Debbie Stabenow

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague for yielding to me for a moment to bring this discussion back to what this is really all about. First, I say to my friend from Texas, I am happy to share with his constituent of whom he spoke, on page 146 of the legislation, specifically what is meant by employers being exempted from lawsuit. It is very specific. I think we could satisfy his concerns if he were to read the bill and have an opportunity to discuss it with us. I welcome an opportunity to do that. I will take a moment and share what happened in Michigan a few hours ago. I went back to the great State of Michigan to be with a large number of constituents who were very concerned about this legislation, people who have been involved in the health care system, doctors and nurses, and family members who have had situations occur in their own family with themselves or their children or their parents that have caused them to support this legislation, the underlying bill that is before the Senate. They believe this is critically needed because of the need to guarantee the health insurance is paying for results in health care for their families. I will comment as I did on Friday about a situation about which my colleagues on the other side of the aisle talked, small business owners. There is a small business owner with whom I have worked very closely, a man named Sam Yamin, who, in fact, had a situation where he had to go to an emergency room himself. He owned a tree trimming business and had a severe accident with a chain saw and was rushed to an emergency room. The physicians were ready to operate, to save his leg, to save the nerves in his leg. They called the HMO and the HMO said, we are sorry; you are at the wrong emergency room. They packed him up, him and his wife, and moved him across town. He spent 9 hours on a gurney in the other emergency room and did not receive treatment until he literally pulled a telephone out of the wall because he was in such great pain. He ended up getting the most limited treatment. They simply sewed up his leg. Why do I mention that? I mention that because Sam Yamin lost his business. He is a business owner who lost his business. He is a business owner who is now not only permanently disabled but, I found out today, is terminally ill. Sam Yamin did not deserve that. He paid for insurance. He was a business owner who had insurance and assumed in an emergency he could go to the nearest emergency room. Now what happens? He and his wife Susan are flooded with bills. Does he have any recourse to go back to the HMO to hold them accountable for what happened for him and his family? No, he does not. That is not right. That is what this bill is about. We want better medical decisions. Sam Yamin does not want the right to sue just to sue. He wanted emergency health care. He wanted an operation on his leg. He wanted to be able to go back to work in his business. That is what he wanted. I truly believe that unless we hold HMOs and insurance companies accountable for the decisions they are making, we will not get that kind of guarantee of health care. We want better medical decisions. That is what we want. We know the States that have enacted these kinds of protections don't have the lawsuits being talked about. They have better medical decisions. That is what we are looking for. We want to make sure decisionmakers know they better pay attention; they better get it right; they better give people the health care they are paying for; otherwise, they will be held accountable. That is what this is about. That is why it is so important and that is why I am going to come to the floor every day and speak on behalf of Susan and Sam Yamin and all the other families in Michigan who are counting on us to get this right. I yield the floor.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, this is such an important issue. I think it is important to start with the facts in the underlying bill. With all respect to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, I feel compelled today--after listening to the debate--to rise and to specifically speak to the language in our Patients' Bill of Rights, to state what it specifically says, not what has been talked about, not what the HMOs and the insurance companies are telling employers that it says, but what it actually says. Unfortunately, the biggest myth that has been perpetrated about this legislation is in relation to businesses being sued. The reality is-- and I take it from the relevant section of the bill; and I welcome anyone listening today, rather than listening to us going back and forth and debating the language in the bill, to go to the Congress.gov Web site and look up the language themselves. I would encourage them to do that. In this kind of debate that is very helpful to do, as people are interpreting and misinterpreting language. In this bill--and I am proud to be a cosponsor of this bill--we have specific language in section (5): ``Exclusion of Employers and Other Plan Sponsors.'' Then there is another subsection: ``Causes of Action Against Employers and Plan Sponsors Precluded.'' And other than a couple of exceptions that I will speak to in terms of direct decisionmaking, it says: . . . does not authorize a cause of action against an employer or other plan sponsor maintaining the plan (or against an employee of such an employer or sponsor acting within the scope of employment). It does go on to talk about certain causes of action that are permitted, and it indicates that a cause of action may arise against an employer to the extent there was direct participation by the employer or other plan sponsor in the decision of the plan--this would apply to very few, if any; I don't know employers that directly make medical decisions--if, in fact, the employer was making a direct decision, directly participating. And this goes on to talk about the fact that this shall not be construed to be engaged in direct participation because of any form of decisionmaking or other conduct that is merely collateral. It defines what that is. This is not about those employers who hire someone to manage their plan, whether they hire an insurance company, they have coverage for their employees, or whether they themselves are self-insured and hire someone to administer their plan for them. The only way an employer would be held accountable is if they had direct participation in the decision, if the employer denied the test, if the employer was the one making the medical decision; we would all agree in that small number of occasions. I don't know anyone directly providing and making medical decisions--possibly a group of physicians together in a business or some other medical group. The employers I know either have their insurance through an insurance company or they pay someone to administer the plan. In those cases, you cannot come back against the employer. We make it extremely specific. I would not want to have the HMO or the insurance company be able to come back against an employer. It is extremely important that we make it clear what is going on. It is very unfortunate that we have seen so much misinformation in order to scare small businesses and other employers about what this does. I will speak about a small business owner--this is someone about whom I have spoken before--and how he feels about this. Sam Yamin from Birmingham, MI, owned a tree trimming business, had insurance, and thought he had health insurance and care available through that insurance for himself and his family and employees. He had an accident. He had a severe accident with a chain saw. He was rushed to the nearest emergency room. The surgeons came in to do emergency surgery on his leg to save the nerves. They called the HMO, and the HMO said: Sorry, you are at the wrong emergency room. We are not going to OK this emergency surgery to save this man's leg. You have to pack him up and take him across town. That is what they did. And this small businessman who had insurance, who paid the premiums, who believed that he had cared for himself, his employees, his family, was packed up, taken across town, where he sat on a gurney for 9 hours before he literally pulled a phone out of the wall in desperation and pain to get attention to receive care. In that situation, instead of the surgery the doctors had said needed to be performed in order to save the nerve endings in his leg, he was sewn up. The least amount of procedure was done. He was sent home. Today this small business owner no longer has his small business. Today this gentleman does not have the use of his leg. This gentleman is disabled. Sam and Susan Yamin described this situation as having gone through ``health care hell.'' This small businessman would gladly pay what is 23 cents a month per person for the accountability provisions in this bill--23 cents a month, according to the Congressional Budget Office--in order to have his leg functioning, in order to have his business back, in order to have his family out of the incredible debt that resulted from this situation. Was the HMO held accountable for this decision? They can be held accountable for the cost of the test he didn't receive or the cost of the procedure, but they cannot be held accountable for the loss of this man's business, for his life dramatically changing, his and his family's, for the permanent disability and the ongoing pain he tells me he has and the medical costs he now has. He cannot hold the HMO accountable for the consequences of the medical decisions they made. That is the debate, plain and simple. There are only two categories of people--and this has been said by colleagues of mine over and over again on the floor, but we should all understand--in the United States of America who cannot be held accountable for their decisions: foreign diplomats and HMOs. That is pretty shocking. This bill says that HMOs, insurance companies, have to be held accountable for the medical decisions they make that affect our families. People are paying the