Debbie Stabenow

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Ford didn't hit it.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today to express concerns other colleagues on this side of the aisle have as well, that in the midst of what is the most robust economic turnaround and growth in a generation, with wages up and unemployment down and almost 11 million new jobs created, most of those small businesses--we love that in Michigan. I know the Presiding Officer does in Maine as well. With all of the positive indicators and with all of our efforts to bring down costs, because that is the big thing for people right now, bringing down their costs--and this month, the good news is a $35 cap on insulin for anyone on Medicare. A senior citizen who is a diabetic--a $35 cap on insulin. We need to do more to bring down costs, but instead of joining with us, the new House Republican majority has decided, well, let's see, when things are turning around for the American people, I know--let's crash the economy. Let's say we are not going to pay our bills. Let's cause interest rates to go up. Let's cause people to be hurt, maybe jeopardize people getting their Social Security, Medicare, veterans' benefits, or paying the military. This makes absolutely no sense. I know it is difficult, this antiquated thing called the debt ceiling, because, really, it is about whether or not we are going to pay our bills. So we decide as a family we are going to get a mortgage, and then 2 years into it, we decide, you know, I think we are going to stop paying the mortgage. I don't want to pay my bills anymore on that. And we just stop paying bills. I mean, our country can't just make commitments to families, to veterans, to the military, to seniors, to children, to other countries, and say: Nah, I think we will just stop paying our bills. It is outrageous, it is irresponsible, and the consequences, as we know, will literally crash our economy. So what do the Republicans say they want to do? In return for not crashing the economy, in return for the United States meeting its obligations and paying its bills, what do they want to do? What do they say that somehow we have to agree to? Well, the first thing they have already done, which is an extension of how their focus is very much on keeping money in the pockets of the wealthy and the well connected, the very first bill--they are talking debt. Oh, we have so much debt. We have all this debt. The first thing they do, the very first bill, very first week, may have been the first day--I am not sure--after the 15 votes to create a Speaker, they turn around and they pass a bill that will add $114 billion to the national debt--$114 billion to the national debt. Why? Because they think that if you are a wealthy tax cheat, you should be able to continue doing it. So they want to take away the capacity for the IRS, for investigators to go after the tax cheats. Now, they are OK if you are going after a poor person who is on the earned income tax credit. In fact, they are OK with the fact that the most audited county in the United States right now is in Mississippi, Humphreys, MS. Forty percent of the residents are poor, Black residents, and they have the highest audit rate. They are on the earned income tax credit. Now, that is OK, but don't go after our buddies--oh no. They are the ones with all the accountants and the attorneys. You know, we have seen it play out with the former President of the United States. Do everything you can not to have to pay your fair share of taxes. Now, we as Democrats know that everybody should have to pay their fair share, and, in fact, in the Inflation Reduction Act, we made a big step on that point where the corporations are not paying. But what do they want? OK, protect tax cheats. Then they say: Well, we have to cut Social Security and Medicare. We can't afford that anymore. A great American success story. Lifted over half the country's retirees out of poverty. A great American success story--brought to you predominantly by Democrats, I should say--but they say: Let's cut Social Security and Medicare before we pay our bills, because we have too much debt. Even though we can add to the debt for rich people, we need to cut Social Security and Medicare. Then the one that is like on top of everything else, when they all ran on how costs were too high in the election--I mean, we are the ones fighting to bring down energy costs, $1,000 per family back in their pockets, $35 cap on insulin for seniors right now--right now, happening right now. So what do they say we should do to deal with the debt they are talking about? Oh, let's have a 30-percent sales tax increase. Let's increase the cost of an automobile by $10,000. That is pretty personal to me, coming from Michigan. We make a lot of those vehicles. We are pretty proud of making those vehicles. People drive those vehicles. A $10,000 increase on somebody--try to have a car to get the kids to school, get people to work, and so on. Increase the cost of a house. We don't know what all of this is. Food, electric bills, transportation-- we don't know what it is. But now we are at a point where they want to say: We are not paying our bills unless you do what we want. So now the question is, OK, pass the bills. Show us what you have got. You want this? Vote on it. Vote on it. Pass your agenda. You already voted on step 1, adding to the deficit about $114 billion. So you have all these other ideas that will hurt seniors and children and the majority of Americans, hard-working Americans, but if that is what you think, if that is really what you think, then pass the bills. Pass the bills. So what they really don't want to tell you while they are talking about all of this and talking about how we have a high national debt, which we do, and we need to come together and continue to do things to address that, what they don't tell you--the dirty little secret is that almost 30 percent of the national debt was accumulated during 4 years of President Trump, that they voted for, and most of that was a huge tax cut for the wealthy and well connected. Now, they were willing to pay the bills--raised the debt ceiling three times during the Trump years--because it was about giving their buddies, the wealthy and well connected, a big tax cut. The truth of the matter is, if there hadn't been that tax cut, if we had truly required wealthy tax cheats to pay their fair share of taxes, if we had done those two things, we wouldn't even have to raise the debt ceiling right now. We wouldn't have to do that. There wouldn't be a need. So they do this shell game here. So it is tax cuts for the wealthy, don't let their wealthy buddies have to pay their fair share of taxes, and then turn around and argue that they are going to crash the economy, not pay our bills, unless we cut Social Security and Medicare and add a 30-percent sales tax and a whole range of other things. This is not our priority. We certainly, as Democrats, do not believe that this should be the priority of the American people. By the way, when we talk about it, I forgot to mention that the other half of the story is that while they were doing this, in the last 2 years, the deficit fell by $1.4 trillion under President Biden--$1.4 trillion--while we have invested in people, rebuilding the country, bringing jobs home, invested in those things that will create opportunity for everybody to succeed. While we have been investing in people--not the powerful, not focused on profits but people--while we have been doing that, we have also been focused on bringing the deficit down. So I hope our colleagues on the other side of the building and the other side of the aisle will take a step back here from the brink and understand the dangerous situation they are putting us in with not being willing to pay the bills, with crashing the economy, all for a radical, radical MAGA agenda that will hurt the majority of the American people. They want to debate that agenda separately from crashing the economy. Let's pay our bills, and if they want to debate that and they want to pass bills and send them over to us, that is the legislative process. They can do that, and we will have that debate. And we will send them bills that make sure wealthy tax cheats pay their fair share, just like we did in the Inflation Reduction Act with a 15-percent minimum corporate tax. And we will continue to put people first, not just the wealthy and the powerful in this country. It is a very different vision. It is a very different view of how you grow the economy. It is a very different view of whom we are fighting for, whom we are working for. I am glad to be on this side. I am glad to be on this side with the majority of the people. And I would argue what we have done the last 2 years, putting people first, investing in people and bringing jobs home and rebuilding the economy and investing in science and bringing down costs and continuing to focus on that, as well as the deficit, has worked. This is not just rhetoric. It actually has worked. It actually has worked. So I hope our Republican colleagues, particularly in the House, will join us in those things that will actually move America forward. