Debbie Stabenow

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I too would like to express my thanks to the distinguished chairman for increasing INS staffing levels to address the past under funding of land border inspectors, and to also seek clarification concerning the Detroit Port of Entry. The committee notes that the Detroit Port of Entry, which includes the Ambassador Bridge and the Detroit-Windsor Tunnel, requires a total of 175 personnel yet is currently staffed at only 23 inspectors. That leaves the port understaffed by 151 inspectors, the third worst staffing level at a U.S. port of entry as a percentage of total workload. This is a serious concern, particularly because the Detroit Port is the nation's busiest northern border crossing, and has resulted in unnecessary traffic congestion and delays. I appreciate the committee having recognizing the Port of Detroit as one of the nation's ports of entry most in need of these additional inspectors and look forward to more efficient INS inspections at the Detroit-Canada border once these additional inspectors are in place. Is it the intent of the chairman, that a significant number of these additional INS inspectors would go to the Detroit Port of Entry?

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. I thank the distinguished chairwoman of the subcommittee. federal highway administration

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise to engage in a colloquy with the distinguished chairwoman of the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee. As the chairwoman knows, since Fiscal Year 1996, the Congress has appropriated a total of $13 million for the Michigan Incremental Train Control System (ITCS) Project, a public--private partnership to develop, test, prove and demonstrate an advanced positive train control system on a portion of the Detroit--Chicago rail corridor between Kalamazoo and Porter, Michigan to provide high speed rail operations. The Michigan ITCS project focuses on upgrading the existing wayside signal system to facilitate passenger train speeds in excess of 80 miles per hour, while still controlling freight trains that move at slower speeds. The administration's Fiscal Year 2002 DOT Budget proposal provides that $3 million of funding provided for ``high speed train control systems'' under the Next Generation High Speed Rail Program be allocated to the Michigan ITCS Project, which is entering its final phase. In the bill before us, a total of $11 million is provided for ``high speed train control systems'' with $5 million of those funds allocated to a PTC project in Wisconsin. Mr. President, I ask distinguished chairwoman to give this important project consideration in conference, and provide $3 million for the final phase of Michigan ITCS project, consistent with the administration's budget request. Any consideration that the distinguished chairwoman can provide is much appreciated.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. I take a moment to thank the chairman for his leadership in putting forward a bill that is balanced and that meets the criteria laid out, the needs expressed by Members on both sides of the aisle. I thank the Senator for putting together a package addressing those crops that are not considered program crops but are in severe financial situations. One example in the great State of Michigan, among many, are our apple growers who have needed assistance and received assistance--late but did receive assistance--last year. I am deeply concerned when we hear as much as 30 percent of the apple growers in this country will not make it past this season. If we are to look at their needs for, not the fiscal year, but as the Senator eloquently stated in the past, the crop year, and the needs of the farmers, it means the version that came from the Senate committee needs to be the version adopted. I ask my esteemed chairman, it is my understanding in the amendment before the Senate, there is not a specific loss payment for apple growers; is that correct? I could address other specialty needs in dairy, sugar, and a whole range of needs in the great State of Michigan, but is it true that this does not, as the Senate Agriculture Committee bill does, put forward dollars specifically for our apple growers? It is my understanding this amendment adopted by the House of Representatives would not address the serious needs of America's apple growers.

Ms. STABENOW. Will the Senator yield?

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise to engage in a colloquy with the distinguished senior Senator from Michigan and the distinguished chair of the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee. As the chair knows, over the past few years, the State of Michigan has competed for funds under the Coordinated Border and Corridor Program of the Transportation Equity Act (TEA 21). I ask the distinguished chair to give consideration to a particularly important project on our U.S.-Canadian border in Michigan. The Ambassador Bridge Gateway Project which will provide direct interstate access to the Ambassador Bridge and improve overall traffic flow to and from our U.S.-Canadian border, needs $10 million this year to keep the project on schedule. To date, there has been a total of $30.2 million in Federal funds either spent or committed with a State match of $7 million. Any consideration that the distinguished Chairwoman can provide is much appreciated.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I rise to engage in a colloquy with the distinguished senior Senator from Michigan and the distinguished chairwoman of the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee. As the chairwoman knows, over the past few years, the State of Michigan has competed for funds under the Coordinated Border and Corridor Program of the Transportation Equity Act (TEA 21). However, because of increased earmarking, discretionary funds have been greatly diminished. This year, both House and Senate did not contain any discretionary funds, eliminating an important discretionary funding source for the State of Michigan. I would ask the distinguished chairwoman to give consideration to a particularly important project on our U.S.-Canadian border in Michigan. The Ambassador Bridge Gateway Project which will provide direct interstate access to the Ambassador Bridge and improve overall traffic flow to and from our U.S.-Canadian border, needs $10 million this year to keep the project on schedule. To date, there has been a total of $30.2 million in federal funds either spent or committed with a state match of $7 million. Any consideration that the distinguished chairwoman can provide is much appreciated.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. My colleague from Michigan is correct in stating that Hmong Special Guerrilla Units played an important role in assisting US efforts in the Vietnam conflict, often times at great sacrifice to themselves. From 1961 to 1975 it is estimated that about 25,000 young Hmong men and boys were fighting the Communist Lao and North Vietnamese. The Hmong Special Guerrilla Units were known as the United States' Secret Army, and their valiant efforts ensured the safety and survival of countless U.S. soldiers.

