Debbie Stabenow

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I first thank our chairman of the committee for his passion in caring for children, always keeping us focused as we brought together a bill that truly is a compromise in the best sense of the word. It is as we should be doing in the Senate, coming together with a number of perspectives and coming up with a final product. I thank the chairman for leading us in that effort and working with the ranking member. Together they have been a great team on this legislation. The chairman has constantly said to us: It is about the children. It is about the children. Keeping us focused on what this is really about will allow us to come together in a very strong bipartisan vote for a very important bill. I also thank Senator Rockefeller for his passion in caring about children and his leadership in creating the children's health program. He and Senator Hatch have been a critical part of getting us to this point as well. This is a step forward, and as with any compromise, it always involves give and take. I come from a State that has received 1 of the 15 waivers to cover some adults in our State. That is being phased out. That is not my first preference, but it is a compromise. It is a way to recognize this is a children's health program, and we are all coming together and coming to the middle to work together to get a product that the vast majority of the Senate can support. We are talking about a program for uninsured children, 78 percent of whom live in working families. So we are talking about moms and dads who are working one minimum wage job, maybe two, maybe three to make ends meet. We have helped that family by passing an increase in the minimum wage. This second piece for families who are working very hard, who care about their families and want to make sure their children have the health care they need, is very critical to supporting working families. That is really what the Children's Health Insurance Program is all about. In Michigan, according to the University of Michigan, the number of uninsured children in our State grew by 7 percent just in 4 years, between 2000 and 2004. At the same time, we have seen employer-based coverage cut back and more and more families paying more and more of the health care bill and more and more families, as well, relying on Medicaid. Last year in Michigan, MIChild, which is the children's health program, one-third of the children relied on MIChild or Medicaid for health coverage. One-third of all the children in Michigan in a State of 9 million people were relying on the support of this program and other public programs under Medicaid to have the health care they need. Again, three-quarters of these children came from a home with at least one working parent. So this is very much a program for families who are working hard to make ends meet, families who go to bed at night and don't want to have to say a prayer that their kids don't get sick during the night or the next day. This allows families to have the integrity of work and know that their children are able to receive the care they need. It is also very important to point out the fact that this is very much about rural families in Michigan and around the country, not just urban families. Certainly, we care about urban children, but we know that in Michigan, the fact is, the majority of dollars are going to rural communities. Thirty-two percent of all rural children receive our children's health care program or Medicaid, 32 percent as compared to 26 percent. So this is very important for children in every part of Michigan, as well as the country. Because of the importance of the children's health program for so many families, I urge my colleagues not to listen to the negative attacks on this carefully crafted compromise as we move forward. There are always challenges drafting a standard 5-year reauthorization and fitting it into a budget window. In this Congress, we have or will address several other 5-year reauthorizations: the farm bill, FDA prescription drug user fees, the Trade Adjustment Assistance Act, and the ``Leave No Child Behind'' education bill. As a member of the Budget Committee, I remind my colleagues of the problems in advancing the administration's proposal for reauthorizing the children's health program. The Senate, in a bipartisan vote, rejected this proposal. The President's fiscal year 2008 budget proposed less than half of the funding needed for states to cover existing children, let alone to make progress in covering more uninsured low-income children. This would be a step backwards for our children. Under the President's budget, the number of States facing shortfalls in 2012 would increase to 46. Enrollment of children and pregnant women over the course of a year would fall by 1.6 million by 2012. This is not acceptable. We have a chance before us to make a real difference in the lives of millions of children, many of whom are in working families. We all made compromises on moving CHIP forward. For example, I want to work out something that keeps my State whole, but I recognize the need to continue to work in the bipartisan spirit that created CHIP in the first place. I know some of my colleagues want to debate a whole other set of options. We should have a full debate on health care, but this is the opportunity to cover more children. We are eager to tackle many pressing issues, especially a plan for small businesses. But the Children's Health Insurance Program expires at the end of September. Right now, we must focus our energy on reauthorizing this successful program. Let us remember the bipartisan spirit that created this great program for our Nation's children. CHIP is a great success story that we can all be proud of. I know my time is up, my short 5 minutes are up. I again urge all my colleagues to join us in what truly is a wonderful, bipartisan effort to cover children with health care in the United States.

Ms. STABENOW

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

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, this amendment is very clear. It reaffirms that illegal immigrants cannot and will not receive Social Security benefits. It focuses the Attorney General to strongly and vigorously enforce this provision, and it focuses enforcement efforts against those who are here illegally, not American citizens who are naturalized and here legally. Unfortunately, whether intended or not, the Ensign amendment would threaten the Social Security benefits of millions of Americans. It makes no sense. We need to focus the Attorney General on those who are here illegally, and make it very clear that no one who is here illegally can receive Social Security benefits, period.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I send a second-degree amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Thank you, Mr. President. At this 3 o'clock hour in the morning, I think it is important to refocus on exactly what the vote will be in the morning as it relates to the issue in front of us, the Levin-Reed amendment. First, let me do this. Let me thank Senator Snowe, who was here a moment ago, for her eloquence and her courage in laying out the facts, and for her thoughtfulness. I wish to thank our Senate majority leader, Senator Reid, who has been laser focused on what, in fact, we need to be doing to change the course in Iraq based on the facts, based on the iron will of the American people. I appreciate all he has done to keep us focused on this critical issue of our time. I also thank Senator Carl Levin, my senior Senator from Michigan. We are very proud of him in Michigan for all he does, advocating for our troops and for a foreign policy and an armed services policy that makes sense for our country, for all of us. I thank Senators Levin and Jack Reed for introducing an amendment that is currently being filibustered. What we have in front of us and what we are doing is demonstrating through this all-night debate--which is very important, regardless of where someone comes from on this issue; it is very important that we have this debate and discussion. I appreciate all of my colleagues expressing themselves. What we have in front of us is the question of whether we are going to end a filibuster tomorrow, and whether we are going to have an opportunity to have a simple majority vote--a yes-or- no vote--on a change in direction in Iraq, which would in fact change the mission by next year, by April 30 of next year. I find it amazing that our men and women right now who are fighting for democracy, fighting for majority rule--to put together a coalition to create a working majority and that the majority should rule. Yet here we are not allowed to have the majority make the decision--a majority being 51, or in this case 50 at the moment, being able to vote and determine what the policy is. Last week, we had a very significant debate and issue in front of us that Senator Webb from Virginia brought forward in terms of supporting our troops, supporting them as it relates to the deployment and redeployment policies right now for our National Guard and our full- time military. There were 56 members--a clear majority of this body-- who voted for that policy, that change in policy. So if you are deployed for 12 months, you would be home on dwell time for 12 months with your family and with an opportunity to be retrained, to regroup, in order to be able to go back. Fifty-six members, a clear majority, said yes. Yet we were stopped. Why? Because our Republican colleagues insist on filibustering and not allowing a vote. We are saying to the other side of the aisle, let us vote. Let us do what we assume everybody in the American public assumes in a democracy with a majority, that the majority would have their say, that whoever is in the majority has an opportunity to win a vote. But that is not the case anymore in the Senate. We are not talking about 50 or 51 but 60. So we have in front of us a filibuster that is going on as to whether we will even vote on a policy that has a majority of this Senate, and it is clearly supported by a majority of the American people. (Mr. DURBIN assumed the Chair.)

