Debbie Stabenow

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, the comment I have, when we look at what the Senator from Alabama is talking about, he is basically saying that the tax cuts that were passed, first of all, were a good idea for most Americans and that he wants to make it as difficult as possible to change that. So when we look at what happened this last year, if you have more than $1 million that you earned in some way--unearned income or earned income--more than $1 million, you received $118,477 from the President's tax cuts last year. So what this amendment would do is say basically that they like this ratio. The less you made last year, the less you got. In fact, less than $100,000 in income, a family making less than $100,000 got $692. If you were willing to run that out even further, you had a lot of folks who maybe got $30, $40, $50 from this tax cut. So this locks in this kind of a tax cut. We don't think this is fair. This budget resolution changes the way we look at tax cuts going forward and basically says we want tax cuts going to middle-class Americans. We want tax cuts going to the majority of Americans who are working hard every day, worried about their kids, who want to be able to send them to college, want to be able to have health care for them, and want a job, a good-paying job in America. These are the folks we are focusing on in this budget. There is no question about it. This budget resolution is a new direction. It is a new day. It is a new set of values and priorities. The idea of saying, as this amendment does, that we should make it harder to change this, harder to rearrange things here or to maybe move some of those dollars over into making sure kids can go to college or making sure they have health care or their folks have health care or making sure we keep our promises to our veterans--those are the priorities in our budget. Essentially, this amendment would say, if we need to address our veterans through adding dollars to make sure they have the health care they need, if we need to do more as we investigate and see what is unfolding with Walter Reed and other parts of the VA system and so on, that it would take more votes, it would take 60 votes to do something that would help our veterans but it would only take 50 votes to be able to continue this kind of a tax cut, this kind of a structure. We reject that. We reject that set of values and priorities. They have been in place for 6 years, and I believe the American people have rejected those priorities with the changes in majority and the change in leadership that was made and that has begun as of January. What we have is a different approach. First of all, as our distinguished budget chairman has said, we do want to say for new spending--whether it is tax cuts or other kinds of spending--we do want, overall, to make it a little tougher by having a 60-vote requirement because we want to make sure we are paying attention to lowering the deficit and moving in the other direction, to stop this spending using Social Security that has been going on for years and years. But also in our budget, within that context, we have changed the priorities on the spending. We have said let's be fiscally responsible on any new mandatory spending, any new tax cuts, and require that people come together in a bipartisan way. It is a conscious choice, a supermajority vote. But we have also said we are going to increase the budget in education. Earlier we heard from colleagues talking about all the new money that has been put into education under this President. The fact is that if you include this President's budget for next year, the Leave No Child Behind legislation is underfunded by over $70 billion. We put more dollars into education because we know it is about opportunity for our kids, it is about economic competitiveness, it is about creating opportunity--to dream big dreams and go as far as you can in the greatest country in the world--and that we have to focus on education. Our budget does that. Our budget also says that part of what we need to do is invest in children's health care. For working families, those folks whose minimum wage we raised who do not have health insurance with their job, who are working one job, two jobs, three jobs, to try to make ends meet, we think they ought not have to go to bed worried about whether their kids are going to get sick; with a prayer at night saying: Please, God, don't let my kids get sick. The SCHIP program is about making sure we support those working families, and we made a commitment in this budget to say we want every child from that working family--every child who does not have insurance to be able to receive insurance. This budget keeps its commitment to its veterans. This budget provides real middle-class tax cuts. Not what is on this chart. I am not interested in adding. Can you imagine, $118,000-plus is the tax cut for last year? That is more than the average person in Michigan or anywhere in this country makes in a year. That is more than they make in a year. We say we need a different kind of tax cut. For the folks who are making less than $118,000 a year, for the folks who are working hard every day, we want to change this picture. This amendment would basically say: The current tax cuts that are in place are great, we want to make it harder to change them. They keep in place something that frankly has been so unfair to middle-class Americans. All over Michigan, when you talk to folks about tax cuts, most people say to me: What tax cuts? What are you talking about? I did not get a tax cut. You mean that tax cut that went into place in 2001? You don't remember getting that big tax cut? Most people never saw that tax cut. That is why if you earned more than half a million dollars last year, you saw it, $21,000 worth. If you earned more than $1 million last year, you got over $118,000 in tax cuts. We need a new direction. That is what this budget resolution is about, a new direction for the country that says: It is about everybody. It is about everybody who works hard every day, who gets up in the morning, does their best knowing they are going to be able to share in tax cuts. But they are also going to be able to share in a community, in an educational system that works for the kids, being able to send them to college; that they are going to be able to share in the great health care we have in this country. We have got the greatest health care in the world. We have got 50 million people with no health insurance. We spend twice as much money as any other country in the Western Hemisphere on our health care coverage. We are saying: We can do this better. We can do this differently so that American families reap the benefit of working hard and know that the future of this country is available to them for the great things about this country, the health care system, access to college, good schools are available to them. Then we go further and we say: We want to make sure you have enough police officers on the streets and firefighters and that local communities can take care of water and sewer needs and other issues and protect the environment; in Michigan, it is the Great Lakes and our air, to be able to breathe the air, and on and on. There is a set of things that we are committed to doing. The good thing is all that domestic spending we have talked about, that $18 billion in increased spending, 17 percent of the entire budget, only 17 percent of the entire budget, our investments that we are talking about for the people of this country. Let me also say again, when we talk about differences and where dollars go, $10 billion, $10 billion a year is needed to make sure every kid in this country has health care. That is what we are spending in 1 month in Iraq--1 month in Iraq worth of funding to fund every child in America with health care coverage. We believe we need to be doing that. In fact, the entire increase in investments in the future for this country's health care, science, education, protecting the environment, law enforcement, all of it adds up to less than 2 months' spending in Iraq. What this amendment would say is we are going to make it very hard to do any other kind of investments for the American people, American families, but we are going to make it easy to extend this kind of tax cut for people earning over $1 million a year. I hope we will say no. I hope we will say yes to the budget resolution. We are bringing back fiscal responsibility and stopping digging so the hole does not get any bigger and we can get out of it. We are redirecting the priorities of this country to reflect what the majority of Americans want to see happen for the future of this country and for the future of kids.