Debbie Stabenow

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, my friend from South Carolina said the proof is in the pudding. I would suggest the proof is in your paycheck. That is what I suggest. We had a chance yesterday with my amendment to absolutely guarantee that my friends on the other side of the aisle believe what they are saying; that people are going to get a minimum of $4,000 in increased wages. I offered an amendment to simply say that in a couple years from now--2 years from now, 2020, we can make it 2021 or 2025, just pick a day when folks are going to get $4,000 in their wages, and we will put that in an amendment and pass it. The truth is, there is no guarantee in this bill. If my friends on the other side of the aisle believed that there would be $4,000 more in wages in middle-class families' pockets with this supply-side trickle- down economics tax cut, they would have voted for my amendment yesterday, which simply says that if there is a $4,000 increase in wages, the tax cut continues. If it doesn't, if they don't have $4,000 more in people's pockets, then the tax giveaway stops because all it means is it is adding to the national debt. I am all for anything that puts money in people's pockets. I have sponsored and voted for tax cuts for small businesses, manufacturers, farmers, and families over the years in public service and here in the Senate, and I want to do that; close tax loopholes that are taking jobs overseas, not increase new ones, which, by the way, this bill does, a new $4 billion tax loophole for oil companies--not closing tax loopholes. If folks really believe this, if they really believe the numbers, let's lock it down. The proof is in your paycheck. That is what families in Michigan are saying. They want to know it is in their paycheck. They want to know it is a guarantee. You know what, they are very skeptical. Because the truth is, in the past, supply-side economics/trickle-down economics has not worked. You say that it is going to trickle down. People in Michigan are still waiting. They are still waiting to catch it. It is not trickling down. We do have examples. What are the facts? With the tax cut in 1986, 10 years after that, the wages of working people in this country were flat. They did not go up. That is a fact. With President Bill Clinton in his effort to balance the budget in 1997, I was pleased. I had only been in the House for 6 months and went in and had the opportunity to balance the budget, which we did for the first time in 30 years. What happened during that process? Actually, taxes on wealthy people were raised a little bit to give a middle-class tax cut and invest in education, which I know our distinguished Presiding Officer cares deeply about, and innovation. What happened? There were 22 million jobs that were created. Then we went into 2001, 2002 with President George W. Bush, and there was a big tax cut in 2001, a supply-side/trickle-down tax cut. We were told that it was going to put money in people's pockets. It didn't. It created debt. In 2003, we had another supply-side tax cut that was going to put money in people's pockets. It didn't. It created a huge debt. We had wars that weren't paid for. Then it went into the biggest recession that we have seen outside of the Great Depression with the financial crisis, and 8 million people lost their jobs. People lost the equity in their homes and their pension values. It was terrible. President Obama came in in 2009 and had to try to begin to dig out of the hole. That is a fact. He began to dig out of that hole and put things back together for folks. It was a big hole, and a lot of families are still feeling that hole. I know that is true in Michigan. So part of me may feel a little skeptical when I am hearing: Have I got a deal for you. Let's try supply-side economics one more time, and this time it really is going to create jobs and really is going to put money in your pockets. There is no proof of that. There is no proof that this grows the economy to be able to cover the costs of the tax giveaways whether you look at supply-side economics, whether you look at new dynamic scoring--the new ways of scoring on things--to make it look better. That didn't even show up. What I would say is that the proof is in your paychecks, for the people who are watching. There is a lot going back and forth, and it is very confusing because we hear one thing from one side, and we hear the exact opposite from the other. I understand how confusing this is, but I would just ask this: Why weren't my friends willing to support my amendment that would say that if folks really get the $4,000 minimum amount being promised in increased wages, then this goes on, and if they don't, then the tax giveaway stops? Why didn't they support that?

Ms. STABENOW. Before turning this to my friend and colleague from Pennsylvania, I do want to mention just one thing that I understand is in there. There may be things that I am supportive of in there. We don't know. We are trying to figure it out. One thing that I don't understand, with all of the talk about supporting workers and middle-class workers, is that there is a provision in the bill that reads ``prohibit cash or gift cards as employee achievement awards.'' So if somebody works very hard and is getting some kind of achievement award, does that mean he would not be allowed to get a bonus? I mean, I don't know why in the world we would be going after people's employee achievement awards. That doesn't sound like help for the middle class to me. I now yield to my friend from Pennsylvania and thank him for his leadership.

