Debbie Stabenow

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Morris K. Udall Parkinson's Disease Research Act Amendments of 2005. I am pleased to be joined in this endeavor by my colleague, Senator Smith, who co- chairs the Senate Parkinson's Caucus with me, as well as Senators Murray, Lautenberg, McCain, and Coleman as co-sponsors. Monday, December 12, marked the anniversary of the death of Mo Udall of Arizona, an amazing congressman and champion of the environment who passed away from Parkinson's in 1998. In recognition of Congressman Udall, Senators Wellstone and McCain introduced the Morris K. Udall Parkinson's Research Act of 1997, which expanded basic and clinical research by establishing Udall Centers of Excellence around the nation to further scientific advances against Parkinson's. In the United States, an estimated 60,000 new cases are diagnosed each year, joining the 1.5 million Americans who currently have Parkinson's disease. I know first-hand the anguish that a family goes through when a loved one is struck with this horrible disease as my grandmother had Parkinson's. Top scientists say that Parkinson's is one of the first neurological diseases that could be cured but only if the resources are there. The legislation I am introducing today will help give scientists the tools they need by building on the original Parkinson's Research Act. The Udall Act Amendments Act does not call for additional spending. Rather, my bill makes targeted, process-oriented changes to maximize the federal dollars already spent on Parkinson's research. I am also pleased to have the support of the entire Parkinson's patient community, including the Parkinson's Action Network, Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson's Research, Parkinson's Disease Foundation, National Parkinson Foundation, Parkinson Alliance, and American Parkinson Disease Association. Additionally, I am pleased to have the support of Henry Ford Health System. Michigan universities and research institutions are leading the Nation in cutting-edge research into health care, and Henry Ford is doing amazing work in Parkinson's research and epidemiology. The William T. Gossett Parkinson's Disease Center at Henry Ford provides comprehensive, experienced, and individualized diagnostic and therapeutic services to patients with Parkinson's disease and other movement disorders. State-of-the-art clinical programs are provided at Henry Ford Hospital, the Henry Ford Medical Center in West Bloomfield, and the Allen Park Neurology Center. I ask unanimous consent that the text the bill and the support letters be printed in the Record.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Morris K. Udall Parkinson's Disease Research Act Amendments of 2005. I am pleased to be joined in this endeavor by my colleague, Senator Smith, who co- chairs the Senate Parkinson's Caucus with me, as well as Senators Murray, Lautenberg, McCain, and Coleman as co-sponsors. Monday, December 12, marked the anniversary of the death of Mo Udall of Arizona, an amazing congressman and champion of the environment who passed away from Parkinson's in 1998. In recognition of Congressman Udall, Senators Wellstone and McCain introduced the Morris K. Udall Parkinson's Research Act of 1997, which expanded basic and clinical research by establishing Udall Centers of Excellence around the nation to further scientific advances against Parkinson's. In the United States, an estimated 60,000 new cases are diagnosed each year, joining the 1.5 million Americans who currently have Parkinson's disease. I know first-hand the anguish that a family goes through when a loved one is struck with this horrible disease as my grandmother had Parkinson's. Top scientists say that Parkinson's is one of the first neurological diseases that could be cured but only if the resources are there. The legislation I am introducing today will help give scientists the tools they need by building on the original Parkinson's Research Act. The Udall Act Amendments Act does not call for additional spending. Rather, my bill makes targeted, process-oriented changes to maximize the federal dollars already spent on Parkinson's research. I am also pleased to have the support of the entire Parkinson's patient community, including the Parkinson's Action Network, Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson's Research, Parkinson's Disease Foundation, National Parkinson Foundation, Parkinson Alliance, and American Parkinson Disease Association. Additionally, I am pleased to have the support of Henry Ford Health System. Michigan universities and research institutions are leading the Nation in cutting-edge research into health care, and Henry Ford is doing amazing work in Parkinson's research and epidemiology. The William T. Gossett Parkinson's Disease Center at Henry Ford provides comprehensive, experienced, and individualized diagnostic and therapeutic services to patients with Parkinson's disease and other movement disorders. State-of-the-art clinical programs are provided at Henry Ford Hospital, the Henry Ford Medical Center in West Bloomfield, and the Allen Park Neurology Center. I ask unanimous consent that the text the bill and the support letters be printed in the Record.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I want to commend the leadership of Senators Enzi, Kennedy, Frist, and Clinton in this critically important arena. Their diligent work in introducing and passing S. 1418 establishes the groundwork necessary to begin to realize the promises of health information technology, IT. The evidence showing the ability of health IT to reduce costs and improve quality of care is simply overwhelming. Dr. David Brailer's office attributes savings from widespread adoption of electronic health records in the range of 7.5 percent to 30 percent of annual health care spending that is between $135 and $540 billion annually. Manufacturers in Michigan and across the country are struggling to remain competitive in a global market with skyrocketing health care costs. Health IT can, and should, play a key role in managing these costs. Equally compelling is the promise health IT holds for improving the quality of our health care system by ensuring that patients get the care they need, at the right time, and in the best setting. To realize these promises, however, Congress must enact legislation providing meaningful resources through Federal financial incentives, both mandatory grants and tax incentives, to physicians, hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, and community health and mental health centers for health information technology. Health care providers are struggling to keep up with their daily needs at the same time they are anticipating cuts in their rates. A major barrier to widespread use of IT is the initial investment cost: the costs of procuring and implementing health IT can be staggering. Every day we delay providing Federal