Debbie Stabenow

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to claim my 1 hour at this point and ask to speak as in morning business.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the most pressing issue that I believe families feel across this country and certainly in my home State of Michigan, and that relates to the squeeze that families are feeling on all sides today. It starts with the issue of jobs. We see that almost 3 million jobs have been lost in the manufacturing sector in the last 6 years--almost 3 million jobs. When we look at this chart, under this administration we see that we have the slowest job growth of any administration in over 70 years. We have to go back to Herbert Hoover to see the kind of job loss that we are now seeing--the slowest job growth in over 70 years. In my home State of Michigan it is even worse than that, because what we are seeing is the impact of a lack of a 21st century manufacturing strategy on those in my State who have been the global leaders--who are the global leaders--in manufacturing. Almost 3 million jobs have been lost in manufacturing alone, and 260,000 of those jobs have been in manufacturing in Michigan. Now, to add insult to injury, we see expenses going up on all sides for families. They are losing good-paying jobs.

Ms. STABENOW. Absolutely. I yield to my dear friend who is the ranking member on the Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee.

Ms. STABENOW. That is correct.

Ms. STABENOW. That is correct.

Ms. STABENOW. The Senator is absolutely correct. We have the model. It is the VA. They have done it very well. They have been able to get a better deal, anywhere from a 35-percent to a 40-percent lower price because they negotiate prices. I don't know anywhere else in the Federal Government where we are not trying to get the best price, where we are not trying to negotiate, except in the area of prescription drugs, except in the area of lifesaving medicine where somebody may need it or they may not be able to live or may not be able to treat their symptoms for high blood pressure or diabetes or get their heart medicine or get their cancer medicine--except in the area that is lifesaving. Even with the VA, which does a marvelous job in negotiating prices, we are able to do that in every area except Medicare--Medicare, the health care system for older Americans and the disabled. It is the only place where the decision was made to go with the drug companies rather than to go with the people who are on Medicare. There are so many areas in health care costs we should be addressing--health IT, bringing down the cost of prescription drugs with the use of generic drugs, addressing the issue of health care costs. Senator Durbin and Senator Lincoln have a very important proposal that would allow small businesses to pool together nationally and to be able to have a pool--whether it is Blue Cross, whether it is other private insurance, whether it is HMOs--be able to pool together to get the best price. That came to the floor and was voted down. I have legislation that would provide a catastrophic tax credit for our manufacturers. We know about 1 percent of employees in a business will be seriously ill during the year, but it is 20 to 25 percent of the cost of the health care paid during that year. We could take a major step forward if we provided a tax credit for catastrophic costs to help our manufacturers and our businesses. This is not rocket science. It is about having the political will and the right values and the right priorities. This has not happened here, and every day people continue to struggle with their health care. Too many people end up in emergency rooms where we pay twice as much because they are sicker than they should be and they are not getting the care at the time they should be getting it. They get treated. The hospital, of course, does the treatment, as it should. Then the costs roll over onto everybody with insurance. That is why we pay so much for health care, and we in the Senate should be focusing on this as a No. 1 priority. I mentioned college tuition before. Right when we need to be focusing on more opportunity for people in a changing economy--we all talk about education all the time--what happens here? Right before Christmas, we had the largest cut in student loans in the history of the country, $12 billion. For everybody who had to refinance their loan by July 1 and saw their interest rate go up, it was as a result of that. Then, on top of that, we see the President proposed the largest cut in education for next year, the largest ever proposed since the Department of Education was established. Who would believe that at this time, in a global economy, that we ought to be proposing and passing the largest cuts ever suggested for education? These are the wrong priorities and the wrong direction. And then, certainly, time and time again, we have tried to pass a minimum wage bill that truly raises the minimum wage for everyone. It is something that makes sense. It is something where workers in every State will find that their minimum wage will be raised. Let me just say that I see our distinguished colleague here, Senator Reed, who has played such a distinguished role on economic issues, and I will yield to him to speak in just a moment, but when you look at the numbers and you look at what is happening to families across this country, we need a new direction. We need a new direction. We need to create a new set of priorities based on a different set of values that put Americans first--American businesses and American workers. What I see happening in this country is a willingness by the President and those in charge of Congress to accept a race to the bottom in a global economy. Too many workers in my State have been told: If you only work for less, pay more in health care, and lose your pension, we can be successful. That is a lose-lose strategy. First of all, there is always going to be somebody in another country who can work for less. I don't want to win that race. Nobody in Michigan is interested in winning a race to the bottom. What we understand is that we need to do what America does best, which is make this a race to the top. In order to make it a race to the top, we have to have a level playing field on trade. We can compete with anybody if the rules are fair, if it is a level playing field. We have to change the way we fund health care and address health care costs for businesses and families. We have to change. We have to start passing legislation that addresses health care in a positive way, to truly bring down costs, not just shift them around but bring down costs in a real way and make health care available and affordable and support businesses and families. We have to continue to say we are going to protect pensions. We did make a step forward in that area, and I am proud that we did that together. Then we have to race like crazy on education and innovation. That is what we do in America. Let's race up. Let's make every other country race to keep up with us. Let's be the ones who are continuing to invest in education, in opportunity for every child, in opportunities for everybody to be able to go to college and focus on areas of math and science and technology and engineering and all of those things we need to do to make it a race up, areas of health research, creating new opportunities and new discoveries. That is what we do in America. That is what we have always done in America. But we have seen in the last 6 years a willingness to put that all aside for other priorities, put that all aside and make this a race to the bottom. That is not good enough. We believe in a race to the top, and we know that is going to take a new direction. It is going to take a different set of priorities. It is going to take a different set of values to do that. But in a global economy, if we are going to keep our middle class, we have to do that. We are in a fight for our way of life in this country. It is not going to do any good if a few people have a lot of money if the average person has no money in their pocket to be able to buy that house, that car, send the kids to college, get the boat, and be able to enjoy the beautiful lakes in Michigan, be able to buy their medication. It is not going to matter if everybody is being asked to race to the bottom. So I am hopeful--in fact, insistent--that we turn things around. America can do better. We need a new direction. We need a race to the top. We can do this. It just takes people who get it, people who get it to be in charge with the right values and the right priorities, and Americans are expecting that to happen. In fact, they are tired of waiting for it to happen. And so am I.

