Floor Statements

First, thanks to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for arranging in this incredibly important debate, Senator Kyl and Senator Dorgan, for bringing us together in this way.

Social Security is a great American success story. Senator Durbin and I, while we were not around when it was created, are very proud of the fact that we as Democrats led the way to create a great American success story. Our goal today is to keep the security in Social Security. That is the fundamental issue, I believe, for each American family.

We are very proud of the fact that Social Security is a great American success story because prior to Social Security, half of the seniors in our country, half of older Americans, were in poverty. Today it is about 10 percent. We still need to work on the 10 percent but this is a great American success story. We want to make sure nothing is done to unravel this.

It is important we have this debate, though, and we talk about the fact that Social Security is America's insurance policy. It is our families' insurance policy because it is more than just retirement, which is so critical. But it is also a disability policy. Most of us do not have a private disability policy. In fact, 75 percent of us do not. It is a disability policy; it is a survivors policy.

Heaven forbid if mom or dad lose their life, where they are not there to care for their children. In fact, in my husband's own family, when he was 10 years old, his father died. His mom was older and not well, and he and his mom literally survived on Social Security.

This is a great American success story. Anything we do that pulls dollars out of an insurance policy will cut those who are left. No matter how forcefully the President or our colleagues say that somehow some folks can be protected, when you pull dollars out of an insurance system, it is not possible. I think it is very important for us to understand that as well.

Also, we can each have our own opinions but not our own facts. There are a couple of different numbers floating around, but I would suggest to you that the folks whom we are obligated to look to, the Congressional Budget Office--the folks where nobody is appointed by the President, such as the Social Security trustees--those who are the nonpartisan folks we refer to all the time, they tell us, as has been said, that the trust fund can pay 100 percent of its obligations until 2052, and after that, if nothing was done, it would be about 80 percent, maybe 78, 80 percent the trust fund could pay.

There is no question there is a gap, and we are here to say we want to work with you to address that gap. That is what we ought to be doing.

What we know, and the President has already admitted, as have others, is the privatization scheme proposed does nothing to fix this; nothing. It does not add a day, does not add an hour to 2052. In fact, it makes it worse.

There is a solution. In fact, there are a number of things we can talk about. But 2 weeks ago we had a vote on the floor on the budget resolution. This was a vote based on an amendment that Senator Kent Conrad and I had to put Social Security first. I know people are concerned about Social Security, those who support continuing it. But the reality is, we had a vote 2 weeks ago on an amendment that simply said, before we permanently extend tax cuts predominantly to those most blessed in our country, who are the least worried about Social Security, or before we add new mandatory spending, we should secure Social Security first.

It is staggering when we look at the differences in values and priorities in this Congress and with the administration. Mr. President, $3.7 trillion is a lot of money; $3.7 trillion would secure Social Security for 75 years. That is, what, a third, a third maybe, of what we are going to be asked to vote on later this year and beyond to extend tax breaks predominantly for the wealthiest Americans for 75 years.

What are our values? What are our priorities? What does this say about us as a country? We can easily, by putting Social Security first, fill that gap for 75 years. And I believe we ought to do it.

Specifically, on why privatization is something that does not make sense. Privatization does three things we are concerned about: It increases the national debt drastically; it increases administrative costs; and it adds deep benefit cuts. No matter who says, ``We'll protect this group or that group, these folks will be OK,'' if you take money out of the insurance system, everybody gets cut. That is the reality.

The first thing is the budget deficit, the deficit for the country. When we look at what is happening right now, it is astounding. We have the largest Federal deficit right now in the history of the country. We should all be extremely concerned about it. It is $4.6 trillion, projected. This adds, over 20 years, another $4.9 trillion. It more than doubles the national deficit in order to do privatization.

One of the things I am particularly worried about, both as a member of the Banking Committee and a member of the Budget Committee, is who is buying that debt? Who is buying that debt from us? This is at a time when we are concerned about national security and trade deficits and what is happening around the world.

Well, the top two folks buying it are Japan and China. But can you imagine, South Korea and OPEC own some of our deficit. What happens when we add more to that deficit? And what happens when foreign countries buy more and more of our debt? This is a bad idea to add more to our debt.

Let me add a couple of points.

I will do that later. Thank you.

Mr. President, to follow up on the fact that we are hearing that there is no money in the trust fund, I am quite shocked to hear that because back in the 1980s, when the decision was made to come together, President Reagan, based on Alan Greenspan's commission, with Bob Dole and Tip O'Neill, they came together and on purpose designed a system to create surpluses for all of us baby boomers so there would be more dollars available in a surplus. And, in fact, what the President looks at, of course, just like when you go to a bank, you don't look in and just see dollars because there are investments being made and so on.

In the Social Security trust fund, individuals have been given secured bonds, the equivalent of a secured bond, an IOU, each one of us as individuals, with the full faith and credit of the United States behind it.

My question is this: We are giving those same kinds of assurances to those who buy our foreign debt, that we have the full faith and credit of the United States behind it. Would you suggest that we would pay China back and Japan back and our foreign creditors before we would pay back the people of America who have paid into the Social Security trust fund and have been given a secured IOU?

Mr. President, first I say to my friend and colleague, I am shocked to hear him say the people of America who have paid into the Social Security trust fund, the baby boomers, do not have a secured obligation by all of us. Is the Senator saying whether it is moral or whether it is legal, or is he saying we do not have to pay those benefits? He is actually saying that for the folks who have paid in as baby boomers that we are not obligated to pay those benefits?

I want to make it clear that we Democrats believe with all our hearts and souls we have a responsibility to pay and we will pay those obligations. To somehow say that it is different to pay a foreign country than it is to pay our own people the obligations when they are both secured obligations--this is not something written down on a little piece of paper. This is a secured obligation with the full faith and credit of the United States of America behind it.

So I ask my colleague in return, the simple thing to do here, the very simple thing to do would be to go back and vote again on simply making a policy statement. Why didn't my colleagues, either of my colleagues, vote to say ``put Social Security first,'' let's make sure we secure the obligation, keep it secure for 75 years, and then we can give 70 percent of the tax cuts; to say to those most blessed in this country, will you take 70 percent of $11.6 trillion rather than 100 percent so every single person cannot only have retirement, but have a disability policy, have survivor benefits?

Isn't that based on the great values of America in terms of paying into a system, knowing it is going to be there, working hard all your life and creating a way for people to care about each other and have community? To me this would be the easiest thing, and we could do it tomorrow if we had the votes to do it.

Mr. President, given the fact the President has indicated that the privatized accounts do not solve the solvency problem for Social Security, and given the fact that at this point colleagues have said they are not interested in putting Social Security first before additional tax cuts or new mandatory spending, what would my colleagues' proposals be at this point? Assuming the privatized accounts, as has been said--that is a philosophical difference; folks may or may not wish to privatize Social Security, but it does not add a day to the solvency of the Social Security trust fund.

I ask my colleagues, what would your proposals to protect and secure Social Security be for the future?

With all due respect, I am trying to figure out the new math in my head because the math that the Senator is talking about certainly does not add up to anything that I have seen. I would encourage folks who are watching to go to democrats.gov and use the calculator based on a 6-percent rate of growth that some financial folks put together where they can put in their date of birth and their average yearly earnings and find out for themselves how they would do. So far we have not found anybody who does better under these privatized accounts.

So when one is talking about what we ought to do, we need to start with the reality that the privatized accounts turn Social Security from a guaranteed benefit into a guaranteed gamble, No. 1. Secondly, there is nothing in what the Senator is talking about that has a relationship to what we are hearing about these private accounts.

I said to Secretary Snow in a committee hearing that I understand folks have to pay some of this back, so let me give an example. My daughter is 25. Let us say I give her $1,000. At retirement I tell her I want the $1,000 back, 3-percent interest, plus inflation. Is that what you are talking about? And he basically said yes. He did not disagree with that.

What we are seeing is a lot of hocus-pocus, a lot of where is the pea on the table moving things around. Of course, we have nothing specifically in writing yet from the President, which is one of the problems. But what we are seeing is a lot of talk that does not have a relationship to reality. The reality is that for the first time, in 2017 we begin to dip into the surplus that the Senator and I have been paying into as baby boomers all of our working lives. It is a commitment. It is a secured obligation and we are going to pay that to folks.

So the question is, what happens in 2052 when that surplus is no longer available? And if we can take privatization off the table, the Senator has very willing and able colleagues on this side of the aisle who want to work with the Senator to do those things that will secure it for the future.

I will answer that for my colleague. As Senator Durbin just said to me on the side, it will not be privatization, and that is absolutely true. The American people, American families, can absolutely count on the fact that it will not be privatizing Social Security.

I would argue that the amendment we put up 2 weeks ago that simply says in the overall budget process, which is the value system for our country, the blueprint, is represented in what we do in our Federal checkpoint. The reality is, if we said we were going to take about 30 percent of what is being given over the next 75 years to those most blessed in this country, who are not worried about Social Security or Medicare or other kinds of opportunities, if we just ask them to take a little bit less, we would be able to secure Social Security for 75 years.