Ms. STABENOW. Right.

Ms. STABENOW. Yes.

Ms. STABENOW. Yes.

Ms. STABENOW. Absolutely. We asked that question, as you know, and he indicated that that was not the case. I continue to hear it over and over again. We have heard it from the President of the United States and the Secretary of the Treasury. We have heard it from folks on the floor. Just today, we have seen it in charts on the floor. That is great. If that could really happen, I would support that. It has never happened, and my colleagues will not support guaranteeing that it will happen. This is about putting up or shutting up, in my opinion. That is what we would say in Michigan. It is about whether we are going to guarantee folks that this time around, it is not just a sales job, that it is actually going to end up in their pockets. I see my friend and colleague from Pennsylvania, who offered this amendment in committee. I was pleased to join him in committee, and he knows, in Pennsylvania, like I do, that we have gone through some rough and tumble times, and we still have folks who are working too hard at not just one job but two jobs, trying to hold it together, having not seen the pay raises they deserve and have worked for. They want to know that this time around is not going to be voodoo economics and that it is actually going to increase their paychecks.

Ms. STABENOW. I hope you are a speed reader.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, today I wish to remember and pay tribute to Judge Anna Diggs Taylor, who turned her lifelong passion for justice into a highly successful legal career, breaking down barriers for women and people of color and inspiring me and so many others in our State. When Anna Katherine Johnston was born in 1932 in Washington, DC, women had very few options. African-American women had even fewer. However, Anna's parents, Hazel Bramlette Johnston--a business teacher-- and Virginius Douglass Johnston--a Howard University trustee--deeply believed in the power of education and in their smart, hard-working daughter. When she was in 10th grade, they pulled her from the segregated DC school system and enrolled her in the prestigious Northfield School for Girls in Massachusetts, from which she graduated in 1950. Her own early experiences with segregation and witnessing how the law could be used as a tool to further equality led her to the legal profession. It wasn't a common career path for women in those days. In fact, when she graduated from Yale Law School in 1957, there were only four other women in her class. About 5,500 women were practicing lawyers in the United States in 1960. Anna got her chance to join those ranks when J. Ernest Wilkins, the first African-American man appointed as an Assistant Secretary of Labor, hired her as a staff lawyer in the Office of the Solicitor. In 1960, Anna married Congressman Charles Diggs, Jr., and moved to Detroit, where she had two children and a career, including as an assistant Wayne County prosecutor. In 1964, her passion for justice led her to Mississippi, where she represented civil rights workers who were jailed for helping register African-American voters. She arrived the same day civil rights activists James Chaney, Andrew Goodman, and Michael Schwerner disappeared, and she became a target of hatred herself when an angry mob yelled racial slurs at her and three other activists as they were leaving the Neshoba County courthouse after trying to question the sheriff. Over the years, Anna worked both in private practice and in public service, as an assistant U.S. attorney and managing her husband's congressional office. When she and her husband later divorced, she helped to elect Coleman Young as Detroit's first Black mayor and worked to integrate city government during his administration. In 1976, Anna married S. Martin Taylor and worked on Jimmy Carter's Presidential campaign. Three years later, President Garter appointed her to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. She was the first Black woman Federal judge to serve in our State and the first Black Woman chief judge for that circuit. She retired in 2011. She once said that ``black judges have an important role, especially in staying close to their communities,'' and Judge Taylor did just that. She was deeply involved in community organizations including the Community Foundation for Southeast Michigan. She was an adjunct labor law professor at Wayne State University, vice president of the Yale Law School Association, and served on the joint steering committee of the gender and racial ethnic fairness task forces for the Sixth Circuit, positions that allowed her to help open the same doors that others had opened for her. In a biography, Judge Taylor once wrote that her legal career was ``a thousand times more exciting, more intellectually challenging, and more enriching'' than she had ever imagined while at Yale Law. That didn't mean it was easy; breaking barriers never is. Yet she did it. Judge Taylor's life and career will long serve as an example of just how far you can go with hard work, persistence, and a passionate dedication to your ideals. I think that young girl in a segregated DC classroom would be really proud. I know that many people in Michigan certainly are. Thank you.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, this would put in place a guarantee that middle-class families would receive the benefits they are being promised in this bill. I am offering this motion to commit with the support of Senators Casey, Van Hollen, Udall, Cardin, Booker, Wyden, Menendez, Harris, and Brown. I have said it before, and I will say it again, there is no question we need tax reform. We need tax reform that creates jobs, incentivizes companies to bring back jobs from overseas, protects our farmers, helps small businesses, and puts more money in the pocket of middle-class families in Michigan and across the country. That is what we need, and that is what I would vote for and I know other colleagues on our side would vote for, but that is not what this bill does. That is not what this Republican bill does. We know our friends across the aisle are in a hurry to pass this legislation as quickly as possible before the American people discover what a bad deal it is. Unfortunately, for Republicans, we keep uncovering new ways that this tax legislation is a huge giveaway for the wealthiest 1 percent. Now we know, from the latest scoring, it blows a huge hole in our Nation's debt, expanding our Nation's debt. Here are just a few ways this legislation hurts middle-class families. It keeps a loophole that lets corporations write off their expenses, their moving expenses, when they move jobs overseas. However, a family moving across the country to Michigan for a new job could no longer deduct their moving expenses. Big businesses could keep on deducting their State and local taxes, but middle-class families, sorry, no State and local tax deduction for you. Oil companies would enjoy a brandnew $4 billion offshore tax loophole. Merry Christmas. Meanwhile, 87 million American households who earn less than $200,000 a year get a tax increase. Let me repeat that. Eighty-seven million American households who earn less than $200,000 a year will get a tax increase under the bill in front of us, and health insurance premiums will go up by 10 percent, and continue to go up, while 13 million fewer people would have healthcare coverage. President Trump has called this bill, in his words, a ``great, big, beautiful Christmas present'' for the American people. Well, I certainly hope the American people remember to keep the gift certificate. This bill is a disaster for the middle class and a disaster for our future. President Trump isn't the only person who has made big promises about this legislation. Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin, one of the bill's biggest salesmen, has said: ``On the personal tax side, middle-income people are getting cuts and rich people are getting very little cuts.'' I would like to highlight his first words ``on the personal tax side''--very sneaky language. Once all the proposals that actually help the wealthy are taken into account, all of them, it is clear that those in Secretary Mnuchin's personal income category are the real winners. White House budget director Mick Mulvaney is making promises too. He said, ``The White House, the President, is not going to sign a bill that raises taxes on the middle class, period.'' I would assume, based on that statement, he wouldn't sign this bill. The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center found that 87 million middle-class and working families will see their taxes go up. Perhaps the biggest promise of them all came directly from the White House. ``The average American family would get a $4,000 raise under the President's tax cut plan.'' Republicans have promised hard-working, middle-class families in Michigan and across the country that by giving the top 1 percent and large corporations a huge tax giveaway--you know the trickle-down economic approach--that magically they will receive $4,000, $7,000, even $9,000 in extra income. By giving this big supply-side tax cut, magically, families will receive $4,000, $7,000, or even $9,000 in their income. Well, the proof is in their paychecks. That is what is going to happen for the American people. They are going to take a look at their paychecks to find out whether this is true, and that is why I am offering a motion that will ensure that the benefits of these tax cuts go to the middle class and that the promises being made to the families in Michigan and across the country will be kept. This motion would send the bill back to the Finance Committee with instructions to include a trigger to return the corporate rate to its current level if the average household wage doesn't go up at least $4,000 in the next 2 years. That seems only fair to me. People are being told over and over again they are going to get money directly in their pocket. The President said a minimum of $4,000. Well, the proof is in your paycheck. That is what the American people are going to be looking at. This motion simply makes sure the American people get the raise the Trump administration is promising them. If my Republican colleagues are serious about putting more money in the pockets of the middle class, I urge you to support this motion. You know Michigan families could certainly use an extra $4,000 in their paycheck. What they don't need are broken promises--the kind of promises they have heard before too many times. Just think back to the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003. Colleagues from across the aisle came to the floor and said the 2003 Bush tax cuts would ``allow us to grow our way out of our current economic doldrums.'' What did we get? Massive debt. And the Bush tax cuts ``will aid the people and businesses who make up our economic machine and get it moving down the tracks at full speed again.'' We got massive debt, and wages did not go up. The train derailed, growth was anemic, and middle-class families saw very little lasting benefit. If this approach worked, if trickle- down economics worked, I would be supporting this. There is no evidence that this has ever worked. A new analysis of the tax bill is even more skewed to the top than the Bush tax cuts. Economist Bruce Bartlett served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy during the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations. Last month, when asked if tax cuts pay for themselves through greater economic growth, Mr. Bartlett said: That's a lie. It's always been a lie. . . . There's not one iota of evidence that will support this argument. In fact, he added that wages actually fell--actually fell--for 10 years after the Tax Reform Act of 1986 was enacted. The Bush tax cuts didn't benefit middle-income families in the long term. The Reagan tax cuts didn't benefit middle-income families in the long term. What they did was cause the deficit to explode. That is a fact. We all know what happened next. Republican colleagues pointed to the huge deficits. President Bush said that now we need to privatize Social Security, cut Medicare because, oh, my gosh, we have big deficits. Thankfully, Democrats put an end to that plan. Well, another distinguished Republican President once said: ``There you go again,'' and that is true. The recently passed Republican budget resolution makes it clear that their next step after this is to cut Medicare and Medicaid. In fact, their budget already allows almost $1.5 trillion to be cut from these programs. But don't take my word for it. Take their word for it. Earlier this month, Speaker Paul Ryan made the Republican plan very clear. He said: The next thing we are doing is going to entitlements-- Medicare and Medicaid. In fact, after the numbers that just came out and the fact that even with dynamic scoring--what many would call ``voodoo scoring''--it doesn't solve the problem on deficits. So it means cutting Medicare and Medicaid may be suggested even sooner. You have huge tax giveaways to the wealthy 1 percent, which causes the deficit to explode and causes them to cut crucial programs like Medicare and Medicaid. That is the scenario that is in front of us. I hope people will remember this. This is only step one. When folks come back and say: Oh, my gosh, there is a huge deficit; we have to cut Medicare and Medicaid, they will remember this debate and this time. Middle-class families see their taxes go up. They see their healthcare costs go up, and they see Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid cut. This is worse than a one-two punch. It is a one-two-three punch, and middle-class families will feel every blow. Michigan families deserve better than this. American families deserve better than this. American families deserve real tax reform that creates jobs and incentivizes companies to bring jobs back to America by closing loopholes, not creating new ones; that protects our farmers, helps our small businesses, and puts more money in their pocket. That is what I support. They deserve to be told the truth about the end goal of this Republican tax plan. If Republicans mean it when they say middle-class families will get at least $4,000 more in wages, well then, everybody should be voting for my motion to commit because American working men and women know the proof is in their paycheck. The proof is in your paycheck. The proof is in your paycheck. That is what every single man and woman working today is going to look at--their paycheck. All I am saying is that, if you are going to tell them there is $4,000 more, then we are going to measure that in the next 2 years. If there is, that is terrific, and if there isn't, this tax scheme should stop. I yield the floor.