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today to honor, as all of my colleagues do, someone whom I have had the good fortune to work with my entire time in the U.S. Senate, 22 years. It is hard for me to believe that. But Senator Pat Leahy really is more than a friend. He really is more than a leader. As my colleagues have said, he is an institution, and it is really hard to picture the U.S. Senate without him. I was thinking that maybe the only time that we have disagreed was when he wanted to name Lake Champlain a Great Lake. It may be a big lake. It may be a beautiful lake. It is not a Great Lake. Senator Leahy has literally made our Nation and our world a freer and fairer place. Through his leadership on the Judiciary Committee, Senator Leahy has fought, as we know, for a fair criminal justice system and greater civil rights protections. One example is his tireless work that he spoke about to restore the landmark Voting Rights Act after the horrific Shelby County decision in 2013. And he hasn't limited his fight for justice to the United States. Pat Leahy is a champion for human rights around the world, and I have had the great fortune to travel with him and see this up close. Some of my fondest memories of Senator Leahy and Marcelle were when we traveled to Cuba in 2013 and then again in 2015. What an adventure that was. We met with Cuban officials to discuss opportunities for greater cooperation and reformers and activists who bravely pushed back against the Castro regime. And in 2019, Senator Leahy led a large congressional delegation--a bipartisan delegation--to South Korea and Vietnam. It was so incredibly moving to see the people of Vietnam honor my friend for his long legacy of leadership on landmines and the effort to clean up areas contaminated with dioxin during the Vietnam war. They actually have a plaque. There was this huge ceremony, literally rolling out the red carpet on the military base where they were announcing their efforts on cleanup. A plaque was set up primarily for Senator Leahy, but all of us on the trip had the good fortune of having our names on it with him as well. But the reverence shown for Senator Leahy was really inspiring. Senator Leahy is also a legend on the Agriculture Committee, as everyone has said. He was chairman and ranking member of the committee. His work was guided by the same bipartisan principles that guide Senator Boozman and me today. We have learned from his leadership and his being a role model to us. He is the father of the organic farm bill created over 30 years ago, which now has created a $60 billion industry--$60 billion industry. He has been a leader on conservation initiatives. He is the author of the Farm to School Program, which has been an overwhelming success, showing children that, actually, food doesn't come from the grocery store--you actually plant it and harvest it and grow it--and creating so much excitement for children in school. And anyone familiar with dairy policy knows that our Nation's family dairy farms have had no greater champion than Senator Leahy. And, of course, you can't talk about Senator Leahy without mentioning his love of everything Batman. I understand he started reading Batman comics as a young boy and grew up to voice a character in an animated series and appear in five Batman movies. He looked like he was having so much fun that I decided to join him in the last one, which was filmed in Michigan, and I might say his character got blown up; mine didn't. Pat, we are going to miss you so much, so much. I hope you enjoy many wonderful days and years ahead with Marcelle and your grandkids and your camera. Thank you for a job well done. You have made Vermont, our country, and our world a better place. I yield the floor.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I also rise today to pay tribute to someone who is literally a friend across the aisle and across State lines. Now, you might not think that the senior Senator from Michigan, a Democrat, and the junior Senator from Ohio, a Republican, would be friends. After all, our States share a long and passionate rivalry, particularly on the football field. This rivalry is especially intense on game day, like recently, when the Michigan Wolverines defeated Ohio State Buckeyes 45 to 23. I am just saying. I particularly, Senator Portman, wanted to say this out loud to make sure Senator Brown heard it also. Of course, my friend Rob Portman may have been cheering. And he may never really say this, but, you know, I am often wondering if, behind the scenes, he is sort of cheering both sides on that because he has never advertised it and he has never said it up to this point, but let me say today that he is a graduate of the University of Michigan Law School. Now that he is retiring, maybe he can say it out loud. So we are glad to have him there. Senator Portman has been a wonderful partner on issues important to both of our States, both Great Lakes and trade. We have served as cochairs of the Senate Great Lakes Task Force since 2017, and we have gone to bat together on behalf of our beloved lakes time and time again. We have introduced and passed legislation to stop invasive species from reaching and destroying our Great Lakes. When the Trump administration tried to slash nearly all the funding for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, we fought back together and we won. And since then, we have passed legislation to reauthorize the program and celebrated when we secured $1 billion through the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, the single largest investment ever for the Great Lakes. And it would not have happened without Senator Portman. I have always said that the Great Lakes shouldn't be a partisan issue, and thanks to Rob, they have not been. We found ways to work together on the issue of trade as well. We fought for American workers when we served together in the House and then continued a strong working relationship when Senator Portman left to become the U.S. Trade Representative under President Bush. In the Senate, we have partnered to ensure that American workers have a level playing field. That included a great congressional delegation trip to Vietnam and South Korea, where we met with trade officials, Senator Portman and I, and I got to see how much he is respected by these world leaders. From strengthening our supply chains to securing funding to revitalized communities to promoting recycling to planting trees to funding our community health centers to keeping plastic pollution out of the Great Lakes--there is no end to the number of issues we have worked on together. Rob, I am going to miss you. I have so valued your friendship and working relationship here. You have made a real difference, but I know you are going to enjoy spending more time with Jane and Jed and Will and Sally and watching more Michigan games that you can finally admit you enjoy. I wish you the best of everything and hope we are going to continue to see you. I yield the floor.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, it is an honor to join with my colleagues to speak about someone that is a dear friend. And I have often said to the Senator: You are not really leaving; I am putting you in a closet and locking the door, and we are not letting you leave. But then I know that Abby and Charlie and your whole family would not appreciate that. We first met back in the 1980s, when Senator Blunt was the secretary of state in Missouri and I was a State legislator. It was the first year that the national Jaycees went from 10 outstanding young men to 10 outstanding young Americans, and I had the honor of being one of three women honored that year. But we met in Tulsa, OK, and Roy has often joked that we met in a hotel room, but then he quickly explains what that was to Abby. But we had the opportunity to be there together. And then it wasn't until the 1996 election. We were both elected to the U.S. House. We were standing on the steps of the U.S. House, outside, to take a picture of the freshman class, and 1996 it was, the end of the year. I turn around, and Roy Blunt is standing right next to me. And I said: I know you. We gathered together again and really struck up a friendship. Then we both were on the House Agriculture Committee, and the very first bill I think either of us ever introduced was this very exciting bill about wheat germ. So I often was asked what was the first bill I ever introduced, and it was a wheat disease bill. But Roy and I got