Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Ilana Levinson from my staff be afforded floor privileges for the duration of the farm bill.

Mr. President, I rise to engage in a colloquy with the Majority leader, Senator Reid. I do so

to discuss a critical measure that will help keep jobs in the United States and give a major boost to the domestic production of energy- efficient vehicles.

As my colleagues know, the pending energy bill has a 40-percent increase in CAFE standards for vehicles sold in the U.S. This is by far the largest mandate on any industry in this bill.

In addition to this mandate, I am pleased to have led the effort working with Congressman Dingell, Senator Bingaman, and others, to include a new program in the bill that would provide $25 billion in low-interest direct loans to the auto industry to help them retool facilities to produce energy-efficient vehicles to comply with the very challenging CAFE standards in the bill.

I believe that this loan program is only fair since we are asking the auto industry to spend approximately $80 billion in new capital investment to comply with the new CAFE title.

As many of my colleagues know, establishing a loan program of this type is a two-step process. The first part, setting up the program, has been accomplished. The second part, however, providing the resources to back the loans, has not yet been done.

So I rise to ask Senator Reid, as you complete negotiations on a final energy bill, will you give me your assurance that you will provide the resources necessary to fund the loan program that is authorized in the current energy bill?

Mr. Reid. Mr. President, no one works harder on behalf of her constituents than Senator Stabenow. She is a real leader in keeping manufacturing jobs in the United States.

Mr. President, I give the Senator from Michigan my word that I will work with her and the Appropriations and Finance Committees to find and provide the resources that would fully implement this loan program.

I thank Senator Reid for his assurances and all of his leadership on the energy bill.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today with great concern and frustration, as I know my colleagues in the majority feel, about the

fact that as we continue to work hard to make the changes our American families wanted to happen to improve their lives, we are stopped over and over and over again.

I have a running chart, as my colleagues know. As of this afternoon, we are now up to 57 Republican filibusters. Tomorrow, we will be voting on cloture again, and it will then be 58 and then 59.

So we find ourselves in a situation that is, first of all, historic in that the top number of filibusters ever recorded in the Senate for a 2-year session is 61; 61 times there were filibusters within a 2-year period. Now, in less than a year--and we are not even done--we will probably hit 61 before we leave. But we are at 57 times that the Republicans have filibustered to stop us from making progress, from solving problems, from getting things done that the American people, American families are desperate to have done.

We look at the fact that we have tried to change the children's health care policy to cover 10 million children in this country--in that case, we have bipartisan support, and that is the way we ought to operate. The children's health care plan is an example of the way we ought to work together. I commend my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. In that case, we have the President doing the blocking. So when we talk about children's health insurance, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle got a lot of pressure for working with us and doing the right thing, to add 10 million more children to be able to receive health insurance. Working families who are working one, two, and three jobs don't have health insurance. But we have worked together. Even though we could override the Presidential veto here, they could not get enough Republican votes in the House. We want to get children's health insurance done.

We have been working very hard and have a majority of Members to change the policy in Iraq, to get our brave men and women out of the middle of a civil war, and to be able to change the policy to one that will directly affect the threats facing Americans, to address what we ought to be doing in the world to keep us safe, change that policy, redeploy, bring our people home and out of harm's way, out of a civil war. We have a majority of Members who voted with us to do that. But we could not get that policy done--we have not yet, but we are going to keep trying; we are not stopping.

But filibusters over and over again have blocked us from making the change we need in Iraq--troop rotations, protecting our troops, and being able to make sure that if they are deployed for 12 months, they can have 12 months at home and be able to rest and see their families and have retraining. Senator Webb brought forward an amendment that says to our troops: We understand what is happening, and if we are sending you on one deployment and two and three redeployments, we ought to be following the current military policy of having the same number of days at home as we have you in harm's way in the theater.

We have a majority of the votes. We have a substantial majority of votes--56 votes or 57 votes--to change the policy to support our troops. Yet we have filibuster after filibuster after filibuster, taking 60 votes to stop. We have not had enough Republican colleagues join with us to stop those filibusters. Tomorrow, we are going to vote on whether to end a filibuster.

I am amazed, as a member of the Agriculture Committee--and proudly a member. When everybody thinks of Michigan, they think of automobiles, and we are proud of that, too, but our No. 2 industry is agriculture. I am very proud to have worked with colleagues in a bipartisan way to have a bill developed that is terrific for Michigan. It provides not only support for traditional commodities and agriculture, but it moves us to alternative energy. We want to be saying in Michigan: Buy your fuel from Middle America, not the Middle East.

The Agriculture Committee put forward a farm bill that moves us in that direction. It addresses nutrition and more opportunities for children in schools to have fresh fruits and vegetables, conservation-- there are provisions in there that affect the Great Lakes which I am proud to have included. We have fruits and vegetables, for the first time, recognized as half of the crops we grow as a permanent part of the farm bill. You would think people would be raring to go to pass this new policy that improves or provides reforms and moves us in a direction to reflect a better future for rural America and fuel security.

This is our third week at least that we have seen filibustering of the farm bill. Tomorrow, we will have a vote on whether that filibuster will end. We will see what happens and whether we will go from 57 filibusters to 58 and then 59 on the Energy bill. The reality is that we have important work to do to support rural communities in Michigan and across the country, to address energy needs, alternative fuels, biofuels, to address nutrition for our children and families, to support traditional agriculture that is working very hard and providing us with the food we need, the food security we need for this country. This farm bill does that.

I applaud our chairman, Senator Harkin, for his efforts, and all those involved, including Senators Conrad and Chambliss and all who have worked together on a bipartisan basis. Even though we have a bipartisan basis, unanimous support in the committee, we come to the floor one more time.

The big strategy on the Republican side is to just stop change, stop, stop, stop, block anything from happening. What we are seeing--I am assuming it is pretty clear what the strategy is--is the White House working with the leadership on the other side of the aisle to make sure we cannot get things done for the American people, stopping us from moving forward. It is also clear that, hopefully, after next year's election, we will have a few more folks on this side of the aisle so we can move forward on those things we have had trouble moving forward on right now. They are certainly making the case for more change and more additions to the majority in this process.

We have also seen another critical area that we are all reading about and hearing about from constituents--certainly, I talk to people every single weekend when I go home, as well as during the week here--and that is the question of the mortgage crisis, what is happening in the housing industry, not just the subprime but in the prime housing market, and what is happening across the country. We see the White House is finally engaged, and we are glad to see that. We hear that we need to take action, and we have a tax issue I sponsored to make sure folks not only don't lose their home but don't get a tax bill on top of it. But we hear from Secretary Paulson and others that the FHA is important--FHA modernization, passed by the House--an important part of getting more capital in the marketplace.

We have too many families now who have lost or will lose their homes. For most families, middle-income families who buy a house try to get it in a spot where they can have good schools. For most families, the equity in their homes is their primary savings.

We hear that FHA modernization is important to do. Our leader, Majority Leader Reid, came to the floor a couple of weeks ago and asked unanimous consent to go to that FHA modernization bill which the administration says they support and they are urging us to pass. It has passed in the House. Yet when our leader comes to the floor, recognizing as he does that he represents a

State heavily hit as well on the question of foreclosures, and asks unanimous consent and one more time, the leader on the Republican side objects.

All we see are efforts to stop changes that are critically important for the families of America, the economy of America, the businesses of America to make sure we can keep the middle class of this country and keep the middle-class American dream alive. That is what we are all about.

I thought it was stunning yesterday when, again, the Republican leader came to the floor saying nothing is getting done, nothing is getting done. Then Senator Murray, who chairs so ably our Transportation and Housing Appropriations Subcommittee, asked unanimous consent to take up this critical bill that relates to infrastructure. We have bridges in Minnesota and other places around the country--we certainly have all seen the pictures from Minnesota, what happened in Minneapolis with the bridge collapse. Certainly that would be a priority. I know it certainly has been a priority for Senator Klobuchar, who has spoken eloquently and has made sure there are resources and help for her State. One would think that after a long speech about how nothing was happening in the Senate that our Republican colleagues would welcome Senator Murray coming to the floor to move forward on this important bill, written in a bipartisan way, passed by the Senate to bring forward the conference committee report on housing and transportation, a bill that includes dollars, again, that the administration says they want and support--$200 million for education and for consumer outreach to help those who are in bad loan situations, who face resets or foreclosures next year, to have the opportunity to sit down and work out a different mortgage situation to refinance.

I applaud Secretary Paulson for setting up a 1-800 number and wanting to reach out to help those families. We have $200 million in our budget which the administration says they support. Yet when Senator Murray comes to the floor as chair of that effort, again what do we hear? ``I object, Mr. President.'' ``I object, Mr. President.''

One more time, we are in the middle of a mortgage crisis, affecting not only our families, not only middle-class Americans all over the country, but it is now rippling out to the entire economy. Yet when our leader comes to the floor, when our leader asks to move forward on those issues that we can do together now, we get: ``I object, Mr. President.'' We get another filibuster.

I don't know who is advising the White House and the Republican leadership on this strategy, but sooner or later this is going to catch up with them when they are objecting to the changes that are needed to improve the lives of middle-class Americans, whether it be help in a mortgage crisis, whether it be children's health insurance, whether it be helping rural America in addressing our alternative energy needs, a farm bill, whether it be supporting our troops, changing the policy in Iraq--I could go on and on.

I should mention we are finding the same thing as it relates to trying to get a budget for this coming year to stop a cut in physician payments through Medicare which we have to get done.

Our chairman of the Finance Committee is leading this effort and is strongly committed to fixing this policy that would provide cuts and wanting to advocate we not do it just for next year but 2 years, as well as a number of other things we need to do with Medicare. We are struggling right now to make that happen.

