Debbie Stabenow

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Will my colleague yield one more moment?

Ms. STABENOW. I interject, we are not asking that this right be given up to the courts; we are asking that these decisions be left up to a woman, her family, and her faith.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise to thank my colleague from Illinois for his eloquence regarding the direction of our economy and the Federal budget and the grave concern he has that I share about the looming and massive long-term debt that is accumulating by the policies of this administration. When we look at where we are going and the fact that the entire Medicare and Social Security trust funds are currently being used to fund tax cuts geared to the very top, the very wealthiest 1 percent, and when we look at the discussions we are having in the Budget Committee, we begin to see a picture that is disturbing. Because when we ask what will happen, when we are using all of these funds for other purposes, and we know that in just a matter of a few years, the baby boomers will begin to retire en masse and they have the expectation, as they should, that Social Security and Medicare will be there for them, they have paid into the system, and we are told, when we ask, how will we afford that, how will we be able to keep that commitment, well, that assumes that Medicare and Social Security will be structured the way they are today. That assumes there will be no reform. What is becoming clear is that reform is a code word for privatizing; that there is a real interest, a commitment and movement to privatize or eliminate Medicare and Social Security, as we know it, in the long term. Today I wish to speak again very specifically about Medicare because I believe that is the most imminent threat because the debate that has occurred since 1965, when Medicare passed, in various forms is occurring yet again today. That is the question of whether Medicare is a big American success story, which I believe it is, or just a big Government program, which I believe this administration feels it is. I wish to speak specifically about special interest politics versus the needs of the public, the willingness to provide tax policy that benefits only a few, rather than the middle class, and small businesses that drive our economy, as well as the fact that in Medicare, we are seeing a willingness to move the system in a way that benefits, again, special interests over the needs of all of our seniors and the disabled in our country. On page A6 of the Washington Post this morning, there is a very disturbing article. It says: ``Bush Plan a Boon to Drug Companies.'' The President went before the American Medical Association yesterday and spoke about his plans for Medicare, again using the word ``reform,'' which we know now is a code word for ``privatization.'' Reform equals privatize when we talk about this issue of Medicare. We now find that it also directly relates, once again, to special interest politics, which is very disturbing. The second headline is: ``Medicare Prescription Proposal Would Also Benefit Insurers, Analysts Say.'' Not the insured, not the seniors about whom we all talk, not the disabled people about whom we all talk, but the insurance industry. It begins: Health care economists said the drug benefit President Bush proposed for Medicare yesterday would be a bonanza for the pharmaceutical and managed-care industries, both of which are huge donors to Republicans. It went on to say: Marilyn Moon, a health economist at the Urban Institute, said Bush's plan would hand tremendous negotiating power to health insurance companies. ``By making the private plans such a central part of the future of Medicare, the government is going to have to meet their demands for greater contributions to the cost of care, over and above the subsidy for prescription drugs,'' Moon said. Bush's proposal is vague on many points, including the terms for insurers. Tricia Neuman, a vice president of the Kaiser Family Foundation, said the plan would have to provide a windfall for the companies-- ``Would have to provide a windfall for the companies.'' or too few would participate for the plan to work. The analysts said drug companies also could be expected to reap huge profits under Bush's approach. Huge profits under Bush's approach. We have to ask ourselves: Is that the purpose of Medicare? Is that the purpose of health care? Is it the same as purchasing a pair of tennis shoes, purchasing soup, purchasing a new shirt so that we are talking about what profit margin we have off our Medicare recipients, or is the goal to make sure we have quality health care for every senior citizen? I believe it is our responsibility to make sure this is a streamline system with as few dollars as possible going into administration and that the dollars should go directly to health care for our seniors, not into huge profits. We welcome profits in many areas. We need profits in our economy. We want businesses to be successful. But when we are talking about Medicare, we have a different priority in what we need to do to help our seniors make sure they have care. To continue with the article: Bruce C. Vladeck, who was President Clinton's head of the federal agency that runs Medicare, said Bush's plan ``strikes me as the kind of proposal that pharmaceutical companies would write if they were writing their own bill.'' These are the kind of comments we heard last year when we were debating prescription drug coverage and were told--in fact, we heard comments coming from staff in the House quoted in the paper as to how they were running their proposals by the pharmaceutical industry to make sure they were OK. It is clear this one is OK, and we should all be very concerned about who we are trying to help. Continuing to quote: ``A slew of private health plans would have nowhere near the negotiating power that Medicare would have if there was national drugs benefit,'' said Vladeck, now a health policy professor at Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York City. If Bush's proposal were enacted, it could provide a high- profile benefit for industries that are reliable donors to Republican candidates and committees. The Center for Responsive Politics said that for the past two elections combined, pharmaceutical manufacturers gave $30 million to Republicans and $8 million to Democrats. Health service companies and HMOs, a leading form of managed care, donated $10 million to Republicans and $5 million to Democrats over the past two elections, according to the center's figures. This should be a deep concern of every American, as well as my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and on the other side of this building about how this issue is being framed because of the realities it points out what is really going on with this issue. I will make one more point. The article continues, quoting President Bush yesterday: Bush, promising to bring more free enterprise to medicine, denounced ``government-run health care ideas.'' I have been saying for a long time that those who want to privatize Medicare believe that Medicare is a big Government-run program, and there is a major philosophical difference that has gone on since 1965 when only 12 colleagues from the other side of the aisle joined in passing Medicare. There is a huge chasm of difference as to whether we ought to even have Medicare. Fundamentally, that is what this debate is about. It is not about what the premiums should be, what the copay should be. It is about who runs the system as to whether there should be a guarantee so that every person who turns 65 and gets that Medicare card knows they can choose their doctor, that they can get the medicine they need, that they know what the copay is, what the premium is, regardless of where they live in the country. In a State such as Michigan, where we have the major metropolitan area of Detroit all the way up to Ironwood, MI, in the western part of the UP, people today know that under Medicare they can get the health care they need. That was a promise made by the United States of America in 1965, and now under a lot of different pretty words, a lot of different connotations of reform, we see an effort clearly outlined-- and even in the President's own words--to put more free enterprise into the health care system. That is privatizing the health care system. That is privatizing Medicare. In general, I do believe there is an important partnership between the public and the private sector. We have an employer model of health care in this country that has worked for workers and their families. I appreciate there is a benefit in having partnerships. We have said as a country that once an American citizen reaches the age of 65 or they are disabled, we think it is important that whether one has private plans in their community, whether they can find them and/or whether they can afford them, they should be able to have health care. The reason Medicare came into being was that over half the seniors could not find or afford private insurance. That is why Medicare was created. I, for one, will not quietly stand by to see a promise of some 38 years eroded by this administration or in this Congress. I know there are colleagues of mine on both sides of the aisle who have concerns. I am hopeful we can come together under Medicare. What is very clear is--and in this article the outside analysts, independent voices, are saying--the fight is about how we administer the prescription drug benefit. The companies want to keep it disbursed in the private sector because they know if the some 40 million beneficiaries of Medicare today are in one insurance plan, they will be able to negotiate a group discount for the first time. They will not be paying retail. They will not be paying the highest prices in the world in order to get their medicine. They will be able to get a group discount. The fight is on to make sure that seniors in this country do not have the collective power to be able to get that discount through Medicare. That is what this is about. It is one of the most fundamental fights we will have in this Congress and on the floor of the Senate, and I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will come together and be willing to stand up and say Medicare works, Medicare is a great American success story, and we continue to promise that the Medicare plan will be there for every single senior and the disabled in our country. This is a fundamental fight, and I hope my colleagues will join me in making sure this plan that is passed is not a boon for the drug companies or for the HMOs but is a boon for the seniors of America.