Floor Statements

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.

Mr. President, I rise today to thank Senators Shelby and Mikulski and their staff for their aid in including an amendment that my colleague, Senator Vitter, and I offered. I also am pleased that Senators Dorgan, McCain, Durbin, Levin, Schumer, Feingold, Kohl, and Snowe co-sponsored this amendment.

Our amendment simply matches a provision in the House's appropriation bill that prohibits the US Trade Representative from inserting anti- drug-importation language into free trade agreements. Our provision will remove a huge obstacle to creating a meaningful drug importation plan.

One of yesterday's headlines was that the cost of health insurance for working Americans climbed 9.2 percent this year, far outpacing both general inflation and workers' pay increases, according to a nationwide survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation.

On average, health insurance for a family cost $10,880 this year, with the employer paying $8,167 and the worker $2,713, the survey found. The total cost almost exactly matches the total annual earnings of a person working full time at the minimum wage, the survey noted.

One of the key drivers of health care is the cost of prescription drugs. Rising drug costs place a huge financial burden on all Americans: from our senior citizens on fixed incomes, to working families without insurance, to small businesses with high health plan costs, to hospitals struggling to stay afloat, to states grappling with Medicaid drug costs. In April of this year, AARP reported last week that wholesale prescription drug costs rose an average of 7.1 percent last year. There is no way that our health system, our citizens, our government, and our taxpayers can continue to endure these increases year after year.

And these rising costs have an enormous health consequence for us, too. Prescription drugs are not like other products. They can do wonderful and amazing things but only if you can afford them. We might be able to make do and not buy a new pair of shoes, but we cannot off our medicine.

Because my home State borders Canada, I know what a difference reimportation has on people's lives. For years, I have joined my fellow Michiganians on their bus trips to Canada for medicine. What I discovered on my bus trips was almost unbelievable. Across Michigan's three bridges to Canada, my constituents have been able to buy safe, FDA-approved drugs at a fraction of the cost. For example, the cholesterol-lowering drug Lipitor is about 40 percent less; ulcer medication Prevacid is 50 percent less; and anti-depression medication Zyprexa is 70 percent less.

Today, the majority of Americans recognize that drug importation is a fair trade issue. They know that drug makers already bring drugs manufactured in other nations back into the U.S. And FDA inspectors go all over the world to inspect manufacturing lines that will produce drugs that ultimately will be brought into the U.S. I think many Americans would be surprised to learn that their drugs might be made in China, India, or Slovakia. In fact, one quarter of all drugs consumed by Americans were made in other nations and brought into the U.S.

But unfortunately for the millions of Americans who are struggling to afford their medication, PhRMA also has recognized that drug importation is a trade issue. According to its lobbying disclosures, PhRMA has actually lobbied the U.S. Trade Representative, our government's top international trade official, more than it lobbied the FDA, which directly oversees the industry's products. The Center for Public Integrity reported that PhRMA has contacted USTR more than any other lobbying organization.

That lobbying has paid off. Provisions in three different Free Trade Agreements with Singapore, Australia, and Morocco have created new patent rights for prescription drugs that would make it a violation to import drugs from those nations. Although none of the drug importation bills pending before the Senate propose importing drugs from all of those nations, these provisions are setting a dangerous precedent.

USTR has testified before Congress that new legislation on drug importation ``could give rise to an inconsistency between U.S. law and a commitment under this trade agreement.''

Worse, we are also hurting the ability of citizens in other nations to produce generic drugs. CAFTA contains language that will dramatically limit millions of patients' access to these low-cost, high-quality alternatives. In many Central American nations, brand-name drugs cost 22 times more than their generic equivalents.

This has already caused unrest. For example, HIV/AIDS patients in Guatemala have demonstrated against changes in their nation's generic- drug manufacturing laws as a result of CAFTA. Does this make any sense when we are trying to push for more resources to fight global AIDS?

Senators Vitter, McCain, and I introduced a bill in July that would prohibit such unfair language as well as make sure that consumer voices--our voices--are heard in free trade negotiations regarding pharmaceutical issues. This bill has been endorsed by numerous groups including Consumers Union and the Center for Policy Analysis on Trade and Health.

The amendment accepted yesterday merely says that USTR should not adopt language creating obstacles to drug importation. The Stabenow- Vitter amendment is a fair compromise. We need to have an open discussion about drug importation--it shouldn't be decided for us as a provision in an unamendable trade agreement.

This amendment is not an attack on intellectual property or enforcing trade agreements. I am very concerned about enforcing our patents and ensuring other nations respect our companies' intellectual property. In fact, I am a cosponsor of Senators Specter and Leahy's legislation on intellectual property.

Nothing in this amendment would preclude USTR from negotiating strongly-worded trade agreements that would protect and preserve our nation's patents and intellectual property. But surely USTR can negotiate and fight for language that isn't a back-handed way of blocking drug importation.

We know that, if given the chance, we can pass a good drug importation bill with bipartisan majorities in both houses of Congress. The bill that I have co-sponsored with Senators Dorgan, Snowe, McCain, and others would reduce total drug spending in the U.S. by about $50 billion over the 2006-through-2015 period.

But if USTR continues to insert provisions against importation into our trade agreements--agreements that are supposed to help American consumers--then our hard work will be for nothing.

The drug makers have a complete monopoly on those prescription drugs. No one else--doctors, pharmacists, patients, and employers--has the same opportunity to purchase those FDA-approved drugs at low prices. Again, only the drug makers can bring in these safe, FDA-approved drugs. We need to change this policy.

Mr. President, I thank my esteemed colleagues for their leadership on this legislation.

We will have an opportunity in a few moments to make sure that we are solving the problem that everyone says is the biggest in terms of system failure related to the hurricane in the Gulf. We heard the same thing after 9/11. The radios didn't work. The communications didn't work. Police and firefighters were running into buildings that they should have been running out of, but they didn't know what was happening above them. We knew that after 9/11. The 9/11 Commission reiterated that. We have talked about it. It is now time to do something about it.

I join with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in reaching out to those who have been hurt, who have suffered, who lost everything, the families of those who have lost their lives. As the majority leader said, coming back from the Gulf, he was astounded at the lack of communication. We can fix this. My amendment would begin that process.

We know, from the Congressional Budget Office, it will take at least $15 billion to connect local, State and Federal officials so that we have the redundancy, the backup, the connectedness to make sure we are responding quickly, effectively, that we know what is going on, on the ground, and everybody can get the job done to save lives, save property, and protect the American people.

My amendment would allocate that first piece. I offered it on the Homeland Security bill this year. It was not supported. Now is the time to support it and get it done. It offers $5 billion with the expectation we would come back and do the second payment next year and the third payment the year after. I know that my colleague who worked on the Homeland Security bill and led that effort is going to say: We already have moneys for that kind of thing, and the locals don't spend it in the right way. According to the Web site of the Department of Homeland Security, the Federal Government has spent only $280 million directly on connectedness, interoperability, and communications.

We could say to folks: Your COPS funding is getting cut, your training programs are getting cut, everything else is getting cut so you have fewer people on the ground. We want you to put the money into only communications.

That is not reality. In Michigan, we have 1,200 fewer police officers on the streets today than we did on 9/11/2001. That is not acceptable. My local police and firefighters are trying to hold on and keep the staff, keep the equipment they need. It is unrealistic and irresponsible on our part to say somehow each local police department and fire department, each county and city are going to pay for this interoperability that needs to happen so they can talk to the State and to Homeland Security, talk to the Justice Department and FEMA, with whomever they need to talk.

Our country was attacked. After 9/11, the Federal Government has the responsibility to protect our citizens and respond. After this hurricane, again, we know that it is a broader, regional, national response that is needed. People are looking to the Federal Government for help, and part of that help long term has got to be investing in protecting our citizens by making sure the communications systems work. I can't imagine we would send our brave men and women into battle overseas and not make sure the radios work and are connected. Why would we send our people here at home, our brave troops, our firefighters, our police officers, emergency responders, nurses, doctors, into harm's way in the middle of a disaster and not make sure the communications work?

We are in an age of technology. There is no excuse. I understand there are a number of new technologies that involve Web-based systems and new kinds of interoperability that we can bring to bear to get this done. When I think about what we need to be doing in the aftermath-- first, helping those who have lost so much; second, making sure the Federal bureaucracy doesn't victimize folks again and supporting States that are reaching out--it is our responsibility to make sure that the systems that failed do not fail again. Time is up. No more talk about moving one line item to another line item or this or that. I know we will hear that they have already received money that hasn't been spent. If it has not gotten through the Federal bureaucracy, what the heck is going on? Let's get it moving.

I know my folks on the frontlines are happy to accept funds and happy to do what they need to do to get this radio equipment working so they protect themselves and their communities. If the bureaucracy is not working fast enough, let's make it work. If the resources aren't there to make sure our people are protected, let's make sure the resources are there. That is our job. The American people are looking at us and saying: This is America. What is going on? Why didn't we collectively have the foresight to make sure that systems worked, that we have a national system? As Senator Blanche Lincoln talked about yesterday, when the Red Cross was putting in all of this data on victims to help, then FEMA comes in and has to do it again because it is not interoperable. Local communities cannot do this alone. States cannot do it alone. I hope my colleagues will step up and send a signal that we get it. We are going to fix it and do our part to make sure our citizens are safe.

Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable sections of that act for purposes of the pending amendment. I ask for the yeas and nays on something that is absolutely Katrina related-- communications.

