Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about gas prices and the energy situation in our country. First, to agree with my distinguished colleague from Utah, in fact there are long-term issues we have to address. There is no question about that. Alternative fuels, the efforts to put forward very aggressive alternatives such as ethanol, soy-based biodiesel, and other alternatives that create real competition, are critical, but there are short-term actions we can take right now that will help the families who are being squeezed on all sides by outrageous prices, along with outrageously high profits of the oil companies.

Today our leader on the floor, our Republican leader, said there ought to be an investigation going on, and the President said today we ought to have an investigation going on as to possible price gouging. I come to the floor today, as the author of the amendment that successfully passed in the Energy bill last August, to say that we have an investigation going on. The Federal Trade Commission was authorized and charged with doing an investigation, which they are doing as a criminal investigation, into possible price gouging. I was pleased to be joined by Senator Dorgan and Senator Boxer and others in that effort.

Since that time, because they began to move extremely slowly last year, I was pleased to coauthor an increase of $1 million in the budget in order to fund that investigation. We passed that last fall. There have been bipartisan letters that have gone to the Chairman of the FTC saying let's get going. That occurred last fall, last September. Now we are seeing from the Federal Trade Commission that they intend to have this report done, this investigation done by May 21.

It is about time. First I would say: Mr. President, it is your FTC. You appoint the majority of the members on the Federal Trade Commission. You should know that this is going on.

I encourage the President to be engaged with what his Federal Trade Commission is doing at this very moment. Hopefully, we are going to get the right kind of investigation with tough recommendations that will tell it like it is. This is already occurring. Right now the investigation, as I said, is structured as a law enforcement case. They are working with the CFTC, with the States Attorneys General right now. I encourage everyone interested in this issue to give their input to the Federal Trade Commission that is already doing an investigation.

In fact, one of the things they found doing this investigation, as they sent out 200 investigation demands which are roughly the same as subpoenas, ExxonMobil, back in January-February, filed a petition to quash the FTC subpoena for tax information. Fortunately, the Commission denied the appeal and ExxonMobil had to subsequently comply. But now they are looking at manipulation and gouging, whether or not that is happening. They are confident, they say, that they found enough information for a solid determination in their final report, which is expected on May 21.

I say, first to my Republican colleagues, to the leadership, to the President, this investigation is already going on. I am glad you now think there ought to be an investigation. But we would appreciate it if you would be involved in making sure what the FTC does is tough and smart and tells it like it is in terms of what is really going on.

Gasoline is not a luxury for the families of Michigan or the families anywhere across the country. It is a necessity. Families are caught in a bind because, on the one hand, this is not a regulated utility like electricity, and there is not enough competition with basically five different companies. We all know there is not enough competition because of the consolidations that have gone on. So what happens? American consumers are stuck in the middle, squeezed on all sides.

Now in Michigan it costs about $42 to fill up a tank. That is $4 more than last month; $150 more than last year. We are told by the Energy Information Administration there is going to be an average 25-cent increase this summer. We already know that numbers are topping $3, in some cases around the country $4 a gallon.

What this means on average to Michigan families is about $500 more in the cost of gas for this year--about $500. For the average family that is a mortgage payment. That is the rent. That is a car payment. It is paying for food. It is the difference between helping your kids buy books when they need to go to college. This is a big deal. Yet we see comments coming from the head of ExxonMobil, Mr. Raymond, who dismissed the concerns between Exxon's record profits and out-of-control gas prices when he said on CNN that a single quarter or single year's profits is not all that significant.

Mr. Raymond, it may not be significant to you. It is significant to the people in Michigan. Five hundred dollars more is significant. It is a big deal.

We also know that according to our businesses--for instance, General Motors executives say that every time there is a $1 increase in the price of a barrel of oil it adds $4 million to GM's logistical costs. So this is an issue of jobs. Petroleum costs equate with what is happening on jobs. So this is a big deal.

It is also a big deal for the oil companies. As we all know, we have all been seeing the numbers, the total combined profit for the big five oil companies last year was $111 billion. For 2005, ExxonMobil reported the highest profits ever recorded in U.S. corporate history.

What adds insult to injury is when we look at the things like the CEO compensation. He is being paid a total compensation package of $69.7 million. That is about $110,000 a day, by the way. Most people in Michigan don't make $110,000 a year, and we have the head of the largest oil company making $110,000 a day, with a $400 million retirement package. Then we are to expect that this is just the global marketplace happening, that there is nothing we can do? I don't accept that.

In the short run we can do one thing and that is go back to the drawing board on a bill that is in conference committee right now on tax cuts. That has over $5 billion in new tax cuts, tax breaks for oil companies, some of it based on their businesses overseas. We can say no. This industry does not need taxpayers to subsidize $5 billion-plus, plus another $2 billion in the Energy bill that passed last year. We are looking at $7 billion in increased tax breaks that American taxpayers are subsidizing while we are paying the higher prices? No.

I have introduced a bill called the Oil Company Accountability Act that says no to more tax breaks for oil companies and puts that money back into a $500 rebate per taxpayer in this country to pay the cost of higher gas prices for the coming year. The average taxpayer is going to pay $500 more. I think that is a better use of those dollars than putting it into more tax breaks for an industry that is already the most profitable, with the most outrageous salaries, and that continues to price gasoline at a level that is out of control.

I am hopeful my colleagues will be offering this in various capacities. It would be terrific to get this passed right away because families could have their checks in the mailbox before Labor Day to help them pay the outrageously high gas increases that we are seeing: $500 tax rebate checks for families, no to the oil companies on more tax breaks, and that at least gets us on the right track while other long-term efforts needed take place.

Mr. President, I yield.

Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues, Senator Levin an Senator DeWine, in offering the Great Lakes Collaboration Implementation Act of 2006. I am a cosponsor of this bipartisan bill, introduced on behalf of the Great Lakes Senators by the co-chairs of our Great Lakes Task Force. Our bill is also cosponsored by Senator Clinton, Senator Voinovich, and Senator Schumer.

The health and sustainability of the Great Lakes are something I feel passionately about. There is no more important issue to Michigan and our region of the country than the Great Lakes.

I want to take just a moment to recognize someone else who is equally passionate about Great Lakes protection and restoration. No single person has devoted more time, energy, and personal resources to the Great Lakes than Peter Wege of Grand Rapids, Michigan.

Peter Wege has been a leader and visionary for Great Lakes restoration for decades. Through the Wege Foundation, which he founded in 1967, he has made generous gifts to the people of Grand Rapids and communities all over Western Michigan for community development. I believe that part of the reason we are standing here today with a comprehensive bill to restore the Lakes is due to the work of Peter Wege. In 2005, a gift from the Wege Foundation created the Healing Our Waters Coalition, a coalition of grassroots groups dedicated to securing a sustainable restoration plan and Federal and State funding to carry it out. The Healing Our Waters Coalition and Peter Wege have been instrumental in bringing Great Lakes restoration to the forefront of national policy.

For the people of Michigan the Great Lakes are more than just one- fifth of the world's fresh water and a unique ecosystem--they are part of our identity. The Lakes are where we spend summers with our families, where we boat and swim, and where we fish and hunt. The Lakes also sustain our State and local economies by providing a

major route for intrastate and international commerce. The health and future of Michigan is directly linked to the health and future of the Great Lakes.

We in Michigan are blessed with a beautiful State full of lakes, rivers, forests, and streams. We have more public access to waterways than all of the other 49 States combined. We are surrounded by four of the five Great Lakes and more than 40,000 interior lakes, streams, and trails. This rich abundance of natural resources has made the outdoors a critical part of Michigan's economy and our way-of-life. The Great Lakes are key in this. Consider that the total revenue from Michigan's fishing, hunting and wildlife watching is nearly $5 billion every year. Fishing brings $2 billion annually to our State economy. Michigan has the most registered boaters of any State, nearly one million, and recreational boating brings $2 billion annually to the state. It's easy to see what restoring the Great Lakes is so important to us.

There are currently between 140 and 200 separate Great Lakes environmental programs administered by 10 Federal agencies. Each of these is important and has helped us significantly improve the health of the Great Lakes over the past 35 years. That said true restoration will take local, regional, and national coordination on projects that address all of the critical challenges facing the health of the Great Lakes.

In May 2004, President Bush signed a Presidential Executive Order creating the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration, also called the GLRC. The group is composed of Federal agencies, Great Lakes governors and mayors, local communities, Native American Tribes, and other stakeholders from the Great Lakes Basin. In December of last year the GLRC released a report outlining comprehensive and collaborative restoration of the Great Lakes ecosystem--the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration Strategy. The report calls for $20 billion in Federal, State, and local funding to clean up toxic hot-spots, restore wetlands, prevent the introduction of new invasive species, and modernizing water treatment systems.

