Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the STOCK Act. I wish to start by thanking the leaders on the floor, Senator Lieberman and Senator Collins, for their hard work and leadership in bringing this bill to the floor. There should not be any question that Members of Congress should be held accountable to the same laws to which every other American is held.

That is why in November Senator Gillibrand, Senator Tester, and I introduced the STOCK Act to prohibit Members of Congress from engaging in insider trading. This bill is common sense. The American people deserve to know that their representatives in Congress are doing what is right for the country and not trying to strike it rich by trading on insider information.

My constituents are certainly wondering why this isn't law already, and that is a good question. It certainly is a question I asked myself last year when there were news reports raising this issue, and I was very pleased to join immediately with my colleagues to put forward this legislation to make it absolutely clear that insider trading by Members of Congress is in violation of the law.

I wish to thank, as I indicated before, the Senator from Connecticut and the Senator from Maine for moving this

bill through their committee and bringing it to the Senate floor. I appreciate very much the vote of 93 Senators who voted last night to move the bill forward. I think it is a very important example of bipartisan support. I hope we will be able to move this forward to a simple up-or-down vote this week and that we will not see extraneous issues or obstruction or delay involving this bill. This is very simple and very straightforward. I am hopeful we will be able to move it forward and accomplish this goal.

We need to make sure it is very clear that the same laws to which everyone else adheres are held to be true for Members of Congress. It is also important to note that our bill creates new reporting requirements for Members of Congress and their staffs, with the reports available online, with a searchable database. That is very important for transparency. It asks the Government Accounting Office to investigate the so-called ``political intelligence consultants'' who contact Members and staff to get information on how legislation could affect their business clients or stock prices.

This bill is very simple and very clearcut. We are all engaged in conversations on a daily basis that make information available to us, and we need to make it very clear as to our responsibilities for handling that information and operating in the public interest.

So I am hopeful we will be able to keep this bill focused on the intended goal so we can actually get it passed, get it over to the House, and have the House do the same. It is important that while there may be a number of different issues we all care about that we would like to offer through amendments, we will be able to keep this focused on the issue in front of us and that we will be able to get this done as quickly as possible.

Our constituents are certainly looking to us to be able to do this. It would be an excellent way to start the new year by working together on a bipartisan basis to close a loophole that has created confusion about the responsibilities, the ethics, and the legal responsibilities for Senators as it relates to insider information and potential insider trading.

So I am hopeful we can get this done. I appreciate the work of everyone who has been involved in helping to get us to this point. Hopefully, by the end of the week we will have something passed that we can all feel very good about.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate my State of Michigan on its 175th anniversary of statehood. On Thursday, January 26, 1837, President Andrew Jackson signed into law the bill granting Michigan statehood. The bill was surprisingly controversial. At the time, Michigan and Ohio had been embroiled in an argument called the Toledo war. Before Michigan was granted statehood it had to surrender its claim over Toledo. But in exchange we got the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, one of the most beautiful places in the entire country--I would say in the entire world. So I think we won that trade.

Twenty-four years later President Lincoln would exclaim, ``Thank God for Michigan,'' when Michigan troops arrived to defend Washington, DC, during the Civil War. Around the turn of the century, the auto industry took off in Michigan. Henry Ford paid the workers $5 a day to build the Model Ts so they could afford to buy the cars they made. That was viewed as revolutionary at the time. Those workers not only created the middle class in this country--and we are very proud it started in Michigan with our workers--but they made America an international superpower.

During World War I, Michigan factories built boats and vehicles that helped turn the tide in Europe. During World War II, Michigan's role became even more important. Auto plants were rapidly converted to military use, building tanks and jeeps and bombers. The Nation's first freeways were built in Michigan to connect our factories in Detroit with those in other parts of the State. The iconic image of Rosie the Riveter saying, ``We can do it'' was based on a real woman named Rose Monroe who worked at the Willow Run factory in Michigan.

After the war, Michigan experienced incredible growth, becoming the home of our American middle class. Only California and Florida saw greater population growth than Michigan in the postwar years. Manufacturing took off across the State and eventually across the country. Farms saw greater increases in production with the invention of new machinery and the adoption of increased specialization. We built the Mackinac Bridge connecting our two beautiful peninsulas, an engineering marvel that remains one of the largest suspension bridges in the world. Of course, Motown Records and all the wonderful musicians who have come since then gave the world some of the most wonderful music and the best musicians who have ever lived.

The last few years have been tough on all of us in Michigan, but we have been through tough times before, and every time we have come back stronger than ever. We may be 175 years old, but one would not know it. Our economy is growing stronger and more nimble than ever. Great sacrifices have gotten us to this point as we have moved through great recessions and changes in a global economy. I am very proud of everyone in Michigan who is working hard and bringing things back.

Our auto companies have made an incredible comeback. G.M. is, once again, the world's largest automaker. Ford is investing billions of dollars in Michigan plants, and Chrysler is reminding the country that the very best cars and trucks are imported from Detroit. I am so grateful for all the sacrifice and hard work of our workers who have helped get our companies to this point.

It was great to hear President Obama talk so much about the future of Michigan's economy in his State of the Union speech. We are diversifying to support new technologies and new businesses. The President invited a Michigan worker, Bryan Ritterby, who lost his job in the furniture business at age 55 and was able to get retrained and have a new job at a wind turbine factory on the west side of the State. He said, ``I am proud to be working in the industry of the future.'' That came about because of the concerted effort of all of us working together not only to help General Motors and Chrysler but to focus on a manufacturing strategy of the future to make things in America.

The President talked about our leadership with clean energy manufacturing and advanced battery technology. In fact, Michigan is now No. 1 in new clean energy patents. We are doing so much in innovation. In fact, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is opening a new office in Detroit in July, which is the first satellite office in the country. I am proud to have offered the provision to name it the Elijah McCoy Patent Office, after an African-American inventor whose high-quality products and innovations gave rise to the expression, ``the real McCoy.''

On Michigan's 175th anniversary, there are so many reasons I am proud to represent our beautiful Great Lakes State, from our incredible waters to our tradition of manufacturing, to our great diversity in agriculture. We make and grow products in Michigan. We don't have a middle class in this country, we don't have an economy unless we do that, and Michigan is, once

again, leading the way. I am most honored to serve the great people of Michigan who are, without a doubt, the toughest, friendliest, hardest- working people in the country.

The author John Steinbeck once wrote of a trip he took to Michigan. He said, ``It seemed to me that the Earth was generous and outgoing here in the heartland, and, perhaps, its people took a cue from it.'' In fact, our people have.

Today, as we celebrate Michigan's 175th birthday, we have an incredible history to be proud of and an incredible future to look forward to.

Mr. President, on behalf of myself and Senator Levin, I wish to pay tribute to James ``Jim'' Bonneau, a member of the Jackson Police Department in Jackson, MI, who has been posthumously awarded the Congressional Badge of Bravery.

Officer Bonneau was born in Canton, MI to Marc and Amy Bonneau. Growing up he always wanted to help others and become a police officer. After graduating from Canton High in 2002, he earned a degree in criminal justice from Eastern Michigan University. In 2007, he followed his dream and joined the Jackson Police Department, which put him through Lansing Community College's Mid-Michigan Police Academy.

Bonneau excelled at the academy and graduated at the top of his class. He was well liked by the faculty and his fellow classmates. Even though he was with the department for two short years, his excellence on the job and connection with the community he served made a difference and touched many lives.

On March 9, 2010, Officer Bonneau and Blackman Township Public Safety Officer Darin McIntosh responded to a domestic disturbance call. The suspect fired multiple shots at both officers wounding Officer Bonneau in the chest and Officer McIntosh in the leg. Though mortally wounded, Officer Bonneau showed bravery and determination while he relayed critical information to central dispatch regarding the incident. His actions ensured that the responding officers knew what to expect upon entering the home. Tragically, he later died from his injuries.

