Debbie Stabenow

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 260, S. 1285, a bill to designate the Federal building located at 333 Mt. Elliott Street in Detroit, MI, as the ``Rosa Parks Federal Building.'' Rosa Parks passed away this past Monday at the age of 92, one of the giants in American history. It is very fitting that we pass this bill naming this building. I ask that the bill be read three times, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid on the table without intervening action or debate.

Ms. STABENOW. Yes, Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent to modify my request to include the Warner amendment.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I renew my request to pass the Rosa Parks Building designation. I renew my request to pass that. Rosa Parks is one of the great civil rights leaders of our time, a great heroine who has now passed away at the age of 92. She deserves this recognition. I very much hoped that we could have a unanimous vote in support of honoring this very important woman.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, first, I appreciate the courtesies extended to me by the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania and the distinguished Senator from Iowa. I rise to pay tribute to one of the giants of American history. Today we honor the remarkable life and legacy of Rosa Parks, who died just last evening at the age of 92. The Detroit News today says: Courage in the face of oppression; resistance in the face of injustice. That is the enduring legacy of Rosa Parks, whose defiance on a racially segregated Montgomery, Ala., bus lit the flame of the modern civil rights movement and inspired freedom movements from South Africa to Poland. The Detroit Free Press today: When Rosa Parks refused to get up, an entire race of people began to stand up for their rights as human beings. Her refusal to give up her bus seat to a white man was a simple act that took extraordinary courage in Montgomery, Ala., in 1955. It was a place where black people had no rights that white people had to respect. It was a time when racial discrimination was so common, many blacks never questioned it. At least not out loud. But then came Rosa Louise Parks. I am so proud Rosa Parks was a resident of Michigan. We have claimed her for many years and are so proud that she has left her legacy to all of us, particularly in Detroit, MI. On December 1, 1955, Rosa Parks left work in her hometown of Montgomery, AL, and boarded a bus headed for home. When the bus became crowded, she was ordered by the bus driver to give up her seat to a white male passenger. She refused. Rosa Parks was arrested, and 4 days later the Montgomery bus boycott began. The boycott lasted for over a year until the Montgomery buses were officially desegregated in December of 1956. Rosa Parks was a courageous woman who did what she believed was fair and right. She is a testament to the power of one individual willing to fight for their beliefs. Her actions set the civil rights movement in motion and set a precedent for protest without violence. We all owe a debt of gratitude to Rosa Parks for her contribution to freedom and justice for all men and women in this country. Truly, her actions changed the course of history. Rosa Parks moved to Detroit in 1957 and it became home for her for nearly 50 years. In 1977, she and Elaine Easton Steele founded the Raymond and Rosa Parks Institute for Self-Development in Detroit to offer guidance to young African-Americans. The institute's many programs include the annual Pathways to Freedom bus tour that exposes young African Americans to landmarks of the civil rights era. The people of Michigan take great pride in the fact that Rosa Parks became part of our community in our great State. She devoted her life to public service, to helping people, and to helping to serve as a role model for our children. She made such an impact on our country and on the people of the metro Detroit community that the actual bus where Rosa Parks made her defiant stand is now on display at the Henry Ford Museum in Dearborn, MI. Children from all over the world have come to see the bus that became this symbol of the civil rights movement. Nicknamed the Mother of Civil Rights, President Clinton awarded Rosa Parks the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1996, the highest civilian award this country can bestow. Mrs. Parks also received the Congressional Gold Medal in 1999. Earlier this year, Senator Levin and I introduced a bill to name a Federal building in Detroit after Mrs. Parks. We think it is important that we recognize her in this way to thank her in some small way for her incredible contribution to our country. It is an honor she richly deserves, and I believe it is important that we pass this bill this week in the Senate, just as the House has passed the bill, so that we can together, in a unanimous way, say: Thank you, Rosa Parks.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. I thank the distinguished chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee. judicial resources for the u.s. district court for the district of new mexico

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Transportation/Treasury/HUD appropriations bill and my trade amendment that was adopted by unanimous consent this morning. This amendment will send a strong signal to our major Asian trading partners that we are no longer going to tolerate their trade violations that are costing us jobs here at home--especially in my State of Michigan. As my colleagues may know, Treasury Secretary Snow has been traveling in China for the last week to advance a trip that President Bush is taking to China and Japan in November. Unfortunately, he seems to be making little progress in our attempt to get China to stop its illegal trade practices like currency manipulation. The President's upcoming trip could not come at a more important time. Currently, Chinese and Japanese trade policies are literally destroying U.S. industries, costing us jobs and hurting our middle- class families. In order to help President Bush as he pushes China and Japan to stop their currency manipulation, to crack down on the counterfeiting of American manufactured goods, and to cease the pirating of intellectual property, I believe the Senate should go on record to show that our Government is united in opposition to these illegal trade practices. Just last week, Delphi, our Nation's largest auto parts supplier, declared bankruptcy, threatening 15,000 jobs in Michigan and more than 33,000 across the country. In terms of assets, this bankruptcy is the largest ever in the United States, surpassing the reorganizations of K-Mart and Worldcom. The Delphi bankruptcy should serve as a wake up call to the Congress and the administration that we can no longer tolerate unfair trade practices. Unless we put a stop to them, our economic spiral downward will continue and the American middle class way of life will be in jeopardy. In Michigan, we are experts at many things, but we excel at making things and growing things. Whether it is cars or office furniture, apples or cherries, we lead the way in manufacturing innovation and efficiency. And manufacturing jobs are the life blood of almost every community in Michigan. Even though Michigan has growing, cutting-edge industries, such as biotechnology and nanotechnology, it still has one of the highest unemployment rates in the country because of our troubled manufacturing sector. Our current economy is moving through a period of great uncertainty. It would be easy to blame this on a particularly bad business cycle--a business cycle that will eventually correct itself. But, to do so would require us to overlook a very real threat to our economy and our way of life. That threat is the lack of a level playing field for American businesses and workers in the global marketplace. As my colleagues know, China currently exports to the United States some $160 billion more than it takes in. A significant portion of this deficit is driven by consumer demand here in the United States, but a shockingly large portion of it is due to illegal trade practices, namely currency manipulation, counterfeiting and the theft of intellectual