The GLRC Strategy has been endorsed through the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration Resolution by Great Lakes mayors, governors, tribes, the Congressional delegation, and the Interagency Task Force.

The bill that I am introducing today with my colleagues takes the next critical step and turns the strategy document into an on-the- ground reality.

Our commitment is strong. We have the will and the way, all we need now is the support of Congress to ensure the future of the Great Lakes--a magnificent natural resource that has been entrusted to our care.

Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues, Senator Levin an Senator DeWine, in offering the Great Lakes Collaboration Implementation Act of 2006. I am a cosponsor of this bipartisan bill, introduced on behalf of the Great Lakes Senators by the co-chairs of our Great Lakes Task Force. Our bill is also cosponsored by Senator Clinton, Senator Voinovich, and Senator Schumer.

The health and sustainability of the Great Lakes are something I feel passionately about. There is no more important issue to Michigan and our region of the country than the Great Lakes.

I want to take just a moment to recognize someone else who is equally passionate about Great Lakes protection and restoration. No single person has devoted more time, energy, and personal resources to the Great Lakes than Peter Wege of Grand Rapids, Michigan.

Peter Wege has been a leader and visionary for Great Lakes restoration for decades. Through the Wege Foundation, which he founded in 1967, he has made generous gifts to the people of Grand Rapids and communities all over Western Michigan for community development. I believe that part of the reason we are standing here today with a comprehensive bill to restore the Lakes is due to the work of Peter Wege. In 2005, a gift from the Wege Foundation created the Healing Our Waters Coalition, a coalition of grassroots groups dedicated to securing a sustainable restoration plan and Federal and State funding to carry it out. The Healing Our Waters Coalition and Peter Wege have been instrumental in bringing Great Lakes restoration to the forefront of national policy.

For the people of Michigan the Great Lakes are more than just one- fifth of the world's fresh water and a unique ecosystem--they are part of our identity. The Lakes are where we spend summers with our families, where we boat and swim, and where we fish and hunt. The Lakes also sustain our State and local economies by providing a

major route for intrastate and international commerce. The health and future of Michigan is directly linked to the health and future of the Great Lakes.

We in Michigan are blessed with a beautiful State full of lakes, rivers, forests, and streams. We have more public access to waterways than all of the other 49 States combined. We are surrounded by four of the five Great Lakes and more than 40,000 interior lakes, streams, and trails. This rich abundance of natural resources has made the outdoors a critical part of Michigan's economy and our way-of-life. The Great Lakes are key in this. Consider that the total revenue from Michigan's fishing, hunting and wildlife watching is nearly $5 billion every year. Fishing brings $2 billion annually to our State economy. Michigan has the most registered boaters of any State, nearly one million, and recreational boating brings $2 billion annually to the state. It's easy to see what restoring the Great Lakes is so important to us.

There are currently between 140 and 200 separate Great Lakes environmental programs administered by 10 Federal agencies. Each of these is important and has helped us significantly improve the health of the Great Lakes over the past 35 years. That said true restoration will take local, regional, and national coordination on projects that address all of the critical challenges facing the health of the Great Lakes.

In May 2004, President Bush signed a Presidential Executive Order creating the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration, also called the GLRC. The group is composed of Federal agencies, Great Lakes governors and mayors, local communities, Native American Tribes, and other stakeholders from the Great Lakes Basin. In December of last year the GLRC released a report outlining comprehensive and collaborative restoration of the Great Lakes ecosystem--the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration Strategy. The report calls for $20 billion in Federal, State, and local funding to clean up toxic hot-spots, restore wetlands, prevent the introduction of new invasive species, and modernizing water treatment systems.

The GLRC Strategy has been endorsed through the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration Resolution by Great Lakes mayors, governors, tribes, the Congressional delegation, and the Interagency Task Force.

The bill that I am introducing today with my colleagues takes the next critical step and turns the strategy document into an on-the- ground reality.

Our commitment is strong. We have the will and the way, all we need now is the support of Congress to ensure the future of the Great Lakes--a magnificent natural resource that has been entrusted to our care.

Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague from Idaho, Senator Craig, in introducing the Specialty Crops Competition Act of 2006. I want to thank Senator Craig for his continued leadership on specialty crop issues. We have worked together for a number of years on legislation to promote American fruit and vegetable production and consumption of high quality, nutritious American-grown produce and this legislation is the next step in that process.

Michigan is a State that makes things and grows thing. We are famous for our automobiles, and we are also known for our cherries, apples, blueberries, and asparagus. I am proud to represent a State that is rich in diverse agricultural production. In fact, Michigan is second only to California in the variety of crops that we grow. Furthermore, agriculture is one of the lynchpins of Michigan's economy. Our farms contribute $37 billion annually to the State economy and provide more than half a million good jobs. Our specialty crops alone generate nearly $1.3 billion every year.

For far too long, specialty crops have been ignored by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Specialty crops account for 51 percent of total national farm receipts but they do not receive the same subsidies or USDA consideration as program crops.

I want to clarify that the Craig-Stabenow bill is in no way designed to take funding away from program crops, but rather to bring specialty crops up to the status of program crops. All of our farmers work hard and take a gamble every year to produce and receive a return on their crops. They gamble against heat, drought, frost, storms, pests, crop diseases, and most recently a flood of foreign produce to our markets. The Specialty Crops Competition Act of 2006 would give specialty crop farmers valuable tools to keep them competitive and productive in a global marketplace.

Our bill creates a specialty crop block grant to State departments of agriculture at a level of $200 million annually in grants for fiscal years 2007-2009. The grants will support production-related research, commodity production, nutrition, food safety and inspection and other competitiveness enhancing programs. Each State will receive a minimum of $3 million each year, and a cap of $15 million annually per State is set to ensure funds for a competitive grant program, for which grower associations and others can apply. Our bill also fixes a longstanding misinterpretation of the Tree Assistance Program by ensuring that farmers who have lost trees and vines due to disasters or disease are eligible

for assistance of up to $75,000 per year and not $75,000 maximum over the life of the farm bill.

Our bill also increases Federal purchases of fruits and vegetables for use on nutrition programs, such as the Commodity Food Supplemental Assistance Program. I have been a longtime supporter of nutrition programs because they are a win for farmers and a win for the most vulnerable of our citizens--children, seniors, and the poor. Specialty crop farmers benefit by having a market to which to sell their fruits and vegetables. And children, seniors, and those with low incomes receive healthy and balanced meals. One of the key provisions of the Craig-Stabenow bill is the correction of USDA's chronic misinterpretation of section 10603 of the 2002 farm bill. This section instructs USDA to purchase at least $200 million of fruits and vegetables annually over and above the purchases they currently make. Unfortunately, USDA is not complying with this provision. Instead of adding the $200 million on top of baseline spending for school lunch and senior programs, USDA has eliminated the baseline spending so there is no guarantee of any new spending on fruits and vegetables for our children. In fact, in 2002 USDA did not even meet the minimum purchase requirement; only $181 million in fresh fruits and vegetables were purchased. The Specialty Crop Competitiveness Act will correct this discrepancy and provide our Nation's children with much needed fruits and vegetables.

In addition, the Specialty Crops Competition Act improves growers' access to foreign markets by requiring the Animal Plant Health Inspection Service, APHIS, to create a division to handle industry petitions on sanitary and phytosanitary barriers to specialty crop exports, increase technical assistance funding for specialty crops, and study the effects of recent trade agreements and propose a strategy for specialty crop producers to more effectively benefit from international trade opportunities.

I am pleased to offer the Specialty Crops Competition Act of 2006 with Senator Craig. This is just one more step in ensuring the future of specialty crop production in the United States. As the Senate begins work on reauthorization of the farm bill, Senator Craig and I will continue to work with specialty crop farmers and growers' associations to improve and expand this legislation. Supporting American specialty crop growers and providing nutritious fruits and vegetables to American people is vital to ensuring our own health and the health of our economy. I hope that my colleagues will join me and support the Specialty Crops Competition Act of 2006.

Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague from Idaho, Senator Craig, in introducing the Specialty Crops Competition Act of 2006. I want to thank Senator Craig for his continued leadership on specialty crop issues. We have worked together for a number of years on legislation to promote American fruit and vegetable production and consumption of high quality, nutritious American-grown produce and this legislation is the next step in that process.

Michigan is a State that makes things and grows thing. We are famous for our automobiles, and we are also known for our cherries, apples, blueberries, and asparagus. I am proud to represent a State that is rich in diverse agricultural production. In fact, Michigan is second only to California in the variety of crops that we grow. Furthermore, agriculture is one of the lynchpins of Michigan's economy. Our farms contribute $37 billion annually to the State economy and provide more than half a million good jobs. Our specialty crops alone generate nearly $1.3 billion every year.

