Debbie Stabenow

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today to indicate my resolve that our men and women in uniform have this Senate's full support in whatever actions might be taken regarding Iraq and in our ongoing war against terrorism. The question has never been whether Saddam should be disarmed but rather how best to accomplish that goal. I was pleased to join with my colleagues, Senator Carl Levin, Chair of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Bob Graham, Chair of the Intelligence Committee, and Senator Dan Inouye, Chair of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee in supporting a resolution that focused on the creation of an international coalition to enforce a tough inspection regime with real deadlines for Saddam along with the authorization of force to disarm him in cooperation with our allies through the United Nations. But that is not the approach that was passed by this body. I hope President Bush will wisely use the broad powers that Congress has given him. I continue to hope he will take the time to assemble a worldwide coalition--ready to use force if necessary--that will convince Saddam he has no choice but to disarm. But we have had the debate. We have had the vote. And it is time for Congress to show there are no Democrats and no Republicans when it comes to supporting our troops. We have shown that support by quickly passing the Defense appropriations bill. This ensures our troops will have the most up-to- date weapons, fast-moving logistical support and the best pay and benefits of any armed forces in the world. This is essential to support these patriots and their families at home. This bill does that by boosting defense spending to more than $355 billion for the fiscal year that began Oct. 1--a $34.4 billion increase over last year. This new spending will help not only with any action against Iraq, but also in honoring our commitments around the world in the global fight against terrorism. It is important to recognize that this bill includes nearly $94 billion to provide for a 4.1 percent pay increase as well as full funding of all authorized benefits for all military personnel. I think all of us agree that war should always be our last choice. But, if it comes to that last resort, I promise that I will do everything within my power to ensure that our armed forces have the weapons and materials they need to defeat any enemy and expose our troops to the least possible risk. We have to remember that it is not just Iraq that poses a threat. We still have troops in Afghanistan and the Philippines. We have seen new terrorist attacks in Kuwait, Bali and against a French oil tanker. The war against terrorism is far from over and our troops need support in that battle as well. Upon our Nation's shoulders have fallen staggering duties as the world's sole remaining superpower. But Americans already stand on the tall shoulders of our own history and we do not shrink from these burdens. I believe that if we stand tall for our ideals the world will follow and we can disarm Iraq and defeat world terrorism as part of a broad coalition of allies. If our country acts alone, our men and women in uniform must always know that their Nation is united behind them in gratitude for their service, in pride of their dedication to duty and in awe of their bravery. I yield the floor.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Will the majority leader yield for a question?

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I thank the leader for refocusing on the critical issues of economic security at this time. When I am home in Michigan, there is no question that while people are concerned about national security, the issues in front of them every day--economic security--are at the top of their list. I also appreciated his focus earlier this year on the issue of lowering one of the biggest costs for our seniors and small businesses and farmers, everyone in the economy, which is the cost of prescription drugs. I am wondering, as you were talking about the President--now going on a 14-day trip in terms of campaigning--if you might agree that even just picking up the phone and asking the House of Representatives to take up the bill that we passed, S. 812, which would create more lower- cost drugs through generics and open the border to Canada and do a variety of things that would lower the prices, wouldn't be something we could call upon the President to do? And wouldn't it be true if we were simply to have the House pass that bill we passed this year, the bill that would create more competition and lower prices, we could help our families and businesses tremendously by lowering the prices of prescription drugs, which are one of the main explosions of cost to our families? Wouldn't you agree that would be an important focus between now and when we leave?

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Before the Senator concludes this evening, I wanted to thank him, as a new Member to this body, for his incredible commitment to our Constitution, our country, and our people. It has been an inspirational time for me to watch the Senator from West Virginia on the floor, listen to his arguments, and see his dedication. I have been proud to stand with him in opposing this resolution. I ask unanimous consent that a New York Times op-ed written today by the distinguished Senator from West Virginia be printed in the Record. It is an excellent summary of the concerns that many of us have in rushing into this war, and I want to thank the Senator for that. I think it is important this be in the Record of the Senate as a part of this debate today.

Ms. STABENOW. Will my friend from West Virginia yield for a moment?

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I thank my colleague and friend from Michigan for his thoughtful approach. I believe what Senator Levin has put forward is the right approach. It minimizes the risk to our country, to our troops, and maximizes the ability for the world community, including the United States, to come together, to make sure that Saddam Hussein does not have the opportunity to use weapons of mass destruction against us or against anyone else in the world. I would, just to support Senator Levin, quote again as I did last week on the floor of the Senate in my own statement, Brent Scowcroft, former National Security Adviser to President Bush, who wrote in the Wall Street Journal: An attack on Iraq at this time would seriously jeopardize, if not destroy, the global counterterrorism campaign we have undertaken. Ignoring that clear world sentiment against an attack would result in a serious degradation in international cooperation with us against terrorism. And make no mistake, we simply cannot win that war without enthusiastic international cooperation, especially on intelligence. I believe Senator Levin's approach guarantees we keep our focus on the coalition that has come together to fight terrorism in the world and at the same time gives us the opportunity to build that same coalition to turn attention to the threats of Saddam Hussein. We can do both. We can do it correctly. And we can minimize the risk that I believe will be there if we, in fact, rush to act alone. I thank Senator Levin, again, certainly as Chair of the Armed Services Committee, for his continual service to our country and his understanding of what it takes to make sure we are able to keep our focus on terrorism and take the time and the opportunity to build that same coalition to address the threats of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. I urge my colleagues to support the Levin approach. I believe this is the approach that will allow us to make sure we do this right. I urge its adoption. I yield the floor.

Ms. STABENOW. Will the Senator yield?

