Debbie Stabenow

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I rise today also to express my friendship and gratitude to the great Senator from the State of Mississippi. When I think about comments that have been said about his effectiveness, I have to say from this side of the aisle, we have lamented his effectiveness from time to time--and appreciated, as well, the desire and the practical side of the Senator from Mississippi, to want to get things done, to be able to make things work. I, for one, am very grateful for that. I am assuming some of that comes from having been on the staff side as well as having been in the House and the Senate and learning how things work and valuing governing, valuing relationships, and wanting to get things done. Back in my home State of Michigan, when I talk about the legislation Senator Lott and I have championed, folks raise their eyebrows. What are you two doing working together on something? I talk to them about the fact that if it weren't for Senator Lott and his leadership, joining with me, we would not have achieved something important earlier this year based on legislation we introduced to provide more competition in the area of prescription drugs, and to lower the price of prescription drugs through the ability of generic drugs to come into the marketplace. We were successful in amending the FDA bill. It got tough in conference. A lot of folks didn't want to see those loopholes closed. I thank Trent for hanging in there or we would not have achieved that. Businesses around the country will benefit from lower prices on prescription drugs for their employees as a result of your leadership. Seniors will benefit as a result. I thank you for stepping up at the time when it was not easy to do. It has been a great pleasure to work with you in many different ways. I have to say also, always to me you have been a southern gentleman. I, too, never thought in my wildest dreams I would wear a seersucker suit. Along with Senator Snowe, and with the help of Senator Feinstein--who chided and pushed and persuaded all of us, and helped all of us be able to find seersucker suits--we have all joined and had a great time every year being able to come together for that great picture I have in my office. I know you will be missed on both sides of the aisle. We understand that you understand the process. I know your book ``Herding Cats'' reflects what in fact it is oftentimes in the legislative process. But you have been able to do the herding and been able to get people to come together, and you will be known for being an extraordinary leader in the Senate. I rise today to congratulate you, to thank you, to wish you and Tricia and your children and grandchildren nothing but happiness as you move to the next chapter of what I am sure will continue to be a very meaningful and exciting life.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent the Committee on Finance be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 3648, and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment at the desk be agreed to, the bill as amended be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements relating to the measure be printed in the Record.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, this is a very important measure we have adopted in the Senate. In fact, today is a very important day for families all across the United States who find themselves in this mortgage crisis that we have been hearing about, that we have been talking about, that we have been meeting about. Two important actions have taken place that will make a real difference in people's lives today. The first was, earlier today, modernization of the Federal Housing Authority, the FHA. This had not been updated since the 1930s when people were in another time of tremendous crisis, losing their homes. We have come together today and put forward modernization that will allow more people to be able to get refinancing, to be able to get help and support from the FHA, to be able to keep their homes. That is what we all want, the American dream of keeping our homes, of making sure our families have a roof over their head, that we can invest in equity in a home as part of creating that middle-class dream for ourselves, for our families, and it is how we strengthen the community when we have home ownership. That is an important piece, and we just adopted the other piece that is very significant, particularly time-sensitive, and that is to make sure that no one who finds themselves in a mortgage foreclosure this year, in 2007, or finds themselves having to refinance their home below the value of their mortgage or through a short sale find themselves in a situation where, on top of losing their home or losing money, they have another tax bill. Right now, up until the action we took a few moments ago, taxpayers, families across America, would find themselves, for example, in a situation of, if they had a $100,000 mortgage and they refinanced at $80,000 or the bank sold their home on a foreclosure at $80,000, they would find themselves paying taxes on that difference between $100,000 and $80,000, that $20,000 difference. If it was forgiven by the lender, they would pay taxes on that as if it were income. That makes no sense when families are challenged, facing the loss of their homes, struggling to make ends meet--we are coming up to Christmas now--when families are struggling to make sure they have what we all want, to be able to give our children a wonderful Christmas, to be able to have a home for them, a place for the Christmas tree. There are too many families who now find themselves in a real crisis. I am very grateful to everyone who has been involved in getting us to this point. We have now said loudly and clearly that we understand and we are not going to allow families to have an additional tax burden as a result of being in a foreclosure or in the middle of the mortgage crisis. And the FHA reform that we passed earlier today says: We want to make it better by providing you alternatives and help to be able to keep your home. I particularly want to thank, first, my cosponsors of the legislation that is the underlying legislation that has resulted in this action today--my Republican cosponsor, Senator Voinovich, who has been just terrific. Both of us come from the Midwest, Michigan and Ohio. We both find ourselves in many similar situations economically, with families who have been faced with the issues of mortgage foreclosure and challenging refinancing situations. I want to thank Senator Voinovich, who is key to the place we are today, in getting to this point. He has played an incredibly important role, and I am grateful to him for that. Senator John Kerry has also been very helpful, and his staff; Senator Levin, my partner, who is always there, both of us working on behalf of Michigan; and Senators Snowe, Brown, Hatch, Coleman, Schumer, Harry Reid, Nelson, Klobuchar, Lieberman, Harkin, and Salazar. Of course, we would not be here without our leader, Senator Harry Reid. I know this is a personal concern to him in Nevada. I know that in his State there is a real challenge, as in mine, as it relates to the mortgage crisis, and he has made this a personal priority, and I am very grateful for his support. Of course, Senator Baucus, our chairman of the Finance Committee, without whom, also, we would not be here, if it was not for his leadership, and his partner, Senator Grassley, without their bipartisan working relationship--they are so extraordinary--we would not have an opportunity to address this issue and pass this legislation. We held a hearing earlier this week, and I want to thank again our Finance Committee chairman for focusing a bright light on this mortgage crisis, what is happening not only in the subprime lending market but in the general economy as it relates to the ripple effect in the housing