Floor Statements

Mr. President, today I wish to speak about a resolution to congratulate the American Dental Association for establishing the ``Give Kids a Smile'' Program. I am pleased to be joined by my colleagues, Senators Coleman, Cochran, and Feingold in recognizing this annual event.

This Friday is the fourth ``Give Kids a Smile'' day, which emphasizes the need to improve dental care access for children. Tooth decay is the most common chronic childhood disease and can be the cause of poor eating and sleeping patterns, decreased attention spans at school, and sadly, children not being able to smile. Children who are eligible for Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program are three to five times more likely than other children to have untreated tooth decay.

I also want to thank the members of the American Dental Association for participating in this program. I am especially proud of all of the dentists in Michigan who took the time to make the annual ``Give Kids a Smile'' day such a great success. Last year, more than 330 dentists in Michigan volunteered their valuable services for ``Give Kids a Smile'' events across the State. These dentists, along with more than 1,000 staff members and volunteers, provided dental treatment and oral health information to more than 17,430 needy children.

Madam President, I thank the distinguished Senator from West Virginia for his kindness this morning.

I rise in support of Senator Baucus's amendment. At a time when middle-class families are struggling to pay their bills, the House tax bill would actually increase taxes by more than $30 billion on those families--$30 billion.

This is a very difficult time for Michigan families. Every day we hear news about another plant closing or a company entering into bankruptcy. Michigan has lost 111,000 manufacturing jobs, and that doesn't include the recent announcement by Ford to cut another 30,000 jobs.

Michigan families are worried about their jobs. They are also worried about losing the pension that they have worked hard for and paid into for the 30 years that they have worked. They see their health care premiums continue to skyrocket, and they are struggling to fill gas tanks and pay home heating bills. The average price of gasoline in Michigan last month was $2.35 a gallon. Now middle-class families are facing home heating bills that are as much as 35 percent more expensive than last year. And their salaries and their pay stubs don't show a 35- percent increase. If anything, they are going down in terms of income.

What does the House bill propose to do to help middle-class families? Raise their taxes. This was quite stunning to me when I reviewed the bill that came over from the House of Representatives. We are talking about a bill that actually raises taxes on middle-income families. That is not acceptable. We can do better than that. Our middle-class way of life is in danger. I believe very strongly that in Michigan and places all across this country we are fighting for a way of life. Will we have the standard of living that we have had? Will we have the ability to send our kids to college and be able to buy a home and be able to dream the American dream and be successful? At every turn, we are seeing action taken here that takes our way of life and our opportunities away. Before Christmas, it was a bill that is part of this whole package, cutting over $12 billion in opportunities for people to go to college, by cutting student loans.

So this is another one of those cases where people are working hard, expecting us to do the right thing and, in fact, the House bill would raise taxes on middle-income people, while lowering taxes for those who are already very blessed, earning millions of dollars a year. We need to be passing legislation that lowers health care costs, which is hurting American manufacturers. We need legislation that will protect people's pensions. This ought to be a basic premise and principle that we abide by in this country. When you work hard all your life and you pay into a pension, you should know that that will be there for you and your family.

We must also enforce our trade laws and insist that countries such as China and Japan play by the rules and stop manipulating their currency and that we don't see counterfeit products coming into this country illegally, or other countries stealing our ideas and patents.

That is the debate we should be having. These are actions we should be taking. I was deeply concerned the other night to hear the President talk about those of us who want to enforce trade laws, essentially saying we are

protectionists if we don't stand back and say that in a global economy, whatever happens happens, that those of us who care about the rules and want trade to be fair are somehow protectionists. I profoundly disagree with that.

It is our job to fight for American businesses and American workers. That is what I do every day, and I know that many colleagues feel the same way. The debate we need to be having on the floor of the Senate is how to save our middle class, save our way of life. But at a minimum, we should not be passing a tax increase on middle-class families.

Michigan is the heart and soul of the middle class. There are 52,000 families in jeopardy of facing a tax increase if we do not address the alternative minimum tax. The alternative minimum tax ceiling needs to be raised, as we know. Fundamentally, while there has been agreement in this Chamber to do that, if that does not come out of conference committee between the House and the Senate, we will see 19 million families getting a tax increase as a result of actions of the Congress.

For instance, a family with five children would be hit with this ceiling if their income exceeds $54,000. They would, under the current system, pay more taxes. But without children, their income could exceed $76,000 before they pay more taxes. Think about that. Why is that fair? If you have five children, five mouths to feed, five children to buy clothes for, five children whom you are worried about going to college, you are going to pay higher taxes than somebody without children. That makes no sense. That is a $20,000 difference, a $20,000 penalty for having children. That makes absolutely no sense. What is American about that?

Sadly, under the current system on taxes with the AMT, the larger your family, the larger taxes you pay. To add insult to injury, the House bill extends the capital gains and dividend tax rates to provide $50 billion in tax breaks to our wealthiest Americans--$50 billion in tax breaks to our wealthy Americans--while a family with five children, earning $54,000 a year, will pay more taxes.

The majority of Americans are looking at this and asking, what is going on here? Where are our priorities, our values? This is backward. Even more egregious is the fact that these tax breaks that are given under the House bill are not set to expire until 2008. So the current tax cuts being given to the wealthiest Americans don't even expire until 2008, but the current problem for middle-income families happens right away; the current tax increase happens right away.

This bill is money to ensure that the wealthiest 3 percent of Americans are given tax breaks way out until 2010. Meanwhile, right now, middle- and low-income families are facing lower wages, mounting health care costs, trying to pay the gas bill, trying to pay the home heating bill, trying to send the kids to college, while we cut student loans. I did not support that. And now we are going to say, potentially, if the House bill were to become reality, by the way, you are going to pay more in taxes. This makes absolutely no sense.

I commend my colleague, Senator Baucus, and I commend the chairman of the Finance Committee, as well, for working together to fix this, getting the Senate to work together to fix this. We need to fix this-- and not only in the Senate because we have agreed that is not right-- this needs to be fixed when the bill ends up going to the President's desk. That is when we will know whether 19 million American families will have a tax increase. My vote is ``no'' on that one, and it is ``yes'' on making sure we fight for that which will keep our way of life in this country.

Madam President, I yield the floor, and I thank the Senator from West Virginia again for allowing me to use this time.

Madam President, after speaking in support of the Boxer amendment, which I think is extremely important, I wanted to take a moment in the middle of this very important debate, a very important bill, and rise to speak to another important event that is occurring this weekend.