it done and went on to really form a wonderful friendship ever since. I was very excited when he then joined us in the U.S. Senate. As many people know, in addition to our having led the bills on community health centers, we have partnered together on a new concept of community behavioral health clinics, actually, funding mental health and addiction services the same as physical health, and that started 10 years ago. We stood on the floor of the Senate when we first introduced the bill and talked about how President John F. Kennedy had actually signed--the last law he ever signed, the last act he ever signed, in 1963, was an act to create community mental health centers. And the idea was to close, at that time, what they called asylums and give people community care; care close to home, families, support people; to be able to be in the community and be successful. Well, the hospitals got closed, but the rest of it never happened. So I am so honored to have partnered, and want to continue to partner, with Roy as he leaves here for other things, to move forward the rest of the story, which is effective community care for folks, not in a jail, not in an emergency department, but in the community, with their family, allowing them to be successful and work and living their lives because they are getting the care that they need. So I am very honored to have had the opportunity to work with Roy on that as well. Now, Senator Wicker was talking, and I thought he might have said something about the trip that we took together to Asia with Senator Blunt. Senator Blunt was wonderful at putting together bipartisan trips, and we had the opportunity to go to a number of places in Australia because part of everything else that he does is that he has been one of the leaders in an interparliamentary partnership with the United States of America and Australia. And I was pleased, I think last year, to see you receive a very significant honor here because of your work. But we had an opportunity to travel together with Abby and for all of us to be together and really show a bipartisan front to other world leaders. I will say as an aside that you never want to play cards with him because he is a very good card player, and I have often said that I think he counts cards because he is so good. On a serious note, I really am going to miss this gentleman from Missouri. I am proud to have him as a friend, as a partner, and someone who really exemplifies what it means to be a statesman, to be a public servant. And I just send you all my best and all my love for you and your family.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my floor statement on the judge we are about to vote on be completed before the vote.

Ms. STABENOW. Having listened already to speak about Senator Blunt, I also want to say my thanks and best wishes to Senator Inhofe and Senator Shelby. I had an opportunity in the EPW Committee to speak more about my work with Senator Inhofe, but to both of you, we deeply appreciate your service to our country.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate execute the order with respect to H.R. 8982.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to my longtime staff member Jacqlyn Schneider. After more than 11 years by my side in the Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee, Jacqlyn is starting a new chapter in her professional career. I have absolutely no doubt that she will excel in everything that she does because that is the kind of person Jacqlyn is. In 2011, when I first became chairwoman of the Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee, Jacqlyn joined my team as a senior professional staff member, and I was so lucky that she did. She had been working for a Congressman from California, but she was from Michigan, and so it was great to get this Michigan native working for our State again. And it was great to have a fellow redhead on the Agriculture Committee. She quickly became a crucial part of my team. One of the first things you learn about Jacqlyn is that she is tough. You definitely don't want her to be on the opposite side of the negotiating table from you, and I am really lucky she was on my side of the table. I will challenge you to find anyone who better understands agricultural issues, the breadth of agricultural issues, but, in particular, nutrition. Jacqlyn is a relentless advocate--a relentless advocate--for nutrition policies that benefit children, seniors, families. She played a huge role in our passing the 2014 Farm Bill and the 2018 Farm Bill, which has, frankly, led to many successes now, even in implementing those provisions that President Biden has done. Many of those we celebrated yesterday at a White House conference on hunger, nutrition, and health. She is not just technically knowledgeable, she is also unflappable and politically savvy. America's ag producers and American families have benefited enormously from her dedication and her hard work. Some of the fondest memories I have of Jacqlyn are from our 2014 trip to Africa. It was women members of the Agriculture Committee and a number of other women Senators--the first, and I think maybe to this day, the only all-women Senators codel that has been done in the U.S. Senate. Over the course of 10 days, we visited five countries on two continents. Many of our stops were in very rural areas, where we met with women farmers. It was very inspiring. The codel focused on food security, global hunger, empowering women and girls, as well as agricultural trade. Given her deep knowledge of and passion for these issues, Jacqlyn was an amazing resource for our Senate delegation. Jacqlyn, thank you so much for your dedication and years of hard work on behalf of American agriculture and American families, and--I have to say--particularly on behalf of Michigan. I am going to miss you as part of the team, and I wish you incredible success and happiness in your new venture. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I first want to echo Senator Coons' comments on the DISCLOSE Act and how unfortunate it was we could not get just 10 Republicans to join us to be able to end dark money and foreign--the potential of foreign dollars going into elections. So I want to thank you, Mr. President, for your leadership both in the House and in the Senate on this real important issue.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, as everybody in the Chamber knows, I am extremely proud to be from Michigan. Our State leads the world in innovation. We created and built the automobile, the automotive assembly line, and the American middle class along with it. And today, our workers are still putting the world on four wheels-- and really amazing wheels right now. I got to show one of our Nation's foremost car guys, President Biden, some of Michigan's latest and greatest creations during last week's Detroit Auto Show. He was so happy behind the wheel of Chevy's new Corvette that I was a little worried he was going to put on his aviators and drive right out of the exhibition center. It took a lot to get him out of that car, he was so into it. He was inspired, and we all were. Of course, the auto show is always inspiring, but this year it was even more, and that is because our Nation is in the middle of a manufacturing renaissance. And I don't say that lightly. We are in the middle of a manufacturing renaissance. Democrats in Congress, along with President Biden and Vice President Harris, are helping to revitalize American manufacturing. With tiny House and Senate majorities and the car guy in the White House, Democrats have done more to advance manufacturing in America than at any point in the past 70 years. We are not just bringing back the jobs lost during the pandemic; we are going far beyond that. Already, nearly 700,000 new manufacturing jobs have been created under the Biden administration. This represents the strongest manufacturing job growth since the 1950s--in our lifetime. In 2021 alone, more manufacturing jobs were created. Just last year, more manufacturing jobs were created than in any single year, any 1 year in nearly 30 years, which is extraordinary, and it is exciting. And over the past year, the construction of new manufacturing facilities in the United States has grown by over 100 percent--116 percent. Meanwhile, 80 percent of our CEOs in a recent survey were either in the process of moving manufacturing operations from China or were seriously considering doing so. So we are seeing a real shift about bringing jobs home, and we have been providing the incentives and the support to do that. So that is really great news because we know if you are going to have an economy, somebody has to make something-- somebody has to make something. And, frankly, that is what we do in Michigan. We make things. We innovate. And then we make things even better and then