Debbie Stabenow

Ms. STABENOW

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, my motion would instruct conferees to remove from the final budget resolution any Medicare cuts that would increase out-of-pocket costs for senior citizens, eliminating guaranteed benefits or making structural changes to Medicare by turning it into a voucher-based system or premium support system. I think one of our greatest concerns in this budget, among many, is the fact that when you add it all up, there are $566 billion in Medicare cuts in this Senate resolution. Shockingly, it is more than even the House cuts. I would urge that we stand with people who pay into a health care system that works. They have earned those benefits. They are counting on those benefits. Seniors and people with disabilities across the country need to know Medicare is an intact, guaranteed health care system for them. I urge support for my motion.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending motion be set aside so that I may call up my motion, which is at the desk.

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

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, if I might take just 1 more moment, I do not think I used all my time. I just want to say for the record, the President of the United States is not supporting $566 billion in cuts to Medicare.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, my motion would instruct conferees to remove from the budget resolution any Medicare cuts that would increase out-of-pocket costs for senior citizens, eliminate guaranteed benefits, or make structural changes to Medicare by turning it into a voucher- based premium support system. It is incredibly important that something as important as health care for senior citizens and those with disabilities be protected and honored. People are paying into this system. They have paid into this system their whole lives. They have the confidence of knowing that health care is available to them, those now on Medicare, and we need to make sure we are strengthening this health care system, not fundamentally changing it from a guaranteed system to some kind of a voucher system or making other kinds of changes that will cost people more money. When we began this process, my hope was that we could have a spending plan that really would address the middle class and a budget resolution that would make it very clear that this is about giving every American a fair shot--a fair shot to stay in the middle class or to work hard and get into the middle class--that this is really about strengthening our country. We don't have an economy without a middle class. It is not the other way around. We don't have an economy without a middle class. That is the economic engine. I was hoping for a budget that would reflect one of our core beliefs--that if you work hard in America, you are going to have a fair shot to be able to get ahead. But that is not what this budget is about. Unfortunately, this budget does not do that. Instead, Republicans have written a budget that continues to rig the system for the wealthy and the well-connected rather than creating opportunity for everybody to make it. That is really the fundamental fight we have had through this whole budget process. How do we grow the economy? Is it the top down? Do we give to those one more time at the very top and hope that it trickles down and that somehow people who are working hard every day will actually feel it and have money in their pockets, or do we focus on the middle? Do we focus on those working hard to get into the middle class and create an opportunity to grow from the bottom up, which is the way we know the economies grow? So I am deeply concerned about the cuts to Medicare in this budget. I am also deeply concerned about the other cuts to health care in this budget. We all wish we could control whether we get sick or whether our children get sick or whether moms and dads get sick, but the reality is that health care is an issue for all of us. It is not a frill; it is a necessity. Medicare has addressed that for seniors and people with disabilities in a way that gives them peace of mind and confidence in a quality medical system. We just addressed through a bill last night the whole question of making sure that doctors are paid and that they are available to people who are on Medicare. We have another part of the health care system called Medicaid, which is a lifeline to so many Americans who continue to feel the effects of the great recession and are struggling for basic health care needs. In fact, 80 percent of the Medicaid Program spending--80 percent of the dollars--goes to seniors in nursing homes and in some way impacts all of us--friends, neighbors, relatives. So we are looking at a budget on the Medicaid front--when we combine it all, eliminating the Medicaid expansion and having the other cuts in the budget--of a $1.2 trillion cut in the Senate budget. The Senate Republican budget cuts Medicaid health care--80 percent of which goes to seniors in nursing homes--by $1.2 trillion. It is even worse in the House. I worry when we are now looking at going to conference with the House of Representatives, where their combined cut was $1.7 trillion to Medicaid, of which most of the money goes to low-income seniors in nursing homes. They would then also turn it into a block grant and cut it on top of that, and we don't even know if it would get spent on health care. Unfortunately, this budget, while not really balancing, is attempting to be balanced on the backs of the most vulnerable Americans in our country, and our seniors are taking a huge