Mr. President. I rise today to speak about a very important amendment authored by Senator Pryor, which I have cosponsored. Our amendment allocates a minimum of $1 million of the funds in this appropriations bill to allow the Federal Trade Commission to complete the investigation into possible gasoline price gouging. I was one of the authors of the original provision included in the energy bill that directs the FTC to investigate gasoline pricing practices. So I am very pleased to be joining Senator Pryor in ensuring that we get some answers quickly.

I offered my original amendment to the Energy Policy Act of 2005 in June of this year when we were debating the energy bill on the floor of the Senate. Back in June we were already experiencing high gasoline prices that fluctuated wildly from day to day, and in some cases, from hour to hour. I heard from many Michigan families who are unable to budget for gasoline to take their kids to school and commute to and from work because the prices they paid each week varied so much. I also heard from people in Michigan that they are extremely worried about gasoline pricing practices. They are concerned that they are getting gouged at the pump with no recourse.

A lot has changed since June and I am sorry to say that it hasn't been for the better.

Since June we have had a catastrophic hurricane ravage Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana. We have poured our hearts and our donations into those States to help the people who lost their homes and livelihoods get back on their feet. And we will continue to work as hard as possible to rebuild the towns and cities that have been destroyed.

But the impacts of Katrina spread beyond the Gulf Coast States. Whether or not we got a single breath of wind from the storm, we are feeling the continued impacts of Katrina's impact in all our States in the form of high gas prices.

In Michigan we saw prices as high as $3.21 per gallon earlier this month. Prices have eased a little bit in the weeks since Katrina hit the Gulf Coast States, but consumers are still very wary. There was a quote from a Michigan resident published recently in the Detroit News that speaks volumes about consumer confidence in gasoline pricing. Mr. Tony Mapson of Detroit, upon seeing gasoline priced at $2.69 per gallon, said, ``Maybe it is a con. They raise the price so high and then lower it so we don't complain so much.''

I think Mr. Mapson speaks for many Americans who distrust the price they are given at the pump. This is the reason I included a provision in the energy bill, which was signed into law on August 8, instructing the FTC to investigate gasoline price gouging. There has been some disagreement about when the FTC needs to finish their investigation under the law. It was my intention that the investigation should be started immediately and the FTC should complete it and report the findings back to Congress within 90 days of enactment. The FTC interprets the law to mean that they have 90 days to begin their investigation. As of today, it is has been 37 days since my price gouging provision became law. I strongly urge the FTC to immediately begin their investigation as directed by the Energy Policy Act and include the provisions in the amendment we are offering to the Commerce-Justice-Science appropriations bill. We must have the results of the investigation as quickly as possible so that we can take any necessary actions.

I strongly urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment.

Amendment No. 1710

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the pending amendments be set aside. I call up amendment No. 1687, and I send a modification to the desk for immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Levin, Schumer, Obama, Clinton, and Boxer be added as cosponsors of this amendment.

Mr. President, all of America is hurting with the Katrina victims and their families. We are finding ways to help, to reach out, to make a difference in these critical weeks following the hurricane and the horrible disaster. Americans are donating record amounts of money, time, and supplies to help those displaced by the hurricane. The most important thing to do now is to save life, to provide shelter, food, and medical care for the people affected by this tragedy.

As is happening in many States, last week two jetliners arrived in Michigan with the first group of 289 hurricane evacuees. Troops and volunteers at our Battle Creek Air National Guard base are providing clean shelter, food, and clothing to all of these Americans. Last Friday, 46 more Americans were welcomed into Michigan, and we expect many more in the coming weeks.

We also have several Michigan State police teams, and more than 500 members of the Michigan National Guard in Louisiana and Mississippi assisting with relief efforts.

There are stories about people all across our great Nation who are answering the call to help the men and women who have been displaced and hurt by the hurricane. In Michigan, families and businesses are working together to help the victims. Michigan-based Whirlpool, for example, is donating $1 million in cash and products for Hurricane Katrina relief efforts.

On Friday, the State of Michigan held a statewide on-air fundraiser where Michiganians generously donated time and dollars for Red Cross hurricane relief efforts.

There are so many individual stories of heroism and generosity rising from the depth of this catastrophe, both in the States affected by the hurricane and in communities such as mine all across America. These are important stories right now--saving lives, finding shelter, food, and medical care, and raising money to help hurricane victims. But there is another story to tell here as well. It is about the Federal Government and our responsibility to all Americans to be prepared not only for this kind of disaster but for a coordinated response to help save lives and prevent chaos.

We all watched in horror the images of families trapped in New Orleans after the hurricane; mothers with babies and young children stranded on highway overpasses, making their desperate pleas for help; families clinging to the roof of their flooded home, waving the shirts off their backs for help; senior citizens trapped in flooded nursing homes without food, water, and medical care. An estimated 55,000 people were stranded in the New Orleans Superdome and convention center, left for days--left for days--without food, water, and working bathrooms, waiting to be rescued. Thousands of people sat outside the Superdome in the heat and the filth for days waiting for convoys of buses which were slow to arrive because of FEMA's lack of planning and poor communication.

How could this happen in the United States of America, the greatest country on Earth? How could this happen? How could we allow stranded people to die without getting them water and food and medical care?

In this time immediately following this disaster, we have an obligation to correct the mistakes on crisis response. We need to address how the Federal Government could have better handled the response to Hurricane Katrina and what should have been done to prevent the disorder and death that followed this tragedy. It is absolutely critical that local communities have the tools they need to communicate, coordinate, and respond effectively when disaster hits. They did not have that in New Orleans and the other places that were hit, where the police departments in three nearby parishes were on different radio systems. They did not have enough satellite phones. They had ground and cell phone lines that were taken out with this storm. The communications systems they did have, like most in local communities across the Nation, were not interoperable. They were not connected. They didn't work together. Police officers called Senator Landrieu's office, and I am sure Senator Vitter's office as well, because they could not reach commanders on the ground in New Orleans.

In the absence of communication with other emergency responders due to the lack of interoperability, power, or dying batteries, responders shared satellite phones that were in short supply.

According to Aaron Broussard, president of the Jefferson Parish, FEMA

came in, and, without warning, cut the emergency communication lines for local law enforcement and hooked up their own. Local law enforcement and first responders were left without any way to communicate with each other.

This collapse in communications was not just a local and State problem. FEMA, who is supposed to be coordinating the Federal response and helping rescue evacuees, was working in the dark. In several interviews, former FEMA Director Brown admitted that FEMA learned about 25,000 hungry, and in some cases dying, people trapped in the New Orleans convention center from listening to news reports. Even he conceded that emergency assistance and delivery problems were caused by ``the total lack of communication''--the inability to hear and have good intelligence on the ground. We knew before Katrina hit that too many of our police and fire and emergency medical services and transportation officials cannot communicate with each other, and our local departments are not able to link their communications with State and Federal emergency response agencies.

The September 11 attack highlighted the interoperability crisis when New York police and firefighters, while on different radio systems, couldn't communicate when we had police officers and firefighters running in the buildings that they should have been running out of because they weren't able to communicate with the others on floors above them to know what was happening. Over 50 different public safety organizations from Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia reported to the Pentagon, but they could not talk to each other. The result of this lack of connectedness in communications is nothing short of chaos.

This past Sunday, Thomas Kean, the former Republican Governor of New Jersey, an esteemed cochair of the 9/11 Commission, said that the Federal Government's response was similar to September 11, including first responders not being able to talk to each other and a lack of command and control. The Commission's cochair, Lee Hamilton, also told CNN that ``he has had an uneasy feeling for a long time that the government simply was not acting with a sense of crisis, with a sense of urgency.'' Now I hope and pray we have that sense of urgency.

A June 2004 U.S. Conference of Mayors survey found that 94 percent of our cities do not have interoperable capability between police, fire, and emergency medical services, and 60 percent of our cities do not have that same capability with the State emergency operations centers. Majority Leader Frist spoke in the Senate last week about seeing this problem firsthand in the gulf coast, how people were working without functioning radios and could not communicate from one end of the airport terminal to the other, much less to another building or another part of town.

Almost half of the cities surveyed said that a lack of interoperable communications had made response to an incident within the last year difficult. The most startling finding was that over 80 percent of cities do not have interoperable communications with the Department of Homeland Security or the Department of Justice. Heaven forbid, if there is another natural disaster or terrorist attack soon, our communities will not be able to communicate with FEMA or the Department of Homeland Security.

Michigan first responders have told me, as I have said before in the Senate, that they have to watch the cable news to get notifications of raised alert levels because they are not able to be contacted by the Department of Homeland Security. As I mentioned before, FEMA found out about the 25,000 people trapped in the New Orleans convention center from watching the news reports.

Last Sunday was the fourth anniversary, as we all know, of the horrendous attacks on September 11, and this is the State of our Federal communications and emergency response system? We can do better. It is time to have a sense of urgency and do better.

They are only beginning the process of recovering the bodies of the Katrina victims in the gulf coast. Some of these victims lost their lives because of the hurricane. How many lost their lives because of the poor disaster response and the total lack of communications? How many lost their lives because they were left without food or water for days, without any hope of aid, and no ability to communicate? How many lost their lives because they were trapped in their homes, in churches, and highway overpasses waiting to be rescued? How many lost their lives because they were elderly and sick or dying and stranded without medical care or medicine? How many of these lives would have been saved if FEMA had been able to communicate with local first responders and hospitals and get good information on where to send help first, what was most urgent? FEMA failed these victim and their families. There is a wide understanding of that. This is unconscionable in terms of the lack of infrastructure and communications. The lack of communications is a crisis, and we are putting our communities in danger. We need to address this now. We all need to address it, together.

