Floor Statements

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

Mr. President, Americans as much as any people on Earth have a sense of fair play. That is why I believe 3 or 4 years ago, when the Medicare law was passed literally in the middle of the night in the House of Representatives, where the Presiding Officer and I served at that time, by one vote--the rollcall vote was kept open for 3 hours, arms were twisted, calls from the President and pleas and all kinds of begging on the House floor, and who knows what else--that is why people were angry with the way the Medicare law passed. They were also angry especially because of the sense of betrayal they felt with the Medicare law that clearly was written by the drug companies and for the drug companies and by the insurance companies and for the insurance companies.

In fact, that Medicare law meant as much as $200 billion in extra profits for the drug industry and meant as much as $70 or $80 billion in directed subsidies for insurance companies to entice--the word our friends used--entice those insurance companies to write standalone Medicare prescription drug coverage.

Americans know the score. Americans understand much about this whole Medicare law. We all understand the major employee groups typically in our system negotiate bulk discounts on prescription drugs. Americans also understand that the VA negotiates bulk discounts on prescription drugs. The VA, which ensures millions of our Nation's veterans, will go to the drug industry, company by company, and negotiate on a drug formulary, negotiate a price that gives the Government paying for these prescription drugs for our Nation's veterans a discount of about 50 percent on average, the same kind of thing that large insurance companies will do. But under this Medicare law--again, written by the drug companies, written by the insurance companies, pushed through because of the lobbying force and the advertisements and all that the drug industry did and the insurance industry did--Medicare is prohibited under law from negotiating bulk discounts on prescription drugs. That is a prohibition only the drug industry and their friends in Congress--and they number many--could love.

When Medicare has to pay higher prices for medicines, dollars are taken from taxpayers' pockets and placed directly into the pockets of the multinational drug industry. For many years, I have taken bus trips with senior citizens to Canada, when I was in the House of Representatives, from my northern Ohio congressional district. We drove up through Detroit to Windsor to allow senior citizens to buy prescription drugs at a discount of 50, 60, 70 percent because the Canadians have a system where they negotiate drug prices directly with the manufacturer. It is the same drugs, the same manufacturer, the same packaging. The only difference between the medicine sold here and the medicine sold in Canada is the price.

That is the same in country after country after country. We pay two and three and four times more for prescription drugs than people in any other country given the same drug, the same dosage, the same manufacturer. It is a great deal for the drug industry and a bum deal for consumers, especially for senior citizens and for taxpayers in our country.

Medicare is the single largest prescription drug consumer in the country, and jacked-up prices jeopardize Medicare's future.

The legislation we will consider tomorrow ends the prohibition on price negotiations. It takes the handcuffs off Medicare and enables Medicare to negotiate price discounts--the kind of discounts Medicare should receive, given the huge volume of medicines it purchases.

Medicare is a system with more than 40 million Americans in that system. That kind of bulk discount buying will save billions--tens of billions--of dollars for American taxpayers and for senior citizens.

The drug industry, however, has taken to the airwaves, as it always does, and gone to Nation's newspapers to fight this legislation. In the Washington Post today is an example of an outrageous kind of ad the drug industry has written: ``89% of Voters Oppose Government Negotiation of Medicare Drug Prices.'' That is what it says: ``89 percent of Voters Oppose Government Negotiation of Medicare Drug Prices.'' That does not even pass the straight-face test. I hardly know anyone in Ohio--a Democrat, a Republican, an independent--I hardly know anyone who does not think the Government should use the bulk discount process of negotiating directly with the drug industry on behalf of 40 million Medicare beneficiaries. Yet, they claim, in bold print, in a full-page ad that costs tens of thousands of dollars--not much for the drug industry, to be sure--that ``89% of Voters Oppose Government Negotiation of Medicare Drug Prices.''

If you read the small print, it says:

Majorities of Democratic, Republican and Independent voters

do not want the government negotiating prescription drug

prices under Medicare. In fact, 89 percent oppose government

negotiation if it could limit access to new prescription

medications.

Well, no kidding, if it limits access, then they say they do not like it. But, of course, they do not. And, of course, because of high drug company prices, we are seeing limited access to prescription drugs.

