trusted and valued member of my staff, but I am happy to see a dear friend move on to new life experiences after a long and distinguished career. She deserves the best of everything and I will always value our friendship in the years to come.

Mr. President, I thank the chairman and everyone for all the hard work they are doing on this very important budget. I am happy to talk about ways we can save dollars in Medicare without cutting access or quality under Medicare. These amendments do not do that. These amendments start from the premise that we are going to cut providers. Let's look at doctors or hospitals or home health or maybe hospice, maybe nursing homes. It says what we ought to be doing is cutting back on payments in this system, which will cut back on their ability to service people, the ability for people to get care they need.

I find it so interesting on all of these amendments that folks--my friends on the other side of the aisle--go after those who are receiving health care. Medicare is a universal system. Everyone pays in. It involves choice. You can go to an HMO or your own doctor, you can sign up for Part B and get more coverage, pay a bigger premium, Part B--it is a system that has worked, but everyone has paid in.

So this notion that somehow we are going to pick this apart on the floor of the Senate without going through the process of looking at the whole system and how we really achieve savings, really achieve savings without cutting services, is mind boggling to me.

We saw a $400 billion Medicare prescription drug benefit pass the Senate, which now costs more--we do not know how much more but costs more--by the way, unpaid for, paid for on a credit card, I guess, that we know could be less than that.

If we talk about savings in Medicare, let's negotiate prescription drug prices. That is a way to make sure that we lower the price of Medicare. Now, it would involve taking on folks who many of my friends on the other side of the aisle support, industries that benefitted from this Medicare bill. But rather than saying we are going to cut our doctors trying to service our seniors, or our hospitals trying to hold it together and treating people, or home health, rather than saying we are going to cut out services in some way, let's go to the real cost. I am happy to go to the real costs that we can address while increasing access and quality.

One is to negotiate a better deal, negotiate a better deal for prescription drugs. I hope we are going to, in fact, do that as a Congress to be able to get a better deal.

Another thing would be to take the 31 cents on every dollar in health care that is the administrative cost--most of this is generated by the Federal Government in some way--and address health information technology, which many of us have worked on, Senator Snowe and I have legislation on, Senator Kennedy, Senator Enzi. We have bipartisan interest. Let's tackle that, and that would increase quality and access and dramatically cut the cost.

E-prescribing of prescription drugs alone, according to the Rand Corporation, would save $80 billion, just your pharmacy being able to talk to your doctor, talk to the hospital, and so on.

I came from a meeting where people were talking about great things: the increase in quality and access, and cutting costs. So let's talk about health IT. Let's talk about generic drugs which, if we have more competition from generic drugs, we would dramatically bring down the costs of Medicare.

So there is a lot we can do that does not involve going to the folks providing care and saying: We are going to cut you one more time. We are going to cut you one more time, or going to the universal nature of a health care system. This is not a low-income system. This is a universal system where everybody in America pays in, and it is stronger because of that.

So I would say that we should reject the two amendments in front of us. But we should certainly get about the business of addressing health care costs in this country through Medicare and through other means. We spend almost twice as much of our GDP on health care than any other country, with 50 million people with no health insurance. That alone shows there is something wrong with that picture.

We know we have had increases in Medicare, no question about it. But let's look at where they are coming from. Let's look at where they are coming from. Certainly, the area of lacking prescription drug competition is a big one. Administrative costs is a big one. Let's look at where we can save costs. I know it means taking on some pretty big special interests. There has been an unwillingness to do that because there are folks who make a lot of money off of Medicare, a lot of money.

I would not suggest it is the doctors or the hospital or the hospices or home health nurses, but there are folks who make a lot of money. They do not want to see us deal with the real costs. So let's go back one more time after the providers. Let's go back one more time and try to dismantle what is a universal health care system called Medicare. It works.

Frankly, I would like to see that kind of a universal system available, that is structurally available to every American, not just find ways to cut the one part of universal health care that we have in this country. I would hope that we would leave it to the Finance Committee to wrestle with all of those issues and let us figure out how to do this right.

I would hope my colleagues would say no to these two amendments that take us backwards in providing health care for every American.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise also to oppose this amendment. The first point that comes to mind for me is, here they go again. I say that with all due respect to my friend from Arizona. But we are seeing more, as the Budget chairman has said, of the strategy that got us into the hole that this budget is trying to dig us out of.

It is important to emphasize again what the Budget chairman has said. Here is what has happened in terms of numbers of estates that even qualified as taxable estates back in 2000. It was 50,000. It has dropped to 13,000, and as of 2009, it will be 7,000 estates in the entire country that will even qualify for this tax.

How much is that? We are talking about only .2 percent of estates, 7,000. The Baucus amendment that we adopted yesterday says that for those, it is not going to change. That number is not going to go back up. There will be a continuation of the current exemption level. So we are talking about .2 percent of the estates being taxed.

I think almost without exception--I can't speak for every colleague on the Senate floor, but I know on this side of the aisle, colleagues are very sympathetic and support our family farmers. I have a lot of them in my State, and I know you do, Madam President, in your State as well, small businesses, family-owned businesses. They build up the business, and they want to be able to pass that business on. With great pride, the families are engaged and involved. We are not interested in seeing anybody lose their family farm or their family business. That is why we have supported extending the exemptions so that less than .2 percent of estates are taxed or eligible to be taxed.

