Debbie Stabenow

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. My good friend and fellow Senator from Michigan is correct; the Emerald Ash Borer has the ability to destroy our nation's urban forests. The threat is so great that the Departments of Agriculture for Indiana and Ohio as well as the Province of Ontario, all of which border Michigan, have published warnings about the Ash Borer even though it is not known to have spread from Michigan, yet. Currently, an Interagency Invasive Species Task Force including the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Michigan State University, Michigan Technological University, and the Michigan Department of Agriculture is working to analyze this problem. As such the task force has placed a quarantine on 13 counties in southeastern Michigan.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk, and I ask unanimous consent that it be considered in lieu of my motion to instruct the conferees that is already at the desk.

Ms. STABENOW. That is correct.

Ms. STABENOW. Having APHIS report on these efforts to Congress would greatly assist us as we seek to assist with the eradication of this pest and as we seek funds to help contain and eradicate the Emerald ash borer.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, following up on what the distinguished Senator from Idaho was talking about--operating costs--in a State such as Michigan, which has great diversity, we have a very large number of fruit and vegetable growers. I remember hearing from Fred Tubbs who has 40 acres of cherries. He says even though he lost his crop and even though he had been devastated this year, he has to continue to spray. He has to continue to have operational costs as well. My grave concern about the Cochran amendment is so many of our farmers--particularly family farmers--have been left out of this amendment. People such as Fred Tubbs have--with operating costs whether or not they have a crop. We have two choices in front of us: The Daschle amendment and the Cochran amendment. The Cochran amendment is not a disaster package. That is very clear. There are farmers who did not have a disaster and may have had a bumper crop who will be helped under this amendment. States that have seen devastation in crops such as soy beans would be helped under this provision. But grape growers, apple growers, cherry growers, asparagus, peaches, plums--all of those fruit and vegetable growers who have been devastated in my State would not receive assistance under this plan. There is a small provision in the Cochran amendment that would provide $100 million set aside for fruits and vegetables. I will just share with my colleagues that in Michigan alone the fruit and vegetable losses are $180 million. The amount in this bill is $100 million for the entire country. Our farmers deserve better than this. We can do better. I also indicate that the bill provides a small amount--$250 million in the Cochran amendment--for section 32 as it relates to nutrition and the purchase of fruits and vegetables. Unfortunately, that is far less than the $1 billion that was removed last year for livestock assistance. Our fruit and vegetable growers were very pleased the first time we passed a farm bill last year that included them--that recognized our fruit and vegetable growers across the country. Yet we are seeing attempts at every turn to eliminate the assistance that was placed into the farm bill. It is time for the Daschle amendment; it is time to provide needed disaster assistance for both losses in 2001 and 2002. I urge my colleagues to do the right thing for our farmers.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Levin in reintroducing this 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 unwelcome distinction of being the third largest importer 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 the 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 Michigan landfills. 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 its citizens. 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. Currently, 110-130 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, 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 agents to inspect than traditional cargo. Michigan already has protections contained in an international agreement between the United States and Canada, but they are being ignored. Under the Agreement Concerning the Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Waste, which was entered into in 1986, shipments of waste across the Canadian-U.S. border require government-to-government notification. The Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, as the designated authority for the United States would receive the notification 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. This legislation will give Michigan residents the protection they are entitled to under this bilateral treaty. The bill would give EPA the authority to implement and enforce this treaty, and would create civil penalties for those who ship waste in violation of the treaty. In addition, it would create criteria for the EPA's determination of whether or not to consent to a shipment, such as the State's views on the shipment, and the shipment's impact on landfill capacity, air emissions, public health and the environment. These waste shipments should no longer be accepted without an examination of how it will affect the health and welfare of Michigan families. Again, I thank my colleague, Senator Levin, for introducing this bill and I look forward to working with him to move it through the Senate.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I move that the conferees on the part of the Senate on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2 be instructed to insist that the committee of conference ensure that the joint resolution as reported from the committee includes section 102 of division L relating to Homeland Security Act of 2002 Amendments, as passed by the Senate, (relating to amendments to sections 1714 through 1717 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-296)).

