Debbie Stabenow

Ms. STABENOW

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today to urge the Bush administration to look beyond the next 48 hours. Right now, in Seoul, Korea, U.S. negotiators are meeting nonstop with South Korean officials to finish up the so-called Korean Free Trade Agreement. They are rushing because if they don't finish it by Saturday night at midnight, the trade agreement would not be eligible for fast-track authority. My colleagues understand what that means. They would not be eligible to move it through in a way that would not allow us to change the agreement in any way but puts it on fast-track authority so that if many of us believe there are concerns with it, we would not have the full range of options that we normally do in the Senate to be able to correct it or object to it. Mr. President, these negotiators are not discussing some minor trade deal. They are debating what could be the largest U.S. trade agreement since NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement. I urge the White House and its negotiators to look beyond the final hours left on the fast-track clock. What happens in the next 48 hours could affect the American economy, American businesses, the American auto industry, and American workers for decades to come. The goal is not to race to the finish line. The goal should be to have the very best possible trade agreement--an agreement that raises the standards of living for everybody by creating a level playing field, an agreement that ensures market access for both countries--not just South Korea. This cannot be a one-way deal. It has to be an opening of markets for both American businesses, American agriculture, as well as South Korean agriculture and business, and so on, including the industry that has built the middle class of this country, which is the U.S. auto industry. There seems to be an agreement that upholds the value of what has made this country successful. Fair competition, competition that rewards hard work, deserves our attention, and it is based very simply on what we happen to think in Michigan is just plain common sense, having the rules be the same. It is pretty simple, but even though they are basic, right now there is a question as to whether they will be included in this rush to this final trade agreement, to beat the clock. We don't need an agreement that sells out American workers or pits American companies against foreign governments that cheat the system. In this rush to the finish line, this administration has failed to remember that there is an alternative. This Congress will pass good trade agreements without fast track. We have done it before. I have supported good trade agreements. I want to vote for good trade agreements. We want to export our products, not our jobs. That is fundamentally what is at stake in this negotiation that is going on right this minute. I believe we must be a key player in the global economy. We are a key player, and trade agreements are part of that role. In fact, the old argument of protectionism versus free trade doesn't fit anymore. When you Blackberry your phone, the Internet can jump any wall that could be put up. There is a fundamental question for us today: How are we going to compete in a global economy and keep the middle class of this country, keep our way of life in this country? That is what is at stake in the negotiations going on right now. Unfortunately, fast-track authority has been used in the past to pass bad agreements through Congress. We undermine the integrity of our trade policy if the administration's agreements sell out our workers or export our middle class. Sadly, this administration makes it even worse by not enforcing our trade laws. We all know about what is happening when other countries, such as China or Japan, manipulate their currency--or, in some cases, even South Korea. We all know what happens when there are counterfeit products brought into this country and our ideas and patents are stolen, when other countries don't follow the rules. We need to make sure the rules are working and they are being enforced right now as we look to expand any agreements. We are talking about the next 48 hours. Simply put, racing to the finish line right now could very well, and likely will, result in a very bad trade agreement that will not allow our country to continue to have the edge, a bad trade agreement that will allow others to continue to cheat the international system, and a bad agreement for the people who are working hard at this moment, counting on us to get it right, counting on us to fight for a level playing field, so whether they own a business or whether they work for a business or whether they grow crops in the field, they can count on the rules being fair, the playing field level, and that we will enforce those rules on their behalf. South Korea is really the first test of this administration with the new Congress. Will this administration sell out American workers? Will they ignore the history of bilateral agreements with South Korea? Or will they work with us to get it right? The American people are counting on us to get it right. Eighty-two percent of the trade deficit with South Korea is in the automobile industry. Coming from the great State of Michigan, that matters to me. I hope it