On the appropriations front--and this is stunning to me--we see a situation where on the one hand, the administration is willing to spend $12 billion a month and counting in Iraq, not paid for, going right on to the deficit. I have a beautiful new granddaughter, my first grandchild, and she is going to help pay for that deficit. All the kids being born today will help pay for that huge deficit that has been created. And that is OK, according to the administration, that is OK. They want more money and they do not pay for it, do not budget for it-- more money. But when we put forward a modest 2-percent increase in investments for America, to restore some of the cuts that the President has made in community policing or in health research, education funding, in those items that invest in American families, American communities, just a 2-percent increase, the President says: No, too much. He is willing to take us to the brink of a Government shutdown, but a 2-percent increase for America? Too much. Mr. President, $12 billion a month in Iraq, not paid for--paid for by our kids and grandkids that is OK.

We find ourselves once again with filibuster, filibuster, filibuster on the Republican side, stopping us. Now we are back saying: OK, in order to get appropriations done for this year, we will split the difference. Instead of a 2-percent investment increase for American communities and families, we will say 1 percent, which is less than we spend in Iraq, $11 billion less than we spend in 1 month in Iraq, and we hear that is also not supported.

It is time we focus on what needs to be done to make sure those working hard every day, who care about their families, who want to make sure they have a job, have health care, and have the great American dream, send the kids to college, have the support they need. That is what we are about. That is what we are about--fighting for those folks who work hard every day who care about their kids. They want to see a change from what has been happening, and that is what we are fighting for.

I close indicating there is good news. I see my wonderful colleague from Rhode Island, who has been a champion for us as it relates to changing the policy in Iraq and supporting our troops. This must be a ``Rhode Island moment'' because we have the distinguished junior Senator from Rhode Island presiding, of whom we are so proud. I see his senior colleague here as well.

In conclusion, I paint a very bleak picture, a very frustrating picture, and we feel it every day. Nobody feels it more than our leader, who is laser focused on getting through all of this obstruction to get things done for the American people.

But the good news is, in spite of 57 filibusters, we have gotten things done, and we will continue to get things done. It may take twice as long. It may take 100 filibusters, it may take 150 filibusters, but we are not going to stop because what is at stake is our American way of life. What is at stake is the ability for families to enjoy the American dream.

We have raised the minimum wage for the first time in a decade for our families. We have made college more affordable by passing the largest student financial aid package since the GI bill. My dad went to school after World War II on the GI bill, and I know he would not have been able to go to school without it.

I am proud that on our watch in this new majority we have put in place changes that will allow more young people to have that American dream, to be able to go to college, and to be able to come out of college without the kind of debt that weighs one down for years and years. We want to help them with that.

We passed finally on our watch--and this happened quickly; it has not happened since 2001, but on our watch, we passed the 9/11 recommendations, to focus on the real threats, to keep us safe. I am proud of the fact that a provision I have been very involved in, making sure radios work, radio interoperability, has been included so we can support our police and firefighters, so they can talk to each other, so we do not have again a situation where brave first responders are running into buildings, running into towers they should have been running out of. We got that done.

We passed a very important water resources bill that has been languishing here for years. Coming from a Great Lakes State, this is important to us. I commend Senator Boxer and all of those who worked, again, on a wonderful bipartisan basis--she and Senator Inhofe--in putting that bill together.

In the Judiciary Committee, sometimes we do business that is not legislative, it is oversight. We have done a lot of oversight on Iraq policy, on no-bid contracts, on Blackwater, and private contracting, in many areas where there had been no oversight for years. Our people have aggressively, as chairs of the committees, been doing oversight.

One area that has resulted in change that was needed were the hearings with

the former Attorney General that focused on the fact that our U.S. attorneys did not have the independence they needed. They were being used politically. The change occurred when the Attorney General was forced to step down. We have made a major step forward in preserving the independence of the U.S. attorneys.

There are numerous other issues I could mention, and I will not. Suffice to say, we are getting business done. We are getting results for middle-class Americans every day. Evidently, all of our hard- working results have raised a red flag down at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue. They said: Whoa, whoa, whoa, you are making too many good things happen, too many changes happen that families are going to like, that American people are going to like. We better slow this thing down.

So now we are in a situation where even those efforts we have worked on in good faith on a bipartisan basis--that is what we do here. We cannot get anything done if we don't work together, people of good faith working together. Even those issues have been slowed down and stopped because it is felt now that the best thing to do is to make sure the Democrats cannot make any more positive changes happen so it is clear the differences in values and priorities among this administration and their supporters and the new majority.

Fifty-seven filibusters and counting. The American people expect us to stop this situation. This needs to stop. Enough is enough. There is a lot of work to be done, serious work. The American people expect us to do it, and we are committed to getting it done.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following my remarks, if Senator Domenici is on the Senate floor, he be the next to speak, and if he is not, Senator Salazar be the next to speak.

Mr. President, first I thank you for your words regarding what we need to be doing on trade and what has happened regarding unfettered trade. Coming from the great State of Michigan, the manufacturing hub of this country and of the world over decades and decades, I could not agree more with what is happening in terms of jobs going overseas. I see it in the eyes of thousands, in fact, hundreds of thousands of people; 250,000 people in my State who have lost their jobs just since this President has taken office, people working hard every day who just want to make a living for their kids and know the pension they paid into is going to be there and health care and that they can send their kids to college and have all the things they wanted for their children, have the great American dream. They have watched that dream slip away for themselves and their families.

I thank you for your words.

I go another step in terms of what I think we need to be doing to support manufacturing here and a level playing field because, in addition to what has been said about Peru as one more trade agreement-- and I agree with that

statement, ``one more trade agreement''--that is on the books without other provisions in place, there are certainly things that we can and need to be doing to support and encourage those manufacturing jobs in America.

As I noted in the Finance Committee, as a member of the Finance Committee, the Peru free-trade agreement is a tough one for me in a sense that I know colleagues have worked very hard to bring in new language. My friend and colleague in the House, Congressman Rangel, and Senator Levin, certainly our chairman of the Finance Committee and the ranking member, have been working to have this agreement reflect our country's values when it comes to labor and environmental standards.

The truth is, I wish we had had these kinds of standards in previous agreements. Getting the right words on paper is important, but unfortunately it is not enough to get them on paper. They are on paper in these agreements, but that is not enough when it comes to the families of my State and the people of America who want to make sure the American dream is available to them and their families.

I would like to believe these words will translate into action. It is hard to be convinced we are going to enforce our trade laws when we just start from the basis that we have the smallest trade enforcement office of any industrialized country in the world. That gives an indication of the priority of enforcing trade laws compared to what is happening in other countries.

We have more than 230 trade agreements on the books to enforce, and we have the smallest trade enforcement agency of any country in the industrialized world. It should be no surprise that there has been a huge increase in dangerous products coming across our borders and that more and more countries are testing the resolve of our trade laws and are, in fact, cheating on those trade laws.

The administration has simply lost credibility with the American people. No one believes this administration will enforce current trade agreements. No one believes currency manipulation will stop and certainly that the administration will take any action. This is something I have been focused on now since coming to the Senate, and every year--every 6 months, in fact--we get a report from the Treasury Secretary: No action. Currency manipulation is not really happening or they don't mean it or they will do better in China if we trust them, and more and more jobs are going overseas because of that trade policy.

No one believes unsafe imported products will be kept away from our children. No one believes at this time that this agreement will end up leveling the playing field on trade. No one believes that point because, unfortunately, based on past actions, it is not true. We have too many businesses that have faced patent violations and unfair pricing. We have seen small businesses in my State, as well as large, that make a product and have had a Chinese company come in and steal everything about that product, not only the patents, but the packaging, the directions on the package, and make the product for a small fraction of what it cost to actually make it.

I have small businesses in my State that have stopped making products because they cannot afford the cost to fight the Chinese Government to stop the trade infringement.

Those unfortunate incidents have meant people in my State have lost their jobs. I have one small business owner who makes hand trucks used to carry boxes and products, to move them around, who created one type of hand truck. It was stolen and produced by a Chinese company. This person could not afford to take action.

He said to me: Where is my Government stepping in to help me? But he could not afford the $10,000 a month retainer of an attorney to try to figure out how to stop them, so he stopped making the product and 50 people in the northern Michigan town of Cadillac lost their jobs--50 people. For that town, that is a lot of people. In fact, anywhere, if you are 1 of those 50, that is a lot of people.

We have too many dangerous products that have put our families and children in harm's way because foreign countries are not following the rules and our own country does not hold them accountable.

We have too many American families sitting on waiting lists for training that they were promised by this Government, the Federal Government of America, that they would receive if they lost their job because of trade.

We have a whole range of things that are not happening that have been promised.

This is what the people of my State see, and I believe the American people see. They see unsafe products. They see illegal trade practices. They see lost jobs devastating communities, lowering the standard of living, loss of the middle class that has resulted from previous trade agreements that were not enforced and that were not fair. That is what they see.

I simply cannot support another trade agreement until we get this right. I cannot support a trade agreement ahead of enforcing our trade laws, improving product safety, keeping our promises to working Americans, and ensuring a level playing field for businesses and workers, all of which are achievable if we make American businesses and American workers our priority. If we make that our priority, we can make the changes necessary so that trade works for us, rather than having it be a situation where instead of exporting our products, we are exporting our jobs. That is why the right words on paper just are not enough. We have to have the right trade agenda--a trade agenda that helps working families adjust and be able to thrive in a global economy because we are making more products and selling more products and creating more jobs here, one that is based on a sense of credible trade enforcement so other countries know we are serious about jobs and businesses in our country, and one, frankly, that lets other countries know we are serious about protecting our people as it relates to safety, which is also very important.

In 2006, 1 year ago, 37,000 people in Michigan lost their jobs specifically and directly because of trade--37,000--but only 4,100 received any kind of trade adjustment help--training, the ability to go back to school to be able to get some assistance to be able to start a new career. That means 90 percent of the people who were affected, who lost their jobs, are not receiving funds that were promised under trade adjustment assistance because of various caps or the fact that we have not authorized that critical program.

And just extending it is not enough. How do I tell 33,000 people who were told that the Federal Government would help them through this adjustment period, through training and increased investments and new jobs, how do I tell them that, in fact, 90 percent of the people in their same situation got no help whatsoever?