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Levin in reintroducing this 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 unwelcome distinction of being the third largest importer 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 the 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 Michigan landfills. 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 its citizens. 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. Currently, 110-130 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, 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 agents to inspect than traditional cargo. Michigan already has protections contained in an international agreement between the United States and Canada, but they are being ignored. Under the Agreement Concerning the Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Waste, which was entered into in 1986, shipments of waste across the Canadian-U.S. border require government-to-government notification. The Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, as the designated authority for the United States would receive the notification 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. This legislation will give Michigan residents the protection they are entitled to under this bilateral treaty. The bill would give EPA the authority to implement and enforce this treaty, and would create civil penalties for those who ship waste in violation of the treaty. In addition, it would create criteria for the EPA's determination of whether or not to consent to a shipment, such as the State's views on the shipment, and the shipment's impact on landfill capacity, air emissions, public health and the environment. These waste shipments should no longer be accepted without an examination of how it will affect the health and welfare of Michigan families. Again, I thank my colleague, Senator Levin, for introducing this bill and I look forward to working with him to move it through the Senate.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from West Virginia for yielding 5 minutes to me. I also share his great respect and admiration for the Senator and the processes in which he is involved and the bipartisan way the Appropriations Committee has moved forward in working together with our two leaders. I thank Senator Byrd for his leadership on the issue of homeland-- many of us are saying ``hometown''--security, because that is really what it is. I come with thanks and gratitude from law enforcement, firefighters, EMS workers, hospital emergency room workers, all across the great State of Michigan. I have held six different community meetings around Michigan in the last month asking our local first responders how they are doing, what do they need, do they feel prepared, what can we do to be of assistance. I have scheduled three more meetings in Michigan to listen, and I am hearing the same thing over and over again, and that is our first responders, our firefighters and police officers on the front line, emergency personnel, health departments, local emergency rooms, desperately need us to partner with them to give them the resources they need to take the necessary steps to be prepared in the case of terrorism in their communities. I heard concern about training, not only the need to have a trainer but the costs that it takes to remove that police officer. In a small police department, when an officer goes to training for a week, there is the additional cost to replace that person, with overtime involved, and all kinds of concerns about training relating to the cost. They very much want this training. They need the training. But they need our help to be able to continue to provide law enforcement safety services, fire services, and other services in the community while their personnel are being training. I heard great concern about the lack of resources for equipment and communications, one county not being able to speak to the next county, large departments in one city not being able to speak to a township, very small fire departments that are not yet on e-mail. We have information coming out from the Federal level, many of them saying they appreciate the information coming from the FBI or the Department of Justice, but small departments are not receiving that in a timely manner. There are great concerns about lack of coordination and communication, all of those things involving resources. We have also heard great concerns about additional personnel who are needed in this time when the States are cutting back. In my own State of Michigan, because of tremendous budget crises, we have seen cuts in revenue sharing to our local governments. Police officers are being laid off. Firefighters and other front responders are coming to us and asking us to partner with them. We have a new Homeland Security Department. We have new responsibilities that have been given to our local hometown security leaders. We need to provide them the resources to be able to get the job done. Michigan is a border State. In Senator Byrd's amendment, the resources for border security are absolutely critical. We have three of the top five busiest borders, the busiest being in Detroit. I rise today to support Senator Byrd's amendment and to urge that we pass it as he has provided. We are in a situation that I believe is absolutely critical. We are hearing this from Republican sheriffs and Democratic sheriffs, from Republican police chiefs and Democratic police chiefs. This is not a partisan issue. This is about the local law enforcement and emergency management personnel desperately needing our help to be able to get the job done to keep families safe and secure in their homes and in their neighborhoods. I urge colleagues to support this effort. Once last year we came together to pass emergency dollars in the supplemental. The dollars that are being proposed are absolutely critical. It is a small amount to pay in order to give the assurance to our families that they will in fact have the resources given to first responders in their community so they know they can respond in a crisis. I cannot think of anything more important today than making sure we are funding hometown security efforts. Senator Byrd's amendment is critical to that effort. I hope we will join and have 100-percent support to send a message to our police, firefighters, emergency health personnel, and medical personnel that we stand with them in partnership, the Federal Government with our local communities, and we will be there and make them a priority for the resources they need in order to keep us safe. I yield the floor.