How many times, I say to the Presiding Officer, in New Jersey or in Ohio or in Nevada or in Iowa do we hear stories from our constituents who have decided, because they cannot quite afford the drugs, they are going to cut a pill in half so their prescription will last twice as long, or they are only going to take a tablet every other day, even though they are prescribed to take it every day, so their prescription lasts longer? How often do we have to hear that?

That is the issue of access, that too many seniors, too many middle- class Americans, too many low-income Americans simply cannot afford to pay for their prescription drugs because the price is so high because of the drug companies, with their billions of dollars in advertising, with their hundreds of millions of dollars they spend on 600 lobbyists in this institution. There are, at last count, over 600 people paid by the drug industry to lobby this Congress. There are only 535 of us here in Congress; 100 in the Senate, 435 in the House. They have more than 600 lobbyists to talk to us. These most recent ads are particularly offensive.

Allowing Medicare to negotiate lower priced medicines will not reduce access to medicines, it will increase access. If we get lower priced drugs, more people who have these prescriptions will be able to fully fill their prescriptions so, in fact, they will get access to drugs. That is why lower prices for Medicare mean lower copayments for seniors, and that means increased access to medicines.

That is why AARP supports allowing price negotiations. That is why the Alliance for Retired Americans supports allowing price negotiations. That is why the Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare supports allowing price negotiations.

The drug industry, again, stooped pretty low with this misleading poll, and then with this very expensive--tens of thousands of dollars for this one ad in one newspaper in the country. I wonder if there is any line the drug industry would not cross when it comes

to preserving the sweetheart deal they have in this country, where they have far too many politicians in the Senate and in the House, far too many of our colleagues, who simply, again, over and over and over, do the drug companies' bidding.

Every other developed country in the world, as I said earlier, gets better priced prescription drugs than we do. Every other developed country in the world gets better prices than we do. That is because these countries do not put up with the grossly inflated drug prices our Nation does. It is because their drug company lobbyists or their drug company media campaigns simply may not be as effective in France and Canada and Germany and Israel and Japan and Mexico, and all over the world, where drug prices are a half or a third or a fourth of what they are here.

We will put up with most anything, it seems, if an industry has deep enough pockets and an army of lobbyists. Prohibiting the Government from negotiating volume discounts on prescription drugs simply makes no sense. The Government negotiates the price of everything else it buys.

When the Architect of the Capitol buys carpeting for the Senate floor--as we look around at this very nice blue carpet here--they do not take the manufacturer's word that a fair price would impair fiber research. We do not say whatever the carpet makers want, we will pay because it costs a lot to do this research to make these rugs beautiful and make this carpet last, when so many feet walk over it.

When the Park Service buys ranger uniforms, it does not take the first bid that comes in. It gets good quality at the lowest price possible.

But with drugs, the President and his allies here in Congress--and we know how much money the drug industry gave to President Bush; and we know the kinds of effective lobbying the drug industry employs in the Senate--the President and his allies here in Congress say the Government must pay any price the drug industry wants to charge.

That policy is more than a mistake; it is a joke on the American people. It is a betrayal of our constituents. The drug companies are laughing all the way to the bank.

We need to pass this legislation tomorrow and let Medicare bargain for the prices that Medicare beneficiaries deserve.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 151, which was submitted earlier today.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 152, which was submitted earlier today.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 153, submitted earlier today.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate

proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 115, S. Res. 112.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table; that any statements relating thereto be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, lastly, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 8:30 a.m., Wednesday, April 18; that on Wednesday, following the prayer and the pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired and the time for the two leaders reserved for their use later in the day; that there then be a period of morning business for 60 minutes, with Senators permitted to speak therein and with the time equally divided and controlled between the majority and the Republican leaders or their designees; that following the 60 minutes, the Senate resume the motion to proceed to S. 3, the prescription drug bill, and vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed; that prior to the vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to S. 378, the court security bill, there be 2 minutes of debate equally divided between Senators Leahy and Specter or their designees.

Mr. President, if there is no further business and if the Republican leader has nothing further, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Iowa, who, frankly, more than anybody in this institution and almost anybody in the country, has led the charge on embryonic stem

cell research and the work he has done will save lives, which is what this issue is all about.

