Debbie Stabenow

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Thank you.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today in recognition of Michigan's own Alex ``Izy'' Izykowski and to pay tribute to his recent accomplishment in winning a bronze medal in the 5,000-meter short track relay at the 2006 Winter Olympics in Turin, Italy. I join my colleagues and everyone across the great State of Michigan in honoring Izy's outstanding representation of his team, his State, and his country. Izy's medal winning performance on behalf of Team USA was the culminating achievement of an athlete's career that has embodied the finest in both the American spirit and the Olympic ideal. From his earliest days as a member of the Bay County Speedskating Club, Izy's career has stood as an example of excellence. His hard work, dedication, and focus have resulted in success at every level of his sport, leading to Izy's stellar performance last week in the pinnacle of athletic contests, the Olympic Games. It is not just Izy's success on the speedskating track, though, that I stand to pay tribute to today. Izy's journey to the Olympic medal podium has been one that makes us all proud. The manner in which this fine young man has conducted himself should stand as an example to all of us and as a tribute to the support and love of his family. The Izykowski family, and the extended family of Bay City, should take special pride in knowing that they played an essential role in molding a young man who truly embodies the Olympic creed: ``The most important thing in the Olympic Games is not to win but to take part, just as the most important thing in life is not the triumph, but the struggle.'' I rise today in honor of Alex Izykowski's bronze medal winning performance at the 2006 Winter Olympics. Success in a sport as physically and mentally demanding as short track speedskating requires years of dedicated and regimented training focused into intense bursts of incredible effort. The personal sacrifice, self discipline, and competitive spirit required to earn an Olympic Medal are attributes to which we should all aspire and Izy clearly embodies all of these qualities. It is because of young men and women like Izy that I remain confident in the continued success of our great State and Nation. I honor Izy for representing the values that are so essential to our Michigan way of life on the world stage.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Lower PRICED Drugs Act. I want to thank Senator Trent Lott for joining me on this important legislation, and for his leadership in increasing the availability of affordable generic drugs. I am very pleased that our legislation is supported by AARP, General Motors Corporation, AFL-CIO, Alliance for Retired Americans, Families USA, the Generic Pharmaceutical Association, the Pharmaceutical Care Management Association, PCMA, the National Association of Chain Drug Stores, and the Coalition for a Competitive Pharmaceutical Marketplace--an organization including large national employers and insurers. We know that greater availability of generic drugs translates into dramatic savings for consumers, manufacturers, businesses, and taxpayers. Of the 25 top selling drugs in 2004, the only one that did not increase in price was a drug available both in generic and over- the-counter form. And, according to the National Association of Chain Drug Stores, while the average retail price for a brand drug in 2004 was $96.01 the average retail price for a generic was $28.74, a savings of nearly 70 percent. It's a very well known principle of economics: competition lowers prices. But we don't need to rely on economic theory; we only have to look at what is happening with drug prices. Of the top five brand name drugs, by retail sales, the average price for 1 month's use of the cheapest among them is just over $76, and the 3rd most popular drug--zocor--is more than $140 per month. That's $1,680 per year for an important drug to lower cholesterol levels. The average price of the most popular five drugs--none of which faces generic competition--is over $114. There is nothing to hold down the prices of these drugs, and in fact, even though many of them have been on the market for years and years, their prices continue to increase. I first checked the prices of these drugs last November, and then again on Monday of this week. The prices this week are higher, by several dollars in many cases, than they were last year. However, consider the prices consumers pay for drugs for which there are generic equivalents. The most frequently dispensed generic drugs are hydrocodone, lisinopril, atenolol, amoxicillin and hydrocholorothiazide. Not only are these important drugs, used to treat pain, high blood pressure, and bacterial infections, considerably more affordable than their brand name equivalents, the average generic price is $9.34, representing a savings of more than 60 percent from the average brand price of $24.74, but the presence of competition has another important effect: The average price of these brand name drugs is a lot lower than the average price of brand drugs that don't face competition. While the generic provisions in the Medicare Modernization Act, MMA, made important progress, there still isn't timely competition in the pharmaceutical market. New loopholes have been found to keep generics off the market, and keep prices higher than they need to be. In fact, in 2004, a year after AMA passed, brand name prescription drug prices rose by 7.1 percent, the biggest single-year price hike in 5 years. Our bill would close several loopholes that prevent and delay generics from coming to market. It will increase access to affordable generic drugs and save consumers, businesses and Federal health programs billions of dollars annually. The Lower PRICED Drugs Act would prevent abuse of the current pediatric exclusivity provision. It would ensure that pediatric exclusivity is used as intended, to generate information about the use of drugs in children, and prevent brand drug companies from keeping more affordable generic alternatives of drugs not suitable for children, or never studied in children, off the market. For example, Pravigard PAC contains two widely used medications: pravastatin, used to lower cholesterol, and aspirin. Despite the fact that aspirin isn't safe in children, the manufacturer received a six- month pediatric extension. What sense does that make? The manufacturer of Pravigard PAC even includes the following warning in the patient information they put out: Who should not (manufacturer's emphasis) take PRAVIGARD

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I came to the Senate back in 2001 focused in part on lowering the cost of prescription drugs and the importance of making sure every American senior, every person with disabilities on Medicare, had the opportunity to receive their medicine through the Medicare system, which has been so very successful. We had a lot of work, a lot of effort go back and forth on the Medicare bill as time went on, related to Medicare Part B, and it changed from being about our seniors to being about what was best for those in the industry, particularly the pharmaceutical industry. We began to see a bill that was written, in fact, for the industry rather than for our seniors. I stand here this evening calling on my colleagues to join with us on this side of the aisle to fix this, to get it right for people. We have a Medicare prescription drug plan that has been adopted that costs twice as much for the American taxpayer as it should, much more for most seniors than it should, and provides less in options and less in medicines than it should. It makes no sense to continue with something which is so confusing, with the cost gaps, which does not allow our poorest seniors to get the medicines they need or, if they do, they are paying more than they did last year. It makes no sense. We stand here getting ready to go on a recess next week without having fixed the basics of what is wrong with this program. We know that at the beginning of January, our poorest seniors on Medicaid were switched over to the Medicare Program. But too much of the time the computers didn't work, the pharmacists did not have records in the system, and seniors didn't know what plans they were in. They were arbitrarily put into a plan that may not cover their medicines today or costs much more than it should. We saw the administration indicate that while this was being fixed, the pharmacists should go ahead and give people their medicines for the first 30 days. In many cases, States have stepped in to try to continue to help our seniors to get the life- saving medicine they desperately need while all of this gets figured out. At the end of 30 days, it wasn't figured out. That was the end of January. Here we are now on February 15, and we are into a 2-month extension, a 60-day extension to try to figure out this mess for our seniors. Pharmacists are told to continue giving people their medicine. Of course, it is the right thing to do. People should not be losing their medicine. But now I am getting calls from pharmacists who are deeply concerned because they are trying to decide whether their small family- owned pharmacy, for example, will be able to continue to pay its own bills without reimbursement or they are going to have to choose whether to help the people in the community they care about, whom they were set up to serve, and want to serve and are serving. The question is, What is going to happen? Are the pharmacies going to get paid? Are the States going to get reimbursed? What happens to the seniors at the end of March? Are we going to see another 30 days or another 60 days