Debbie Stabenow

Ms. STABENOW

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following my remarks, if Senator Domenici is on the Senate floor, he be the next to speak, and if he is not, Senator Salazar be the next to speak.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I rise to speak about the importance of the farm bill. I also wish to express the same deep concern about what is happening on process in the Senate, as so many of my colleagues and the majority leader have. This is the second week we have been trying to pass a food and energy security bill that is important for every community. The process that has gone on, frankly, since the beginning of the year, is one of delay, slow walking, and filibusters over and over again. Yesterday, I showed a chart that read ``52 filibusters so far this year.'' Tomorrow we have potentially three more votes to close off filibusters. One relates to funding on the war that is tied to a policy change the majority of Americans want to have happen to move our men and women out of the middle of a civil war, to refocus us instead on the critical areas of counterterrorism, training, support for Americans who remain, those things the majority of Americans want to see happen. We have to stop a filibuster on that tomorrow morning. We then have two votes potentially on stopping filibusters on the farm bill. So my ``52'' is, as of tomorrow, potentially 55 filibusters this year. We have never seen the level of filibustering that we have had in the current session of the Senate with our friends on the other side of the aisle. In spite of the slowdown, in spite of the blocking of efforts to vote on amendments and to get a farm bill done last week, in spite of efforts this week, I am proud to say that yesterday we were able to work together to pass a reauthorization of Head Start. This is something that was done on a bipartisan basis. It will go to the President. We expect him to sign it. It will increase standards for teachers and extend resources so more children can receive Head Start funding. Head Start is so important to prepare children for school, to give them a head start. It is a wonderful program that involves parents being a part of the effort of preschool education. Despite what as of tomorrow will be 55 filibusters this year, we once again have put forward something that is important to the American people--investing in our young children, getting them ready to go to school. The Head Start bill did pass. I am pleased it did. Concerning the farm bill that is in front of us, we have worked so hard together. We have a bill that came out of committee unanimously, a strong bipartisan effort to not only support traditional agricultural commodities but also to move us in new directions for the future. I am pleased, in addition to traditional farm programs that are supported in Michigan, that we were able to add support for the 50 percent of the crops grown that haven't been under the farm bill; specialty crops, fruits and vegetables are now a part of this farm bill. That is important. We have also tied that to a partnership to expand nutrition, a significant new program expansion--it is beyond a pilot--the chairman of the committee has let in on fresh fruits and vegetables as snacks in schools, rather than children going to a vending machine and getting soda pop or candy. There are many parts of this farm bill that focus on nutrition. In fact, most people will be surprised to know the majority of the farm bill, over 60 percent, is in fact focused on nutrition. We need to get this done. We need to get this done both for our growers as well as for children, seniors, food banks that receive help, farmers' markets, organic farmers. This is very important. We also in this farm bill have done something very significant--I notice our chairman from the Finance Committee on the floor who has led us in this, he and our ranking member--and that is creating a permanent disaster relief program as a part of the farm bill. I am very pleased that fruit and vegetable growers will be able to participate. We need to be able to respond quickly when there is a disaster--a flood, a drought, other kinds of disasters. We also have moved this farm bill more aggressively in the direction of alternative energy, alternative fuels, biofuels. This is important in getting us off gasoline, off oil, when we look at prices continuing to rise every day. It is also a way to create jobs. In Michigan, we are creating hundreds of jobs now, with thousands to come, from ethanol plants and biodiesel plants. As we move to cellulosic ethanol, we will be able to create new opportunities for my sugar beet growers and the folks up north who are involved in timber and wood products, as well as switchgrasses and other areas. This is important. It is time to get this done, alternative energy for the future, addressing our energy needs, supporting our farmers. I am proud also that American car companies within the next 3 years, by 2012, half of what they produce, half of what they manufacture will be flex-fuel vehicles, ethanol, other flex fuels. We need to get this farm bill done to be able to support that effort. Rural development is a critical part as well. I have small communities all over Michigan that would not have water and sewer projects if it was not for USDA rural development--another critical part of this bill. I would simply say we have seen now, since last week, delay after delay after delay on giving us the opportunity to move forward and get this farm bill done. Now is the time to do that. I hope tomorrow we will vote to stop filibustering, we will vote to proceed to a critical bill. Folks think the farm bill is only about rural communities, but all of us are impacted by every part of this farm bill. We need to get this done. It is time to get this done. I do not want to keep having to change this chart over and over again, although I fear I will, on how many times there is delay, how many times there is filibustering going on. We have a farm bill in front of us that needs to get done for all of us. It has been done in a truly bipartisan way. It has very broad support. Now is the time to get this done for our American farmers and our families. I yield the floor.

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

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I am very proud of the fact that one of the first things we did this year in addition to supporting our veterans was to pass the first minimum wage increase in 10 years for working Americans. An awful lot of those are moms with two children, three children, working one job, two jobs, three jobs, trying to hold things together for their family, working hard every day. I am proud we have passed that. I am proud we have also focused on middle-class Americans and the American dream of college and the opportunity to be able to get the skills that young people and people going back to school can receive in order to be able to work hard and be successful in our new global economy. We have passed the largest student financial aid program since the GI bill. I am very proud we have done that. We are getting results for middle-class Americans every day. On a bipartisan basis, we have also passed the America COMPETES Act, which redirects critical resources into math and science and technology for education as well as for research. I am very proud of the fact that despite the need to pass the 9/11 Commission recommendations, we have done that. Again, one of the early efforts by the new Democratic majority was to pass the 9/11 Commission recommendations to focus on critical needs, such as making radios work, so the police officers and firefighters in America can actually talk to each other and not be put in the same situation as they were on 9/11 where they were running into buildings they should have been running out of because they did not have the communications equipment that worked. We have focused on real security. We have focused, through the appropriations that we have passed, on our troops and their families, and I am very proud of that. We have also focused on important and long overdue and neglected water resources projects. And it is wonderful to see that not only was it passed on a bipartisan basis, but when the President vetoed the bill, we joined together to say yes to protecting our waters, when the President said no. So we are getting things done. We are getting things done every single day. We are putting the priorities of the American people first. In our budget, we have said veterans are at the top of the list, education funding opportunity is at the top of the list, and we also place children's health insurance at the top of the list. In this area, we have worked together in a wonderful bipartisan way. People are to be congratulated on both sides of the aisle for working together on children's health insurance. The President again said no. He has vetoed the bill. We are working hard, and we have the votes in the Senate to override the veto. We are working hard to get House Republican colleagues to join us so we can invest and cover 10 million children with health insurance. This is another example of where we have been pushing forward, changing the direction of this Congress, focusing on middle-class Americans, getting things done--trying to get things done over the objection of the President. Again, I have to go back to the whole question of the funding of the war: $12 billion a month on this war-- not paid for. To cover 10 million children in America with health insurance, it is $7 billion a year, and it is in our budget. We have fully paid for that. What kind of priorities has the President set, when he will veto children's health insurance and yet continue to ask for more and more dollars for this war? Everything we do around here is values and priorities, based on what we think is important, what we think the people who have sent us here think is important. The majority of Americans are saying this country is going in the wrong direction, that while people find themselves worried about whether they will have a job or whether it is going to go overseas or whether they will lose pay, lose income, while their health insurance premium goes up--if they even have health insurance--their gas prices go up, and college tuition is going up. They may find themselves in the situation where they cannot sell their homes due to the mortgage crisis or in a situation of foreclosure or in a sales situation where they are losing dollars. Middle-class Americans look around them and see a world, under this administration, for the last 6 years, of failed policies and priorities--a world that doesn't work for Americans, losing opportunities rather than gaining them, working harder and harder but seeing the American dream slip away for themselves and their families. We, as the new majority of the Senate, understand this, we get it. We are laser focused on what makes a difference to the American people every day. We are focused, and we will be coming forward with efforts to help with the mortgage crisis. I have legislation we will be bringing forward to make sure that when you lose your home to foreclosure or a short sale, you don't get a tax bill on top of that, which will happen now if your financial institution gives you any kind of a break on refinancing. You end up, with the value of the difference, paying taxes on it. We are going to make sure that doesn't happen. We are laser focused on getting the children's health insurance bill done, focusing on the right kind of trade policy that is fair for Americans--American workers and businesses. We are focused on strengthening our country, opportunity, valuing work, focusing on the things people care about every single day. When we get up in the morning and we are focused on what we want for our children and grandchildren, in order to be able to have a wonderful life, those are the things we have been bringing forward every single day. We will continue to do that. We are getting things done for middle-class America. That is our focus. We are getting things done. But I have to say, in conclusion, that this has not been easy. We have had 52 filibusters--which is unheard of in the Senate--in less than a year--52 filibusters that require us to get 60 votes to stop, including, I might add, on the war. We have a majority of Members of this body who want to end this strategy on the war, who have been willing to say we want to put a deadline on what is happening there and refocus on what will truly keep us safe. We have a majority of Members--an overwhelming majority--who supported Senator Webb's effort on troop readiness, to say to our troops who are being deployed, redeployed, and redeployed, we should follow the traditional policies of the military; if you have 12 or 15 months in combat in theater, you should get the same at home for rest, retraining, and the opportunity to see your family. We have the majority of Members who have voted to change this policy in Iraq, get us out of a civil war, bring our troops home, to have troop readiness policies that make sense; but we have had 52 filibusters, which is too many, stopping us from changing this war. This can go to 53, 54--we know it will keep going through the next year. But so will our focus. We are not going to stop. We are focused on getting things done. We are getting results for middle-class Americans, and we are going to continue to do that every single day. