Debbie Stabenow

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Five minutes.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I commend my colleague from Washington State who has been such a stalwart on this commonsense issue. If you were to ask anyone in the public whether it makes sense to have smaller class size so that our children can receive the attention they need from the teacher and have the opportunity to interact in the classroom and maximum opportunity to learn in the classroom, everyone would look at you and say: Well, of course, that ought to be a priority. We have been able to back up the commonsense nature of this ideal with numerous studies that have been talked about by my colleagues today about what has happened around the country and the difference smaller class size makes. I want to share with my colleagues what is happening in my great State of Michigan. I have a colleague, a former State senate colleague, Senator Joe Conroy, who is the Senator Murray of Michigan. For years he has been speaking about the importance of lowering the number of children in a classroom and how critical that is to teaching. He has been bringing those studies to Michigan, and Michigan finally took action in 1996. For the 1996-1997 school year, thanks to Senator Conroy, Michigan created a pilot project in Flint, MI, to focus on grades 1-3 and to create a 17-student-per-teacher classroom, a ratio of 17 children to 1 teacher in the high-risk schools. They found it was so successful after 3 years that the State of Michigan has begun to look for ways to expand that and has now expanded a classroom project to lower class size to 26 different districts in Michigan. That is the good news. They found in Flint that, in fact, it made a difference that children's performance in reading and math increased dramatically. They are now looking for ways to bring that to children all across Michigan. But the challenge is that there are over 500 districts, and the State has been able to expand to 26 districts, but they need our partnership. They need this Murray amendment. Our children in Michigan need to know that we in Washington understand the critical importance of partnering with the States to lower class size so that our teachers can teach and our children can learn. We have heard the numbers. We have heard about national studies. Let me just add an analysis of a Texas program that used data from 800 school districts containing more than 2.4 million children. They found that as the number of children in a classroom went up above 18 students per 1 teacher, student achievement fell dramatically. So the more children in the classroom, the lower the achievement. We have seen study after study that has shown this. We have the opportunity in the Senate to show that we have responded to the common sense and the studies that have indicated very clearly the direction in which we should move as we look at improving education for our children. I support having strong standards, high standards, and I commend colleagues on both sides of the aisle for initiatives that relate to accountability. But if we do not also provide the opportunity for children to learn in small classes, if we do not also focus on recruiting more certified teachers, and make sure there are an appropriate number of classrooms and they are modernized so the tools are there, we are only doing half the job. I urge my colleagues to support the Murray amendment. It has made a difference. It will make a difference. The efforts that we have seen in Flint, MI, and now expanded across Michigan, have demonstrated very dramatically that if a teacher is able to spend the time in a classroom--and the ideal number we found in Michigan is 17 to 18 children per classroom--if you are able to do that, if that teacher has the opportunity to spend time with children in a small class, we know reading scores go up, math scores go up, and student performance goes up in general. We also know that classroom is more safe; there is a better opportunity in general for children to be in safe, quality schools when we focus on small class size.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise to thank our ranking member on the Budget Committee, Senator Conrad from North Dakota, for his leadership on this important issue and, as well, Senator Kennedy, who has spoken so eloquently about the fact that there are no dollars in this budget resolution for education for our children. One of the real pleasures for me as a new Member of the Senate on the Budget Committee has been to serve with Senator Byrd and to learn from him, as well, about the processes of budget and appropriations. We all, today, stand in opposition to this conference report that puts the United States on a risky fiscal path and threatens the longest peacetime economic expansion in our history. I had an opportunity as a member of the Senate Budget Committee to sit through 16 different hearings. Secretary after Secretary came forward--the General Accounting Office, the CBO, Chairman Greenspan. In every case, people came forward and said what was driving this economy and these projected surpluses was increased labor productivity. I echo what Senator Kennedy has discussed in terms of education. If in every case before the Budget Committee the discussion was about increased labor productivity, doesn't that mean education? It means research and technology development. But if we don't have the skilled workforce to be able to use that technology, to do the research, to be able to work in these new economy jobs, we will not be able to keep this economy going. When we look at this budget and we see zero being guaranteed for education, it makes no sense. It makes no sense from an economic standpoint, it makes no sense from a human standpoint, and it makes no sense from the standpoint of our families. What we are saying regarding this budget is that this is a budget in toto, not just a debate about a tax cut. It is a debate about the values and priorities of the American people. I believe in using and I know the people in Michigan desire using common sense. They want us to be balanced in our approach. They want to see tax cuts. I support tax cuts geared to middle-class families, folks working hard every day, having to make those choices for their families--our small businesses, our family farmers. I support providing meaningful tax relief. I also hear from my constituents of a concern about paying down our national debt. We have certainly heard a lot of people talk about it for years and years. Now is the time when we can actually do it. We need to do it. I also hear great concern about making key investments in the education of our children. I hear that whether I am talking to a business group, whether I am talking to a local PTA, or whether I am talking to people in the community on a daily basis. There is a great concern about education and what it means for the future of the country. I hear great concerns about education. There is more than one way to put money into people's pockets. One way is tax relief. I support that. Another way is to provide lower interest rates by paying down the debt. That means lower mortgage payments. That means lower car payments. Coming from the great State of Michigan where we make a lot of those automobiles, we want people to be able to buy new automobiles. We want those car payments to be low. Lower student loan