Debbie Stabenow

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, today at a 10 a.m. the U.S. Coast Guard will decommission the Cutter Acacia in a ceremony in Charlevoix, MI. The Acacia's keel was laid in 1942 in Duluth MN, and was commissioned on September 1, 1944. The cutter is named after the original Acacia, a U.S. Lighthouse Service vessel sunk off the coast of British West Indies by a German U-boat on March 17, 1942. The Acacia is the last of the Coast Guard's 180-foot World War II era buoy tenders still in service and has called Charlevoix, MI, home since 1990. The Acacia has served as a buoy tender on the Great Lakes for 62 years and its area of responsibility extends from Chicago at the south end of Lake Michigan to Alpena on Lake Huron. The cutter's primary mission is maintaining aids to navigation but has also performed search and rescue missions, as well as providing icebreaking assistance during the winter. The Acacia, also know as ``The Big A'' or ``Ace of the Great Lakes'' has performed an unheralded but vital mission in the Great Lakes for more than six decades. I commend the Acacia crew both past and present for their tireless service to maintain the Great Lakes navigational aids. Each fall the Acacia and its crew begin a race against the Lakes brutal winter weather when they set out to remove buoys in Lake Michigan and Lake Huron. These buoys can weigh over 18 tons and are covered in ice. Pulling buoys out of the frigid and unpredictable Great Lakes in October, November and December is back breaking work in rough seas and sub zero weather. However, it is crucial to keep these waterways open for commercial shipping as long as possible before the ice closes the shipping lanes and grinds any buoys left behind into scrap metal. Mr. President, the Acacia and her crew have served the Great Lakes faithfully since the 1940s and we will miss her fondly.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I wish to have included in the Record statements of support for S. 2588, the Health Care Access for Small Businesses Act, from all across the state of Michigan. I am proud to have support from organizations as diverse as providers, insurers, and elected officials. The three share model is an innovative community-based concept that has worked across the United States from California to Arkansas, of course, to Michigan. The name, ``three share'' stems from the program's payment structure. Premiums are shared between the employer who pays 30 percent, the employee who pays 30 percent and the community which covers the remaining 40 percent of the cost. I ask unanimous consent that the support letters be printed in the Record.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues who are managing this very important bill and Senators Kennedy and Salazar as well. We are engaged in an important debate right now, but there is another important debate going on around every kitchen table and in every senior citizen center right now, which is what is going to happen today after they can no longer sign up for the Medicare prescription Part D benefit. We know that for about 3 million low-income seniors, they are going to be allowed to continue to sign up until the end of the year without penalty. But for the 3 million to 5 million seniors who are not in that category, they are not allowed to continue to sign up, and there will be a penalty between now and November when they can sign up again. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of a bill which I will send to the desk now which extends the enrollment deadline for Medicare Part D, waives the late enrollment penalty, provides the option for a one-time change of plan during 2006, and provides increased funding for State health insurance counseling and assistance programs.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, before we proceed to the next vote, I want to acknowledge that this is a historic vote for us in Michigan because our senior Senator Carl Levin will be casting his 10,000th vote. We are so proud of him in Michigan. He stands for all that we believe in and serves with dignity and is respected by everyone here. I want to mention he is the 25th Senator in the history of our Senate to cast 10,000 votes. I went back to research his very first vote. I thought this was an example of a historic moment. He cast his first vote on February 22, 1979. It was in favor of a Byrd motion to table a Stevens amendment to S. Res. 61 which was a postcloture rules change resolution. It was very profound, and he has been profound ever since. Congratulations to Senator Levin.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I appreciate the position of the Senator from Pennsylvania, but I ask unanimous consent to pass the bill containing a provision which provides at least a one-time change of plan during 2006.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I then ask, because of the seriousness and sense of urgency, that we have unanimous consent at least to pass the bill containing only the part that waives the late enrollment penalty that starts today.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, if I might just continue, there are three important pieces in this bill. They are certainly not new to us. I appreciate we are in the middle of another important discussion, but we have had an ongoing discussion with seniors all across America who are concerned about this issue. If not this entire bill, I ask unanimous consent to pass a bill that would at least extend the enrollment until the end of the year.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today to acknowledge the brave men and women who lost their lives while serving as law enforcement officers and to thank them for making the ultimate sacrifice. Today is Peace Officers Memorial Day, a day to honor all the law enforcement officers in our communities who have been killed or disabled in the line of duty. I was proud to join Senator Patrick Leahy on S. Res. 472, a Senate resolution, which passed the Senate last week, commemorating this important day. This past Saturday, thousands of people from across the country gathered at the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial here in Washington, DC, for a candlelight vigil to honor these fallen officers. And today, there was a Peace Officers Memorial Service in front of the U.S. Capitol for these brave men and women. I am proud that we had a dedicated group of Michigan officers in attendance, representing their fellow officers from around the State. The names of 466 fallen officers were added to the memorial on Saturday, including 8 officers from Michigan: Lavern Steven Brann, Battle Creek, Michigan; William A. Daniels, Cassopolis, Michigan; Owen David Fisher, Flint, Michigan; Dale Francis Bernock, Dearborn, Michigan; Scot Andrew Beyerstedt, Mattawan, Michigan; Benjamin Lewis Carpenter, Newaygo, Michigan; Michael Allen Scarbrough, Wayne County, Michigan; and Paul Lee Mickel, Wayne County, Michigan. We honor all of these officers today. In Michigan, we also remember two officers who recently lost their lives in the line of duty. Less then a month ago, Reserve Officer Matthew Tuttle and Chief Scott Sumner were killed in a helicopter accident in Scio Township while providing aerial support for officers who were involved in a foot pursuit. Chief Sumner was a 19-year veteran of the Chelsea Police Department, and Officer Tuttle was only 28 years old. Our thoughts and prayers go out to their families and the entire Chelsea Police Department.