Two months ago in the Senate, I offered an amendment to provide $5 billion for interoperable communications equipment grants for first responders to the Homeland Security appropriations bill. The amendment, unfortunately, was defeated. Why? Many stated it was a local responsibility to pay for this equipment. But how is communication, connecting all across the country--local, State, and Federal--to respond to a national emergency or regional emergency, how is this a local responsibility when we have seen what happened?

I know none of my colleagues believe rebuilding from the devastation of Hurricane Katrina is a local responsibility alone or that somehow helping those who have lost their homes, lost so much, that somehow that is a local responsibility alone. We understand we have a responsibility, together, to help these Americans, and everyone is coming together to do that. No one in the Senate is saying it is a local responsibility to rebuild the gulf coast.

After September 11, we came together. The terrorists did not just attack New York and Washington, DC; they attacked the entire country. We responded by coming together and having a Federal response. Why is it, then, that communications equipment that would allow local, State, and Federal first responders to coordinate and work as a team has been considered a local responsibility? I hope that will no longer be the case. Coordinated communications would decrease the loss of life and the devastation of a natural disaster such as Hurricane Katrina and in the case of terrorism could very well prevent an attack.

That is why I am again offering my amendment. My amendment provides $5 billion for interoperable communications grants for America's first responders to provide a strong Federal commitment to address this problem.

Estimates from the GAO and the Congressional Budget Office place the cost of equipping America's first responders with interoperable communication in excess of $15 billion. In November 2003, the CBO testified before Congress that there is insufficient funding in place to solve the Nation's interoperability problem and that it would cost over $15 billion to move us in the direction of solving the problem. This $5 billion provides a strong Federal commitment toward the goal. I hope we will make that commitment to do that investment this year, next year, and the year after, and complete this issue and get it right, solve this problem. There is no time to wait. We need to act now. We should have acted before. I am hopeful we will come together now and act.

The Federal Government has not made a significant commitment to solve this problem up to this point. In previous years, tiny amounts of money have been allocated to interoperability projects on a very small scale. Obviously, it has been not enough to get the job done. According to the Department of Homeland Security, since September 11 the Department of Homeland Security has spent only $280 million directly on interoperable communications. None of these funds have been provided to help State and local emergency responders purchase the equipment they need so they can talk with each other.

Nearly 4 years after September 11, 2001, the top request for support I receive each year from communities in Michigan is for communications equipment and connectedness, the ability to

talk with each other. In Michigan, we still have police departments that cannot talk to the fire department, the sheriff who cannot talk to the local community, and those who are not able to talk with Homeland Security or State authorities.

We in government failed the people of the gulf coast because we did not address this sooner. Now we need to provide the resources to make sure the communications equipment works, it is interoperable, and that they can get the job done in the future to save lives and respond-- whether it is a terrorist attack or a natural disaster.

This shock and horror of the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina will live with us forever. We salute the heroes of this disaster, and our prayers are with the victims.

The American people, as they always do, rose to the challenge and are helping out all across this great country. I again am so proud of all we are doing in the great State of Michigan. We have to step up and show leadership and do our part, do what we can and should do but only we can do, and that is to make sure that across the country we have done the job to put together the communications infrastructure to make sure in case of emergency all of our citizens--State, local, Federal officials--can talk to each other, can respond with efficiency and effectiveness, and can do what needs to be done to save lives and save communities. We have the power to do that.

I ask support for my amendment and urge all of my colleagues to support this effort to get this done. We need a sense of urgency. If we do not feel it now, I don't know when we will. I hope we will get this done.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise to join with my colleagues today to talk about the devastation in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama as a result of Hurricane Katrina. While Senator Lott is on the floor, I want to give my personal condolences to him and his family and all those who have suffered in Mississippi as well as the other States involved.

My personal deepest sympathies, and those from the people of Michigan as well as our prayers, go out to the families grieving the loss of their loved ones and to the survivors who are struggling to cope and to find shelter, food, and medical care in the wake of this horrendous, this terrible disaster.

My heart goes out to all of our colleagues--Senator Landrieu, Senator Vitter, Senator Lott, Senator Cochran, Senator Shelby, and Senator Sessions. Their constituents are suffering. So are they, and particularly Senator Landrieu and Senator Lott, who have lost their family homes to this vicious storm. All of America is hurting with the victims and their families. We are finding ways to help and reach out and make a difference in these critical times following the hurricane.

Americans are donating record amounts of money, time, and supplies to help those who are displaced by the hurricane. The most important thing right now is to make sure we are saving lives and that we are providing food and shelter and medical care for the people affected by this tragedy.

As has happened with many other States, two jetliners arrived in Michigan yesterday with the first group of 289 hurricane evacuees. Troops and volunteers at our Battle Creek Air National Guard base will provide clean shelter and food and clothing to them. They are the first of many evacuees we plan to take in Michigan, and I know this is happening in the States of my colleagues all over the country as people open their hearts, open their homes, and open their pocketbooks to share with those who have been affected. Michigan's Department of Natural Resources has loaded 25 boats and trailers with supplies and sent them to the Gulf Coast. We also have several Michigan State Police teams moving south to assist with the emergency response.

Michigan's Department of Transportation has fuel trucks headed south and is making arrangements for alternative flight operators to pick up evacuees, if necessary.

There are so many individual stories of heroism and generosity rising from the depths of this catastrophe, both in the States affected by the hurricane and in communities all across our country. I have heard stories about individuals in New Orleans who stayed after helping their families escape to safety. They stayed to help rescue their neighbors. Two men from Simmesport took their airboat through New Orleans and transported by themselves more than 1,000 people to safety in the first day after the hurricane. When a news crew from North Carolina tried to interview them about their heroic efforts, they declined, saying they had too much work to do and no time to stop and talk.

We have all heard the heartbreaking stories of sacrifice--of the wife who let go of her husband's hand as he clung to the wreckage of their home, giving her own life so her husband would be able to be alive to raise their children. We salute each and every one of those heroes, these people who put others before themselves, who made sacrifices so others could be brought to safety.

There are stories about people all across our great Nation who are answering the call to help fellow Americans. In Michigan, families and businesses are working together to help victims and families. My alma mater, Michigan State University, and the University of Michigan, are collecting donations for the Red Cross at their football games. On Saturday, the University of Michigan fans put $40,000 into buckets as they entered the stadium. One anonymous donor put in a wad of five $100 bills. Some donations are big, some are small, but they all count and the donations are coming in from all kinds of venues. Nine-year-old Rochester Hills resident Megan and her five-year-old sister Lauren set up a booth to sell lemonade, chocolate chips, and their toys to raise money to send to the Red Cross. The girls raised $80, and their parents promised to match it.

These are the stories that matter right now, both in the States affected and all across the country: saving lives, finding shelter, food, medical care, and raising funds to help the hurricane victims.

But there is also another story to tell. It is about the Federal Government and our responsibility to all Americans to be prepared--to be prepared not only for this kind of disaster but for a coordinated response to help save lives and prevent chaos. We must find answers to basic questions that the American people are asking right now as they watch the aftermath on TV, minute by minute, hour by hour, and they say over and over again to themselves: How could this have happened in the United States of America, the greatest country on Earth? How could our country allow people to die without getting them water, food, and medical care?

In this time immediately following the disaster, we have an obligation to correct the mistakes in crisis response and we have questions to answer to everyone--certainly to those who have been affected.

Are we investing enough in homeland security? I say no, and I have said no since 9/11. Why has the Senate basically ignored the Rudman report from 3 years ago that showed our Nation's first responders need additional funding in the amount of $20 billion a year? Senator Dodd and I offered that amendment to fully respond to that report now for 3 different years. I hope we are going to be able to get that done.

How much are we to invest to maintain the flood control projects of our Corps of Engineers? Clearly, the current level is not enough, and people have said that it wasn't enough. In 2002, Mike Parker, former Assistant Secretary for the Army for Civil Works, testified before the Senate Budget Committee, of which I am a member, that funding cuts to the Corps' budget would have a negative impact on the national interest.

Are we stretching our National Guard troops too thin? Thirty-five percent of Louisiana's National Guard troops--3,000 soldiers--are in Baghdad. Is that too many? Spokesman LT Andy Thaggard of the Mississippi National Guard, which has a brigade of more than 4,000 troops in central Iraq, said this about the hurricane response: ``We need our people.''

Are we heeding the scientific advice that overwhelmingly points to global warming as a possible cause for increased hurricanes?

We have important questions to answer--serious questions for which we all need to work together to take responsibility--about how the Federal Government could have better handled the events that unfolded as a result of this catastrophe called Hurricane Katrina. We need to make sure that we are responding quickly, not only to help those in need today but, Heaven forbid, that something happens tomorrow. We have to be ready. We have to learn from this catastrophe, from the mistakes and the lack of adequate response, and quickly fix it. That is our job.

It is absolutely critical that local communities have the tools they need to communicate, to coordinate, and to respond effectively when disasters hit. They didn't have that in New Orleans--where the police department and three

nearby parishes are on different radio systems. They didn't have enough satellite phones. They had ground and cell phone lines that were taken out with the storm. And the communications systems they did have--like most local communities across the Nation--were not interoperable. They do not work together.