bill. Businesses are paying the bill. I know they want their employees to have the health care they are assuming they will receive because they are paying for it. If we ask and if we are factual about what this bill entails, if people understand the truth about this bill and that they are not held accountable unless the medical decision is made by the business and that the difference in cost is 23 cents a month and you ask them: Would you add 23 cents a month per employee to make sure that when you get done, the health care is really there and that there are good medical decisions and accountability if there is a problem? I know the people of Michigan say yes. That is what this is about: 23 cents a month per person. We know that when this provision has been put in, in other States, when patients' rights have been put in, in the State of Texas--almost the same language--they have averaged, I think it is five lawsuits a year. California has put in this language; so far, zero lawsuits. These are scare tactics being put forward by the people who control the decisions today--the HMOs and the insurance companies. I appreciate from their perspective, they have a good thing going. They control the decisions. They can't be held accountable. That is a great deal, if you can get it. But it is a terrible deal if you are a mom or a dad who cares about your kids, if you are a business that cares about your employees, if you are a family farmer worried about what is going to happen on the farm, if you are anyone needing care or if you are anyone providing care. The frustration of doctors and nurses and dentists and other providers in this country is unbelievable because they see every day what happens. This is not about lawsuits. We have protected employers. This is about good medical decisions. There is no evidence whatsoever that good medical decisions will not be made and that instead we will just be increasing lawsuits. There is no evidence anywhere beyond rhetoric that says that that is true. I urge that we proceed with the language in the bill which is very clear: There is no ability to proceed to sue a business unless they participate directly in the medical decisions. It seems only right to be able to have that happen. One other point I will make. It is true that we need to provide more support for small businesses to provide insurance. I support that. It is true that we should be allowing someone who is self-employed to deduct 100 percent of their cost. In fact, during the tax bill, we put an amendment up and colleagues on this side of the aisle--Senator Durbin took the lead with others, and we passed a provision to help small businesses and the self-employed. It was taken out in the conference committee. So it didn't pass, even though we tried to pass it. I support it and I will support it again. But this is about making sure that people who pay for insurance get the care they think they are buying. One other point, there is no question that insurance costs have gone up. I believe it is 10 percent last year. There is no relationship to what we are debating now. When I talk to employers, hospitals, and physicians, they say what has a lot to do with the uncontrollable rise in health care costs is prescription drugs. That is the No. 1 uncontrollable cost in the health care system today. I am anxious to work with colleagues on both sides of the aisle in order to address that and, hopefully, very soon after passing the Patients' Bill of Rights we will address the access and cost of prescription drugs. There is no question that we have high costs. We have rising costs of health care. But when I talk to my doctors, my hospital administrators, and businesses, they tell me the insurance companies tell them it is going up because of the cost of prescription drugs. We are talking about a difference of 23 cents a month per employee for the accountability provision in this bill. I go back to Sam Yamin from Birmingham, MI, an employer himself who today sits at home in pain with high, mounting health care bills because of the lack of accountability. I know that Mr. Yamin and the business community and the families I support think that this bill is worth it. I yield the floor.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Thank you, Mr. President. First, I want to thank my colleague, the senior Senator from New Jersey, for his passionate commitment to affordable access to health care and patients and families, and I appreciate being on the floor with him today. We appreciate his leadership. I come to the floor again to speak about this critical issue of passing a Patients' Bill of Rights for the families of our country. One of the reasons that I came to the Senate in January was because of this issue and what it means to the families I represent. The very first opportunity and honor that I had to speak on the floor of the Senate was to speak about the importance of passing a Patients' Bill of Rights. I am very pleased and thankful and grateful to our new majority leader for his understanding of the priority of this legislation and the fact that he would indicate that under his leadership the first bill to come to this floor would be the bill to guarantee that those who pay for insurance, who have health insurance, and the businesses that pay for insurance for their employees will know that, in fact, care will be given when there is an illness or an emergency. Yesterday, I spoke about young Jessica and her situation as a young person under an HMO. Today, I want to share another story. This comes from a letter that I received as a House Member 2 years ago. I shared it on the House floor during the debate at that time. This came from Susan and Sam Yamin. It was a very important letter about the tragedy that befell their family and their fight with an HMO to get emergency care. Sam Yamin owned his own business. He worked hard. He owned a tree- trimming business. He was working on the job every day to support his family. He and Susan were working hard. One day on the job he had an accident with a chain saw that caused him to fall back and cut his leg down to the bone. This is in Birmingham, MI, a business owner who had an accident. He was rushed to the nearest emergency room where he was prepared immediately for surgery to repair the nerve damage. The doctors took him in, had him ready, and prepared to have surgery. They called the HMO which said: He is at the wrong emergency room. You can't proceed to save the nerve in this man's leg. You have to tell this man that he has to go across town in metro Detroit to another emergency room in order to be able to be served. With much distress, as you can imagine, his wife, Susan, packed him up, and drove him over to another emergency room where he waited, on a gurney, in the emergency room, for 9 hours. He didn't see a doctor until he finally literally tore a pay phone off the wall; he was in such pain; and he was crying out for help. His ordeal continued when orthopedics began making decisions based on the HMO point system for the approved hospital doctors. If a patient has an unsuccessful operation or an expensive procedure, the doctor is given 5 to 10 points under this system. But if the doctor is able to provide a low-cost, quick fix, the point range is 0 to 4. They receive compensation based on how low the points are in this process of looking at payment. Unfortunately, not only was he trapped by having to move to another emergency room, but this point system which rewards the low-cost fix put him in a situation where he didn't get surgery. He didn't have surgeons who came to his rescue to fix the nerve in his leg. They just simply sewed up the leg. Now Sam Yamin has permanent nerve damage that is spreading up his spine. He lost his business. His health care costs have escalated and have become a serious burden to his family. After many appeals, the HMO finally agreed to refer Sam to what they considered to be an adequate specialist, a podiatrist, a foot doctor. I certainly respect podiatrists, but that is not what this gentleman needs for the disability and the permanent nerve damage in his leg. Finally, even when they made a referral, it was not to the appropriate specialist. Sam Yamin is one example of somebody who worked hard, had his own business, cared for his family, played by the rules, and had insurance. He thought his family was covered. He goes to the emergency room, and he is told that he cannot get the help that he needs. That is what this is about. That is what this Patients' Bill of Rights is about. It is about saying to those families who have health insurance for their family members that if you are in an emergency, you can go to the nearest emergency room and get care. If you need a specialist, you can have the right to a specialist. If you need a test or a treatment, you can have that, and the doctor or the nurse can make the medical decision and not be overruled because of nonmedical reasons because it is just too expensive to give you the specialist that you need or the test or the procedure. We really have a choice in front of us this week and next week as we debate the Patients' Bill of Rights. It is time to choose. Are we going to stand up for Susan and Sam Yamin and their family in Birmingham, MI? Are we going to stand up for the doctors and the nurses and the dentists and the therapists and all those who come into the health care profession to be able to treat patients and give them the care they need? Are we going to stand up for the people who pay the bills as consumers of health insurance? Or are we going to side with the HMOs and the insurance companies that have created this problem? That is the choice. To me, it is a simple choice. We know there are folks in the HMO business and insurance companies that make good decisions. There are HMOs in Michigan that do a good job. But we also have situations where the wrong decisions are made and people have been hurt. In the end, when the Yamins come to me and say: Why is it that the only part of the health care system that is not held