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Oregon for his incredible leadership on something that makes so much sense, negotiating group prices under Medicare. Why in the world wouldn't we want to get the best price? Taxpayers want us to get the best price. Seniors want us to get the best price. The disabled want us to get the best price. Why in the world wouldn't we want to do everything possible to have a Medicare prescription drug benefit that offers the very best prices so we can offer as much coverage as possible? One of the things we know, the gap in coverage is partly because we are paying so much for the whole plan. We could give people more coverage and spread it out differently if we were, in fact, negotiating group prices. I thank my colleague who has come to the Senate floor on so many occasions. He always makes so much sense. I know the people in Oregon are proud of what he has done. To add to the discussion on Medicare, I am pleased we have Health Week. Even though I will speak at some later time in terms of the concerns I have about the underlying bill, we all chose to vote to proceed to debate on health care because there is nothing more important to the people we represent, whether it is the manufacturers I represent who are having to compete in a global economy and figure how to do that while paying so much of the cost of health care or whether it is small businesses, self-employed people who cannot find coverage at affordable prices, whether it is our seniors or whether it is women and children who need care. We have a serious issue when we spend twice as much on health care in this country than any other country and still have 46 million people with no insurance, 80 percent of them working. This is an important debate. Part of that debate, I believe because of the timing, needs to be to address what is happening with Medicare prescription drug coverage. Unfortunately, we are 6 days away from a Medicare prescription drug deadline. Right now, 6 days from now, folks are going to be penalized if they have not signed up for a Medicare prescription drug plan, even though they are having to wade through a lot of information and misinformation in order to be able to figure out what to do, if anything. I am sure my colleagues have received as many calls as I have received, thousands of calls and letters from people all across Michigan about the trouble they are having related to this Medicare prescription drug program--calls from pharmacists trying to help people figure what to do, spending hours on the phone, being put on hold, unfortunately, receiving inaccurate information too much of the time. We know there are serious issues that have come about because the Government has not gotten its act together, as we should, to be able to present them to people in a way they can understand and make sure it works for seniors and disabled. We know choosing a plan is extremely challenging and confusing. We have an obligation on our end to do something about that, not wait 6 days and penalize people because they have not signed up for a plan that they may not be able to figure out. This is not because people are not bright. In Michigan alone there are at least 79 different plans to choose from. Each plan has a different premium, a different copay, covers different medicines. Under the current law, as I indicated before, anyone who does not go through these 79 plans, or whatever number they have in their State, by next Monday will find themselves paying a lifetime penalty, more for prescription drugs than they would if they signed up before then. A decision about something that is so fundamental to a person's health as their medicine should not be rushed. We should not be scaring seniors into picking a plan that may not work for them because of a penalty they will receive after next Monday. Unfortunately, that is exactly what is happening. Unfortunately, I continue to believe the ``D'' in Medicare Part D stands for disaster. That does not mean some people are not getting helped. We want people to be helped. We want people who have not otherwise had help to be able to receive it. That is a very important point in this process because the administration has been talking about the 29.7 million seniors who are now covered, seniors and disabled who now have drug coverage under Part D. But what they are not saying, of the 29 million, 20 million already had coverage. They were covered under Medicaid, they were covered under private insurance, under a Medicare HMO. We are talking about less than 30 percent of those who have not had any help with their medicine, less than 30 percent, have actually signed up so far. Is it because they do not want help? Of course not. It is because they are having challenges getting through the bureaucracy and trying to figure out what works for them and what does not work for them? I will share a story of a woman who called me yesterday. This exemplifies the thousands of calls and stories I receive in Michigan. A member of my staff spoke with Shirley Campbell from Midland, MI, yesterday, not far from my hometown. Shirley told my staff about the experience she and her sister had enrolling in Part D. First, they had a terrible time getting through to the so-called ``help'' line. By the way, the Government Accountability Office says almost 60 percent of the time folks trying to get through to the 1-800 Medicare number are getting incomplete or inaccurate information. That is stunning. We have to get our act together before we penalize people for not signing up for a program. She kept trying. Shirley kept trying. Once she got through, in response to her question, she was told, ``I can't answer that question because the site is down.'' She did not give up. She called back the next week and she called back the following week. Each time she had the same experience. She could not get an answer to her question because ``the site is down.'' This is the administration's idea of a ``help'' line? It is not much help. Because Shirley could not get the information she needed from the administration, she called several plans and asked them all to send her their information. Imagine how big that mailbox was. Then she and her sister sat down and spent more than 10 hours sifting through all the information they had received. They narrowed it down to six plans and began a thorough analysis. What did they find? From the six plans, all of the plans would cost Shirley more than she is currently paying for the medications necessary for her rheumatoid arthritis. Six plans she narrowed it down to, and all of them would cost her more than what she is currently paying. Shirley currently does not have any coverage. Yet she would end up paying more under any of the six plans she studied. Think of that. We are trying to help people who do not have coverage, and less than 30 percent of the folks who have signed up have been people who did not have help before. Maybe it is because they were like Shirley, when they tried to find someone to help them, they found out they would be paying even more under this privatized scheme that has been set up than they are currently paying. She also told my staff that most of the plans would have cost her twice as much as she is now paying. But she ended up