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, first of all, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee for his outstanding work and his commitment day in and day out to putting together a new direction for the country in this budget and meeting our fiscal responsibilities, and thanks to his staff for their hard work as well. Also, to our ranking member, the former chairman, we disagree in approach, but I have great respect for him and his staff and the way in which they conduct business and their professionalism. Before talking about why this is a good budget resolution, let me start out by, in fact, disagreeing with the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire. He says everything is going great all across the country, everything is going great. But just last week, in the newspaper here, the Washington Post, we had a story about a national survey showing a soaring number of homeowners failed to make their mortgage payments. The number of foreclosures of all homes jumped to its highest level in nearly four decades, according to the survey by the Mortgage Bankers Association. The highest level in nearly four decades? Is that because people just don't want to pay their mortgage? Of course it is not. It is because the average people--middle-class families, people working hard every single day--are not feeling the benefits of what the distinguished Senator was talking about. It is true that you can show numbers--stock market up 58 percent, real GDP up 32 percent, real corporate profits up 36 percent. But the median household income--the majority of Americans working hard every single day, who care about their families and are trying to make a better life for themselves, have seen their incomes go down--in fact, $1,253 over a 5-year period, from 2000 to 2005. Why? First of all, we have lost 3 million manufacturing jobs in America under this President and during the previous Congress--3 million manufacturing jobs. What does that mean? Good-paying jobs, good wages, pensions, health care benefits, a chance at the future, the hope of sending your children to college--good-paying jobs, 3 million of them lost. I have a list here of just some of those in manufacturing: computer and electronics manufacturing, 543,900 jobs, good-paying jobs, people who have a very different view than what was presented earlier about how great it is right now economically in America. Vehicle parts, machinery, fabricated metal products and primary metals, and right on down, transportation equipment, furniture products, textile mills--43 percent drop in textiles--leather products, right on down through chemicals. The reality is too many people in this country, the majority of people in this country, have not benefited from the rosy picture we have heard about and we are going to continue to hear about on this floor. Why? Because they have not been the priority under this administration and the previous Congress. They have not been the priority. The good news about this budget is that in this budget, they are the priority. We are in a new direction through this budget. We are, in fact, returning to fiscal discipline. Yes, we value paying the bills. No more borrow and spend, borrow and spend, over and over again, borrowing, adding up mounds of debt. We are putting us back on the road to fiscal discipline, and we are putting middle-class families first. That is the value base for this budget. That is what we are looking at in the big picture. In fact, the budget is our value statement. It is about our values and our priorities. It reflects who we are as a country and allows us to shape who we want to be in the decades ahead. This budget is about making sure everybody has a chance to make it. Folks working hard every single day want to know that they are going to see their lives improve, not just some numbers for some people. Last November, the American people sent a clear signal that they were unhappy with the way this Government was doing business. They chose new leadership for America. They wanted a new direction, a direction that builds on our common values and places a premium on putting our middle- class families first. We have already made great strides in delivering on those promises and the potential of last year's election. The Senate has passed an increase in the minimum wage for folks working hard every day, working not one but maybe two or three jobs, probably without health insurance, trying to make ends meet for their families. We finally engaged in an open, important, a critical debate on the war in Iraq, and we have taken concrete steps to implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission to make our families and our communities safer. But in many ways, this budget debate, the budget in front of us, is our first big test about who we are and what are our priorities. We are faced with a very simple question: Will we bend to business as usual and deliver a budget that fails, again, to live up to the mandate the country has asked of us or will we do what the American people have charged us to do--deliver a budget that reflects middle-class values and works for American businesses, farmers, workers, and families? That is what our budget resolution does. It will not be easy. We have inherited a fiscal mess, quite honestly. We have tough choices to make. I love seeing that the wall of debt, the wall that was actually created by the distinguished Budget chairman talking about where we have come from in the last 6 years--I remember in the Budget Committee when we had the largest surplus in the history of the country, over $5.6 trillion. We at that time, the Democrats, indicated in the Budget Committee that we wanted to see a third of that go to tax cuts, a third of it to investments and opportunity and science and the future--education and health care--and a third to prefund the liability on Social Security. We wouldn't be where we are in the Social Security debate if we had done that back in 2001. But that is not what happened. Virtually all of it was put into supply-side economics, tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, and then we went into a war that has not been paid for, et cetera. So we are in a hole. We are in a huge hole. One of the things we always talk about is: If you are in a hole and you want to get out, the first thing is to stop digging. This budget stops digging the hole and puts us on a path of fiscal responsibility. Just like every family in America, the Government has the responsibility to balance its checkbook, and we are committed to putting us in that direction and getting that job done. We are committed to a return to fiscal discipline and putting a stop to the bad habits of the last 6 years of writing checks the Government cannot cash. Under our budget resolution, we begin to chip away at the problem immediately with the target of 2012, 5 years from now, for completely erasing the Federal deficit. We know we can do that. It is simply a matter of prioritizing and not spending money we do not have. I was proud to be part of a Congress that balanced the budget in 1997, working across party lines, to keep spending in check. It was not easy. But we understood the long-term health of the American economy and the long-term well being of our middle-class families and our businesses were dependent on making tough choices. The irresponsible fiscal policies of this administration have gutted our record surpluses and driven us into record deficits. Thank goodness we are beginning now to come out. But it has hurt our families, it has hurt our businesses, and it has put our way of life at risk. We are committed to stopping that. Second, as we put our fiscal house in order, we need to focus on the priorities that matter to American families, and that is what this budget does. I should mention in talking about that, when we hear about all this spending being talked about, only 17 percent of all the so- called domestic discretionary spending, the money we have the ability to make decisions about, in terms of science and health care and education and environment, public safety, and so on, that the discretionary part of the budget is 17 percent of the whole budget--17 percent. It is invested in the quality of life and the future for the families of this country. Those are critical investments. What are we suggesting? Well this budget, in fact, focuses on what matters to middle-class families the most. First, people want to know we are going to be investing in education and opportunity in the future for themselves and their children. We commit to health care for every child. We commit to making sure every child who does not have health insurance is able to get health insurance, so that families who go to bed tonight don't worry about what is going to happen--and pray to God, please do not let the kids get sick tonight--they will know there is health care available to them. Frankly, it needs to be step one to make health care available to every American. Third, we keep our promises to our veterans. This ought to be a given. This budget resolution guarantees that. We provide middle-class tax cuts. We are all for tax cuts; it is about time the middle class got some. That is what this budget resolution does. We restore key investments in law enforcement, health care, technology, protecting our environment. Key investments the President has tried to cut, we have put back and restored those. Let me speak for a moment about education. Everyone understands the world economy is changing. Our increased reliance on technology and the growing competition in the global marketplace means that today, more than ever, we need to be investing in the best education system possible for our children. We all say that. We all talk about education. We had a wonderful hearing this morning in the Finance Committee on education. This budget actually does more than talk about it; it takes critical investments and places them as a top priority for us because we know this is the only way we are going to be able to have our businesses competitive and create real financial opportunities for working-class America. In real-world terms, that means investing more in education and focusing more on innovation. Education policy is economic policy. We understand that. Creating opportunity for everyone who works hard to make it is what America is all about. It is one of the pillars, the foundations of our economy and a huge focus for our families and a huge focus in this budget. Unfortunately, what did the President do when it came to education last year? Well, he and the Republican Congress, back in Christmas of 2005, cut $12 billion out of student loans. Then the President came back in 2006 with the largest proposed cut in the history of education. Our children deserve better. This budget resolution reflects our commitment to education. Under our budget proposal, we