I rise today to cheer not for the Pittsburgh Steelers or the Seattle Seahawks but for the city of Detroit and the State of Michigan, which is the host of the Super Bowl XL this weekend. We are very excited about this important event. It is a spotlight shining on Detroit, MI, and I am confident the city and my home State are ready for their closeup this weekend.

The State of Michigan and the city of Detroit are honored to play host to the most watched sporting event in our country. I am sure Detroit will shine, as it has before when it has hosted the Stanley Cup finals, the World Series, and the Major League Baseball All-Star Game, which was just held this last summer.

Ford Field is a beautiful stadium which will be an ideal setting for the Seahawks and Steelers, and Cobo Hall will play host to the NFL Experience, a football ``theme park'' where children and their parents can enjoy over 50 interactive football theme games and displays.

We are expecting over 100,000 visitors to downtown Detroit. I was there last week and saw that a lot of people have gotten there early to enjoy what our city offers. We are so pleased to welcome them. Not only will visitors have a chance to experience Detroit's restaurants and nightlife, but they can go to the Henry Ford Museum and see the bus on which Rosa Parks made her historic stand and visit the African-American Museum. This weekend's visitors will see all the wonderful things Detroit and the State of Michigan have to offer.

I must say that we have over 10,000 volunteers who are ready and are working to make sure everyone enjoys every minute of their stay, and I thank those volunteers for their hard work in being a part of helping Detroit shine.

Detroit is the home of Motown, and I am thrilled that Stevie Wonder will perform before the game and that Aretha Franklin will sing the National Anthem. On Saturday, Motown's music heritage will be on display when the Four Tops, the Miracles, the Contours, the Dramatics, the former ladies of the Supremes, Freda Payne, Brenda Holloway, Martha Reeves and the Vandellas, the Velvelettes, and Paul Hill play at the Masonic Temple. That will be an amazing event to participate in and listen to.

On Friday and Saturday night, Kid Rock plays at the Joe Lewis Arena before a sold-out house, proving that Detroit is the Rock City.

This weekend, Detroit will welcome home two of its native sons-- Jerome Bettis and Larry Foote, both members of the Pittsburgh Steelers. Larry Foote, a graduate of Pershing High, is at the beginning of a promising NFL career, while Jerome Bettis is near the end of a Hall of Fame career where he has displayed the character and toughness of a Detroit native. Bettis graduated from MacKenzie High in the late eighties, entered the NFL in 1993, and has since been mowing down defenses on his way to ranking fifth on the NFL's alltime rushing list.

The Super Bowl will give Detroit and the State of Michigan and the region an economic boost, but it will also provide a more important opportunity for the people I represent to shine, as I know they will. I am proud of Michigan's history and excited about our future. I am sure that on Sunday night, those who have visited Detroit, those who have watched the game will be excited as well. We say welcome to all of them.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise, as we are waiting for the votes as well, to join with Senator Biden and to thank him for his continued leadership. We have come to this floor on numerous occasions to speak about this issue over and over again, ever since 9/11, and we still do not have this fixed.

So I am pleased to be joining with Senator Biden to offer this amendment. It is time we act. It is past time. As Senator Biden said, it should be an embarrassment to all of us, the failing grades we received from the 9/11 Commission, a bipartisan commission, whose sole focus is on giving us information about whether we are safe today and what it will take to keep us safe, what it will take in the future to make sure Americans are safe.

We received, collectively--the administration, the Congress--failing grades in area after area. One of my main focuses has been on whether the radios work; it is stunning to me we are still talking about this. It is very unfortunate that after 9/11--because we did not connect all of the radios to be able to work to communicate with each other--that we saw the same kinds of failings that had firefighters and police officers running into buildings in New York instead of running out, as they should have been, because they did not know what was happening-- that the same kinds of things, then, happened in the gulf, in New Orleans.

I will never forget, going down right after the hurricanes with the bipartisan leadership, sitting outside of the New Orleans Convention Center with someone from Michigan who was with the Army National Guard, someone from the Michigan Coast Guard, talking with these folks who had not slept for several days, who were down doing their part, trying to save lives, getting people off of rooftops, doing what was necessary.

I asked the gentleman from the Army National Guard: ``Do you have radios?'' ``Yeah.'' I asked the individual from the Coast Guard: ``Do you have radios?'' ``Yeah, of course.'' Then I asked: ``Can you talk to each other?'' ``No.'' I asked: ``Well, how are you talking to each other?'' ``Well, when we're out in the boats, we use hand signals.'' This was, at the time, 2005 in the United States of America, and they are using hand signals to tell whether they have found somebody, whether they are OK, and so on, because the radios did not work.

When are we going to get this right? People expect us to get this right. They do not understand why this has not already happened. This amendment basically puts our priorities in place by saying it does not matter what your income level is, if there is another attack, you are going to want the radios to work. It does not matter where you live in America. It does not matter if you are a CEO or if you are a person going in and punching a timeclock every day or if your kids are playing in a school yard. You expect that your Government is doing everything humanly possible to keep you safe.

We have heard from the 9/11 Commission. They have overwhelmingly told us that is currently not true. So I hope and pray we take action, that we would create the priorities that Americans are asking us to create, which is by starting with security, starting with security, making sure we are putting that at the top of the list, that we are providing police officers and firefighters with what they need in dealing with ports and nuclear plants and chemical plants and all of the other issues, such as with Amtrak, making sure people are safe as they travel, as well as airlines.

We can do that by setting the right priorities. And that is what this amendment does. I urge my colleagues to join us in adopting this amendment.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, each year congressional offices host American college students as interns, to help our future leaders learn about public service and see how their Government works firsthand.

Today, I would like to let you know about a program that gives Australian students the opportunity to experience our democratic and legislative process. It's called the Uni-Capitol Washington Internship Program.

My office is taking part in it right now, along with others in Congress. Twelve of Australia's brightest are here, pursuing knowledge and understanding. In so doing, we are all finding new reasons to like an old friend.

The Uni-Capitol was born of the efforts of Eric Federing. Eric worked for more than a decade in the House and the Senate as a senior adviser. While doing this job, he lectured across Australia on American Government, politics, and news media. In an effort to forge ties across the Pacific and for the betterment of both societies, Eric put together this idea in Washington in 1999.

The selection process for the students is competitive and intellectually rigorous, ensuring the highest quality applicant. All participating students are comprehensively matched with a congressional office and corresponding position. They come from a wide range of academic disciplines and bring as much knowledge and understanding to our offices as they take away.