Ms. STABENOW. I would concur with my good friend that events such as the 6th Annual Commemoration of U.S. Lao-Hmong Special Guerrilla Units Veterans Recognition Day play an important role in honoring these courageous veterans. This celebration will also educate future generations of Americans about the sacrifices made by this independent and freedom loving people. I know that my Senate colleagues will join me, and my colleague from the State of Michigan, in commending the Hmong Special Guerrilla Units for their bravery, sacrifice, and commitment to freedom.

Ms. STABENOW. It is important that the sacrifices made by the Hmong people are honored by all Americans. These rugged people, from the hills of Laos, paid a great cost because of their love of freedom and their support of the United States. It is estimated that over 40,000 Hmong died during the Vietnam War. Thousands more were forced to flee to refugee camps, and approximately 60,000 Hmongs immigrated to United States.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. I thank the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee. kootenai river sturgeon

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, as the Senator from Nevada knows, the Senate adopted the Stabenow-Fitzgerald-Levin-Durbin amendment which would require an Army Corps of Engineers study on drilling in the Great Lakes and place a moratorium on any new drilling until Congress lifts it in the future. It is clear that Congress has jurisdiction over Great Lakes drilling because it constitutes interstate commerce under the commerce clause of the Constitution. This constitutes interstate commerce under the Commerce clause of the Constitution for several reasons. One reason is that an environmental accident such as the release of crude oil into the waters of one or more of the Great Lakes would negatively affect the water quality, tourism and fishing industries and shorelines of multiple Great Lakes states. Another reason is that oil and gas extracted from one Great Lakes states would be transported and sold in other states in the form of many products. It would also increase the national supply of oil and gas. For these reasons, there is not doubt that Congress has Federal jurisdiction over drilling in the Great Lakes and can put a stop to it. Would the distinguished Chairman of the Energy and Water Subcommittee, and the author of this bill, agree with this interpretation of the Commerce clause?