property. Since 1995 China has pegged its currency and has not allowed it to ``float.'' The impact of this illegal action is clear. It gives a distinct advantage to Chinese companies that export into the United States and diminishes our ability to export to the Chinese market--therefore, China is effectively giving its exporters an exchange rate subsidy. This manipulation increases the price of our goods while making their goods appear cheaper here at home. For example, a mid-sized American car sold in China or Japan is $2,000 more expensive than it should be because of currency manipulation. This really hurts our automobile industry. Earlier this year, I spoke with employees of a large auto parts supplier who told me they had recently lost a parts contract to a Chinese company despite the fact that they were the lowest bidder. The reason: when you factored in the impact of the artificially low yuan, the Chinese company had a cheaper bid. As we all know, such currency manipulation is illegal under the terms of China's International Monetary Fund and World Trade Organization membership. Some economists have calculated that this price differential may amount to as much as 40 percent. It is simply devastating our manufacturers in Michigan and it is costing us jobs everyday. In July, China announced that it would stop pegging its currency, but after rising 2 percent on July 21, the yuan has barely budged. This is an unacceptable situation that calls for immediate action. I think it is important to note, though, this is not just a China problem. This is a pan-Asian problem that includes Japan among the offenders. Unfortunately, currency manipulation is not the only illegal trade practice we need to address. Chinese counterfeiting and Intellectual property theft are enormous problems for manufacturing in my home State of Michigan. Let me give two examples of the problem that we in Michigan currently face with regard to this unfair competition. Counterfeit automotive products not only kill American jobs, they have the potential to kill American families--when shoddy counterfeit automotive products replace legitimate ones of higher-quality our manufacturers lose, and our consumers are put at risk. The Federal Trade Commission estimates that the automotive parts and components industry loses an estimated $12 billion annually in sales on a global basis to counterfeiting. It is estimated that if these losses were eliminated, and those sales were brought into legitimate companies, the automotive industry could hire 200,000 additional workers. And we don't even keep statistics on the potential loss of life--when shoddy counterfeit auto parts fail and cause car accidents. We should understand that, if left unchecked, penetration by counterfeit automotive products, as well as other manufactured goods, has the potential to undermine the public's confidence and trust in what they are buying. We can't let that happen. The second example I want to share involves a small manufacturer located in western Michigan. Peter Perez is the president of Carter Products Company located in Grand Rapids. He is also the national president of the Wood Machinery Manufacturers of America. Carter Products employs 15 people and holds numerous patents--one of which belongs to this small piece of equipment--the Carter Stabilizer Guide. It is used to support a band saw blade in such a way as to allow for a wood worker to make nearly any type of angled cut. Shortly after introducing the Stabilizer--the product, its installation instructions, and instruction photos were copied by a Chinese company and resold into the American market. Under normal circumstances, the Stabilizer would cost a retail customer about $70. The pirated product was being sold for less than $10--which is far below the cost of the raw materials necessary to create the product. Carter Products had to launch a case at its own expense to stop this illegal trade violation. After spending more than $20,000 the company was able to keep the illegal product out of the U.S. market by stopping its distribution in markets covered by the company's patents. But what company can ever be sure that they have achieved victory against this type of illegal behavior if the country of origin--in this case China--is not going to abide by their obligations under the WTO? Second only to our human resources, intellectual property is our Nation's most valuable asset. As the United States freely trades with the world's nations, we are discovering new opportunities and new challenges. International rules and institutions have been set up to protect intellectual property, but China falls short when it comes to following those rules and keeping their commitments. They are seeking to gain an advantage over American companies and American workers by breaking the rules. In April, I proposed bipartisan legislation to strengthen our Government's ability to protect the rights of American companies and American workers in world markets; that includes protection of our intellectual property rights. The Chief Trade Prosecutor Act should be passed into law immediately so we may defend our companies and workers from those who seek to gain an advantage by breaking the rules. It is time to send a message to the Chinese and Japanese governments. It is time to say we are fed up and we will not take it anymore. Let's give them a shot across the bow. Let's make it loud and clear that they will have to change now--not later--or we will take real action against them. Workers across the country are losing their job. For their sake and for those who are clinging to their jobs, let's stand up to the Chinese and Japanese governments and stand up for our working families.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise to engage in a colloquy with the chairman and ranking member of the Transportation-HUD Appropriations Subcommittee. There has already been much discussion about the critical role of the section 8 program in providing millions of Americans with affordable, safe housing. As my colleagues know, the 2005 funding year budget is based on a ``snapshot'' of verified VMS leasing and cost data averaged for the months of May, June, and July of 2004. I commend the chairman and ranking member for including a setaside of $45 million in the Senate bill to adjust the allocations of the housing agencies whose snapshot did not accurately reflect the real leasing levels and costs for 2004. Unfortunately, the provision as drafted does not take into account reduced leasing levels resulting from the public housing agency: One, following HUD directives to not reissue turnover vouchers, two, accepting 1,000 or more additional vouchers through Housing Conversion Actions or enhanced vouchers, or three, accepting assigned vouchers/ voucher portfolios from other public housing authorities. Without these additional criteria, many public housing agencies, including the Michigan State Housing Development Authority, will be unfair1y denied any of the setaside funding that is provided under this bill to make them whole. I urge the chairman and ranking member to improve this provision in conference to provide for a fairer distribution of this setaside funding.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I rise to thank both our distinguished chairman of this subcommittee, Senator Bond, and distinguished ranking member, Senator Murray, for their leadership on this important bill and for their words of support for my amendment. This amendment addresses the need to make sure that we are enforcing our trade laws so that we have a level playing field for businesses and workers in America with all of our trading partners. It designates and authorizes a specific amount of money that would allow us to do that. In my home State of Michigan, this is absolutely critical for us right now, as we see all of the challenges in the international marketplace. We need to make sure that we are giving every business, every worker, a level playing field, and we are doing everything we can to enforce our trade laws so that we have the opportunity to be exporting our products and not our jobs. That should be the goal of all of us. I appreciate the fact that there is a willingness to support my amendment.