For the past 7 years, Mr. Federing's students have approached this opportunity with vim and vigor. I am pleased to have Douglas Ferguson from the University of Canberra working in my office this year. I would also like to submit into the Record the names of other Australian interns participating in this year's program:

Andrew Brookes, from Melbourne University, is in Senator Christopher Dodd's office. Ryan Conroy, from Deakin University, is in Representative Sam Farr's office. Jenna Davey-Burns, from Melbourne University, is in Representative Louis Slaughter's office. Sarah Dillon, from Deakin University, is in Representative Alcee Hastings's office. Jessica Gurevich, from Melbourne University, is in Representative Mike Castle's office. Scott Ivey, from the University of Western Australia, is in Representative Loretta Sanchez's office. Saul Lazar, from Deakin University, is in Senator Chuck Hagel's office. Abbie McPhie, from Macquarie University, is in Representative Jerrold Nadler's office. Linda Nelson, from the University of Wollongong, is with the House Science Committee's majority staff. Marianna O'Gorman, from the University of Queensland, is in Delegate Eni Faleomavaega's office. Rachel Thomson, from the University of Western Australia, is with the Joint Economic Committee's minority staff.

Australia continues to be one of America's strongest allies. Our greatest gift is the friendship born of shared values. I thank the Uni- Capitol Program and these Australian interns for their hard work, and I wish the program continued success.

I thank my friend and colleague who has done such a wonderful job on this issue, the Senator from Washington.

I rise to oppose this motion and to clearly state, along with my colleagues, that we all support funding our troops. We support helping those in the gulf who have been hurt and are in such difficult times. We all support the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program. We have had the opportunity to vote on these. This is a question of whether something that cannot pass following the rules gets put into a bill that we all support on behalf of our troops, and somehow we are blackmailed into passing that in order to get the funding for the troops that we all want and that we all support.

I oppose this tactic. I appreciate that there are people on both sides of the aisle, well-meaning people who disagree on whether we should drill in the Alaska National Wildlife Reserve. I say no. But this is about whether we will support our troops and not allow the process to be hijacked. Let's vote no and get on about the business of funding our troops.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes off the time on the Democratic side, as agreed to before.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the PATRIOT Act reauthorization. Our Nation's Founding Fathers could never have foreseen the kinds of threats we face today from America's enemies, nor could they have imagined the technologies we use to anticipate attacks on our country and to prevent them with cell phones, computers, electronic bank reports, and other kinds of efforts. But they did foresee the threats of unchecked Government power on the civil liberties of each of us as Americans.

The fourth amendment was adopted as a protection against the widespread invasions of privacy experienced by American colonists at the hands of the British Government. That is part of our history. That is why this debate is so important. That is why we are standing in this Chamber, just 11 days before the PATRIOT Act expires, to debate this reauthorization. And that is why my colleagues and I on both sides of the aisle are fighting to extend the current PATRIOT Act for 3 months while we work to get agreement on the right balance between our security and our right to privacy and due process.

I want to particularly say congratulations and lend my admiration to the Senator currently occupying the Chair in this Chamber and thank him for his leadership on this issue. We have come together in a bipartisan way under his leadership and other colleagues on both sides of the aisle. I am very grateful for the Chair's leadership.

We all agree that we need to protect our homeland, but we also have an obligation to protect the civil liberties that are the birthright of every American. It is important that we get the PATRIOT Act right, not just insist on getting it done right now. That is why we say extend it, don't end it. Extend it, don't end it.

This is a critical debate. The terrorist threat to our country is very real, and it is vital that we provide the Government with the law enforcement tools necessary to protect our Nation, to protect our families.

I am proud to have offered provisions in the PATRIOT Act to protect against money laundering. My provision, section 325, gives the Treasury Department the ability to better monitor anonymous bank accounts which can be used to move terrorist funds. This is an important provision that can be used to prevent terrorist attacks in the United States.

We need to use every tool possible to fight terrorism and to protect our citizens at home. At the same time, the threat to civil liberties is also very real in America today. Last week we were alarmed to learn that under a secret order signed by the President of the United States, the Government has been monitoring the international telephone calls and e-mail messages from people inside the United States, American citizens, without court approval. This is not something that is authorized by the PATRIOT Act or by any act of Congress but, instead, is being conducted under a secret Presidential order.

This debate is not about whether the Government should have the tools that it needs to protect the American people. Of course, it should. Nobody in this

Chamber disagrees with that. That is why the PATRIOT Act passed overwhelmingly 4 years ago.

The Senate's bipartisan reauthorization bill passed unanimously in July. It was an extraordinary effort by leaders on both sides of the aisle. I am very proud of what we did back in July in unanimously passing an improved version of the PATRIOT Act.

This debate is not about whether the PATRIOT Act should suddenly expire. Of course, it should not. That is why we say, ``Extend it, don't end it.'' That is why we have offered a bipartisan bill to extend the PATRIOT Act for 3 months to give Congress time to reach a bipartisan compromise--again, authored by the Senator from New Hampshire, who is currently chairing this August body.

This extension has 47 cosponsors and counting from both sides of the aisle. This debate is about balance. It is about ensuring the safety of the American people while at the same time protecting our rights and keeping the Government accountable for its actions. These are not mutually exclusive goals. Again, we need to amend the PATRIOT Act, not end it.

The PATRIOT Act reauthorization conference report does make some important improvements and I want to thank Senator Specter and Senator Leahy for their hard work and leadership on this bill. The conference report contains the 4-year sunsets in the Senate bill instead of the original 10 years in the House bill. It no longer contains a provision that would have made it a crime merely to disclose the receipt of a national security letter. However, there is a lot more to be done before we should be passing this bill and sending it to the President.

Under section 215 of the PATRIOT Act, known as the library provision, the Government can obtain a secret order to access personal records of Americans without probable cause of a crime. That means the Government can get copies of Americans' medical or financial records, library records, gun ownership records, purchase records. It also prohibits the keeper of this information, such as a librarian, from telling anyone that they have handed over these records to the Government. Before the PATRIOT Act, the FBI had access only to certain kinds of business records such as hotel and rental car receipts and they had to meet a higher legal standards before a court in order to obtain this information.

The PATRIOT Act did away with these limitations and lowered the standard for obtaining these personal records. The Senate version of the reauthorization bill reestablished a significant check on this power, and that is very important. Under the Senate bill, relevance to an authorized investigation is not enough. The Government must also show some connection between the records they are seeking and a suspected terrorist or spy. Unfortunately, this basic protection is not in the final conference report. The Senate bill also included basic protections for the recipients of a section 215 letter to allow them to challenge the automatic permanent gag order and these protections were left out of the conference report.