Communities also need assistance. In Michigan, many communities have been devastated by the loss of a large plant or industrial facility. I will give one example, and this is very much about the race to the bottom, Mr. President. You spoke about it, and I speak about it all the time. When Electrolux, which makes refrigerators in Greenville, MI--a city of 8,000 people, with almost 3,000 of those people employed at this one plant--when they decided to pick up and go to Mexico where they could pay $1.57 an hour, with no health benefits, there was a huge effort that came about to be able to work with them to stay. The Governor came in, the mayor came in, and others, saying: We will help you refinance a plant. We will give you tax incentives. Tell us how we can help you to be able to be competitive, to be able to stay in Greenville, MI. I met with them on many occasions, asking: What can we do to partner with you to support you. The end analysis was that the State essentially said no taxes at all. We offered to help them build new plants, and none of it was enough because they said: You can't compete with $1.57 an hour and no health benefits.

So this really is about whether we are going to compete down to a lower standard of living and lose the middle class and lose the American dream, or whether we are going to compete up. I believe if we compete up with a different trade agenda, a different broadly held agenda that will strengthen America, that we, in fact, can keep our jobs. But one piece of that is to make sure

that when 2,700-plus people in Greenville, MI, or when a whole community is devastated by their largest employer leaving, that there is some assistance not only for the workers but the small businesses and for others there to help during the transition.

In fact, we need to make sure we have a broader agenda that not only levels the playing field on trade, enforcing trade laws, having the right kind of trade policy, but that we are also addressing health care costs in this country, the largest cost for our businesses, and changing the way we fund health care, getting it off the back of business, and addressing other costs that are noncompetitive that we can address. Then we need to race like crazy on education and innovation. That is the race up, which we, the new majority, understand, as evidenced by our passing the largest financial aid package for college since the GI bill, by focusing and refocusing our efforts on math and science and technology investments.

So there is a way to make this a race up. But it is not just passing one more trade bill, one more trade law, one more agreement, without addressing all of these other issues. One of the other big issues for us is currency manipulation. This is something I am pleased to say the Finance Committee has begun to address with a bill that has come out of committee. We have not had the opportunity to have that on the floor yet, to bring that up, but right now we are in a situation where, again, because of governmental policies, because of China specifically, where they can peg the value of their money, their currency, in a way so that when their products come into us, on top of paying 60 cents or a dollar an hour and not having health care costs and all the other things, they can undercut us and get up to a 40-percent discount on that product coming in.

So when the President talked about Wal-Mart, when you look at the number of Chinese products and why they are lower, they also get a 40- percent discount on their price just from currency manipulation, which is illegal. So before we pass another trade agreement, why don't we fix that? Why don't we make sure we have the toughest possible policies that will stop the loss of jobs because of currency manipulation?

We have also, among trade enforcement, the need to beef up our trade office. And I am very pleased Senator Lindsey Graham and I have been working on this now for some time to create a trade enforcement division, headed by a trade enforcement officer, an independent trade enforcement officer--we have called it a U.S. trade prosecutor--to be able to truly beef up our enforcement.

I am pleased Senator Baucus and Senator Grassley, our leaders on finance, have put together a broader enforcement bill, which I support, and include many of our provisions and aspects of our bill in their bill. That needs to get done. And I know the chairman is committed to having that happen, and I am anxious to join him in moving that through so that we can truly have credibility in the world, with other countries; that we mean it when we say there is a trade agreement and we expect other people to follow the rules.

But what do we see from the administration? There have been a couple of efforts, and I appreciate the few times they have moved forward to try to do something. There is an effort going on in auto parts now, but it is very little and it is very late, as we watch more and more jobs leaving this country. And I am very concerned, very disappointed when I see that this administration has not moved forward at all on any real action on currency manipulation or any number of trade enforcement issues. In fact, last week, the administration claimed victory for developing a voluntary agreement with China on illegal subsidies, an agreement that requires a great deal of trust with China. It is hard to understand they would continue to trust on a voluntary basis a country that has broken agreements and international policies over and over and over.

Furthermore, haven't we learned our lesson with voluntary agreements? Like the one completed with South Korea that was intended to, in fact, allow us to open up more opportunities to make automobiles here and be able to sell them to South Korea. Two agreements, not one, two voluntary agreements, and the exact opposite happened with 700,000 vehicles now coming in from South Korea, and we are barely able to get 5,000 back in to them. So voluntary agreements in the past have not worked. And given how many jobs we are losing, today is not the time for another voluntary agreement. We need, in fact, to put our muscle behind tough enforcement processes. We are quickly losing our standard of living and our middle class in this country. There is a need for urgency that has not been there and is not there today with the administration.

As a result of the trade policies we have in place now, we have an exploding trade deficit, which has increased from $380 billion in 2000 to $758 billion just last year. Since this administration has been in office, the trade deficit has more than doubled, and with it the number of dangerous products coming in, the number of layoffs, the number of waiting lists for people who need retraining, the number of businesses losing their patents, losing their products, and their ability to sell their products because of currency manipulation. That is the legacy of this administration.

I don't believe it is a time to reward them with another trade agreement. Before we go any further in passing trade agreements, Mr. President, we have to get our trade policy right. Regardless of the specifics of the trade agreement, regardless of the words on paper, we better be able to back them up, and today we cannot. We haven't backed up words on paper. We can no longer say pass a trade agreement, we will fix it later, we will enforce it later, we will change it later, or we will help people later. We have to do these things now so we have credibility with the American people who are counting on us to fight for them and to understand that in the greatest country in the world, it is time to stand up for the middle class in this country, get our trade policy right, and stand up for the people who have worked hard to make this country great.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, I rise to speak about the importance of the farm bill. I also wish to express the same deep concern about what is happening on process in the Senate, as so many of my colleagues and the majority leader have. This is the second week we have been trying to pass a food and energy security bill that is important for every community. The process that has gone on, frankly, since the beginning of the year, is one of delay, slow walking, and filibusters over and over again.

Yesterday, I showed a chart that read ``52 filibusters so far this year.'' Tomorrow we have potentially three more votes to close off filibusters. One relates to funding on the war that is tied to a policy change the majority of Americans want to have happen to move our men and women out of the middle of a civil war, to refocus us instead on the critical areas of counterterrorism, training, support for Americans who remain, those things the majority of Americans want to see happen. We have to stop a filibuster on

that tomorrow morning. We then have two votes potentially on stopping filibusters on the farm bill. So my ``52'' is, as of tomorrow, potentially 55 filibusters this year.

We have never seen the level of filibustering that we have had in the current session of the Senate with our friends on the other side of the aisle.

In spite of the slowdown, in spite of the blocking of efforts to vote on amendments and to get a farm bill done last week, in spite of efforts this week, I am proud to say that yesterday we were able to work together to pass a reauthorization of Head Start. This is something that was done on a bipartisan basis. It will go to the President. We expect him to sign it. It will increase standards for teachers and extend resources so more children can receive Head Start funding. Head Start is so important to prepare children for school, to give them a head start. It is a wonderful program that involves parents being a part of the effort of preschool education. Despite what as of tomorrow will be 55 filibusters this year, we once again have put forward something that is important to the American people--investing in our young children, getting them ready to go to school. The Head Start bill did pass. I am pleased it did.

Concerning the farm bill that is in front of us, we have worked so hard together. We have a bill that came out of committee unanimously, a strong bipartisan effort to not only support traditional agricultural commodities but also to move us in new directions for the future. I am pleased, in addition to traditional farm programs that are supported in Michigan, that we were able to add support for the 50 percent of the crops grown that haven't been under the farm bill; specialty crops, fruits and vegetables are now a part of this farm bill. That is important.

We have also tied that to a partnership to expand nutrition, a significant new program expansion--it is beyond a pilot--the chairman of the committee has let in on fresh fruits and vegetables as snacks in schools, rather than children going to a vending machine and getting soda pop or candy. There are many parts of this farm bill that focus on nutrition. In fact, most people will be surprised to know the majority of the farm bill, over 60 percent, is in fact focused on nutrition. We need to get this done. We need to get this done both for our growers as well as for children, seniors, food banks that receive help, farmers' markets, organic farmers. This is very important.

We also in this farm bill have done something very significant--I notice our chairman from the Finance Committee on the floor who has led us in this, he and our ranking member--and that is creating a permanent disaster relief program as a part of the farm bill. I am very pleased that fruit and vegetable growers will be able to participate. We need to be able to respond quickly when there is a disaster--a flood, a drought, other kinds of disasters.

We also have moved this farm bill more aggressively in the direction of alternative energy, alternative fuels, biofuels. This is important in getting us off gasoline, off oil, when we look at prices continuing to rise every day. It is also a way to create jobs. In Michigan, we are creating hundreds of jobs now, with thousands to come, from ethanol plants and biodiesel plants. As we move to cellulosic ethanol, we will be able to create new opportunities for my sugar beet growers and the folks up north who are involved in timber and wood products, as well as switchgrasses and other areas. This is important. It is time to get this done, alternative energy for the future, addressing our energy needs, supporting our farmers.

I am proud also that American car companies within the next 3 years, by 2012, half of what they produce, half of what they manufacture will be flex-fuel vehicles, ethanol, other flex fuels. We need to get this farm bill done to be able to support that effort.

Rural development is a critical part as well. I have small communities all over Michigan that would not have water and sewer projects if it was not for USDA rural development--another critical part of this bill.

I would simply say we have seen now, since last week, delay after delay after delay on giving us the opportunity to move forward and get this farm bill done. Now is the time to do that. I hope tomorrow we will vote to stop filibustering, we will vote to proceed to a critical bill.

Folks think the farm bill is only about rural communities, but all of us are impacted by every part of this farm bill. We need to get this done. It is time to get this done. I do not want to keep having to change this chart over and over again, although I fear I will, on how many times there is delay, how many times there is filibustering going on.