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I rise to express my deep disappointment at news reports today that indicate the Bush administration will try to overturn the admissions policy at the University of Michigan, in my great State. As many people know, the Supreme Court will soon hear a case that will decide the future of racial diversity in all institutions of higher education. The University of Michigan's admissions policy so far has been upheld by the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals as constitutional. Unfortunately, those who want to dismantle all admissions programs that consider race have taken this all the way to the Supreme Court. It is important to note this case is not about racial quotas. Let me say that again. It is important to note this case is not about racial quotas. The University of Michigan does not have racial quotas for admission. I am opposed to racial quotas and this, in fact, has been the law of the land since the Supreme Court's decision in the Bakke case in 1978. The University of Michigan's undergraduate admissions policy simply takes into account student diversity as one of many factors that are considered for admission. Incidentally, the most important factors for admission are the applicant's grade point average and test scores. Race is one factor of diversity, but it is not the only factor. I think this oftentimes is missed in the discussion about the university's policies and what affirmative action means. There are several other factors the university considers, including if the applicant comes from a socially or economically disadvantaged background, if the applicant is a white student from a majority minority high school, if the applicant comes from an underrepresented community, such as one of Michigan's many rural communities throughout northern Michigan, southern Michigan, up in the Upper Peninsula, or if the applicant is an athlete. I think it is important to emphasize there is a category where there are certain points that are given and you can either be given points as an athlete or points for racial diversity or points for other kinds of categories--not all of them but one. Certainly, there are a number of factors that are considered in this process to create a balanced student body for the university. The university considers a long list of factors, including if the applicant is a child of an alumni or if he or she has written a terrific essay. So there are many factors. All of these factors help the University of Michigan select a diverse, well-rounded student body that is not just racially diverse but economically and geographically diverse as well. Do we not believe that students from our small towns and rural communities add a unique and valuable perspective to our academic institutions? What about our students who come from economically disadvantaged backgrounds? I know many Michigan families in the Upper Peninsula who lost their jobs because of the iron mines closing. Don't their children deserve an equal opportunity to attend one of the State's best academic institutions, and in fact I would argue one of the best in the Nation? I might add that my son, Todd, is also an alumni of the great University of Michigan. This debate is much greater than the admissions policy of one university. This is about whether we are going to have equal opportunity for all Americans. This is about whether we support policies that help provide the opportunity for Americans of all backgrounds to have a chance at the American dream regardless of where they live, regardless of their ethnic background and their religious background, or whether they are male or female, whether they are an athlete or not a good athlete--a wide variety of factors that go into making those decisions. And shouldn't all young people have the opportunity? We already have policies called veterans preferences to help our veterans. I certainly am very supportive of doing that. We have set aside programs for women-owned and minority-owned small businesses and some categories for small businesses in general. There are certainly preferences that make good sense in public policy. Shouldn't we also give a helping hand to all young people who want to go to college to be able to create the brainpower to drive the economic engine of this country with new innovations and new opportunities to continue forward an American economy that is as strong as it can be? President Bush's decision to try to dismantle the University of Michigan's admissions policy comes at a very tough time for our Nation's minority community. Over the past month, the Republican Party has undergone a makeover--a change in leadership. But it would be very unfortunate if it is a change in style and not of substance. Despite the White House's recent proclamation of issues that impact our minority community, I was very disheartened to see that they immediately renominated Charles Pickering to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals despite his controversial record on civil rights and his defense of someone convicted of burning a cross on the lawn of an interracial family. There has been no commitment by this administration to support hate crimes legislation or legislation to prevent racial profiling. There has not been a commitment to fully fund election reform measures to ensure that minority voters are not disenfranchised as they were in the 2000 election. Unfortunately, this administration seems to be all talk and no action. We need to come together in a bipartisan way to act and not just to talk. On the one hand, the President talks about the importance of expanding opportunities to all Americans. And we all talk of that, and that certainly is something with which I agree, but the administration's policies do not back up this rhetoric. There is still time for the President to file a brief in the Supreme Court case--one that supports the University of Michigan's admissions policy. I urge him to do so. Now is the time for us to come together and work together to make sure there is opportunity and access to our great institutions of higher learning in this country and that educational opportunities are available to every young person and to every American. I urge the President to reconsider the course that he appears to be taking and to join with us who understand the policy of the University of Michigan and to understand the importance of every young person having the opportunity to go to college. I yield the floor. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the time during further quorum calls be evenly divided on both sides.