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

Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, if there is not someone else wishing to speak, I will expand on what is happening as it relates to Michigan now and why this is so important as an amendment. I thank colleagues for working with us and helping us to modify the amendment and to accept it today. What is important for all of us, but particularly in Michigan now, as we are the heart and soul of manufacturing, is, as we see our President, our Secretary of Treasury, moving forward in discussions with China and Japan--the President is going next month to China and Japan--that we send with him the strongest possible support, which this amendment does, for us saying we need to enforce all of our trade laws. We need to make sure we are leveling the playing field, and we are giving every possible fair advantage to American workers and to businesses. Unfortunately, we have our trading partners--some of our trading partners right now--who are, in fact, violating our trade laws which is costing us jobs at home, especially in the great State of Michigan. This amendment will send a very important message that we want things like illegal trade practices regarding currency manipulation to stop. The President's upcoming trip is a very important time. Currently, Chinese and Japanese trade policies are costing us jobs, including our middle-class families, because of the fact that they peg their currency in a way that means it costs us more to sell to them than it costs them to sell to us. In my State, I have heard from so many businesses saying that the cost differential has made a huge difference in their being able to successfully compete on bids for contracts or to sell their products. We know that has been happening, and we need to stop it. We need to enforce our trade laws. We also need to crack down on the counterfeiting of American manufactured goods. We need to stop the pirating of intellectual property. We have the great brainpower. We are developing all the new ideas and the new patents. It is not right--in fact, it is illegal--for other countries to be able to take that information and make products that compete and undercut us and cost us jobs. Last week, Delphi, which is our Nation's largest autoparts supplier, declared bankruptcy, threatening 15,000 jobs in Michigan and more than 33,000 across the country. In terms of assets, this bankruptcy is the largest ever in the United States, surpassing the reorganizations of Kmart and WorldCom. The Delphi bankruptcy should serve as a wake-up call to all of us in the Congress, in the administration, and in the country, to the fact that we can no longer tolerate unfair trade practices and that we need to tackle the cost of health care and what is happening on pensions and make sure our workers do not lose their pensions in the process of all of this happening. Unless we put a stop to the unfair trade practices, our economy will continue to spiral downward, and I believe we are in jeopardy of losing our way of life. I don't say that lightly. I don't say that to be melodramatic. But when we have people working at Delphi being told that now in order to compete internationally, they have to take possibly a 63-percent pay cut--that has been in the news, possibly a 63-percent pay cut--we are not talking about just cutting back on wages. We are talking about changing one's entire way of life. In the great State of Michigan we make things and we grow things, and we do it very well. We have been at the forefront of the economic engine of our country, just as all manufacturing has been. But if we are going to say it is acceptable now for people to make $10 an hour and that somehow we can't help it, we are going to lose manufacturing in this country, and we are not looking at what we can do to save our way of life. We have to say that every trade agreement is one that creates a race up, not a race down, and that we are going to enforce every trade agreement. We are going to make sure other countries are not stealing our patents, are not creating counterfeit parts, are not manipulating their currency or doing other things that cause us to have a disadvantage in the marketplace and to lose jobs. I believe so strongly about what needs to happen as it relates to manufacturers. I have concerns when I hear comments such as: We are not going to be able to manufacture anymore. We will have to do something else. An economy has to be based on making things, creating things, not just a service economy. We have to have a foundation based on manufacturing. Has manufacturing changed? Of course, it has. I invite any colleague to come join me on any plant floor, and they will see something that is clean and quiet and computerized, with highly skilled workers. Of course, it has changed. Of course, it is high tech. But it is still there, and it needs to be there. If we are not serious about enforcing our trade laws, creating the right kind of trade laws, we are going to lose it and our way of life. That is not acceptable. That is why there is nothing more important to me than fighting for our jobs and our manufacturers and making sure that we maintain the high standard of living that has created this great country. That is what this is all about. Let me mention one area that is so important to Delphi. That is the area of counterfeit autoparts. We know that right now, according to our auto suppliers nationally, we are losing $12 billion every year to counterfeit autoparts. That equates to about 200,000 jobs. We need to say in the strongest possible terms that we expect that to stop. It is a jobs issue. It is a safety issue. It needs to stop. We can do that. We are not in a weak or hopeless situation. We have the ability to stand up, to say to our trading partners: It is not acceptable. We will use every tool possible to stop counterfeit autoparts. We will use every tool possible to stop currency manipulation, to stop the stealing of our patents. That is what my amendment addresses, sending that word and--not just a word--creating an action. We are beyond just talk. We have to have action because every day we do not have action, the great people in my State are under the threat of losing their jobs, their pension, and their way of life. I thank my colleagues again for supporting this amendment. We are at a place in time, in the history of the country where we have to take very seriously what is happening to our great industries that have created the ability for folks to have a good standard of living, to have the home and the car, in my great State the cottage up north, the boat, to send the kids to college, and pay into a pension all their life and know it is going to be there. That is what is threatened today in our country by policies that don't get it. We have to have trade policies that work for American jobs and American workers. We have to have enforcement of those trade policies. We have to tackle the cost of health care and change the way we do it to get it off the backs of our businesses. And we have to make sure that people who have worked all their lives and pay into a pension will be able to have that when they retire. I thank my colleagues, again, and I yield the floor.