We have a farm bill in front of us that needs to get done for all of us. It has been done in a truly bipartisan way. It has very broad support. Now is the time to get this done for our American farmers and our families.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I come to the floor because it is amazing to listen to my friends on the other side of the aisle lament what they view are things not getting done when, in fact, we are getting things done. The truth is, we have been operating this year with an extraordinary slowness on the other side of the aisle because, first of all, they have participated in 52 filibusters since the beginning of the year--52 filibusters, maybe 53 by the end of the week, every week now. This is unprecedented. It never happened before. It never happened before; to see the minority in the Senate obstruct,

obstruct, obstruct with 52 different filibusters, trying to stop us from getting the people's business done.

I find it so interesting and amazing when my colleagues lament that not more of the appropriations process is done. As the Presiding Officer knows, our colleagues, the previous majority, didn't do a budget at all last year--at all. We are moving through the process. Despite the continual slowdowns, the efforts to stop us from proceeding, we are moving ahead. But last year, our colleagues, who lament so passionately and who come to the floor every day, didn't even pass a budget. We came in in January to a new majority and had to clean up the mess, literally. There was no budget. We had to pass a budget just to get us through the end of the year, to be able to keep services for the American people going, and we did that. We did that.

Also, during that process we put in place a few things along the way that we clearly put at the top of the list in terms of appropriations: Additional money for our veterans, clearly a priority for us; a Pell grant for our low-income students trying to go to college to have the American dream. We are now at a point where we have the budget, the appropriations process that we are working on for next year. We have seen nothing but efforts to slow that down, to veto it.

Yesterday the President vetoed the part of the budget that focuses on health care, education for our people, health research into new cures for cancer. It focuses on diabetes and Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease, all of the areas where we hope to make breakthroughs to be able to save lives. The President vetoed that.

The President says the slight increase for restoring cuts that the President and the Republicans have made in the last several years, in our efforts to restore those funds to get the priorities right and put us back on track for middle-class families, was too much. Eleven billion dollars invested in America is too much. Twelve billion dollars a month on a war--putting our men and women in the middle of harm's way in a civil war every day--is OK, and it is not paid for. The most important thing is we are losing lives, but it is outrageous that we are seeing $12 billion a month being spent.

The President vetoed an investment in America yesterday that was less than 1 month in Iraq--an investment in our families, in our seniors, in our children, and in the future in terms of education and opportunity and research. He vetoed a bill that was, in fact, an effort to invest in America.

I have to say, despite 52 filibusters, we are, as Democrats, working with colleagues, obviously. We don't get anything done unless it is on a bipartisan basis. We know that, and we do it every day. But the truth is, our majority is getting results for middle-class Americans every day. I am proud we have placed veterans at the top of our budget. We, for the first time, have listened. We, the new majority, have listened to the veterans of this country, the veterans organizations. We took their budget called the Independent Budget--the veterans budget--and made it our own so we would make sure our veterans were fully funded. We have addressed the concerns about Walter Reed and what happens when our veterans come home and get caught between the military health system and the VA system.

Mr. President, I believe you are about to give me a high sign on the time. I ask unanimous consent for an additional 10 minutes.

Mr. President, I am very proud of the fact that one of the first things we did this year in addition to supporting our veterans was to pass the first minimum wage increase in 10 years for working Americans. An awful lot of those are moms with two children, three children, working one job, two jobs, three jobs, trying to hold things together for their family, working hard every day. I am proud we have passed that. I am proud we have also focused on middle-class Americans and the American dream of college and the opportunity to be able to get the skills that young people and people going back to school can receive in order to be able to work hard and be successful in our new global economy. We have passed the largest student financial aid program since the GI bill. I am very proud we have done that. We are getting results for middle-class Americans every day.

On a bipartisan basis, we have also passed the America COMPETES Act, which redirects critical resources into math and science and technology for education as well as for research. I am very proud of the fact that despite the need to pass the 9/11 Commission recommendations, we have done that. Again, one of the early efforts by the new Democratic majority was to pass the 9/11 Commission recommendations to focus on critical needs, such as making radios work, so the police officers and firefighters in America can actually talk to each other and not be put in the same situation as they were on 9/11 where they were running into buildings they should have been running out of because they did not have the communications equipment that worked. We have focused on real security. We have focused, through the appropriations that we have passed, on our troops and their families, and I am very proud of that. We have also focused on important and long overdue and neglected water resources projects.

And it is wonderful to see that not only was it passed on a bipartisan basis, but when the President vetoed the bill, we joined together to say yes to protecting our waters, when the President said no. So we are getting things done. We are getting things done every single day.

We are putting the priorities of the American people first. In our budget, we have said veterans are at the top of the list, education funding opportunity is at the top of the list, and we also place children's health insurance at the top of the list. In this area, we have worked together in a wonderful bipartisan way. People are to be congratulated on both sides of the aisle for working together on children's health insurance.

The President again said no. He has vetoed the bill. We are working hard, and we have the votes in the Senate to override the veto. We are working hard to get House Republican colleagues to join us so we can invest and cover 10 million children with health insurance.

This is another example of where we have been pushing forward, changing the direction of this Congress, focusing on middle-class Americans, getting things done--trying to get things done over the objection of the President. Again, I have to go back to the whole question of the funding of the war: $12 billion a month on this war-- not paid for. To cover 10 million children in America with health insurance, it is $7 billion a year, and it is in our budget. We have fully paid for that.

What kind of priorities has the President set, when he will veto children's health insurance and yet continue to ask for more and more dollars for this war? Everything we do around here is values and priorities, based on what we think is important, what we think the people who have sent us here think is important. The majority of Americans are saying this country is going in the wrong direction, that while people find themselves worried about whether they will have a job or whether it is going to go overseas or whether they will lose pay, lose income, while their health insurance premium goes up--if they even have health insurance--their gas prices go up, and college tuition is going up. They may find themselves in the situation where they cannot sell their homes due to the mortgage crisis or in a situation of foreclosure or in a sales situation where they are losing dollars.

Middle-class Americans look around them and see a world, under this administration, for the last 6 years, of failed policies and priorities--a world that doesn't work for Americans, losing opportunities rather than gaining them, working harder and harder but seeing the American dream slip away for themselves and their families.

We, as the new majority of the Senate, understand this, we get it. We are laser focused on what makes a difference to the American people every day. We are focused, and we will be coming forward with efforts to help with the mortgage crisis. I have legislation we will be bringing forward to make sure that when you lose your home to foreclosure or a short sale, you don't get a tax bill on top of that,

which will happen now if your financial institution gives you any kind of a break on refinancing. You end up, with the value of the difference, paying taxes on it. We are going to make sure that doesn't happen. We are laser focused on getting the children's health insurance bill done, focusing on the right kind of trade policy that is fair for Americans--American workers and businesses. We are focused on strengthening our country, opportunity, valuing work, focusing on the things people care about every single day. When we get up in the morning and we are focused on what we want for our children and grandchildren, in order to be able to have a wonderful life, those are the things we have been bringing forward every single day. We will continue to do that.

We are getting things done for middle-class America. That is our focus. We are getting things done. But I have to say, in conclusion, that this has not been easy. We have had 52 filibusters--which is unheard of in the Senate--in less than a year--52 filibusters that require us to get 60 votes to stop, including, I might add, on the war. We have a majority of Members of this body who want to end this strategy on the war, who have been willing to say we want to put a deadline on what is happening there and refocus on what will truly keep us safe. We have a majority of Members--an overwhelming majority--who supported Senator Webb's effort on troop readiness, to say to our troops who are being deployed, redeployed, and redeployed, we should follow the traditional policies of the military; if you have 12 or 15 months in combat in theater, you should get the same at home for rest, retraining, and the opportunity to see your family.

We have the majority of Members who have voted to change this policy in Iraq, get us out of a civil war, bring our troops home, to have troop readiness policies that make sense; but we have had 52 filibusters, which is too many, stopping us from changing this war.

This can go to 53, 54--we know it will keep going through the next year. But so will our focus. We are not going to stop. We are focused on getting things done. We are getting results for middle-class Americans, and we are going to continue to do that every single day.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today I was pleased to introduce a Senate resolution recognizing November 14 as World Diabetes Day. I am also pleased to be joined by my colleagues, Senators Pete Domenici and Frank Lautenberg. Established in 1991 by the World Health Organization and the International Diabetes Federation, this day has been recognized annually as World Diabetes Day.

Through World Diabetes Day, advocates worldwide can coordinate diabetes awareness activities and create a sense of urgency about this devastating disease. In almost every nation, diabetes is on the rise. In the United States, diabetes is the sixth leading cause of death by disease. Globally, diabetes is fourth.

Diabetes currently affects 246 million people worldwide and is projected to affect 380 million by 2025. Last year, the United Nations passed landmark Resolution 61/225 recognizing diabetes as a chronic, debilitating, and costly disease.

Each year, over 3.7 million people die due to diabetes. An even greater number die from cardiovascular disease exacerbated by diabetes- related lipid disorders. Every 10 seconds, two people develop diabetes and one person dies from diabetes-related causes.

The prevalence of diabetes is increasing in Michigan--from 5.3 percent to 7.9 percent over the past 10 years. There are 1.3 million Michiganians who have diabetes or are prediabetic. Michigan has the seventh highest rate of diabetes in the Nation, and diabetes costs our State's economy $6 billion a year in health costs and lost productivity. Diabetes is the sixth leading cause of death in Michigan and the fourth leading cause of death among African-American females in Michigan.

This year, the World Diabetes Day campaign will focus on the message that no child should die of diabetes.'' I take this goal very seriously. As a member of the Agriculture Committee, I am committed to ensuring our children have healthy options in their school meals. And I am working with Senator Domenici on reauthorizing the Special Diabetes Program.

We can no longer ignore the growing incidence of diabetes. Instead, let us draw worldwide attention to prevention, access, and treatment.

Finally, I am pleased to have letters of support from diabetes advocacy organizations. I ask unanimous consent that they be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, if Congress does not act soon, Medicare payments to physicians and health care professionals will be cut by 10 percent on January 1, 2008 as a result of the fatally flawed sustainable growth rate formula.

This does not make any sense. While costs continue to increase, physicians will actually be paid less than they are paid today.

While a 10 percent cut in 2008 is completely indefensible, it does not end there. When combined with the additional cuts required under current law through 2016, physician payment rates will be reduced by approximately 40 percent.