payments, business loans, all of these things put money in people's pockets. But there is another item that puts money in people's pockets. That is for those who are senior citizens in this country. When we look at the tax cut proposed for those under $25,000 in income a year, they don't see anything from the proposed tax cut. A large percentage of those are our seniors. For them, if we want to put money back into their pockets, we need to lower the cost of their prescription drugs. There is more than one way to put money back into people's pockets. I support a variety of strategies that make sure we do that, as well as making sure we are responsible and that we are willing to make sensible commitments for the future. We will hear colleagues talk about different percentages, different amounts on the budget surplus, but I choose to look at it like this: When we look at a surplus, some of it is Social Security and Medicare. We are paying in; we are building up surpluses in the trust funds. Within 11 years, many baby boomers will start to retire and we will see the major strain on Medicare and Social Security, but we are building up surpluses. If we take that out of the equation and the debate, as I believe we should, and we look at the non-Medicare and Social Security surpluses, when all is said and done, virtually every penny of that surplus, non-Medicare and Social Security, is dedicated to the tax cut. That means for the next 10 years for our families, the only priority we believe American families have is the tax cut geared to the wealthiest Americans with the idea that it will trickle down, through supply side economics, somehow into people's pockets. Then in order to provide any spending, the majority of the Medicare trust fund is moved over into something called a contingency fund and spent. This budget spends the Medicare trust fund as if it were not a trust fund but as if it were dollars to be spent on other programs. This is a serious issue underlying this budget. We now find out, in addition to Medicare, this budget spends a portion of Social Security. We know within 11 years baby boomers will start to retire in large numbers. We don't have time to pay it back. This is a serious issue, and there is no doubt in my mind that the way this is structured puts us back into debt. It causes Medicare to be insolvent much sooner-- within 10 years--and it seriously weakens Social Security. What we see underlying this budget and all that is being talked about is the idea of using Medicare and a portion of Social Security to finance this tax cut and budget. I believe that is fundamentally wrong. I support the position that we strengthen Medicare both for our hospitals and home health and other providers, and we strengthen it by modernizing it with the prescription drug benefit for our seniors. I believe it is important we say, ``Hands off Social Security and Medicare.'' We have a budget surplus. There is no reason we ought to be spending a dime out of Medicare or Social Security to fund anything in this budget or a tax cut. Yet that is what is happening. That is a fundamental flaw in this budget. We have a situation where we are using Medicare and Social Security in this budget resolution to fund the tax cut and the budget. We see zero dollars being put aside for education. We find ourselves in a situation where, despite the amendment that was agreed to by the Senate by a bipartisan vote to increase funds for education and to pay down the national debt, in the end analysis those things are taken out. We are back where we started. We are not paying down all the national debt that we can, we do not have dollars included for education, and we have a very narrow, ill- conceived budget resolution in front of us. I also believe we need to keep our promise to special education, as was talked about earlier. I think we have made several promises as a country. Two of them were Medicare and Social Security--great American success stories, promises made to the American people. Another promise that was made 25 years ago was that the Federal Government was to provide 40 percent of special education costs for our children in schools. We have yet to hit 15 percent. If we are not going to keep that promise now, when will we keep it? We are hearing now the President is saying he will not support that. Yet when I go home and talk to my teachers and principals, they tell me if we would just keep our promise to special education, that would go a long way to free up other dollars for them to be able to address lowering class size, safety in schools, math and science efforts, reading, and other important areas--if we just kept our promise. If we cannot do it when we are projecting trillions of dollars in budget surpluses at this time in our history, when will we? When do we keep our promises, if not now? Finally, we all know we are looking 10 years into the future. We do not have to be doing that, but this is being designed as a process to somehow look 10 years down the road. We know in the Budget Committee, the Congressional Budget Office told us there is a 10-percent chance they are accurate. It may be more; it may be less. It could be a $1 trillion surplus; it could be a $50 billion deficit. We do not know. We are being asked to look 10 years down the road and to guess, to basically gamble with the future of the country and the families of this country by picking a number and somehow spending dollars that we do not know will materialize in the future. I joined earlier in this debate with Senators on both sides of the aisle to propose that we put in place some kind of budget trigger so that if the dollars did not materialize, they would not be spent. I don't know; I am just a midwesterner. I am new here. But it seems to me common sense says we ought to have it in hand before we spend it. A trigger would do that. Yet there is no trigger in this budget resolution. We are guessing about what will happen down the road. CBO says there is a 10-percent chance they are right. I urge my colleagues to take another look. We can do better than this. We can do better than this for everybody. We can provide a meaningful tax cut. We can pay down the national debt. We can do it without spending Medicare and Social Security. And we can invest in education and in health care and critical quality-of-life issues for our families if we decide that is what we want to do. It can be done the right way and can be done in a way that is fiscally responsible, that keeps the books balanced, and makes sure we can be proud when we are done that we have truly kept going in the right direction as a country. My fear with this budget is it is looking at the future through a rearview mirror. I am very afraid of what is coming down the road because we are using Medicare to pay for this tax-cutting budget, using part of Social Security, and refusing to invest in education even though we know increased labor productivity is what will keep our economy going. We know what works and what does not work and what needs to be done to be fiscally responsible. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this legislation and give us a chance, as the Budget Committee, to do our work. We were not given a chance to sit down together and work something out that made sense. It is not too late if we stop now and vote no and decide we are going to try again because we can do better for our families. I yield.