matters also to all of my colleagues, since this is the industry on which the middle class of this country has been built. Eighty-two percent of the trade deficit with South Korea is in the auto industry. That is because we have had two failed agreements with South Korea which have allowed cars to come into the United States while South Korea keeps its markets virtually closed. That doesn't make any sense. In fact, South Korea is the least open market for autos of any industrialized country. Meanwhile, South Korea continues to export 7 out of 10 of their vehicles. So they make 10 and ship 7 outside of the country. The United States has a 12-year history and two auto-specific bilateral agreements with South Korea in an attempt to open their auto import market so we can sell to them. In 1995 and 1998, the United States attempted to level the playing field by instituting two memoranda of understanding that clearly stated the need to increase ``foreign-made vehicle market access.'' But despite these attempts from the U.S. Government, both Republican and Democratic Presidents, nothing has changed with South Korea as it relates to our automobile industry. This chart is pretty clear as to what has happened. In 2006, Korea imported to us 749,822 automobiles. That is what came to us. And how many were we allowed to ship to them, built in America? Mr. President, 4,556 vehicles. I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to figure out that is not a level playing field, that is not fair. Who in their right mind would negotiate a continuation of that situation? I can assure my colleagues, if that is what comes back or anything even close to it from this agreement, this Senator from Michigan will do everything I can possibly do to stop it from being enacted. In addition, South Korea has an 8-percent tariff on U.S. auto imports, three times the U.S. tariff, which is 2.5 percent. We have had two different agreements to fix this situation, and instead, we continue with tariffs that are so different: 8 percent that we pay, 2.5 percent that they pay. Then on top of that, they do things such as make sure that our automobiles, foreign imports, have higher insurance rates or get audited or have other kinds of barriers on them, while we have an open marketplace and they come in unimpeded. I remind our negotiators, we have plenty of time to develop a good trade agreement. If we fix this situation, if we have something that truly is in the interest of Americans, of American workers, businesses, and farmers, I will be first on the floor to support it. But this is not fair. Something that maybe inches this up from 4,500 to 5,000 or 6,000, while Korean imports continue to go up will not be fair. We have to have an open process so we have the same kind of access to their market that they have to ours. I thought that is what trade agreements were supposed to be about. There is no need to rush. There is no need to sell out our auto industry in America or our workers or any other group. I know there are other concerns as well from rice farmers and beef interests and others. Certainly, I don't think we should be in a situation where any of our American interests are put at risk because of a trade agreement. All we want is a level playing field. All we want is the ability to have the same rules apply no matter where one lives, and to have those rules enforced. Right now, as I said before, we have a 48-hour time period. We know at this moment there are people negotiating, trying to beat the clock in the next 48 hours. It won't work unless this is an agreement that works for America. And from my standpoint, it won't work unless it works for the American auto industry. These kinds of numbers make no sense whatsoever. I am very hopeful folks will stop and take a deep breath for a moment and look at what needs to be done, and then have faith in us, in Congress, that we will work with the administration to put together a good deal. If it is a good deal, if it is a good deal for American businesses, if it is a good deal for American workers, then it will sail through. But if it continues the bad deal we have had now for the last 12 years trying to work with South Korea, there are going to be serious objections. As I said so many times before, American workers and American businesses can compete with anybody, but we have to have a level playing field. We have to require that other countries play by the same rules we do and that we negotiate agreements that make sense, where the tariffs are the same and the rules are the same and the market access is the same. That is all I wish to see happen as a Senator from Michigan, and I know that is what we are all hoping will happen for those we represent. The next 48 hours are critically important for our working men and women in this country and American businesses, doing business here, that want to remain here, that want to remain in the business of providing good work with good pay and good benefits in the United States. That is what this is about. Again, we want to export our products, not our jobs. What happens in the next 48 hours will determine whether we are going to be able to work together with the administration to get this right. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, will my friend yield for a question?

Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I rise also to oppose this amendment. The first point that comes to mind for me is, here they go again. I say that with all due respect to my friend from Arizona. But we are seeing more, as the Budget chairman has said, of the strategy that got us into the hole that this budget is trying to dig us out of. It is important to emphasize again what the Budget chairman has said. Here is what has happened in terms of numbers of estates that even qualified as taxable estates back in 2000. It was 50,000. It has dropped to 13,000, and as of 2009, it will be 7,000 estates in the entire country that will even qualify for this tax. How much is that? We are talking about only .2 percent of estates, 7,000. The Baucus amendment that we adopted yesterday says that for those, it is not going to change. That number is not going to go back up. There will be a continuation of the current exemption level. So we are talking about .2 percent of the estates being taxed. I think almost without exception--I can't speak for every colleague on the Senate floor, but I know on this side of the aisle, colleagues are very sympathetic and support our family farmers. I have a lot of them in my State, and I know you do, Madam President, in your State as well, small businesses, family-owned businesses. They build up the business, and they want to be able to pass that business on. With great pride, the families are engaged and involved. We are not interested in seeing anybody lose their family farm or their family business. That is why we have supported extending the exemptions so that less than .2 percent of estates are taxed or eligible to be taxed. Frankly, there have been some of us on this side of the aisle who have had amendments over the years--I have cosponsored amendments--that would exempt family-owned enterprises. If that is what people want to do, I think there would be a lot of interest in doing something like that. But I think behind all the talk of our family farmers and small businesses is another picture of a few extremely wealthy families in this country whose children or aunts, uncles, sisters, brothers-- someone may benefit through an inheritance. They may have not contributed at all to building that wealth and may never have to work a day in their life or contribute to this country. The question is, Should they have to contribute in some way with the only tax, for instance, they might pay is the estate tax? I see my time is coming to a close. I want to share one more chart. What we are concerned about, what I am concerned about, is the fact that last year, the tax cuts that have already been given have already disproportionately affected the very wealthy, the most blessed people in this country. Anyone earning more than $1 million a year last year, in 2006, had a tax cut of over $118,000, which is more than what the average person in Michigan or anyone in this country makes in a year. So what we are objecting to is this is not helping family farmers and small businesses. This is about a tax system and a series of tax cuts that are out of whack that have created the situation where, if you are working hard every day on that family farm, in that small business, or if you are working every day building great American automobiles, such as a lot of folks in my State, you didn't see any tax cut or not much of a tax cut. But if you are somebody who would benefit in that top .2 percent who gets the estate tax cut we are talking about, you are already being given some pretty big gifts from the current tax system. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I thank the chairman and everyone for all the hard work they are doing on this very important budget. I am happy to talk about ways we can save dollars in Medicare without cutting access or quality under Medicare. These amendments do not do that. These amendments start from the premise that we are going to cut providers. Let's look at doctors or hospitals or home health or maybe hospice, maybe nursing homes. It says what we ought to be doing is cutting back on payments in this system, which will cut back on their ability to service people, the ability for people to get care they need. I find it so interesting on all of these amendments that folks--my friends on the other side of the aisle--go after those who are receiving health care. Medicare is a universal system. Everyone pays in. It involves choice. You can go to an HMO or your own doctor, you can sign up for Part B and get more coverage, pay a bigger premium, Part B--it is a system that has worked, but everyone has paid in. So this notion that somehow we are going to pick this apart on the floor of the Senate without going through the process of looking at the whole system and how we really achieve savings, really achieve savings without cutting services, is mind boggling to me. We saw a $400 billion Medicare prescription drug benefit pass the Senate, which now costs more--we do not know how much more but costs more--by the way, unpaid for, paid for on a credit card, I guess, that we know could be less than that. If we talk about savings in Medicare, let's negotiate prescription drug prices. That is a way to make sure that we lower the price of Medicare. Now, it would involve taking on folks who many of my friends on the other side of the aisle support, industries that benefitted from this Medicare bill. But rather than saying we are going to cut our doctors trying to service our seniors, or our hospitals trying to hold it together and treating people, or home health, rather than saying we are going to cut out services in some way, let's go to the real cost. I am happy to go to the real costs that we can address while increasing access and quality. One is to negotiate a better deal, negotiate a better deal for prescription drugs. I hope we are going to, in fact, do that as a Congress to be able to get a better deal. Another thing would be to take the 31 cents on every dollar in health care that is the administrative