crisis, and his commitment has brought us to this point. I want to thank him. I also want to thank Senator Judd Gregg, who brought this issue to the debate on the farm bill and, frankly, was very instrumental in bringing this focus to the Senate floor, very articulate in explaining what the problems are that families are facing, and he, too, deserves a lot of credit for being a part of the effort to get us to this point and getting the actual bill passed this year. Finally, I want to thank the White House. I think it is fair to say that there are not a lot of issues in which I find myself on the same side as our President, but this is one of those on which we have worked very well together. I appreciate his staff's good will in working with us to be able to get this done. This was an important bipartisan effort from top to bottom, and I think we can all be pleased and grateful that we have the opportunity to work together to really get something done. That is what people want us to do. I know our Presiding Officer understands that, that people want us to work together, they want us to understand what is going on in their lives and that it is not just a game, that there are real things that need to be fixed, that we need to solve problems. I know that is why we have come here. The examples today, working together on the Mortgage Debt Forgiveness Act and FHA, are two examples of what happens when we work together. I am a member of the Agriculture Committee and proudly have worked with our chairman and ranking member and all of the members of the committee to get a farm bill passed, a Food and Energy Security Act that is good for the country, not just for rural America but for all Americans and for our economy. So this is a day--we have the Department of Defense authorization that was passed--this is a day of good cheer, a day of showing what we can do with the right kind of leadership, and I again thank Senator Reid for providing that leadership. He and Senator McConnell, working together on the efforts that we were able to pass today, have made a real difference. We have, in fact, as it relates to families who find themselves in a very difficult crisis or on the verge of a crisis related to losing their homes, said to them: We not only hear you, but we are going to step up and we are going to help. That is what this bill does. That takes away the tax liability for families. That is what we did earlier today with FHA modernization, and it is a good way to end a very hard- fought week, a very difficult, challenging week, to come together on this Friday to be able to get work done for the American people, and I am very proud we have been able to do that. I yield the floor.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate go to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Ms. STABENOW

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

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Reserving the right to object, because we will shortly be passing this legislation, at this time, I will object to this request.

Ms. STABENOW. Reserving the right to object, as our friend indicated, we are working together on that issue in a bipartisan way. It will be resolved before February. At this time, on behalf of the majority leader, I object.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, on behalf of the majority leader, I object.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, again reserving the right to object, I would indicate we certainly will work together with the Senator from Alabama. We have placed our troops and veterans as our highest priority. But given the time at the moment, I would, on behalf of the majority leader, object.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I would simply indicate that the wounded warriors legislation has already passed the Senate once. I am wondering, since it is included in the Department of Defense reauthorization legislation that will be coming to us--the conference report will be coming to us shortly--I am wondering if my friend will amend his unanimous consent request to indicate that when we receive the conference report on the Department of Defense reauthorization, that it will be agreed to by unanimous consent.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, this is a very important issue we need to have a thorough debate on. At this moment, on behalf of the majority leader, I object.

Ms. STABENOW. Reserving the right to object, as my colleague knows, we all agree we need to stop the tax increases on middle America. We are committed to that. At this time, on behalf of the majority leader, I object.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, as my friend indicated, this has been included in the Department of Defense reauthorization and Homeland Security budget. I wonder if my friend would be willing to amend his unanimous consent request to indicate that--because it is included in the conference report we will be receiving shortly--we have unanimous consent to pass the conference report for the Department of Defense authorization when the Senate receives it.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I thank Senator Harkin and Senator Chambliss and all those involved in putting together the bipartisan farm bill. I ask for a ``no'' vote on the Gregg amendment. This would eliminate $15 million, a small amount in the farm bill but incredibly important to asparagus growers across the country. This would eliminate the Asparagus Market Loss Program that would compensate American asparagus growers across the country for losses to their industry as a result of the Andean Trade Preferences Act that was passed back in 1990. Since that time, we have seen no transition period and imports of tariff-free processed asparagus have surged 2,400 percent. We have seen major losses for asparagus growers, and I add this was based on a program passed in the last farm bill for apples and onions, where cheap Chinese imports were harming domestic growers and, in fact, the State of the author of the amendment received over $1 million in that program for apples. We are simply asking that asparagus growers receive the same kind of assistance.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise, first of all, to indicate again my strong support for the bill that is in front of us, the Food and Energy Security Act, and to thank one more time our leader, Senator Harkin, and his partner in this, Senator Chambliss, for their leadership and great work, and for all the support of the committee in bringing forward a unanimous bill, bipartisan bill. Amendment No. 3672 I specifically today, though, want to touch briefly on two amendments that have been proposed by my good friend from New Hampshire. I really do mean that. He is somebody whom I enjoy working with very much, although I must rise to oppose him on an amendment dealing with the asparagus growers of this country. As a background to this, the U.S. asparagus industry was and continues to be economically injured, unfortunately, by an agreement back in 1990, the Andean Trade Preferences Act, which extended duty- free status to imports of fresh Peruvian asparagus. This particular agreement eliminated the tariffs on a wide variety of products, including asparagus, coming into this country. Unlike most trade agreements, ATPA provided no transition period for American growers to allow our producers to prepare or adapt to an unlimited quantity of Peruvian asparagus coming in with a zero tariff. The recently approved Peruvian Trade Promotion Agreement actually codifies that particular situation for American asparagus growers. Following the enactment of this original agreement in 1990, imports of processed asparagus products surged 2,400 percent into the United States, from 500,000 pounds of asparagus in 1990 to over 12 million pounds in 2006--with a zero tariff--coming into the United States