The conference report's treatment of national security letters, or NSLs, also needs significant improvement. NSLs are documents issued by the Federal Government that allow the Government to seize a wide variety of business and financial records without the approval of a judge, a grand jury, or a prosecutor. This has been raised as a concern by the U.S. Chamber, other business organizations and others throughout the country. Like section 215, a person who receives an NSL is under a permanent gag order without any judicial review.

Last month, The Washington Post reported that the FBI issues more than 30,000 NSLs per year. That is a hundredfold increase over past practices.

Lastly, the conference report weakened the critical sneak-and-peek protections that were in the Senate bill. Under section 213 of the PATRIOT Act, the Government can conduct secret searches in criminal investigations. With a section 213 warrant, investigators can enter someone's home or their office, conduct a search, take pictures, seize items, without telling the person for weeks, months, or in some cases more than a year. The Senate bill replaced this standard with a 7-day rule, permitting the Government to obtain additional 90-day extensions when necessary. The conference committee changed that.

Our Founding Fathers may not have foreseen the threats we face from our enemies today, but they did foresee the threats of unchecked Government power on the civil liberties and freedoms of all Americans. Protecting Americans from unlawful search and seizure is one of the Nation's founding principles. To ignore that is to undermine our identity as Americans and our American Constitution. We owe it to the people of America to get this right, and that is why I support an extension.

Unanimous Consent Request

That is why I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of Senator Sununu's bill, S. 2082, extending the PATRIOT Act for 3 months; that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; that the bill be read a third time and be passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

I would object.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

Mr. President, in response to my colleague, I simply say we have unanimous support on this side of the aisle to extend the PATRIOT Act for 3 months while working out the areas of concern to millions of Americans. I also find it rather curious, in watching this debate with the distinguished Senator, one distinguished Senator from New Hampshire speaking to another distinguished Senator from New Hampshire, who is in the chair, who is a Republican author, with another also distinguished colleague from Idaho who is another author of the extension. This is clearly a bipartisan effort on our part to do the right thing, to create the right balance to extend, not end, the PATRIOT Act at the end of the year. The choice is in the majority as to whether to join us to extend the PATRIOT Act, not end it.

I would object to bringing up the bill one more time that, in fact, has been voted on at this point. Procedurally, we have said no to this conference report. We want to extend the PATRIOT Act for 3 months, not end it, so that we

can go back to the great work done unanimously by the Senate, unanimously by this body.

Mr. President, in conclusion, we have an opportunity to reinforce the great work done back in July by the unanimous Senate. We have bipartisan agreement that this conference report does not include the balance necessary and we have come together in a bipartisan way, with every single person on our side of the aisle and great leadership on the other side of the aisle, to say: Extend the PATRIOT Act, don't end it. We know we can work together to get this right on behalf of the American people.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to express great concern about the process, about what has been happening as it relates to the Defense appropriations bill. I have supported every appropriations bill for our troops since coming here to the Senate, and before in the House. I am deeply concerned about what I see in terms of abuse of the process, abuse of power involved in this debate on a bill that is critical for our troops, a bill that without the controversial provisions I believe would have overwhelming, positive, if not unanimous, support from this Chamber.

I want to start by reading a portion of a letter from five distinguished retired generals from the Marines, the Army, and the Navy, that speaks to this in a way that I think we should all be listening to. This is a letter to our leaders in the Senate:

We are very concerned that the FY2006 Defense

Appropriations Bill may be further delayed by attaching a

controversial non-defense legislative provision to the

defense appropriations conference report.

We know that you share our overarching concern for the

welfare and needs of our troops. With 160,000 troops fighting

in Iraq, another 18,000 in Afghanistan, and tens of thousands

more around the world defending this country, Congress must

finish its work and provide them the resources they need to

do their job.

We believe that any effort to attach controversial

legislative language authorizing drilling in the Arctic

National Wildlife Refuge to the defense appropriations

conference report will jeopardize Congress' ability to

provide our troops and their families the resources they need

in a timely fashion.

It goes on from there.

Mr. President, I would not agree more. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of this letter be printed in the Record.

Now is the time--past time. There is no reason for us to be here today on this Defense bill. This could have been done. We could have made it very clear that the dollars are there--critical dollars are there--for our troops, if it were not for an effort to subvert the process and the rules of the Senate and the efforts that have gone on to put things into this Defense bill that should not be there.

Now, I am one who does not support drilling in ANWR. I have never voted for that. There is no relationship, in my mind, to energy independence or national security, as we look at the small amount of reserves that are there versus the tradeoff in terms of our environment and the commitment we have made as it relates to our environment. But regardless of that, that deserves a separate debate. We have had that debate on the floor of this Senate. We have had it a number of times.

People have a right to have that debate and to be able to cast their votes concerning that issue, but it should not be included in a bill to support our troops, the men and women who are serving right now around the world. They deserve better than that. We can do better than that. I would hope we could clean up this bill, get those provisions out of there that have been put in for political purposes because they have not been able to pass in other ways, and be able to strictly focus on a bill to support our men and women in the armed services.

What are some of the things in this underlying bill?

Well, it provides a 3.1-percent across-the-board pay raise for military personnel. I support that. I am sure my colleagues on both sides of the aisle do, as well.

It provides an increase for basic housing allowance to eliminate out- of-pocket housing expenses for military personnel. It is critical.

It provides $142 million for body armor and personal protection equipment. How many times have we heard concerns regarding this? This $142 million is important. It needs to get passed now. It should not be part of a political struggle that has been going on in the Senate, in the House, and with the administration.

The bill would provide $12 million to provide treatment for soldiers with head and blast injuries who are returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Again, on the equipment end, it would provide $1.4 billion for the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Task Force.

It provides $170 million for up-armored HMMWVs and another $464 million for humvee recapitalization.

It provides $293 million for Army night vision equipment.

It provides $1 billion to address equipment shortfalls for the Guard and Reserve. I can tell you, having talked with so many of our Guard and reservists, and having been there when they have left and been there when they have come home, we owe them a budget that will address the equipment shortfalls.

We also owe them efforts to support their families and the needs of their families as they have been deployed and redeployed and redeployed into Iraq and Afghanistan and around the world.

We are past time to get this done. There is no reason we should see the maneuvers going on that have gotten in the way of passing this bill.

There is no reason. I hope they do not succeed. These maneuvers should not succeed. I hope we will say no and that we will then pass quickly the bill that has been worked on in good faith by so many.