For far too long, specialty crops have been ignored by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Specialty crops account for 51 percent of total national farm receipts but they do not receive the same subsidies or USDA consideration as program crops.

I want to clarify that the Craig-Stabenow bill is in no way designed to take funding away from program crops, but rather to bring specialty crops up to the status of program crops. All of our farmers work hard and take a gamble every year to produce and receive a return on their crops. They gamble against heat, drought, frost, storms, pests, crop diseases, and most recently a flood of foreign produce to our markets. The Specialty Crops Competition Act of 2006 would give specialty crop farmers valuable tools to keep them competitive and productive in a global marketplace.

Our bill creates a specialty crop block grant to State departments of agriculture at a level of $200 million annually in grants for fiscal years 2007-2009. The grants will support production-related research, commodity production, nutrition, food safety and inspection and other competitiveness enhancing programs. Each State will receive a minimum of $3 million each year, and a cap of $15 million annually per State is set to ensure funds for a competitive grant program, for which grower associations and others can apply. Our bill also fixes a longstanding misinterpretation of the Tree Assistance Program by ensuring that farmers who have lost trees and vines due to disasters or disease are eligible

for assistance of up to $75,000 per year and not $75,000 maximum over the life of the farm bill.

Our bill also increases Federal purchases of fruits and vegetables for use on nutrition programs, such as the Commodity Food Supplemental Assistance Program. I have been a longtime supporter of nutrition programs because they are a win for farmers and a win for the most vulnerable of our citizens--children, seniors, and the poor. Specialty crop farmers benefit by having a market to which to sell their fruits and vegetables. And children, seniors, and those with low incomes receive healthy and balanced meals. One of the key provisions of the Craig-Stabenow bill is the correction of USDA's chronic misinterpretation of section 10603 of the 2002 farm bill. This section instructs USDA to purchase at least $200 million of fruits and vegetables annually over and above the purchases they currently make. Unfortunately, USDA is not complying with this provision. Instead of adding the $200 million on top of baseline spending for school lunch and senior programs, USDA has eliminated the baseline spending so there is no guarantee of any new spending on fruits and vegetables for our children. In fact, in 2002 USDA did not even meet the minimum purchase requirement; only $181 million in fresh fruits and vegetables were purchased. The Specialty Crop Competitiveness Act will correct this discrepancy and provide our Nation's children with much needed fruits and vegetables.

In addition, the Specialty Crops Competition Act improves growers' access to foreign markets by requiring the Animal Plant Health Inspection Service, APHIS, to create a division to handle industry petitions on sanitary and phytosanitary barriers to specialty crop exports, increase technical assistance funding for specialty crops, and study the effects of recent trade agreements and propose a strategy for specialty crop producers to more effectively benefit from international trade opportunities.

I am pleased to offer the Specialty Crops Competition Act of 2006 with Senator Craig. This is just one more step in ensuring the future of specialty crop production in the United States. As the Senate begins work on reauthorization of the farm bill, Senator Craig and I will continue to work with specialty crop farmers and growers' associations to improve and expand this legislation. Supporting American specialty crop growers and providing nutritious fruits and vegetables to American people is vital to ensuring our own health and the health of our economy. I hope that my colleagues will join me and support the Specialty Crops Competition Act of 2006.

Mr. President, today is a day of great celebration for Jill Carroll, and her friends and family. The Christian Science Monitor reporter and Ann Arbor native was set free today in Baghdad nearly 3 months after being kidnapped in an ambush that killed her translator. The U.S. Embassy is now working hard to reunite Jill with her family as soon as possible.

In Michigan, we all anxiously watched and prayed for the release of this young woman, and I want to express my gratitude to everyone who worked hard for her release. I want to thank the Arab-American and Muslim-American leaders in Michigan and across the country for their hard work.

The Islamic Shura Council of Michigan which represents more than two dozen mosques and Islamic organizations in Southeast Michigan held a press conference publicly calling for her release. The Council on American-Islamic Relations sent a delegation to Baghdad to lobby for her release. The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, The Arab American News and the Congress of Arab American Organizations also issued public statements calling for Jill Carroll's release.

These groups spoke out not just because of Jill Carroll's ties to Michigan or because this was a humanitarian issue, but because kidnapping and killing are an affront to the principles and values of Islam and Arab-American culture.

I want to wish Jill Carroll and her family the very best. She is safe, she is free, and very soon she will be home with her family.

Yes.

Yes.

Thank you, Senator Conrad. Again, thank you for your leadership on the Budget Committee.

Yes.

If I might ask, are we asking for 2 minutes per side?

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment to make veterans health care funding assured and mandatory.

Real security means supporting our troops abroad and making sure they have the body armor and the equipment they need, but it also means supporting them when they come home. It means giving our current and our future veterans the health care they need and deserve.

The amendment I am offering today provides full funding for veterans medical care to ensure that the VA has the resources necessary to provide quality health care in a timely manner to our Nation's sick and disabled veterans.

The problem we face today is that resources for veterans health care are falling behind demand, and we know this because every year we are trying to address the shortfall.

In 1993, there were about 2.5 million veterans in the VA health care system. Today there are more than 7 million veterans enrolled in the system, over half of whom receive care on a regular basis.

Despite the 160-percent increase in patients over the last decade, the VA has received an average of only a 5-percent increase in appropriations during this administration. Some of my colleagues will say this amendment isn't necessary because there have been funding increases over the last several years. They also say we do not need to create another entitlement program. Over the last 2 years, we have seen a 500-percent increase in the number of veterans seeking care from the VA who have been serving in Iraq and serving in Afghanistan. But the administration's budget projects that the VA will treat 109,191 veterans next year, and this falls over 35,000 veterans short of the number of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans the VA currently treats. So we see a 500-percent increase in the number of veterans coming home after serving us bravely in Iraq and Afghanistan, and yet their budget assumes that there are 35,000 fewer--fewer than last year--fewer Iraq and Afghanistan veterans we are going to treat next year. These numbers do not make sense.

Last year's budget is also a case study on why we need to have assured funding for VA health care. In total, Congress provided an additional $3 billion for veterans health care because the administration grossly miscalculated the need for veterans health care.

We need to finally move this into a category where every year those veterans coming home who need health care will know that the dollars are there based on their eligibility, based on their service, based on their need--not based on a debate on the floor in the Congress about how much we are willing to spend to address their health care needs. This should not be a year-to-year debate and commitment; this should be an assured commitment that the dollars will be there. Just as they are for Medicare, for Medicaid, our veterans ought to know that every year, their funding for critical health care services will be assured.

Today's soldiers are tomorrow's veterans. America has made a promise to these brave men and women to provide them with the care they need-- not based on a debate on how much we want to spend or calculations year to year on the numbers that folks think may or may not seek care. This ought to be about making sure that every one of our brave men and women coming home, whether it is from the current wars or whether it is our World War II vets or any other war or conflict in which our soldiers have been serving--when they need health care as veterans, we will fulfill our promises to make sure it is there for them.

I urge my colleagues to support this very important amendment, supported by all of the major veterans organizations in this country. It is time to get this done and get it done right.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, my amendment is about guaranteeing that every veteran in America has the health care they were promised and they deserve. Over the last 2 years, we have seen a 500-percent increase in the number of veterans seeking care from the VA who served in Iraq and Afghanistan alone. But this budget falls over 35,000 veterans short of the number of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans whom the VA currently treats. And remarkably, the President's budget projects fewer vets will seek mental health care, which is absolutely incorrect. If you believe, as I do, the men and women who have fought for our country should not have to fight every day, every year, for the health care they need, I urge you to vote yes on this amendment.

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

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

Mr. President, this amendment would create a deficit- neutral reserve fund to provide seniors with the one prescription drug choice that they want, which they don't currently have, and that is an affordable prescription drug benefit administered directly through Medicare.

As you know, the current system has a lot of headaches right now. There are a lot of private plans--over 70 in Michigan--and there has been mass confusion. A lot of folks are actually paying more for drugs under this Part D program than they were before.

My amendment would give our seniors a new option, a Medicare- guaranteed option. Seniors today can get their Part A and Part B benefits either through a private plan or a traditional Medicare benefit plan. But they don't have that choice for their medicine. This would give them that choice. It would also direct the Secretary of HHS to negotiate drug prices on behalf of seniors choosing to get their medicines through Medicare.