we do it over and over again. Of course, we can't make much of anything if we don't have the semiconducting chips--these little microchips the size of a nail. Whoever thought that not having microchips would shut down a whole plant, and that is what has happened in Michigan, unfortunately, during the height of the supply chain breakdowns. A lack of chips means that auto manufacturers have to idle plants. Assembly lines shut down, and workers get sent home. Parking lots at plants fill up with cars that can't be sold because of these missing chips. And I see many of them not very far from my home in Lansing, MI. Car lots that normally are full of different makes and models sit empty, and the price of new and used cars goes up and up without these chips--all because of a tiny piece of technology no bigger than a thumbnail. That is why the legislation that we passed, the CHIPS and Science Act--this legislation that was signed into law is really a big deal. This law is bringing semiconductor manufacturing back to the United States where it belongs. Instead of the majority of what we need being overseas, it is now going to be coming home and creating millions of jobs in the process, and that is, frankly, great news. Currently, U.S. manufacturers only have 12 percent of the world's semiconductor manufacturing--12 percent. And it actually was down from 37 percent in the nineties. And now we are going to reverse that and bring those jobs home. We are already seeing it make a difference. Intel is building new semiconductor fabricator plants in Ohio and Arizona. This year, Micron Technologies is breaking ground for a new $15 billion factory in Idaho, and we would love to see them come our way. It is a great beginning, and we are just getting started. The American manufacturing boom goes far beyond semiconductors, though. The investments we have made in research and development will ensure that the next generation of clean energy of telecommunications and transportation technologies will be developed and manufactured right here in America as well. President Biden got a taste of what that was like in the auto show when he got behind the wheel of an all-electric Cadillac Lyriq and drove it across the floor. Again, we were hoping he was going to restrain himself from driving it off the exhibition floor. Democrats provided a huge boost to manufacturing, including clean energy manufacturing, through the Inflation Reduction Act, which unfortunately none of our Republican colleagues voted for. It created new and expanded tax incentives for the next generation of clean energy technologies. I have constantly been talking about the importance of battery production tax credits--production tax credits, meaning you don't get the credit unless it is actually produced in the United States. We have done that now. That is now law. And the new solar manufacturing tax credit is going to help American manufacturers like Hemlock Semiconductor create new products and good jobs as well. They create one-third of all the polysilicon materials for solar panels, but the production has been in other countries, primarily, China. Now, with the production tax credit, the incentive will be to build them, to make them here in America. The CHIPS and Science Act also provided $11 billion to develop cutting-edge technologies, including up to three new Manufacturing USA initiatives. We are proud to have two Manufacturing USA initiatives already in place from the Obama administration. There is the Lightweight Innovations for Tomorrow, or LIFT, and Michigan State University's Scale-Up Research Facility, or SURF. Both are located in the same facility in Detroit, and LIFT projects include research into better welding processes for Navy ships and an anti-rollover system for military humvees. SURF is partnering with the Department of Energy and Ford and GM to make sure that America is a leader in advanced technologies--advanced vehicle technologies. And the CHIPS and Science package also more than doubled funding to develop technologies that are crucial to our national and economic security. That includes cyber security and biotechnology and artificial intelligence and quantum computing, advanced materials science, and 6G communications. Now, if we are going to be inventing all of this new stuff, we also need workers. You hear that all the time. We need workers who are skilled to produce these things, and that is something that we as Democrats have been laser-focused on also. In everything that we have done, there has been a workforce development piece of it, which is so critical. The CHIPS and Science Act includes dedicated funding for the development of semiconductor workforce opportunities. The Inflation Reduction Act includes incentives for clean energy manufacturers to create high-paying jobs and apprenticeship programs, which we know are so successful and so needed. And we have also invested in workforce development programs in regions all around the country. The Build Back Better regional challenge awarded $1 billion to 120 projects across 24 States to help people get the skills that they need for these great new jobs. These projects are building a sustainable mariculture workforce in Alaska, training aerospace workers in Kansas, and ensuring that Michigan has the highly skilled workers needed to build the advanced vehicles on display at the Detroit Auto Show. One thing I am also particularly proud of in all that we have been doing around manufacturing as well is that we have worked to ensure that our tax dollars are spent on American products made by American workers and American companies. Now, that sounds like a no-brainer. I know, Mr. President, you agree with that, but we have had laws on the books for a long time that have not been enforced. There has not been transparency about what was going on, and now they are going to have to be accountable and transparent. ``Buy American'' needs to be more than a slogan on a bumper sticker, and now it is. We have ushered in the most significant expansion of ``Buy American'' policies in decades, including a new Made in America office at the Department of Commerce that is working with each Agency to make sure that they are exhausting all the possibilities to buy American before they are allowed to have a waiver to that provision, which is very important. Decades from now, people are going to look back at the past 2 years as a real turning point. I really believe that. It is the point when we really truly stopped talking and started acting to rebuild American manufacturing. It is the point when we created hundreds of thousands of good-paying jobs, the kind of jobs that support families. And it is the point when we started to really bring jobs home. Democrats are standing on the side of American manufacturing. We are standing on the side of good-paying American union jobs. We are standing on the side of the American worker and our American middle class. And we are building things in America again--building things in America again--and that is really good news. I yield the floor.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, first of all, I want to thank Senator Van Hollen for his incredible work over the years and his leadership both in the House and in the Senate. And thank you for taking on this fight and working so hard to expose the bright light of truth and transparency about what is happening around secret money. And I want to thank Senator Whitehouse for his dogged focus on the issue of secret money influencing elections. Thank you for all of your wonderful work, and to all of our colleagues who have joined us on the floor and to all of my Democratic colleagues, all of whom are supporting the DISCLOSE Act. The Members of this Chamber have a choice to make, and it is really pretty simple: You can be on the side of the American people or you can be on the side of the rich and powerful. We can pass the DISCLOSE Act, let the public know what is happening, put limits around it, stop all of this; or you can vote against it and vote with the powerful and the wealthy. The DISCLOSE Act is going to keep our elections in the hands of voters, not the highest bidders. That is really the bottom line. And you don't have to look very far for examples of why we need to pass this legislation. Colleagues have all been talking today about, stunningly, how a conservative group has received a $1.6 billion donation from a single donor--one man, $1.6 billion; and one mission--one mission--to put his finger on the scale of our democracy. If you don't think that guy isn't going to have an undue influence on our elections in the coming years, then I have a bridge across the Straits of Mackinac I would like to sell you. And this very rich man isn't alone, unfortunately. As my colleagues have said, in 2006, there was less than $5 million in dark money spent on our