cost--most of this is generated by the Federal Government in some way--and address health information technology, which many of us have worked on, Senator Snowe and I have legislation on, Senator Kennedy, Senator Enzi. We have bipartisan interest. Let's tackle that, and that would increase quality and access and dramatically cut the cost. E-prescribing of prescription drugs alone, according to the Rand Corporation, would save $80 billion, just your pharmacy being able to talk to your doctor, talk to the hospital, and so on. I came from a meeting where people were talking about great things: the increase in quality and access, and cutting costs. So let's talk about health IT. Let's talk about generic drugs which, if we have more competition from generic drugs, we would dramatically bring down the costs of Medicare. So there is a lot we can do that does not involve going to the folks providing care and saying: We are going to cut you one more time. We are going to cut you one more time, or going to the universal nature of a health care system. This is not a low-income system. This is a universal system where everybody in America pays in, and it is stronger because of that. So I would say that we should reject the two amendments in front of us. But we should certainly get about the business of addressing health care costs in this country through Medicare and through other means. We spend almost twice as much of our GDP on health care than any other country, with 50 million people with no health insurance. That alone shows there is something wrong with that picture. We know we have had increases in Medicare, no question about it. But let's look at where they are coming from. Let's look at where they are coming from. Certainly, the area of lacking prescription drug competition is a big one. Administrative costs is a big one. Let's look at where we can save costs. I know it means taking on some pretty big special interests. There has been an unwillingness to do that because there are folks who make a lot of money off of Medicare, a lot of money. I would not suggest it is the doctors or the hospital or the hospices or home health nurses, but there are folks who make a lot of money. They do not want to see us deal with the real costs. So let's go back one more time after the providers. Let's go back one more time and try to dismantle what is a universal health care system called Medicare. It works. Frankly, I would like to see that kind of a universal system available, that is structurally available to every American, not just find ways to cut the one part of universal health care that we have in this country. I would hope that we would leave it to the Finance Committee to wrestle with all of those issues and let us figure out how to do this right. I would hope my colleagues would say no to these two amendments that take us backwards in providing health care for every American. I yield the floor.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. If I may inquire, Madam President, is the Senator speaking on this amendment?

Ms. STABENOW. Will my colleague yield for a question?

Ms. STABENOW. I thank you, as chairman of the Budget Committee, for bringing forward the ``save Social Security first'' amendment in committee. It makes it very clear in the budget resolution that we intend to come out of this hole and are committed to making sure Social Security moneys are restored. Last night we heard from other colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Senator Sessions offered an amendment that basically would fly in the face of Senator Bunning's amendment, wouldn't you say, because it essentially would take away the ability to have a 60-vote point of order as it relates to extending the tax cuts that created the hole in the first place. Because isn't it true that essentially the tax cuts were paid for by using Social Security surplus funds?

Ms. STABENOW. If I might ask a second question of my friend. Again, I will start by congratulating the Senator. I remember, as a new member of the Budget Committee, coming in in 2001 when there were record surpluses, that the Senator was warning us about what could happen. Actually, is it not true that at that time, the Senator was suggesting a third of the surpluses go to prefunding the liability of Social Security so we would not find ourselves in this mess? Would not that have had a very different outcome on where we are today?

Ms. STABENOW. I would ask to be recognized after that.

Ms. STABENOW. Yes.

Ms. STABENOW. I ask for 5 minutes.

Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, to add to what the distinguished Senator from North Dakota indicated, we have tax cuts built into this budget. We are in a global economy. We need to be competitive. There are a number of ways in which we need to be competitive. My friend from South Carolina and I are working together on the question of trade enforcement. That is a critical part of it--investing in education, a skilled workforce, innovation. That is a very big part of it. That is a big part of this budget, making education a top priority. Changing the way we fund health care, getting it off the back of businesses, addressing health care costs is a big part of being competitive and is addressed in this budget. We say every child in a family where the folks are working ought to have access to health insurance, and this budget finds a way to do that. We address other issues. Health information technology, that Senator Snowe and I and others are working on together, is addressed in this budget. So we address a number of items, including tax cuts. We address one of my biggest concerns, and I know my Democratic colleagues share this concern, of what is happening with the alternative minimum tax and how it is going to be shifted more and more to middle-income taxpayers and is becoming the alternative middle-class tax. We address that. Through this Baucus amendment we say when we get into surplus, when we get out of the hole that has been dug in the last 6 years and actually begin