Frankly, there have been some of us on this side of the aisle who have had amendments over the years--I have cosponsored amendments--that would exempt family-owned enterprises. If that is what people want to do, I think there would be a lot of interest in doing something like that.

But I think behind all the talk of our family farmers and small businesses is another picture of a few extremely wealthy families in this country whose children or aunts, uncles, sisters, brothers-- someone may benefit through an inheritance. They may have not contributed at all to building that wealth and may never have to work a day in their life or contribute to this country. The question is, Should they have to contribute in some way with the only tax, for instance, they might pay is the estate tax?

I see my time is coming to a close. I want to share one more chart. What we are concerned about, what I am concerned about, is the fact that last year, the tax cuts that have already been given have already disproportionately affected the very wealthy, the most blessed people in this country. Anyone earning more than $1 million a year last year, in 2006, had a tax cut of over $118,000, which is more than what the average person in Michigan or anyone in this country makes in a year.

So what we are objecting to is this is not helping family farmers and small businesses. This is about a tax system and a series of tax cuts that are out of whack that have created the situation where, if you are working hard every day on that family farm, in that small business, or if you are working every day building great American automobiles, such as a lot of folks in my State, you didn't see any tax cut or not much of a tax cut. But if you are somebody who would benefit in that top .2 percent who gets the estate tax cut we are talking about, you are already being given some pretty big gifts from the current tax system.

I urge a ``no'' vote.

Madam President, will my friend yield for a question?

Will my colleague yield for a question?

I thank you, as chairman of the Budget Committee, for bringing forward the ``save Social Security first'' amendment in committee. It makes it very clear in the budget resolution that we intend to come out of this hole and are committed to making sure Social Security moneys are restored.

Last night we heard from other colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Senator Sessions offered an amendment that basically would fly in the face of Senator Bunning's amendment, wouldn't you say, because it essentially would take away the ability to have a 60-vote point of order as it relates to extending the tax cuts that created the hole in the first place. Because isn't it true that essentially the tax cuts were paid for by using Social Security surplus funds?

If I might ask a second question of my friend. Again, I will start by congratulating the Senator. I remember, as a new member of the Budget Committee, coming in in 2001 when there were record surpluses, that the Senator was warning us about what could happen. Actually, is it not true that at that time, the Senator was suggesting a third of the surpluses go to prefunding the liability of Social Security so we would not find ourselves in this mess? Would not that have had a very different outcome on where we are today?

If I may inquire, Madam President, is the Senator speaking on this amendment?

I would ask to be recognized after that.

Yes.

I ask for 5 minutes.

Madam President, to add to what the distinguished Senator from North Dakota indicated, we have tax cuts built into this budget. We are in a global economy. We need to be competitive. There are a number of ways in which we need to be competitive.

My friend from South Carolina and I are working together on the question of trade enforcement. That is a critical part of it--investing in education, a skilled workforce, innovation. That is a very big part of it. That is a big part of this budget, making education a top priority.

Changing the way we fund health care, getting it off the back of businesses, addressing health care costs is a big part of being competitive and is addressed in this budget.

We say every child in a family where the folks are working ought to have access to health insurance, and this budget finds a way to do that. We address other issues. Health information technology, that Senator Snowe and I and others are working on together, is addressed in this budget. So we address a number of items, including tax cuts.

We address one of my biggest concerns, and I know my Democratic colleagues share this concern, of what is happening with the alternative minimum tax and how it is going to be shifted more and more to middle-income taxpayers and is becoming the alternative middle-class tax. We address that.

Through this Baucus amendment we say when we get into surplus, when we get out of the hole that has been dug in the last 6 years and actually begin to have a surplus, we are going to capture

that $132 billion, both to make sure that children's health care is funded and to expand on investments in tax cuts, including what has been talked about in terms of extending the exemptions on the estate tax for a certainty.

We want folks to know that once you get to 2010, you can keep living a healthy life, continue, and, in fact, the same rates, at a minimum, will continue. So the Baucus amendment is about making sure we can do that. We all come together around the education cuts and making sure that we have the child tax credit and the 10-percent tax rate and other areas that are very important to working families, middle-class families. But we do this within the context of another very important value that Americans hold, and that is we pay the bills. We do it within a framework of fiscal responsibility.

In the last 6 years we have seen this tax policy, we have seen a war that has not been paid for, we have seen other spending that has been rolled over onto the national debt creating the largest deficit in the history of the country. We are now trying--and with this budget we will succeed--to dig our way out of that. But this amendment adds over $72 billion back into the hole. It keeps on digging. That is what this budget resolution is committed to stop: fiscal responsibility, and to invest in the priorities of American families and American businesses and invest in middle-class tax cuts.

I have heard on the other side of the aisle over and over that we should not pick who receives tax cuts. That is exactly what the current policy has done. If you earned over $1 million last year, you received at least $118,477 worth of a tax cut. That is more than the average person in Michigan makes in a year, and that was the tax cut.

I suggest, looking at this chart, for someone earning less than $100,000, it was $692. We can go on down. If someone was, in fact, earning less than that, those numbers go all the way down to less than $100.

I would suggest that the priority was set the previous Congress, the administration deciding whom they wanted to get tax cuts--and they have been getting them--adding to the deficit, taking away from our ability to critically invest in those things that will allow us to be competitive; investments in science and education and changing the way we fund health care and doing the other kinds of things we need to do, including balancing the budget, to be able to address the costs of interest, et cetera.