elections--5 million. Then, in 2010, the Supreme Court handed down its Citizens United decision, which opened the floodgates, and it didn't take long for the water to rise. In 2012, more than $300 million was spent in secret money--dark money--in elections, and in 2020, more than $1 billion was spent in dark money in elections. And now we know, in 2022, that we have one person who has already given $1.6 billion to try to influence this election. If you laid those billion-dollar bills end to end, they would extend around the Earth nearly four times--extend around the Earth four times. That is how much we are talking about here, and we don't even know where all this anonymous spending is coming from. But we do know this, and Senator Wyden--Chairman Wyden--spoke earlier. When we took on Big Pharma to lower prescription drug prices, not one Republican voted yes. When we took on Big Oil to lower energy costs and attack the climate crisis, not one Republican voted yes. When we took on corporations that pay zero in taxes, not one Republican voted yes. The American people deserve to know why. How much dark money is coming in from those powerful interests to protect their profits? Dark money could also be coming from foreign actors who wish to harm our country. What has been reported, though, again, is that dark money is coming in from one really rich guy--one really rich guy who wants to make our Nation a little bit more toward his liking. American voters deserve to know who is spending huge--huge, huge-- sums of money to influence our democracy. And under the DISCLOSE Act, they will know that. It will strengthen the foreign money ban to make sure foreign actors can't influence our elections. It requires corporations and other groups to disclose their donors. Right, left, Democrat, Republican: Disclose your donors. And it expands disclosure requirements to online ads and other types of ads as well. As for all of those campaign text messages that are blowing up your phone, you deserve to know who is sending them. These changes are popular. They are common sense, and they are really important. They are really important if we think America deserves to know who is influencing our elections. It is time to make sure our American democracy actually works for the American people. Again, the Members of this Chamber have a choice to make: We can stand with the American people or we can stand with the rich and powerful. Democrats have made that choice. I have made that choice. We stand with the American people who just want a fair shot to work hard and get ahead. Americans want to know that this is their democracy and that it works for them, not just a few rich people. I urge my colleagues to support the DISCLOSE Act. I yield the floor.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I yield back all time.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, this motion to commit is a red herring and a complete distraction. The Department of Agriculture already has strict rules that all producers must meet before they can participate in USDA conservation programs. These dollars go to farmers who are American citizens or legal permanent residents for conservation practices that help protect and improve American soil and water. Farmers are only reimbursed after the practices are in place. This would add burdensome paperwork, unnecessary bureaucracy that would really bog our farmers down. This is different than circumstances that were just talked about with state-owned Chinese companies. This is not the same thing. This amendment goes right at our farmers and the conservation practices they are asking us to support for them. Again, the only reason for this amendment is to stop us from passing this bill, which, among other things, will cut prescription drug costs, create jobs, and tackle the climate crisis. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, today I rise to pay tribute to my longtime Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee staff director and dear friend Joe Schultz, who will soon be taking on a new challenge after more than 15 years of service in the U.S. Senate. Now, the first thing I have to say about Joe, just to get it out of the way, is that he is a proud Ohio native and a graduate of the Ohio State University, which is an immediate challenge for anyone from Michigan, whether you are a University of Michigan grad or, as I am, a Michigan State University grad. In fact, his first job in the Senate was working for my colleague and friend Senator Brown of Ohio. Senator Brown swears that Joe was 6 feet 2 inches and had hair when he worked for him, and said it is all about the farm bills that somehow changed that. But somehow I convinced Joe to come and work for me on the Agriculture Committee, in part, by assuring Senator Brown that Joe would still be working for Ohio because Senator Brown is on the Ag Committee. And I am so glad and lucky that I was able to do that. Joe started as our chief economist. He is a great numbers guy, and nobody loves spreadsheets as much as Joe. Of course, he is so much more than a numbers guy, though, and we very quickly found that out. He always knows every part of farm policy, and he is an amazing people person--someone you definitely want on your team when you go into a farm bill negotiation, which have been known to be tough. Joe instinctively knows what people's reactions will be, what they will need in order to get an agreement, and he has always had his finger on the pulse of the Agriculture Committee and the community. That is, in large part, because agricultural is way more than a job for Joe; it is his life. He grew up on a farm, a family farm in Ohio. He even convinced his wife Virginia to have their wedding on the family farm. It was beautiful, and I was so honored to be in attendance with all their family and friends and their sheep. Now, if you have ever talked with Joe, you would probably know that his family raised sheep on the farm. And, boy, can he tell you some wild stories. For years, Joe would have a contest on Facebook during lambing season. He called it ``Lambageddon.'' His friends would all guess the number of lambs that would be born over Presidents Day weekend, typically the busiest lambing weekend of the year. And, of course, he always took time off to be there. Whoever got closest to the correct number of lambs got bragging rights and the opportunity to name a lamb. Given his dedication to the family flock, nobody on the Ag Committee was at all surprised when Joe and Virginia welcomed two adorable babies, Will and Izzy, into their own family--twins--a little bit more than a year ago. After all, sheep typically have twin births, I understand. If you have ever worked with Joe, one of the first things you notice is his wonderful positive attitude. He is quick to smile, quick to laugh. He always assumes the best of people. He makes everything he is involved in so much better. That is true whether you are talking about very contentious farm bill negotiations--and we have had more than a few since 2011--or field hearings and meetings with stakeholders. I wonder if he has kept a running total of the number of farms he has visited in Michigan. Nobody--and I mean nobody--can talk about crop insurance like Joe. He knows all the details. I will never forget, Brandon Fewins, who worked for me for 20 years as my Northern Michigan regional manager, and is now the USDA Rural Development Michigan State Director. Brandon told this story about seeing this firsthand: He remembered a farm bill hearing during which one attendee asked a very technical question about regulations. Joe gave a very detailed answer and then said: Hold on. He then consulted the farm bill legislative text in front of him, found the applicable section, and repeated word for word what he had just said off the top of his head. And then there were the codels. I will never forget the trip to Africa in 2014 with the women Members of the Senate. I led this first all-women's codel and members of the Agriculture Committee. We went to five countries on two continents in 10 days, and many of our stops were in very rural areas. The codel focused on food security, global hunger, empowering women and girls, and agricultural trade. Having Joe along was such a huge help--help because of his broad knowledge of agricultural issues. And, I have to say, he is an amazing travel guide. I know every Senator on the trip would agree with me, and we are so glad that he was a part of the trip. One thing I am extremely proud of, and I know Joe is too, is the strong sense of collegiality he has nurtured with our amazing Agriculture Committee staff and beyond. As one former colleague said: Joe is the kind of leader who makes working long hours under crazy stress tolerable and survivable. Even Republicans have wonderful things to say about Joe. That is not something you see on every Senate Committee. Joe, I know I speak for all of us, Republicans included, when I say we will miss you deeply. I am so grateful to have had your leadership and friendship as we have steered the Agriculture Committee together. We have an amazing, talented ag staff because of you and your leadership. I wish you and Virginia and your two beautiful children much success and happiness as you move forward to your new adventures. I know you will be successful, and I look forward to celebrating all the success. I yield the floor.