Ms. STABENOW. How many years do you think it will take before folks get their $4,000--2021, 2022?

Ms. STABENOW. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, in a few minutes, we are going to be voting on a motion of mine that actually dovetails with what the distinguished Senator from Florida was talking about in terms of hard- working people who have been told there will be a minimum of $4,000 put into their wages based on what is being done in the Senate with the Republican tax proposal. We have no evidence of that. In fact, we have no economic scoring that shows that. We have no evidence in the past that has ever been done with supply-side economics. If that is true, at least $4,000 in people's wages is great. I think that is wonderful. We want to guarantee that. We want to make sure the proof is in somebody's paycheck. I am very pleased to have Senators Casey, Van Hollen, Udall, Cardin, Booker, Wyden, Menendez, Harris, and Brown joining me in a very simple approach that I would hope everybody would support. If you are confident that what is being done here in this supply-side tax cut is going to end up with $4,000 in the pockets of middle-class families, then let's make sure it is true. Let's make sure that happens. We are going to measure this in 2 years. If it doesn't happen in the next 2 years, then the tax cuts stop. Why? Because all they are doing is blowing a hole in the budget. All they are doing is creating more deficits and not putting money in people's pockets. I hope everyone will join me. I agree, we have hard-working folks who have seen their wages flat for years. They have seen not only their wages flat but their pensions attacked, and they find themselves in a situation where, yes, they are working, but the wages are down or maybe it is two jobs now instead of one in order to be able to keep the same wage, but they feel like they are treading water and not getting ahead. Folks are talking a lot about that, about wanting to help middle-class families. Great. I have a lot of folks in Michigan who would love to have $4,000, $5,000, $6,000 more in their wages. I would love to support something that does that. Let me go back and say, it didn't happen under the Bush tax cuts, even under Reagan tax cuts. Wages were flat for the next 10 years. It certainly didn't happen in Kansas with what they did, doing the same kind of supply-side economics. If this could actually work, sign me up. I think people deserve to make sure that promise will be kept.