choosing a plan that would cost her more than what she is currently paying, even though she currently does not have any coverage. She says she signed up because she was worried about the looming May 15 enrollment deadline and the prospect of paying a penalty for the rest of her life. What sense does this make? Folks are seeing the clock count, 6 days away, until the May 15 deadline and penalty. And Shirley is so worried about what that means down the road, the cost she would be paying and a lifetime penalty, she signs up for a plan that costs her more than she is currently paying. I don't believe Shirley or any senior should be rushed into a premature decision because of an arbitrarily determined deadline. That is all this is. There is nothing magical about May 15, nothing at all. Shirley worked in middle management all her life. She had the ability to spend hours and hours wading through the plan, the brochures, the paperwork. In the end, she had to make a decision that leaves her worse off than she is today. Shirley wrapped up her experience of choosing a Part D plan by saying, ``I never in a million years would have done anything like this to my staff.'' She then asked my health legislative assistant to deliver the message to me that the Medicare Part D Program needs to be fixed. Amen. I could not agree more with Shirley. This is Health Week. This is the time to fix it. The first thing we need to do to fix it is to give folks more time. I am proud to be joining Senator Bill Nelson on legislation to extend the deadline to the end of the year. If given the opportunity, and I hope we will have the opportunity, we intend to offer that as an amendment, as we proceed with Health Week. People should not be penalized because the Government cannot get its act together. People should not be penalized when almost 60 percent of the time when they call a hotline they cannot get the information they need, it is inaccurate or incomplete. That is not their fault. The whole point of this was to make sure we were helping people who were choosing between food and medicine, people who were choosing between medicine and paying the rent, the electric bill or gas prices right now. If that is not happening, why are we moving full steam ahead with some arbitrary deadline? Six days from now, folks are going to be penalized because the Government has been slow to get its act together, and they will be permanently penalized by paying more. Less than 30 percent of the people who do not currently get help paying for their medicines have actually signed up. That should say something. It should either say, it is not a good deal, and they found out they would be paying more, and they said forget it or it says to us that maybe we need to go back to the drawing board and make sure the right information, in the right way, is given out to people so they can make the best decision for themselves. I am also extremely concerned that in my home State of Michigan only 22 percent of the 256,000 seniors eligible for low-income help, only 22 percent of those whom we said we wanted to help the most by waiving the premium and the copay, only 22 percent have signed up to get that extra help. Unfortunately, our low-income seniors are caught twice because they have to pick a plan. They have to, similar to Shirley, wade through all kinds of plans. Then they have to sign up separately to be able to get low-income help. I am pleased the administration has said they will allow low-income seniors to be able to sign up after May 15. I appreciate that. That is a good start. Unfortunately, the penalty is not waived. Our lowest income seniors, even though they may be able to sign up in June, July, and August--and that is a good thing and I appreciate the administration doing that--I urge them to waive that penalty. It makes no sense if you allow people to sign up for extra help and then take it away through a penalty for signing up late. The final issue is our poorest seniors, our lowest income seniors in Michigan and individuals making less than $14,700 a year, our lowest income seniors or the disabled, in too many instances are actually paying more under this plan than they were before. Why? Because they were on Medicaid before for the low-income health care. In Michigan, that meant paying a $1 copay for a prescription, and that has doubled, tripled or gone higher. This also makes no sense. On top of that, those who were in Medicaid, our lowest income seniors, many in nursing homes, were automatically enrolled sometime in the last few months, into a plan, regardless of whether it covered the medicines. We have said to the lowest income seniors, many of them in nursing homes, you are signed up for a plan, and you have to go figure out whether it even helps you and how you are going to get out of it if it doesn't help you. And, by the way, you are going to pay more. We can do better than this. I believe No. 1 is to stop the 6-day count. No. 1, we have to give folks more time to wade through all of this, to figure out what is going on, and we have to give some more time to the Government to get its act together. The administration is doing a disservice to people by the way this has been handled. Giving more time will allow that to happen. I am also very hopeful we are going to come back and come together and give people the one choice they really want. People do not want 70 plans. They are not saying: Oh, please, give me a whole bunch of insurance papers to wade through. Give me increased premiums. Give me all kinds of deadlines to deal with. What they said was: I need help with my medicine. We are blessed in this country to have more medicine available as a part of the way we allow ourselves to live healthier lives, longer lives, to be able to treat cancers, to be able to treat other chronic illnesses. Medicines are available now. But they are not available if they are not affordable. We can do better. Mr. President, I am hopeful at some point we are going to come back to this floor and give people the choice they want: A real Medicare benefit through Medicare, with a reasonable copay and premium, where you sign up and you can go to your local pharmacy, and Medicare negotiates good prices. That is what we ought to be doing. In the meantime, let's stop the countdown to May 15. Thank you, Mr. President.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. I thank my colleague, Senator Bennett, for his continued work to help Michigan, Ohio, and Indiana battle this invasive pest that has devastated our states. Senator Bennett worked closely with us last year during consideration of the Agriculture Appropriations bill, and I appreciate his commitment to working with us during the fiscal year 2007 appropriations bill.