hit in this budget. The House cuts all together $316 billion and moves away from the guaranteed benefit to something that has been called vouchers or premium support or other structures that don't look like Medicare. In the Senate, all together now, when you add it up and the effects of what was done last night, we are looking at a cut of $566 billion. My amendment would stop that $566 billion cut in Medicare or at least it would instruct--I should clarify that. I wish it would just automatically stop it, but it would instruct the final conference committee to not move forward on that $566 billion in Medicare cuts. We are talking about Americans who have worked hard all their lives, and they have earned that health care benefit. Let me also say that when we think about a budget that would reflect opportunity for everyone to get ahead or one that keeps a system rigged against the average American, we saw vote after vote where, unfortunately, colleagues on the other side of the aisle let opportunities slip away to provide real equal pay for women, equal pay for equal work. Yesterday was the day in which women finally made as much money in 2014 as a man made in 2014. It took the majority of women in this country until yesterday to make the same amount of money. We have an opportunity to fix that. The Republican colleagues said no. We had an opportunity to invest in rebuilding America--roads, bridges, water, sewer systems, crumbling infrastructure. Our distinguished ranking member is a champion on the issue of infrastructure. We had an opportunity to create millions of jobs and Republican colleagues said no. We had an opportunity to invest in education but instead we saw-- and we see--a bill that takes away funding for Pell grants that doesn't help millions of Americans who are struggling to pay back college loans. I just left a group of high school students from Brighton, MI, and the question I received was, What are you doing about the cost of college--and I am worried about the cost of college. I want to do the right thing. I want to go to school. They want to do what we are all asking them to do to get skills so they can compete in a global economy, be responsible adults. Too many will come out of that college experience with more than enough debt to buy a big house, and then they will not be able to buy the house as they dig themselves out of debt. We all know that in this bill, the Republican budget, both in the House and Senate, repeals the Affordable Care Act--between 16 million American people, health care gone, on top of all of the cuts to Medicare for senior citizens, senior citizens in nursing homes under Medicaid. When we had an opportunity to close tax loopholes, I offered again my Bring Jobs Home Act to say a company should not be able to move on paper out of this country and avoid paying their fair share to contribute to the services of America. They still breathe the air. They still drink the water. They still drive on the roads. They still get the educated workforce. But they move on paper, and now they are not a part of those contributing to America. I don't think that is very patriotic, frankly. We had a chance to close that and instead support the middle class, people working hard, increase their earned-income tax credit, and Republican colleagues said no. So, unfortunately, we have in front of us a budget that says no to opportunity to the majority of Americans and yes to continued policies that, frankly, have not worked because they are focused on the privileged few. If I might take just 1 more minute, I want to put my hat on as ranking member, former chair of the Senate Agriculture Committee, and say also that as a Member of the Budget Committee and the Agriculture Committee, I strongly urge the leadership in the Senate not to accept the reconciliation instruction related to agriculture and to, therefore, open the farm bill, all of the phases of the farm bill that we worked so hard to get passed in a bipartisan basis. I commend the chairman for not including that reconciliation instruction in the Senate. I very much appreciate that, but the House does. We have Members on both sides of the aisle deeply concerned about reopening what is economic certainty. We have a lot of places that there is not certainty. But in rural America at least we have 5 years of economic certainty through the farm bill, and we have nearly 400 agricultural organizations led by the American Farm Bureau, food groups, conservation groups, nutrition groups that have asked us not to open the farm bill again in this process. I am very hopeful the Senate's position on that will be the position that is maintained. I offer an amendment that we will be voting on Medicare. I think it will be wonderful if we came together and said no to the cuts in Medicare and that we would show that we understand what is at stake for that program. Also, I hope we will very clearly indicate that we want to stand with rural America and our farmers and make sure they do not have to worry about opening the policies of the farm bill until the 5 years on the farm bill has been completed.