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, there are no good wars or bad wars; there are only necessary wars or unnecessary wars. Five years ago, I was proud to stand along with the distinguished Presiding Officer on the floor of this body and argue that going into war with Iraq was unnecessary. It wasn't an easy day for any of us. No burden weighs heavier on the shoulders of any one of us than questions of war and peace. We deliberate countless and important issues in this Chamber, but none are as serious as sending America's sons and daughters into harm's way. I stood here that day in October and said this is a vote of conscience, also a vote of historic consequence, because what we debate and decide here will not only significantly affect this great Nation, but will immediately influence global events for years to come. No matter how difficult the decision may be, it is one each of us must make for the sake of our country. We have an obligation and a duty to carefully weigh the consequences of a preemptive attack. I went on to say that before we engage in war, we must understand that the results of war are irrevocable and a peaceful solution should always be our first choice. Today, we are living with the consequences of this war. We will continue to live with those consequences in our communities, in terms of young lives lost and shattered, and families who will never be whole again, and the emptiness left by neighbors who gave their last full measure in this fight. As a nation, we will live with these consequences for years to come as we face a world we shaped by this unnecessary war--a world in which we must now deal with a reinvigorated al-Qaida and a less stable Middle East today than when the first American tanks rolled into Baghdad. We cannot go back and change the mistakes and missteps that have brought us here, but we can and we must begin to dig ourselves out of the hole that we have dug in Iraq. We can and we must embrace a strategy that brings our troops home safely and responsibly. We can and we must make the tough choices to end this war. Twenty-three of us stood up against the war on that October afternoon. Today, there are more of us. We have all watched the events of the last half decade play out in front of us. We have watched the violence and the horror of modern war play out on our television sets. We have listened over and over again as the administration's rhetoric has become more and more detached from the reality of what is going on in Iraq. What were merely predictions and concerns in 2002 have today become reality. Militarily, we are paying the price every day for the administration's neglect in planning for the aftermath of initial combat operations in Iraq. Our troops are fighting and working in extreme conditions. They face an enemy they often cannot identify, one that has shown a total disregard for human life and a willingness to sacrifice themselves, their families, and innocent bystanders merely to inflict damage on American forces and innocent Iraqi citizens. Every day, they face an environment to test their physical limits, in 100-plus degree heat. We know it is very hot now. Those of us who have been to Iraq understand the kind of conditions with the heat and the sand and the conditions that are happening there that are, in many cases, unimaginable. They face an Iraqi Government that refuses to take responsibility for the future of the people of Iraq, one that leans on American forces instead of effectively partnering with them to allow our forces to step back and Iraqi security forces to step into the front line. Our fighting forces are stretched to their limit. They are getting the job done and they are bravely doing that. We are proud of them. But by forcing multiple redeployments without proper rest, this administration has let them down. We have alienated countless foreign allies, squandered the international good will that was at our fingertips after the attacks of 9/11. We turned Iraq into a breeding ground and training school for terrorists, providing international rallying points for extremists. There was not an organized presence of al-Qaida in Iraq until this administration chose to invade. The administration's own National Intelligence Estimate, released today--yesterday at this point--specifically notes that ``al-Qaida will probably seek to leverage the contacts and capabilities of al-Qaida in Iraq, its most visible and capable affiliate and the only one known to have expressed a desire to attack the homeland.'' This NIE reveals the sobering truth. Not only has this unnecessary war not increased the safety of the American people, but al-Qaida's recovery is a direct result of this administration's decision to invade Iraq. Meanwhile, conditions in Iraq have spiraled. The daily headlines of our newspapers seem to be ripped from the pages of a Greek tragedy: Suicide bombers; civil war; American soldiers unable to tell friends from foes; units serving second and third and now even fourth redeployments; American troops returning home physically mangled, emotionally drained, and psychologically injured; lives and families changed forever. Five years ago, Americans had never heard of an IED or a traumatic brain injury. They are now part of our everyday news. We have paid the price in American lives--3,613 dead and 26,806 wounded. We have paid the price in misdirected resources. The billions we have spent in Iraq represent countless missed opportunities here at home, opportunities to strengthen our communities, schools, and hospitals, to create jobs and support our families. When I think of the fact that the latest numbers are now $12 billion a month being spent, and we will debate next week a children's health care plan that we want to fund at $10 billion a year--$12 billion a month versus $10 billion a year to cover every child of a working low-income family who doesn't have insurance in America--this is wrong. We have also paid the price with our international reputation. America, the world's moral leader, has lost the faith of too many. The hearts and minds we needed to win have too often turned their backs on this administration's arrogance. For too long now, I have watched the Republican leadership engage in legislative games and political posturing to avoid taking an up-or-down vote on this war. That is what we are asking for. Let us vote. Stop the filibuster and let us vote. They have turned their backs on their responsibilities to the people who elected them and to our troops--most important--and their families because they don't like that they may lose a vote. I have stood on the floor of the Senate time and again to voice my opposition to the war. Sending more Americans into combat without a strategy for success will not improve the situation on the ground, and it will not bring our men and women in uniform home any sooner. Only the Iraqis can secure Iraq, and American troops cannot be seen as a substitute for Iraqi resolve. The so-called surge has done nothing but reinforce this reality. We are rushing more American troops into combat every day and not seeing the increase in security that is needed. Why would we go farther down the path that has led us to this point? Why? Why would we repeat previous mistakes and call it a new strategy? This administration failed our troops by committing them to this war without a clear reason or goal. This administration failed our troops by not having a clear mission for our armed services in Iraq. This administration has failed our troops by not providing the proper equipment, body armor, and logistical support for our forces. They failed our troops with poor planning for the invasion of Iraq and their total lack of planning for how to secure the country. They have failed our troops by sending them back into harm's way over and over and over again, without the proper rest between redeployments. Our armed services have traveled a tough road since we invaded Iraq. They have shouldered a heavy burden with pride, patriotism, confidence, and honor. We have asked extraordinary things from them at every turn, and at every turn they have delivered magnificently. They have made us all proud. They have faced tough situations. They have made tough choices and done their duty. Now we need to do what is right for them. Unlike the President, all of us go home and face our constituents-- our neighbors. We see them at church, at the grocery store, at the kids' schools, and at events all over our States. They sent us here to be their voice. As we know, this is not Washington, DC's war. We may set policy here, we make speeches here, we take votes here, but this is America's war. The men and women putting their lives on the line in Iraq every day are from every size town and city--from farms and factory towns. There is no red or blue America when it comes to the war in Iraq. War knows no political party. Americans do not watch their nightly news or read about the troops that didn't make it home in their local papers and think, well, I am a Republican or a Democrat. They think I am an American, I want a change, I have had enough. Enough is enough. We sit here in this historic Capitol while Republican colleagues filibuster and stop the Senate from voting yes or no on a proposal to change course and end this war. While we do that, communities across the country bury their loved ones, schools hold vigils for alumni laid to rest too young, churches comfort parishioners who have lost sons, daughters, husbands, wives, mothers, and fathers. We are the voices of these communities, of these towns and cities and counties. We were elected with their sacred trust to come to Washington and speak out for them, to make our mark for them on the issues that face them and face our country. By continuing to stonewall a vote on this Levin-Reed amendment, the Republican minority has stripped all Americans of their voice in this debate. They have said to the people who elected us that this issue of war is not important enough to have their elected representatives vote yes or no on the substance. Too often in the white noise of politics, we lose sight of the responsibilities we bear. We get bogged down in the politics of partisanship and lose sight of why we were elected. I believe we owe it to the American people to take this vote--take the vote--not to just stop the filibuster but to have the vote on the policy. There is nothing more important or more pressing to the people of this country right now than this war. It is the responsibility of the Congress to engage in shaping the policy concerning the war on behalf of all of the American people. The Levin-Reed amendment is as simple as it is necessary. It sets a firm start and end date to transition the mission and begin the reduction of U.S. forces, beginning 120 days after its enactment and completed April 30 of next year, 2008. The amendment limits the U.S. military mission after April 30 to counterterrorism, training of Iraqi security forces, and protection of U.S. personnel and assets. Finally, it requires that the reduction in forces be part of a comprehensive, diplomatic, regional, political and economic effort, and it appoints an international mediator to bring together the warring factions. The President's strategy in Iraq has not worked. This war was started on a false rationale. It was executed based on false assumptions. It has led to heartbreaking consequences. Supporters of the war in Iraq have claimed that one of their goals is to spread democracy throughout the region--an ironic statement considering they are stifling the democratic process right here on the floor of the Senate. This issue is too serious not to take an up-or- down vote on changing policy. The American people want to bring our sons and daughters home. It is our job to vote yes or no and let them know where we stand, not to use parliamentary procedural votes to stand in the way of the people's will. I have said it before and it remains true tonight: History will judge this administration on how they have waged this war. History will judge us on how we end it. We have all walked different paths to get to this point. Many of us were here when the war began. Some have joined this body in the intervening years. Many who today stand with us were once for the war. None of that matters at this point. What matters is the facts and what we are prepared to do about them. Are we prepared to stand up to the White House and say enough is enough? Enough is enough. It is morning in Baghdad right now, and our troops are waking up or are on duty, another day on the front lines. The unpleasant truth is that too many American men and women will be wounded today while doing their jobs. Odds are that some will lose their lives in service to their country. But they are there, focused on their job. They are focused on their duty. They assume we are back here focusing on the mission and the strategy and making sure we get it right. They are counting on us to get it right, as they are focused on their jobs every day. They are getting the job done. Everybody who woke up in Iraq this morning and put on the uniform is a hero. Every day we let this war drag on is another day they are fighting without a strategy that works for them. We should all be able to agree that is simply unacceptable. I would like to close with the same words I closed with in October of 2002. We have witnessed a lot in the last 5 years, but these words are as true tonight as they were then: We are a strong and powerful nation, made that way by our willingness to go that extra mile in the name of liberty and peace. The time is now for us to work together in the name of the American people and get it right. I urge my colleagues to vote to end the filibuster and support the Levin-Reed amendment. I yield the floor.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Ideally, 10 minutes, 8 minutes--somewhere in that range--7, 8 minutes.

Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, first, I thank the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts for his eloquence and passion and knowledge and leadership on all of these critical issues related to Iraq and what we need to be doing to keep our country safe. I thank also Senator Carl Levin, our senior Senator from Michigan, for all his wonderful leadership as he has moved this bill and so many other bills through the Congress that deal with supporting our troops, being a strong military, and now making sure we are there for our troops when they come home. I thank also Senator John McCain for his graciousness today, as well as for his work with Senator Levin. I thank Senator Danny Akaka, chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, and Larry Craig, the ranking member, for their bipartisan effort. This has truly been an excellent example of what we can do when we work together on something such as the wounded warrior amendment, which I am proud to be a cosponsor of. But the bipartisan effort, the effort between two committees of the Senate, working together, has been wonderful, and we now have an amendment in front of us, the Levin- McCain and others amendment, that is critically important to pass. I stand here today as a daughter of a World War II Navy vet and the wife of an Air Force vet of 14 years, and I am very proud of what we are doing and what our new majority is doing to advocate for our troops and our veterans. For too many soldiers and marines, the flight out of Iraq or Afghanistan is the first step in a long journey back to the lives they left at home. Those wounded in combat face a second tour of duty--a tour of duty marked by long hours of rehabilitation, often painful medical procedures, and a physical or psychological adjustment to a life lived with the scars of war. When the men and women of our Armed Forces put on the uniform, they are making a promise to defend America. In return, we promise them that their Nation will be there for them when they come home. Our Armed Forces truly are the finest patriots our Nation has to offer--truly. As members of an all-volunteer military, charged with defending the greatest democracy on Earth, our soldiers and sailors and airmen and marines have proven their bravery, courage, and honor time and again. They don't need more empty promises. What they need and what we owe them is a system that works for them when they are wounded, either physically or mentally, in the service of our country. I am very proud of the fact that our new majority has made both supporting our troops and our veterans one of our very top priorities. The budget resolution we passed earlier this year places fully funding veterans' health care, working with all of our veterans service organizations, as one of our very top budget priorities. Now we have in front of us another important way to support our troops coming home who are wounded. We are a nation at war. We know that. We are currently ill-equipped to deal with the human consequences of that war. The administration's failed planning for this war did not end at the borders of Iraq. It stretched into Walter Reed Hospital and into every veterans' health care facility, into every community that has sent an able-bodied son or daughter off to fight, only to be faced with the realities of an injured veteran returning home. Repeated redeployments have only compounded the problem, as we talked about yesterday, as we debated the important Webb amendment which, I might add, was passed and supported by 56 Members, although we could not break the filibuster of the Republican caucus. Mental health injuries have increased dramatically as troops have been forced to face their second, third, and fourth combat redeployments. The lack of time between redeployments has increased the physical danger to our troops by sending them back on the front lines, overtired, underequipped, and without the increased training they need. Our heavy reliance on our National Guard has resulted in wounded veterans returning to cities and towns all across our country, often to communities that are far away from veterans' health care facilities or the traditional infrastructure of the military health care system. Our troops deserve better in Iraq, and they deserve better when they come home. Earlier this year a bright light was turned on the deplorable conditions faced by some of our returning wounded veterans at Walter Reed. The true tragedy of these events is that they are merely a symptom of larger problems with a system that too often has let our soldiers and veterans down. I am very proud of the leadership coming from our caucus, our leader, Senator Reid, and our caucus leadership, in focusing the light of day and taking action that has brought us today to this very important amendment. There is no room for bureaucratic or political squabbling when it comes to the treatment of our soldiers and our veterans. The system should serve one mandate and one mandate only: providing the highest quality service available to all of them, while causing them the least amount of personal hassle and frustration. Senator Levin's wounded warrior amendment is a much needed step, and it is a needed systemwide approach that has been put together on a bipartisan basis. It addresses many problems that plague this far too often burdened and difficult process while enhancing health care for wounded service men and women, including treatment of traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic stress disorder, which has been viewed now as the signature injury of this war. The number of casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan is growing every day. These brave men and women don't have time to wait. They need their country to step up right now, and that is what we have the opportunity to do together with this amendment. We have many disagreements in this body. The various pieces of legislation we face on a daily basis require robust debate and oftentimes we find ourselves on different sides of the issue of the day. I can't imagine, though, how any one of us would oppose this amendment. The facts are simple. The system is broken and in need of repair. The ones paying the price are our soldiers, our veterans, and their families. We need to make changes and we need to make them now. This was a war of choice in Iraq, not of necessity. But dealing with the consequences of this war is unquestionably a necessity. Our troops have done their job and now we need to do ours. I urge my colleagues to support the wounded warrior amendment. Amendment No. 2024

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, before my distinguished colleague from Rhode Island leaves, I thank him for the incredible contributions I know he made to this legislation that is in front of us. He, too, has had a distinguished career serving his country in the armed services as well as in the Senate, and we congratulate him for his service. I also start by congratulating our Michigan senior Senator whom we are all so proud of for all of the important work he does, and none is more important for Michigan and for the country than serving as chairman of the Armed Services Committee. This National Defense Authorization Act and all that it brings in terms of additional tools for our troops, issues that directly relate to supporting the troops and their families, the equipment, the new technology, the new policies for the future that they need, all of these things are incredibly important, and Senator Levin has been the leader on these issues for us. We in Michigan are extremely proud of all he has done. I specifically today raise my voice in support of the Webb amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act. Tonight in Iraq, 1,644 members of the Michigan National Guard will bed down after a long day of working and fighting. They work in 100-degree weather, sand blowing in their faces, facing dangers at every turn, in the harshest physical conditions imaginable. For every single one of those men and women, there is a family at home in Michigan who will go to bed tonight worried and saying a prayer for the safety of their loved one, for the safe return of their son, their daughter, father, mother, sister, brother. The true cost of this war cannot be measured in dollars and cents, although there is a huge financial cost to what is happening. But the true cost is measured by the sacrifices of our troops and their families; every single day, day in and day out. The cost is more than just the possibility and the reality of physical danger; the cost includes the sacrifices that entire families are making, financial sacrifices, emotional sacrifices, sacrifices being made because they are apart day after day, month after month, and now year after year. It is not right; it is not fair; it is not safe. We need to change this policy. That is what the Webb amendment does. In Michigan, 1,644 Guard members, 1,644 families, 1,644 missed birthdays, Father's Day, Mother's Day, missed high school graduations, baby's first steps, anniversaries, family funerals, Christmas, other holidays. It is also 1,644 missed paychecks. It may be the only paycheck in the family--the paycheck that is paying the mortgage, the paycheck that is there to help send the kids to college, to pay the car payment, to be able to have the standard of living we all want for ourselves and our families--sidetracked careers, small businesses and farms put in economic danger, 1,644 lives that will never be the same, 1,644 sets of missed opportunities, missed moments that can never be replaced. These members of the Michigan National Guard make up only a fraction of the 160,000 men and women in uniform currently serving in Iraq and countless others who have served. In too many cases, these men and women are back in Iraq for their second, third, and now fourth redeployment. Our fighting men and women are the greatest resource we have. They make us proud every single day. But, unfortunately, this Government is abusing this resource, these people. America puts its trust in our military to defend us. When our sons and daughters join the military, they put their trust in us, in the Congress, in the President of the United States, to give them the tools and the resources they need and to treat them with the respect they have earned. Current administration policies on redeployment have violated that trust. These policies have let our troops down. They have let their families down. I am proud to join with my colleague from Virginia in saying: Enough is enough--enough is enough--when it comes to abusing our Armed Forces by stretching them to the breaking point with redeployment after redeployment. Our armed services have traveled a tough road since we invaded Iraq. They have shouldered a heavy burden with pride and confidence and honor. We have asked extraordinary things--extraordinary things--from them at every turn. And at every turn they have delivered. They have made us all proud. They have faced tough situations, made tough choices, and have done their duty. Now we need to do our duty. We need to do what is right for them. It is our time to face the tough situations. It is our time to make the hard choices. It is our time to make them proud. That is what this amendment is about. That is what this bill is about. That is what further discussions we will have about how to end this war will be all about. America's soldiers and sailors and airmen and marines are always there for us when they are called. The question is, Will we be there for them? Will we be there for them today and tomorrow and the next day? This legislation Senator Webb has proposed is something that is simply the right thing to do and is a very important piece of supporting our troops. First of all, for our regular forces, the amendment requires that if a unit or a member deploys for Operation Enduring Freedom or Operation Iraqi Freedom, they will have the same time at home--what is called ``dwell time''; down time, as I would say; our forces would call it dwell time--before being redeployed. So if someone is deployed for 6 months, they would have dwell time for 6 months, whether that is being home with the family, whether that is retraining, whether that is time to regroup. If they are deployed for 12 months, they would have 12 months at home; 15 months, 15 months. For the National Guard and Reserve, no unit or member will be redeployed to Iraq or Afghanistan within 3 years of their previous deployment. Now, this is strictly a floor, but it will stabilize Guard and Reserve deployment cycles in a much more predictable way. It is good for them, it is good for us from a safety standpoint, preparedness standpoint, and it certainly is good for the families we are asking to