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, today as I stand here, back in Michigan the gas prices have risen to $3.10 a gallon. At $3.10 a gallon, that is the highest price at the pump that folks are paying than ever before as they get up to go to work, take the kids to school, as our farmers are preparing the fields, and as our business people are on the road. Folks are feeling the squeeze--one more squeeze. We already have in Michigan a situation where we are seeing job loss or wages being reduced, health care costs going up, pensions that may not be there for people; things that are squeezing people on all sides--the higher cost of college. Part of that is due to actions taken in the Congress and at the White House. To add insult to injury, we are seeing now over $3 a gallon for gasoline, and I know in other States we have seen as much as $4 for folks who are just trying to make it, just trying to get to work, just trying to take care of their families. When they look at this picture, they see several things. They see the highest possible profits ever recorded in the history of the country by our oil companies, particularly ExxonMobile, which recorded the highest profits ever. They see incredible salaries. They see the former CEO of ExxonMobile making about $110,000 a day, when most Michiganians don't make $110,000 a year. And now we were told about a $400 million retirement package, and we hear when you count everything, it could be $700 million. Unbelievable. People have had enough. People have had enough of a set of policies that are squeezing them on all sides. Then, today, we read that the conference committee is dealing with a series of tax cuts and tax proposals and have decided to delay repealing accounting procedures known as ``last and first out'' that were included in the bill that we passed, including loopholes that we closed for oil companies that would equal about $4.3 billion in tax breaks that we said didn't make sense and we need to close them. Instead, those tax breaks are going to keep rolling on. I know there are going to be hearings in the Finance Committee. But the reality is that when the priorities are set, when the values are reflected about what will be done, the oil companies' tax breaks continue. High prices continue. These outrageous CEO salaries continue. The people in Michigan have said: Enough is enough. On top of that, we see foreign tax credit loopholes that may be continued so that we as taxpayers will subsidize the oil companies doing business in other countries. We see royalty relief that Senator Wyden spoke about last week which comes to the tune of anywhere from $20 billion to $80 billion in tax breaks to the oil companies that they said they didn't even need anymore. Yet this royalty relief and the tax breaks continue. We see the Energy bill that was passed last August and had a lot of positive things in it, that I supported, but in that were $2.6 billion in tax subsidies by American taxpayers for the oil companies, and that continues. In total, we are looking at somewhere between $28 billion and $88 billion in taxpayer dollars being used to subsidize an industry with the highest profits and arguably the highest salaries, or certainly some of the highest salaries in the world. At the same time, folks are trying to make it every day. I believe, and my colleagues on the Democratic side of the aisle believe, that we need to shut down those tax breaks to oil companies and put money directly back into the pockets of taxpayers. We also believe and, in fact, I was proud to lead an effort that resulted in a required investigation by the Federal Trade Commission. I was proud to author that in the Energy bill last August and they are finally doing it and they will have an investigation done and recommendations by May 21. They are doing a law enforcement investigation. I call on the President and all of our colleagues to do everything possible to support the FTC to get the right conclusion. We know price gouging is going on. It is not rocket science. People see what is going on. We don't need to call for an investigation. We already have one going on. Let's make sure they have the tools and the resources and the support to do what is right for the American consumer. Americans are subsidizing one of the wealthiest industries in the country and in the world, with the highest CEO salaries, at the same time they are trying to figure out how to get 2 or 3 gallons in the tank of their car so they can get to work. This is the wrong set of values. These are the wrong priorities for our country. I say, along with many others, enough is enough. We know we have long-term issues to address, and we have worked together in the Energy bill on new support and tax incentives for renewable fuels. We are seeing in Michigan the outgrowth of that: five new ethanol plants by the end of the year, biodiesel plants, and we are seeing wonderful efforts going on with our American auto companies. I am very proud of what General Motors is doing with E-85 ethanol and Ford moving ahead with their hybrids and Daimler Chrysler with biodiesel B-20 and all of the efforts that are moving forward to get us off of foreign oil dependence. And I am hopeful that all of those policies together will result not only in more jobs in my State, because I believe Michigan will be the leader in this area, but more support for our farmers, better policies for our environment, and the opportunity to give big oil the competition they ought to be having, which is by using home- grown fuels. I believe our goal ought to be to make sure the people of this country have the opportunity to buy their fuel from Middle America instead of the Middle East. I am committed to that, as many of my colleagues are, and I believe we need to get about the business of getting that done. In the process, we ought to close some tax loopholes with the oil companies. We ought to go back on this tax bill and get it right and worry more about putting money back in the pockets of the folks who are paying the bill at the gas pump. Folks have said enough is enough, and I agree with them. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, Senator Menendez, for his eloquent statement and for sponsoring this incredibly important amendment. I am proud to be a cosponsor with him and a number of my colleagues. It is incredibly important that we act and that we act now. As Senator Menendez described his amendment, it would add $60 million to address the shortfall in the U.S. contribution to the United Nations for international peacekeeping and to fund a U.N. peacekeeping force in Darfur. The situation in Darfur is alarming, and it is a true emergency. In fact, words can't describe how much of an emergency this is. Approximately 3.5 million men, women, and children in the western Darfur region of the Sudan are in a fight for their lives against the Sudanese Government-sponsored campaign of violence and forced starvation. Since the conflict began in February of 2003, recent estimates are that there are as many as 400,000--400,000--Sudanese people who have died, and more than 2 million who have been displaced. By some estimates, 500 people perish every day in Darfur. Five hundred people perished today, if those estimates are correct, 500 more will die tomorrow, and 500 more will die the next day. If this is not genocide, I don't know what is, and we must act to stop it as soon as possible. The United States has taken the lead in the international community to provide humanitarian aid and to support the African Union peacekeeping mission in Darfur. However, we must do more. Clearly we have not done what we should and we have not done it fast enough if 500 people are dying every day. We must ensure that our contribution to the United Nations Contributions for International Peacekeeping Activities account is paid in full so that we are credible when we support a U.N. peacekeeping mission in Darfur. This amendment helps make that possible. We must also apply pressure to the Sudanese Government so that they take action