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I think the American people deserve to see the contrast between how nominees were treated in the last decade, during the Bush administration, versus how they are treated in this decade, during the Obama administration. When former President Bush nominated John Ashcroft to be U.S. Attorney General, it was controversial. I was one of 42 Democrats who opposed the nomination. Yet it only took 42 days for John Ashcroft to get a vote on confirming his appointment because neither I nor other Democrats stood in the way and blocked actually having a vote. Now, I agree that was a different time, where filibusters were not used every single day on every single issue, unfortunately. But I remember that at that time our Republican colleagues came to the floor and said: Elections have consequences. When a President is elected, he or she has the opportunity to put forward their nominees and have a vote. Day after day people came to the floor and said: Just let us vote. Just let us vote. And we did let the vote happen. As of today, President Obama's nominee for Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, has waited 157 days and counting, and we intend to count the days. In fact, since the Judiciary Committee reported Loretta Lynch's nomination out of committee, she has now waited longer for a vote on the Senate floor than the last seven attorneys general combined--seven attorneys general combined. She has waited longer than seven attorneys general combined. The U.S. Senate has the constitutional responsibility to provide advice and consent to the President as it relates to his appointments. That is a serious responsibility and we are not asking that someone vote yes if they want to vote no. They have a right to vote no. We have had enough Members now come forward that it is clear she actually has the votes. We have had enough Members indicate they would support her that we know we could get a vote on the floor and that she would, in fact, be confirmed as the Attorney General. But everyone has the right to state their piece, to vote as their conscience would have them vote. Unfortunately, our Republican colleagues have so far withheld the respect given to other Presidents--to President Bush. They have withheld that from this President. If this is frustrating to me, I can only imagine how frustrating it is to Loretta Lynch, who I know is eager to get on with the work of our Nation's top law enforcement official. I had the opportunity to meet with Ms. Lynch in early December. She impressed me with her passion for upholding the rule of law and her belief that law enforcement could be a partner in building stronger and more cohesive communities. I talked to her about how the Justice Department could play a role in supporting ethnic diversity in communities such as Detroit and Flint and other communities across Michigan. Loretta Lynch understands the devastating effect racial profiling has had on the relationship between the police and the public, which is why I am pleased to learn of her support for police body cameras and so many other policies that would help in that regard. In addition, she understands the threat posed by those who would intimidate Americans from participating in elections. I regret Loretta Lynch has not yet been granted the opportunity to play her role in promoting access to the polls and preventing groups from being disenfranchised. I regret our FBI, with all it must do for the safety and security of Americans, does not have a permanent Attorney General to direct it. I regret there is not a permanent Attorney General to advise prosecutors about actions to take against banks that commit fraud against homeowners. I regret our Republican colleagues are continuing to perform the same stunts in the majority as they did in the minority: to govern by holding government functions hostage. Those who oppose the nomination have every right to vote no, every right to fight to defeat this nomination, but if they continue to refuse to give the advice and counsel and perform the duty they are sworn to uphold under the Constitution and continue to block a simple vote on a nomination from the President of the United States for Attorney General of this country, they are doing a disservice, I believe, to our country. We have heard so often from people they are so tired of Congress obstructing and not acting. I would urge colleagues to get on about the business of a nomination that has been held on this floor for too long--too long--and 157 days is too long. It does a disservice to all of us to see this continue. We need Loretta Lynch as our Attorney General. We have a lot of business to conduct in the Senate and a lot of very important topics coming up. We need to get about the business of allowing this vote. However it goes is how it goes. We have indicated, we have the votes if we are allowed to vote, but everyone has a right to express themselves. Let us put in place a competent, strong Attorney General for the country and then move on to other serious issues that we have to address in the Senate. It is time to vote. Mr. President, 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, I would hope we could all come together and agree that we want to bring jobs back to America. This is about saying if you are a business in America and you want to pretend to move offshore on paper but have the benefits of clean air and clean water and roads and all of the benefits of our American way of life, you ought to be contributing to that way of life. So this closes tax loopholes being used by companies right now to avoid paying their fair share. Small businesses are here paying their fair share; individuals are, workers are. Yet we have a code where you can pack up and move overseas and American taxpayers have to foot the bill for the move. The workers losing their jobs have to foot the bill for the move. It makes no sense. We want to bring jobs back to America. This simply closes egregious loopholes to make sure everybody is a part of America and that everybody is contributing to our quality of life and our way of life in America. I urge a ``yes'' vote.