This amendment simply gives seniors and disabled persons the real choice they want, which is a Medicare prescription drug benefit, where you go to Medicare and you can sign up and you know the copay and the premium. You go to the pharmacy and get your medicine. I ask for your support.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will join me in beginning to fix the issue of connecting our radios, radio interoperability. Last December, the 9/11 Commission gave us failing grades in this area, as well as other areas. Back in November of 2003, the White House Office of Management and Budget said there were insufficient funds to do what needs to be done in terms of communications interoperability. They said it would take at least $16 billion to do this right.

My amendment would provide $5 billion to jump-start what is happening now. Our esteemed chairman of the Budget Committee has spoken about the fact that there is $1 billion or $2 billion available now, but that simply is not enough. That is not enough to do it as quickly as we need to do this.

Right now, homeland security grants also in this budget are being cut. We are seeing fewer police officers on the streets. We have not done what we need to do regarding radios and communications, and this simply is not good enough.

My amendment says we can do better, and it will provide a jump-start to do so.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays and also simply indicate it is unfortunate to hear that kind of personal inaccurate attack.

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

No more than 10 minutes.

Mr. President, I thank my distinguished ranking member from North Dakota, who does such an outstanding job every single day, speaking about the real values and priorities of the American people. I commend him for his leadership.

I rise today to express grave concern about this historic increase that is before us in America's national debt. Today, we owe $8,270,260,017,805.93, and counting, on the national debt. That is a long string of debt that isn't going to go away--over $8.2 trillion. In fact, it continues to grow. Just last month, we paid $21 billion in interest alone. Earlier today, I offered an amendment for $5 billion to make sure that the radios in this country are connected, interoperable, so they can communicate in case of a terrorist attack or a national disaster or other emergency. This was turned down by the body as being too much.

Yet we spent $21 billion last month in interest alone on the national debt. The legislation before us allows this administration to continue to rack up another $800 billion on the Nation's credit card. That means we are allowing the debt to exceed $8.9 trillion. That is unbelievable. That is trillion with a capital ``T.''

Tragically, 5 years ago, we were sitting on top of the largest surplus in the Nation's history. The year I came into the Senate as a member of the Budget Committee, we were debating what to do with the largest surplus in the Nation's history, $5.6 trillion. At that time, the Senator from North Dakota suggested--and I supported it--a strategy that would divide that surplus into thirds: one-third for strategic tax cuts in order to grow the economy; one-third for investment in our people, education, health care, science, research, law enforcement, those kinds of things; and one-third to go to paying down the liability we know is coming with Social Security. We would not be debating that gap in Social Security funding

on down the road if we had in fact used that strategy. But that is not what happened.

Instead, all of that was put into a supply-side tax cut geared only to the wealthiest Americans, and leaving everybody else to pick up the tab. Deficits have spiraled out of control since that time.

The budget we are debating only makes the national debt worse. It increases another $4 trillion in debt over the next 10 years. That is the budget resolution that is in front of us. That doesn't reflect our values. As Americans, we want our children and grandchildren to do better than we did. It is not about leaving them debt; it is about creating opportunity and about leaving them good jobs, and health care, and air they can breathe, and water they can drink, and a strong national security so they are safe.

Unfortunately, because of our soaring national debt, our children and grandchildren are going to have to pay our bills. I find that simply outrageous. In essence, we are going to max out on the Nation's credit card and then send the monthly bill to our children.

As most people know, this is a tough time for the people of Michigan. Anybody who has read the newspaper lately knows that companies such as Delphi and General Motors and Ford are struggling. Due to problems such as unfair trade practices, we are literally losing our manufacturing base in this country, coupled with the fact that we need to fundamentally change the way we fund health care in order to get health care costs off the back of business so they can be more competitive in a global economy.

Manufacturing has been the key to building a solid middle class and creating a way of life that is extraordinary for Americans. If we lose our manufacturing industries, such as automobiles, we are going to lose our middle class in this country and lose our way of life.

You might wonder what do unfair trade practices have to do with the increasing national debt. The answer is: A lot. That is because many foreign countries own our national debt. That means we have to borrow from other countries to pay our bills. And we are borrowing more and more from foreign countries in recent years.

Unfortunately, many of those countries that own our debt also refuse to follow the international trade rules. They cheat. They want to be a part of the international community, but they don't follow the rules. In fact, China and Japan own approximately half of all of our foreign debt. At the same time, they continue to take our patents and to manipulate their currencies so their products cost less, in violation of international law.

This hurts our manufacturing sector because it makes it easier for them to sell their products in America and tougher for American businesses to export our products to their countries.

For example, a $20,000 car imported from Japan has an unfair subsidy of as much as $7,000 over a U.S. automobile. At the same time, U.S. exports to China face a $7,000 tax. This cost advantage directly subsidized over 1.7 million cars and trucks exported to the U.S. last year, as well as every component imported by Japanese manufacturers for use in their U.S. assembly plants.

China has been pegging its currency and is responsible for producing a $12 billion market of counterfeit auto parts, which has cost us the equivalent of 200,000 jobs in America--many in Michigan.

We should be getting tough with China and Japan on these trade violations that are costing Americans their jobs and threatening our middle-class way of life in this country. They are illegal. We should insist that they stop. But our Government is weak-kneed because we have borrowed so much money from them. There is a connection between the budget deficit and our trade deficit, both of which are out of control.

When I look at what families in Michigan are having to go through, men and women who have worked hard all their lives and have paid into a pension, and they may not have it now, and their cost of health care is going up, or maybe they won't have it anymore and they may be losing their jobs, and their dreams for sending their kids to college are going away, the American dream that says you can buy a house and have a good home and dream big dreams, and maybe in Michigan you can buy a cottage up north and a snowmobile, and you make sure you can live a good life and care for your families--those dreams are going away for too many people. Part of the reason is because of unfair trade practices. We don't have a level playing field. We do not make sure other countries are following the rules. They are cheating and they are getting away with it.

When we look at what is happening, we see that China and Japan own half of our foreign debt. They are the same people who are not following the rules and are costing us jobs. There is a direct connection between what is happening here in terms of raising this debt limit and what is happening in my home State of Michigan in terms of jobs, and the fight we have right now to keep our way of life. There is a better way than what is before us now.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I want to indicate that this amendment is a bipartisan amendment that is cosponsored by Senators Snowe, Reed, Lieberman, Kohl, DeWine, and Graham. It is an amendment that restores the critical funding for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program, which has helped over 150,000 small- and medium-sized manufacturers in this country.

It is based on the cooperative extension model with Agriculture in that it is set up to provide best management practices, efficiencies, and support for our manufacturers as they compete in a global economy. It has helped them to maintain and increase jobs and be able to increase sales by----

Mr. President, I was simply explaining the amendment that was adopted.

Actually, Mr. President, I think the confusion is that I am

speaking for a moment about what was just accepted and wanted to say thank you to the chairman and the ranking member for accepting our restoration of the Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program funding. There was a 60-percent cut proposed by the President. This, in fact, restored it. And I want to say thank you, and then also indicate that the chairman of the committee, while there are not always amendments or policies or approaches we agree on, has been extraordinary as a leader of the Budget Committee. I want to say thank you to him and to our ranking member, Senator Conrad, who have worked so well together.

Amendment No. 3056

With that, Mr. President, I send another amendment to the desk.

Thank you.

Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment to this budget resolution that would provide $5 billion for our first responders so they can effectively and reliably communicate with each other with equipment that can speak to each other: interoperable communications equipment.

I regret to say this administration has been dangerously incompetent in providing homeland security funding, and particularly when we talk about what is happening for our first responders in their ability to communicate, whether it is a terrorist attack, whether it is in the gulf and what has happened with our natural disasters, or any other kind of emergency in our communities.

We have seen a dangerously incompetent situation that has put our families and our communities at risk. We have known for a long time that too many of our police and fire and emergency medical workers and transportation officials cannot communicate with each other or they are not able to link up with State or Federal agencies.

The September 11 attacks highlighted this problem, when New York police and fire personnel were on different radio systems, couldn't communicate, people running into buildings when they should have been running out. The 9/11 Commission found that the inability to communicate was a critical element at the World Trade Center, at the Pentagon, and in Somerset County, PA, where multiple agencies and multiple jurisdictions responded.

Last December, the 9/11 Commission gave Congress a failing grade--an F--because it had not set a date for the transfer of analog spectrum to first responders for their interoperable communications needs.

A June 2004 U.S. Conference of Mayors survey found that 98 percent of cities do not have interoperable communications. In other words, the police department can't talk to the fire department or can't talk to emergency medical personnel, or they can't talk to folks at the county or the city or the township or the State. And 60 percent of the cities do not have the ability to talk with their State emergency operations centers. This is not acceptable. I believe this shows a dangerously incompetent situation. Almost half of the cities that responded to the survey said that a lack of interoperable communications had made a response to an incident within the last year difficult.