to stop the killing or face the consequences of their actions. We must not sit idly by any longer as people die from a coordinated government- sponsored campaign of violence and forced starvation. I am also proud to be a cosponsor of the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act which calls for assistance to the African Union peacekeepers and urges the President to press for NATO support of the peacekeeping mission. I am hopeful that the House and Senate will soon--very soon--resolve the differences between the versions of the bill and send it to the President for his signature as soon as possible. Millions of men, women, and children are waiting and praying for us to act and to act now. I am proud to join with Senator Menendez and with colleagues on both sides of the aisle in this critical funding amendment regarding the U.N. peacekeeping mission to put an end to the genocide and bring peace to the people of Darfur. This is an opportunity for all of us together to do something that will address literally the lives of people who have no one else to turn to but those of us who understand what is going on and have the ability to act. So on behalf of the human race, I urge this amendment and other actions be taken as soon as possible. We must act, and we must act now. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Biometrics

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President.

Ms. STABENOW

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

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be in order, notwithstanding the point of order.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, the people of Michigan and the people of the country deserve better than what we are doing right now. There is a sense of urgency. We can make this in order if we want it to be in order. There is no question about it. If we come together and we want to act today, if we want to put in place the opportunity for people to have a $500 rebate before Labor Day to help pay for the high gas prices they are paying right this minute, we can do that. The choice of the majority is not to do that, but we could be doing that if there were agreement. That is very unfortunate because there is a sense of urgency on behalf of every individual, every family right now, trying to figure out what they are going to do, with gas prices that are over $3, $3.20, $3.50--in some parts of the country $4 a gallon. It is the difference between whether people will be able to pay their bills, go to work, do what they have to do for their families. The American people, certainly the people of my great State, deserve better than inaction.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about what is on everybody's mind in my State, and that is what is happening as it relates to gas prices. First, we all know there are multiple ways in which we need to address this issue. I was in an Agriculture hearing this morning on biofuels. It is very exciting to see colleagues on both sides of the aisle talking about what we can do in the way of policy to build on what was in the Energy bill that was passed last August in terms of ethanol and biobased fuels. I know in my home State, we will have five ethanol plants by the end of the year. We already have biobased diesel being used. There are many exciting opportunities to create jobs, to help our farmers create new markets, to address our environmental issues in a sound way that deal with protecting our environment, protecting the Earth and, at the same time, getting us off foreign oil. I believe very strongly, if we work together--and we need to do this boldly and quickly--we can start buying our fuel from Middle America instead of the Middle East. That should be a goal for all of us. I know colleagues on both sides of the aisle share the excitement about moving forward in this way. We have things happening in all of our States. From my perspective, not only corn but sugar beets can be used for ethanol. Soybeans are part of what we grow in our multitude of different crops in Michigan, and there are a lot of opportunities, not just for fuel but for us to replace oil-based plastic with corn- byproduct-based plastic, and to do a number of other things that will move us off foreign oil, which needs to be one of our major goals as a Congress, and certainly working here in the Senate. We have some short-term issues we have to deal with as well. While we move boldly--and I believe we need to move very quickly on the question of real competition--we also have to address what is happening right now without competition. We have an oil industry that has been consolidated down to five major companies. There is no real competition. It is not a regulated utility such as electricity and other basic necessities. Yet it is a necessity. Gasoline is not a luxury, it is a necessity. And the fact is, price increases for this necessity are making it harder and harder for people to be able to afford the product they need to get them to work, to get the kids to school, to be able to till the fields, to be able to do business, or to be able to take that trip up north in beautiful northern Michigan on vacation where tourism is so critical for us. We also know it directly relates to jobs. GM executives have indicated, for example, that for every $1 increase in the cost of a barrel of oil, it costs them $4 million more to operate. So this is a question of jobs. From every angle, this is something that needs our immediate attention while we address where we go long term. Nothing would please me more than to be able to drive my American-made automobile into a service station--and by the way, they use flex fuels and E-85 ethanol and a number of products right now--right now--for our automobiles, and we see GM and Ford and Daimler Chrysler doing wonderfully bold things and advertising alternative fuels, flex fuels right now. But nothing would please me more than to see a pump with E- 85 in it that is giving competition to the other pumps where the prices are going through the roof. It would be one thing if this was just about supply and demand, but it is not. We know there are multiple factors. It is not about an industry hard hit, an oil industry barely being able to make it because of international factors or because of the hurricanes. No, we are talking about an industry that had over $111 billion in combined profits last year. We are talking about ExxonMobile with the highest profits recorded in the history of the country. And to add insult to injury for people, that same company pays their top executive, we understand, the equivalent of $110,000 a day in salary--a day. That is more than the average person in Michigan makes in a year, $110,000 a day. Then, when he announced his retirement, he gets a combined package of $400 million. No wonder people are outraged. No wonder they look at us and say: What are you doing? What is going on here? You have the industry with the highest profits ever paying their executives more than the revenue of some cities in my State. Yet, at the same time, the policies continue to support tax break after tax break subsidized by American taxpayers to continue to increase the profits of the oil companies. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. It is outrageous that the oil companies are bringing in billions of dollars in profits each year, while families are now paying over $40 every time they fill up their gas tank, and certainly it could be $50 or it could be $60. On average in Michigan right now, it is about $42. That is up $4 from last month and $10 from last year, and we know it is going to be going up and up as the summer goes on. We also know that, unfortunately, there appears to be no relief in sight. On average, I am told that Michigan families will be paying at least $500 more in the next year for their gasoline based on what is happening. Five hundred dollars may not sound like a lot to a lot of people. In fact, Exxon CEO Lee Raymond indicated in an interview with CNN that a single quarter or a single year of profits is ``not all that significant,'' and that what is happening evidently in the oil industry is not all that significant. Well, it is significant when it comes to what is happening to people who are working hard every day trying to make it. Five hundred dollars is a house payment. It is the rent. It is a car payment. It is paying for food. It is making sure your kids have the opportunity to go to college, maybe pay for the books that are needed for them to be able to go to college for a year. So it is a lot of money for the average person. I think it is outrageous that somebody who has been earning the equivalent of $110,000 a day would act like what is happening to average families and the profits that are going to the oil companies is somehow insignificant. People in my State don't know if they are going to have a job tomorrow. There are policies, unfortunately, that have caused manufacturers in our country to believe, I am concerned to say, that maybe we don't need to make things anymore in this country, which of course is what has built our middle class. And those folks who have built our middle class and created our way of life and are the consumers who buy goods so that we can be successful in this country are now feeling that they are getting hit on all sides. They may not have a job. Health care is going up. They may not have their pension. The cost of college certainly has gone up, based on things that have been happening here, such as taking away $12 billion as it relates to student loans and other proposals, to have the cost of college go up. Now, to add insult to injury, we have an industry that is more profitable than it has ever been, with the highest recorded profits by ExxonMobile, the highest of any publicly held company ever, and now the American consumer is being told: You are going to pay again. You are going to pay for all of the excesses that are going on right now by making it harder for you to get to work, to take the kids to school, to be able to do your job, and maybe to take a little vacation this summer. It is absolutely outrageous. I want to also make the point that this is not about our gas station owners. I met with some terrific people on Monday who talked to me about how they are helping people literally piece together pennies, helping people who have been longtime customers of theirs, a single mom coming in with kids and the gas station owners trying to help her piece together a few dollars so they can put enough gas in the tank so she can go to work, so she can take care of her kids. I was told by one gas station owner that a gentleman came in with 69 cents trying to figure out how he could get a gallon of gas into his tank. Sixty-nine cents buys a quarter of a gallon. We are now hearing stories about pawn brokers doing great guns right now, their business is going great because people are pawning their watches, their jewelry, their cars, whatever they have, in order to get enough money to be able to drive to work. This is in America. We can do better than this in our country. People expect us to stand up and fight for them, not an industry that is gouging the American consumer and raking in billions of profits in the meantime. I am putting forward an amendment that will address this very thing. People say: What can we do about it right now? We need to look long term. When I began speaking, I said I know we need to look long term. This morning, in the Agriculture Committee, we had a wonderful bipartisan discussion, and there is a lot of excitement about a number of things that we can do together to look long term. We know there are ways for us to move off of foreign oil and to move off of oil period, and we can do that. There is the old saying that the first way to get out of a hole is to stop digging. We need to stop digging. Part of that right now is to stop the continuation of tax breaks that Americans, working hard every day and paying their taxes, are subsidizing for the oil companies which then turn around and are so grateful that they raise their price at the pump. In the conference committee right now there is work being done relating to tax cuts. There is an additional $5 billion in new tax breaks for the oil companies. Some of it relates to how we subsidize their foreign activity. They do business with the Middle East and somehow we are going to give them favorable treatment through our tax policy. It makes absolutely no sense. It is an insult to the American people. That is on top of $2 billion that was put into the Energy bill that was passed last year in subsidies. It is unexplainable and unacceptable at a time when there are so many other areas where we need to provide tax relief, when we need to address middle-income people bumping up against the alternative minimum tax or small businesses that are trying to make it, businesses large and small, when we need to deal with health care costs that need a tax credit--and I am more than happy to support that. But instead of that, we have $5 billion in the conference committee report that subsidizes an industry that is raking in billions and billions of dollars in profits at the expense of the American consumer. I think that is wrong. My amendment would take that $5 billion and instead put it right back in the pockets of the folks paying the bill. We know on average there is going to be about $500 in additional cost for the average family for the next year as a result of these high gas prices. My amendment will give an immediate $500 rebate to every individual or family, just as we did with the $300 rebate. It is the very same process that was done then, where people were given the $300 rebate when the tax cut was done. We can use that very same mechanism. It is very simple and straightforward. In fact, we can do this if we act quickly, before Labor Day, to help people pay their bills. My amendment would give $500 back to each family or each individual filer so that they are able to help pay the price of this outrageously high-price gas. That is a short-term fix while we get our act together on what needs to be happening to create more competition and more alternatives, which I believe we can do, working together in the Senate. But I believe it is an outrageous situation when we are continuing to add $5 billion in tax breaks to an industry that is causing so much pain for American families. My amendment is based on a bill of mine called the Oil Company Accountability Act. In total, it would repeal both the $5 billion in committee plus the $2.6 billion that was passed in the Energy bill, for a total of $7.6 billion in tax breaks for oil companies, and provide an immediate $500 tax rebate to families to offset their energy costs. I send the amendment to the desk.