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

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise to ask support for the Stabenow- Cantwell amendment. This addresses the cuts to the budget in Medicare. Medicare is a universal health care program, as we know. It is a great American success story. Everybody believes that. It protects Americans from having their life savings wiped out by a single illness. It guarantees important medical care and quality of life for literally tens of millions of people across our country. I was very disappointed yesterday that our Republican colleagues voted against providing a point of order that would allow us to object to efforts to privatize Medicare or cut benefits or raise out-of-pocket costs for prescription drugs or preventive services. But as a result of that, we now have in front of us a budget that calls for $435 billion in cuts to Medicare. We all know there are ways to work together to create savings through efficiencies and quality measures and other things, but we should not be telling a generation of seniors, and those coming beyond them--who worked hard their whole lives and paid into the programs--that they will not have the health care they need and deserve. So I ask colleagues to join with us in rejecting the $435 billion in Medicare cuts that are in this budget resolution.

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

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment to call up the following amendment: Stabenow amendment No. 523.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I believe every worker, every business deserves a fair shot to get ahead. A basic American principle is creating opportunity. We all know our workers are the best in the world, and when we have a fair fight we can work hard and we can win, but part of that fair fight is making sure we can do something about the broken Tax Code and the system we have. My amendment would address that, the Bring Jobs Home amendment. We all know there are companies that, unfortunately, are able to game the system to avoid paying their taxes. They move on paper in order to be able to register in another country while still having the benefits of our country or they move overseas and, through the Tax Code, we as communities and their workers pay the cost of the move. It is important to recognize the revenue that is being given up helps pay for our American way of life--our roads, airports, clean water, clean air, opportunities for education, innovation, medical research, science--all of the things that create the wonderful quality of life we have in our country that everyone contributes toward, those things that we need to do together. Unfortunately, the Tax Code is rewarding too many companies to be able to take advantage of not doing their fair share. That is what my amendment addresses. As I indicated, moving their business on paper around to different countries to avoid contributing to our American way of life, our American quality of life, they invert, costing Americans tens of billions of dollars in revenue that could go to support our veterans, our national defense, rebuilding America's roads and bridges, and water and sewer systems. I believe it is particularly offensive to Americans when people find out that, in fact, a company can decide to pick up and move, and the cost of the move--the cost of packing up and leaving our country--is a cost they can write off on their taxes, which means we all pay the price; the workers who are packing people up, the communities that are losing the jobs, our country, in terms of the lost revenue, and we pay for it. Over the last 10 years, 2.4 million jobs were shipped overseas, and American taxpayers were asked to foot the bill. It makes no sense. Surely, we can come together on a bipartisan basis and agree to stop that--to stop that right off. That is what this amendment does. Over 20 million more jobs are at risk of being shipped overseas today. In fact, in Michigan we have lost more than 700,000 jobs to offshoring. Now, I understand we are in a global economy. I understand there are a lot of decisions being made around the globe as to where companies will locate, but our Tax Code should not have loopholes in it that incentivize companies to actually continue to either get the benefits of America while pretending to be someplace else or moving and having us help pay for it. This is a very serious part of tax reform. As we debate a budget resolution that has over $400 billion in cuts to Medicare for seniors in it, that has over $1 trillion in cuts to Medicaid--80 percent of the dollars in Medicaid going for low-income seniors and people in nursing homes--when we look at the fact that we have been trying to pass a bill to create millions of good-paying American jobs by rebuilding America, by rebuilding our roads, by rebuilding our infrastructure, we can't get support to do that. People say we can't afford to pay for it. This is the opportunity to create the revenue to pay for it, to create the revenue to lower the cost of student loans so more people have a fair shot to go to college, have an opportunity for the American dream, so they are not coming out of college being riddled with all kinds of debt, mounds of debt. It means they can't buy a house, they can't buy a car, they can't get started in life with a family because they are buried in debt. When we raise these issues on the floor, we hear we cannot afford, as a country, to fix those things that affect every family--people struggling to get into the middle class and