seed money through a grant program and accelerated depreciation of health information technology expenses, we delay getting health information technology systems in place, and businesses, taxpayers and patients pay in both dollars and lives. I appreciate the majority leader's commitment to encourage the chairman and ranking member of the Finance Committee and the chairman and ranking member of the HELP Committee to schedule, at the earliest opportunity, consideration of legislative proposals to ensure federal funding to accelerate adoption of health IT. A meaning Federal investment must be robust, funded with mandatory, rather than discretionary, dollars, and available to individual providers and health care systems. This is not the place to skimp on dollars; we know every dollar we spend will come back to us many times over. Federal investments, through grants and tax incentives, in health information technology will result in lower Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP spending, reduced medical errors, and greater quality and efficiency in our health care system. We must provide a level of funding that will allow a significant percentage of our health care providers to adopt and use health IT systems. Additionally, funding must not be limited to authorizations of appropriations. We must actually provide the dollars needed to begin realizing the benefits of health IT. Nor should we limit funds to providers in networks. We should work towards a system where all health care providers are linked, but we do not need to wait for those networks to be formed to see the benefits of health IT. Standalone e-prescribing systems could reduce medication errors by 50 percent; there is no reason to delay the quality, safety, and financial savings possible through immediate health IT adoption by individual providers. In addition to funding, we must pay careful attention to privacy and confidentiality rights and concerns. A patient's right to health information privacy is paramount, and an essential component of the health care provider-patient relationship. According to a survey recently released by the California HealthCare Foundation, CHCF, 67 percent of Americans remain concerned about the privacy of their personal health information. The survey also reports that many consumers may be putting their health at risk by avoiding their regular doctor or forgoing needed tests over privacy concerns. Apprehension over privacy and confidentiality, if not addressed thoughtfully, could pose enormous barriers to the savings and health care improvements possible through adoption of health information technologies. Strong, enforceable privacy safeguards based on a patient's right to health information privacy are absolutely critical as we move towards a nationwide, interoperable electronic health care system. I appreciate provisions included in the managers' amendment addressing the need for patients to be notified if their individually identifiable health information is wrongfully disclosed and a study by the General Accounting Office examining the issue as it relates to all Americans. I look forward to working with the majority leader, and Senators Snowe, Enzi, Kennedy, and Clinton, as well as Senator Grassley and Baucus to ensure passage of legislation this Congress providing meaningful, substantial Federal financial incentives to accelerate adoption of life and dollar saving health information technologies.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today to celebrate the sesquicentennial, the 150th anniversary, of my alma mater, Michigan State University, MSU. Located on the banks of the Red Cedar River, Michigan State University was the first agricultural college in the Nation and the prototype for land-grant institutions later established under the Morrill Act of 1862. In fact, in the mid 1950s, the U.S. Postal Service honored Michigan State University with a postage stamp commemorating it as the original land-grant university. The land-grant philosophy is rooted in the principle to extend the values of education to all who seek it, and the Morrill Act grew out of a movement to bring benefits of education to rural areas. The original tract of land in 1855 for my nascent college, then known as the Agricultural College of the State of Michigan, consisted of 677 acres. Additional lands were purchased, and presently, the combined size of Michigan State lands--from its central campus to its research stations around the state--totals close to 20,000 acres across Michigan. As the campus has grown, so has Michigan State's imprint on the world through its commitment to its students and its offering of a quality, public higher education to all. Academically, MSU students and colleges are highly regarded. The university has had more Rhodes Scholars than any other Big Ten Conference university in the past generation. U.S. News & World Report ranks 10 of MSU's graduate departments in the Top 10 in their field nationally. On an international note, the University's Study Abroad program is the largest of any public university in the Nation, offering more than 190 programs in more than 60 countries on all continents, including Antarctica. Furthermore, MSU is proud to have the highest percentage of in-state students among Michigan universities, with many of those who receive a bachelor's degree from MSU staying and working in the state. The University has a notable and strong athletic history. In its 108- year football history, Michigan State has won six NCAA national football championships, while last year, both its men's and women's basketball teams made it to their respective and coveted Final Four tournaments. Sparty the Spartan is Michigan State University's fearless and loveable mascot, a figure known throughout the State of Michigan and recognized across the Nation as well. Sparty is the heart of Michigan State, forever supporting its teams, bringing smiles to young and old and continually uplifting all who meet him. The State of Michigan has always been the ``first beneficiary'' of MSU's high-quality academic programs and its global networks. But it is through those networks that MSU also is engaged with the world beyond the boundaries of its campus. Michigan State has built partnerships across the Nation and around the globe that fulfill its land-grant responsibilities to an international society and at the same time rebound benefits to Michigan, working in ways that will bring my constituents the greatest value and return, ways that will strengthen our communities, fuel our economy and provide all of our citizens with a better quality of life. As I applaud today the deep history and strength of Michigan State University, I know its best days are still before it. From this Spartan, I wish Michigan State University a most wonderful sesquicentennial.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following my remarks, Senator Durbin be recognized.