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, first, I would like to say at the end of a long day on a Friday that I thank the Chair. I know he has been doing double duty today. My good friend is someone who I know has been very diligent in his responsibilities. We appreciate the fact that the Senator from Minnesota has been willing to serve his duty today; and to all of the staff. I appreciate your attention at the end of a long day. Mr. President, I rise to address the issue of importance of the day-- I think it is important to all of us and to our country--the issue of taking military action against Iraq. As Members of Congress, the most important vote that we cast is one that will place American troops in harm's way. The issue of war and peace is a burden of responsibility that lies heavy upon me, as well as each and every one of my esteemed colleagues. This is a vote of conscience, and also a vote of historic consequence because what we debate and decide here will not only significantly affect this great Nation but will immediately influence global events for years to come. No matter how difficult the decision may be, it is one that each of us must make for the sake of our country. We have an obligation and duty to carefully weigh the demands and the consequences of a preemptive attack. Before we engage in war, we must understand the results of war are irrevocable, and peaceful solutions should always be our first choice. I have carefully listened to the President and key members of his administration. I have asked many questions. I have read extensive information and listened to the people in my own great State of Michigan. Just as important, I have had many conversations with men and women of our armed services who, as we speak, are gallantly serving to protect and defend our American way of life. The issue before the Senate is not whether the regime of Saddam Hussein is good or evil. We know, in fact, that he is a despicable dictator. He has gassed and poisoned thousands of his own people. He rules not by choice but by decree, backed by brutal force, and he blatantly defies United Nations resolutions by his continual development of weapons of mass destruction. I strongly oppose his regime. He is a growing threat to the United States and our allies, and his policies have devastated the lives of his own Iraqi people. I am convinced that the United States and the world would be safer if this regime were replaced with a democratic form of government that would work in a constructive manner with the world community and focus on bringing peace and prosperity to millions of Iraqi citizens. The question--the question--before the Senate is not whether or not we support or trust the regime of the Iraqi President, Saddam Hussein, but how the United States will counter the threat, how we will counter the threat of Saddam Hussein to our citizens and the citizens of his own country. The questions that must be asked are: Does the Congress stand ready to alter the historic precedents that have guided our Nation for over 200 years? Is it in our national interest to change our policy of deterrence and arms control to a policy that accepts a preemptive strike on another country as a legitimate way to defend ourselves against regimes suspected of having weapons of mass destruction? And, under what circumstances should such a preemptive strike against another country be authorized? These are serious, grave questions. In mapping out our course of action against Iraq, it is essential that we draw on lessons and successes of the past. Our response to the September 11 attacks united our Nation. We achieved the support of our allies and the backing of the United Nations in our retaliatory attacks on al-Qaida forces and the Taliban. In a short time, our Armed Forces, working with our allies, toppled the Taliban and sent al-Qaida fleeing from their training camps. Iraq, in many ways, is different. Nonetheless, it serves as an important model for proceeding with effective military action when it is required. Before we invaded Afghanistan, we put together a worldwide effort to effectively prosecute the war on terrorism. Consider all that we were able to do to put together a partnership against terrorism. Mr. President, 136 countries offered the United States a range of military assistance. The U.N. has received 46 multilateral declarations of support from organizations. The U.N. General Assembly and Security Council condemned the attacks on September 12, just the day after. NATO, OAS, and ANZUS--the Australian, New Zealand, and U.S. coalitions--quickly invoked their treaty obligations to support the United States. Our NATO allies are assisting directly in the defense of American territory. Also, 142 countries have issued orders freezing the assets of suspected terrorists and organizations. Mr. President, 89 countries have granted overflight authority for U.S. military aircraft. In addition, 76 countries have granted landing rights for U.S. military aircraft. And 23 countries have agreed to host U.S. forces involved in offensive operations. This is impressive work. I congratulate President Bush and his administration for their efforts in putting together this impressive coalition. In addition to this most recent success in Afghanistan, any planned action against Iraq has an excellent model in the alliance we formed against Saddam Hussein after his invasion of Kuwait in 1990. In the Persian Gulf war, former President Bush worked arduously to assemble a large coalition of countries to support our efforts to oust the Iraqi army from Kuwait. Consider all of the countries which supported us in 1990 and 1991: Afghanistan, Argentina, Australia, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belgium, Canada, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Egypt, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Honduras, Italy, Kuwait, Morocco, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Korea, Spain, Syria, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, and the United Kingdom. A myriad of nations, each different in their own way, separated by religion, political system, economics and culture, but united in common cause at the same time. This coalition was critical to our success. The ground war was over in 3 days. Our coalition stayed together after the gulf war to try to keep a check on Saddam Hussein, and the United Nations passed resolutions prohibiting him from developing weapons of mass destruction, oppressing his own people, and beginning another military and terrorist buildup. Unfortunately, Saddam Hussein did not adhere to these resolutions, and the inspectors left Iraq 4 years ago. However, we have contained him, which is no small achievement. Now we must confront his failure to live up to these U.N. resolutions. I congratulate President Bush for going to the United Nations and speaking out on September 12. As a result, the U.N. and negotiators are now working on a new resolution, a stronger resolution, to enforce the existing U.N. resolutions against Iraq. We should adopt the same approach for dealing with the threats of Saddam Hussein's evil regime as we did during the Persian Gulf war and the war on terrorism, which is still ongoing. It worked, and we need to do it again. It only makes sense to build upon the successes learned during past military campaigns. There are many nations that equally revile Saddam Hussein's regime and all he represents. I firmly believe the United States has ample will and strength to form a similar coalition. Unfortunately, the administration seems to be headed in the exact opposite direction. President Bush has expressed his desire to take unilateral, preemptive action against Iraq, in sharp contrast to the manner in which his father led us into the Persian Gulf war. The President proposes to change a policy that has been in place since the founding of our country, that we do not invade sovereign countries without direct provocation. I have grave concern