Ms. STABENOW. Absolutely.

Ms. STABENOW. Absolutely. In my home State of Michigan, because we are the global leaders in manufacturing, and I know in my good friend's home State of Maryland it is the same way, in terms of manufacturing, that number is even worse because of the lack of effectiveness in enforcing trade-offs, because of our inability to address health care and being able to change the way we fund health care, because of the lack of investment in education and innovation. That number does not reflect the fact of the impact of the loss of good-paying jobs, the kind of jobs that have built the middle class of this country. Frankly, I am very proud to represent a State that has been at the forefront in the auto industry, with an industry that has created the middle class in this country--middle class jobs, not only in autos, in furniture production, in other manufacturing. The reality is that we have lost almost 3 million jobs that created the middle class of this country. Even though there has been just a tiny little bit of an increase here over all, we see it is the lowest, slowest job growth of any administration. We have to go way back to Herbert Hoover to find an administration that has a worse jobs record than this particular President. I have to say it is particularly insulting to those of us in Michigan who, given this record and the fact that we have almost 3 million jobs that have been lost, and 260,000 manufacturing jobs in Michigan alone, that when the President of the United States came to Michigan a couple of weeks ago to do political fundraising, he didn't have 30 minutes to meet with the auto industry. He didn't have 15 minutes to meet with the executives of the largest employers in the country. In fact, he has postponed or canceled I believe three different meetings with them and now says he is prepared to meet with them after the election. This isn't about elections. This isn't about politics. This is about a fight for a way of life. This is a fight for a way of life in this country. While he is waiting until after the elections to meet with the auto industry and to begin to engage to do something about these numbers, we have folks who are facing layoffs today. We have headlines. We have Ford Motor Company and their latest headlines. We have struggles going on throughout the industry. Every day, somebody in Michigan gets up in the morning and worries about whether or not they are going to have a job, worries about whether or not they are going to be able to afford to send their kids to college, whether or not their health care is going to still be there, and whether or not they are going to be able to pay for it. To add insult to injury, too many people who have worked all their lives and who have paid into a pension are now finding themselves in a situation where that pension won't be there. I think that is the ultimate outrage. In the United States of America, I never thought I would have to stand on the floor of the U.S. Senate and say somebody may be in a situation to lose a pension they have paid for their whole lives. We addressed this issue on a bipartisan basis, and I am very proud we put in place efforts that are going to save many of those pensions because of the work that we did a few weeks ago. But too many people still find themselves on the line as a result of that, and that should not be an issue. Bankruptcy or no bankruptcy, in this country you ought to get your pension, period. So we have a situation where more and more families are on the edge, more and more families who believe in America, who believe in playing by the rules, who get up every day and work hard at one job, two jobs, three jobs, and still find themselves falling more and more behind. On top of the job situation that they are concerned about, they are being squeezed on all sides by all of the other costs that relate to their families. We see, for instance, a 44 percent increase in the cost of college tuition, room, and board--a 44 percent increase. So here we are, we are in a transition. We hear that the economy is changing. We need to be investing in education. We need to be investing in opportunity for the future, and in innovation and, at the same time, we see the costs going up, and the exact opposite policies are being put in place in terms of cutting opportunity for people. We all want our children to have a better opportunity than we have had. I am very fortunate to have two children who have worked their way through school and a wonderful stepdaughter who just graduated. I understand about student loans and what that means. I know the costs have gone up, because we have watched them go up over the last several years. There is no question that families are feeling more and more squeezed as it relates to creating opportunity for their children to be successful, and that makes no sense in this country. That makes no sense at this time when we could be doing something about it. Health insurance premiums have gone up 71 percent. Seventy-one percent under the Bush policies and this administration--71 percent. Now, this is an issue for us in Michigan with not only families and individuals who are struggling to be able to pay for what I believe should be a right in this country, not a privilege, which is health care, but we know what it is doing to our businesses as well. We know that in a global economy, we are the only industrialized country that pays for health care the way we pay for it. So we add to the burdens on our manufacturers, our small businesses, and others by having health care predominantly on the backs of business To make it even worse, we end up, because of our system, because of the craziness of our health care system, paying twice as much of our GDP for health care as any other country, but we have 46 million people with no health insurance. What is wrong with this picture? The United States of America has the highest infant mortality rate. Shame on us. We can do better than that. All this takes is a matter of political will, to make the changes that are necessary so no family has to go to bed at night praying that the kids are not going to get sick; no small business has to worry about whether they are going to be able to find health care for themselves and their employees; and no manufacturer should have to worry about whether they are going to be able to compete internationally and still provide health care for their workers. Health care costs have gone up 71 percent. To add insult to injury, gasoline prices experienced a 104-percent increase. They are coming down now. They are coming down a little bit before the election. We know what will happen after the election. And we also know what has happened to people trying to go