Ms. STABENOW. Absolutely.

Ms. STABENOW. Fifteen minutes.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I first thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who are working so hard on this important issue of education: the chairman of the committee, Senator Jeffords, who is providing such important leadership; the ranking member, Senator Kennedy. I congratulate him and all of the Members who are so deeply involved in focusing on what I believe is the most critical issue facing us in the future, not only of our children as it relates to their opportunities to succeed but to our economy as well. We have all heard--as a member of the Senate Budget Committee, I heard time and time again in hearings--that we have an increased labor productivity that is driving this economy. The basis of that increased labor activity is an educated workforce. So the debate in front of us is critical. I rise today in anticipation of an amendment that will be introduced later that I will be cosponsoring. It relates to an important part of providing resources and keeping the Federal Government's promise that was made 25 years ago concerning funding for special education for all of our local communities. We have many educational priorities. But as I have met with the leaders and parents in communities all across Michigan, they have said to me time and time again, if you just did one thing, if you just kept your promise to fully fund your portion of special education, it would free up dollars for us to serve the other needs of children in schools. This is critical in Michigan. We have had numerous court suits that relate to the State portion of special education. The lack of Federal support has caused a tremendous battle in Michigan over the resources for special education. We have the opportunity now, in the context of debating the budget and the vision for the next 10 years and in the context of this important education bill, to set it right. I hear over and over again from superintendents and teachers and parents: If we are talking about economic good times, if we are talking about budget surpluses, why can't you keep your promises? This is an incredibly important promise to our children and to our communities. It needs to be kept. We are nowhere near meeting the commitment that was made 25 years ago. Let me give an example. I should say I have been deeply involved over the years in the issue of advocating for our children in special education. In Michigan, the cost for the 1999-2000 school year was $1.2 billion for special education alone. The Federal Government is supposed to provide 40 percent of that. But instead the Federal Government's contribution to Michigan schools was $120 million. I am pretty good at math. I know that $120 million is not 40 percent of $1.2 billion. Unfortunately, the State has tried to make up part of those dollars. Local communities in Michigan have shifted over $420 million into special education that is supposed to be available for other critical needs in the schools: lowering class sizes for all children, putting more technology in the classroom, upgrading our math and science capabilities, and some issues that need to be addressed. We have taken a large amount of resources in Michigan away from those needs in order to address the very important need of special education, one that the Federal Government agreed to help fund and has not yet kept its commitment. Nationally, the Federal Government provides less than 15 percent of its commitment to IDEA, which is our special education funding. We are supposed to be providing 40 percent. We are yet to hit 15 percent. We can do something about it right now. We have it within our means. I am urging my colleagues to do that. I would like to share a couple of letters from parents, one from a teacher in Michigan, concerning this issue that has profoundly impacted the children and the families and the schools in Michigan. Richard Spring from Manchester, MI, working in the Webberville School District, an important school district outside of Lansing in mid Michigan, wrote to me saying: In small rural school districts, like the one where I work, the high cost that is incurred by the school district for special education makes it impossible to do a lot of the other things that we know are critical to providing adequate services to all students. For some kids, who don't necessarily qualify for special education, the impact is especially dramatic. For example, many students are on the ``borderline'' in school--there are a year or so behind where they should be for their age. Perhaps they were help back one year. These children do not qualify for special education in our district and there is no extra funding to provide services to help these students who clearly are struggling. This is because the district must carry such a high burden of the special education costs. Around the time these marginal children reach middle school, they are no longer able to ``just get by'' in school without any additional services. Often, these students are so frustrated with school that they are diagnosed as emotionally impaired. These are the children whose behavior becomes so disruptive that it interferes