the administration's resolution authorizes the use of preemptive, unilateral U.S. force without the participation of partners in the war against terrorism. If we do authorize preemptive, unilateral force, there could be grave consequences for our actions. First, we could lose much, if not all, of the support of our partners in the war against terrorism. We could lose access to military facilities in and around Afghanistan. We could lose the support of Pakistan, which recently helped us arrest some leaders of al-Qaida. In all, Pakistani authorities have detained 402 al-Qaida members. We are also receiving military and intelligence support in the war on terrorism from many other Muslim countries. Obviously, a unilateral attack on Iraq could sour, if not ruin, all of these relationships and undermine our efforts in the war on terrorism. Furthermore, such an attack would likely reenergize al-Qaida sympathizers across the globe. According to former NATO General Wesley Clark, a military strike of this nature would ``supercharge recruiting for al-Qaida.'' In more ways than one, a unilateral attack could weaken our chances to continue to dismantle al-Qaida's network and bring Osama bin Laden to justice. There are many other critical questions that need to be answered. Given the widely supported belief that Saddam Hussein has biological and chemical weapons, how do we assure he will not use them against us when we attack him first? There is also more than a great possibility this would have to be a ground war. Would our soldiers be attacked with these weapons? Would Israel be attacked with chemical weapons? Would Saddam give his stockpile to terrorists? Will an attack by the United States against Iraq prevent Saddam from using weapons of mass destruction, or will it ultimately become a self-fulfilling prophecy? In other words, if we attack Saddam, and he is headed for certain death, he will have nothing to lose. What will stop him from launching a chemical or biological attack against Americans or against Israel? A unilateral, preemptive invasion of Iraq could set a dangerous long- term precedent for us and the rest of the world. If we take such an action against Iraq for trying to develop nuclear weapons, should not other countries also have the same right against any other hostile country that is exploring nuclear weapons or already has them? Would this justify a preemptive strike by Pakistan against India or vice versa? Heaven help us. Furthermore, if we attack unilaterally, who would help us keep the peace in Iraq while trying to set up a democratic government to replace Saddam Hussein? Let me be clear, if the United States is in imminent danger of being attacked by Saddam Hussein, we should take immediate, unilateral military action. However, it seems clear he does not have this capacity at this time. I don't believe the administration has made the case. I have listened very closely and seriously. They have not made the case for a preemptive, unilateral strike against Iraq that would justify the risks to our people or such a historic change in American policy. We have time to build the coalitions. We need to be effective and minimize our own risks. Another serious question: Is the President going to ask Congress to support the same unilateral action against other countries, such as Iran, which has ballistic missiles and close ties to terrorist groups? Why aren't they proposing action there, where the threat is much more imminent and real? We should not be reluctant to use military force when there is a serious threat to the American people, but we should only go to war as a last resort. Peace should always be our goal. I believe we should work with our partners in the war against terrorism and get the U.N. inspectors back into Iraq as soon as possible. We should give Saddam Hussein real deadlines. And if they are not met satisfactorily, then we should use force in partnership along with our allies, appropriate force in partnership along with our allies. I am not the only one who believes this is the best way to proceed toward Iraq. Brent Scowcroft, President George H.W. Bush's national security adviser, wrote in the Wall Street Journal: Don't attack Saddam. An attack on Iraq at this time would seriously jeopardize, if not destroy, the global counterterrorist campaign we have undertaken. . . . Ignoring that clear [world] sentiment [against an attack] would result in a serious degradation in international cooperation with us against terrorism. And make no mistake, we simply cannot win that war without enthusiastic international cooperation, especially on intelligence. We also must remember any war comes with a terrible price. In a war with Iraq, many of our own service men and women will be wounded or killed. Many innocent civilians will die. We should remember what the distinguished Senator from Hawaii, Mr. Inouye, recently said on this floor. He reminded us when he served in the armed services, as my father did, only 5 percent of the soldiers had spouses and children. Today over 77 percent of our service members have spouses and children. If we go to war, there will be a lot of empty chairs at kitchen tables all across America, a lot of children growing up without their parents. The possibility of this alone should force us to make sure we have exhausted all diplomatic efforts first before we go to war. We should not have any illusion this war will be easy. It will not be an antiseptic war. It will not be won through air power alone. Military commanders have told us this will be an urban war with thousands of troops engaged in vicious house-to-house fighting. Knowing Saddam Hussein's tactics, he will likely hide his weapons in mosques and schools and hospitals, making it more difficult for us to get to them, and guaranteeing more loss of life. In closing, I want to make sure my voice and my view are not distorted. I believe we, the American people, have the right to defend ourselves from an imminent attack. If we are seriously threatened, we don't need the permission of the United Nations or even our NATO allies to attack Iraq or any other nation, for that matter. In this case, I believe the United Nations and our allies can be helpful in our part. Every attempt should be made to work with our partners in the war against terrorism. If we have to use military force, our battle against Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction will be more effective. Clearly, the United States must once again take the leadership role. We must insist that renewed inspections take place immediately, without delay or obfuscation. And it must be made clear to Iraq that enforcement by a unified world coalition is not a threat but a promise. I believe the President's approach takes us down the path that poses the most risk for the people of our country and the world. I truly believe that a better approach is the alternative I am supporting authored by my colleague from Michigan, Carl Levin. The President's approach is entirely too broad. This resolution says that the Congress authorizes force, including unilateral, preemptive strikes, for broad national security reasons and for the enforcement of a broad range of U.N. resolutions that may have nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction. For the reasons I have mentioned, I will oppose this resolution. In contrast, the Levin resolution strikes the right balance. This approach focuses on what matters most--destroying Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. And it calls on us to work with our allies to effectively accomplish this task. It gets us behind the U.N.'s efforts to get the weapons inspectors back into Iraq to do their job as soon as possible. It also authorizes the use of force, with our allies, to get rid of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction if all diplomatic efforts fail. Senator Levin's approach will also shake up the U.N. and force our allies to participate in a coalition to rid Saddam Hussein of