make such sacrifices. We understand this is a dangerous and unpredictable world we live in, so this amendment also includes an important provision, a provision enabling the President to waive these limitations if he certifies to Congress that deployment is necessary in response to a vital national security interest of the United States. Now, why is this down time or dwell time so important? Longer and more predictable dwell time is needed for many reasons. Most importantly, it allows for members to readjust from combat and spend time with their families. It also allows troops the time they need to be ready for the next combat mission. We have to remember that when our people return from their deployments, the majority of their time is spent retraining, refurbishing, and reequipping prior to being redeployed. The bottom line is that the Webb amendment will ensure that our men and women in uniform have a more predictable deployment schedule, with adequate time between tours. We have a responsibility to prevent further needless damage to our military, and the Webb amendment does that. Five years ago, I was proud to stand on this floor as one of 23 Members who believed this war was the wrong choice. For the past 5 years, I have been proud to cast vote after vote supporting the troops, working to ensure they have the resources they need so they can get the job done as soon as possible and come home safely. Today, I stand on the floor and once again say: Enough is enough. The American people are saying: Enough is enough. This administration failed our troops by committing them to this war without a clear reason or goal. This administration failed our troops by not having a clear mission for our Armed Forces in Iraq. They failed our troops by not providing the proper equipment, body armor, or logistical support for our forces. They failed our troops with their poor planning for the invasion of Iraq and their total lack of planning for how to secure the country, despite the best efforts of our brave men and women. And they have failed our troops by sending them back into harm's way over and over and over again without the proper down time between redeployments. History will judge this administration on how they have handled this war. History will judge us now on what we do for the troops and what we do to end this war. We need a new strategy for Iraq, a strategy that brings our troops home safely and responsibly. We need to treat our troops with respect-- the respect they deserve, they have earned--while they are serving us. They put their lives on the line every day for us. The least we can do is to make sure they have what they need and they have the time they need between combat deployments to be with their families and to prepare for the future. And they need a strategy. They are asking us to be paying attention to what is going on. So many of us have been to Iraq and have seen what is happening on the front lines. They are in the battle every day. They are focusing on their mission, on staying alive, keeping their buddies alive. They are counting on us to have their back. They are counting on the President to have their back. They are counting on people here getting it right, doing the right thing--whether it is making sure they have the time they need, which the Webb amendment does, to focus on their needs and their families' needs or whether it is to make sure there is a strategy that makes sense. That is what we are now debating on this floor. I believe the American people have spoken very loudly and very clearly, and it is time for us to listen. It is our job to listen, to do the right thing for the troops, to do the right thing for their families, to do the right thing for communities and for our country. When I look around the Senate, I am struck by the fact that we have all taken different paths to get here, to this debate right now. It has been a long 5 years. Some of us have stood up against this war since day one. Many have come to understand the tragedies of this war and the failures of this administration and have come at a different time. But no matter what path each of us has taken, no matter how we have gotten here today, now we have the opportunity to do the right thing. That is what this debate is about. I am so grateful to our Senate leader, Harry Reid, for making sure we stay focused on what is clearly the most critical issue in front of us, what is happening in the war in Iraq and with our troops and our families, and what we need to do to focus on the real threats--the real threats--here at home, through his leadership, on the 9/11 Commission legislation, as well as focusing on the real threats abroad. So we have seen leadership bringing us back to this issue, creating this opportunity now for us to do the right thing. We need to do the courageous thing. The Webb amendment is an opportunity to do the courageous thing for our troops. We cannot change the past, but we have to change the future, and that means acting now. I urge all of my colleagues to vote for the Webb amendment for the brave men and women who are serving us and counting on us to understand what we are expecting of them as they do their duty, with the sacrifices they are making, their families are making. They are counting on us to do the right thing. They are counting on us to do the right thing on the overall strategy on this war. This legislation, this time, this debate in the next few days is an opportunity for us to tell the American people: We hear you. We hear you. Enough is enough. Enough is enough. It is time to get this right and to bring our men and women home safely and responsibly. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I thank Judiciary Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member Specter for their assistance in moving forward the nominations of Judge Paul Maloney and Judge Janet Neff and Robert Jonker to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan. Judge Paul Maloney has served as a circuit judge on the Berrien County Trial Court for over 10 years. Judge Maloney also brings a wealth of public service experience to the bench, including: working as a Berrien County prosecutor, a deputy assistant attorney general in the Department of Justice and as chairman of the Michigan Sentencing Commission. Judge Janet Neff has served as a judge on the Court of Appeals for the Third District of Michigan for nearly 20 years. In addition to her distinguished career on the bench, Judge Neff has been an active leader in Grand Rapids, including serving as the first woman president of the Grand Rapids Bar Association. Robert Jonker has been a partner at Warner, Norcross & Judd in Grand Rapids for over 12 years. A life-long Michiganian, Robert Jonker is a graduate of Calvin College and the University of Michigan Law School, and has served as a law clerk for U.S. District Court Judge Robert Feikens in the Eastern District. This situation is critical for my State. Currently, the Western District has only one full-time judge hearing cases, and the Judicial Conference has declared it a judicial emergency. Even when the bench is full, this district presents logistical challenges because it covers Michigan cities all the way from Marquette to Benton Harbor--St. Joe. I was deeply disappointed that in the last Congress, the Senate failed to act on these three nominees despite a bipartisan agreement between myself and Senator Levin and the administration. I am pleased the full Senate will be voting to confirm the three nominees, who will all bring distinguished legal careers to the Federal bench. This is an important example of how we can work together. I hope the administration sees the value of working together in a bipartisan fashion with the Senate to ensure an independent and impartial judiciary that is accessible to all. Senator Levin and I have worked closely with the White House. While it has taken longer than we would have liked to come to this point, we are extremely pleased and grateful to our distinguished chairman, who has worked very hard on our behalf, Senator Leahy, and the ranking member, Senator Specter. Both Senators have worked hard to bring these nominees forward. These are three very distinguished people from Michigan with tremendous credentials for the bench. They will serve ably, and I am proud to support them.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I speak in support of the Great Lakes Short Sea Shipping Act of 2007. This legislation will exempt from the harbor maintenance tax certain commercial cargo loaded or unloaded at U.S. ports in the Great Lakes Saint Lawrence System. In recent years, transportation planners have been struggling to identify ways to move people and goods more efficiently. Congested highways, particularly at the Detroit, Michigan/Windsor, Ontario border crossing, the busiest border crossing in North America, acts as a huge constraint to economic growth. The purpose of the Harbor Maintenance Tax, HMT, is to generate revenue from port users for port maintenance conducted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The Corps maintains Federal shipping channels by conducting periodic dredging, which is necessary to remove sand and silt that occur naturally in shipping channels. HMT receipts are placed in the harbor maintenance trust fund, which serves as a source of revenue for the Corps' dredging budget. The HMT is assessed on cargo transported between U.S. ports and cargo imported to U.S. ports from other countries. Exports are not assessed a tax. More specifically, the tax is not paid by the vessel owner, nor the port, but by the owner of the cargo in each ship. The bill would provide a narrow exemption to the HMT for the movement of nonbulk only commercial cargo by water in the Great Lakes region, which includes the movement of freight and people between the U.S. ports on the Great Lakes and between Canadian and U.S. ports on the Great Lakes. This very narrow exemption would remove the current disincentive to moving freight by water and allow the region's transportation planners to develop new shipping services to not only relieve highway congestion, but to improve air quality as well. Moreover, the legislation could open up new shipping services to be offered on the Great Lakes, thus creating jobs in the maritime sector. One of the other benefits is that this exemption will offer options for trucks that may choose to use the bridges, tunnels, or now ferry service. Because the Detroit/Windsor border crossing is the busiest border crossing in North America, any alternative mode of transportation that allows for commerce to flow more smoothly, quickly, and efficiently is beneficial not only to the Great Lakes region, but to the country. Also, in this time of us working to be more responsible and have a cleaner environment for our children, allowing trucks off of the congested highways and onto ferries where they can cut off engines and not idle, will reduce air emissions, improve air quality, and cut down on gasoline usage. Moreover, since trucks currently use roads rather than ferries to move around the Great Lakes region, the Federal Government does not HMT on their cargo. Under this proposed legislative exemption, if a truck boarded a ferry, the Federal Government would still not collect a tax.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I would like to thank our majority leader for his effort. He read a list in the last few moments that goes through quite quickly a whole list of things that have required an extraordinary amount of effort to be able to accomplish, and I wish to thank him personally. This has not been an easy 6 months. I think our friends on the other side of the aisle have wished to slow things down, with procedural motions over and over again, to even go to a bill, and to see the leader's patience and determination and perseverance has been extraordinary. I am very proud of the fact, when we compare our first 6 months to the 6 months in previous Congresses, that this gentleman has been a task master. He has kept his nose to the grindstone and has kept us focused on things that matter to the American people, from the war in Iraq and bringing that to the forefront, to having hearings where we have asked for accountability and attempted to change the direction on the war, as well as to things we in Michigan are desperately caring about every day, in terms of our economy and our quality of life. So I wish to thank the leader personally for all he has done and will continue to do. I know that with all of us working together, we are changing the direction of this Congress and working very hard to address the things that people care about every day.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, will the majority leader yield for a moment?