Officer Bonneau's exceptional acts of bravery and presence of mind while in the line of duty earned him a well-deserved nomination and award of the State and Local Law Enforcement Congressional Badge of Bravery.

On behalf of the City of Jackson and the State of Michigan, we express our gratitude to Officer Bonneau and his family for his bravery and commitment to law enforcement. He made the ultimate sacrifice so that others may live in safety.

Thank you, Madam President. First I wish to thank my colleague for raising issues of great importance to all of us. Financial regulatory reform is critically important

for our country moving forward. Senator Crapo and I spoke earlier about this amendment. We have a number of areas of shared concern and I have committed to work with him on these issues.

First and foremost, I agree with my friend from Idaho that we need to protect our manufacturers, our rural co-ops, energy providers, and other companies that use financial products to manage their legitimate business risks. These end users did not cause the financial crisis. So when we passed Wall Street reform, we included protections for them.

We have held several hearings in the Agriculture Committee to reinforce to the regulators that manufacturers and others need to be protected. We will continue to do that oversight.

We certainly agree that as new rules are written, we need have an open and transparent process. I believe the Commodity Futures Trading Commission has created, in fact, an open and transparent process and has worked to improve that process over time. They have held roundtables, sought public comment, and are making changes based on those comments to ensure that the new rules work. But it is important that Congress continues to work with the agencies to get these rules right. We also expect the agencies to work with each other and with their international counterparts. We need to make sure rules are robust and consistent across international borders, avoiding a regulatory race to the bottom while using ``mutual recognition'' as a guidepost. Most importantly, the agencies need to create these rules in a way that provides businesses with market certainty. To that end, we will be holding another oversight hearing in the next few weeks.

It is important that we continue to urge the regulators to be mindful of the effects that these rules will have on American businesses. It is also important to remember that we passed reform because of the serious consequences of the financial crisis. Millions of families lost their homes, countless businesses shuttered, 8 million jobs lost. We need to ensure that the rules are not written in a way that creates incentives for banks to move their operations overseas to avoid oversight--we share that concern. We definitely need to get the rules right and keep the jobs here in America.

As I have told my colleague, I will continue to work with him on these important issues.

Mr. President, first, I wish to thank my good friend and colleague from Rhode Island for his important words on the floor and for indicating that millions and millions of middle-class families and small businesses in this country expect us to figure out a way to make sure the tax system is fair and we have the opportunity for everyone to be able to be successful in this country and know they have a fair chance to make it and that the rules are not rigged for just a few folks. So I wish to thank the distinguished Senator for his comments and for his leadership and pointing out some very important things for the majority of Americans and small businesses across the country.

I rise to speak about a very important issue that will be coming before us for a vote that directly relates to jobs. As the Chair knows, that is a pretty big issue for me in Michigan. We have over 11 percent unemployment. I am laser focused on creating jobs and growing the economy because I think it is absolutely critical for us to get out of debt. We are not going to get out of debt with more than 14 million people out of work, and we are not going to be able to move forward in a way that allows families and businesses to succeed in America if we are not able to turn this economy around and create jobs.

Following World War II, our country created a system of roads and bridges and railways and airports unlike any in the world. In fact, countries are now looking to duplicate what we have done. In the decades that followed, this important infrastructure served as the foundation of our economic growth and prosperity, being able to move commerce and people from one place to another, and we grew. Now that infrastructure has fallen into disrepair. Not surprisingly, we need to be doing some things to be able to rebuild and make sure our bridges are safe and to be able to move forward in a global economy and have the ability to compete because we have an infrastructure that is worthy of the 21st century.

More than one-quarter of our Nation's bridges are either structurally deficient or obsolete. Think about that, one out of four. If I am driving down the road, I don't think I want to bet that one-out-of-four probability that the bridge I am driving over with my children or my two beautiful grandchildren is safe. I think families want to know every bridge is safe, every road is safe, and that they are not going to put their families in jeopardy as they are driving on our roads and crossing our bridges.

In Michigan, we have 1,400 bridges that are deficient--more than 13 percent of Michigan's bridges. Motorists in Michigan are no stranger to bad roads. I can tell you as somebody who has the wonderful honor of representing Michigan, a very large State, I spend much time on the road, as do my brothers in their work, and my family is on the road as well. We can tell you every year the freezing and thawing wreaks havoc on our roads and every year our roads are full of potholes. I certainly can speak from experience about the expense of fixing a car when one drives over and falls into one of those big potholes.

Even our Republican Governor, Rick Snyder, says we need to invest in infrastructure. He recently said:

Michigan's infrastructure is living on borrowed time. We

must reinvest in it if we are to successfully reinvent our

economy.

I couldn't agree more. I wish to commend the Governor for those words and for his focus and his administration's focus on investing in our roads and our infrastructure.

We are sitting in traffic and paying the price at the pump because we have fallen behind in maintaining and improving our physical infrastructure as a country to be able to move across town or across the State or across the country. If we don't invest to fix our crumbling roads and bridges and airports now, the costs will only go up, as we know. Failure to act now will cost nearly 1 million Americans their jobs. Those are a lot of people. Those are a lot of families. Those are a lot of mortgages. Those are a lot of families figuring out whether they are going to be able to put food on the table and send their kids to college. There are 1 million American jobs in jeopardy. It will cost our economy nearly $1 trillion over the next 10 years if we do not act. We have the opportunity to act and we have the opportunity to act right now. We can invest in rebuilding our infrastructure and it will, in turn, rebuild our economy and create jobs.

The Rebuild America Jobs Act is an opportunity to turn the corner and to head in the right direction. Not only will it upgrade 150,000 miles of roadway, improve thousands of miles of train track, and modernize our Nation's runways and air traffic control systems, but it will also put hundreds of thousands of people to work. This is a win-win. The Rebuild America Jobs Act will provide desperately needed repair funds and will provide the seed money for a national infrastructure bank that will attract private sector capital to help fund a broad range of new investments. This is such an important idea to be able to provide seed money, to be able to track the private sector, private capital, to be able to invest, to be able to leverage the dollars that American taxpayers put in and be able to address all our roads and bridges and other infrastructure needs in a way that creates jobs.

It will have a very big impact on my great State of Michigan. The plan will make immediate investments in Michigan that could support at least 11,700 local jobs that are so critical to us right now as we are coming out of this huge jobs deficit hole we have been in for too long. The plan to rebuild our infrastructure and put Americans back to work has bipartisan as well as strong support from the private sector. The presidents of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Republican Mayors and Local Officials Coalition have both supported the infrastructure investments we are talking about. This approach has strong bipartisan support.

Simply put, the Rebuild America Jobs Act will fix our crumbling infrastructure, put hundreds of thousands of people back to work at the same time. It will not add a dime to our deficit, and the American people support it. So this is a win-win. Why will it not add a dime to our deficit? Because we pay for it in a way that I think is very reasonable and very fair. We are asking those who are most blessed economically in our country, those who earn over $1 million a year, to pay less than 1 percent, .7 percent, on any $1 they earn above the first $1 million of income. So they would be asked to have basically a surcharge to contribute to creating jobs and investing in the future of America, rebuilding America--jobs that cannot go overseas, jobs in rebuilding America.

This can be done for less than a 1-percent surcharge, not on the first $1 million they earn but on the $1 that comes after or the $2 or the $5 or the $10 or the second million. It is anything above $1 million where we are asking those in our country who are in a position to be able to help instead of going back to middle-class families, working families, senior citizens, people who have been hurt so hard in this recession for so long. Instead of asking them

one more time to be the ones to carry the burden, we are, instead, asking those who have had success, who have been blessed financially, and who have benefited from this great country, whether it was with what was done to support Wall Street, whether it was other ways in this country, for them to be a part of the solution with less than 1 percent on any dollars earned above $1 million. I think this is a reasonable and fair approach.