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I would like to express my strong support for the National Aquatic Invasive Species Act of 2003, NAISA. During the 107th Congress, I introduced S. 1034, the Great Lakes Ecology Protection Act which sought to curb the influx of invasive species into the Great Lakes. This is an immense task, as more then 87 nonindigenous aquatic species have been accidentally introduced into the Great Lakes in the past century. I am proud to say that this bill had strong bipartisan support with 12 Great Lakes Senators as original cosponsors. Today, I am proud to join Senator Levin as an original cosponsor of NIASA which will provide a national strategy for preventing invasive species from being introduced in the Great Lakes and our Nation's waters. I am pleased that NIASA incorporates many of the ideas from the Great Lakes Ecology Protection Act in formulating a national standard. Invasive species have had a devastating economic and ecological impact on the United States. They have already damaged the Great Lakes in a number of ways. They have destroyed thousands of fish and threatened our clean drinking water. For example, Lake Michigan once housed the largest self-producing lake trout fishery in the entire world. The invasive sea lamprey, which was introduced from ballast water almost 80 years ago, has contributed greatly to the decline of trout and whitefish in the Great Lakes by feeding on and killing native trout species. Today, lake trout must be stocked because they cannot naturally reproduce in the lake. Many Great Lakes States have had to place severe restrictions on catching yellow perch because invasive species such as the zebra mussel disrupt the Great Lakes' ecosystem and compete with yellow perch for food. The zebra mussel's filtration also increases water clarity, which may be making is easier for predators to prey upon the yellow perch. Moreover, tiny organisms like zooplankton that help form the base of the Great Lakes food chain, have declined due to consumption by exploding populations of zebra mussels. We have made progress on preventing the spread of invasive species, but we have not yet solved this problem. NIASA will create a mandatory national ballast water management program to prevent the introduction of invasive species into our waters, as well as, encourage the development of new ballast treatment technology to eliminate invasive species. NIASA also will greatly increase research funding for these treatment and prevention technologies, and provide necessary funding and resources for invasive species rapid response plans. In addition, the bill will increase outreach and education to recreational boaters and the general public on how to prevent the spread of invasive species. As Members of the U.S. Congress, we have a responsibility to share in the stewardship of our Nation's natural resources. As a Great Lakes Senator, I feel a particularly strong responsibility to protect a resource that is not only a source of clean drinking water for more than 30 million people in the Great Lakes, but is vital to Michigan's economy and environment. I am proud to support a bill that will provide innovative solutions and necessary resources to this longstanding environmental problem, and will also protect our precious water resources for the enjoyment and benefit of future generation of Americans.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. With all sense of great urgency, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 21, S. 414, a bill to provide an economic stimulus package.

Ms. STABENOW. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I would like to express my strong support for the National Aquatic Invasive Species Act of 2003, NAISA. During the 107th Congress, I introduced S. 1034, the Great Lakes Ecology Protection Act which sought to curb the influx of invasive species into the Great Lakes. This is an immense task, as more then 87 nonindigenous aquatic species have been accidentally introduced into the Great Lakes in the past century. I am proud to say that this bill had strong bipartisan support with 12 Great Lakes Senators as original cosponsors. Today, I am proud to join Senator Levin as an original cosponsor of NIASA which will provide a national strategy for preventing invasive species from being introduced in the Great Lakes and our Nation's waters. I am pleased that NIASA incorporates many of the ideas from the Great Lakes Ecology Protection Act in formulating a national standard. Invasive species have had a devastating economic and ecological impact on the United States. They have already damaged the Great Lakes in a number of ways. They have destroyed thousands of fish and threatened our clean drinking water. For example, Lake Michigan once housed the largest self-producing lake trout fishery in the entire world. The invasive sea lamprey, which was introduced from ballast water almost 80 years ago, has contributed greatly to the decline of trout and whitefish in the Great Lakes by feeding on and killing native trout species. Today, lake trout must be stocked because they cannot naturally reproduce in the lake. Many Great Lakes States have had to place severe restrictions on catching yellow perch because invasive species such as the zebra mussel disrupt the Great Lakes' ecosystem and compete with yellow perch for food. The zebra mussel's filtration also increases water clarity, which may be making is easier for predators to prey upon the yellow perch. Moreover, tiny organisms like zooplankton that help form the base of the Great Lakes food chain, have declined due to consumption by exploding populations of zebra mussels. We have made progress on preventing the spread of invasive species, but we have not yet solved this problem. NIASA will create a mandatory national ballast water management program to prevent the introduction of invasive species into our waters, as well as, encourage the development of new ballast treatment technology to eliminate invasive species. NIASA also will greatly increase research funding for these treatment and prevention technologies, and provide necessary funding and resources for invasive species rapid response plans. In addition, the bill will increase outreach and education to recreational boaters and the general public on how to prevent the spread of invasive species. As Members of the U.S. Congress, we have a responsibility to share in the stewardship of our Nation's natural resources. As a Great Lakes Senator, I feel a particularly strong responsibility to protect a resource that is not only a source of clean drinking water for more than 30 million people in the Great Lakes, but is vital to Michigan's economy and environment. I am proud to support a bill that will provide innovative solutions and necessary resources to this longstanding environmental problem, and will also protect our precious water resources for the enjoyment and benefit of future generation of Americans.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. I move now to another very important topic, and that is the question of stimulating this economy. We know that to get out of the massive debt that is being accumulated, we have got to stimulate the economy. We have to reverse the trend right now. We have seen over 2 million private sector jobs lost in the last 2 years. We have to go back to the Eisenhower Presidency to find those kinds of numbers, those kinds of huge private sector losses and this massive debt. We know that has to be turned around. Part of what needs to happen to begin to get us back to the balanced budget and out of this massive debt, so we can protect Social Security and Medicare, is to stimulate the economy and create jobs. I am very proud to be a part of an effort to do that. We have in front of us a Democratic plan that has been introduced by our leader and Members in our caucus. It will provide immediate relief for families through a broad-based tax cut that is on the front end, a tax cut to the middle class and to those in our country who we know will turn around and buy those school clothes or a new car--and coming from Michigan, I am always hopeful it is a new American-made car--and purchasing that new home and all of those things that stimulate the economy, rather than giving the tax relief to somebody who has three homes or has five cars and is not likely to buy another one. What we want is to put that tax cut in the hands of middle-class people, working people, who will spend it now, so that our businesses will see the demand. Right now, newspaper headlines this week in Michigan relate to the auto industry cutting back on the building of new cars because the demand is not there. We have a proposal that relates to demand, not trickle-down economics from the top but demand, to put money in the pockets of people who will spend it. That is exactly what our proposal would do. It would provide about a $1,200 tax cut this year for a family of four. It would also provide tax incentives to encourage businesses to invest and create jobs, and it would increase the current multiyear bonus depreciation so if one invested now, they would get a bonus depreciation, which is very important. It would triple the amount of investments small businesses can write off immediately, and this is very important because the majority of new jobs are coming from small business. We need to be focusing on tax policies that will help and support job creation in small business. It would provide a 50-percent tax credit in 2003 to help small businesses pay for their share of health insurance premiums. This relates very much to the broader question of health care and where we are going. Later today, we are going to be introducing legislation to cut the price on prescription drugs so we can bring that health insurance premium down for small businesses. It would provide a 20-percent tax credit in 2003 for businesses investing in broadband, high-speed Internet infrastructure, focusing on rural areas, underserved areas. This is very important. We are in a high-tech new economy, and broadband access is critical as we move forward to be able to compete in the new world of high technology and helping small businesses invest, particularly in our rural areas, the hard-to-reach areas. It is an important part of our economic development structure. Another important piece we believe must be addressed now is to provide $5 billion for hometown security that would make sure that as we are investing in the economy, we are also making sure we are safe at home. When people have an emergency, they call 9-1-1. We want to make sure people on the other end of that line have the communications equipment, the technology, the training, and the personnel to respond in a way that will keep us safe. We also know that part of what is happening economically across the country now is that we are seeing a ripple effect because the majority of States are in a financial crisis because of the downturn in the economy and other factors, so that as they lay off, and people are spending less because they are laid off from State or local governments, there is this ripple effect throughout the economy. In addition to putting money directly into people's pockets, we also propose putting money into the pockets of the small business owner. We propose providing dollars in immediate aid to State and local governments so that we are not seeing that ripple effect in terms of people losing their jobs, losing purchase power in the economy. We all know common sense says if we can provide money to State, local, and municipal governments and they can focus on immediate infrastructure such as rebuilding roads, water systems, sewer systems, we create good- paying jobs by doing that, such as construction jobs. We take burdens off local property taxes, which helps individuals and businesses, and we can again stop the bleeding that is occurring right now in the States with more and more people losing their jobs and thus losing purchasing power in the economy. This is of great urgency. We come to the floor each day to ask that we immediately go to an economic stimulus package that will get America back to work, will put money in the pockets of individuals and businesses that can get the job done, that can stimulate this economy, to help our hometown security, and to make sure that we are helping to rebuild America, which also rebuilds jobs.