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

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I first thank my colleague from Washington State for her eloquence, standing up for those working Americans, middle class Americans, those on the front lines who are being asked to put their lives on the line in defense of our country and our freedoms. I appreciate very much her comments and would like to associate myself with her comments today.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the need to truly stimulate our economy and create jobs and how we can do that in a way that is fair for everyone, that puts dollars back in the pockets of middle-class Americans who we know literally drive the economic engine by buying cars, homes, clothes for their children, groceries, and all of the other purchases that keep our economy going. I have grave concerns about the so-called economic proposal that has come from the President. In fact, it does not meet the definition of that term, and I have great concern because it does not put the majority of money back in the pockets of people who drive the economic engine. We can come together on issues such as eliminating the marriage tax penalty, increasing the child credit, and helping small businesses, which by the way are the majority of new jobs being created today. The majority of new jobs is coming from small businesses. We need to be focusing on ways to help small businesses pay for their health care and to have the kinds of incentives they need to invest back in their companies so they will grow. When we look at the proposal the President has brought forward, if we were to come together, we could easily pass relief as it relates to the marriage tax penalty, with bipartisan support. We could easily pass increases in the child tax credit on a bipartisan basis. We could easily support small business in ways that we can provide tax relief and other kinds of support. The problem is two-thirds of the President's plan, the vast majority, does not do any of that. Two-thirds of the plan is focused on the very top income earners in the United States who already have one, two, or three homes, multiple cars, and who are not necessarily going to be spending these dollars back into the economy, at the expense of everyone else. When we look at what this proposal from the White House means to Americans, taxpayers with incomes of over $1 million would get back an average of $88,873, almost $89,000 coming back to them. The majority of taxpayers, the typical middle-class taxpayer in the United States of America, would get $265. That is a huge disparity. Some say, well, if we talk about the differences, if we talk about the fact that the majority goes to those at the very top, we are engaged in class warfare. With all due respect, that is a bunch of baloney. We are talking about how we can fairly put money into people's pockets. We want to make sure the majority of the middle-income taxpayers, the ones who are keeping the engine going, have tax relief and get dollars back in their pockets. Of course, that happens in a variety of ways. Tax relief is one. This kind of a difference is not fair. It is simply not fair. There is another way to make sure we have money in people's pockets. That is to make sure we are not exploding the national debt and causing interest rates to rise. There is another kind of tax on people we went through in the 1980s and the 1990s. That is high interest rates. When citizens buy an automobile--coming from Michigan, I am very interested in people buying a lot of automobiles, a lot of domestically made, American-made automobiles; we want people to be able to afford that-- high interest rates affect your ability to buy that new car. High interest rates affect your ability to buy your new home, or to be able to afford to send your children to college. Interest rates which directly relate to the national debt affect how much money goes in people's pockets. This proposal of the President is not fair on its face. We are looking at the top .2 percent, 226,000 millionaires, receive more than half, almost two-thirds of all of the tax cuts being imposed; 68 percent of the people receive $15 billion; and .2 percent of the taxpayers get $20 billion. It is not fair on its face. If you add in the fact this is a proposal that will greatly increase the national debt on the back end, what we are doing is saddling these middle-class taxpayers and our baby boomers--of which I am one--and our children and grandchildren with more debt. We will increase interest rates and take more money out of people's pockets.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, there is no question that today is a day for family, a day for congratulations. I congratulate all my colleagues who were just sworn in. I know it is a very exciting day. I remember being in this position 2 years ago. It is a very special day. But in addition to celebrating family in the Senate today, we are very concerned about those families who find themselves in the difficult position of having no income coming in because of unemployment, through no cause of their own. They want to work. But because of the changing economy, the structure of the economy, or because of a variety of other reasons, they have found themselves unemployed. Certainly in Michigan we find that the changing economic structure has occurred for many people. Many of us have been asking that we remember them. We asked during the holidays that we remember those whose unemployment benefits would be ending during the holidays and that we take action before we left last year. That did not happen. We are back today. I commend the new leadership for their willingness to come forward with this issue of unemployment compensation. However, what we have seen today is a willingness to only do half the job. How can we say to a million people, and to their families, on a day when we celebrate families, that they don't count? We are told that the House of Representatives would not support solving this problem completely or addressing it completely--that they would only support addressing half of it. We have said let us support solving the problem. And we did in fact pass a resolution to move forward solving half the problem. But our leader, Senator Daschle, also proposed that we add a separate resolution to complete the job to help those 1 million individuals who also find themselves in a situation of needing to extend their unemployment benefits. Yet we were told no again. We have been told no so many times on this floor as it relates to helping unemployed workers. It is very regrettable that today, one more