to work, trying to take the kids to school. In my home State, in Michigan, where we have a very robust tourism season, we want everybody to be able to go to the cottage up north, take the boat out, and enjoy the wonderful Great Lakes or go fishing on the inland lakes and rivers. This is a major economic factor for us, gas prices. What happens to individuals who have to take more money out of their pockets just to be able to get to work? Maybe this summer they didn't take that trip they normally take, which means our small businesses up north were hurt. It means economically we are not seeing the robust investment in tourism that normally we have seen in Michigan. Families are being squeezed on all sides. This is just a fraction of the cost we have seen going up. What has been the response of this administration? What has been the response of the Republicans in Congress? Unfortunately, the response has been, first of all, to block our efforts to ban price gouging. As part of the Energy bill that passed a year ago, an amendment of mine was agreed to that required the Federal Trade Commission to do a complete investigation of price gouging. It took them way too long, but they finally came back and indicated that on the surface of it, they didn't think it was happening and they really didn't have the tools. We had not defined price gouging so that they could really be serious about that. The administration basically took a pass on whether there is price gouging. So we introduced legislation to define it. That has not been able to move because there has been no support to do that. Health care costs? We could go on and on in all of the areas in which, instead of coming together and doing what we can do, efforts have been blocked. Here are some of the basics, starting with the Medicare prescription drug program. Instead of having a plan that works for seniors and the disabled, a plan was written that was great for the drug industry. Included in that was the outrageous provision that we are not allowed--Medicare is not allowed to negotiate group discounts. Can you imagine that anywhere else? Anybody knows bulk purchasing is cheaper, negotiating group prices is cheaper. Yet, in the area of Medicare, in behalf of the industry, that is prohibited. What is the result of that? First of all, we have a Medicare plan, essentially, that is privatizing Part D, requiring those to go through private insurance rather than directly through Medicare. There is just a great big hole. Some folks have called it a doughnut hole, this gap in coverage, because there is not enough money to pay for complete coverage because they can't negotiate group prices. All the money is going to the industry rather than going to make sure there is comprehensive coverage. There is a better way to do that. I am introducing legislation that would allow us to go directly to Part D. Any senior, any person with disabilities, could go directly to Medicare, sign up under Part D under the normal copays and premiums, go to their local pharmacy, they negotiate prices, we eliminate the gap in coverage, and folks would get what they need without all of the confusion and complexity. But that has stalled. We have not been able to move that forward because of the administration and those in control.

Ms. STABENOW. Absolutely. Prior to the Great Depression.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today to offer the Lester Nichols Presque Isle Light Station Act with my colleague, Senator Levin. Congressman Stupak is introducing the companion legislation in the House of Representatives today. Our bill will restore the historic Fresnel lens to the Presque Isle lighthouse in Presque Isle Township, MI. Michigan has the most lighthouses of any State in the Nation with a total of over 120. At one time we had over 100 manned lighthouses, more than any other State. This is not surprising considering that Michigan has 3,288 miles of shoreline along the Great Lakes. We are proud of our lighthouses and we are proud of the history and the maritime heritage that they represent. Our lighthouses are part of our identity as a State. In addition to performing as navigation aids, they remain a symbol of the importance that the Great Lakes played and continue to play in Michigan's history. Most importantly, they are an important part of the economies of our coastal towns. Our lakeshore towns host visitors from across the country who travel to view the magnificence of our coastal areas and the lighthouses that illuminate them. These small communities are more dependent than ever on tourism dollars, and we must help them by coordinating our efforts to protect Michigan's lighthouses and promote Great Lakes' maritime culture. In 2002 the U.S. Coast Guard, the Michigan State Historic Preservation Officer, and the township signed a memorandum of agreement stating that upon removal from the tower, the Fresnel lens would be restored by the township in a museum type setting with assistance from the Coast Guard. In 2005, the township completed their restoration work on the lens. Unfortunately, we soon learned that the Coast Guard has another policy that prevents a Fresnel lens from being replaced once it is removed from the tower. The result is that this lighthouse has been historically compromised. Replacing the lens in its original home for the enjoyment of all who visit our historic lighthouse will not only ensure the integrity of the lighthouse, but it will enhance the function the lighthouse provides as an active navigational aid. Very simply, our bill requires the Coast Guard to replace the restored Fresnel lens in the Presque Isle Lighthouse. Our bill is named after Les Nichols, who through years of hard work and perseverance has led the successful effort in the restoration of the historic 3rd Order Fresnel Lens. The Fresnel lens is an integral part of the historic value of the New Presque Isle Lighthouse and will continue to attract tourists to this region of the State. Under Lester's leadership, this historic artifact will now be able to be viewed by future generations. I also want to acknowledge the work of Peter Pettalia, the Presque Isle Township Supervisor. I hope that all of my colleagues will support this legislation and that we can move it quickly in the remaining time we have in the Senate. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Connecticut for that extremely eloquent, passionate, and urgent message to the administration about what needs to be done in Darfur. I could not agree more. I have come to the floor on other occasions to speak on the same issue. We know that thousands--in fact, 2 million people--find themselves in camps with no place to call home, in a situation that is absolutely outrageous. So I thank my colleague for coming to the floor and speaking on this important subject. I am very hopeful that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have spoken to this will find that their words are heeded by the administration and they will act urgently to save lives and stop the genocide.