Let me give an example of another piece of legislation where this was done. I commend both the distinguished Senator from Virginia and my colleague, the distinguished Senator from Michigan, Senators Warner and Levin, who worked through a complicated Defense reauthorization bill. There were a lot of similar kinds of issues of extraneous measures being placed into that bill, but they worked through it. They kept their eye on the primary goal, which was to provide support for our men and women who are serving us, who are placed in harm's way, who are fighting terrorism, who are fighting to protect our families and our country, keep the focus on them, which they did. They have been able to produce a bill that is for the troops, for the Department of Defense, for the defense of our country, without extraneous measures in the legislation. I commend both of them for their leadership. It is an example time and again of what these two distinguished Senators have been able to do because they kept their focus where it should be--on the defense of our country and the support of those who are defending us around the globe.

Compare that to what is in front of us today. Again, these measures are worth debating. The other issues that were put into the Defense bill deserve debate, have had debate on the floor of the Senate. They deserve that debate. They deserve up-or-down votes. But to take the excellent work that has been done on the Defense appropriations bill and put these together is plain wrong. I hope we will be successful in separating these issues so that those of us who strongly support this appropriations bill, who strongly support our troops, will have an opportunity to, again, hopefully, vote yes unanimously, without the debate on other issues such as drilling in ANWR where many of us are strongly in opposition to that issue and others that were placed in this bill.

This is an opportunity for us to stand together, as we have done, as we will do on Defense reauthorization, as we have done so many times in the Senate, standing up on a bipartisan basis for our troops. I hope we will be able to do so again at the end of the day when this bill finally comes before us. I am hopeful that my colleagues will join with me in separating the controversial provisions unrelated to defense from this bill and give us the opportunity to support our men and women in the manner which they deserve.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues in honoring a man I have come to know as a colleague, a dedicated public servant, and a friend.

Jon Corzine is a shining example of the American dream--of what one can accomplish with hard work and the opportunity to obtain a good education.

Growing up in rural Illinois as the son of a corn and soybean farmer and a public school teacher, Jon Corzine learned early in life the importance of family, responsibility and service to his community.

These are the values that led him to serve his country as a member of the U.S. Marine Corps Reserves--and over the years, his strong values have guided his career in both in private industry and public service.

Jon Corzine started his career on the ground floor of American business. And even as he worked hard and achieved extraordinary success, he never lost sight of his values.

When he served as chairman and chief executive officer of Goldman Sachs, he led that company from a private partnership to a public offering. At the same time, expanded the company's philanthropic outreach efforts to better serve people in need.

He continued that important work here in the U.S. Senate, where he used his political power to fight for people without political influence. For the last 5 years, he has been a tireless advocate or veterans, seniors, students, women, children and families in New Jersey and across our Nation.

Senator Corzine and I were sworn into the Senate on the same day--and I served with him on both the Budget Committee and the Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee. There, we worked together to preserve funding for programs that help our Nation's most vulnerable citizens-- programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, veterans health care, and education.

We also worked together to lead the fight to keep the security in Social Security.

His business expertise made him a strong advocate for fiscal responsibility. He fought to get the national debt under control so we could preserve and create opportunities for our Nation's young people-- rather than saddle them with the burden of our government's debts.

He has lived the American dream and continues to work hard to ensure that others have a chance to live it too.

Jon Corzine is a thoughtful, hard-working man who worked with his colleagues from both sides of the political spectrum to do the right thing for the people of New Jersey and this Nation.

I am honored to have him as a friend and a colleague--and I wish him well in his new role as Governor of New Jersey.

I add my comments, along with my friends and colleagues in the Senate, for someone who has become a personal friend, as well as someone I admire greatly and that we are going to greatly miss. New Jersey is very lucky to have Jon Corzine coming in as Governor of that great State.

Senator Corzine and I have worked together both on the Committee on the Budget and on the Committee on Banking. I can say it is true what Senator Sarbanes said, that even though he sat at the end of the table at the Committee on Banking and we were squeezed in with our staff trying to make sure we did not fall off the end of the platform, I always knew when the person at the end was about to speak and ask his questions, there was going to be silence in the room and tremendous respect for what he was going to say and concern about whether they would be able to effectively answer his questions, as the witnesses were answering various questions concerning finances.

To watch Senator Corzine work has been to watch an example of what we want in public service. To see someone who grew up in a small town-- like I did in Michigan--growing up in a small town, serve his country in the Marines, as so many of my colleagues have. I am particularly proud of the people on the Democrat side of the aisle who have served in public service as it relates to our Armed Services and continue to bring that perspective and support today.

But certainly Senator Corzine is one of them. And to go on to be so incredibly successful in business, and then to bring that expertise here on behalf of the people of New Jersey to work with all of us I think is an example of a tremendously great American success story. I am proud to have worked with Senator Corzine and look forward to working with him as the Governor of New Jersey.

I will simply echo my colleagues in saying, when we talk about corporate responsibility and accountability, Senator Corzine and his expertise has been there. Housing, public transit, homeland security, his passion for Social Security, addressing so many different issues that are important to people, important to communities, important to our democracy, have had the voice of Jon Corzine.

So I congratulate you on your service. I congratulate the people of New Jersey on the public service that is to come. And, mostly, I thank Jon Corzine for his generosity of heart and for his willingness to invest in so many ways to better the community with his own resources. This is someone who has been incredibly generous and caring and smart and compassionate and dedicated to the right values that we all care about deeply.

I know he is going to do an outstanding job as Governor and that we will all be better off for his public service.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Morris K. Udall Parkinson's Disease Research Act Amendments of 2005. I am pleased to be joined in this endeavor by my colleague, Senator Smith, who co- chairs the Senate Parkinson's Caucus with me, as well as Senators Murray, Lautenberg, McCain, and Coleman as co-sponsors.

Monday, December 12, marked the anniversary of the death of Mo Udall of Arizona, an amazing congressman and champion of the environment who passed away from Parkinson's in 1998. In recognition of Congressman Udall, Senators Wellstone and McCain introduced the Morris K. Udall Parkinson's Research Act of 1997, which expanded basic and clinical research by establishing Udall Centers of Excellence around the nation to further scientific advances against Parkinson's.

In the United States, an estimated 60,000 new cases are diagnosed each year, joining the 1.5 million Americans who currently have Parkinson's disease. I know first-hand the anguish that a family goes through when a loved one is struck with this horrible disease as my grandmother had Parkinson's.

Top scientists say that Parkinson's is one of the first neurological diseases that could be cured but only if the resources are there. The legislation I am introducing today will help give scientists the tools they need by building on the original Parkinson's Research Act. The Udall Act Amendments Act does not call for additional spending. Rather, my bill makes targeted, process-oriented changes to maximize the federal dollars already spent on Parkinson's research.