This is about jobs. We are talking about the Rebuild America Jobs Act, putting people back to work, doing something that is incredibly important for our country and will grow the economy, create jobs, rebuild communities, and help our country move forward.

I urge my colleagues, when we have the vote, to move forward on this bill and that we all join in what has been a bipartisan set of issues of infrastructure investment and rebuilding America. I hope we will see that in the vote that will be coming in the next couple days.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, first of all, I completely agree with Senator Sessions. We need to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse in the supplemental food program, as in every Federal program.

I wish to commend the USDA now for having less than a 4-percent error rate, and we are going to continue to push them to go down even further. Why? Because right now we have people who have paid taxes all their lives, who had never in their wildest dreams thought they would ever need help putting food on their table, and they do. We cannot afford to waste even one dollar.

My colleague mentioned on the floor several times a lottery winner in Michigan who got food assistance. He is right, it was outrageous. The State changed it, and we are changing it in the upcoming farm bill. But the reality is that this amendment, the Sessions amendment, completely changes the structure of the food assistance program, putting up barriers to hard-working, honest men, women, and children who need help, most of them for the first time in their entire lives.

I urge my colleagues to vote no.

Mr. President, let me just indicate that the House and Senate Agriculture Committee leaders have come together in a bipartisan, bicameral basis to recommend reforms in our farm commodity programs that will, frankly, make this amendment a moot point. I would ask my colleagues to vote no and to give us the next 10 days to come forward with the new approach we will be offering.

I will now yield to my friend and colleague on the Agriculture Committee, Senator Roberts.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague and, if I might, take a moment to respond.

Just 2 minutes to respond to the previous Senator.

I appreciate the courtesy very much. I wanted to take a brief moment to indicate to my friend from Alabama I couldn't agree more that we need to make sure the food assistance programs--every farm program and every program in the Federal Government--have rigorous review and that we are holding taxpayer dollars accountable. We have held accountability hearings in the Senate, in the Agriculture Committee. The good news is, there is only a 4-percent error rate in the entire SNAP program through the supplemental nutrition program being talked about, but there is more we can do.

The case of the lottery winner in Michigan the Senator talked about was outrageous, and it has been fixed. They can't do that anymore. We are going to fix it in the next farm bill as well. I could not agree more. We are going to go through and fix those things that don't make sense.

But I would also say that what the Senator is suggesting is, first of all, policy that needs to be done in the context of the farm bill negotiations. We have an extraordinary agreement we have reached between myself and our ranking member in the Senate and the chair and ranking member of the House Agriculture Committee, and we are putting together language to give to the supercommittee that will address nutrition as well as other areas. I would ask my colleagues to support our effort that we will be putting forward. We will have that language by November 1 that will address those egregious areas which, by the way, are very small, but we do need to address them and we need to do it in a way that also recognizes more people than ever before need food help.

I have people in Michigan who have never needed help in their entire life. They have paid taxes all their lives, and they are mortified they can't keep food on the table for their children throughout the month. So they are getting temporary help, and that is what

is it is designed for--people who need temporary help. Because of that, we want every single dollar to go where it ought to go, and we are going to do everything possible to see that happens. We are going to be putting forward policies that I am sure the Senate will support that will guarantee there is not $1 that is going to somebody who doesn't deserve it or to someone who is cheating or where there is fraud or abuse. We are going to make sure that happens. But this debate needs to be done in the context, as it always has been, of our farm bill policy on food and nutrition.

I ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment and to work with us as we put forward policies that will be coming very soon. I thank the Senator from Colorado for his graciousness.

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

Mr. President, I rise to speak in opposition to the Coburn amendment No. 791, and I am pleased to be joined on the floor by my good friend and colleague and ranking member, Senator Roberts.

Let me start by saying that in the context of addressing a very large deficit we know needs to be addressed and in the context of the work being done by colleagues in what has been called the supercommittee, I am very proud of the fact that Senator Roberts and I and our colleagues, the chair and ranking member of the House Agriculture Committee, have come together and worked very hard, for different regions of the country, on different issues that we bring to the table. We have agreed on an overall reduction number that we have recommended as agriculture's portion of the deficit reduction.

We have already done deficit reduction, I have to say. We have already seen cuts in crop insurance, we have already seen cuts in the current year's budget that were substantial. But we know we need to do our part, and we are doing that. We are recommending $23 billion in deficit reduction.

Part of that, though, the critical part of that is we have asked the committee to allow us, as the leadership in the House and Senate, to propose the policy that goes with the cuts. We are working with all of those who are affected, from production agriculture, to conservation groups, the nutrition community, rural development, everyone who is involved and impacted by the 16 million jobs in agriculture. There are 16 million jobs. That is one out of four jobs in Michigan. This is incredibly important to our economy.

We are taking very seriously the need for us to come together and create changes, reforms in agricultural policy that streamline the system and the bureaucracy, do a better job with dollars, accountability, and reform what we are doing as it relates to the agricultural payment structure. It is in the context of that that I rise to oppose Senator Coburn's amendment. I appreciate his well- intended amendment, but I would say two things.

First of all, I understand he is proposing caps of $1 million on direct payments. We are in the process of changing that and recommending positive reforms in that whole system.

So we would ask that the Senate, our colleagues, to support us and the recommendations that we have been asked to put together by November 1, which is extremely fast-tracked, but we are working diligently, and our staffs are working diligently. There is not a lot of sleep right now so we can get this all done and put forward this new policy. So it is the wrong time and place to be suggesting this change, first of all, on an appropriations bill and, secondly in the context of this bipartisan, bicameral, good-faith effort to put forward changes in our system, which we are committed to doing, which will, frankly, usurp what this amendment is really all about.

Let me also say that it is important to talk about the fact that we have made changes in the last two farm bills. In 2002, there was a cap put on payments of $2.5 million, and we then lowered that in the 2008 farm bill to $500,000 for nonfarm income and $750,000 for farm income. We made a number of changes and a number of reforms in the last farm bill that moved us in the right direction, listening to the criticisms and concerns of the public and of colleagues. I think there were some very important steps that were made and positive changes in the last farm bill.

Understanding the world we are in now and the dynamics around deficit reduction and the economy and all of the other issues we are involved in, we are taking another major step, and I think it is a step being done in a way that says to colleagues and says to the public that we can work together. These are challenging policies, economic issues.

We have come together and worked very hard on a bipartisan basis with the House and the Senate, and I think this speaks well to the fact that if we sit down together and listen to each other and are willing to compromise, we can come together on something that is good for the country. We are in the process of doing that right now. I would ask our colleagues to allow us and support us in that effort.

We have put forward a proposal for $23 billion in deficit reduction, which is, frankly, more than would be required under sequestration for agriculture. We have gone above and beyond what the Bowles-Simpson proposal said. We know agriculture will want to do its part. We are asking colleagues to allow us to put together that policy to get there.

We will address the concerns that have been raised. We hear you. We understand. We will be proposing substantial changes that will, in fact, both create new tools for agriculture for our farmers and our ranchers but also address concerns that have been raised. I

ask my colleagues, rather than supporting this amendment, to support what is a good-faith effort that is going on right now in the House and Senate Agriculture Committees and allow us the time in the next week to put together the proposals to be able to make a change.

With that, I yield to my friend--and I do mean my friend--we have become good friends as well as colleagues on the Agriculture Committee. I have to say I loved being in Kansas and having the opportunity to be with Senator Roberts and experience the high esteem with which he is held there. At the same time, I saw tremendous devastation as a result of what has happened with the droughts. I understand that when there is bad weather, when there are bad conditions, we need to have support for American agriculture. Food security, national security depends on it. I certainly saw in Kansas what happens when the weather is bad and it has reinforced for me--as well as what happened in Michigan--certainly the importance of having a strong set of tools to manage risk and a safety net that is there when farmers need it.

I yield to my friend, the distinguished ranking member.