because of a failed system that is confusing? We need to fix this, and it can be fixed. On this side of the aisle, Senator Jay Rockefeller has legislation many of us cosponsored to make sure that States are reimbursed. We need to make sure those who are providing the medicines now will get this worked out and will be reimbursed. We also have another series of issues that need to be addressed with this system. People have until May 15, 3 months from today, to decide whether they are going to sign up to be a part of the Medicare system in terms of their prescription drugs and wade through all of this. In Michigan, there are about 65 plans. God bless them if they can get through it, or their children or friends can help them get through all of this and figure out the plan they are going to be on. But once they figure it out, they are locked into the plan after May 15 for a year. Shockingly, the people they sign up with aren't locked into the same agreement for a year. The drug companies can change what is covered. They don't have to cover the plan. If my mother has worked through a plan that covers four medicines, for example, after May 15 if they decide they will only cover two, or maybe they decide not to cover any of them, that is OK under the current system. It is not OK for the American people. It is not OK for people who are counting on us to have a plan that works. What if they want to raise the price? You lock into a system, looks like a good deal, figure out the premium that works for you, figure out the copay, what is covered, after May 15 you are locked in for a year. But the plan could change the price, and it could change it every day, if they wanted to. That is outrageous, absolutely outrageous. A colleague of mine, Senator Bill Nelson, introduced a bill I am cosponsoring with others to extend that May 15 date to the end of the year to at least give people a year to figure out what is going on. But in addition to that, we need to say once somebody is locked into a plan, everybody is locked in. You can't say I am obligated or my mother is obligated to pay a monthly premium and a copay on a plan they sign up for but the other side can change the contract, change the price, and no longer cover the medicine. That is outrageous. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. I have an example of a gentleman with MS who called my office a couple of weeks ago. He worked through all of the plans and made a determination on a plan that would cost him $50 a month for his medicine. He got ready to go to the pharmacy and thought he would call to make sure the price he had was right. He called and found out that, no, that has been changed now. It is over $500. He is fortunate because he could and did drop that plan because it is not May 15. If that were after May 15, this gentleman with MS would be locked into a plan costing him over $500 for something he thought he was getting for $50. Who in their right mind would say that is OK? We can do better than that. We have to do better for our seniors and for the people with disabilities. To add insult to injury, we have a situation where negotiating for group prices is actually prohibited in this new Medicare bill. How does that make any sense at all? You are talking about over 31 million people on Medicare. That would be a pretty good group discount if they were negotiating together for a group discount. But that is prohibited. So we are locking in the highest possible prices. The taxpayers are paying more, the seniors are paying more, and people with disabilities are paying more because they are not allowed to do group pricing. The VA, on behalf of veterans, doesn't pay top dollar. They get about a 40-percent discount. That makes sense. There is no reason why that should not be happening here with a plan that in fact is written for seniors and the disabled. What happened? What happened when people didn't get the choices they wanted, which is the one I am advocating for, which is a real benefit to Medicare--sign up, go to your pharmacy, know what your prices are, like Medicare. What happened? Why didn't that plan get enacted instead of this privatized approach forcing people to go through private insurance companies or HMOs to get the help they need? How did that happen? How did it happen that Medicare is stopped from negotiating the best deal? How did that happen? How did it happen that seniors have to sign up for a plan and be locked in for a year, but the people on the other side providing the benefit, getting the premium and the copay, don't have to have prices that are locked in for a year or the range of medicines they will cover locked in for a year? When you look at what happened, unfortunately, this is the legislative process at its worst. Unfortunately, for somebody who came here wanting desperately to make sure that we are providing low-cost medicine for everybody through various means but certainly for our seniors, this was an extremely disturbing process that occurred that resulted in this new law. The reality is while we were negotiating on the Senate floor, the head of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid was at the same time negotiating himself a job with a pharmaceutical industry. We now know that at least 10 people from the administration working in Medicare and Medicaid have now gone out to work with the industry. We also know that in the House, one of the committee chairs, at the same time he was negotiating this bill, was negotiating a salary for himself of $2.5 million to go to work for PhRMA, which is a lobbying arm for the brandname pharmaceutical industry. That is outrageous. When we talk about reform, when we talk about what needs to be done here, we need to start with that. That is the kind of thing that, in fact, we address in our honest government bill that has been passed and submitted by the Democrats in the Senate. We need to deal with that. But the reality is we have a bill that was written for the interests of people in the industry, not for seniors and the disabled in this country, and not for the taxpayers either. When you lock in the biggest prices possible, you are not looking out for taxpayers' interests any more than looking out for the interests of seniors or the disabled. This needs to be fixed. There needs to be a sense of urgency about this. I know at home there is an outrage about this. This needs to be fixed. There are those potentially who can be helped by this bill. I hope everybody who can receive assistance under this new benefit will be able to wade through the bureaucracy and figure out or have somebody help them get some help for themselves. Every day, there is a sense of urgency for people, but we have to fix this overall. In my book, we need to start over and get this right and decide we are going to worry about the person right now, at almost 7 o'clock tonight, on a Wednesday night, who has probably had dinner already and is sitting down maybe deciding what medicine they take tonight--or do I have my pills for tomorrow? Do I cut them in half so they will last longer? Maybe I can take them every other day. Maybe I am a wife whose husband takes the same blood pressure medicine and can share, even though it is dangerous for your health to do that. This is the United States of America. We can do better than that. We can do better than a Medicare bill that costs too much and provides too little and does not put Americans first. We can do better than that. My colleagues on this side of the aisle stand ready and are going to speak out every single day to create a sense of urgency about getting this done. We need to work together. Things only happen when we work together on a bipartisan basis. We need to do that. But we cannot let another month or two go by without having fixed the things that are right in front of us. We can't let time go by and not have dealt with the issues that lock people into a system that can raise their prices and take away their medicine while they have to continue to pay. That is outrageous. There is a better way to do this through Medicare. That is the way it should have been done from the very beginning. There is absolutely no reason we can't go back and get this right. I hope everyone who cares about this issue will be speaking out, will do everything they can to raise this issue and call on us to act and get this right. This is not the finest hour of this Congress or this administration. We can do much better than what has been done. I am going to continue to do everything in my power to both fix this in the short run for people and then make sure we have a real prescription drug benefit for people as we go forward. Medicine isn't a frill. This is about life and death for too many people. We need to go back and get this right. I am hopeful that, working together, we will. Thank you, Mr. President. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``HEART for Women Act of 2006.'' I want to thank Senator Lisa Murkowski for joining me on this important legislation. I am also pleased that Congresswomen Lois Capps and Barbara Cubin are introducing companion legislation in the House of Representatives. We face an alarming situation in this country. While over the last 25 years we have made good progress in reducing the death rate for men with heart disease, stroke, and other cardiovascular diseases, the same does not hold true for women. Not only have we not lowered the cardiovascular disease mortality rate for women--the death rate has actually gone up for women during that same period. A lot of people think of heart disease as a ``man's disease.'' But while heart disease is certainly a significant problem for men, it is an equally important problem for women. Fact: Heart disease and stroke actually kill more women each year than men. Fact: Heart disease, stroke, and other cardiovascular diseases are the number 1 killer in the United States and in my home State of Michigan. In Michigan, 43 percent of all deaths in women are due to cardiovascular disease. Fact: 1 in 3 adult women has some form of cardiovascular disease. Fact: Minority women, particularly African American, Hispanic and Native American women are at even greater risk from heart disease and stroke. The first step in addressing any problem is acknowledging it--that's why efforts to educate women about their risk of heart disease are so important. The good news is that we have made progress in educating women: nearly half of women can now identify heart disease as the leading cause of death in women. The bad news is that while women are now more aware of their risk of heart disease many of their doctors are not. Astoundingly, 4 out of 5 doctors do not know that more women die of heart disease each year than men. Those numbers are alarming because doctors decide how aggressively to treat their patients based on the amount of risk they perceive for that patient. I suspect we all know women who have been to their doctors or to emergency rooms exhibiting symptoms of a heart attack, only to be told they were suffering from ``stress'' or indigestion. As a result, women don't get the same care that men do. Even though women make up 53 percent of all deaths from cardiovascular disease, they receive only 33 percent of coronary interventions such as angioplasties and stints. Likewise, 61 percent of total stroke deaths are in women, but only 38 percent of the procedures to prevent stroke are performed on women. And when women do receive treatment, it is often based on research that was solely done on men. For too many years, everyone has just assumed that treatments that are effective for men work equally well in women. But now we know that gender really does make a difference. Diagnostic tests, prescription drugs, and medical devices may work differently in women than in men. When there is a difference, patients and their healthcare providers need and deserve to know this. And right now, all too often that kind of information simply isn't available to clinicians and researchers. That is why Senator Murkowski and I are introducing the ``HEART for Women Act'' to help to turn this problem around. This legislation takes a 3-pronged approach to reducing the heart disease death rate for women. First, the bill would authorize grants to educate doctors on how to prevent, diagnose and treat heart disease and strokes in women. Doctors and other healthcare providers first and foremost need to know that heart disease is a major problem in women, so that they treat it accordingly. The bill would also require that health information that is already being reported to the federal government be gender-specific, and would require annual recommendations to Congress for improving the treatment of heart disease in women. Doctors need to know what medical treatments are safe and effective for their women patients. Finally, the bill would also expand a current program run by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC called WISEWOMAN, Well- Integrated Screening and Evaluation for Women Across the Nation. The WISEWOMAN program provides free heart disease and stroke screening to low-income, uninsured women. While Michigan is fortunate to be one of the 14 States that has a WISEWOMAN program, every State should have this important program. These are simple, cost-effective, but meaningful steps that Congress can take that will help get the death rate for women from heart disease and stroke going in the right direction--down. Today is Valentine's Day, a day for showing our loved ones how much we love and appreciation them. As women, we tend to be really great at taking care of everyone around us--our children, our husbands, our aging parents. Unfortunately, we're not nearly so good about taking care of ourselves. So I hope that this Valentine's Day will also be a day to raise awareness about the risks of heart disease for women and to encourage our loved ones--our mothers, sisters, and friends--to take good care of themselves. I urge my colleagues to join me in passing this critical legislation.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``HEART for Women Act of 2006.'' I want to thank Senator Lisa Murkowski for joining me on this important legislation. I am also pleased that Congresswomen Lois Capps and Barbara Cubin are introducing companion legislation in the House of Representatives. We face an alarming situation in this country. While over the last 25 years we have made good progress in reducing the death rate for men with heart disease, stroke, and other cardiovascular diseases, the same does not hold true for women. Not only have we not lowered the cardiovascular disease mortality rate for women--the death rate has actually gone up for women during that same period. A lot of people think of heart disease as a ``man's disease.'' But while heart disease is certainly a significant problem for men, it is an equally important problem for women. Fact: Heart disease and stroke actually kill more women each year than men. Fact: Heart disease, stroke, and other cardiovascular diseases are the number 1 killer in the United States and in my home State of Michigan. In Michigan, 43 percent of all deaths in women are due to cardiovascular disease. Fact: 1 in 3 adult women has some form of cardiovascular disease. Fact: Minority women, particularly African American, Hispanic and Native American women are at even greater risk from heart disease and stroke. The first step in addressing any problem is acknowledging it--that's why efforts to educate women about their risk of heart disease are so important. The good news is that we have made progress in educating women: nearly half of women can now identify heart disease as the leading cause of death in women. The bad news is that while women are now more aware of their risk of heart disease many of their doctors are not. Astoundingly, 4 out of 5 doctors do not know that more women die of heart disease each year than men. Those numbers are alarming because doctors decide how aggressively to treat their patients based on the amount of risk they perceive for that patient. I suspect we all know women who have been to their doctors or to emergency rooms exhibiting symptoms of a heart attack, only to be told they were suffering from ``stress'' or indigestion. As a result, women don't get the same care that men do. Even though women make up 53 percent of all deaths from cardiovascular disease, they receive only 33 percent of coronary interventions such as angioplasties and stints. Likewise, 61 percent of total stroke deaths are in women, but only 38 percent of the procedures to prevent stroke are performed on women. And when women do receive treatment, it is often based on research that was solely done on men. For too many years, everyone has just assumed that treatments that are effective for men work equally well in women. But now we know that gender really does make a difference. Diagnostic tests, prescription drugs, and medical devices may work differently in women than in men. When there is a difference, patients and their healthcare providers need and deserve to know this. And right now, all too often that kind of information simply isn't available to clinicians and researchers. That is why Senator Murkowski and I are introducing the ``HEART for Women Act'' to help to turn this problem around. This legislation takes a 3-pronged approach to reducing the heart disease death rate for women. First, the bill would authorize grants to educate doctors on how to prevent, diagnose and treat heart disease and strokes in women. Doctors and other healthcare providers first and foremost need to know that heart disease is a major problem in women, so that they treat it accordingly. The bill would also require that health information that is already being reported to the federal government be gender-specific, and would require annual recommendations to Congress for improving the treatment of heart disease in women. Doctors need to know what medical treatments are safe and effective for their women patients. Finally, the bill would also expand a current program run by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC called WISEWOMAN, Well- Integrated Screening and Evaluation for Women Across the Nation. The WISEWOMAN program provides free heart disease and stroke screening to low-income, uninsured women. While Michigan is fortunate to be one of the 14 States that has a WISEWOMAN program, every State should have this important program. These are simple, cost-effective, but meaningful steps that Congress can take that will help get the death rate for women from heart disease and stroke going in the right direction--down. Today is Valentine's Day, a day for showing our loved ones how much we love and appreciation them. As women, we tend to be really great at taking care of everyone around us--our children, our husbands, our aging parents. Unfortunately, we're not nearly so good about taking care of ourselves. So I hope that this Valentine's Day will also be a day to raise awareness about the risks of heart disease for women and to encourage our loved ones--our mothers, sisters, and friends--to take good care of themselves. I urge my colleagues to join me in passing this critical legislation.