So what we are saying is this picture of who receives tax cuts is not ours. This is not ours. We reject that. This budget focuses on the folks who have not been getting the tax cuts, it focuses on the folks who not only have not been getting the tax cuts, but they have been getting the wage cuts at the same time.

The average, the real median household income has declined by almost $1,300 in the last 5 years. Folks are working harder, the gas prices are going up, the cost of college is going up, health care costs are going up, maybe they lose their pension and hope and pray that they have a job, their income is going down, and to add insult to injury, they have not received the tax cuts that have been offered.

What we are about is changing that picture. This budget resolution is about a new direction, a new set of priorities, focusing on middle- class families who are working hard every day, businesses who are investing in America and want to keep the jobs here. That is what this is about. I hope we will reject the Kyl amendment.

Madam President, 5 minutes.

I thank the chairman.

Madam President, as a member of both the Budget Committee and Finance Committee, I concur with our leader's comments in terms of the jurisdiction of the Budget Committee. I look forward, frankly, to this debate and working through all the specifics on children's health care in the Finance Committee because there are very important issues we need to address.

The spirit of the Cornyn amendment is what we have addressed in this budget resolution, which is making sure we have the resources to be able to cover every child. Right now, about 6 million children are covered. There are another 6 to 7 million children who actually qualify for the SCHIP program, for children's health care, but the funds are not there. So this budget proposal will allow that to happen.

Now, in some States--such as my own State of Michigan, where Michigan decided on its own to meet its moral obligation to cover children and began to reach out creatively using other funds to cover children--when they have received the children's health care funds, they have found that being creative, using what they were already using, they could stretch it a little farther to maybe cover moms and dads or very poor adults.

In the law we passed regarding children's health care, there was a waiver provision put in that the administration could use--used by this administration and the former administration--to waive the rules to allow a little more flexibility, if the States were able to work hard and be creative and be able to stretch their dollars.

That is what has happened in Michigan. I am very proud of the hard work that has gone on in Michigan and by our current Governor who is very committed to extending health care coverage not only for every child but for

every person in our State. I hope that is our goal, together, for our country. We should not be talking about how we limit health care but how we make sure it is available for every individual. I believe health care should be a right and not a privilege in the greatest country in the world.

But in our case, we cover an individual making $4,500 a year--$4,500 a year--certain individuals. So when we get to the Finance Committee debate, I hope we are going to keep in there the ability and flexibility for States to receive, if approved, waivers that allow them to stretch their precious health care dollars a little bit farther.

This amendment would, in its policy--even though it has no effect ultimately, it states we should not allow that flexibility for States, we should not allow the ability for States to be creative. It also sets a limit of 200 percent above poverty, which may sound--well, it may sound as though it is OK, but you are talking about basically two individuals in a family each earning the minimum wage. That is about hitting that number of 200 percent of poverty. So if you get a minimum wage increase or maybe you get a little bit more money, and you still do not have health care coverage in your employment.

Again, we would be saying, through this kind of amendment, they should not be able to cover their children with health care, not be able to have access, even though they are working hard. The whole point of SCHIP is to say to those who are working: If you are working hard and in a low-income job, you should be able to know you can receive health insurance for your children. If you are working hard, you don't have to go to bed at night saying: Please God, don't let the kids get sick--which is what happens every single night in America. So I hope we reject this amendment. It is not appropriate for the Budget Committee.

I also look forward to the debate on the policy once we get to the Finance Committee. We want to cover every child. The money in this budget will allow us to cover those children who are currently eligible but not covered. We will cover every child. That is our commitment. That is part of the moral document we have put forward in this budget resolution. But we also, I believe, need to figure out a way to make sure in the process we are not taking away health care coverage from anyone in the country.

Thank you.

Mr. President, first of all, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee for his outstanding work and his commitment day in and day out to putting together a new direction for the country in this budget and meeting our fiscal responsibilities, and thanks to his staff for their hard work as well. Also, to our ranking member, the former chairman, we disagree in approach, but I have great respect for him and his staff and the way in which they conduct business and their professionalism.

Before talking about why this is a good budget resolution, let me start out by, in fact, disagreeing with the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire. He says everything is going great all across the country, everything is going great. But just last week, in the newspaper here, the Washington Post, we had a story about a national survey showing a soaring number of homeowners failed to make their mortgage payments. The number of foreclosures of all homes jumped to its highest level in nearly four decades, according to the survey by the Mortgage Bankers Association. The highest level in nearly four decades? Is that because people just don't want to pay their mortgage? Of course it is not. It is because the average people--middle-class families, people working hard every single day--are not feeling the benefits of what the distinguished Senator was talking about.

It is true that you can show numbers--stock market up 58 percent, real GDP up 32 percent, real corporate profits up 36 percent. But the median household income--the majority of Americans working hard every single day, who care about their families and are trying to make a better life for themselves, have seen their incomes go down--in fact, $1,253 over a 5-year period, from 2000 to 2005.

Why? First of all, we have lost 3 million manufacturing jobs in America under this President and during the previous Congress--3 million manufacturing jobs. What does that mean? Good-paying jobs, good wages, pensions, health care benefits, a chance at the future, the hope of sending your children to college--good-paying jobs, 3 million of them lost. I have a list here of just some of those in manufacturing: computer and electronics manufacturing, 543,900 jobs, good-paying jobs, people who have a very different view than what was presented earlier about how great it is right now economically in America. Vehicle parts, machinery, fabricated metal products and primary metals, and right on down, transportation equipment, furniture products, textile mills--43 percent drop in textiles--leather products, right on down through chemicals.