The other thing I would say about the issue of asking folks about pensions, we have all been told by our folks that retirement is about a three-legged stool: Social Security, pension, and savings. When it comes to savings, the risk is with us to save. I believe we ought to create more opportunities for that. When it comes to pensions today for workers, it is becoming more of a risk for the worker, not a defined benefit but a defined contribution.

The leg of the stool that has been secure, that we will fight to keep secure, is Social Security. I will never forget people working for Enron who came into my office 2 years ago, men in their fifties who worked all their lives and played by the rules and invested in their company, and one man with tears in his eyes said to me: Thank God for Social Security. It is the only thing I have left, and I never thought I would be in this situation.

Social Security is not a 401(k). It is not meant to be a pension system. It is America's families' life insurance policy, retirement disability, and survivor's benefits. It has worked now for years and years. The issue is how do we keep it going.

Mr. President, I thank you and my colleagues very much. This is an important debate, and I appreciate being able to participate in it.

The President's privatized accounts, we know, will do three things, and that is why my colleagues and I are opposed to the privatized accounts.

First of all, they will greatly increase the national debt. In fact, do you know what folks are going to own with this? Seventeen thousand dollars more in debt for every man, woman, and child in the United States. That is what they are going to own. It is a lot more debt and a lot higher interest rates as a result of this plan. This is a bad idea.

The other thing that doesn't make any sense to me is that right now Social Security, which is retirement--and we do have a secured obligation to make sure that we pay it, but it is retirement, disability, and it is a life insurance policy. For that we pay about a half a percent in administration. On average we are told that it could be upwards of 20 percent, maybe 10, maybe 25, but we are told by the experts, 20 percent in order to administer an annuity or other kind of private account.

One of the things I find interesting is that among folks who are really pushing for this idea around here are those folks who would be paid to administer these accounts. I understand we now have something like five financial services lobbyists for every one Senator now here on Capitol Hill. Certainly there are folks who will make a lot of money from this, but it is wrong. This system works right now and we pay a half a percent.

The final thing I would say is it is estimated that the average person over 20 years, the average retiree, will lose $152,000 under the approach the President is talking about. This is wrong. This is not better for people. This is, in fact, worse.

I agree with my colleagues, and in fact let me also say I would welcome folks going to my Web site or any of my colleagues' Web sites to learn more about Social Security and the facts. We do need to be working together, not only to secure Social Security for the future past 2052, but we also need to work on those other ideas that create opportunity for people. One of my great concerns is that one-third of the cuts proposed by the President in the budget are in education. That is opportunity. That is the opportunity for ownership in the future. Why don't we focus on jobs and health care and those things immediately that need to be addressed?

We welcome those debates as well and we welcome working with our colleagues to keep the security in Social Security.

I thank the Chair.

First I say to our esteemed colleague who chairs the Budget Committee, I think, as I have said before, he has done an excellent job on the committee and the floor in allowing important discussions and input. We all know this is about choices and priorities. We last year passed the tax loophole closings, as they have been called, some $23 billion in a business tax bill, a tax bill that I supported that did not end up becoming law. We have already joined saying there are dollars we believe would better be spent in other ways, in fairness from a tax standpoint that tax loopholes should be closed, and those equal more than what we are talking about here in terms of health care for our most vulnerable citizens.

We also, as my colleague from New Jersey has said, have choices in this country about where everyone will contribute to the quality of life, what it means to be an American, to the strength of America, to what we are proud of and our best values, or whether only some people will do that. This is a debate about values and choices. That is what a budget resolution is. It is a picture of who we are. It is a picture of our values. I can't think of anything that is worse in this budget resolution than the picture that says for the most vulnerable children, the poorest children, or poorest seniors in the country, we are going to take away health care for them. That doesn't fit with what I know about my faith and beliefs about helping the least of these. It does not reflect what the people of Michigan believe about what is important in supporting each other in community and caring about each other.

In a way it balances priorities. Obviously, we want dollars that are spent efficiently and effectively, and we want to give the States flexibility. In my home State, I am very proud of what they have been able to do in bulk purchasing for prescription drugs under Medicaid and working with other States and saving dollars, and we certainly know we want flexibility for them under Medicaid. But we also know that Medicaid is the single greatest provider of health insurance, covering over 21 million children, our future; 800,000 children in Michigan, our future. How many times do we say children are our future?

Well, this budget does not reflect that. It does not reflect that as it relates to funding their future skills and technology and education, and it certainly doesn't reflect their future if you are a poor child whose parents do not have health care.

Let me speak about a couple of people in Michigan. Betty Counts, who lives in Detroit with her daughter Yvette, who has mental and physical handicaps, is quoted in the Detroit News as saying, ``It's getting more frustrating trying to get the services I need and the help my daughter needs.'' And the budget cuts will certainly make things worse for her.

Ask Jimia Williams how much Medicaid means to her. She lives in Flint and has a 19-month-old son who has seizures and asthma. She works 35 to 40 hours a week--and most of the people we are talking about are people who are working; 80 percent of the uninsured are working 1 job, 2 jobs, 3 jobs that do not provide health insurance--but her only source of health insurance right now is Medicaid. Medicaid pays for her young son to see a neurologist and get treatments for his seizures and his asthma, and it also pays for his medication, inhalers for both of them. She said, ``Without Medicaid I would not be able to pay for my son's medical needs.''

I could go on to so many different situations, but the bottom line of this vote is about our values and our choices.

This amendment reflects what is best about America. I urge its adoption.

Mr. President, will my friend from Oregon yield for a moment?

Mr. President, I rise to thank the Senator from Oregon for his leadership. He and the Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Bingaman, have led an effort I am proud to cosponsor. His eloquence is meaningful. This is an opportunity for us to work in a bipartisan way, to lay out a process to achieve what we all want in terms of efficiencies, but to do it in a way that is thoughtful, caring, and appropriate, and to allow us to make the best decisions without hurting the most vulnerable people in this country.

I thank the Senator for his leadership.

Madam President, I appreciate very much having an opportunity to support this amendment and to be a cosponsor. I thank my colleague from Maryland for his leadership.

This is a small way in which we support local communities to create jobs, revitalize neighborhoods, support infrastructure, water, sewer, roads--those things that help create jobs.

From the highlights of the 2004 CDBG accomplishments, they show very specifically that they created or had the retention of more than 90,000 jobs last year. In a State like Michigan, this is incredibly important. Over 130,000 rental units and single-family homes were rehabbed, 85,000 individuals received employment training, 1.5 million children were served with afterschool enrichment programs, childcare services were provided to over 100,000 children and their families, 700 crime prevention and awareness programs, and 11,000 Americans became homeowners.

What is more important to each of us as parents than to be able to make sure we have shelter and a home for our children?

These are partnerships with local communities, small amounts of revenue that we bring together with our communities to make major impacts on the quality of life. That is what we are about--to partner with our local communities.

I urge the support of the amendment.

As the cosponsor with my colleague from Missouri, I would appreciate a couple of minutes to speak on the Talent-Stabenow amendment before proceeding with the other amendments.

I ask for 2 minutes off the resolution.

To my colleagues, I rise to speak in support of the Talent-Stabenow amendment. It is very simple, as my colleague indicated. It is extremely important as the Senate begins the work of SAFETEA transportation legislation.

As in past resolutions, the current budget resolution in the reserve fund section allows the budget chairman to make adjustments to the surface transportation allocation. However, this budget resolution as written ties the hands of the Finance Committee and restricts the transportation funding options available to them such as using interest from the highway trust fund and drawing down the trust fund balance.

All the Talent-Stabenow amendment would do is modify the language to put all the funding options on the table. This change would be identical to the provision in the current House budget resolution and what has been included in past House and Senate budget resolutions.

We all know how critical SAFETEA is. Transportation issues in each of our States are absolutely critical. The transportation bill creates jobs. It supports communities. It uplifts all of our roads and highways and bridges in a critically important way. I am hopeful this amendment will receive strong bipartisan support so we can pass a strong safety bill with all the options on the table and make sure we have the options available to make it the very best bill we possibly can, given all of the concerns regarding funding.

Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the Cantwell amendment.

First, as a member of the Senate Budget Committee, I strongly believe that the Arctic Refuge language does not belong in the budget bill and I am deeply concerned about the precedent this sets. The Arctic Refuge provision in the budget resolution provides special reconciliation protection to a major piece of environmental legislation. This is wrong and an abuse of the budget process. Reconciliation was designed to help Congress pass a large package of measures to reduce the deficit, not to be used to resolve one major policy issue.

If this provision is allowed to stand, those who advocate drilling in Alaska could pass a bill opening up Arctic Refuge and we would not be able to offer amendments to increase our use of renewable fuels unless we got 60 votes. This is unfair and would not allow for a full debate on energy and environmental policy like we had in last Congress.

Now let's talk about the facts when it comes to drilling in the Arctic refuge.

First, the Arctic Refuge would provide a 6-month supply of oil--which would not be available for 10 years. This is not a political argument but one based on nonpartisan scientific analysis of this issue. According to the 1998 U.S. Geological Survey study, there is estimated to be 3.2-5.2 billion barrels of economically recoverable oil in the Arctic Refuge. This is equivalent to the amount of oil the U.S. consumes in about 6 months. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, production from the Arctic refuge would not even come on line for 10 years or more.