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I have 10 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority Leaders. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, every day, I receive messages from Michigan families who are struggling to cope with rising costs for the things they depend on. We know that it has been challenging in a global pandemic with supply chains broken down and consolidation, but we also know that from food prices to household necessities to gas, corporate price gouging is also taking a big chunk out of Michigan wallets. And perhaps no industry has been price-gouging longer--actually for decades--more deeply than the pharmaceutical industry. Americans pay the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs--highest prices in the world--even though we are the ones who have invested so much partnering with the industry on new types of medications and innovations. We allow research and development tax credits to help pay for that cost. We support other efforts. The National Institutes of Health helps to pay for the basic research, hundreds of billions of dollars working with the industry. And yet we have the highest prices in the world--the highest prices in the world. And one in four Americans can't afford the medications they depend on. This is just not acceptable. It is just not acceptable. A senior with complex medical needs pays an average of more than $6,000 a year on prescription drugs. And the median price for a new prescription drug is $188,000 a year. That is 90 times the median price for a new drug just back in 2008. And that is more than most Americans earn in 3 years, not just 1 year, but in 3 years. Christina of Center Line, MI, knows this. She was prescribed Humira for an autoimmune condition that affects her eyes. Unfortunately, even though she needs it, she can't afford it. The medication costs more than $6,000 a month--a month. She wrote this: Autoimmune patients . . . struggle with the cost of prescriptions being so high and some just give up and don't even bother. That should never be an option in my opinion. James, who lives in Manistee, suffers from narcolepsy. It is a neurological condition in which patients can suddenly fall asleep during other activities, including eating or driving. I am sure we have all known someone or seen someone who has this disease. James first started taking medication called Xyrem in 2015. Back then, it cost about $9,000 a month. Today, that same medication costs more than $18,000 a month--$18,000 a month, or $226,221.84 a year. Who can do that? Who can do that? Last year, James' doctor switched him to a slightly different drug with less sodium, produced by the same company, Jazz Pharmaceuticals. The new drug, XYWAV, costs even more--$239,000--$239,320, to be specific, per year. James writes: Who is profiting from these huge price hikes? Will these huge price hikes continue every year? Does Jazz Pharmaceuticals have enough oversight? Are they putting profits over people? I think there is an answer to that. It sure seems like that to me, James. There is no fundamental reason for these prices to be going up and up and up. Now, when I think about insulin, which has tripled in price in the last decade or so, this was a drug that was actually discovered 100 years ago by two Canadian doctors who developed this patent for lifesaving medicine, and because they felt it was unethical to actually be making a profit off of something that would help people, they gave it to the University of Toronto for the equivalent of $1. That was 100 years ago. It hasn't substantially changed as a product in 100 years. The company has more than recovered their research and development--their costs and so on. And yet in the last couple of years, the price has tripled--tripled. If that is not a sign of price gouging, I don't know what is. From 2000 to 2018, big pharmaceutical companies raked in $11.5 trillion in revenue. That is T--trillion dollars. Between 2016 and 2020, drug companies spent $577 billion on stock buybacks--not lowering prices, but doing more for their CEOs and doing more for their stockholders. The $577 billion on stock buybacks is about 10 times as much as they spent on research and development. They also have significantly increased executive compensation while Americans struggle to afford lifesaving medications. For the record, the CEO of Jazz Pharmaceuticals made more than $16 million in total compensation last year; an awful lot of Michigan families could live a good life on that one salary. The pharmaceutical and health products industry spent $350 million on lobbying in 2021, nearly double the spending of the second-highest industry. In fact, at one point--I haven't done this recently, but at one point, I looked at the number of lobbyists per Senator, and it was 15 lobbyists in the drug industry for every one Senator. And so we wonder, what is going on here? And then we see what happens in elections and so on; and, unfortunately, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle who receive a lot of the benefits of the contributions from the pharmaceutical industry then come to the floor and try to block us from doing something on behalf of people to lower these prices. And that is going to be what is happening again next week. So far in 2022, pharmaceutical companies have already raised the price of 1,186 drugs, and they raised the price on 100 drugs just this--right now in July, this month--100 drugs. Prices have gone up, just this year. It is appalling. There is no other word for it. And while Republican colleagues are fighting to protect these absurd profits, Senate Democrats are fighting for people who need their medicines, in some cases just to survive, to live, or to be able to go to work, to be able to do things to support their children to get what they need. Our commonsense plan, which we will be voting on next week, to lower drug prices will save $288 billion over the next 10 years. First, it would empower Medicare to negotiate prescription drug prices beginning with 10 of the highest costing drugs, starting next year. I can't believe it. We negotiate everything else, and we know the VA that negotiates on behalf of veterans' prescription drugs gets about 40 percent less. Common sense tells you that we should be negotiating these prices. But, unfortunately, years ago, when the prescription drug bill, Part B, passed in Medicare, the drug companies were successful in getting specific language in that says you can't negotiate with them. Medicare cannot negotiate. Well, that needs to change, and we are going to change that. So it would be 10 of the highest costing drugs next year that would expand to 20 drugs in each year after that by 2029. Just imagine how much money can be saved if Medicare was allowed to negotiate, and it would directly benefit people who are living with conditions including asthma, blood clots, COPD, as well as cancers as well as a whole range of things--everything you can imagine. Secondly, our legislation caps Medicare beneficiaries' out-of-pocket costs for seniors, for people with disabilities on Medicare. We will cap the out-of-pocket costs to $2,000 a year and allow people to spread that out over the year so that it is easier to make that payment. So instead of $6,000 a month or $9,000 a month or $10,000 a month or whatever, we are talking about a cap of $2,000 you can spread out over the year in out-of-pocket costs for seniors and people with disabilities. Never again will a diagnosis like cancer mean $10,000 or more for a single drug to treat it. Medicare beneficiaries would also receive free vaccines, including vaccines for shingles. That currently costs seniors $190 if they are not enrolled in Medicare Part B. It would increase help for low-income seniors, giving all qualifying Medicare beneficiaries the full low- income subsidy under Medicare Part B. So we would help low-income seniors even more. That would save the average senior about $5,000. That is a lot of money. And it would keep Part B premiums in Medicare affordable for seniors and people with disabilities and ensuring that premiums won't increase because of bad actions by drug companies, and that means not faster than inflation. Speaking of bad actions by drug companies, it would penalize them for outrageous price increases. If they go above inflation, they are going to have to rebate those funds. Today, drug companies are incentivized by keeping drug prices high by secretly negotiating with insurers and pharmacy benefit managers to increase profits at the expense of patients. Under our legislation, drug companies, not consumers, will be on the hook for drug price hikes that exceed the rate of inflation. This proposal alone is expected to save Medicare $71 billion. For far too long, the drug companies have been taking advantage of people like Christina and James. People should not have to go without the medicine they need in this country, in America, where we fund through our tax dollars so much of the innovation that creates these drugs. They should not be forced to skip doses or take less than what was prescribed to save money, and they should not have to choose between taking their medicine and keeping the lights on or putting food on the table. Christina and James deserve better. Americans deserve better. And we are going to fight until that gets done. That is what next week is all about on prescription drugs. It is time. It is past time. People deserve to be able to afford the medicine they need. It is time to put people before profits, and that is exactly what we are going to do. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I rise today to speak on behalf of American women, our fundamental rights, and our freedom to make our own healthcare decisions. It is shocking that in this day and age that we have to actually stand up and fight for something as basic as making our own reproductive health decisions, not a bunch of politicians, not a bunch of judges but women making our own healthcare decisions. Thanks to a radically conservative Supreme Court that we now have, reproductive freedom is no longer a constitutional right in the United States of America--no longer a constitutional right in the United States of America after 50 years. Today's daughters and granddaughters have fewer freedoms than their grandmothers did, and, for the record, we are furious. Want to know just how furious? Well, in Michigan, our State could soon revert back to a 1931 law that makes abortion at any stage a felony--no exceptions for rape or incest; putting people in jail, potentially; women going to jail; doctors going to jail. Who knows how far this would go? Well, the people of Michigan aren't going to stand for that, and a group called Reproductive Freedom for All has gotten to work. These passionate advocates and volunteers from all across Michigan--west side, east side, up north, down south in Michigan--have collected more than 750,000 signatures to put reproductive freedom on the ballot for Michigan women this November. It is the most signatures ever collected for a ballot measure in Michigan, twice as many as is actually needed to put the ballot proposal on the November ballot--the most ever. Madam President, 750,000 people have come forward to sign petitions to give them the right to vote, to protect their reproductive freedoms. So our freedoms are on the ballot in November. Now, we also know that we have to continue to do everything we can right now, both at the State level and the Federal level, because waiting isn't an option. Women's lives and people's livelihoods are on the line today, and it has revealed a stark contrast when we look at the actions that are being taken or not taken. Democrats are standing with women to protect our reproductive freedoms. As of June 1, Democrats in five States have already enacted laws--new laws--protecting access to legal abortion, and 62 pieces of legislation have been introduced in 17 States across America to protect reproductive freedom. Vermont, California, and Arizona have joined Michigan in pursuing ballot initiatives to enshrine reproductive freedom in their State constitutions. So men and women will have the opportunity there, the freedom to vote to protect their reproductive freedoms. Democratic Governors have issued executive orders and taken other actions to protect access to reproductive healthcare. The Biden administration signed an Executive order directing Agencies to protect access to medical care and is providing legal support to patients and healthcare providers. Meanwhile, Republicans are doing everything they can--everything they can--to stand in the way of women who are simply trying to access basic healthcare--basic healthcare, what is best for them, with their own faith, their own family, the counsel of their doctors, the capacity for women to make their own decisions, again, not a bunch of politicians, not a bunch of judges. It is the United States of America. This is not about what decisions are made; it is about who makes them: the government or women. Now, Republicans are saying the government at every level. Fifteen States have already banned abortion, and several more are expected to follow soon. A clinic in Cleveland, OH, a State where care has been severely restricted, is now sending its patients to Detroit. These women have to drive 2\1/2\ hours, at least, to receive basic healthcare. And now some people want to take away their car keys. And to be clear, Republicans--Republican elected officials--want to take away their car keys. Republican lawmakers in some States are pursuing legislation to prevent people from traveling to another State to receive reproductive healthcare. In America, people are being banned from driving to another State to be able to get the healthcare that they need, oftentimes, in very serious emergency situations, tragedies. Think about that for a moment. Republicans, who fancy themselves the party of freedom, are trying to pass laws that would prevent an Ohio woman from driving to Michigan for healthcare in America. The Freedom to Travel for Healthcare Act introduced by my friend Senator Cortez Masto would have protected that right. It would protect that right, and last week we tried to pass it. Unfortunately, my Republican colleagues have blocked it, but we will keep trying. We will keep doing everything we can to get enough people who are pro-choice, who respect privacy, respect women in this Chamber to be able to make that happen. So, this week, we are trying a different approach to protect people's reproductive freedom. Senator Smith and Senator Murray have introduced legislation that I am pleased to cosponsor as well. It would provide $550 million a year in permanent funding for title X family planning programs. Now, let me remind everyone that title X funding can't be used to provide abortion. This is about basic healthcare, yearly Pap smears, OB/GYN visits, and the capacity to work with a clinic to get the basic care that you need and the basic birth control that you need. It prevents unplanned pregnancies in the first place by providing affordable birth control and other reproductive healthcare to people who need it. We should all be able to come together. Given my colleagues across the aisle and how passionate they are about preventing abortions, I expect that they will eagerly support this commonsense bill when, in the next couple of days, a motion is made to pass it. Birth control is basic healthcare. We shouldn't need to be here defending something that nearly 90 percent of American women use at some point in their lives. But we saw what happened to Roe, and we have since seen how eager Republicans at all levels are to constrain reproductive freedom. So here we are. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation coming before us this week. Democrats are standing with women. We respect women. We understand that women need to make their own decisions, and Democrats understand that this is about freedom--the freedom to decide for ourselves, in whatever circumstance that we are in, whatever tragedy, whatever is happening that women need to be able to make our own basic healthcare decisions and not have the government coming in to regulate what is happening for women. So it is time for Republicans to join us on this legislation, basic legislation on title X that will ensure that there is support for basic reproductive healthcare. Again, we are talking about annual visits. We are talking about OB/GYN visits for women. We are talking about basic birth control. I certainly hope that my Republican colleagues are not going to say no to basic healthcare, reproductive healthcare for women. I hope Republican colleagues will join us. I yield the floor.