his weapons of mass destruction. If we do not engage the U.N. and we decide to go it alone, the U.N. and our other key allies will likely sit on the sidelines while we confront Saddam Hussein and try to build a new country on our own. This is not in our best interest. Finally, the Levin approach specifically affirms our right to self- defense. There is nothing in this approach that takes away our right to self-defense and to attack Iraq unilaterally to do so. Therefore, no one should be confused about the Levin proposal. It does not take away our right to make our own decisions about our own actions or to defend ourselves. I believe this is the proper approach. If we do this right, Mr. President, we will truly make the world safer for our families. If we choose the wrong approach, I am deeply concerned that we will start down a road that could ultimately create a more unstable and a more dangerous world for our children and our grandchildren. There is no doubt that we can defeat Saddam Hussein in battle. The test of our strength is not in our ability to marshal our Armed Forces but our willingness to adhere to that which has made us great. We are a strong and powerful nation, made that way by our willingness to go that extra mile in the name of liberty and peace. The time is now for us to work together in the name of the American people and get it right. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, today I rise to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the 4-H Youth Development Program and to thank my colleagues for their support a resolution introduced by Senator Inhofe and myself last month. The resolution designates the week of October 6, 2002 as ``National 4-H Youth Development Program Week'' and it was adopted by unanimous consent today. Those who participate in 4-H pledge their heads for clearer thinking, their hearts to greater loyalty, their hands to larger service, and their health to better living for the club, the community, the country and the world. I have been a member, a leader and an employee of 4-H. The skills and talents I learned with 4-H are ones I still use today. When I was a girl I learned to raise small animals, like rabbits. I also learned photography, sewing, cooking and public speaking. Most importantly, 4-H gave me self confidence. This important program also taught me that adults need to share their skills and knowledge with children, and I was happy to share what I had learned later as a 4-H leader. Eventually, I went to work for 4-H and set up an urban 4-H program in the south side of Lansing, MI where I learned organizational skills. We went door to door recruiting children to join as members and identified adults who were willing to volunteer and share their knowledge and skills with the children. Soon we had a number of groups on topics like auto mechanics, carpentry, sewing and gardening, as well as a sports program. I am proud that 4-H is celebrating its 100th anniversary. It is a pleasure to be one of the lead cosponsors of the bill designating a week in honor of 4-H. I wish this organization many more years of success, and I know that future generations of children and families will have a better quality of life because of 4-H.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I thank my friend for his courtesy this morning, and I appreciate the opportunity to speak for a few moments before assuming the Chair. I did want to follow up on the discussion this morning on the economy. A few minutes ago, I indicated that every economic indicator that should be going down is going up: job losses; health care costs; foreclosures; national debt; interest rate costs; Social Security trust fund raid. Every part of the economy we wish to be going up is going down: economic growth, down; business investment, down; the stock market, down; retirement accounts, down; consumer confidence; minimum wage. We have a very disturbing situation. I wish to speak for a moment about one piece of the economy that is so critical in the quality of life of American families and American businesses which are struggling to pay the costs. Let me speak to one piece of the economic record of the last 18 months, and that is that workers' payments for health insurance is soaring. We are seeing that the cost of insurance to cover a family has gone up 16 percent, and the cost of an individual has gone up 27 percent, over one-fourth increase in their costs. The costs are going up. Their savings are down, their investments are down, and at the same time, we are seeing the biggest part of the reason for that health care cost going up as a result of the cost of prescription drugs. We are seeing overall prescription drugs going up over three times the rate of inflation. This is a critical part of the economic pie, the costs for consumers right now. It is not inconsequential. It is not like buying a new pair of tennis shoes or ``Gee, I would like to have a new coat.'' This is lifesaving medicine, the difference between life and death, or whether a person goes into a nursing home or is able to live at home. I am very concerned about this. What is the response? We in the Senate have been focused on Medicare prescription drug coverage and lowering prices for everyone. We have been successful in passing a bill that, in fact, lowers prices and creates more competition in the marketplace once a patent expires. But what is the response of the pharmaceutical industry within this context, with the struggles that are going on for families, businesses, and farmers across the country? What is their response right now? A new PR campaign, not putting the millions of dollars into lower prices and making prescription medications available, lowering the premiums for small businesses. They have gone on a huge PR campaign. We are seeing ads that I find, I have to say, absolutely outrageous. One says: ``Pray for a Miracle.'' It uses the picture of a child who, obviously, is deathly ill. It says: ``Pray for a Miracle,'' because they say generic drugs will never cure him. In the small print it says: ``They don't do research.'' Of course they do not do research. They do not do research. They do not have to do research. The idea of generic drugs is to take the formulas and the patents after the research has been done, after the American people have helped to pay for that research through NIH funding, tax deductions, and supporting the companies with a 20-year patent so they do not have competition in recovering their costs. The whole point of generics is the American public made a deal that, once the 20 years is up, once those subsidies are up, they will have that formula available so generic companies can manufacture those drugs and lower the prices. Instead of working with us to have a system that works both for brand name companies to develop these new brand name drugs and also for the American people to get the bargain they are supposed to get, which is lower prices, the companies are putting millions of dollars into a front senior citizen group, ads on the air, getting involved in elections and running ads scaring people that somehow if we let the system work as we created it over the years in a bipartisan way, if we let the system work, this child, who is obviously seriously ill, will somehow be hurt. I find that absolutely outrageous. I am concerned in the context of this economy and the debate and the American people trying to figure out when they sit down in the morning what they are going to pay for--are they going to be able to afford the health care premium? Is that senior going to be able to afford their medicine? Are they going to be able to pay for the clothes kids need for school? Are they going to be able to do the other things they need for their family? Instead of working with us, the companies have chosen an outrageous PR propaganda campaign. I urge them to work with us to do the right thing. I thank the Chair.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Will the Senator yield?