Ms. STABENOW

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

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I thank my colleagues and leader who are working so hard. I very much appreciate both Senator Reid and Senator Domenici working with us to fashion a 2-year ban on any drilling of oil and gas in the Great Lakes, coupled with a study that would be commenced by the Army Corps of Engineers as to the environmental impacts of any future drilling. I am very appreciative of the leadership on both sides of the aisle from our colleagues and their willingness to work with me to make sure the Senate language is adopted by the Congress in the conference committee. I also thank staff who have worked very hard on this amendment-- Sander Lurie, Noushin Jahanian, and my chief of staff, Jean Marie Neal--for all their hard work.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise to thank Senator Domenici and Senator Reid for working with us on this amendment to put together something that is a reasonable moratorium while a study is being conducted by the Army Corps of Engineers. As my friend from Illinois mentioned, this is important to all of us in the Great Lakes. We want to make sure that wise decisions are made. And for those of us in Michigan, we are extremely concerned about any effort to move ahead now with drilling in oil and gas reserves. I thank my colleagues and I look forward to working with them to make sure this language moves all the way through the process and, in fact, becomes law.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, my amendment, which is a bipartisan amendment and which shares the strong support of colleagues from around the Great Lakes Basin, seeks to protect the waters of the Great Lakes by asking for a study of the impact of any oil and gas drilling in our Great Lakes. And it places a moratorium on new drilling until we have factual scientific review of the danger of any potential oil and gas drilling. In case my colleagues are not aware, 30 to 50 new oil and gas drilling permits could be issued as soon as the next few weeks for extraction under Lake Michigan and Lake Huron. This is moving forward only in the waters of the State of Michigan despite the overwhelming opposition of almost all local communities that would be affected by drilling and by the public at large. We don't want to see these oil rigs dotting the shoreline of Lake Michigan or any of our beaches around the Great Lakes. This amendment says that before anything as serious as this picture shows would occur we want to make sure that the Army Corps of Engineers does a complete study and analysis, and that we have thoughtful consideration of the impact this would create. I want to make it clear that this is a local and regional issue. Drilling in the Great Lakes is not a part of President Bush's energy strategy, nor is it a component of any of the major energy bills pending in Congress. We are talking about the Great Lakes Basin. We have one of our Nation's most precious public natural resources. As you can imagine, the citizens of the Great Lakes and all of the States involved are very proud and protective of the Great Lakes waters. We have 33 million people who rely on the Great Lakes for their drinking water, including 10 million from Lake Michigan alone. Millions of people use the Great Lakes each year to enjoy the beaches, great fishing, and boating. We welcome everyone to come and enjoy the splendor of the Great Lakes. The latest estimate shows that recreational fishing totals $1.5 billion to Michigan's tourist economy alone. The Great Lakes confines also are home to wetlands, dunes, and endangered species and plants, including the rare piping plover, Michigan monkey flower, Pitcher's thistle, and the dwarf-lake iris. Lake Michigan alone contains over 417 coastal wetlands, the most of any Great Lake. As you can see, we are proud of our lakes. All of the States surrounding the Great Lakes have a stake in what happens in these waters, as do all of us, because this is 20 percent of the world's fresh water. All of us have a stake in making sure we are wise stewards of this important waterway. Great Lakes drilling would place the tourism economy, the Great Lakes ecosystem, and a vital source of drinking water at great risk for a small amount of oil. Last year, Michigan produced about 2 minute's worth of oil from Great Lakes drilling of seven wells that have been in place since 1979. Since 1979, Michigan's wells have only produced 33 minutes of oil. U.S. consumers use 7 billion barrels per year. This is not about a large source of oil. We are deeply concerned about the risks involved in drilling. I cannot stress enough how important tourism is to the Michigan economy. Families from all over the country come to visit Mackinaw Island and the hundreds and hundreds of miles of beaches up and down Michigan's coastline. As I know my colleagues feel the same about their borders and their coasts around Wisconsin, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, New York, and Minnesota, all around the Great Lakes we are proud of and depend on tourism as a part of our economy. As it gets warmer and warmer and more and more humid here, we welcome people to come and visit the beautiful Great Lakes' shoreline and the wonderful weather that we are now having in Michigan. It is estimated, unfortunately, that a single quart of oil--a single quart of oil--through a mishap of any kind could foul as much as 2 million gallons of water. That is our fear. If an oil spill happened in one of Michigan's tourist locations, it could ruin these local economies forever. The Great Lakes are all interconnected and they border eight States, as we know, from Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New York. This means that an oil spill in Lake Michigan could wash up on the shores of Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, and Wisconsin. That is why we need to have the Federal Government study this issue because it affects more than just one State. My amendment is a reasonable and prudent approach to the issue of any oil and gas drilling in the Great Lakes. It asks the Army Corps of Engineers to study the safety and environmental impact of drilling under the Great Lakes. It places a moratorium on new drilling. Once this study is concluded, Congress can review this information and decide whether or not the moratorium should continue. This is not a partisan issue. I am joining with colleagues on both sides of the aisle led by Senator Fitzgerald from Illinois, my Republican colleague. I am so pleased to have colleagues on both sides of the aisle coming together to protect our wonderful natural resource called the Great Lakes. We have in addition two prominent Republican Governors who have come out strongly against drilling in the Great Lakes. If I might read their statements, Ohio Governor Bob Taft has stated that he cannot see any situation where he would support drilling under Lake Erie. Governor Taft has ruled out drilling under the lake, saying many environmental issues would need to be considered before any drilling could be approved. That was April 11 of this year. Second, the Governor of Wisconsin, Gov. Scott McCullum, also stated his opposition to Great Lakes drilling. Governor McCullum's spokeswoman stated that he ``doesn't want any oil exploration in the Great Lakes. If it's for oil and it's going to interfere with the Great Lakes, then he opposes it.'' That was June 5 of this year. This is a bipartisan issue--a joining together of those of us who believe very strongly that we have a special responsibility as stewards of this wonderful natural resource. I encourage my colleagues to join us from both sides of the aisle to support this study and this prudent approach by placing a moratorium and studying this critical issue before anything moves forward. It is important that 20 percent of the world's supply of fresh water be protected and that we be responsible in our approach. I am pleased I have from around the Great Lakes colleagues who are joining me in this important amendment. I thank the chairman of the subcommittee for his assistance as well, Senator Reid, and colleagues and staff who have been involved in putting this critical amendment together. I yield the floor.