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I come to the floor because it is amazing to listen to my friends on the other side of the aisle lament what they view are things not getting done when, in fact, we are getting things done. The truth is, we have been operating this year with an extraordinary slowness on the other side of the aisle because, first of all, they have participated in 52 filibusters since the beginning of the year--52 filibusters, maybe 53 by the end of the week, every week now. This is unprecedented. It never happened before. It never happened before; to see the minority in the Senate obstruct, obstruct, obstruct with 52 different filibusters, trying to stop us from getting the people's business done. I find it so interesting and amazing when my colleagues lament that not more of the appropriations process is done. As the Presiding Officer knows, our colleagues, the previous majority, didn't do a budget at all last year--at all. We are moving through the process. Despite the continual slowdowns, the efforts to stop us from proceeding, we are moving ahead. But last year, our colleagues, who lament so passionately and who come to the floor every day, didn't even pass a budget. We came in in January to a new majority and had to clean up the mess, literally. There was no budget. We had to pass a budget just to get us through the end of the year, to be able to keep services for the American people going, and we did that. We did that. Also, during that process we put in place a few things along the way that we clearly put at the top of the list in terms of appropriations: Additional money for our veterans, clearly a priority for us; a Pell grant for our low-income students trying to go to college to have the American dream. We are now at a point where we have the budget, the appropriations process that we are working on for next year. We have seen nothing but efforts to slow that down, to veto it. Yesterday the President vetoed the part of the budget that focuses on health care, education for our people, health research into new cures for cancer. It focuses on diabetes and Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease, all of the areas where we hope to make breakthroughs to be able to save lives. The President vetoed that. The President says the slight increase for restoring cuts that the President and the Republicans have made in the last several years, in our efforts to restore those funds to get the priorities right and put us back on track for middle-class families, was too much. Eleven billion dollars invested in America is too much. Twelve billion dollars a month on a war--putting our men and women in the middle of harm's way in a civil war every day--is OK, and it is not paid for. The most important thing is we are losing lives, but it is outrageous that we are seeing $12 billion a month being spent. The President vetoed an investment in America yesterday that was less than 1 month in Iraq--an investment in our families, in our seniors, in our children, and in the future in terms of education and opportunity and research. He vetoed a bill that was, in fact, an effort to invest in America. I have to say, despite 52 filibusters, we are, as Democrats, working with colleagues, obviously. We don't get anything done unless it is on a bipartisan basis. We know that, and we do it every day. But the truth is, our majority is getting results for middle-class Americans every day. I am proud we have placed veterans at the top of our budget. We, for the first time, have listened. We, the new majority, have listened to the veterans of this country, the veterans organizations. We took their budget called the Independent Budget--the veterans budget--and made it our own so we would make sure our veterans were fully funded. We have addressed the concerns about Walter Reed and what happens when our veterans come home and get caught between the military health system and the VA system. Mr. President, I believe you are about to give me a high sign on the time. I ask unanimous consent for an additional 10 minutes.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, today I was pleased to introduce a Senate resolution recognizing November 14 as World Diabetes Day. I am also pleased to be joined by my colleagues, Senators Pete Domenici and Frank Lautenberg. Established in 1991 by the World Health Organization and the International Diabetes Federation, this day has been recognized annually as World Diabetes Day. Through World Diabetes Day, advocates worldwide can coordinate diabetes awareness activities and create a sense of urgency about this devastating disease. In almost every nation, diabetes is on the rise. In the United States, diabetes is the sixth leading cause of death by disease. Globally, diabetes is fourth. Diabetes currently affects 246 million people worldwide and is projected to affect 380 million by 2025. Last year, the United Nations passed landmark Resolution 61/225 recognizing diabetes as a chronic, debilitating, and costly disease. Each year, over 3.7 million people die due to diabetes. An even greater number die from cardiovascular disease exacerbated by diabetes- related lipid disorders. Every 10 seconds, two people develop diabetes and one person dies from diabetes-related causes. The prevalence of diabetes is increasing in Michigan--from 5.3 percent to 7.9 percent over the past 10 years. There are 1.3 million Michiganians who have diabetes or are prediabetic. Michigan has the seventh highest rate of diabetes in the Nation, and diabetes costs our State's economy $6 billion a year in health costs and lost productivity. Diabetes is the sixth leading cause of death in Michigan and the fourth leading cause of death among African-American females in Michigan. This year, the World Diabetes Day campaign will focus on the message that no child should die of diabetes.'' I take this goal very seriously. As a member of the Agriculture Committee, I am committed to ensuring our children have healthy options in their school meals. And I am working with Senator Domenici on reauthorizing the Special Diabetes Program. We can no longer ignore the growing incidence of diabetes. Instead, let us draw worldwide attention to prevention, access, and treatment. Finally, I am pleased to have letters of support from diabetes advocacy organizations. I ask unanimous consent that they be printed in the Record.

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, if Congress does not act soon, Medicare payments to physicians and health care professionals will be cut by 10 percent on January 1, 2008 as a result of the fatally flawed sustainable growth rate formula. This does not make any sense. While costs continue to increase, physicians will actually be paid less than they are paid today. While a 10 percent cut in 2008 is completely indefensible, it does not end there. When combined with the additional cuts required under current law through 2016, physician payment rates will be reduced by approximately 40 percent. What will be the result? Doctors will decrease the number of Medicare patients they accept, defer purchase of health information technology, and rural outreach services will be discontinued. The Medicare Program, which for more than 40 years has lifted countless seniors out of poverty, and has ensured access to necessary, affordable, quality medical care for our most vulnerable citizens, would be destabilized. The health of the nearly 42 million Americans who rely on Medicare would be threatened. Physicians are the foundation of the Medicare Program and our Nation's health care system and patients of all ages depend upon them for health care services. Every aspect of our health care system, from hospitals to rural health clinics, relies upon the skills and services of physicians. Yet, on average, physician payments in 2007 are below what they were in 2001. It defies common sense to think that payment rates that are lower today than they were 6 years ago will be enough to maintain the access to care our seniors need. Very simply put, the projected 2008--and beyond--payment cuts will place beneficiary's access to health care at risk. I am proud of the work that over 20,000 M.D.s and D.O.s in Michigan do, providing more than 1.4 million seniors and people with disabilities in Michigan with high-quality medical services under the Medicare Program. I want them to be able to continue to do that, but there is simply no way that can be expected unless we do something now about the payment system used to reimburse physicians for Medicare services. Physicians in Michigan will lose $670 million for the care of elderly and disabled patients over the next 2 years due to the 10 percent cut in Medicare payments for 2008 and the additional 5 percent cut in 2009. My physicians are looking at cuts of more than $10 billion by 2016 as a result of the SGR formula and 9 years of cuts. We certainly cannot expect that physicians can continue to provide the same level of care while their payments are cut $670 million over the next 2 years alone. Several studies and surveys have shown that payment cuts will result in physicians modifying their participation in the Medicare Program and limiting the number of new Medicare patients they treat. We also know from the studies that the lack of a predictable and equitable Medicare payment system encourages older physicians to retire, discourages younger physicians from entering specialties that predominately treat Medicare patients, and hinders investment in health information technology. In addition to the studies that have been conducted, and our own common sense, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, an independent Federal body established by Congress in 1997 to advise us on issues affecting the Medicare program, has been telling us since 2001 that the Medicare sustainable growth rate formula is a flawed, inequitable mechanism for controlling the volume of services and that it should be repealed. It is absolutely critical that ultimately Congress needs to enact a long-term solution to this issue. In the short term, we need to end the practice of dealing with the cuts on a yearly basis in a manner that results in deeper automatic physician payment reductions in future years. At a minimum, I believe we must pass legislation this year that provides physicians with 2 years of positive Medicare payment updates and do so in a way that does not add to the cost of eliminating the SGR. By providing 2 years of positive Medicare payment updates for physicians, we would avoid having to come back next year facing the same issue and would instead create the ability for Congress to develop a new, sustainable Medicare physician payment system. I thank Senator Baucus, the Senate Finance chairman, for his work on behalf of Medicare beneficiaries and physicians and I fully support his goal of providing a 2-year ``fix'' for physician payments in the package he develops in the coming month. I share his belief that ultimately we need to repeal the SGR and establish a Medicare physician payment system that will provide stable, positive payment updates to preserve Medicare beneficiaries' access to high-quality care for the long term. I hope we will be able to begin that process under his leadership next year.