Ms. STABENOW. I thank the Chair.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, President Bush arrived in Japan today and will meet tomorrow with Prime Minister Koizumi. Later this week, he will travel to China to meet with their President as well. It is time that we insist that the President use this opportunity, this important opportunity, to demand changes, changes in our economic relationship with China and with Japan. The President needs to say, as he is there with those leaders, that we will no longer accept their illegal trade practices that are costing American jobs, and we demand that changes be made; we no longer accept the fact that China and Japan manipulate their currency, which means their products are artificially lower than ours when they sell them into this country; we no longer accept that they are stealing our patents and our intellectual property. Last week, I was pleased to author a letter to the President with that very message on behalf of myself and 14 other Senators, urging him to make 2 major changes in our relationship with these important nations: No. 1, we need to end the rampant counterfeiting of American products that is occurring in China. It is estimated that 7 percent of world trade is in counterfeit goods, that the counterfeit market is worth $350 billion. It is estimated that in the auto industry alone, we lose over $12 billion annually to counterfeit auto parts, parts that are unsafe as well as costing us jobs. If you stop this illegal activity, the auto industry could hire an additional 200,000 workers-- 200,000 workers in Michigan. That would equal our ability to cut our unemployment rate by two-thirds--200,000 people who are now challenged with losing their way of life, trying to figure out what they are going to do if they are making half or a third less of what they used to make because of what is happening in manufacturing in our country. People are paying more for health care and may very well lose their pension. We can do something about this if we simply change our relationship and send a strong message that we are going to put American businesses and American workers first. Our middle class clearly was built on manufacturing, and our manufacturers are having a hard time these days. It is critical that we continue to manufacture in this country. Is it changing? Has it changed? Of course, it is now high-tech manufacturing. When you walk into an automobile factory, it looks very different-- quiet, clean, computers, highly skilled workers--but we have to maintain a strong, vibrant manufacturing economy. We cannot just step back and say we are going to be a service economy now and let the rest of the world make things and grow things. That will lead to what is now becoming a race to the bottom for American families. The Economist Magazine recently reported a disturbing fact. This year, manufacturing jobs in the United States dropped below 10 percent of the population for the first time in history. This is not acceptable if we are going to continue to have our way of life in this country, and it is not necessary. If anyone believes that the middle class in this country can survive without a vibrant manufacturing sector, they are mistaken. As I indicated, we must make things in this country and add value to it as we do so, as well as grow things. That is a foundation of our economy, and that is what has created the wonderful middle class and the wonderful way of life we have enjoyed for so long as Americans. We can do better than this policy that is currently in place. The President must demand that China and Japan stop manipulating their currency. When they undervalue their currency, it makes U.S. exports to China artificially more expensive and places U.S. manufacturers at an unfair disadvantage in the Chinese market. It also makes their imports to us artificially less expensive, hurting manufacturers and costing American jobs. When they undervalue their currency, it is essentially an illegal subsidy of imports from China and a large tax on U.S. exports to China, and we need to call it the way it is. The President needs to be in China and call it for what it is. We are projected to finish this year with a record trade deficit of more than $700 billion. That is more than the budget deficit, up $100 billion over the record $618 billion last year. China accounts for $200 billion of this deficit, more than a quarter of the total trade deficit in our country. China is the largest contributor to the U.S. current account trade deficit, and therefore adjustment of its currency has to be a part of anything we do in revitalizing the manufacturing sector. China is not the only offender here. In 2003, the Bank of Japan spent $190 billion in global currency markets in order to manipulate and artificially weaken the yen. Japan continues this practice today by talking down the value of their currency, promising intervention if the yen moves out of a predetermined trading range. The President must insist that this stop if we are going to continue to have a relationship, an economic relationship with both of these countries. In fact, we can do something about currency manipulation right now. Every 6 months, the Secretary of the Treasury submits a report to us as to whether countries are manipulating. We expect to have a report in front of us this month, the month of November. Unfortunately, I expect it to say what it has always said, which is technically they are doing what we all know that they are doing, we all know. Any businessperson in my State can tell you that China is manipulating their currency. Talk to people in the auto industry, they will talk about Japan. And yet our own Treasury Secretary will not certify it is happening, giving us the tools to enforce against this illegal trade practice. Let me be very clear. Currency manipulation kills American jobs, and it is illegal, it is illegal under the WTO and IMF obligations. China says they want to be a part of the world community, the world marketplace. They have been allowed to do that. We now need to say to them very strongly, with this opportunity