Police officers called Senator Landrieu's office because they couldn't reach commanders on the ground in New Orleans because they were sharing satellite phones that were in short supply. The result of this lack of interoperability was nothing short of chaos.

FEMA Director Michael Brown has said that emergency assistance delivery problems were caused by ``the total lack of communications-- the inability to hear and have good intelligence on the ground.''

The distinguished Senator from Louisiana, Mr. Vitter, has said that FEMA's efforts to deal with the hurricane have been completely ineffective, and he called the Federal Government's response a failure. These are his words:

I think FEMA has been completely dysfunctional and is

completely overwhelmed, and I don't know why. This situation

was utterly predictable.

And he is right. We knew before Katrina hit that too many of our police, fire, and emergency medical services and transportation officials could not communicate and still cannot communicate with each other. Our local departments are not able to link their communications with State and Federal emergency response agencies.

A June 2004 U.S. Conference of Mayors survey found that 94 percent of cities do not have interoperable capability between police and fire and emergency medical services. Sixty percent said they do not have interoperable capability with the State emergency operations center. As we saw with the hurricane, that puts our communities and every single American in danger.

This lack of communications interoperability is a crisis, and we must deal with it. We must deal with it now. It is one of the lessons that has been painfully--painfully--learned from this hurricane. We need to learn it, and we need to learn it quickly.

That is why as soon as possible I will offer, again, my amendment that provides $5 billion for interoperable communications grants for America's first responders to provide a strong commitment to this problem. We know what it costs. CBO outlined what it would cost. We need to get this done.

When we debated this amendment in this year's 2006 debate on homeland security appropriations, many of my colleagues across the aisle opposed it because they felt it was a local responsibility.

Communications is not a local responsibility when the FEMA Director admits that he learned about the 25,000 people trapped at the New Orleans Convention Center from news reports. This is not acceptable, and the American people expect us to act now. There is no more time to waste. I am for fixing the problem.

I believe our Government failed the people of the gulf coast. Members of the administration and the Congress must admit that we need more resources to deal with potential disasters, whether they are natural disasters or stem from a terror attack.

The shock and the horror of the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina will live with us forever.

We salute the heroes in this disaster, and our prayers are with the victims. The American people, as they always do, are rising to the challenge and helping our communities across the Nation. We thank every single person for making that contribution, saying that prayer, donating their clothes, donating food, getting in their cars and driving down to help, or getting a bus or getting a caravan from their church. But I believe from the bottom of my heart that we in Government, this Senate and the House and the administration, have got to step up and do our part. We have got to step up. We know what needs to be done. We know what needs to be done to make sure our communities have the communications equipment they need. We know what needs to be done to make sure these disasters don't happen again--by providing the Army Corps of Engineers with what they need to keep communities safe. We know what needs to be done.

While we are joining on the floor--and we will join together to reach out to help the victims and address issues that relate to health care, housing, education, and other issues that need to be addressed--I hope we are not going to leave this floor after working on those things without having said we fixed it for the next hurricane, for the next terrorist attack, for the next bioterrorist attack, or for the next natural disaster. We have a responsibility to step up and solve the problems that added to the chaos and the hurt and the loss of life because the right priorities were not put in place by the Congress and this administration.

We can fix it, and it is on our shoulders to make sure that we do.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am very pleased to submit this Concurrent Resolution on behalf of myself and my Democratic colleagues.

I rise to commend two programs that have served as a safety net for millions of Americans, Medicare and Medicaid. This Saturday, Medicare and its sister program Medicaid turn forty, and for millions of Americans, these vital health care programs have literally meant the difference between life and death.

I am proud to be sponsoring a resolution to commemorate Medicare's birthday on behalf of the Democratic caucus and to be co-sponsoring a similar resolution for Medicaid. Medicare is a great American success story, and one of the most successful federal programs of all time. It has lifted countless seniors out of poverty, allowing them to live with dignity and independence, and it has ensured access to necessary, affordable,

quality medical care for our most vulnerable citizens. Prior to the introduction of Medicare, half of America's seniors couldn't find or afford health insurance. Today, Medicare is the closest thing our Nation has to universal coverage, providing health care to nearly 42 million Americans, including over 1 million in Michigan.

Moreover, Medicare has been remarkably efficient, especially considering the population it covers. Its administrative costs average less than 2 percent of its expenditures; in comparison, the administrative costs for private insurance can run 12 to 13 percent, sometimes as high as 25 percent. Administrative costs this low are particularly striking when we consider the overwhelming majority of seniors and people with disabilities 87 percent--are enrolled in traditional Medicare, giving them full access to specialized care and their choice of physicians.

Medicaid, too, is celebrating its birthday this weekend. I began my political career in State government so I know the challenges facing our governors and State legislatures. One in seven Michiganians, or more than 1.4 million in my State, are enrolled in Medicaid. Michigan does a great job at trying to control its Medicaid costs. In fact, private insurance has been rising almost twice as fast as Michigan's Medicaid costs. That's remarkable when you realize that the program enrolls some of the sickest and most vulnerable Americans, people that could never afford private insurance.

I recognize that there are challenges facing both programs, but I do not believe that making arbitrary cuts--putting our patients and providers in jeopardy--is the way to improve either program. We certainly must ensure the efficiency of the programs' use of taxpayer dollars. While doing so we must not lose sight of the fact that, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the Medicare and Medicaid average spending growth on a per capita basis from 2000-2004 was lower than that of private insurance. We need to find ways to lower health care costs system-wide; addressing only Medicare and Medicaid means we often simply shift unaffordable costs to the states, our businesses, workers and patients. Let's work together on a bipartisan basis to make health care more affordable and accessible for all Americans.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. President, let me raise an issue and ask a question. We have spent time in this Chamber trying to address an immediate shortfall in veterans health care funding. Senator Murray has brought this to our attention. We have yet to see this resolved. We have gone back and forth about whether we are going to provide adequate funds now for our veterans.

Is it not true that one of the amendments--and I know this is true because I offered an amendment that would address this situation long term--where instead of coming back and forth constantly trying to figure out whether we are going to have the veterans funding year to year so our veterans do not stand in lines, wait months to see a doctor, and not receive what they need, isn't it also the understanding of the Democratic leader that my amendment that would address permanently the issue of veterans funding, therefore guaranteeing that when our brave men and women come home from the wars, end their service, and become veterans, that they would be assured we will keep our promise to them as it relates to full funding of veterans health care, is it the Senator's understanding that this amendment would also fall, we would not have the opportunity to address this issue in this bill?

Mr. President, this is an important debate and discussion, but I ask unanimous consent to speak on a different topic and have it count against the 30 hours.

Mr. President, I had hoped at this time to come to the floor to vote on an amendment that I introduced with Senator Tim Johnson and other colleagues, to make sure that veterans health care funding is, in fact, secured and stable for the future through an amendment which was supported by the American Legion--by many groups-- the Disabled American Veterans, Blind Veterans of America, Jewish War Veterans of the USA, AMVETS, Veterans of Foreign Wars, Paralyzed Veterans, Military Order of the Purple Heart, Vietnam Veterans--all of whom want us to pass the Stabenow amendment which would make veterans health care funding mandatory, reliable, rather than having the situation we are in with the VA coming to us with a shortfall right now and asking for emergency funding, then a debate on what we are going to do for next year.

This is a very important amendment. It was pending prior to the vote on whether to invoke cloture, or to bring one level of debate to a close. If cloture had been invoked, this amendment would not be in order to be voted on. It would not have been in order, which is why, among other reasons, I voted not to proceed to invoking cloture.

There are a number of very important amendments that address the needs of our troops and their families, and other important issues about keeping us safe, securing nuclear materials, and other critical issues that were brought forward by colleagues on both sides of the aisle. These are amendments that need to be debated and included, in many instances, I would say, in the Defense reauthorization bill.

I am deeply disappointed that instead of proceeding with that work and getting it done in the next day or two, which we on this side of the aisle committed to do--our leader indicated we would commit to stay here and get that work done--instead of doing that, we saw the leadership put this aside and go to another issue that is of concern, I know, to the gun industry.

But we are at war. We are at war. We have men and women who need our best efforts, both those who are our troops serving us, as well as those who have a veteran's cap on right now who have served us in other wars or come home from Iraq and Afghanistan.

I want to speak to the Defense authorization bill which I strongly support, as well as the amendment that I hope we will return to when we come back to the Defense bill. I hope it will be very quickly because our men and women in the armed services are counting on us to get the work done and make it the best product we can possibly make it in terms of our national defense and the Defense reauthorization.

I do support the 2006 Defense authorization bill. I believe providing the equipment and resources our service men and women need to do their jobs is one of our most important responsibilities, which is why I wish we were debating that right now. This duty is especially important, as I said before, in a time of war. As everyone knows, our men and women in uniform are under tremendous stress as they either prepare to deploy or are currently serving their country in Iraq and Afghanistan. I am pleased the Defense reauthorization bill will authorize a 3.1-percent pay raise for military personnel and provide $70 million in additional funds for childcare and family assistance services for our military families.

I know Senator Murray has an additional amendment that relates to supporting families and childcare, which I think is very important.