invest $6.1 billion more in education funding than the President's proposal for 2008. Let me speak for a moment about health care. This is a major priority in this budget. I believe health care should be a right, not a privilege, in this country. We need to be about the job of changing the way we finance it in total and getting it off the back of business. Your ability to remain healthy should not be tied to your employment status or depending upon where you were born or what kind of family you were born into. In America, we can do better than we are doing, and this budget moves us in the right direction. We spend more on health care, per capita, than any other Western Nation. Yet we have nearly 50 million people with no health insurance. There is something wrong with this picture. We intend to fix it. Americans who do not have regular access to health care also put a strain on our system economically, produce less for society, while at the same time saddling business with the skyrocketing cost of employee health care is making it more and more difficult for our manufacturers and our other businesses to compete globally. This is an economic issue as well as a quality of life issue. Our budget proposal, this budget resolution, begins to tackle this issue where common sense dictates we should start--America's children. Our children have no choice when it comes to access to health care. They also represent the segment of our population that will reap the most long-term benefits in the introduction of regular, reliable, affordable access to health care. Programs that exist, namely SCHIP for children, already exist, and it covers millions of American children who do not have insurance otherwise. But this needs to be expanded, and we need to create a priority to say that every child without insurance should have access to this program. The President's budget designated only $2 billion for children's health care, for SCHIP, $2 billion. To say that this will not get the job done is an understatement. That is why our budget has designated $50 billion, 25 times more than that over 5 years, to fully fund health care for children in America. Now I might say as an aside because that is a lot of money, we are talking about $10 billion a year to make sure every child in America has access to health care, $10 billion. That is about what we are spending in 1 month in Iraq--1 month in Iraq. We can take 1 month in Iraq for American children. That is what the budget does. It is time to get beyond talking about how children are our future. It is time to walk the walk. That is what this budget does. Americans also want us to keep our promises to our veterans. The revelation about conditions at Walter Reed Army Hospital over the past few weeks have brought into focus the concerns that many of us in this Chamber have been voicing about the treatment of America's veterans over the past few years. No group of individuals, no group, deserve our respect, support and admiration as Americans more than those who selflessly and voluntarily choose to wear the Nation's uniform. They put their lives on the line for us every day, and all they ask in return is that when they come home from the battlefield, their Nation, our country, keeps its promises to them, including providing the health care they need and deserve. It is not enough to make statements on Veterans Day or remove military leadership when problems arise. It does not get any simpler than this: If the money is not in the budget then our veterans do not get what they need and deserve. Now we are not talking about the type of issues that have reared their ugly head at Walter Reed, we are also talking about systematic issues that touch America's veterans in all our 50 States. Inadequate access to doctors and the facilities, extremely long drive times for care, which frequently happens in my State of Michigan, patient backlogs that would make you cringe, our budget addresses what we believe are the shortfalls in the President's plan when it comes to our veterans and their health care. We have set aside an additional $3.5 billion for veterans health care in 2008 alone. What is most important is that, for the first time, this Senate has a budget resolution that reflects the recommendations of the independent budget, which is the budget of all the veterans organizations about what they believe is needed to adequately fund veterans health care and other critical needs. Finally, let me say a few words about tax cuts. My friends on the other side of the aisle will try to paint Democrats in this budget as being antitax cut. Nothing could be further from the truth. You know we are going to hear all of this; it does not matter what the document looks like. We also know in advance what the mantra is going to be because it has been that way for years. It has been that way for years. But the reality is very different. I have to say that the--

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

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating thereto be printed in the Record.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 113 submitted earlier today.

Ms. STABENOW

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

Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I rise today to support the Improving America Security Act of 2007, the legislation in front of us. It will put us on a path of more security for the future by implementing the unfinished recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. I commend all of those involved in this important effort. As I came to speak on the floor in support of the legislation we have been working on for the last couple of weeks, I find myself needing to express great concern about the place in which we find ourselves at this point--unable to move forward with the final bill and the relevant 9/11 Commission amendments that have been offered because of an effort by the Senate Republican leader to offer a wide-ranging number of unrelated amendments to this bill. So we find ourselves now stopped and waiting to figure out a way to resolve this effort. The families who lost loved ones 5\1/2\ years ago have been waiting for the Congress to act. The 9/11 Commission report was released. After it was released, I assumed we would immediately take that document and begin to move forward aggressively because we all want safety for our families. We all live in America, and we are all concerned about vulnerabilities and risks and what we need to be able to do to keep our families safe and the country safe. Unfortunately, things did not move under the former Congresses. We now find ourselves in a situation where, again, we are stalled because of a set of unrelated issues that have come up. I wish to share for the Record the deep concern of family members who lost loved ones on 9/11 and who have written a letter to the distinguished Republican leader of the Senate. I think it expresses their grave concern about where we are right now. They are calling on us to move forward and act. This reads: Dear Senator McConnell: As family members who lost loved ones on 9/11, we support full implementation of the 9/11 Commission recommendations. We are writing out of grave concern that your recent introduction of highly provocative, irrelevant amendments will jeopardize the passage of S. 4. It is inconceivable that anyone in good conscience would consider hindering implementation of the 9/11 Commission recommendations, delaying much-needed homeland security improvements. We strongly disagree with these divisive procedural tactics. Just as the Iraq war deserves separate debate, so do each of the amendments you offered. S. 4 should be a clean bill and debate should conclude this week with a straight up and down vote. Each day that passes without implementation of the remaining 9/11 Commission recommendations, the safety and security of our nation is at risk. Tactics such as those you are contemplating, which endanger the 9/11 bill, send a signal to America that your priority is partisan politics, not protecting America against terrorism. Both parties must work together to pass this critical legislation. We, the undersigned, understand all too well the risk of failure to secure our nation. Respectfully, Carol Ashley, Mother of Janice, 25, Member, Voices of September 11th. Mary Fetchet, Mother of Brad, 24, Founding Director and President, Voices of September 11th. Beverly Eckert, Widow of Sean Rooney, 50, Member, Families of September 11. Carie Lemack, Daughter of Judy Larocque, 50, Co-founder and President, Families of September 11. We know the job that needs to get done. I commend our Senate majority leader for making the wise determination, out of respect for these families, not to proceed with amendments relating to Iraq, which we all care deeply about. We want to have that debate on the policies and support for our troops and future direction as it relates to Iraq. But the distinguished majority leader made the determination not to proceed on this bill because the families, the communities, and the country have waited too long for it to pass. So I think it is very unfortunate that we have had to get to this point, but it is very important that we pass a bill of tremendous significance. I commend Chairman Lieberman and all of the members of the committee for their leadership. I commend particularly Senator Lieberman for his conviction to bring these issues to the Senate and for hanging in there and trying to get this done. The 9/11 Commission did a great service to our country by asking tough questions about the 9/11 attacks and then making recommendations to keep us safe in the future. The 9/11 Commission not only gave a detailed explanation of how the attacks happened but also gave Congress and the administration detailed recommendations in