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise this evening to introduce a motion to instruct conferees to extend the R&D tax credit permanently and offset costs related to that by striking capital gains and dividends provisions of the House bill in the conference committee. I realize my colleague from Utah has introduced something similar to extend the R&D tax credit permanently, which I support, but I believe the most responsible approach is to provide as much of an offset as possible so we are not extending the national debt which is already the largest in our Nation's history. This is a very difficult time for Michigan families. Michigan lost 11,000 manufacturing jobs since 2000. Last week, GM announced more bad news. Plant closings and job losses are becoming a common headline in our newspaper. There needs to be a sense of urgency in Washington about helping to protect and maintain these good-paying jobs and the way of life these jobs have offered for Americans. Our middle-class way of life is truly at risk. We are still not seeing any action from this administration. I was so disappointed to see the President did not mention the word ``manufacturing,'' in his State of the Union Address, despite all that is happening and all that needs to be done on behalf of Michigan families, Michigan businesses, and those across the country that are affected. People in my State are worried about their jobs, they are worried about the fact that they might lose their pension that they worked for, for 30 years. Who would have thought, in the United States of America, people would have to worry about paying into a pension system and possibly not having that when they retire? That is immoral. They see their health care premiums continuing to skyrocket every year, they are struggling to fill their gas tank and pay their home heating bill and are feeling squeezed on all sides. We need to take that seriously because there are things we can do to help turn that around. What does the House bill dealing with taxes propose to do to help middle-class families? Absolutely nothing. Instead, it gives more tax cuts to the wealthiest few. We can do better. We must do better for the people we represent. Hard-working families should be able to have a good-paying job, send their kids to college, retire with dignity, including health care and a pension and Social Security. We need to lower health care costs which are hurting American manufacturers and promote new health IT technologies that can save billions in health care costs. I was pleased to see the President mention that in the State of the Union. Senator Snowe and I have legislation, working with colleagues on both sides of the aisle. We can get this done and save hundreds of billions of dollars that can go back into lowering health care costs and paying for access to health care for our families. We need to protect people's pensions and uphold the fundamental principle that if you work hard and pay into a retirement fund, you get every cent you have earned and you deserve. We must also investigate and enforce our trade laws. Countries such as China and Japan should be required to play by the rules, stop manipulating their currency. This is what we should be voting on now. How to save and strengthen our middle class, our way of life. One answer that would be extremely positive would be to make the R&D tax credit permanent, to help continue to spur innovation into the future. As we all know, the way to profitability for struggling manufacturers is through innovation and education. The House bill only budgets a 1-year extension of the R&D tax credit, leaving businesses to worry about whether longer term projects will be terminated. A 1-year extension undermines our commitment to innovation and economic prosperity. Instead, the House bill provides $50 billion in tax breaks for the wealthy few who do not have to worry about losing their jobs or pensions tomorrow or struggling to pay their bills. We need to be investing in our manufacturers and our workers to prepare for the future by planting seeds for the next innovative idea. I am very proud that in Michigan we have been the heart of so much innovation. We create ideas. We build great products, not just automobiles but furniture and all kinds of products. And we are on the cutting edge today of new innovations. But it is time to reinvest in what has led our country to economic prosperity and to support these on-going efforts. We have the best colleges and the brightest minds in the world. We know American workers can compete with any workers from any country if we make it a priority to invest in education and innovation--and, by the way, if we enforce our trade laws so other countries are not cheating--and change the way we fund health care. That is the prescription for success, for maintaining our way of life as Americans. Countries such as Japan and China have been doubling and tripling their investments in R&D over the last decade. Japan, which has always invested in R&D, increased their funding by 25 percent. Korea has doubled their R&D. China has tripled their R&D. In China, engineering professors and graduate students even receive bonuses every time they are published in an international journal. Our Federal Government must be a strong partner with American manufacturers, American businesses, and American workers, and support innovation in this country for the next generation of workers. My home State of Michigan invests over $20 billion in R&D expenditures--the second highest of any State, according to the National Science Foundation. Although Federal investments in R&D only contribute 17 percent of total investments, these Federal funds are used to attract even more research dollars from businesses. It is a great investment for us. It makes perfect sense for us in the Federal Government to help spur this innovation by being partners with the private sector. In total, about $25 billion is provided by the Federal Government and over $200 billion by businesses. This partnership in innovation is at the center of American companies competing in the global marketplace. Everyone knows that to stay ahead, we need to invest in the future. That means education. That means innovation. I might say, it does not mean accepting the cuts the President has proposed--the largest cuts in the 26-year history of the Department of Education--over $2 billion in cuts proposed in this budget. That certainly is going in the wrong direction. But permanently extending the R&D tax credit goes in the right direction, and helping to pay for that also goes in the right direction of fiscal responsibility. As I indicated before, the distinguished Senator from Utah, Mr. Hatch, has offered a motion to instruct on a permanent extension of the R&D tax credit without an offset--in other words, without paying for that. I would suggest there is a more fiscally responsible approach and that we are not providing a long-term incentive for investment by just extending the credit for a year at a time or by not paying for it. I believe we need to have a permanent extension of the R&D tax credit, but we need to do that in a way which is fiscally responsible. This debate this evening is really about our values and about our priorities and who will benefit from the tax bill. Are we going to give another $50 billion in tax cuts to those who are most blessed and extend the capital gains tax cut which is not even going to expire for 2 years or are we going to help people who are trying to create jobs and working men and women right now, manufacturers who right now need some support as they move into the future to compete internationally and businesses that right now need our support, by extending the R&D tax credit so they have the partnership they need, the support they need for those new ideas which will allow them to compete on into the future? This is about what is happening to families right now. In Michigan, people are asking the President and asking us to look at what is happening to families at this moment and to take action now. Let's stop China and Japan from cheating by stealing our patents or by counterfeiting--counterfeit autoparts, for example, is a $12 billion industry which has cost over 200,000 jobs in this country--or by manipulating their currency. Let's force them to play by the rules and have a level playing field, but turn around and look at what they are doing on R&D and education. While they are cheating and stealing our ideas, they are educating more engineers and more scientists and those who will be competing with our workers. We need to turn that around, make them play by the rules, change the way we fund health care in our country, protect our pensions, and then aggressively invest in education and innovation. To see the kind of bold, aggressive investment we need means we need to extend the R&D tax credit. We need to send a strong message to businesses around this country that this is a permanent tax credit, the R&D tax credit. We also need to send a message that we are going to choose, when choices have to be made, between those who need the support right now to keep jobs here in America and those who down the road may be interested in having an additional tax cut on top of those they have already received. I believe it is about the future of our country, which approach will create opportunity, which approach will create jobs for the future. My vote is with our manufacturers who are deciding, maybe at this very moment, whether to lay off more people in Michigan or around the country, who need this tax credit to invest in the future of their companies. That is my priority, not a few, most blessed in this country who have a capital gains tax cut in place until 2008--it does not even expire until 2008--those who are not worried today about whether that pension is going to be there or whether they can pay their heating bill or whether they can send their kids to college or whether they are going to have a job tomorrow. They have a tax cut in place which does not even stop until 2008. We can do better than the bill that was certainly passed by the House of Representatives. I hope the conference committee will do better. I urge support for my motion to instruct, with a clear message. This is about bold innovation for the future, permanently extending the R&D tax credit. It is about fiscal responsibility. And it is about making the right choices and values that say we are going to focus on those today, we are going to pay for this by focusing on those right now, those businesses right now which need our help, and make those families a priority for us. It is about our way of life in this country. It is a fight we can win if we are serious about it. And I believe innovation is an important part of our future. I urge the support of my colleagues for this motion to instruct.