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, before my friend leaves the floor, I thank the distinguished Senator from Idaho for his leadership as we have worked together on specialty crop issues. This is an important bipartisan effort. We began focusing on it when we defined specialty crops in the Specialty Crop Competitiveness Act of 2004. We have now taken that definition and gone on to include, as he said, 50 percent of the cash receipts from the crops that had not been recognized fully in the farm bill. It has been my pleasure to work with him and see that we have been able to make this an important part of this farm bill for the future. I thank him and congratulate him. I rise to speak about the farm bill in front of us. It is an effort that has taken a tremendous amount of time, debate, and negotiation, a 2-day markup. We ended up passing it unanimously out of the Agriculture Committee, which is no small feat. I am pleased to have played a role in that process. A major reason for our success was our chairman, the distinguished Senator from Iowa, who has been so diligent from the beginning. He has had a vision about the future for agriculture, where we needed to go in alternative energy, conservation, fruits and vegetables, nutrition, as well as our traditional support for agriculture. I thank Chairman Harkin and our distinguished ranking member for their efforts together. We have put into place a farm bill for the future. I am very pleased we are doing that. Our needs are different than when the first farm bills came about. Energy independence, preserving and protecting the environment, making sure we have a nutritious supply of products to keep communities and families healthy are all areas covered in this new farm bill. I thank my dear friend and colleague, the chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Conrad, for his incredible leadership, putting all the numbers together. We have only a relatively small increase above the baseline in this farm bill, $8 billion. Contrary to what we are hearing from the administration, we are seeing a relatively small increase, fully paid for under the budget. Thanks to the work of Senator Conrad, we have a farm bill that is done in a fiscally responsible way. I thank the chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Baucus, for his extraordinary leadership. Serving on the Budget, Finance, and Agriculture Committees, I have to say we would not be here with a successful farm bill if it were not for Senator Baucus and the work he has done in providing revenues as well as a permanent disaster relief program, which is incredibly important. I also thank my staff for their hard work. We have been working for months and months on this farm bill, many late hours, some all- nighters. I thank Chris Adamo and Oliver Kim, who have done an extraordinary job on the nutrition pieces of this bill; Ilana Levinson; and my legislative director, Amanda Renteria. This new farm bill represents a progressive agricultural policy and a vision of the future. It focuses on and expands many new policies, such as specialty crops and renewable energy, conservation, nutrition, and rural development. When people think of Michigan, most of the time people think of automobiles and manufacturing. But in fact, the second largest industry in Michigan is agriculture. We have more diversity of crops than any other State other than California. This is a very important part of public policy for Michigan. It is about supporting our growers, about communities, the schoolchildren, seniors, and others who benefit from nutrition programs. It is also about jobs. In real ways, this is a bill that will create jobs in my State. We have everything from traditional commodities in Michigan, such as dairy and meat and pork and corn and sugar beets and soybeans. We are also proudly the national leaders in the production of numerous specialty crops--our fruits and vegetables, including blueberries, apples, cherries, asparagus, and celery. Michigan farmers are in need of a safety net for the crops they now grow, our program crops. But they also are asking us for a new set of policies, not payments, not direct payments, but a set of policies that will allow us to support fruit and vegetable growers who make up half of American agriculture. In addition to diverse farms and commodities, we also have expansive urban areas with strong interests in conserving our national resources, our land, our Great Lakes, expanding as well in our inner-city areas access for fresh fruits and vegetables through farmers markets and community gardens and school nutrition programs. Literally, for me, every single part of the farm bill is important and impacts someone in my State, whether they be involved directly in farming or not. Of course, as we sometimes don't think about, the farm bill does impact everybody, whether you have any part of agricultural production in your State or not because of what this means in food security, nutrition, and now focusing on other important areas such as alternative energy. I understand, as we debate this important farm bill, we will be continuing to talk about reforming farm policy. I know for many, the reforms that have passed in the Agriculture Committee--and we have put together very important reforms--as well as for me, do not go as far as I would like. But they do represent a very important first step in the right direction. There is a tremendous amount of reform in this legislation. It is important for us not to define reform as just changing direct payments. It is about changing the focus, expanding the focus toward the future, which is what this farm bill absolutely does. We have made progress on farm payment reform, but we have also put in place a new guide for the next 5 years in completely new farm policies, such as specialty crops, helping producers grow more and consumers to have more access to healthy foods. Energy is a very exciting part of this bill, the next economic opportunity for rural America, for our farmers. These new policies will create new jobs and new, clean, renewable energies. Conservation, again, is a major focus for our chairman, and I commend him for that. His leadership has brought us more than $4 billion in new investments in conservation that will help producers be the great stewards of the land they want to be. Again, the chairman, in his leadership on nutrition, has been extraordinary, expanding the food and nutrition program and providing more access to healthy foods. In fact, it is important to mention that roughly 66 percent of the farm bill is focused in some way on nutrition. That means this is truly a food security and nutrition bill for every American. It is also important to mention that we have included a focus on beginning and disadvantaged farmers, new policies in the conservation title, as our Presiding Officer has focused on in so many of the areas around conservation and supporting our farmers and family farmers. The credit title also helps new farmers and those sometimes wrongfully left out to provide for more conservation and more credit resources. We know we need a new generation of farmers to continue providing food security for our Nation. Let me speak about each of these areas briefly. The area of the farm bill we call specialty crops, what does that mean? We are talking about fruits, vegetables, horticulture, floriculture, dried nuts. We had defined those areas in 2004 in the farm bill. This is something I have been working on since coming to the Congress after the 1996 election, 4 years in the U.S. House on the Agriculture Committee, and now in the Senate. I remember when we first started talking about specialty crops and trying to find something in the farm bill that would directly support the 50 percent of the crops that are fruits and vegetables and other specialty crops. It was difficult to find much. But finally, after working together on a bipartisan basis and having wonderful support from the Agriculture Committee, we can honestly say we have placed specialty crops as a permanent part of the farm bill. This is incredibly important, particularly now when we look at the needs for nutrition, the needs of the future for our families, our children, our seniors, as we look at a world economy, where it is very important that we be supporting our own fruits and vegetable growers. There are 36 Members of the Senate who have come together, because we grow specialty crops in our States, and have supported the efforts. I thank each Member who has lent their voice in support and strength to this effort. We have over 120 different organizations that have been working now for several years to come together to get to this point. I thank all of them for their efforts as well. We have come a long way since the 2002 farm bill, when we were talking about trying to get some help with tree assistance or some basic nutrition programs. In 2004, we passed the Specialty Crop Competitiveness Act which defined specialty crops and for the first time gave us a policy from which to work. It laid the groundwork for the progress we have made in creating a specialty crop policy in the farm bill, including the centerpiece program such as specialty crop block grants. Today, for the first time, there is a significant package to help our growers who supply our healthy foods. This package is what I call a toolbox, not a direct payment. They have not asked for that, but they have asked for a variety of things to help them be successful and make fruits and vegetables available to our families. The toolbox includes competitive grant programs, research funds, increased protections from pests and disease, trade export promotions, various nutrition programs to help those in need, as well as a focus on our schoolchildren, assistance for organic farmers, a very important, growing part of agriculture, as well as important conservation payments. This multitude of policies offers real reform and is needed for a variety of reasons. It is also important to note the new disaster assistance program that has been put together accommodates specialty crops as well. There is approximately $1 billion of disaster relief for specialty crops included in the disaster relief program. It will expedite aid to producers after natural disasters for which farmers cannot plan. A critical part of this is new mandatory funding for the Tree Assistance Program. This is absolutely critical to our farmers who have orchards because our orchards--such as cherries and peaches and apples--are basically the assets. The trees are the assets for those farmers, and they are expensive assets that take years to yield profits. So being able to support those growers who have orchards and to be able to help them in a disaster is very important. It is important to note that specialty crop farmers are also very diverse. What is good for the Washington apple growers may not be the same for Michigan apple growers. Different diseases and challenges face different growers in different parts of the country. So policies such as the State-run block grants that we have included and competitive research grants are vital to help the over 200 different types of specialty crop farmers across the Nation be able to have assistance for their particular issue, their particular areas of concern. Second, fruits and vegetables are more susceptible to different pests and diseases. We must have the best inspection and rapid-response policies in place. Currently, the costs borne by the fruit and vegetable industry due to invasive species reaches over $1 billion a year. Our disease and pest policy will help prevent new invasive species as well as help mitigate them. This will help not only specialty crop growers but all our farmers as well as our forests. Third, just like our traditional row crops, such as corn and soybeans, we need a strong domestic supply of fruits and vegetables. Studies suggest that even if every person in this country tried to eat the five to nine servings of fruits and vegetables per day that are recommended by the Federal Government, our domestic growers would simply not be able to meet the demand. Fourth--and while speaking of domestic fruit and vegetable farmers-- this Nation currently imports $2.7 billion more than it exports in fruits and vegetables. So we need to ensure our safety and health and help our growers as they export as well. Finally, when we talk about specialty crops, we are really talking about eating in a healthier way. A better supply of fruits and vegetables means more access for more people to the things they need to be healthy and to prevent systemic disease in the future. Along with our focus on specialty crops is a real partnership with the portion of the farm bill that focuses on nutrition. This farm bill makes important strides in reducing hunger in our Nation and improving the nutritional health of our children. It makes a key link between our commodities--our fruits and vegetables--and health by recognizing the importance of fruits and vegetables in the new specialty crops provisions. The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine has applauded efforts to increase consumption of fruits and vegetables. They noted that HHS statistics have found that unhealthy eating and inactivity cause 310,000 to 580,000 deaths every year. In addition, in this Congress we have made our children's health a legislative priority. In addition to our fight for the Children's Health Insurance Program, we have expanded the successful Fruit and Vegetable Snack Program so that schools nationwide will be able to give children a healthy snack. Again, my hat goes off to our chairman, who placed the Fruit and Vegetable Program in the farm bill in the past as a pilot project. A lot of folks said: Well, even if you have a bowl of fruits--apples or other fresh fruits--and vegetables available in schools, the kids won't eat them; they will just go to the vending machine. Well, it turned out that was not true. It turned out that children loved having those apples and peaches and strawberries and plums and all of the other fruits available. Teachers across the country have been clamoring to expand this very successful Fruit and Vegetable Snack Program, and we have done that in this bill. In fact, with the passage of the farm bill, about 120,000 children in Michigan alone will have access to fresh fruits and vegetables through the snack program. This is a very important policy in terms of the future for our children. Making sure