with other children's opportunities to learn and a teacher's ability to teach. This problem could be easily prevented if the federal government met its commitment of 40% funding for IDEA. This would free up the critical dollars that school districts need to provide other services, like assistance to students who are on the borderline. Even something as simple as summer school could make a difference in these children's lives. But the cost of special education is so high, that my school district has not been able to offer summer school in the seven years that I have been there. I very much appreciate Richard Spring's letter to me, and I think he speaks very well to the struggles that are going on in our schools trying to meet the important needs of children and not having the Federal Government coming forward with its promise. We are great at mandating. We are great at laying out what ought to be done providing rules and regulations, and even when they are important and ones that I agree with completely. If we do not keep our commitment on resources, we are not keeping our commitment to children. I also would like to read one other letter from a parent who wrote: I am writing as a parent of a child with special needs. My son Paul is 11 years old. He needs an aide at school to keep him on track, organize his school work and home work and to interpret non-verbal information. He is a very work intelligent, sweet, easy-going child and this makes him one of the many who could fall through the cracks if special education funding is not improved. The combination of growing enrollment and teacher shortages is putting a strain on our communities to provide quality education for our children. Our district . . . is especially struggling because of its high percentage of autistic students its very high percentage of severely afflicted children. The need for federal education funding is greater now than ever before. I see how the special education teachers are overwhelmed with work loads because we can't afford to hire new teachers. Our special education budget is upwards of $500,000 in the hole for next year. All of our students are affected when we cannot provide services to our special needs children. Without appropriate funding, we must pull funds from other areas of our budget. Programs are being cut and education, as a whole, suffers. . . . Please vote and fight to fully fund the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and make its funding mandatory. Mr. President, I could not say that better myself. Again, this is the time for all of us on both sides of the aisle who care deeply about the future of our country and deeply about the future of our children and families to take this unique time in history and keep our commitment because the resources are now there to do so. I ask, if we do not pass today an amendment to fully fund special education, when will we? When will we have the opportunity again for our country to be able to step up and take a small portion of resources that are currently in hand and keep our commitment to the children and families of this country? Now is the time. We need to keep that commitment to special education. I yield the floor. I thank my colleague.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, we have been trying all week to pass a prescription drug plan under Medicare to update it. We don't support raiding it, which is what is happening now. We need to be putting in place prescription drug coverage under Medicare. It came before this body on Tuesday with a 50-50 vote. Unfortunately, the tie vote was not cast. Instead, we now find ourselves in a situation where Medicare is being used as a contingency fund. This is not the direction in which the American people wish us to go. We need to be strengthening and updating Medicare, not dipping into it and spending it as part of a contingency fund. Unfortunately, with the President's budget and tax cut combined, it is impossible to do what has been suggested without using the Medicare trust fund. That is my concern. The message that the American people want us to send loudly and clearly is that we need to update Medicare. We need to strengthen it. We don't need to raid it. We need to update it, not raid it. I am very hopeful that this will be the goal and the ultimate conclusion. I know that is what we have been fighting for on this side of the aisle since this budget process began. I yield the time and ask unanimous consent that the amendment be withdrawn.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today with an amendment that I wish we were able to pass at this moment. I realize the votes are not here. But in order to demonstrate grave concern on this side of the aisle about what is happening to the Medicare trust fund, I submit with Senator Bob Graham, a leader on this issue, an amendment that would protect the Medicare Part A trust fund by raising a point of order on the process, and hopefully it will be put into place before we are finished with this budget resolution. It is supported by the American Health Care Association, and the American Hospital Association. I ask unanimous consent that two letters in support be printed in the Record.