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the plan the White House is unveiling today concerning Medicare and prescription drugs. I am surprised and dismayed to see we have basically the same old thing being proposed once again by the administration. While we hear the right words about wanting to make sure every senior has access to prescription drugs, one more time we are seeing the President say one thing and do another. In January after the State of the Union, many were dismayed to hear that the President's proposal for Medicare prescription drug coverage would basically be one that would say to a senior, if you stay in traditional Medicare, Medicare that has worked for you every day, every year, guaranteed access to your doctor, guarantee that you had health care available to you--if you chose to stay in Medicare, which has been working since 1965, you would not get any assistance with your critical prescription drug costs; you would have to go into a private sector HMO. Now we hear that is not really the plan, that is not really what was going to happen. Last week, Secretary Thompson came to the Budget Committee. I questioned him about that. No, there was no intention to say that seniors would have to go into a private sector HMO in order to be able to get critical help; everyone would have help. Today we find out that, again, that is really what they are talking about: Small change, cosmetic change, to attempt to address concerns that have been raised on both sides of the aisle by very prestigious Members of this body who are concerned that every senior has Medicare, every senior has the right to make sure that plan covers prescription drugs and gives them help with their medicine. What do we see? We see a proposal that says if you stay in the plan that works for every senior--40 million people in Medicare now--if you stay in that plan, we will give you a discount card which the GAO says does not nearly produce the savings spoken about frequently. Less than 10 percent savings. You have to make sure you are going to the right medicine, have the right medicine, and heaven forbid if you need more than one kind of medicine from more than one company because then it does not work so well. But we will give you a discount card. Then maybe down the road a number of years, we will help you, if you have a very large prescription drug bill, with what is called catastrophic help. To add insult to injury, the discount card is being proposed to take effect in 2004--not even immediately, when we know there are discount cards available on the market now. The major companies all have discount cards. The President is saying the discounts card will not be available until 2004 and the rest of the plan, not until 2006. The first thing I say today--and I know my colleagues hear the same thing I hear--seniors believe they have waited long enough. We have talked about this issue. I have been involved in efforts to get prescription drug coverage under Medicare since I was in the House of Representatives. Certainly seniors have been speaking about that long before. They want us to provide help now, and they are not interested in something that forces them into another kind of plan, a private sector plan. They want Medicare to simply cover prescription drugs. Frequently we hear used the words: Choice. This kind of plan will provide more choices for our seniors. If we have more private sector HMOs, there are more choices. What I hear from my great State of Michigan is not that people want more, different kinds of complicated insurance plans to figure out. That is not the choice they are asking for. The choice they are asking for is the choice to go to the doctor they choose, their own doctor, who can prescribe the medicine they need. That is the choice they want. It is very clear. The seniors of America have already spoken on this issue with their feet. The majority when given the choice of going to an HMO under Medicare+Choice, said no and stayed in traditional Medicare. That is the reality. Seniors were given a choice about whether or not to keep the stable, reliable, Medicare plan that has been in place since 1965 or go to a private sector HMO. They stayed with Medicare. Now the President is saying: Even though you made that choice, we are going to give you another choice, and we will penalize you this time. Last time, you could choose, stay in traditional Medicare or do Medicare+Choice; this time, because we did not like the choice you made, we are going to say you cannot get comprehensive help if you stay in traditional Medicare. You have to go into a private sector HMO in order to get the help you need and the help you deserve. When looking at this issue about the private sector HMO approach or Medicare+Choice, we also have a situation where in 12 States there are no private HMO options under Medicare. In my home State, where people did sign up--and I have said before, my mother signed up and had a positive experience under Medicare+Choice with her HMO. But the HMO dropped Medicare beneficiaries. She got dropped a couple of years ago because they believed it was not profitable because of concerns about reimbursements. So now in Michigan only 2 percent of those who are receiving Medicare are in an HMO, and they are not enrolling any new people. You had better live in the eastern part of the State of Michigan or you do not have that as a choice. If one resides in the great city of Marquette or Iron Mountain in the UP or Sault Sainte Marie or on the west side of the State where the President visited after the State of the Union, in Grand Rapids, MI, to talk about Medicare, in that community where the President visited, we certainly welcome always having a President come to town, but no one listening at that speech would have access to a private sector HMO under Medicare. So we have a situation where it is too little, it is too late, and this is an effort basically to force seniors into an approach the majority of them have already said they do not want. Another piece I am very concerned about is that as we look at prescription drug coverage, it is not just about comprehensive care under Medicare; it is about lowering prices. It is about lowering prices for everyone: For the business that is paying for prescription drug coverage, that has seen their health care premiums skyrocket, businesses large and small; for families, workers who are affected, as well as for seniors. I am disturbed that this plan does not say anything about more competition to lower prices. In fact, while seniors are waiting until 2004 for a discount card that will have very little effect in lowering their prices--while they are waiting, the fastest way the President could join with us to lower prices would be to simply drop the barrier that stops Americans from going to Canada to get American-made, American-subsidized prescription drugs at half the price. If we did that today, tomorrow we could drop prices, many of them in half, and in some cases even more. That is a proposal that passed the Senate last summer on a strong bipartisan vote. I am hopeful we will see that happen again this year; that we will once again say we need to drop that barrier. We are in a free trade economy. We have agreements with Canada. Their health care system, in terms of quality controls and the other issues of safety we are concerned about, is very similar to those of our country. If we want, we can say to seniors, you do not have to get on a bus now and go to a Canadian doctor or Canadian pharmacy to get an American drug at half the price; we will open the border and get you that right here at home. That is the fastest way to lower prices. The next fastest way is to close loopholes that allow brand name drug companies to stop unadvertised brands from going on the market--often called generic drugs. It is the same drug, frequently, the same formula. The difference is we are not seeing it on television every other minute. We are seeing generic drugs come onto the market that are available and in some cases can lower prices up to 50 percent, or we have seen prices lowered up to 70 percent as a result of the use of generics. There is no mention of that here. I commend the President in coming forward with a proposal regarding generic drugs that has made some inroads. We appreciate it. They have gone about half the way. Now we would call upon the President to join with us to go all the way to address the issue on generic drugs, and to work with us to pass the bill that has been introduced by my colleagues Senator McCain and Senator Schumer, again a bipartisan bill, that would in fact put more competition into the system and lower prices--not only lower prices for our seniors under Medicare but lower prices for those covered in the private sector, thus bringing down the costs to businesses large and small. I am disappointed we do not have in this proposal an effort to support our States, our Governors--Democrats and Republicans--who indicated last week that health care costs and Medicaid costs are a top priority for them. It is a large part of their budgets as they are struggling under a weakened economy. Many States, including my own Michigan, have been innovative, want to come together with other States to do bulk purchasing of prescription drugs in order to get discounts, bigger discounts than you can get through a discount card, to lower prices. We have seen States such as Maine and Vermont that have come forward with innovative plans to lower prices, each time being challenged by the brand name industry. In every situation the industry is suing or lobbying or doing something to stop competition in innovation in lower prices. We had a plan as well. Part of our bill, S. 812, which we passed last summer, was a