how to fix our vulnerabilities and prevent future attacks. For that, we are grateful for their service. In December 2005, a group led by former members of the 9/11 Commission released a report card that overwhelmingly gave the administration and Congress failing grades for their poor implementation of the 9/11 Commission recommendations. This legislation is intended to change those failing grades to passing grades and to make us more secure. The members of the commission gave the Government a D for improving checked bag and cargo screening. This bill requires all cargo and passenger aircraft to be screened and dedicates funding for the screening of checked baggage. The Government also received Ds for creating incentives for information sharing and increasing Government-wide information sharing. This legislation makes several changes to information and intelligence sharing urged by the Commission. The bill establishes incentives for Government-wide information sharing and makes permanent the information sharing environment program, which will expire next month. The bill also creates the Interagency Threat Assessment and Coordination Group, which will facilitate the production and dissemination of Federal intelligence products to other Federal agencies and to State, local, and tribal governments. The former Commissioners gave the Government another D for the lack of progress on intelligence oversight reform. However, the days of Congress giving President Bush a free pass are over, and this legislation increases Congress's oversight of the intelligence community and gives the intelligence community greater freedom to submit information to Congress, without approval by an executive branch officer. One appalling lack of progress has been in the area of first responder communications interoperability. The 9/11 Commissioners gave the Government an F for failing to provide an adequate radio spectrum for first responders. This lack of progress is appalling to me because of the shortcomings the Commission identified in this area. The 9/11 Commission report outlined the numerous communications problems first responders have had as they have tried to save lives. The report detailed the problem the police officers and firefighters in New York faced because they were on different radio systems. Over 50 different public safety organizations from Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia reported to the Pentagon to help, but they could not talk to each other. The 9/11 Commission concluded that: The inability to communicate was a critical element at the World Trade Center, Pentagon, and Somerset County, Pennsylvania, crash site where multiple agencies and multiple jurisdictions responded. The occurrence of this problem at 3 very different sites is strong evidence that compatible and adequate communications among public safety organizations at the local, State, and Federal levels remains an important problem. The 9/11 Commission published its final report in July 2004, but the men and women in the first responder community knew of the communications difficulties before 9/11. Not long after 9/11, I traveled around Michigan and held a number of different townhall meetings. Over and over again, I heard the same thing from our police officers and firefighters, our emergency responders. In the 5 years since the September 11 attacks, one of the top requests for support I receive every year from the communities in Michigan is for interoperable communications equipment. Nearly every time I meet with police and firefighters and emergency medical personnel, they bring up this issue. The 9/11 Commission is not alone in the assessment of this problem. In June of 2004, a U.S. Conference of Mayors survey found that 94 percent of cities didn't have interoperable capabilities between police and firefighters and emergency workers; 60 percent of cities didn't have interoperable capability with the State emergency operation center in their State. It has been over 5 years and we now are seeing this come forward in this important bill. I commend everybody involved in this legislation for putting in the first grant program for interoperability. This is a program that would be dedicated to improving communications between our first responders and would authorize $3.3 billion over the next 5 years to begin to get this right. Our committee that has brought this forward has done an excellent job of presenting a package for us of which we can all be proud. It is a bipartisan effort. I hope we are going to see us move beyond this stalemate able to get the job done. The people of my State, and each of our States, are counting on us, and certainly the families who have suffered such a grave loss in the attacks on our country are counting on us to focus on the job in front of us and get it done. I yield the floor.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, on December 23, 1783, George Washington, having successfully led the Continental Army to victory in the Revolutionary War, appeared before the Continental Congress and resigned his commission as commander of the Armed Forces. It was a quietly pivotal action in the history of our young country, an event so important in shaping the Nation that it is one of only eight moments in our history deemed worthy enough of gracing the walls of the Capitol rotunda. A painting of Washington's historic act hangs not far from this Chamber alongside more well known moments in American history such as the signing of the Declaration of Independence and the Battle of Bunker Hill. The precedent that Washington set on that December day was as revolutionary as it was clear: In the United States of America, the power to make and execute war will be held not by the military but instead by peacefully elected leaders sitting in a legislative body. Washington understood that the will of the people--the will of the American people--shall be the guiding hand of government, even on questions of war and peace. I wonder how President Washington would feel, I wonder what he would say to each of us today. First, I think he would be very proud of what has happened this afternoon in the House of Representatives, where they came together, after lengthy debate, to state their opinions about the most pressing issue of war, the war in Iraq. I am very proud that we saw the House of Representatives vote 246 to 182 to say, first, that they support the troops and, secondly, that they do not support the escalation of the war in Iraq. Regardless of how each person voted today in the House, they took that vote. They were willing to stand up and be counted and give their opinion. I believe the majority of the American people--and their will, their belief--was represented in this vote today of 246 to 182. What has happened in the Senate? Well, first of all, I commend our majority leader, Senator Harry Reid, for his perseverance, for his continuing effort to reach across the aisle with the minority leader to find a way to do the same thing the House has done. He has put forward numerous proposals, and, as late as yesterday, very simply and in a straightforward way, offerred us the opportunity to vote on a resolution opposing the escalation and one that supports the President's escalation. What could be more fair? What could be simpler? Yet we continue to see the minority block the efforts to bring us to a vote. For over 2 weeks now, I have watched the Republican leadership engage in legislative games and political posturing to avoid taking a vote on the most pressing issue of our time, the war in Iraq. They say they support it, but they will not vote on a resolution, up or down, whether or not to support the President's escalation. I believe it is because they do not like what they know the outcome will be if we are able to have that vote. They have turned their backs on their responsibility to the people who elected them and to our troops because they may lose a vote. Four years ago, 23 of us stood on the floor of the Senate and lost a vote. It was a vote to go to war. It was a vote to give the President the authority to go to war in Iraq. It was a tough vote. We knew we were not going to win that vote, but we all--those for and against-- made a determination and voted because we are elected officials, charged with overseeing the U.S. Armed Forces, and we had a responsibility to voice our opinions for the record on the question of war. I have stood on the floor of the Senate time and time again to voice my opposition to this President's proposals of escalation--more of the same, calling it a different strategy, and yet doing the same thing over and over again. Sending more Americans into combat without a strategy for success will not improve the situation on the ground in Iraq. And it will not bring our men and women in uniform home any sooner. Only the Iraqis can secure Iraq. Only the Iraqis can secure Iraq. We have heard that from generals and military experts and the Iraq Study Group and learned colleagues on both sides of the aisle. The American troops cannot be seen as a substitute for Iraqi resolve. Why would we go further down the path that has led us to this point? Why would we repeat our previous mistakes and call it a new strategy? Unlike the President, all of us and our counterparts in the House will go home over recess and on weekends and face our constituents, our neighbors. We see them and talk to them at church, in the line at the bank, at our kids' schools, in the grocery store, and at countless events and meetings as we travel throughout our States. And we are here because they elected us to be their voice. This is not Washington, DC's, war. We may set policy here, we may make speeches here, and we may take votes here, this is America's war. The men and women putting their lives on the line in Iraq every