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today to remember a very good friend and a wonderful woman whom Senator Lincoln spoke about--and I know others today have--very eloquently on the floor, and that is our good, good friend Ann Richards, the former Texas Governor and treasurer, a woman who had extraordinary abilities. Her intelligence, her tenacity, and her hard work, are well known. But we all know of her sense of humor, her wit, her ability to make us smile. Even when we were trying to struggle through a difficult issue or were upset, she was able to put this in a particular frame that would allow people to in fact smile and laugh while they were trying to work through things together. I was very pleased to have Ann Richards come to Michigan on more than one occasion to be able to help me in my effort at running for office. It was always a wonderful time. People were so excited when I would say that Governor Ann Richards was coming to Michigan. There would be excitement from women young and old, as well as from men. We always drew a great crowd. She always lived up to every expectation, in terms of the way she spoke about life, about what people are concerned about, and a combination of both outrage at those unfair things and things that ought to be changed, coupled with that sense of humor about what we go through in our daily lives, speaking about things that we could all relate to so well, with that wonderful sense of humor. She once told me when I was working hard and had too many things to do in a day: Debbie, you should stop right now and just focus on what is next and the rest of it will take care of itself. Do your best and focus on the next hour, the next challenge, and that is how you get through effectively in life. Those words of encouragement and advice have stuck with me to this day. Whenever I get overwhelmed, I think of Ann Richards' voice in my ear saying: Stop and take a breath and focus on what is right in front of you and do your best, and everything else will work out just fine. We all know she was a trailblazer in Texas politics and an inspiration to all of us who have run for office and been elected to office around the country. I will never forget when she was elected. I had the opportunity to attend her inaugural ball--I should say series of balls, where everybody was all dressed up and wearing cowboy boots, and how I watched Ann, with such relish, go from ball to ball, event to event, and watched her go down the streets in the parades in Austin that day. There was such excitement, and you could tell she was thrilled. She loved Texas and she relished the opportunity to serve Texas as its Governor. It was such a wonderful weekend of events. I will always remember that. There are so many different quotes from her that we all remember and quote ourselves. One of my favorites is the often-repeated line about Fred Astaire. She said: Sure, he was great; but don't forget that Ginger Rogers did everything he did backwards and in high heels. That was Ann Richards, speaking in a way that made a point, but made everyone smile at the same time. In many ways, we kind of came up through politics together. We were both in county commissions in the mid-1970s. We both ended up in Statewide elected office, and we both loved and love our States with a great, great passion. Despite all of the fame--and she was famous, a well-known person, revered around the country--she was somebody who could walk into any city in the country and have people recognize her and have great respect for her. But what I admired most was how down to earth she was. Even though this is a person who was very well known, she was somebody who was always there with a smile and would say ``How are you doing?'' She would talk to the wait staff in a restaurant, as well as the people in her party, or would speak to whomever was around her. She began her career as a teacher. She once said that teaching was the hardest work she had ever done and, according to her, it remained the hardest work she had done to date. She was a great teacher, but not only in the classroom. Ann Richards was a teacher to me--a teacher as it relates to women having courage, stepping out, being willing to take the slings and arrows that come with the rough and tumble world of politics, standing up for what she believed in, always being accessible and available to reach out and help those of us who asked for her help, and always relishing life to the fullest. Ann Richards will be remembered. We are so grateful for her life, for her service, and for who she was. My thoughts and prayers go out to her children and her grandchildren. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today to offer the Lester Nichols Presque Isle Light Station Act with my colleague, Senator Levin. Congressman Stupak is introducing the companion legislation in the House of Representatives today. Our bill will restore the historic Fresnel lens to the Presque Isle lighthouse in Presque Isle Township, MI. Michigan has the most lighthouses of any State in the Nation with a total of over 120. At one time we had over 100 manned lighthouses, more than any other State. This is not surprising considering that Michigan has 3,288 miles of shoreline along the Great Lakes. We are proud of our lighthouses and we are proud of the history and the maritime heritage that they represent. Our lighthouses are part of our identity as a State. In addition to performing as navigation aids, they remain a symbol of the importance that the Great Lakes played and continue to play in Michigan's history. Most importantly, they are an important part of the economies of our coastal towns. Our lakeshore towns host visitors from across the country who travel to view the magnificence of our coastal areas and the lighthouses that illuminate them. These small communities are more dependent than ever on tourism dollars, and we must help them by coordinating our efforts to protect Michigan's lighthouses and promote Great Lakes' maritime culture. In 2002 the U.S. Coast Guard, the Michigan State Historic Preservation Officer, and the township signed a memorandum of agreement stating that upon removal from the tower, the Fresnel lens would be restored by the township in a museum type setting with assistance from the Coast Guard. In 2005, the township completed their restoration work on the lens. Unfortunately, we soon learned that the Coast Guard has another