comes the responsibility to follow the rules. One of the things that is extremely concerning to me, when you look at currency manipulations, we have lost over 1.5 million manufacturing jobs because of this one policy that is illegal. The Treasury Secretary can do something about that by simply certifying that it is happening, and the President of the United States right now this week can look the President of China in the eye and say this is no longer going to be tolerated by the United States of America, we will not continue to lose manufacturing jobs and our quality of life in this country because they are not following the rules. Cheating is no longer allowed by China and by Japan. The bottom line is we can no longer continue to sit on the sidelines while our trading partners continue to artificially control prices, look the other way when it comes time to enforce intellectual property rights, and fail to live up to their obligations under the WTO and the IMF. It is not acceptable to say that we are going to throw open our economy in the international marketplace and not care what the rules are. Every other country cares what the rules are. The European Union took us to court because they felt we were unfairly subsidizing our businesses. They won. We changed our tax laws. We are the only country that does not seem to have policies that get it. This administration doesn't understand they are supposed to be on the same side of the table with American workers and American businesses. It is time for that to happen. I urge the President to act now before our manufacturing economy and our middle-class way of life is taken from us. Current Federal policies are based on a philosophy that says to Americans, you are on your own in a global economy; you are on your own, good luck. To American manufacturers, you are on your own; American workers, you are on your own. Mr. President, I believe that we are in this thing together, and Americans understand that we have a stake in what the rules are and an economy that works for everybody, an economy that puts Americans and American businesses first so that we can continue the great way of life that we have had in this country. Americans know that we are in it together and that together America can do better. I call upon the President to join us in the fight for our way of life in America. I thank the Chair.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I join my colleague in coming here to speak for a moment about Social Security. Just as my esteemed colleague from North Dakota said he had not originally intended to speak tonight, I did not intend to speak as well. But for all of us who are so proud of the great American success story called Social Security, and for all of us who understand how it does represent the best about us, we want to have an opportunity to say that tonight because there has been a lot of misinformation, unfortunately, I believe, a mischaracterization on the other side of the aisle. The fact is, Social Security is based on what is best about us: You work all your life. You pay into a system. And then you know you have dignity in your retirement. You also know, because this is really an insurance policy, that if you become disabled, Heaven forbid, Social Security can step in for you, for your family. If the wage earner in the family loses their life, Heaven forbid, their children, their spouse are able to receive assistance to be able to help them from moving back into poverty, because it is an insurance system. It is basically an economic insurance policy. And it has been one of the great American success stories. The reality is, without Social Security, about 48 percent of those who are now on Social Security would be in poverty. Today, with Social Security, about 9 percent of older Americans and the disabled are in poverty. We know this number needs to be lower. But this is a great American success story. At a time when there is so much upheaval in so many people's lives--I know in my home State of Michigan, my great State of Michigan, there are so many families today that feel the rug is being pulled out from under them because the jobs they have had and worked hard at all their lives are either going overseas or they are being told they are going to have to work for $9 or $10 an hour. Their health care costs are going up or maybe they are losing their insurance. Their pensions are threatened or maybe gone because of the bankruptcies of companies that have then dumped the pensions into a pension guaranty fund. With all of this insecurity and challenge families face in fighting to keep the American dream and the American way of life, the one constant we have had is knowing that there is Social Security, that we have paid into a system, and that it will be there for us. There is absolutely no reason that Social Security will not be there for us, as long as we do not privatize it or undermine it, as has been proposed by colleagues on the other side of the aisle. We are in a situation today where Social Security and the security of Social Security is needed more than ever. I will never forget talking with a group of people who were mid-level executives at Enron--I know, unfortunately, this story can be told and will be told across Michigan as well--folks who worked all their lives, invested in the company, as they were told to do, did all the right things, they are near retirement, and now it is gone. One gentleman, with tears in his eyes, said to me: Thank God for Social Security; that is all I have left. Too many Americans find themselves in that situation now. I believe we should be doing something about that as well. Earlier this evening, I spoke on the floor about what we need to do to turn that around: enforcing trade policies, changing the way we fund health care, investing in education and innovation, protecting the pensions of those who have worked hard all their lives. But the reality is, Social Security is a very important part of that picture. Now, it is a value as well as a program. It represents what is best about us. And we have choices about whether we