day are from our smallest neighborhoods and our biggest cities, from farm communities and factory towns, from places many of us have never heard of and few of us will ever go. Flint, Howell, West Branch, Hemlock, La Salle, Port Huron, Ypsilanti, Muskegon, Ann Arbor, Byron, Flushing, Bay City, Canton, Paw Paw, Lake Orion, Saginaw, Sand Creek--these are only some of the dozens of communities in my home State of Michigan that have given up a son or a daughter to this war. We sit in this historic Capitol and argue over whether we should dignify this war with a simple vote, while these and other communities across the country bury their loved ones, while high schools hold vigils for alumni laid to rest too young, while churches comfort parishioners who have lost sons and daughters and husbands and wives and fathers and mothers. We are the voice of these communities, of these towns and cities and counties. We were elected with their sacred trust to come here, to Washington, and to speak out for them, to make our mark for them on the issues that face this country. There can be nothing more important than the issue of war. By continuing to stonewall a vote on this resolution, the Republican minority has stripped all of America of their voice in this debate. They have said to the people who elected us that this issue--the issue of an escalation of war--is not important enough for their elected representatives to consider. Too often in the white noise of politics we lose sight of the responsibility we bear. We get bogged down in the politics of partisanship and lose sight of why we were elected. We owe it to the American people to take this vote. This is the most serious issue of our time. There is nothing more important or more pressing than our Nation being at war. It is the responsibility of the Congress to engage in shaping policy concerning the war on behalf of the American people. Let me take a few moments to remind everyone what is really at stake. While some posture and jockey for legislative position, lives are on the line this moment and every moment the war goes forward. It doesn't matter if you support or oppose the war. Anyone involved in slowing a vote on this resolution should be ashamed. Our military has not failed us at any turn in this endeavor. But we are failing them as a body by failing to lead. What is at stake? On January 21, the Grand Rapids Press published the following account on the war in Iraq: The first roadside bomb four months ago knocked a front tire off Kyle Earl's Humvee, rang his head like a bell and made his ears bleed. The second bomb a couple of weeks later blew out the front tires and took out the transmission but, again, spared Earl serious injury. The third one, on Oct. 17, was his last. With the headlights out for security and wearing night- vision goggles, the 20-year-old Marine lance corporal from Cedar Springs was driving the lead Humvee returning from a night patrol in Iraq's Al Anbar province near the border with Syria. He and a Marine manning the Humvee's machine gun saw it at the same time: a hump in the road ahead, a sure sign of a buried improvised explosive device (IED). Earl instantly made the calculation: If he swerved, the trailing Humvee carrying the company commander would hit the IED, so ``I drove right into it, knowing it was probably going to kill me,'' he said. He ran over the hump, igniting three 155-mm artillery shells and five propane tanks. The flash, amplified by the night-vision goggles, was brighter than anything he'd ever seen. A fireball shot through the cab, and shrapnel pierced his right leg, arm and face. The shock wave felt like someone had placed him inside a plastic bag and sucked out all the air. Still, he remained conscious, as the Humvee rolled off the road and came to a stop. Blood streamed from his eyes, ears and nose. He reached for his 9 mm handgun, but noticed something about the size of his palm on it. He picked it up and examined it, unaware it was a chunk of his flesh, ripped from his right forearm. He smelled something burning and realized he and the Humvee were on fire. He rolled out onto the ground as his fellow Marines kicked him to extinguish the flames. We are here because of that lance corporal. He and his comrades, the men and women serving, deserve our best--our best judgment, our best decisions, our best funding, our best strategy for them. On November 16, 2006, the Detroit Free Press gave us this insight into life on the ground in Iraq: ``A few days ago, from out of a crowd of kids, one of them threw a grenade and it went off under the vehicle, and my executive officer's door was peppered,'' said Lance Cpl. Michael Rossi, a 28-year-old student majoring in urban planning at Wayne State University who lives in Detroit. ``A crowd of kids, and one of them threw a grenade.'' ``Out here,'' he said, ``nobody is safe.'' On January 5, the editorial page of the Flint Journal paid its respects to one of Flint's fallen sons: It's touching and laudable that the father of Marine Cpl Christopher Esckelson would want the family of a fellow Marine to understand the full heroics these men displayed in Iraq combat that claimed both their lives. They are among more than a dozen local military men whom the Iraq war has claimed, with each succeeding loss being no less painful to an area that has supplied an ample measure of these patriots. Of course, the grief is much greater for the families who knew the men in so many other wonderful ways. Those memories undoubtedly will be recalled during services for Miller and Esckelson Saturday and Sunday, respectively. All of us have stories of the men and women who have served heroically and lost their lives, men and women who have come home and need our assistance now as veterans while in our hospitals and will forever carry a remembrance of this war through lost limbs and other health conditions. They deserve a vote on whether we believe this strategy for them and their colleagues is the right strategy. They deserve this. They expect us to stand up and speak out and work as hard as we can to get it right. Too often on the floor of this Chamber and too often in politics, we use words such as ``bravery'' and ``toughness'' and resolve.'' We describe votes as ``tough.'' We describe speeches as ``brave.'' The men and women serving in combat know the real meaning of these words. They go about their dangerous duty with the pride of professionals. They live and work under the shadow of violence, never knowing what might be facing them around the next corner, and they do it with stoic resolve that reflects their character and their training. They do not have the luxury of picking and choosing when and where to fight. They go where their country sends them and stand shoulder to shoulder with their brothers and sisters in arms and face whatever is thrown at them. What we consider heroic, they consider doing their job. Their sacrifices deserve and demand leadership, our leadership, collectively. We owe to it them and to every person we were elected to represent to vote on this resolution, to take a stand about how this war will proceed. It is our job. It is time to stop stalling and face our responsibility, a responsibility that pales in comparison to that which is taken every day by our troops in Iraq. I thank the Chair.

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 speak about the continued obstructionism in the Senate, led by our Republican colleagues, concerning the vote on supporting or opposing the President's escalation of the war in Iraq. For 2 weeks our distinguished majority leader has been trying to get an agreement to just proceed to a fair debate, to just have the opportunity on the floor of the Senate to have a debate on whether we support the President's escalation of the war in Iraq. He has offered an up-or-down vote on two different proposals--one opposing the escalation, the second supporting it. At every turn he has been stymied. Our Republican minority claims they want to debate the war in Iraq, but they have done everything they can to obstruct the debate. I would like to go through some of the history of this obstructionism. Since the first of the year, Republicans have rejected at least three different compromises that would have allowed the Senate to move forward with a vote on the escalation of the war in Iraq. In an effort to obtain an up-or-down vote on the bipartisan resolution disapproving the President's plan, Senate Democrats offered to schedule an up-or- down vote on the McCain-Graham resolution supporting the President's plan. Unfortunately, the Republican leadership rejected this offer on what they claimed to support. Then we, as Senate Democrats, offered the Republican leadership up- or-down votes on two other resolutions--the Gregg resolution and a resolution stating simply that the Senate does not support the surge and demands that the troops deploying to Iraq receive the body armor and other equipment they need. The Republican leadership again rejected the offer. Finally, Senate Democrats offered to allow votes on the bipartisan resolution and the McCain-Gramm resolution that would each have required a supermajority of 60 votes. The Republican leadership again said no. The pattern of obstruction has, unfortunately, continued. On February 5, all but two Republican Senators opted to block a debate, including the distinguished author of the resolution--chose to block debate on whether we support the President's escalation plan. The reaction across the country was echoed in numerous newspaper headlines. The Washington Post: GOP Stalls Debate On Troops Increase. The Washington Times: Senate GOP Blocked Iraq Resolution. The New York Times: GOP Senators Block Debate On Iraq Policy. USA Today: Vote On Iraq Is Blocked By The GOP. Denver Post: GOP Blocks Iraq Debate.