The Arctic Refuge would not affect current oil or gasoline prices. The price of oil is a world price and is largely determined by the international market. Given the U.S. share of the global market, the amount of oil available from Arctic Refuge production would not significantly impact global oil prices, or U.S. oil or gasoline prices.

Ninety-five percent of Alaska's North Slope is already open to oil and gas drilling. Ninety-five percent of the potential oil reserves of Alaska's North Slope are already designated for potential leasing or open to exploration and drilling.

The last 5 percent--the coastal plain of the Arctic Refuge--is the only wild stretch of the coast of Alaska's North Slope that remains off-limits. Established by President Dwight Eisenhower in 1960, the Arctic Refuge remains the only conservation area in North America that protects a complete range of arctic and sub-arctic landscapes.

The Arctic Refuge would not reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil. According to the Energy Information Administration, EIA, the independent analytical agency within the Department of Energy, drilling in the Arctic Refuge is projected to reduce the amount of foreign oil consumed by the U.S. in 2020 from 62 to 60 percent--only a 2 percent decrease! Drilling in the Arctic Refuge will not make a dent on our dependence on foreign oil.

One of the arguments I have heard from across the aisle is that drilling in Arctic Refuge would create jobs. My home State of Michigan currently has the second highest unemployment rate in the country. There is nothing more that I would like to see on the Senate floor than a bill to create jobs and I would vote wholeheartedly for such a proposal. But that's not what we have before us now.

We are not debating a well-funded highway bill that would create jobs. Last year's Senate bill would have created over 830,000 jobs across this country--99,000 jobs in Michigan alone--but it died in conference because of the Bush administration's opposition.

We are not debating the rising cost of health care and how it's hurting our manufacturers. In 2003, General Motors, the largest private purchaser of health care in the world, spent more covering 1.2 million individuals than it did on steel.

We are not debating how to stop Chinese currency manipulation which unfairly taxes our U.S. goods overseas, and is forcing our American manufacturers to close their doors.

We are not even debating the construction of the Alaska natural gas pipeline which would create more than 400,000 new jobs and provide a huge opportunity for our steel industry.

Instead we are debating drilling in one of the most environmentally pristine areas in the world just for a 6 month supply of oil. This isn't an energy solution and it certainly isn't a jobs solution. I urge my colleagues to support the Cantwell amendment.

Mr. President, I appreciate my colleagues allowing additional time for me to speak. I thank my friends who have introduced this amendment, which I am so pleased to be cosponsoring, Senators Snowe and Wyden, for their ongoing leadership. I very much appreciate their leadership and eloquence in talking about this issue.

I find it interesting in this debate that Senator Daschle is used in quotes from the other side, from the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee. The reality is that was a different proposal. That was a Medicare prescription drug benefit very different than what we ended up passing.

What is most important is that the former Secretary of Health and Human Services, Tommy Thompson, said as he left office that he would have liked to have had the opportunity to negotiate lower prices. If that was in the bill, why, when he left, did he say he wished he had the ability to negotiate lower prices? I am sure it is because the former Secretary knows what every smart buyer knows, that in the marketplace, the more you buy of anything, the better deal you get. That is what we are talking about.

Right now, today, the only entity in the country that cannot negotiate for lower group prices is Medicare. What sense does that make when we are talking about precious dollars going to seniors and the disabled to buy medicine in this country. What sense does that make? States, Fortune 500 companies, large pharmacy chains, the Veterans Administration--they can all use bargaining clout to obtain lower drug prices for the patients they represent. In fact, the Veterans Administration has had great success in negotiating lower prices; in some cases, as much as 65 percent.

I am told, and I have seen studies that show, if we gave the same bargaining authority to Medicare that the VA has, you could actually close the gap in the prescription drug benefit. There is enough savings that you could close the gap so that everyone would be receiving prescription drugs without what has been commonly called the donut hole.

These are huge savings. As a member of the Budget Committee, I have watched the numbers go up for the Medicare bill. We thought it was $400 billion. Now CBO says $593 billion and counting over the next 10 years.

We have to do something, provide the tools for Health and Human Services to be able to negotiate, to be able to lower those prices. Right now we have a situation where that is not allowed. It makes absolutely no sense.

When I talk to people at home and they ask me, Why in the world Medicare is prohibited from using their full force to be able to negotiate, I say it is crazy. This makes absolutely no sense, unless you are one of those folks who does not want them negotiating, in terms of the prices.

So I urge the adoption of this amendment and thank my colleagues again for doing an outstanding job in putting it together. I urge the Snowe-Wyden amendment giving the Secretary of Health and Human Services the authority to negotiate drug prices on behalf of seniors and the people of our country with disabilities be agreed to. It would be wonderful to see a very strong bipartisan vote in favor of this very important amendment.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague from North Dakota for his outstanding leadership on this issue. I join in his characterization of this entire budget resolution as reckless and out of touch with the lives of the American people.

While I disagree with the chairman, I first want to say I appreciate the way he has conducted himself with the Budget Committee and the resolution. I appreciate very much his giving us the opportunity to debate all of these issues. But I could not disagree more with the characterization of what is going on or with what is happening in terms of playing politics.

I start by saying that this amendment puts Social Security first. It gets our priorities straight. Second, Social Security is our money-- your money, individual money. Each one of us pays into Social Security. It is our American insurance policy so that we know we have a sense of dignity and a foundation for retirement. Then if we become disabled, there is a disability policy or, Heaven forbid, a worker loses their life, something is there for their family. It is your money. It is my money. There is not a penny of the general fund. This is our money that goes into Social Security, and we are saying we want to keep it secure.

The American public is counting on us to keep it secure for the future. And we are saying, with all the talk about Social Security these days, it is time to step up and to fix it and to put Social Security first.

I also say to my chairman, it is so easy to demagog on tax cuts. It is so easy. It is the easiest thing for an elected official to do: Don't worry about paying the bills; don't worry about how the schools are; don't worry about enough police and firefighters; don't worry if you cannot drink the water or breathe the air let's just talk about tax cuts.

You know what, we know it is your money. For those watching, it is all of our individual money, but we also know something else. It is your schools. It is your roads. It is your health care system. It is your military fighting so courageously for us overseas. It is your veterans who are coming home. It is your communities asking us to partner with them so they can provide jobs, economic development in your communities. It is your debt--the largest deficit in the history of the country. You could wipe out every penny of nondefense spending, discretionary spending, and just about pay off this debt this year. It is astounding.

This is reckless, it is irresponsible, and to demagog, always to demagog, and say, Do you want to keep your families safe? Here, have another tax cut. And by the way, you are not going to get it, but the most blessed in your community will. To say we are not going to focus on schools, we do not care about opportunities for the future, to say we do not care about keeping ourselves safe or creating jobs is just plain reckless and the ultimate in demagoguery.

When we had the largest budget surplus in the history of the country 4 years ago, I joined, on the Budget Committee, with our esteemed colleague from North Dakota to support a reasonable future, to Take a third of that surplus and put it into tax cuts focused on middle-income people, small businesses, to drive the economy. Let's do tax cuts, I am all for it, and I have

voted for many. But let's also take a third of that and take care of Social Security. We could prefund the baby boomers' liability coming and take care of Social Security for the next 75 years with just a third of that. Then how about taking the other third to make sure our kids have world-class schools, to make sure they have the technology they need, to make sure they can afford to go to college, to make sure our communities have the police and firefighters so when you dial 911, you are going to get the fastest response possible. And, by the way, let's make sure my city can talk to your city and the next city through an up-to-date communications system. And let's make sure that our seniors have a quality nursing home and can get the dignity of home health care, that we are focused on health care, both for those most in need and vulnerable, and to support those providing that health care in our businesses.

We have a lot of work to do. We have not only an aging population, we have an aging infrastructure. Not only individually do we need a face- lift, but our cities need a face-lift--water systems, sewers, roads, and bridges. It is reckless for us, in defining priorities of the future of this country, not to be responsible in addressing each piece of it.

There is a lot of demagoguery going on around here, and unfortunately it is because the easy way for an elected official is not to pay the bills but to talk about tax cuts.

Let me suggest something else. I agree with our esteemed chairman that the bulk of Americans are not getting the tax cuts they need. They are paying too much in taxes. Why? Because the tax cuts that were passed are not going to them. They are going to the most blessed, the wealthiest among us. I do not begrudge people working hard and doing well, but I think they ought to pay for schools as well, and security and roads and health care, the military, war, and the veterans. We all have a stake in America, and we all have a responsibility to do our part.

What I see is the overwhelming majority of the people in my State are getting a twofer. They sure are not getting these tax cuts that are talked about. They are not going to them. But they are going to pay more for schools, get less quality, and have fewer police officers. There are fewer police officers today in most of the cities in my State than there were on 9/11/2001. What is with that? So my folks are going to have to pay more for their kids going to college because we are cutting support for the colleges and programs for folks to be able to afford to go to college. They are going to have to be taking less in the way of services that are basic services.