The Senate is about to vote on legislation that ends the ban on Federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. President Bush, as we hear--although I still hope he changes his mind--does not support lifting the ban on stem cell research, but do we know who does? The American Medical Association thinks we should lift the ban. So does the American Society for Microbiology, the Association of American Medical Colleges, the Cancer Research Foundation of America, the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, the Parkinson's Action Network, Project ALS, and the Society for Pediatric Research. The list goes on and on and on.

We in this body should ask ourselves: Why do these groups support Federal funding? Because the research offers victims of these diseases hope. Not a magic bullet, not a miracle cure, not certainty but, quite simply, hope: hope that a child with a spinal injury will recover the ability to walk; Hope that a parent with Alzheimer's will be able to step back from the abyss of dementia. Hope.

Recently the Director of the National Institutes of Health stated in a Senate hearing that he supports expanded stem cell research. Dr. Zerhouni, who basically is one of the President's chief medical advisers and an appointment of President Bush, said:

It is clear today that American science would be better

served and the Nation would be better served if we let our

scientists have access to more cell lines.

That would give them the opportunity to expand their research, to open one more door, provide one more opportunity for research; in a word, to provide hope.

If we don't listen to the leader of one of our Nation's most prestigious scientific institutions, whom will we listen to? Because of embryonic stem cell research, medical science may one day be able to dispense with the use of terms such as ``incurable'' or ``irreversible'' or ``unremitting,'' words that spell disaster to loved ones, words that spell no hope so often for patients. If we can do what we have the opportunity to do today, to open another door, to give another window of opportunity to our medical scientists, to our researchers, we can provide that hope to so many patients and so many loved ones of those patients. That is amazing. Getting anywhere near that goal would be amazing.

More than 200,000 people in my State, more than 200,000 Ohioans have Alzheimer's disease. More than 40,000 Ohioans have Parkinson's disease. Almost 700,000 Ohioans have diabetes. That is about 1 in 14 Ohioans who have diabetes. I have a family member suffering from diabetes. My best friend, John Kleshinski, is someone who provided hope for so many. He lived in Boston for many years. He grew up in Ohio with me. John Kleshinski provided hope to so many children in inner-city Boston because of his philanthropy, because he gave young children in Boston a chance to learn music, to play the piano, to sing, to learn other musical instruments. John Kleshinski always provided hope. John was diagnosed with juvenile diabetes when he was 13. Last November, at the age of 55, he died of a heart attack. Throughout his life, he did everything possible, everything within the limits of modern medicine to prolong his life and to live the healthiest life he could. If we had done the advancements in embryonic stem cell research, it could have made a difference in John Kleshinski's life. If we are going to choose life, if we are going to value life, this issue is so very important to give people hope.

Looking at these conditions alone, at Parkinson's, diabetes, especially juvenile diabetes, and Alzheimer's, it is clear there are huge stakes involved when Federal actions delay the moment when embryonic stem cell research produces its first human treatment. We can act tomorrow and pass this legislation. We can continue to try to persuade the President, as his own medical adviser did, to change his mind. His own medical adviser changed his mind over the last couple of years about stem cell research. If we can pass this bill tomorrow and hopefully convince the President to change his mind, it will provide hope for so many Americans.

This bill, Senate bill 5, will advance stem cell research, and most legislators are in support of S. 5, which passed the HELP Committee, and it has passed in the other body. But President Bush has threatened to veto this bill. He vetoed similar legislation last year as his first and only veto since he has been President. I hope he takes a step back. I hope he considers the people he is hurting by stifling embryonic stem cell research. I hope he listens to his own medical adviser, Dr. Zerhouni. I hope he listens to the millions of Americans whose lives will be shattered by disabling and terminal illnesses, the families whose hearts will be broken by the loss of a loved one, the children who will not grow up, the parents who will not meet their grandchildren, the grandparents who will no longer recognize their friends and their family members. Parkinson's disease, Lou Gehrig's disease, Alzheimer's disease, cancer, arthritis, diabetes, paralysis, the advancement of embryonic stem cell research can provide hope for cures of all these diseases.

Investing in embryonic stem cell research is an expression of empathy and compassion. We have an opportunity to turn potential cures into real ones. We must not squander it. Hope, Mr. President, hope.