I am also pleased to have the support of the entire Parkinson's patient community, including the Parkinson's Action Network, Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson's Research, Parkinson's Disease Foundation, National Parkinson Foundation, Parkinson Alliance, and American Parkinson Disease Association.

Additionally, I am pleased to have the support of Henry Ford Health System. Michigan universities and research institutions are leading the Nation in cutting-edge research into health care, and Henry Ford is doing amazing work in Parkinson's research and epidemiology. The William T. Gossett Parkinson's Disease Center at Henry Ford provides comprehensive, experienced, and individualized diagnostic and therapeutic services to patients with Parkinson's disease and other movement disorders. State-of-the-art clinical programs are provided at Henry Ford Hospital, the Henry Ford Medical Center in West Bloomfield, and the Allen Park Neurology Center.

I ask unanimous consent that the text the bill and the support letters be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Morris K. Udall Parkinson's Disease Research Act Amendments of 2005. I am pleased to be joined in this endeavor by my colleague, Senator Smith, who co- chairs the Senate Parkinson's Caucus with me, as well as Senators Murray, Lautenberg, McCain, and Coleman as co-sponsors.

Monday, December 12, marked the anniversary of the death of Mo Udall of Arizona, an amazing congressman and champion of the environment who passed away from Parkinson's in 1998. In recognition of Congressman Udall, Senators Wellstone and McCain introduced the Morris K. Udall Parkinson's Research Act of 1997, which expanded basic and clinical research by establishing Udall Centers of Excellence around the nation to further scientific advances against Parkinson's.

In the United States, an estimated 60,000 new cases are diagnosed each year, joining the 1.5 million Americans who currently have Parkinson's disease. I know first-hand the anguish that a family goes through when a loved one is struck with this horrible disease as my grandmother had Parkinson's.

Top scientists say that Parkinson's is one of the first neurological diseases that could be cured but only if the resources are there. The legislation I am introducing today will help give scientists the tools they need by building on the original Parkinson's Research Act. The Udall Act Amendments Act does not call for additional spending. Rather, my bill makes targeted, process-oriented changes to maximize the federal dollars already spent on Parkinson's research.

I am also pleased to have the support of the entire Parkinson's patient community, including the Parkinson's Action Network, Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson's Research, Parkinson's Disease Foundation, National Parkinson Foundation, Parkinson Alliance, and American Parkinson Disease Association.

Additionally, I am pleased to have the support of Henry Ford Health System. Michigan universities and research institutions are leading the Nation in cutting-edge research into health care, and Henry Ford is doing amazing work in Parkinson's research and epidemiology. The William T. Gossett Parkinson's Disease Center at Henry Ford provides comprehensive, experienced, and individualized diagnostic and therapeutic services to patients with Parkinson's disease and other movement disorders. State-of-the-art clinical programs are provided at Henry Ford Hospital, the Henry Ford Medical Center in West Bloomfield, and the Allen Park Neurology Center.

I ask unanimous consent that the text the bill and the support letters be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to celebrate the sesquicentennial, the 150th anniversary, of my alma mater, Michigan State University, MSU.

Located on the banks of the Red Cedar River, Michigan State University was the first agricultural college in the Nation and the prototype for land-grant institutions later established under the Morrill Act of 1862. In fact, in the mid 1950s, the U.S. Postal Service honored Michigan State University with a postage stamp commemorating it as the original land-grant university.

The land-grant philosophy is rooted in the principle to extend the values of education to all who seek it, and the Morrill Act grew out of a movement to bring benefits of education to rural areas. The original tract of land in 1855 for my nascent college, then known as the Agricultural College of the State of Michigan, consisted of 677 acres. Additional lands were purchased, and presently, the combined size of Michigan State lands--from its central campus to its research stations around the state--totals close to 20,000 acres across Michigan. As the campus has grown, so has Michigan State's imprint on the world through its commitment to its students and its offering of a quality, public higher education to all.

Academically, MSU students and colleges are highly regarded. The university has had more Rhodes Scholars than any other Big Ten Conference university in the past generation. U.S. News & World Report ranks 10 of MSU's graduate departments in the Top 10 in their field nationally. On an international note, the University's Study Abroad program is the largest of any public university in the Nation, offering more than 190 programs in more than 60 countries on all continents, including Antarctica. Furthermore, MSU is proud to have the highest percentage of in-state students among Michigan universities, with many of those who receive a bachelor's degree from MSU staying and working in the state.

The University has a notable and strong athletic history. In its 108- year football history, Michigan State has won six NCAA national football championships, while last year, both its men's and women's basketball teams made it to their respective and coveted Final Four tournaments. Sparty the Spartan is Michigan State University's fearless and loveable mascot, a figure known throughout the State of Michigan and recognized across the Nation as well. Sparty is the heart of Michigan State, forever supporting its teams, bringing smiles to young and old and continually uplifting all who meet him.

The State of Michigan has always been the ``first beneficiary'' of MSU's

high-quality academic programs and its global networks. But it is through those networks that MSU also is engaged with the world beyond the boundaries of its campus. Michigan State has built partnerships across the Nation and around the globe that fulfill its land-grant responsibilities to an international society and at the same time rebound benefits to Michigan, working in ways that will bring my constituents the greatest value and return, ways that will strengthen our communities, fuel our economy and provide all of our citizens with a better quality of life.

As I applaud today the deep history and strength of Michigan State University, I know its best days are still before it. From this Spartan, I wish Michigan State University a most wonderful sesquicentennial.

Mr. President, I want to commend the leadership of Senators Enzi, Kennedy, Frist, and Clinton in this critically important arena. Their diligent work in introducing and passing S. 1418 establishes the groundwork necessary to begin to realize the promises of health information technology, IT.

The evidence showing the ability of health IT to reduce costs and improve quality of care is simply overwhelming. Dr. David Brailer's office attributes savings from widespread adoption of electronic health records in the range of 7.5 percent to 30 percent of annual health care spending that is between $135 and $540 billion annually.

Manufacturers in Michigan and across the country are struggling to remain competitive in a global market with skyrocketing health care costs. Health IT can, and should, play a key role in managing these costs.

Equally compelling is the promise health IT holds for improving the quality of our health care system by ensuring that patients get the care they need, at the right time, and in the best setting.

To realize these promises, however, Congress must enact legislation providing meaningful resources through Federal financial incentives, both mandatory grants and tax incentives, to physicians, hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, and community health and mental health centers for health information technology.

Health care providers are struggling to keep up with their daily needs at the same time they are anticipating cuts in their rates. A major barrier to widespread use of IT is the initial investment cost: the costs of procuring and implementing health IT can be staggering.