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, thank you to my colleague from Ohio. It is so wonderful to have this strong voice, a leader in the House of Representatives on trade and manufacturing and all the issues that affect middle-class families and to now have Senator Brown joining us in the Senate. It is such a benefit for all of us who care deeply about keeping the middle class in this country, about making sure we move forward with a 21st century manufacturing strategy that works for our country in a global economy. I thank the Senator from Ohio for his words and also join with him and with our wonderful colleague from North Dakota who has been such a champion on issues of fair trade. First, I will start by reinforcing what has been happening to manufacturing in the last 6\1/2\ years. In this country, we have lost over 3 million manufacturing jobs. Why should we care about 3 million jobs that people raised their kids on, sent them to college--middle- class families with good jobs, good incomes, with health care, with pensions? These are the jobs that have created the middle class of this country. That is not rhetoric. That is a fact. These are those kinds of jobs, even though they are different. This is not your father's factory. These are new, advanced technology manufacturing jobs now that are being created. But in the future these are needed if we are going to keep the middle class of this country. That is why we are on the floor of the Senate, to express deep concern about the incredibly poor judgment and lack of attention coming from this administration and coming, in general, from those all together making policy that relates to trade and how we compete in a global economy. We have to pay attention before it is too late, before we lose our economic competitiveness in a global economy, our ability to make things. I believe any economy is based on the ability to make things and grow things and add value to that. We have to have a strong, vibrant manufacturing economy in order to be able to move forward and compete around the globe now. We did hold a manufacturing summit, I think the first of its kind in the Senate, last week. I was very proud that Senator Reid, our leader, enthusiastically supported us bringing together 70 different CEOs and high-ranking manufacturing leaders, as well as those representing their labor force, their unions, to come together and talk about what has happened in manufacturing and how we in the Senate can be supportive of keeping manufacturing competitive--a level playing field, which is all we are asking for in a global economy. We heard some desperate pleas for us to pay attention to what is going on. Over and over again these CEO's talked with us about the fact that in a global economy, now competing with nonmarket economies such as China, they in fact are not competing with companies, they are competing with countries. We go out in the marketplace. There are rules required of our companies to be able to put a plant in another country or have local content in China with auto suppliers. You can't send it in and do business with China. You have to make the product there. Their country owns part of the business or provides great incentives, through a variety of other policies. Yet we are not paying attention. Unfortunately, this administration has not gotten what is happening when we talk about currency manipulation and counterfeiting and all the other policy issues that have put our companies at a disadvantage. We are happy to export in a global economy. We wish to export our products, not our jobs. Right now we are exporting too many of our jobs. What is the reality? When China went into the WTO in 2001, we were told two things: our trade deficit would go down and that our jobs would go up. Unfortunately, the facts are exactly the opposite; a $83 billion trade deficit with China. Last year that number skyrocketed to $288 billion, from $83 billion to $288 billion. It is certainly not going down. We have seen the Economic Policy Institute release a study 2 weeks ago that revealed 1.8 million jobs have been displaced through trade with China alone since they entered the World Trade Organization. They promised they would follow the rules. That is part of how you become part of the WTO. We were told: Support them so they can become a part of this international organization, where they will be required to follow the same rules as everybody else. They have not and we have lost, with China alone, 1.8 million good-paying, middle-class jobs. It is now time to say enough is enough. In fact, 11 agreements have been completed since this administration, new trade agreements. Yet to enforce the agreements, the money has actually gone down by 17 percent. There is no willingness to understand what is going on. In the counterfeiting business, we have a $12 billion counterfeit auto parts industry alone. What does that mean? These are auto parts coming in that do not meet our safety standards. The brakes may look the same, but if you go to a shelf and say I want this one because it is cheaper and put it in your car, it doesn't meet safety regulations. What happens when you are driving with your kids in the car? These are serious issues for what happens when auto parts are brought in, in a counterfeit manner. Now, $12 billion worth of counterfeit auto parts have come in. In fact, in the last 5 years, we have lost 250,000 jobs in America because of that, and we have seen six of our Nation's largest auto suppliers go into bankruptcy. This is no accident. We don't have a policy. We passed, here, a counterfeit policy to strengthen our counterfeiting laws and the administration doesn't even use those. They have turned a blind eye. We have lost 250,000 jobs. We have seen our largest auto suppliers going into bankruptcy--Delphi, Dana Corp., Collins & Aikman, Federal-Mogul, Tower Automotive, and Dura Automotive. Our job is to fight for our businesses that are competing in a global economy where other countries are not following the rules. Let me give one other example, and I will be happy to turn to my colleague from North Dakota, the issue of currency manipulation. When we say currency manipulation, most people's eyes glaze over. What does that mean? Because a country such as China or Japan, when it comes to the auto industry, purposely keeps their currency down in value, they get a discount on the exchange rate when they bring their product into this country. In China, for instance, again, where we look at an auto part, the same auto parts that are being pirated, snuck into America or they are stealing the patents and making them illegally in China--if they actually bring them in, they also, on top of everything else, get a discount. They can sell the same auto part, the same bolt for $60 that we sell for $100 here, a $40 difference. When you add that up, that is a $40 discount. On top of that, they are not paying health care the way we structure it. We are the only industrialized country that puts that on the backs of our businesses. They are following a whole different set of rules. Their wages are dramatically lower. When we say to our auto suppliers or we say to our furniture makers or we say to others: Why can't you compete in a global economy, well, Mr. President, the manufacturers who joined us last week, and the great manufacturers in Michigan I go home and speak with every single weekend are saying: Look around you. We are competitive. We can be competitive. We are productive, but we have to have a Federal Government that partners with us so we have a level playing field on which to operate. Don't let the other team go down to the 20-yard line toward the goal. Put us both on the 50, have the level playing field, and we will compete with anybody and American ingenuity and hard work will win. That is what fair trade policies are all about. I yield now to my colleague from North Dakota who comes to the floor every day speaking out on these issues and who has been a powerful voice for American workers and free trade.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I wish today to pay tribute to the six members of the University of Michigan Survival Flight team who perished this past Monday when their plane tragically crashed into Lake Michigan during an organ transplant mission. On behalf of the people of Michigan, I would like to extend my deepest condolences to the victims' families. These brave men put their lives on the line to save the lives of those in need of urgent medical care. They touched countless families through their work and the goodness of their hearts and stand as examples to all of us as modern-day Good Samaritans. Richard Chenault II, 44, from Ann Arbor, was hoping to get back to Michigan on time Monday to attend the Father Gabriel Richard High School sports banquet. He was being honored for coach of the year in both girls track and girls cross- country. He never made it but is remembered by the students and faculty at the school as a mentor, teacher, and friend. Richard LaPensee, of Ypsilanti, fought fires for 18 years while serving as an emergency medical technician. He immediately jumped at the chance to work as a University of Michigan life flight medical technician 3 years ago. On Monday morning, Richard had just finished a 24-hour firefighter shift before embarking on the transplant flight. Dr. David Ashburn, 35, of Dexter, was a cardiac surgery resident at the University of Michigan. He was looking to begin his pediatric cardiac surgery fellowship in July. Dr. Ashburn was a dedicated family man who enjoyed turkey hunting in the wilderness of Michigan. Dr. Martinus Spoor, 37, of Ann Arbor, was a regular when it came to the air transplant business, making roughly 10 flights a year. Dr. Spoor was known by his friends and family as a ``gentle and kind human being'' and taught heart valve repair techniques to medical students. Dennis Hoyes, 65, of Blackman Township, was a man who loved to fly. A retired small business owner, Dennis would often spend his days at the Jackson County Airport and worked as an adjunct flight instructor for Jackson Community College's aviation program. Dennis would always give a free lesson to anyone who asked. Bill Serra, 59, of Macomb Township, had over 12,000 hours of flight time from small planes to 747s. During the Persian Gulf war, Bill worked as a civilian pilot delivering material and ammunition to U.S. forces. The Air Force honored Bill in 1993 for his dedicated service. Our State of Michigan lost real heroes Monday--heroes who gave back to their communities without fanfare or personal gain, heroes who did their dangerous work out of passion, dedication, and a desire to make the world a better place. Unfortunately, we often take these heroes for granted, forgetting that their dedication to service comes at life-threatening risk. The stories of these six men serve as a proud reminder that all of us can give back, that all of us can contribute, and that there are heroes all around us in our communities, our families, and our States. Michigan can never express how proud we are of these individuals' service, and the Michigan family joins the Chenaults, the LaPensees, the Ashburns, the Spoors, the Hoyes, and the Serras in mourning the passing of these brave men.