Ms. STABENOW. That is correct.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I reiterate, we are in the process of determining the priorities for the country. No one is talking about a tax cut. This amendment would provide an immediate stimulus this year. President Bush's tax cut for the most part does not take effect for 6 years. We then want to take the next step and work together on a long- term tax package.

Ms. STABENOW. First, no one is talking about raising taxes. No one on either side is talking about raising taxes. We are talking about a budget for next year and conceivably for 10 years. What are the values and the priorities of the American people? That is what we are talking about in this discussion. I suggest when we look at the President's proposal, if we lock up Social Security and Medicare, we have $2.5 trillion to make decisions about values and priorities of the American people. The President's tax cut, when added up, takes every penny. There is zero for education increases, zero for prescription drug coverage, and we all have heard why we need to be doing this. Unfortunately, in the President's budget, in order to pay for spending, Medicare is used because there is nothing left after his tax cut. He takes Medicare out of the lockbox and spends it. We are suggesting and addressing the need for long-term stimulus. It addresses the need to protect Social Security and Medicare, provide a tax cut, short-term stimulus. We all support a long-term tax cut. Pay down the debt to the maximum amount and make sure we have critical investments to allow the economy to proceed. That is the debate. Yes, we have a fundamental difference. We are not willing to touch Medicare and Social Security. We say hands off Medicare, hands off Social Security completely. Let's make sure we are paying down the debt. Let's make sure we give tax cuts. Let's make sure we invest in the priorities of the American people. We can do all of it if we do it the right way. As I said before, there is more than one way to put money in people's pockets. We can put it in their pockets through a tax cut, and the stimulus Senator Durbin is talking about is exactly what is needed in order to stimulate this economy. Then we can focus on longer term tax cuts. It allows us to pay down maximum debt. That puts money in people's pockets because they can refinance that mortgage and that car payment. And it allows us to invest in critical needs without touching the Medicare trust fund. That is what we are arguing. I strongly encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the short-term economic stimulus that will allow us to protect the Medicare trust fund and that will allow us to pay down the maximum amount of debt. Then we will work together, no question about it, to continue to provide tax relief that is focused particularly on middle-class taxpayers, small businesses, family farmers. We want to work together to be able to do that and make sure we are reflecting the true values and priorities of the American people.

Ms. STABENOW. On behalf of Senator Conrad, I yield myself the remaining time on the amendment.

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

Ms. STABENOW. I request 5 minutes.