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

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise to express grave disappointment and concern that yesterday the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Tommy Thompson, indicated he would not implement a bipartisan law passed by this Congress last session. This legislation would open the borders of our country so that American citizens, who pay for a good share of the research done on prescription drugs in this country, to support the development of medications that are desperately needed, could get the best price for American-made, FDA-safety-approved medications from other countries such as Canada. Last year, Congress passed a bill that says we will no longer protect the prices charged in this country that disadvantage our citizens by stopping us from free commerce across the border. I supported this effort in the House of Representatives. I find it ironic, at a time when our President talks about wanting free trade authority and expanding free trade, that we stop our citizens at the border from being able to benefit from free trade regarding the purchase of prescription drugs. Yesterday, the Secretary of Health and Human Services said he was concerned about the safety of reimported prescription drugs. We addressed those concerns in the previously approved legislation. Further, I have introduced legislation called the Medication Equity and Drug Savings Act, S. 215, the MEDS Act, that addresses the safety concerns expressed by former Secretary Shalala. My bill guarantees in the clearest terms that American labels will be used on the wholesale products that come from another country and that there will be complete safety precautions to make sure Americans will be receiving American- made, safe, FDA-approved drugs. What is the difference in cost for prescription drugs? The difference is clear when I stand in Detroit, MI, and I look across the river, I know that prices for American-made prescription drugs can be cut in half for my constituents with a quick 5 minute drive across the bridge to Canada. In some cases, the savings are even greater. Tamoxifen, a breast cancer treatment drug, is $136 a month in Michigan. Last year, we drove across the bridge with a group of seniors to purchase the exact same medicine; the price was only $15. There is something wrong with this picture. The bill the Secretary chose not to implement would have begun to address this price difference by opening the borders, to make sure our hospitals, our businesses, and our pharmacists, could develop business relationships with wholesalers in other countries to bring back drugs at a lower cost and make sure our citizens could get medication at lower prices. Today I urge my colleagues to join together again in a bipartisan way to act. We must guarantee that this law will be put into effect this year, whether it be by passing my legislation, making changes on another bill, or including it in Medicare prescription drug legislation which is so critical. We must act now. Over and over again I hear from families in my State and States across our country. Families, seniors, individuals with disabilities, and working people with ailments are all concerned about the high costs of prescription drugs. People are having to choose between paying the electric bill, getting their food, or getting their medicine. In the great United States of America, this great country, that should not be happening. I express grave concern and disappointment about the decision and the information released yesterday by the Secretary. I urge him and invite all my colleagues to join with me to address this issue in a way that will allow opening of the borders to reaffirm competition for the best, lowest price for the safest prescription drugs that are manufactured in this country, that our citizens help to subsidize. Whether through the R&D tax credit, through funding the Federal labs, or through other efforts, taxpayers help to develop these prescriptions. We helped fund the development of the medication, and Americans pay top dollar compared to anybody in the world for these same prescription drugs. It is not right. It is time now to act to make sure we can truly reduce the costs of one of the most important parts of the health care system today-- medicines for our people, for the families of America. We deserve a break. Unfortunately, the roadblock was maintained yesterday. It is time to take down the barrier at the border and allow our people to buy prescription drugs wherever they can get the best price. I urge we act as quickly as possible.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I thank our Budget Committee chairman for his leadership on this issue. I am proud to be cosponsoring the amendment he has offered to protect Medicare and Social Security. I ask unanimous consent to add my name as a cosponsor of the amendment.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, this is a very simple, straightforward debate: Are we going to protect Social Security and Medicare trust funds for their intended purpose, or are we going to allow them to be used for other purposes? My friend from Ohio speaks about Social Security trust funds, and I share his concern about protecting them, but that is not enough without including Medicare. I find it so interesting that in the Budget Committee we have heard testimony from the Secretary of the Treasury about protecting Social Security, and we have heard from the OMB Director about protecting Social Security, but nowhere do they talk about protecting Medicare. Then we turn around and review over 30 years of reports regarding the Medicare trust fund, the solvency of the Medicare Part A trust fund. For over 30 years, we have acted as if there is a Medicare trust fund. Now we are