accountable for what they do and the decisions they make are HMOs? I cannot answer that. I cannot answer why the only two groups of people in the United States of America that are not held accountable--cannot legally be held accountable for their decisions--are foreign diplomats and HMOs. I cannot answer the reason why that makes any sense because I believe it does not. The Yamins are asking me to fight on their behalf. The damage is already done. Mr. Yamin has lost his business. He has lost functioning in his leg. The mounting medical bills for their family will not be reversed. But they have asked me to fight to make sure this does not happen to another family. I urge my colleagues to join in a bipartisan bill before this body. A lot of hard work has gone on. There have been a lot of changes in the last 5 years since this issue was first brought up. We have an opportunity to pass something meaningful that will make a difference in the lives of our families. I urge we do so. I yield the floor, Mr. President, and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, today, the Senate will begin serious consideration of one of the most important issues for every family in America--genuine protections for patients in managed care plans. As many of my colleagues know, this issue has been one of my top priorities for a very long time and I am very pleased that real debate has begun on the McCain, Edwards, Kennedy bill--a bipartisan compromise for a meaningful Patients' Bill of Rights. It is important to note that there has been a tremendous amount of work done to get to this point. This truly is a compromise. It is truly bipartisan. I congratulate my colleagues for working so hard. I am very proud to be one of the cosponsors of this bill. I strongly believe that every person has a right to affordable quality health care. Whether we are talking about access to nursing homes, prescription drugs for seniors, or the Patients' Bill of Rights, I have fought to improve health care for every American. As we start this debate, I remind all of my colleagues that this debate is about real people and their real experiences with HMOs. We have not made this up. This is about real people who have come to us who have expressed concerns. They paid for health care. They assumed that their families would have it when they needed it. Too many people find out that when it is time for that care to be given, whether it is in an emergency room, whether it is a doctor recommending a form of treatment, they are not able to receive it for their family. It is not right. That is why we are here. I want to share one story today about a young woman named Jessica and her family in Royal Oak, MI. Jessica's story is one example of many of why we need to pass these important patient protections. I am proud to have worked with this family, speaking on behalf of families all over this country. Jessica was born in 1975 with a rare metabolic disorder that required vigilant medical care. Unfortunately, her disorder was not curable and she passed away September 10, 1999. During the last year of her life, Jessica's health insurance changed. Her family doctor, who had been treating her all of her life, was not covered by the new HMO that she was forced into, and Jessica had to seek treatment through another physician. Her disease, however, was so complex that she and her family could not find a new doctor with the HMO. Mrs. Luker talks about going name by name, page by page, and book by book through all of the physicians in the HMO, and none of them were willing to treat Jessica. As her mother said, when Jessica's family should have been spending precious time--she used to like to sit on the porch and read books and blow bubbles--with Jessica in her final year of life, they were forced to spend countless hours fighting with the HMO bureaucrats about her care. Jessica's insurance plan was changed just days before she was admitted to the hospital for surgery. After months of trying to figure out what to do about her seizures--she had 60 seizures in a row--her family worked with the doctor who had been treating her. This is prior to the change. They said she needed an operation. It was scheduled for May 12 of 1999. Unfortunately, her insurance changed to the HMO on May 1 without their knowledge. She had the operation on May 12. On May 17, they got a notice that the insurance had changed and they wouldn't cover it because she didn't have preauthorization. This is not a new story. We hear story after story about people who find themselves in situations where they didn't have preauthorization for things that were beyond their knowledge at the time. Unfortunately, to this day, that surgery was not paid for, and the Lukers are paying for that themselves, while at the same time after they found out that she had the HMO, they would not allow her doctor of 14 years to treat her--and in her final year of life. Jessica's story demonstrates why we need patient protections. We must make sure when our families have insurance and believe the health care will be there when their families need it that they can count on that to happen; that they are not fighting about what day they got a notice about a change in the insurance; or they are not fighting about their doctor who has been treating a family member for years not being able to continue because they do not fit into the list of the HMO. This is just one example. I have heard stories throughout Michigan. But today we have an opportunity to begin the process to change it. When I came to Washington as a United States Senator from Michigan, I brought a picture of Jessica. The picture is sitting on my desk in my office in the Hart Building. That picture is going to remain there until we pass this bill. This bill is for Jessica and every person who has ever needed care and been denied it by an HMO. This picture I want to be able to take down pretty soon. It has been there long enough. Families have had to fight long enough. I am looking forward to the day when I can give that picture back to Mr. and Mrs. Luker and say: We did it. Today we can begin that process. Let's not fight about all the various wranglings of the internal politics of this body. Let's keep our focus on the Jessicas and on the families of this country. If we do the right thing, everybody will be able to celebrate that we have created the important patient protections that our families in this country need. I yield back, Mr. President.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I am proud to join my colleague from Michigan, Senator Levin, in submitting a resolution recognizing the City of Ann Arbor, Michigan and its residents for their dedication to building a community that respects ecological integrity, promotes social well-being, and creates economic vitality. On June 20, 2001, the City of Ann Arbor, Michigan will be hosting the U.S. and Canadian Municipal Leaders Rio+10 Preparatory Meeting for the United Nations-sponsored 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development. The 2002 World Summit marks the ten-year anniversary of the 1992 Earth Summit, which helped build worldwide political and popular support for environmental protection and sustainable development. The 2002 World Summit will help assess the progress made since the Earth Summit, and renew our commitment to providing a bright future for our planet. The City of Ann Arbor was chosen from among 35 cities in North America to host the U.S. and Canadian Municipal Leaders Rio+10 Preparatory Meeting, and is one of six cities worldwide selected to host a preparatory meeting for the 2002 World Summit. The preparatory meeting will bring together local government leaders, technical experts and representatives of local government associations to examine opportunities and recommend strategies for environmental protection and sustainable development at the local level. The City of Ann Arbor has had numerous environmental accomplishments, and serves as a shining example of how local government can make tremendous contributions to solving local and global environmental problems. The City of Ann Arbor has developed an Energy Plan that reduces energy use and encourages renewable energy, a Solid Waste Plan that encourages recycling, composting, and source reduction, and a Transportation Plan that promotes mass transit and alternate transportation programs. Ann Arbor is also a Department of Energy Clean City, in recognition of its efforts to build alternative fuel infrastructure, purchase alternative fuel vehicles and educate the community about their uses. The city is also developing an innovative Municipal Energy Fund to improve the energy efficiency of city facilities and provide community demonstrations of energy saving and renewable energy technologies that result in environmental stewardship and fiscal responsibility. The City of Ann Arbor has made protecting the environment a community priority, and serves as a model of how local governments can play a critical role in sustainable development. I congratulate the City of Ann Arbor for the honor of being chosen as one of six cities worldwide to host a preparatory meeting for the 2002 World Summit, and I congratulate all the local leaders who will be attending this preparatory meeting to help solve our environmental problems. I also commend the city and its residents for building a community that works hard to protect the environment, while at the same time creating economic vitality and promoting social well-being.