We are talking about basic quality of life in America. Everyone else looks at America and wants to be like us. What we are seeing in this budget is an effort to roll us back. We don't want to be like China, where they can't drink the water. Our quality of life has been the gold standard for the world. We have a responsibility to do the right thing and to have a balanced strategy that strategically focuses on tax cuts to move the economy forward, investments as well as the responsibility of paying down this debt and securing Social Security for the future.

How many people here would take the tradeoff of saying we are not going to fund health research? It doesn't matter who you are, you can get cancer, Alzheimer's disease, diabetes, a multitude of health concerns and diseases in this country. Research will make the difference. Who would say that research into health, into cures and technology for the future is not important in the greatest country in the world? Yet all the demagoguery on tax cuts is about removing revenue so that down the road the answer will be: We would love to do that, it would be great, but we are really sorry, there is no funding. That is what this is about, and it is wrong. This is about a balance. We need to work together to get it right.

This amendment begins to get that right because it says we are going to put Social Security first. The President is going all over the country talking about Social Security and what needs to be done. We could start by a value statement about what is important to us. We could start by saying over the next 75 years, we will take a look at the costs of tax cuts that have been passed--$11.6 trillion. I supported some of those that go directly to our small businesses, to our families, and to stimulate the economy. But the overwhelming majority of this goes, again, to those most blessed who have benefited by the greatness of America in our infrastructure and our opportunity.

If we just said, instead of $11.6 trillion over 75 years, how about we take 3.7, about a third of that--just a third of it, about 30 percent of that--and we secure Social Security for 75 years, and then you can have the rest? You can have 70 percent of it. But let's secure Social Security first. Social Security is a great American success story. Everyone is benefited by it. Even those right now who are doing very well, who knows what will happen in the future?

I remember folks from Enron sitting in my office, folks who had been wiped out, who said: Thank God for Social Security. I never thought I would need it, but it is the only thing I have left.

Social Security is meant to be there as security for our families-- for everybody. It works.

What we are saying is, if we want to talk about a solution, we don't have to ask folks to pay more in payroll taxes, folks who are already being taxed too much and are being asked to have their services cut. We don't have to cut benefits. We can say it is a priority for the American people and we in the Senate are going to make it a priority for us. That is what this amendment does.

Social Security is a great American success story. Prior to Social Security, 50 percent of the seniors in this country were in poverty. Today it is 10 percent. That is worth fighting for. That is a success story. Again:

Honor thy father and thy mother.

It is not just words. We should act on it. This budget does not, in a number of ways, act on that premise.

It is also important, again, to note that Social Security, in fact, is more than retirement. It is our families' insurance policy. It has worked. It costs a half a percent to administer, it has been there, and it will be there if we do the right thing. But it is important to know about not only the retirees but the disabled, and there are survivors benefits. How many folks who work here in the Senate have a story to tell about survivors benefits?

My husband, at 10 his father died. He was the youngest in the family. His mother was older and not well. He survived on Social Security and went on to college and was very successful because of our country's commitment to each other.

I happen to believe caring about other people, caring about community, is a good thing, not a bad thing. Social Security represents what is best about us. Creating a system that we all pay into, you work hard all your life, it is there at retirement or if you need it in case of a financial disaster in your family; it works. Other countries look to us, to this great system of Social Security.

There is no way the President's proposals do not undermine this system. You can't protect people 55 or older or the disabled, the survivors, when you take an insurance system and begin to pull out dollars. I don't care how many times they say it, it is not true. You can't do that. We know that. Regarding Social Security, if we go the route of what the President is talking about with privatized accounts, we know three things will happen. We are going to drastically increase the national debt, which is already the highest in our Nation's history. We will have high administrative costs--instead of a half percent to administer Social Security, we will see anywhere from 10, 15, 20 percent or more. And the folks, by the way, you would pay to administer the accounts are some of the folks we are seeing here at the Capitol now who want very much to make the change. And deep benefit cuts, there is no way to avoid benefit cuts under the President's proposal.

So we are saying this doesn't work. We don't like this. What we have is an alternative. We have the power to put Social Security first in this budget. We have the power to do that. That is what this amendment does. If you don't want to see increased national debt, you don't want to see higher administrative costs, or deep benefit cuts, join our amendment. Our amendment is the responsible approach, unless your goal is to eliminate Social Security. If the

goal is to unravel Social Security for Americans, then you will not support this amendment because this amendment is about fixing Social Security for the future, securing it for the future.

Mr. President, I urge adoption of the amendment.

I appreciate that very much, but I notice a colleague here as well and I would not proceed.

I am happy to proceed for a moment.

I appreciate that. I know we have important matters to discuss on the floor. Let me take the final few moments and speak about the realities of Social Security and what is happening now, what we know to be true about the facts. There has been a lot of misinformation about the situation with Social Security, in terms of its financial security. I think it is important. We all can have different opinions and views and thoughts about what should happen, but we should not have different facts.

The folks we all rely on, as we know, really have no philosophical position. These are the number crunchers whose responsibility it is to tell it to us like it is, the Congressional Budget Office. They tell us this: The Social Security trust fund can pay 100 percent of its obligation until 2052. Beyond that, if we do not do anything, and we need to, they can pay about 80 percent, maybe slightly less, of all the benefits that are currently in law.

We know we have a cap. We know we have a problem. The President's proposal does nothing to fix this.

It actually makes it worse. It makes it worse by adding to the massive debt. It doesn't add anything to the trust fund and, as the Senator from North Dakota was indicating, the accounts are not even fully given to the individual.

There is also a lot of misunderstanding of even how that would work. I would welcome anyone to go to either my Web site or to a number of my Democratic colleagues' Web sites where we have a calculator on the Web site where you can put in your date of birth and average yearly wages over your lifetime, and you can find out for yourself how you would do under the President's proposal. But the reality is we do have a gap. We know that. That is why this amendment is so important.

This amendment basically says that in order to address this gap in funding that comes after 2052, we want to put Social Security first before extension of or any new additional revenue losses, before new tax cuts or any new mandatory spending, that we secure Social Security, that we close that gap for the next 75 years, that we put it at the front of the line before we talk about revenue spending on new things, that we put it at the front of the line.

If in fact this issue has such a high priority for the President, traveling around the country for 60 days to 60 cities, all the effort and debate going on, you would think we would have universal support for this amendment; that it would be a bipartisan vote for this amendment. The only reason not to do it is if you do not support Social Security. If you do not support Social Security as it stands as an insurance policy, then you won't like this amendment. You will not want this amendment. If you prefer to privatize the whole system, then you won't like this amendment. But if you support Social Security as being there for all of our families, if you believe, as I do, that it is a great American success story and we should celebrate it, strengthen it, and secure it, then this amendment is the right amendment for you.

I will go back to the very beginning and say this is always about values and priorities. In fact, the budget resolution is our value document. Just as looking at our own personal checkbooks tells us a little bit about ourselves, looking at the budget resolution of the Federal Government, tells us something about all of us and the people we represent.

Right now this budget resolution is out of balance. This budget resolution is reckless because it adds to the national debt. It does nothing to pay down in a real way the deficit that doesn't even include all of the expenditures. And it is out of touch with American families. It is plain out of touch.

When we are talking about a third of those cuts being in education and workforce development and vocational education, we are talking about massive cuts in Medicaid to our families and our children and our seniors in nursing homes, this does not represent the values of the majority of Americans. We need some balance. That is not reflected in this budget resolution.

I will go back to the final point, that this is about values and priorities. As an example, if we were to look at the next 75 years and the costs without new tax cuts that are being proposed, the current costs of the tax cuts for the next 75 years, it is $11.6 trillion, and to save Social Security is $3.7 trillion.

I would say to ask those most blessed in our country, receiving the majority of the benefits, to be willing to share in some way and to leave Social Security secure is the right thing to do.

Mr. President, I would appreciate 5 minutes to offer an amendment.

Let's say 5 minutes, and we will see.

That is correct.

Mr. President, I again thank my colleague from North Dakota for his incredible leadership on this issue and speaking about what is responsible and what should be the priorities for our country.

I understand the senior Senator from Iowa is also waiting to speak. I appreciate him allowing me to offer this amendment first.

As we are talking about priorities, of course our first priority is to keep Social Security secure for the future. Putting Social Security first is one of the very first amendments we will be voting on today. But we also have another priority which is to keep Americans safe. And that is what my amendment will do.

My amendment will restore the $1.6 billion in cuts to first responder services that are included in this budget resolution as proposed by the President. It also will put $1.6 billion towards paying down the national debt. These are two worthy goals: pay down the national debt and restore the resources we need at a minimum to keep us where we are in terms of the resources for our communities to keep us safe.

I am very concerned that 4 years past 9/11/2001 when I visit my police chiefs around the State of Michigan and I speak with fire departments and first responders, almost all of them tell me they have fewer officers today than they did on 9/11/2001. I think the public would be shocked to understand that. I know I was shocked. They expect more from us than that, with all of the alerts and codes and concerns that have been raised--and legitimate concerns that have been raised-- about what is happening in terms of terrorism, to know that we have fewer police officers on

the streets now than before the attack on 9/11 is simply reckless and irresponsible.

I am very concerned that we are seeing cuts in a number of very important programs.