to have a surplus, we are going to capture that $132 billion, both to make sure that children's health care is funded and to expand on investments in tax cuts, including what has been talked about in terms of extending the exemptions on the estate tax for a certainty. We want folks to know that once you get to 2010, you can keep living a healthy life, continue, and, in fact, the same rates, at a minimum, will continue. So the Baucus amendment is about making sure we can do that. We all come together around the education cuts and making sure that we have the child tax credit and the 10-percent tax rate and other areas that are very important to working families, middle-class families. But we do this within the context of another very important value that Americans hold, and that is we pay the bills. We do it within a framework of fiscal responsibility. In the last 6 years we have seen this tax policy, we have seen a war that has not been paid for, we have seen other spending that has been rolled over onto the national debt creating the largest deficit in the history of the country. We are now trying--and with this budget we will succeed--to dig our way out of that. But this amendment adds over $72 billion back into the hole. It keeps on digging. That is what this budget resolution is committed to stop: fiscal responsibility, and to invest in the priorities of American families and American businesses and invest in middle-class tax cuts. I have heard on the other side of the aisle over and over that we should not pick who receives tax cuts. That is exactly what the current policy has done. If you earned over $1 million last year, you received at least $118,477 worth of a tax cut. That is more than the average person in Michigan makes in a year, and that was the tax cut. I suggest, looking at this chart, for someone earning less than $100,000, it was $692. We can go on down. If someone was, in fact, earning less than that, those numbers go all the way down to less than $100. I would suggest that the priority was set the previous Congress, the administration deciding whom they wanted to get tax cuts--and they have been getting them--adding to the deficit, taking away from our ability to critically invest in those things that will allow us to be competitive; investments in science and education and changing the way we fund health care and doing the other kinds of things we need to do, including balancing the budget, to be able to address the costs of interest, et cetera. So what we are saying is this picture of who receives tax cuts is not ours. This is not ours. We reject that. This budget focuses on the folks who have not been getting the tax cuts, it focuses on the folks who not only have not been getting the tax cuts, but they have been getting the wage cuts at the same time. The average, the real median household income has declined by almost $1,300 in the last 5 years. Folks are working harder, the gas prices are going up, the cost of college is going up, health care costs are going up, maybe they lose their pension and hope and pray that they have a job, their income is going down, and to add insult to injury, they have not received the tax cuts that have been offered. What we are about is changing that picture. This budget resolution is about a new direction, a new set of priorities, focusing on middle- class families who are working hard every day, businesses who are investing in America and want to keep the jobs here. That is what this is about. I hope we will reject the Kyl amendment.

Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, 5 minutes.

Ms. STABENOW. I thank the chairman. Madam President, as a member of both the Budget Committee and Finance Committee, I concur with our leader's comments in terms of the jurisdiction of the Budget Committee. I look forward, frankly, to this debate and working through all the specifics on children's health care in the Finance Committee because there are very important issues we need to address. The spirit of the Cornyn amendment is what we have addressed in this budget resolution, which is making sure we have the resources to be able to cover every child. Right now, about 6 million children are covered. There are another 6 to 7 million children who actually qualify for the SCHIP program, for children's health care, but the funds are not there. So this budget proposal will allow that to happen. Now, in some States--such as my own State of Michigan, where Michigan decided on its own to meet its moral obligation to cover children and began to reach out creatively using other funds to cover children--when they have received the children's health care funds, they have found that being creative, using what they were already using, they could stretch it a little farther to maybe cover moms and dads or very poor adults. In the law we passed regarding children's health care, there was a waiver provision put in that the administration could use--used by this administration and the former administration--to waive the rules to allow a little more flexibility, if the States were able to work hard and be creative and be able to stretch their dollars. That is what has happened in Michigan. I am very proud of the hard work that has gone on in Michigan and by our current Governor who is very committed to extending health care coverage not only for every child but for every person in our State. I hope that is our goal, together, for our country. We should not be talking about how we limit health care but how we make sure it is available for every individual. I believe health care should be a right and not a privilege in the greatest country in the world. But in our case, we cover an individual making $4,500 a year--$4,500 a year--certain individuals. So when we get to the Finance Committee debate, I hope we are going to keep in there the ability and flexibility for States to receive, if approved, waivers that allow them to stretch their precious health care dollars a little bit farther. This amendment would, in its policy--even