to compete with American asparagus. Our domestic asparagus acreage dropped 54 percent from 90,000 acres in 1991 to under 49,000 acres in 2006. That is American farmers losing acreage, losing their farms, being placed in a very difficult situation, a very difficult situation economically. Michigan asparagus acreage has dropped from 15,500 acres in 1991 to 12,500 acres in 2006. In Washington State, asparagus decreased from 31,000 acres in 1991 to 9,300 acres in 2006. The value of Washington asparagus in 1990 was approximately $200 million. The present value is $75 million. This is a huge drop for any area of American agriculture. This is a huge drop and has created great hardship for our asparagus growers. Asparagus acreage in California decreased from 36,000 acres in 1990 to 22,500 acres in 2006. What we have in this bill is some small effort to help those growers who have found themselves--because of our policy, our trade policy--in an immediate situation of facing an unlimited supply of asparagus coming in with no tariff and with no ability to have any kind of a transition. Unlike other areas that have been hit by trade, they did not qualify for trade adjustment assistance. So the Asparagus Market Loss Program is a relatively small program compared to other parts of this farm bill. It is a $15 million effort that is critically important to compensate American asparagus growers across the country for the loss to this industry that resulted from the ATPA. This program is based on a similar market loss program for apples and onions back in 2002, where cheap Chinese imports harmed those American growers, and that program provided $94 million for apple and onion growers. I might add, I say to my friend, the author of this amendment, the State of New Hampshire received over $1 million from this particular market loss program for apples. That was done in 2002. So what we are doing is patterning this program after the very same marketing loss program that helped our apple growers. Market loss funds will be used to offset costs for American asparagus producers to plant new acreage and invest in more efficient planting and harvesting equipment. It is a very small fraction of, in fact, what they have incurred, as well as a result of the policy that was enacted back in 1990. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Gregg amendment and to support the effort of the Agriculture Committee to help alleviate an industry that has received dramatic losses as a result of our Federal trade policy. Amendment No. 3674 On a different note, Senator Gregg has offered an amendment that, in fact, is a reflection of a bill I have introduced regarding the mortgage industry. Senator George Voinovich is my Republican cosponsor. We have a number of colleagues who have joined us in this effort. I certainly support the intent of that amendment. I know there is a strong understanding of support coming from the chairman of the Finance Committee about the need to make sure people who find themselves losing their home because of a foreclosure situation or a short sale or some other situation regarding the housing crisis--that they do not also end up with a big tax bill after possibly losing their home. I know there is a commitment from the Finance Committee, of which I am a member, to address this issue and, in fact, to make sure people do not end up with this tax liability. The real question is how we do this in terms of this particular amendment. Certainly, substantively I support it, but the farm bill will not be done before the end of this year, and if we don't have something in place by the end of this year, people who have found themselves in the middle of a mortgage crisis with this kind of an unforeseen tax liability will have an additional tax bill. I know it is our desire not to have that happen. It would be a real tragedy, in fact, if that did happen. So I know we have to work out what will happen on that amendment, but certainly I think there is very broad support for the substance of it. It is a question of whether we are able to get relief to people quickly enough. The farm bill will not be done and passed into law by the end of the year, and we need to have that provision done by the end of the year. So I know the Finance Committee leadership is making determinations about the best way to approach this, but certainly I appreciate the issue being raised because no one wants to see people who have found themselves in a potential situation of losing their home or their home going into foreclosure or some kind of a refinancing for less than the mortgage price, to find themselves also in a situation where they have a new tax bill. That certainly is no one's intent. I am pleased the White House is supporting our legislation to fix this. The House has, in fact, acted as well and has sent a bill to us to address this issue. It is my hope--my sincere hope and urgent hope-- that we will have this done by the end of this year rather than placing this policy into the farm bill because there is a sense of urgency about getting this done right now. Thank you, Mr. President.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I wish to enter into a unanimous consent agreement in terms of the order of speakers. I ask unanimous consent that after Senator Barrasso speaks for 7 minutes, that I be recognized for 10 minutes, Senator Klobuchar for 10 minutes, Senator Sanders for 10 minutes, and Senator Crapo for 30 minutes.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Ilana Levinson from my staff be afforded floor privileges for the duration of the farm bill.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator temporarily taking the chair for me at this time so I can make a few brief comments on the farm bill. I thank everyone who has been involved in getting us to this point. It has been challenging, but we have a product, as you know, that came out of committee unanimously. I thank Senator Harkin and Senator Chambliss for their leadership in bringing us to this point. I also thank Senator Conrad for his budget expertise that helped get us to this point, and so many other people who have worked very hard to create a product that we all can be very proud of. We do not only support traditional agriculture, which is very important--people in my State think of automobiles, particularly as we are talking about the energy debate now--but our second largest industry is agriculture. So this is a very important bill from the standpoint of the economy of Michigan. We have traditional agricultural programs that are supported in this legislation which I am very pleased about. But we also do something very important. We take a step toward the future in this bill in a number of ways. Also very important to me and Michigan, and I appreciate my colleagues supporting the effort, is to have half of the crops grown by farmers in the United States, fruit and vegetable growers, called specialty crops, included in a very real way for the first time in this farm bill. That is historic. We are talking about many family farmers, folks who are growing the apples and asparagus and the cherries and the blueberries and the oranges and all of the foods we want our children to eat. We tell our children: Eat your fruits and vegetables. Well, this farm bill for the first time makes a permanent place, a permanent home for those growers. I appreciate my colleagues who have worked with me in order to be able to make that happen. We also take a turn to the future with alternative energy. I thank the distinguished Presiding Officer from Colorado for his passion around the issue of alternative energy as well as my distinguished colleague from South Dakota for his interest and leadership around these issues as well. We all join together in understanding that we want to be able to say: Buy your fuel from middle America instead of the Middle East. That would create energy