Foremost in the minds of the men and women in uniform with whom I

visit is the safety and security of their families. The bill that was pulled in order to have this debate on gun manufacturers is a bill that also authorizes $350 million in additional funding for up-armored vehicles, and $500 million for the Improvised Explosive Device Task Force.

It also continues our strong support for the Nunn-Lugar cooperative threat reduction programs that work to keep weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of terrorists--an incredibly important effort that needs to be fully funded and receive our full commitment in every way.

These and other important provisions of this legislation will help make our country safer, make our troops safer and more capable as they serve us abroad.

I met with men and women from Michigan and across the country who are recovering at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. Some have suffered minor injuries that will not have a dramatic impact on the rest of their lives. Others, because of their injuries, will need years of rehabilitation and will face considerable obstacles as they return to their civilian lives. We owe these men and women our continued support so they can recover from their injuries and lead productive lives.

Today's soldiers are tomorrow's veterans. America has made a promise to these brave men and women to provide them with the care they need and 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 America's prior conflicts to maintain a place for them in the VA system so they can receive the care they need. We need to keep our promises to our veterans, young and old.

Today, I was privileged to participate in a press conference before the question came up about closing debate on these kinds of amendments. I was pleased that the current National Commander, Tom Cadmus, who is from Michigan, was there representing the American Legion. There were numerous other veterans organizations represented, as I listed earlier in my comments. All of them were saying to us: Let's stop this taking from one pocket to put in the other, taking from Peter to pay Paul, with our veterans. Let's keep the promise of veterans health care, period, and put veterans health care into a category that will allow that to happen on an ongoing basis.

I believe we must consider the ongoing costs of medical care for America's veterans as part of the continuing costs of national defense. The long-term legacy of the wars we fight today is the care for the men and women who have worn the uniform and been willing to pay the ultimate price for their Nation.

Senator Johnson and I and other colleagues are offering this amendment, which is currently still pending on the Department of Defense reauthorization, to provide full funding for VA health care to ensure that the VA has the resources necessary to provide quality health care in a timely manner to our Nation's sick and disabled veterans. The Stabenow-Johnson amendment provides guaranteed funding for America's veterans from two sources. First, the legislation provides an annual discretionary amount that would be locked in future years at the 2005 funding level. Second, in the future--and importantly--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 and the rate of health care inflation. In other words, it would depend on the number of veterans rather than this arbitrary debate now on inflationary increases.

We know the current formulation has not worked because the VA tells us that they are over $1 billion short now in funding for health care services for our veterans. I think that is absolutely inexcusable, and it needs to be fixed permanently. The amendment that we have offered creates a funding mechanism that will ensure that the VA has the resources it needs to provide a steady and reliable stream of funds to care for America's veterans, and it will also ensure that Congress will continue to be responsible for the oversight of the VA health care system, as it does with other Federal programs that are funded directly from the U.S. Treasury.

In fact, this amendment would bring funding for veterans health care into line with almost 90 percent of the health care funding that is provided by the Federal Government. Almost 90 percent of federally funded health care programs are in the mandatory category, not discretionary. Why in the world would we say to our veterans they don't deserve the same kind of treatment in terms of the Federal budget for mandatory spending that other programs receive, such as Medicare and Medicaid?

The amendment also requires a review in 2 years by the Comptroller General to determine whether adequate funding for veterans health care was achieved. Depending on the outcome of this review, Congress would have the opportunity to make changes to the law to ensure that veterans receive the care they deserve.

The problem we face today is that resources for veterans health care are falling behind demand. In other words, we are creating more veterans than we are covering under our health care system. Shortly after coming into office, the President created a task force to improve health care delivery for our Nation's veterans. The task force found that historically there has been a gap between the demand for VA care and the resources to meet the need. 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 support the system to serve

those in need.

The task force released its report in May of 2003, well before we understood the impact of our men and women fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, and what that would mean to our veterans' health care system. If this mismatch between demand and resources was bad in May of 2003, imagine what it is today. That is why we see this gap. That is why we need to address--and the Senate has now passed, twice--$1.5 billion for emergency spending for veterans health care.

Over 360,000 soldiers have returned from Iraq and Afghanistan, and over 86,000 have sought health care up to this point from the VA.

There are an additional 740,000 military personnel who served in Iraq and Afghanistan. They 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.

In addition, each reservist and National Guardsman who has served in Iraq is eligible for 2 years of free health care at the VA. I support that. The administration has in its own way admitted that they do not have sufficient resources to provide adequate care for America's veterans. While they would not until recently admit that there was a shortfall, they have for years attempted to ration care and cut services at the expense of our Nation's veterans. This is just not acceptable.

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 our middle-class 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 $114 million to $12 million. The heads of the Grand Rapids Home for Veterans and the D.J. Jacobetti Home for Veterans in Marquette tell me these cuts would be devastating to them in serving our veterans in Michigan. The fiscal year 2005 and 2006 VA health 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, which is an annual estimate of critical veterans health care needs by a coalition of leading veterans organizations. In fact, in February 2004, Anthony Principi, then the Secretary of the 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 VA for health care. The final amount Congress provided to the VA for health care was $1.2 billion over the President's request. While above the President's request, it was

still not enough to meet the immediate needs.

In April of this year, I supported an amendment by Senator Murray to the fiscal year 2005 supplemental to Iraq and Afghanistan to provide $1.9 billion for veterans medical care, specifically for those veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.

During the debate on the amendment, we were again told that the President's budget was sufficient. 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 emergency

supplemental funds in the 2005 budget to continue to provide

timely quality service. That is always our goal.

Mr. President, since April the story has changed, and we now know the truth.

On June 23, 2005, the VA testified before Congress that they forecasted a 2.5-percent growth in demand--in other words, more veterans, as we have all been saying, more veterans coming into the system--when in fact the increased demand this year is 5 percent. They said 2.5 percent; it actually was 5 percent. This has left the VA with a $1 billion shortfall. I was proud to support an amendment the following week to the Senate's Interior appropriations bill that provided an additional $1.5 billion for veterans health care. The following day, on June 30, the House passed emergency supplemental legislation that would cut this by $575 million, in line with the President's request.

At the time, our friends in the House suggested that the Senate was making up numbers. In fact, we wanted to be sure that the VA had enough funds to cover the shortfall and to cover any potential shortfall of next year. As it turned out, we received more bad news from the administration a couple weeks ago, 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 now stands at nearly $3 billion.

The Interior appropriations bill is currently in conference. I am hopeful that the bill will include $1.5 billion for this year, as the Senate has twice unanimously supported. Further, last week the Senate Appropriations Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Subcommittee, under the able leadership of Senator Hutchison and Senator Feinstein, included extra funding to cover the 2006 shortfall in VA health care.

Mr. President, I recall all of these events to make two points. First, it is clear that the demand for VA health care is increasing, and a good portion of this increase can be attributed to men and women seeking care after they have returned from Iraq and Afghanistan. Second is to show that 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 have earned.

Imagine that. It is not acceptable. It has been over a month and Congress has still not resolved the $1.3 billion shortfall in VA medical services for this year. We owe our service men and women more than that.

In 1993, there were about 2\1/2\ million veterans in the VA system, and there are more than 7 million veterans enrolled in the system, over half of which receive care on a regular basis today. Despite the increase in patients, the VA has received an average of a 5-percent increase in appropriations over the last 8 years. At last count, at least 86,000 men and women who have returned from Iraq have sought health care from the VA, and we can safely assume this number will reach hundreds of thousands. This bill gives the resources our troops need to prepare and defend our country in Iraq. We must not forget them when they come home. We have an obligation to keep our promises to our veterans.

Mr. President, I am very hopeful that we will quickly return to the Defense reauthorization bill and have the opportunity to show our veterans all across America that we will permanently keep our commitment to them by passing the Stabenow-Johnson amendment. There are other important amendments that remain in front of us now because we have discontinued the opportunity for us to improve on this bill, a bill I support, but a bill that needs to be the very best that we can do for our men and women serving us today and for our veterans. I hope we will quickly return to it and that we will get about the business of continuing to work on these critical amendments and quickly bring this to a close. And we can do it this week if there is the will to do it so that we provide the very best to our men and women in service and those who have come home and put on the veterans cap.

Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time under the 30 hours to Senator Reed.

Reserving the right to object, I don't intend to object, I understand we are working out some amendments. I also have an amendment I would like to offer. I wanted to raise, as the agreement is being put together, that I have the opportunity to do that.

Mr. President, I thank my friend and distinguished colleague. I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment, and I call up amendment No. 1435.

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

Mr. President, today's soldiers are tomorrow's veterans, and America has made a promise to these brave men and women to provide them with the care they need and deserve. Senator Johnson and I and others are offering an amendment today to provide full funding for VA health care to ensure that the VA has the resources necessary to provide quality care in a timely manner to our Nation's sick and disabled veterans.

The Stabenow-Johnson amendment provides guaranteed funding for America's veterans from two sources. First, the legislation provides an annual discretionary amount that would be locked in for future years at the 2005 funding levels and, second, in the future, the VA would receive a sum of mandatory funding that would be adjusted year to year based on the changes in demand from the VA health care system and the rate of health care inflation.

This is about whether we are going to fully support our brave men and women who are fighting today and have fought in the past and will fight tomorrow, whether we are going to continue to debate year to year whether there is adequate funding for veterans health care or whether we will make a statement in this bill that part of national defense is making sure that when our men and women come home and put on the veteran's cap, they will, in fact, be assured that the health care they need will be there, not dependent on the Appropriations Committee entirely, not dependent on what happens year to year, but knowing there is a full commitment that we have made to them for veterans health care.