bill to address more generic drugs, at the same time opening the border with Canada, and also supporting the States that have been innovative in coming forward to try to lower prices for their citizens. There is no mention of that in this plan as well. So we do not see anything addressing any of those issues. We see nothing in here addressing the concerns that there is more advertising money now spent by companies than research money--2\1/2\ times more being spent on advertising of the brand name drugs than on researching of new cures. We are seeing that drive up the costs as well, the explosion in sales and marketing and advertising. Also, there is no mention of the fact that we are paying for a system where the majority of patents now are not for new breakthrough drugs but for what are called ``me too'' drugs. Basically 65 percent of patents in recent years are patents for drugs that have very little change in health value but just extend the patent so generics cannot go on the market and there is less competition. There are so many ways we can be working together to lower prices-- for employers to create a situation where employees are not being asked to take pay freezes so their employer can pay for the costs of health care; lower the prices for the uninsured, who pay the top price; and particularly our seniors. Right now in our country if you are an American senior and you walk into the local pharmacy and you do not have insurance, Medicare does not cover it. You pay top dollar of anybody in the world for your medicine. That is not an exaggeration. Americans pay top dollar of anybody in the world, and if you are uninsured, you pay the top. We are back again talking about these issues of how to provide real Medicare coverage and at the same time lower prices for everyone. There were comments about what was going to be proposed by the President. Then there were indications from the administration that, no, in fact they were going to be putting forward something that would help everyone and not force people into private sector HMOs. Unfortunately, again we see one thing being said and another thing being done. I hope my colleagues in the Senate will come together and we can fashion what really needs to happen. Again, our seniors are not asking for more choices about complicated insurance policies. They are not asking to wade through more options in terms of private sector HMOs. When they had the chance to pick between staying with traditional Medicare or going to an HMO through Medicare+Choice, the vast majority of older Americans and the disabled said no. They said no, we will stay with traditional Medicare. Now that they have said no voluntarily, the White House has decided to come back and create a situation where, if they need help, they will be forced to go into a plan they said no to when it was voluntary. I think the people of this country are going to see what this is. I think the seniors are going to understand what this is, and overwhelmingly reject this kind of an effort. I hope we in the Senate will reject this kind of a proposal and that we will come together and be willing to roll up our sleeves and do the business of simply designing a plan under Medicare where 40 million seniors and disabled have the ability to come together under one plan and have the clout to lower prices and get that group discount for seniors; so they have something that is stable, where everyone knows what the premium is; so everyone knows what is covered; so it is reliable; so it doesn't matter if you live in the upper peninsula of Michigan or Benton Harbor, Saint Joe, or the city of Detroit, you would know and you would have it available to you. You could count on it. That has been the strength of Medicare. It has been there for everyone, and our older Americans can count on it. They are asking for us to simply do the same thing and design prescription drug coverage. Unfortunately, what we are hearing about the White House proposal is woefully inadequate. I urge my colleagues to immediately reject the proposal and give us an opportunity to work together on something that we know we can do that is best. Thank you, Mr. President. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today to speak, once again, about the urgent needs in our local communities for hometown security-- efforts for us to support local police and firefighters and emergency medical workers, including those in our local emergency rooms at our hospitals. These people are on the front lines of any terrorist attack that our citizens may face in the days or weeks or months ahead. Many of us have been talking, since just after 9/11, about the importance of partnering with local communities, and that it is not enough to ask our local sheriffs, firefighters, police officers, and others in the communities, to assume this additional set of duties relating to national security without having the support and assistance of the Federal Government. I commend all of my colleagues and the President for coming together to make sure our men and women in the armed services have what they need at this critical time. We have come forward with substantial increases in the Department of Defense, and I am sure we will continue to do so. But when it comes to the home front, we have not yet done what needs to be done. There is a growing sense of urgency and bewilderment in our communities here at home about why this has not occurred and why the President is not supporting the efforts that we have put forward. I have been holding meetings around Michigan--I believe eight different meetings now--from Detroit to Macomb County, Oakland County; I was in Port Huron, MI, on Monday; on over to Lansing and Kalamazoo, and all the way up to Marquette in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan--and I hear the same thing over and over: We need help purchasing updated radio equipment; we can't talk to one another; the city versus the county or county to county. In some cases, in smaller communities, the fire department cannot talk to the police department. We need a better dispatch system. We need better communications systems. We need, frankly, to be doing this on a statewide and national basis. But the communities do not have the resources to do it alone. We hear about training, not only having a trainer come in--whether it is for bioterrorism, whether it is other types of training that is needed--but we are hearing from local law enforcement and others that when you have a training certification, and you take 10 police officers away from their normal duties of patrolling our streets and keeping the citizens safe, and they sit in training, no matter how important it is, the police chief still has to replace those 10 officers so the citizens remain safe while that is happening, while the training is occurring. That takes additional dollars. There are multiple costs to training that we need to be supporting in order to be able to get this done as quickly as possible and as thoroughly as possible. And certainly we need additional personnel, different kinds of personnel, in our local communities. I am sure my colleagues have received many letters. I have received many letters in addition to the personal conversations that I have had with people across Michigan. Let me share parts of a couple letters from mayors in Michigan. The mayor from the city of Birmingham wrote to the President and sent me a copy: Mr. President, I am writing to express my deep concern that funding for first responders promised nearly a year ago has still not been provided to America's cities, towns and villages. As you know, the nation's local municipalities have carried the burden for homeland security during the 15 months since the September 11 attacks, with only the promise of federal support. This was written back in December. The absence of federal funding for police, firefighters and emergency response staff has been a disappointment for many city leaders across the country as their concerns were voiced at the recent National League of Cities conference held earlier this year. I have a similar letter that has come from the mayor of Cadillac, in northern Michigan, again expressing grave concerns and saying: At the recent National League of Cities conference in Salt Lake City, city leaders from across the country voiced their deep disappointment regarding the absence of federal funding for police, firefighters and emergency response staff. The city of Fenton, in Michigan, the city of East Lansing, in my own home county--mayors, county officials, police chiefs, sheriffs--and of both parties; this is not Republican and Democrat; this is not urban and rural; this is not a question of one part of the country against another--everyone, every community is saying this same thing. I am deeply concerned not only about past actions but what is occurring right now in this current budget bill that we will have in front of us tomorrow. Let me, first, indicate and remind us that last summer we passed an emergency supplemental that included $2.5 billion, passed by the Senate with bipartisan support, passed by the House with bipartisan support, and sent to the President, an emergency supplemental including $2.5 billion for local communities. It was on the President's desk. All he had to do was sign it. And he would not declare it as an emergency and would not sign it and release the funds. We have come back again and again. Twice this last month, in January, Senator Byrd stood in this Chamber and eloquently spoke about the needs of communities and first responders. Again, we could not get the support. And now in the omnibus budget bill that will be coming before us, despite a unanimous Senate appropriations vote back last July on a series of items that deal with transportation security, border security, community policing, Federal emergency management, firefighter grants, equipment and communications, emergency operations, port container security--and on and on and on--we now have in front of us a bill that, in fact, will cut from that amount supported unanimously by the Senate Appropriations Committee $4.4 billion from homeland security from what we passed, what the Appropriations Committee passed and recommended to us last summer based on the needs presented to them from communities. We could go down the list. I am deeply concerned when I see the cuts in community policing, the firefighter grants, the inoperable communications equipment grants, which I am hearing so much concern about, emergency operations, et cetera. It is time for us to act. It is time for us to hear what our communities are saying. I urge my colleagues to join with us in making sure we truly keep our communities safe.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. I thank the Senator.