children eat right and understand good nutrition is, of course, critical for their long-term health. According to the New America Foundation's child development and youth well-being index, health indicators for children are on the decline mainly due to children's poor nutritional health and obesity. By helping our schools purchase healthy snacks, we can not only give children better food but also help guide their nutritional choices throughout their entire lives. Maybe if they pick up an apple or dried cherries--grown in Michigan, of course--rather than junk food, we will give them an opportunity for a healthier future. Additionally, the farm bill addresses hunger by making long overdue changes to the Food and Nutrition Program, formerly known as food stamps. Since 1996, the income standards for this program have been frozen--in other words, no increases. Food costs go up, inflation goes up, and there have been no increases. This has caused the purchasing power for families to decline as food costs and inflation have increased. In just one example, a 32-year-old single mom named Sonya, who lives in Michigan near my hometown of Lansing, has two children ages 12 and 13. She works two jobs. One pays $10.40 an hour, where she works 24 hours a week. The other one pays her $76 a day. She is working hard to hold things together for her family. She spends nearly $650 a month in daycare expenses, right now, for her children. But under current law, she cannot count the full value of her childcare costs when she applies for the Food and Nutrition Program. This cap on childcare is a huge incentive against working. The nutrition title will help Sonya and other families--and the vast majority of Food and Nutrition Program households are three-individual households like Sonya's--because it takes that cap off and will cover and count the costs of childcare for working moms. For example, a mother of three who works 35 hours a week at $9 an hour and pays $350 a month for childcare for a preschool-aged child would receive an additional $79 in food assistance for herself and her children. This is a huge difference. It may not sound like a lot of money, but it is a huge difference for families all across this country. We should be very proud of the fact that on a bipartisan basis we have placed these improvements in the bill. However, we still need to do a lot more, and I certainly support other efforts to do that. We still need to make improvements to the Commodity Supplemental Food Program. Unfortunately, our senior citizens, who make up the bulk of this program, the Commodity Supplemental Food Program, are eligible at a lower income threshold than are families. In other words, if you are a senior up to 130 percent of poverty, you can get help with food; for a family, it is 185 percent. There is really no reason to discriminate against senior citizens, and a number of organizations, including AARP, the National Commodity Supplemental Food Program Association, and America's Second Harvest, want to fix this program. I am working with the chairman to offer an amendment to do that. I mentioned a little earlier that this bill is also a job creator. This farm bill is creating new jobs as well as a cleaner environment-- both very important goals. The energy title will help bring forth a new rural economy. In Michigan's case, this is already happening, and we welcome the provisions of this bill. They are very important to us in Michigan. First, there are loans and loan guarantees for cellulosic ethanol refineries. In Michigan, we have interest from multiple companies to set up new cellulosic refineries. We have corn, sugar beets, switchgrass, and wood byproducts--timber--opportunities that can all be a part of the cellulosic equation. Again, I know the distinguished Presiding Officer has worked diligently in those areas. They are very important for the future of this country and certainly in my State will create jobs. Financing is needed in the early development of these projects, as we know, and these new policies will provide that missing link, which is so critical. Perhaps by the next farm bill we will see the fruits of our labor when we can truly say: Buy fuel from Middle America instead of the Middle East. Next, farmers need assistance to switch to these new energy crops and to produce renewable energies. New policies will provide technical assistance and resources to help producers convert to new crops that can produce ethanol and take advantage of their wastes by converting them into energy. An example of this is anaerobic digesters that our dairy farms can use to convert animal waste to energy. Not only is this a new source of income, but it also disposes of waste, therefore reducing pollution into the air and the water. Finally, I would like to highlight another program important to Michigan that has the potential to spur economic development while alleviating our dependence on foreign oil. A Community Wood Energy Program will help invest in projects looking to use more wood products to produce energy. With a State that is more than one-third forested, and paper mills are in the decline, this is a very valuable addition, from my perspective in Michigan. The energy title will go a long way toward a cleaner environment, but the conservation title in the farm bill is one of our most important environmental laws. Farmers are some of the best stewards of our land. We know that. They produce high-quality, safe, nutritious products while meeting strong environmental standards. Our addition of $4 billion in conservation funding this year is imperative to meet the growing demand of farmers who want to enroll in various conservation programs. These programs keep our air clean, farmland productive, spaces open, land open, wildlife thriving, and offer some of the best water quality protections. The conservation title is especially vital to our Great Lakes, North America's largest source of fresh water. Farm bill conservation programs have ensured that once-marginal Great Lakes farmland now filters sediment and erosion while providing millions of acres of high- quality wildlife habitat, which supports the local $18 billion hunting, fishing, and wildlife-watching industry in Michigan. Programs such as the Wetlands Reserve Program improve water quality and are essential to the continued health of the Great Lakes. These programs protect and restore wetlands that serve to filter pesticides, fertilizers, and sediment out of the water that millions of Great Lakes residents depend on for their drinking water as well as for swimming and bathing and just plain fun. And we invite everyone to come and be a part of the Great Lakes experience. I want to congratulate, again, Chairman Harkin and my colleagues on the committee for their commitment to a strong conservation title. In spite of the tight budget we have once again, conservation is a priority. I would like to take a moment to recognize changes in a program that I was very pleased to author as a part of this conservation title. The Great Lakes Basin Program for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control will be reauthorized for another 5 years under the current bill. This program has a proven track record of efficiently providing grant funding to local organizations and governments to prevent soil erosion in the Great Lakes region. I am pleased to have been able to add language to the farm bill to tie the Great Lakes Basin Program to the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration Strategy to Restore and Protect the Great Lakes. This will assist in accomplishing two of the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration Strategy's priority recommendations: first, targeting cleanup activities in severely polluted rural watersheds; secondly, restoring urban watersheds that have been degraded by development. The Great Lakes restoration strategy is really a comprehensive blueprint for restoring the Great Lakes. It was initiated following an Executive order which recognized the Great Lakes as a national treasure. The strategy was produced by a broad cross-section of people representing our local communities, the State and Federal Government-- truly a bipartisan effort--NGOs, tribes, and various stakeholders that came together. The strategy identifies reducing nonpoint source runoff from rural and urban areas as one of the top eight sets of priority recommendations necessary for restoring the health of the Great Lakes. This program will enable the region to initiate pilot projects consistent with these recommendations. I am very pleased this is part of the farm bill. Restoring the Great Lakes must be a national priority. A recent Brookings Institute study clearly showed that Great Lakes restoration is about more than environmental restoration; it is about protecting our way of life. Reducing soil erosion, sediment, and pollutants helps maintain a clean source of drinking water for over 42 million Americans and Canadians who depend on the Great Lakes. Decreasing nonpoint pollution in the Great Lakes reduces the damage caused to fish and wildlife habitat and will help protect a sport fishery that generates $4 billion a year. Reducing nonpoint pollution will reduce the costs of maintaining stormwater systems and the costs of dredging the harbors and marinas that are the economic backbone to the Great Lakes region's shipping capacity, in addition to a $1 billion recreational boating industry. This program ties a Great Lakes program with a proven track record to the implementation of a comprehensive strategy that, when fully implemented, will protect an international treasure for the next generations. I also want to acknowledge another important piece that I was pleased to author in the farm bill that is important to American producers. Current law clearly states that all purchases made--to the maximum extent practicable--with Federal funds for use in the National School Lunch and Breakfast programs should be domestic goods; in other words, American-made, American-grown. Congress has passed this law in multiple statutes and has repeatedly reinforced its support for the Buy American provision, and expects it to be implemented and enforced. Unfortunately, USDA has not adequately enforced the Buy American provisions in current law. This is another example of this administration's failure to enforce the laws on the books, and this time our growers and consumers are paying the price. The list of trade enforcement violations is growing, and today the United States has the weakest trade enforcement effort of any developed country. It is important we make sure that while the USDA buys only domestically grown food for schools, that we also make sure when the school programs themselves--the local programs--are purchasing, that they know this provision is in place.

Ms. STABENOW. Thank you very much. There is so much in the farm bill that it is difficult to have a short presentation. I am only touching on a few of the major areas. Let me conclude, though, by summarizing the Buy American provisions because, unfortunately, even this past July at a national school food conference, a food company marketed peaches that said ``peaches from China packed in Thailand,'' and I know we grow great peaches in the United States. So we want to make sure that as we are putting all of these provisions together to support American agriculture, that, in fact the USDA is doing everything possible not only to purchase themselves but to communicate with our school programs and other nutritional programs that we expect we will purchase from local growers, American growers first. We hope we will not have to say this again. We have put this in numerous bills. It is vital that we take this very seriously if we are going to, in fact, be supporting American growers. This provision--the Buy American amendment--matches the House-passed language, and I am hoping they will join us in making sure it is truly enforced at this time. As my statement shows, this farm bill is expansive. It is important to all parts of our country, our families, our communities. It is important in so many ways as we look for healthy foods and strong communities and jobs, preserving our land and our water. It has very important policies, traditional policies we have had for some time, coupled with new approaches for the future in alternative energy and other areas that are critical for the future of our country. I regret that the administration has indicated a possible veto of this bill. I hope, in fact, they will reconsider as we move along. This is an important bipartisan effort. A tremendous amount of work has gone into this. This is truly a farm bill for the future of the country. It is fiscally responsible. It is paid for. I am very hopeful that not only will we pass this with a strong bipartisan vote, but that the President will support this very important effort to support our growers, our farmers, our ranchers, as well as the food security of the United States. Thank you, Mr. President.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 2 minutes.