The reality is too many people in this country, the majority of people in this country, have not benefited from the rosy picture we have heard about and we are going to continue to hear about on this floor. Why? Because they have not been the priority under this administration and the previous Congress. They have not been the priority.

The good news about this budget is that in this budget, they are the priority. We are in a new direction through this budget. We are, in fact, returning to fiscal discipline. Yes, we value paying the bills. No more borrow and spend, borrow and spend, over and over again, borrowing, adding up mounds of debt. We are putting us back on the road to fiscal discipline, and we are putting middle-class families first. That is the value base for this budget. That is what we are looking at in the big picture.

In fact, the budget is our value statement. It is about our values and our priorities. It reflects who we are as a country and allows us to shape who we want to be in the decades ahead. This budget is about making sure everybody has a chance to make it. Folks working hard every single day want to know that they are going to see their lives improve, not just some numbers for some people.

Last November, the American people sent a clear signal that they were unhappy with the way this Government was doing business. They chose new leadership for America. They wanted a new direction, a direction that builds on our common values and places a premium on putting our middle- class families first.

We have already made great strides in delivering on those promises and the potential of last year's election. The Senate has passed an increase in the minimum wage for folks working hard every day, working not one but maybe two or three jobs, probably without health insurance, trying to make ends meet for their families. We finally engaged in an open, important, a critical debate on the war in Iraq, and we have taken concrete steps to implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission to make our families and our communities safer.

But in many ways, this budget debate, the budget in front of us, is our first big test about who we are and what are our priorities. We are faced with a very simple question: Will we bend to business as usual and deliver a budget that fails, again, to live up to the mandate the country has asked of us or will we do what the American people have charged us to do--deliver a budget that reflects middle-class values and works for American businesses, farmers, workers, and families? That is what our budget resolution does.

It will not be easy. We have inherited a fiscal mess, quite honestly. We have tough choices to make. I love seeing that the wall of debt, the wall that was actually created by the distinguished Budget chairman talking about where we have come from in the last 6 years--I remember in the Budget Committee when we had the largest surplus in the history of the country, over $5.6 trillion. We at that time, the Democrats, indicated in the Budget Committee that we wanted to see a third of that go to tax cuts, a third of it to investments and opportunity and science and the future--education and health care--and a third to prefund the liability on Social Security. We wouldn't be where we are in the Social Security debate if we had done that back in 2001. But that is not what happened. Virtually all of it was put into supply-side economics,

tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, and then we went into a war that has not been paid for, et cetera. So we are in a hole. We are in a huge hole.

One of the things we always talk about is: If you are in a hole and you want to get out, the first thing is to stop digging. This budget stops digging the hole and puts us on a path of fiscal responsibility. Just like every family in America, the Government has the responsibility to balance its checkbook, and we are committed to putting us in that direction and getting that job done.

We are committed to a return to fiscal discipline and putting a stop to the bad habits of the last 6 years of writing checks the Government cannot cash. Under our budget resolution, we begin to chip away at the problem immediately with the target of 2012, 5 years from now, for completely erasing the Federal deficit.

We know we can do that. It is simply a matter of prioritizing and not spending money we do not have. I was proud to be part of a Congress that balanced the budget in 1997, working across party lines, to keep spending in check. It was not easy. But we understood the long-term health of the American economy and the long-term well being of our middle-class families and our businesses were dependent on making tough choices.

The irresponsible fiscal policies of this administration have gutted our record surpluses and driven us into record deficits. Thank goodness we are beginning now to come out. But it has hurt our families, it has hurt our businesses, and it has put our way of life at risk. We are committed to stopping that.

Second, as we put our fiscal house in order, we need to focus on the priorities that matter to American families, and that is what this budget does. I should mention in talking about that, when we hear about all this spending being talked about, only 17 percent of all the so- called domestic discretionary spending, the money we have the ability to make decisions about, in terms of science and health care and education and environment, public safety, and so on, that the discretionary part of the budget is 17 percent of the whole budget--17 percent. It is invested in the quality of life and the future for the families of this country. Those are critical investments.

What are we suggesting? Well this budget, in fact, focuses on what matters to middle-class families the most. First, people want to know we are going to be investing in education and opportunity in the future for themselves and their children. We commit to health care for every child. We commit to making sure every child who does not have health insurance is able to get health insurance, so that families who go to bed tonight don't worry about what is going to happen--and pray to God, please do not let the kids get sick tonight--they will know there is health care available to them. Frankly, it needs to be step one to make health care available to every American.

Third, we keep our promises to our veterans. This ought to be a given. This budget resolution guarantees that. We provide middle-class tax cuts. We are all for tax cuts; it is about time the middle class got some. That is what this budget resolution does. We restore key investments in law enforcement, health care, technology, protecting our environment. Key investments the President has tried to cut, we have put back and restored those.

Let me speak for a moment about education. Everyone understands the world economy is changing. Our increased reliance on technology and the growing competition in the global marketplace means that today, more than ever, we need to be investing in the best education system possible for our children. We all say that. We all talk about education.

We had a wonderful hearing this morning in the Finance Committee on education. This budget actually does more than talk about it; it takes critical investments and places them as a top priority for us because we know this is the only way we are going to be able to have our businesses competitive and create real financial opportunities for working-class America.