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce three bills called the Great Lakes Initiative which are designed to protect the five Great Lakes. The Great Lakes are one of our Nation's most precious natural resources. They contain one-fifth of the world's fresh water supply and provide safe drinking water to millions of people every day. The Great Lakes also play a vital role in the economies of the Great Lakes States, including recreation, tourism, commercial shipping, industrial and agriculture. That is why I am introducing legislation today to protect this vital resource for the use, benefit, and enjoyment of present and future generations of Americans. Three bills make up this new Great Lakes Initiative: (1) the Great Lakes Water Protection Act; (2) the Great Lakes Ecology Protection Act; and (3) the Great Lakes Preservation Act. The first bill, the Great Lakes Water Protection Act, would protect the Great Lakes from environmentally dangerous oil and gas drilling. I am pleased that this bill has strong bipartisan support in both the House and the Senate, with Senators Fitzgerald, Levin, Chafee, Kohl, Feingold, Dayton, Clinton, Durbin, Wellstone, Bayh, Corzine, and Boxer as original cosponsors. The Great Lakes support many fragile coastlines and wetlands. Lake Michigan alone contains over 417 coastal wetlands, the most of any Great Lake. These shorelines are also home to many rare and endangered plant and wildlife species, including the rare piping plover, Michigan monkey flower, Pitcher's thistle, and the dwarf lake iris. The Great Lakes also play a vital role in the economies of the Great Lakes States. In particular, coastal communities rely heavily on the Great Lake's resources and natural beauty to support tourism and recreation activities. The most recent estimate shows that recreational fishing totaled $1.5 billion in expenditures in Michigan alone. Drilling in the Great Lakes could expose our valuable fresh water supply to serious contamination, cause serious environmental damage to the water and shoreline of the Great Lakes, and have crippling effects on Great Lakes communities that depend on tourism and recreation for their local economies. The Great Lakes Water Protection Act would prohibit new oil and gas drilling in the Great Lakes. During the ban, the Environmental Protection Agency and National Academy of Sciences would conduct a two-year study examining the impacts on drilling on the environment, public health, the water supply, and local economies. Once the study is completed, Congress can analyze the results of the study and lift the ban on oil and gas drilling if it deems appropriate. This bill would also provide $50 million per year for park and shoreline conservation to the Great Lakes States to offset any lost oil royalty revenues during the ban on drilling. The second bill, Great Lakes Ecology Protection Act, seeks to curb the influx of invasive species into the Great Lakes. I am pleased that this bill also has strong bipartisan support with Senators Fitzgerald, Levin, Voinovich, Kohl, Feingold, Durbin, DeWine, Dayton, Wellstone, Schumer, and Bayh as original cosponsors. The bill would try to stop the importation of invasive species by prohibiting ballast water discharges in the Great Lakes and requiring sophisticated sterilization of ballast water tanks as well. This is based on a bipartisan bill in the House introduced by Congressman Hoekstra and Congressman Barcia. Invasive species have already damaged the Great Lakes in a number of ways. They have destroyed thousands of fish and threatened 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 increases water clarity, which may be making it easier for predators to prey upon the yellow perch. Moreover, tiny organisms like zooplankton that help form the base of the Great Lakes food chain, have declined due to consumption by exploding populations of zebra mussels. The Great Lakes Ecology Protection Act would ban ballast water discharges in the Great Lakes. The bill would require ships to discharge ballast water and sterilize the ballast water tanks before entering the Great Lakes to prevent the introduction of any non- indigenous species. The act also would significantly increase funding for invasive species research and ballast water technology, by providing $100 million in research grants over the next five years. The research grants would encourage collaboration between the colleges and universities, and the shipping industry to help develop new and better ballast water purification technologies. The third bill, the Great Lakes Preservation Act, would ban dangerous bulk water diversions while the Great Lakes Compact makes recommendations on how specifically to implement appropriate governing standards. This bill also has strong bipartisan support with Senators Fitzgerald, Levin, Kohl, Feingold, Dayton, Schumer, and Bayh as original co-sponsors. Bulk water diversion could become a serious threat to the fresh water supplies of the Great Lakes in the future. We must stop this in our countries and negotiate with Canada to do the same. Global water demand is doubling every 21 years, while only 1 percent of the water in the Great Lakes is renewed each year by precipitation or runoff. At the same time, scientists predict that by the end of the century, Great Lakes water levels could decline by 1.5 to 8 feet due to increased evaporation; and within the next three decades we may see a decline by as much as 3 feet. This of course is in addition to the historic fluctuations in lake levels that can vary by as much as 6.5 feet. The bill also would help provide new funding sources to preserve and restore historic Great Lakes lighthouses. Great Lakes lighthouses have helped mariners navigate the Great Lakes and find safe harbors for decades, and are an important part of the maritime history of the Great Lakes. Many of these lighthouses have historical or architectural significance, but are unfortunately in poor condition because of neglect and deterioration. The Act would help find new funding sources to preserve the lighthouses by directing the National Park Service to Study the Great Lakes lighthouses and recommend the best course of action for preserving and restoring the lighthouses. The Great Lakes are a precious natural resource not just to their neighboring States, but to the entire country. I urge my Senate colleagues to join me and protect this vital resource for the use, benefit, and enjoyment of present and future generations of Americans. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bills be printed in the Record.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce three bills called the Great Lakes Initiative which are designed to protect the five Great Lakes. The Great Lakes are one of our Nation's most precious natural resources. They contain one-fifth of the world's fresh water supply and provide safe drinking water to millions of people every day. The Great Lakes also play a vital role in the economies of the Great Lakes States, including recreation, tourism, commercial shipping, industrial and agriculture. That is why I am introducing legislation today to protect this vital resource for the use, benefit, and enjoyment of present and future generations of Americans. Three bills make up this new Great Lakes Initiative: (1) the Great Lakes Water Protection Act; (2) the Great Lakes Ecology Protection Act; and (3) the Great Lakes Preservation Act. The first bill, the Great Lakes Water Protection Act, would protect the Great Lakes from environmentally dangerous oil and gas drilling. I am pleased that this bill has strong bipartisan support in both the House and the Senate, with Senators Fitzgerald, Levin, Chafee, Kohl, Feingold, Dayton, Clinton, Durbin, Wellstone, Bayh, Corzine, and Boxer as original cosponsors. The Great Lakes support many fragile coastlines and wetlands. Lake Michigan alone contains over 417 coastal wetlands, the most of any Great Lake. These shorelines are also home to many rare and endangered plant and wildlife species, including the rare piping plover, Michigan monkey flower, Pitcher's thistle, and the dwarf lake iris. The Great Lakes also play a vital role in the economies of the Great Lakes States. In particular, coastal communities rely heavily on the Great Lake's resources and natural beauty to support tourism and recreation activities. The most recent estimate shows that recreational fishing totaled $1.5 billion in expenditures in Michigan alone. Drilling in the Great Lakes could expose our valuable fresh water supply to serious contamination, cause serious environmental damage to the water and shoreline of the Great Lakes, and have crippling effects on Great Lakes communities that depend on tourism and recreation for their local economies. The Great Lakes Water Protection Act would prohibit new oil and gas drilling in the Great Lakes. During the ban, the Environmental Protection Agency and National Academy of Sciences would conduct a two-year study examining the impacts on drilling on the environment, public health, the water supply, and local economies. Once the study is completed, Congress can analyze the results of the study and lift the ban on oil and gas drilling if it deems appropriate. This bill would also provide $50 million per year for park and shoreline conservation to the Great Lakes States to offset any lost oil royalty revenues during the ban on drilling. The second bill, Great Lakes Ecology Protection Act, seeks to curb the influx of invasive species into the Great Lakes. I am pleased that this bill also has strong bipartisan support with Senators Fitzgerald, Levin, Voinovich, Kohl, Feingold, Durbin, DeWine, Dayton, Wellstone, Schumer, and Bayh as original cosponsors. The bill would try to stop the importation of invasive species by prohibiting ballast water discharges in the Great Lakes and requiring sophisticated sterilization of ballast water tanks as well. This is based on a bipartisan bill in the House introduced by Congressman Hoekstra and Congressman Barcia. Invasive species have already damaged the Great Lakes in a number of ways. They have destroyed thousands of fish and threatened 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 increases water clarity, which may be making it easier for predators to prey upon the yellow perch. Moreover, tiny organisms like zooplankton that help form the base of the Great Lakes food chain, have declined due to consumption by exploding populations of zebra mussels. The Great Lakes Ecology Protection Act would ban ballast water discharges in the Great Lakes. The bill would require ships to discharge