Ms. STABENOW. Two.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise to respond to what has become a regular drumbeat in this Chamber in terms of the distinguished Republican leader and those on the other side of the aisle talking about how we have not accomplished anything this year, how the budget has not gotten done. It is important to continually remember what we have been dealing with as the new majority coming into the Senate in January, laser focused on changing the direction and the priorities of the country, laser focused on getting things done for middle-class Americans who are counting on us, who feel squeezed on all sides and see prices increase on gasoline and health care and the cost of college, all those kinds of things that come down on Americans as they are working harder and harder every day, maybe facing the loss of a job or having lost a job, lower wages, and so on. Those are the folks we are fighting for every day and, I am proud to say, getting results. It is important to realize what has been happening since January. Despite all of the lamenting on the other side of the aisle about not getting things done, what we have seen are 52 Republican filibusters so far this year--unprecedented, the number of times we have had to vote to stop a filibuster. By the end of this week, it will be 53 or 54. It will continue right on, as there are efforts politically to stop what we are doing to change the direction of this country and focus on those things middle-class Americans care about every day and want to see fixed. In spite of that, we are, in fact, getting things done. One of the areas I am proudest of is our refocus in the budget on keeping our promises to veterans. We heard this morning that we need to pass a veterans budget. There is no question about it. There is no question about the fact that we not only need to, but we will. But we need to also remember that when we came in in January, last year's budget wasn't done yet. The previous majority didn't get the budget done at all in 2006. When we came in and were left, frankly, with a budget mess, we made sure that in the process of keeping the Government going, public services going for the balance of the year, we addressed veterans first and foremost by placing dollars into what is called a continuing resolution because we know our veterans have not been getting the resources they need, brave men and women coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan every day who have not been able to get the health care they need, too many caught in unfortunate bureaucracies. We heard about Walter Reed and those who are receiving military health care and then moving to the VA, and too many folks who are getting caught in that process and being hurt by the process. We have made veterans and keeping our promises to them and our military the highest priority. We addressed the issues that came up regarding Walter Reed and passed the Wounded Warrior provisions in the Department of Defense authorization that my senior colleague from Michigan, of whom we are so proud, Senator Carl Levin, helped lead. He led that, and we are making those changes. In the budget--and I am proud to be a member of the Budget Committee, which has made sure this has happened under our great leader from North Dakota, Senator Conrad--we have said for the first time we are going to fund veterans services at the level the veterans organizations say we need. We are going to use the numbers they recommend. We have seen consistently under this administration an underfunding of those things which are needed by our veterans coming home, the top of which has been health care, mental health services, and rehabilitative services. We, since January, have made veterans health care the top priority. I am proud of the fact that we have added dollars. We have addressed the system problems. We have looked at what we need to be doing for families, both of Active military as well as our veterans. We don't have any concern at all about standing up and saying that we have been putting our veterans first, despite filibuster after filibuster after filibuster. Anyone watching will see more this week. It seems to be the nature of things today. But we have increased the dollars, the resources, the commitment--keeping our promises to veterans. We have done that in the budget for next year. We have done that in the funding available now. It is part of our overall vision and commitment. We are getting results for middle-class Americans. That is what we are all about, the folks who are sending their children, husbands, and wives to the war to fight for our country, coming home, expecting us to keep the promises the country has made as it relates to veterans. We take that extremely seriously. We are keeping those promises as part of our efforts to get results for the American people. We intend to do that in this budget we will pass, that will go to the President, that will be historic in that it is keeping the promises to our veterans that they expect us to keep. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I have had the opportunity, similar to all my colleagues throughout the week and in previous times, to have heard on the floor the lament from the distinguished Republican leader of the Senate and other Republican colleagues about how they wished we had the appropriations bills done or how more should be done. I come to the floor today to talk about the reality of what is happening. We know, in politics, unfortunately, folks decide on a message and keep saying it over and over again, hoping in fact someone will believe it, even if it doesn't jibe with what the actual facts are. We also know, at the beginning of the year, folks all over this country--people working hard every day who care about their families and expect to have services that work and expect to have someone eyeing the fiscal situation in the country and challenging what is happening in the war and caring about their children and so on--looked for a new direction. They voted for a new direction for this country, a new set of priorities. People working hard every day want to know somebody is out there fighting for them. I am proud to say I am part of a group of people, a group of Democrats who understand that people are feeling squeezed on all sides--higher gas prices, higher health care costs, they are seeing tuition go up for their children, their jobs being threatened. In my home State of Michigan, we have 7.5 percent unemployment. People are losing jobs, they are losing incomes. People are looking around saying: Who is fighting for us? We play by the rules. We love our country. We send our husbands and wives and sons and daughters to defend our country. Who, in fact, is on our side, looking out for us and making sure the rules in this country create a way for everybody to work hard and succeed and, in fact, there is competency and integrity in Government? That is what we came into this year, in January. We came into this new year understanding, as a new majority, we are here to fight for middle-class Americans who work hard every day and those working hard to get into the middle class, those who want to have the American dream available for themselves and their families. People who believe right now our American way of life is slipping want us to fight for them. I am proud to say that is exactly what we have done. It has not been easy because our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, I understand, have lost the majority. Unfortunately, their political strategy is to try to stop us from actually making a difference in the lives of middle-class Americans, so when we get to the end of the term, they can say: See, there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans--when, in fact, we all know there are substantial differences in priorities, in views of America, and whose side we are on. As a strategy, we have seen filibuster after filibuster and something called ``cloture'' in the Senate which, to the average person, basically means we are seeing filibusters, a requirement for 60 votes rather than just a majority, which is how we should be operating under the democratic process. We have seen a historic number. Never before, in fact, have we seen, at this point in time, 52 filibusters--52 and counting. My guess is next week it will be 53 and 54 and 55 and 56 and go on and on in efforts to slow things down, efforts to slow down the new direction we believe in, that we are fighting for, to slow down those things that will make a real difference in the lives of Americans. We understand the strategy. We operate under this every week. We come to the floor and have to fight to get beyond a filibuster. I am proud to say we have done that. As we come to the end of our first year as a majority, we are, in fact, changing the direction of this country. We are, in fact, getting results for Americans, for middle-class Americans, who work hard every day and want somebody to be fighting for them, for an opportunity for them and their children to have the American dream. I am very proud of that, despite 52 filibusters. We have a leader who is tenacious, who is determined, who is smart-- who comes to the floor every day and spends his time trying to make sure we can stop the filibusters and refocus on getting results for middle-class Americans. That is what we have done. I wish to take a moment today to share some of the results we are getting. Is it slower than we would like? Yes, when you are trying to battle 52 filibusters, things are slower than we would like to have happen. But we are not going to stop because this is not about politics. This should not be about election year strategy. This is about people every day in this country who see the American dream slipping away from them, who are worried their children will not have the same opportunities for our great American life that we have had. They are saying to us we want you to go in and fight for us and the greatness of America. We want to make sure that opportunity is there for everybody. That is what America is all about. We are, in fact, getting results for middle-class Americans every single day, those folks who believe--and for good reason have believed for the past 6 years under this President and the former Congress--that nobody is looking out for them and the opportunities they need. We are, in fact, getting results for middle-class Americans. We started this year--it is amazing to me to hear colleagues speak about how there is not a budget so far, when in fact they didn't even do a budget at all last year, not at all. We got to the end of the year: No budget. So we came in as a new majority and we had to go back and clean things up from the previous majority. We had to go back, figure out a way to get a budget for the current year that was already going, that had already been in place for 3 or 4 months. We, in fact, did that, and we did a number of things in that process, in putting that budget together--even though it was a continuation budget for the rest of the year, to complete the business that had not been done in the last Congress. But we also did a few things in that process. We said, even though this is a short-term continuation budget, there are too many young people struggling to go to college, so we put in a Pell increase. We said, there are too many veterans who have served us proudly, who are coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan and don't have the health care they need, so we put in some additional dollars for veterans health care into that budget. We passed that continuation budget and then we went to work on the budget that, in fact, we are responsible for. After having done the work of our Republican colleagues, we put in place the budget we are now working on for this coming year. We did several things. We said: First of all, we know in the last 6 years we have seen record deficits mount. In 2001, when President Bush came into office, when I first became a member of the Budget Committee, we saw the largest budget surpluses in the history of the country. That was squandered and turned into the largest deficits, which affect Social Security, which jeopardize Medicare and puts incredible pressure on critical safety net issues and programs for Americans, for families, and for seniors. So we said we are going to stop the digging. We know there is a hole that has been created. We are going to stop the digging and start taking us out of that hole by being fiscally responsible. We put back in place something that was in place during President Clinton's years, which was to pay for spending. What a