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New York. Every economic indicator we want to go up is going down, and every one we want to go down is going up. The Senator and I have worked together on one of the most critical issues that affect Americans, their pocketbook and quality of life, which is access to prescription drugs. I share the concern that we do not see the focus on the economy and what needs to happen in the economy. The Schumer-McCain bill, now in the House of Representatives, which would lower prices for prescription drugs, is one very important piece of that economic puzzle. When we see that more people are lower income, their health care costs are rising, I appreciate his leadership on that issue.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. I believe the Byrd amendment is a more disciplined process that will help us create a Department that is cohesive, responsive, and effective with its duties and missions clearly defined. I urge my colleagues to join with so many of us in supporting the Byrd amendment. I yield back my time.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I acknowledge, as other colleagues have, the important work of the Senator from Connecticut. Senator Lieberman was the first to outline the reasons for bringing together all of the essential functions of Government that relate to homeland security. I know he has put literally hundreds of hours into this effort, and we thank him for that. I support the Byrd amendment as an addition to this effort, not as a detraction, because I believe what Senator Byrd has articulated is a very important part of the way we put together a Department of Homeland Security. I think it is essential. So while I support the homeland security effort, I believe it is important to move forward along the timelines and with the checks and balances that Senator Byrd so thoughtfully has put together. Simply put, the mission of this Department is too important to be rushed into law. I know the Senator from Connecticut would say that after months and months it does not seem like rushing; that there has been a tremendous amount of effort that has gone into this. But as that is said, I also know it is a huge task bringing together 170,000 employees, and there are many questions about the various departments, so this is something that will take continued time and thoughtfulness to be able to put together. There are many questions that remain, and if the public is to have confidence in the new Department, those questions need to be answered. For instance, why are certain agencies being transferred into the new Department? What criteria are the administration using to determine what agencies should be transferred? Almost all of these agencies being transferred have other functions not related to homeland security, which is of great concern in Michigan--this has been raised in a number of contexts--and how will those functions be separated? How will they be affected? In Michigan, we have concerns about the Coast Guard, which is a very important part of our operations not only in fighting terrorism but we want to make sure there are sufficient resources to deter terrorists from coming into our country by boat. We also know there is a critical role in search and rescue operations and ship inspections. We want to make sure in Michigan we do not lose resources for those essential civilian functions as well as the important efforts to fight terrorism. In earlier discussions about the Homeland Security Department, the Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection System, or APHIS, would have been moved to the Homeland Security Department. While it is reasonable that the border inspection mission of APHIS would be a part of the new Department, it is also critical the domestic mission of protecting animal and plant health, and ultimately the health of American consumers, remains within the Department of Agriculture. If the full transfer of APHIS comes up again, I would like to debate and vote on that. Those are the kinds of issues I am concerned about. We have workforce questions. There are a number of issues that have been raised which I believe need our continual input, and that is why I support the timeframe that has been put together in the Byrd amendment to create the Department without delay but then to come back to the Congress, receive input, take it step by step to make sure we are, in fact, doing it right. That is what the Byrd amendment is all about. It is about creating this Department with input feedback, coordination, and cooperation that is going to enable us to do this huge job.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I appreciate Senator Thompson allowing me to speak for a few moments on this critical issue before he speaks. I have very much appreciated the exchange between my two friends and colleagues. I rise in support of the Byrd amendment to the homeland security bill. I stress that I very much support a Homeland Security Department. I commend Senator Lieberman, who is the first author. We speak of it now in terms of the administration's proposal, but I think it is important that we continue to recognize that it was the bill of the Senator from Connecticut originally. He is the one who brought this forward to us, and I congratulate him. I tend to support a Department. I think it is very important we do that. It is very important that Congress have a continuing say in the creation of any Department of Homeland Security, precisely because it is so important. I believe the Byrd amendment does that. Simply put, the mission of this new Department is just too important to be rushed into law. Senator Byrd has noted that in the past when we reorganized various military departments under one Department of Defense the planning took years. Clearly, we don't have years to create a Department of Homeland Security. I would not suggest that. But that doesn't mean we should not proceed in a thoughtful and deliberate manner to make sure we get it right. This is so important. In fact, if I could make a historical observation, it was September 17, 1787, that our Constitution was signed by a majority of delegates to the Constitutional Convention. When that first Congress under the new Constitution met in 1789, it took months of on-and-off debate to create the first three Cabinet posts--the Department of State, the Department of the Treasury, and the Department of War. They even considered creating a Department of the Interior but rejected it at that time. Before those Cabinet posts were created, George Washington and his