Ms. STABENOW. I would urge that we vote to make sure the proof is in the people's paychecks, and that is what this motion is.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, if I could just have 15 seconds, the people in Michigan want to know when they are going to get their $4,000. That is all.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, yes, I do. I absolutely do. Motion to Commit Mr. President, I call up my motion to commit, which is at the desk.

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

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, thank you very much. I feel like we should be talking about the deficit, which is of concern to us and wish it were of more concern to----

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President. I actually am going to speak for a moment about something other than the tax provisions, but I have to say, with my friend from Missouri on the floor--and I do mean my friend from Missouri--that we may not agree on the tax provisions, but we do agree on what I am going to be talking about today, which is community health centers and children's health insurance. I am hopeful that, as the Senator was speaking about new market tax credits--which I support strongly--and historic preservations, they don't get hurt in this process at all. I know there is work to do on this to make sure it doesn't happen, but I appreciate working very closely with my colleague and friend from Missouri on what I want to talk about today. I rise today to draw attention to the way the Senate majority is failing children and families in Michigan and all across the country. It now has been 60 days--nearly 2 months--since Republicans let funding expire for the Children's Health Insurance Program and community health centers--60 days. It doesn't have to be this way because we have bipartisan support to be able to continue the funding for both of these programs. We also can't say that we haven't had time. During these 60 days, Republican leadership has found time for us to work on plenty of other issues. They passed their budget. They have taken 75 floor votes. Republicans introduced their tax plan, which is now before us, and we are spending time this week on that. And, by the way, they rewrote their tax plan in a way that would cause 13 million people to lose their health insurance. The Senate has considered 24 nominees, but Republicans haven't taken any action to ensure that the 9 million children who have health insurance from the Children's Health Insurance Program can continue to get medical care, even though we have bipartisan support. In the middle of all of the division going on right now on the floor, we could bring something to the floor that would have bipartisan support and do the right thing for families and for children and make sure that we are taking away the anxiety that families are feeling now across the country about what is going to happen. There are 9 million children right now at risk because of inaction. CHIP provides children from low- and moderate-income working families with affordable healthcare. These are families who are working. They don't qualify for other kinds of help. These are working families who sometimes have one job, sometimes two jobs, or part-time jobs, and they trying to hold it together. They want to be able to take their child to the doctor. They want the peace of mind that comes from knowing that if their child gets hurt or if they get sick, they can take them to a doctor. In addition, the Senate majority hasn't taken any action on another very important community healthcare program to ensure that 25 million people who count on community health centers will continue to have a place to go when they get hurt, when they get sick, to take their child, and to take their parents. Included among those 25 million patients are 300,000 of our veterans--300,000 veterans--and 7.5 million children that rely on health centers in our communities. I have often said that healthcare is personal not political. There is nothing more personal than waking up in the middle of the night because your child is crying and they are sick. There is nothing more personal than worrying about whether you are going to be able to get them the care they need. There is nothing more personal than wanting to know that you have a healthcare provider in your community who can help you or a family member manage your chronic conditions--high blood pressure, diabetes, and other things--so that you don't find yourself getting sicker and sicker and sicker. Healthcare is personal not political, and each one of these 9 million children and 25 million Americans are being personally let down by this inaction. As I indicated before, it doesn't have to be this way. We can take action today. We have bipartisan support right now, and bipartisan cosponsorship right now. We could stop the divisive debate and take a moment to do something really important for families and children before the holiday season. Right now we can ensure that families and children know that the Children's Health Insurance Program will continue in the new year and that they are going to be able to go to their community health center and get the care they need for themselves and their families. I was really proud of the fact that Senator Hatch, our distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee, and Senator Wyden, our distinguished ranking member, and all of us on the Committee came together to put together a bipartisan Children's Health Insurance Program extension for 5 years. It came out of Committee with only one Senator voting no. I was hoping that it was going to get done right