stay in the middle class. I think this budget ought to be about the middle class. I think we ought to be saying this is a middle-class budget, and I think if we are going to do that, we have to come together on fair ways to be able to fund those things that benefit everyone, that grow the economy by creating and expanding the middle class. We will not have an economy unless we expand the middle class. That means good-paying jobs here-- here. I am all about export. I just want to export our products, not our jobs, and we have a Tax Code that is encouraging the export of our jobs. So I hope we come together around the Bring Jobs Home amendment, agree there is one area of the Tax Code that everybody ought to support fixing; that is, where folks are using loopholes and games and gimmicks, frankly, to avoid contributing to the quality of life in our country. We can create opportunities without adding one more dollar to the costs of middle-class families or small businesses or those who stay in our country and decide they want to continue to be a part of our great American economy. This is about closing for the tax cheaters who are avoiding stepping up and being a part of solving America's problems. My amendment No. 523 will bring jobs home and invest in the middle class of our country. I hope this is an area we can come together on, and I urge support for my colleagues. I yield the floor.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, if there is time remaining, I would simply say that I think our amendment is stronger and much more specific. Also, it upholds two goals: supporting the Clean Water Act, which has for 40 years protected us with clean fishing and drinking water--and in our beautiful Great Lakes, certainly all that we hold dear--but it also clarifies specifics for agriculture, ranchers, foresters, and communities. I yield the floor.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, we just voted together on a very specific amendment that makes it clear that all of our traditional agriculture, forestry efforts, all of the local government efforts that are occurring in this country right now will continue even under a revised clean water rule, which, by the way, is only having to be done because of two Supreme Court decisions that created a tremendous amount of confusion for communities and farmers and ranchers. Unfortunately, regardless of what was just said, the Barrasso amendment is very general, very broad. It does not add any clarity. It would keep the confusion that is out there. I would urge that we vote no. We have already made a clear statement here in the Senate. We do not need to go back to what the Supreme Court did when in 2006 they had five different opinions coming from nine different Justices and created chaos. We do not need two different amendments that say two different things. We just did something very clear and specific. Let's hold that and vote no.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I actually would prefer a recorded rollcall vote. I appreciate that offer, but I would ask for a recorded rollcall vote. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, obviously, I care very passionately about Medicare and about health care, and I believe strongly that this is a fundamental right of every American. We do not decide when we are going to get sick. We do not decide when our children are going to get sick or what is going to happen to us as it relates to our health. But another important part of health relates to the ability to have clean, drinkable water. The Clean Water Act has been a vital tool for promoting the health and livelihood--the economy--of Americans for the past 40 years. In fact, according to the EPA, the Clean Water Act has kept tens of billions of pounds of sewage and chemicals and trash out of our waterways. It has helped double the number of American waters that meet standards for fishing and swimming. I can tell you that in Michigan, we love the Great Lakes. They are in our DNA. The ability to fish, the ability to swim--in fact, we have a $7 billion fishing industry, in which my family has been a proud participant, and a $16 billion recreational boating industry. The jobs of more than 800,000 residents are supported by the economic asset of our Great Lakes, and we want to make sure the Clean Water Act is strong. Now, we also are very proud of agriculture in Michigan. We have more diversity of crops than any other State in the country other than California. We are working on that. So we are able to do that, in part, because of the abundance of water, frankly. Unlike friends in other States, the issues around water--clean abundance of water for agriculture, for ranchers, for forests, for farmers--have not been issues for us. We certainly want to keep it that way. Now, last year the EPA proposed a rule to define the waters of the United States, basically to clarify two different Supreme Court rulings--one in 2001. After that ruling in 2001, the former administration, the Bush administration, began working on a rule to clarify this question of the waters and regulating the waters of the United States. Then there was an even more complicated, confusing decision. I never thought you could actually have five different decisions out of a nine- member Supreme Court. But that is what happened. We ended up with even more confusion in 2006. So both administrations--the Bush administration and the Obama administration--understood, as does everyone, that we have to fix this. We have to clarify this, for farmers and ranchers and for citizens and