though it has no effect ultimately, it states we should not allow that flexibility for States, we should not allow the ability for States to be creative. It also sets a limit of 200 percent above poverty, which may sound--well, it may sound as though it is OK, but you are talking about basically two individuals in a family each earning the minimum wage. That is about hitting that number of 200 percent of poverty. So if you get a minimum wage increase or maybe you get a little bit more money, and you still do not have health care coverage in your employment. Again, we would be saying, through this kind of amendment, they should not be able to cover their children with health care, not be able to have access, even though they are working hard. The whole point of SCHIP is to say to those who are working: If you are working hard and in a low-income job, you should be able to know you can receive health insurance for your children. If you are working hard, you don't have to go to bed at night saying: Please God, don't let the kids get sick--which is what happens every single night in America. So I hope we reject this amendment. It is not appropriate for the Budget Committee. I also look forward to the debate on the policy once we get to the Finance Committee. We want to cover every child. The money in this budget will allow us to cover those children who are currently eligible but not covered. We will cover every child. That is our commitment. That is part of the moral document we have put forward in this budget resolution. But we also, I believe, need to figure out a way to make sure in the process we are not taking away health care coverage from anyone in the country. Thank you.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. I would ask for an additional 3 minutes.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I know our budget leaders are working diligently as they put together what will be happening on amendments. I thought I would take a moment to summarize again what it is that we are proposing in this budget resolution. Let me again commend our leader, Senator Conrad, the very distinguished Senator from North Dakota, for his incredible job of putting together a very complicated budget with many pieces. He has worked very hard. His staff has worked very hard. I thank them for that, as well as the distinguished former chairman, current ranking member, the Senator from New Hampshire, who is also a real pleasure to work with. Even though we disagree on many philosophical points, it is a pleasure working with him. I appreciate all of his hard work and the hard work of his staff. What we are looking at for the next year and for basically the 5 years of the budget resolution is a return to fiscal responsibility; in other words, we think it is time that we stop digging the hole and start filling in so we can climb out of it. In other words, we think it is time to start paying the bills and not spending more than we have, which is what every family in America has to wrestle with every day. They expect us to make the tough choices to do the same things. This budget does that. This budget also puts middle-class families first. We start by addressing all that we know families are concerned about. It is a new direction for America. It is a new time. We have seen in the last 6 years an effort to put the privileged few first--whether that was tax cuts, whether that was other kinds of investments, or a lack of fiscal responsibility, a real borrow-and- spend mentality. We now are saying it is time for a new direction. I think the people of America said in November it is time for a new direction. They elected a new majority, and it is our job, it is our responsibility now to fulfill that. That is what this budget resolution does. It reflects a very different set of values and priorities. We do return to fiscal discipline. In fact, by year 5--by year 5--we are back in the black, which is extraordinary given the fact that in the Clinton years, in the 1990s, we did all the hard work of getting it into balance. I remember being in the House with the distinguished Presiding Officer, the Senator from Ohio. We were in the House together. It was a very tough time to make tough decisions to balance the budget. The first year I was in the House, we did that in 1997. Then we began to see surpluses. We did that with a very balanced approach. We did that with tax cuts to stimulate the economy, but it was for middle-class families and small businesses and those who were creating jobs in America. We did it by strategic investments. We did it by strategic investments in education, innovation, science, technology development, and investing in health care. That is when the first children's health care program was developed, to provide health care for children of working families who do not have health insurance connected to their job. We did it by making some very tough decisions that put Social Security first and stopped using that trust fund as a way to fund other things. As a result of some tough decisions and some smart investments, by 2001, when I had the privilege of coming to the Senate representing Michigan and sitting on the Senate Budget Committee, we had the largest budget surplus in the history of the country--$5.7 trillion. I could live on that--$5.7 trillion. We had, then, choices. What do you do with that? After all that hard work, what do you do with that? I remember the now distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee, the Senator from North Dakota, suggesting what I believed was a very wise plan at the time. He said: We need to be balanced, as we have been, as we were in the 1990s, in getting us to this point. We need to do strategic tax cuts, again to stimulate the economy. Those kinds of tax cuts create jobs in America, innovation. Then we need to have strategic investments in our people, in science, in health care, in education, having the opportunity for people to be able to afford to go to college. Let's make sure our communities are safe by having