novel idea. That is something I try to teach my children, something we all should live by: Pay as you go; if you add something, you need to subtract something else to pay for it. So we said fiscal responsibility is important, and within that we put together a budget resolution that targeted those things middle-class Americans want to have us place as priorities: Education, No. 1; keeping our promise to our veterans, the second top priority; and children's health care, for moms and dads who are working hard every single day and could stay home and not work and qualify for Medicaid, but they choose to work. We value work. We as a party, we as a majority, value work and want to support work. Families working hard for minimum wage in low-wage jobs, who cannot afford insurance, who don't have it on the job, ought to at least know their children can get the health insurance they need. That is what we have been debating. That was a third priority for us, children's health care. Then we said we are going to go back and we are going to restore the cuts in police officers on the streets. Our families, our communities want to know that their children are safe, that their homes are safe, that they are safe. We restored the COPS--police officers and firefighters, those things that are fundamental in America--safety. We put together this budget resolution, and we are now in the process, despite filibuster after filibuster, to put the actual budget in place, the appropriations for next year. But we have also done other things, despite 52 filibusters. We have raised the minimum wage which has not been raised for close to 10 years. Those same families--who appreciate and need to know their children can get health insurance--have not had a raise in the minimum wage for about 10 years, so we raised the minimum wage. We then took a look at what we need to do in education and not only meeting the obligations and the promises of the laws put in place under Leave No Child Behind and the standards, but we said part of the American dream, a very important part, is being able to go to college. So we have passed, on a bipartisan basis, and the President signed it, and we are very grateful for that--we have passed the largest increase in aid for students going to college since the GI bill, the largest financial aid since the GI bill. We gave the second Pell grant increase this year--the second. We have done it twice now this year, to bring back the value of the Pell grant for low-income students. We have cut in half the rates for subsidized loans. We do not believe young people or older people who are going to school and getting the skills they need to compete in a global economy and make America stronger should be able--we do not believe they should come out with this huge debt that takes years and years and years to pay back. We want to help them, both on interest rates, and we made a number of changes that make that loan process more manageable. We have targeted teachers and are encouraging teachers teaching students with high achievement to receive extra support for going into math and science and other areas that are needed in certain parts of our communities. We have also put a loan forgiveness program in place. Bottom line, we have passed, and we, in fact, have said, education is important, and we have now done it, the largest increase in student financial aid since the GI bill. We also did something else on a bipartisan basis. We passed the America COMPETES Act, a major focus in investment. By the way, fully paid for, all of those things are fully paid for. A major investment in math and science and technology, both in terms of education and in terms of research--this was, again, bipartisan and something that we were proud to place as a priority for this Senate. So education is at the top of the list. We have passed cuts in taxes for small businesses as part of an effort to spur--we know the economy, the majority of the jobs, are created by small businesses. We want to support our small businesses and farmers as well as larger businesses. We have done that through various tax cuts. We have passed changes in the FDA to improve safety. We have passed a mental health parity bill to say mental health services should be available just as physical health services are available, through the health care system. If you have insurance, both should be available. We have reauthorized Head Start because we know education is not just about college, it is about children and whether they are prepared to start at the beginning of education. We have focused on Head Start. We know it is incredibly important that we keep us safe both at home and abroad. I am very proud of the fact that after years of trying, under the previous Congress, Democrats have been able to lead the effort to pass the 9/11 Commission recommendations. One area of major focus for me has been on making sure the radios work, making sure that police and fire and homeland security and the State departments can all communicate. We have addressed that and passed funding efforts to be able to focus on that. In addition, we have, as I mentioned earlier, focused on our veterans. It is shameful that we have not seen the resources put forth to support our veterans as they have been coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as our older veterans from other wars. We, as Democrats, have made that a top priority. I am very proud of that. I know in meeting with veterans organizations that they have worked closely with us. And for the first time--for the first time-- those veterans organizations have been listened to and have been a part of the process. We are funding the needed services in health care, rehabilitation, other areas, at the level that our veterans organizations have indicated we should be funding them. So we have veterans as a top priority. We are seeing changes. We have also addressed what happened at Walter Reed through the Wounded Warrior Act. I am so proud that my colleague, the senior Senator from Michigan, has led that effort to be able to focus on wounded warriors and those who get caught between the military system and the VA system. I will just mention a couple of other things because I could go on for a long time. There is a lot we have been getting done. Despite 52 filibusters and counting, there is a lot that we have been getting done, from ethics and lobbying reform, to help with the gulf coast revitalization, folks down in New Orleans and Mississippi, those areas that have been so devastated; reinvestment in our bridges and infrastructure; and our continuing effort to fight to change the direction in Iraq and to focus on counterterrorism and those things that will keep us safe. We have held the President accountable. The Attorney General position has changed because the political efforts going on in the Attorney General's Office were brought forward and publicized. The light of day was shone. In fact, the Attorney General was forced to step down because of the questions and bringing to light what was happening in that department. So there is a whole range of areas of accountability where tough questions have been asked about war profiteering, about other areas where we need to change the priorities of this Government to reflect what Americans are concerned about. People work too hard for their money. They want to know that public services work. They want to know that we are fiscally responsible. They want to know that we are focused on the things that directly affect them and their families. We have a great country. I am very proud to be part of a majority that understands what is happening in this country today; that we are in a fight for our way of life in a global economy. We want this to be a race up, through education, innovation, fair trade laws, changing the way we fund health care, supporting our businesses that want to stay in the United States and do business here and employ here. We do not want a race to the bottom, a strategy that has been used by this President and the former Congress, saying: If you only work for less, we can be competitive. If you only lose your health care and lose your pension, we can be competitive. We do not care about safety standards. We let lead toys in or we let toothpaste in or dog food in because we are not worried about our trade laws. Somehow we can be competitive if we lose our standard of living. We do not buy that. This caucus does not buy that. This Democratic Senate and House is fighting for our American way of life. We have placed the priorities of the middle-class Americans at the top of the list. They have had to wait too long for that to happen. And despite over and over again, filibuster after filibuster after filibuster to slow things down, with the determination, the tenacity of our Senate majority leader, and the support of our Members, we are getting results. We are getting results every day for middle-class Americans. We will not lose our focus. I do not care if there are another 50 filibusters or if there are another 100 filibusters, we are going to keep focused on those things that have created the American dream, that have created the greatest country in the world. We are going to make sure middle-class Americans know we are here fighting for those things they care about for their families. I yield the floor.

Ms. STABENOW

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

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Community Health Center Capital Investment Act. I also thank my colleague, Senator Thad Cochran of Mississippi, for joining me in sponsoring this critical legislation. Health centers in both our states are committed to serving more people, and our legislation will give them a little help to do just that. One of our most important investments in our health-care system is funding the Community Health Center program. According to the National Association of Community Health Centers, health centers provide comprehensive primary and preventive care to over 16 million people-- including nearly 7 million uninsured--each year in more than 6,000 urban and rural communities. One of my initial pledges when I first ran for the Senate was to increase the number of community health centers in Michigan. Since I became a Senator, there are new 15 community health centers or access points in Michigan. I am also so pleased to have had the support of so many of my colleagues in increasing funding for community health center grants. This year, 64 Senators signed the Stabenow-Bond funding request, and we were pleased that the Senate Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations bill will provide an additional $250 million increase for community health centers. This increased funding will help reach nearly 2 million people next year. But even as we provide assistance to community health centers for operations, we cannot forget their capital needs such as renovating older buildings, purchasing new equipment, and investing in health information technology. But in general, without specific authorization in Federal law, health centers cannot use current grant dollars for construction, modernization, or expansion of facilities. According to NACHC, one out of three health centers currently operates in buildings that are 30 years old or older. The average cost of a facility project is estimated to be $2.3 million. Many centers borrow funds for these purposes at rates that could be, and should be, lower. Kim Sibilsky, the executive director of the Michigan Primary Care Association, wrote me: ``The majority of Michigan's 34 community Health Center organizations were founded in the middle and late 1970s, and many of their 160 community-based sites are located in facilities that require renovation to meet the changing health care needs of their communities. More readily available renovation dollars will assist Michigan Health Centers in improving access to quality health care for Michigan residents.'' One simple solution would be granting access for community health centers to use the facility assistance programs at the Department of Housing and Urban Development. If health centers were able to access HUD's loan guarantee and mortgage insurance program through the Title XI Small Medical Group Facilities Program, they would have an important tool with which to address facility concerns. The legislation we are introducing today is a small clarification to the Title XI Program to ensure that health centers can obtain mortgage insurance under the program. But this small change will have a huge reward for our safety-net providers. It will allow them to lower the interest rate on the money they borrow, and therefore lower the cost of the project for the center. This savings will be translated directly to increased patient care. I ask unanimous consent that the letter of support be printed in the Record.