policy that prevents a Fresnel lens from being replaced once it is removed from the tower. The result is that this lighthouse has been historically compromised. Replacing the lens in its original home for the enjoyment of all who visit our historic lighthouse will not only ensure the integrity of the lighthouse, but it will enhance the function the lighthouse provides as an active navigational aid. Very simply, our bill requires the Coast Guard to replace the restored Fresnel lens in the Presque Isle Lighthouse. Our bill is named after Les Nichols, who through years of hard work and perseverance has led the successful effort in the restoration of the historic 3rd Order Fresnel Lens. The Fresnel lens is an integral part of the historic value of the New Presque Isle Lighthouse and will continue to attract tourists to this region of the State. Under Lester's leadership, this historic artifact will now be able to be viewed by future generations. I also want to acknowledge the work of Peter Pettalia, the Presque Isle Township Supervisor. I hope that all of my colleagues will support this legislation and that we can move it quickly in the remaining time we have in the Senate. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today to commend the Detroit Shock on winning the 2006 Women's National Basketball Association Championship. On Saturday, September 9, 2006, the Detroit Shock won their second WNBA Championship by defeating the defending champion Sacramento Monarchs by a score of 80 to 75. The Detroit Shock were able to celebrate the tenth year of the WNBA with an inspiring victory in the fifth game of the finals and secured their second championship in four years. The attendance for game 5 at the Joe Louis Arena was over 19,600 people. The enthusiasm shown by the people of Michigan clearly demonstrate Michigan's strong support for the Detroit Shock organization and the determined effort of all of its players. The Shock completed an incredible season! It was capped by spectacular performances in the deciding game by the WNBA Finals Most Valuable Player, Deanna Nolan, who scored a game high 24 points. Cheryl Ford, who had a game high 10 rebounds, in addition to scoring 10 points; and Katie Smith also contributed 17 points. Head Coach Bill Laimbeer has now won four professional basketball titles, including two as coach of the Detroit Shock and two as a player for the Detroit Pistons. And the Detroit Shock owner Bill Davidson's Detroit. teams have won five championship titles, including three Pistons' Titles. The Shock demonstrated superior strength, skill, and perseverance during the 2006 season and have made the City of Detroit and the entire State of Michigan proud. I congratulate the Detroit Shock on winning the 2006 WNBA Championship and recognize all the players, coaches, staff, fans, and others who were instrumental in this great achievement.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the ``Fix and Improve Reimbursement (FAIR) for Physicians Act of 2006'' today with the support of the Michigan State Medical Society and the Michigan Osteopathic Association. Over 20,000 M.D.'s and D.O.'s in Michigan provide more than 1.4 million seniors and people with disabilities with high-quality medical services under the Medicare program. Our Michigan families have received fantastic care, from fantastic doctors. But will they continue to? Not unless we do something about the payment system used to reimburse physicians for Medicare services. Beginning January 1, 2007, the Medicare Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR) formula will cut payments to physicians and health care professionals by 5.1 percent. What does that mean in dollar terms? Medicare payments in Michigan alone will be cut by $137 million in 2007; the average cut for a physician in Michigan would be $34,000 per year. That doesn't make any sense. Medical costs are going up. How can doctors provide the same high-quality care when costs are going up and their payments are going down? It makes even less sense when you realize physicians and other health care professionals have been struggling with this payment system for years. The SGR formula resulted in significant payment cuts in 2002, and would have resulted in payment cuts in 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006 had Congress not intervened. And it won't stop with the cut in 2007. According to the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) and the Board of Trustees of the Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Fund, the Medicare SGR formula will result in substantial payment cuts to physicians and health care professionals through at least 2015. The cuts are scheduled to total 40 percent by 2015, costing Michigan doctors in excess of $8 billion between 2007 and 2015. Can doctors absorb these kinds of cuts and continue to serve all Medicare beneficiaries with high-quality care? Absolutely not. The cuts would be particularly devastating for primary care doctors, the very doctors that, according to MedPAC, many Medicare beneficiaries rely on for important health care management. MedPAC states in their March 2006 report that they ``are concerned that such consecutive annual cuts would threaten access to physician care services over time, particularly primary care services.'' They go on to say that ``payment policies that may discourage medical students and residents from becoming primary care physicians raise particular concern''. A recent survey conducted by the AMA suggests that if the scheduled cuts go into effect, 45 percent of doctors will decrease the number of Medicare patients they accept--and this at a time that the Medicare population is burgeoning! Further, 50 percent of doctors will defer purchase of health information technology, 37 percent of doctors practicing in rural communities will be forced to discontinue rural outreach services, and 43 percent of physicians will decrease the number of new TRICARE patients they suggest. This is not a new issue. MedPAC considers the Medicare SGR formula a flawed, inequitable mechanism for controlling the volume of services and first recommended repeal of the Medicare SGR formula in 2001. Since then they have consistently recommended repealing the formula. But what has Congress done? Have we repealed the SGR? No. Instead, each year since 2003 Congress has acted to override the formula temporarily. While these actions have prevented cuts since 2002, nobody can believe this is a good way of going about business. Congress tends to act very late in the year--or AFTER the cuts have actually gone into effect--which results in instability and unpredictability for physicians, health care professionals, seniors and individuals with