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, today I am introducing the ``Keep the Promise of Medicare Act'' of 2006, and am pleased to be joined by my colleagues Senators Kennedy, Harkin, Lautenberg, Dayton, and Corzine. Retirees will see an average monthly cost-of-living-adjustment increase of $39 in their Social Security checks next year. Although this increase is welcome news, one-fourth of the COLA will be eaten up by rising Medicare Part B premiums, which will increase yet again by double-digits. And the premium for Medicare's new prescription drug benefit could eat up the remainder of the Social Security increase. As William D. Novelli, chief executive of AARP, said: ``A record increase would usually be welcome news for America's Social Security beneficiaries. But this cost-of-living adjustment is being eaten up by rising gasoline and heating costs, another double-digit increase in the monthly Medicare Part B premium and escalating health care bills.'' This dramatic increase could have been avoided. CMS Administrator McClellan has acknowledged after last year's record 17.5 percent increase that provisions included in the 2003 Medicare law designed to privatize the program directly contributed to the premium increase. My legislation will limit the 2006 Part B premium increase to the same level as the Social Security COLA. Without this legislation, the Medicare Part B premium will rise by 13 percent to more than $10, to $88.50 a month, in 2006. ``Social Security's COLA will simply not be enough to cover the increasing costs of living as an older person in America,'' said George J. Kourpias, president of the Alliance for Retired Americans. Adjusting the current premium is a first step, and one we must take immediately. Older Americans have been struggling for too long under the relentless increases in the cost of their health care and prescription drugs. Additionally, we should use this year to revise an outdated law that has led to record increase in Medicare premiums in the last four years. The promise of Medicare must include protection from dramatic increases in the Part B premium. I urge my colleagues to join me on this important piece of legislation.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, today I am introducing the ``Keep the Promise of Medicare Act'' of 2006, and am pleased to be joined by my colleagues Senators Kennedy, Harkin, Lautenberg, Dayton, and Corzine. Retirees will see an average monthly cost-of-living-adjustment increase of $39 in their Social Security checks next year. Although this increase is welcome news, one-fourth of the COLA will be eaten up by rising Medicare Part B premiums, which will increase yet again by double-digits. And the premium for Medicare's new prescription drug benefit could eat up the remainder of the Social Security increase. As William D. Novelli, chief executive of AARP, said: ``A record increase would usually be welcome news for America's Social Security beneficiaries. But this cost-of-living adjustment is being eaten up by rising gasoline and heating costs, another double-digit increase in the monthly Medicare Part B premium and escalating health care bills.'' This dramatic increase could have been avoided. CMS Administrator McClellan has acknowledged after last year's record 17.5 percent increase that provisions included in the 2003 Medicare law designed to privatize the program directly contributed to the premium increase. My legislation will limit the 2006 Part B premium increase to the same level as the Social Security COLA. Without this legislation, the Medicare Part B premium will rise by 13 percent to more than $10, to $88.50 a month, in 2006. ``Social Security's COLA will simply not be enough to cover the increasing costs of living as an older person in America,'' said George J. Kourpias, president of the Alliance for Retired Americans. Adjusting the current premium is a first step, and one we must take immediately. Older Americans have been struggling for too long under the relentless increases in the cost of their health care and prescription drugs. Additionally, we should use this year to revise an outdated law that has led to record increase in Medicare premiums in the last four years. The promise of Medicare must include protection from dramatic increases in the Part B premium. I urge my colleagues to join me on this important piece of legislation.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today first to pay tribute to the senior Senator from Louisiana for her courage, her strength, and her resolve. I have been so amazed and impressed at the way she has been willing to continue to be on this floor, regardless of how tired she became, in order to fight for the people of Louisiana. I hope everyone in Louisiana understands what she is doing on their behalf and on behalf of all of those in the entire gulf region. What is so disappointing for me is to see that this has not been a bipartisan effort. It seemed reasonable to me. I represent Michigan, and fortunately we have not been in a situation like my colleagues from New York or the gulf or California. So far--knock on wood--we have not had to face that kind of a catastrophe. But I found what the Senator from Louisiana was asking for very reasonable. On a bipartisan basis, we have appropriated $61 billion to be used through FEMA. We assumed it would be already being used for the things the Senator talked about. I was shocked to learn that those funds had not been released to help local communities, as we have been told, and that the process was not moving as it should when people are so desperately in need of support, whether it be the small businesses, the families, the seniors, the cities. When the Senator from Louisiana asked us for a very modest request of allowing $1 billion of $61 billion to be used directly and immediately to help those who have been so devastated, we do not have bipartisan support for that. I was very disappointed that both Senators from Louisiana were not standing together for that, very surprised that instead what we see is an alternative that comes back that is not only less than what is needed but has restrictions that have not been put on other States and other communities. The caps being talked about being raised in terms of loans have been done before, but it is my understanding that no community has been asked before to guarantee a repayment on those loans. I do not know why anyone would support that kind of an effort for their State or their communities to be treated differently than other States or other communities. If I were in that position, I would not want to say to my folks: I trust you less than I trust the folks in New York; I voted for a different set of rules for what happened in New York, what happened in relation to Washington, DC, and the Pentagon. I certainly would not want to be in a situation of saying that I would vote for rules that were penalizing my own people or saying we do not trust you as much as we trust people in other places. So I am surprised and disappointed, and I know the senior Senator from Louisiana, Ms. Landrieu, is as concerned, surprised, and deeply disappointed, certainly, as I am and more than I am because she is working on this every single day. I just want to indicate that we could have done better, and I believe working together America can do better. I believe we can do better for the people of Louisiana and the gulf coast than what has been offered and passed here today. I know the senior Senator from Louisiana has worked very hard in order to put forward proposals that are better and that would do better than what has been achieved today. I commend her once again and thank her on behalf of all of us who at any moment could find ourselves in the same situation, could find ourselves fighting for our people because of a devastating attack or natural disaster. I hope I would have the courage of conviction, the compassion, and the strength that the Senator from Louisiana has shown and I know will continue to show. I yield back.