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 introduce the Lester Nichols Presque Isle Light Station Act of 2007. The Presque Isle Light Station Act requires the return of the historic third order Fresnel lens to the lighthouse in Presque Isle, MI. The lens was removed four years ago for restoration work, but now it is time to replace it and preserve the historic integrity of the beautiful Presque Isle lighthouse. Michigan has more lighthouses than any other State. Not only are these historic structures symbolic of our maritime heritage, they are the heart of Michigan's coastal communities. Lighthouses are a key part of the tourist economy of many small Michigan towns, and the historic character of our lighthouses brings tourists from all over the country. So it is imperative that we protect, restore, and preserve the Presque Isle lighthouse and all of Michigan's 120 lighthouses. I am pleased to introduce this legislation with Senator Levin. In the House of Representatives, Congressman Stupak is the sponsor of a companion bill. So the Michigan delegation is united in our resolve to restore the Fresnel lens to the Presque Isle lighthouse for the enjoyment and education of future generations. Finally, I want to say a word about the man for whom we have named this bill: Lester Nichols. Without Les Nichols' dedication we would never have been able to restore Presque Isle's Fresnel lens. Last fall, Les lost his courageous battle against cancer. He was a pillar of his community. He was passionate about the Presque Isle lighthouse and he will be truly missed. Naming this bill for him is the least we can do to show our gratitude for all of his work. And I hope that we will soon be able to put the Fresnel lens back in the lighthouse and give Les the victory that he so wanted to see. I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Lester Nichols Presque Isle Light Station Act of 2007. The Presque Isle Light Station Act requires the return of the historic third order Fresnel lens to the lighthouse in Presque Isle, MI. The lens was removed four years ago for restoration work, but now it is time to replace it and preserve the historic integrity of the beautiful Presque Isle lighthouse. Michigan has more lighthouses than any other State. Not only are these historic structures symbolic of our maritime heritage, they are the heart of Michigan's coastal communities. Lighthouses are a key part of the tourist economy of many small Michigan towns, and the historic character of our lighthouses brings tourists from all over the country. So it is imperative that we protect, restore, and preserve the Presque Isle lighthouse and all of Michigan's 120 lighthouses. I am pleased to introduce this legislation with Senator Levin. In the House of Representatives, Congressman Stupak is the sponsor of a companion bill. So the Michigan delegation is united in our resolve to restore the Fresnel lens to the Presque Isle lighthouse for the enjoyment and education of future generations. Finally, I want to say a word about the man for whom we have named this bill: Lester Nichols. Without Les Nichols' dedication we would never have been able to restore Presque Isle's Fresnel lens. Last fall, Les lost his courageous battle against cancer. He was a pillar of his community. He was passionate about the Presque Isle lighthouse and he will be truly missed. Naming this bill for him is the least we can do to show our gratitude for all of his work. And I hope that we will soon be able to put the Fresnel lens back in the lighthouse and give Les the victory that he so wanted to see. I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise this evening being greatly disturbed by what happened on the floor of the Senate, after a tremendous amount of good-faith effort and very hard work by our colleagues on both sides of the aisle, bringing together a resolution to offer to this body for a debate, for a full debate on the question of escalating the war in Iraq. What we have seen from the minority is a filibuster that has stopped us from even proceeding--from even proceeding to be able to take up the resolution. Our majority leader offered to take up other resolutions, some contradicting the one that we wished to have brought forward, to have equally debated resolutions, the same amount of time, the same amount of votes that are needed in order to be able to bring forward the resolutions and possibly pass them. Every effort by the majority leader was turned down. Every time he brought up a possible solution to be able to bring forward these resolutions and have a full debate, which the American people are demanding that we do, he was told ``no.'' No, no, no. So we are now in a situation where the minority has voted down the ability for us to even go to a resolution or multiple resolutions dealing with the issue of Iraq, which we are all so deeply concerned about. Right now it is after midnight in Baghdad, and we have over 130,000 American troops who are settled in for another long night half a world away from home. They are living, working, fighting in the most difficult conditions anyone can imagine. They are patrolling crowded streets. They are standing guard on lonely posts. They are reaching out to Iraqi citizens and putting themselves constantly in harm's way to protect their fellow soldiers. They are there because their Government called them. They come from every corner of this great Nation. They represent every color, creed, religion, and political voice in this country. I have been to Iraq--many of us have--and I have talked to our men and women in the field and they are the best this country has to offer. For our entire history, they have answered when called. They have gone where we sent them. They have fought when we have asked them to do so. They have dedicated their lives to preparing for wars they did not want, and when asked, they have executed their training with pride, bravery, and an unwavering spirit. We are blessed this evening to sleep under the blanket of freedom they provide. And no one--no one in this Chamber--is questioning the job they are doing. We are all patriots in this debate--all of us--with differing views, strongly held views about the best way to move forward. We are all patriots. I have listened intently over the past weeks, and I have heard colleagues and representatives of the administration state time and again that those of us questioning the President are somehow undermining the morale of our troops. I find that insulting, not only to me and to my colleagues who care deeply about this and who have worked together in a bipartisan way to bring forward this resolution but to our soldiers, our sailors, our airmen, and marines. Open and honest debate about the execution of this war is not only what our armed services expect, it is what they deserve. Our citizen soldiers demand our best, and our best is not idle silence. Our best is not a filibuster that stops a resolution from even coming to the floor so that we can have an open, honest debate about it. Our citizen soldiers are on the frontlines. In this Chamber, we use words, but those words have real-world consequences, and no one lives those consequences more than our troops on the ground. Debate in a democracy does not undermine the morale or the will of our armed services. The lack of a clear, measurable, and achievable mission does undermine what they are doing. That is what we are all wanting to see happen. That is what we want to see developed for them. They need to know that their leaders have based their orders on reason, not on wishful thinking and on a misguided adherence to a failed strategy. They need to know that their leaders have sensibly considered all of the options available and that those considerations are grounded in fact, not in rhetoric or posturing. On October 11, 2002, 23 of us in the Senate cast a lonely vote against this White House effort to go to war because the evidence was not clear enough--it just wasn't there--to warrant going to war. I cast that vote because I believed that the pretense for war was based not in definable evidence but on predetermined conclusions. War is a tool of last resort, a decision that should be made with great trepidation when our country is at risk and other options have been exhausted. From day one, the reasoning for this war has been unclear and inconsistent, from the initial lack of preparedness for securing Baghdad to the most recent call for escalation. We have seen a strategy based on the best-case scenario calculations of politicians, not on the wholly realistic conclusions of career military officers. Mistakes have been made at every turn, and 4 years and over 3,000 American lives later and hundreds of thousands of lost lives and injuries of Iraqis, we are still paying the price. Some have insisted this resolution is a ploy to embarrass the President. This is clearly not our goal. This is not a discussion about politics. It is a debate about policy. Any soldier will tell you there are no politics in a foxhole. The American people, Republicans and Democrats, are asking us to look long and hard at what we are doing in Iraq. We were not elected to stand silently by while our fellow citizens demand answers. We can't even have a full debate because of the vote that happened. The American people are asking us not only to debate but to come to the right answers, the responsible answers for the direction and strategy in Iraq. Our soldiers deserve that, and we have in front of us a resolution that we couldn't even get enough votes to bring up to discuss, to debate it fully and have a vote. I believe the simple fact is very clear that escalation is not the answer, and I want the opportunity to vote on that, to say that on behalf of the people of Michigan. Putting more Americans in harm's way will not bring our men and women home any sooner. Why would we go further down the path that has led us to this point? Why would we repeat our previous mistakes and call it a new strategy? A free and stable Iraq can only be secured by the Iraqis. They must embrace responsibility for their collective future and decide that living and dying at the hands of sectarian violence is not the future they want for their children and their grandchildren. We must support their efforts--and I do--but we cannot substitute American troops for Iraqi resolve. With the freedom of self-determination comes the responsibility of collective security. We must continue to train our friends in Iraq. We must equip them and provide sensible military support based on the advice of our generals and military experts. We must lead them by example, by embracing the realities of our own democratic process as we attempt to collectively solve the challenges in the war in Iraq. How can we be talking to them about the democratic process when that process is stopped right here in the Senate in the ability to openly debate and vote on the resolution? I stand in support of the Warner-Levin resolution and to say that escalation is a grave mistake. I am certain when judged by our fellow Americans, the votes that many Members will cast, if we have the opportunity to do so, to say ``enough is enough'' to this White House will be greeted with sober support. With heaviness in