Debbie Stabenow

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I am very proud to stand up with my colleagues and say: It is time to act. Enough is enough. Close loopholes that are being used by people who are not following the law, unfortunately resulting in death and injury to children and families across the country. Like a lot of my colleagues, I grew up in a small rural town in Northern Michigan. My family members are all hunters. We enjoy the outdoors and gun ownership. I purchase and own guns myself. That is not what this is about. My family goes through background checks. We don't want people being able to use loopholes and not to have to follow the law. So this is simply about making sure that the law makes sense and that we are enforcing it. I also think it is very important to stress the fact that we know there are tremendous mental health needs in this country. In fact, Senator Blunt and I offered legislation--the Excellence in Mental Health Act--before this body that was passed as a pilot project to get started about 18 months ago. If we had the full support of our Republican colleagues in the House and the Senate, we could quickly make comprehensive quality mental health services available all across the country. Instead, because we have not yet--I hope we can get that support. I would love to see that support. If we had that support, we would have more than eight States that are going to have emergency mental health services available, 24-hour services available, so families or law enforcement or individuals have a place to take someone or someone can go in themselves and ask for help--24-hour psychiatric services available on an emergency basis. That is what is in the Excellence in Mental Health Act. We have begun the process to make sure it is available in these States. It needs to be available in 50 States. We need to make sure comprehensive services are available in the community for behavioral health just as we have for federally qualified health centers. We came together on a bipartisan basis to extend funding for federally qualified health centers. We now have a new category called federally qualified behavioral health clinics, and funding will be available to comprehensively provide those services in eight States under our pilot project. It needs to be in 50 States. I welcome colleagues coming to the floor and talking about what we need to do in mental health. We have colleagues on both sides of the aisle.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, first of all, let me agree with the distinguished chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee that, in fact, we did come together on strong sanctions against Iran that has brought us to this situation on a bipartisan basis. We did come together on the process that would create legislatively a way for us to make a decision. That was done on a bipartisan basis. What I regret is, at this point, even though we are following through on the legislative process we adopted, it now has become so partisan. That is not good for America, it is not good for Israel, and it is not good for, frankly, the world to see this happen. So while agreeing on part of what the distinguished chairman said, I have to disagree on many things, although I am not going to take my time to go into them now. But certainly the process we are using is no different than any other major bill--health care reform, financial services reform--and it was set up in what we passed. So we can try to make it into some partisan issue now. The reality is we have all thoughtfully taken a position. We have voted. Everyone knows everyone's position. So now we are just in the process right now, unfortunately, I believe, of politics, which does not help us move forward for our country or for our allies. Amendment No. 2656 Mr. President, I wish to speak to an issue I am deeply concerned about, which is the next vote we are going to have on Thursday, and speak to a very important young man who is an American hero and who is caught in the politics of what is happening right now. Amir Hekmati from Flint, MI, is an American hero. He served his country as a marine between 2001 and 2005 in Iraq and Afghanistan. He served with valor. He served with honor. He was awarded the Combat Action Ribbon and the Good Conduct Medal. But this morning, Amir woke up in an Iranian prison. He has been in that prison for 4 years and 19 days. During that time, Amir has been tortured. The prison is notorious for its deplorable conditions. While he has been there, his father, in Flint, MI, has been battling terminal brain cancer. The Iranian Government is playing politics with Amir Hekmati's life. Unfortunately, though, now, today, the Senate Republican leader is also playing politics with Amir's life. The imprisonment of this veteran, this American hero, is being used by the Senate majority leader in a transparent effort to score some cheap political points, in my judgment, and it is appalling. No American should ever be used in this way--none of us. This is a young man whose parents are desperately worried about his safety, who have been waking up every day for the last 1,479 days hoping this would be the day they would learn their son Amir would be freed. How does it show respect to Amir's mom and dad to use their son's plight and possibly even threaten the negotiations that are going on now in order to make a partisan political point and jeopardize his release? We have had a rigorous debate on the international Iran agreement, and I know from talking to colleagues and being in many meetings that those on our side have been very thoughtful and thorough--and certainly the chairman has as well--in coming to our positions in a highly charged, difficult, and very complicated situation. I spent many weeks in classified briefings, meetings with nuclear experts, meetings with the Ambassadors, and personally calling each of those involved in the negotiations in the P5+1 countries, meeting with constituents in Michigan who feel very passionately about this issue on both sides, and I have made my decision--the decision I believe is best for America, for Israel, and for our allies. I did not make my decision on the day the agreement was announced, before I had ever read it, or even before it was announced--regrettably, as many Republican colleagues in the House and Senate did. We have had a vote in the Senate. We have now had two votes on this issue. Today or tomorrow we will have a third vote, not because the majority leader is expecting a different result--we have all taken our positions--but because he wants to score political points and bring in as part of that vote four American hostages and what is happening to them. Those political points will be scored at the expense of Amir Hekmati from Flint, MI, who has served his country honorably. Mr. President, I have gotten to know the Hekmati family, and I know how much their son's freedom means to them. Any of us who have children can understand what they are going through. I have personally talked with the President and other officials at the highest levels of our government who are working tirelessly to secure Amir Hekmati's release and return him to his loving family, along with the other Americans held hostage. This is a diplomatic mission. It is a humanitarian mission. Yet the majority leader is on a political mission that is not going to help. He wants to interfere with and disrupt the international nuclear agreement with Iran. I understand that. I understand his and others' position. But they are willing to use Amir and other American hostages in the process, and that is wrong. This political stunt by the majority leader does not help bring Amir home. It doesn't help bring the other three Americans home. It just adds more politics to the situation. What is very disturbing to me, after always having bipartisan support--one of the things I could always say to my constituents was that when it comes to the issues around Israel and the Middle East, we have always been together on a bipartisan basis--until now and what has happened over the last few months. Unfortunately, what is happening on this debate and the vote we will have tomorrow--bringing the American hostages into this debate on Iran is not the first time we are seeing partisan politics interjected into this debate. I still will never forget the 47 Republican Senators who wrote a letter to the Supreme Leader in Iran--our enemy, the Ayatollah--to tell him not to pay any attention to the President of the United States. I have to say that if it were reversed and if there were 47 Democrats, everything would have halted in this Chamber. There would have been impeachment hearings. We would have been called traitors. It would have gone on and on. It is shocking to me. If this had happened-- when we were debating going into Iraq, if we had written a letter to Saddam Hussein saying ``Don't listen to the President of the United States'' or anybody else, for that matter, any other President, that would have been a national crisis and there would have been outrage. Yet, somehow, 47 Republican Senators can write to the Ayatollah in the middle of an international negotiation that was difficult at best, when we know that Iran is within 3 months of having a nuclear weapon right now, by the way, that we should all be concerned about. I know we are, except some of us act as if we can go back to renegotiate something, which will take years, when they are going to have enough materials within 3 months. In the middle of all that, almost half of this Chamber writes to the people who are funding terrorism and who are our opponents and enemies in terms of the Ayatollah, saying: Hey, by the way, the President of the United States--don't listen to him. Don't listen to him. Interestingly, Senator Cotton said in that letter that of course it will take 60 votes to pass anything in the Senate--which, of course, it does and which, of course, we are debating now. And folks are acting as though it doesn't. But the Ayatollah was sent a letter that said it would take 60 votes, so whoever wrote him might want to check in with him. So here we are now. We have seen the ultimate politics of Members in this body writing to our enemies and saying: Don't listen to the President of the United States. And now we are in a situation, after voting twice on a serious, difficult, emotional, controversial issue where there are serious, thoughtful people on both sides--because the vote is not going the way the majority wants, now they bring in the four hostages and Amir. There is a tradition in our country when it comes to issues of national security and the lives of men and women who serve in America. This quote was coined by a former Michigan Senator, Arthur Vandenberg: ``Politics stops at the water's edge.'' This picture we are very proud of. It is right outside here in the Reception Room. Very few U.S. Senators have their portraits painted on the wall in the Reception Room, and I am very proud one of those is a former Republican Senator from west Michigan, Senator Arthur Vandenberg. He was a great nemesis of President FDR. He hated the New Deal. He went after President Roosevelt at every turn on his domestic agenda. But as chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, when we were being attacked at Pearl Harbor and World War II was happening, he stepped up and said, ``Politics stops at the water's edge.'' For over 70 years, that was the way the United States of America acted. That is the way the Senate operated. We have lost that, and I am deeply concerned--not as a Democrat but as an American--about where we find ourselves today on matters of such seriousness, international threats to our country. We can debate them. We can have differences. If someone loses the vote, it becomes time to come back together and find a way to move forward to keep America strong. There are many opportunities for us to do that, many opportunities on this agreement to make it stronger, to focus on the nonnuclear sanctions and other things that we need to do together against Iran, to focus on bringing our heroic Americans home. But this is not the way to do it. This is not the way to do it. So I stand today to object to what I view as a political stunt, and the vote tomorrow is deeply concerning to me and to people in Michigan who want to bring Amir Hekmati home. This is not politics; this is somebody's life. It is about the future national defense of our country and our allies and the world. The vote is the vote. We have taken our positions. It is time to come back together as Americans. I yield the floor.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, at a time when we have so many urgent issues on our national agenda--our economy, jobs, all the issues we need to address, such as making sure every American has a fair shot to get ahead after college, has retirement security, and all of the other issues we know Americans care about--unfortunately, we are revisiting a very old debate that doesn't seem to want to go away, and that is whether we will provide funding for preventive health care for women, specifically for family planning clinics that provide essential primary health care services for women and men for things such as wellness visits, mammograms, and breast cancer screenings. In 2013, Planned Parenthood performed 500,000 breast exams, including 15,000 for women in Michigan. Planned Parenthood provides screenings for cancer, heart disease, and HIV. In 2013, 400,000 Pap tests and 4.5 million STI tests and treatments were conducted. Women go to Planned Parenthood for cervical cancer screenings, for life-and-death cancer screenings, for vaccines, and for blood pressure checks. In States where Republican Governors have refused to use the funding that is available to expand Medicaid health care under the Affordable Care Act, Planned Parenthood provides services critical to low-income Americans. In 2013, more than half the people seeking health services at Planned Parenthood clinics were covered by Medicaid. Nearly 80 percent of these men and women have incomes at or below the poverty level. We are talking about all across the country, many places where there is no other access to health care, no other place to get a mammogram or a breast cancer screening, where these services that are literally life- and-death are being provided. So when we talk about Planned Parenthood, we are talking about the full spectrum of women's health care, including contraception and family planning services that serve both women and men. One out of five women has been to a Planned Parenthood clinic at some point in her life. In 2013, 2.7 million women, men, young people, relied on Planned Parenthood for preventive care, and about 70,000 of those were in my State of Michigan. In my State, 40 percent of the Planned Parenthood health clinics are located in areas we call medically underserved. There isn't access to other kinds of clinics or health care. There may not be a hospital nearby or there may not be many doctors nearby. We are talking about basic health care. Unfortunately, we see politics played with women's preventive health care and family planning over and over again in attacks on Planned Parenthood. As I see it, this is really an attack on every woman who needs preventive health care services. This is what this is about. Instead of focusing on jobs and closing loopholes that are causing our manufacturing jobs to go overseas; instead of making sure we are focussed on equal pay for equal work or a standard of living that will allow everyone to be successful and economically independent and care for their families; instead of focusing on robustly moving forward as a country in a global economy; instead of focusing on that or continuing to focus on making sure people have access to college without getting out of college with so much debt that they can't buy a house because they can't qualify because they already have so much debt, it is as if they have a mortgage--instead of focusing on all of that, one more time