I rise today to, first of all, congratulate all of my colleagues, the 79 Members who came together to vote to proceed to a very important measure, a jobs bill that is currently before us.

The great news is that it is a jobs bill that will cost us zero dollars to be able to implement in terms of about 2.25 million new jobs, new jobs that will come. Why? Because we are saying as a group, as the Senate: Enough is enough, and we want China as well as other countries to follow the rules. We want them to follow the rules so when our companies and our workers are competing in a global economy they will have a level playing field and the ability to compete. We know if the rules are fair, if there is a level playing field, we in America will compete, and we will win. We know that.

The biggest violator on any number of trade issues we know of right now is China. When they joined the WTO 10 years ago, the whole point of them being able to join the world community under a world set of economic agreements was to make sure they would have to follow the rules like everybody else. But ever since that time they have done nothing but flagrantly violate the rules.

When China does not play by the rules, it costs us jobs. It puts our businesses in Michigan, our workers in Michigan and across the country at a severe disadvantage. It has to stop. We in Michigan have been through more, deeper and longer than any other State in the Union, and we are coming back because of a great work ethic and ingenuity and ideas and entrepreneurship. We are moving forward and creating new ideas. More clean energy patents are being created in Michigan than in any other place in the country.

We just had news today that, in fact, we are--last year 2010--the fastest growing high-tech sector. There are more high-tech research and development jobs in Michigan than any other place in the country. So we know how to compete and we know how to win.

But we are in a global economy, where our companies are competing against countries. When we have an entity, a country like China that does not believe they need to follow the rules--whether it is stealing our patents, whether it is blocking our businesses from being able to bid to do business in China, or whether it is the huge issue of currency manipulation, which is in front of us today, we know the rules matter. We know it is our job to stand for American businesses and American workers, and that is what the bill in front of us does.

It says to China and any other country involved in currency manipulation that we have had enough. It directs Treasury to take action; to look around the globe, determine where there is currency misalignment, and to prioritize the countries that are most egregious in their actions--we know China is at the top of that list--and then it requires them to act.

It requires Commerce to work with our businesses to act. We have had enough talk. We have had enough of hearing about give China time. We are now past 10 years when they entered the WTO, and every time we start talking about this, they say: Well, we are going to change it. We are starting to change it.

There are those in Congress who say not only has it not changed but maybe it is even getting worse. The point is, we are losing jobs as a result of the way China cheats. Enough is enough.

How do they do that? In this case, when we say currency manipulation, eyes glaze over. The reality is, because of the way they value their money--their currency--they are able to get an artificial discount. Their products appear to cost less coming to the United States--the same product made the same way. Ours artificially gets an increase in the price. It can be up to a 40-percent difference, not because of anything other than the fact that they do not value their currency the way every other country in the world does in the world economy. They always make sure they peg it in a way that they get a discount, no matter what.

That is illegal under the WTO. It is unfair. It is cheating. That is what this bill fixes. A real-world example: We have some great auto parts manufacturers in Michigan, and a very common story would be that a part breaks and to get another part, it costs $100 in Michigan, but the Chinese were able to peg their cost at $60--not because it was any different, other than the fact that they value their currency in a way that allows them to have it appear that it costs less. So this is something we intend to take action on.

We know right now that if the Chinese currency was revalued, if they did what everybody else does and followed the rules, we would see up to $286 billion added to the U.S. GDP right now. We would see 2.25 million U.S. jobs being created if China and others around them followed the lead and revalued their currency--2.25 million jobs. We don't need a line item in the budget to do that.

We are not talking about a new program. We are simply talking about leveling the playing field and stopping China from cheating. We can create those jobs. Our deficit would be reduced by between $621 billion and $857 billion, at no cost to taxpayers. At a time when we are struggling with the largest deficit we have ever had, and we are struggling with how we address that, the ability to have up to $857 billion reduced in our deficit at no cost to taxpayers--that sounds like a pretty good deal to me. People in Michigan would say: Why has it taken so long to be able to address this?

Now is the time that we have a strong, bipartisan coalition. I am so proud of all our colleagues who have come together from every part of the country, every part of our economy, whether it is manufacturing, agriculture, textiles or those involved in high tech, saying it is time for us to stand for America, for American jobs, and for American businesses. That is what this is all about. What else are we hearing about this particular effort? The Federal Reserve Chairman, Ben Bernanke, said:

The Chinese currency policy is blocking what might be a

more normal recovery process in the global economy. It is . .

. hurting the recovery.

Again, that is something we can do to reduce the deficit and create jobs. China is proceeding with a policy that is hurting the recovery, at a time when we need to get everything out of the way so we can come roaring back as a country. We are the greatest country in the world. We have tremendous challenges right now, economically, that we will work our way out of. But one of the first things we can do is say to China: Stop cheating.

We also have C. Fred Bergsten, a former Assistant Treasury Secretary, saying this:

I regard China's currency policy as the most protectionist

measure taken by any major country since World War II.

Over the years, we have debated fair trade and free trade, whether it is protectionist to stand up for American businesses or workers, and here we have an expert saying to us that China's policy on currency manipulation is the ``most protectionist measure taken by any major country since World War II.''

The reality is, we can compete with anybody and win--and we will. But it is

our job to make sure there is a level playing field. This is about American competitiveness. This is about being a global economy and making sure the rules are fair, making sure everybody is following the same rules, and then let's go for it. I will put America's ingenuity and entrepreneurship, research and development, and skilled workforce up against anybody's.

Some say--and we have heard from the highest levels of the Chinese Government--it could spark a trading war if we stand for our businesses and require there be a level playing field. We know we have a complicated relationship with China. We borrow funds to offset our debt. But we also are the largest consumer market in the world. They want to be able to sell to us. I cannot believe they will decide that they suddenly don't want to sell to the United States all those things they make, the largest consumer market in the world. The difference is, they would not be able to cheat, to get artificial discounts that will hurt an American small business that is making the same product.

As for the American textile industry, I had an opportunity to visit some folks who make denim for jeans and folks in the cotton industry and talk about competitiveness and what this protectionist policy in China is doing to the American textile industry, which is beginning to come back--and will come back if, in fact, there is a level playing field on trade. But they are up against a situation where they artificially are facing a 28- to 30-percent discount because of currency manipulation. Yet they are still competing. Can you imagine if the rules were fair?

This is about American competitiveness, and it is about the fact that we are responsible for making sure there is a level playing field for American businesses and American workers. We will not have a middle class in this country if we don't make and grow products. We want to make products here and grow products here and the jobs will be here and then we are happy to export products. We want to export our products, not our jobs. That is the difference. We are sick and tired of exporting our jobs because of the fact that China does not follow the rules. Enough is enough. After more than 10 years, they have not had to step up and do what they are supposed to be doing under the agreements they have entered into. Enough is enough.

Again, I look forward to our final vote on this legislation. I think this is a very important moment, at a time when there are many disagreements, and there have been many difficult times in the Senate-- being able to move forward and take action, the fact that colleagues on both sides are standing together on behalf of businesses and workers at every corner of this country, saying we are going to fight for American jobs and businesses, large and small, and we are going to make sure we create a level playing field so we have the competitiveness structure we need in this country, because we know if we have that level playing field, there is nothing that can stop American ingenuity and American workers, who are the best in the world and will continue to be.

I urge adoption of this bill and congratulate all my colleagues who have been involved with this issue for many years--colleagues on both sides of the aisle. I am very pleased we have been able to get the legislation to this point. It is now time to act on behalf of American workers and American businesses.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

That is correct and I thank the Senator for all his efforts in support of children's dental coverage as well and for this opportunity to clarify the intentions of my amendment. I offered this amendment to allow competition in the marketplace for dental benefits by allowing traditional stand-alone dental plans to participate both in and outside an exchange, just like health plans that provide coverage for medical care. The amendment ensured that stand-alone dental policies may fulfill the requirements of the essential health benefits package when paired with a qualified health plan covering all benefits other than pediatric oral health services within the exchange. To quote directly from the amendment, it indicated that ``required pediatric dental benefits in the non-group and small group markets (in and outside an exchange) may be separately offered and priced from other required health benefits.''