away. Why wouldn't it? It is something that could sail through here. In addition to that, 70 Members of this body, led by Senator Blunt and myself, have signed a letter of support for continuing funding for community health centers. Now, Senator Blunt and I have put in bipartisan legislation with eight other Democrats and 8 other Republicans to extend funding for 5 years. I know if this came up on the floor, we could get this done today and ease the worries of families that are beginning to get notices across the country that the health insurance for themselves and their children is going to run out. These programs have long had strong bipartisan support. Why can't we get the action on this that these families and children deserve? Instead, families continue to wait every day--60 days. I truly thought back in September that this was something that would be enough of a priority that it could get done amidst all the other things that have been brought to the floor of the Senate. But now the clock ticks every day--every day. This is wrong. We need to put these children and these families first. We might be 60 days late, but there is no reason we can't act today or tomorrow--before the end of the week--to make these children and families a top priority. Before CHIP, too many hard-working families in Michigan couldn't afford to take their children to the doctor. Today, 100,000 children are covered by MIChild, which is what we call our Children's Health Insurance Program--100,000 children. With all the efforts to provide affordable healthcare that are going on in Michigan right now--successful efforts--97 percent of the children in Michigan today can now see a doctor--97 percent. They are, at the moment, not having to go to an emergency room and wait hours and hours and hours or have their parents try to figure out what they can do to help them when they get sick. So 97 percent of our children can now see a doctor, and that is the highest level ever, and we should be proud of that. That is a good thing. Yet, unless Congress acts soon, MIChild will begin running out of funding as early as January, which is not very far away. Happy New Year. Lose your health insurance. January will also be a bad month for Michigan's community health centers. Nearly 20,000 people will lose access to healthcare. Some 20,000 people in Michigan who now are able to go to a community health center would see that access to healthcare go away, with thousands more dropped each month. Last year, Michigan's community health centers treated more than 680,000 patients--680,000 people--including 12,710 of our veterans. They diagnosed coronary artery disease in more than 21,000 people. Nearly 34,000 Michigan residents were diagnosed with asthma and began to get help. Nearly 140,000 people were diagnosed with diabetes and could get help. All of those health conditions can be managed--we know that--if you have access to a doctor, to nurses, and to medications. You can manage those kinds of chronic diseases. However, they can be deadly if they are undiagnosed and untreated. Just ask William. He didn't have a regular doctor after moving to Jackson, MI, from Chicago, but one morning he knew he needed one. He woke up feeling light-headed. So he went to the Center for Family Health, a great facility. They discovered that William's blood pressure was high--so high, in fact, that he was in danger of having a heart attack or a stroke. It took about a year for William's doctors to find the right combination of medications to control his blood pressure, but they were able to do that. He has been getting his care at the Center for Family Health ever since. They literally saved his life. Emily from Rochester Hills has her own story about the Children's Health Insurance Program. Emily's dad was laid off from two separate jobs within 3 years at a time when her mom was working a part-time job that didn't provide insurance. That is a very common story for a lot of hard-working folks in Michigan as well as across the country. Thankfully, Emily and her brothers and sisters had health insurance through MIChild. It covered their scoliosis, asthma, a seizure disorder, and typical children's health insurance issues like bronchitis and broken bones. Emily's words are: The Children's Health Insurance Program was a lifesaver for my siblings and me. . . . I can't imagine the stress that my parents dealt with during that time and how we would have survived so well without the program. Emily and William know CHIP and community health centers make lifesaving differences for people in Michigan as well as across the country. We are 60 days late, but there is no time like the present to get this done. We are 60 days late, but we don't have to make it 61. Our children and our families should be put at the top of the list for action, not at the bottom. It is time to make things right for the 9 million children who rely on the Children's Health Insurance Program and the 25 million people who use community health centers. We shouldn't let one more day go by without acting. We can do this now. There is bipartisan support to get this done, and our children and our families deserve to have this done as quickly as possible. I yield the floor.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, if I might just take 30 seconds to complete my remarks.

Ms. STABENOW. Thank you very much. Let me just say in conclusion that we can fix this. We don't have to put up one more day on the count chart. Today we can make children and families a priority by passing critical healthcare that has the bipartisan support to get it done, if we have the urgency to do so. Thank you. I yield the floor.