want to keep it secure and keep it as a priority. Back during the budget debate this year, our ranking member, Senator Conrad, and I offered an amendment to secure Social Security first before going on with other tax cuts that have been proposed for those most blessed in our country, those, in fact, who do not have to worry about whether Social Security will be there for them. We indicated, as you can see by looking at this chart, that in order to keep Social Security secure for the next 75 years, it will cost $4 trillion. That is compared to the President's tax cuts: If they are made permanent--the overwhelming majority of them going to the top ``incomers,'' those most blessed economically in our country--it will cost $11.6 trillion, if we decide as the majority, our Republican colleagues, appear to be doing, to extend these tax cuts permanently. If we instead were to say, wait a minute, we are going to fully fund Social Security first before any of this happens--even if we said to those most blessed in our country, instead of $11.6 trillion in tax breaks, let us take $4 trillion off of that--they would have $7.6 trillion. It seems to me, at a minimum, that would be a choice worth making in order to make sure every single American knows that Social Security is secure. All of the decisions we make in this Chamber are based on our values and our philosophy. Social Security represents our basic belief that we are in it together as a country, that it does matter what happens to other people. We are not in it alone. I believe the efforts being proposed on the other side of the aisle represent a very different philosophy that says: You are on your own, buddy, unless you are our buddy. The reality is that Social Security represents a value that says we are in it together and that together America can do better. That is what Social Security is about. It has worked. It has proved the philosophy that together America does better. So I am hopeful our colleagues will choose, in the waning days of this session, to move on to join us in the great debate of keeping American jobs in America, supporting our American businesses, our American manufacturers that need our help now, and making sure we have a pension bill that works for all of our businesses and all of our workers, showing that we value and want to make sure the promises of pensions, which so many workers have paid into all of their lives, are kept. Let's work on that rather than undermining a great American success story called Social Security.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Energy Tax Rebate Act of 2005 and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. Michigan families and families across America are being delivered a one-two punch when it comes to energy prices. First, they continue to be hit hard by high gasoline prices. Now they are facing home heating costs this winter that are expected to rise dramatically compared to last year. We can do better than this for our families. So today I am introducing a bill that will provide families with an immediate $500 tax rebate to help them pay for rising energy costs. My legislation also includes important consumer protections to make sure Americans are not the victims of unfair market practices and consumer price gouging. Finally, my bill includes a Sense of the Senate that the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, known as LIHEAP, should be fully funded to its authorized level of $5.1 billion. LIHEAP is a successful program that makes sure our most vulnerable families, those living on low incomes or fixed-incomes, are able to heat their homes during the cold winter months. Filling our cars with gasoline to take our children to school and heating our homes in the winter are not luxuries. They are necessities. Energy is a necessity. Together we can do better and together we will do better.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Energy Tax Rebate Act of 2005 and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. Michigan families and families across America are being delivered a one-two punch when it comes to energy prices. First, they continue to be hit hard by high gasoline prices. Now they are facing home heating costs this winter that are expected to rise dramatically compared to last year. We can do better than this for our families. So today I am introducing a bill that will provide families with an immediate $500 tax rebate to help them pay for rising energy costs. My legislation also includes important consumer protections to make sure Americans are not the victims of unfair market practices and consumer price gouging. Finally, my bill includes a Sense of the Senate that the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, known as LIHEAP, should be fully funded to its authorized level of $5.1 billion. LIHEAP is a successful program that makes sure our most vulnerable families, those living on low incomes or fixed-incomes, are able to heat their homes during the cold winter months. Filling our cars with gasoline to take our children to school and heating our homes in the winter are not luxuries. They are necessities. Energy is a necessity. Together we can do better and together we will do better.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the 75th anniversary of the Detroit Windsor Tunnel. Over the past 75 years, the tunnel has been an indispensable link between the United States and Canada. In the years before the construction of the tunnel, cars and trucks crossed the Detroit River on ferries. During the winter, the river froze and made the ferry ride between Detroit and Windsor dangerous. On November 3, 1930, President Herbert Hoover ushered in a new era in U.S.