Ms. STABENOW. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about gas prices and the energy situation in our country. First, to agree with my distinguished colleague from Utah, in fact there are long-term issues we have to address. There is no question about that. Alternative fuels, the efforts to put forward very aggressive alternatives such as ethanol, soy-based biodiesel, and other alternatives that create real competition, are critical, but there are short-term actions we can take right now that will help the families who are being squeezed on all sides by outrageous prices, along with outrageously high profits of the oil companies. Today our leader on the floor, our Republican leader, said there ought to be an investigation going on, and the President said today we ought to have an investigation going on as to possible price gouging. I come to the floor today, as the author of the amendment that successfully passed in the Energy bill last August, to say that we have an investigation going on. The Federal Trade Commission was authorized and charged with doing an investigation, which they are doing as a criminal investigation, into possible price gouging. I was pleased to be joined by Senator Dorgan and Senator Boxer and others in that effort. Since that time, because they began to move extremely slowly last year, I was pleased to coauthor an increase of $1 million in the budget in order to fund that investigation. We passed that last fall. There have been bipartisan letters that have gone to the Chairman of the FTC saying let's get going. That occurred last fall, last September. Now we are seeing from the Federal Trade Commission that they intend to have this report done, this investigation done by May 21. It is about time. First I would say: Mr. President, it is your FTC. You appoint the majority of the members on the Federal Trade Commission. You should know that this is going on. I encourage the President to be engaged with what his Federal Trade Commission is doing at this very moment. Hopefully, we are going to get the right kind of investigation with tough recommendations that will tell it like it is. This is already occurring. Right now the investigation, as I said, is structured as a law enforcement case. They are working with the CFTC, with the States Attorneys General right now. I encourage everyone interested in this issue to give their input to the Federal Trade Commission that is already doing an investigation. In fact, one of the things they found doing this investigation, as they sent out 200 investigation demands which are roughly the same as subpoenas, ExxonMobil, back in January-February, filed a petition to quash the FTC subpoena for tax information. Fortunately, the Commission denied the appeal and ExxonMobil had to subsequently comply. But now they are looking at manipulation and gouging, whether or not that is happening. They are confident, they say, that they found enough information for a solid determination in their final report, which is expected on May 21. I say, first to my Republican colleagues, to the leadership, to the President, this investigation is already going on. I am glad you now think there ought to be an investigation. But we would appreciate it if you would be involved in making sure what the FTC does is tough and smart and tells it like it is in terms of what is really going on. Gasoline is not a luxury for the families of Michigan or the families anywhere across the country. It is a necessity. Families are caught in a bind because, on the one hand, this is not a regulated utility like electricity, and there is not enough competition with basically five different companies. We all know there is not enough competition because of the consolidations that have gone on. So what happens? American consumers are stuck in the middle, squeezed on all sides. Now in Michigan it costs about $42 to fill up a tank. That is $4 more than last month; $150 more than last year. We are told by the Energy Information Administration there is going to be an average 25-cent increase this summer. We already know that numbers are topping $3, in some cases around the country $4 a gallon. What this means on average to Michigan families is about $500 more in the cost of gas for this year--about $500. For the average family that is a mortgage payment. That is the rent. That is a car payment. It is paying for food. It is the difference between helping your kids buy books when they need to go to college. This is a big deal. Yet we see comments coming from the head of ExxonMobil, Mr. Raymond, who dismissed the concerns between Exxon's record profits and out-of-control gas prices when he said on CNN that a single quarter or single year's profits is not all that significant. Mr. Raymond, it may not be significant to you. It is significant to the people in Michigan. Five hundred dollars more is significant. It is a big deal. We also know that according to our businesses--for instance, General Motors executives say that every time there is a $1 increase in the price of a barrel of oil it adds $4 million to GM's logistical costs. So this is an issue of jobs. Petroleum costs equate with what is happening on jobs. So this is a big deal. It is also a big deal for the oil companies. As we all know, we have all been seeing the numbers, the total combined profit for the big five oil companies last year was $111 billion. For 2005, ExxonMobil reported the highest profits ever recorded in U.S. corporate history. What adds insult to injury is when we look at the things like the CEO compensation. He is being paid a total compensation package of $69.7 million. That is about $110,000 a day, by the way. Most people in Michigan don't make $110,000 a year, and we have the head of the largest oil company making $110,000 a day, with a $400 million retirement package. Then we are to expect that this is just the global marketplace happening, that there is nothing we can do? I don't accept that. In the short run we can do one thing and that is go back to the drawing board on a bill that is in conference committee right now on tax cuts. That has over $5 billion in new tax cuts, tax breaks for oil companies, some of it based on their businesses overseas. We can say no. This industry does not need taxpayers to subsidize $5 billion-plus, plus another $2 billion in the