The most startling finding was that 80 percent of the cities don't have interoperable communications with the Department of Homeland Security or the Department of Justice--80 percent of our cities not wired to be able to talk to Homeland Security or the Justice Department. This is a dangerously incompetent situation. Despite these warnings, the Federal Government still has not taken decisive action to solve the problem, and we saw the devastating cost of this with Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. In New Orleans, the police departments and three nearby parishes were on different radio systems. Police officers were calling Senator Landrieu's office here in DC because they couldn't reach the commanders on the ground in New Orleans. That is unacceptable. We can do better than this, and we must.

During my visit to the region with the Senate leadership, I had the opportunity to speak to many men and women who were working very hard in those initial days. Sitting in front of the New Orleans Convention Center talking to someone from the Michigan Army National Guard and the Michigan Coast Guard, which were both there working very hard, I asked them if they had radios, and they said yes. I asked if the radios could talk to each other, and they said no.

I said: What happens when you are out in a boat? What happens when you are trying to communicate?

One gentleman said: We use hand signals.

In the United States of America, in 2006, that is a dangerously incompetent situation.

We know this is an ongoing problem, not only because police and firefighters tell us that it is, but high-ranking Government officials concede this is a problem. In November of 2003, the White House Office of Management and Budget testified before a House committee that there was insufficient funding in place to solve the Nation's communications interoperability problem. It would cost over $15 billion to begin to fix the problem. Yet again we have been dangerously incompetent in addressing this critical threat.

The Federal Government must make a substantial financial commitment to solve this problem. At this time, our State and local governments are stretched too thin and have too many urgent and competing priorities to effectively and completely solve this on

their own. In fact, we have an obligation. As we talk about security, as we talk about making sure we are safe, how in the world can we do that if we in 2006 have not figured out how to have the radios connected to each other so folks can talk to each other in an emergency? The Federal Government has not made the necessary commitment. My amendment begins to do that. It takes a major step in the right direction.

According to the Department of Homeland Security, from 9/11 through 2005, the Federal Government has spent only $280 million directly on interoperable communications. But none of those funds has been provided to help State and local emergency responders purchase equipment they need to talk to each other. I know our esteemed leader on the Budget Committee will argue that Congress has provided Homeland Security grants to our State and local emergency responders and that interoperable communications are an eligible expense. Saying that radio equipment is an eligible expense for funding and actually providing the funding are two different things.

The problem is, these Homeland Security grants have also been subjected to repeated cuts, including in this year's budget. Our first responders are being given less overall support in funding to try to meet a growing list of homeland security needs that includes radio communications. That is not a real solution. We can do better, and we must.

We need direct funding to solve this problem. That is what my amendment does. God forbid there is another terrorist attack or a natural disaster. Are we going to tell the American people that we didn't provide direct funding to fix a failed communications system because it was eligible under another underfunded grant program? This is a dangerously incompetent response to a critical threat to our families' safety.

I understand fixing our first responders' interoperability crisis is not only a funding problem but also a problem of allocating necessary spectrum. I know this is a difficult issue to solve. I believe we need to eliminate these barriers as quickly as possible.

I also agree that nationwide standards must be set to ensure that any money spent is spent wisely. I am a cosponsor of legislation introduced by Senator Lieberman and approved by the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. The Assure Emergency and Interoperable Communications for First Responders Act not only begins to provide the resources necessary to solve this problem but ensures that the Federal Government takes a strong role in leading our State, local, and Federal assets toward true communications interoperability.

I have offered several amendments since 9/11 to provide our first responders with the equipment they need to keep our communities safe. Last year, I offered this same amendment to the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill and the Science-State-Justice-Commerce appropriations bill. While I have not yet been successful, I assure you, I will continue to fight until the men and women in Michigan and all across our country and their families, the people on the front lines of our homeland security, have the equipment they need and the ability to communicate effectively and reliably when we have an emergency. This is one of the most fundamental issues for us in making sure our families are safe. I am hopeful that my colleagues will support this amendment.

May I ask how much time remains on the amendment?

Mr. President, is that the time on my side or the time in total?

I will take the remaining 4 minutes and then turn it over to the chairman.

This evening, there will be an amendment offered by Senators Dayton, Chambliss, and myself to address what is another important part of homeland security or law enforcement funding that the Federal Government provides, and that is through the Byrne/JAG grant program. This was proposed for complete elimination in the administration's budget. It provides critical support as it relates to addressing drug crimes, helping with juvenile delinquency, addressing community policing, other important items that help keep our communities safe. I am very pleased to be a sponsor. It is a bipartisan amendment. I am hopeful that it will pass.

In my State, we have 1,543 fewer police officers on the street since 9/11/01. Those are shocking numbers. The Byrne program is critically important in supporting our law enforcement officials. For example, in 2004 alone, Michigan drug task forces rescued 423 children from drug houses and arrested 659 major drug traffickers. They have been able to deal with the meth problem and assist victims of domestic violence. The list goes on and on. The Byrne program is an incredibly important part of supporting law enforcement. My colleagues and I will be offering this later this evening. I am hopeful we will receive support for it.

We are seeing too many cases where law enforcement is losing the resources they need to be effective. I am hopeful that the Byrne grant program will be reinstated and that we will join in a bold, effective approach for interoperability communications so that we know, whether it is natural disasters, a terrorist attack, or just keeping us safe in our communities, that, in fact, our local responders will be connected, not only to each other but to State and Federal agencies. It is critical that we get this done.

I yield back our time.

Mr. President, I rise today in recognition of Michigan's own Alex ``Izy'' Izykowski and to pay tribute to his recent accomplishment in winning a bronze medal in the 5,000-meter short track relay at the 2006 Winter Olympics in Turin, Italy.

I join my colleagues and everyone across the great State of Michigan in honoring Izy's outstanding representation of his team, his State, and his country. Izy's medal winning performance on behalf of Team USA was the culminating achievement of an athlete's career that has embodied the finest in both the American spirit and the Olympic ideal.

From his earliest days as a member of the Bay County Speedskating Club, Izy's career has stood as an example of excellence. His hard work, dedication, and focus have resulted in success at every level of his sport, leading to Izy's stellar performance last week in the pinnacle of athletic contests, the Olympic Games.

It is not just Izy's success on the speedskating track, though, that I stand to pay tribute to today. Izy's journey to the Olympic medal podium has been one that makes us all proud. The manner in which this fine young man has conducted himself should stand as an example to all of us and as a tribute to the support and love of his family. The Izykowski family, and the extended family of Bay City, should take special pride in knowing that they played an essential role in molding a young man who truly embodies the Olympic creed: ``The most important thing in the Olympic Games is not to win but to take part, just as the most important thing in life is not the triumph, but the struggle.''

I rise today in honor of Alex Izykowski's bronze medal winning performance at the 2006 Winter Olympics. Success in a sport as physically and mentally demanding as short track speedskating requires years of dedicated and regimented training focused into intense bursts of incredible effort. The personal sacrifice, self discipline, and competitive spirit required to earn an Olympic Medal are attributes to which we should all aspire and Izy clearly embodies all of these qualities. It is because of young men and women like Izy that I remain confident in the continued success of our great State and Nation. I honor Izy for representing the values that are so essential to our Michigan way of life on the world stage.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Lower PRICED Drugs Act. I want to thank Senator Trent Lott for joining me on this important legislation, and for his leadership in increasing the availability of affordable generic drugs.

I am very pleased that our legislation is supported by AARP, General Motors Corporation, AFL-CIO, Alliance for Retired Americans, Families USA, the Generic Pharmaceutical Association, the Pharmaceutical Care Management Association, PCMA, the National Association of Chain Drug Stores, and the Coalition for a Competitive Pharmaceutical Marketplace--an organization including large national employers and insurers.

We know that greater availability of generic drugs translates into dramatic savings for consumers, manufacturers, businesses, and taxpayers. Of the 25 top selling drugs in 2004, the only one that did not increase in price was a drug available both in generic and over- the-counter form. And, according to the National Association of Chain Drug Stores, while the average retail price for a brand drug in 2004 was $96.01 the average retail price for a generic was $28.74, a savings of nearly 70 percent.

It's a very well known principle of economics: competition lowers prices.

But we don't need to rely on economic theory; we only have to look at what is happening with drug prices. Of the top five brand name drugs, by retail sales, the average price for 1 month's use of the cheapest among them is just over $76, and the 3rd most popular drug--zocor--is more than $140 per month. That's $1,680 per year for an important drug to lower cholesterol levels. The average price of the most popular five drugs--none of which faces generic competition--is over $114.