In real-world terms, that means investing more in education and focusing more on innovation. Education policy is economic policy. We understand that. Creating opportunity for everyone who works hard to make it is what America is all about. It is one of the pillars, the foundations of our economy and a huge focus for our families and a huge focus in this budget.

Unfortunately, what did the President do when it came to education last year? Well, he and the Republican Congress, back in Christmas of 2005, cut $12 billion out of student loans. Then the President came back in 2006 with the largest proposed cut in the history of education. Our children deserve better. This budget resolution reflects our commitment to education. Under our budget proposal, we invest $6.1 billion more in education funding than the President's proposal for 2008.

Let me speak for a moment about health care. This is a major priority in this budget. I believe health care should be a right, not a privilege, in this country. We need to be about the job of changing the way we finance it in total and getting it off the back of business. Your ability to remain healthy should not be tied to your employment status or depending upon where you were born or what kind of family you were born into.

In America, we can do better than we are doing, and this budget moves us in the right direction. We spend more on health care, per capita, than any other Western Nation. Yet we have nearly 50 million people with no health insurance. There is something wrong with this picture. We intend to fix it. Americans who do not have regular access to health care also put a strain on our system economically, produce less for society, while at the same time saddling business with the skyrocketing cost of employee health care is making it more and more difficult for our manufacturers and our other businesses to compete globally.

This is an economic issue as well as a quality of life issue. Our budget proposal, this budget resolution, begins to tackle this issue where common sense dictates we should start--America's children. Our children have no choice when it comes to access to health care. They also represent the segment of our population that will reap the most long-term benefits in the introduction of regular, reliable, affordable access to health care.

Programs that exist, namely SCHIP for children, already exist, and it covers millions of American children who do not have insurance otherwise. But this needs to be expanded, and we need to create a priority to say that every child without insurance should have access to this program.

The President's budget designated only $2 billion for children's health care, for SCHIP, $2 billion. To say that this will not get the job done is an understatement. That is why our budget has designated $50 billion, 25 times more than that over 5 years, to fully fund health care for children in America.

Now I might say as an aside because that is a lot of money, we are talking about $10 billion a year to make sure every child in America has access to health care, $10 billion. That is about what we are spending in 1 month in Iraq--1 month in Iraq. We can take 1 month in Iraq for American children. That is what the budget does. It is time to get beyond talking about how children are our future. It is time to walk the walk.

That is what this budget does. Americans also want us to keep our promises to our veterans. The revelation about conditions at Walter Reed Army Hospital over the past few weeks have brought into focus the concerns that many of us in this Chamber have been voicing about the treatment of America's veterans over the past few years. No group of individuals, no group, deserve our respect, support and admiration as Americans more than those who selflessly and voluntarily choose to wear the Nation's uniform.

They put their lives on the line for us every day, and all they ask in return is that when they come home from the battlefield, their Nation, our country, keeps its promises to them, including providing the health care they need and deserve. It is not enough to make statements on Veterans Day or remove military leadership when problems arise. It does not get any simpler than this: If the money is not in the budget then our veterans do not get what they need and deserve.

Now we are not talking about the type of issues that have reared their ugly head at Walter Reed, we are also talking about systematic issues that touch America's veterans in all our 50 States. Inadequate access to doctors and the facilities, extremely long drive times for care, which frequently happens in my State of Michigan, patient backlogs that would make you cringe, our budget addresses what we believe are the shortfalls in the President's plan when it comes to our veterans and their health care.

We have set aside an additional $3.5 billion for veterans health care in 2008 alone. What is most important is that, for the first time, this Senate has a budget resolution that reflects the recommendations of the independent budget, which is the budget of all the veterans organizations about what they believe is needed to adequately fund veterans health care and other critical needs.

Finally, let me say a few words about tax cuts. My friends on the other side of the aisle will try to paint Democrats in this budget as being antitax cut. Nothing could be further from the truth. You know we are going to hear all of this; it does not matter what the document looks like. We also know in advance what the mantra is going to be because it has been that way for years. It has been that way for years. But the reality is very different. I have to say that the--

I would ask for an additional 3 minutes.

Mr. President, I will take 1 more minute.

We support this budgeting through tax cuts that make sense for middle-class families. That is who needs the tax cuts. We talk a lot about these tax cuts being given. You ask the average family if they feel like they have gotten a tax cut. They tell me: No. Because they did not get it. People are smart enough to know they did not get it.

Well, we have put in place tax cuts for the middle class. We have started with the alternative minimum tax, which is about ready to hit a whole new group of middle-class taxpayers. We make sure that our Tax Code gives middle-class families a leg up and does not punish them for working hard and being successful.

Finally, we go on to make sure we reinstitute, as I said in the beginning, law enforcement, transportation, community development, protecting our environment, which is a very small part of the budget but critical for our families.

The bottom line is this budget works for people. This is about middle-class families, the values of the majority of Americans, and doing it in a responsible way. I urge the adoption of the budget resolution.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Yes.

Mr. President, the comment I have, when we look at what the Senator from Alabama is talking about, he is basically saying that the tax cuts that were passed, first of all, were a good idea for most Americans and that he wants to make it as difficult as possible to change that. So when we look at what happened this last year, if you have more than $1 million that you earned in some way--unearned income or earned income--more than $1 million, you received $118,477 from the President's tax cuts last year. So what this amendment would do is say basically that they like this ratio. The less you made last year, the less you got. In fact, less than $100,000 in income, a family making less than $100,000 got $692. If you were willing to run that out even further, you had a lot of folks who maybe got $30, $40, $50 from this tax cut. So this locks in this kind of a tax cut.