ballast water and sterilize the ballast water tanks before entering the Great Lakes to prevent the introduction of any non- indigenous species. The act also would significantly increase funding for invasive species research and ballast water technology, by providing $100 million in research grants over the next five years. The research grants would encourage collaboration between the colleges and universities, and the shipping industry to help develop new and better ballast water purification technologies. The third bill, the Great Lakes Preservation Act, would ban dangerous bulk water diversions while the Great Lakes Compact makes recommendations on how specifically to implement appropriate governing standards. This bill also has strong bipartisan support with Senators Fitzgerald, Levin, Kohl, Feingold, Dayton, Schumer, and Bayh as original co-sponsors. Bulk water diversion could become a serious threat to the fresh water supplies of the Great Lakes in the future. We must stop this in our countries and negotiate with Canada to do the same. Global water demand is doubling every 21 years, while only 1 percent of the water in the Great Lakes is renewed each year by precipitation or runoff. At the same time, scientists predict that by the end of the century, Great Lakes water levels could decline by 1.5 to 8 feet due to increased evaporation; and within the next three decades we may see a decline by as much as 3 feet. This of course is in addition to the historic fluctuations in lake levels that can vary by as much as 6.5 feet. The bill also would help provide new funding sources to preserve and restore historic Great Lakes lighthouses. Great Lakes lighthouses have helped mariners navigate the Great Lakes and find safe harbors for decades, and are an important part of the maritime history of the Great Lakes. Many of these lighthouses have historical or architectural significance, but are unfortunately in poor condition because of neglect and deterioration. The Act would help find new funding sources to preserve the lighthouses by directing the National Park Service to Study the Great Lakes lighthouses and recommend the best course of action for preserving and restoring the lighthouses. The Great Lakes are a precious natural resource not just to their neighboring States, but to the entire country. I urge my Senate colleagues to join me and protect this vital resource for the use, benefit, and enjoyment of present and future generations of Americans. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bills be printed in the Record.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I am proud to join my colleague from Michigan, Senator Levin, in introducing the ``Railroad Crossing Delay Reduction Act of 2001.'' Trains needlessly blocking traffic at railroad grade crossings is a longstanding nationwide problem, that puts lives and property at grave risk. When trains unnecessarily block vital intersections, it can cost police, firefighters and emergency medical workers, critical minutes when responding to an emergency situation. They also increase train- automobile accidents, because many motorists dangerously speed through railroad crossing intersections, in an attempt to avoid being delayed for an extended period by an oncoming train. Train blockage also prevents pedestrians, often young children on the way to and from neighborhood schools, from crossing a railroad intersection resulting in pedestrians climbing through trains to reach the other side. Across the country, there are reports that fire trucks, ambulances, and police vehicles have been unnecessarily delayed at train crossings. The loss of a few minutes in an emergency situation can mean the difference between life and death. A fire in a home or business can double in size every 20 seconds, and a person suffering from a heart attack can die after only six minutes without oxygen. In my home State of Michigan, fire and EMS units in Delta Township were blocked by a train for a few extra minutes as a boy burned to death on the other side of the railroad crossing. Last year, a Federal judge in Michigan struck down a State law limiting the amount of time a train can block a crossing on the grounds that it was a Federal issue and involved interstate commerce under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Over 30 communities in Michigan alone have passed resolutions asking for Congress to act on this important safety issue. The ``Railroad Crossing Delay Reduction Act of 2001'' addresses this important national problem by requiring the Department of Transportation to issue regulations to address these serious safety concerns with respect to trains blocking traffic at railroad grade crossings, and to minimize delays to automobile traffic resulting from these blockages. I urge my Senate colleagues to support this legislation and help address this critical railroad safety issue.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague from Massachusetts who has been such a stalwart in advocating for our children throughout the process as it relates to this education bill. There has been give and take and working together in a bipartisan basis to formulate a bill that will focus on increasing accountability, goals for our children, but also resources. Many of us have been saying over and over again how the resources have to be coupled with the accountability so that every child has the opportunity to learn and we truly leave no child behind. I rise in opposition to this amendment related to private school vouchers and speak on behalf of the people of Michigan who voted in the election last November resoundingly against a similar proposal that was on the ballot in Michigan. There was a lot of thoughtful discussion on both sides. The public resoundingly said no and focused on what I believe to be a very wise course, which is to focus on making sure that every child in every school has the opportunity to learn and that we strengthen our public schools. I have great respect for friends and colleagues who choose to send their children to private schools. We also know that even if 10 percent of the children in our public schools went to private schools through vouchers, we would still be faced with needing 5,000 new schools in the next number of years and doubling the number of schools in the 10 largest school systems in America, at a cost of $40 billion. Those costs don't go away. The needs don't go away. If a few children leave, you still have the majority there who need to have technology in the classroom, who need to have smaller class sizes so they can learn. What we have found is that the voucher system pulls resources away but, in fact, does not improve education for all children. I remember when we were debating a few years ago--maybe 3 years ago-- the D.C. schools. We had, literally, roofs falling in. One fall, as school was getting ready to start, there was a proposal that, as the roof was falling in, we ought to have vouchers for 2,000 children out of 78,000 children in the Washington, DC, schools--that 2,000 ought to be able to have vouchers. There was a big debate about the 2,000 children and not a debate about the 78,000 children who still would be in schools that had broken roofs, schools that would have wastepaper baskets in the corner catching the water. The resources that were being debated to be pulled out for vouchers would not allow fixing of the roofs. It didn't make any sense. In the end, we were fortunate that proposal did not pass at that time. What we know is that over 90 percent of our children attend schools potentially facing budget cuts, potentially facing challenges relating to resources. We also know that we want every school to increase accountability. We want to make sure that if a public school is not working, the school system has the capacity to shut it down, to change personnel, to do the things necessary to increase accountability. I believe strongly that needs to be done within the context of our public schools so that every child has the opportunity for people to be fighting for the best quality possible for them and not just diverting a few children away from that system while the rest are in schools that are not up to standards. This is an incredibly important issue that we need to send a strong message, through a ``no'' vote on the amendment, that we support strengthening our public school system for every child. We have schools now doing wonderful work. We have schools now that are in trouble. We need to make sure that through what we are doing federally, we are recognizing and applauding and saluting our quality public schools and that we are providing the resources and the accountability which our children deserve and our families deserve, to make sure that no matter what door you walk through in what public school, in which neighborhood in the United States of America, you know that your child is going to receive the very best quality education. That is what this fight is all about. I believe this amendment takes us in the wrong direction. I hope colleagues on both sides of the aisle will vote no and we will get back to the business of strengthening our public schools through this important legislation.