There is nothing to hold down the prices of these drugs, and in fact, even though many of them have been on the market for years and years, their prices continue to increase. I first checked the prices of these drugs last November, and then again on Monday of this week. The prices this week are higher, by several dollars in many cases, than they were last year.

However, consider the prices consumers pay for drugs for which there are generic equivalents. The most frequently dispensed generic drugs are hydrocodone, lisinopril, atenolol, amoxicillin and hydrocholorothiazide. Not only are these important drugs, used to treat pain, high blood pressure, and bacterial infections, considerably more affordable than their brand name equivalents, the average generic price is $9.34, representing a savings of more than 60 percent from the average brand price of $24.74, but the presence of competition has another important effect: The average price of these brand name drugs is a lot lower than the average price of brand drugs that don't face competition.

While the generic provisions in the Medicare Modernization Act, MMA,

made important progress, there still isn't timely competition in the pharmaceutical market.

New loopholes have been found to keep generics off the market, and keep prices higher than they need to be. In fact, in 2004, a year after AMA passed, brand name prescription drug prices rose by 7.1 percent, the biggest single-year price hike in 5 years.

Our bill would close several loopholes that prevent and delay generics from coming to market. It will increase access to affordable generic drugs and save consumers, businesses and Federal health programs billions of dollars annually.

The Lower PRICED Drugs Act would prevent abuse of the current pediatric exclusivity provision. It would ensure that pediatric exclusivity is used as intended, to generate information about the use of drugs in children, and prevent brand drug companies from keeping more affordable generic alternatives of drugs not suitable for children, or never studied in children, off the market.

For example, Pravigard PAC contains two widely used medications: pravastatin, used to lower cholesterol, and aspirin. Despite the fact that aspirin isn't safe in children, the manufacturer received a six- month pediatric extension. What sense does that make?

The manufacturer of Pravigard PAC even includes the following warning in the patient information they put out:

Who should not (manufacturer's emphasis) take PRAVIGARD

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

Mr. President, I came to the Senate back in 2001 focused in part on lowering the cost of prescription drugs and the importance of making sure every American senior, every person with disabilities on Medicare, had the opportunity to receive their medicine through the Medicare system, which has been so very successful. We had a lot of work, a lot of effort go back and forth on the Medicare bill as time went on, related to Medicare Part B, and it changed from being about our seniors to being about what was best for those in the industry, particularly the pharmaceutical industry. We began to see a bill that was written, in fact, for the industry rather than for our seniors.

I stand here this evening calling on my colleagues to join with us on this side of the aisle to fix this, to get it right for people. We have a Medicare prescription drug plan that has been adopted that costs twice as much for the American taxpayer as it should, much more for most seniors than it should, and provides less in options and less in medicines than it should. It makes no sense to continue with something which is so confusing, with the cost gaps, which does not allow our poorest seniors to get the medicines they need or, if they do, they are paying more than they did last year. It makes no sense.

We stand here getting ready to go on a recess next week without having fixed the basics of what is wrong with this program. We know that at the beginning of January, our poorest seniors on Medicaid were switched over to the Medicare Program. But too much of the time the computers didn't work, the pharmacists did not have records in the system, and seniors didn't know what plans they were in. They were arbitrarily put into a plan that may not cover their medicines today or costs much more than it should. We saw the administration indicate that while this was being fixed, the pharmacists should go ahead and give people their medicines for the first 30 days. In many cases, States have stepped in to try to continue to help our seniors to get the life- saving medicine they desperately need while all of this gets figured out.

At the end of 30 days, it wasn't figured out. That was the end of January. Here we are now on February 15, and we are into a 2-month extension, a 60-day extension to try to figure out this mess for our seniors.

Pharmacists are told to continue giving people their medicine. Of course, it is the right thing to do. People should not be losing their medicine. But now I am getting calls from pharmacists who are deeply concerned because they are trying to decide whether their small family- owned pharmacy, for example, will be able to continue to pay its own bills without reimbursement or they are going to have to choose whether to help the people in the community they care about, whom they were set up to serve, and want to serve and are serving.

The question is, What is going to happen? Are the pharmacies going to get paid? Are the States going to get reimbursed? What happens to the seniors at the end of March? Are we going to see another 30 days or another 60 days because of a failed system that is confusing? We need to fix this, and it can be fixed.

On this side of the aisle, Senator Jay Rockefeller has legislation many of us cosponsored to make sure that States are reimbursed. We need to make sure those who are providing the medicines now will get this worked out and will be reimbursed.

We also have another series of issues that need to be addressed with this system. People have until May 15, 3 months from today, to decide whether they are going to sign up to be a part of the Medicare system in terms of their prescription drugs and wade through all of this. In Michigan, there are about 65 plans. God bless them if they can get through it, or their children or friends can help them get through all of this and figure out the plan they are going to be on. But once they figure it out, they are locked into the plan after May 15 for a year. Shockingly, the people they sign up with aren't locked into the same agreement for a year. The drug companies can change what is covered. They don't have to cover the plan.

If my mother has worked through a plan that covers four medicines, for example, after May 15 if they decide they will only cover two, or maybe they decide not to cover any of them, that is OK under the current system. It is not OK for the American people. It is not OK for people who are counting on us to have a plan that works.

What if they want to raise the price? You lock into a system, looks like a good deal, figure out the premium that works for you, figure out the copay, what is covered, after May 15 you are

locked in for a year. But the plan could change the price, and it could change it every day, if they wanted to. That is outrageous, absolutely outrageous.

A colleague of mine, Senator Bill Nelson, introduced a bill I am cosponsoring with others to extend that May 15 date to the end of the year to at least give people a year to figure out what is going on.

But in addition to that, we need to say once somebody is locked into a plan, everybody is locked in. You can't say I am obligated or my mother is obligated to pay a monthly premium and a copay on a plan they sign up for but the other side can change the contract, change the price, and no longer cover the medicine. That is outrageous. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

I have an example of a gentleman with MS who called my office a couple of weeks ago. He worked through all of the plans and made a determination on a plan that would cost him $50 a month for his medicine. He got ready to go to the pharmacy and thought he would call to make sure the price he had was right. He called and found out that, no, that has been changed now. It is over $500. He is fortunate because he could and did drop that plan because it is not May 15. If that were after May 15, this gentleman with MS would be locked into a plan costing him over $500 for something he thought he was getting for $50. Who in their right mind would say that is OK? We can do better than that. We have to do better for our seniors and for the people with disabilities.

To add insult to injury, we have a situation where negotiating for group prices is actually prohibited in this new Medicare bill. How does that make any sense at all? You are talking about over 31 million people on Medicare. That would be a pretty good group discount if they were negotiating together for a group discount. But that is prohibited. So we are locking in the highest possible prices. The taxpayers are paying more, the seniors are paying more, and people with disabilities are paying more because they are not allowed to do group pricing.

The VA, on behalf of veterans, doesn't pay top dollar. They get about a 40-percent discount. That makes sense. There is no reason why that should not be happening here with a plan that in fact is written for seniors and the disabled.

What happened? What happened when people didn't get the choices they wanted, which is the one I am advocating for, which is a real benefit to Medicare--sign up, go to your pharmacy, know what your prices are, like Medicare. What happened? Why didn't that plan get enacted instead of this privatized approach forcing people to go through private insurance companies or HMOs to get the help they need? How did that happen? How did it happen that Medicare is stopped from negotiating the best deal? How did that happen? How did it happen that seniors have to sign up for a plan and be locked in for a year, but the people on the other side providing the benefit, getting the premium and the copay, don't have to have prices that are locked in for a year or the range of medicines they will cover locked in for a year?

When you look at what happened, unfortunately, this is the legislative process at its worst. Unfortunately, for somebody who came here wanting desperately to make sure that we are providing low-cost medicine for everybody through various means but certainly for our seniors, this was an extremely disturbing process that occurred that resulted in this new law.

The reality is while we were negotiating on the Senate floor, the head of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid was at the same time negotiating himself a job with a pharmaceutical industry. We now know that at least 10 people from the administration working in Medicare and Medicaid have now gone out to work with the industry. We also know that in the House, one of the committee chairs, at the same time he was negotiating this bill, was negotiating a salary for himself of $2.5 million to go to work for PhRMA, which is a lobbying arm for the brandname pharmaceutical industry. That is outrageous. When we talk about reform, when we talk about what needs to be done here, we need to start with that. That is the kind of thing that, in fact, we address in our honest government bill that has been passed and submitted by the Democrats in the Senate. We need to deal with that.

But the reality is we have a bill that was written for the interests of people in the industry, not for seniors and the disabled in this country, and not for the taxpayers either.

When you lock in the biggest prices possible, you are not looking out for taxpayers' interests any more than looking out for the interests of seniors or the disabled. This needs to be fixed. There needs to be a sense of urgency about this.