we are seeing an attack on Planned Parenthood and women's preventive health care. Fortunately, the vast majority of the American people recognize the value of having health clinics like Planned Parenthood that are dedicated to serving women's health care needs in every community across the country. That is why a poll shows that 64 percent of voters oppose the move by congressional Republicans to defund Planned Parenthood and therefore preventive health care services such as mammograms, cancer screenings, blood pressure checks, and access to birth control. Unfortunately, what is the majority view of the public is not what we see debated in the House and in the Senate. We have come a long way in actually strengthening our health care system, making sure that women and men, older people and younger people, can get preventive health care services, annual wellness visits without having to pay a copay. We have seen a lot of strengthening of access to health care for women through the Affordable Care Act. Finally, actually being a woman isn't viewed as a preexisting condition anymore. In too many cases, that had been the situation. Women in childbearing years had to pay higher rates, or someone who survived breast cancer or cervical cancer or some other kind of challenge in their life. Under the Affordable Care Act, we are finally able to say: No, you don't carry that with you as a preexisting condition for the rest of your life. That is a good thing. A lot of women are sleeping better at night as a result of that. When it comes to basic preventive health care, access to birth control, access to screenings, and so on, it seems that somehow we have to speak out over and over again to defend these basic health care services. One more time we are headed for a big debate, a big fight on the budget. We are hearing people say they won't allow the United States of America to have a budget for next year unless we defund Planned Parenthood and health care access for millions of women in this country. It doesn't speak well for what the priorities are of Congress. I challenge colleagues across the aisle to join with Democrats, to join with the majority of the American people, who support the ability of women to get a full range of health care services through clinics-- where they don't have any other kind of access--through Planned Parenthood and other community clinics that allow them to get the basic health services they need. Women should not be treated as second-class citizens. We have come too far, as we look at the Affordable Care Act and health care access, and it will be incredibly disappointing, disheartening, and maddening, frankly, if we end up in a fight one more time. I have seen it before, and I have had to participate in holding back efforts to say we are not going to fund anything unless we defund women's preventive health care. It is wrong, and this Senator can state as one woman--as well as all of the Democratic women and men who are here--that we don't intend to allow that to happen. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, before my friend from Oregon leaves, I wish to make a couple of comments about our leader on the Finance Committee. Sitting and listening to him about his optimism and hopefulness really helps me have optimism so we can actually come together and get things done. I can't think of anybody who, first of all, is more creative or willing to look at all kinds of ideas in order to be able to strengthen health care--Medicare, Medicaid--for quality and cost containment issues. Back during health care reform, I was proud to join Senator Wyden on what I believe was an extremely thoughtful approach around health care. Again, I very much appreciate all that he does. I have to say that I know he has reminded me many times about coming to the Senate and elected office from the early years with Gray Panthers and organizing for seniors. I come to public-service elected office after a big fight to save the county nursing home in Ingham County, Michigan. So we both came to public service fighting for health care for older Americans. It is my honor to continue to serve with him and also with the Senator from Pennsylvania, who has joined us on the floor as well. I do in fact come to recognize the 50th anniversary of the signing of Medicare and Medicaid into law. I view these as great American success stories and the best about us in terms of our values. I think it is important, though, when we look at this, to sort of say: This is Thursday; we are going to do a ``Throwback Thursday'' moment here, and look at the context in which these programs were created. There was the early 1960s. It was a time of great social upheaval. It was a time, frankly, of segregation and Jim Crow laws and a time also when there was no safety net for older Americans or Americans with disabilities when it came to the possibility of going to the doctor or getting the medical care that people needed. If someone was living in poverty, they simply could not afford to see a doctor to be able to get medical care for them or for their family. But within the civil rights movement, our Nation became more attuned to the injustices of society for people of color as well as those in society who were struggling with illnesses--just basic health care needs--or with poverty. In 1963, in his ``I Have a Dream'' speech, Martin Luther King challenged Americans to live out the true meaning of the creed of our Nation, the Declaration of Independence: that all men and women are created equal, and that all of us are entitled to life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I think that includes access to health care for ourselves and our families. Our country responded to that challenge through the passage of the Civil Rights Act and through the passage 50 years ago of legislation that created Medicare and Medicaid. This was a momentous event in our Nation's history. It demonstrated our willingness to take action to ensure that our Nation's laws were in line with our core values as a country. It is so important that we be working together to do that again. That is what we should be doing every day. Let's remember that before the creation of Medicare, only half of our seniors had health insurance or could even find health insurance. That meant half of them were struggling probably to get the medical care they needed or they were going into an emergency room--which, by the way, is the most expensive way--to be treated rather than going to the doctor and getting preventative care and so on. We saw about half of our seniors and people with disabilities in that situation. President Lyndon B. Johnson was the strong principled leader we needed in that moment, and 50 years ago he signed the Medicare bill into law. When he did, he said: No longer will older Americans be denied the healing miracle of modern medicine. No longer will illness crush and destroy the savings that they have so carefully put away over a lifetime so that they might enjoy dignity in their later years. The Medicare Program really is a great American success story that connects all of us together--each generation--and each generation has done its part to strengthen that, including our own. That is why it is so important that we not go backwards at this time. This is where, unfortunately, we see a real difference here in the Senate and the House and in the political discourse more broadly, because we have seen, unfortunately, a Republican budget--House and Senate--that has passed this year with almost $500 billion in Medicare cuts, efforts to turn the system away from a universal program into something that-- whether we call it vouchers or whether we have other names for it-- would take away the confidence and ability for older people and people with disabilities to know they have health care, which is what Medicare is all about. What we need to be doing instead of those things--and we even have Presidential candidates saying we should phase out Medicare. We should not be doing that. We should be working to ensure the programs' health and longevity so people are confident that, as they work and pay into the system--because, by the way, people are paying into this system--it will be there when they retire in terms of a health care system for them. I also very much appreciate our ranking member in the Finance Committee talking about the new things we need to do. I will just mention one. When we look at Medicare, $1 out of $5 today is spent on Alzheimer's, as our ranking member knows. So many of us are working together. There are bipartisan efforts going on to tackle this question. Senator Collins from Maine and I have what is called the HOPE for Alzheimer's Act. Senator Collins is also working very hard and has in fact increased research, which is so important. But we need to know that we are doing everything we can to support Alzheimer's patients and their families and to find cures. The exciting part is that we are seeing more and more opportunities through research. I have had so many conversations with researchers in Michigan and across the country. We are so close in so many areas to be able to break through if we don't go backwards on research funding, as unfortunately happens if we are not coming together and appropriately funding the budget. So there are a lot of things we need to do: save dollars, increase quality, and make sure we are tackling the challenges right now of health care for older Americans. I am constantly reminded that in my State there are nearly half a million people right now who get their health care through Medicare and some 40 million nationwide. I will talk for a minute now about the other path on that legislation, which is Medicaid. Now, that program came in response to a crisis in health care for low-income Americans and those with disabilities as well, and it has been nothing less than a lifeline for people, saving lives now for 50 years. During this last great recession that we had, there were so many families struggling to pay for basic health care needs that Medicaid literally was the saving grace that helped them and their families get back on their feet. Medicaid is especially vital to women. Nearly half of all births in our country are funded through Medicaid. It gives young women access to preventative services such as cancer screenings. I would also again thank our ranking member and our chairman for including legislation on Medicaid and a series of bipartisan bills that just passed the Senate Finance Committee. The Quality Care for Moms and Babies Act is about making sure we have quality standards across the country for low-income moms who are pregnant, going through prenatal care, delivery, and for babies. Senator Grassley from Iowa is my partner in that effort. It is also critical to note that on Medicaid, actually 80 percent of the dollars goes to long-term care for low-income seniors. As I said in the beginning, when I got involved in this whole process of public service and elected office, it was because of a nursing home that took Medicaid and helped low-income seniors be able to have a nursing home. In fact, 80 percent of Medicaid goes for seniors in nursing homes and long-term care. Unfortunately, as with Medicare, what we have seen in the budgets is this: Rather than working together to strengthen Medicaid, we have seen countless attacks over and over to cut funding, to block grant the program. Over $1 trillion in the next 10 years to cut Medicaid was actually passed by the Republican majority in the House and the Senate. That is not the direction we need to go in as we are celebrating the 50th anniversary of Medicare and Medicaid. We still have Governors who refuse to use funding that is available to them to cover their seniors in nursing homes under Medicaid or moms and babies, families--low- income working families. We put into the Affordable Care Act the ability for people who are working in low-paying jobs to be able to have access to health care through Medicaid. Yet we still have 3.7 million Americans who can't get health care. It is not because the money is not there but because of politics. I think that is pretty outrageous. Of the 3.7 million, 2 million are women. That is 2 million women who can't get health care services, whether it is screenings or mammograms, they can't get coverage for labor, delivery, and prenatal care. It is available. It is right there. It is not happening because of politics. I am determined--as I know our ranking member is and my Democratic colleagues are as well--to make sure we are standing up for Medicare and Medicaid every single day. Medicaid is a program that allows 72 million Americans--including nearly 13 million working Americans, low- income working Americans who have gotten coverage because of the Affordable Care Act--to be able to go to bed at night with the knowledge that if their children get sick, they will be able to take them to the doctor or for any of us, if our parents or grandparents need a nursing home, they will be able to have one. Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program together provide 33 million children with the ability to see a doctor, to get the operation they need, to be able to have their juvenile diabetes taken care of or other health care issues. Today is not just an anniversary of programs. I think it is an opportunity to recommit ourselves to the ideals that created these programs, the values that are behind these programs, and to say that health care is pretty important to families. Now, 50 years ago we decided for our seniors we were going to make sure they could live in dignity in retirement and know they were going to be able to get the health care they needed. People are living longer and healthier lives. People are living today because of Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid, all together. That is a great thing. We should be celebrating the fact that President Johnson, working with the Congress, got that done. I believe this is the kind of approach we need to continue to strengthen for future generations. There is a huge divide right now about what to do on these programs, unfortunately, but I can say that we as Democrats are recommitting ourselves to a strong Medicare Program and a strong Medicaid Program for the future for American families. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, first, let me say that it is always a pleasure to work with the senior Senator from North Dakota. We partnered on a number of different things, including efforts on the farm bill. So it is with great pleasure that I am partnering with him again to solve this problem and to make sure that we eliminate any possibility of retaliation on our businesses and solve a problem in a way that meets our trade obligations and also makes sure that we are standing up for our farmers and our consumers in America. That is really the goal. I appreciate Senator Hoeven's leadership and commonsense approach to actually solving the problem. It is always great to be with the Senator. As Senator Hoeven did say, we have put together a thoughtful and bipartisan bill, the voluntary COOL and trade enforcement act. We are very ``COOL'' here in the country of origin labeling act. I also thank our cosponsors. We have Senators Grassley, Heitkamp, Klobuchar, Thune, Brown, Enzi, Casey, Rounds, Murray, Baldwin, and Wyden, and we are adding more people every day. So we are pleased to have the majority of the Agriculture Committee standing with us on this bipartisan effort. Let me start by saying as well that while I disagree with the WTO's conclusion and I am disappointed at the final outcome of the case, I respect the decision and acknowledge that we have to act. We have to act in a responsible way to address this and live up to our trade allegations. The potential impact on the economy and other industries demands that we give this issue our full attention, and that is what we are doing. Our legislation offers something that is common sense. It is trade compliant, and it is a path forward. First, the bill repeals mandatory country-of-origin labeling. This is what we have to do to meet our trade obligations to Canada and Mexico. There is no way around it, certainly on beef and pork, in order to come together to be able to address this quickly. In fact, we have in our bill the same language as in the House. So we have the same language as the House and the same language as the amendment put forward by our chairman, Senator Roberts, and others. No. 1, we all agree on what it takes to address the trade case and get that off the table. No. 2, now it becomes this: What do we want to do as Americans? What do we want to do? This is not a realm where Canada or Mexico really has a voice. Once we meet the trade obligation, we have met the test. What do we want to do? I remember during the farm bill, when we were talking about changes we needed to make to address the Brazil case on cotton, where they won a case against us, and I asked folks: Well, what do the Brazilians think? I was told by members of the committee, many of whom are now saying we have to give Canada veto power or Mexico veto power, that Brazil can't have veto power over the United States on cotton and that is up to the United States. We proceeded with a path that we believed met WTO rules and met the needs of American producers. Now we have some of the same folks saying: Oh, no, we can't do anything unless this is something that Mexico likes or Canada likes. So I would argue that we deal with that--with the trade decision in WTO--in all three bills. Now the question is this: What do we want to do for our consumers and to support American farmers? So, second, we establish a voluntary ``Product of the United States'' label defined as born, raised, and slaughtered in the United States. So you can have whatever labels are appropriate to have, but if you want to have a label that says ``Product of the United States,'' you have to meet the integrity of that label. If the consumer is seeking to purchase a product of the United States, a packer is willing to provide it, and they decide they want to do that--farmers want to do that; they want to provide that--then there should be an accurate label. They can look at all the pros and cons of doing that. Then they should be able to do that on a voluntary basis. That is all we are saying. Anyone who has watched this issue over the years knows that both sides have become very entrenched, and we understand that. But our approach is to say now that we will agree with the House, we will agree with those who always opposed a mandatory country-of-origin labeling, and we will agree on repeal. However, we need to make sure, on behalf of American consumers, that for American farmers and processors it would give them a tool--a voluntary tool--they can use if they wish to do that. Now, what is very interesting is the fact that back when the mandatory country-of-origin labeling bill was on floor and was being passed by the House and the Senate, the people who opposed that at the time introduced S. 1333, the Meat Promotion Act, which would ``establish a voluntary program for country of origin labeling of meat.'' It was introduced by the same people who are now saying we cannot do that--Senators Cornyn, Roberts, Hatch, Alexander, and others--all of whom were arguing that we should have a voluntary program, not a mandatory program. So now here we are. You would think this would be easy. You would think this would be a slam dunk. What we are suggesting, in fact, is something that was in a bill--a voluntary ``Product of the United States'' label for meat from animals born, raised, and slaughtered in the United States. At the time, it was broadly supported by the meatpacking industry as well as the largest organization of cattlemen in the United States. At the same time, they argued they thought this proposal was a smart way to promote U.S. meat products while also supporting international trade--the same people who are now working against us. In fact, as it turns out, they were in the spot where we are now understanding we need to land. But instead of agreeing and saying to us that it is about time you got here, embracing it and saying let's do this very quickly so we can put other businesses where may face retaliation in a position of confidence so that is not going to happen--we thought this would be a no-brainer; take the bill that was already introduced, and take the language passed by the House--now we are seeing that, in fact, the same people who wanted S. 1333 are now saying that in the world it will start a trade war and all kinds of other things. But let's talk about that for a moment. Even as recently as last August, Canadian officials openly discussed a voluntary COOL program as a way to address their trade concerns, and they said: ``If you do a voluntary label, which we do in Canada under product of Canada, you don't have that trade sanctioned problem.'' That was in August of 2014, Gerry Ritz, Agriculture Minister of Canada. Next, in 2012, the WTO Appellate Body report quoted both Canada and Mexico, suggesting that the United States switch from a mandatory to a voluntary labeling program to move ``beyond the dispute.'' So, again, this was from Canada: ``Expanded as required to meet consumer interest, voluntary labelling can provide as much consumer information on origin to interested consumers as the COOL measure.'' That was in 2012, suggesting that was the tool that the United States should use. Then, this is from our Mexican friends: Mexico submits that there are at least four alternative measures. . . . The first alternative is a voluntary country of origin labelling scheme, which in Mexico's view, could maintain the same labelling criteria on origin as the COOL measure--that is, born, raised, and slaughtered [in the United States]. That is 2012, Mexico. So we clearly know that both Canada and Mexico have considered voluntarily labeling as the responsible approach. In fact, they have suggested we do that. So while both countries have been vocal, it still does not change the fact that Canada and Mexico are not entitled to veto what the Congress of the United States of America chooses to do with our laws, as long as we are compliant with our trade obligations. Clearly, I understand politics--Lord knows we do. We understand politics, we understand elections, and we understand negotiations. We understand. If you can put the United States in a position to voluntarily stand down and not let consumers know on a voluntary basis what is a product of the United States, that is great for competition, if you are Canada or Mexico. And if they can bully us into doing that-- well, shame on us if they can bully us into doing that. The fact of the matter is our legislation, which I believe clearly has the majority of votes in the Senate and certainly on the agriculture committee, not only meets the trade requirements of the dispute--which we lost, we know it, and we have to address it--but stands up for American consumers, American farmers, and processors who choose to use the tool of a voluntary label. WTO rules are very clear that a country should not proceed with retaliation if the underlying law has been made WTO-consistent. So folks can stomp around and threaten. We understand negotiations. We all negotiate with people who stomp around a lot. But the reality is that if we take that away and we are now trade compliant, they no longer can legally proceed. The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative has also stated that our approach would be just as WTO-consistent as the repeal bills alone: ``We believe both options--repealing the mandatory labeling scheme or repealing the mandatory labeling regime and replacing it with a voluntary labeling system--have the potential to constitute compliance with U.S. WTO obligations.'' There is no difference--no difference. And this is a few days ago-- July 23, 2015. It really comes down to the fact that if Canada has its own voluntary label for meat produced in Canada, how in the world can they argue with the United States of America that our farmers and consumers should not have the same label? I think what it boils down to is competition. I do, because it starts as a trade case. We meet our trade obligations. We address what we have to do legally. Now the question is this: Can they bully us into a position to actually stand down so we cannot brag about the great meat that we have in this country and let consumers know about it? I understand that the Canadians are afraid to compete head-to-head with products that are 100-percent born, raised, and harvested here in the United States. We do a pretty good job. Our farmers and our ranchers do a very good job, actually. After all, there is no safer, more abundant food supply produced anywhere in the world than in the United States. The American public deserves to know if they choose to look for that label and purchase that label. They should have the opportunity to do that. Certainly, when our friends in Canada--and they are our friends; we work on many issues together in a wonderful way. But on this one, I have to say I think this is very much about competition. And we need to be able to compete economically with them in the same way they compete with us. If they have a ``Made in Canada'' label, we need to be able to have a ``Product of the United States'' label. So I would ask that we stop with all the rhetoric on the floor by folks who sponsored a voluntary label with the same definition a few years ago; stop the rhetoric by our friends from Canada and Mexico about how the world will come to an end if the United States has a voluntary program that meets our trade obligations. We need to just take a deep breath and make sure that we solve the trade case, that we do what we need to do and then have the USDA in America--the U.S. Department of Agriculture--allow all of us to decide what we want to do about voluntary labeling of our meat--or anything else, for that matter. We are not interested in starting a trade war, and it seems pretty silly when I hear the hot rhetoric that tries to claim that. What we are wanting to do is solve a problem that relates to international trade that we all agree needs to be resolved. We must resolve it, we must make sure those not involved in the dispute don't somehow pay a penalty through retaliation, and then respect our own consumers enough--our own families, our own farmers, our own processors enough-- to give them a tool, if they decide they wish to use it, to have the integrity of a product of the United States labeled. It would be a sad day and I believe irresponsible on our part if we move back to the days prior to COOL where we were labeling meat that was born in a foreign country and spent most of its life in the foreign country but then could somehow come in and be harvested here and be called a product of the United States. Talk about something that is a problem--that is a problem. That is a problem. And American consumers deserve better than that. Our own processors and farmers who are competing with those in other countries deserve better than that. We have the opportunity to embrace a proposal that, frankly, in my judgment, should be a no-brainer for us given all of the information and the case for why this works. So, Madam President, I am looking forward to working with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to actually get this done. We should get it done quickly so that we can move on to a whole series of issues that need to be addressed. I yield the floor.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, first let me say it is important that we fund the highway trust fund and that we have a long-term commitment to the infrastructure of our country--the jobs, the economy, the neighborhoods. I see the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma coming to the floor. He leads the committee that oversees transportation. He and my friend from California have put forward a 6-year authorization on policy that I think we should commend them for. I am proud to be a part of the group. Certainly Democrats have been united in saying we need a sense of urgency, we need to get beyond month-to-month highway trust fund renewals, and we need to make a commitment to a long-term approach, just as every other country has done in a global economy, so that we can continue to compete and win as it relates to our roads, bridges, ports, rails, and all of the other parts of our infrastructure. What concerns me about the bill in front of us, though, is that, while we are on the one hand wanting to make sure we have good infrastructure for our communities, including safe roads, safe bridges, and other investments, one of the ways it is funded in this bill--and I believe strongly that we need to fix this before it moves forward, and I will do whatever I can to make sure we do, along with colleagues on both sides of the aisle who care about this--is a small provision that actually takes money away from communities and neighborhoods working very hard to come back from blight. We have communities all across Michigan--this is called the Hardest Hit Fund. There are communities all across Michigan. I don't have the full list in front of me right now, but I will do this off the top of my head. We have Detroit, Pontiac, Flint, Saginaw, Lansing, and Grand Rapids. Here is the list: Highland Park, Jackson, Inkster, Ecorse, Muskegon Heights, River Rouge, Port Huron, Hamtramck, Ironwood, and Adrian. These are all communities that are working very hard, through public sector and private sector efforts, to rebuild neighborhoods, to take down drug houses on a block where children are walking by on the way to school, and to rebuild with a new park or new housing. This is a program that has worked. In one of America's great cities that have gone through a lot of challenges called the city of Detroit, there is a huge effort going on right now, including public sector and private sector foundations. We have CEOs running towards the city of Detroit. It is really an amazing thing to see, what the private sector is doing. They are engaged in an effort to save and rebuild neighborhoods that can be saved by going into neighborhoods where the majority of houses are where senior citizens have lived for generations. Young couples have bought a house, but maybe there are two or three houses on a block that are empty and that are places where crime is occurring, such as drug houses. We take those down. What is happening in the city of Detroit is that home values are going up and things are beginning to turn around because of this strategy. Unfortunately, in this bill, monies that have been allocated to cities across the country in States across the country--I believe we have a list of States. States across the country have been allocated funds to fix issues, to fix houses, to rebuild neighborhoods. In this bill, money we are counting on, money that has been allocated for this purpose will be taken back. Can my colleagues imagine that? Here is the way this works. We have construction going on. Let's say they are removing asbestos from a home or taking houses down. The contractor does the work, and the city pays the contractor and then turns the bill in to the U.S. Department of the Treasury. They are counting on the fact that they will be paid because we, the Federal Government, have given them in writing our word that they have a certain amount of dollars allocated. This bill, unfortunately--and I am hopeful that this was not done on purpose and that we will be able to fix this--actually says that you incur that bill from the private contractor, but we are not going to pay it anymore. It is one thing if we want to debate whether this program makes sense going forward, but for allocations that have already been made for South Carolina, Illinois, and Ohio--and my good friend, Rob Portman----

Ms. STABENOW. I will be happy to yield to the distinguished chairman.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I say to the chairman that Senator Portman and I will have an amendment.