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I thank our leader on the Committee on Finance, Mr. Baucus, for his leadership on so many different issues. I send a motion to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, today I wish to speak about a resolution to congratulate the American Dental Association for establishing the ``Give Kids a Smile'' Program. I am pleased to be joined by my colleagues, Senators Coleman, Cochran, and Feingold in recognizing this annual event. This Friday is the fourth ``Give Kids a Smile'' day, which emphasizes the need to improve dental care access for children. Tooth decay is the most common chronic childhood disease and can be the cause of poor eating and sleeping patterns, decreased attention spans at school, and sadly, children not being able to smile. Children who are eligible for Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program are three to five times more likely than other children to have untreated tooth decay. I also want to thank the members of the American Dental Association for participating in this program. I am especially proud of all of the dentists in Michigan who took the time to make the annual ``Give Kids a Smile'' day such a great success. Last year, more than 330 dentists in Michigan volunteered their valuable services for ``Give Kids a Smile'' events across the State. These dentists, along with more than 1,000 staff members and volunteers, provided dental treatment and oral health information to more than 17,430 needy children.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, after speaking in support of the Boxer amendment, which I think is extremely important, I wanted to take a moment in the middle of this very important debate, a very important bill, and rise to speak to another important event that is occurring this weekend. I rise today to cheer not for the Pittsburgh Steelers or the Seattle Seahawks but for the city of Detroit and the State of Michigan, which is the host of the Super Bowl XL this weekend. We are very excited about this important event. It is a spotlight shining on Detroit, MI, and I am confident the city and my home State are ready for their closeup this weekend. The State of Michigan and the city of Detroit are honored to play host to the most watched sporting event in our country. I am sure Detroit will shine, as it has before when it has hosted the Stanley Cup finals, the World Series, and the Major League Baseball All-Star Game, which was just held this last summer. Ford Field is a beautiful stadium which will be an ideal setting for the Seahawks and Steelers, and Cobo Hall will play host to the NFL Experience, a football ``theme park'' where children and their parents can enjoy over 50 interactive football theme games and displays. We are expecting over 100,000 visitors to downtown Detroit. I was there last week and saw that a lot of people have gotten there early to enjoy what our city offers. We are so pleased to welcome them. Not only will visitors have a chance to experience Detroit's restaurants and nightlife, but they can go to the Henry Ford Museum and see the bus on which Rosa Parks made her historic stand and visit the African-American Museum. This weekend's visitors will see all the wonderful things Detroit and the State of Michigan have to offer. I must say that we have over 10,000 volunteers who are ready and are working to make sure everyone enjoys every minute of their stay, and I thank those volunteers for their hard work in being a part of helping Detroit shine. Detroit is the home of Motown, and I am thrilled that Stevie Wonder will perform before the game and that Aretha Franklin will sing the National Anthem. On Saturday, Motown's music heritage will be on display when the Four Tops, the Miracles, the Contours, the Dramatics, the former ladies of the Supremes, Freda Payne, Brenda Holloway, Martha Reeves and the Vandellas, the Velvelettes, and Paul Hill play at the Masonic Temple. That will be an amazing event to participate in and listen to. On Friday and Saturday night, Kid Rock plays at the Joe Lewis Arena before a sold-out house, proving that Detroit is the Rock City. This weekend, Detroit will welcome home two of its native sons-- Jerome Bettis and Larry Foote, both members of the Pittsburgh Steelers. Larry Foote, a graduate of Pershing High, is at the beginning of a promising NFL career, while Jerome Bettis is near the end of a Hall of Fame career where he has displayed the character and toughness of a Detroit native. Bettis graduated from MacKenzie High in the late eighties, entered the NFL in 1993, and has since been mowing down defenses on his way to ranking fifth on the NFL's alltime rushing list. The Super Bowl will give Detroit and the State of Michigan and the region an economic boost, but it will also provide a more important opportunity for the people I represent to shine, as I know they will. I am proud of Michigan's history and excited about our future. I am sure that on Sunday night, those who have visited Detroit, those who have watched the game will be excited as well. We say welcome to all of them. I yield the floor.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise, as we are waiting for the votes as well, to join with Senator Biden and to thank him for his continued leadership. We have come to this floor on numerous occasions to speak about this issue over and over again, ever since 9/11, and we still do not have this fixed. So I am pleased to be joining with Senator Biden to offer this amendment. It is time we act. It is past time. As Senator Biden said, it should be an embarrassment to all of us, the failing grades we received from the 9/11 Commission, a bipartisan commission, whose sole focus is on giving us information about whether we are safe today and what it will take to keep us safe, what it will take in the future to make sure Americans are safe. We received, collectively--the administration, the Congress--failing grades in area after area. One of my main focuses has been on whether the radios work; it is stunning to me we are still talking about this. It is very unfortunate that after 9/11--because we did not connect all of the radios to be able to work to communicate with each other--that we saw the same kinds of failings that had firefighters and police officers running into buildings in New York instead of running out, as they should have been, because they did not know what was happening-- that the same kinds of things, then, happened in the gulf, in New Orleans. I will never forget, going down right after the hurricanes with the bipartisan leadership, sitting outside of the New Orleans Convention Center with someone from Michigan who was with the Army National Guard, someone from the Michigan Coast Guard, talking with these folks who had not slept for several days, who were down doing their part, trying to save lives, getting people off of rooftops, doing what was necessary. I asked the gentleman from the Army National Guard: ``Do you have radios?'' ``Yeah.'' I asked the individual from the Coast Guard: ``Do you have radios?'' ``Yeah, of course.'' Then I asked: ``Can you talk to each other?'' ``No.'' I asked: ``Well, how are you talking to each other?'' ``Well, when we're out in the boats, we use hand signals.'' This was, at the time, 2005 in the United States of America, and they are using hand signals to tell whether they have found somebody, whether they are OK, and so on, because the radios did not work. When are we going to get this right? People expect us to get this right. They do not understand why this has not already happened. This amendment basically puts our priorities in place by saying it does not matter what your income level is, if there is another attack, you are going to want the radios to work. It does not matter where you live in America. It does not matter if you are a CEO or if you are a person going in and punching a timeclock every day or if your kids are playing in a school yard. You expect that your Government is doing everything humanly possible to keep you safe. We have heard from the 9/11 Commission. They have overwhelmingly told us that is currently not true. So I hope and pray we take action, that we would create the priorities that Americans are asking us to create, which is by starting with security, starting with security, making sure we are putting that at the top of the list, that we are providing police officers and firefighters with what they need in dealing with ports and nuclear plants and chemical plants and all of the other issues, such as with Amtrak, making sure people are safe as they travel, as well as airlines. We can do that by setting the right priorities. And that is what this amendment does. I urge my colleagues to join us in adopting this amendment. Thank you, Mr. President.

Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I thank the distinguished Senator from West Virginia for his kindness this morning. I rise in support of Senator Baucus's amendment. At a time when middle-class families are struggling to pay their bills, the House tax bill would actually increase taxes by more than $30 billion on those families--$30 billion. This is a very difficult time for Michigan families. Every day we hear news about another plant closing or a company entering into bankruptcy. Michigan has lost 111,000 manufacturing jobs, and that doesn't include the recent announcement by Ford to cut another 30,000 jobs. Michigan families are worried about their jobs. They are also worried about losing the pension that they have worked hard for and paid into for the 30 years that they have worked. They see their health care premiums continue to skyrocket, and they are struggling to fill gas tanks and pay home heating bills. The average price of gasoline in Michigan last month was $2.35 a gallon. Now middle-class families are facing home heating bills that are as much as 35 percent more expensive than last year. And their salaries and their pay stubs don't show a 35- percent increase. If anything, they are going down in terms of income. What does the House bill propose to do to help middle-class families? Raise their taxes. This was quite stunning to me when I reviewed the bill that came over from the House of Representatives. We are talking about a bill that actually raises taxes on middle-income families. That is not acceptable. We can do better than that. Our middle-class way of life is in danger. I believe very strongly that in Michigan and places all across this country we are fighting for a way of life. Will we have the standard of living that we have had? Will we have the ability to send our kids to college and be able to buy a home and be able to dream the American dream and be successful? At every turn, we are seeing action taken here that takes our way of life and our opportunities away. Before Christmas, it was a bill that is part of this whole package, cutting over $12 billion in opportunities for people to go to college, by cutting student loans. So this is another one of those cases where people are working hard, expecting us to do the right thing and, in fact, the House bill would raise taxes on middle-income people, while lowering taxes for those who are already very blessed, earning millions of dollars a year. We need to be passing legislation that lowers health care costs, which is hurting American manufacturers. We need legislation that will protect people's pensions. This ought to be a basic premise and principle that we abide by in this country. When you work hard all your life and you pay into a pension, you should know that that will be there for you and your family. We must also enforce our trade laws and insist that countries such as China and Japan play by the rules and stop manipulating their currency and that we don't see counterfeit products coming into this country illegally, or other countries stealing our ideas and patents. That is the debate we should be having. These are actions we should be taking. I was deeply concerned the other night to hear the President talk about those of us who want to enforce trade laws, essentially saying we are protectionists if we don't stand back and say that in a global economy, whatever happens happens, that those of us who care about the rules and want trade to be fair are somehow protectionists. I profoundly disagree with that. It is our job to fight for American businesses and American workers. That is what I do every day, and I know that many colleagues feel the same way. The debate we need to be having on the floor of the Senate is how to save our middle class, save our way of life. But at a minimum, we should not be passing a tax increase on middle-class families. Michigan is the heart and soul of the middle class. There are 52,000 families in jeopardy of facing a tax increase if we do not address the alternative minimum tax. The alternative minimum tax ceiling needs to be raised, as we know. Fundamentally, while there has been agreement in this Chamber to do that, if that does not come out of conference committee between the House and the Senate, we will see 19 million families getting a tax increase as a result of actions of the Congress. For instance, a family with five children would be hit with this ceiling if their income exceeds $54,000. They would, under the current system, pay more taxes. But without children, their income could exceed $76,000 before they pay more taxes. Think about that. Why is that fair? If you have five children, five mouths to feed, five children to buy clothes for, five children whom you are worried about going to college, you are going to pay higher taxes than somebody without children. That makes no sense. That is a $20,000 difference, a $20,000 penalty for having children. That makes absolutely no sense. What is American about that? Sadly, under the current system on taxes with the AMT, the larger your family, the larger taxes you pay. To add insult to injury, the House bill extends the capital gains and dividend tax rates to provide $50 billion in tax breaks to our wealthiest Americans--$50 billion in tax breaks to our wealthy Americans--while a family with five children, earning $54,000 a year, will pay more taxes. The majority of Americans are looking at this and asking, what is going on here? Where are our priorities, our values? This is backward. Even more egregious is the fact that these tax breaks that are given under the House bill are not set to expire until 2008. So the current tax cuts being given to the wealthiest Americans don't even expire until 2008, but the current problem for middle-income families happens right away; the current tax increase happens right away. This bill is money to ensure that the wealthiest 3 percent of Americans are given tax breaks way out until 2010. Meanwhile, right now, middle- and low-income families are facing lower wages, mounting health care costs, trying to pay the gas bill, trying to pay the home heating bill, trying to send the kids to college, while we cut student loans. I did not support that. And now we are going to say, potentially, if the House bill were to become reality, by the way, you are going to pay more in taxes. This makes absolutely no sense. I commend my colleague, Senator Baucus, and I commend the chairman of the Finance Committee, as well, for working together to fix this, getting the Senate to work together to fix this. We need to fix this-- and not only in the Senate because we have agreed that is not right-- this needs to be fixed when the bill ends up going to the President's desk. That is when we will know whether 19 million American families will have a tax increase. My vote is ``no'' on that one, and it is ``yes'' on making sure we fight for that which will keep our way of life in this country. Madam President, I yield the floor, and I thank the Senator from West Virginia again for allowing me to use this time.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, each year congressional offices host American college students as interns, to help our future leaders learn about public service and see how their Government works firsthand. Today, I would like to let you know about a program that gives Australian students the opportunity to experience our democratic and legislative process. It's called the Uni-Capitol Washington Internship Program. My office is taking part in it right now, along with others in Congress. Twelve of Australia's brightest are here, pursuing knowledge and understanding. In so doing, we are all finding new reasons to like an old friend. The Uni-Capitol was born of the efforts of Eric Federing. Eric worked for more than a decade in the House and the Senate as a senior adviser. While doing this job, he lectured across Australia on American Government, politics, and news media. In an effort to forge ties across the Pacific and for the betterment of both societies, Eric put together this idea in Washington in 1999. The selection process for the students is competitive and intellectually rigorous, ensuring the highest quality applicant. All participating students are comprehensively matched with a congressional office and corresponding position. They come from a wide range of academic disciplines and bring as much knowledge and understanding to our offices as they take away. For the past 7 years, Mr. Federing's students have approached this opportunity with vim and vigor. I am pleased to have Douglas Ferguson from the University of Canberra working in my office this year. I would also like to submit into the Record the names of other Australian interns participating in this year's program: Andrew Brookes, from Melbourne University, is in Senator Christopher Dodd's office. Ryan Conroy, from Deakin University, is in Representative Sam Farr's office. Jenna Davey-Burns, from Melbourne University, is in Representative Louis Slaughter's office. Sarah Dillon, from Deakin University, is in Representative Alcee Hastings's office. Jessica Gurevich, from Melbourne University, is in Representative Mike Castle's office. Scott Ivey, from the University of Western Australia, is in Representative Loretta Sanchez's office. Saul Lazar, from Deakin University, is in Senator Chuck Hagel's office. Abbie McPhie, from Macquarie University, is in Representative Jerrold Nadler's office. Linda Nelson, from the University of Wollongong, is with the House Science Committee's majority staff. Marianna O'Gorman, from the University of Queensland, is in Delegate Eni Faleomavaega's office. Rachel Thomson, from the University of Western Australia, is with the Joint Economic Committee's minority staff. Australia continues to be one of America's strongest allies. Our greatest gift is the friendship born of shared values. I thank the Uni- Capitol Program and these Australian interns for their hard work, and I wish the program continued success.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. I thank my friend and colleague who has done such a wonderful job on this issue, the Senator from Washington. I rise to oppose this motion and to clearly state, along with my colleagues, that we all support funding our troops. We support helping those in the gulf who have been hurt and are in such difficult times. We all support the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program. We have had the opportunity to vote on these. This is a question of whether something that cannot pass following the rules gets put into a bill that we all support on behalf of our troops, and somehow we are blackmailed into passing that in order to get the funding for the troops that we all want and that we all support. I oppose this tactic. I appreciate that there are people on both sides of the aisle, well-meaning people who disagree on whether we should drill in the Alaska National Wildlife Reserve. I say no. But this is about whether we will support our troops and not allow the process to be hijacked. Let's vote no and get on about the business of funding our troops.