independence. It would be great for our farmers. It is great for new technologies. We also are very proud to be making the automobiles that will use that new fuel. So this farm bill is an energy and security bill, an effort in a very major way to turn us to that future through various kinds of incentives and supports and research and cellulosic ethanol that we know is the future. We not only want to make ethanol from corn--and we grow a lot of corn in Michigan, but we also grow a lot of sugar beets, we have a lot of wood byproducts, we have a lot of switchgrass available and other things that we can use for the technology to be developed and supported through this farm bill to be able to create energy. That is important. This is about the future. I believe part of reform, when we talk about reforming the farm bill, we talk about more focus on our fruit and vegetable growers, more focus on energy crops, more focus on nutrition, and the importance of being able to support our farmers markets and community gardens, the ability for people to have access to nutritious food in the United States. This is also an important bill for conservation. Again, I know our Presiding Officer cares very much about this issue. Our chairman has been a passionate leader, focusing on conservation. This bill does it in a very real way. I thank the chairman as well for including language that addresses Great Lakes water erosion, soil runoff into the Great Lakes, into our water systems, a very critical issue. I appreciate him including language from a broad strategic effort that was put together with all eight States and our friends in Canada and the administration and others to put together a strategy to protect our Great Lakes waters. Part of that is reflected as it relates to our conservation portion of the farm bill. So there are numerous ways in which this particular legislation, as comprehensive as it is, makes sense. I would also be remiss if I did not mention rural development. I do not think there is a town in northern Michigan, southern Michigan, in the Upper Peninsula, that has not benefitted by some help with water and sewer or housing development or small business loans or the ability to buy a needed fire truck, to be able to meet rural needs. I am very proud of the fact that we have expanded and included the broadband access. We know, just as the telephone system was made more valuable by making sure the farmer at the end of the road was able to be connected by telephone, we need to be sure that every person in every corner of the country is connected and has access to broadband. This legislation does that as well. There are numerous provisions in this legislation that relate to supporting and developing rural America, supporting new technologies, supporting the communities, protecting our natural resources and conservation, focusing on alternative fuels and energy independence at a time when we have never needed it more; also the wonderful partnership that we have established between our nutrition programs, schools, seniors, community programs, and our fruit and vegetable growers who are growing that nutritious food that we want to make sure gets to our families. I hope we will come together. It is very positive that we finally broke through the logjam, and we are together here on the floor moving forward this bipartisan bill. It is my hope we will be able to move through these amendments and do it in a way that allows us to complete this bill this week and have the Senate's vision for the future of rural America and energy and nutrition, conservation, our support for traditional agriculture, have all of those visions out there together before we leave for the end of the year. This is important what we have done together. It is an important piece of work. I am pleased that we are now moving to that next step. I am hopeful that working together, we will be able to get that done this week. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Salazar) Without objection, it is so ordered.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. I thank Senator Reid for his assurances and all of his leadership on the energy bill.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise to engage in a colloquy with the Majority leader, Senator Reid. I do so to discuss a critical measure that will help keep jobs in the United States and give a major boost to the domestic production of energy- efficient vehicles. As my colleagues know, the pending energy bill has a 40-percent increase in CAFE standards for vehicles sold in the U.S. This is by far the largest mandate on any industry in this bill. In addition to this mandate, I am pleased to have led the effort working with Congressman Dingell, Senator Bingaman, and others, to include a new program in the bill that would provide $25 billion in low-interest direct loans to the auto industry to help them retool facilities to produce energy-efficient vehicles to comply with the very challenging CAFE standards in the bill. I believe that this loan program is only fair since we are asking the auto industry to spend approximately $80 billion in new capital investment to comply with the new CAFE title. As many of my colleagues know, establishing a loan program of this type is a two-step process. The first part, setting up the program, has been accomplished. The second part, however, providing the resources to back the loans, has not yet been done. So I rise to ask Senator Reid, as you complete negotiations on a final energy bill, will you give me your assurance that you will provide the resources necessary to fund the loan program that is authorized in the current energy bill? Mr. Reid. Mr. President, no one works harder on behalf of her constituents than Senator Stabenow. She is a real leader in keeping manufacturing jobs in the United States. Mr. President, I give the Senator from Michigan my word that I will work with her and the Appropriations and Finance Committees to find and provide the resources that would fully implement this loan program.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I come to the floor today with great concern and frustration, as I know my colleagues in the majority feel, about the fact that as we continue to work hard to make the changes our American families wanted to happen to improve their lives, we are stopped over and over and over again. I have a running chart, as my colleagues know. As of this afternoon, we are now up to 57 Republican filibusters. Tomorrow, we will be voting on cloture again, and it will then be 58 and then 59. So we find ourselves in a situation that is, first of all, historic in that the top number of filibusters ever recorded in the Senate for a 2-year session is 61; 61 times there were filibusters within a 2-year period. Now, in less than a year--and we are not even done--we will probably hit 61 before we leave. But we are at 57 times that the Republicans have filibustered to stop us from making progress, from solving problems, from getting things done that the American people, American families are desperate to have done. We look at the fact that we have tried to change the children's health care policy to cover 10 million children in this country--in that case, we have bipartisan support, and that is the way we ought to operate. The children's health care plan is an example of the way we ought to work together. I commend my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. In that case, we have the President doing the blocking. So when we talk about children's health insurance, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle got a lot of pressure for working with us and doing the right thing, to add 10 million more children to be able to receive health insurance. Working families who are working one, two, and three jobs don't have health insurance. But we have worked together. Even though we could override the