Ms. STABENOW. I thank my esteemed leader from North Dakota. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate my colleagues, my friends from Florida and Delaware and the Senator from Illinois, the author of the amendment, on this approach of putting dollars directly into people's pockets as a part of this budget process. We do that in three ways: First, through an immediate tax cut. The President has proposed a tax cut, most of which would not take effect for at least 6 years. We know that is not what is needed in this economy. We need to be putting dollars directly into people's pockets immediately as a stimulus. This would do that. Secondly, we put money into people's pockets by lower interest rates. We must keep the economy going. One of the reasons the economy has done as well as it has in the last 8 years is because we began to systematically pay down the debt so our mortgage payments could go down, our car payments could go down, college loan payments could go down. That is a second way we put money back in people's pockets. The third way is to guarantee we keep this economy going so people have a job. This package does all three of those things. It stimulates the economy so we can continue to focus on creating good-paying jobs for people so they can care for their families and have the resources they need. It puts tax dollars, this year, directly into people's pockets, and it puts dollars in their pockets by allowing them to refinance their mortgage, as we continue to pay down the debt so interest rates come down. It is incredibly important we act immediately. We heard over and over in the Budget Committee that if we were going to have any impact through a tax cut, it needs to be immediate. We can do that immediately and at the same time address debt reduction and critical investments that we know will help keep the economy going for the future. I support these efforts. It is very important we act immediately. We can do that right now. We can make a difference for families right now and stimulate this economy immediately so we can continue to make sure that families benefit from the economy we have had of the last 8 years. My distinguished colleague from Illinois, who is the chief sponsor and leader in this effort, is in the Chamber. I yield back my time and give the Senator from Illinois an opportunity to address his amendment. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I yield myself 3 minutes off the amendment.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I will speak first about the broader perspective of what we have been doing on this resolution. The President of the United States put forth a budget and tax cut that basically said if you take Medicare and Social Security surpluses off the table, every penny of available on-budget surplus is used for a tax cut geared to the wealthiest Americans, hopefully trickling down. We argue instead of doing that, we definitely need to protect Medicare and Social Security. Because the President uses all non- Medicare and Social Security money for his tax cut, he then spends Medicare; he moves all of the Medicare trust fund into spending. We say, no, protect Medicare and Social Security and then let us do a balanced approach. Let us use a third of what is projected--hopefully it will happen--for a tax cut, and that is what this amendment does. It reserves a third for a tax cut, putting a stimulus on the front end so we can help the economy with money in people's pockets right now. Let us use a third for debt reduction, looking at long-term debt--and possibly if the surpluses do not materialize, that is our hedge so we do not go into further debt--and let us use a third for critical investments in our people--education, lowering the cost of prescription drugs. My concern with the comments of my friend from Utah, as a member of the Budget Committee and talking about paying down the debt, is I have heard over and over, as the President has said, we cannot put more than $2 trillion into paying down the debt. We have to leave $1.2 trillion. It cannot be any lower than that. In the Budget Committee, we heard from more than one speaker that $2.6 trillion will naturally, between now and 2011, become available. We will be able to redeem $2.6 trillion just by allowing it to come to maturity over the next 11 years. That is very different than what we are hearing today. Chairman Greenspan came to the Budget Committee and indicated a difference of opinion with the President saying that we could, in fact, pay down more debt than what is in the President's budget. We support what Chairman Greenspan is talking about, with those who managed the money directly for the past administration. We support the position of allowing the $2.6 trillion to mature over the next 11 years. We can do a better job of paying down the debt. We put money in people's pockets in three ways: We give them a tax cut, which I strongly support--not only an immediate stimulus, but a long-term tax cut--we pay down the debt, which puts money in people's pockets by lowering their mortgage payment, car payment, and college loan, and other costs people have, and finally, we stimulate the economy so people have a job, which is the most important way we put money in people's pockets. I urge we support the Durbin amendment and oppose the amendment of my good friend from Utah.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise to commend my colleagues for their hard work. There is nothing more urgent in a family's life than the issue of health care. I often think that if we address this issue in as urgent a manner as a family does when someone has a health care problem, we would have acted much more quickly. When there is a health concern in a family, it seems that the world stops until you fix it or try to figure out how to help your child or your parent or yourself. We need to have that same sense of urgency about health care in this Chamber. I commend my colleagues for their work.

Ms. STABENOW. Thank you, Mr. President. Good morning. We have in front of us two approaches to addressing home health care needs and stopping the 15-percent cut that is scheduled to go into effect in October of 2002. I applaud my colleague from Maine for her commitment to this issue. I share that commitment, having worked very closely for 4 years in the House of Representatives with the agencies and associations involved in home health care. I know we share a deep concern about the fact that there has been a 24-percent cut in patient care in home health care settings as a result of the Balanced Budget Act. I consider that an unintended consequence. I do not believe that it was intended that we see a 30-percent reduction in the number of agencies that serve Medicare patients. And as a result of that, we have seen this 15-percent cut delayed on three different occasions. Today is the opportunity for us to send a strong message to the patients and families who rely on home health care, and the home health care agencies that do such a wonderful job, and say that, in fact, this cut will not take effect and they can proceed in providing quality care for our families. The difference in the approach is that my colleague provides for a proposal that says ``if.'' And I will read this: ``subject to the condition that such legislation will not, when taken together with all other previously-enacted legislation, reduce the on-budget surplus below the level of the Medicare . . . Trust Fund:'' Then, and only then, would we have $13.7 billion available for home health care. Then, and only then, would we stop this incredibly devastating 15-percent cut that is scheduled to take effect. I offer a different approach. It is very simple. We will protect home health care, period. We take the $13.7 billion off the top, as they say. We take a very minute amount of money away from what is, in effect, a $2.5 trillion tax cut that has been proposed by the President, to say that we are going to make sure the families of America have access to home health care; that seniors can live in dignity in their homes; that families who care for moms and dads and grandmas and grandpas can make sure that home health care services are available so they are not forced to choose a nursing home or another institution when it is not appropriate. It is very clear; we have two approaches and the same amount of dollars. One says: Maybe, if all other things happen, we will stop the 15-percent cut in home health care. My amendment very simply says: We take it off the top. We guarantee that we place home health care as a priority. It certainly is a priority for our families. It needs to be a priority for this Congress. My amendment will simply make sure that that is the case. I urge colleagues on both sides of the aisle who care deeply about home health care to join with me in guaranteeing that home health care is a priority of this Congress and to make sure this devastating 15- percent cut will not, in fact, take place. I urge support for the amendment and yield to my colleague and friend from North Dakota.