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Community Health Center Capital Investment Act. I also thank my colleague, Senator Thad Cochran of Mississippi, for joining me in sponsoring this critical legislation. Health centers in both our states are committed to serving more people, and our legislation will give them a little help to do just that. One of our most important investments in our health-care system is funding the Community Health Center program. According to the National Association of Community Health Centers, health centers provide comprehensive primary and preventive care to over 16 million people-- including nearly 7 million uninsured--each year in more than 6,000 urban and rural communities. One of my initial pledges when I first ran for the Senate was to increase the number of community health centers in Michigan. Since I became a Senator, there are new 15 community health centers or access points in Michigan. I am also so pleased to have had the support of so many of my colleagues in increasing funding for community health center grants. This year, 64 Senators signed the Stabenow-Bond funding request, and we were pleased that the Senate Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations bill will provide an additional $250 million increase for community health centers. This increased funding will help reach nearly 2 million people next year. But even as we provide assistance to community health centers for operations, we cannot forget their capital needs such as renovating older buildings, purchasing new equipment, and investing in health information technology. But in general, without specific authorization in Federal law, health centers cannot use current grant dollars for construction, modernization, or expansion of facilities. According to NACHC, one out of three health centers currently operates in buildings that are 30 years old or older. The average cost of a facility project is estimated to be $2.3 million. Many centers borrow funds for these purposes at rates that could be, and should be, lower. Kim Sibilsky, the executive director of the Michigan Primary Care Association, wrote me: ``The majority of Michigan's 34 community Health Center organizations were founded in the middle and late 1970s, and many of their 160 community-based sites are located in facilities that require renovation to meet the changing health care needs of their communities. More readily available renovation dollars will assist Michigan Health Centers in improving access to quality health care for Michigan residents.'' One simple solution would be granting access for community health centers to use the facility assistance programs at the Department of Housing and Urban Development. If health centers were able to access HUD's loan guarantee and mortgage insurance program through the Title XI Small Medical Group Facilities Program, they would have an important tool with which to address facility concerns. The legislation we are introducing today is a small clarification to the Title XI Program to ensure that health centers can obtain mortgage insurance under the program. But this small change will have a huge reward for our safety-net providers. It will allow them to lower the interest rate on the money they borrow, and therefore lower the cost of the project for the center. This savings will be translated directly to increased patient care. I ask unanimous consent that the letter of support be printed in the Record.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise to engage in a colloquy with the distinguished senior Senator from Michigan and the distinguished chairman and ranking member of the Labor-HHS Appropriations Subcommittee. As this body debates this spending bill, I would like to start by thanking Senator Harkin, Senator Specter and the other members of the Senate Committee on Appropriations for supporting the Workforce Investment Act in this bill. The Workforce Investment Act is a critical program for workers across the country in need of training and education benefits. WIA brings essential resources to my home State of Michigan, where hundreds of workers are ready and willing to begin job-training programs that make them more employable for high wage, quality jobs. The House-passed Labor-HHS spending bill includes a $335 million rescission of WIA funds as proposed by the administration. This potential cut would devastate the various efforts in place to reinvigorate Michigan's economy and workforce right at the time when our Governor is making great strides towards the goal of doubling the number of workers trained for high-demand jobs in the State. In Michigan, we are using WIA dollars to create scholarships for workers who want to attend State colleges, we are counseling workers on skill development and the importance of furthering their education, and we are performing skill assessments that help workers decide what level of training they should pursue. All of these services need to be available to workers in my State. Michigan workers have been hit hard by layoffs and I am proud that the committee has decided to support workers in my State and in all States with the resources and benefits that they need so that they can continue to support their families. I hope to see this body continue to work towards full restitution of these funds in a final bill. It is the right thing to do for our Nation's workforce system.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, first of all, I commend my colleague from Missouri for her wonderful comments as it relates to health care. Also, as to the bill in front of us, I thank the distinguished Senator from Iowa for his passionate commitment to the right things as it relates to the values and priorities for our families: health care, education, and focusing on things that really matter to families every day. I specifically come to the floor, though, because we just saw a vote in the House of Representatives that was just completed regarding the children's health care legislation. Unfortunately, it fell short of the override we need to have happen in order to be able to provide health insurance for 10 million children in America--10 million children of working families who are working very hard. They don't want to be on public assistance and Medicaid so that their children can get coverage; they want to work. They are working, but they are not in a position to be able to afford private health care coverage and they don't have it at work. So we are, through the children's health care program, rewarding work and rewarding the families of America who want to make sure their children have health insurance. It is my understanding that there was just a vote that fell short. There were 273 colleagues in the House of Representatives--and I commend every one of them. All of those who have worked so hard on both sides of the aisle in the House and the Senate should be commended again. Certainly, our leader, Senator Reid, the Speaker, Senator Baucus, Senator Grassley, Senator Rockefeller, Senator Hatch--all of our bipartisan colleagues should be thanked for their efforts one more time. I come to the floor to say that we are not done. We are not done. The people of this country are appalled at the lack of understanding of what average families are going through today. This President will be shortly asking us to approve another $200 billion for the war in Iraq-- that will be paid for by our children, by the way, because it is not paid for; it goes on the national deficit, so our children and grandchildren will be paying for it--but says no to a program that is fully paid for, that invests $7 billion a year in making sure the children of America have health insurance. Seven billion dollars versus $200 billion, on top of another half a trillion dollars that has already been spent, on a war the American people want to stop as it is currently constituted. They want to change that mission and focus on things that will certainly keep us safer. So I come to the floor to, first of all, commend everyone who has been involved to this point. I am very proud to be a member of the Finance Committee, where we worked very hard to put together a bipartisan agreement. But we are not done. This is a mainstream program supported by the broadest possible coalition you could have, from the business community and the large pharmaceutical companies to Families USA and to organized labor and child advocates and health care organizations. This is mainstream. This is the broadest possible coalition. Unfortunately, I regret to say it has been defeated by misinformation presented by folks who think that if they repeat long enough that somehow this covers people making $83,000 a year or repeat long enough that illegal immigrants are covered, that it somehow makes it true. Now, as the distinguished Chair knows, even in looking at the issue of documented or undocumented immigrants, even those who are here legally were asked to--were basically put in a position not to be able to receive children's health care help. So to be able to address all of this misinformation that is out there, there is a real issue about that which needs to be fixed. So we have seen lack of information, misinformation, and more that has gone on with this proposal. In the short term, it seems to have worked, but it will not work in the long run because the reality is this is the right thing to do. It was passed 10 years ago by a Democratic President and a Republican Congress. I remember that debate. I was in the House of Representatives at the time in 1997. This was a positive step forward to support families working hard every day, trying to make sure they can put food on the table, pay the mortgage, buy the school clothes, and then have children's health care, have health care for their children, maybe be able to take them to the dentist so they don't end up with an abscessed tooth and the outrageous situation that happened with a child who died whom we all read about in the paper. This is about moral values, priorities. When this President now comes to us asking for another $200 billion for a war that is not paid for, that is putting brave American men and women in the middle of a civil war in Iraq every day, I want to have him answer the question: Why? Why, Mr. President, is it all right to add $200 billion more to the debt and ask our children and grandchildren to pay for it, yet you are not willing to stand with the children of America, 10 million children in America who are counting on us to be able to make sure they can get basic health care? There is something fundamentally wrong with this. I urge colleagues to join with us. We are not going to stop until this is addressed because it is the right thing to do from a moral standpoint, and from a fiscal standpoint it is the right thing to do. When children can't go to the doctor, their family can only use the emergency room or the child gets sicker than they otherwise would because they only have the emergency room to go to. They can't go to a doctor. The hospital pays, and then who picks up the tab? Every business that has health insurance. So from a practical economic standpoint, it makes sense. Certainly from a moral standpoint, it makes sense. I think this is one of the proudest moments we have had in the Senate, of people of diverse backgrounds and philosophies coming together, putting the ideology at the door, and saying: You know what, this is about children. I don't know how many times I heard the chairman of the Finance Committee, the distinguished chairman, say: This is about the kids. Just keep focused on the kids. And because we did that in this Chamber, we came up with something we can all be very proud of. The American people want to know that we reward work in this country and that we understand that families who are desperately concerned about health care for their children ought to be able to have a right to be able to purchase an affordable policy that will allow them to have their children get the health care they need. So I appreciate our distinguished chairman of the Appropriations subcommittee allowing me to speak. I am deeply disappointed, along with people all across America, at the vote that just happened. But we are not done. Ten million children and their families are counting on us, and we are not going to stop until they have the health care they need. I yield the floor.