I will speak further at a later time. I understand there are other colleagues who wish to speak on other amendments. I simply ask colleagues to support this very important commitment, keeping our promises to our veterans, starting with the fact that we say very loudly and clearly that veterans health care, in the full amount needed, will be available to each and every one of our brave veterans.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Durbin as a cosponsor of the amendment.

Our primary goal as the Senate must be to make sure our families are prepared and protected. That means preparing our first responders. This amendment is an amendment to provide the first installment on fully investing in interoperability communications, $5 billion in emergency spending, which is the equivalent of 1 month spending in Iraq, in order to make sure we can talk to each other-- State, Federal, local, police, fire, and emergency responders.

When our cities were attacked, they were not attacking individual cities; they were attacking our country. No longer is interoperable communications just a State and local function. It must be committed to nationally to keep America safe.

Finally, my distinguished friend from New Hampshire I am sure will say the Department still has funds that have not been allocated. My question is, Why not? Let's get about the business of keeping prepared and protected.

Mr. President, first, I congratulate my friend and colleague from Colorado for his excellent statement and his leadership on this issue and so many other issues. Since coming to the Senate 6 months ago, the Senator from Colorado has demonstrated his compassion, intelligence, and ability to speak to the issues that people in this country desperately care about and desperately need. I congratulate him, once again, on having amendments that are very important for the families of our country.

Amendment No. 1217

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendments be set aside and call up my amendment No. 1217.

Mr. President, I ask further unanimous consent that Senators Levin, Corzine, Akaka, Dodd, and Lautenberg be added as cosponsors.

Mr. President, one of the most important appropriations bills is before us now, and that is our Homeland Security bill. Certainly we are reminded again, because of what happened in London last week, that we on our soil are vulnerable and are looking to stop terrorists overseas.

Our goal, certainly the goal of our caucus, our goal as Democrats, has been to make sure Americans are prepared and protected both at home and abroad. That is what this bill is really all about. It is not a partisan issue. This is an American issue. All of us I know care about this issue, and we need to make sure this budget reflects the goals of making sure that our first responders are prepared, that all Americans are prepared, and that we are protected from terrorism in America. My amendment addresses a very important piece of that. We have come together in a bipartisan way to make sure that soldiers in America and Afghanistan have the most sophisticated technology so that they can be prepared to protect themselves and fight successfully abroad. Unfortunately, the same is not true at home for our police officers, our firefighters, and our emergency responders. Too many of them rely on outdated technology and equipment that is not integrated with our State departments, our transportation departments and our homeland security departments.

Even if we are defeating terrorists in Iraq, we are not providing the resources and the equipment at home to make sure that we are fully prepared to fight, succeed and, most importantly, protect our families and communities at home.

Too many of our police officers, our firefighters, our emergency medical services personnel and transportation officials are not able to communicate with each other. They have the basics.

That is what my amendment speaks to, the ability to make sure that every part of our emergency preparedness system has the ability to communicate with each other. Interoperability is the term often used.

Right now, they are not able to communicate with each other. How much more basic can we get than creating a way for everyone to be able to talk to each other, to literally be on the same wavelength as well as figuratively. Too many first responders, whom I have spoken to as I have moved around Michigan in the last 4 years, have said to me that their communications, alerts going up or down, often come from CNN. The communications are received from CNN before they actually receive them directly to their departments. This does not make any sense.

A June 2004 survey by the U.S. Conference of Mayors found that 80 percent of the cities that responded do not have communications equipment and the ability to communicate with the Department of Homeland Security or the Justice Department. My guess is that the people we represent in our States assume something very different, as they should. After September 11, 2001, everyone assumes that these things have been addressed, and yet they have not been addressed.

The survey also found that 94 percent of cities do not have interoperable capability between their rail facilities, their police, their fire, and their emergency responders. This is especially troubling, given what just happened and the tragic attacks on London's subway system last week.

Their survey also said almost half of the cities said that a lack of interoperable communications had made a response to an incident within the last year very difficult. Sixty percent of the cities said they do not have the communications capability within the State emergency operations center. I have spoken with police and fire chiefs across my State, and overwhelmingly they have expressed concern about this issue, as well as the fact that they actually have fewer police and firefighters in their departments now than they did before 9/11.

I believe we find ourselves in a very vulnerable situation for a number of reasons as it relates to homeland security, but a basic area that needs improvement, in terms of infrastructure, is our ability to have our communications systems connected so that our emergency responders can talk to each other and can respond quickly, both before something happens and during an emergency, and do it effectively.

This is a crisis now, not just a nagging inconvenience. Our lack of interoperable communications is a crisis in this country.

The September 11 attacks highlighted this crisis when New York police and fire personnel were on different radio systems and could not communicate. Over 50 different public safety organizations from Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia reported to the Pentagon that they could not talk to each other.

On more than one occasion now, we have had circumstances where we have been on the Senate floor, and there has come an alert to evacuate this very Chamber. We have been asked to move out away from the Capital complex over to Union Station or to other places around the city. We assume that folks are able to talk to each other, are able to communicate what is going on. Yet, unfortunately, the communication systems that need to be in place are not in place for full interoperable communications.

Nearly 4 years after September 11, 2001, the No. 1 request for appropriations that I receive each year from communities is on communication systems. This year, Michigan communities made over 41 requests. They requested over $75 million for interoperable communications in this bill and in the CJS appropriations bill alone. My guess is, if I went to every community, they would gladly have a request for help to be able to be connected. We can do something about it, and that is what this amendment does.

Most estimates place the cost of equipping America's first responders with interoperable communications in excess of $15 billion. In November 2003, the Congressional Budget Office testified before Congress that there is insufficient funding in place to solve our Nation's communications problems, and it would cost over $15 billion to begin to fix the problem.

So my amendment begins that process by suggesting a 3-year funding stream. My amendment would provide the first year funding for that, $5 billion for interoperable communications grants for America's first responders to provide a strong Federal commitment to the safety of our citizens. I might add, while that is a substantial sum of dollars, that is approximately what we are investing in Iraq each month. So my amendment would ask that we commit 1 month for America; 1 month for America's preparedness to protect the people of America; 1 month to be able to say that we have provided the resources, we have begun to make sure that we are prepared, that we are protected, that our communications systems are connected, and that we are doing all we can do to keep our families safe.

I urge the support of the Stabenow amendment on communications.

I see my colleague standing, I assume to make a motion, but I want to speak to one other amendment, briefly.

I would be happy to yield while retaining the floor, yes.

Mr. President, I rise to speak to an amendment that Senator Dodd will be offering on his and my behalf in the next hour, I am sure. This relates to the other piece of what needs to happen to make sure that we are thoroughly prepared and protected. Again, that is our goal, to be prepared and protected. That is what we are fighting for. That is what we are working toward. That is what we need to do together.

My amendment would invest in the interoperable communication so that everyone could speak to each other and be able to respond.

There is another amendment that Senator Dodd and I are introducing that speaks to the larger question of whether we are providing all that we need to, to invest at home in our first responders and what they need to be successful. We know that right now, based on a report that was done back in the spring of 2003, there was a blue ribbon panel of experts, led by former Republican Senator Warren Rudman, that found the United States is drastically underfunding local emergency responders and, in their words, remains dangerously unprepared to handle a catastrophic attack on American soil. They recommended at that time a major investment over a 5-year period to fully prepare us so that our families and communities are protected.

After that report was given to us, Senator Dodd and I came to the Senate floor 2 years ago and offered an amendment for the first year of that 5-year funding.

It was not passed. We came last year and offered it again. We stand today asking our colleagues, with an even greater sense of urgency, to finally pass this amendment so that we can begin that 5-year process of fully preparing our first responders and supporting them so that our families are protected. It is a major investment of $15 billion this year. But when we look at what we are spending abroad, we cannot be just concerned about fighting terrorism in somebody else's country. We know we have to be prepared to fight it here. Yet we see hundreds of billions being spent in Iraq, being spent overseas. I supported those dollars so our troops are successful, so they have what they need, but that is not enough. If the troops on the ground in America--our police officers, our firefighters, our emergency responders--do not have the same commitment from us, why would we say we are going to make sure our troops have what they need overseas and then dramatically underfund what they need at home? It makes absolutely no sense.

This is way beyond anything that is viewed as a partisan issue because it does not matter, Democrat or Republican, when we look at the vulnerabilities for our families and communities for us right now, this is something we should all be rallying around. I hope that we are not in a situation looking back at some point and saying we should have done this but, rather, aren't we glad that we did.

The Rudman report that was given to us in the spring of 2003 found that, on average, our fire departments have only half the number of radios they need, and I spoke to that in my other amendment, only enough breathing apparatus for one-third of their firefighters. So one out of three gets breathing equipment. Police departments across America do not have the protective gear to respond to a WMD attack. Our public health laboratories lack the basic equipment to respond to a chemical or biological attack and most report that they are overwhelmed with testing requests.

Finally, our first responders do not have the equipment they need to determine what kind of hazardous material they may be facing. The administration's support for first responders has been on a steady decline. It is less in this budget than it was in last year's budget. That makes no sense.

For example, last year's funding for Michigan State homeland security grants dropped from $47 million to $29.7 million. In this budget, the administration eliminates the law enforcement terrorism training program, cutting another $400 million from our first responders.