-Canadian relations when he officially opened the Detroit Windsor Tunnel. Not only has the tunnel been a vital commercial and cultural link between the United States and Canada, at the time of its construction it was an unparalleled engineering feat. The tunnel is approximately 1 mile long and reaches depths of 75 feet below the river. It is the only underwater international vehicular border crossing in the world. At full capacity, 2,400 vehicles can pass between Detroit and Windsor each hour through the tunnel. During the tunnel's construction, there were as many as 600 workers simultaneously building the structure. One group of workers called the ``muckers'' dug a 32-foot hole in tight quarters through sand and clay deep below the Detroit River. As a tribute to the workers who built the Detroit Windsor Tunnel a year ahead of schedule, the first person to drive the distance of the tunnel and back was Joseph Zuccatto, a construction worker who earned 35 cents an hour. The Detroit Windsor Tunnel is one of the cornerstones of the close economic relationship between the United States and Canada. The United States and Canada trade $1.2 billion worth of goods and services each day that supports 5.2 million jobs. Trade between the United States and Canada is valued over $400 billion per year. Michigan's trade with Canada represents 19 percent of the United States land-based trade and supports 174,000 Michigan jobs. The Detroit Windsor Tunnel is a crucial link between the U.S. and Canadian economies. The tunnel is one of the 15 busiest border crossings nationally, with more than 9 million vehicles passing through the tunnel each year. Additionally, at least 850 trucks and 5,000 commuters pass through the tunnel for business, entertainment, and shopping each day. In recent years, all U.S. ports of entry have balanced increased border security requirements with the needs of tourists and business travelers to quickly enter and leave the United States. The Detroit Windsor Tunnel has enthusiastically responded to these challenges and worked with local, State and Federal officials to meet these urgent needs. Mr. President, I commend the Detroit Windsor Tunnel on its 75th anniversary, for its service to the people of the United States and Canada, and for its continuous innovation to serve those who rely on it.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. I second the motion.

Ms. STABENOW. Will the Senator yield?

Ms. STABENOW. I thank the Chair. I thank my colleague and esteemed leader, our ranking member on the Budget Committee. I rise this evening to oppose the amendment of my friend from Oklahoma, as well as the entire budget resolution that is in front of us. Together, America can do better than this budget and this amendment. Basically, what the amendment is saying is, if we want to invest in education so every child has the opportunity to succeed in America, we wish to create greater opportunity, it would take 67 votes. If we want to provide another tax cut for those most blessed in this country, those doing most well, the best of anyone in terms of their financial situation, that would take 51 votes. If we want to invest in science and new cures for Alzheimer's and Parkinson's and diabetes, it would take 67 votes. If we wish to give to those most blessed with resources in our country a tax cut, it would take 51 votes. That is the wrong set of priorities for our country. I support tax cuts certainly. I sponsored and worked with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to add a new tax cut for manufacturers so if they create jobs in the United States they have a lower tax rate than if the jobs and business go overseas. Certainly, we agree together that the alternative minimum tax needs to be fixed so middle-class families are not impacted by something that was put into play to affect only those who are the most wealthy from avoiding all taxes. We could go down the list of things that we support on a bipartisan basis. But where we differ is where we have gone in this country under a failed set of values and priorities. And this amendment only makes that worse. We can do better than that. Our Nation's budget is designed to reflect the values and priorities of our great country. It is essentially our country's values document. I believe this budget does not honor our Nation's values, and it has the wrong priorities for our country. I believe this amendment does the same, again, saying if we wish to invest in the health of the country, if we wish to help manufacturers who, in my great State, desperately need our help by changing the way we finance health care in this country, that would take 67 votes. But if we wish, instead, to provide another round of tax cuts to those who are most blessed in this country, that takes 51 votes. That is the wrong set of values and the wrong set of priorities, and we can do better than that in America. As Americans, we believe we should leave a better future for our children and our grandchildren. The American people expect us to make tough choices, just like they do around their kitchen tables every day, trying to balance the budget. In my home State people are not sure if they are going to have a job, what the pay is going to be, are they going to have their pension, are they going to have to pay more for health care. They are having to make the toughest decisions every day. They expect us to be responsible and make the tough decisions we need to make. We do this because we don't want our children to have to pay for our debts. That is why we make tough decisions. Parents across the country work hard enough to build a nest egg for their children so they can have a better life than we have had as their parents. We want that. My great concern is that we are losing that for our children. I believe we are in a fight for our way of life in this country and nothing less. And the budget documents in front of us only make that worse, only add to the race to the bottom too many of our families are feeling. This budget we are considering in two separate reconciliation bills will actually increase the deficit, not reduce it--increase it by $31 billion. America expects us to do better than that. Most Americans might wonder why are we increasing the deficit when we already have the largest deficit in the history of the country. We are fighting wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and we must help to pay for the rebuilding of the gulf coast for all of those who have lost so much. Since 2001 when we