disabilities. Further, annual Congressional actions to override SGR don't solve the long-term problem as the formula extracts the added spending in future years by imposing even more drastic cuts. We know what we need to do. A Medicare physician payment system that will provide stable, positive payment updates is critical to preserve Medicare beneficiaries' access to high-quality care and allow doctors to invest in health information technology and quality improvement programs. While a new system is being developed, we know we need to adopt MedPAC's recommendation to update payments for physicians' services under the Medicare program by the projected change in input prices less MedPAC's expectation for productivity growth. The ``Preserving Patient Access to Physicians Act of 2005'', which I introduced last year with Senator Kyl, would do just that. It would have provided physicians with a 2.7 percent update in 2006 and would provide a 2.8 percent update in 2007. When I introduced that legislation I said that it was just the beginning. I said that our bill was necessary to provide updates for a couple of years but that we cannot continue to use stop-gap measures, and must replace the SGR with a payment system that actually makes sense and reflects the costs of providing physician care to Medicare beneficiaries. This bill--the ``Fix and Improve Reimbursement (FAIR) for Physicians Act of 2006''--takes the next step. The purpose of the ``FAIR for Physicians Act'' is to sunset the Medicare sustainable growth rate formula in order to expedite Congressional action in establishing a new physician payment system under the Medicare program that would appropriately reimburse physicians by keeping pace with increases in medical practice costs and providing stable, positive Medicare updates. The ``Fair for Physicians Act'' would repeal the SGR formula as of January 1, 2009. I continue to believe that we must adopt MedPAC's recommendation for updates in 2007 and 2008 to give seniors access to high-quality care while giving Congress time to develop an alternative payment system. To help Congress with developing the new payment system, the ``Fair for Physicians Act'' establishes a new, 17 member ``Physician Payment Update Commission'', the ``Physician Commission''. The members of the Physician Commission will include members with a wide variety of expertise in the delivery and financing of health care, but--and I believe this is critical--individuals who are physicians and other health professionals shall constitute a majority of the membership of the Commission. The new Physician Commission will study all matters relating to payment rates under the Medicare physician fee schedule, and develop recommendations on the establishment of a new system that would appropriately reimburse physicians by keeping pace with increases in medical practice costs. We need to do this right, but we also need to get it done soon. Our physicians and health care professionals, and our Medicare beneficiaries, have been dealing with an unworkable, unsustainable system for too long. Therefore, the Physician Commission must report to the appropriate Congressional Committees and MedPAC by December 1, 2007. MedPAC then has a month to review the recommendations of the Physician Commission and submit a report to the appropriate Committees. MedPAC's report must include a review of the recommendations, including the reasons for their support if they support their recommendations and, if they do not support the recommendations, the reasons for that, and their own recommendations. I know we need to get this done by January 1, 2009 and I know we can get this done by January 1, 2009. My bill would repeal the SGR formula as of that date, and establish a new Commission to develop a new payment system by that time, to ensure that our Nation's 42 million Medicare beneficiaries continue to have access to high quality physician care. In the meantime, we must provide updates based on MedPAC's recommendations. The Medicare program is one of the most successful federal programs of all time. It has lifted countless seniors out of poverty, and it has ensured access to necessary, affordable, quality medical care for our most vulnerable citizens for the last 40 years. We can--and must--fix the physician payment formula to maintain Medicare's record of success in providing access to high-quality Medicare services for all of our seniors and people with disabilities.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I commend my chairman and the ranking member of the Banking Committee for all their hard work. This has been a wonderful bipartisan effort, and I am pleased it is included in the underlying bill. I commend the leadership of Senators Collins and Murray on the underlying bill. I wish to speak about a piece of security that is so critical for us that I will be offering tomorrow, an amendment to provide our first responders with the interoperable communications equipment they need to effectively respond to emergencies. Whether it is port security, rail security, whether it is our local police and firefighters, we know that having radios that can actually talk to each other, actually work to be able to actually communicate with the Department of Homeland Security or the Department of Defense or be able to speak to our armed services is absolutely critical. We also know, in fact, right now that the system is not what it should be. I also want to thank Senators Lieberman, Levin, Schumer, Durbin and Boxer for cosponsoring the amendment that will be offered tomorrow. My amendment would finally give our first responders the resources they needs to be able to quickly communicate and respond to a terrorist attack or other kind of national emergency. It would provide a dedicated source of funding for our communities by creating a 5-year $5 billion grant program for interoperable communications. My amendment is based on the interoperability communications program included in the bipartisan Lieberman- Collins bill, S. 1725, which passed out of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee with strong bipartisan support. Unfortunately, this has languished on the Senate floor for almost a year. There has to be a sense of urgency about this issue and getting the resources to our local communities so they, in fact, can respond. My amendment authorizes, as I said, $5 billion in grants. It is slightly more than the $3.3 billion in the Lieberman-Collins bill but certainly very close in terms of our approach. I think it is important to provide more funding in the early years so that communications can finally address this issue and be able to do what they need to do as quickly as possible. Yesterday, we observed the 5-year anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. We took time to remember the victims and their families and to recount the events of that horrible day. Many of these victims were our brave firefighters and police officers who gave their lives to save others. Every day, first responders all across our country, and certainly in my great State of Michigan, put their lives on the line to make our communities safer, a job they do bravely and with honor. Now is time for us in Congress to do our job and finally make sure they have the resources and the equipment they need in coordinated national efforts so they can respond and can communicate in case of a terrorist attack or other national emergencies. Almost 2 years after the attacks, the 9/11 Commission Report outlined the numerous communications problems first responders had as they tried to save lives. The report details the problems 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 DC reported to the Pentagon that they couldn't talk to each other. This makes absolutely no sense. People running into buildings, into the World Trade Center, into the Twin Towers, when they should have been running out because they did not know what was happening. The radios did not work. The 9/11 Commission concluded that ``the inability to communicate was a critical element at the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and the Somerset County, Pennsylvania, crash site, where multiple agencies and multiple jurisdictions responded.'' They went on to say, ``The occurrence of this problem at three very different sites is strong evidence that compatible and adequate communications among public safety organizations at the local, State, and Federal level remain an important problem.'' The 9/11 Commission published its final report in July of 2004, 2 years ago, that the men and women in the first responder community knew the communications difficulties even before 9/11, 2001. Unfortunately, the Federal Government has not yet made a substantial commitment to solve this problem. It has been 2 years since the 9/11 Commission gave its report. In fact, 10 commissioners gave Congress a failing grade, an F, for not yet providing adequate radio spectrum for first responders and not addressing the problem where our local communities are stretched too thin and have too many urgent and competing priorities to effectively and completely solve the problem by themselves. We addressed the issue of the radio spectrum, in part, in the year 2006 budget reconciliation bill, which set a February 17, 2009, handover date and providing $1 billion in funding for interoperable communications for first responders in advance of the handover. I support these positive steps. But now we have to build on that to provide a guaranteed stream of funding to resolve this overall crisis about radios not being connected, not being able to talk to each other. The 9/11 Commission is not alone in the assessment of this critical problem. In June of 2004, a U.S. Conference of Mayors survey found that 94 percent of our cities do not have interoperable capability between the police departments, the fire departments, and emergency medical services--unbelievable, 94 percent. And 60 percent of cities do not have interoperable capability with the State emergency operations systems. This is unacceptable. There needs to be a sense of urgency about changing that, and we have to be a major part of that solution. The most startling finding was that 80 percent of our cities don't have interoperable communications with the Department of Homeland Security or the Department of Justice. Imagine if there were a terrorist attack and 80 percent of our cities did not have the capacity for interoperable communications with Homeland Security. This vulnerability was again exposed over 1 year ago with the Hurricane Katrina disaster, where we know the New Orleans Police Department and three nearby parishes were on different radio systems. First responders were unable to communicate with each other as they attempted to rescue people trapped in New Orleans. When I visited the gulf, I was very proud of seeing Michigan people there. I remember sitting for lunch outside the New Orleans Convention Center with a young man from the Michigan Coast Guard on one side and a young man from the Michigan National Guard on the other. I asked them: Do you have radios? They said: Of course. I said: Can you talk to each other on the radios? They said: No. How are you rescuing people? How are you communicating when you are out on the beat? Hand signals, was the response. We can do better in 2006 than hand signals when we have a national emergency or a terrorist attack. How many more disasters need to happen before we fix this problem? In May of 2006, Michael Chertoff, Secretary of Homeland Security, said: ``The fact of the matter is we cannot effectively manage an incident if we do not, and if we cannot, talk to one another.'' I couldn't agree more. He went on to concede that it is still the case that too many emergency responders are not able to talk to their counterparts, to their own organizations or to their companion organizations, let alone communicate with agencies in neighboring cities, counties or States during a crisis. On the fifth anniversary of the September 11 attacks, I believe it is shameful that we have made so little progress on interoperable communications. It is unacceptable that there is not a sense of urgency about getting this done now--frankly, about having not done it now. We should have gotten it done 4 years ago, 3 years ago, 2 years ago, 1 year ago. I believe that our constituents would be stunned to learn that the Federal Government has not yet dedicated funding to specifically address this problem. How many times do we have to hear this is an issue? How many experts, how many bipartisan reports before we do what we need to do urgently and to the maximum extent that we can? We know that the lack of interoperable communications for America's first responders puts them and our communities in danger. Too many of our police, fire and emergency medical services and transportation officials cannot communicate with each other, and our local departments are not able to link their communications with State and Federal emergency response agencies--way too many. Our first responders are making do with less and less each year which makes no sense. And they should not have to choose between communicating with each other and critical training and other means. I think people would be shocked to know that there are fewer police officers on our streets today than on 9/11/2001. In Michigan alone, over 1,500 fewer police officers are on our streets because of cutbacks in law enforcement funding. This