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise this evening to discuss the nomination of Miguel Estrada to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, and to express grave concerns that we are being asked to vote on a lifetime appointment with very little information on this nominee. There are many who have raised concerns about that very point. Let me share one letter that has been written, from the American Association of University Women. We believe the information available regarding Mr. Estrada's record raises serious concerns about whether he should be given the enormous honor and responsibility of a lifetime appointment to this Nation's second most powerful Federal court. We strongly urge the members of the Judiciary Committee to conduct a thorough investigation of his record, including the areas of concern we have outlined, and to refrain from passing judgment on his nomination until that inquiry and the record is complete. Let me begin by saying the DC Circuit Court of Appeals is, in fact, an extremely important court in our Nation. It is very important to the people I represent in Michigan and to the people that we all represent. It is, in fact, considered the Nation's second most important court, second only to the U.S. Supreme Court. This court has exclusive jurisdiction over a broad array of important Federal regulations that affect people in their lives every single day--environmental protection, our civil rights, human rights, consumer protections, workplace statutes--items that touch our lives. We have the right to know what someone's views are in general, and philosophy in general, as that person is being considered for this high court. In addition, its judges are often nominated to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court, which is another reason why this is a particularly important nomination, and a particularly important decision for all of us in the Senate. Three of the current members of the Supreme Court, Justice Scalia, Justice Thomas, and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, all previously served on the DC Circuit. So that is why this is particularly important and we should take the time necessary to make sure that the right decisions are made. Despite the importance of the DC Circuit Court, the administration is trying very hard to prevent the Senate from making an informed decision--an informed decision on Mr. Estrada. Mr. Estrada has no judicial experience, nor is he a distinguished scholar or professor, which means he lacks any real public record. That is not disparaging in terms of a comment as to his intellect, but it is a question of public record which we can review as to his views and philosophies. He has spent the bulk of his career in the Solicitor General's Office and in private practice. This makes it extraordinarily difficult for us to fairly evaluate him, and it makes his legal memos and other work product absolutely critical for this evaluation. The Senate has a constitutional obligation to advise and consent on a Federal judicial nominee. This is a responsibility I take very seriously, as do my Senate colleagues, I know, from both sides of the aisle. I might just remind us that as we read in our U.S. history books, there was a major debate as to how to decide the nominees and the members who would sit on the U.S. Supreme Court. At one point, our Framers said the President should decide alone. At another point they said the Senate should be the one that has the absolute right to decide who should be on this all powerful, important court that affects our lives so much. In the end they compromised, as they did in much of the discussions and the final decisions as to the framing of our Government. They said we believe this is so important there needs to be a check and balance, so we need to have both the Senate and the President involved. The President will nominate but the Senate will have the responsibility of reviewing and consenting to the nomination. That is the process that we are involved in right now. I might also say that we have confirmed over 100 judges since President Bush has come into his Presidency, and just on Monday night we had three votes. One was a Hispanic judge. We moved forward in this process. But when we find someone comes to the Judiciary Committee and when he is asked to provide copies of his memos and information, when he basically says no, or I'll just think about it, that makes it very difficult for an informed decision to be made. Unlike other nominations that come before the Senate, such as ambassadorships or executive nominees, Federal judicial nominations, again, are lifetime appointments. I think it is so important to repeat that over and over again. I have, in fact, supported the confirmation of individuals, other nominees of the President for his Cabinet who certainly would not have been my personal first choice. But the President has the right to select his Cabinet--certainly within reason; has the right to select his Cabinet, the people who will work with him during the 4 years that he is in office. That is not what this is about. This is about someone who will, in fact, make decisions that will affect us, not for 3 or 4 years, but for 30 or 40 years, through numerous Presidents, making it even more important that we are not a rubberstamp. The U.S. Senate has a very important role to play. As a part of this important responsibility, my Democratic colleagues on the Judiciary Committee have tried to obtain information, legal memos Mr. Estrada wrote while serving in the Justice Department. The Justice Department has refused to provide these documents which presumably would show Mr. Estrada's constitutional analysis of cases. This is very important. The constitutional analysis of statutes-- whatever his philosophies and beliefs--would give us insight into his judicial reasoning, not on a particular case but his reasoning. Unfortunately, as I indicated before, he has not been forthcoming to the committee. In fact, he has refused to answer the most basic questions before the committee. During his nomination hearing, Mr. Estrada refused to answer questions regarding his judicial philosophy or his views on important Supreme Court cases, including Roe v. Wade. He even refused to name any Supreme Court case with which he disagreed. This refusal to provide necessary information is absolutely unprecedented. Past administrations and the current administration have disclosed legal memos and other information in connection with both judicial and executive nominees. For example, in previous administrations the Senate has requested and the Justice Department has provided similar memos, written by Justice Department attorneys, including the writings of Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist, the Ninth Circuit Nominee Stephen Trott, Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork, Assistant Attorney General nominee William Bradford Reynolds, and Attorney General nominee Benjamin Civiletti, among others. This breaks with a longstanding practice of cooperation between the Justice Department and the Senate in providing access to necessary materials for nominations. The administration also has provided such memos for another nominee. The Bush administration has provided the Senate with legal memos written by Jeffrey Holmstead, an attorney with the White House Counsel's Office, during the consideration of his nomination as Assistant Administrator at the EPA. This was for a term appointment, in contrast to a lifetime appointment, which is certainly much more significant. I am also concerned that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are applying a different standard for nominees who are nominated by a Republican President than by a Democratic President. During the Clinton administration, and under Chairman Hatch, nominees were required to produce volumes of information. For example, Judge Richard Paez was asked to provide documentation of every instance during his tenure as a judge where he deviated downward from a sentencing guideline--every instance. Marsha Berzon, a Tenth Circuit nominee, was required to provide the minutes from every California ACLU meeting that occurred while she was a member of that organization, regardless of whether she even attended the meeting. Why was the bar placed so high for these Clinton nominees but there is such a hard push by my colleagues to confirm a nominee from whom we have no information? Why is there such a strong resistance by the administration to allow the Senate the opportunity to learn more about this nominee's writings and opinions? That is what this debate is all about. I might just say that when I am asked what is the philosophy, what is the judicial reasoning of this particular nominee, I would have to say this--these are the answers to the questions that Miguel Estrada gave to the Judiciary Committee: An absolute blank slate. Not one answer to one question. How can that give us the opportunity to determine whether or not this is a nominee we wish to support? Finally, I am extremely disappointed by how some of my colleagues across the aisle have tried to make this an issue of race. I believe racial diversity in our judicial system is extremely important. I wish my Republican colleagues had made the same impassioned speeches during the Clinton administration when 10 of more than 30 Hispanic nominees were delayed or blocked from receiving hearings or votes by members of their caucus. I wish my colleagues had been outraged when Ronnie White's nomination languished for 2\1/2\ years and then was rejected on the Senate floor on a party-line vote. I wish my colleagues had stood up for racial diversity when the President filed their brief opposing the University of Michigan's admissions policy to help create racial diversity in our law schools and our other colleges and schools at the university. The Senate needs to apply the same level of scrutiny and the same standards regardless of a nominee's race or the politics of the administrations that nominated them. Until we are given these memos that are a part of Mr. Estrada's record, we are not going to hold judicial nominees to the same standards and the same basic principles of fairness. It is time to do that--to give us a true opportunity. I might also add that 100 percent of the Hispanic Caucus of the House of Representatives have joined with us asking that we oppose or withhold judgment--that we not proceed with this vote until we have the information. These are individuals who have expressed grave concerns. They do not support moving forward. One-hundred percent of the Hispanic Caucus of the House from all around the country joined with more than 30 different organizations expressing grave concern. I think that says to us we need to take the time that is necessary and we need to receive information so that we can make an appropriate judgment. I will take just a moment to change topics. I ask while moving from one important topic to another to take just a moment to speak to a bill I have introduced today regarding the growing importation of waste problem.