time, we were told no. I think, more specifically, families were told no. Those who have lost their jobs were told no. One million people were told no. We celebrate today people coming into new commissions, new jobs, and with great pride, as they should. We know the ability to work and to be able to provide an income and care for your family is one of the basics of our society and our economy. We know that there are Americans today who find themselves in a difficult situation of searching for work, of being unemployed, and asking that their Government support their families as they move forward to find new employment so that they can care for their families in the way they would like to provide for them. Unfortunately, I believe today a tone was set by choosing not to address this problem completely at a time when we are seeing, unfortunately, one more time, an economic plan rolled out to help those who have been helped so many times who are at the very top of the income bracket in our country. As a member of the Budget Committee, I have heard many economists, including Alan Greenspan, say that by extending unemployment benefits-- and by putting dollars into people's pockets so they can pay their bills, buy the shoes for their children, and be able to continue providing groceries for their families and paying other bills which they have--we actually stimulate the economy. We create demand. When there is money in people's pockets, they are spending it. We know someone who is unemployed is going to be spending it because they have to. The money coming in is not being saved. It is being spent on clothes, food, the electric bills, the car payment, the mortgage payment, and so on. We know that is a short-term economic stimulus--certainly at a time when we are debating economic stimulus. What we have been asking for today is something that is not only fair and right to address--all of those who find themselves in a situation of being unemployed, not leave 1 million people out of the solution-- but we are also asking, as we talk about economic stimulus, that we in fact provide the kind of stimulus that puts money back into the economy and helping those who need to spend it to care for their families, to pay their bills, to be able to remain independent in their homes, and to be able to know that they are a part of the economic equation, and when we talk economic stimulus, that they are not left out. While I am pleased we were able to pass the resolution, I am very disappointed that this very first time we were not able to address or even bring forward in a separate resolution the ability to address 1 million people today who are looking to us, at a time of celebration, and asking us to remember them; to ask on their behalf so they, too, can have the ability to care for their families. I hope we will, as quickly as possible, finish the job. I yield the floor.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, today I rise to keep a promise I made in November. On this, the very first day of the 108th Congress, I am introducing a bill that will remove the controversial vaccine component liability provisions from the Homeland Security bill. I am joined by a long list of original cosponsors: Senators Daschle, Boxer, Levin, Leahy, Landrieu, Dodd, Dayton, Sarbanes, Dorgan, Durbin, Lautenberg, and Feinstein. The Homeland Security bill, signed into law by President Bush in December, contains a provision that protects that financial security of pharmaceutical companies, not the homeland security of our Nation. The newly minted law contains a provision that expands the liability projections that currently exist for vaccines to include other vaccine components, such as vaccine preservates like Thimerosal. This provision was included in the bill, at the last minute, with no debate and no committee hearings Thimerosal; was the subject of several class action lawsuits based on increasing research connecting this preservative, which contains mercury, to the rising incidence of autism in children. Now that the vaccine component provision has been signed into law, all of these cases are expected to be dismissed. I urge my colleagues to join me and to remove the component provision from the law before it is too late. If these cases are dismissed with prejudice, then many families will have nowhere to go to see justice for the harm their children suffered. While the research is not conclusive on the connection between Thimerosal and autism, was this narrowly written, unrelated provision in the Homeland Security law the way to respond to these concerns? Don't these children and their families merit the full protection under the law? Certainly, they deserve their day in court. The Homeland Security provision includes vaccine components in the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, VICP, in which awards are limited to money available through its special trust fund. In 1988, Congress enacted the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program as a no-fault alternative to the tort system for resolving claims resulting from adverse reactions to mandated childhood vaccines. This Federal no fault system is designed to compensate individuals, or families of individuals, who have been injured by childhood vaccines. Damages are awarded out of a trust fund that is financed by excise taxes of 75 cents per dose imposed on each vaccine covered under the program. There is a three year statute of limitations on bringing cases to the VICP. It is very likely that many families who joined the Thimerosal class action suits, now under the treat of dismissal, have exceeded the three year time limit. Therefore, these families will have no recourse whatsoever. An issue as serious as revising the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program certainly merits due Congressional process. Amending this program by including a provision in the Homeland Security bill was inappropriate and this serious mistake should be corrected. I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this bill and working to see it signed into law as soon as possible. We must remove the vaccine component liability provisions from the Homeland Security law. 