communities. I started in county government. I understand for local governments how important that is as well. So the rule that is before us now--the proposed rule--has been debated for over 200 days, including 400 public meetings and over one million comments. I am not sure that is a record, but it is pretty close--87 percent of which have been positive to moving forward. Now, the proposal was not meant to target agriculture, but it has led to a lot of legitimate questions in my mind about the standing of agriculture's historic exemption under the clean water regulations. So my amendment would help to clarify agriculture's role, while maintaining important clean water protections. This is very important. We can do both. We need to do both. We need to make clear the historic role in agriculture as it relates to separate actions from the Clean Water Act, and we also need to have a Clean Water Act. So this would establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund for legislation that would ensure that the Clean Water Act is focused on protecting water quality, upholds existing exemptions in the Clean Water Act for agriculture and ranching that have existed for decades. Our farmers and ranchers deserve to have the certainty of getting this done and having it done right and knowing that what has been going on for decades for them will be the law of the land. It also ensures we rely on scientific evidence as we examine the impact that water quality has on the different types of water bodies, and it provides certainty-- as I said before--to landowners in rural communities regarding the scope of the Clean Water Act. We had an important hearing on that yesterday in the Agriculture Committee. Clearly, we need to provide that certainty for our farmers and our ranchers. Now, unfortunately, my colleague from Wyoming has an amendment that appears to attempt to address this, but it is overly broad and, frankly, unclear. It does not even mention agriculture. It does not mention the historic exemptions of agriculture, ranching, and forestry. It does not mention rural communities that may be affected. So I do not believe that is the direction this Senate should go. We need to be clear. We do not need more confusion; we need less confusion. So my amendment clarifies the scope of any changes made to the Clean Water Act so that exemptions important to agriculture are maintained. The Barrasso amendment, unfortunately, would also roll back efforts to protect the health of the Great Lakes. All of us who represent the Great Lakes should be concerned about that--and the Chesapeake Bay, the Mississippi River system, the Colorado River system and so many other systems around the country and all our sources of drinking water for the United States. I would encourage colleagues, when this comes up, to vote no on the Barrasso amendment, to vote yes on the Stabenow amendment, and to make it clear that we support the Clean Water Act, we support decisions being made based on science, and we also want to make sure that the historic relationship with agriculture and the Clean Water Act is maintained. I yield the floor.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive all applicable sections of that act for the purpose of the pending amendment. I ask for the yeas and nays on protecting Medicare.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, first, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up Bennet-Stabenow amendment No. 601.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support the Stabenow amendment. This amendment would establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund that would do a few things. First of all, it would ensure that the Clean Water Act is focused on protecting water quality, upholding the existing exemption in the Clean Water Act for agriculture, ranching, and forestry that has existed for decades so our foresters and ranchers have the certainty they need. It would ensure that we rely on scientific evidence as we examine the impact that water quality has on the different types of water bodies, and it provides certainty to landowners and rural communities that are guided by the scope of the Clean Water Act. I appreciate my colleague from Wyoming and his approach. I believe mine is much more specific. It is deficit neutral instead of spending neutral, so it allows us to offset any changes we would like to make to support these efforts through either revenues or spending cuts as opposed to a spending-neutral reserve fund. Most importantly, it makes very clear support for both the Clean Water Act and agriculture. I thank the Chair.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, Medicare turns 50 years old this year. This is not the time to turn our back on Medicare and the universal nature of Medicare. We all understand and are confident that after paying into the system year after year or turning age 65 or meeting the other qualifications that we have means that health care will be available to everyone, regardless of where you live, regardless of who you are. Medicare is a great American success story. Before Medicare became law, only half of Americas who were 65 years of age or older had any type of health insurance. They could not find health insurance. Those who found health insurance were paying through the roof to be able to get that insurance. Often times they were paying--they lacked coverage for surgery or health expenses that occurred outside the hospital. You could have one single surgery or illness and be totally wiped out. So our country came together