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

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I first wish to thank my friend, the distinguished Senator from Connecticut, for his very important words.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, today I wish to reflect on Veterans Day and the debt of gratitude each of us owes those who are willing to serve our country in our Armed Forces. Each year I have the honor of attending Veterans Day events across Michigan. At each parade, commemoration, and solemn ceremony, I am struck by the profound patriotism of our veterans, but also their deep humility and lasting dedication to serving others. One amazing example of this is Jim McCloughan of South Haven. In May of 1969, he was 23 years old and far from home, serving as a medic in Vietnam after being drafted into the Army. The orders were to attack Nui Yon Hill. However, Private First Class McCloughan and his company were surrounded by more than 2,000 enemy fighters. Over 2 days of battle, Private First Class McCloughan put himself in danger time and again in order to rescue his fallen brothers. His head and arm were bloodied by shrapnel and small-arms fire; yet he refused to stop. When the battle was over, he had saved the lives of 10 members of his company. Private First Class McCloughan received the Combat Medical Badge, two Purple Hearts, two Bronze Stars with ``V'' device for valor, and the U.S. Army Valorous Unit Citation, among other awards. He was a hero in every sense of the word. However, he remained focused on only one thing: how he could best serve others. That is just what he did. Jim McCloughan returned home and taught and coached at South Haven High School until retiring in 2008. That might have been where his story ended had it not been for his one-time platoon leader, LT Randall J. Clark. Lieutenant Clark never forgot about Private First Class McCloughan's heroism and worked tirelessly to get him the recognition he had earned. In 2016, I passed a bill to make Private First Class McCloughan eligible for our Nation's highest military honor. In July, I was honored to be at the White House as Private First Class McCloughan was finally awarded the Medal of Honor by President Donald Trump. Jim McCloughan's story is extraordinary, but he is not alone. Across our Nation--and throughout our history--people of common backgrounds and uncommon courage have put their lives on the line in defense of our Nation. Time and again, these brave men and women have come home only to continue serving in our schools, churches, elected offices, and civic organizations. Veterans like Jim owe us nothing and keep giving us everything. It is our solemn duty to keep our promises to them. Like Lieutenant Clark, we must continue working to provide them all that they have earned, whether it is healthcare, education, the chance at a good job, or the Medal of Honor. ``I'm humbled, very humbled,'' Jim McCloughan said about receiving his award. ``And, of course--as many individuals who are blessed to receive something like this--I'm receiving it for all of my men.'' The spirit of service lives on in Jim McCloughan, in Lieutenant Clark, and in our veterans in Michigan and across this Nation. On this Veterans Day, we remember them, we thank them, and we renew our commitment to serving them. Thank you.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, in recognition of National Forest Products Week, I would like to commend the more than 27,000 men and women who work in the forest products sector in my home State of Michigan. Taken together, Michigan is home to nearly 200 forest products facilities that run the gamut, from furniture manufacturing to paper mills. With yearly salaries of over $1.4 billion, these facilities represent one of our State's most significant manufacturing sectors. Paper and forest products play a vital role in our domestic economy and benefit every American as they go about their daily lives. Additionally, wood construction is an innovative form of climate protection because wood oftentimes replaces competing building materials that require sizeable amounts of fossil fuels to produce. Moreover, wood lowers a building's carbon footprint because it continues to hold carbon absorbed during the growth of the tree, keeping that pollution out of the atmosphere for the life expectancy of the building. As we look to reduce carbon emissions and green our building stock, we ought to look at greater use of innovative wood products in commercial structures. Similarly, paper and packaging products help all Americans to communicate with each other, teach our kids, and learn new things ourselves. These products preserve and deliver our food, medicine, and other manufactured goods. Whether it is a marriage certificate or a young child's finger painting, these paper products capture some of the most important moments in a person's life. For these reasons and others, I am proud to be a cochair of the Senate's Paper and Packaging Caucus. I urge all of my Senate colleagues to join me in celebrating National Forest Products Week and to consider the variety of ways this sustainable resource benefits us in our lives. Thank you for the opportunity to recognize the forest products industry's dedicated professionals who work and reside in the great State of Michigan.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, unfortunately, I was unable to attend the rollcall vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 2266, emergency supplemental appropriations. Had I been able to attend, I would have voted in favor of cloture. (At the request of Mr. Schumer, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)