What will be the result? Doctors will decrease the number of Medicare patients they accept, defer purchase of health information technology, and rural outreach services will be discontinued. The Medicare Program, which for more than 40 years has lifted countless seniors out of poverty, and has ensured access to necessary, affordable, quality medical care for our most vulnerable citizens, would be destabilized. The health of the nearly 42 million Americans who rely on Medicare would be threatened.

Physicians are the foundation of the Medicare Program and our Nation's health care system and patients of all ages depend upon them for health care services. Every aspect of our health care system, from hospitals to rural health clinics, relies upon the skills and services of physicians. Yet, on average, physician payments in 2007 are below what they were in 2001.

It defies common sense to think that payment rates that are lower today than they were 6 years ago will be enough to maintain the access to care our seniors need. Very simply put, the projected 2008--and beyond--payment cuts will place beneficiary's access to health care at risk.

I am proud of the work that over 20,000 M.D.s and D.O.s in Michigan do, providing more than 1.4 million seniors and people with disabilities in Michigan with high-quality medical services under the Medicare Program.

I want them to be able to continue to do that, but there is simply no way that can be expected unless we do something now about the payment system used to reimburse physicians for Medicare services.

Physicians in Michigan will lose $670 million for the care of elderly and disabled patients over the next 2 years due to the 10 percent cut in Medicare payments for 2008 and the additional 5 percent cut in 2009. My physicians are looking at cuts of more than $10 billion by 2016 as a result of the SGR formula and 9 years of cuts.

We certainly cannot expect that physicians can continue to provide the same level of care while their payments are cut $670 million over the next 2 years alone.

Several studies and surveys have shown that payment cuts will result in physicians modifying their participation in the Medicare Program and limiting the number of new Medicare patients they treat.

We also know from the studies that the lack of a predictable and equitable Medicare payment system encourages older physicians to retire, discourages younger physicians from entering specialties that predominately treat Medicare patients, and hinders investment in health information technology.

In addition to the studies that have been conducted, and our own common sense, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, an independent Federal body established by Congress in 1997 to advise us on issues affecting the Medicare program, has been telling us since 2001 that the Medicare sustainable growth rate formula is a flawed, inequitable mechanism for controlling the volume of services and that it should be repealed.

It is absolutely critical that ultimately Congress needs to enact a long-term solution to this issue. In the short term, we need to end the practice of dealing with the cuts on a yearly basis in a manner that results in deeper automatic physician payment reductions in future years.

At a minimum, I believe we must pass legislation this year that provides physicians with 2 years of positive Medicare payment updates and do so in a way that does not add to the cost of eliminating the

Mr. President, I rise to respond to what has become a regular drumbeat in this Chamber in terms of the distinguished Republican leader and those on the other side of the aisle talking about how we have not accomplished anything this year, how the budget has not gotten done. It is important to continually remember what we have been dealing with as the new majority coming into the Senate in January, laser focused on changing the direction and the priorities of the country, laser focused on getting things done for middle-class Americans who are counting on us, who feel squeezed on all sides and see prices increase on gasoline and health care and the cost of college, all those kinds of things that come down on Americans as they are working harder and harder every day, maybe facing the loss of a job or having lost a job, lower wages, and so on. Those are the folks we are fighting for every day and, I am proud to say, getting results.

It is important to realize what has been happening since January. Despite all of the lamenting on the other side of the aisle about not getting things done, what we have seen are 52 Republican filibusters so far this year--unprecedented, the number of times we have had to vote to stop a filibuster. By the end of this week, it will be 53 or 54. It will continue right on, as there are efforts politically to stop what we are doing to change the direction of this country and focus on those things middle-class Americans care about every day and want to see fixed. In spite of that, we are, in fact, getting things done.

One of the areas I am proudest of is our refocus in the budget on keeping our promises to veterans. We heard this morning that we need to pass a veterans budget. There is no question about it. There is no question about the fact that we not only need to, but we will. But we need to also remember that when we came in in January, last year's budget wasn't done yet. The previous majority didn't get the budget done at all in 2006. When we came in and were left, frankly, with a budget mess, we made sure that in the process of keeping the Government going, public services going for the balance of the year, we addressed veterans first and foremost by placing dollars into what is called a continuing resolution because we know our veterans have not been getting the resources they need, brave men and women coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan every day who have not been able to get the health care they need, too many caught in unfortunate bureaucracies.

We heard about Walter Reed and those who are receiving military health care and then moving to the VA, and too many folks who are getting caught in that process and being hurt by the process. We have made veterans and keeping our promises to them and our military the highest priority. We addressed the issues that came up regarding Walter Reed and passed the Wounded Warrior provisions in the Department of Defense authorization that my senior colleague from Michigan, of whom we are so proud, Senator Carl Levin, helped lead. He led that, and we are making those changes.

In the budget--and I am proud to be a member of the Budget Committee, which has made sure this has happened

under our great leader from North Dakota, Senator Conrad--we have said for the first time we are going to fund veterans services at the level the veterans organizations say we need. We are going to use the numbers they recommend. We have seen consistently under this administration an underfunding of those things which are needed by our veterans coming home, the top of which has been health care, mental health services, and rehabilitative services.

We, since January, have made veterans health care the top priority. I am proud of the fact that we have added dollars. We have addressed the system problems. We have looked at what we need to be doing for families, both of Active military as well as our veterans. We don't have any concern at all about standing up and saying that we have been putting our veterans first, despite filibuster after filibuster after filibuster. Anyone watching will see more this week. It seems to be the nature of things today. But we have increased the dollars, the resources, the commitment--keeping our promises to veterans. We have done that in the budget for next year. We have done that in the funding available now. It is part of our overall vision and commitment.

We are getting results for middle-class Americans. That is what we are all about, the folks who are sending their children, husbands, and wives to the war to fight for our country, coming home, expecting us to keep the promises the country has made as it relates to veterans. We take that extremely seriously. We are keeping those promises as part of our efforts to get results for the American people. We intend to do that in this budget we will pass, that will go to the President, that will be historic in that it is keeping the promises to our veterans that they expect us to keep.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, before my friend leaves the floor, I thank the distinguished Senator from Idaho for his leadership as we have worked together on specialty crop issues. This is an important bipartisan effort. We began focusing on it when we defined specialty crops in the Specialty Crop Competitiveness Act of 2004. We have now taken that definition and gone on to include, as he said, 50 percent of the cash receipts from the crops that had not been recognized fully in the farm bill. It has been my pleasure to work with him and see that we have been able to make this an important part of this farm bill for the future. I thank him and congratulate him.

I rise to speak about the farm bill in front of us. It is an effort that has taken a tremendous amount of time, debate, and negotiation, a 2-day markup. We ended up passing it unanimously out of the Agriculture Committee, which is no small feat. I am pleased to have played a role in that process. A major reason for our success was our chairman, the distinguished Senator from Iowa, who has been so diligent from the beginning. He has had a vision about the future for agriculture, where we needed to go in alternative energy, conservation, fruits and vegetables, nutrition, as well as our traditional support for agriculture. I thank Chairman Harkin and our distinguished ranking member for their efforts together. We have put into

place a farm bill for the future. I am very pleased we are doing that.

Our needs are different than when the first farm bills came about. Energy independence, preserving and protecting the environment, making sure we have a nutritious supply of products to keep communities and families healthy are all areas covered in this new farm bill.

I thank my dear friend and colleague, the chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Conrad, for his incredible leadership, putting all the numbers together. We have only a relatively small increase above the baseline in this farm bill, $8 billion. Contrary to what we are hearing from the administration, we are seeing a relatively small increase, fully paid for under the budget. Thanks to the work of Senator Conrad, we have a farm bill that is done in a fiscally responsible way.

I thank the chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Baucus, for his extraordinary leadership. Serving on the Budget, Finance, and Agriculture Committees, I have to say we would not be here with a successful farm bill if it were not for Senator Baucus and the work he has done in providing revenues as well as a permanent disaster relief program, which is incredibly important.

I also thank my staff for their hard work. We have been working for months and months on this farm bill, many late hours, some all- nighters. I thank Chris Adamo and Oliver Kim, who have done an extraordinary job on the nutrition pieces of this bill; Ilana Levinson; and my legislative director, Amanda Renteria.

This new farm bill represents a progressive agricultural policy and a vision of the future. It focuses on and expands many new policies, such as specialty crops and renewable energy, conservation, nutrition, and rural development. When people think of Michigan, most of the time people think of automobiles and manufacturing. But in fact, the second largest industry in Michigan is agriculture. We have more diversity of crops than any other State other than California. This is a very important part of public policy for Michigan. It is about supporting our growers, about communities, the schoolchildren, seniors, and others who benefit from nutrition programs. It is also about jobs. In real ways, this is a bill that will create jobs in my State.

We have everything from traditional commodities in Michigan, such as dairy and meat and pork and corn and sugar beets and soybeans. We are also proudly the national leaders in the production of numerous specialty crops--our fruits and vegetables, including blueberries, apples, cherries, asparagus, and celery. Michigan farmers are in need of a safety net for the crops they now grow, our program crops. But they also are asking us for a new set of policies, not payments, not direct payments, but a set of policies that will allow us to support fruit and vegetable growers who make up half of American agriculture.

In addition to diverse farms and commodities, we also have expansive urban areas with strong interests in conserving our national resources, our land, our Great Lakes, expanding as well in our inner-city areas access for fresh fruits and vegetables through farmers markets and community gardens and school nutrition programs. Literally, for me, every single part of the farm bill is important and impacts someone in my State, whether they be involved directly in farming or not. Of course, as we sometimes don't think about, the farm bill does impact everybody, whether you have any part of agricultural production in your State or not because of what this means in food security, nutrition, and now focusing on other important areas such as alternative energy.