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. All right. Thank you, Senator Blunt. Mr. President, I have to say this has been a wonderful partnership and a wonderful journey now for, gosh, almost 10 years, I think, since we originally started talking about the idea that we should be funding healthcare above the neck the same as healthcare below the neck as part of the healthcare system. And that is your ``stop and start'' grants, when we have community health centers that are so wonderful for physical health. And so we have done that. I do want to, before going into the substance, give a shout-out, though--because we are not the only ones who have been working for almost 10 years--to our wonderful staff: Alex Graf, on my staff, who has been working on this legislation for 8 of those years, and Caitlin Wilson, on your staff, who was amazing, and I understand recently stolen by Senator Cornyn. And so she has continued her work. But so many people have worked with us that we are very grateful to, including the main authors and the folks who have put this bill together, like Senator Cornyn, who has been such a strong supporter of what has become an evidence-based quality initiative. We don't have to make something up. When folks say, ``What do you want to do about mental health care or addiction care,'' we actually have a proven model now. And also to Kyrsten Sinema and to Chris Murphy and Senator Tillis--so many people have been supportive of this as well. And I just want to take us back for just a moment because when we came to the floor, Senator Blunt, when he mentioned 2013, we actually came to the floor to mark the 50th anniversary of President Kennedy signing the Community Mental Health Act. As we know, that was the last bill he ever signed before his being shot. And part of that was to stop housing people in hospitals, just locking people in the hospitals, and create more quality care in the community--you know, shut the hospitals and open up services in the community. As you have said so many times, half of that happened. The hospitals were closed, but we didn't provide the quality and the funding-- permanent funding--for the community care. That was 1963. We are doing it now in this bill. That is what we are doing in this bill is completing what was promised in a national bill signed in 1963. We know, again, that one out of five people in our country--and this is before COVID--will have a mental illness in their lifetime. So many leading causes of death--again, prior to COVID--for people under age 50 is a drug overdose, most likely opioid overdose. We know that the most likely gun death is a suicide, which, by the way, in this bill, there is an important piece on red flags that I think is so important because that means that if a family member, if those around someone feel that they are a danger to themselves and someone else and should not have access to a gun, they can go through a legal process to have that happen so that that person is not using a gun to commit suicide or a suicide-homicide through a mass shooting. But what is so significant about this is that we know that across this country, certainly across Michigan, I know in Missouri, we have so many people--I mean, there are millions of people today who want to be able to get help for mental health or addiction as part of the healthcare system. And we want them to do that. We don't want there to be a stigma. There used to be a stigma. People would whisper, ``He's got cancer,'' and now, we openly talk about that. We have wonderful programs and people get treatment, and there is no stigma related to that. It is very challenging, but there is no stigma. We want that for mental illness, for behavioral health. So this isn't about saying every person with a mental illness is dangerous at all--at all. This is about saying we want everyone to get the help they need. And in that situation, that rare situation where somebody doesn't get help and then takes those next steps and is unstable and dangerous, we certainly want to address protecting them, their family, the school, the neighborhood, the community. And that is what the gun safety provisions of this are all about. Let me just say one other thing and turn it back to Senator Blunt. We now have--between the number of demonstration States we have had now for a number of years, we also have 435 clinics, many of them funded through what we developed as startup grants so that they can get started, develop the quality standards, be able to show what a difference it made. But I think we were both pretty blown away when we saw the difference it made, when we saw those original numbers from Health and Human Services, the studies that were done--both in Democratic and Republican administrations, reinforcing that. The fact that right now, if you have a 24-hour psychiatric crisis services center, which is part of this, these clinics, people aren't going to jail--60 percent fewer people are going to jail because they are getting the help they need, which is why law enforcement so strongly supports this. What has been happening is people go to the emergency room instead because there is no place--our jails, our emergency rooms have become de facto mental health treatment centers because there was no place else; 41-percent reduction in homelessness with comprehensive care in the community. And that is what is in this bill. And it really is transformative; wouldn't you say, Senator Blunt?

Ms. STABENOW. Absolutely. Senator Blunt, as we know, in the end, this is all about people. And I think what has been most exciting for me, and I know for my friend and partner, is that people's lives are changing. Opportunities for them are changing. When we look at this legislation broadly, it is about saving lives, whether it is through issues related to gun safety, whether it is through getting the help you need, mental health help and addiction services help, whether it is making sure our schools are safer, making sure laundry services are available in the schools. It is all be creating safety and a better quality of life. I think it is also exciting--you know, we were talking about community behavioral health clinics with broader investments here on mental health as well. There is a strengthening of the suicide hotline, which is so connected to what we have been talking about today. Telehealth, we know during the pandemic how critically important that was for mental health services and so on. And that is strengthened. There is about a billion dollars' worth of investments in some way in our schools--school health clinics and other opportunities. What I think is exciting is that we are not only supporting schools and teachers in all of these areas that are so important, but we are making sure that when they find a child that needs help, there is somewhere to go because when you are talking about really investing in transformative, certified community behavioral health clinics, that means there is a service in the community. So if a parent or if a teacher or the principal or the coach or somebody is saying, ``This young person needs some help,'' they won't only be trained to identify they need help, they will actually be able to get them help because there will be services available. And so I think that is the whole point of all of this. And I would also finally say, when we talk about funding as healthcare, traditionally mental health and addiction services have been funded by grants to stop and start. And so you may need help or want your child to get help, but the grant that was doing that went away; or you may suddenly decide you want to deal with your own addiction, you are finally ready--it is so hard--you are finally ready to do that, and you reach out and the services aren't there anymore. And so this is about funding this as healthcare through the healthcare system, so it doesn't stop and start. It becomes a way of looking at healthcare above the neck the same as healthcare below the neck. And that is why we call it transformative. And it is such an important commitment. I am so proud of everyone here that has been so wonderfully supportive and enthusiastic about taking this big step. This is an area of this bill that is a huge step that will really save lives and transform communities, I think.

Ms. STABENOW. I just want to say thank you to my friend and partner, and I really do mean friend and partner. And Senator Blunt thinks he is retiring; I am not going to let him. We have really done so much important work together, and I am going to miss him dearly. I am really seriously figuring out a strategy where we are not going to let you leave the building. But I am very grateful and, again, for him, for all of the great staff work, and it is a day to feel good about the ability to come together and get something done. I yield the floor.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule XXII, the Chair lay before the Senate the message from the House of Representatives to accompany S. 2089; that the motion to concur in the House amendment to S. 2089 with amendment No. 5133 be considered made and agreed to; the title amendment from the House be considered and agreed to; and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, all without intervening action or debate.