Ms. STABENOW. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for that clarification. I do want to indicate very clearly that for communities around this country, this is a big deal. This is certainly a big deal for Michigan, and I can't in any way support any effort going forward unless this is fixed. It is a small amount of dollars in the larger scheme of funding this bill, and if it means that we fund the highway bill one less month rather than devastating communities such as Cleveland, Detroit, Flint, and cities in Illinois and South Carolina, Nevada, California, Kentucky, and across the country, then so be it. But I can't be any part of something that takes a huge effort and stops it in its tracks when it is so important to rebuild. I just want to share one example of why this is so important. I know the chairman is waiting to speak, so I won't be long. But I do want to show that in every rebuild community--let me just give you one story. In Detroit in October of 2009--this was in the paper--a 14-year-old girl on her way to high school was pulled behind a garage in a blighted neighborhood. In 2012, Detroit neighbors organized to try to protect schoolgirls from being assaulted on their way to school. One volunteer told the Detroit Free Press of rescuing a 13-year-old girl who was attacked in an abandoned garage. In 2012, a man who lived near Detroit looks for girls who are walking alone--girls walking to school, doing the right thing. We want them to go to school. We want them to get an education. The man abducted them at gunpoint and took them to vacant buildings and assaulted them. One man was accused of assaulting seven women. In 2012, a young woman was pulled into an abandoned house just two blocks from Denby High School and sexually assaulted--two blocks from school. She was trying to go to school when she was sexually assaulted. The Detroit Free Press interviewed an 18-year-old young woman who walked every day to school. She said she passed 88 vacant homes, and she knew other girls her age had been attacked in the neighborhood. This is getting fixed. This is getting fixed. Those buildings are coming down and in some cases what we have are landlords fixing them up. They are going in and taking back the house and rebuilding the house. People are buying homes. They are coming back into the neighborhoods. In some cases small businesses are buying these homes. We have rejuvenation going on like I have never seen before. It is dependent on the blight funds that we, through the Department of Treasury, have made available. I am not debating whether we should add more. I would love to add more. We need more funds. We need a more robust program. What I am saying is that it is outrageous if we are in a situation where there is money that cities are already counting on and spending with the private sector, with neighborhoods, with church groups--everybody is involved in this--and they are in the middle of a project and they are told: You know what; the good news is we are going to fix the road in front of your house. The bad news is your neighborhood is going to fall apart because we are not keeping our commitments as it relates to blight. I will be speaking more as we go. I want to certainly yield to our distinguished chairman. I appreciate the work of EPW, as I said earlier, in the policy. But this is critical to get done. This absolutely has to be out of this bill, and I hope it will be. I hope it will be. Thank you, Mr. President.

Ms. STABENOW

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

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, it is clear to me that No Child Left Behind was broken and that it was not serving the best interest of children in Michigan or the rest of the country. That is why I voted to support the passage of the Every Child Achieves Act, which moves away from high stakes testing and puts decisions on education back in the hands of our States, school districts, parents, and the teachers, who are in the best position to make those decisions. However, I continue to have reservations about the Every Child Achieves Act, particularly the changes to formulas that govern how resources are allocated. The bill as drafted will reduce the support that Michigan schools have for recruiting teachers and school leaders at the same time as it reduces support for their professional development. It also cuts the future resources dedicated to the education of the most vulnerable low-income children in Michigan, sending that money to other States, using a formula that effectively rewards States for investing less in education. It is wrong to take resources away from one set of children and give them to another, and then call it equity. While I appreciate the efforts of the Senator from North Carolina to change his original amendment, the modified version would still have a negative impact on the children of Michigan. This is the reason I voted no on this amendment. As this bill continues to conference committee, I intend to continue to fight to ensure that every child in Michigan has the best possible access to quality public education and that Michigan is treated fairly in the funding formulas.

Ms. STABENOW

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

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, first I have to say that clearly there are two Americas on how we view health care, that is for sure, after hearing my colleague speak about the ``disaster'' of providing tens of millions of people health insurance, affordable health insurance. Where I live in Michigan, it is great that families no longer have to put the kids to bed and then say a little prayer: Dear God, don't let the kids get sick. For millions of Americans, the Supreme Court decision has reaffirmed the fact that they will have that peace of mind. When Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the majority today, said ``Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not destroy them,'' I think he was absolutely right. I commend him and the majority--substantial majority--for understanding that in the competitive, private marketplace that we set up through insurance exchanges, we meant for all Americans to have the opportunity for the tax cuts that allow them to be able to purchase insurance, most people purchasing insurance for under $100 a month, which, contrary to destroying America, I think is making incredible differences in people's lives and creating the opportunity going forward for a competitive marketplace for small business. Certainly now, I hope from here that we will go forward and stop all of the repeal discussions and get down to the business of improving health care because I think there are still things we need to do. We need to look at how things are working and make sure things are going as well as possible, particularly with small businesses, and I feel we have some work to do. But it would be nice if we could get beyond the unfortunate commentary that has gone on for too long that somehow providing affordable health insurance for Americans is going to be the end of our country. I certainly think that on something like health care, where nobody controls whether they get sick or mom and dad get sick or the kids get sick or their friends get sick--we are in a situation where our job is to figure out the best way to support people taking responsibility to purchase insurance and make sure that it is affordable, high quality, and low cost. And that is something which we--in the greatest country in the world, with all of the innovators, all of the smart people we have, the wonderful doctors, the wonderful hospital facilities we have, certainly we can do that. That is, in fact, what is happening through health reform. Right now, 16.4 million Americans who were without insurance before the Affordable Care Act now have the confidence and security of knowing they have health care coverage. Now, 6.4 million Americans, because of the Supreme Court decision, will be able to keep the tax credit. They are not going to see their taxes go up. They are going to be able to keep the tax credits that are going to allow them to make sure that insurance is affordable. That includes over 228,000 people in my home State of Michigan. That is a lot of people. What is also so incredibly important is that of those people who already have insurance--the majority of Americans--they are having better opportunities to keep it, not be blocked, not be dropped, not have caps. Some 129 million Americans have preexisting conditions, whether it is diabetes, juvenile diabetes, cancer. Colleagues here have been in situations of announcing various kinds of cancer, diseases, and so on. Some 129 million Americans--including 17 million children--no longer have a risk of being denied coverage because of the insurance company being able to stop them if they have a preexisting condition. ``Beat the Press'' Softball Game I was with a wonderful group of women from Congress--if I can just divert from that serious moment to say that last night we raised money for breast cancer survivors in a wonderful game between the press and the women Members of Congress. Despite both teams doing a great job--I was very impressed with both sides, but the great news is that the Congresswomen won. We called it ``beat the press.'' It was great. But what was most important last night was seeing all the breast cancer survivors who were there, women who had been able to get that checkup, been able to get that treatment, knowing that going forward, wherever they work--if they move from one job to another, if they change insurance, they are still going to be able to get the coverage they need. They are going to be able to get that mammogram with no copay as preventive health care. They are going to be able to get the care they need. If they need treatment, they are not going to arbitrarily have an insurance company come in and say ``We don't really care what your doctor says about how many sessions you need or radiation treatments. You get 10 and that is it'' or ``You get 5 and that is it'' or whatever the number is. Mr. President, 129 million Americans with preexisting conditions today can breathe a sigh of relief because they are going to be able to continue to have the health insurance they need. Some 105 million Americans no longer have a lifetime cap on coverage, including mental health and substance abuse coverage, which is so very significant, and 76 million Americans with private coverage are eligible for expanded preventive services, such as mammograms and prostate screening. We all wish our wonderful friend and colleague Senator King all the best as he gets his treatments next week. We know he will come back strong, as well as all of our colleagues who have been in similar situations. This is a big deal. This really is about saving lives. That is what this is all about. It is not a political game. It is not just going back and forth between Republicans and Democrats. This is health. This is medical care. If you get that horrible diagnosis--you are sitting in a doctor's office, and you are told you have cancer or a heart condition or any number of other things--you are going to be able to get medical care. We also know that consumers have saved $9 billion since 2011 because the law requires insurance companies to spend at least 80 cents on every dollar we give them on medical care. That was not always the case. You can get a rebate if they don't. So I hope that at this moment in time, we will stop the efforts to repeal health reform. I know it is in the budget that passed. The Republican budget--House and Senate--sets up a process to be able to go back and one more time try to repeal health insurance for tens of millions of Americans. I hope we will not do that. I hope the other side will not do that. We certainly will not do that. I hope that, instead, we will get about the business of making sure it works as well as possible and that we are strengthening the quality measures, the opportunities for competition, and continuing to bring rates down. We know that if health reform is repealed, it will increase deficits by hundreds of billions of dollars and cause 19 million Americans to lose their health insurance just next year, according to the budget office--19 million people--and 24 million people in the next few years. The Congressional Budget Office says that a repeal would result in a $353 billion increase in the budget. I congratulate the Supreme Court for common sense today and for understanding what we meant, what legislative intent was all about, and urge that we now decide we are going to work together on health care moving forward.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I have one more topic I would like to speak about today, and that is the fact that we have a looming deadline. In 36 days, the highway trust fund is going to be at zero-- empty. In 36 days as of today, if we do not act together, there will be a shutdown of the highway trust fund, which will have a ripple effect through the entire economy and harm businesses and workers and families in every single one of our States coast to coast. The harm will be felt equally--Republicans, Democrats, Independents, people who don't participate in the political process, people who do. Everybody will suffer if we cannot come together and address the highway trust fund. If this happens, Congress fails in its responsibility. With all due respect, I have to say that it falls right on the majority because we have been saying and will continue to say that we want to work together on a bipartisan basis to get this done. There was a time when it was not a partisan issue, when Republicans were leaders on building our infrastructure. In fact, President Eisenhower said in 1952: ``A network of modern roads is as necessary to our national defense as it is to our national economy and our personal safety.'' What is interesting is that tomorrow is the day when it is 59 years-- tomorrow, 59 years ago, Congress approved the Federal Highway Act, connecting all of our country for commerce, for farmers, for families. The rollcall, interestingly, was almost unanimous. Only one Senator voted no. Everybody else voted yes. Ninety-nine voted yes. Then it passed in the House on a voice vote. Think about all the discussions we are having today. The Federal Highway Act passed on a voice vote in the House. Only one person in the Senate voted no. It was signed by President Eisenhower 3 days later. It was the biggest public works project in our Nation's history. It could not have happened if not for a triumph of bipartisanship. A Republican President working with a Democratic Congress got this done. When we look at who benefited from taking that dirt road, paving it, and being able to go across our country, it certainly was colleagues in the West, colleagues in the South. It wasn't just the cities. In fact, they probably had roads already. It was everybody else, as we moved across the country. So this should not be regional. It should not be partisan. It doesn't make any sense for us not to come together and get this done. Behind the teamwork at the time, after they worked together to pass this, construction began on a system of 40,000 miles of highways, enough to circle the globe 1\1/2\ times. That is what was done when people worked together to build the strong infrastructure of the 20th century. It didn't take long before the economic impact was felt. By the late 1950s, our interstate highways were responsible for 31 percent of the annual growth of the economy. Over 30 percent of the growth in the economy came from that one act, developing the infrastructure to move goods and services and people across our country. The people of this country were getting to their destinations faster, more safely than ever before. Every rural community was flourishing just as our urban communities had been. Thanks to President Eisenhower's leadership and a Democratic- controlled Congress, our roads in the mid-21st century were the envy of the world. Other nations noticed. Those nations aspired to be like us, to be like America in a global economy. They now are making huge investments in their infrastructure, from China, at 9 percent of their GDP--four times more than we are--to Brazil. I have said before that when I was in China a couple of years ago, they rolled out 20 new international airports--20 international airports. That didn't count anything else they were doing. In Brazil they rolled out for us--when I was there with the Secretary of Agriculture--their new rail system and road system that was going