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 pay tribute to my dear friend and departing colleague Senator Max Cleland. Thomas Jefferson once said that ``a nation that rests on the will of the people must also depend on individuals to support its institutions if it is to flourish. Persons qualified for public office should feel an obligation to make that contribution.'' Max Cleland heard that centuries old call to duty and answered with a lifetime of service. Senator Cleland's dedication to his country stretches from the battlefields of Vietnam to the floor of this Senate. And the families of Georgia, and our entire Nation, are better for his leadership. Senator Cleland nearly lost his life serving his country in Vietnam. He returned home with injuries so grave that he spent a year and a half in various Veterans Administration Hospitals recovering. But Senator Cleland then battled and beat a depression so deep that it would have broken the spirit of many others and embarked on a remarkable 30-year career of public service. He began by speaking out for better treatment for veterans, a cause he would champion throughout his career. Then at the age of 28, he was elected to become Georgia's youngest State Senator. In 1977, Senator Cleland was appointed head of the Veterans Administration by President Carter, mailing him the youngest Administrator in the agency's history. In 1982, Georgia voters elected him Secretary of State, again, the youngest ever. And in 1996, Senator Cleland was elected to the United States Senate where he became a champion on issues like veteran affairs, health care and protecting our Nation's parks and natural treasures. I think Jefferson would be proud to see that our Nation still produces such leaders as Senator Cleland whose entire life embodies the spirit of patriotism, civic duty and self-sacrifice that has shaped our Nation since its very founding. I hope Senator Cleland will continue to speak out on the issues he cares about so deeply because his voice is still needed. jean carnahan Mr. President, I rise to express my admiration and respect for my departing colleague, Senator Jean Carnahan. Senator Carnahan and I entered the Senate in the same freshman class and we served together on the Special Committee on Aging. I quickly came to appreciate Senator Carnahan's hard work on behalf of the people of Missouri and our Nation. Senator Carnahan was a leader in the fight to make prescription drugs more affordable. Senator Carnahan authored the ``Classroom Quality'' provision of the ``Leave No Child Behind Act'', which will give our local schools the ability to offer qualified teaching specialists to all students who need them. Senator Carnahan worked to save thousands of airline jobs in Missouri and across the Nation also provide relief for those workers who lost their jobs in the wake of the travel slowdown after 9-11. Senator Carnahan was one of the first legislators to go to Afghanistan to see for herself that our troops had all they needed in the fight against terrorism. And Senator Carnahan fought tirelessly to make sure Social Security and Medicare remain strong for our present seniors and the generations to come. While her tenure was brief, her legacy will be long. But, beyond admiring her skills as a legislator, I came to appreciate Senator Carnahan's sincere warmth, quiet humor and inner strength. We are all too keenly aware that Senator Carnahan came to the Senate in the wake of the tragic plane crash that killed her husband, Governor Mel Carnahan, and her oldest son Randy. But Senator Carnahan turned the grief over her family's loss into a legacy of gains for families in Missouri and our Nation. Senator Carnahan was truly a fitting heir to the Senate seat once held by Harry Truman and I hope she will continue to speak out on the issues she cared about so deeply. Her voice will still be needed.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Will my friend from California yield?

Ms. STABENOW. On that point, we actually have counted the number of pharmaceutical lobbyists in the Senate. There are six lobbyists for every Member of the Senate: Six for me, six for the Senator from California, six for the Senator from New Jersey. Six lobbyists are being paid full time to lobby and bring in these kinds of provisions and also to kill other provisions. We passed legislation to lower prescription drug prices for everyone, to increase competition of generic drugs, and open the border to Canada. There is a bill that has been languishing in the House for months that has been stopped by the same group that could take the time at the last minute to put this outrageous provision into the homeland security bill. I thank the Senator from California for her eloquence and for standing up for families, because as a mother--and I know she is as well--it is outrageous to think that parents who are concerned about their children will not have an opportunity to have their day in court over something that potentially is extremely damaging and hurtful to them.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from West Virginia. As the distinguished Senator knows, we were on the floor last evening talking about this very subject related to the pharmaceutical industry and the fact that there is a provision in this bill that has been slipped in, more for the financial security of Eli Lilly and the pharmaceutical industry than homeland security. In fact, it jeopardizes the rights of families who are now in court as a result of an additive to a vaccine for infants that contains mercury, where the concern is that it may, in fact, lead to autism. That is yet to be determined, but there are serious issues of health. What we now have in this homeland security bill is an effort to eliminate any responsibility from the Eli Lilly company for the possibility that a product of theirs may, in fact, lead to an extremely harmful health problem for children, autism. I find it outrageous that in the middle of trying to deal with homeland security and legitimate issues for the American people that we would find it is, in fact, the White House slipping into this bill an effort to protect people who were clearly one of their biggest backers in the last campaign. It is clear that when the pharmaceutical industry put up millions of dollars to support the efforts finished on election day, they already are receiving rewards as a result of what they did in the election. The American people do not deserve this kind of approach. I appreciate the Senator bringing it to our attention again. I know there is an amendment to strike these items which I strongly support. I think it is absolutely outrageous that, while we are trying to do something serious for the American people, we would see this kind of help put into this bill for an industry that is already heavily subsidized by taxpayers.