Ms. STABENOW. I thank the distinguished chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I commend the leadership of Senator Mikulski in ensuring appropriate funding for the many critical activities under the auspices of the Commerce, Justice, and Science spending bill. I also commend my colleagues, Senators Whitehouse and Kennedy, for their leadership in the critically important arena of health information technology, IT. Without their diligent work, the promises of health IT to reduce costs and improve quality of care would be very distant indeed. Even with their dedication and that of many other colleagues, we have our work set out for us as we seek to accelerate the adoption of health IT. The Democratic steering committee heard yesterday from leaders on all aspects of health information technology--representing consumers, health care providers, business, insurers, labor, and others. All share an appreciation for what health IT can do to manage costs and ensure that patients get the care they need, at the right time, and in the best setting. Yet they also expressed a shared sense of the need for Federal leadership and legislation to remove barriers to the adoption of health IT. These barriers include a misalignment of incentives and inadequate funding, the lack of standards adoption, and privacy and security concerns. Some of these barriers are large and will take all of us working together to find solutions. I am committed to doing so and look forward to working with my colleagues this Congress toward that goal. There are also some barriers that should be easy to remove, and we must do so this year. One of those is the current U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, DEA, prohibition on the electronic transmission of prescriptions for controlled substances, schedules II-V. We know that e-prescribing saves lives, prevents injury, improves patient care outcomes, is more efficient, and saves health care dollars. One amazing statistic: According to the Center for Information Technology Leadership, CITL, e-prescribing systems with a network connection to pharmacy and advanced decision support capabilities can help avoid more than 2 million adverse drug events, ADEs, annually-- 130,000 of which are life-threatening. It is important to note that some of the most dangerous drug interactions can occur with and between controlled substances. Preventing them from being processed electronically also prevents a physician's ability to do a computer drug interaction check to avoid what could be a fatal interaction. Additionally, although the schedule II-V drugs account for only 12 to 15 percent of all prescriptions, the prohibition affects a much larger percentage of prescriptions for a very simple reason: of the relatively small number of physicians who have tried to move to electronic prescribing, some are giving it up entirely because they are prohibited from using it for all drugs. Physicians need to be able to use one means to write all prescriptions. If they must shift from electronic to paper depending on the patient or depending on which drug a particular patient needs, the confusion and extra time become too large a barrier to electronic prescribing. The result is a return to paper prescribing, and increased costs, increased errors, and worse health outcomes. The prohibition on e-prescribing of controlled substances not only has a ripple effect in that it deters e-prescribing of all medicines, but it may deter adoption of electronic medical records in general. Electronic prescribing is the first step to adoption of full electronic medical records; if doctors can't efficiently adopt the process of writing prescriptions electronically, they are less likely to adopt electronic medical records. The widespread adoption of electronic medical records could save up to $100 billion annually. Given the fact that health care will soon consume 20 percent of our country's gross domestic product, and yet we have 47 million uninsured Americans and the highest infant mortality and lowest life expectancy of any other industrialized nation, we must do whatever we can to encourage adoption of electronic prescribing and electronic medical records, not keep in place policies that deter adoption. I understand and appreciate that the DEA has a very important law enforcement function and needs to have the tools to enforce the laws and prosecute law breakers. However, electronic prescribing is not a barrier to that. The systems that have been used for years to transmit prescriptions electronically are secure and auditable. In fact, electronic prescribing will not only help enforcement but will create new opportunities to prevent abuse of controlled substances. Existing e-prescribing processes are actually more secure than written prescriptions. Banking transactions have been conducted for years electronically, and authorities have been able to prosecute people who misuse the technology. I am confident we can do the same with respect to any misuse regarding controlled substances. I know that the DEA has acknowledged that e-prescribing offers many benefits and has considered ways to allow the electronic transmission of controlled substance prescriptions. And I know that DEA and Health and Human Services held a public meeting last year to begin to address this issue. That was a great first step, but progress has been very slow and now we need to solve this problem in a way that realizes the benefits of health IT, is secure, scalable within the industry, and that protects the DEA's interests. One relatively easy fix may be to simply amend the Controlled Substances Act to permit electronic prescribing. There may be other ways to address the problem, and I am open to discussing those. What is critical is that we find a way to allow e-prescribing for all medications soon--every day we delay, the cost in dollars and lives grows. We need incentives to encourage adoption of e-prescribing, not roadblocks to adoption. Increased use of electronic prescribing will increase patient compliance, improve health outcomes, reduce medication errors, and reduce health care costs. It is my sense that DEA should not invest additional resources in pursuing plans to allow e-prescribing of controlled substances through measures that are unnecessarily high in cost and complexity. I join my colleagues in urging DEA to quickly adopt rules allowing electronic prescribing of controlled substances that rely on the high level of security built into the existing e-prescribing infrastructure and are deemed workable by all stakeholders. Absent a timely adoption of such DEA rules, I look forward to working with my colleagues to find a solution to the prohibition on electronic prescribing of certain medicines this year. Mr. President, I see the chairman of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions is here, and I would appreciate his comments on this issue.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Before the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts leaves the floor, I thank him for his leadership in so many areas but none more important than advocating for health care and for the children of this country. As he has said numerous times, we are spending $330 million a day in Iraq and we have come together in a bipartisan way to say children should be receiving $19 million for health care; $19 million for children's health care in the United States for working families versus $330 million for Iraq. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for his voice. There is no one stronger or more passionate or more effective on this issue. Also, before speaking further about health care, I thank our leaders on this very important appropriations bill in front of us, our Commerce-Justice-Science bill which Senator Mikulski has led so effectively, along with her ranking member, Senator Shelby. When we talk about changing the direction of the priorities of this country, this particular appropriations bill does that. Under the leadership of the chairwoman, we are investing in community policing, we are beefing up the FBI, we are dealing with drug enforcement, we are doing those things to keep our communities safe every day. I am very proud to support her efforts in changing the direction of this country, to focus, among other things, on keeping Americans safe and investing in science and research and opportunities for jobs for the future. Health Care Reform I particularly come to the floor today to speak about affordable, accessible health care--quality health care for Americans. Access to affordable health care is one of the most critical issues facing families of America, facing businesses of America. There is not a meeting I go to--whether it is with seniors, with families, with those advocating for children, with small businesses, big businesses--the No. 1 issue folks want to talk about is the skyrocketing cost of health care, health insurance premiums going up, and the difficulty in getting health insurance. They want us to come together, our Federal Government, our Congress, our President, and find a solution to something that is a national crisis. Health care should not be a commodity. It should not be just an issue. It is a public issue, a public service, a public health issue. We are all paying the price for not having addressed this sooner. According to a recent study by ``Families USA,'' approximately 90 million Americans have gone without health insurance for all or part of the last 2 years. These numbers are even higher than we had thought. Certainly in my home State of Michigan, where we are seeing the middle- class families across Michigan being squeezed on all sides--folks who have worked in manufacturing and continue to work in manufacturing, the industries that created the middle class of this country--they find themselves being squeezed, being asked to take less pay in order to continue to have health care for themselves and their families; more and more people falling into the category of those losing their jobs, therefore losing their health insurance. What is most amazing and important for us to understand, of the 90 million people who have not been able to get health insurance for all or part of the last 2 years, 70 percent of them are working full time. This is a crisis and it is not acceptable in the greatest country in the world. To add insult to injury, we in America pay twice as much of our GDP for health care as any other industrialized country. We are paying twice as much, and 90 million people in the last 2 years were without health insurance for part or all of that time. This has to change. It is long past needing to change. This has to change soon. That is why I am so pleased to be joining a bipartisan group of Senators in making a commitment to universal health coverage. I am very proud to be cosponsoring the Healthy Americans Act, which has been championed by Ron Wyden, my friend and colleague from Oregon, and his partner, Senator Bennett from Utah. It is important that we tackle this issue in a bipartisan way so both parties, so all of us, are invested in making the changes we need to make the health care system work for everybody, for all Americans--for our businesses, for our families, individuals, small towns, big cities. We have to get a handle on this. I am so appreciative of the focus and the leadership Senator Wyden is providing, in bringing all of us together to do that. There is a sense of urgency that is needed and we are coming together to provide that sense of urgency, to say we hear it from those around the country and we are rolling up our sleeves and getting to work. This legislation is a good place for us to start, for us to develop a real solution to the health care crisis. The bill's main goal is making sure each American gets health insurance that is equal at least to what every Member of Congress gets. I would think as employees of the American people, the employer should be asking for nothing less. It creates a strong insurance regulatory system that protects families against discrimination based on preexisting conditions. This is absolutely critical. If we are talking about a universal system that is privately administered, then you cannot have insurance companies cherry picking, covering only certain people, saying if you have some kind of a preexisting condition, you cannot get insurance. That is not going to work and this bill changes that. It is critical that there be accountability and oversight and the regulation that is needed to make sure everyone can afford to get the insurance they need for themselves and their families. This is the goal all of us as Members of the Senate should be behind. I do understand this is a work in progress. I come to this bill with important improvements that I believe need to be done in order for me to ultimately support a final bill. As the process moves forward, it is important that certain critical improvements be made, such as people who currently have good insurance plans and want to keep them should be able to do so. We should not do anything to undermine employer- sponsored health insurance for those who choose to keep it. Second, and this is so important, we are seeing with so many people in Michigan now, and others in the auto industry, any voluntary employee benefit association, or so-called VEBA, that results from a collective bargaining agreement must get the same tax treatment they do under current law. Three, I believe there should be a choice of a public plan for health insurance, such as Medicare, to compete with private sector plans. When we are talking about a choice of private plans or keeping what you have, we should also add to that a public choice, so people have real competition and real choice. That is something I am advocating for. I mentioned earlier that we need to make sure whatever is done involves the best possible consumer protections; that whatever we are doing in terms of private sector insurance, they should need to take allcomers. They should not be able to pick and choose who gets insurance based on preexisting conditions. There are other important regulatory mechanisms that need to be in place. Finally, it is critical that there be a real safety net for low- income families who are now on Medicaid or similar programs. I strongly believe we cannot keep the status quo when it comes to health care. We cannot do it anymore. We cannot do it. It is affecting every part of our economy. Rapidly growing health care costs are literally costing us jobs in America. When we look at good-paying manufacturing jobs in this country, I invite you to come to Michigan and talk to people who have worked hard all their lives, who have built a good life for their family, who are now, because of health care costs, losing their jobs. American businesses are at a serious disadvantage in competing with businesses around the world that do not have to pay the same costs for health care. Our workers are being asked to take pay cuts in order to keep their coverage. Too many Americans find themselves without basic health insurance in the greatest country in the world. Shame on us. It is time to get this right. It is past time for every American to have access to the health care they need and deserve. Let me say as part of that, we have shown what we can do as a Senate, in a bipartisan way, when we come together and we have a focus on the goal of covering children and working families with health insurance. Despite the President's veto, which is, to me, unexplainable, given the overwhelming need and support of American families, and even from business and labor, and health care providers coming together on a bipartisan basis here, it is mind boggling to me that the President would veto that bill. We have shown what we can do together. I am so pleased to be working with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, as well as with Senator Wyden, certainly Senator Bennett, but I want to particularly say I am proud to be coming to this process and this legislation at the same time as my good friend, Senator Chuck Grassley, who has shown such courage. He and Senator Hatch are heroes in terms of advocating for children's health care and showing the courage to stand up to their President. It is not an easy thing to do. But to stand up and tell the truth, to debunk what has been said as inaccurate, it is something that truly everyone in this Chamber and around the country respects and admires. Coming to this legislation with Senator Grassley is also something that is important to me. I believe in addition to making sure that 10 million children have health insurance they need, it is time to then take the next step--universal health care for every person in America. I believe health care should be a right in the United States of America, not a privilege. It is time to get this done. I am hopeful this legislation will serve as a starting point for Democrats and Republicans to accomplish what the vast majority of Americans want: to be able to afford good health insurance for themselves and their families. I yield the floor.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I would ask for a moment before making that final decision to talk to the chairman about an amendment. It is the amendment you have in front of you, but I came down to speak to the chairman about that. So I wonder if we might take a moment to consider the Sessions amendment and allow me to have just a moment before that decision is made.