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. I would agree with my friend from South Dakota. The Center for Chronic Pain and Fatigue Research at the University of Michigan is the national leader in the research of chronic multisymptom illnesses. Their recent research has used advanced functional brain imaging technology to demonstrate the similarity in dysfunctional pain processing between a group of veterans suffering from gulf war illnesses and a group of civilians diagnosed with fibromyalgia. The center's work has taken on added importance because of our Nation's current military deployments and deserves the continued support of Congress and the Department of Defense.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise to thank both the chairman and ranking member, Senator Inouye, for their leadership on this legislation. I am very supportive of the Defense appropriations bill. And I appreciate all of the hard work and leadership they have brought to this point in this important legislation. I come to the floor this evening to fix a broken promise to our veterans, a promise our country made to the men and women who serve our country in the armed services. They put their lives on the line to protect us, as we know, and in exchange we have a sacred obligation to extend to them the honors and benefits and the health care benefits they have earned through their service. I have met with men and women from Michigan and across the country who are recovering at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, as many of my colleagues have. Some have suffered minor injuries that will not have a dramatic impact on the rest of their lives. Others though, because of their injuries, will need years of rehabilitation and face considerable obstacles as they return to their civilian lives. We owe these men and women our continued support so that they can recover from their injuries and lead productive lives. Today's soldiers are tomorrow's veterans--and America has made a promise to these brave men and women to provide them the care they deserve. They deserve the respect and support of a grateful nation when they return home. We also owe it to the men and women who have fought in America's prior conflicts to maintain a place for them in the VA system so they can receive the care they need, as well. We need to keep our promise to our veterans, young and old. Together we can do better for our men and women who have served our country. We must consider the ongoing costs of medical care for America's veterans as part of the continuing cost of our national defense. The long-term legacy of the wars we fight today is the care of the men and women who have worn the uniform and are willing to pay the ultimate price for their nation. Senator Johnson, Senator Thune, and I are offering an amendment today to provide full funding for VA health care to ensure the VA has the resources necessary to provide quality health care in a timely manner to our Nation's disabled veterans. The Stabenow-Johnson-Thune amendment provides guaranteed funding for America's veterans from two sources. First, the legislation provides an annual discretionary amount that will be locked in for future years at the 2005 funding level. Second, in the future, the VA receives a sum of mandatory funding that is adjusted year to year based on changes in demand from the VA health system and the rate of health care inflation. This funding mechanism will ensure that the VA has the resources it needs to provide a steady and reliable stream of resources to care for America's veterans. It will also ensure that Congress will continue to be responsible for the oversight of the VA health system as it does with other Federal programs funded directly from the U.S. Treasury. This amendment will bring funding for veterans health care into line with almost 90 percent of Federal health care spending which is mandatory rather than discretionary. One of our greatest accomplishments as a nation is that every American knows when they enter their golden years, when they reach 65 or if they are disabled, they receive the health care they need. Medicare is a universal and comprehensive system that benefits a person for their life's work. Our veterans deserve the same. We can do better for them by ensuring that their service is repaid with reliable health care benefits. I thank the cosponsors of this amendment for their support: Senators Johnson, Thune, Akaka, Dayton, Nelson, Lautenberg, Salazar, Lincoln, Corzine, Baucus, Landrieu, Jeffords, Bayh, Bingaman, Murray, Kerry, Kennedy, and Biden. In July, I offered this amendment to the 2006 Defense authorization bill. Unfortunately, the Defense authorization bill was pulled from the Senate at that time. While we are working out whether this will be included in this particular bill, it is important to offer my amendment again at this time. The amendment has been endorsed by the Partnership for Veterans Health Care Budget Reform, a group of major veterans service organizations that has been working to provide a reliable stream of health care for America's veterans over the last 2 years. It includes the American Legion, the AMVETS, the Blinded Veterans Association, Disabled American Veterans, Jewish War Veterans of the United States, Paralyzed Veterans of America, and the Veterans of Foreign Wars, all of them together asking us to get this right for our veterans. The problem we face today is that resources for veterans health care are falling behind demand. We have more veterans being created, more men and women coming home from the wars. Yet the funding is falling behind. Shortly after coming into office, the President created the task force to improve health care delivery for our Nation's veterans. The task force found historically there has been a gap between the demand for VA care and the resources to meet the needs of our veterans. The task force also found that: The current mismatch is far greater . . . and its impact potentially far more detrimental both to the VA's ability to furnish high quality care and to the support that the system needs from those it serves. The task force released its report in May of 2003, well before we understood the impact of the men and women fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan and the impact that would have on our VA system. If the mismatch between demand and resources was bad in May of 2003, imagine what it is today. Over 360,000 brave soldiers have returned from Iraq and Afghanistan, and over 86,000 have sought health care from the VA. There are an additional 740,000 military personnel who served in Iraq and Afghanistan who are still in the service. This next generation of veterans will be eligible for VA health care and will place additional demands on a system that is already strained. These are promises we need to keep. In addition, each reservist and National Guard member who has served in Iraq is eligible for 2 years