Ms. STABENOW. I thank the Chair.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I have been given the floor, as I understand it, for 30 minutes. And I appreciate the fact that we have a topic in front of us. At this point, it is my understanding that it is not the Senator's prerogative to object to my being on the floor and to be able to speak for a moment, along with this important topic, to a bill I introduced about waste coming into the United States and taking a moment to do that. It is my understanding that under the normal processes of the Senate, I would have the opportunity to take a moment to do that.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to address the growing problem of Canadian waste shipments to Michigan. In 2001, Michigan imported almost 3.6 million tons of municipal solid waste, more than double the amount that was imported in 1999. This gives Michigan the unduly distinction of being the third largest dumping ground of waste in the United States. My colleagues may be surprised to know that the biggest source of this waste was not another State, but our neighbor to north, Canada. More than half the waste that was shipped to Michigan in 2001 was from Ontario, Canada, and these imports are growing rapidly. On January 1, 2003, as another Ontario landfill closed its doors, the City of Toronto switched from shipping two-thirds of its trash, to shipping all of its trash--1.1 million tons--to a Michigan landfill. And this deal could last 20 years! Experts predict that soon there will be virtually no local disposal capacity in Ontario, which could mean even more waste being shipped across the border to Michigan. Not only does this waste dramatically decrease Michigan's own landfill capacity, but it has a tremendous negative impact on Michigan's environment and the public health of citizens. Currently, Canadian municipal solid waste is sent to landfills in seven different Michigan counties--Genesee, Huron, Macomb, Monroe, Oakland, Washtenaw, and Wayne counties. Based on current usage statistics, the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, DEQ, estimates that Michigan has capacity for 15-17 years of disposal in landfills. However, with the proposed dramatic increase in importation of waste, this capacity is less than 10 years. The Michigan DEQ estimates that for every five years of disposal of Canadian waste at the current usage volume, Michigan is losing a full year of landfill capacity. The Canadian waste also hampers the effectiveness of Michigan's State and local recycling efforts, since Ontario does not have a bottle law requiring recycling. These Canadian waste shipments also present a threat to homeland security. Currently, 130 truckloads of waste come into Michigan each day from Canada. These trucks cross the Ambassador Bridge and Blue Water Bridge and travel through the busiest parts of Metro Detroit. In addition to causing traffic delays, and filling our air with the stench of exhaust and garbage, these trucks also present a security risk at our Michigan-Canadian border, since by their nature trucks full of garbage are harder for Customs agent to inspects then traditional cargo. Last year, I joined with Senator Levin and Congressman Dingell to introduce legislation to enforce the protections that Michigan is already entitled to which are contained in an international agreement between the United States and Canada. I continue to be supportive of this bill and I was proud to join as an original co-sponsor when it was reintroduced last month. However, with the recent landfill closings in Ontario, this problem has spiraled out of control. That is why today I am introducing ``the Canadian Waste Import Ban Act of 2003.'' This bill would stop these shipments by placing an immediate federal ban on the importation of Canadian municipal solid waste. The ban will be in place until the EPA enforces ``the Agreement Concerning the Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Waste.'' Under this existing agreement, the EPA is supposed to receive notification of Canadian waste shipments, and then would have 30 days to consent or object to the shipment. Not only have these notification provisions not been enforced, but the EPA has indicated that they would not object to the municipal waste shipments. In addition, the bill requires the EPA to Michigan's or any State's consent before receiving any shipment of Canadian municipal solid waste. In enforcing the agreement, the EPA must obtain the consent of the receiving State, before consenting to a Canadian municipal solid waste shipment. The EPA must also consider the impact of the shipment on homeland security, the environment, and public health. This legislation will stop the importation of Canadian trash until Michigan residents are given the voice they deserve in deciding whether or not this waste should be sent to their landfills. We need to give the states a real voice in these decisions and my bill guarantees that the states through the EPA will get to decide whether or not they want to receive this Canadian waste. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to address the growing problem of Canadian waste shipments to Michigan. In 2001, Michigan imported almost 3.6 million tons of municipal solid waste, more than double the amount that was imported in 1999. This gives Michigan the unduly distinction of being the third largest dumping ground of waste in the United States. My colleagues may be surprised to know that the biggest source of this waste was not another State, but our neighbor to north, Canada. More than half the waste that was shipped to Michigan in 2001 was from Ontario, Canada, and these imports are growing rapidly. On January 1, 2003, as another Ontario landfill closed its doors, the City of Toronto switched from shipping two-thirds of its trash, to shipping all of its trash--1.1 million tons--to a Michigan landfill. And this deal could last 20 years! Experts predict that soon there will be virtually no local disposal capacity in Ontario, which could mean even more waste being shipped across the border to Michigan. Not only does this waste dramatically decrease Michigan's own landfill capacity, but it has a tremendous negative impact on Michigan's environment and the public health of citizens. Currently, Canadian municipal solid waste is sent to landfills in seven different Michigan counties--Genesee, Huron, Macomb, Monroe, Oakland, Washtenaw, and Wayne counties. Based on current usage statistics, the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, DEQ, estimates that Michigan has capacity for 15-17 years of disposal in landfills. However, with the proposed dramatic increase in importation of waste, this capacity is less than 10 years. The Michigan DEQ estimates that for every five years of disposal of Canadian waste at the current usage volume, Michigan is losing a full year of landfill capacity. The Canadian waste also hampers the effectiveness of Michigan's State and local recycling efforts, since Ontario does not have a bottle law requiring recycling. These Canadian waste shipments also present a threat to homeland security. Currently, 130 truckloads of waste come into Michigan each day from Canada. These trucks cross the Ambassador Bridge and Blue Water Bridge and travel through the busiest parts of Metro Detroit. In addition to causing traffic delays, and filling our air with the stench of exhaust and garbage, these trucks also present a security risk at our Michigan-Canadian border, since by their nature trucks full of garbage are harder for Customs agent to inspects then traditional cargo. Last year, I joined with Senator Levin and Congressman Dingell to introduce legislation to enforce the protections that Michigan is already entitled to which are contained in an international agreement between the United States and Canada. I continue to be supportive of this bill and I was proud to join as an original co-sponsor when it was reintroduced last month. However, with the recent landfill closings in Ontario, this problem has spiraled out of control. That is why today I am introducing ``the Canadian Waste Import Ban Act of 2003.'' This bill would stop these shipments by placing an immediate federal ban on the importation of Canadian municipal solid waste. The ban will be in place until the EPA enforces ``the Agreement Concerning the Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Waste.'' Under this existing agreement, the EPA is supposed to receive notification of Canadian waste shipments, and then would have 30 days to consent or object to the shipment. Not only have these notification provisions not been enforced, but the EPA has indicated that they would not object to the municipal waste shipments. In addition, the bill requires the EPA to Michigan's or any State's consent before receiving any shipment of Canadian municipal solid waste. In enforcing the agreement, the EPA must obtain the consent of the receiving State, before consenting to a Canadian municipal solid waste shipment. The EPA must also consider the impact of the shipment on homeland security, the environment, and public health. This legislation will stop the importation of Canadian trash until Michigan residents are given the voice they deserve in deciding whether or not this waste should be sent to their landfills. We need to give the states a real voice in these decisions and my bill guarantees that the states through the EPA will get to decide whether or not they want to receive this Canadian waste. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today in both sadness and celebration because my longtime staff person friend JoAnne Huls has decided to leave the Senate. I am sad because I am losing my trusted and valued deputy chief of staff who has been with me for a decade. I celebrate because I am happy to see a dear friend move on to new challenges and I wish her the best of luck. JoAnne--a native Michiganian--joined me as a college intern in 1993 when I was in the Michigan Senate. She has been with me in a number of capacities, including during my tenure in the House of Representatives. Then JoAnne came with me to the Senate, serving as my scheduler and my deputy chief of staff. She has also been with me through four campaigns, with the usual long hours, tense days and junk food. All of us appreciate the work our staff does for us. They become like family. We often ask them to work long into the night and into the weekend for salaries far less than they could command in the private sector. Why do they do it? I think that people like JoAnne Huls come to this institution and work hard every day out of a sense of dedication to their State and country. And JoAnne also came here out of a sense of loyalty and dedication to me and to the issues we care deeply about. I will forever be grateful to her for her hard work, commitment and friendship. So thank you, JoAnne, good luck. I know you will make a difference wherever you are and I know you will continue to care deeply about our democratic process. We are fortunate that people such as JoAnne Huls are willing to be in public service.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I first thank my friend from California for her usual eloquence. I agree totally with her sense of what our people are feeling in terms of the anxiousness about possible war, the anxiousness about education for our children, about health care, about jobs, about homeland security. I thank Senator Boxer for her comments this morning. I will follow up talking about an area that is so important to each of our families and is a growing concern to businesses in the country and to workers in the country; that is the whole question of health care. We know there is a growing sense of anxiousness. When I sit down with small businesses across Michigan, they tell me their fastest growing cost is their health care premiums. In some cases they are doubling. When I talk to the big three automakers and the other manufacturers in Michigan, I hear the same thing. When I hear from Chrysler that they are spending more on health care than on the raw materials for the vehicles--I am concerned. This shows me we have a serious, serious crisis, a health care crisis. At the same time, we all have spoken about the seniors of our country who are choosing between their food and their medicine. This is real. People are asking us to act. Words are not enough. Rhetoric is not enough. We have to act in a way that provides opportunity for quality, affordable, accessible health care. On the eve of the State of the Union Address, I rise to ask the President of the United States what he intends to do. Will he, in fact, change his record and work with us on issues of health care in a bipartisan way, to actually get something done? I worry, myself, because of the record I have seen in the last 2 years. We have a record of this administration on health care that, unfortunately, is bad medicine for the American people. We have attempted on several occasions to move forward policies and proposals that are in the best interests of the American people. This administration continues to oppose those. I am talking about a Medicare benefit for all seniors for prescription drugs under Medicare that is affordable, that is dependable, that is available to all of our seniors--this President has consistently opposed that approach. Whether it is also making prescription drugs affordable for all Americans and lowering the prices for our businesses--the President has opposed efforts to open the doors to Canada to drop prices immediately, and he has opposed efforts to make sure we have more competition in the system by closing the generic drug law loopholes. Generic drugs are made by those companies that do not do research but take the formulas after the patents expire and are able to develop and put on the market lower cost prescription drugs, oftentimes exactly like the brand-name drugs. We know they can drop the prices up to 70 percent by just having the generic drug laws work. We have business coalitions formed across the country urging us to pass laws to shut down the loopholes so competition can work to bring prices down. Unfortunately, even after we passed a bill in this body, in the Senate, the administration has opposed it. We have innovative State solutions like what has been done in Maine where the State wants to come in and use its bulk purchasing power and leverage that to negotiate lower prices on behalf of the uninsured who pay the top prices in the world right now for their prescriptions. Our State governments understand that. Our Governors want the flexibility to be able to bulk purchase and lower prices. This administration has opposed it. We need fair prices for Medicare providers. While we have seen some willingness, and I appreciate that, to focus on the cuts that have been put into place for our physicians--that certainly needs to be done-- what about the home health agencies that are closing? What about our nursing homes? What about our hospitals, our teaching facilities? We have a crisis in health care, and the last thing we need to do is to be making more cuts to Medicare or Medicaid. Yet the administration has, to date, opposed fixing the Medicare problem. The Patients' Bill of Rights, a real Patients' Bill of Rights so that those who are in HMOs have the opportunity to have the physician of their choice and to have the rights available to them they wish to have to protect their families, a strong Patients' Bill of Rights--this administration has consistently opposed that, as well. And what about assistance to States for Medicaid? Right now 25 percent of Michigan's State budget is Medicaid. We have a $2 billion deficit in Michigan out of a $9 billion budget. Our new Governor is doing a wonderful job of trying to make the numbers add up, but without Federal support and help they will not add up and people will be hurt and doctors and health facilities will be hurt. Yet, consistently, when we have tried to put forward plans on this floor, even plans that have passed the Senate have not made it all the way because this administration will not support efforts to help our States and to help Medicaid. Finally, there was a commitment made to double the National Institutes of Health funding by 2003. The administration supports funding cuts that will not meet that goal. Unfortunately, the Bush record on health care to date has been bad medicine for the American people. I ask the President today, rather than moving forward with the proposals we are hearing about attempting, essentially, to privatize Medicare, this evening I urge him to reassess and to join us in bipartisan efforts to make sure our citizens have the health care they need and our businesses can afford.