being told magically this year, with the new administration, that there is no trust fund. I find that quite amazing. In fact, there is a Medicare Part A trust fund. It is in surplus. It goes for important health care purposes. Just ask our hospitals. It is important we protect those dollars for those who receive health care through Medicare. I also find quite interesting the logic that if, in fact, there is not a Medicare trust fund, there is no surplus; then rather than putting money into Medicare in order to strengthen it, we should spend it for other items. That is basically what we are hearing; that it is all right to spend Medicare for something other than health care for seniors and the disabled because somehow, through accounting mechanisms, we decided there is no trust fund. The Conrad amendment, which is so fundamental and so important to the people of our country, simply says we will not spend Social Security and Medicare trust funds for something other than the intended purpose. This is absolutely critical. Those of us who stood in this Chamber and expressed concern about the budget resolution, expressed concern that, in fact, Medicare and Social Security would be used to pay for the tax cut that passed, to pay for other spending, the reason Senator Evan Bayh, Senator Olympia Snowe, I, and others offered something called a budget trigger during that debate was simply to say we did not want to be in this situation and that phase-in of the tax cuts would be suspended if we were dipping into Medicare and Social Security. That received 49 votes, not quite enough for adoption. We now move on throughout the year, and we find ourselves, as our Budget chairman has indicated, poised to spend Medicare health care dollars for other purposes, not in the future but this year and every year until 2010. The Conrad amendment simply says we will not do that; we will protect the sacred promise of Social Security and Medicare; we will not spend Social Security or Medicare for other than the intended purpose. This is what we ought to make sure we put into place and protect for the future, for those who are counting on us, who are paying into Medicare as well as Social Security and are counting on us to make sure that health care is available to them when they need it. I believe Medicare and Social Security are great American success stories and we ought to do everything in our power to guarantee that both of those trust funds are strengthened and protected, not weakened. The Conrad lockbox amendment protects those promises and those trust funds for the future, and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to strongly support the Conrad amendment. I yield back any time remaining.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise first of all to ask unanimous consent to add my name as a cosponsor to this amendment.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their hard work and the innovative language that is put together in this amendment. For those of us who are sponsors of the Patients' Bill of Rights, we have said since the beginning this was in no way intended to allow lawsuits to be brought against employers, this was about making sure those who make medical decisions were held accountable for those medical decisions. As we said so many times on the floor, it is really about closing a loophole in the law as well. We have indicated over and over again, when you have only two groups of people in this country who are not held accountable for their behavior and their decisions, one being foreign diplomats, the other being HMOs, it doesn't make any sense. We know this was a loophole that was created by the outgrowth of HMOs and development of new ways of managing health care, and basically the Patients' Bill of Rights is meant to clarify that and make sure those who are making medical decisions are held accountable for the outcomes of those medical decisions, just as are doctors and nurses and other medical professionals. What I think is important about this amendment is it very clearly states to each and every employer, large and small, that in fact we will make sure if they are not making medical decisions--and in the vast majority of times an employer is not making a medical decision-- the intent of the Patients' Bill of Rights is not to create a liability for the employer. We have employers, many in Michigan--hundreds of thousands of them--who are responsible employers, providing insurance for their employees. We want to encourage and support and salute them for doing that and make sure nothing gets in the way of that continuing. I again thank my colleagues from both sides of the aisle who have put in a tremendous amount of work on this amendment. There has been a wonderful job done clarifying this. I hope we have now been able to put to rest what was unfortunately a common misperception, something said over and over again to employers of this country, that somehow this opens them up to lawsuit. It never was the intent. This amendment clarifies that and reiterates it. I hope this will allow us to move forward, to pass this very strong Patient Protection Act that says to each and every family: When you have insurance you can have the confidence, whether it is in the emergency room or the doctor's office or the hospital, that you will have the care available that your family needs. I will yield the floor.

Ms. STABENOW

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

Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I want to indicate that on rollcall vote No. 197, I was present and voted ``no.'' The official record has me listed as absent. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that the official record be corrected to accurately reflect my vote. This will in no way change the outcome of the vote.