Presidential veto here, they could not get enough Republican votes in the House. We want to get children's health insurance done. We have been working very hard and have a majority of Members to change the policy in Iraq, to get our brave men and women out of the middle of a civil war, and to be able to change the policy to one that will directly affect the threats facing Americans, to address what we ought to be doing in the world to keep us safe, change that policy, redeploy, bring our people home and out of harm's way, out of a civil war. We have a majority of Members who voted with us to do that. But we could not get that policy done--we have not yet, but we are going to keep trying; we are not stopping. But filibusters over and over again have blocked us from making the change we need in Iraq--troop rotations, protecting our troops, and being able to make sure that if they are deployed for 12 months, they can have 12 months at home and be able to rest and see their families and have retraining. Senator Webb brought forward an amendment that says to our troops: We understand what is happening, and if we are sending you on one deployment and two and three redeployments, we ought to be following the current military policy of having the same number of days at home as we have you in harm's way in the theater. We have a majority of the votes. We have a substantial majority of votes--56 votes or 57 votes--to change the policy to support our troops. Yet we have filibuster after filibuster after filibuster, taking 60 votes to stop. We have not had enough Republican colleagues join with us to stop those filibusters. Tomorrow, we are going to vote on whether to end a filibuster. I am amazed, as a member of the Agriculture Committee--and proudly a member. When everybody thinks of Michigan, they think of automobiles, and we are proud of that, too, but our No. 2 industry is agriculture. I am very proud to have worked with colleagues in a bipartisan way to have a bill developed that is terrific for Michigan. It provides not only support for traditional commodities and agriculture, but it moves us to alternative energy. We want to be saying in Michigan: Buy your fuel from Middle America, not the Middle East. The Agriculture Committee put forward a farm bill that moves us in that direction. It addresses nutrition and more opportunities for children in schools to have fresh fruits and vegetables, conservation-- there are provisions in there that affect the Great Lakes which I am proud to have included. We have fruits and vegetables, for the first time, recognized as half of the crops we grow as a permanent part of the farm bill. You would think people would be raring to go to pass this new policy that improves or provides reforms and moves us in a direction to reflect a better future for rural America and fuel security. This is our third week at least that we have seen filibustering of the farm bill. Tomorrow, we will have a vote on whether that filibuster will end. We will see what happens and whether we will go from 57 filibusters to 58 and then 59 on the Energy bill. The reality is that we have important work to do to support rural communities in Michigan and across the country, to address energy needs, alternative fuels, biofuels, to address nutrition for our children and families, to support traditional agriculture that is working very hard and providing us with the food we need, the food security we need for this country. This farm bill does that. I applaud our chairman, Senator Harkin, for his efforts, and all those involved, including Senators Conrad and Chambliss and all who have worked together on a bipartisan basis. Even though we have a bipartisan basis, unanimous support in the committee, we come to the floor one more time. The big strategy on the Republican side is to just stop change, stop, stop, stop, block anything from happening. What we are seeing--I am assuming it is pretty clear what the strategy is--is the White House working with the leadership on the other side of the aisle to make sure we cannot get things done for the American people, stopping us from moving forward. It is also clear that, hopefully, after next year's election, we will have a few more folks on this side of the aisle so we can move forward on those things we have had trouble moving forward on right now. They are certainly making the case for more change and more additions to the majority in this process. We have also seen another critical area that we are all reading about and hearing about from constituents--certainly, I talk to people every single weekend when I go home, as well as during the week here--and that is the question of the mortgage crisis, what is happening in the housing industry, not just the subprime but in the prime housing market, and what is happening across the country. We see the White House is finally engaged, and we are glad to see that. We hear that we need to take action, and we have a tax issue I sponsored to make sure folks not only don't lose their home but don't get a tax bill on top of it. But we hear from Secretary Paulson and others that the FHA is important--FHA modernization, passed by the House--an important part of getting more capital in the marketplace. We have too many families now who have lost or will lose their homes. For most families, middle-income families who buy a house try to get it in a spot where they can have good schools. For most families, the equity in their homes is their primary savings. We hear that FHA modernization is important to do. Our leader, Majority Leader Reid, came to the floor a couple of weeks ago and asked unanimous consent to go to that FHA modernization bill which the administration says they support and they are urging us to pass. It has passed in the House. Yet when our leader comes to the floor, recognizing as he does that he represents a State heavily hit as well on the question of foreclosures, and asks unanimous consent and one more time, the leader on the Republican side objects. All we see are efforts to stop changes that are critically important for the families of America, the economy of America, the businesses of America to make sure we can keep the middle class of this country and keep the middle-class American dream alive. That is what we are all about. I thought it was stunning yesterday when, again, the Republican leader came to the floor saying nothing is getting done, nothing is getting done. Then Senator Murray, who chairs so ably our Transportation and Housing Appropriations Subcommittee, asked unanimous consent to take up this critical bill that relates to infrastructure. We have bridges in Minnesota and other places around the country--we certainly have all seen the pictures from Minnesota, what happened in Minneapolis with the bridge collapse. Certainly that would be a priority. I know it certainly has been a priority for Senator Klobuchar, who has spoken eloquently and has made sure there are resources and help for her State. One would think that after a long speech about how nothing was happening in the Senate that our Republican colleagues would welcome Senator Murray coming to the floor to move forward on this important bill, written in a bipartisan way, passed by the Senate to bring forward the conference committee report on housing and transportation, a bill that includes dollars, again, that the administration says they want and support--$200 million for education and for consumer outreach to help those who are in bad loan situations, who face resets or foreclosures next year, to have the opportunity to sit down and work out a different mortgage situation to refinance. I applaud Secretary Paulson for setting up a 1-800 number and wanting to reach out to help those families. We have $200 million in our budget which the administration says they support. Yet when Senator Murray comes to the floor as chair of that effort, again what do we