I am told I need to send the amendment to the desk. I apologize for not having done that sooner, Mr. President. I send the amendment to the desk, and then I will continue. I ask unanimous consent to add Senators Levin, Mikulski, Kerry, Corzine, Harkin, Biden, Pryor, Clinton, and Akaka as cosponsors of the amendment.

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

Mr. President, I am so concerned about this. I appreciate being reminded that I needed to send the amendment to the desk. This is so serious.

This morning I had a meeting with our city council members from around the State of Michigan. I hear stories about the fact that one police department cannot talk to the city next to them or, in some cases, the police department cannot talk to the fire department. The whole question of communications and interoperability and the training that is needed to go with that is absolutely critical.

This is not the time to be cutting first responder dollars to our communities. We ought to be, in fact, increasing those dollars because when the terrorist experts talk to us, they do not say if we are attacked in the future, they say when we will be attacked in the future. So it is absolutely irresponsible to be cutting the dollars for our local police, fire departments, and emergency responders. We need to make homeland security a priority. That is what my amendment does.

I remind my colleagues that 2 years ago, we received a report that was authored by a blue ribbon panel chaired by former Republican Senator Warren Rudman. Their findings were daunting about the inadequacies in our homeland security efforts. They indicated that we needed a total of $98.4 billion over the next 5 years to truly be able to tell the families we represent that we have done everything possible to keep them safe. But instead of adding those dollars to make sure the radio equipment is there and the officers are there and to make sure the training is available, what is happening is we are seeing a $1.6 billion cut. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

We should not be ignoring this panel's recommendations. We should, in fact, be following them. As I said before, after 9/11, I did meetings all around Michigan. To a person, I was told that they did not have the resources they needed, and then coming back to them in the last year, I have asked, How is it going? They said we are worse off than we were before, which makes absolutely no sense.

I will add one important point, given the current situation as it relates to violence in our courthouses, that we should recognize is in this budget cut. The Byrne grants, which my amendment restores, can be used to hire, equip, and train additional law enforcement personnel in our courthouses. With the recent tragedy in Atlanta, GA, now is not the time to be cutting resources to our courthouses. All we have to do is look around, look at the headlines day after day, watch the news on television, listen on the radio and we know there has been a series of ongoing violent efforts in our country. Now is not the time to be cutting back on police or fire, whether it is to prepare for a terrorist attack or to keep our citizens safe today. When the President talks about overwhelming cuts, basically eliminating the COPS Program which has been so important in putting police officers on the streets, this makes absolutely no sense.

I have supported funding for our military men and women who are serving us so bravely in Iraq and Afghanistan because we said it is important that we come together and provide the resources that are necessary. We have done that on a bipartisan basis. We need to do the same thing for our men and women who are on the home front who are working hard every day to keep us safe. That is what my amendment will do.

I would like to provide several examples of the deficiencies the Independent Task Force on Emergency Responders detailed in the Rudman report:

On average, our fire departments have only half the number of radios

needed on a shift, and only enough breathing apparatuses for one-third of their firefighters.

Police departments across America do not have the protective gear to respond to a weapons of mass destruction attack.

Our public health laboratories lack the basic equipment to respond to a chemical and biological attack and most report that they are overwhelmed with testing requests.

Finally, our first responders do not have the equipment they need to determine what kind of hazardous material they may be facing.

Why have we ignored this panel's recommendations? The administration's support for first responders has been on a steady decline. For example, last year funding for Michigan's State Homeland Security grants program dropped from $47 million to $29.7 million, In this budget, the administration eliminates the Law Enforcement Terrorism Training Program, cutting another $400 million from our first responders.

I have spoken with police and fire chiefs across my State, and to a person they all tell me that they have fewer police officers and firefighters on their forces than they did before 9/11 because of funding cuts.

During a series of 11 meetings in the summer of 2003 I met with first responders and community leaders in Michigan. They told me in no uncertain terms that they are woefully underfunded and underequipped. Over the last year and a half, they have continued to remind me of that fact. The situation in Michigan is of particular importance to me but this is not solely a Michigan problem. This is a national problem and one that has been ignored for far too long.

My amendment would restore the cuts to the first responder services in the President's Department of Homeland Security budget. The amendment is fully offset and will also help reduce the deficit. The amendment is paid for by closing tax loopholes that were originally included in the Senate version of the FSC/ETI bill, but were taken out in the final conference bill. Closing these loopholes will generate $3.2 billion in revenue, half of which will be used to restore the $1.6 billion in first responder program cuts, and the remaining $1.6 billion will be put towards reducing the deficit.

The assistance to firefighters grants, the State Homeland Security grants and the Urban Area Security Initiative are critically important. Also important are the COPS Program and the Byrne justice assistance grants. While some may not think these services help keep our homeland secure against terrorism, I believe that every police officer we put on the street with the proper training is one more set of eyes that could stop a terrorist attack from ever happening or respond to one, God forbid we are attacked again.

The President's cuts to these programs not only impair our ability to prevent and respond to terrorist attacks, but are a more fundamental assault on the safety of our communities.

These programs help in unexpected ways. For example, Byrne grants, which my amendment restores, can be used to hire, train, and equip additional law enforcement personnel in our courthouses. With the recent tragedy in Atlanta, GA, now is not the time to cut the resources that keep our citizens safe.

The COPS Program has brought results in Michigan and the rest of the Nation. COPS grants have put more officers on our streets and in our schools to make our communities safer. These officers have helped reduce crime throughout the country. According to the Department of Justice, every $1 increase per resident of COPS grant funding contributes to a decline of 10 violent crimes and 27 property crimes per 100,000 residents.

When it comes to providing funding for our military men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan, we have provided the resources necessary. Unfortunately, we have not done the same when it comes to protecting us here at home. When it comes to protecting our communities, we should not be penny wise and pound foolish. Therefore, we must strengthen our resolve and do whatever it takes to keep us safe.

Can we tell our fellow Americans that we have provided our first responders with the equipment and training they need to respond quickly to a terrorist incident and prevent loss of life? If we cut $1.6 billion from the men and women on the front lines of our homeland security, the answer must be no.

I remind my colleagues that when you call 9-1-1, you do not get someone at the Homeland Security Department in Washington, DC. You get your local police or fire department. Local police and firefighters are ready and waiting to try to stop a terrorist attack or help save lives if one happens.

If we do not adopt this amendment, I believe we are not doing everything we can to keep our country safe.

I urge my colleagues, before they vote on this amendment, to ask themselves are we doing enough here at home to keep us safe?

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I am very proud to be joining my colleague on this amendment. For all of us who have talked about Social Security, this is the way to put it first in the budget process. This is the way to secure it for 75 years.

Mr. President, this amendment is about keeping our families safe and our communities safe. It would restore the $1.6 billion in cuts to first responders, our police, firefighters, and emergency workers. These cuts are included in the President's budget and in this mark.

With this amendment, we would restore those funds, as well as add $1.6 billion to reduce the deficit. There is an offset we are proposing that we close tax loopholes that were dropped from last year's FSC bill in order to pay for this.

In my State of Michigan, and I am sure in your States as well, every police chief told me they have fewer officers on the streets today than on 9/11/2001. This is wrong. They are counting on us to provide them the resources in partnership with them to keep our citizens safe. Also, the Byrne grants we restored will provide for additional law enforcement personnel in our county courthouses, where we have seen recent violence.

I urge that we adopt the amendment.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Medicare Prescription Drug Price Reduction Act of 2005, and am pleased to be joined by my colleagues, Senators Carper, Kennedy, Schumer, Bingaman, and Johnson.

This legislation is very simple and very straightforward: it would allow the Secretary of Health and Human Services to negotiate directly with pharmaceutical manufacturers on behalf of our seniors and the disabled to get the lowest possible prices.

Last week we learned that the Medicare prescription drug benefit will cost more than 1 trillion dollars--$1.2 trillion to be exact--just for the years 2006 through 2015.

Some of our colleagues are responding to the news of the $1.2 trillion price tag with plans to reduce the benefit. But the benefit as currently structured is far from comprehensive. Seniors are responsible for $420 in premiums, and a $250 deductible before they get one penny's worth of help towards the cost of their prescription drugs. Once the benefit kicks in, they will face a hefty copayment, and many will fall into the infamous ``hole'' in the benefit and--at the same time they continue to pay premiums--not get any assistance at all.

Even with a $1.2 trillion pricetag, our seniors will have to shoulder two-thirds of the cost of their prescription drugs. Neither the seniors and disabled, nor the taxpayers, should be paying so much for so little.

Last week's news of the cost of the benefit makes it clear that we must give Medicare the ability to use the market power of 41 million people to secure the lowest prices possible for seniors, the disabled, and the American taxpayer.

Our response to the new cost estimate shouldn't be to reduce the already meager benefit but to use our dollars more efficiently. The change that my colleagues and I are seeking would allow us to improve the drug benefit--by lowering the cost of the drugs, we could fill in the gaps in coverage and provide a more meaningful benefit.

Former HHS Secretary Thompson said at his December 3rd resignation press conference that he would have liked to have had the opportunity to negotiate lower drug prices.

I expect Secretary Thompson knows what every smart buyer knows: the more you are buying of anything, the better deal you get. We all know that Sam's Club gets the best prices on breakfast cereal, batteries, and paper towels because they represent a huge market.