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I am proud to join my colleague from Michigan, Senator Levin, in introducing the ``Railroad Crossing Delay Reduction Act of 2001.'' Trains needlessly blocking traffic at railroad grade crossings is a longstanding nationwide problem, that puts lives and property at grave risk. When trains unnecessarily block vital intersections, it can cost police, firefighters and emergency medical workers, critical minutes when responding to an emergency situation. They also increase train- automobile accidents, because many motorists dangerously speed through railroad crossing intersections, in an attempt to avoid being delayed for an extended period by an oncoming train. Train blockage also prevents pedestrians, often young children on the way to and from neighborhood schools, from crossing a railroad intersection resulting in pedestrians climbing through trains to reach the other side. Across the country, there are reports that fire trucks, ambulances, and police vehicles have been unnecessarily delayed at train crossings. The loss of a few minutes in an emergency situation can mean the difference between life and death. A fire in a home or business can double in size every 20 seconds, and a person suffering from a heart attack can die after only six minutes without oxygen. In my home State of Michigan, fire and EMS units in Delta Township were blocked by a train for a few extra minutes as a boy burned to death on the other side of the railroad crossing. Last year, a Federal judge in Michigan struck down a State law limiting the amount of time a train can block a crossing on the grounds that it was a Federal issue and involved interstate commerce under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Over 30 communities in Michigan alone have passed resolutions asking for Congress to act on this important safety issue. The ``Railroad Crossing Delay Reduction Act of 2001'' addresses this important national problem by requiring the Department of Transportation to issue regulations to address these serious safety concerns with respect to trains blocking traffic at railroad grade crossings, and to minimize delays to automobile traffic resulting from these blockages. I urge my Senate colleagues to support this legislation and help address this critical railroad safety issue.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Briefly, Mr. President, I will respond to my friend from Arkansas and his charts, comparing our country to other countries. One of my concerns in comparing countries is that we in the United States do not stress that we have very different values regarding universal free education for all children, kindergarten through the 12th grade. We take all. Whatever child walks in the door, whether that child has had breakfast, whether they have had a good night's sleep, whether they even had a bed or home in which to sleep the night before. We take all children. I believe that is a strength of the United States of America. I have had the opportunity to travel around the world and speak with those involved in education in other systems and know if we were to make certain adjustments and only let children over the eighth grade who have met a certain level proceed, or do as done in other countries, that would have a different effect from what we do in the United States.

Ms. STABENOW. If I may reclaim my time, I concur, from watching the study and what has been done, that we, while doing well at the fourth grade level in the TIMSS international studies, by the eighth grade we are losing children. We need to be toughening curriculum and we need to focus on accountability. Many times comparisons that are done are not fair and accurate given the value we have on public education. Two further comments. First, saying resources should not be coupled with accountability and don't make a difference is to ignore what has happened today for our children in schools. It is not about the dollars. It is about lowering the class size. I have a friend in Grand Rapids, MI, who teaches high-risk students and last year had over 30 students; this year, 15. Surprise, the children went from F's and D's to A's and B's. That is because there was more time for the teacher to teach and the children to learn. It is not about money; it is about children learning and teachers being able to teach smaller classes. As an example, that same school has books that have situations that don't exist anymore, countries that don't exist anymore, discussions about NASA from years ago. They need to be updated. I have one final point in support of the amendment of my colleague. I was not here 25 years ago when IDEA passed, when special education was brought forward. However, I do know as someone who has been in a State legislature and has been an active parent with my two children growing up, special education, while setting very important requirements, had, also, the promise that the Federal Government would pay 40 percent of the costs to help the schools so they would not have to take dollars away from other programs, other children, in order to provide these important special education services. What happened? The Federal Government has never hit 15 percent--never hit 15 percent--even though the promise was 40 percent. The reason I believe this amendment is important is we cannot do this again to the schools. The fact we are not keeping our promise on special education costs my Michigan schools $420 million this year--$420 million that is taken from the ability to lower class size, the ability to upgrade our technology and focus on math and science in our schools, to fund critically important special education programs. We should not do this again. This amendment will guarantee that, in fact, we will not just talk about requirements; we will make sure the resources are there so our children can truly succeed.

Ms. STABENOW. Certainly. I ask it come from the opposition time.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak up to 15 minutes in morning business.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise to speak also about the tax cut proposal, about the debate on how to keep the economy going. I rise in great respect for my friend from Utah, who was successful in business, and lays out a prospective about how to keep the economy going. While I share his view that we need to be focused on a skilled workforce and that is critical to keeping our economy moving, he and I represent two different views of how best to do that. That is the debate going on in Washington now. I characterize it as a debate about whether or not the 1980s or the 1990s worked. I argue the bill that will come back--whether tonight, tomorrow, or next week--is a bill based on the notion that the economic policy of the 1980s worked. I argue from the Michigan standpoint, and anyone in Michigan, any families, businesses, farmers I represent, would indicate the 1980s were not a good time for Michigan. We had high unemployment, high interest rates. We saw massive debts both at the State and national level. It is the same kind of approach I fear will be happening today with the policies being laid out. No. 1 in the debate is how to give a tax cut. Is it supply side, as my colleague talked about? The proposal we are being asked to vote on is a very large tax cut, two-thirds to the upper income wage earners, those in the top 10 percent. And then we wait for it to trickle down. My folks in Michigan have been waiting for the tax cut of the 1980s to trickle down and hit their pocketbooks. Many have not seen it. We are being asked now to, once again, place it there. I am supportive and have voted for tax relief and will continue to do that. I prefer to do tax relief that goes directly into the pockets of the majority of Americans. Contrary to this tax cut, I believe we should eliminate the marriage penalty, not in 6 years, as in this bill, but now. Talk about unfair, that is extremely unfair. We are a country that values family and marriage. Yet we have a tax structure that unfairly penalizes those who are married. I support a proposal and did vote for a proposal to give relief now to married couples by eliminating that unfair tax penalty. There is a difference in approach. The approach being put forward says a very large supply-side tax cut will trickle down. Coupled, in the 1980s, with a very large increase in defense spending and not controlling other spending, what happened? We tripled the national debt, interest rates were at the highest level ever, and employment went down. In the 1990s we tried something different. Tough decisions were made. Revenue was put aside to pay down the national debt that had been tripled in the 1980s. We paid it down, slowed the rate of spending. We were able to make sure we were putting aside money for Social Security and Medicare and paying those dollars back instead of spending it on other programs. We were putting those dollars back and paying back Medicare and Social Security trust funds. We have had very tough decisions made to balance the budget. And we did something important in the 1990s. We focused on real investments in education, job training to get that skilled workforce, and in research, health research, technology research, developed the new technologies that when combined with an educated workforce would increase our labor productivity. It is a very different approach. We focused on growing the economy by investing in education, paying down our debt, investing in research and technology development, and balancing the budget. What happened? In the 1990s, high interest rates went down. We have seen home ownership up. In my State of Michigan, more and more young people and older people are able to have their own home, an important part of the American dream. We have seen unemployment, jobs, go up in the 1990s as a result of this approach to the economy. We saw budget deficits go down and the Federal deficit go down. This is a no-brainer. What do we want? The 1980s or 1990s? Yet what comes before us in the year 2001 is a set of proposals that takes us back to what happened in the 1980s. We are seeing a proposal that gives two-thirds of the tax cut to those at the very top, hoping it will trickle down. We know as soon as this bill passes there will be requests for very large increases in defense again, and other increases will come forth. To me, what is most intolerable, is the tax cut proposed spends $550 billion of Medicare and Social Security to pay for it. That is not acceptable. Over the next 10 years, we are seeing a tax cut and budget proposals that spend Medicare and Social Security right before the baby boomers begin retiring in 11 years. There is no time to pay it back. We are going to be facing massive debt if that is the case. I am very concerned about that. Right now we are seeing the financial managers in the country, in