hear? ``I object, Mr. President.'' ``I object, Mr. President.'' One more time, we are in the middle of a mortgage crisis, affecting not only our families, not only middle-class Americans all over the country, but it is now rippling out to the entire economy. Yet when our leader comes to the floor, when our leader asks to move forward on those issues that we can do together now, we get: ``I object, Mr. President.'' We get another filibuster. I don't know who is advising the White House and the Republican leadership on this strategy, but sooner or later this is going to catch up with them when they are objecting to the changes that are needed to improve the lives of middle-class Americans, whether it be help in a mortgage crisis, whether it be children's health insurance, whether it be helping rural America in addressing our alternative energy needs, a farm bill, whether it be supporting our troops, changing the policy in Iraq--I could go on and on. I should mention we are finding the same thing as it relates to trying to get a budget for this coming year to stop a cut in physician payments through Medicare which we have to get done. Our chairman of the Finance Committee is leading this effort and is strongly committed to fixing this policy that would provide cuts and wanting to advocate we not do it just for next year but 2 years, as well as a number of other things we need to do with Medicare. We are struggling right now to make that happen. On the appropriations front--and this is stunning to me--we see a situation where on the one hand, the administration is willing to spend $12 billion a month and counting in Iraq, not paid for, going right on to the deficit. I have a beautiful new granddaughter, my first grandchild, and she is going to help pay for that deficit. All the kids being born today will help pay for that huge deficit that has been created. And that is OK, according to the administration, that is OK. They want more money and they do not pay for it, do not budget for it-- more money. But when we put forward a modest 2-percent increase in investments for America, to restore some of the cuts that the President has made in community policing or in health research, education funding, in those items that invest in American families, American communities, just a 2-percent increase, the President says: No, too much. He is willing to take us to the brink of a Government shutdown, but a 2-percent increase for America? Too much. Mr. President, $12 billion a month in Iraq, not paid for--paid for by our kids and grandkids that is OK. We find ourselves once again with filibuster, filibuster, filibuster on the Republican side, stopping us. Now we are back saying: OK, in order to get appropriations done for this year, we will split the difference. Instead of a 2-percent investment increase for American communities and families, we will say 1 percent, which is less than we spend in Iraq, $11 billion less than we spend in 1 month in Iraq, and we hear that is also not supported. It is time we focus on what needs to be done to make sure those working hard every day, who care about their families, who want to make sure they have a job, have health care, and have the great American dream, send the kids to college, have the support they need. That is what we are about. That is what we are about--fighting for those folks who work hard every day who care about their kids. They want to see a change from what has been happening, and that is what we are fighting for. I close indicating there is good news. I see my wonderful colleague from Rhode Island, who has been a champion for us as it relates to changing the policy in Iraq and supporting our troops. This must be a ``Rhode Island moment'' because we have the distinguished junior Senator from Rhode Island presiding, of whom we are so proud. I see his senior colleague here as well. In conclusion, I paint a very bleak picture, a very frustrating picture, and we feel it every day. Nobody feels it more than our leader, who is laser focused on getting through all of this obstruction to get things done for the American people. But the good news is, in spite of 57 filibusters, we have gotten things done, and we will continue to get things done. It may take twice as long. It may take 100 filibusters, it may take 150 filibusters, but we are not going to stop because what is at stake is our American way of life. What is at stake is the ability for families to enjoy the American dream. We have raised the minimum wage for the first time in a decade for our families. We have made college more affordable by passing the largest student financial aid package since the GI bill. My dad went to school after World War II on the GI bill, and I know he would not have been able to go to school without it. I am proud that on our watch in this new majority we have put in place changes that will allow more young people to have that American dream, to be able to go to college, and to be able to come out of college without the kind of debt that weighs one down for years and years. We want to help them with that. We passed finally on our watch--and this happened quickly; it has not happened since 2001, but on our watch, we passed the 9/11 recommendations, to focus on the real threats, to keep us safe. I am proud of the fact that a provision I have been very involved in, making sure radios work, radio interoperability, has been included so we can support our police and firefighters, so they can talk to each other, so we do not have again a situation where brave first responders are running into buildings, running into towers they should have been running out of. We got that done. We passed a very important water resources bill that has been languishing here for years. Coming from a Great Lakes State, this is important to us. I commend Senator Boxer and all of those who worked, again, on a wonderful bipartisan basis--she and Senator Inhofe--in putting that bill together. In the Judiciary Committee, sometimes we do business that is not legislative, it is oversight. We have done a lot of oversight on Iraq policy, on no-bid contracts, on Blackwater, and private contracting, in many areas where there had been no oversight for years. Our people have aggressively, as chairs of the committees, been doing oversight. One area that has resulted in change that was needed were the hearings with the former Attorney General that focused on the fact that our U.S. attorneys did not have the independence they needed. They were being used politically. The change occurred when the Attorney General was forced to step down. We have made a major step forward in preserving the independence of the U.S. attorneys. There are numerous other issues I could mention, and I will not. Suffice to say, we are getting business done. We are getting results for middle-class Americans every day. Evidently, all of our hard- working results have raised a red flag down at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue. They said: Whoa, whoa, whoa, you are making too many good things happen, too many changes happen that families are going to like, that American people are going to like. We better slow this thing down. So now we are in a situation where even those efforts we have worked on in good faith on a bipartisan basis--that is what we do here. We cannot get anything done if we don't work together, people of good faith working together. Even those issues have been slowed down and stopped because it is felt now that the best thing to do is to make sure the Democrats cannot make any more positive changes happen so it is clear the differences in values and priorities among this administration and their supporters and the new majority. Fifty-seven filibusters and counting. The American people expect us to stop this situation. This needs to stop. Enough is enough. There is a lot of work to be done, serious work. The American people expect us to do it, and we are committed to getting it done. 