We don't think this is fair. This budget resolution changes the way we look at tax cuts going forward and basically says we want tax cuts going to middle-class Americans. We want tax cuts going to the majority of Americans who are working hard every day, worried about their kids, who want to be able to send them to college, want to be able to have health care for them, and want a job, a good-paying job in America. These are the folks we are focusing on in this budget.

There is no question about it. This budget resolution is a new direction. It is a new day. It is a new set of values and priorities. The idea of saying, as this amendment does, that we should make it harder to change this, harder to rearrange things here or to maybe move some of those dollars over into making sure kids can go to college or making sure they have health care or their folks have health care or making sure we keep our promises to our veterans--those are the priorities in our budget.

Essentially, this amendment would say, if we need to address our veterans through adding dollars to make sure they have the health care they need, if we need to do more as we investigate and see what is unfolding with Walter Reed and other parts of the VA system and so on, that it would take more votes, it would take 60 votes to do something that would help our veterans but it would only take 50 votes to be able to continue this kind of a tax cut, this kind of a structure.

We reject that. We reject that set of values and priorities. They have been in place for 6 years, and I believe the American people have rejected those priorities with the changes in majority and the change in leadership that was made and that has begun as of January. What we have is a different approach.

First of all, as our distinguished budget chairman has said, we do want to say for new spending--whether it is tax cuts or other kinds of spending--we do want, overall, to make it a little tougher by having a 60-vote requirement because we want to make sure we are paying attention to lowering the deficit and moving in the other direction, to stop this spending using Social Security that has been going on for years and years.

But also in our budget, within that context, we have changed the priorities on the spending. We have said let's be fiscally responsible on any new mandatory spending, any new tax cuts, and require that people come together in a bipartisan way. It is a conscious choice, a supermajority vote. But we have also said we are going to increase the budget in education.

Earlier we heard from colleagues talking about all the new money that has been put into education under this President. The fact is that if you include this President's budget for next year, the Leave No Child Behind legislation is underfunded by over $70 billion. We put more dollars into education because we know it is about opportunity for our kids, it is about economic competitiveness, it is about creating opportunity--to dream big dreams and go as far as you can in the greatest country in the world--and that we have to focus on education.

Our budget does that. Our budget also says that part of what we need to do is invest in children's health care. For working families, those folks whose minimum wage we raised who do not have health insurance with their job, who are working one job, two jobs, three jobs, to try to make ends meet, we think they ought not have to go to bed worried about whether their kids are going to get sick; with a prayer at night saying: Please, God, don't let my kids get sick.

The SCHIP program is about making sure we support those working families, and we made a commitment in this budget to say we want every child from that working family--every child who does not have insurance to be able to receive insurance. This budget keeps its commitment to its veterans. This budget provides real middle-class tax cuts.

Not what is on this chart. I am not interested in adding. Can you imagine, $118,000-plus is the tax cut for last year? That is more than the average person in Michigan or anywhere in this country makes in a year. That is more than they make in a year.

We say we need a different kind of tax cut. For the folks who are making less than $118,000 a year, for the folks who are working hard every day, we want to change this picture. This amendment would basically say: The current tax cuts that are in place are great, we want to make it harder to change them. They keep in place something that frankly has been so unfair to middle-class Americans.

All over Michigan, when you talk to folks about tax cuts, most people say to me: What tax cuts? What are you talking about? I did not get a tax cut. You mean that tax cut that went into place in 2001?

You don't remember getting that big tax cut? Most people never saw that tax cut. That is why if you earned more than half a million dollars last year, you saw it, $21,000 worth. If you earned more than $1 million last year, you got over $118,000 in tax cuts.

We need a new direction. That is what this budget resolution is about, a new direction for the country that says: It is about everybody. It is about everybody who works hard every day, who gets up in the morning, does their best knowing they are going to be able to share in tax cuts.

But they are also going to be able to share in a community, in an educational system that works for the kids, being able to send them to college; that they are going to be able to share in the great health care we have in this country. We have got the greatest health care in the world. We have got 50 million people with no health insurance.

We spend twice as much money as any other country in the Western Hemisphere on our health care coverage. We are saying: We can do this better. We can do this differently so that American families reap the benefit of working hard and know that the future of this country is available to them for the great things about this country, the health care system, access to college, good schools are available to them.

Then we go further and we say: We want to make sure you have enough police officers on the streets and firefighters and that local communities can take care of water and sewer needs and other issues and protect the environment; in Michigan, it is the Great Lakes and our air, to be able to breathe the air, and on and on.

There is a set of things that we are committed to doing. The good thing is all that domestic spending we have talked about, that $18 billion in increased spending, 17 percent of the entire budget, only 17 percent of the entire budget, our investments that we are talking about for the people of this country.

Let me also say again, when we talk about differences and where dollars go, $10 billion, $10 billion a year is needed to make sure every kid in this country has health care. That is what we are spending in 1 month in Iraq--1 month in Iraq worth of funding to fund every child in America with health care coverage.

We believe we need to be doing that. In fact, the entire increase in investments in the future for this country's health care, science, education, protecting the environment, law enforcement, all of it adds up to less than 2 months' spending in Iraq.

What this amendment would say is we are going to make it very hard to do any other kind of investments for the American people, American families, but we are going to make it easy to extend this kind of tax cut for people earning over $1 million a year.