enough police officers on the streets. Let's do those things that protect our air and our water and our land and invest in the quality of life of America. So let's do that for one-third; tax cuts for one-third. And then we know we baby boomers are coming. We know the concern about Social Security. So let's take a third of all that surplus and put it aside, put it into prefunding the gap we know is coming. That was the current chairman's plan. I thought that was a good plan. I supported it. We were in the minority, and we were not successful in passing that plan. I believe if we had, we would not be debating the gap in Social Security as we are now, and we would not be talking about digging ourselves out of a hole that has been created, because instead of that balanced approach that every family would take trying to balance out multiple needs--and how do we make sure we are smart, how do we be strategic, how do we create opportunities, and so on--instead of doing that, virtually all of it was put into a tax cut that resulted last year in people who earn over $1 million--just in 2006--getting an over $118,000 tax cut, which was more than most people in Michigan make in a year. So that was done. Then it left us no rainy day fund, no ability to respond to emergencies. Then the war happened. We essentially put it on a credit card. Other things were passed that were essentially put on a credit card. We racked up--I should not say ``we;'' I did not support those things--the largest deficit in the history of the country. Now there is a new majority, and we have inherited all of the things that happened before. I heard tonight colleagues on the other side of the aisle talking about all these problems in the budget. Boy, do we agree. Unfortunately, we did not create those problems. We have inherited those problems over the last 6 years. But we know it is our responsibility to do something about it. That is what this budget does. This budget is an effort to be responsible, to do what every American wants us to do to get our arms around this deficit, to do those things that will require tough choices, the right choices. We say if there are going to be further tax cuts or mandatory spending in the future, you should have to think long and hard, and we should have to get 60 votes or a supermajority to do that because we want to make it a fiscally responsible budget. But we also understand part of being responsible is responding to what is happening to every--almost every--American family across this country. Earlier today, I heard the distinguished ranking member on the Budget Committee talk about how great things are, how great things are going. Well, they are not going great for a majority of Americans in this country who have seen their real wages, their earning power go down since 2000, not up. For others it may be going up. Corporate profits are going up. The S&P 500 is going up. But for everybody working hard every day, trying to make ends meet for their family, their wages on average are going down. This budget addresses that issue. This budget focuses on middle- income families and those working very hard to get into the middle class who are saying: What about me? When is somebody going to stop what is going on and focus on the majority of Americans and what we need to grow the economy, our quality of life, and to make sure our families have what they need, who are working hard every day? That is what this budget addresses, those people who are, in fact, the majority of the people. So we do it in a number of ways. We do it by investing in education. When you look at the President's budget for this year, and you add up past years, there is over a $70 billion shortfall in Leave No Child Behind. We are leaving a lot of kids behind. There was a commitment made to raise standards, and at the same time to give resources to schools, and it is $70 billion short as of this date with this President's budget. We put more money into education. We do not think that is good enough. I was at an education hearing today, and some very good points were made. In fact, our chairman, the distinguished Senator from Montana, told a story at the beginning of the hearing about Rip Van Winkle waking up and seeing all these changes in the world, but he finally could feel comfort because the school looked the same. My kids graduated from college not long ago, but not too long ago high school. One of the things that consistently has caused me great concern is that the schools they went to look dangerously like the schools I went to. Yet we carry around personal computers. Every single one of us operates with computers. We have computers right here in the Senate Chamber. Yet we do not have one on the desk for every child in America. So we are leaving kids behind in a lot of different ways. We say in our budget resolution, that is not OK. We want to turn that around. So we put dollars back. We stopped the cuts the President has, and we invest more dollars in education and innovation. Then we say if you are working hard and you are trying to make ends meet, and you are working in a job that does not have health insurance for your family, you ought to be able to know that when you go to bed at night your kids have health care and you can do something about it if they get sick. That is what we do by making a commitment to fully fund what is called SCHIP, the Children's Health Insurance Program. This is something that is available to working families. Low-income families are able to receive Medicaid. These are families who are working hard, families whose minimum wage we raised not long ago. So maybe they only have to work two jobs now instead of three to make ends meet, but they still do not have health insurance. We make a commitment to provide that health insurance for every child of a working family. That is a very important value. It is a very important principle. I hope we are going to come together with strong bipartisan support to be able to do that. We also then keep our promise to our veterans. We