the private sector, who are beginning to see it, as well. While short-term interest rates are going down, long-term high interest rates are going up in anticipation of the country going back into massive debt. I urge Members, it is not too late to stop this train, to put some brakes on it. I propose we create, as we did on this floor--we had an amendment we tried twice to pass--a budget trigger which says if the phase-in of the tax cut dips into Social Security and Medicare to pay for it, if we go back into debt, we will suspend that action, further tax cuts or spending, until the revenue comes in. In Michigan, we call that common sense. Don't spend it unless you have it. We believe fiscal responsibility, keeping the budget balanced, paying down the debt, protecting Social Security and Medicare are critical and should not be compromised for any other actions no matter how well intended. We have a train going down the track. My fear is there will be no budget trigger to stop the train before it goes off the track. That is common sense. We are going to be asked at some point to vote on a final budget proposal that spends Medicare and Social Security moneys for the future. When we look at the fundamental unfairness, we see that those who are most dependent on Social Security, most in need of Medicare health benefits, are those who receive little or nothing from the tax cut but their Social Security and Medicare, will help pay for it. It is not fair. It is just simply not fair. We have in front of us a proposal that kept us moving in the same policy track as the 1990s. I urge we still have time to consider that. It is a proposal that gives tax relief but makes sure we condition it upon using none of Social Security and Medicare and that we keep our commitment to fiscal responsibility and paying down our debt while we do it. The proposal I support also would put aside dollars for education to continue our ability to keep labor productivity going in our country. When we asked Chairman Greenspan at the Budget Committee hearing what was the one thing driving this economy, he said it was increased labor productivity. So why in the world would we be creating a situation where education funds are going to have to be cut and research funds and technology development will have to be cut in order to pay for the tax cut in front of us? I believe common sense would dictate we pay down the debt, we protect Medicare and Social Security, we give a major tax cut focused on our middle-income families and small businesses and family farmers, and that we can do that and also be able to continue investments to keep the economy going. This is the approach that worked. It is hard to argue with success. The policies in the 1990s were successful because of the hard work of both the private sector and the public sector to move us out of debt, to balance the budget, and to make investments in education and the economy. I hope we will take a deep breath and reconsider what is about to be done in the next few hours or the next few days. We can do better than that. Also, when we talk about putting money back in people's pockets, there are multiple ways to do that, all which I support, which we need to do and can do while being fiscally responsible. No. 1 is a tax cut. No. 2 is keeping interest rates down so your mortgage is down, as are your car payment and your student loan--those things are low enough for people to be able to afford those items for their families. Finally, for the senior citizen in this country who gets up in the morning and sits at the table and decides, do I eat today or get my medicine, which too many seniors are doing in the greatest country in the world, we can put money in their pockets by lowering the cost of prescription drugs. They will not see much of this tax cut, but they deserve some money in their pocket, too. If we do this right, if we use good old common sense, we can put forward a plan that keeps the economy going, puts money in people's pockets, and supports our families in a way that allows the economy to grow and prosper. We owe no less to our children. We can do better. It is time to take a second look at what we are doing. I yield my time. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in this motion to recommit and to join with Senator Bob Graham, who has been such a leader in protecting Medicare, and my colleague from Minnesota, Senator Dayton, who has been such a champion on Medicare and prescription drugs. This is a very simple, straightforward motion. No. 1, it says we will not use the Medicare Part A trust funds in order to pay for this tax cut. We have seen in the numbers from the final conference committee on the budget that every single year Medicare trust funds are used for this tax cut. This says no to that practice. It puts into place a 60- vote point of order in the future for any other attempts to use the Medicare trust fund. We believe strongly that we need to update Medicare. We need to provide prescription drugs and strengthen Medicare. We ought not to be using it for other purposes. We ask colleagues to join us, to say strongly that when it comes to Medicare, we want to update it, not raid it.

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

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable sections of that act for consideration of the pending motion, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I call up my motion at the desk.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. I ask my colleagues for the opportunity for an up-or- down vote on this very important trigger. I ask we vote no on the Allen amendment and instead support this bipartisan amendment. We thank Senator Snowe for working with us on an amendment that simply says we will not use Medicare and Social Security trust funds for either tax cuts or increased spending. The tax cuts go into place under our amendment, as does the spending, through the normal budget process, but the point at which the revenues are not available, both the next phase of the tax cut and any increased spending above inflation, would be suspended until we had the opportunity to reassess the situation. This is a recommendation given by Chairman Greenspan before our Budget Committee that puts before us the very important value of paying down our national debt first, protecting Social Security and Medicare first.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I commend our Democratic leader from North Dakota, Senator Conrad, for his outstanding advocacy for fairness in this tax bill, for fiscal responsibility, for really coming to the heart of the issue before us, and that is: How do we make sure the bulk of the tax relief in this bill goes to hard-working middle-class families, goes to the people who are working hard every day and need the relief in order to be able to translate that into more opportunities to put money into those items that are important for their families? How do we make this more fair for the majority of Americans? I rise as someone who was a Member of the House of Representatives for 4 years, who supported the elimination of what is called the marriage tax penalty. I was a cosponsor of the Republican bill in the House of Representatives and voted consistently to eliminate this penalty for reasons that have been raised by colleagues on both sides of the aisle. It makes no sense whatsoever for us to tell a married couple that they will somehow be penalized under the Tax Code for being married. That makes no sense. It affects over 25 million couples in this country. At a time when we are saying an important value for our country is to be supporting marriage and family, and to make sure we are giving every opportunity for couples to succeed and families to succeed, it is crazy, in my opinion, and makes no sense whatsoever, to have this provision in place. It should have been done away with a long time ago. My colleague from North Dakota is saying it is time to do it right away. By 2002 we need to fully provide relief for couples. We ought to say it is time to end it. It is past time to end it. We ought not say to them we are going to phase it in over several years, but we are going to place families and couples as a top priority and end this penalty now. I think it is fair to say to the fewer than 3 percent of the taxpayers at the highest levels, we are going to ask you to delay full tax relief for yourself, those who have done extremely well. We want them to do well, but certainly those who are best able to wait awhile for a delay in their full tax relief, we are going to ask them, the fewer than 3 percent: Delay, in order for over 25 million couples in this country to receive the relief that is long overdue. It is an issue of fairness. I believe that when we look at what we are talking about in terms of the number of people who would benefit by this amendment, and those who are asking for a small delay, it is a question of fairness. I also say to my colleague from Texas on the other side of the aisle, who spoke so eloquently, while I share her desire to eliminate the marriage tax penalty, I am very concerned about the tradeoff that she is suggesting we make because another important value for all of us, and for our families, is the ability to educate our children, to be able to send them to college. I am very concerned about trading off the marriage tax penalty and paying for it through a lessening of student loan interest deductions or the education IRA because, again, this is about how do we best support families who are having to make tough choices every day. Let's not penalize them for being married. Let's make sure they have every opportunity under the Tax Code to be able to send their children to college, to job training, to be able to give their children every opportunity to succeed, and to be educated adults. So that tradeoff does not make sense. What does make sense is eliminating the marriage tax penalty now. We can do that this next year. We need to do that now. Families have waited long enough. Couples have waited long enough. It seems reasonable to ask for a small delay for less than 3 percent of the taxpayers in order to allow the majority of couples in this country to be able to get the relief that is long overdue. Mr. President, I yield back any time I have remaining.