I hope we will say no. I hope we will say yes to the budget resolution. We are bringing back fiscal responsibility and stopping digging so the hole does not get any bigger and we can get out of it. We are redirecting the priorities of this country to reflect what the majority of Americans want to see happen for the future of this country and for the future of kids.

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

Mr. President, I know our budget leaders are working diligently as they put together what will be happening on amendments. I thought I would take a moment to summarize again what it is that we are proposing in this budget resolution. Let me again commend our leader, Senator Conrad, the very distinguished Senator from North Dakota, for his incredible job of putting together a very complicated budget with many pieces. He has worked very hard. His staff has worked very hard. I thank them for that, as well as the distinguished former chairman, current ranking member, the Senator from New Hampshire, who is also a real pleasure to work with. Even though we disagree on many philosophical points, it is a pleasure working with him. I appreciate all of his hard work and the hard work of his staff.

What we are looking at for the next year and for basically the 5 years of the budget resolution is a return to fiscal responsibility; in other words, we think it is time that we stop digging the hole and start filling in so we can climb out of it. In other words, we think it is time to start paying the bills and not spending more than we have, which is what every family in America has to wrestle with every day. They expect us to make the tough choices to do the same things. This budget does that.

This budget also puts middle-class families first. We start by addressing all that we know families are concerned about. It is a new direction for America. It is a new time.

We have seen in the last 6 years an effort to put the privileged few first--whether that was tax cuts, whether that was other kinds of investments, or a lack of fiscal responsibility, a real borrow-and- spend mentality.

We now are saying it is time for a new direction. I think the people of America said in November it is time for a new direction. They elected a new majority, and it is our job, it is our responsibility now to fulfill that.

That is what this budget resolution does. It reflects a very different set of values and priorities. We do return to fiscal discipline. In fact, by year 5--by year 5--we are back in the black, which is extraordinary given the fact that in the Clinton years, in the 1990s, we did all the hard work of getting it into balance. I remember being in the House with the distinguished Presiding Officer, the Senator from Ohio. We were in the House together. It was a very tough time to make tough decisions to balance the budget. The first year I was in the House, we did that in 1997. Then we began to see surpluses. We did that with a very balanced approach. We did that with tax cuts to stimulate the economy, but it was for middle-class families and small businesses and those who were creating jobs in America. We did it by strategic investments. We did it by strategic investments in education, innovation, science, technology development, and investing in health care.

That is when the first children's health care program was developed, to provide health care for children of working families who do not have health insurance connected to their job. We did it by making some very tough decisions that put Social Security first and stopped using that trust fund as a way to fund other things. As a result of some tough decisions and some smart investments, by 2001, when I had the privilege of coming to the Senate representing Michigan and sitting on the Senate Budget Committee, we had the largest budget surplus in the history of the country--$5.7 trillion. I could live on that--$5.7 trillion.

We had, then, choices. What do you do with that? After all that hard work, what do you do with that?

I remember the now distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee, the Senator from North Dakota, suggesting what I believed was a very wise plan at the time. He said: We need to be balanced, as we have been, as we were in the 1990s, in getting us to this point. We need to do strategic tax cuts, again to stimulate the economy. Those kinds of tax cuts create jobs in America, innovation. Then we need to have strategic investments in our people, in science, in health care, in education, having the opportunity for people to be able to afford to go to college.

Let's make sure our communities are safe by having enough police officers on the streets. Let's do those things that protect our air and our water and our land and invest in the quality of life of America. So let's do that for one-third; tax cuts for one-third. And then we know we baby boomers are coming. We know the concern about Social Security. So let's take a third of all that surplus and put it aside, put it into prefunding the gap we know is coming.

That was the current chairman's plan. I thought that was a good plan. I supported it. We were in the minority, and we were not successful in passing that plan. I believe if we had, we would not be debating the gap in Social Security as we are now, and we would not be talking about digging ourselves out of a hole that has been created, because instead of that balanced approach that every family would take trying to balance out multiple needs--and how do we make sure we are smart, how do we be strategic, how do we create opportunities, and so on--instead of doing that, virtually all of it was put into a tax cut that resulted last year in people who earn over $1 million--just in 2006--getting an over $118,000 tax cut, which was more than most people in Michigan make in a year.

So that was done. Then it left us no rainy day fund, no ability to respond to emergencies. Then the war happened. We essentially put it on a credit card. Other things were passed that were essentially put on a credit card. We racked up--I should not say ``we;'' I did not support those things--the largest deficit in the history of the country.

Now there is a new majority, and we have inherited all of the things that happened before. I heard tonight colleagues on the other side of the aisle talking about all these problems in the budget. Boy, do we agree. Unfortunately, we did not create those problems. We have inherited those problems over the last 6 years. But we know it is our responsibility to do something about it. That is what this budget does. This budget is an effort to be responsible, to do what every American wants us to do to get our arms around this deficit, to do those things that will require tough choices, the right choices.

We say if there are going to be further tax cuts or mandatory spending in the future, you should have to think long and hard, and we should have to get 60 votes or a supermajority to do that because we want to make it a fiscally responsible budget.

But we also understand part of being responsible is responding to what is happening to every--almost every--American family across this country. Earlier today, I heard the distinguished ranking member on the Budget Committee talk about how great things are, how great things are going. Well, they are not going great for a majority of Americans in this country who have seen their real wages, their earning power go down since 2000, not up. For others it may be going up. Corporate profits are going up. The S&P 500 is going up. But for everybody working hard every day, trying to make ends meet for their family, their wages on average are going down.