of free health care at the VA. The administration has in its own way admitted they do not have sufficient resources to provide adequate care for our veterans. While they would not until recently admit there were shortfalls, they have for years attempted to ration care and cut services at the expense of our veterans. We can do better than that. In 2003, the VA banned the enrollment of new priority 8 veterans. For the past 3 years, I fought attempts by the administration to charge middle-income veterans a $250 enrollment fee to join the VA health care system and a 100-percent increase in prescription drug copays. This year, the administration also proposed slashing Federal support for the State veterans homes from $140 million to $12 million. The head of the Grand Rapids Home for Veterans and the D.J. Jacobetti Home For Veterans in Marquette tells me these cuts would be devastating. The fiscal year 2005 and 2006 VA health care budgets are a case study in why Congress should guarantee reliable and adequate resources through direct spending. Last March, the President submitted an inadequate fiscal year 2005 budget request for VA health care to Congress that fell $3.2 billion short of the recommendation of the independent budget, an annual estimate of critical veterans health care needs by the coalition of leading veterans organizations. In fact, in February 2004, Anthony Principi, then the Secretary of VA, testified before Congress that the request the President submitted to Congress fell $1.2 billion short of the amount he had recommended. It then fell to Congress to again increase the amount provided to the VA for health care. The final amount Congress provided to the VA for health care was $1.2 billion over the President's request, but it was still not enough to meet their immediate needs. In April of this year I cosponsored an amendment with Senator Murray to the fiscal year 2005 supplemental appropriations bill for Iraq and Afghanistan to provide $1.9 billion for veterans medical care, especially for those soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. During the debate on the amendment we were again told that the President's budget was sufficient but, in fact, on April 5, Secretary of Veterans Affairs Jim Nicholson sent a letter to the Senate that said: I can assure you that the VA does not need supplemental funds for FY2005 to continue to provide timely, quality service that is always our goal. I was proud to cosponsor an amendment in June, however, to provide an additional $1.5 billion for veterans health care because they finally admitted there was a gap in funding for this year. Finally, they admitted, in fact, the veterans health care system was not adequately funded this year. I was pleased we were able to add dollars under an emergency spending measure, to be able to fill the gap this year. As it turned out, we received more bad news from the administration on July 14, when the administration requested another $300 million for this year and a whopping $1.7 billion for next year. The total shortfall for this year and next was nearly $3 billion, 3 billion short of where we should be in adequately funding health care for our veterans. At the end of July, I was pleased to support the conference report for the Interior appropriations which included the $1.5 billion this year that the Senate has twice unanimously supported. Further, in September, I supported the Senate's Military Construction and Veterans Affairs appropriations bill which provided a total of $33 billion for veterans health care. This is $1.1 billion more than the administration requested and $2.5 billion more than the House version of the legislation for veterans health care. I tell this to make two points: First, it is clear that the demand for veterans health care is increasing, and a good portion of this increase can be attributed to men and women seeking care after they are returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. The second is to show despite the best intentions of the VA and Congress, the VA does not have a reliable and dependable stream of funding to provide for veterans health care needs. We should not have to pass an emergency funding bill to give our veterans the health care they need and deserve. In 1993, there were about 2.5 million Americans in the VA health care system. Today there are more than 7 million veterans enrolled in the system, over half of which receive care on a regular basis. Despite the increase in patients, the VA has received on average a 5-percent increase in appropriations over the last 8 years. My amendment will fix this problem and ensure that each year we provide the funding necessary to care for our veterans in a timely manner that is separate from the uncertainty and the ups and downs of the congressional calendar. At last count, at least 86,000 men and women have returned from Iraq and have sought health care from the VA. We can safely assume that this number will reach hundreds of thousands. This bill provides the resources our troops need to prepare and defend our country in Iraq. We must not forget about them when they return home and put on a veteran's cap. We must ensure that we keep our promises to them when they come home as veterans. Let's stop this up-and-down roller coaster of emergency spending measures, of budgets that do not match with need year to year. We owe our veterans better than that. Together, we can do better than that. I urge the support of my colleagues for this very important amendment.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Murray, Kerry, Kennedy, Dayton, and Biden be added as cosponsors of my amendment.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask colleagues to support the Stabenow-Johnson-Thune amendment that guarantees funding for our veterans for health care. It takes it out of the annual appropriations process where every year we are wrestling with whether the funding is available. This year alone already we have had one emergency designation of $1.5 billion because the veterans health care budget was underfunded this year. We know there are concerns about next year. This amendment would do two things. First, the legislation provides an annual discretionary amount that would be locked in for future years at the 2005 funding level. Then in the future, the VA would receive a sum of mandatory funding that would be adjusted year to year based on changes in demand from the VA health care system as well as rate of inflation. This is incredibly important. We should not be arbitrarily picking numbers in terms of funding veterans health care. It should be based on the brave men and women who have served who come on home and put on a veteran's cap. We have more and more coming home from Afghanistan and Iraq every day. Each and every one of them has been promised health care. The way to guarantee we keep our promise is to pass this amendment. I urge agreement.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I call up my amendment which is at the desk.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, before my colleague and friend from Illinois leaves the floor, I want to thank him for his leadership on this very important issue, in fact, for so many people in our country. I also wish to thank Senator Enzi for indicating his desire to make this a priority within his committee. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment.