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the PATRIOT Act reauthorization. Our Nation's Founding Fathers could never have foreseen the kinds of threats we face today from America's enemies, nor could they have imagined the technologies we use to anticipate attacks on our country and to prevent them with cell phones, computers, electronic bank reports, and other kinds of efforts. But they did foresee the threats of unchecked Government power on the civil liberties of each of us as Americans. The fourth amendment was adopted as a protection against the widespread invasions of privacy experienced by American colonists at the hands of the British Government. That is part of our history. That is why this debate is so important. That is why we are standing in this Chamber, just 11 days before the PATRIOT Act expires, to debate this reauthorization. And that is why my colleagues and I on both sides of the aisle are fighting to extend the current PATRIOT Act for 3 months while we work to get agreement on the right balance between our security and our right to privacy and due process. I want to particularly say congratulations and lend my admiration to the Senator currently occupying the Chair in this Chamber and thank him for his leadership on this issue. We have come together in a bipartisan way under his leadership and other colleagues on both sides of the aisle. I am very grateful for the Chair's leadership. We all agree that we need to protect our homeland, but we also have an obligation to protect the civil liberties that are the birthright of every American. It is important that we get the PATRIOT Act right, not just insist on getting it done right now. That is why we say extend it, don't end it. Extend it, don't end it. This is a critical debate. The terrorist threat to our country is very real, and it is vital that we provide the Government with the law enforcement tools necessary to protect our Nation, to protect our families. I am proud to have offered provisions in the PATRIOT Act to protect against money laundering. My provision, section 325, gives the Treasury Department the ability to better monitor anonymous bank accounts which can be used to move terrorist funds. This is an important provision that can be used to prevent terrorist attacks in the United States. We need to use every tool possible to fight terrorism and to protect our citizens at home. At the same time, the threat to civil liberties is also very real in America today. Last week we were alarmed to learn that under a secret order signed by the President of the United States, the Government has been monitoring the international telephone calls and e-mail messages from people inside the United States, American citizens, without court approval. This is not something that is authorized by the PATRIOT Act or by any act of Congress but, instead, is being conducted under a secret Presidential order. This debate is not about whether the Government should have the tools that it needs to protect the American people. Of course, it should. Nobody in this Chamber disagrees with that. That is why the PATRIOT Act passed overwhelmingly 4 years ago. The Senate's bipartisan reauthorization bill passed unanimously in July. It was an extraordinary effort by leaders on both sides of the aisle. I am very proud of what we did back in July in unanimously passing an improved version of the PATRIOT Act. This debate is not about whether the PATRIOT Act should suddenly expire. Of course, it should not. That is why we say, ``Extend it, don't end it.'' That is why we have offered a bipartisan bill to extend the PATRIOT Act for 3 months to give Congress time to reach a bipartisan compromise--again, authored by the Senator from New Hampshire, who is currently chairing this August body. This extension has 47 cosponsors and counting from both sides of the aisle. This debate is about balance. It is about ensuring the safety of the American people while at the same time protecting our rights and keeping the Government accountable for its actions. These are not mutually exclusive goals. Again, we need to amend the PATRIOT Act, not end it. The PATRIOT Act reauthorization conference report does make some important improvements and I want to thank Senator Specter and Senator Leahy for their hard work and leadership on this bill. The conference report contains the 4-year sunsets in the Senate bill instead of the original 10 years in the House bill. It no longer contains a provision that would have made it a crime merely to disclose the receipt of a national security letter. However, there is a lot more to be done before we should be passing this bill and sending it to the President. Under section 215 of the PATRIOT Act, known as the library provision, the Government can obtain a secret order to access personal records of Americans without probable cause of a crime. That means the Government can get copies of Americans' medical or financial records, library records, gun ownership records, purchase records. It also prohibits the keeper of this information, such as a librarian, from telling anyone that they have handed over these records to the Government. Before the PATRIOT Act, the FBI had access only to certain kinds of business records such as hotel and rental car receipts and they had to meet a higher legal standards before a court in order to obtain this information. The PATRIOT Act did away with these limitations and lowered the standard for obtaining these personal records. The Senate version of the reauthorization bill reestablished a significant check on this power, and that is very important. Under the Senate bill, relevance to an authorized investigation is not enough. The Government must also show some connection between the records they are seeking and a suspected terrorist or spy. Unfortunately, this basic protection is not in the final conference report. The Senate bill also included basic protections for the recipients of a section 215 letter to allow them to challenge the automatic permanent gag order and these protections were left out of the conference report. The conference report's treatment of national security letters, or NSLs, also needs significant improvement. NSLs are documents issued by the Federal Government that allow the Government to seize a wide variety of business and financial records without the approval of a judge, a grand jury, or a prosecutor. This has been raised as a concern by the U.S. Chamber, other business organizations and others throughout the country. Like section 215, a person who receives an NSL is under a permanent gag order without any judicial review. Last month, The Washington Post reported that the FBI issues more than 30,000 NSLs per year. That is a hundredfold increase over past practices. Lastly, the conference report weakened the critical sneak-and-peek protections that were in the Senate bill. Under section 213 of the PATRIOT Act, the Government can conduct secret searches in criminal investigations. With a section 213 warrant, investigators can enter someone's home or their office, conduct a search, take pictures, seize items, without telling the person for weeks, months, or in some cases more than a year. The Senate bill replaced this standard with a 7-day rule, permitting the Government to obtain additional 90-day extensions when necessary. The conference committee changed that. Our Founding Fathers may not have foreseen the threats we face from our enemies today, but they did foresee the threats of unchecked Government power on the civil liberties and freedoms of all Americans. Protecting Americans from unlawful search and seizure is one of the Nation's founding principles. To ignore that is to undermine our identity as Americans and our American Constitution. We owe it to the people of America to get this right, and that is why I support an extension. Unanimous Consent Request That is why I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of Senator Sununu's bill, S. 2082, extending the PATRIOT Act for 3 months; that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; that the bill be read a third time and be passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes off the time on the Democratic side, as agreed to before.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, in conclusion, we have an opportunity to reinforce the great work done back in July by the unanimous Senate. We have bipartisan agreement that this conference report does not include the balance necessary and we have come together in a bipartisan way, with every single person on our side of the aisle and great leadership on the other side of the aisle, to say: Extend the PATRIOT Act, don't end it. We know we can work together to get this right on behalf of the American people.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, in response to my colleague, I simply say we have unanimous support on this side of the aisle to extend the PATRIOT Act for 3 months while working out the areas of concern to millions of Americans. I also find it rather curious, in watching this debate with the distinguished Senator, one distinguished Senator from New Hampshire speaking to another distinguished Senator from New Hampshire, who is in the chair, who is a Republican author, with another also distinguished colleague from Idaho who is another author of the extension. This is clearly a bipartisan effort on our part to do the right thing, to create the right balance to extend, not end, the PATRIOT Act at the end of the year. The choice is in the majority as to whether to join us to extend the PATRIOT Act, not end it. I would object to bringing up the bill one more time that, in fact, has been voted on at this point. Procedurally, we have said no to this conference report. We want to extend the PATRIOT Act for 3 months, not end it, so that we can go back to the great work done unanimously by the Senate, unanimously by this body.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