And now that Secretary Leavitt is tasked with running the program, we should give him as many tools as possible to run this program at the lowest possible cost.

Today the only entity in this country that cannot bargain for lower group prices is Medicare. The States, Fortune 500 companies, large pharmacy chains, and the Veterans' Administration use their bargaining clout to obtain lower drug prices for the patients they represent.

Medicare should have that same ability. It doesn't make any sense to prohibit the Secretary from using the clout of our 41 million seniors to help get them the best possible prices on prescription drugs.

I urge my colleagues to join me in passing this commonsense approach to providing real savings for our seniors and the disabled, and ensuring the most efficient use of taxpayer dollars.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Medicare Prescription Drug Price Reduction Act of 2005, and am pleased to be joined by my colleagues, Senators Carper, Kennedy, Schumer, Bingaman, and Johnson.

This legislation is very simple and very straightforward: it would allow the Secretary of Health and Human Services to negotiate directly with pharmaceutical manufacturers on behalf of our seniors and the disabled to get the lowest possible prices.

Last week we learned that the Medicare prescription drug benefit will cost more than 1 trillion dollars--$1.2 trillion to be exact--just for the years 2006 through 2015.

Some of our colleagues are responding to the news of the $1.2 trillion price tag with plans to reduce the benefit. But the benefit as currently structured is far from comprehensive. Seniors are responsible for $420 in premiums, and a $250 deductible before they get one penny's worth of help towards the cost of their prescription drugs. Once the benefit kicks in, they will face a hefty copayment, and many will fall into the infamous ``hole'' in the benefit and--at the same time they continue to pay premiums--not get any assistance at all.

Even with a $1.2 trillion pricetag, our seniors will have to shoulder two-thirds of the cost of their prescription drugs. Neither the seniors and disabled, nor the taxpayers, should be paying so much for so little.

Last week's news of the cost of the benefit makes it clear that we must give Medicare the ability to use the market power of 41 million people to secure the lowest prices possible for seniors, the disabled, and the American taxpayer.

Our response to the new cost estimate shouldn't be to reduce the already meager benefit but to use our dollars more efficiently. The change that my colleagues and I are seeking would allow us to improve the drug benefit--by lowering the cost of the drugs, we could fill in the gaps in coverage and provide a more meaningful benefit.

Former HHS Secretary Thompson said at his December 3rd resignation press conference that he would have liked to have had the opportunity to negotiate lower drug prices.

I expect Secretary Thompson knows what every smart buyer knows: the more you are buying of anything, the better deal you get. We all know that Sam's Club gets the best prices on breakfast cereal, batteries, and paper towels because they represent a huge market.

And now that Secretary Leavitt is tasked with running the program, we should give him as many tools as possible to run this program at the lowest possible cost.

Today the only entity in this country that cannot bargain for lower group prices is Medicare. The States, Fortune 500 companies, large pharmacy chains, and the Veterans' Administration use their bargaining clout to obtain lower drug prices for the patients they represent.

Medicare should have that same ability. It doesn't make any sense to prohibit the Secretary from using the clout of our 41 million seniors to help get them the best possible prices on prescription drugs.

I urge my colleagues to join me in passing this commonsense approach to providing real savings for our seniors and the disabled, and ensuring the most efficient use of taxpayer dollars.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce the Canadian Waste Import Ban Act of 2005, to address the rapidly growing problem of Canadian waste shipments to Michigan. Michigan has been known for its beautiful waters, lush forests, and now unfortunately as a top importer of international trash.

My colleagues may be surprised to learn that the biggest source of waste to Michigan is not from another State, but from our neighbor to the north, Canada. The rapid increase in waste shipments is stunning. In 2003, 180 trash trucks crossed the Ambassador and Blue Water bridges into Michigan. Today, that number has more than doubled to 415 trucks per day. You can see these trucks lined up for miles waiting to cross into Michigan, polluting the air and creating traffic congestions. The city of Toronto alone sends over 1 million tons of trash annually to Michigan.

This waste dramatically decreases Michigan's own landfill capacity, and has an incredible negative impact on Michigan's environment and the public health of its citizens. The waste also poses a tremendous homeland security threat, as trucks loaded with garbage are harder for Customs agents to inspect than traditional cargo.

I fought and was successful in the installation of radiation equipment at these crossings. As a result of this equipment, the Blue Water Bridge port director reports that three to four Canadian trash trucks per week are being turned back at the border for containing dangerous radioactive materials such as medical waste. But we need the trash shipments to stop completely.

Michigan already has protections contained in an international agreement between the United States and Canada, but are being ignored. Under the Agreement Concerning the Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Waste, which was entered into in 1986, shipments of waste across the Canadian-U.S. border require government-to-government notification. The

Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, as the designate authority for the United States would receive the notification and then would have 30 days to consent or object to the shipment. Not only have these notification provisions not been enforced, but the EPA has indicated that they would not object to the municipal waste shipments.

Michigan citizens have spoken loud and clear on this issue. More than 165,000 people signed my on-line petition urging the EPA to use their power to stop the Canadian trash shipments. Residents from all 83 Michigan counties have signed the petition--an unprecedented response. I've presented these signatures to both former EPA Administrator Mike Leavitt and Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge. But despite these efforts, EPA has not stopped these trash shipments.

That is why I'm reintroducing my bill today. The Canadian Waste Import Ban of 2005 would stop the Canadian trash shipments by placing an immediate Federal ban on the importation of Canadian municipal solid waste. Any State that wishes to receive Canadian trash can opt out of the ban by giving notice to the EPA. The ban will be in place until the EPA enforces the notice and consent provision contained in the binational agreement.

This legislation would also give Michigan residents the protection they deserve from these shipments. In enforcing the agreement, the EPA would have to obtain the consent of the receiving State before consenting to a Canadian municipal solid waste shipment. So if the State of Michigan says no, the EPA must object to the trash shipment.

The EPA would also have to consider the impact of the shipment on homeland security, environment, and public health. These waste shipments should no longer be accepted without an examination of how it will affect the health and safety of Michigan families.

Michigan residents deserve the protections provided by this international agreement and should be provided the ability to stop these dangerous and unhealthy trash shipments. I urge my colleagues to support the Canadian Waste Import Ban of 2005.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce the Canadian Waste Import Ban Act of 2005, to address the rapidly growing problem of Canadian waste shipments to Michigan. Michigan has been known for its beautiful waters, lush forests, and now unfortunately as a top importer of international trash.

My colleagues may be surprised to learn that the biggest source of waste to Michigan is not from another State, but from our neighbor to the north, Canada. The rapid increase in waste shipments is stunning. In 2003, 180 trash trucks crossed the Ambassador and Blue Water bridges into Michigan. Today, that number has more than doubled to 415 trucks per day. You can see these trucks lined up for miles waiting to cross into Michigan, polluting the air and creating traffic congestions. The city of Toronto alone sends over 1 million tons of trash annually to Michigan.

This waste dramatically decreases Michigan's own landfill capacity, and has an incredible negative impact on Michigan's environment and the public health of its citizens. The waste also poses a tremendous homeland security threat, as trucks loaded with garbage are harder for Customs agents to inspect than traditional cargo.

I fought and was successful in the installation of radiation equipment at these crossings. As a result of this equipment, the Blue Water Bridge port director reports that three to four Canadian trash trucks per week are being turned back at the border for containing dangerous radioactive materials such as medical waste. But we need the trash shipments to stop completely.

Michigan already has protections contained in an international agreement between the United States and Canada, but are being ignored. Under the Agreement Concerning the Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Waste, which was entered into in 1986, shipments of waste across the Canadian-U.S. border require government-to-government notification. The

Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, as the designate authority for the United States would receive the notification and then would have 30 days to consent or object to the shipment. Not only have these notification provisions not been enforced, but the EPA has indicated that they would not object to the municipal waste shipments.

Michigan citizens have spoken loud and clear on this issue. More than 165,000 people signed my on-line petition urging the EPA to use their power to stop the Canadian trash shipments. Residents from all 83 Michigan counties have signed the petition--an unprecedented response. I've presented these signatures to both former EPA Administrator Mike Leavitt and Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge. But despite these efforts, EPA has not stopped these trash shipments.

That is why I'm reintroducing my bill today. The Canadian Waste Import Ban of 2005 would stop the Canadian trash shipments by placing an immediate Federal ban on the importation of Canadian municipal solid waste. Any State that wishes to receive Canadian trash can opt out of the ban by giving notice to the EPA. The ban will be in place until the EPA enforces the notice and consent provision contained in the binational agreement.

This legislation would also give Michigan residents the protection they deserve from these shipments. In enforcing the agreement, the EPA would have to obtain the consent of the receiving State before consenting to a Canadian municipal solid waste shipment. So if the State of Michigan says no, the EPA must object to the trash shipment.

The EPA would also have to consider the impact of the shipment on homeland security, environment, and public health. These waste shipments should no longer be accepted without an examination of how it will affect the health and safety of Michigan families.

Michigan residents deserve the protections provided by this international agreement and should be provided the ability to stop these dangerous and unhealthy trash shipments. I urge my colleagues to support the Canadian Waste Import Ban of 2005.