and said: We are going to make sure that for seniors in this country, health care will be available to everyone. We have done that. It is extremely successful. I am very, very concerned about what this budget does to Medicare, as well as the budget in the House of Representatives. First of all, let me say that there is no question that Medicare, as with every other public program, was designed to improve and evolve and be strengthened and add new things--certainly for the security of future generations. That is why the prescription drug bill was passed. That is why the Affordable Care Act--we took even better steps forward to make sure there were no gaps in coverage under prescription drugs. Seniors today are spending thousands of dollars less out of pocket to get critically needed medicines than they did before the Affordable Care Act. They now have no out-of-pocket costs for annual wellness visits or for other prevention. Now, in this bill that is undermined in two different ways. First of all, there is the Affordable Care Act, which 16.4 million people are now using to get health care for themselves and their families, and most of them, by the way, are people who could not afford health care in the past, just as seniors could not 50 years ago. All of them will lose their health care under this budget, the House and the Senate budget. The changes that we made to improve prescription drug coverage and lower the costs to seniors will be gone. That was part of the ACA. There are the changes to protect people, to be able to know that when they have insurance, they are going to be covered when they get sick and not dropped. If they are sick, if they have a serious disease, they can still get insurance even if they have a preexisting condition. All of the things in the Affordable Care Act are gone under this budget. Now, interestingly, and as the distinguished Senator from Montana said, all of the revenue raised under the Affordable Care Act stays in this bill. So they keep the money, but they take away your medical care. To add insult to injury, because actually repealing the Affordable Care Act increases the deficit, the Affordable Care Act is exempted from the point of order that is required in the budget when an action actually increases the deficit. So then you add to that what is being done in Medicare. The House cuts $150 billion from Medicare for senior citizens, by moving away from what has been the foundation of Medicare--which is a guaranteed benefit. You pay in, and it is a guaranteed benefit. They turn it into something they call premium support. The Senate proposes even more than that--$434 billion in cuts to Medicare over the next 10 years. They are not specified, but they are using the same kind of language that relates to the security of the program and issues that in the past have been called vouchers--or some other change that all ends up in the same place, which is cutting Medicare. Our children, our grandchildren know that grandpas and grandmas, aunts and uncles, and moms and dads right now have health care because of this wonderful American success story called Medicare. It is seriously undermined in this budget. I would urge my colleagues to come together and send a clear message that we stand together in a bipartisan way to continue to support Medicare and say: Hands off the Medicare program and the promise made to our seniors now and to those in the future. The Bennet-Stabenow amendment would create a point of order against legislation and would require a supermajority vote on anything that would privatize Medicare, would cut guaranteed benefits, increase out- of-pocket spending or use premium support schemes to undermine the fundamental nature of what Medicare is. Now, I also find it quite extraordinary that in the House budget, which is more specific, when the Affordable Care Act health exchanges are eliminated, two pages later in their budget, they create health exchanges for Medicare. Some would say: ObamaCare and Medicare. This is a very strange debate we are having on health care. So we want to make it very clear: Hands off Medicare. Hands off Medicare. Whether you are trying to privatize it in some way, turn it over to private insurance companies, vouchers, cut guaranteed benefits, increase out-of-pocket costs, use what has been called premium support schemes to undermine Medicare's universal nature of what it is, stop it. Hands off Medicare. That is what we need to be doing in this budget. I hope colleagues will come together and vote for the Bennet-Stabenow amendment to guarantee that happens. Amendment No. 755 Mr. President, I have a second amendment that is a side-by-side amendment for the Barrasso amendment that will be called up later. I have been asked also to move forward on that amendment as well. I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up Stabenow amendment No. 755.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I am very pleased to be here on the floor of the Senate with Senator Warren, Senator Sanders, and all of my colleagues on the Democratic side who feel very strongly that if young people are going to have a fair shot to get ahead, to enter the middle class, to be a part of a thriving economy, they have to come out of college without mountains of debt so they can go and buy a house and a car and have a family and a career and not be saddled with outrageous debt. That is what this amendment is about. If there were ever an amendment that said we want middle-class opportunity for everybody, it is this one. I hope we will have a unanimous vote.