Ms. STABENOW. I ask for a minute.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, how much time is remaining on the amendment?

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I make it clear I agree with protecting the Medicare trust fund. That is very laudable. I wish we were totally protecting it from any areas of spending. My concern is simply that when we protect it, as this amendment does, it makes it impossible to find the $13.7 billion when you look at the conditions put in this amendment. It is excellent to protect the Medicare trust fund, but the reality is the contingency fund that has been put forward by the President in this resolution uses the entire Medicare trust fund to fund it. It is really a Catch-22. That is my concern. I certainly am hopeful we will be able to truly put aside the dollars and make sure that, regardless of what else happens in the process, we have dollars put aside to protect home health care. I yield the floor.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. I would.

Ms. STABENOW. Five minutes.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I appreciate the diligence of my distinguished colleague from North Dakota and his effective advocacy and hard work on the budget resolution. We have people on both sides of the aisle who are working hard to put together a vision and a framework for the next year and beyond, up to 10 years, for our country--what are our values, what are our priorities. Again, we have a discussion about our priorities for the country, and we are focused on a very important part of our economy, an important part of the economy of Michigan. With my great State of Michigan, everyone thinks of automobiles. In fact, we have, in addition to a vibrant manufacturing economy, one of the strongest agricultural economies in the United States and, in fact, in the world. Next to California, we produce more diverse crops than any other State in the Union. We are very proud of that. My concern is that in Michigan, as in all of our States, we are seeing farmers in great trouble. As I have been here only 4 years in the House of Representatives on the Agriculture Committee and now in the Senate on the Agriculture Committee, I hear from my family farmers, my producers, about how they are working harder, they are producing more, and their paycheck is less; their prices go down. Every year I have been here, we have, in fact, passed an emergency supplemental to help our farmers. My concern about this budget resolution is that we do not guarantee we will build in the resources for the farm bill we are now working on in the Agriculture Committee and the needs of agriculture over the next 10 years. We have two approaches in front of us this morning. I am sure they are sincere approaches by colleagues. One I believe is the right direction; one I believe is the wrong direction. The right direction is the Johnson amendment that will guarantee we are putting aside dollars, $9 billion this year, in order to have an emergency response if we need it before the farm bill is in place, and then $8 billion a year to guarantee we are addressing a wide variety of needs, whether it is conservation, our crop insurance system, the specialty crops in Michigan that are so important, that we need to address in the farm bill. All the areas that need to be addressed in the farm bill--rural development, research extension--are important priorities for the country. We have a stake in making sure that agriculture is strong in our country. The only way to guarantee that is to pass the Johnson amendment so we clearly state that agriculture is a part of the budget vision for the next 10 years. My concern about the Grassley amendment, while I am sure it is well intended, is as we discussed last evening: By choosing to go again to the contingency fund for any dollars being proposed, what we are doing is effectively raiding the Medicare trust fund. One of the priorities of the country, in addition to a tax cut, would be to make sure there is a small amount of dollars there, critical dollars, for our farmers, our agricultural producers, our ranchers across the country. The Johnson amendment will place agriculture as a priority. Unfortunately, the Grassley amendment says we are going to dip into the contingency fund. We heard about that yesterday, and we will hear about it until this budget resolution passes. We will hear: Don't worry about it; the contingency fund will take care of it. Don't worry about it; the contingency fund is there, rather than specifically laying out the priorities of the country. When we look at what that contingency fund is, it is the Medicare trust fund.