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise to join others in paying tribute to a wonderful colleague, Senator Craig Thomas. Tragically, last night, he lost his battle with leukemia. I want to send my heartfelt condolences to his wife Susan, his children, Patrick, Greg, Peter, and Lexie, and to his staff. Since January, I had the pleasure to serve with Senator Thomas on the Finance Committee. I found him to be a hard-working Senator and very concerned about his constituents' struggling to get health care in rural areas. I also had a chance to work with him last year on the Michigan Lighthouse and Maritime Heritage Act. This legislation sets up a process whereby the National Park Service would work with the State of Michigan to create a lighthouse tourist trail. As my colleagues know, he was chairman of the National Parks Subcommittee, which had jurisdiction over this legislation. During consideration of this bill, he was helpful to me and the people of Michigan even though these lighthouses are thousands of miles away from his home. He held a hearing on this legislation, worked with me to get it to the floor and ultimately to the President's desk. On behalf of the people of Michigan, we appreciate his support of this legislation. Senator Thomas was a wonderful man--kind and decent to everyone. We will all miss him.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of a bill that directs the Treasury Department to mint 350,000 $1 coins marking the semi-centennial of the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 greatly expanded civil rights protections by outlawing racial discrimination and segregation in public places and places of public accommodation, in federally funded programs and employment, and encouraging desegregation in public schools, and has served as a model for subsequent antidiscrimination laws. This landmark legislation once implemented, had effects that were far reaching and that, clearly from its inception to today, fundamentally changed the course of our Nation. Equality and access to education were two of the hallmarks of the civil rights movement. The United Negro College Fund, UNCF, is the Nation's largest, oldest, most successful and comprehensive minority higher education assistance organization. UNCF provides operating funds and technology enhancement services for 39 member historically black colleges and universities, HBCUs, scholarships and internships for students at about 900 institutions and faculty and administrative professional training. Since its inception in 1943, the UNCF has raised more than $2 billion to help a total of more than 350,000 students attend college and has distributed more funds to help minorities attend school than any entity outside of the government. Besides being a noble tribute, this commemorative coin will assist the UNCF provide scholarships and internships for minority students and assist with technology enhancement services for historically black colleges and universities. In Michigan, the on-time graduation rate for African American students is less than half that of the overall rate for high school students. Moreover, the percentage of Michigan high school freshmen enrolling in college within 4 years is just 38 percent, the rate for the top States is 53 percent. These statistics are astounding. Michigan currently is working to invest more State dollars into improving high school education and reforming graduation requirements to some of the most rigorous in the Nation. If we make scholarships like this one available to students, and organizations like the UNCF helping African Americans get into colleges and stay in colleges, not just historically black colleges and universities, these statistics will improve. I am confident this coin bill is a step toward improving the state of college attendance and graduation rates for African American students. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of a bill that directs the Treasury Department to mint 350,000 $1 coins marking the semi-centennial of the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 greatly expanded civil rights protections by outlawing racial discrimination and segregation in public places and places of public accommodation, in federally funded programs and employment, and encouraging desegregation in public schools, and has served as a model for subsequent antidiscrimination laws. This landmark legislation once implemented, had effects that were far reaching and that, clearly from its inception to today, fundamentally changed the course of our Nation. Equality and access to education were two of the hallmarks of the civil rights movement. The United Negro College Fund, UNCF, is the Nation's largest, oldest, most successful and comprehensive minority higher education assistance organization. UNCF provides operating funds and technology enhancement services for 39 member historically black colleges and universities, HBCUs, scholarships and internships for students at about 900 institutions and faculty and administrative professional training. Since its inception in 1943, the UNCF has raised more than $2 billion to help a total of more than 350,000 students attend college and has distributed more funds to help minorities attend school than any entity outside of the government. Besides being a noble tribute, this commemorative coin will assist the UNCF provide scholarships and internships for minority students and assist with technology enhancement services for historically black colleges and universities. In Michigan, the on-time graduation rate for African American students is less than half that of the overall rate for high school students. Moreover, the percentage of Michigan high school freshmen enrolling in college within 4 years is just 38 percent, the rate for the top States is 53 percent. These statistics are astounding. Michigan currently is working to invest more State dollars into improving high school education and reforming graduation requirements to some of the most rigorous in the Nation. If we make scholarships like this one available to students, and organizations like the UNCF helping African Americans get into colleges and stay in colleges, not just historically black colleges and universities, these statistics will improve. I am confident this coin bill is a step toward improving the state of college attendance and graduation rates for African American students. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I urge my colleagues to join with us in this new direction set by this budget for the families of America.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I appreciate the kind words of the chairman. It has been a pleasure working with him and knowing that, given what he has had to deal with, in terms of the lack of budget resolutions and the deficit that has been created, he has done an extraordinary job of putting the fiscal ship of state back in order. It has been a pleasure to work with somebody who is grounded in what is important to the American people. I find it so interesting; first, there is all of the rhetoric that is thrown around about Government, about tax and spend. What we have seen in the last few years has been a borrow-and-spend mentality--basically not paying for what we are spending. We had a $5.6 trillion surplus when I came into the Budget Committee in 2001, with President Bush coming into office. He was handed a $5.6 trillion surplus--a pretty nice gift for somebody coming into office. We debated what ought to be done with that. Unfortunately, a more balanced approach to focus on middle-class tax cuts, to grow the economy, investments in science, health care, education, and jobs, and putting some money aside for Social Security, for the long term, was rejected. That was our plan, but it was rejected by the majority at the time. Instead, a plan was put into place that has borrowed and spent us into the largest deficits in the history of the country. When you look at the total debt right now, we are looking at a debt that is estimated to be $9 trillion by the end of this year. What concerns me as well about that is, who is buying that debt? Half of our foreign debt is owned by two countries, China and Japan. They turn around and don't follow the rules on trade. They manipulate their currency, which means their products come in with big discounts and compete unfairly against American workers and businesses. When we ask the administration to get tough, they don't do it. Why? Because it is pretty tough to try to enforce it. This huge deficit that has been created is not only something we need to be concerned about from a fiscal standpoint, but jobs and what is happening in the global economy and our ability to fully enforce our trade laws--that is also impacted. That is why I am so pleased at what we are seeing with this budget resolution. We have not had a budget resolution for a few years. When our colleagues were in charge, there wasn't one put together for a number of years. But now we have made a commitment to put together a budget resolution that is based on a couple of very important principles: first, a return to fiscal discipline. We are going to stop digging that hole that has put us into a deficit, and now we are going to work our way back out to fiscal responsibility. In fact, our budget comes into balance within 5 years. I am proud of that. Secondly, we are putting middle-class families first. Throughout this budget, whether it be tax cuts or investments in education, or whether it be health care for our children, or making sure we fund law enforcement, or whether we are fully funding the military or homeland security, we are focusing on Americans and middle-class families--the folks who are working hard every day, who have been saying, hey, what about us? We have seen jobs go offshore and more and more dollars going to fewer and fewer people, in terms of spending. We have turned that around. This is a new direction. I am very proud of the work that has been done with the House and the Senate. I am proud of our leader, Senator Reid, and our leader on the budget, Senator Conrad, who has done such an extraordinary job. What are the elements we have put together relating to the budget? There are many pieces. We basically reversed what the President has done in terms of cuts in investments in Medicare and Medicaid and the COPS Program and a variety of others. Start with this. Basically, there are six areas we have focused on: First, a return to fiscal responsibility. We put into place something called pay-as-you-go. At my house, it was called common sense, paying the bills and not spending more than you had coming in. That process has been put back into play so we can, in fact, balance the budget and return to fiscal responsibility. We also have made investing in education and innovation a top priority. We know we are in a global economy and we are in a time and place where it is harder and harder for families to be able to afford college. Yet college is needed more than ever for advanced skills, for people who are going back to work, or for those who need to train for another type of job; and education from preschool and Head Start all the way up to college is a critical part of investing in the future of our country. America's young people are competing with students from around the world. We are competing in a global economy. Higher skills and focusing on education and opportunity are essential. So is innovation, because we know we have been the engine of great ideas. We have to keep that up, whether it is the National Institutes of Health or whether it is the advanced technology program relating to manufacturing technology--all kinds of ways in which America has been the leader. To maintain that, we have to make an investment, as any individual business makes an investment in the future, in innovation and ideas to be able to create more jobs. Our budget says we are going to return to fiscal responsibility and put education and innovation at the top for our families and for our future. Then we are making a major commitment to cover health care for children. In fact, this budget puts a major commitment forward for the next 5 years of this budget