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

Mr. President, I thank the dean of our women in the Senate, the woman who was first and blazed the way for all of us, the distinguished Senator from Maryland. I thank her so much for her leadership on this and other issues.

Our dean has said so many times, honor thy father and thy mother. They are not just important words in the Bible, but they are important words to live by. This debate about Social Security certainly reflects our values in honoring our fathers and our mothers. So I thank her for that.

I rise with my colleagues to speak today about the greatest American success story of our time, Social Security. Prior to Social Security, 50 percent of our retirees lived in poverty. Today, it is 10 percent. If that is not a great American success story, I don't know what is.

We are here unified to say that we want to keep that success story by keeping the ``security'' in Social Security. That is what this is about. We join in advocating for additional ways for people to save. I know my 20-something-year-old children are tired of hearing from me about the fact that they need to be putting dollars aside for the future and not just rely on Social Security.

There are ways we can come together. I was, frankly, disappointed last evening that we did not hear more from the President about ways we can come together to be able to develop those opportunities for everyone to create wealth and retirement security. But we don't do that by undermining the ``security'' of Social Security. Social Security represents the best of who we are, the best in American values. Our belief is that if you work hard and you play by the rules, you earn retirement security. We pay into that, all of us together pay into this insurance policy called Social Security. We deserve a basic quality of life and dignity in older years. Everyone does. And that comes from a joint community effort called Social Security, into which we all pay.

I think it is also important to look at the fact that Social Security is not just about tomorrow. It is an insurance policy, whether you are a 25-year-old like my daughter who is starting a career or you are a 78-year-old like my mother, whom I can barely keep up with, and who is in her retirement years. The fact is, Social Security is there for both of them. Heaven forbid that something were to happen to one of my children and they become permanently disabled. But Social Security would be there as a disability policy. When they have children, if something were to happen and they would no longer be able to care for their children, Social Security steps in as a life insurance policy.

Think about it. This great American success story is a retirement policy, a life insurance policy, and a disability policy. We all do this together. That is what the ``I'' in FICA means. It is an insurance system.

We want to build upon that just as Federal employees are able to build upon that with thrift savings, and there are others, such as 401(k)s, and so on.

By the way, that is on top of Social Security--not in the place of Social Security.

But we stand here today, particularly because we know this insurance plan is of particular importance to women in the country. In fact, 60 percent of all Social Security recipients are women;

1 in 10 adult women receive Social Security disability benefits. As we get older, since we tend to live longer--I think once you get over age 85, you in fact see that the vast majority of people on Social Security are women. This is a fundamental women's issue of economic security.

We stand here unified to say we will fight to keep the ``security'' in Social Security for every woman and their families.

In my home State of Michigan, many Social Security recipients, of course, are retired. We also have 64,000 people who receive benefits either as a widow or widower, a spouse or child of a retired worker or disabled worker. Again, the majority of those are women and children.

We know that strengthening Social Security will require a lot of hard choices. We stand ready to join with colleagues on the other side of the aisle and the President to do that. But first we have to get this notion of privatizing Social Security and undermining it, unraveling it, off the table.

I suggest one approach for us to look at. This is something I feel very strongly about because we make decisions every day on values and priorities. Just like all of us do, we open our checkbook and we pay the bills and write checks. That reflects our values and priorities.

Right now, when we look at the overall Federal revenue in the budget, as I do as a member of the Budget Committee, we have to reflect and look at what we are really saying about our values and priorities for the future.

Consider the fact that keeping Social Security secure for 75 years requires only one-third--about 33 percent--of the costs of the tax plan enacted by the Congress and President Bush for the wealthiest Americans. Think about that.

In other words, if we were to ask those who are most blessed in this country through hard work, through inheritance, through other means, those who are most blessed with retirement security, if we asked them to keep 70 percent of that instead of 100 percent--70 percent is huge. It is billions of dollars in tax cuts. But if they kept only 70 percent of that over the next 75 years, you could keep the ``security'' of Social Security for 75 years.

To me, that makes sense. If we are really about making decisions and investments for all Americans, it certainly makes sense. And it certainly makes more sense than privatizing Social Security.

Here is why. Privatization will cut benefits by one-third to one- half, even for working women who choose not to risk their money in privatized accounts.

This is important. We are not just talking about cutting benefits for those who choose to privatize accounts but for those who do not choose to go this direction. The average retiree would lose more than $152,000 in benefits over the course of a 20-year retirement--$152,000 in benefits over 20 years.

An insurance policy was never meant to be a high-risk investment. We encourage people, on top of Social Security, to make investments. But this was meant to be the foundation for retirement.

I wonder where women would be without the ``security'' in Social Security today.

Beyond the deep benefit cuts and added risks, privatization would add $2 trillion in debt over 10 years. That is almost a 50-percent increase of the debt we have now, which is the largest in the history of the country. It is unbelievable. Unfortunately, much of that would be borrowed from countries such as China and Japan. That raises a whole range of issues economically in terms of our national security.

I think most women would agree that we don't want to pass the debt on to our children and grandchildren, forcing them to bear the burden of ever more debt and higher taxes.

I stand here today with by colleagues to say we will fight to keep Social Security secure, and then we will join in those efforts to both strengthen Social Security in the long run but also to create other opportunities for people to be able to save, people to be able to create wealth, to be able to have retirement security. If we take privatization off the table, which we know doesn't solve any of the problems of Social Security--it only creates more risk and uncertainty--we can then work together to get something done.

That is what people expect us to do. That is what we are here today to pledge to do. The women in this country, every one of our daughters and our granddaughters, and our mothers and our aunts, and all of those girls yet to come, as well as their brothers, deserve a secure retirement. They deserve that under Social Security. They earned that. They pay into it, and they are counting on it.

We are going to stand ready to make sure Social Security remains secure.

Mr. President, I rise today to oppose the nomination of Judge Alberto Gonzales to be the Attorney General of the United States. The Attorney General is the chief law enforcement officer for our country with tremendous legal powers. He or she is responsible for enforcing our laws and for making important decisions on how they will be interpreted. The Attorney General can decide what person will be charged with a crime or detained. This is a job that requires sound legal judgment and impartiality because the Attorney General's duty is to uphold the Constitution and the rule of law.

But this job is not just about our laws; it is also about the ideals of our country. It is about what we stand for. It is about our freedom and liberty and justice as embodied in our Constitution. It is about representing these fundamental types of democracy, not just to Americans but to the world.

During the inauguration, we heard the wonderful words from President Bush about the cause of freedom. I was pleased to hear him talk about our history as a country that has led the world in the cause of freedom. These are the ideals that our children learn about every day. We should be proud of our history. But our words must match our deeds.

I am deeply concerned not only about Mr. Gonzales's judgment, but that his confirmation would send the wrong message to the world about the value we place on our basic constitutional rights. Judge Gonzales has played a prominent role in shaping this administration's policy on detention and torture. Some of these policies have not only damaged our country's reputation and moral leadership, but they have also placed our troops in greater danger. Judge Gonzales holds legal positions that violate treaties the United States has ratified and supported, and he helped to provide the justification for the treatment of prisoners that led to the abuses at Abu Ghraib.

He also advocated and advised the President on legal positions that circumvented the Geneva Conventions. In following Judge Gonzales's advice to circumvent the Geneva Conventions, this administration clearly set the stage for the abuses at Abu Ghraib, the torture scandal, and this opinion ignored decades of U.S. support for humane treatment of prisoners. Such a reckless disregard for human rights laws not only violates international law but, again, it puts our own troops at additional peril.

The Convention Against Torture, which was ratified by the United States in 1994, prohibited torture and cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment. The Senate defined such treatment as abuse that would violate the 5th, the 8th, or 14th amendment to our Constitution. This standard was formally accepted by the Bush administration.

During Judge Gonzales's testimony it became clear that under his watch the administration twisted this straightforward standard to make it possible for the CIA to subject detainees to practices such as simulated drowning and mock execution. The standard he approved defined torture as inflicting pain equivalent to ``serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function or even death.''

In his testimony he told the committee that these constitutional amendments do not apply to foreigners held abroad; therefore, in his view, the torture treaty does not bind intelligence interrogators operating on foreign soil.

Such a distortion is unacceptable and, again, is dangerous to our troops who are serving us on foreign soil.

How can someone who has sought to find the loopholes in the law be entrusted to be the chief law enforcement officer of our land?

These attempts to circumvent the very laws he will be called upon to enforce not only show a reckless disregard for the law, put our troops in further danger, but they have damaged our position in the world. Since World War II, the United States has been a moral authority in the world, an effective leader on the world stage. Such damage not only tarnishes our reputation in the world, but it negatively affects our very ability to enlist our allies in the critical war on terror. How can we hope to reclaim the moral leadership we once had with this person as our chief law enforcement officer? What signal does this send to the world?

For more than 10 years, Judge Gonzales has served as President Bush's legal counsel, but now he must represent a higher authority, the Constitution of the United States of America, and he must do so with integrity and independence from his former long-term client.