Last week's tragedy in London has again shown how important it is to be able to respond quickly and effectively, for them to be able to speak to each other, for us to be able to have enough personnel who can respond. Michigan has three of the busiest commercial crossings in the United States--approximately 3,200 miles of coastline, three nuclear powerplants, ports, and other numerous critical infrastructure that we must protect. Our homeland security needs are somewhere between $1.4 billion and $2.7 billion that we need to invest in every year, yet the allocation in this budget is less than $30 million--again, down from $47 million. That is not even close to what we need to be prepared and protected--not even close.

I have also spoken with police and fire chiefs across the State. Again, it is amazing to me. I do not believe the average person would believe what is happening until they talk to local law enforcement officials. When I talk to them, there are fewer police officers on the beat today than 9/11/2001. It is shocking. It is truly shocking, and I believe it is truly irresponsible.

Last month we spent about $5 billion in Iraq and Afghanistan. We need to put this in perspective. If we take 3 months of what we are spending there, we can fully fund what the Rudman report says is necessary for our first responders. I believe we cannot afford another day without acting on this and other critical areas of infrastructure need. This is about whether we are going to be committed to protect the people of America.

The two amendments about which I have spoken today address and would make sure that we begin to invest in being fully prepared in case of a terrorist attack here at home, and that our families are truly protected.

Mr. President, I move to waive the applicable sections of the Congressional Budget Act for purposes of considering my amendment.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I thank my friend and eloquent leader on this issue, the Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. President, I rise today, also, to share my great concern about this agreement and to oppose what I view as an unfair trade agreement. We can do much better than this. This country has been in an economic slump since 2001, and since then we have lost more than 2.7 million manufacturing jobs. Certainly, in my State, it has never been more clear as we see the headlines every day regarding job loss, jobs going to Mexico, China, and India--every day, headline after headline.

At the same time, we have grown record budget deficits and a record trade deficit. Workers are losing their health care and higher education is becoming even more expensive. What is the response? Well, the administration decides to push through a CAFTA trade agreement that will dig the job holes even deeper. This makes absolutely no sense to me.

This agreement will cost us jobs. It will increase our trade deficit. It will hurt our country's middle class, the backbone of our economy, our way of life. What makes us different from other countries is that rather than just having a few very wealthy people and a lot of poor people, we have a vibrant middle class, people who work hard, save, put their kids through college, and they know they can count on having--up until this point--a pension when they retire or they receive health care through their jobs. All of that is at risk right now for the people in Michigan and others around the country.

This fight that we are having, this debate, is critically important. I think there is not a more critical debate to have on whether we are going to continue to support American businesses and American jobs and the American middle class. That is really what is at stake. We should pass legislation that will be creating jobs. We should be passing legislation that will lower the trade deficit and will create more access to health care, lowering the cost of care and for college. There is a lot we should be doing.

Unfortunately, I have concluded that this trade pact really moves us backward. It will lead us to more offshoring of American jobs. It would be better titled ``NAFTA part II.''

However, so that I am not misunderstood, I do support trade. Obviously, the debate about trade or not to trade is not the right debate anymore. You could not put a wall up around this country if you wanted to. The Internet reaches anywhere. The question is, Are we going to be smart so that we can compete up rather than down, compete in a way that increases the middle class in other countries that will buy our products rather than losing our middle class and exporting our jobs? What is at stake here is really fundamental.

I have supported trade agreements in the past. In fact, I voted in favor of six trade agreements in the last 4 years. I will give you an example of one of them. I supported the United States-Australia trade agreement because our economies are similar. Our workers get paid roughly the same amount of money. Our companies can sell their products in Australia because it has a high minimum wage, sound environmental laws, and good labor standards. We can sell and trade back and forth.

Unfortunately, the CAFTA agreement does exactly the opposite. This packet will ship jobs overseas and provide fewer export markets for American companies, and it is because in these countries the minimum wage is very low. In Guatemala, the minimum wage is 25 cents an hour. I don't want our workers having to compete with 25 cents an hour. You cannot live on that. Mr. President, how can we expect to export to a market and compete with an economy where workers make 25 cents an hour, and there are no basic

environmental laws and labor standards? I want to compete with a country where you can drink their water, where they can live on their wage, where we are competing up, not down.

I believe we should try to support agreements that actually lift up workers in other countries as well as our own, as I said, so they can purchase our products. That is not what this does. Tragically, the countries involved in the CAFTA agreement are poor countries. For example, the median GDP in Nicaragua is only $2,300 a year. And 40 percent of all workers covered under the agreement survive on less than $2 per day. It would make sense if we were putting in place an agreement that would raise those wages so they can buy our products. But I fear, from what I have seen in the past, that will not be the case. The entire purchasing power of all six of the CAFTA countries combined is less than the purchasing power of half of the city of Detroit.

We are not competing on an equal playing field in this CAFTA agreement. I ask, how many Nicaraguans are going to be able to buy a $20,000 automobile made in Michigan? We want them to buy cars made in Michigan, by the way, Mr. President. We all know those who don't understand history are forced to repeat it. I am afraid that is what is happening.

When we look at NAFTA, after Congress passed NAFTA, hundreds of thousands of American jobs were lost to Mexico. It is still happening. Last year, Electrolux, a plant in Greenville, MI, that makes refrigerators, announced they were going to move to Mexico, with 2,700 good-paying jobs gone. Why? So they can pay $1.50 an hour in Mexico, with no health benefits. This is having a devastating effect on a small town community in the middle of Michigan. That is not the only story. There are hundreds of those.

Right now, if we use NAFTA as a comparison, we see that over the past 11 years U.S. workers have lost nearly a million jobs due to the growing trade deficits with our NAFTA partners. During the same time period, real wages in Mexico went down. Now, it would be different if it were true that wages went up, as we often hear, because that would make sense economically. But instead, in Mexico, wages have fallen, while the number of people living in poverty in Mexico has actually grown. It makes no sense to follow that line out again with another trade agreement. Since NAFTA took effect in 1994, the U.S. trade deficit with Canada and Mexico has ballooned to 12 times its pre-NAFTA size, reaching $111 billion in 2004.

I believe we can expect more of the same from CAFTA, unfortunately. We can do better than this for American farmers, we can do better for American businesses, we can do better for American workers, and for American families. I hope we will reject this proposal and send them back to the drawing board. There are other models, other prototypes that have gotten it right. There are other agreements we have voted for on this floor that do a better job of creating and protecting our middle class and our jobs and businesses in America than this agreement. We can do better than this. We need to do better than this. I urge my colleagues to reject this agreement.

We are once again rushing into a trade agreement that doesn't help, and in fact, has the potential to hurt American workers and their families.

This country has been in an economic slump since 2001. Since that time, we have lost more than 2.7 million manufacturing jobs.

At the same time, we have grown record budget deficits and record trade deficits. Workers are losing their health care and higher education is becoming ever more expensive. And, in Michigan we suffer from the nation's highest state unemployment rate.

What is this administration's response? It has decided to push the CAFTA trade treaty that will dig the jobs hole even deeper. And, the administration has stripped out a trade adjustment assistance provision that would have helped workers displaced by CAFTA.

This trade pact moves this Nation backwards. It will lead to more offshoring of American jobs.

It will cost us jobs, increase our trade deficit and hurt our country's middle class. It will turn the haves into the have-mores and the have-nots into have-nothings.

We should be negotiating trade agreements that involve exporting products, not jobs and we should pass legislation that will help create jobs, lower our trade deficit, and help working families get access to health care and college.

However, so that I am not misunderstood I support free trade on a level playing field. I have voted in favor of six free-trade agreements over the past 4 years.

For example, I voted for the U.S. Australia Free Trade Agreement because when we trade with Australia we trade on a level playing field.

That agreement works because our economies are similar and our workers get paid roughly the same wage. Our companies can sell their products in Australia because it has a high minimum wage, sound environmental laws and good labor standards.

Unfortunately, the CAFTA agreement goes in exactly the opposite direction.

This agreement will ship jobs overseas and provide few export markets for American companies.

My State of Michigan certainly will not benefit because this agreement does not provide a meaningful export market for Michigan manufacturers.

That is because in order to have an export market you need to be selling to people who can afford your goods. But the typical wage in the CAFTA countries is very low.

Tragically, these countries are poor. For example, the median GDP in Nicaragua is only $2,300 per year.

And 40 percent of all workers covered under this agreement survive on less than $2 per day.

The entire purchasing power of all six of the CAFTA countries combined is half that of the city of Detroit alone.

In Guatemala, the minimum wage is approximately 25 cents an hour.

How can we expect to export to a market where workers make 25 cents an hour and lack basic environmental laws and labor standards?

We should try to lift up the impoverished workers in these countries so they can purchase American made products. But this agreement will not do that.

As we all know, those who do not understand history are forced to repeat it. Let's take a look at what has happened in recent history.

After Congress passed NAFTA, hundreds of thousands of American jobs were lost to Mexico. And it is still happening. Just last year, Electrolux closed a plant in Greenville, MI, and put 2,700 high paid workers on the street.

Despite the fact that the company was making a profit and its workers were productive, the management closed the plant in Greenville and will soon open a new one in Mexico.

If we use NAFTA as a comparison we see that over the past 11 years U.S. workers have lost nearly 1 million jobs due to growing trade deficits with our NAFTA partners.