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, first of all, I thank the Senator for his kind words. Second, I simply say, as Senator Byrd has said so many times on the floor, we need to look at details. We need to know what is in this bill. It is a different bill that came back. I was deeply disturbed as I looked through it. I want to support homeland security. I support developing a department. We all share that. This is not a partisan issue. We want to have maximum safety, security and ability, communicate it effectively and efficiently, and create the kind of confidence people expect us to create in terms of the ability to respond and ideally prevent attacks. But my fear is that under the name of homeland security we are saying special interest provisions are put in this bill which are outrageous and should not have the light of day. I think it is our responsibility to shine the light of day on those provisions. I thank the Senator from West Virginia. I appreciate his good work.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, first I thank the Senator from Connecticut for his eloquent remarks. I could not agree with him more. When we look at this bill, a bill that I fully want to support--I support setting up a Department of Homeland Security and the goals involved, and have supported moving this forward. But as we look at the details of what has been given to us from the House, it is unbelievable. When we look at first responders, people in Michigan on the front lines on the ground--not only police and firefighters and EMS but our Border Patrol who are working double time and triple time, and those from local law enforcement who have been assigned--we have been trying to provide some reimbursement for their overtime and the costs to local units of government. It is amazing to me that in the name of homeland security we have a bill in front of us that does not include many things that are critical to our security in this country but that includes items, frankly, that are outrageous special interest items that are being stuck in the bill, hoping we will not notice. We all are concerned about homeland security and want to move forward together to put together the strongest safety and security for our citizens. I want to speak to one of those today that colleagues have already spoken to that is a provision, unfortunately, in this bill, that protects the financial security of the pharmaceutical industry, not the homeland security of the people of America. This provision I find absolutely outrageous and I intend to support the Lieberman amendment to withdraw this from the bill. The homeland security bill contains a provision that will expand the liability protections that currently exist for vaccines to include other components such as vaccine preservatives like thimerosal. This was included in the bill with no debate, no committees. How many times have we heard on this floor as we were debating so many bills--I remember on prescription drugs--we heard over and over again that we should not be adding important provisions that would lower the prices of prescription drugs because, colleagues on the other side of the aisle were saying, we had not gone through the regular legislative process. We had not had hearings. There had not been votes in committees. Yet now, in the 11th hour of the session of this Congress, we see a provision added that nobody has looked at other than a few people, I would argue, operating on behalf of one of literally the strongest special interests in this country today. There are six drug company lobbyists for every one Member of the Senate. They certainly have earned their pay on this bill. When we look at this particular provision and we look at the fact that we have an industry that has stopped a bill that we sent to the House, S. 812, that was a bipartisan bill to create more competition for the industry through generics, opening the border to Canada, giving States the ability to negotiate on behalf of the uninsured, a bill that would lower prescription prices today, immediately when passed--they are successful in killing that bill that passed last July in the Senate. Yet they are able to place a provision in the homeland security bill that will virtually exempt from liability a company that is making a product over which there is great concern as it relates to the safety of children. Thimerosal, which is manufactured by Eli Lilly and Company, is the subject of several class action lawsuits based on increasing research connecting this preservative, which contains mercury, to the rising incidence of autism in children. Just this weekend the New York Times ran a very comprehensive six-page story about the growing body of evidence connecting thimerosal with autism and other developmental disorders in children. While the research is far from conclusive, is this narrowly written special interest provision, unrelated to homeland security, the way to respond to concerns that relate to this issue and concerns about mercury as it relates to vaccines and additives and the whole question of autism in children and what contributes to it? Is this the way to do that? Don't children and their families merit the full protection under the law and due process to be able to sort through some very serious issues and to allow the courts to work their will, looking at the evidence? The provision in this homeland security bill, brought to us from the House of Representatives, would severely limit parents' ability to get justice for their children. How is that homeland security? The provisions include vaccine components in the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. It is a program in which awards are given and they are limited to funds available through a special trust fund so liability is limited. Instead, it is a no-fault system. That would now include vaccine components, which is a far broader definition than vaccines. In 1988, Congress enacted the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program as a no-fault alternative to the tort system for resolving claims resulting from adverse reactions to mandated childhood vaccines. This Federal no-fault system is designed to compensate individuals or families of individuals who have been injured by childhood vaccinations, whether administered in the public or private sector. Damages are awarded out of a trust fund that is financed by excise taxes of 75 cents per dose imposed on each vaccine covered under the program. This bill seems to be protecting the financial interests of a company, Eli Lilly, rather than the taxpayers who will now see, through this fund, a greater subsidy, and families and children across this country. What I find particularly disturbing is we are looking at a company whose CEO is in the top five for compensation with $4.3 million in compensation last year and unexercised stock options valued