Madam President, last month, at a Senate Agriculture Committee hearing, Rhonda Stewart, a single mother from Hamilton, OH, Butler

County, testified that despite working full time, caring for her 9- year-old son Wyatt--even serving as president of the PTA--she and her son must rely on food stamps to survive.

At the end of each month, she told us, she must forgo dinner so her son can eat because the food stamps, which is about $6 a day, don't go far enough. She told us that at the beginning of the month, he gets pork chops. He knows he eats better in the beginning of the month than at the end of the month when she is running out of money. At the end of the month, she sits and tells him she is not really hungry, as her son eats, because she wants him to have enough, even when she doesn't.

On the same day that Ms. Steward testified, U.S. Treasury Secretary Paulson told the Senate Banking Committee that the economy was doing well. He said over and over that the GDP was up 3 percent for the quarter. He kept insisting: Senator, you don't understand, things are going very well in this country. GDP is up 3 percent. People are making money and companies are profitable.

When you think about all of that, here is the story: Profits are up. The stock market is doing well. Millionaires are enjoying exorbitant tax breaks. Worker productivity is up, but the workers are not sharing in the increasing profits most corporations are making. Workers across the country too often are losing their jobs, and a single mother working full time cannot afford to eat dinner--even with the $6 a day in food stamps.

A Wall Street Journal article reported this week that since 2001, the economy has grown by 16 percent--16 percent since 2001--while worker pay, after inflation, has grown less than 1 percent--16 percent growth in the economy, profits up, workers gaining less than 1 percent.

Wrongheaded economic policies and job-killing trade agreements have fueled income disparity at home and abroad.

A few years ago, after the North American Free Trade Agreement passed, Congress was considering another one of these job-killing trade agreements. I traveled to McAllen, TX, where I crossed the border into Reynosa, Mexico. I rented a car with some friends and went to visit some families in Mexico just a couple of miles on the other side of the American border. There I met a husband and wife who worked for General Electric, Mexico. They lived in a shack that was about 20-by-20 feet, with no running water, no electricity, dirt floors. When it rained hard, the floors turned to mud. They worked 10 hours a day, 6 days a week, and each made less than a dollar an hour. Behind their shack was a ditch that was about 3 feet wide, perhaps, which was full of who- knows-what--perhaps human and industrial waste. The children played in this ditch. The American Medical Association has said that along that border is one of the most toxic places in the entire Western Hemisphere.

We visited an auto plant nearby, a modern, high-tech auto plant. The plant in Mexico looked just like an auto plant in Lordstown, OH, or Avon Lake or Cincinnati. The workers were working hard, the floors were clean, the technology was up-to-date, and the productivity was very good. But there was one difference between the Mexican auto plant and the one you would see in Ohio. That difference was the Mexican auto plant didn't have a parking lot. The Mexican workers were not making enough to buy the cars they made.

You can go halfway around the world to Malaysia to a Motorola plant, where the workers are not making enough to buy the cell phones they make, or you can go to Costa Rica, where workers at a Disney plant don't make enough to buy the toys they make. In China, workers at a Nike plant are not making enough to buy those shoes they make. These workers are not sharing in the wealth they create for their employers.

That is why these job-killing trade agreements don't work. Only when workers share in the wealth they create will we know our trade policy is working. In fact, when the poor in the developing world--those people who are working hard, working 50 to 60 hours a week, with their hands--only when the poor in those countries are able to buy the products they are making for us will we know our trade policy in the United States is actually working.

During the fight against the Central American Free Trade Agreement 2 years ago, the largest ever bipartisan fair-trade group was formed. Democrats and Republicans, environmental groups, religious groups, labor organizations, and business groups united and we changed forever the debate on trade. That coalition is alive and well, not just in the House of Representatives but also for the first time in the Senate. They are already working to revamp our Nation's trade policy and working to establish a manufacturing policy.

Senators Byron Dorgan, Lindsey Graham, and I have introduced legislation that would ban imports from sweatshops. We have called for tougher World Trade Organization action to be taken against China, a country where, at least in 2005, 5,000 political prisoners were executed. The human rights violations continue in China. The oppression of workers continues in China. The kinds of values we hold dear in this country are violated every day by that Government and every day by these companies doing business in China, a country that manipulates its currency and continues to exploit its workers.