my heart, I am also sadly confident that when judged by history, those who have questioned the reasoning and the execution of this war will have our concerns justified. We can't change how we got here. We can't change the fact we are in Iraq. That chapter of history is written, set in stone, and paid for with the lives of Americans and Iraqis, and the lives of many other individuals around the world. However, we can learn from the path we have walked. We have the ability to reassess and to change course, to get it right, to put forward our collective best wisdom from everyone who has been involved. On behalf of our soldiers, they deserve that. They deserve a full debate in the Senate, to be able to state our positions on policy, on policy that right now at this moment they are carrying out in Iraq. They deserve the very best debate and very best decisions. That is what this is about. That is what we were hoping to get tonight, the opportunity to go forward, to work together in a bipartisan way to put forward a statement that says we believe there is a better way, a better strategy than what the President has begun to execute. I hope we will have an opportunity to vote on this resolution. I welcome other resolutions that colleagues have put forward in good faith. I may not agree with them--and that is all right; that is how the process works--but they deserve debate just as our resolutions deserve debate. In Iraq, we are talking about their setting up a democracy, the ability to fully debate and participate in their government. We need to show by example that we are not afraid of debate, of involvement, we are not afraid to stand and say what we think and put our own vote and opinions on the line on something so critical to the future of our country, most particularly to our men and women in the armed services and their families, and, frankly, to the world. We need the opportunity to vote. We need the opportunity to debate. The American people are calling on the Senate to do nothing less. Tonight was not an example of our listening. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about a very important Federal program that helps hundreds of thousands of Michigan families and millions of Americans across the country. The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, known as LIHEAP, is critically important for families and seniors who struggle to pay high energy bills to heat their homes in the winter and cool their homes in the summer. Without LIHEAP, many of these households would be forced to make the impossible choice between paying for energy or paying for food and medicine. Today is the National Fuel Funds Network's Washington Action Day for LIHEAP and folks from many different States will be walking the Halls of Congress to make sure we know how important it is to fully fund LIHEAP. As winter kicks into high gear, the importance of the LIHEAP program is even more pronounced. According to the Energy Information Administration, American households spent an average of $948 in 2006 on their winter heating needs--an increase of $250 over the 2000-2001 winter season. That might seem like a modest increase, but for most Americans living paycheck to paycheck, it could have disastrous effects on their household budgets. LIHEAP assistance, which emphasizes partnerships between utilities, charitable organizations, and State governments, is a highly effective and cost-efficient way for our country to help the neediest families manage these incremental increases in their home energy costs. It has thus become an important component of our social safety net. Not surprisingly, LIHEAP assistance historically has been targeted to cold-weather States in the Northeast and Upper Midwest. In the State of Michigan, for instance, more than 470,000 households received LIHEAP aid in 2006. In recent years, however, the program has been retooled in order to recognize the need to provide similar assistance to warm- weather States in the South and Southwest to help their neediest citizens meet their home cooling needs. Last year, more than 6.2 million households received assistance nationwide, including many new families in the warm-weather areas. Unfortunately, the LIHEAP program has never been funded to its authorized level--which recently was raised to $5 billion as part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Even though LIHEAP was funded at $3.1 billion in fiscal year 2006 the highest level ever--many who are eligible remain unable to get help because there are simply not enough funds to help them. We need to take a good, hard look at our funding efforts so that we are not forced to make unfair choices between cold and warm-weather States, much less deny support to eligible recipients. Increased gas prices, unforeseen medical bills, sudden unemployment, or any other unexpected situation that causes a family's living costs to rise while their income stays fixed, forces families to make some truly hard choices. But no one should have to choose between the need to heat and the need to eat. At its foundation, the LIHEAP program helps these families deal with one of the most basic of their needs--a warm home in wintertime as they work to regain their footing. Today, the National Fuel Funds Network has mobilized a coalition of charitable organizations such as the Salvation Army and The Heat And Warmth Fund, THAW, utilities such as CMS Energy and DTE Energy of Michigan, State government officials, and low-income constituents to meet with congressional offices to educate Congress about the LIHEAP program and make the case for greater funding. I commend the organizers and participants of today's Washington Action Day for LIHEAP, and I urge my colleagues to support and fully fund the LIHEAP program. By supporting this important program, we are supporting hard-working American families. It is the right thing to do.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I will take 13 seconds to say, unfortunately, evidence shows exactly the opposite of what my friend is saying. Any person who chooses on their own to buy insurance not through an HSA will not get the same benefit. If you have a child who is sick, if you are older, if you have health issues, this issue does not address, unfortunately, the issues my colleague has been talking about. Mr. President, I raise a point of order the pending amendment violates section 505(a) of House Concurrent Resolution 95, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Dorgan be recognized to speak for up to 15 minutes, to be followed by Senator Martinez for up to 5 minutes, and then the Senate resume consideration of the Ensign amendment No. 154; that the time for those statements last until 12:20, to be equally divided and controlled by Senators Ensign and Stabenow; that at 12:20, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the Ensign amendment; provided further that no second- degree amendment be in order prior to the vote.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, not seeing the sponsor of the Ensign amendment in the Chamber, I will proceed to speak on his amendment. I am sure he will be coming to the floor at some point, but I wish to proceed at this point to speak about this amendment because I have great concern about the approach put forward in the Ensign amendment. My colleague from North Dakota spoke a few moments ago about the challenge we face as it relates to a global economy and whether in America we are going to have an American strategy for everyone to do well, to keep our middle class, to keep opportunity for people who want to work hard to move into the middle class. This amendment, I believe, falls into that broad category of where are we going to create opportunity; how are we going to make sure everybody has the opportunity to have health care as part of that great American dream. What I see happening overall is a strategy that has been put in place right now that certainly I do not support and I believe the majority of people in the majority in the Senate do not support. This basically creates a race to the bottom saying to workers: If you only work for less, pay more in health care, and lose your pension, we can be successful. We all know that is a losing strategy because there is always going to be somebody in another country who can work for less, who will work for less. What we want to do is trade in a global economy, create an opportunity for other countries to move up to our standard of living-- fair trade, addressing health care in a way that moves it off business but creates health care for everyone, investing in education, innovation, and opportunity and that great American engine. I say that as a backdrop because, unfortunately, this amendment on HSAs, health savings accounts, moves us in the opposite direction. Senator Ensign's proposal would spend an additional $8 billion on health savings accounts. There is no good evidence that HSAs are successful at expanding coverage or controlling costs. In fact, many believe that HSAs may do the opposite. They make health care coverage less affordable for those who really need it, encouraging healthy people to leave comprehensive health care and go to these kinds of high-deductible plans. This amendment would permit individually purchased high-deductible policies to be financed with HSA funds, encouraging more healthy people to move to high-deductible policies in the individual market. What does that mean? We know that HSAs have deductibles of at least $1,000 for an individual and $2,000 for a family. We also know that someone who has a sick child, a disabled child, someone who has high health indicators, health risks, somebody who is a baby boomer or older may not be able choose to have a high-risk policy because they know they are going to need their health insurance, they are going to need comprehensive health care. So who chooses an HSA? Someone younger, healthy, or wealthier where they can get a better deductible and the $1,000 out of pocket doesn't matter to them. I find it ironic that we would be putting such a proposal on a minimum wage bill. We certainly know that minimum wage workers are not those who can take the risk of a health savings account and have the confidence that they will have up to $1,000 to put into their health care before their coverage kicks in. In fact, we know from GAO that for those earning under $30,000 a year, about 16 percent of tax filers have a health savings account contribution, but for those earning $75,000 or above, that is 51 percent of the filings. Even in that category, though, we also know, according to the Commonwealth Fund, that over 40 percent of people with a $1,000 deductible reported that even though they had a medical problem, they didn't see a doctor. They didn't fill a needed prescription or they skipped a recommended test or followup visit because they didn't want to have to pay directly the full amount for that under this deductible. What happens in that circumstance we all know. Someone waits until they get really sick, so health care costs go up because people didn't get the care they need--the prevention, the tests, and so on. Mr. President, I ask when I am within 5 minutes of the time for the majority side that the Chair indicate that to me.