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, first I thank you for your words regarding what we need to be doing on trade and what has happened regarding unfettered trade. Coming from the great State of Michigan, the manufacturing hub of this country and of the world over decades and decades, I could not agree more with what is happening in terms of jobs going overseas. I see it in the eyes of thousands, in fact, hundreds of thousands of people; 250,000 people in my State who have lost their jobs just since this President has taken office, people working hard every day who just want to make a living for their kids and know the pension they paid into is going to be there and health care and that they can send their kids to college and have all the things they wanted for their children, have the great American dream. They have watched that dream slip away for themselves and their families. I thank you for your words. I go another step in terms of what I think we need to be doing to support manufacturing here and a level playing field because, in addition to what has been said about Peru as one more trade agreement-- and I agree with that statement, ``one more trade agreement''--that is on the books without other provisions in place, there are certainly things that we can and need to be doing to support and encourage those manufacturing jobs in America. As I noted in the Finance Committee, as a member of the Finance Committee, the Peru free-trade agreement is a tough one for me in a sense that I know colleagues have worked very hard to bring in new language. My friend and colleague in the House, Congressman Rangel, and Senator Levin, certainly our chairman of the Finance Committee and the ranking member, have been working to have this agreement reflect our country's values when it comes to labor and environmental standards. The truth is, I wish we had had these kinds of standards in previous agreements. Getting the right words on paper is important, but unfortunately it is not enough to get them on paper. They are on paper in these agreements, but that is not enough when it comes to the families of my State and the people of America who want to make sure the American dream is available to them and their families. I would like to believe these words will translate into action. It is hard to be convinced we are going to enforce our trade laws when we just start from the basis that we have the smallest trade enforcement office of any industrialized country in the world. That gives an indication of the priority of enforcing trade laws compared to what is happening in other countries. We have more than 230 trade agreements on the books to enforce, and we have the smallest trade enforcement agency of any country in the industrialized world. It should be no surprise that there has been a huge increase in dangerous products coming across our borders and that more and more countries are testing the resolve of our trade laws and are, in fact, cheating on those trade laws. The administration has simply lost credibility with the American people. No one believes this administration will enforce current trade agreements. No one believes currency manipulation will stop and certainly that the administration will take any action. This is something I have been focused on now since coming to the Senate, and every year--every 6 months, in fact--we get a report from the Treasury Secretary: No action. Currency manipulation is not really happening or they don't mean it or they will do better in China if we trust them, and more and more jobs are going overseas because of that trade policy. No one believes unsafe imported products will be kept away from our children. No one believes at this time that this agreement will end up leveling the playing field on trade. No one believes that point because, unfortunately, based on past actions, it is not true. We have too many businesses that have faced patent violations and unfair pricing. We have seen small businesses in my State, as well as large, that make a product and have had a Chinese company come in and steal everything about that product, not only the patents, but the packaging, the directions on the package, and make the product for a small fraction of what it cost to actually make it. I have small businesses in my State that have stopped making products because they cannot afford the cost to fight the Chinese Government to stop the trade infringement. Those unfortunate incidents have meant people in my State have lost their jobs. I have one small business owner who makes hand trucks used to carry boxes and products, to move them around, who created one type of hand truck. It was stolen and produced by a Chinese company. This person could not afford to take action. He said to me: Where is my Government stepping in to help me? But he could not afford the $10,000 a month retainer of an attorney to try to figure out how to stop them, so he stopped making the product and 50 people in the northern Michigan town of Cadillac lost their jobs--50 people. For that town, that is a lot of people. In fact, anywhere, if you are 1 of those 50, that is a lot of people. We have too many dangerous products that have put our families and children in harm's way because foreign countries are not following the rules and our own country does not hold them accountable. We have too many American families sitting on waiting lists for training that they were promised by this Government, the Federal Government of America, that they would receive if they lost their job because of trade. We have a whole range of things that are not happening that have been promised. This is what the people of my State see, and I believe the American people see. They see unsafe products. They see illegal trade practices. They see lost jobs devastating communities, lowering the standard of living, loss of the middle class that has resulted from previous trade agreements that were not enforced and that were not fair. That is what they see. I simply cannot support another trade agreement until we get this right. I cannot support a trade agreement ahead of enforcing our trade laws, improving product safety, keeping our promises to working Americans, and ensuring a level playing field for businesses and workers, all of which are achievable if we make American businesses and American workers our priority. If we make that our priority, we can make the changes necessary so that trade works for us, rather than having it be a situation where instead of exporting our products, we are exporting our jobs. That is why the right words on paper just are not enough. We have to have the right trade agenda--a trade agenda that helps working families adjust and be able to thrive in a global economy because we are making more products and selling more products and creating more jobs here, one that is based on a sense of credible trade enforcement so other countries know we are serious about jobs and businesses in our country, and one, frankly, that lets other countries know we are serious about protecting our people as it relates to safety, which is also very important. In 2006, 1 year ago, 37,000 people in Michigan lost their jobs specifically and directly because of trade--37,000--but only 4,100 received any kind of trade adjustment help--training, the ability to go back to school to be able to get some assistance to be able to start a new career. That means 90 percent of the people who were affected, who lost their jobs, are not receiving funds that were promised under trade adjustment assistance because of various caps or the fact that we have not authorized that critical program. And just extending it is not enough. How do I tell 33,000 people who were told that the Federal Government would help them through this adjustment period, through training and increased investments and new