Many American families today receive dental coverage through stand- alone dental plans. Failure to properly implement the amendment as it was intended could result in serious disruptions in the dental coverage these families receive. That is why it is important that we get this right, and I appreciate the opportunity to make this clarification.

Yes, I completely agree, Senator Bingaman. In fact our colleagues on the Finance Committee also overwhelmingly agreed that children must have access to oral health care, which is so critical to their overall well-being. We talked about the story of Deamonte Driver, a 12-year-old Maryland boy who died from a brain infection caused by tooth decay. He couldn't get access to an $80 dental procedure that would have saved his life. When his condition got worse, he ended up enduring two emergency surgeries, weeks of hospital care, and

$250,000 worth of medical bills--but it was all too late. Stories like this remind us of the importance of dental care for children, which is why the pediatric element of the essential health benefits package expressly includes oral care.

That is correct, Senator Bingaman, and I thank you for this opportunity to clarify my intentions. The amendment ensured that stand-alone dental policies may fulfill the requirements of the essential health benefits package when paired with a qualified health plan covering all benefits other than pediatric oral health services within the exchange. To be clear, I intended for stand-alone dental plans to fully comply with the same level of relevant consumer protections that are required of qualified health plans with respect to this essential benefit. To quote directly from my modified amendment C- 7 that was adopted in committee, ``. . . stand-alone dental plans must be allowed to offer the required pediatric dental benefits directly and to offer coverage through the Exchange and must comply with any relevant consumer protections required for participation in the Exchange.''

Mr. President, I want to speak for a few moments about what has been happening all week here in the Senate and in the House of Representatives.

First of all, this year we have seen a terrible string of natural disasters that have shut down businesses and left families homeless across America. As chair of the Agriculture Committee, I am certainly very concerned about the flooding along the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers, and the record droughts that have devastated the livelihoods of men and women who grow our food across America.

In response to that, the Senate, on a strong bipartisan basis, responded to provide the funding for FEMA to help with communities across America, 48 States, to be able to respond and be able to do what we always do as Americans--to be able to step forward and work together and meet these kinds of natural disasters and the help that is needed.

We sent that to the House. The House decided, on the other hand, that they not only would lower the funding amount, even though we know that means multiple times now having to keep churning to work something out, but they have cut the amount. Then they added to it an effort to cut in half a public-private sector effort that is creating jobs.

I know people in Michigan and people across the country would be scratching their heads, saying, Wait a minute. Did I hear this right? We are stepping forward to help families who had their house wiped out or their business wiped out or their farm wiped out or some other horrendous challenge because of natural disasters. In order to help them, the House Republicans are saying we have to cut jobs. That makes absolutely no sense.

I would say that while Michigan was very fortunate that we were not one of the 48 States that has lost, because of weather disasters, homes or businesses or jobs or families, we have had a different kind of disaster that has been going on. It is an economic disaster, it is a jobs disaster.

I find it appalling that, on the one hand, we see strong support on the other side of the aisle to rebuild homes and businesses and roads and schools in Iraq and Afghanistan. We are not saying there, well, gosh, we need to take away an effort to fund jobs or education here at home to be able to fund what we are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan. But when it comes to helping people in America, somehow we can't work together and get that done without having to pit one State which has a jobs crisis against another State which has a flood or a hurricane or a drought. I don't find that to be very American.

I think it is time to stop playing politics. When hundreds of thousands of families and businesses have been devastated by unprecedented strings of floods, tornadoes, hurricanes, wildfires, and other natural disasters, we ought to be stepping up, doing what we did in the Senate and passing a bipartisan bill to help those families, those businesses, those farms, without playing

politics and trying to hurt other States that have been hit by other kinds of economic disasters.

We have 14 million people out of work in this country, and that doesn't count people working part time two jobs, three jobs, or trying to piece it all together in some way. We know it is much higher than that when you count those individuals and families. For each and every one of them, their job search is an emergency. It is an emergency every time they think about how to put food on the table for their family. It is an emergency every month when they have to scrape together the money they need for rent or to pay the mortgage. It is an emergency every time these men and women are filling out applications, every day going to job fairs, going on the Internet, trying to fill out forms, getting in lines, to find the best way to be able to get back to work. It is an emergency.

So, to me, it is outrageous that the House of Representatives--the Republicans in the House--has included a job-killing offset to what is an important disaster assistance bill, to pull the rug out from businesses across the country and put up to 50,000 American jobs at risk.

Let me tell you about what this particular program is. I am proud to have championed this and initiated it in the Energy bill back in 2007, a bipartisan bill signed by President Bush. It was slow to get going initially to get the funding. I am proud that President Obama embraced it and moved forward to be able to put in place an alternative vehicle manufacturing loan program to help retool plants in America so we wouldn't be losing the production of new, small plug-in electric vehicles and other new technology vehicles to other countries. It is a loan program to retool plants in America, and it is working.

In Michigan, these retooling loans made it possible for Ford Motor Company to save 1,900 jobs at their Michigan assembly plant in Wayne, MI, so they could build the all-new Ford Focus electric and the battery-electric Focus in America. In the process of that, between the retooling loans and our partnership with industry to invest in advanced battery technology, we are now bringing jobs back from Mexico.

How many times have I heard colleagues on the floor talking about how we want to make sure we are exporting products, not jobs, and that we want to bring jobs back? What the House Republicans have done is to cut in half an initiative with the private sector that is actually bringing jobs back from other countries. So far, 41,000 jobs have been saved or created through this effort around the country. Obviously, I care deeply about Michigan and have fought for this, but we are talking about Indiana, Illinois; we are talking about Florida and Louisiana and California, and all across our country where we are seeing communities have the opportunity to retool plants that would be idle, empty, an eyesore, and be able to bring those back with new technologies that are going to get us off of foreign oil and are creating jobs--41,000 jobs so far.

The real insult to me, as I look at what is happening to people in my State and across the country, is that they are poised to be giving out up to 11 additional loans to partner with business in the next couple of months that will create somewhere between 40,000 and 50,000 new jobs, saving or creating new jobs in the next few weeks. And right when this is about to happen, the House Republicans are saying: Oh, no, in order to help the folks in Joplin, MO, who are wiped out as a community, we want to make sure we are not creating jobs in Michigan; that we are not creating jobs in Indiana, Ohio, Illinois, Florida, Louisiana, California, Minnesota, wherever it is; that somehow we have to pit Americans against each other. That is not the America I know and love.

In Michigan we don't have a weather emergency. But we stand with every single State on this floor, every single Member who has had one. We stand as Americans together to support people across this country. But we say, Stop, when that means that somehow an effort to make things in America, manufacturing, the backbone of our economy, is somehow attacked one more time and partnerships taken away in order to make that happen.

It makes absolutely no sense. That is what this debate is about. I wish to share some comments because we received a lot of support. I wish to share a couple comments, if I might, on the floor.

The National Association of Manufacturers has sent a letter opposing the defunding of this particular partnership and they say: ``Defunding the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Loan Program will hurt manufacturers and their employees.''

Everybody is spending a whole lot of time talking about jobs around here. Unbelievably, we are talking about defunding this program in the middle of talking about jobs, how we need to create jobs, how we need to support employers, and how we can compete internationally with countries such as China that say: Come on over. We will build the plant for you. Forget a loan you are going to pay back with interest; we will just build it for you. Come on over, and, by the way, we will steal your patents and manipulate our currency and make sure you get the toughest deal possible to compete with us. But that is what they do.