I understand, as we debate this important farm bill, we will be continuing to talk about reforming farm policy. I know for many, the reforms that have passed in the Agriculture Committee--and we have put together very important reforms--as well as for me, do not go as far as I would like. But they do represent a very important first step in the right direction. There is a tremendous amount of reform in this legislation. It is important for us not to define reform as just changing direct payments. It is about changing the focus, expanding the focus toward the future, which is what this farm bill absolutely does. We have made progress on farm payment reform, but we have also put in place a new guide for the next 5 years in completely new farm policies, such as specialty crops, helping producers grow more and consumers to have more access to healthy foods.

Energy is a very exciting part of this bill, the next economic opportunity for rural America, for our farmers. These new policies will create new jobs and new, clean, renewable energies. Conservation, again, is a major focus for our chairman, and I commend him for that. His leadership has brought us more than $4 billion in new investments in conservation that will help producers be the great stewards of the land they want to be.

Again, the chairman, in his leadership on nutrition, has been extraordinary, expanding the food and nutrition program and providing more access to healthy foods. In fact, it is important to mention that roughly 66 percent of the farm bill is focused in some way on nutrition. That means this is truly a food security and nutrition bill for every American. It is also important to mention that we have included a focus on beginning and disadvantaged farmers, new policies in the conservation title, as our Presiding Officer has focused on in so many of the areas around conservation and supporting our farmers and family farmers. The credit title also helps new farmers and those sometimes wrongfully left out to provide for more conservation and more credit resources. We know we need a new generation of farmers to continue providing food security for our Nation.

Let me speak about each of these areas briefly. The area of the farm bill we call specialty crops, what does that mean? We are talking about fruits, vegetables, horticulture, floriculture, dried nuts. We had defined those areas in 2004 in the farm bill. This is something I have been working on since coming to the Congress after the 1996 election, 4 years in the U.S. House on the Agriculture Committee, and now in the Senate. I remember when we first started talking about specialty crops and trying to find something in the farm bill that would directly support the 50 percent of the crops that are fruits and vegetables and other specialty crops. It was difficult to find much. But finally, after working together on a bipartisan basis and having wonderful support from the Agriculture Committee, we can honestly say we have placed specialty crops as a permanent part of the farm bill.

This is incredibly important, particularly now when we look at the needs for nutrition, the needs of the future for our families, our children, our seniors, as we look at a world economy, where it is very important that we be supporting our own fruits and vegetable growers.

There are 36 Members of the Senate who have come together, because we grow specialty crops in our States, and have supported the efforts. I thank each Member who has lent their voice in support and strength to this effort. We have over 120 different organizations that have been working now for several years to come together to get to this point. I thank all of them for their efforts as well.

We have come a long way since the 2002 farm bill, when we were talking about trying to get some help with tree assistance or some basic nutrition programs. In 2004, we passed the Specialty Crop Competitiveness Act which defined specialty crops and for the first time gave us a policy from which to work. It laid the groundwork for the progress we have made in creating a specialty crop policy in the farm bill, including the centerpiece program such as specialty crop block grants. Today, for the first time, there is a significant package to help our growers who supply our healthy foods. This package is what I call a toolbox, not a direct payment. They have not asked for that, but they have asked for a variety of things to help them be successful and make fruits and vegetables available to our families.

The toolbox includes competitive grant programs, research funds, increased protections from pests and disease, trade export promotions, various nutrition programs to help those in need, as well as a focus on our schoolchildren, assistance for organic farmers, a very important, growing part of agriculture, as well as important conservation payments. This multitude of

policies offers real reform and is needed for a variety of reasons.

It is also important to note the new disaster assistance program that has been put together accommodates specialty crops as well. There is approximately $1 billion of disaster relief for specialty crops included in the disaster relief program. It will expedite aid to producers after natural disasters for which farmers cannot plan. A critical part of this is new mandatory funding for the Tree Assistance Program. This is absolutely critical to our farmers who have orchards because our orchards--such as cherries and peaches and apples--are basically the assets. The trees are the assets for those farmers, and they are expensive assets that take years to yield profits. So being able to support those growers who have orchards and to be able to help them in a disaster is very important.

It is important to note that specialty crop farmers are also very diverse. What is good for the Washington apple growers may not be the same for Michigan apple growers. Different diseases and challenges face different growers in different parts of the country. So policies such as the State-run block grants that we have included and competitive research grants are vital to help the over 200 different types of specialty crop farmers across the Nation be able to have assistance for their particular issue, their particular areas of concern.

Second, fruits and vegetables are more susceptible to different pests and diseases. We must have the best inspection and rapid-response policies in place. Currently, the costs borne by the fruit and vegetable industry due to invasive species reaches over $1 billion a year. Our disease and pest policy will help prevent new invasive species as well as help mitigate them. This will help not only specialty crop growers but all our farmers as well as our forests.

Third, just like our traditional row crops, such as corn and soybeans, we need a strong domestic supply of fruits and vegetables. Studies suggest that even if every person in this country tried to eat the five to nine servings of fruits and vegetables per day that are recommended by the Federal Government, our domestic growers would simply not be able to meet the demand.

Fourth--and while speaking of domestic fruit and vegetable farmers-- this Nation currently imports $2.7 billion more than it exports in fruits and vegetables. So we need to ensure our safety and health and help our growers as they export as well.

Finally, when we talk about specialty crops, we are really talking about eating in a healthier way. A better supply of fruits and vegetables means more access for more people to the things they need to be healthy and to prevent systemic disease in the future.

Along with our focus on specialty crops is a real partnership with the portion of the farm bill that focuses on nutrition. This farm bill makes important strides in reducing hunger in our Nation and improving the nutritional health of our children. It makes a key link between our commodities--our fruits and vegetables--and health by recognizing the importance of fruits and vegetables in the new specialty crops provisions.

The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine has applauded efforts to increase consumption of fruits and vegetables. They noted that HHS statistics have found that unhealthy eating and inactivity cause 310,000 to 580,000 deaths every year.

In addition, in this Congress we have made our children's health a legislative priority. In addition to our fight for the Children's Health Insurance Program, we have expanded the successful Fruit and Vegetable Snack Program so that schools nationwide will be able to give children a healthy snack. Again, my hat goes off to our chairman, who placed the Fruit and Vegetable Program in the farm bill in the past as a pilot project.

A lot of folks said: Well, even if you have a bowl of fruits--apples or other fresh fruits--and vegetables available in schools, the kids won't eat them; they will just go to the vending machine. Well, it turned out that was not true. It turned out that children loved having those apples and peaches and strawberries and plums and all of the other fruits available. Teachers across the country have been clamoring to expand this very successful Fruit and Vegetable Snack Program, and we have done that in this bill. In fact, with the passage of the farm bill, about 120,000 children in Michigan alone will have access to fresh fruits and vegetables through the snack program.

This is a very important policy in terms of the future for our children. Making sure children eat right and understand good nutrition is, of course, critical for their long-term health. According to the New America Foundation's child development and youth well-being index, health indicators for children are on the decline mainly due to children's poor nutritional health and obesity. By helping our schools purchase healthy snacks, we can not only give children better food but also help guide their nutritional choices throughout their entire lives. Maybe if they pick up an apple or dried cherries--grown in Michigan, of course--rather than junk food, we will give them an opportunity for a healthier future.

Additionally, the farm bill addresses hunger by making long overdue changes to the Food and Nutrition Program, formerly known as food stamps. Since 1996, the income standards for this program have been frozen--in other words, no increases. Food costs go up, inflation goes up, and there have been no increases. This has caused the purchasing power for families to decline as food costs and inflation have increased.

In just one example, a 32-year-old single mom named Sonya, who lives in Michigan near my hometown of Lansing, has two children ages 12 and 13. She works two jobs. One pays $10.40 an hour, where she works 24 hours a week. The other one pays her $76 a day. She is working hard to hold things together for her family. She spends nearly $650 a month in daycare expenses, right now, for her children. But under current law, she cannot count the full value of her childcare costs when she applies for the Food and Nutrition Program. This cap on childcare is a huge incentive against working.

The nutrition title will help Sonya and other families--and the vast majority of Food and Nutrition Program households are three-individual households like Sonya's--because it takes that cap off and will cover and count the costs of childcare for working moms. For example, a mother of three who works 35 hours a week at $9 an hour and pays $350 a month for childcare for a preschool-aged child would receive an additional $79 in food assistance for herself and her children. This is a huge difference. It may not sound like a lot of money, but it is a huge difference for families all across this country.

We should be very proud of the fact that on a bipartisan basis we have placed these improvements in the bill. However, we still need to do a lot more, and I certainly support other efforts to do that.

We still need to make improvements to the Commodity Supplemental Food Program. Unfortunately, our senior citizens, who make up the bulk of this program, the Commodity Supplemental Food Program, are eligible at a lower income threshold than are families. In other words, if you are a senior up to 130 percent of poverty, you can get help with food; for a family, it is 185 percent. There is really no reason to discriminate against senior citizens, and a number of organizations, including AARP, the National Commodity Supplemental Food Program Association, and America's Second Harvest, want to fix this program. I am working with the chairman to offer an amendment to do that.

I mentioned a little earlier that this bill is also a job creator. This farm bill is creating new jobs as well as a cleaner environment-- both very important goals.

The energy title will help bring forth a new rural economy. In Michigan's case, this is already happening, and we welcome the provisions of this bill. They are very important to us in Michigan.

First, there are loans and loan guarantees for cellulosic ethanol refineries. In Michigan, we have interest from multiple companies to set up new cellulosic refineries. We have corn, sugar beets, switchgrass, and wood byproducts--timber--opportunities that can all be a part of the cellulosic equation. Again, I know the distinguished Presiding Officer has worked diligently in

those areas. They are very important for the future of this country and certainly in my State will create jobs.

Financing is needed in the early development of these projects, as we know, and these new policies will provide that missing link, which is so critical. Perhaps by the next farm bill we will see the fruits of our labor when we can truly say: Buy fuel from Middle America instead of the Middle East.

Next, farmers need assistance to switch to these new energy crops and to produce renewable energies. New policies will provide technical assistance and resources to help producers convert to new crops that can produce ethanol and take advantage of their wastes by converting them into energy. An example of this is anaerobic digesters that our dairy farms can use to convert animal waste to energy. Not only is this a new source of income, but it also disposes of waste, therefore reducing pollution into the air and the water.