During the same time, real wages in Mexico have fallen while the number of people living in poverty there has grown, according to the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Since NAFTA took effect in 1994, the U.S. trade deficit with Canada and Mexico has ballooned to 12 times its pre-NAFTA size, reaching $111 billion in 2004. Imports from our NAFTA partners outpaced exports to them by more than $100 billion, displacing workers in industries as diverse as autos, aircraft, apparel and consumer electronics.

I believe we can expect more of the same under CAFTA.

American farmers have also felt the impacts of NAFTA. We quickly discovered that this trade deal was no deal because it accelerated the agricultural products trade deficit.

Consider that in the three years before NAFTA our trade surplus with Mexico and Canada increased by $203 million.

After NAFTA, our surplus fell by $1.5 billion.

The result is that some American crops, like tomatoes, have been pushed to the brink of extinction.

Also, in 1994, Congress passed the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade more commonly known as GATT.

After we signed that agreement, we began to lose jobs to India, Indonesia and other East Asian countries.

Now, workers in India are doing thousands of jobs that Americans used to do.

They now staff call centers, provide technical support for our computer networks, and even process our tax forms and read our medical x-rays.

To make matters worse, we passed so called most favored trade status for China in 1998. And since then, hundreds of thousands of Americans jobs are now done in China.

Mr. President, you would think that after what has happened after previous trade agreements that we would know better than to pass another free trade agreement with countries that don't share our wage structure, labor standards, or environmental standards.

Before we pass another free-trade agreement, why don't we first enforce our existing trade agreements.

Currently, two of our major trading partners, China and Japan, are violating world trade rules by manipulating their currencies, which has the effect of making their products cheaper here and our products more expensive over there.

Additionally, China refuses to seriously combat the rampant counterfeiting of auto parts.

This hurts Michigan companies and costs American workers their jobs. This is unacceptable.

That is why I, along with Senators Graham and Bayh, have introduced a bill that would create a trade prosecutor. This ambassador-level position within the office of the U.S. Trade Representative would be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, with the authority to ensure compliance with trade agreements to protect our manufacturers against unfair trade practices.

In practical terms, this prosecutor will have the authority to investigate and recommend prosecuting cases before the World Trade Organization and under trade agreements to which the United States is a party.

Senator Grassley has assured me that this approach would be seriously debated while we continue to move forward on trade reauthorization and I look forward to working with him on this important piece of legislation.

In addition to enforcing our current trade laws, we should pass other legislation that would help protect our jobs.

First, we should close loopholes in the tax code that actually reward companies for shipping jobs overseas. Senator Dorgan has introduced such legislation to do so. Why aren't we passing that in the Senate?

Second, why don't we help our companies deal with the runaway cost of health care so they can be more competitive overseas and keep our jobs here?

Third, why aren't we more aggressively moving comprehensive pension reform to help our workers and companies through this very difficult economic time?

Fourth, while we are building infrastructure over in Iraq, why can't we do the same here at home? Our roads, bridges, transit systems, and sewer systems are in dire need of repair. Why aren't we setting aside the resources now to repair them? Doing so would create hundreds of thousands of new jobs.

Finally, why aren't we doing more to invest in new science and technology so our companies can better compete in the future? With very little federal funding, we are on the verge of producing a commercially viable hydrogen car and being the leader in the world on stem cell research.

So, Mr. President, I ask my colleagues, why aren't we using our time to pass job producing legislation? How can we ask our workers to compete against economies that don't allow for collective bargaining, that don't maintain reasonable environmental standards, and don't maintain workplace safety requirements on par with the U.S.?

It is not fair to their workers and it is certainly not fair to our workers.

Why don't we work with these countries to help lift up their workers? Let's work with them to raise wages, provide health care, protect their environment and then we can enter into a free-trade agreement.

This agreement represents a race to the bottom.

A race to the bottom makes the world a poorer place--not a richer one.

There are many things we can do to increase our trade with the world in a commonsense way. CAFTA is not one of them.

Mr. President, the senior Senator from Michigan and I would like to engage in a colloquy with the distinguished ranking member of the Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee regarding the partnership between Western Michigan University and Altair on the development of nanosensors for chemical and radiological warfare agents.

Senator Reid, is it your understanding that $1 million of the funding provided to Altair Nanosensor in this bill will be utilized for the continued partnership between Altair Nanosensor and Western Michigan University for the development of nanosensors for chemical and radiological warfare agents?

Mr. President, I thank the ranking member for his support of this partnership and my colleague for joining me in this colloquy.

department of energy--state energy conservation program

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will help celebrate Michigan's lighthouses and maritime heritage.

The Great Lakes are an inseparable part of Michigan's identity and cultural history. One of our symbols of that identity are the over 120 lighthouses that define our shorelines--more lighthouses than any other state in the nation.

These beautiful beacons not only serve their purpose as a navigational tool for ships, but they also draw thousands of tourists to Michigan's shores. Our lakeshore communities host visitors from across the country, who travel to view the magnificence of our coastal areas and the lighthouses that illuminate them. Our maritime museums detail the Great Lakes' rich history and unique character.

As the economy in Michigan faces numerous challenges, these small communities are more dependant than ever on tourism dollars. We must help them by ensuring that there are coordinated efforts to protect Michigan's lighthouses and promote the Great Lakes' maritime culture. If we don't, we risk losing these symbols of our history and our future for all time.

The Michigan Maritime Heritage and Lighthouse Trail Act would help develop Federal, State and local partnerships by requiring the National Park Service to work with the State of Michigan and local communities to study and make recommendations to Congress on the best ways to promote and protect Michigan's lighthouses and maritime resources. These recommendations would include specific legislative proposals for the preservation of lighthouses and maritime history. For example, they may call for

the creation of a statewide trail highlighting the historical features of our shorelines and lighthouses. The recommendations would also include the identification of funding sources for Michigan communities, which are critical to this effort.

This bill has strong bipartisan support from all of Michigan's members of Congress. I urge my colleagues to join us in expediting passage of the Michigan Maritime Heritage and Lighthouse Trail Act.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. President, I appreciate having the opportunity to speak for 5 minutes prior to the vote. I know we have two important votes that will be coming up shortly. But I did want to take this opportunity to indicate that I am very proud to be cosponsoring the Murray amendment concerning the important resources that are needed for veterans health care today.

The midyear budget review of the Department of Veterans Affairs confirmed what many of us have known for some time; that the VA is facing at least a $1-billion shortfall in meeting critical health care needs for the current budget, the 2005 budget. As a result, the VA officials say they are forced to take $600 million away from funds to improve VA hospitals and other infrastructure and to borrow $400 million

from funds already committed to provide health care during the next fiscal year. The end result is that the quality of health care for our veterans will suffer. Essential services and programs are now at risk. This is not acceptable. We need to act today to do something about it.

We are creating more veterans, as brave men and women come home from Iraq and Afghanistan and around the world. Over 360,000 veterans have already returned from Iraq and Afghanistan, and over 86,000 have sought health care from the VA. The VA's patient growth for this year rose by 5.2 percent, an increase of over 3 percent from their original projections. We have men and women coming home every day, changing one hat for another. They come home with the assumption that we will keep our promise to make sure health care is there for them.

We know there are an additional 740,000 military personnel also serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. This next generation of veterans will also be eligible for VA health care, putting further demands on the system. Continued funding shortfalls and rising costs have already resulted in unprecedented waiting times for veterans seeking care. In my State of Michigan, I talk with veterans who have to wait 6 months to see a doctor. This is simply not acceptable. The VA's enrolled patient population has increased 134 percent. Funding for the VA has only increased 44 percent.

It really isn't about funding. We know this involves dollars. The real issue is whether we are going to keep our promise to our veterans who have kept their promise to each of us in fighting for our freedoms. The President's budget fails to keep this promise. I was proud, as a member of the Budget Committee, to be involved in efforts to turn that around. In the budget process this year, we did offer an amendment that would have increased the dollars for veterans health care. That was not successful at the time. Now is the time that we can make this right.

I also mention that in the President's budget this year, instead of adding the dollars needed for our brave men and women who are coming home and putting on the veterans cap, we saw a proposal to double veterans prescription drug copays from $7 to $15 per prescription and an increase of $250 in an enrollment fee for more than 2 million of our veterans. I was pleased as a member of the Budget Committee to lead the effort that took that out of the budget that came before the Senate.

Unfortunately, we are seeing proposed cuts with the budget proposed by the President, deep cuts in our VA nursing homes and private homes, State VA nursing homes. We are seeing continued efforts to roll back dollars rather than increase them.

I hope what we will do long term is move our veterans health care funding over to be mandatory funding rather than having to go through the budget process every year. We know that our veterans put their lives on the line for us without question. They are not asking will those funds we promised really be there for them. They assume we will keep our promise. Every year, we are debating whether veterans health care is fully funded. Now is the time to make this a mandatory promise that we keep based on the needs of our veterans, not a debate about the budget. We need an emergency supplemental to address this crisis.

I am proud to be a cosponsor with Senator Murray. I commend her for the amendment. We also need to take a hard look at this year's budget priorities and ask why we are not putting our veterans at the top of the list.

I urge support for the Murray amendment. Then we must get about the business of making sure that we are getting it right for our veterans every year, that we are fully funding their needs, the promises we have made to each veteran who is serving us today, served us yesterday, and will serve us tomorrow.

I urge adoption of the Murray amendment and yield the floor.