So we put together something to say we are going to partner with the private sector to be able to keep the jobs in America and it is actually working. Jobs are coming back. We are rebuilding communities. We are rebuilding plants. We are helping to get off foreign oil because we are focused on new electric vehicles and an advanced battery technology industry where, because of our efforts, from producing 2 percent of the world's batteries, we are on our way to producing 40 percent, having the capacity to manufacture and create 40 percent of the world's batteries within the next 3 years. Why? Because we have been working together in partnerships with industry, which is what our industry is competing against around the world.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce said: ``The ATVM loan program . . . promotes manufacturing in the U.S. and is an important component of America's energy security.''

We all want to get off foreign oil. We do not want to be buying oil from folks we do not like and they don't like us and we can't trust them. We have an opportunity, through the efforts we are focused on around alternative vehicles and battery initiatives, to get off foreign oil.

This makes absolutely no sense to me. We have multiple other letters--the Alliance for Automobile Manufacturers, the Blue/Green Alliance--we have others who have come back and shared that as well.

We are at a moment when we know we need to pass a continuing resolution on the regular budget. We have a new process for a supercommittee to look at how we take on and tackle the issues around our national debt and economic growth. During the process that set that up, there was an agreement on the budget numbers. We have the ability to pass that now. We have passed a bill to help our citizens across the country who have had weather disasters, natural disasters. We came together in the Senate to do that. The House has that.

There is one thing standing in the way: whether at this time we are going to say to people in Michigan and in other States where the economic disaster has been overwhelming that we are going to pit their need for jobs against somebody else's need to have their home or their street or their school rebuilt.

That is not who we are in America. I do not believe Americans support that strategy. I think it is outrageous that there is a proposal that passed. I thank my House Democratic colleagues and my House colleagues in Michigan and the Democratic leadership in the House for waging a fierce battle to protect those jobs.

This is about making products in America. It is about rejuvenating an advanced manufacturing sector that is critical. We are not going to have a middle class if we do not make products in America. We are not going to have a middle class. This particular partnership, which is nothing more than a loan, repaid with interest, but it is support for our communities to rebuild--rebuild not in Afghanistan, not in Iraq but in America; rebuild communities and create jobs. It is working. It is beginning to bring jobs back. It is outrageous that they have decided to take half the funding for this partnership away.

I wish to support our effort to send over the continuing resolution on the budget we need. I thank my caucus and our leadership for standing firm and standing up for American jobs. That is what we care about. That is what we have been fighting for. Along the way, we are going to make sure we are doing everything we can to help citizens who have been so devastated by the natural disasters across the country.

I suggest the absence of quorum.

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

Madam President, I rise to speak about the need to have a disaster assistance effort to support those in New York, your State, as well as across the country and the tremendous needs we have as a result of what has happened regarding the weather. This year we have seen a terrible string of natural disasters that have shut down businesses, farms, and left families homeless all across our country. As chair of the Agriculture Committee, I am particularly focused, of course, on what has happened to our farmers in America.

I am concerned about the flooding along the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers, the record droughts that have devastated the livelihoods of men and women who grow our food all across America. Earlier this year we had the worst drought in recorded history in Oklahoma, with about $1.6 billion in crop losses. In Kansas I have had the opportunity, and my staff has, to join with my ranking member, my colleague, Senator Roberts, to talk with folks and a chance to see that the drought had wiped out about $2 billion in crops.

Floods in the Mississippi River Valley washed over 3 million acres--3 million acres--of farmland. Hurricane Irene destroyed more than 450,000 acres of cotton and 300,000 acres of corn in North Carolina. In New York we have seen similar damage to corn, soybeans, alfalfa, fruits, and vegetables. In Vermont crop losses are estimated at more than $5 million.

All across our country we have serious challenges that are creating hardships for our businesses, our farmers, and our families. We need to respond. That is our responsibility. Right now the droughts are worse in Texas where the damage is also in the billions of dollars. We have more than 1,000 homes that have been lost.

Already this year there have been natural disasters in 48 of our States--48 out of 50 States have had natural disasters. Michigan, thank goodness, is one of the two States that has not been affected by the weather. But throughout our Nation's history when men and women in one part of the country were hit with a natural disaster, all of America came together to support them and to help rebuild.

That is what this effort is about, coming together as Americans. That is who we are as Americans. We stand with each other in times of trouble. This is not the time to play politics, not when hundreds of thousands of families, farmers, and businesses have been devastated by an unprecedented string of floods, tornadoes, hurricanes, wildfires, and other natural disasters.

Already, FEMA has had to halt rebuilding efforts in 41 States. So it is critical that we get this done. This legislation in front of us needs to pass, and it needs to pass quickly.

But I also want to tell you about another emergency that has taken place in my State and in too many other States. It is called a jobs emergency. We may not have been affected by the natural disasters of the weather, but as we look over the last decade in a global economy, as the economy has changed we have been through the same kind of devastation--over a longer period of time, but our people are affected as much as any other State disaster.

We have 14 million people out of work in this country--14 million people out of work. We have a huge national deficit. We will never get out of debt with more than 14 million people out of work. We have to make smart decisions on cutting what is not important, and we have to grow. We have to create jobs for people and support the efforts of the private sector to create jobs.

For each and every one of those families, their job search is an emergency. It is an emergency every time they think about how to put food on their table. It is an emergency every month when they have to scrape together money for the rent or the mortgage. It is an emergency every minute of every day when those men and women are filling out applications, going to job fairs, trying their best to get back to work.

So I find in the middle of all of this, in the middle of support for all that is going on around the country in terms of natural disasters, it is extremely concerning--and in fact outrageous to me--that the House Republicans have proposed a job-killing offset to pay for the help that is critically needed for natural disasters; that would pull the rug out from under businesses and families all across our country and put up to 50,000 American jobs at risk. That is what they are proposing.

I absolutely oppose this. They propose paying for this critical disaster bill by taking dollars out of a very successful advanced manufacturing retooling program that we passed in the 2007 Energy bill--and it took a while to get it up and going. The previous administration never administered it. I thank the Obama administration for coming in in 2009 and beginning the process of putting it together and all of the rules it took, and so on. So it took a while to get up and going. It has not moved as fast as I would like at all. But, thank goodness, the Obama administration saw it as a priority and has moved forward to put it in place.

So what has happened already? Well, these retooling loans have meant 41,000 jobs in Tennessee, California, Indiana, Michigan, Delaware, Illinois, Kentucky, Ohio, and Missouri. These retooling loans have helped companies retool older manufacturing plants to build the products of the future in America rather than shipping those jobs overseas. It has been extremely successful.

In Michigan retooling loans made it possible for Ford Motor Company to save 1,900 jobs at the Michigan assembly plant in the city of Wayne so they could build the all new Ford Focus and the battery-electric Focus in America. In the process of that, as we partnered with them on battery funding as well--in the process of that, with the help of these retooling loans they are bringing jobs back from Mexico to support the work they are doing on the new vehicles.

I do not know how many economic development efforts we can stand on the Senate floor today and talk about in the Senate or House that are actually bringing jobs back from overseas. This is the program that the House Republicans want to cut. This loan--and it is a loan, so it has to be repaid--is allowing them to be able to have lower costs to be able to do the retooling on those older plants, to be able to make these new high-tech vehicles.

As I said, in the case of the Ford Motor Company, they have saved 1,900 jobs and are bringing jobs back from Mexico. Another Michigan company, Severstal North America, was able to secure a retooling loan to retool an old steel mill, the Rouge steel mill in Michigan, into a cutting-edge plant building advanced, high-strength steel for automotive production.

Jobs here. That does not count what is happening in States across America. That loan, along with private loans and a billion-dollar investment from the company, will help create over 2,500 constructive jobs and will bring the total number of permanent manufacturing jobs at that plant, again, to

1,900. That is a pretty good investment from a loan that is going to be paid back while creating jobs.