Finally, I would like to highlight another program important to Michigan that has the potential to spur economic development while alleviating our dependence on foreign oil. A Community Wood Energy Program will help invest in projects looking to use more wood products to produce energy. With a State that is more than one-third forested, and paper mills are in the decline, this is a very valuable addition, from my perspective in Michigan.

The energy title will go a long way toward a cleaner environment, but the conservation title in the farm bill is one of our most important environmental laws. Farmers are some of the best stewards of our land. We know that. They produce high-quality, safe, nutritious products while meeting strong environmental standards. Our addition of $4 billion in conservation funding this year is imperative to meet the growing demand of farmers who want to enroll in various conservation programs. These programs keep our air clean, farmland productive, spaces open, land open, wildlife thriving, and offer some of the best water quality protections.

The conservation title is especially vital to our Great Lakes, North America's largest source of fresh water. Farm bill conservation programs have ensured that once-marginal Great Lakes farmland now filters sediment and erosion while providing millions of acres of high- quality wildlife habitat, which supports the local $18 billion hunting, fishing, and wildlife-watching industry in Michigan. Programs such as the Wetlands Reserve Program improve water quality and are essential to the continued health of the Great Lakes. These programs protect and restore wetlands that serve to filter pesticides, fertilizers, and sediment out of the water that millions of Great Lakes residents depend on for their drinking water as well as for swimming and bathing and just plain fun. And we invite everyone to come and be a part of the Great Lakes experience.

I want to congratulate, again, Chairman Harkin and my colleagues on the committee for their commitment to a strong conservation title. In spite of the tight budget we have once again, conservation is a priority.

I would like to take a moment to recognize changes in a program that I was very pleased to author as a part of this conservation title. The Great Lakes Basin Program for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control will be reauthorized for another 5 years under the current bill. This program has a proven track record of efficiently providing grant funding to local organizations and governments to prevent soil erosion in the Great Lakes region.

I am pleased to have been able to add language to the farm bill to tie the Great Lakes Basin Program to the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration Strategy to Restore and Protect the Great Lakes. This will assist in accomplishing two of the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration Strategy's priority recommendations: first, targeting cleanup activities in severely polluted rural watersheds; secondly, restoring urban watersheds that have been degraded by development.

The Great Lakes restoration strategy is really a comprehensive blueprint for restoring the Great Lakes. It was initiated following an Executive order which recognized the Great Lakes as a national treasure. The strategy was produced by a broad cross-section of people representing our local communities, the State and Federal Government-- truly a bipartisan effort--NGOs, tribes, and various stakeholders that came together.

The strategy identifies reducing nonpoint source runoff from rural and urban areas as one of the top eight sets of priority recommendations necessary for restoring the health of the Great Lakes. This program will enable the region to initiate pilot projects consistent with these recommendations. I am very pleased this is part of the farm bill.

Restoring the Great Lakes must be a national priority. A recent Brookings Institute study clearly showed that Great Lakes restoration is about more than environmental restoration; it is about protecting our way of life. Reducing soil erosion, sediment, and pollutants helps maintain a clean source of drinking water for over 42 million Americans and Canadians who depend on the Great Lakes. Decreasing nonpoint pollution in the Great Lakes reduces the damage caused to fish and wildlife habitat and will help protect a sport fishery that generates $4 billion a year. Reducing nonpoint pollution will reduce the costs of maintaining stormwater systems and the costs of dredging the harbors and marinas that are the economic backbone to the Great Lakes region's shipping capacity, in addition to a $1 billion recreational boating industry. This program ties a Great Lakes program with a proven track record to the implementation of a comprehensive strategy that, when fully implemented, will protect an international treasure for the next generations.

I also want to acknowledge another important piece that I was pleased to author in the farm bill that is important to American producers. Current law clearly states that all purchases made--to the maximum extent practicable--with Federal funds for use in the National School Lunch and Breakfast programs should be domestic goods; in other words, American-made, American-grown. Congress has passed this law in multiple statutes and has repeatedly reinforced its support for the Buy American provision, and expects it to be implemented and enforced. Unfortunately, USDA has not adequately enforced the Buy American provisions in current law. This is another example of this administration's failure to enforce the laws on the books, and this time our growers and consumers are paying the price. The list of trade enforcement violations is growing, and today the United States has the weakest trade enforcement effort of any developed country. It is important we make sure that while the USDA buys only domestically grown food for schools, that we also make sure when the school programs themselves--the local programs--are purchasing, that they know this provision is in place.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 2 minutes.

Two.

Thank you very much.

There is so much in the farm bill that it is difficult to have a short presentation. I am only touching on a few of the major areas.

Let me conclude, though, by summarizing the Buy American provisions because, unfortunately, even this past July at a national school food conference, a food company marketed peaches that said ``peaches from China packed in Thailand,'' and I know we grow great peaches in the United States. So we want to make sure that as we are putting all of these provisions together to support American agriculture, that, in fact the USDA is doing everything possible not only to purchase themselves but to communicate with our school programs and other nutritional programs that we expect we will purchase from local growers, American growers first. We hope we will not have to say this again. We have put this in numerous bills. It is

vital that we take this very seriously if we are going to, in fact, be supporting American growers. This provision--the Buy American amendment--matches the House-passed language, and I am hoping they will join us in making sure it is truly enforced at this time.

As my statement shows, this farm bill is expansive. It is important to all parts of our country, our families, our communities. It is important in so many ways as we look for healthy foods and strong communities and jobs, preserving our land and our water. It has very important policies, traditional policies we have had for some time, coupled with new approaches for the future in alternative energy and other areas that are critical for the future of our country. I regret that the administration has indicated a possible veto of this bill. I hope, in fact, they will reconsider as we move along. This is an important bipartisan effort. A tremendous amount of work has gone into this. This is truly a farm bill for the future of the country. It is fiscally responsible. It is paid for. I am very hopeful that not only will we pass this with a strong bipartisan vote, but that the President will support this very important effort to support our growers, our farmers, our ranchers, as well as the food security of the United States.

Thank you, Mr. President.

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

Mr. President, I have had the opportunity, similar to all my colleagues throughout the week and in previous times, to have heard on the floor the lament from the distinguished Republican leader of the Senate and other Republican colleagues about how they wished we had the appropriations bills done or how more should be done. I come to the floor today to talk about the reality of what is happening.

We know, in politics, unfortunately, folks decide on a message and keep saying it over and over again, hoping in fact someone will believe it, even if it doesn't jibe with what the actual facts are.

We also know, at the beginning of the year, folks all over this country--people working hard every day who care about their families and expect to have services that work and expect to have someone eyeing the fiscal situation in the country and challenging what is happening in the war and caring about their children and so on--looked for a new direction. They voted for a new direction for this country, a new set of priorities.

People working hard every day want to know somebody is out there fighting for them. I am proud to say I am part of a group of people, a group of Democrats who understand that people are feeling squeezed on all sides--higher gas prices, higher health care costs, they are seeing tuition go up for their children, their jobs being threatened. In my home State of Michigan, we have 7.5 percent unemployment. People are losing jobs, they are losing incomes. People are looking around saying: Who is fighting for us? We play by the rules. We love our country. We send our husbands and wives and sons and daughters to defend our country. Who, in fact, is on our side, looking out for us and making sure the rules in this country create a way for everybody to work hard and succeed and, in fact, there is competency and integrity in Government?

That is what we came into this year, in January. We came into this new year understanding, as a new majority, we are here to fight for middle-class Americans who work hard every day and those working hard to get into the middle class, those who want to have the American dream available for themselves and their families. People who believe right now our American way of life is slipping want us to fight for them. I am proud to say that is exactly what we have done.

It has not been easy because our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, I understand, have lost the majority. Unfortunately, their political strategy is to try to stop us from actually making a difference in the lives of middle-class Americans, so when we get to the end of the term, they can say: See, there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans--when, in fact, we all know there are substantial differences in priorities, in views of America, and whose side we are on.

As a strategy, we have seen filibuster after filibuster and something called ``cloture'' in the Senate which, to the average person, basically means we are seeing filibusters, a requirement for 60 votes rather than just a majority, which is how we should be operating under the democratic process.

We have seen a historic number. Never before, in fact, have we seen, at this point in time, 52 filibusters--52 and counting. My guess is next week it will be 53 and 54 and 55 and 56 and go on and on in efforts to slow things down, efforts to slow down the new direction we believe in, that we are fighting for, to slow down those things that will make a real difference in the lives of Americans.

We understand the strategy. We operate under this every week. We come to the floor and have to fight to get beyond a filibuster. I am proud to say we have done that. As we come to the end of our first year as a majority, we are, in fact, changing the direction of this country. We are, in fact, getting results for Americans, for middle-class Americans, who work hard every day and want somebody to be fighting for them, for an opportunity for them and

their children to have the American dream. I am very proud of that, despite 52 filibusters.

We have a leader who is tenacious, who is determined, who is smart-- who comes to the floor every day and spends his time trying to make sure we can stop the filibusters and refocus on getting results for middle-class Americans. That is what we have done. I wish to take a moment today to share some of the results we are getting. Is it slower than we would like? Yes, when you are trying to battle 52 filibusters, things are slower than we would like to have happen. But we are not going to stop because this is not about politics. This should not be about election year strategy. This is about people every day in this country who see the American dream slipping away from them, who are worried their children will not have the same opportunities for our great American life that we have had. They are saying to us we want you to go in and fight for us and the greatness of America. We want to make sure that opportunity is there for everybody. That is what America is all about.

We are, in fact, getting results for middle-class Americans every single day, those folks who believe--and for good reason have believed for the past 6 years under this President and the former Congress--that nobody is looking out for them and the opportunities they need. We are, in fact, getting results for middle-class Americans.