The Attorney General of the United States cannot be a spokesperson for the President. The Attorney General is the highest ranking law enforcement officer in the land. The Attorney General has responsibilities for enforcing, interpreting, and creating the laws that govern our democratic way of life in the United States. It is, therefore, imperative that the person who holds this position be someone who has the confidence of the American people. Our laws must come first. He or she must look not for the political rationale or the loophole but, rather, always seek the appropriate legal path, as guided by the U.S. Constitution. This is the people's attorney.

I was disturbed that during the confirmation hearings Judge Gonzales restated his belief that the Commander in Chief can override--can override--the laws of our country and immunize others to perform what would otherwise be unlawful acts. This is wrong. No one person can stand above the laws that govern our Nation. The rule of law applies to every one of us, including the President of the United States.

I had hoped that during his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Judge Gonzales would have used the opportunity to address these questions and concerns, and that he would have also used it as an opportunity to demonstrate an understanding that the Attorney General does not represent the President but, rather, the American people, the laws of our Nation, and the Constitution of the United States.

I am troubled by the many questions that remain by his refusal to state categorically that the President may not authorize the use of torture in violation of U.S. law and the Geneva Conventions.

On Sunday, Iraqis took an important step toward democracy by holding their first free elections in decades. We applaud and celebrate with them. Let's not take a step backwards now in America by confirming a nominee who does not represent the fundamental rights that the word ``democracy'' represents.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing the ``Keep the Promise of Medicare Act'' of 2005, and am pleased to be joined by my colleagues Senators Kennedy, Boxer, Lautenberg, Rockefeller, Dayton, and Corzine.

Our Medicare beneficiaries were greeted in the New Year by the largest premium increase in Medicare's history--17.5 percent. At the same time, the Social Security COLA increased by only 2.7 percent.

What are the implications of such a discrepancy? More than 2 million beneficiaries nationwide have lost their entire COLA to the Medicare premium increase, and almost 13 million seniors and disabled Americans will have over 50 percent of their COLA consumed by the Medicare premium increase.

This dramatic increase could have been avoided--CMS Administrator McClellan has acknowledged that provisions included in the 2003 Medicare law designed to privatize the program directly contributed to the premium increase.

Therefore, my legislation will limit, retroactively, the 2005 Part B premium increase to the same level as the Social Security COLA. The result will be nearly a $10 monthly savings for our seniors--the Bush Administration has given seniors a monthly $78.20 premium; under our legislation the premium would be $68.40.

Older Americans have been struggling under the relentless increases in the cost of their health care and prescription drugs. Rather than alleviating the challenges they are facing, the 2005 premium increase has made their situation even direr.

Adjusting the current premium is a first step, and one we must take immediately. Additionally, we should use this year to revise an outdated law that has led to record increase in Medicare premiums in the last four years. The promise of Medicare must include

protection from dramatic increases in the Part B premium.

I urge my colleagues to join me on this important piece of legislation.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the ``Keep the Promise of Medicare Act'' of 2005, and am pleased to be joined by my colleagues Senators Kennedy, Boxer, Lautenberg, Rockefeller, Dayton, and Corzine.

Our Medicare beneficiaries were greeted in the New Year by the largest premium increase in Medicare's history--17.5 percent. At the same time, the Social Security COLA increased by only 2.7 percent.

What are the implications of such a discrepancy? More than 2 million beneficiaries nationwide have lost their entire COLA to the Medicare premium increase, and almost 13 million seniors and disabled Americans will have over 50 percent of their COLA consumed by the Medicare premium increase.

This dramatic increase could have been avoided--CMS Administrator McClellan has acknowledged that provisions included in the 2003 Medicare law designed to privatize the program directly contributed to the premium increase.

Therefore, my legislation will limit, retroactively, the 2005 Part B premium increase to the same level as the Social Security COLA. The result will be nearly a $10 monthly savings for our seniors--the Bush Administration has given seniors a monthly $78.20 premium; under our legislation the premium would be $68.40.

Older Americans have been struggling under the relentless increases in the cost of their health care and prescription drugs. Rather than alleviating the challenges they are facing, the 2005 premium increase has made their situation even direr.

Adjusting the current premium is a first step, and one we must take immediately. Additionally, we should use this year to revise an outdated law that has led to record increase in Medicare premiums in the last four years. The promise of Medicare must include

protection from dramatic increases in the Part B premium.

I urge my colleagues to join me on this important piece of legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the nomination of former EPA Administrator and Utah Governor Michael Leavitt to be the Secretary of Health and Human Services.

I respect Governor Leavitt. He and I have enjoyed a good working relationship when he was the EPA administrator. Governor Leavitt always kept an open door, and he worked closely with me on important Michigan issues such as Canadian trash and air quality standards.

But today, he stands ready to take a new role. This is an immense honor and carries even greater responsibility. HHS oversees many of the agencies that affect Americans' lives the most. For example, the Secretary oversees Medicare and Medicaid, which covers over 70 million people, from children and mothers to seniors and the disabled. The National Institutes of Health drives our Nation's biomedical research, and the Food and Drug Administration works to make sure what we eat is safe.

Unfortunately, HHS also has a series of missteps. In today's Washington Post, we learned that HHS, like the Department of Education, paid a journalist to write supportive statements about administration policy in her column. This is on top of findings that HHS improperly used federal money for political purposes. HHS officials also stopped the CMS actuary from giving important information to Congress about the true cost of the Medicare drug bill. I urge Governor Leavitt to work to correct these abuses.

I intend to vote to confirm Governor Leavitt, but I do want to use this opportunity to raise some major concerns about health care. First, I am concerned about Governor Leavitt's position on Medicaid. My State has made great strides in stretching each Medicaid dollar, including an innovative drug purchasing plan with other States.

We should encourage States to find innovative ways to save money, but having flexibility and innovation does not mean cutting people's benefits. I am concerned about rumors about ``block granting'' Medicaid. That would be a dangerous proposition to our most vulnerable populations that rely on this important State-Federal partnership.

Second, we need to have a full and open debate about reimportation. Last Congress, I was deeply disappointed that after numerous bipartisan attempts to bring the issue of drug reimportation to the Senate floor, the leadership blocked a fair discussion on a sensible way to bring down drug prices. I am glad that my friend and colleague Senator Dorgan secured an agreement with Senators Frist and Enzi on having a HELP committee hearing on reimportation by April 25.

We urgently need to have a reimportation bill brought to the floor. I am very troubled by allegations of delays while our seniors and businesses pay the price. For example, there are allegations that the administration is putting strong pressure on our neighbors to the north to block reimportation. In fact, we have heard complaints that almost immediately after U.S. trade officials visited Canada in December, the Canadian health minister began looking into ways to block reimportation.

I have heard too many stories from my constituents that without lower priced, FDA-approved drugs from Canada, they would not be able to afford their rent or buy their groceries. In the America that we want for ourselves and our children, no one should ever have to choose between paying their rent or their medicine.

It is unacceptable that they cannot purchase their medicine here in the

United States. In this great Nation, a pharmacist in Detroit should be able to do business safely and securely with a pharmacist in Windsor.

I am glad that Governor Leavitt is keeping a more open mind about reimportation than others in the administration . . . so far! In fact, during his nomination hearing in the Finance Committee, he stated: ``If it can be shown that it can be done safely, then it's a discussion we should have.''

I hope Governor Leavitt will continue to keep an open mind as we debate reimportation under the agreement with leadership. Again, we need to have an open debate here in Congress about reimportation.

Finally, I hope that Governor Leavitt would keep an open mind about allowing the Federal Government to negotiate drug purchases on behalf of Medicare.

Even outgoing HHS Secretary Thompson said at his December 3 resignation press conference that he would have liked to have had the opportunity to negotiate lower drug prices.

I know that Secretary-designate Leavitt has said he does not believe that the Secretary should have the power to negotiate with drug manufacturers to secure lower prices for Medicare beneficiaries. Rather, he believes that the Medicare law provides enough safeguards to keep drug prices in check.

How is that possible when researchers at Boston University have found that the pharmaceutical industry will actually make $139 billion more under this plan?

In fact, a recent study published in the prestigious Health Affairs journal found that if Medicare could negotiate and bring drug prices more in line with other nations' costs, we could close the doughnut hole.

I am disappointed that Governor Leavitt does not believe in using the market power of over 40 million people to get the best prices for seniors, the disabled, and the American taxpayer. It is a good market- based solution.

More than ever, we need to work to keep down the costs of drugs. It is hurting our businesses, it is hurting our families, and it is going to hurt every American taxpayer when the new Medicare drug program begins in 2006.

Yesterday the Wall Street Journal published a sampling of this month's prescription drug price increases, finding that the prices of 31 of the 50 biggest selling medications have increased dramatically since our November elections. These drugs included popular drugs such as the cholesterol-lowering drugs Lipitor and Pravachol; the pain- killer Celebrex; the antidepressant Zoloft; and the blood-thinner Plavix.

One health research group stated that pharmaceutical companies are marking up their prices now in anticipation of the Medicare drug program coming out in 2006.

It is outrageous that Medicare can't negotiate prices just like businesses, states, and even other Federal agencies can.

This is a great nation, and in the past month, we have seen how strong our democracy is. But we also have room for debate and discussion. I urge Governor Leavitt to keep an open mind and to work with all Members of Congress to bring down the cost of prescription drugs for all Americans.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

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