This budget addresses that issue. This budget focuses on middle- income families and those working very hard to get into the middle class who are saying: What about me? When is somebody going to stop what is going on and focus on the majority of Americans and what we need to grow the economy, our quality of life, and to make sure our families have what they need, who are working hard every day? That is what this budget addresses, those people who are, in fact, the majority of the people.

So we do it in a number of ways. We do it by investing in education. When you look at the President's budget for this year, and you add up past years, there is over a $70 billion shortfall in Leave No Child Behind. We are leaving a lot of kids behind. There was a commitment made to raise standards, and at the same time to give resources to schools, and it is $70 billion short as of this date with this President's budget.

We put more money into education. We do not think that is good enough. I was at an education hearing today, and some very good points were made. In fact, our chairman, the distinguished Senator from Montana, told a story at the beginning of the hearing about Rip

Van Winkle waking up and seeing all these changes in the world, but he finally could feel comfort because the school looked the same.

My kids graduated from college not long ago, but not too long ago high school. One of the things that consistently has caused me great concern is that the schools they went to look dangerously like the schools I went to. Yet we carry around personal computers. Every single one of us operates with computers. We have computers right here in the Senate Chamber. Yet we do not have one on the desk for every child in America. So we are leaving kids behind in a lot of different ways. We say in our budget resolution, that is not OK. We want to turn that around. So we put dollars back. We stopped the cuts the President has, and we invest more dollars in education and innovation.

Then we say if you are working hard and you are trying to make ends meet, and you are working in a job that does not have health insurance for your family, you ought to be able to know that when you go to bed at night your kids have health care and you can do something about it if they get sick. That is what we do by making a commitment to fully fund what is called SCHIP, the Children's Health Insurance Program. This is something that is available to working families. Low-income families are able to receive Medicaid. These are families who are working hard, families whose minimum wage we raised not long ago. So maybe they only have to work two jobs now instead of three to make ends meet, but they still do not have health insurance. We make a commitment to provide that health insurance for every child of a working family.

That is a very important value. It is a very important principle. I hope we are going to come together with strong bipartisan support to be able to do that.

We also then keep our promise to our veterans. We all know what has happened at Walter Reed. We know also there are other very serious system problems. In my State of Michigan, people wait too long to see a doctor. They drive too far to get basic kinds of tests, blood drawn, or x rays. We need to do a better job for our veterans. We need, frankly, to get them out of the yearly budget process and put them into a situation where they know their funding is assured.

Our budget, for the first time ever, I assume--certainly for the first time since I have been here; and I have asked others, and I think it is the first time ever--we have in the budget the amount recommended by the independent budget which is organized by all the veterans groups. The veterans groups have come together. They analyze the VA health system and other needs and recommend to us what is needed.

For the first time, our budget for veterans health care and other critical needs matches what they are recommending. This is very important. We are making veterans--our men and women who are coming home from wars, who put on a veteran's cap, who may have tremendous hardships, physical challenges, mental challenges, financial challenges from being extended more than once--and with serious issues for families--we make veterans a top priority and say we are going to keep our promise to our veterans. That is an integral part of our budget resolution.

Then we go back to what we have always been about. The other side will say: Well, we are for tax increases. No. No. We just want to see the folks who are working hard, who are the majority of Americans, get the tax cut. I am not interested in another tax cut for somebody who makes over $1 million a year, who got $118,000 back in a tax cut last year. I want somebody making $118,000 a year to get a tax cut. We start by saying the alternative minimum tax, which is creeping up and hitting middle-income people, should be changed so it does not become the alternative middle class tax. We are very focused on making sure the other parts of the Tax Code that are important to families remain in place and that we, in fact, are giving middle-class tax cuts.

Then we take a look at all of the efforts to deinvest, to defund that the President recommended in education, cutting the COPS Program again, firefighter grants, various kinds of technology programs, environmental programs in Michigan, and I know in Ohio as well. The manufacturing extension partnership is important for small and medium-sized businesses to be able to help them receive technical assistance, to be able to compete in the global economy, to be able to hire more people. We have restored the funding for that. We address other technology programs. So we also reject the President's efforts to move away from critical areas of priority and need of the American people.

So there are a lot of other pieces in this budget, but these basically, overall, are the important priorities that we have placed in the budget that say to the American people: We care about you. We want to put you and your family first. We know that you are squeezed on all sides. If you are from Michigan and losing your job or being asked to take less in your job or pay more for your health care or lose your pension, it is time to fix that. It is time to make you a priority.

That is what this budget does. It makes the people who work hard every day, who make this country run--the middle class, the people working hard every day to get into that middle class, who keep the economic engine of this country going--it makes them the priority. That is what this is all about. It is about whose interests are going to be represented in this budget.

I am very proud of the fact we are representing the interests of the majority of Americans, the folks who are working hard and seeing the gas prices go up along with the oil company profits, who are seeing their health care costs go up, maybe losing their pension, seeing the cost of college go up for their kids. Everything is going up and up and up and up. Those are the folks whose pockets we want to put money back into. That is where we want the tax cuts to go. That is where we want the tax cuts to go. That is where we want the investments in the future to go. That is what this budget resolution does.

I am very proud of the fact that we return fiscal discipline and we put middle-class families first. It is about time.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.