to get agricultural commodities to the ports and move people around their country so they could move forward as a global, economic power. Today our European competitors spend twice as much as we do, and now it is time for America to step forward because, unfortunately, we are now playing catchup. The World Economic Forum's Global Competitiveness Report for 2014 and 2015 ranks America 16th in the world in the quality of our roads. America is one spot behind Luxembourg and just one spot ahead of Croatia, as I said before. Yay, we are beating Croatia. It is an embarrassment, and it is not what our people need or our businesses need or what our farmers need or what our workers need. In 2002, that same report had us at No. 5--the fifth best transportation system. Now we are 16th, and the American Society of Civil Engineers has given America a D. And how many of us would be satisfied if our children came home from school with a D? I know I wouldn't be. It also said that 32 percent of America's major roads are in poor or mediocre condition. We know what has happened when bridges have fallen. We know what happens. I have seen it in Michigan and heard the stories of people driving under overpasses and cement falls down on the car. People's lives are threatened. People's lives have been taken. Driving on bad roads costs motorists $109 billion in road repairs a year. I talked to one colleague who told me that he had to replace all four tires on his car when he went through one pothole not long ago, and that in the last year he had bought seven new tires for his car, which is way more than he would have been paying if we had created a way to fund our roads on a long-term basis that made sense. It is not right for Congress to neglect our responsibility to maintain and, in fact, strengthen our infrastructure. In fact, we, as individuals and business people driving on roads, driving across bridges, and moving across our country, are paying for the fact that we have not come together with a long-term plan. We cannot expect our workers and companies to compete in the 21st century global marketplace if we are forced to use 20th century roads and bridges. So I would say, in conclusion, that we have 36 days left to act. Now, when we want to, we can act pretty quickly. I commend colleagues from the EPW Committee who have come forward with a 6-year bill. We have in front of us a policy passed by the committee. I congratulate Senator Inhofe and Senator Boxer for coming forward with a proposal that will increase the funding over time, and I believe and hope we will do it in an even more robust way. They put forth policies that will, in the long term, create the economic stability for our businesses and the jobs for our workers and our families that they need. The DRIVE Act, as we call it, is an important step forward. I commend the chairman of the Finance Committee for holding hearings on how we finance that, because that is our responsibility. I say, again, we have enough time to get this done because President Eisenhower, over 50 years ago tomorrow, with a Democratic Congress, got it done. Thirty-six days is enough time for us to meet the expectations of the American people on this issue. Thank you.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, first I want to thank my friend from Connecticut, not only for those very powerful words but for his ongoing advocacy and leadership in the whole realm of health care and the importance of something as basic as being able to take the kids to the doctor, to make sure that you have the health care and the affordable health insurance that you need. I want to thank Senator Murphy, and I also want to thank Senator Baldwin as well, my partner and neighbor from Wisconsin. Senator Baldwin is also a champion as it relates to quality, affordable health care for every American. Both of them are very important voices and leaders on what we call the HELP Committee. I am their partner on the other committee that does the financing of health care, which is, in fact, the Finance Committee. As the ranking Democrat--the lead Democrat--on the Health Care Subcommittee and someone deeply involved through the Finance Committee as we were putting together the Affordable Care Act, I think it is appropriate for me to be able to talk about legislative intent. That is what I want to do for a moment. We knew that in putting together a way for everyone to be able to purchase affordable health insurance and indicating the expectation that we would, it had to be affordable. I worked very hard to make sure that we had a tax credit system that would essentially lower people's taxes so they could take those funds and be able to use those to be able to afford health insurance. In fact, at the time, Senator Baucus, the chairman of the committee, would razz me and call me ``Senator Affordability'' in all the meetings. We spent a lot of time focusing on how to make sure health insurance was affordable. What is happening, as Senator Murphy said, is that if the Supreme Court sides with the Republican position, 6.4 million Americans are going to see tax credits go away and their taxes go up. The worst part is that their taxes are going to go up and their health care is going to go down. It is not a good deal for anybody. Unfortunately, one of those States is my State of Michigan. But let me talk a little bit more, first, about the broad picture, because we are looking at $1.7 billion in tax increases to people all over America if the Supreme Court sides with the Republican position. Basically, somehow we would have to say it is rational that Members from all of these States actually voted for a system that didn't help their own people, which makes absolutely no sense. I can't believe anybody would do that. People wouldn't do that. Basically, we are saying that Members of Congress said that people in Massachusetts, where there is a State exchange, can have a tax cut, but if you live in Oklahoma you can't. Or if you live in the District of Columbia, right here, you can have a tax cut, but if you live in Louisiana, you can't. Or if you live in New York, you can have a tax cut, but if you live in Texas, you can't. We can go right around looking at some of the numbers. I will not go through all of the charts that I did last week. I am very grateful for Senator Murphy for pointing out two very important States. Let me talk about my State of Michigan. I happen to be a baseball fan. I am a big Detroit Tigers fan. When we look at Comerica Park in Detroit, it is a beautiful stadium. Mr. President, we welcome you to come and watch a game and get our folks engaged in what they do best at winning games. The fact of the matter is that you would have to fill up Comerica Park five times--that is what it would take--to get the number of people who are going to lose their health care tax credits if the Supreme Court sides with the Republican position--228,388 people. A couple of other States: In Illinois, 232,371 people will see their taxes go up. In New Jersey, 172,000-plus will see their taxes go up. In Ohio, another State right down from the great State of Michigan, 161,011 people will see their taxes go up. Finally, in Pennsylvania, it is 348,823 people. When we look at all of this, all of the States together, 6.4 million people are going to see tax increases. It makes no sense that people who represent these States would have voted for a system that raises taxes on their people and doesn't give them the health care they need while other people, in fact, see lower taxes--tax credits that allow them to pay for their health care and get affordable health care. It makes absolutely no sense. Let me also say this. When we look at the Chairman of the Finance Committee in the Senate, the former distinguished chairman, Senator Max Baucus from Montana, all the time we were debating the Affordable Care Act, it was clear that Montana had absolutely no plan to set up their own exchange. They indicated that. In order for the Court to side with Republicans, we would have to somehow believe that Senator Baucus would write a health care bill with tax cuts for other States and not his own State of Montana, which I can assure you he did not do. The same can be said for myself. The legislative intent is absolutely clear on this. What the Court is deciding, in my opinion, is something that I can't believe they are even bringing in front of the U.S. Supreme Court because on the face of it, it makes no sense. Unfortunately, depending on how they rule, millions of Americans--millions of Americans--will see their taxes go up and their health care go away. The intent is very real. It is very clear in the Affordable Care Act. Title I, page 1: Quality, affordable health care for all Americans. What was true 5 years ago when we wrote this bill is true today: The right to get the tax cuts has nothing to do with the State in which you live. If you are in America, then you deserve the opportunity to receive tax cuts that will make your health care affordable, whether you get your plan on an exchange run by the State or through healthcare.gov. This is about moms and dads in Michigan and across the country being able to go to bed at night without having to say a prayer that says: Please, God, don't let the kids get sick because what am I going to do? The Affordable Care Act has provided an answer and the peace of mind for millions of Americans. We certainly hope that the Supreme Court will not take that away. I would now like to yield the floor to the great Senator from Wisconsin.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, first, I am very deeply appreciative of our leader's comments. Thank you very much. I just wish to add my words of pride in the fact that we have such a wonderful Senator now coming to the Senate and the fact that he is fighting so hard for Michigan and already doing a wonderful job. I am so pleased he is my partner, and it was a wonderful speech.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I just want to commend our leader from Illinois for bringing up what is so critically important, which is the entire budget of the country. It is important that we get it right in supporting the authorization in front of us. I understand the defense of our country is much more than just the Department of Defense. As a border State in Michigan, border security, which is not in the Defense appropriations bill, is incredibly important, as is cyber security, which we are hearing more and more about; the frontline of our men and women, the first responders, police officers, firefighters--who do we think actually answers the call in a community when there is some kind of local challenge or a terrorist attack; airport security--I could go on and on. These are all things that are not in the appropriations bill for the Department of Defense. Unfortunately, without a bipartisan agreement to continue what was a very positive 2-year agreement put together that has been called the Ryan-Murray agreement to be able to balance out all the security needs as well as the economic security needs of our country--without that, it is a mistake to begin the appropriations process one bill at a time. So from my perspective, on behalf of the people of Michigan, whatever appropriations bill comes up next, no matter what it is, we should not begin that process until we have a bipartisan agreement, as we had for the last 2 years, so that no part of our national security is hurt or the economic security for the future of our country. Until we do that--and we can do that; we have done it before--we should not begin the appropriations process on a piecemeal basis. I yield the floor.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, we expect a ruling this month in the Supreme Court case of King v. Burwell, which will have such an impact on families all across America and on the affordability and availability of health insurance for them and for their families. This is an incredibly important issue. As someone who was there in the Senate Finance Committee at virtually every meeting--and who helped write the tax credit section of the bill--I wish to remind my colleagues of what is at stake in this decision. During the Finance Committee markups, I worked very hard to make sure the affordability tax credits, which provide tax cuts for millions of Americans, were meaningful in helping people buy health insurance through the marketplaces. It took a lot of work to get those tax credits written into the Affordable Care Act. In fact, as my colleagues know, certainly on this side of the aisle, I would go to every meeting with charts and graphs, looking at what people would have to pay under various levels of tax cuts and how to make sure it was affordable. The great news is that the majority of Americans today are able to purchase affordable health insurance for less than $100 a month, and that was a lot of work to get done. That is really what is at stake right now. Now, I know there are people who don't like the law that was written, but the legal argument being presented in the Supreme Court right now makes absolutely no sense. Folks on the Republican side of the aisle are asking the Supreme Court to raise the taxes of some 6.4 million Americans. We are talking about $1.7 billion in tax increases going to all these States in the red, including my own. We have Members of the Senate cheering on a court that could rule that there would be a $1.7 billion tax increase on their own constituents. Don't count me in as one of those who are cheering that on. I don't understand it. These Members of Congress are effectively saying that people in Massachusetts, where there is a State exchange, can have a tax cut and the affordable coverage that comes with it, but people in Oklahoma can't have a tax cut. They are suggesting it is fine for people who live in the District of Columbia to get tax cuts to help pay for their insurance, but people in Louisiana cannot or that people in New York can have tax cuts to help pay for their insurance, but people in Texas cannot. Now, to drive this point home, I wish to take a moment to look at how many people in each State are at risk of a tax increase based on the Supreme Court ruling, because this is very important to literally millions and millions of Americans. In Alabama the Supreme Court could raise taxes through their decision on 132,253 people. Over 132,000 people will find out this month whether they get a tax increase as a result of the Supreme Court decision. In Alaska, we see the possibility of 16,583 people in the Last Frontier State who would see an average of $536 more in taxes as a result of the possible decision being urged on by Republicans in the House and Senate. In Arizona, the Grand Canyon State, over 126,000 people--Americans-- would see a tax increase. There would be $20 million total in tax increases in Arizona, depending on how the Supreme Court rules. Let's go on to what is called the Natural State, Arkansas, where 48,100 people will see an average increase of $284 as a result of the Supreme Court decision if they rule against what we know was done correctly in terms of writing the Affordable Care Act. Let's go on and look at Delaware, the First State, where 19,128 people would see their taxes go up--a tax increase in Delaware, depending on what the Supreme Court does later this month. In Florida, the Sunshine State, it is over 1.3 million people-- 1,324,516 people--and we are looking at almost $390 million in tax increases that would be coming from the State of Florida if the Supreme Court sides with Republicans and makes that decision that will increase people's taxes. In Georgia, the Peach State, 412,385 Georgians will see a tax increase as a result of the Supreme Court if the Supreme Court does what the Republicans want to have done. In Illinois, 232,371 people living in Illinois, next to Michigan, our great friends in Illinois--almost $50 million in tax increases in Illinois will happen beginning at the end of this month if the Supreme Court rules the way Republicans want them to rule. In Indiana, also next to the great State of Michigan, 159,802 people living in Indiana, Hoosiers, will see their taxes go up if the Supreme Court rules against providing tax cuts. In Iowa, the Hawkeye State, 34,172 Iowans will see their taxes go up. These are families. These are working families. These are families working hard, with one job, maybe two jobs, maybe three jobs. There probably are folks who are certainly included in this who lost the equity in their homes after what happened with the great recession and are trying to dig themselves