Vice President, John Adams, were pretty much the entire executive branch of Government. But that first Congress wanted to take the time to get it right. I suggest that we need to do the same. Many questions remain, and if the public is to have confidence in this new Department, these questions must be answered. For instance, which agency should be transferred into the new Department, and why? What criteria is the administration using to determine which agencies should be transferred? Almost all of the agencies being transferred have other functions that are unrelated to homeland security. How will those functions be affected? In Michigan, there are concerns over whether or not the Coast Guard will have sufficient resources to deter terrorists trying to sneak into our country from Canada by boat and still fulfill its crucial role in search and rescue operations and ship inspections. The Coast Guard is critical to Michigan. These issues are very real for us. In earlier discussions about a Homeland Security Department, the Department of Agriculture's Animal Plant Health Inspection System, APHIS, would have been moved to the new Department. While it is reasonable that the border inspection mission of this agency be a part of the new Homeland Security Department, it is critical that the domestic mission of protecting animal and plant health and, ultimately, the health of American consumers, remain within the U.S. Department of Agriculture. If the transfer of APHIS to the Homeland Security Department were to be proposed again, I would like to have the chance to debate that and vote, because I oppose that transfer. What about the workforce? Will our Federal employees lose the civil service protections created to keep politics out of the Federal workplace? How do we merge all of the different personnel and salary procedures of these different organizations? Mr. President, I suggest that Senator Byrd is correct. These are huge decisions that will take time to have it done right. These are just a few of the questions that need to be answered. There are many more. By establishing a Department of Homeland Security in well-defined phases, we will ensure that the Secretary of the new Department will have to return to the Congress and explain the rationale for the administration's decisions as they proceed. I believe that makes sense. Here is the rough timeframe and key events to create this new Department, as Senator Byrd has outlined before. First, if the amendment passed, we could quickly pass a bill establishing the Office of the Secretary and outlining the superstructure of the new Department. Then, early next year, the Secretary of Homeland Security will provide Congress with details for the Directorate of Border and Transportation Protection. Then, in the summer, approximately 120 days after the first presentation, the Secretary of Homeland Security would return to Congress and provide details for the Directorate of Intelligence and the Directorate of Critical Infrastructure Protection. Then next fall--again, about 120 days after the second presentation-- the Secretary of Homeland Security would again return to Congress with details for the Directorate of Emergency Preparedness and Response and for the Directorate of Science and Technology. This more disciplined process will help us create a Department that is cohesive, responsible, and effective, with its duties and missions clearly defined. I believe this is the best approach to make sure that an effective Department actually is created and is one that is in the best interest of our citizens. I strongly support the Byrd amendment and urge my colleagues to do the same. I yield the floor.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I would like to express my strong support for the National Acquatic Invasive Species Act of 2002 (NAISA) Last year, 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 than 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 NAISA which will provide a national strategy for preventing invasive species from being introduced in the Great Lakes and our Nation's waters. I am also pleased that NAISA 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 U.S. 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-reproducing 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 increase water clarity, which may be making it easier for predators to prey upon the yellow perch. Moreover, tiny organisms like zooplankton that help from 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. NAISA 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. NAISA 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 long-standing environmental problem, and will also protect water resources for the enjoyment and benefit of future generations of Americans.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Absolutely.

Ms. STABENOW. Having had the opportunity to preside and listen to the discussion, I thank him for putting into perspective what our challenge is, not only on the national security front; I thank him for focusing on the fact we are together and stand for safety and security, but also the fact we need to be focused on our economic security as well. Mr. President, I wonder, also, if the Senator might add to his list-- I know he is aware of the fact we have passed a very important prescription drug bill. We had two focuses in the Senate: One, to add Medicare coverage and, two, to lower prices for everyone. The point the Senator from Illinois made this morning about the high price of health care for businesses, for our farmers, for everybody is also very much a part of what we passed to lower prices by getting more competition with generic drugs, opening the border to Canada to bring lower prices, giving States more flexibility. I wonder if the Senator will comment on the fact that the Senate has passed this very important bill, sent it to the House, and it has received no action this fall. We have nothing yet in committee. We have not seen the President speaking out about the fact we passed a bill that will actually lower prices, bring more competition, address the fact that our seniors and our families are having to struggle right now--in fact, right now, as we are here, there are people who are watching C-SPAN 2 saying: Do I eat today or buy my medicine? We had a bill which passed the Senate. We would greatly appreciate the President's leadership in encouraging the House of Representatives to pass this bill this fall. We could dramatically lower prices immediately with the passage of that bill.

Ms. STABENOW. Will my friend from Illinois yield?