I know at home there is an outrage about this. This needs to be fixed. There are those potentially who can be helped by this bill. I hope everybody who can receive assistance under this new benefit will be able to wade through the bureaucracy and figure out or have somebody help them get some help for themselves. Every day, there is a sense of urgency for people, but we have to fix this overall.

In my book, we need to start over and get this right and decide we are going to worry about the person right now, at almost 7 o'clock tonight, on a Wednesday night, who has probably had dinner already and is sitting down maybe deciding what medicine they take tonight--or do I have my pills for tomorrow? Do I cut them in half so they will last longer? Maybe I can take them every other day. Maybe I am a wife whose husband takes the same blood pressure medicine and can share, even though it is dangerous for your health to do that.

This is the United States of America. We can do better than that. We can do better than a Medicare bill that costs too much and provides too little and does not put Americans first. We can do better than that.

My colleagues on this side of the aisle stand ready and are going to speak out every single day to create a sense of urgency about getting this done. We need to work together. Things only happen when we work together on a bipartisan basis. We need to do that. But we cannot let another month or two go by without having fixed the things that are right in front of us. We can't let time go by and not have dealt with the issues that lock people into a system that can raise their prices and take away their medicine while they have to continue to pay. That is outrageous.

There is a better way to do this through Medicare. That is the way it should have been done from the very beginning. There is absolutely no reason we can't go back and get this right.

I hope everyone who cares about this issue will be speaking out, will do everything they can to raise this issue and call on us to act and get this right. This is not the finest hour of this Congress or this administration. We can do much better than what has been done.

I am going to continue to do everything in my power to both fix this in the short run for people and then make sure we have a real prescription drug benefit for people as we go forward. Medicine isn't a frill. This is about life and death for too many people. We need to go back and get this right. I am hopeful that, working together, we will.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``HEART for Women Act of 2006.'' I want to thank Senator Lisa Murkowski for joining me on this important legislation. I am also pleased that Congresswomen Lois Capps and Barbara Cubin are introducing companion legislation in the House of Representatives.

We face an alarming situation in this country. While over the last 25 years we have made good progress in reducing the death rate for men with heart disease, stroke, and other cardiovascular diseases, the same does not hold true for women. Not only have we not lowered the cardiovascular disease mortality rate for women--the death rate has actually gone up for women during that same period.

A lot of people think of heart disease as a ``man's disease.'' But while heart disease is certainly a significant problem for men, it is an equally important problem for women.

Fact: Heart disease and stroke actually kill more women each year than men.

Fact: Heart disease, stroke, and other cardiovascular diseases are the number 1 killer in the United States and in my home State of Michigan. In Michigan, 43 percent of all deaths in women are due to cardiovascular disease.

Fact: 1 in 3 adult women has some form of cardiovascular disease.

Fact: Minority women, particularly African American, Hispanic and Native American women are at even greater risk from heart disease and stroke.

The first step in addressing any problem is acknowledging it--that's why efforts to educate women about their risk of heart disease are so important.

The good news is that we have made progress in educating women: nearly half of women can now identify heart disease as the leading cause of death in women. The bad news is that while women are now more aware of their risk of heart disease many of their doctors are not.

Astoundingly, 4 out of 5 doctors do not know that more women die of heart disease each year than men. Those numbers are alarming because doctors decide how aggressively to treat their patients based on the amount of risk they perceive for that patient.

I suspect we all know women who have been to their doctors or to emergency rooms exhibiting symptoms of a heart attack, only to be told they were suffering from ``stress'' or indigestion.

As a result, women don't get the same care that men do. Even though women make up 53 percent of all deaths from cardiovascular disease, they receive only 33 percent of coronary interventions such as angioplasties and stints.

Likewise, 61 percent of total stroke deaths are in women, but only 38 percent of the procedures to prevent stroke are performed on women.

And when women do receive treatment, it is often based on research that was solely done on men. For too many years, everyone has just assumed that treatments that are effective for men work equally well in women.

But now we know that gender really does make a difference. Diagnostic tests, prescription drugs, and medical devices may work differently in women than in men. When there is a difference, patients and their healthcare providers need and deserve to know this. And right now, all too often that kind of information simply isn't available to clinicians and researchers.

That is why Senator Murkowski and I are introducing the ``HEART for Women Act'' to help to turn this problem around. This legislation takes a 3-pronged approach to reducing the heart disease death rate for women.

First, the bill would authorize grants to educate doctors on how to prevent, diagnose and treat heart disease and strokes in women. Doctors and other healthcare providers first and foremost need to know that heart disease is a major problem in women, so that they treat it accordingly.

The bill would also require that health information that is already

being reported to the federal government be gender-specific, and would require annual recommendations to Congress for improving the treatment of heart disease in women. Doctors need to know what medical treatments are safe and effective for their women patients.

Finally, the bill would also expand a current program run by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC called WISEWOMAN, Well- Integrated Screening and Evaluation for Women Across the Nation.

The WISEWOMAN program provides free heart disease and stroke screening to low-income, uninsured women. While Michigan is fortunate to be one of the 14 States that has a WISEWOMAN program, every State should have this important program.

These are simple, cost-effective, but meaningful steps that Congress can take that will help get the death rate for women from heart disease and stroke going in the right direction--down.

Today is Valentine's Day, a day for showing our loved ones how much we love and appreciation them.

As women, we tend to be really great at taking care of everyone around us--our children, our husbands, our aging parents. Unfortunately, we're not nearly so good about taking care of ourselves.

So I hope that this Valentine's Day will also be a day to raise awareness about the risks of heart disease for women and to encourage our loved ones--our mothers, sisters, and friends--to take good care of themselves. I urge my colleagues to join me in passing this critical legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``HEART for Women Act of 2006.'' I want to thank Senator Lisa Murkowski for joining me on this important legislation. I am also pleased that Congresswomen Lois Capps and Barbara Cubin are introducing companion legislation in the House of Representatives.

We face an alarming situation in this country. While over the last 25 years we have made good progress in reducing the death rate for men with heart disease, stroke, and other cardiovascular diseases, the same does not hold true for women. Not only have we not lowered the cardiovascular disease mortality rate for women--the death rate has actually gone up for women during that same period.

A lot of people think of heart disease as a ``man's disease.'' But while heart disease is certainly a significant problem for men, it is an equally important problem for women.

Fact: Heart disease and stroke actually kill more women each year than men.

Fact: Heart disease, stroke, and other cardiovascular diseases are the number 1 killer in the United States and in my home State of Michigan. In Michigan, 43 percent of all deaths in women are due to cardiovascular disease.

Fact: 1 in 3 adult women has some form of cardiovascular disease.

Fact: Minority women, particularly African American, Hispanic and Native American women are at even greater risk from heart disease and stroke.

The first step in addressing any problem is acknowledging it--that's why efforts to educate women about their risk of heart disease are so important.

The good news is that we have made progress in educating women: nearly half of women can now identify heart disease as the leading cause of death in women. The bad news is that while women are now more aware of their risk of heart disease many of their doctors are not.

Astoundingly, 4 out of 5 doctors do not know that more women die of heart disease each year than men. Those numbers are alarming because doctors decide how aggressively to treat their patients based on the amount of risk they perceive for that patient.

I suspect we all know women who have been to their doctors or to emergency rooms exhibiting symptoms of a heart attack, only to be told they were suffering from ``stress'' or indigestion.

As a result, women don't get the same care that men do. Even though women make up 53 percent of all deaths from cardiovascular disease, they receive only 33 percent of coronary interventions such as angioplasties and stints.

Likewise, 61 percent of total stroke deaths are in women, but only 38 percent of the procedures to prevent stroke are performed on women.

And when women do receive treatment, it is often based on research that was solely done on men. For too many years, everyone has just assumed that treatments that are effective for men work equally well in women.

But now we know that gender really does make a difference. Diagnostic tests, prescription drugs, and medical devices may work differently in women than in men. When there is a difference, patients and their healthcare providers need and deserve to know this. And right now, all too often that kind of information simply isn't available to clinicians and researchers.

That is why Senator Murkowski and I are introducing the ``HEART for Women Act'' to help to turn this problem around. This legislation takes a 3-pronged approach to reducing the heart disease death rate for women.

First, the bill would authorize grants to educate doctors on how to prevent, diagnose and treat heart disease and strokes in women. Doctors and other healthcare providers first and foremost need to know that heart disease is a major problem in women, so that they treat it accordingly.

The bill would also require that health information that is already

being reported to the federal government be gender-specific, and would require annual recommendations to Congress for improving the treatment of heart disease in women. Doctors need to know what medical treatments are safe and effective for their women patients.