Our Government must renegotiate these trade agreements so that they lift up workers here and abroad, reward U.S. businesses that stay here, reward U.S. businesses that produce here, and reward U.S. businesses that create jobs here. That means doing away with current fast-track authority. That means doing away with the fundamentally flawed North American Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA model trade agreements. Make no mistake, we want trade. We want more of it, but we want fair trade. It is not a matter of if we revamp U.S. trade policy; it is when and who benefits from that.

America is a nation of innovation. The future of our manufacturing policy is firmly planted in the research and development of alternative energy. Today, I spoke with several people from Ohio--business owners and plant managers--who are part of a group called the Manufacturing Extension Partnership. It is a relatively small government program that helps small manufacturers, small businesses in Ohio and across the country, learn to compete better, helps them learn to cut their health care costs, helps them to be more energy efficient, and helps them learn how to export some of their products. We have a long way to go.

Oberlin College, not far from where I live, is home to the largest building in the United States on a college campus that is completely powered by solar energy. However, when that college built this building, they had to buy the components of the solar panels from Japan and Germany because we don't make enough of them in this country.

The same is true when you talk about wind turbines. In Ashtabula, OH, they make components for wind-turbine manufacturing. So do some other places around the country. But they do not make enough. More and more wind turbines are being built in this country, and it is a great opportunity, as all of alternative energy production is, for us as a nation to use that, in part, to help rebuild our manufacturing capabilities, to cut energy prices, and to do the right thing for the environment. It works in every way.

That is why as we, in the next couple of months, move toward votes on trade promotion authority, as we move forward, perhaps, on votes on bilateral trade agreements with Colombia, Peru, Korea, Panama, and other countries, perhaps, it is time that we pass trade agreements in this country that lift up workers, help our small manufacturers, that help us continue to preserve and expand our manufacturing base.

It is an American value to reward hard work. This Congress has a real opportunity not just to talk about a different trade regimen but to go in a different direction, to replace trade promotion authority with a trade promotion authority legislation model that will help to lift our workers up, create jobs in this country, help the developing world lift up their living standards so that we can continue to reward work and continue to fight for our values as a nation.

Mr. President, it is my privilege to call to the attention of my colleagues a great Ohioan and distinguished Tuskegee Airman, Howard Arthur Tibbs, who this week will be posthumously awarded the Congressional Gold Medal.

Much has been written about the valiant service and tremendous bravery of these African-American men during World War II. Collectively the Airmen flew over 15,000 sorties and 1,500 missions in their legendary P-51 Mustangs. They were awarded two Presidential Unit Citations, 744 Air Medals, 150 Distinguished Flying Crosses, and numerous individual bronze and silver stars.

But this simple listing of their military accomplishments does not capture the true breadth of their commitment and sacrifice to this country. Not only did they greatly contribute to the Allies' defeat of the Axis Powers, but they did so within a highly segregated military. It has been stated that ``These airmen fought two wars--one against a military force overseas and the other against racism at home and abroad.''

Howard Arthur Tibbs exemplified the qualities for which the Tuskegee Airmen are so admired. At the age of 24, the Salem, OH native enlisted into the service of his country at Fort Hayes in Columbus, OH. He fought bravely and served honorably under tremendously challenging conditions. Our State and our Nation are indebted to him and his fellow airmen for their sacrifice.

A window into the character of Howard Arthur Tibbs is provided by the advice he gave his children. ``Give each day your best,'' he told them, ``and the best is bound to come back to you.'' Howard Tibbs certainly gave his best to this country, and this country is right to recognize his bravery and accomplishment.

I proudly celebrate the life and sacrifice of this great Ohioan on the occasion of his posthumous award of the Congressional Gold Medal.

Mr. President, I thank my friend, the Senator from North Dakota, for his terrific work on this budget, and I rise to oppose the Ensign amendment.

Medicare is a social contract. Individuals pay into the program during their working years, and they receive health coverage when they retire. One good way to undermine universal support, to undermine support for the program is to arbitrarily make part of the Medicare population pay a significantly higher price for the same product. Ultimately, this will drive higher income individuals out of the program to purchase their own coverage. When that begins to occur, working individuals will begin to wonder why they are paying Medicare taxes when Medicare coverage may or may not be worth their while on retirement.