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise to submit a resolution, along with Senator Levin, to honor Ernie Harwell, the voice of the Detroit Tigers. As Tiger fans across the country know, Ernie Harwell is retiring this year after broadcasting major league baseball for 55 years, the last 42 of which were in Detroit. Ernie Harwell has broadcast some of the great moments in baseball, including the debut of Willie Mays, Bobby Thompson's ``shot heard round the world'' and Hoyt Wilhelm's famous no hitter against the Yankees in 1958. In addition, he also called the Tigers' last two World Series victories in 1968 and 1984. He also brought to life the performances of some of baseball's greats, like Sparky Anderson, Kirk Gibson, Al Kaline, Denny McLain, Alan Trammel and many others. Tigers fans have such fond memories of Ernie Harwell, it is hard to believe that he will not be in the broadcast booth next year. Since Sunday, September 15 is Ernie Harwell Day at Comerica Park in Detroit, Senator Levin and I wanted to take up and pass this resolution congratulating Ernie on his great career and wishing him the best of luck in retirement. I hope my colleagues will support this resolution.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I urge in the strongest possible terms that we pass this disaster relief package. The years 2001 and 2002 have been absolutely devastating years for Michigan agriculture. When I was home in August, I had an opportunity to visit from northern Michigan down to southern Michigan. To show the sense of urgency felt, there was an ad hoc group that put together petitions and cards. The Michigan Agricultural Industry Alliance and others, Lee Lavanway from Eau Claire, MI, in the southwestern part of Michigan, put together over a thousand petitions and cards desperately calling on us to act on behalf of American agriculture. I urge that we do so. In the year 2001, 82 of Michigan's 83 counties were declared a disaster because of drought. Early frosts and then flooding later in the year also contributed to considerable crop damage. Secretary Veneman issued another disaster declaration for 2002 covering 50 counties. In 2001, yields for program crops, such as corn and soybeans, plummeted. Other crops, such as grapes and beans, had monumental losses. 2001 was the worst year in recorded history for dry beans in Michigan. In fact, earlier this year Bob Green of the Michigan Bean Commission testified before the Senate Agriculture Committee about this issue. The 2001 year drought also devastated sugar beet crops. The grape growers in Michigan have struggled with not 1 but 2 devastating crop years. The extreme, record-high temperatures during the week of April 14, followed by freezing temperatures shortly after that, have caused great damage in our fruit and vegetable crops. I have heard from apple, grape, peach, asparagus, raspberry, and other growers who have had very bad results--in fact, devastating results--as a result of the bad weather. In July, I visited tart cherry orchards and witnessed with my own eyes the devastation that followed that bad weather. There is not a single cherry on any of these trees. We are not talking about less of a crop, we are talking about no crop. One of the farmers told me he did not have enough in his entire orchard to make one cherry pie. When we look at this, it is astounding what has happened to Michigan agriculture and to our farmers. The lack of crop in Michigan has a ripple effect on our entire economy. Processing facilities are laying off workers. There is a lower demand for agricultural machinery and supplies. To give an idea of the importance of these lost crops, fruit production contributes $235 million to the economy of the State of Michigan. I call on my colleagues, in the strongest possible words, to join together to pass, by a strong bipartisan voice, this disaster relief measure. I ask the President of the United States to join, to stand with us on behalf of our American farmers. Cloture Motion

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, this is it today. We have a very real choice to make. I believe it boils down to this: The drug companies of America like the system the way it is today. They want nothing to happen. The seniors of America are counting on us to stand up and do the right thing: Not privatizing Medicare with a private plan that sets up insurance HMOs which, by the way, was written in the House in part by the drug companies knowing that this is the approach that is least likely to lower prices but, rather, protecting, preserving, and modernizing Medicare. This is a bipartisan effort. I commend colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have stepped up to say we are going to make a downpayment on modernizing Medicare to cover prescription drugs. That is what this is. Everyone gets help. Everyone's prices go down. And for those who need it the most, those who are the sickest, they will, in fact, receive comprehensive coverage. No premium. No deductible. They will get the help they need. I am proud to stand today with my colleagues, Senator Graham, Senator Smith, and others on both sides of the aisle who have put this together with AARP and with the senior groups in America to say the time has come. The time has come for us to place this downpayment on modernizing Medicare and move forward until we completely provide comprehensive Medicare coverage for all seniors and the disabled in this country. I cannot imagine why we would not want to keep this process going to get the bill in front of us. It can always be fine tuned. We can continue to work together. But today is yes or no on whether we proceed to help the seniors of America and stand with them. Stop talking about it; let's act together and let the seniors know that we are willing to provide the leadership necessary--all of us together--to get this done. I thank the Chair.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in support of this very important downpayment on a comprehensive Medicare prescription drug benefit. First, I commend my friend, the senior Senator from Florida, for his tremendous leadership on the comprehensive proposal that received 52 votes, as well as this proposal to move it forward in the right direction. He has been a stalwart. I commend Senator Graham and his staff, who have worked very hard in pulling all this together. Also, I thank Senator Smith of Oregon for his willingness to step forward in a bipartisan way and work with us to do what can be done. As has been indicated, we had two competing proposals put forward last week, with very different philosophies--one with a private sector insurance company, HMO model; the other with a model to expand Medicare as we know it today. One, the Medicare expansion effort, received 52 votes. The other, private insurance, received 48 votes. Neither one had the 60 votes that are necessary to make this law and move it forward. So we went back to the drawing board and, as is true in this great democracy of ours when you are not able to get exactly what you would like to see happen, you listen to people and you find a way to move forward, to take a step forward in the right direction. That is what this amendment is. This is a downpayment on comprehensive coverage. It is a step in the right direction. It will lower prices for all of our seniors. Every person who is on Medicare will see the prices, the costs, of their prescription drugs going down. That is important. I also mention that the underlying bill, and the efforts we have been using to add more competition, will lower prices for everyone, whether you are in business, a farmer, a worker, or part of a family struggling with prices. The goal is to bring down prices for everyone. This amendment addresses specifically those on Medicare. It has been said that the promise was made 37 years ago today that we would provide for older Americans and the disabled universal health coverage; they would know that health insurance, health coverage, was there for them. Unfortunately, because the way we provide health care has changed, that promise has been eroded; so we are trying to fix that, trying to modernize Medicare so it covers the way health insurance is covered today. This amendment begins that process. It says to those in the category of up to 200 percent of poverty--and in my home State of Michigan, that involves 46 percent of Michigan's beneficiaries who are on Medicare--46 percent of Michiganians on Medicare will find that, without a monthly premium, without a deductible, with a very small copay of $2, or up to $5, they can receive the prescription they need, the medicine they need. No