Finally, the bill would also expand a current program run by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC called WISEWOMAN, Well- Integrated Screening and Evaluation for Women Across the Nation.

The WISEWOMAN program provides free heart disease and stroke screening to low-income, uninsured women. While Michigan is fortunate to be one of the 14 States that has a WISEWOMAN program, every State should have this important program.

These are simple, cost-effective, but meaningful steps that Congress can take that will help get the death rate for women from heart disease and stroke going in the right direction--down.

Today is Valentine's Day, a day for showing our loved ones how much we love and appreciation them.

As women, we tend to be really great at taking care of everyone around us--our children, our husbands, our aging parents. Unfortunately, we're not nearly so good about taking care of ourselves.

So I hope that this Valentine's Day will also be a day to raise awareness about the risks of heart disease for women and to encourage our loved ones--our mothers, sisters, and friends--to take good care of themselves. I urge my colleagues to join me in passing this critical legislation.

Mr. President, I thank our leader on the Committee on Finance, Mr. Baucus, for his leadership on so many different issues.

I send a motion to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I rise this evening to introduce a motion to instruct conferees to extend the R&D tax credit permanently and offset costs related to that by striking capital gains and dividends provisions of the House bill in the conference committee. I realize my colleague from Utah has introduced something similar to extend the R&D tax credit permanently, which I support, but I believe the most responsible approach is to provide as much of an offset as possible so we are not extending the national debt which is already the largest in our Nation's history.

This is a very difficult time for Michigan families. Michigan lost 11,000 manufacturing jobs since 2000. Last week, GM announced more bad news. Plant closings and job losses are becoming a common headline in our newspaper. There needs to be a sense of urgency in Washington about helping to protect and maintain these good-paying jobs and the way of life these jobs have offered for Americans. Our middle-class way of life is truly at risk. We are still not seeing any action from this administration. I was so disappointed to see the President did not mention the word ``manufacturing,'' in his State of the Union Address, despite all that is happening and all that needs to be done on behalf of Michigan families, Michigan businesses, and those across the country that are affected.

People in my State are worried about their jobs, they are worried about the fact that they might lose their pension that they worked for, for 30 years. Who would have thought, in the United States of America, people would have to worry about paying into a pension system and possibly not having that when they retire? That is immoral.

They see their health care premiums continuing to skyrocket every year, they are struggling to fill their gas tank and pay their home heating bill and are feeling squeezed on all sides. We need to take that seriously because there are things we can do to help turn that around.

What does the House bill dealing with taxes propose to do to help middle-class families? Absolutely nothing. Instead, it gives more tax cuts to the wealthiest few.

We can do better. We must do better for the people we represent. Hard-working families should be able to have a good-paying job, send their kids to college, retire with dignity, including health care and a pension and Social Security. We need to lower health care costs which are hurting American manufacturers and promote new health IT technologies that can save billions in health care costs. I was pleased to see the President mention that in the State of the Union.

Senator Snowe and I have legislation, working with colleagues on both sides of the aisle. We can get this done and save hundreds of billions of dollars that can go back into lowering health care costs and paying for access to health care for our families.

We need to protect people's pensions and uphold the fundamental principle that if you work hard and pay into a retirement fund, you get every cent you have earned and you deserve.

We must also investigate and enforce our trade laws. Countries such as China and Japan should be required to play by the rules, stop manipulating their currency. This is what we should be voting on now. How to save and strengthen our middle class, our way of life.

One answer that would be extremely positive would be to make the R&D tax credit permanent, to help continue to spur innovation into the future. As we all know, the way to profitability for struggling manufacturers is through innovation and education.

The House bill only budgets a 1-year extension of the R&D tax credit, leaving businesses to worry about whether longer term projects will be terminated. A 1-year extension undermines our commitment to innovation and economic prosperity. Instead, the House bill provides $50 billion in tax breaks for the wealthy few who do not have to worry about losing their jobs or pensions tomorrow or struggling to pay their bills.

We need to be investing in our manufacturers and our workers to prepare for the future by planting seeds for the next innovative idea. I am very proud that in Michigan we have been the heart of so much innovation. We create ideas. We build great products, not just automobiles but furniture and all kinds of products. And we are on the cutting edge today of new innovations.

But it is time to reinvest in what has led our country to economic prosperity and to support these on-going efforts. We have the best colleges and the brightest minds in the world. We know American workers can compete with any workers from any country if we make it a priority to invest in education and innovation--and, by the way, if we enforce our trade laws so other countries are not cheating--and change the way we fund health care. That is the prescription for success, for maintaining our way of life as Americans.

Countries such as Japan and China have been doubling and tripling their investments in R&D over the last decade. Japan, which has always invested in R&D, increased their funding by 25

percent. Korea has doubled their R&D. China has tripled their R&D. In China, engineering professors and graduate students even receive bonuses every time they are published in an international journal.

Our Federal Government must be a strong partner with American manufacturers, American businesses, and American workers, and support innovation in this country for the next generation of workers.

My home State of Michigan invests over $20 billion in R&D expenditures--the second highest of any State, according to the National Science Foundation. Although Federal investments in R&D only contribute 17 percent of total investments, these Federal funds are used to attract even more research dollars from businesses. It is a great investment for us.

It makes perfect sense for us in the Federal Government to help spur this innovation by being partners with the private sector. In total, about $25 billion is provided by the Federal Government and over $200 billion by businesses. This partnership in innovation is at the center of American companies competing in the global marketplace. Everyone knows that to stay ahead, we need to invest in the future. That means education. That means innovation.

I might say, it does not mean accepting the cuts the President has proposed--the largest cuts in the 26-year history of the Department of Education--over $2 billion in cuts proposed in this budget. That certainly is going in the wrong direction. But permanently extending the R&D tax credit goes in the right direction, and helping to pay for that also goes in the right direction of fiscal responsibility.

As I indicated before, the distinguished Senator from Utah, Mr. Hatch, has offered a motion to instruct on a permanent extension of the R&D tax credit without an offset--in other words, without paying for that. I would suggest there is a more fiscally responsible approach and that we are not providing a long-term incentive for investment by just extending the credit for a year at a time or by not paying for it. I believe we need to have a permanent extension of the R&D tax credit, but we need to do that in a way which is fiscally responsible.

This debate this evening is really about our values and about our priorities and who will benefit from the tax bill. Are we going to give another $50 billion in tax cuts to those who are most blessed and extend the capital gains tax cut which is not even going to expire for 2 years or are we going to help people who are trying to create jobs and working men and women right now, manufacturers who right now need some support as they move into the future to compete internationally and businesses that right now need our support, by extending the R&D tax credit so they have the partnership they need, the support they need for those new ideas which will allow them to compete on into the future?

This is about what is happening to families right now. In Michigan, people are asking the President and asking us to look at what is happening to families at this moment and to take action now.

Let's stop China and Japan from cheating by stealing our patents or by counterfeiting--counterfeit autoparts, for example, is a $12 billion industry which has cost over 200,000 jobs in this country--or by manipulating their currency. Let's force them to play by the rules and have a level playing field, but turn around and look at what they are doing on R&D and education. While they are cheating and stealing our ideas, they are educating more engineers and more scientists and those who will be competing with our workers. We need to turn that around, make them play by the rules, change the way we fund health care in our country, protect our pensions, and then aggressively invest in education and innovation.

To see the kind of bold, aggressive investment we need means we need to extend the R&D tax credit. We need to send a strong message to businesses around this country that this is a permanent tax credit, the R&D tax credit. We also need to send a message that we are going to choose, when choices have to be made, between those who need the support right now to keep jobs here in America and those who down the road may be interested in having an additional tax cut on top of those they have already received. I believe it is about the future of our country, which approach will create opportunity, which approach will create jobs for the future.

My vote is with our manufacturers who are deciding, maybe at this very moment, whether to lay off more people in Michigan or around the country, who need this tax credit to invest in the future of their companies. That is my priority, not a few, most blessed in this country who have a capital gains tax cut in place until 2008--it does not even expire until 2008--those who are not worried today about whether that pension is going to be there or whether they can pay their heating bill or whether they can send their kids to college or whether they are going to have a job tomorrow. They have a tax cut in place which does not even stop until 2008.

We can do better than the bill that was certainly passed by the House of Representatives. I hope the conference committee will do better. I urge support for my motion to instruct, with a clear message. This is about bold innovation for the future, permanently extending the R&D tax credit. It is about fiscal responsibility. And it is about making the right choices and values that say we are going to focus on those today, we are going to pay for this by focusing on those right now, those businesses right now which need our help, and make those families a priority for us.

It is about our way of life in this country. It is a fight we can win if we are serious about it. And I believe innovation is an important part of our future. I urge the support of my colleagues for this motion to instruct.