had the largest surplus in history, we have taken a fiscal U-turn, and now we have the largest deficit in history, putting us back in the days of gloomy fiscal policies in the 1980s and early 1990s. It is important to know there was a choice at that point, as our leader and our side of the aisle has indicated. When I started in the Budget Committee in 2001, we had the largest budget surplus in the history of the country. We had two choices. We could do what we were proposing at the time: take a third of that for stimulating investment in jobs, take a third of that in tax cuts to spur the economy, a third of that for strategic investments to spur the economy through education, innovation, to also spur the economy, and a third of that we wanted to put aside to pay down the debt and to keep Social Security secure. Instead, what happened. Our Republican colleagues rejected our approach, and now we have the largest deficits in the Nation's history due to the fact that all of it was put into a supply-side economics tax cut geared to the wealthiest among us at the expense of all of the rest of America. Mr. President, these deficits are not free lunches. We have to pay them year by year. And how are we paying for them? Well, we are borrowing billions of dollars from Japan and China. Right now, Japan and China hold almost $1 trillion, $1 trillion of our national debt. And it is growing each and every year. Not only do taxpayers have to pay interest to China and Japan, our Government has refused to crack down on unfair trade practices with these two countries because we are so far in debt to them. I can tell you, coming from the great State of Michigan, our administration's unwillingness to crack down on trade violations, currency manipulation, counterfeit auto parts, and stealing our patents has had a profound impact on our losing jobs in Michigan. They are all related because of our policies in terms of the national debt affecting our inability to, in fact, enforce trade violations. We can do better than that. Together, America can do better than this. We can get our fiscal house in order and get tough with our trading partners who are not playing by the rules. The reconciliation bill, unfortunately, though, will hurt working families in Michigan. For seniors who have worked hard their entire lives, they will see their most basic services cut. For some working single-parent families, they will see their health insurance cut. For hard-working family farmers, their livelihoods will be put in jeopardy. With so many working families losing health insurance or paying more for less, is this a good time to be cutting Medicare and Medicaid, our Nation's health insurance programs for seniors and children? We can do better than that. Also, given all the economic problems hurting our rural communities, including a terrible drought in Michigan, is this a good time to cut programs that help our farmers? Is now the time to force farmers who are struggling into bankruptcy? We can do better that. This budget's priorities are so different than those of Michigan families. Michigan families want us to fight for good-paying jobs, for affordable health care, and for a secure pension. In essence, they want us to fight to preserve their way of life, the middle class of our country, where they can raise their kids, send them to college, get quality health care, retire with dignity after 30 or 40 years of hard work, and know that pension is going to be there along with Social Security. Mr. President, America can do better than this document and this amendment. If we make the right budget choices, we can expand health insurance for working families and lower costs. We can create jobs, protect pensions, bring down the deficit if we make better budget choices. As my colleagues know, our Nation's largest auto parts manufacturer, Delphi, declared bankruptcy 3 weeks ago, threatening 13,000 jobs in Michigan and 35,000 jobs nationwide. Its workers may not only lose their jobs, they will lose their health care and their pension; in other words, everything they have worked for for their entire lives, everything they have earned, everything they are counting on for themselves and their families. Tragically, this budget package does nothing for them. It increases the deficit, which hurts our economy, gives Japan and China the upper hand in trade negotiations, cuts health care, and does nothing to protect people. That is why I intend to vote no on this budget and on the amendment. I will continue to fight for Michigan's families who are struggling every single day, and I believe it is not just Michigan families struggling now but American families all across our great country. I worry about whether their way of life is going to continue to exist. They want a change. They know we can do better than this. They know this budget debate really is a proxy for a larger philosophical debate, a larger choice on values and priorities. The Republican approach to governing is that you are on your own--no matter what the issue. We believe that all families need jobs, health care, quality schools and a secure pension. The Republican approach is that you are on your own. If you lose your job, you are on your own. If your Medicare premiums rise 13 percent, you are on your own. If your schools are not performing well, you get a school voucher. And if your pension is threatened, you can try to get some of it back from the PBGC. Mr. President, America can do better. Together, we can create good jobs, maintain our middle class way of life and get our country back on track. But this budget will take us in the wrong direction. I urge my colleagues to oppose it.