These are the kinds of things that we need to be doing--we need to be doing--to address the jobs emergency that Michigan and States all across the country are feeling and have been feeling. Right now there are 35 to 40,000 jobs at stake in this proposal by the House Republicans.

We have other companies that want to use the retooling loans to make things in America--in Michigan, Illinois, Ohio, Indiana, Louisiana, and Florida. These loans are expected to be approved in the next few months. They are very close, and we would see 35 to 40,000 jobs disappear--the opportunity for those jobs to disappear--if we were to accept the House proposal.

After the next round of manufacturing retooling loans, we could see another 10,000 jobs created across the country. But if these retooling loans do not happen, those jobs will not happen either. To add insult to injury, these companies have been working closely with the Department of Energy, in some cases for several years, in order to qualify for these loans.

They have had to undergo the must rigorous screening to make sure the products and companies are in sound financial shape, as they should. We need to make sure they are going through rigorous screening not only so they can be successful but to make sure that we are making products in America. It is an important project and partnership.

These companies have invested countless hours and, frankly, a lot of money to get these projects off the ground and to get to this point. As I indicated, we have a number of companies in States around the country that are within a month or 2 months or 3 months from being able to complete the deal and create the jobs.

We are so close, and the rug will be pulled out from under not only the companies but the communities and the families who are affected. These businesses are America's job creators. They are doing the right thing. They want to invest in America. While others have been on the sidelines waiting, they have jumped in. They are committed to creating jobs. They want to make things here, and they have moved through a process, spent time, money--a tremendous amount of time. In fact, in my judgment, it hasn't moved as fast as it should. But they are now at a point to actually make it happen.

I am outraged that we would see an effort to end the creation of these jobs. There is no question, as I said, that we have had a series of natural disasters, and families, businesses, and farmers who are affected across this country. Even though those natural disasters, fortunately for us, did not come to Michigan, I support the effort to address them. We are all in this as Americans. But I will not--I will not--support an effort that, in the process, takes tens of thousands of jobs away, because the crisis for Michigan is a jobs crisis. We were the first ones in it. We have been in it the longest. We are coming out of it now but way too slowly. We are coming out of it because we have been creating partnerships to support the private sector to make things in America again.

I strongly urge everyone involved not to come forward with something that will in fact jeopardize these jobs. It makes absolutely no sense to me, and it is certainly something I will strongly oppose if it does.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise during this very critical debate about the deficit crisis to talk for a few minutes about what this means for Michigan and for the families and the businesses I represent. I grew up in a small northern town of Clare, MI, where my family ran the automobile dealership, the Oldsmobile dealership, and my mom was a nurse at the local hospital.

My first job was washing the cars on the car lot. It was a time when people believed in America and the full faith and credit of America. I cannot imagine--I cannot imagine--my parents and my grandparents ever believing it would be possible for America to default on its obligations.

But here we are today, and that is a very real possibility. It is outrageous because it does not have to be this way. We have been through a lot in Michigan. I know you know that, Mr. President. We have had more people out of work than any other State in this recession. In fact, we have been hit harder, longer, deeper than any other State. We took the brunt of the recession, and people are now just starting to get back on their feet. They are the lucky ones.

When people in Washington talk about this deficit crisis as though it is just another political game, it is not a game. It is not a game to the families I represent. It is not a game to seniors I represent. It is not a game to the small businesses or to the manufacturers that have worked very hard to turn things around and move forward in our State. It is not a game to the people who are worried about what is going to happen on Tuesday if we cannot come together and create a solution, which we absolutely have to do.

There are nearly 2 million people in Michigan, senior citizens and people with disabilities, who have earned their Social Security benefits and might not receive them next week. We have 1.6 million seniors, people such as my mom, who may not be able to see their doctor and use their Medicare next week.

Michigan has 700,000 veterans, men and women who have bravely served our country, and they expect us to keep our promise to them as a country. Those are the people I am thinking about today as we are trying to find a bipartisan compromise.

We have to solve this problem and we need to get it done now and there is no reason that cannot happen. I am hearing from small business owners. I have been on the phone today talking to small business owners, the people whom we need in Michigan to turn the economy around. They are doing everything they can to grow their companies and to create jobs. But now they need customers, and they have customers who are saying they are afraid to make a purchase, they are holding onto their dollars, they are afraid to buy a house or furniture.

Today, I talked to friend of mine in northern Michigan, a prominent auto dealer, who indicated he has people who normally come in every 3 years and buy a new car, and they are just sitting because they do not know what is going to happen. They do not know what is going to happen in the economy. They do not know what is going to happen to them and their families and they are waiting. They are waiting for us. They are waiting for Washington to get its act together and to solve this problem and to move on to the other challenges in front of us, particularly to focus on jobs.

Our recovery has already taken hits. We saw that in the economic numbers that came out this morning. Families from Michigan have already taken the one-two punch of higher food prices, higher gas prices, and now we have people talking seriously about letting the country default which will lead to higher interest rates for people trying to raise their families, for small businesses trying to hire new employees.

The last thing they need--that anybody needs--is higher interest rates. A default would cripple the ability of our companies to create jobs, and it is the people who are already hurting the most, the middle-class working families, who will pay the biggest price, once again. That is wrong.

Worst of all, that scenario would be entirely self-inflicted by people on both ends of this building who are not willing to come together and work together on a bipartisan basis to resolve this. There is absolutely no reason why this country needs to default on its obligations. There is no reason.

I am hearing from seniors in Michigan who are scared that they might not get their Social Security checks next week. They are living check to check--benefits they have worked their whole lives to earn, and it is absolutely ridiculous they would have to worry about that in the greatest country in the world and all because people in Washington cannot seem to sit down and work this out.

For many seniors in Michigan, that is all they have to live on. That is all they have to pay their rent, to buy groceries, to pay for their medicine. They are worried about how they are going to live if this country goes into default.

I am hearing from veterans in Michigan, many of whom were left disabled after their service, who are angry, and rightly so, that the country they fought for might default on their payments for the first time.

I am hearing from young people who are worried about their future and the future of their generation if Congress allows the full faith and credit of the United States to come into question.

We all know it is critical to be able to cut the deficit. We also need to grow the economy. We need a full, balanced package. But we understand the critical nature and the importance of cutting this deficit that has been allowed to accumulate over the last decade. We have already cut spending. We will cut more.

The bipartisan plan that will soon come before us, and I wish to thank Senator Reid for his leadership in bringing this forward and working so diligently and our colleagues across the aisle who have been working in the Senate to create a bipartisan plan. But the plan that will be before us cuts spending by nearly $2.5 trillion, and it does even more. It creates a second step that is absolutely critical if we are going to tackle the rest of the story, the rest of the country's challenges so we can create a truly balanced approach to eliminating the deficit.

People in Michigan understand that to do that, that includes cutting the special subsidies and other special interest spending through the Tax Code and creating a fairer Tax Code, so that reducing our deficit is not, once again, put on the backs of middle-class families and senior citizens who have already paid a heavy price.

This has to be balanced, long term, fair, to solve the problem and allow us to grow the economy and create jobs. I so appreciate and have worked very hard to make sure the plan in front of us protects and maintains Medicare and Social Security. This has been a top priority for our majority.

The plan Senator Reid will be offering does that. Most important, the Senate plan creates certainty for the economy and the markets until 2012. People in Michigan do not want us having this debate every month. They certainly do not want us having this over

and over and over again and we know because we have heard that the plan which will come to a vote in the House, unfortunately, will not have bipartisan support, does not solve the problem, does not stop us from being downgraded in our credit rating, does not put us in a situation for long-term problem solving.

It keeps us stuck in the mud for months over and over again by only addressing the debt ceiling for 4 months or 6 months. We will be right back here again stuck when we need to be able to solve this and move on and focus on growing our economy so businesses can create jobs. People in Michigan have had enough. I have had enough. They have had enough.