Ms. STABENOW. Unfortunately, no. We have seen a consistent effort to put forward plans that are supported by the brand name pharmaceutical industry itself or by the insurance companies, but not those things that will lower prices and make health care more affordable and more available. Last summer, with a very rigorous debate on the Senate floor and a strong bipartisan vote, we passed a bill that would create more competition to lower prescription drug prices; it went to the House of Representatives where it did not see the light of day. Unfortunately, without the President's support and leadership, it will continue to be that way. We need the President to step up and say that the fact that prescription drug prices are going up three times the rate of inflation every year and that is too much. It is too much. Our businesses cannot sustain that. They cannot sustain seeing their health care premiums double. At the same time, if you are an uninsured senior in this country, you are paying top dollar. Isn't it ironic that of all of those who pay for prescription drugs around the world, the people who pay literally the most for their medicine are uninsured people, most of whom are seniors, because they do not have anybody negotiating on their behalf. They do not have Medicare right now coming in and saying: We are going to negotiate a group price. So they pay the highest price. Why wouldn't it make sense to have Medicare coverage? The brand name companies do not want Medicare negotiating on behalf of 40 million seniors and the disabled to lower prices. So what they have come up with is this scheme that would essentially not allow the clout of buying power because Medicare would not directly be providing the prescription drug coverage. But they want to act as if they would like to have prescription drug coverage for seniors, so they come up with this plan that would say: We will help you with your medicine if you go into a private-sector HMO. By the way, in Michigan, now we have seen, since the inception of what is really Medicare+Choice--which is the plan that has already been out there for private sector Medicare HMO coverage--more than 51,000 seniors in Michigan have been disenrolled because plans have withdrawn from Michigan. In fact, we do not have any HMOs in the Upper Peninsula. We have very few plans in Michigan. In fact, my own mother, who was in an HMO and enjoying the coverage under Medicare+Choice, was dropped because the plan withdrew from Michigan. So we only have four private sector HMO plans in Medicare left in Michigan, and they only serve 2 percent of the eligible Medicare beneficiaries in the State--2 percent--and the majority are in nine counties in southeastern Michigan, with the rest of the State not being covered. By the way, none of those plans are accepting new people or new enrollees. So the President says: Let's take this plan that covers very few people, where it is not working, and let's say if you want Medicare prescription drug coverage, you have to go through this failed plan. I, for the life of me, cannot understand why this approach is being put forward except for the fact that certainly from the prescription drug industry's standpoint, it is better than going under Medicare. So, Mr. President, I would ask this evening for you to please speak to the anxiety, the anxiousness that we all feel, that Americans feel for our families, for our businesses, that workers feel when they now find their pay being frozen so their employers can afford the explosion in the health care crisis. I would like you to speak to those issues in very real ways. Do not offer failed plans just to be able to speak about this issue. Join with us in bipartisan efforts that we know will work, efforts that have been supported by the private sector as well as the public sector, efforts that are supported by workers, by seniors, by all of those who have a stake in making sure that health care is affordable and available. We had a plan. We had a bill, S. 812, that passed this Senate last summer. I commend all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who voted for that legislation. We can cut prices that lower premiums for our businesses. We can provide Medicare coverage. And we can do it in a real way. I urge, tonight, that the President speak to us. And I invite him to join with us in a plan that will work.

Ms. STABENOW. That is absolutely correct. I thank my friend from Illinois, who is always in the Chamber fighting on behalf of the people of his State and the country. There is no doubt about it, while the President is talking about increased choices, what he is really saying is, if you want to get help with your exploding prescription drug costs, if you want to stop having to pick between meals and your medicine, then you are going to have to go into a private insurance company, an HMO, where they will decide about your doctor. In fact, he is not willing to support a Patients' Bill of Rights to make sure they get what they need while they are in the HMO.

Ms. STABENOW. I will be happy to yield.

Ms. STABENOW

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

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, as I indicated, my amendment is a sense of the Senate that insists that the conference report for the Omnibus Appropriations Act retain the Senate provisions that repeal the special interest vaccine component provisions that were originally included in the Homeland Security Act. The purpose of this amendment is to send a very strong message to the Senate conferees who will represent our interests in the conference, and to the House, that we stand firmly behind the repeal of the vaccine component provisions that were contained in last year's Homeland Security Act. We need a strong show of support in favor of this amendment to demonstrate our commitment to public interest over special interests. We also need to ensure that the conference report of this bill maintains a full repeal of that language. Anything less is absolutely unacceptable. Last November, Speaker Hastert and Representative DeLay gave only vague assurances they would strike the special interest provisions from the Homeland Security Act, and since then I have seen signs that their commitment to this process may have continued to slip, and we certainly do not wish that to happen after the hard work of putting this language into the bill. Again, we need to send a very strong message to all the Members of the House and the Senate that we must have full repeal of this special interest provision, commonly referred to as the ``thimerosal provision.'' I thank my colleagues Senators Snowe, Collins, and Chafee, who worked to incorporate the spirit of the bill, S. 105, that I introduced at the beginning of the year that proposed a full repeal into the final version of this Omnibus Act. I also thank the cosponsors of my bill. Most importantly, though, I thank the families of children with autism for working so hard to repeal the special interest provisions. They are the ones who have been successful in this effort, and I congratulate them. I joined them in a capital rally a few weeks ago where we praised them for their courage, hard work, and commitment. They traveled of their own accord and paid their own costs, which is very difficult and burdensome for a family of a special needs child. They came to Washington, DC, to fight to repeal this provision. I promised those parents I would fight to remove it and that we would fight that it be repealed in total in conference and signed by the President. So I thank my colleagues who have been involved in this issue, and I ask that they join in keeping the promise to these very special families by supporting my amendment. I yield the floor.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to commend my colleagues on the Senate Interior Appropriations Subcommittee for their continued support and commitment to the Tribal School Construction Demonstration Program administered by the Bureau of Indian affairs. I also rise to engage in a colloquy with the distinguished Chairman of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, Mr. Burns. My distinguished colleagues, the chairman and ranking member of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, Mr. Burns and Mr. Byrd respectively, worked to make sure that this important program received funding this year. A tribe in my home State of Michigan, the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe of Michigan, met with me and the subcommittee early in this process regarding their intention to utilize the demonstration program. Thank you for all of your cooperation and hard work on this legislation. Over the last 25 years, the Saginaw Tribe has worked hard to create a tribal economy to provide education, health care, and other governmental services to its members. The tribe has made many constructive steps towards self-sufficiency and is dedicated to providing every educational opportunity to its tribal youth. The dilapidated condition of their current school facility has been a roadblock to further advancement. The temporary, modular housing facility where Saginaw Chippewa children attend classes is inadequate. It is a dismal learning environment, anything but conducive to the positive development and education of young minds. Although the current language in the Interior appropriation bill only allocates $3 million to the program, a sum nearly $2 million short of what the Tribe is seeking in a Federal match, the Tribe would still like to partner with the Department this funding cycle in order to begin immediate construction of the Saginaw Chippewa Academy. The Tribe is willing to assume a cost-share greater than 50 percent to complete construction. In addition, the Tribe is also willing to forgo any future Federal dollars to fund operation and maintenance costs in order to receive the highest priority for a Federal matching grant as set forth in the authorizing language under the program. Given all of these commitments, don't you think the tribe should be given high consideration from the Department of Interior for this grant during the fiscal year 2003 year?

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. Chairman, thank you for clarifying this issue and for your support of this critical project. The Saginaw Tribe is eager to partner with the Department of interior to ensure that the educational needs of its people are met. Advanced Housing Research Consortium