Ms. STABENOW. I would object.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Now is the time--past time. There is no reason for us to be here today on this Defense bill. This could have been done. We could have made it very clear that the dollars are there--critical dollars are there--for our troops, if it were not for an effort to subvert the process and the rules of the Senate and the efforts that have gone on to put things into this Defense bill that should not be there. Now, I am one who does not support drilling in ANWR. I have never voted for that. There is no relationship, in my mind, to energy independence or national security, as we look at the small amount of reserves that are there versus the tradeoff in terms of our environment and the commitment we have made as it relates to our environment. But regardless of that, that deserves a separate debate. We have had that debate on the floor of this Senate. We have had it a number of times. People have a right to have that debate and to be able to cast their votes concerning that issue, but it should not be included in a bill to support our troops, the men and women who are serving right now around the world. They deserve better than that. We can do better than that. I would hope we could clean up this bill, get those provisions out of there that have been put in for political purposes because they have not been able to pass in other ways, and be able to strictly focus on a bill to support our men and women in the armed services. What are some of the things in this underlying bill? Well, it provides a 3.1-percent across-the-board pay raise for military personnel. I support that. I am sure my colleagues on both sides of the aisle do, as well. It provides an increase for basic housing allowance to eliminate out- of-pocket housing expenses for military personnel. It is critical. It provides $142 million for body armor and personal protection equipment. How many times have we heard concerns regarding this? This $142 million is important. It needs to get passed now. It should not be part of a political struggle that has been going on in the Senate, in the House, and with the administration. The bill would provide $12 million to provide treatment for soldiers with head and blast injuries who are returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. Again, on the equipment end, it would provide $1.4 billion for the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Task Force. It provides $170 million for up-armored HMMWVs and another $464 million for humvee recapitalization. It provides $293 million for Army night vision equipment. It provides $1 billion to address equipment shortfalls for the Guard and Reserve. I can tell you, having talked with so many of our Guard and reservists, and having been there when they have left and been there when they have come home, we owe them a budget that will address the equipment shortfalls. We also owe them efforts to support their families and the needs of their families as they have been deployed and redeployed and redeployed into Iraq and Afghanistan and around the world. We are past time to get this done. There is no reason we should see the maneuvers going on that have gotten in the way of passing this bill. There is no reason. I hope they do not succeed. These maneuvers should not succeed. I hope we will say no and that we will then pass quickly the bill that has been worked on in good faith by so many. Let me give an example of another piece of legislation where this was done. I commend both the distinguished Senator from Virginia and my colleague, the distinguished Senator from Michigan, Senators Warner and Levin, who worked through a complicated Defense reauthorization bill. There were a lot of similar kinds of issues of extraneous measures being placed into that bill, but they worked through it. They kept their eye on the primary goal, which was to provide support for our men and women who are serving us, who are placed in harm's way, who are fighting terrorism, who are fighting to protect our families and our country, keep the focus on them, which they did. They have been able to produce a bill that is for the troops, for the Department of Defense, for the defense of our country, without extraneous measures in the legislation. I commend both of them for their leadership. It is an example time and again of what these two distinguished Senators have been able to do because they kept their focus where it should be--on the defense of our country and the support of those who are defending us around the globe. Compare that to what is in front of us today. Again, these measures are worth debating. The other issues that were put into the Defense bill deserve debate, have had debate on the floor of the Senate. They deserve that debate. They deserve up-or-down votes. But to take the excellent work that has been done on the Defense appropriations bill and put these together is plain wrong. I hope we will be successful in separating these issues so that those of us who strongly support this appropriations bill, who strongly support our troops, will have an opportunity to, again, hopefully, vote yes unanimously, without the debate on other issues such as drilling in ANWR where many of us are strongly in opposition to that issue and others that were placed in this bill. This is an opportunity for us to stand together, as we have done, as we will do on Defense reauthorization, as we have done so many times in the Senate, standing up on a bipartisan basis for our troops. I hope we will be able to do so again at the end of the day when this bill finally comes before us. I am hopeful that my colleagues will join with me in separating the controversial provisions unrelated to defense from this bill and give us the opportunity to support our men and women in the manner which they deserve. I yield the floor.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today to express great concern about the process, about what has been happening as it relates to the Defense appropriations bill. I have supported every appropriations bill for our troops since coming here to the Senate, and before in the House. I am deeply concerned about what I see in terms of abuse of the process, abuse of power involved in this debate on a bill that is critical for our troops, a bill that without the controversial provisions I believe would have overwhelming, positive, if not unanimous, support from this Chamber. I want to start by reading a portion of a letter from five distinguished retired generals from the Marines, the Army, and the Navy, that speaks to this in a way that I think we should all be listening to. This is a letter to our leaders in the Senate: We are very concerned that the FY2006 Defense Appropriations Bill may be further delayed by attaching a controversial non-defense legislative provision to the defense appropriations conference report. We know that you share our overarching concern for the welfare and needs of our troops. With 160,000 troops fighting in Iraq, another 18,000 in Afghanistan, and tens of thousands more around the world defending this country, Congress must finish its work and provide them the resources they need to do their job. We believe that any effort to attach controversial legislative language authorizing drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to the defense appropriations conference report will jeopardize Congress' ability to provide our troops and their families the resources they need in a timely fashion. It goes on from there. Mr. President, I would not agree more. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of this letter be printed in the Record.

Ms. STABENOW

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

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues in honoring a man I have come to know as a colleague, a dedicated public servant, and a friend. Jon Corzine is a shining example of the American dream--of what one can accomplish with hard work and the opportunity to obtain a good education. Growing up in rural Illinois as the son of a corn and soybean farmer and a public school teacher, Jon Corzine learned early in life the importance of family, responsibility and service to his community. These are the values that led him to serve his country as a member of the U.S. Marine Corps Reserves--and over the years, his strong values have guided his career in both in private industry and public service. Jon Corzine started his career on the ground floor of American business. And even as he worked hard and achieved extraordinary success, he never lost sight of his values. When he served as chairman and chief executive officer of Goldman Sachs, he led that company from a private partnership to a public offering. At the same time, expanded the company's philanthropic outreach efforts to better serve people in need. He continued that important work here in the U.S. Senate, where he used his political power to fight for people without political influence. For the last 5 years, he has been a tireless advocate or veterans, seniors, students, women, children and families in New Jersey and across our Nation. Senator Corzine and I were sworn into the Senate on the same day--and I served with him on both the Budget Committee and the Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee. There, we worked together to preserve funding for programs that help our Nation's most vulnerable citizens-- programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, veterans health care, and education. We also worked together to lead the fight to keep the security in Social Security. His business expertise made him a strong advocate for fiscal responsibility. He fought to get the national debt under control so we could preserve and create opportunities for our Nation's young people-- rather than saddle them with the burden of our government's debts. He has lived the American dream and continues to work hard to ensure that others have a chance to live it too. Jon Corzine is a thoughtful, hard-working man who worked with his colleagues from both sides of the political spectrum to do the right thing for the people of New Jersey and this Nation. I am honored to have him as a friend and a colleague--and I wish him well in his new role as Governor of New Jersey. I add my comments, along with my friends and colleagues in the Senate, for someone who has become a personal friend, as well as someone I admire greatly and that we are going to greatly miss. New Jersey is very lucky to have Jon Corzine coming in as Governor of that great State. Senator Corzine and I have worked together both on the Committee on the Budget and on the Committee on Banking. I can say it is true what Senator Sarbanes said, that even though he sat at the end of the table at the Committee on Banking and we were squeezed in with our staff trying to make sure we did not fall off the end of the platform, I always knew when the person at the end was about to speak and ask his questions, there was going to be silence in the room and tremendous respect for what he was going to say and concern about whether they would be able to effectively answer his questions, as the witnesses were answering various questions concerning finances. To watch Senator Corzine work has been to watch an example of what we want in public service. To see someone who grew up in a small town-- like I did in Michigan--growing up in a small town, serve his country in the Marines, as so many of my colleagues have. I am particularly proud of the people on the Democrat side of the aisle who have served in public service as it relates to our Armed Services and continue to bring that perspective and support today. But certainly Senator Corzine is one of them. And to go on to be so incredibly successful in business, and then to bring that expertise here on behalf of the people of New Jersey to work with all of us I think is an example of a tremendously great American success story. I am proud to have worked with Senator Corzine and look forward to working with him as the Governor of New Jersey. I will simply echo my colleagues in saying, when we talk about corporate responsibility and accountability, Senator Corzine and his expertise has been there. Housing, public transit, homeland security, his passion for Social Security, addressing so many different issues that are important to people, important to communities, important to our democracy, have had the voice of Jon Corzine. So I congratulate you on your service. I congratulate the people of New Jersey on the public service that is to come. And, mostly, I thank Jon Corzine for his generosity of heart and for his willingness to invest in so many ways to better the community with his own resources. This is someone who has been incredibly generous and caring and smart and compassionate and dedicated to the right values that we all care about deeply. I know he is going to do an outstanding job as Governor and that we will all be better off for his public service. With that, I yield the floor.