jobs, how do I tell them that, in fact, 90 percent of the people in their same situation got no help whatsoever? Communities also need assistance. In Michigan, many communities have been devastated by the loss of a large plant or industrial facility. I will give one example, and this is very much about the race to the bottom, Mr. President. You spoke about it, and I speak about it all the time. When Electrolux, which makes refrigerators in Greenville, MI--a city of 8,000 people, with almost 3,000 of those people employed at this one plant--when they decided to pick up and go to Mexico where they could pay $1.57 an hour, with no health benefits, there was a huge effort that came about to be able to work with them to stay. The Governor came in, the mayor came in, and others, saying: We will help you refinance a plant. We will give you tax incentives. Tell us how we can help you to be able to be competitive, to be able to stay in Greenville, MI. I met with them on many occasions, asking: What can we do to partner with you to support you. The end analysis was that the State essentially said no taxes at all. We offered to help them build new plants, and none of it was enough because they said: You can't compete with $1.57 an hour and no health benefits. So this really is about whether we are going to compete down to a lower standard of living and lose the middle class and lose the American dream, or whether we are going to compete up. I believe if we compete up with a different trade agenda, a different broadly held agenda that will strengthen America, that we, in fact, can keep our jobs. But one piece of that is to make sure that when 2,700-plus people in Greenville, MI, or when a whole community is devastated by their largest employer leaving, that there is some assistance not only for the workers but the small businesses and for others there to help during the transition. In fact, we need to make sure we have a broader agenda that not only levels the playing field on trade, enforcing trade laws, having the right kind of trade policy, but that we are also addressing health care costs in this country, the largest cost for our businesses, and changing the way we fund health care, getting it off the back of business, and addressing other costs that are noncompetitive that we can address. Then we need to race like crazy on education and innovation. That is the race up, which we, the new majority, understand, as evidenced by our passing the largest financial aid package for college since the GI bill, by focusing and refocusing our efforts on math and science and technology investments. So there is a way to make this a race up. But it is not just passing one more trade bill, one more trade law, one more agreement, without addressing all of these other issues. One of the other big issues for us is currency manipulation. This is something I am pleased to say the Finance Committee has begun to address with a bill that has come out of committee. We have not had the opportunity to have that on the floor yet, to bring that up, but right now we are in a situation where, again, because of governmental policies, because of China specifically, where they can peg the value of their money, their currency, in a way so that when their products come into us, on top of paying 60 cents or a dollar an hour and not having health care costs and all the other things, they can undercut us and get up to a 40-percent discount on that product coming in. So when the President talked about Wal-Mart, when you look at the number of Chinese products and why they are lower, they also get a 40- percent discount on their price just from currency manipulation, which is illegal. So before we pass another trade agreement, why don't we fix that? Why don't we make sure we have the toughest possible policies that will stop the loss of jobs because of currency manipulation? We have also, among trade enforcement, the need to beef up our trade office. And I am very pleased Senator Lindsey Graham and I have been working on this now for some time to create a trade enforcement division, headed by a trade enforcement officer, an independent trade enforcement officer--we have called it a U.S. trade prosecutor--to be able to truly beef up our enforcement. I am pleased Senator Baucus and Senator Grassley, our leaders on finance, have put together a broader enforcement bill, which I support, and include many of our provisions and aspects of our bill in their bill. That needs to get done. And I know the chairman is committed to having that happen, and I am anxious to join him in moving that through so that we can truly have credibility in the world, with other countries; that we mean it when we say there is a trade agreement and we expect other people to follow the rules. But what do we see from the administration? There have been a couple of efforts, and I appreciate the few times they have moved forward to try to do something. There is an effort going on in auto parts now, but it is very little and it is very late, as we watch more and more jobs leaving this country. And I am very concerned, very disappointed when I see that this administration has not moved forward at all on any real action on currency manipulation or any number of trade enforcement issues. In fact, last week, the administration claimed victory for developing a voluntary agreement with China on illegal subsidies, an agreement that requires a great deal of trust with China. It is hard to understand they would continue to trust on a voluntary basis a country that has broken agreements and international policies over and over and over. Furthermore, haven't we learned our lesson with voluntary agreements? Like the one completed with South Korea that was intended to, in fact, allow us to open up more opportunities to make automobiles here and be able to sell them to South Korea. Two agreements, not one, two voluntary agreements, and the exact opposite happened with 700,000 vehicles now coming in from South Korea, and we are barely able to get 5,000 back in to them. So voluntary agreements in the past have not worked. And given how many jobs we are losing, today is not the time for another voluntary agreement. We need, in fact, to put our muscle behind tough enforcement processes. We are quickly losing our standard of living and our middle class in this country. There is a need for urgency that has not been there and is not there today with the administration. As a result of the trade policies we have in place now, we have an exploding trade deficit, which has increased from $380 billion in 2000 to $758 billion just last year. Since this administration has been in office, the trade deficit has more than doubled, and with it the number of dangerous products coming in, the number of layoffs, the number of waiting lists for people who need retraining, the number of businesses losing their patents, losing their products, and their ability to sell their products because of currency manipulation. That is the legacy of this administration. I don't believe it is a time to reward them with another trade agreement. Before we go any further in passing trade agreements, Mr. President, we have to get our trade policy right. Regardless of the specifics of the trade agreement, regardless of the words on paper, we better be able to back them up, and today we cannot. We haven't backed up words on paper. We can no longer say pass a trade agreement, we will fix it later, we will enforce it later, we will change it later, or we will help people later. We have to do these things now so we have credibility with the American people who are counting on us to fight for them and to understand that in the greatest country in the world, it is time to stand up for the middle class in this country, get our trade policy right, and stand up for the people who have worked hard to make this country great. Mr. President, I yield the floor.