Ms. STABENOW. Pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable sections of that act for the purpose of the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Ms. STABENOW. Yes. That is fine.

Ms. STABENOW. I move to waive the applicable sections of the Congressional Budget Act for the purpose of considering my amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, this is a critical time in our Nation's history. For the first time in more than a decade, we have not just one but two vacancies on the United States Supreme Court. Sandra Day O'Conner, the first woman justice and often the critical deciding vote, is retiring, and Chief Justice Rehnquist, who served on the Court for more than 33 years, passed away after a courageous battle with cancer. The two nominees who will receive these lifetime appointments will dramatically impact the direction of the Court for decades to come and will shape decisions that will affect the rights and freedoms of all Americans. Furthermore, the new Chief Justice will play a unique and critical role. He will lead the Court. The new Chief Justice will set the initial agenda of what cases should be considered, and assign the justice who will write the majority opinion when he or she is a part of the majority. He will be the most powerful judge in the country. We all understand that the U.S. Senate has a constitutional obligation to ``advise and consent'' on all Federal judicial nominees. Unlike other nominations that come before the Senate, judicial nominations are lifetime appointments. These are not decisions that will affect our courts for 3 or 4 years but for 30 or 40 years, making it even more important for the Senate to act carefully and responsibly. I am one of the newer Members of this chamber. In fact, I rank 74th in seniority. I don't have the 20 year voting history on Supreme Court nominees that many of my colleagues do. I didn't vote on the nominations of Justices Scalia, Ginsburg, O'Connor or Thomas. But I bring a different kind of history to this Chamber. I am the first woman U.S. Senator in history from the State of Michigan. My office is next door to the Sewell Belmont house, where Alice Paul and Lucy Burns planned their suffrage marches and fought to get women the right to vote. I can see it from my window and every day I am reminded of what the women before me went through so that I could speak on the Senate floor today. I feel the same responsibility to fight against discrimination and for equal rights, for the women that will come after me. I take this responsibility very seriously and have closely studied Judge Roberts' writings and testimony at the Judiciary Committee hearings. I commend Senators Specter and Leahy for conducting the hearings in a civil and bipartisan manner. The Judiciary Committee hearings were the only opportunity for Americans to hear directly from Judge Roberts on issues and concerns that impact their daily lives, and to find out what a ``Roberts Court'' might look like. Unfortunately, Judge Roberts refused to answer many of the questions that are on the minds of most Americans. However, the American people are being asked to hire Judge Roberts for this lifetime job without knowing the answers to most of the interview questions. This problem has been exacerbated by the White House's refusal to share even a limited number of documents from Judge Roberts' time as Deputy Solicitor General. The Constitution grants all Americans the same rights, liberties and freedoms under the law. These are the sacred, bedrock values upon which the United States of America was founded. And we count on the Supreme Court to protect these constitutional rights at all times, whether they are popular or not. Unfortunately, Judge Roberts refused to answer most substantive questions about how he would protect our fundamental constitutional rights. Because of his failure to answer questions on the major legal issues of our time in a forthright manner, I feel compelled to base my decision on his writings and opinions. When you closely examine these documents, you see a forceful and instinctive opposition toward protecting the fundamental rights of all Americans. In case after case, Judge Roberts argued that the Constitution did not protect workers, voters, women, minorities and people with disabilities from discrimination. He also argued that the Constitution does not firmly establish the right of privacy for all Americans. In all of his memos, writings and briefs, Judge Roberts took the view that the Constitution only protects Americans in the most narrow and technical ways, and does not convey to us fundamental rights, liberties and freedoms. Because of these views, after much deliberation, I have concluded that Judge Roberts is the wrong choice for a lifetime appointment as Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Judge Roberts is certainly an intelligent man with a record of public service. However, that alone does not qualify him to lead the entire third branch of our government. I believe that his writings reveal a philosophy that undermines our most cherished and fundamental rights, liberties and freedoms as Americans, and for that reason, I will be voting no on his nomination. The Supreme Court decides cases that have a broad impact on American jobs and the economy. Manufacturing is the backbone of Michigan's economy, and these court decisions will affect the livelihood of the families, workers and businesses I represent. We in Michigan need to know whether Judge Roberts will stand with us and with our families or be on the side of major special interests who were his clients in the private sector. Right now, we are feeling the full impact of price-gouging and oil company monopolies at the gas pumps. But Americans don't know what Judge Roberts' views are of antitrust and consumer protection laws that punish these illegal corporate practices. How will he rule on cases dealing with insider-trading, anti-competitive business behavior and other kinds of corporate fraud to prevent another Enron? We don't know if he supports basic consumer protections like patients' rights to receive a second doctor's opinion if their HMO tries to deny them treatment. Judge Roberts fought against these patients' right when he represented HMOs in private practice