Ms. STABENOW. We are in a situation now where we have to decide, are we going to continue health insurance for what it should be, which is pooling the risk? The whole idea of insurance is to pool the risk. We want healthy, younger individuals, we want my son and daughter who are healthier and younger, to buy into the same plan that I am buying into, that the Presiding Officer is buying into, that others who are older are buying into, so that we pool that risk. We may not need that health care as frequently as our mom and dad or aunt and uncle or your neighbor or colleague who has a health problem, but their ability to get health coverage is kept at a reasonable cost because the risk is pooled. That is what health insurance is all about. That is what auto insurance is all about. We don't have auto insurance where we have a pool only for people we know are going to have an accident and those over here whom we know are not. We pool the risk. This particular amendment expands a concept, a proposal that breaks that apart. It basically encourages people who can afford it, or who are going to gamble because they are very healthy, that they are not going to need any kind of health care this coming year. They get a tax benefit. They get to write off a premium for a high-deductible plan as long as it is in the individual market. But someone, in fact, who is likely to be sick or does have children or does have more risk factors or more need to see the doctor doesn't get the same benefit. That makes absolutely no sense to me. Certainly, when we look at how we, as America, move forward on health care, that moves in the opposite direction from where we need to go, of pooling the risk. We need to be pooling it even further. We need to be creating large pools so we are pooling the risk and lowering the cost, not doing what this talks about. I appreciate the great pressure we all feel right now to address health care, as we should, as we must. I believe it is the single driving factor for our businesses. I know in the State of Michigan, with many people working in manufacturing, and those people very concerned about the global economy and how we are going to compete, the question of health care and how we fund health insurance becomes a competitiveness issue. It is costing us jobs, the way we structure the funding of health care. We also know we pay more because of the way we fund it. Every single time somebody with a high-deductible policy, somebody who knows they have a $1,000 deductible, decides they are getting a little bit sick, if they don't believe they have the money or want to spend the money to go through their insurance plan they are going to go to the emergency room when they are sick. Who pays when that happens? We all pay. The hospital treats them and then they turn around and raise the rates on everybody with insurance. That is how we get a $20 aspirin. That is how we get all these costs that are shifted onto everyone else. When the Commonwealth Fund says over 40 percent of the people with these kinds of policies don't get their medical problems addressed or skip a doctor or a prescription or recommended test, that means we are talking about individuals who are more likely to be very ill, more likely to walk into that emergency room, more likely to have their costs shifted onto everyone else. I urge my colleagues not to proceed with this kind of proposal. I thank the chairman of the Finance Committee for his willingness to seriously address the issues of health care. We intend, in the Finance Committee, to have a series of hearings. Our chairman, who is a very thoughtful, thorough individual, I know will be looking at a wide variety of proposals. We need the opportunity to do that. My opposition to this proposal does not mean that I don't believe health care is at the top of the list on priorities. I do. But we need the opportunity to look at all of the ramifications because what we have seen to date is that this kind of proposal moves us in exactly the opposite direction. We know a number of things that we can do that would take $8 billion and add health insurance for people. We have colleagues--Senator Durbin and Senator Lincoln--who have offered a proposal for national pooling of small businesses to be able to buy into systems nationally to be able to lower costs. Other colleagues have proposals as well. We know we are going to have proposals to extend children's health care before us very shortly. Again, I commend our chairman for his commitment to the issue of expanding children's health care to all children. That is an important way for us to be able to spend $8 billion and be able to provide health care to more children, more families, and to lower costs--not raise costs. Senator Snowe and I are working on a proposal, with our distinguished friend from Wyoming as well, on health IT. We know we can dramatically save costs and put money back into the provision of health insurance paying for health care by using health information technology. I think a more productive way to spend $8 billion at this point would be to provide tax incentives for our physicians and other private sector providers to be able to help them purchase hardware and software, to be able to do ``e-prescribing,'' to be able to use technology and have all the benefits both from a quality standpoint and saving lives as well as saving dollars. At this point I would simply say that I believe very strongly that HSAs are the wrong direction in which to go fundamentally. They do not expand who receives health insurance, they do not lower costs, and I believe very strongly that there are other ways to use $8 billion. The Finance Committee, I have every confidence, is going to look at a wide variety of opportunities, including expanding health insurance for children.

Ms. STABENOW. I am happy to.

Ms. STABENOW. I am happy to yield the balance of the time to the Senator from Massachusetts, the chairman of the committee.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, January 25, 2007, at 9:30 a.m., in open session to receive testimony on the current situation in Iraq on the Administration's recently announced strategy for continued United States assistance to the Iraqi Government and for an increased United States mlitary presence in Iraq.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on January 25, 2007, at 9:30 a.m., to vote on committee organizational matters for the 110th Congress; immediately following the executive session the committee will meet to conduct a hearing on ``Examining the Billing, Marketing, and Disclosure Practices of the Credit Card Industry, and Their Impact on Consumers.''

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Thursday, January 25, 2007, at 9:30 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on oil and gas resources on the Outer Continental Shelf and areas available for leasing in the Gulf of Mexico.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, January 25, 2007, at 9:15 a.m. to hold a hearing on Iraq.