Every day we delay providing Federal seed money through a grant program and accelerated depreciation of health information technology expenses, we delay getting health information technology systems in place, and businesses, taxpayers and patients pay in both dollars and lives.

I appreciate the majority leader's commitment to encourage the chairman and ranking member of the Finance Committee and the chairman and ranking member of the HELP Committee to schedule, at the earliest opportunity, consideration of legislative proposals to ensure federal funding to accelerate adoption of health IT.

A meaning Federal investment must be robust, funded with mandatory, rather than discretionary, dollars, and available to individual providers and health care systems.

This is not the place to skimp on dollars; we know every dollar we spend will come back to us many times over. Federal investments, through grants and tax incentives, in health information technology will result in lower Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP spending, reduced medical errors, and greater quality and efficiency in our health care system. We must provide a level of funding that will allow a significant percentage of our health care providers to adopt and use health IT systems. Additionally, funding must not be limited to authorizations of appropriations. We must actually provide the dollars needed to begin realizing the benefits of health IT.

Nor should we limit funds to providers in networks. We should work towards a system where all health care providers are linked, but we do not need to wait for those networks to be formed to see the benefits of health IT. Standalone e-prescribing systems could reduce medication errors by 50 percent; there is no reason to delay the quality, safety, and financial savings possible through immediate health IT adoption by individual providers.

In addition to funding, we must pay careful attention to privacy and confidentiality rights and concerns. A patient's right to health information privacy is paramount, and an essential component of the health care provider-patient relationship. According to a survey recently released by the California HealthCare Foundation, CHCF, 67 percent of Americans remain concerned about the privacy of their personal health information. The survey also reports that many consumers may be putting their health at risk by avoiding their regular doctor or forgoing needed tests over privacy concerns. Apprehension over privacy and confidentiality, if not addressed thoughtfully, could pose enormous barriers to the savings and health care improvements possible through adoption of health information technologies. Strong, enforceable privacy safeguards based on a patient's right to health information privacy are absolutely critical as we move towards a nationwide, interoperable electronic health care system.

I appreciate provisions included in the managers' amendment addressing the need for patients to be notified if their individually identifiable health information is wrongfully disclosed and a study by the General Accounting Office examining the issue as it relates to all Americans.

I look forward to working with the majority leader, and Senators Snowe, Enzi, Kennedy, and Clinton, as well as Senator Grassley and Baucus to ensure passage of legislation this Congress providing meaningful, substantial Federal financial incentives to accelerate adoption of life and dollar saving health information technologies.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following my remarks, Senator Durbin be recognized.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, President Bush arrived in Japan today and will meet tomorrow with Prime Minister Koizumi. Later this week, he will travel to China to meet with their President as well. It is time that we insist that the President use this opportunity, this important opportunity, to demand changes, changes in our economic relationship with China and with Japan. The President needs to say, as he is there with those leaders, that we will no longer accept their illegal trade practices that are costing American jobs, and we demand that changes be made; we no longer accept the fact that China and Japan manipulate their currency, which means their products are artificially lower than ours when they sell them into this country; we no longer accept that they are stealing our patents and our intellectual property.

Last week, I was pleased to author a letter to the President with that very message on behalf of myself and 14 other Senators, urging him to make 2 major changes in our relationship with these important nations: No. 1, we need to end the rampant counterfeiting of American products that is occurring in China. It is estimated that 7 percent of world trade is in counterfeit goods, that the counterfeit market is worth $350 billion. It is estimated that in the auto industry alone, we lose over $12 billion annually to counterfeit auto parts, parts that are unsafe as well as costing us jobs. If you stop this illegal activity, the auto industry could hire an additional 200,000 workers-- 200,000 workers in Michigan. That would equal our ability to cut our unemployment rate by two-thirds--200,000 people who are now challenged with losing their way of life, trying to figure out what they are going to do if they are making half or a third less of what they used to make because of what is happening in manufacturing in our country. People are paying more for health care and may very well lose their pension.

We can do something about this if we simply change our relationship and send a strong message that we are going to put American businesses and American workers first. Our middle class clearly was built on manufacturing, and our manufacturers are having a hard time these days.

It is critical that we continue to manufacture in this country. Is it changing? Has it changed? Of course, it is now high-tech manufacturing. When you walk into an automobile factory, it looks very different-- quiet, clean, computers, highly skilled workers--but we have to maintain a strong, vibrant manufacturing economy. We cannot just step back and say we are going to be a service economy now and let the rest of the world make things and grow things. That will lead to what is now becoming a race to the bottom for American families.

The Economist Magazine recently reported a disturbing fact. This year, manufacturing jobs in the United States dropped below 10 percent of the population for the first time in history. This is not acceptable if we are going to continue to have our way of life in this country, and it is not necessary. If anyone believes that the middle class in this country can survive without a vibrant manufacturing sector, they are mistaken. As I indicated, we must make things in this country and add value to it as we do so, as well as grow things. That is a foundation of our economy, and that is what has created the wonderful middle class and the wonderful way of life we have enjoyed for so long as Americans.

We can do better than this policy that is currently in place.

The President must demand that China and Japan stop manipulating their currency. When they undervalue their currency, it makes U.S. exports to China artificially more expensive and places U.S. manufacturers at an unfair disadvantage in the Chinese market. It also makes their imports to us artificially less expensive, hurting manufacturers and costing American jobs. When they undervalue their currency, it is essentially an illegal subsidy of imports from China and a large tax on U.S. exports to China, and we need to call it the way it is. The President needs to be in China and call it for what it is.

We are projected to finish this year with a record trade deficit of more than $700 billion. That is more than the budget deficit, up $100 billion over the record $618 billion last year. China accounts for $200 billion of this deficit, more than a quarter of the total trade deficit in our country. China is the largest contributor to the U.S. current account trade deficit, and therefore adjustment of its currency has to be a part of anything we do in revitalizing the manufacturing sector.

China is not the only offender here. In 2003, the Bank of Japan spent $190 billion in global currency markets in order to manipulate and artificially weaken the yen. Japan continues this practice today by talking down the value of their currency, promising intervention if the yen moves out of a predetermined trading range.

The President must insist that this stop if we are going to continue to have a relationship, an economic relationship with both of these countries. In

fact, we can do something about currency manipulation right now. Every 6 months, the Secretary of the Treasury submits a report to us as to whether countries are manipulating. We expect to have a report in front of us this month, the month of November. Unfortunately, I expect it to say what it has always said, which is technically they are doing what we all know that they are doing, we all know. Any businessperson in my State can tell you that China is manipulating their currency. Talk to people in the auto industry, they will talk about Japan. And yet our own Treasury Secretary will not certify it is happening, giving us the tools to enforce against this illegal trade practice.