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from West Virginia. I appreciate his strong and consistent leadership on this critical issue. Thank you for proposing this amendment. I am proud to be a cosponsor and proud to join with our Senator from Florida, Mr. Graham, to talk this evening about what is the most urgent, critical issue facing our seniors and many of our families. I wish we had the same sense of urgency about updating Medicare to cover modern medicine, which is prescription drugs, as we do with the sense of urgency about the underlying tax bill. I support tax cuts. I consistently supported tax cuts. But I know this, when we set the priorities for our country, just like when we set the priorities in our own family, if we need to ask the top 1 percent of the wage earners of this country to be able to wait just a little bit until we can modernize Medicare for our seniors, I think that is a fair request. I think it is fair and reasonable for us to be placing a sense of urgency on the senior citizen who is going to get up tomorrow morning, sit down at the breakfast table and decide, do I eat today or do I get my medicine; the seniors who are going to decide tomorrow whether or not to cut their pills in half so they stretch a little bit longer or whether they are going to take them every other week. I have had doctors approach me, greatly concerned because they have elderly patients who are trying to self-regulate so they can last just a little bit longer with their medications because they know they are not going to be able to afford to buy that prescription. I guess each and every one of us have spoken about this issue and certainly we have had people in our States speaking to us. I only wish we would have the same sense of urgency about this issue as the campaign television commercials of last year. Many of us talked about this, on both sides of the aisle, on both sides of the building. We have talked and talked about this issue. We know we have to address it. We have that opportunity tonight through this amendment. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do just that. This is a question simply of priorities. This does not change the tax cut other than to ask less than 1 percent of the population to defer until we can update prescription drug coverage under Medicare. This does not change the tax cut for any of the taxpayers, but it asks one group of taxpayers if they can wait just a little bit in order for our seniors, who have been waiting so long, to be able to have us address what is their most pressing issue. I commend my colleague again. I cannot think of anything more important, in terms of addressing priorities of our country, than to keep the full promise of Medicare that was made over 35 years ago. We said at that time that we would provide health care for anyone over age 65 or the disabled. If we do not update this system to cover prescription drug coverage, we are not keeping the promise. I encourage my colleagues to support this important amendment, and I will yield any remaining time.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues, Senator Bayh and Senator Snowe, for their leadership on this important issue. We joined together back in the beginning of March with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to come together and lay out the concept that had been presented in the Budget Committee by Chairman Alan Greenspan. Both Senator Snowe and I have the opportunity to serve on that committee, and we heard the chairman talking about the need to, in some way, phase in tax cuts as we continued to pay down the debt. He cautioned us that we should maintain our focus on paying down the debt and fiscal responsibility and, if we did it right, we could do both; we could pay down our debt, we could protect Social Security and Medicare by doing it, and we could provide meaningful tax relief. After listening to him and being a part of that process, I was pleased to join with my colleagues in working to put together an approach that puts into place the guarantees for fiscal responsibility, protecting Social Security and Medicare, and ensuring that we maintain the track we are on economically as a country, which has brought us to this wonderful time of low interest rates, low unemployment, opportunity for our workers, our small businesses, our farmers, and all of our families who have benefited from the last 8 years of prosperity. As Senator Bayh was speaking about not returning to the past, I thought about when I was in Michigan as a State legislator in the time of the 1980s and we went through some extremely difficult times. Michigan is one of those States where if someone sneezes across the country, we get a big cold, because the fact is, we had high unemployment, high interest rates, and deficits at the State as well as the national level. Many tough decisions were made to get us to this point. I was honored in 1997 to be in the U.S. House of Representatives and cast a vote to balance the budget. I know there were those who came before me who had to make very difficult decisions to get us to that point. I believe it is my responsibility and urge all of us to join together in accepting the responsibility of maintaining the fiscal course we are on--fiscal responsibility and guaranteeing that we do not use the Medicare and Social Security trust funds for either spending or tax cuts. This particular proposal will put in place the mechanisms to guarantee that does not happen. The tax cuts proceed, the phase-ins proceed unless we find we are dipping into Medicare and Social Security to pay for them or for spending. We are saying it does not matter what Social Security and Medicare are used for; if it is not for Medicare or Social Security, it is not OK. This trigger puts in place the mechanism to guarantee we continue to pay down our debt, that we are, in fact, keeping the promise of Medicare and Social Security, and that we are providing tax relief in a responsible way. I am very proud to have joined my colleagues. I joined Senators today in voting for tax relief. I have in the past throughout my time of public service, and I intend to do that again, but I also intend to make sure that whatever I am doing in terms of my votes, I keep first and foremost the value of fiscal responsibility at the forefront and that I am keeping the promise of Medicare and Social Security as we do that. If, in fact, we do not take the time to pay down our national debt, about which we have all been talking for so many years, if we do not take this time to eliminate as much of that debt as possible so that our children do not have to bear that burden in the future, then when will we? If we do not do it during this opportunity of fiscal surpluses, when will we? I urge my colleagues to join us. The bipartisan amendment that is before us is one that I hope we will enact.

Ms. STABENOW. I thank the Senator.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from New York on behalf of the families of Michigan for his leadership on this critical issue. This amendment goes to the heart of what is driving the economy and what is good for our families. On the one hand, as a member of the Senate Budget Committee, I had the opportunity in numerous hearings to hear over and over again from Chairman Greenspan and our own Congressional Budget Office that what is driving this economy is increased labor productivity. Increased labor productivity is a combination of new innovations and technology and a skilled workforce that can work in this new economy, a skilled workforce that allows the productivity to increase in our economy. Everyone has told us that to keep the economy going, to keep our jobs, to keep the improvements in the quality of life we have seen in recent years, we have to maintain this increased labor productivity. That means education. That is why this is such an important amendment. I also speak as a parent. I have a son who recently graduated from college, and I am sure I own one of the buildings at that university. I have a daughter in college now. I can speak as a parent, as one who understands the cost we go through --we want our children to have the very best--and the challenges that face parents as we look at making sure our children are able to have the very best higher education. This particular amendment, by allowing up to $12,000 in deductibility of college tuition, is very important to allow families to give their children the American dream that we all have for our children. We know that in today's world you have to go beyond high school to some kind of higher education if you are going to be successful. We also know that we will continue to learn throughout our lives and that part of what we are doing is encouraging young people to learn to love to learn, so that they can continue beyond not only 4 years but possibly at some other point coming back in life. We have older workers who are now coming back and changing careers, developing new skills, and going into new parts of the economy. The question of access to higher education is important to all of our families, and it is particularly important to where we are as a country and how we need to move in terms of the challenges in a new world economy. I hope we will have the opportunity to give every child who is starting kindergarten, every child in preschool, every child going into high school the ability to work hard and make the grades, and that we are going to make sure they have the opportunity to go on to college to be the best they can be. This amendment gives the tools to parents to help make that happen. It is important, it is long overdue, and I urge my colleagues to support the Schumer amendment. I am extremely pleased to be a cosponsor. I yield back my time, Mr. President.