at $46 million in the year 2001. A 2001 study of the top 50 drugs marketed to seniors shows that Eli Lilly and Company posted $115 billion in revenue. I do not in any way object to successful business, although I guess in this case I would say given the inability of people to receive medicines, I find that kind of salary and others across the industry disturbing. But what I am particularly concerned about is that a company which is so successful, an industry that is the most successful in the country, and highly subsidized by taxpayers, would now be in a situation to protect themselves from liability, and to jeopardize families and children who are asking that their case be heard about potential threats of mercury placed into vaccines and the possible connections to autism. The protection in this bill is included for an industry that gets a higher return on its revenue than any other industry in this country, or in the world. If we are looking at protection, certainly we ought not to be adding another subsidy to an industry that is so heavily subsidized by all of us now--highly subsidized. And, yet, most people, many people in this country cannot afford the product they make. I support the Lieberman amendment to strike this provision. This provision does not belong in the homeland security bill. This provision should go through the process of hearings so both sides can be heard. We also have a court process going on that we need to respect and allow to continue. I am hopeful my colleagues will join with us to exempt this provision from the bill so we can in fact focus on homeland security, and not a very clear special interest provision put in by an industry that already receives many special provisions. An issue as serious as potential mercury poisoning of children certainly deserves serious deliberation and deserves the full legislative process. Let me say again that colleagues earlier this year on the Medicare prescription drug bill--on our generic bill as well as on many other bills--have come to the floor from the other side of the aisle expressing concern about issues that had not gone through committee. If this is a serious issue--and I believe it is a very serious issue-- doesn't it merit that same high standard? Subsidizing Eli Lilly and taking away the ability of families to recover from liability because of potential mercury poisoning of their children does not belong in this homeland security bill. I find it shameful that it was put in. I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join with us to remove this provision. Thank you, Mr. President.

Ms. STABENOW

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

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today, along with my colleagues, to pay tribute to the memory of our tragically departed friend and colleague, Senator Paul Wellstone, and to remember his life partner Sheila, their daughter, and the others who lost their lives in the plane crash. We send our condolences and our prayers to the families of all of those who were involved. Whenever Senator Wellstone came to the floor of the Senate to fight on behalf of our Nation's most vulnerable, to fight for economic fairness, for working men and women, to fight for quality public education and health care for all our children, can't you just hear his voice now--standing up over and over again to fight and to speak out in behalf of the people he represented--to protect our environment. In thinking about Senator Wellstone, I thought of the words of Frederick Douglass in 1857 when he said: If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom and yet depreciate agitation want crops without plowing up the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters. Paul Wellstone was ready to fight for progress. And he was unafraid of the war that followed. In fact, he embraced it. Paul Wellstone believed the status quo can never be a cause but, rather, must be the constant casualty of time in any nation dedicated to equality and justice and freedom. Did he win every battle? No. But the very fight of Senator Paul Wellstone ennobled the Senate and enlightened this Nation by giving voice to the challenges that confront us. I would like to read from a speech that Senator Wellstone gave to graduating students at Swarthmore College. The passion of Paul's words reminds us of the shame of passivity, the passivity of standing back and watching millions of families slide into poverty, and our Nation's future slip away from them. Senator Wellstone asked: How can it be that in the United States of America--today-- at the peak of our economic performance--we are still being told that we cannot provide a good education for every child? We are still being told that we cannot provide good health care for every citizen. We are still being told that people can't look forward to jobs that they can support themselves and their children on. We're still being told that we cannot achieve the goal of having every five-year-old come to kindergarten ready to learn. How can it be that we are being told that we cannot do this at the peak of our economic performance? I say to you today that it is not right. It is not acceptable. We can do much better, and if not now, when? If we don't do this now, when will we do it as a nation? That is a betrayal of our heritage. The impoverishment of so many children is our national disgrace. Senator Wellstone did not pull any punches. Yet he was not a cynic either. He believed that by giving wings to the nobler angels of our Nation, we could place progress in the wind. In the same speech I was quoting from, Senator Wellstone closed, urging people to get involved with politics and public service and become those nobler angels whose wings would give flight to change and to justice. He said: I do not believe the future will belong to those who are content with the present. I do not believe the future will belong to the cynics, or to those who stand on the sideline. The future will belong to those who have passion, and to those who are willing to make the personal commitment to make our country better. The future will belong to those who believe in the beauty of their dreams. We will miss Paul Wellstone's leadership, his voice on this Senate floor. We will miss the beauty of his dreams of an America where the most vulnerable among us are valued, where all of our children are cherished, and where no one who gets up and goes to work in the morning goes to sleep at night in poverty. But, Paul, while we will miss you coming to the floor of the Senate to share those dreams, I promise you those dreams will not die. Thank you, Mr. President.