resolution to cover every child with health insurance. We are talking about children of parents who are working. They may be working one or two jobs or three jobs, and we know the average single parent--the average mom today, to make ends meet, has to figure out how to work three different minimum wage jobs, and they probably don't have health care. We don't think it is right that in the greatest country in the world, the wealthiest country in the world, moms and dads are going to bed at night saying, please, God, don't let the kids get sick. Please help our son not break his arm and have to go to the hospital because he has been playing sports or don't let our daughter get sick or hurt playing in sports and break a leg. We want to make sure every child in America has health insurance. We make that commitment in this budget to fully fund SCHIP, the children's health care program. That is a downpayment on making sure we provide health care for everybody. In this budget, we start with children, making sure every child in America has access to health care. Then I hope we take the next step within the next couple of years to do what needs to happen, which is to fundamentally say health care is a right and not a privilege in the greatest country in the world, and fully provide access to health care for every American. So we have education and health care as an investment. Then we do something incredibly important, which I think every American agrees with and, frankly, is shocked hasn't been done in previous budgets in the last 6 years under the previous majority and this President, and that is we are going to keep our promises to our veterans. We have 50 different veterans organizations, service organizations, supporting what we are doing because we are taking their numbers about what is needed. They put together a budget called the independent budget, and they estimate how many new veterans are coming home from the war and how many current veterans are going to need help. For the first time, we are meeting that number on health care and in other areas, which is critical. We are saying we are going to keep our promises to our veterans, and the American people want us to keep our promises. By the way, all of these things are not ``Washington'' or ``Government.'' It is all of us together. It is what we do in a civilized society, the greatest democracy in the world. We come together and decide how to allocate the precious resources. That is what we are doing. How do we invest these in a way that keeps our promises to veterans and creates opportunity for the future, for the American dream and for people in this country? We have a very important provision; we have middle-class tax cuts. We make sure the middle-class tax cuts that have been passed and are in place under the child credit and the marriage penalty and the tax cuts that affect middle-class families are extended. We make sure that we put our focus where it ought to be--on middle- income families--because those are the folks being squeezed, those are the folks who are seeing their college costs go up, their health care costs go up, if they have it at all; their wages go down, if they have a job; their gas prices go up, and Lord knows they are going up and up and up. So it is our working families, our middle-class families, those who are barely scrimping by who are seeing all these costs descend on them. When we look at that, we say we ought to make sure they are the ones who get the break. That is what our budget does. Finally, we make sure we reverse the President's continual assault on the COPS Program and on other key investments in health care and technology, areas where every year the President has tried to eliminate, cut back. We have now in Michigan, since 2001, 1,600 fewer police officers on the streets. People can't believe that since 9/11 we actually have fewer police officers--and that number has been going up--on our streets in our communities than we had before 9/11. We reject the President's further cuts in law enforcement. We restore those dollars. We put back dollars, we increase dollars for homeland security. That is the picture. This is a picture of responsibility. We want to be fiscally responsible and, at the same time, we want to focus on putting middle-class families first. That is what our budget is all about. Also, it is true there are some areas of the budget where we are raising revenue, and that comes in the category of closing outrageous tax loopholes for businesses and individuals who owe taxes, which is estimated anywhere up to $345 billion, folks who decided to take the money offshore, take the jobs offshore. Our chairman has shown so many times the picture of the building in the Cayman Islands with over 12,000 businesses saying that is their business location. Obviously, it is not. We don't think they ought to get away with that. Middle-class families, the majority of the people in this country, have a right to know if they are following the law, if they are paying their taxes, that we are making sure everybody is following the law and paying their taxes. So, it is true, we do take some dollars from those folks who cheat, who leave the country, who too many times take jobs with them, and we say: You know what. You need to follow the law like everybody else. We take those dollars, and we put them back into making sure that education is available, health care for every child, police officers, firefighters in our communities, paying for our armed services, keeping our promises to our veterans. I call that setting the record straight, turning things around, and creating the right kind of priorities for our country. The budget is always about values and priorities. That is what it is, it is about values and priorities. I am very proud of the values and priorities reflected in this budget.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, the evidence showing the ability of health IT to reduce costs and improve quality of care is simply overwhelming. That is why Senator Olympia Snowe and I are reintroducing our Health- Tech legislation to accelerate the adoption of health information technology. Businesses across the country are struggling to remain competitive in a global market with skyrocketing health care costs. The use of electronic medical records could save more than $80 billion annually, reducing costs for businesses and taxpayers alike. We should be putting these systems in place immediately! And, despite the best doctors, nurses, hospitals, and other health care providers in the world, some patients just are not getting the care they need. Often times that is because our health care providers do not have the information they need about their patients, when they need it and where they need it. And, our health care system are not current1y set up to prevent errors; the most common medical errors include medication errors and the extra costs of treating drug-related injuries amount to at least $3.5 billion a year. As compelling as the cost savings is the promise health IT holds for improving the quality of our health care system. Getting health IT into the hands of our doctors, hospitals, nursing homes and community clinics will mean patients get the care they need, at the right time, and in the best setting. The value of health IT--saving lives and saving money--is well-known. So why is it not being used more widely? Health care providers are struggling to keep up with their daily needs; a major barrier to widespread use of IT is the initial investment cost. The costs of implementing health IT can be staggering. For example, the cost of an integrated electronic health record system for a three- to six-member physician practice is estimated to be $70,000-$100,000. And, the savings from using health IT go primarily to the patients, employers, and insurers, not the providers. If a patient needs one less x-ray because a hospital can pull up the x-ray performed by a radiologist in a different setting, that is one less co-payment for the patient, and one less bill to the patient's employer or insurer, or to the Medicare program. It only makes sense for the Federal Government to invest some seed money. Every day we delay providing Federal dollars, we delay getting health information technology systems in place, and businesses, taxpayers and patients pay in both dollars and lives. The bill that Senator Snowe and I are reintroducing today would address just that: It would put IT systems in the hands of providers by establishing a 5-year, $4 billion grant program for health care providers and by providing tax incentives and adjusting Medicare payments for providers who use these systems. The bill will be referred to the Finance Committee; Senator Snowe and I are both members of the committee and will work to include our legislation in any appropriate package the committee considers. We have made an important change to our bill this Congress. A patient's right to health information privacy is paramount, and is essential to the health care provider-patient relationship. Therefore we have added a requirement that health IT systems funded by our legislation ensure the privacy and security of personal medical information, and that patients be informed if there is a breach in the privacy of their medical record. We need to get this done. Widespread use of health information technology can revolutionize our health care system. Getting systems into the hands of providers is the first step. Our legislation has the support of many consumer, provider, labor and business groups including: AFL-CIO, Altarum, American Academy of Pediatrics, American College of Cardiology, American College of Emergency Physicians, American College of Physicians, American Health Care Association, American Heart Association, American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, Ascension Health, Automation Alley, BlueCross/BlueShield of Michigan, DaimlerChrysler, Detroit Medical Center, e-Health Initiative, Families USA, Federation of American Hospitals, Ford Motor Company, General Motors Corporation, Greenway Medical Technologies, Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS), HR Policy Association, IBM, Marquette General Health System, McLaren Health Care Corporation, Michigan Health and Hospital Association, Michigan State Medical Society, National Association of Children's Hospitals, National Association of Community Health Centers, National Business Coalition on Health, National Business Group on Health, National Partnership for Women and Families, National Rural Health Association, Oracle, Saint John Health, Saint Joseph Mercy Health System--Ann Arbor, Michigan; Saint Joseph Mercy Oakland-- Pontiac, Michigan; Saint Mary's Health Care--Grand Rapids, Michigan and Trinity Health. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, would my distinguished colleague yield? Mr. President, I would like to say thank you to the distinguished chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee for all her hard work. Nobody cares more about water resources than the Great Lakes States. I don't know, we may have a rival in California, but certainly the Great Lakes States. We are very grateful for the ability to work with the Senator to do some very positive things and to have such a strong vote on a bipartisan basis, and we appreciate her leadership.