all know what has happened at Walter Reed. We know also there are other very serious system problems. In my State of Michigan, people wait too long to see a doctor. They drive too far to get basic kinds of tests, blood drawn, or x rays. We need to do a better job for our veterans. We need, frankly, to get them out of the yearly budget process and put them into a situation where they know their funding is assured. Our budget, for the first time ever, I assume--certainly for the first time since I have been here; and I have asked others, and I think it is the first time ever--we have in the budget the amount recommended by the independent budget which is organized by all the veterans groups. The veterans groups have come together. They analyze the VA health system and other needs and recommend to us what is needed. For the first time, our budget for veterans health care and other critical needs matches what they are recommending. This is very important. We are making veterans--our men and women who are coming home from wars, who put on a veteran's cap, who may have tremendous hardships, physical challenges, mental challenges, financial challenges from being extended more than once--and with serious issues for families--we make veterans a top priority and say we are going to keep our promise to our veterans. That is an integral part of our budget resolution. Then we go back to what we have always been about. The other side will say: Well, we are for tax increases. No. No. We just want to see the folks who are working hard, who are the majority of Americans, get the tax cut. I am not interested in another tax cut for somebody who makes over $1 million a year, who got $118,000 back in a tax cut last year. I want somebody making $118,000 a year to get a tax cut. We start by saying the alternative minimum tax, which is creeping up and hitting middle-income people, should be changed so it does not become the alternative middle class tax. We are very focused on making sure the other parts of the Tax Code that are important to families remain in place and that we, in fact, are giving middle-class tax cuts. Then we take a look at all of the efforts to deinvest, to defund that the President recommended in education, cutting the COPS Program again, firefighter grants, various kinds of technology programs, environmental programs in Michigan, and I know in Ohio as well. The manufacturing extension partnership is important for small and medium-sized businesses to be able to help them receive technical assistance, to be able to compete in the global economy, to be able to hire more people. We have restored the funding for that. We address other technology programs. So we also reject the President's efforts to move away from critical areas of priority and need of the American people. So there are a lot of other pieces in this budget, but these basically, overall, are the important priorities that we have placed in the budget that say to the American people: We care about you. We want to put you and your family first. We know that you are squeezed on all sides. If you are from Michigan and losing your job or being asked to take less in your job or pay more for your health care or lose your pension, it is time to fix that. It is time to make you a priority. That is what this budget does. It makes the people who work hard every day, who make this country run--the middle class, the people working hard every day to get into that middle class, who keep the economic engine of this country going--it makes them the priority. That is what this is all about. It is about whose interests are going to be represented in this budget. I am very proud of the fact we are representing the interests of the majority of Americans, the folks who are working hard and seeing the gas prices go up along with the oil company profits, who are seeing their health care costs go up, maybe losing their pension, seeing the cost of college go up for their kids. Everything is going up and up and up and up. Those are the folks whose pockets we want to put money back into. That is where we want the tax cuts to go. That is where we want the tax cuts to go. That is where we want the investments in the future to go. That is what this budget resolution does. I am very proud of the fact that we return fiscal discipline and we put middle-class families first. It is about time. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I will take 1 more minute.

Ms. STABENOW. We support this budgeting through tax cuts that make sense for middle-class families. That is who needs the tax cuts. We talk a lot about these tax cuts being given. You ask the average family if they feel like they have gotten a tax cut. They tell me: No. Because they did not get it. People are smart enough to know they did not get it. Well, we have put in place tax cuts for the middle class. We have started with the alternative minimum tax, which is about ready to hit a whole new group of middle-class taxpayers. We make sure that our Tax Code gives middle-class families a leg up and does not punish them for working hard and being successful. Finally, we go on to make sure we reinstitute, as I said in the beginning, law enforcement, transportation, community development, protecting our environment, which is a very small part of the budget but critical for our families. The bottom line is this budget works for people. This is about middle-class families, the values of the majority of Americans, and doing it in a responsible way. I urge the adoption of the budget resolution.

Ms. STABENOW. Yes.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate today, and if the Republican leader has nothing further, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand adjourned under the previous order.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 9:15 a.m., Wednesday, March 21; that on Wednesday, following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that the Senate then resume consideration of S. Con. Res. 21, as provided for under a previous order.