out of the hole and are celebrating the fact that they can go to bed at night not having to worry if the kids get sick, if they can take them to the doctor. Most of them are able to buy health insurance for less than $100 a month because of the tax cuts we passed in the Affordable Care Act. In Kansas, the Sunflower State, 69,979 people--almost 70,000 people in Kansas--will see their taxes go up if the Supreme Court sides with the Republican position on the Affordable Care Act. In Louisiana, the Pelican State, 137,940 people who live in Louisiana--almost $45 million would come out of this State in tax increases if the Supreme Court sides with the Republican position regarding the Affordable Care Act. In Maine there are 60,939 people who represent families--people who have families, who have children, spouses--who are now able to afford insurance, most of them for under $100 a month, maybe for the first time ever because of the tax cuts, tax credits that are translated into tax cuts for people in the Affordable Care Act. This one means the most to me, of course, and that is my home State of Michigan. There is no way, by the way, I would have ever voted to do this. The idea that we voted for something that would make all of this happen is pretty crazy. Obviously, that was not legislative intent. But in Michigan, 228,388 people in my State, men and women and their children, will, in fact, see a tax increase if the Supreme Court rules with the Republican position at the end of this month. Missouri, the Show Me State: Well, I will tell you what they don't want to show are more tax increases--197,663 people in Missouri, and we are talking about $55 million coming out of the State of Missouri. These are families who will pay more and, in many cases, not be able to afford health care anymore for their families. So they are going to pay more, and they are not going to have health care. Mississippi, the Magnolia State: There are 75,613 people. That State will see over $26 million in total tax increases. Montana, the Treasure State: 41,766 people in Montana. It is close to $10 million in total that will come out of Montana, from Montana families, in tax increases, if the Supreme Court sides with the Republican position in the House and the Senate and raises people's taxes. Nebraska: 56,910 Nebraskans will see their taxes go up an average of $257 each--almost $15 million in total coming from Nebraska. New Hampshire: The Supreme Court decision could raise taxes on almost 30,000 people--29,996 people--in New Hampshire who have health insurance now, most for under $100 a month. They will probably lose their health care and the bonus is they will get a tax increase that will, in total, be almost $8 million. New Jersey, the Garden State: 172,345 people in New Jersey are all looking at about $54 million in tax increases--this is New Jersey alone--who will get less health care and more taxes. North Carolina, the Tar Heel State: 458,738 people. That is a lot of people in North Carolina--458,738 people--who today have the peace of mind of knowing if they get sick, they can go to a doctor, take their children to the doctor, they can prevent themselves from getting sick by having preventive care and cancer screenings and all those things we want for ourselves and our families. They will see their taxes go up if the Supreme Court sides with the Republican position. North Dakota: 14,115 individuals will see their taxes go up. We are looking at $3.3 million in small States such as North Dakota where families will pay an increase in taxes. Ohio: 161,011 people in Ohio. The Buckeye State--the great rivals of my State. There are 161,011 Ohioans who are looking at $41 million in total tax increases. They are looking at less health care and more taxes if the Supreme Court sides with the Republican position sometime between now and the end of the month. The Sooner State of Oklahoma: 87,136 people living in Oklahoma. This is another State near and dear to me. This is where my mom grew up. She lived on a farm and actually picked cotton. I know how hard they work. So 87,136 people in Oklahoma will see over $18 million come from this State. These are men and women who just want to make sure they have health care for their children so they can respond if somebody gets sick, if somebody has cancer, if somebody needs to have some health care help. They will see less health care and $18 million more in tax increases if the Supreme Court sides with the Republican position this month. Pennsylvania, the Keystone State: 348,823 people. Again, a big State and a lot of people in Pennsylvania--348,823 people. This State will see almost $80 million in total tax increases. So less health care, more taxes, if the Supreme Court gets this wrong and sides with the Republican position. South Carolina: 154,221 people in South Carolina will see their taxes go up, meaning about $43 million in total if this decision goes against the American people. South Dakota, the Mount Rushmore State: This is another small State, but every single person there who is getting health care today and is paying less for it--most folks under $100 a month--is going to care about this. There are 16,811 people in South Dakota who will get tax increases and less health care if the Supreme Court makes the wrong decision, if the Supreme Court in this case sides with the Republican position. Tennessee: 155,753 people in Tennessee will see their taxes go up, with a total of about $34 million just from Tennessee alone. Texas: And here we begin to see bigger numbers. Again, big State, big numbers--832,334 people in Texas, and we are talking about over $205 million in increased costs, increased taxes on people who live in Texas who just want to be able to provide health care for themselves and their children. That is all. This is not some big frill we are talking about here. It is pretty basic. We cannot control whether we get sick. We are looking at 832,000-plus people who are holding their breath waiting to see what the Supreme Court is going to do and whether they are going to side with them or they are going to side with the Republican position. Utah: 86,330 individuals in Utah who will see their taxes go up, all together about $18 million. Virginia: 285,938 people. Pretty close by in Virginia. Again, on average, they will see a $258 increase in their taxes or a total of $74 million from Virginia. This is just across the bridge here. West Virginia, the Mountain State: We have 26,145 West Virginians who would all, in total, see over $8 million coming out of the State of West Virginia if the Supreme Court sides with the Republican position on the tax credits under health care. Wisconsin: 166,142 people. This is another close neighbor of ours in Michigan. There are 166,000-plus people who will see over $52 million coming right across Lake Michigan, as we look across at Wisconsin. So less health care and taxes go up if the Supreme Court gets this wrong and sides with the Republican position. And finally, Wyoming: 16,937 individuals and over $7 million coming from the State of Wyoming in total taxes if the Supreme Court gets this wrong. Madam President, a central question for Justices to consider in King v. Burwell is legislative intent. That is a question I am, frankly, very qualified to answer, given how engaged I was in crafting the Affordable Care Act and especially the tax cuts represented in the affordable tax credits. I was there. I can speak firsthand to what the intent was. The core purpose of this law was to make sure health care coverage was affordable for every American. Pretty simple. And to achieve that, I fought very hard to make sure these tax credits would be available; that they would be enough to make the difference. I pushed so hard for these tax cuts in the Finance Committee markup that Chairman Baucus ended up calling me ``Senator Affordability'' in the process. I knew we had to get that right for every American, including those in my State. The key to this Affordable Care Act is for individuals and small businesses to be able to pool their risk to help drive down the cost for everyone, and it is doing that. So the law created the marketplaces where Americans could shop. We also wanted to give States the right to create a marketplace of their own, if that was their preference. Now, here is the important part. We didn't want States to feel like they were being forced to create a marketplace, so we gave them a choice: either a Federal marketplace or you could choose a State marketplace. The Federal marketplace created healthcare.gov. With healthcare.gov, every American has an opportunity to go online to see if they qualify for these savings, driven by the tax credits created within the Affordable Care Act. The great news is that 6.4 million Americans are getting those tax cuts right now. Now the Court is considering the ludicrous idea that Congress actually meant to make those tax credits available in States that created their own exchanges but only in those States; that somehow we were not trying to make sure everybody in the United States had access to affordable health care and lower taxes and to put that money toward providing health care--not every exchange, not every State, not every person buying health insurance, only Americans living in States with a State-created exchange. That is what they have to believe in order to take the position the Republicans are asking us to take. I can't think of a single instance in the history of our country where Members of the U.S. Congress have voted to give tax cuts to people in one State and not to people in another State, particularly if it is their own State that is not getting the tax cut. Senator Max Baucus from Montana was chair of the Finance Committee at that time. In Montana, there was no plan to set up a State health care exchange. It is totally absurd to suggest that Senator Baucus would help write--would lead the writing of a health care bill with tax cuts for the people of other States and not his own State. Why would I, as a Senator from Michigan, push so hard for these tax credits in the Affordable Care Act that my own constituents wouldn't qualify for but people in other States would? That makes no sense whatsoever. The legislative intent here is crystal clear. So we have this bizarre situation where colleagues across the aisle are asking the Court to strike down the tax cuts and raise taxes on millions of their own constituents. My belief on this issue is the same as it was 5 years ago when I pushed the tax credits through the Finance Committee: The right to get those tax credits has nothing to do with where you live in the United States of America; it has to do with whether you need health care for yourself and your children. If you are an American, then you deserve the opportunity to receive these tax cuts that will make health care affordable for you and your family. Whether you get your plan through a State exchange or through the Federal Government, it doesn't matter. That was intent of the law when we wrote it; that is how the law has worked since the marketplace opened; and that is how it should continue into the future. Finally, I want to make it absolutely clear that the bill authored by the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. Johnson, is not a repeal-and-replace plan; it is a Trojan horse that would completely destroy the health care law that is currently providing medical care for over 16 million Americans in our country. Experts tell us it would lead to a death spiral, where rates would go up so high that only sick people would be willing to pay the premiums, making insurance completely unaffordable for American families. It would let your State decide what health benefits are essential to your family, meaning a family in Iowa could have completely different protections from someone living a few miles away in Minnesota. It puts an expiration date on the tax credits that make health coverage affordable. Conveniently enough, though, it extends the tax cuts until after the 2016 election. And there is the real danger that when the guarantee of these tax cuts expires in September 2017, they will not be renewed. By putting that expiration date after the election, it is clear that this bill's first priority isn't finding a way to make health care affordable; its priority is delaying a massive tax increase until after the election. The priority is to win an election first and dismantle affordable health care coverage second. My hope and, frankly, my prayer is that the Court recognizes what I know to be true: that the language of this law is consistent with the original intent, which is clear from the very first words of the law, title I, page 1. Here is what it says: ``Quality, Affordable Health Care for All Americans''--not Americans in some States and not others, all Americans. It is my deep hope that the Court ruling will allow us to lock in affordable health care coverage for good. Then we can move on and spend our time more productively, focusing on how to make a good law even better for families, communities, businesses, and providers. I hope that will be the opportunity we will have. I yield the floor.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I am here on the floor to speak to the amendment we will be voting on as it relates to Senator Reed's amendment. I first thank both of the leaders of this committee for important work that is being done. But the amendment in front of us is absolutely critical for the safety and security of the American people and certainly for our troops. We all agree--we need to agree--that our troops deserve more than budget gimmicks. What we have in here are too many budget gimmicks that do not reflect the commitment we need to have to our troops and their families. Further, it does not allow us to fully fund the security needs of the country. We are going to be having a very important debate after this legislation on what to do around appropriations, and it is critical that Senator Reed's amendment be passed so we have the opportunity to fully fund the full range of security needs of our country--not only in the Department of Defense, which we all know is very important, but our border security, cyber security, counterterrorism, police and firefighter efforts--those on the frontlines. Whom do we think is called when we dial 911, when there is an emergency of any kind. It is police officers and firefighters that, unfortunately, without the Reed amendment, will not receive the kind of support and funding needed to keep our communities safe. We need to stop weapons of mass destruction, focus on airport security. We are on and off airplanes every single week, as are millions of Americans. We know how critical it is that we be funding our airport security. We know there are outbreaks, like Ebola and other infectious diseases and attacks that may come from that, that are not in the bill in front of us but are critical to the funding of the national security interests of our families, our communities, and our country. Senator Reed has put forward an amendment that would guarantee we would not only think of security in the context of the Department of Defense but that we would understand it is throughout the Federal Government--all of the various services and folks coming together from border security, cyber security, counterterrorism, local police and firefighters on the frontline, the ability to stop weapons of mass destruction, airport security, Ebola protection with the Centers for Disease Control and Protection, and so much more. The people of the country understand it is not just about the Department of Defense. Certainly, we need to make sure that even within the Department of Defense budget, we are doing more than budget gimmicks. Certainly, our troops deserve that. But without the amendment that Senator Reed has so thoughtfully put forward and designed, we will be undercutting critical parts of national security for our people. So I strongly urge that we come together on a bipartisan basis. We talk a lot about border security. We hear a lot about that here. We certainly understand what is happening in cyber security and the needs of our country. We could go through all of the other parts of the Federal budget that impact security and realize that if we aren't willing to look at security for our families and communities and our country as a whole, as Senator Reed does, we will be undercutting the safety and security we all want for our families and communities. So I strongly support and urge colleagues to come together and vote for the Reed amendment.

Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, before the Senator from Vermont leaves, I have to say that I am very proud to be a partner with him on this legislation and how critically important it is that we give young people the opportunity to have a job. On the last immigration bill, we were able to add dollars to the bill, which helped to create funding for young people. Youth unemployment is a huge issue, and we need to give them a path forward on jobs, hope, and economic opportunity. I again thank the Senator from Vermont. Madam President, I also have to say I am very disappointed that Senator Reed's amendment was not successful. Unfortunately, it was voted down today on a partisan vote. We all know there are way too many budget gimmicks in this authorization, as important as it is, and what we ought to be doing is making sure all of the security needs of our families--not just those at the Department of Defense but those in other parts of the budget have the adequate resources they need so their families are truly safe. Highway Trust Fund I wish to speak specifically about another piece of legislation which will help to ensure our safety, and that is economic safety and security. This is something which also deserves our time and attention, and time is running out right now. We have 52 days before the highway trust fund will be empty, shut down; 52 days and we have not yet done even one hearing in the Finance Committee. I respectfully ask that our chairman, for whom I have tremendous respect, have hearings and discussions so we can work together and talk about how we are going to fund this bill. We have not yet seen legislation on the floor that will allow us to move forward on a long-term funding bill for economic security. Our Republican colleagues need to join with us and provide leadership on this issue which affects millions of jobs and, frankly, affects every single American. There was a time when Republicans were the leaders of building our roads, bridges, airports, railroads, and all of our infrastructure, and that came in the form of President Eisenhower, who said in 1952 that ``a network of modern roads is as necessary to defense as it is to our national economy and our personal safety.'' We are on the floor talking about legislation to authorize moving forward to support our troops and making sure we are authorizing programs for our national defense. Yet, in 1952 President Eisenhower said that ``a network of modern roads is as necessary to our defense as it is to our national economy and our own personal safety.'' But in only 52 days, there will be zero in our Nation's highway trust fund. By the late 1950s, our interstate highways were responsible for 31 percent of the annual economic growth of our country--an economic engine of our country. Thanks to President Eisenhower's leadership, our roads in the mid-20th century were the envy of the world. Now we see other countries that want to be like America--a global economic power-- and they are rushing to invest in their roads, bridges, airports, railroads, and other infrastructure, countries such as China and Brazil. China is taking 9 percent of their GDP and using it to invest in jobs, and those things that will allow them to create jobs and be a world economic power. They are wooing businesses there because they have the most modern infrastructure, and frankly, we are playing catchup. There is absolutely no reason that should be happening. Our European competitors spend twice what we do on transportation and funding for critical roads and bridges and other transportation needs. The Chinese Government spends four times what we are spending right now. The World Economic Forum's ``Global Competitiveness Report'' for 2014 and 2015 ranks America 16th in the quality of roads. We are one spot behind Luxembourg and one spot just ahead of Croatia. Can you imagine? Yay. We are just ahead of Croatia in investing in the future in transportation technology and safety for our roads, bridges, and airports--all of those things which create economic security and, in the words of President Eisenhower, national security. The World Economic Forum has its own rankings. In 2002, America had the fifth best transportation system in the world. In their most recent rankings, we were 24th. The American Society of Civil Engineers' most recent report card for America's infrastructure--our transportation, roads and bridges--gave us a D on our roads. I don't think any of us would be happy if our children brought home a report card that had a D on it; yet, that is what we are now seeing in Congress. The report card that we are presenting to the American people has a D on it. It says that 42 percent of major urban highways are congested and that it costs over $101 billion in wasted time and fuel every year. One of my constituents recently told me that he hit a pothole on the way to the Detroit Metro Airport, and he had to replace all four tires on his car. He actually went through seven tires in 1 year. That is a lot of money; that is a lot of tires. He went through seven tires in 1 year because of the bad roads in Michigan. The average Michigan resident spends $357 a year on repairing the damage to their automobiles caused by broken roads. That is more than twice the amount that average people pay in taxes to go to improving our roads and bridges. It is more than twice what it would take to actually fix our roads and bridges and actually be able to move forward. It is not fair. It is not fair to neglect responsibility to maintain our Nation's basic roads and bridges and other infrastructure and let the American people pay for that neglect, which is exactly what is happening. We can't expect our workers and our companies to compete in the 21st- century global marketplace if they are forced to use 20th-century roads and bridges, and we are on our way to the 19th century. Some places are so crumbled up, we are going from pavement back to the dirt underneath it. It is crazy, and there is no excuse for it. Every time we pass a short-term patch that goes 1 or 2 or 6 months down the road, we let our workers, businesses, and our families down. Congress needs to step up. We are ready, and we are looking for Republican partners to join with us in a long-term solution. The majority needs to step up. We have 52 days and counting until the highway trust fund is empty-- at zero. We shouldn't see the majority kick the can down the road again or come up with some kind of short-term suggestion or crazy things such as cutting people's pensions to pay for roads and bridges. Together, we need to do what the American people expect us to do and sit down and do what has been done over the course of history in the United States: Fund a long-term transportation bill that moves us forward in our economy, jobs, and creates the kind of competitive edge we have traditionally had in the United States. A grade of D on roads is an embarrassment. We need our Republican majority to step up with us, because we are waiting. We are anxious to put together a long-term strategy on funding for our roads and bridges. This is pretty basic when we look at the responsibilities that Congress has on behalf of the American people--maintaining airports, railroads, short rail for agriculture, as well as our long distance rail, roads, bridges, and all of the other things that comprise the basic format. We are 52 days away from the highway trust fund going empty. Let's get busy. It is time to make sure we are doing the right thing in moving the country 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 wish to speak about the bill that is before us and reauthorizing funding priorities for the Department of Defense. I wish first to congratulate Chairman McCain and Ranking Member Jack Reed for working together on a very important bill. There are a lot of important issues and a lot of important priorities in this legislation for our home State in Michigan. The fact that we are supporting the A-10s so our troops have the close air support they need is very important. It is important that we are continuing to invest in research and development and new kinds of technologies. We are very proud in Michigan to be the ones that are on the frontlines providing research and development for the Army. If the Army drives it, we design it, fix it, and build it in Warren, MI, and in the surrounding area of Macomb County that we call the Defense Corridor, and we are very proud of that. We have vital military equipment manufactured here in the United States, and in Michigan, specifically, that is supported in this legislation. It provides very important pay increase and support for our troops that are actually critical. My concern is not with the contents of what we are doing in this particular bill in terms of supporting the defense of our country and supporting our troops. It is the fact that we have budget gimmicks being used to fund the Department of Defense. Our troops deserve more than budget gimmicks. Those on the frontlines deserve more than basically funding essential services or pay raises or essential equipment through funds that we know are sort of made-up funds--another name for deficit spending. This has been done over the years, as we went to war in Iraq and Afghanistan, when there was a fund set up--the overseas contingency account--not including any money in it, but it was a way to mask the fact that we were not funding the wars and we were in fact abusing deficit spending to do it. So to continue that with the critical items in this bill is a mistake and, frankly, not worthy of the men and women who are on the frontlines, putting their lives--putting themselves--in harm's way every single day. So it is critical that we do better in terms of this budget and the structure of this budget. Our families also deserve better, because we need to fully fund the full defense of our country--both here at home and overseas--without budget gimmicks, without adding to the deficit. All those things that create a strong country and security for our families need to be done in a way that does not include budget gimmicks. And that, frankly, is not what is being proposed. That is why I am very proud to be a cosponsor of Senator Reed's amendment, which would cap the spending on what has been called this overseas contingency account. Others of us at various points have called it the fake money account because there is no money in it. It is a fancy way of covering up the fact that we are spending and adding to the deficit. Senator Reed would basically indicate that this would be capped. We would try to begin to rein that in, to cap that amount. We would also say very clearly that we are going to address the issues that affect the United States in terms of our strength, the defense, broadly, of our country--whether it is in the Department of Defense or whether it is in other parts of our overall budget as a Nation--by basically lifting the caps--for those watching, we talk about the Budget Control Act, but there are caps--in a way so we can fully fund both the Department of Defense but also the other things that need to be done to create security and to fully make sure our families are safe, our economy is safe, and that we are aggressively moving forward as an economy. That is what Senator Reed's amendment would do. It brings some balance. It begins to rein in what is a policy that does not make sense in terms of using budget gimmicks. As I said before, our troops certainly deserve better than that, and our families deserve better than that. Using gimmicks is a convenient way to avoid dealing with what the real problem is. There is this thing called sequestration. People wonder: What in the world is that? We put in a policy a number of years ago to limit spending. The good news is that we have brought the annual budget deficit down by two thirds. This is good news for our country. Two thirds of the annual deficit is gone. But now, as we go forward and look at what is going to grow the economy and what is going to keep us safe, we look at the threats around the world that are coming at us-- not just through the Department of Defense but through every area of the budget. When we look at what we need in terms of jobs and the economy and so on, we know we need to revisit that policy and stop the gimmicks. Don't use gimmicks going forward to pretend that we are still meeting sequestration but to look honestly at the needs of our country today and move forward. Frankly, on the security front alone, security is more than just what happens at the Department of Defense, as important as that is. It is all of the programs that we rely on day in and day out to keep our country safe. Certainly, we care about border security all the time. That is not predominantly funded in the Department of Defense. We look at cyber security. It is one of the No. 1 issues we have, and we are hearing now from a consumer standpoint, from a security threat or terrorist standpoint, and from a business security standpoint. Cyber security is absolutely critical, and it is not given the same priority of importance as the Department of Defense is as we look at the overall defense of our country. Counterterrorism--who answers the call, no matter what it is? In Boston, a terrorist attack--who was on the frontlines there? It was local police, local fire, which are under the broad budget parameters that are being discussed now by the majority. The Republican majority would provide less funding--less funding--for the frontline defense in our neighborhoods and in our communities. Stopping weapons of mass destruction, airport security is something we all know about as we get on airplanes all the time, every week. There is Ebola protection, when we look at the Centers for Disease Control and all of the issues that relate to diseases--whether it is threats at home or whether it is those that can be used in some way as a terrorist attack. Many of the Federal agencies fighting terrorism at home and protecting us from deadly diseases such as Ebola will not receive critical funding under the budget that has been proposed. Now, there is a willingness to use budget gimmicks in the Department of Defense. Again, our troops are certainly worthy of much more than budget gimmicks. But when we look more broadly at the whole budget, we don't even see enough to use budget gimmicks of these things. I don't think we should be using budget gimmicks, but the point is there is not an acknowledgement that there is more to defense and safety for our country than just in one department. To be strong abroad we need to be strong at home, as well, and in so many other areas, as we know. If we want to talk about competing around the globe, if we want to talk about what we need to be doing to be secure, to have a robust economy, to outcompete the competition, we have also to talk about educating our young people--which, by the way, is cut in the overall scheme of things in this budget. We have to talk about lowering the costs of college. If there is one thing we are hearing over and over from young people or from those going back to job training programs who lost their job in the economy, going back to get new skills to get a new job, it is about the huge debts they are incurring to do the right thing. People coming out of college are now in a situation where they can't qualify even to buy that first home. They are telling me: Do something about college loan debt. We can't help young people coming out of college to buy a house. They don't qualify because of the amount of debt, and the amount of debt they have will equal a house. That is a security issue for us--education, the ability to have a college education, job training. Investing in cures for diseases--how exciting it is for us to hear about all the opportunities now through the National Institutes of Health. We have so many promising opportunities and treatments and cures, such as on Alzheimer's--which, by the way, takes one out of every five Medicare dollars--and in other areas, such as cancers, Parkinson's disease, mental health disorders. That is part of our strength and being secure and strong and robust for the future. Of course, if we are going to be strong, we have to fix our roads and our bridges, and we don't have dollars in this budget. In fact, the whole highway trust fund is going to run out in less than 60 days now if no action is taken by the majority, if there is no sense of urgency from our Republican colleagues. So we look overall at securing those things at home and abroad, whether it is making sure--beyond the Department of Defense--that we are funding our border security, cyber security, counterterrorism, police and fire departments, airport security, and Ebola protection or whether it is investing in our own people in all of this to create the opportunity for strong businesses, entrepreneurs, and an educated workforce or for infrastructure, making sure that we have those airports and we have those roads. As I conclude, let me say that all of this leads to the fact that we need to next week vote yes on Senator Reed's amendment because that is what it is all about: real safety, real security, growing the economy of our country. Our people deserve better than budget gimmicks that are in this bill. I yield the floor.