Medicare, I repeat, is a social contract. Efforts to undermine it, such as this one, will fail.

It is interesting that there are Members of this body who want to raise taxes on Medicare beneficiaries while at the same time cut taxes for Donald Trump. I repeat: Raise taxes for Medicare beneficiaries but cut taxes on some of the wealthiest individuals in our country. If you want to undermine Medicare, create winners and losers among its enrollees, then that is the way to do it.

There is something else at work here, though. I came to the House of Representatives 14 years ago, and almost immediately, I saw the hostility many Members of this body and that body felt toward Medicare. In 1995, when the Republicans took control of the House of Representatives, one of the first things they did--it was their first opportunity to go after Medicare--they proposed tens of billions of dollars in cuts in Medicare in order to pay for their tax cuts for the wealthiest people. The same kind of thing here--cut Medicare to pay for tax cuts on the wealthiest people in our country. That is the kind of hostility they had. Every time they had a chance, once they were in the majority, they tried to do it.

The Speaker of the House in those days said that under his plan, Medicare would wither on the vine. So they began attempts to privatize Medicare, to shift to fee-for-service. Traditional Medicare, which had served this country well--at that point for three decades, now for four decades--they wanted to take traditional Medicare and to

privatize it and push some Medicare beneficiaries out of traditional Medicare into Medicare managed care. The Government pays more for Medicare managed care, and beneficiaries and taxpayers get less for those dollars. But it is all part of their efforts to undermine Medicare.

Maybe we should go back further than 10 years ago or 14 years ago and go back to 1965 when Medicare was created. In this body, overwhelming numbers of Republicans opposed Medicare, the creation of it. In this body and across the hall, in the House of Representatives, a huge, overwhelming majority of Republicans opposed the creation of Medicare then. They were hostile to the concept of universal coverage, of making sure every elderly person in this country had the opportunity to enroll in Medicare. They are hostile to it today, and they were hostile to it in 1995, when Speaker Gingrich said Medicare would wither on the vine. They began the attempts to cut Medicare on the one hand and to do further damage by privatizing it on the other.

We are continuing to see this assault even now. They say they are for Medicare. They run television ads saying: We would never cut Medicare; we think it is a great program. But when they come to the floor of this body, of this Senate Chamber, over and over, from every different direction, they attack one of the single greatest programs that this Government has ever created and that our people have ever had.

In 1965, half the elderly in this country had no health insurance. Today, after 41\1/2\ years of Medicare, almost everybody in our country is covered. If they had their way, they would begin to privatize, they would begin to cut, and Medicare would not be the universal program with the universal, overwhelming support of the people in this country.

If the Senate wants to reflect what the people in this country think, we should overwhelmingly defeat the Ensign amendment because it undercuts what is best about our health care system. It undercuts the universal nature of Medicare, which works for everybody. If you want to preserve Medicare, there are things we can do to fix it, to make some small adjustments. But this amendment is not the way. We should defeat the Ensign amendment.

No more than 5 minutes.

Madam President, for too long policies set in Washington have failed to represent the values of families throughout our Nation. The last 6 years, the President has used his State of the Union Address to assert his administration's commitment to economic development, to quality education, to enhanced national security, and to other worthwhile goals. For the last 6 years, he has presented a budget that cuts funding, that cripples communities, that devastates families. His administration talks about the importance of economic development, then they propose cuts to small business and to manufacturing programs. His administration talks about the importance of education, then year after year they dramatically underfund No Child Left Behind. The administration talks about the importance of homeland security, then they cut critical first responder funding, all the while continuing to push for more tax breaks for billionaires.

Budgets, as we know, are moral documents, for a business, for a family, and for a government. Budgets reveal what is important and what is not. They reveal priorities. Over the last 6 years, the Federal budget has strayed further and further away from the priorities of the people we represent. This budget is an opportunity to reverse course.