Let me be very clear. Currency manipulation kills American jobs, and it is illegal, it is illegal under the WTO and IMF obligations. China says they want to be a part of the world community, the world marketplace. They have been allowed to do that. We now need to say to them very strongly, with this opportunity comes the responsibility to follow the rules.

One of the things that is extremely concerning to me, when you look at currency manipulations, we have lost over 1.5 million manufacturing jobs because of this one policy that is illegal. The Treasury Secretary can do something about that by simply certifying that it is happening, and the President of the United States right now this week can look the President of China in the eye and say this is no longer going to be tolerated by the United States of America, we will not continue to lose manufacturing jobs and our quality of life in this country because they are not following the rules. Cheating is no longer allowed by China and by Japan.

The bottom line is we can no longer continue to sit on the sidelines while our trading partners continue to artificially control prices, look the other way when it comes time to enforce intellectual property rights, and fail to live up to their obligations under the WTO and the IMF. It is not acceptable to say that we are going to throw open our economy in the international marketplace and not care what the rules are.

Every other country cares what the rules are. The European Union took us to court because they felt we were unfairly subsidizing our businesses. They won. We changed our tax laws. We are the only country that does not seem to have policies that get it. This administration doesn't understand they are supposed to be on the same side of the table with American workers and American businesses. It is time for that to happen. I urge the President to act now before our manufacturing economy and our middle-class way of life is taken from us.

Current Federal policies are based on a philosophy that says to Americans, you are on your own in a global economy; you are on your own, good luck. To American manufacturers, you are on your own; American workers, you are on your own.

Mr. President, I believe that we are in this thing together, and Americans understand that we have a stake in what the rules are and an economy that works for everybody, an economy that puts Americans and American businesses first so that we can continue the great way of life that we have had in this country. Americans know that we are in it together and that together America can do better. I call upon the President to join us in the fight for our way of life in America.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I join my colleague in coming here to speak for a moment about Social Security. Just as my esteemed colleague from North Dakota said he had not originally intended to speak tonight, I did not intend to speak as well. But for all of us who are so proud of the great American success story called Social Security, and for all of us who understand how it does represent the best about us, we want to have an opportunity to say that tonight because there has been a lot of misinformation, unfortunately, I believe, a mischaracterization on the other side of the aisle.

The fact is, Social Security is based on what is best about us: You work all your life. You pay into a system. And then you know you have dignity in your retirement. You also know, because this is really an insurance policy, that if you become disabled, Heaven forbid, Social Security can step in for you, for your family. If the wage earner in the family loses their life, Heaven forbid, their children, their spouse are able to receive assistance to be able to help them from moving back into poverty, because it is an insurance system. It is basically an economic insurance policy. And it has been one of the great American success stories.

The reality is, without Social Security, about 48 percent of those who are now on Social Security would be in poverty. Today, with Social Security, about 9 percent of older Americans and the disabled are in poverty. We know this number needs to be lower. But this is a great American success story.

At a time when there is so much upheaval in so many people's lives--I know in my home State of Michigan, my great State of Michigan, there are so many families today that feel the rug is being pulled out from under them because the jobs they have had and worked hard at all their lives are either going overseas or they are being told they are going to have to work for $9 or $10 an hour. Their health care costs are going up or maybe they are losing their insurance. Their pensions are threatened or maybe gone because of the bankruptcies of companies that have then dumped the pensions into a pension guaranty fund.

With all of this insecurity and challenge families face in fighting to keep the American dream and the American way of life, the one constant we have had is knowing that there is Social Security, that we have paid into a system, and that it will be there for us. There is absolutely no reason that Social Security will not be there for us, as long as we do not privatize it or undermine it, as has been proposed by colleagues on the other side of the aisle.

We are in a situation today where Social Security and the security of Social Security is needed more than ever. I will never forget talking with a group of people who were mid-level executives at Enron--I know, unfortunately, this story can be told and will be told across Michigan as well--folks who worked all their lives, invested in the company, as they were told to do, did all the right things, they are near retirement, and now it is gone.

One gentleman, with tears in his eyes, said to me: Thank God for Social Security; that is all I have left. Too many Americans find themselves in that situation now. I believe we should be doing something about that as well. Earlier this evening, I spoke on the floor about what we need to do to turn that around: enforcing trade policies, changing the way we fund health care, investing in education and innovation, protecting the pensions of those who have worked hard all their lives. But the reality is, Social Security is a very important part of that picture.

Now, it is a value as well as a program. It represents what is best about us. And we have choices about whether we want to keep it secure and keep it as a priority. Back during the budget debate this year, our ranking member, Senator Conrad, and I offered an amendment to secure Social Security first before going on with other tax cuts that have been proposed for those most blessed in our country, those, in fact, who do not have to worry about whether Social Security will be there for them.

We indicated, as you can see by looking at this chart, that in order to keep Social Security secure for the next 75 years, it will cost $4 trillion. That is compared to the President's tax cuts: If they are made permanent--the overwhelming majority of them going to the top ``incomers,'' those most blessed economically in our country--it will cost $11.6 trillion, if we decide as the majority, our Republican colleagues, appear to be doing, to extend these tax cuts permanently.

If we instead were to say, wait a minute, we are going to fully fund Social Security first before any of this happens--even if we said to those most blessed in our country, instead of $11.6 trillion in tax breaks, let us take $4 trillion off of that--they would have $7.6 trillion. It seems to me, at a minimum, that would be a choice worth making in order to make sure every single American knows that Social Security is secure.

All of the decisions we make in this Chamber are based on our values and our philosophy. Social Security represents our basic belief that we are in it together as a country, that it does matter what happens to other people. We are not in it alone.

I believe the efforts being proposed on the other side of the aisle represent a very different philosophy that says: You are on your own, buddy, unless you are our buddy.

The reality is that Social Security represents a value that says we are in it together and that together America can do better. That is what Social Security is about. It has worked. It has proved the philosophy that together America does better.

So I am hopeful our colleagues will choose, in the waning days of this session, to move on to join us in the great debate of keeping American jobs in America, supporting our American businesses, our American manufacturers that need our help now, and making sure we have a pension bill that works for all of our businesses and all of our workers, showing that we value and want to make sure the promises of pensions, which so many workers have paid into all of their lives, are kept. Let's work on that rather than undermining a great American success story called Social Security.