We started this year--it is amazing to me to hear colleagues speak about how there is not a budget so far, when in fact they didn't even do a budget at all last year, not at all. We got to the end of the year: No budget. So we came in as a new majority and we had to go back and clean things up from the previous majority. We had to go back, figure out a way to get a budget for the current year that was already going, that had already been in place for 3 or 4 months. We, in fact, did that, and we did a number of things in that process, in putting that budget together--even though it was a continuation budget for the rest of the year, to complete the business that had not been done in the last Congress. But we also did a few things in that process. We said, even though this is a short-term continuation budget, there are too many young people struggling to go to college, so we put in a Pell increase. We said, there are too many veterans who have served us proudly, who are coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan and don't have the health care they need, so we put in some additional dollars for veterans health care into that budget.

We passed that continuation budget and then we went to work on the budget that, in fact, we are responsible for. After having done the work of our Republican colleagues, we put in place the budget we are now working on for this coming year. We did several things. We said: First of all, we know in the last 6 years we have seen record deficits mount. In 2001, when President Bush came into office, when I first became a member of the Budget Committee, we saw the largest budget surpluses in the history of the country. That was squandered and turned into the largest deficits, which affect Social Security, which jeopardize Medicare and puts incredible pressure on critical safety net issues and programs for Americans, for families, and for seniors. So we said we are going to stop the digging. We know there is a hole that has been created. We are going to stop the digging and start taking us out of that hole by being fiscally responsible.

We put back in place something that was in place during President Clinton's years, which was to pay for spending. What a novel idea. That is something I try to teach my children, something we all should live by: Pay as you go; if you add something, you need to subtract something else to pay for it. So we said fiscal responsibility is important, and within that we put together a budget resolution that targeted those things middle-class Americans want to have us place as priorities: Education, No. 1; keeping our promise to our veterans, the second top priority; and children's health care, for moms and dads who are working hard every single day and could stay home and not work and qualify for Medicaid, but they choose to work.

We value work. We as a party, we as a majority, value work and want to support work. Families working hard for minimum wage in low-wage jobs, who cannot afford insurance, who don't have it on the job, ought to at least know their children can get the health insurance they need.

That is what we have been debating. That was a third priority for us, children's health care.

Then we said we are going to go back and we are going to restore the cuts in police officers on the streets. Our families, our communities want to know that their children are safe, that their homes are safe, that they are safe. We restored the COPS--police officers and firefighters, those things that are fundamental in America--safety.

We put together this budget resolution, and we are now in the process, despite filibuster after filibuster, to put the actual budget in place, the appropriations for next year.

But we have also done other things, despite 52 filibusters. We have raised the minimum wage which has not been raised for close to 10 years. Those same families--who appreciate and need to know their children can get health insurance--have not had a raise in the minimum wage for about 10 years, so we raised the minimum wage.

We then took a look at what we need to do in education and not only meeting the obligations and the promises of the laws put in place under Leave No Child Behind and the standards, but we said part of the American dream, a very important part, is being able to go to college.

So we have passed, on a bipartisan basis, and the President signed it, and we are very grateful for that--we have passed the largest increase in aid for students going to college since the GI bill, the largest financial aid since the GI bill.

We gave the second Pell grant increase this year--the second. We have done it twice now this year, to bring back the value of the Pell grant for low-income students. We have cut in half the rates for subsidized loans. We do not believe young people or older people who are going to school and getting the skills they need to compete in a global economy and make America stronger should be able--we do not believe they should come out with this huge debt that takes years and years and years to pay back.

We want to help them, both on interest rates, and we made a number of changes that make that loan process more manageable. We have targeted teachers and are encouraging teachers teaching students with high achievement to receive extra support for going into math and science and other areas that are needed in certain parts of our communities.

We have also put a loan forgiveness program in place. Bottom line, we have passed, and we, in fact, have said, education is important, and we have now done it, the largest increase in student financial aid since the GI bill.

We also did something else on a bipartisan basis. We passed the America COMPETES Act, a major focus in investment. By the way, fully paid for, all of those things are fully paid for. A major investment in math and science and technology, both in terms of education and in terms of research--this was, again, bipartisan and something that we were proud to place as a priority for this Senate. So education is at the top of the list.

We have passed cuts in taxes for small businesses as part of an effort to spur--we know the economy, the majority of the jobs, are created by small businesses. We want to support our small businesses and farmers as well as larger businesses. We have done that through various tax cuts. We have passed changes in the FDA to improve safety. We have passed a mental health parity bill to say mental health services should be available just as physical health services are available, through the health care system. If you have insurance, both should be available.

We have reauthorized Head Start because we know education is not just about college, it is about children and whether they are prepared to start at the beginning of education. We have focused on Head Start.

We know it is incredibly important that we keep us safe both at home and abroad. I am very proud of the fact that after years of trying, under the previous Congress, Democrats have been able to lead the effort to pass the 9/11 Commission recommendations. One

area of major focus for me has been on making sure the radios work, making sure that police and fire and homeland security and the State departments can all communicate. We have addressed that and passed funding efforts to be able to focus on that.

In addition, we have, as I mentioned earlier, focused on our veterans. It is shameful that we have not seen the resources put forth to support our veterans as they have been coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as our older veterans from other wars.

We, as Democrats, have made that a top priority. I am very proud of that. I know in meeting with veterans organizations that they have worked closely with us. And for the first time--for the first time-- those veterans organizations have been listened to and have been a part of the process. We are funding the needed services in health care, rehabilitation, other areas, at the level that our veterans organizations have indicated we should be funding them.

So we have veterans as a top priority. We are seeing changes. We have also addressed what happened at Walter Reed through the Wounded Warrior Act. I am so proud that my colleague, the senior Senator from Michigan, has led that effort to be able to focus on wounded warriors and those who get caught between the military system and the VA system.

I will just mention a couple of other things because I could go on for a long time. There is a lot we have been getting done. Despite 52 filibusters and counting, there is a lot that we have been getting done, from ethics and lobbying reform, to help with the gulf coast revitalization, folks down in New Orleans and Mississippi, those areas that have been so devastated; reinvestment in our bridges and infrastructure; and our continuing effort to fight to change the direction in Iraq and to focus on counterterrorism and those things that will keep us safe.

We have held the President accountable. The Attorney General position has changed because the political efforts going on in the Attorney General's Office were brought forward and publicized. The light of day was shone. In fact, the Attorney General was forced to step down because of the questions and bringing to light what was happening in that department.

So there is a whole range of areas of accountability where tough questions have been asked about war profiteering, about other areas where we need to change the priorities of this Government to reflect what Americans are concerned about.

People work too hard for their money. They want to know that public services work. They want to know that we are fiscally responsible. They want to know that we are focused on the things that directly affect them and their families. We have a great country. I am very proud to be part of a majority that understands what is happening in this country today; that we are in a fight for our way of life in a global economy.

We want this to be a race up, through education, innovation, fair trade laws, changing the way we fund health care, supporting our businesses that want to stay in the United States and do business here and employ here. We do not want a race to the bottom, a strategy that has been used by this President and the former Congress, saying: If you only work for less, we can be competitive. If you only lose your health care and lose your pension, we can be competitive. We do not care about safety standards. We let lead toys in or we let toothpaste in or dog food in because we are not worried about our trade laws. Somehow we can be competitive if we lose our standard of living.

We do not buy that. This caucus does not buy that. This Democratic Senate and House is fighting for our American way of life. We have placed the priorities of the middle-class Americans at the top of the list. They have had to wait too long for that to happen. And despite over and over again, filibuster after filibuster after filibuster to slow things down, with the determination, the tenacity of our Senate majority leader, and the support of our Members, we are getting results. We are getting results every day for middle-class Americans.

We will not lose our focus. I do not care if there are another 50 filibusters or if there are another 100 filibusters, we are going to keep focused on those things that have created the American dream, that have created the greatest country in the world.

We are going to make sure middle-class Americans know we are here fighting for those things they care about for their families.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Community Health Center Capital Investment Act. I also thank my colleague, Senator Thad Cochran of Mississippi, for joining me in sponsoring this critical legislation. Health centers in both our states are committed to serving more people, and our legislation will give them a little help to do just that.

One of our most important investments in our health-care system is

funding the Community Health Center program. According to the National Association of Community Health Centers, health centers provide comprehensive primary and preventive care to over 16 million people-- including nearly 7 million uninsured--each year in more than 6,000 urban and rural communities.

One of my initial pledges when I first ran for the Senate was to increase the number of community health centers in Michigan. Since I became a Senator, there are new 15 community health centers or access points in Michigan. I am also so pleased to have had the support of so many of my colleagues in increasing funding for community health center grants. This year, 64 Senators signed the Stabenow-Bond funding request, and we were pleased that the Senate Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations bill will provide an additional $250 million increase for community health centers. This increased funding will help reach nearly 2 million people next year.

But even as we provide assistance to community health centers for operations, we cannot forget their capital needs such as renovating older buildings, purchasing new equipment, and investing in health information technology. But in general, without specific authorization in Federal law, health centers cannot use current grant dollars for construction, modernization, or expansion of facilities.

According to NACHC, one out of three health centers currently operates in buildings that are 30 years old or older. The average cost of a facility project is estimated to be $2.3 million. Many centers borrow funds for these purposes at rates that could be, and should be, lower.

Kim Sibilsky, the executive director of the Michigan Primary Care Association, wrote me: ``The majority of Michigan's 34 community Health Center organizations were founded in the middle and late 1970s, and many of their 160 community-based sites are located in facilities that require renovation to meet the changing health care needs of their communities. More readily available renovation dollars will assist Michigan Health Centers in improving access to quality health care for Michigan residents.''

One simple solution would be granting access for community health centers to use the facility assistance programs at the Department of Housing and Urban Development. If health centers were able to access HUD's loan guarantee and mortgage insurance program through the Title XI Small Medical Group Facilities Program, they would have an important tool with which to address facility concerns.

The legislation we are introducing today is a small clarification to the Title XI Program to ensure that health centers can obtain mortgage insurance under the program. But this small change will have a huge reward for our safety-net providers. It will allow them to lower the interest rate on the money they borrow, and therefore lower the cost of the project for the center. This savings will be translated directly to increased patient care.

I ask unanimous consent that the letter of support be printed in the Record.