and Americans are entitled to know where he stands on this issue. Americans need to know where Judge Roberts stands on worker protections under the Family and Medical Leave Act. And will Judge Roberts rule to protect their pensions and retirement benefits? We don't have the answers to these basic questions. The foundation of our democracy is the belief that all people are created equal and that every American deserves an equal opportunity for a good education, good job, and a good life. The Supreme Court will be deciding cases that have an enormous impact on our civil rights protections and this fundamental American notion of equality. As a lawyer in the Reagan administration, Judge Roberts argued against some of the most basic civil rights protections such as workplace discrimination laws and strengthening the Voting Rights Act. When he was asked if he disagreed with any of those positions today, Judge Roberts said he was just reflecting the administration's views, and refused to provide any clarity on his own personal views. However these memos expressed more than just the administration's position; they included Judge Roberts' own extreme views on everything from school desegregation to title IX. When urging the Attorney General to step up efforts to oppose legislation to strengthen the Voting Rights Act, Judge Roberts wrote, ``My own view is that something must be done to educate the Senators on the seriousness of this problem.'' This legislation ultimately passed with overwhelming bipartisan support. In memos, he referred to the ``purported gender gap'' and ``the canard that women are discriminated against because they receive $0.59 to every $1.00 earned by men. . . .'' In response to an equal pay letter from three Republican congresswomen, Roberts wrote, ``I honestly find it troubling that three Republican representatives are so quick to embrace such a radical redistributive concept. Their slogan may as well be `from each according to his ability, to each according to her gender.' '' As special assistant, Roberts criticized the Labor Department's affirmative action program and referred to the policies which required ``employers who contract with the government to engage in race and sex conscious affirmative action as a condition of doing business with the government'' as ``offensive.'' Roberts wrote: ``Under our view of the law it is not enough to say that blacks and women have been historically discriminated against as groups and are therefore entitled to special preferences.'' What is particularly troublesome is not just the content of these writings but his tone toward these issues--one that is disrespectful. And one which Judge Roberts refused to disavow during the hearings. As Senator Feinstein, the only woman on the Senate Judiciary Committee said, ``If Judge Roberts had provided different answers to these questions, he could have easily demonstrated to us that wisdom comes with age, and a sense of his own autonomy. But he did neither.'' These are opinions and attitudes that will have an impact on real people's lives. And Judge Roberts' opinion matters. They will affect whether or not we have admissions policies that promote diversity at our Nation's universities and policies that help minority-owned and women-owned businesses compete for government contracts. They will determine how well our antidiscrimination laws are enforced to protect all Americans from housing discrimination, abusive work environments, sexual harassment, discriminatory hiring policies, and sexism in education and collegiate sports under title IX. And they will determine whether our most fundamental democratic right--the right to vote--is protected. As Chief Justice, Judge Roberts would decide in case after case, whether these principals of equal opportunity and equal protection should be upheld and whether these laws should be enforced. The constitutional right to privacy is one of the most fundamental rights we have as Americans. At its core, it is about the role of government in the most personal of family decisions. It is about a woman's right to make her own reproductive choices and a couple's right to use contraception. But it is also about keeping medical records private to prevent them from being used against Americans in their jobs or when they are trying to get health insurance. It is about a parent's right to send their child to the school of their choice. And it is about the role of government in right-to-die cases, as the nation witnessed in the Terry Schiavo case. Our constitutional right to privacy is a complicated and often politically charged area of the law. It is extremely important that a Supreme Court nominee approach this issue as a fair and independent- minded jurist who will uphold settled law, and not approach it with a politically motivated agenda. While Judge Roberts acknowledged that a right to privacy exists, he refused to explain what he believes that right actually encompasses. Like Justice Thomas in his testimony before the committee, Judge Roberts refused to say whether he believed the right to privacy extended beyond a married couple's right to contraception. Senator Schumer asked Judge Roberts whether he agreed that there is a ``general'' right to privacy provided in the Constitution. Roberts' response was, ``I wouldn't use the phrase `general,' because I don't know what that means.'' He repeatedly refused to answer whether the right to privacy protects a woman's right to make her own reproductive choices, and like many women across the country, I was very disappointed that he was evasive in answering this important privacy question. How Judge Roberts will approach and decide these questions of law will have a profound impact on not just our lives but on the lives of our children and grandchildren. I had hoped that the hearings would give us insight into his legal reasoning and judicial philosophy on all of these important issues. And I strongly believe that the American people deserve these answers. This isn't a decision that should be based on guesswork or a leap of faith. So all we have to go on are Judge Roberts' own writings over the past 25 years. Based on this record, I cannot in good conscience cast my vote for John Roberts to be Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court.