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I wish to go on record this evening with my great disappointment at not being able to bring up under unanimous consent a version of the bill that would name a Federal office building in Detroit for Rosa Parks. This had originally been offered by my colleague, Congresswoman Carolyn C. Kilpatrick of Detroit, a longtime friend and colleague of Rosa Parks. Originally, last evening, we passed my version of the bill along with an amendment, agreed to, of Senator Warner. This evening it is my desire to pass the House version of that with Senator Warner's amendment, the very same amendment that we have already passed last evening, but to place it into the House bill so we could then send it back to the House. It would be like the Senate bill that we passed. To my understanding, there is an objection on the other side of the aisle to doing that. If not, I would proceed to do that. It is the very same thing we did last evening, but it would put it into the House bill. My House colleague, who is the originator of the proposal on the Federal office building, would like very much to have us pass the House bill and have that be the bill that is sent on to the President. That is the bill that I was hoping we would pass here in the same form with the Warner amendment that we passed last evening.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, thank you for the courtesy. I am sure we will be able to move forward in a prompt way.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, if I might, in no way was this meant to show disrespect for the Senator from Virginia. We have worked very properly together. I was simply rising this evening to indicate that the original way to resolve this by including the Senator's amendment in the House bill is not something that is acceptable to other colleagues. That was the desire of the Congresswoman whose idea it was to name the building in her district. She feels very strongly about this, and I was indicating that for the Record. I don't wish to have more confusion. I very much appreciate the Senator from West Virginia allowing me a moment. But in no way was this meant to show disrespect for my colleague. We have worked very well together.

Ms. STABENOW. That is correct.

Ms. STABENOW. That is correct.

Ms. STABENOW. I will be happy to. This has been a confusing situation, I say through the Chair to the distinguished Senator from Virginia. After speaking with you, I spoke with the Congresswoman who was concerned about which bill would be going to the President's desk. So I was simply rising, not to offer a motion but just to express my concern about the dilemma that we are in at the moment.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, if I might just respond to my distinguished colleague, notice was given. That is how I know there is an objection. So I am not rising to make the unanimous consent request. I understand there is an objection on the other side of the aisle. I am simply standing this evening to indicate my disappointment that we have not been able to resolve this here and be able to, in fact, include Senator Warner's amendment and be able to send it back to the House of Representatives. Hopefully, we are going to be able to resolve it another way and be able to accomplish what we all wish to accomplish. I support Senator Warner's desire and the gentleman he is wishing to honor with the naming of a building. Also, certainly it is my goal and the goal of my colleague in the House to be able, in fact, to pass a bill to send to the President, giving the great civil rights champion of our country and the world, Rosa Parks, the respect and honor she deserves. It is our hope to have that done prior to her funeral.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, if I might ask, before my very distinguished colleague and friend from West Virginia speaks, I wonder if I might simply make a statement for just a moment about a unanimous consent request that I had intended to offer. I understand there will be an objection to it, but with my colleague's consent, I appreciate having 2 minutes to be able to make a comment.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Yes, I did do that. There was an objection to that. So I renewed my unanimous consent request for the Rosa Parks Federal Building.

Ms. STABENOW. I will be happy to include a revised unanimous consent for Senator Warner.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today in recognition of Veterans Day to pay tribute to the men and women that have served our country as members of the U.S. Armed Forces. I join my colleagues and those across Michigan and our country in reflecting upon the meaning of this day and the service of our fellow Americans. I often have the pleasure of meeting with Michigan's proud community of veterans. I have also been privileged to welcome home members of our armed services and the Michigan National Guard and reserves serving in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. These men and women are a credit to our great State, their communities, and their families. America's men and women in the military give their time, and in many cases life and limb, to serve our country. Today's soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines are tomorrow's veterans and we owe them our gratitude for their service. One of the most fitting ways we can honor the service and sacrifice of America's veterans is to ensure that we honor the commitments we have made to them and their families. I am proud to be working with my colleagues from both political parties and with veterans' organizations from across the country, including the American Legion and VFW, in leading the fight to pass legislation guaranteeing that health care services for our veterans are funded. This law would eliminate the year-to-year uncertainty about funding for veterans health care by making this funding mandatory in the annual budget. As we reflect on this Veterans Day, I urge my colleagues to keep our promise to our Nation's veterans by supporting this important amendment. I stand today in honor of all the men and women from Michigan and across our country who have given their lives while serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. We are all grateful for their sacrifice and offer our condolences to their families. On this Veterans Day, I join my colleagues and the wonderful men and women that have served our country in the Armed Forces--veterans young and old--in paying tribute to them and their service.