longer will they have to choose between food and medicine and paying the rent or paying the electric bill. So we have accomplished one goal in this amendment right off the bat, which is making sure that those with the greatest need are not having to choose between the daily necessities of life and getting their critical medicine. We then said that for everybody else, we want to make sure we start this downpayment with a discount. That discount will fall somewhere between 20 and 30 percent of the cost of a prescription. That is a good discount to begin the process of lowering prices and creating the kinds of prescription drug coverage that people need and deserve. Then we have said that, for a simple $25 annual fee--I might say, this is not per month, per week, it is just once a year for $25--you can become part of an insurance policy that says once your out-of- pocket costs equal $3,300 for your prescriptions, you will then be able to get your costs covered. There will be, I believe, a small copay involved. But we are talking about the ability for people to--with a minimum of $10--be able to get coverage for any prescription drugs above $3,300 out of pocket a year. This is a major insurance policy. There are many seniors who are paying $400 or $500, and some are paying more. I have read stories from constituents paying $700 or $800 a month, who are literally selling their homes, losing their retirement, and are not able to get the medications they need for cancer, for heart conditions, for diabetes, for a variety of other serious ailments. For them, we are saying that you are not going to have to go through that. We will put in place a maximum amount that someone has to spend out of pocket, and, beyond that, they are going to have their prescription drugs covered. That is very important for those who are the sickest in the country. So we have addressed both of those aspects--those who are struggling to meet the daily needs of life, those who are the sickest and have the highest bills and are finding themselves in extremely difficult situations. We are also making sure that everyone is getting their prices lowered through substantial discounts. We have also guaranteed there are no new State costs, and we have addressed a number of other issues raised by colleagues on both sides of the aisle. I simply say again that this is a critical day to get something done. You know, there are those who have accused folks on both sides of the aisle of playing politics, of just wanting to have an issue, of not wanting to get things done. Well, if that were the case, the votes were taken last week, the issues have been laid out. If that were all this were about, we would have ended it. But we know that people expect more from us. They are tired of talk, tired of another election coming around, with everybody talking about the high prices of prescription drugs and the need to modernize Medicare and still nothing getting done. So this is an effort on both sides of the aisle to bring people together and do what we can do, to do the achievable, make the downpayment, to take the first step. I hope we do not lose this opportunity. I believe this is a very important day--in fact, a historic day--for all of us, and hopefully we are going to see colleagues wanting to come together and showing leadership on both sides of the aisle to make an important step forward to begin to modernize what has been a great American success story called Medicare. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I want to take a few moments, as we are working in earnest this week to complete the session and focus on where we are as it relates to the critical issue of prescription drug coverage and making sure that our seniors have help in Medicare and also that we are lowering prices for everyone. This has been quite a challenge for us. We knew when we started, we were facing daunting odds; that the system, as it is situated right now, heavily favors the industry and that as a result of the fact that it heavily favors them, and the rules favor them and allow them to stop competition and to be able to set prices on Americans much higher than in other countries, we knew this was going to be an uphill battle. We often talk about the fact that there are six drug company lobbyists for every one Member of the Senate and what that means in terms of challenges. But we have an opportunity today, and many of us have been working across the aisle in good faith. In fact, I would say everyone has been working in good faith. There are different philosophies--two very different approaches--that are being developed. But everyone is working in good faith to try to get something done. I think today is the day when we really decide are we going to at least take the first step. If we can't get all the way there, to give comprehensive Medicare coverage for all seniors and disabled, we have to at least begin the process to do that. We are being called upon by AARP and the other senior groups to at least take the first step. So we are working hard today. I commend my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have been working with us to be able to do that. We still have two different philosophies--one put forward predominantly by our colleagues on the other side of the aisle and by the House Republicans, which I believe moves us in the direction of privatizing Medicare. It would use private sector insurance, HMOs, as the mechanism for providing prescription drug coverage. In my home State, we have seen Medicare+Choice, basically a failure in terms of covering people, pulling out. My own mother was in the program and lost her HMO coverage. We have seen over and over again where the private sector market has not worked for our seniors as it relates to Medicare. I argue that it is the wrong direction to go to try to prop up this system--private sector HMOs. There have been proposals that would prop them up to the tune of Medicare paying 99 percent--covering 99 percent of the risk in order to go through private insurance companies. To me, that seems a little ridiculous. What we should be doing is what seniors across the country are asking us to do and that is update Medicare. We have had colleagues who have called Medicare a big government program. As I have said before, I believe it is a great American success story--Medicare and Social Security. So we have an opportunity today to begin to modernize Medicare. I hope we are going to do that. Ultimately, we know that Medicare--the health care system for older Americans--needs to cover prescription drugs for everyone on Medicare. But at a minimum, we need to start with our lower income seniors, who are deciding: Do I eat or get my medicine? Do I pay the utility bills or pay the rent? Maybe I should cut my pills in half. Maybe I should ask for a 1-week supply instead of a month. Maybe I will share them with my spouse because we both need the same blood pressure medicine. There are so many real stories. I have read many of them on the floor of the Senate--real-life stories of people in Michigan who are struggling to make life-and-death decisions. We have an opportunity at least to do something for them. We have an opportunity also for those who are the sickest, who have the biggest bills, who are finding themselves trying to decide between having their home, their retirement, being able to have any life whatsoever, or having thousands and thousands of dollars in drug bills. We have the opportunity to, as well, put in place for everybody the ability to know that they will not lose their home or their retirement and savings as a result of the cost of their medicine. If we could simply start with the neediest and the sickest under Medicare, I believe that would be a wonderful first step for us and something we could do today in a bipartisan way within the integrity of Medicare. I hope, Madam President, we will take the challenge that the seniors are calling on us to do across the country: To step up and provide leadership, to do more than talk, and begin to get something done for the seniors and others on Medicare. I yield the floor.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. I thank the Senator from New York for stepping into the Chair for a moment this morning so I might share a few comments. I also congratulate her on a very eloquent statement about an extremely important gentleman, Justin Dart, whom I knew not as well as the Senator from New York but for whom I had tremendous admiration. I align myself with the comments concerning special education and what needs to be done. I thank the Senator for her advocacy this morning on that very important topic.