One man called my office earlier today. He said: I do not want to relive this nightmare in a few months. I could not agree with him more. We cannot be in a situation where we are not creating economic certainty, solving this problem, and then moving forward as a country in a global economy. We have a lot of work to do to be able to compete around the world and make sure our businesses are creating jobs here at home.

Families and small businesses in Michigan have been through enough. It is time to get this done. We have to do it together. It is about working together. It is about creating a bipartisan plan, and it is time to get that done. I know my colleagues in the Senate on both sides of the aisle know the seriousness of this situation. I certainly know our leader does, and I am grateful for his persistence and focus in bringing people together to solve this.

We have a serious debt crisis that we can and must solve, and the House must join us in a bipartisan solution. We also have a jobs crisis in our country. We need to resolve the current impasse and then focus like a laser on growing our economy so companies can create jobs, so we can get out of debt, and we can stay out of debt.

I would strongly urge my colleagues, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle in this Chamber, to continue to work together to find a solution, to come together, to get this done in the Senate. I would urge my colleagues, on behalf of the hard-working men and women of the State of Michigan, it is time to come together to get this done. We know what needs to be done. We know it has to be bipartisan, and we know we have to work together. People in Michigan are saying enough is enough. It is time to get this done.

I yield the floor.

Thank you, Mr. President, and thank you so much to our dean of the delegation, our dean of the women Senators, who has not only been here the longest but has been the strongest advocate, the strongest consistent voice for women, for seniors, and for children that we have had in our country. We thank you for that and for bringing us together and your leadership in giving us the opportunity to come and talk about what are very serious ramifications of the budget passed by the House of Representatives.

Let me first start--I want to talk about Medicare because that has the biggest impact, but let me say that as we look at the budgets that have been proposed by the House, by House Republicans this year, the current budget as well as next year's budget that was passed, we are seeing attacks on women and children, from prenatal care forward to nursing homes at the end of life.

With my hat on as chair of the Agriculture Committee, we oversee the nutrition programs for the country, and I was absolutely appalled that the largest cuts that were proposed as we were negotiating the budget for this year in the Department of Agriculture was the WIC Program-- Women, Infants and Children--prenatal nutrition for moms who are pregnant and healthy foods for moms and babies as they move forward through their first year of life and beyond. It is hard to believe that would be the No. 1 cut, the largest cut in the Department of Agriculture budget, but that was the original proposal from this year. Now we go forward and we look at the budget that was actually passed for the coming year by the Republican House, and it is really astounding when we look at the priorities.

The Republican budget essentially ends Medicare. It eliminates Medicare as we know it. Folks have said to me: Oh, they really do not mean that; they really are not going to do that. Yes. They passed that. It is not just a proposal someone had; they actually passed it as an intact insurance plan.

Medicare has been a wonderful success story for our country. Social Security and Medicare together have been great American success stories, lifting a generation of older Americans, the majority of them women, out of poverty and allowing them to be healthy longer in life, a generation of people, a generation of women, because the majority of women--particularly as we look at people of older age, the majority of people on Medicare are women.

I think about my own mom at 85 going strong and the blessing to watch her on Mother's Day be able to play with my two grandchildren--they are the most beautiful grandchildren in the world--3-year-old Lily and 1- year-old Walter, and to have my mother still be healthy because of access to health care at age 85, that is a success story. That is a gift we have all joined together as a country to give to our families, to older Americans, to our parents and grandparents and to future generations. That gift would be eliminated, that ability to have Medicare, and most of that elimination would be, unfortunately, an attack on women.

Seniors will pay double. The amount they will pay under the plan passed by

the House is $6,359 more than they currently pay now. Really, what does that mean? Well, right now under Medicare, the current system in copays and deductibles and so on for the average senior is about $6,000, $6,154. Under the Republican plan passed by the House, that would double--more than double.

What does that mean to the average women who is retired? Well, the average woman senior has an income of $14,430--$14,430--and under the Republican plan her health care costs would be $12,500. I don't know about you, Mr. President, but the idea of living on roughly $2,000 for the year, for your rent or mortgage or food or clothing or gasoline-- certainly not gasoline, given that the price of gas is impossible. It is absolutely impossible. And this is what is coming for the average woman who is retired, over age 65, under the plan passed by the House of Representatives.

Now, why would they be doing this? Why would they be doing this? Well, unfortunately, it is to continue to allow them to provide tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans, those earning over $1 million a year, and they add more tax breaks in their budget while they are cutting Medicare, and it also protects the special perks for special interests such as the oil companies.

The reality is this: We know there is a huge budget deficit we have to tackle. We also understand that people are living longer and there is work we need to do around both Medicare and Social Security. We have already begun that process in health reform--lengthening the solvency of Medicare for a number of years, taking away overpayments for for- profit insurance companies to save dollars, and focusing on prevention, which saves $500 billion over the next 10 years in Medicare, lengthens the trust fund, and does not cut benefits to seniors. It does not eliminate Medicare. It does not eliminate other insurance plans. It strengthens it for the future. That is one way to go.

But our colleagues in the other House, the Republicans, said: We need to balance the budget, so let's start by eliminating Medicare as we know it. Let's start there, doubling the cost for the average senior, most of whom are women.

We said: Well, there are a lot of choices about where to start to balance the budget. Let's start with the top five oil companies that right now are earning the largest corporate profits in history and still get taxpayer subsidies, some of which started almost 100 years ago when it probably made sense--over 100 years ago--when oil prices were $17 a barrel. Now they are over $100 a barrel--the largest corporate profits ever. They still get taxpayer subsidies.

People in my State are scratching their heads as they are paying higher prices out of one pocket and, as taxpayers, are subsidizing the prices out of the other pocket. Let's start with the billions of dollars that are certainly no longer needed by an industry that is doing extremely well. Let's take away those taxpayer subsidies as a place to start to balance the budget. Let's not start with the tens of millions of people who currently get health care through Medicare, most of whom are women.

The Republican plan goes even further because it also attacks and dramatically cuts and weakens Medicaid, most of which is for low-income seniors in nursing homes, and 77 percent of the people in nursing homes or long-term care facilities are women. Again, 77 percent of those in nursing homes or long-term care facilities who are using Medicaid to help them are women. Again, from prenatal care in the beginning of life to what happens to seniors at the end of life, women in nursing homes across the board are being attacked on women's health care. That makes absolutely no sense.

Certainly those are not the values I believe in--the values we believe in as a country. Certainly those are not the values the people in Michigan have. Starting to balance the budget by going back to seniors, women, and middle-class families who are already taking hit after hit in this economy is not fair. It is certainly not the place I am going to vote to start or I know our Democratic majority will start.

We are going to have an opportunity very soon--in the next day or two--to say yes or no about this plan that was passed by the House, the plan that eliminates Medicare as we know it and puts an insurance company bureaucrat between you and your doctor. Every woman on Medicare would be put into a situation where an insurance company bureaucrat would, once again, be back between her and her doctor as she tries to get the care she needs.

In my judgment, the Republicans' plan has its priorities upside down. Their plan to eliminate Medicare as we know it is good for insurance companies, no question about it. Every single woman would have to go back to a private insurance company, and then the insurance company would get a subsidy at that point. It may be good for insurance companies, but it is bad for seniors, for taxpayers, and certainly bad for American women.

I encourage and implore our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to join with us in saying no and supporting Medicare--the great American success story that it is--and saying no to the efforts to eliminate Medicare as we know it, saying no to the Republican budget, which puts insurance company bureaucrats between you and your doctor. Let's say yes to other areas where we can reduce the deficit, without hurting middle-class families and seniors in this country.

It is my great pleasure to yield for a champion for women's health care and for the State of New Hampshire, Senator Jeanne Shaheen.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

I understand we are in the time of our Republican colleagues, so I would just indicate that if we have a Republican who comes to the floor during that time, I will certainly be glad to stop and yield to them.