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, the evidence showing the ability of health IT to reduce costs and improve quality of care is simply overwhelming. That is why Senator Olympia Snowe and I are reintroducing our Health- Tech legislation to accelerate the adoption of health information technology. Businesses across the country are struggling to remain competitive in a global market with skyrocketing health care costs. The use of electronic medical records could save more than $80 billion annually, reducing costs for businesses and taxpayers alike. We should be putting these systems in place immediately! And, despite the best doctors, nurses, hospitals, and other health care providers in the world, some patients just are not getting the care they need. Often times that is because our health care providers do not have the information they need about their patients, when they need it and where they need it. And, our health care system are not current1y set up to prevent errors; the most common medical errors include medication errors and the extra costs of treating drug-related injuries amount to at least $3.5 billion a year. As compelling as the cost savings is the promise health IT holds for improving the quality of our health care system. Getting health IT into the hands of our doctors, hospitals, nursing homes and community clinics will mean patients get the care they need, at the right time, and in the best setting. The value of health IT--saving lives and saving money--is well-known. So why is it not being used more widely? Health care providers are struggling to keep up with their daily needs; a major barrier to widespread use of IT is the initial investment cost. The costs of implementing health IT can be staggering. For example, the cost of an integrated electronic health record system for a three- to six-member physician practice is estimated to be $70,000-$100,000. And, the savings from using health IT go primarily to the patients, employers, and insurers, not the providers. If a patient needs one less x-ray because a hospital can pull up the x-ray performed by a radiologist in a different setting, that is one less co-payment for the patient, and one less bill to the patient's employer or insurer, or to the Medicare program. It only makes sense for the Federal Government to invest some seed money. Every day we delay providing Federal dollars, we delay getting health information technology systems in place, and businesses, taxpayers and patients pay in both dollars and lives. The bill that Senator Snowe and I are reintroducing today would address just that: It would put IT systems in the hands of providers by establishing a 5-year, $4 billion grant program for health care providers and by providing tax incentives and adjusting Medicare payments for providers who use these systems. The bill will be referred to the Finance Committee; Senator Snowe and I are both members of the committee and will work to include our legislation in any appropriate package the committee considers. We have made an important change to our bill this Congress. A patient's right to health information privacy is paramount, and is essential to the health care provider-patient relationship. Therefore we have added a requirement that health IT systems funded by our legislation ensure the privacy and security of personal medical information, and that patients be informed if there is a breach in the privacy of their medical record. We need to get this done. Widespread use of health information technology can revolutionize our health care system. Getting systems into the hands of providers is the first step. Our legislation has the support of many consumer, provider, labor and business groups including: AFL-CIO, Altarum, American Academy of Pediatrics, American College of Cardiology, American College of Emergency Physicians, American College of Physicians, American Health Care Association, American Heart Association, American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, Ascension Health, Automation Alley, BlueCross/BlueShield of Michigan, DaimlerChrysler, Detroit Medical Center, e-Health Initiative, Families USA, Federation of American Hospitals, Ford Motor Company, General Motors Corporation, Greenway Medical Technologies, Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS), HR Policy Association, IBM, Marquette General Health System, McLaren Health Care Corporation, Michigan Health and Hospital Association, Michigan State Medical Society, National Association of Children's Hospitals, National Association of Community Health Centers, National Business Coalition on Health, National Business Group on Health, National Partnership for Women and Families, National Rural Health Association, Oracle, Saint John Health, Saint Joseph Mercy Health System--Ann Arbor, Michigan; Saint Joseph Mercy Oakland-- Pontiac, Michigan; Saint Mary's Health Care--Grand Rapids, Michigan and Trinity Health. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. (for herself and Ms. Snowe, and Mr. Whitehouse) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to: S. Res. 202 Whereas the Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society has worked collaboratively with more than 48 stakeholder organizations for more than 45 years to transform health care with improved uses of information technology and management systems; Whereas the Center for Information Technology Leadership estimated that the implementation of national standards for interoperability and the exchange of health information would save the United States approximately $77,000,000,000 in expenses relating to health care each year; Whereas the RAND Corporation estimated that, if the health care system of the United States implemented the use of computerized medical records, the system could save the United States more than $81,000,000,000 each year; Whereas health care information technology has been shown to improve the quality and safety of the delivery of health care in the United States; Whereas health care information technology and management systems have been recognized as essential tools for improving the quality and cost efficiency of the health care system; Whereas the President and Secretary of Health and Human Services have made a commitment to leveraging the benefits of the health care information technology and management systems by establishing the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology and the American Health Information Community; Whereas Congress has placed an emphasis on improving the quality and safety of the delivery of health care in the United States; and Whereas organizations across the country have come together to support National Health Information Technology Week to improve public awareness relating to the potential benefits of improved quality and cost efficiency that the health care system could achieve if health information technology were better utilized: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) recognizes the value of information technology and management systems in transforming health care for all people in the United States; (2) designates the period beginning on May 14, 2007, and ending on May 18, 2007, as ``National Health Information Technology Week''; and (3) encourages the use of information technology and management systems to transform the health care system in the United States.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, under current law, only two categories of individuals pay tax on the sale of their principle residence: the truly fortunate who have realized a capital gain of more than $250,000, $500,000 on a joint return, or the truly unfortunate who lose equity in their home and are forced to pay tax if the lender forgives some portion of the mortgage debt. Surely this is an anomalous result. Nevertheless, newspaper and television reports describe the burdens families all over the country are facing as lenders foreclose on borrowers who cannot make their mortgage payments. In more and more circumstances, these borrowers, often minorities and the elderly, are unable to make the escalating payments associated with subprime loans and some complex adjustable rate mortgage products. Other media reports focus on the challenges sellers face if they live in areas with declining home values. There are instances where the value of housing in a whole market occasionally falls through no fault of the homeowner. A plant closes, environmental degradations are found nearby, a regional economic slump hits hard. This happened during the 1980s in the oil patch and in southern California and New England at the beginning of the 90s. This is happening right now in Michigan with the depressed automotive industry. The Detroit metropolitan area had the highest percentage of households in foreclosure in the 150 largest metropolitan areas, with an average of more than 10,000 foreclosures in each quarter. The foreclosures affected 1 out of every 21 households, nearly five times the national average. Over the first quarter of 2007, Michigan had over 29,000 foreclosures and Detroit was on pace to record 11,000 for that same time period. One thing these news reports do not mention is the tax problem that sellers or those in foreclosure will face if lenders forgive and do not require payment on some or all of a mortgage debt at the time of disposition. What happens to these people who must sell their homes during a downturn or who cannot make their payments and go into foreclosure? They must pay taxes on the amount forgiven; it is treated as income. Below are two hypothetical scenarios where owners must have to pay taxes on the amount forgiven and those estimated taxes. The first example is a situation where there has been a downturn in the housing market. The second example is where a family, possibly because of loss of job, illness, or decrease in income or significant changes in the mortgage rate, can neither refinance the property nor sustain the payments and the lender forecloses on the property. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Decrease in home prices or ``short sale'' Mortgage................................................... $100,000 Market Value at Purchase................................... 100,000 Market Value at Sale....................................... 90,000 Sale Price................................................. 90,000 Debt Remaining After Sale.................................. 10,000 Taxes Due if forgiven by the lender @ 15 percent tax rate.. 1,500 Lender forecloses Mortgage................................................... $100,000 Foreclosure Amount......................................... 80,000 Debt Remaining After Foreclosure........................... 20,000 Taxes Due if forgiven by the lender @ 15 percent tax rate.. 3,000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ In the ``short sale'' transaction, if the lender forgives the $10,000 of outstanding debt, the family will have taxable income of $10,000 on the transaction and owe $1,500, even though they have just sustained an economic loss and no cash gain. In a second scenario, if the foreclosure sale does not cover the amount of outstanding debt on the property or $20,000, the lender might forgive remaining debt. Again, the borrower is treated as having received ``income'' when the debt is forgiven and in the example, would owe $3,000 in taxes on the $20,000 that was forgiven. Clearly it is unfair to tax people on phantom income, particularly right at the time they have had a serious economic loss and have no cash with which to pay the tax. My bill, the Mortgage Relief Act, will relieve families of a tax burden when their lender forgives part of the mortgage on a principal residence. None of us wants to learn that families in our own districts will be forced to pay taxes when they have no money and have incurred a substantial loss on what, for most, is the most significant asset they own, and possibly the only asset they have. While my legislation will not repair their credit or punish those who mislead them into inappropriate loans, it will prevent them from further financial harm.