Members of Congress serve at the pleasure of those who elected us to office. We are supposed to serve on their behalf. Families across Ohio, families across the Nation made their priorities well known last November. They want a budget that helps to educate our children, invests in our communities, and secures our Nation. They want a budget that supports our military overseas and our first responders at home and our veterans and our soldiers and sailors when they return. They want a budget that values our Nation's veterans, bolsters the public health, and makes a meaningful, not a token, investment in alternative energy.

Congress has hard work to do in the months and years ahead. Six years ago, we had a budget surplus. Now we have deficits as far as the eye can see. We must realign our budget priorities and our policymaking to reflect the priorities of working families. This budget takes us in a new direction, guided by our constituents' priorities.

Say no to the Sessions amendment. Say yes to the budget resolution. It is a new direction. It is the right one.

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

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

Madam President, 4 years ago the President of the United States told the Nation that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. The President told us that Saddam Hussein was aiding and abetting al-Qaida. Now he is telling us that sending more troops into Iraq will lead to some kind of victory in a country torn by civil war and rife with insurgents. The President did not make a credible case in 2002. He has failed to do so again.

Before the President sent our troops into battle in 2003, I asked him a series of questions in a letter to the President and in a House resolution, questions about strategy, about reconstruction, and about troop safety. He did not answer those questions then. He still has not answered them. We do not know his definition of victory. We do not know his plan for an exit strategy. We still do not have an answer as to when our troops will have all the body armor they need. We are supposed to take it on trust that sending more of our troops into this chaos will somehow produce stability. Trust needs to be earned.

In November, voters in my State of Ohio and voters in Missouri and across the country spoke loudly and clearly that they do not support more of the same when the same simply has not worked. Clearly, the President has not listened to them. It is up to Congress to work together and up to Congress to work on a new direction for Iraq. We are well served to remember that we stand in this room today at the will of the American people. We have a duty to stand up to the President now as we failed to do in sufficient numbers 4 years ago.

The same people who chose to start this war, who recklessly started this war without the necessary resources, without the necessary planning, without the necessary body armor--those people who ignored the sage advice of military experts are the same people, with their same tired advice, who want to escalate this war today. If we choose to ignore history, we will be repeating a grave mistake.

This resolution does four important things.

First, this resolution reaffirms our continuous support of our men and women in uniform. Any official in our Government who says anything other than that is playing to the crowd, is disingenuous at best. Our troops have done everything we have asked of them in Iraq. They have acted heroically. They have done their job. Some have said that if we do not support the President's plans, we are unpatriotic. They say we don't support the troops. Every Member of this body supports the brave men and women fighting in Iraq. Every Member of the Senate who stands up and speaks out in this war is demonstrating patriotism. Patriotism isn't a yes-man; it is love for our country. Fighting against more of the same in Iraq when more of the same is not working is what patriotism looks like.

Second, this resolution answers the demand of the American people to redeploy our troops out of Iraq. The President's original plan for Iraq has not worked, and his most current plan for escalation is neither new nor different. We must have a timetable for redeployment of U.S. forces or, at the very least, a plan for it--something the administration has simply failed to do.

Third, this resolution calls for a comprehensive strategy using diplomacy--something else the administration has failed to do.

Fourth, and perhaps most important, this resolution calls for oversight. The abdication of oversight and accountability in past Congresses is nothing short of shameful. The administration says the current plan for escalation will require 20,000 troops and will cost $5.6 billion. The Congressional Budget Office tells a different story. In the past, the President could put those numbers out there and nobody would call him on that--nobody in this body who had any ability to do oversight. Instead of the 20,000 troops and the $5.6 billion this President claims it costs, the Congressional Budget Office said the requirement will be 48,000 troops and the price tag will be $27 billion. Again, more of the same is not the answer.

We have the duty to heed the call of those who sent us to Congress, and with this resolution we have the opportunity to heed that call. If the President will not listen to the voters, if the President will not listen to his generals, if the President will not listen to the Iraq Study Group, if the President

will not listen to his own National Intelligence estimate, then we must make him listen to us as the people's representatives.

Let us work today toward sending a clear message to the President and to the world that the era of congressional willful ignorance is over. We will hold the President accountable, and we will start today.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 5 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. President, I thank my friend from Connecticut.

(The remarks of Mr. Brown are printed in today's Record under ``Morning Business.'')

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Connecticut and yield the floor.