Ms. STABENOW

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

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, in the middle of the last century, our Michigan automakers were selling thousands of cars and trucks to an outstanding and expanding American middle class. We are proud to build those automobiles in Michigan. Unfortunately, the roads of that day were too narrow, and it took drivers and truckers much too long to get to their destinations. Our Nation's leaders recognized that these delays were hurting our workers' productivity and stifling the American economy. In October of 1964, President Dwight D. Eisenhower made a trip to Detroit and speaking in Cadillac Square he declared: ``We are pushing ahead with a great road program that will take this Nation out of its antiquated shackles of secondary roads and give us the types of highways we need for this great mass of automobiles.'' Of course, this vision gave rise to the interstate highway system which ignited the American economy, and by the late 1950s, our new interstate highways were responsible for 31 percent of the annual increase in the American economy. That is quite amazing, when we think about that. Our highways were the envy of the world, which is why other nations that aspire to be like us, now as economic superpowers, are investing in their infrastructure--from China to Brazil and everywhere in between--in roads and bridges and airports and seaports and all of the other infrastructure they know supports a robust, growing economy. President Eisenhower, the architect of our interstate highway system was, of course, a Republican. So it is ironic that 60 years later my Republican colleagues are the ones blocking us from building on President Eisenhower's legacy for growing the economy by investing in long-term infrastructure--not 60 days, not 30 days, not 6 months, but long-term infrastructure investment. Over the last 6 years, Congress has passed short-term extensions over and over again, repeatedly patching over the shortfall in the highway trust fund. Today, we are actually at a point where we are 57 days away from the highway trust fund actually going empty--shutting down--57 days before the highway trust fund is empty. This is no way to invest in our country and jobs and the roads and bridges and other infrastructure we need to support a thriving economy. It makes it hard for States and for local transportation agencies to plan. The uncertainty drives up costs, as we all know. The World Economic Forum's Global Competitiveness Report from 2014 to 2015 ranked America 16th in the quality of our roads--16th in the quality of our roads in the world--one spot below Luxembourg and just a little bit ahead of Croatia. Now, if that isn't something that motivates all of us to come together around a long-term plan for investing in our roads and bridges and other infrastructure, I don't know what should. America, the world's superpower, is 16th in the world today in terms of investing in the future of our economy and what we need for fixing roads and bridges and other infrastructure investments. The American Society of Civil Engineers' most recent report card for America's roads and bridges gave our roads a D--a failing grade. We talk about the importance of education and striving for excellence for our children in schools, yet we have been given--the Congress--a failing grade of D for lack of action and vision and investment in long-term infrastructure spending in our country. It said that 42 percent of the major urban highways are congested, that this costs $101 billion in wasted time and fuel every year--$101 billion every year, year after year that we don't address this--and countless jobs. And on the other side, we all know that investing in long-term infrastructure creates good, middle class jobs. Why in the world we are not coming together and making this a top priority is beyond me. Since we can't afford to effectively repair and replace our bridges, engineers have to add plywood and nets--if you are driving along and look up and see the plywood and nets--to the bottom of bridges so they don't crumble and fall on to cars. We have had pieces fall down on to the road over the last number of years. In fact, that is what happened to a motorist in Maryland back in February. Just a few miles from here, the Arlington Memorial Bridge, a historic bridge, has corroded support beams and columns and big signs on it now with lane closures in both directions for the next year because of emergency repairs. This is the Capital of the United States of America we are talking about and the Arlington Memorial Bridge. Across the country, potholes are getting bigger, freeways are getting more congested, and our workers, our schoolchildren, our products-- agricultural products, manufacturing products--and small businesses and large businesses trying to get to market are caught in gridlock. In my home State of Michigan, the average person pays $154 a year to pay for improvements to roads and bridges. That is actually the lowest in the Nation, not nearly enough for what we ought to be doing to invest in improvements. Because of the poor road conditions in Michigan and the damage to cars, the average person spends $357 a year to fix their car--more than a lot of the efforts we have talked about in terms of looking for a long-term solution to be able to fund the highway trust fund when it runs empty in 57 days. I have heard from workers in Michigan who hit potholes on their way to work and had to stop on the way to work to go to a repair shop. Some tell me they have to swerve around major potholes. I drive, of course, Michigan roads all of the time, going home almost every weekend, and I am constantly doing that. I have had to take my car in as well to get major repairs--realignments, new tires--because of what is happening on the roads. This is a case where we know what the cure is for the disease, but instead we are treating the symptoms. Instead of fixing the roads, we are fixing our cars. That makes no sense. It is shortsighted. Our economy depends upon having roads and bridges and rail that is safe and effective across the country--short rail, by the way, for our farmers and agriculture and the passenger rail that is so critical. We have seen what happens when there are not safety provisions and when tragedies occur. Our infrastructure is crumbling in the United States of America. Who would ever have thought we would have gotten to this point, 57 days until the highway trust fund is empty--57 days? A previous generation of Americans responded to this challenge to invest and to build America by making bold investments that powered our economy into the 20th century, that made us an economic powerhouse, that created the greatest middle class in the world. Now, the question is how our generation will respond to the challenges of putting in place the investments, the plans, the commitments to not only fix our roads and bridges but to be able to create the infrastructure that will take us to the next level in terms of spurring jobs in the economy. There is talk that once we get to the end of 57 days, we will just kick the can down the road again. How about this time until December? That is a good time for finding some patch of putting together $10 billion or $11 billion to be able to get us to the end of the year. And of course what do we say to communities, to cities, to States? What do we say to the county road commissions in Michigan? What do we say to those who are trying to negotiate contracts and are spending more money because of the stop-start short-term efforts? What do we say to those spending hundreds of dollars a year trying to fix their cars and wondering what in the world is going on with something so basic--so basic--as roads and bridges and other infrastructure? And yet every time we get to a place where a decision needs to be made, the decision gets kicked down the road. If there is one thing we have learned, it is that short-term patches don't fix long-term potholes. It is time to step up now. We are tired of seeing this happen over and over. Where are the hearings? Where are the bills on the floor? We have 57 days. That is enough time to get a long-term plan together, to find a bipartisan plan. There are a number of different alternatives. Colleagues on both sides of the aisle have proposed solutions, and 57 days is enough time for us to be able to come together. First, we need to have hearings, and we need to see bills reported to the floor. Where is the activity going on, the sense of urgency about the fact that in 57 days the highway trust fund will be empty? We are committed to working with colleagues in a bipartisan way to find solutions. Every time we see a short-term patch, a short-term extension happen, we are letting down our businesses, our workers, our farmers, and the next generation of Americans. It is time--it is pastime--to have a long-term fix. Frankly, I know what difference it makes when we can put in several years of policy in funding in an area of the economy. We came together to do that last year, and I am very proud of the work that we all did together on a bipartisan basis for rural America--for farmers, for ranchers--when we put together the farm bill, a 5-year bill of economic policy, funding, and investments that allowed people to plan, allowed communities to grow, allowed rural development to happen, and businesses to be able to invest, providing the economic certainty that they needed for looking longer than 2 months or 6 months. We need to do that as it relates to the highway trust fund. We are long past doing that. The time has come for a long-term fix. It is time for our generation, and it is time for our Republican colleagues who have traditionally worked with us on a bipartisan basis to emulate the bold action of the previous generation. President Eisenhower said in 1952: ``A network of modern roads is as necessary to defense as it is to our national economy and personal safety.'' Fixing roads and bridges, expanding the ability for business to move and for agriculture to move and to create jobs should not be a partisan issue. We should not be at an impasse here. We should not be coming to the floor every day--which we will be doing--to count this down. What we ought to be doing is sitting together in committee, sitting together and working on a solution to get it done in the next 57 days. That is what we need to be doing. I think it is important for each of us to answer this question: Are you happy with the D on America's report card on the roads? Is D enough? We would certainly not say that to our kids. Are you willing to let Croatia pass America in the Global Competitiveness Report? Croatia with better roads and better bridges than the United States of America--really? Are we willing to spend the resources that we need to work together to find a bipartisan solution to fix our roads and bridges, to invest in safe rail and in opportunities for us to have the infrastructure and transportation we need? Are we going to force American drivers to pay even more on repairs year after year after year? Are we going to be like Ike or are our Republican colleagues in the majority going to just kick the can down the road one more time? In Eisenhower's time there was a bipartisan agreement for investing in America's infrastructure. We can do that again. There is absolutely no reason why we should not be able to do that. We have to come together. Republican colleagues who chair the committees need to be sending us a signal. We need to be holding hearings and working together to develop bills and bringing bills to the floor and debating them and making clear that now is the time to get it done. Don't kick the can down the road again. Step up. Let's fix our roads and bridges. Let's invest in rebuilding America for the future. Let's create jobs and send a signal that we can work together to get that done in the 57 days until the highway trust fund is empty--57 days. It is enough time to do it if people think this is important. I hope they will. Thank you, Mr. President.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I am speaking today on the underlying bill, but I do want to indicate, supporting my friend from Pennsylvania, that there is incredible, exciting work being done with the National Institutes of Health that is focused on those cures. I think the challenge for us is that the budget that was passed will actually end up cutting NIH, and with this very bad policy of sequestration that I hope we are going to be able to fix--if that continues, then we will not only not have the ability to move forward on exciting cures, but we will actually be seeing NIH cut, which I think would be foolish and devastating to all of us in the long run and, for a lot of reasons, going in the wrong direction. So I hope we can work together on a bipartisan basis to fix that. Amendment No. 1299 Madam President, let me first say, coming to the floor on the Portman-Stabenow amendment, that I ask unanimous consent to add two more cosponsors today: Senator Tester and Senator Markey. That brings us to a total of 30 bipartisan cosponsors on this very important, commonsense amendment outlining the importance of the biggest 21st- century trade barrier, and that is currency manipulation. So I thank everyone who has joined together to cosponsor this.