makes no sense. In the 5 years since the 9/11 attacks, one of the too many requests for support that I receive every year from communities is for interoperability communications equipment. Every time I meet with police officers and firefighters and emergency responders and local mayors, others who are leaders in their communities, the issue comes up about the radios, about the lack of ability to communicate. I have done everything I can to help. I have come to this floor many times urgently requesting that we move forward in an aggressive way to address this issue. I am pleased to be able to put together specific grants to be able to support individual communities, and that is a step in the right direction. But what we need is a comprehensive national approach. We need to make a commitment that we are not going to accept anymore any community in this country not having the ability to talk to each other, the neighboring communities, the folks at the State and the Federal Government. That is intolerable. This is the fourth time I have stood on the Senate floor and offered an amendment to provide the dedicated stream of funding to address our first responders' interoperable communication problems. I am very hopeful that now will be the time that we come together right after this fifth anniversary of 9/11 and agree that we are going to turn that F, given by the 9/11 Commission, into an A, by finally coming together and solving this problem so in case of whatever the emergency is in the future, folks will not walk away and say part of the reason we lost lives, part of the reason we couldn't respond was because the radios didn't work. We have the ability to fix that in relationship to this important bill. I hope we do. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. STABENOW. If the Senator will yield, I ask to add my name as a member of the committee.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the men and women in uniform serving the United States around the world, and observe a somber milestone in Michigan's contribution to Operation Iraqi Freedom. In August, the 100th member of the U.S. Armed Forces from Michigan made the ultimate sacrifice while serving in Iraq. U.S. Army 1SG Aaron Jagger of Hillsdale died when a roadside bomb detonated near his vehicle in Ramadi, Iraq. Sergeant Jagger was serving his second tour in Iraq. I offer my heartfelt condolences to Sergeant Jagger's family. As of the first week of September, 104 members of the U.S. Armed forces with ties to Michigan have lost their lives while serving in Iraq. I will ask that a list of their names be printed in the Record at the end of my statement. No words can express our country's gratitude for the dedicated service and ultimate sacrifice of Sergeant Jagger or the other Americans who have lost their lives. I am also thankful for the sacrifice all the men and women in the U.S. military have made for their country while serving in Iraq. They are selfless patriots that give their time and too often their lives to preserve the freedoms we hold so dear. I know that condolences offered to these brave families and words spoken on the floor of the Senate cannot possibly make up for their loss. But it is important that they know we remember them and that our prayers and thoughts are with those that have lost loved ones, and those that still have family and friends serving in harm's way. I will remain committed to honoring their memory and ensuring that their families and their comrades who return from battle receive the support and respect they deserve. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the list to which I referred be printed in the Record.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. I am happy to yield.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Ms. STABENOW. I say to my friend from Illinois, I could not agree more. When you talk about people who come to visit, I think about the group of families and children I met with on Saturday who actually came home from Lebanon--escaped, essentially--but were talking about their family members who are here. Bint Jbeil--that is the town in southern Lebanon where they identified a Hezbollah stronghold--is also a place that 15,000 people in Michigan call their hometown. People have come to visit in the summer, to do the things that we all do: to go to the family wedding, to visit grandpa and grandma; as older citizens, coming to visit the grandchildren. There are all kinds of families who come back and forth all the time. That we would have people that are here be forced to go back to a war zone is really unthinkable. I commend again our distinguished Senator from Illinois for his leadership, focusing on this issue which is so critical. I hope we would in fact bring that bill before the Senate for a vote or seek unanimous consent before we leave. It is absolutely critical. I hope, again, we are going to make it clear that for those, whether they are in Lebanon or Israel, who have found themselves without any prior warning to be in a situation where they are innocently caught in the violence that has occurred, we, as Americans, need to do what we know how to do, which is to reach out and to help and be a part of a worldwide humanitarian effort. We need to address those issues--whether it is food, clothing, shelter, crucial issues to so many people, tens of thousands of people, probably hundreds of thousands, who find themselves in a situation where they are looking around for someone to help them. America needs to be an important leader in lending our support. I am hopeful this amendment of $200 million will be included as an emergency spending category in this legislation.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of myself, Senator Reed of Rhode Island, Senator Reid of Nevada, Senator Leahy, and Senator Levin.

Ms. STABENOW. I thank my friend and our leader from Illinois, and I commend him for this legislation. In fact, I am proud to lend my name to the legislation. I hope we move urgently to let people know that they will not be required to go home to a place where we have been evacuating thousands and thousands of people, sending ships in to evacuate Americans. I must say, we have had over 25,000 people from Michigan alone. We have seen over 13,000 come back. Those who are still there are desperately concerned about their family members, not being able to hear from them. Often there is no phone, no computer. So the idea of sending people here back into that violence makes absolutely no sense. I commend the Senator. I hope part of what we would do before we leave is to make it clear that we would not ask those innocent people to return to a war zone.

Ms. STABENOW. I will be happy to.

Ms. STABENOW. Yes.