Energy bill that passed last year. We are looking at $7 billion in increased tax breaks that American taxpayers are subsidizing while we are paying the higher prices? No. I have introduced a bill called the Oil Company Accountability Act that says no to more tax breaks for oil companies and puts that money back into a $500 rebate per taxpayer in this country to pay the cost of higher gas prices for the coming year. The average taxpayer is going to pay $500 more. I think that is a better use of those dollars than putting it into more tax breaks for an industry that is already the most profitable, with the most outrageous salaries, and that continues to price gasoline at a level that is out of control. I am hopeful my colleagues will be offering this in various capacities. It would be terrific to get this passed right away because families could have their checks in the mailbox before Labor Day to help them pay the outrageously high gas increases that we are seeing: $500 tax rebate checks for families, no to the oil companies on more tax breaks, and that at least gets us on the right track while other long-term efforts needed take place. Mr. President, I yield.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues, Senator Levin an Senator DeWine, in offering the Great Lakes Collaboration Implementation Act of 2006. I am a cosponsor of this bipartisan bill, introduced on behalf of the Great Lakes Senators by the co-chairs of our Great Lakes Task Force. Our bill is also cosponsored by Senator Clinton, Senator Voinovich, and Senator Schumer. The health and sustainability of the Great Lakes are something I feel passionately about. There is no more important issue to Michigan and our region of the country than the Great Lakes. I want to take just a moment to recognize someone else who is equally passionate about Great Lakes protection and restoration. No single person has devoted more time, energy, and personal resources to the Great Lakes than Peter Wege of Grand Rapids, Michigan. Peter Wege has been a leader and visionary for Great Lakes restoration for decades. Through the Wege Foundation, which he founded in 1967, he has made generous gifts to the people of Grand Rapids and communities all over Western Michigan for community development. I believe that part of the reason we are standing here today with a comprehensive bill to restore the Lakes is due to the work of Peter Wege. In 2005, a gift from the Wege Foundation created the Healing Our Waters Coalition, a coalition of grassroots groups dedicated to securing a sustainable restoration plan and Federal and State funding to carry it out. The Healing Our Waters Coalition and Peter Wege have been instrumental in bringing Great Lakes restoration to the forefront of national policy. For the people of Michigan the Great Lakes are more than just one- fifth of the world's fresh water and a unique ecosystem--they are part of our identity. The Lakes are where we spend summers with our families, where we boat and swim, and where we fish and hunt. The Lakes also sustain our State and local economies by providing a major route for intrastate and international commerce. The health and future of Michigan is directly linked to the health and future of the Great Lakes. We in Michigan are blessed with a beautiful State full of lakes, rivers, forests, and streams. We have more public access to waterways than all of the other 49 States combined. We are surrounded by four of the five Great Lakes and more than 40,000 interior lakes, streams, and trails. This rich abundance of natural resources has made the outdoors a critical part of Michigan's economy and our way-of-life. The Great Lakes are key in this. Consider that the total revenue from Michigan's fishing, hunting and wildlife watching is nearly $5 billion every year. Fishing brings $2 billion annually to our State economy. Michigan has the most registered boaters of any State, nearly one million, and recreational boating brings $2 billion annually to the state. It's easy to see what restoring the Great Lakes is so important to us. There are currently between 140 and 200 separate Great Lakes environmental programs administered by 10 Federal agencies. Each of these is important and has helped us significantly improve the health of the Great Lakes over the past 35 years. That said true restoration will take local, regional, and national coordination on projects that address all of the critical challenges facing the health of the Great Lakes. In May 2004, President Bush signed a Presidential Executive Order creating the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration, also called the GLRC. The group is composed of Federal agencies, Great Lakes governors and mayors, local communities, Native American Tribes, and other stakeholders from the Great Lakes Basin. In December of last year the GLRC released a report outlining comprehensive and collaborative restoration of the Great Lakes ecosystem--the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration Strategy. The report calls for $20 billion in Federal, State, and local funding to clean up toxic hot-spots, restore wetlands, prevent the introduction of new invasive species, and modernizing water treatment systems. The GLRC Strategy has been endorsed through the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration Resolution by Great Lakes mayors, governors, tribes, the Congressional delegation, and the Interagency Task Force. The bill that I am introducing today with my colleagues takes the next critical step and turns the strategy document into an on-the- ground reality. Our commitment is strong. We have the will and the way, all we need now is the support of Congress to ensure the future of the Great Lakes--a magnificent natural resource that has been entrusted to our care.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues, Senator Levin an Senator DeWine, in offering the Great Lakes Collaboration Implementation Act of 2006. I am a cosponsor of this bipartisan bill, introduced on behalf of the Great Lakes Senators by the co-chairs of our Great Lakes Task Force. Our bill is also cosponsored by Senator Clinton, Senator Voinovich, and Senator Schumer. The health and sustainability of the Great Lakes are something I feel passionately about. There is no more important issue to Michigan and our region of the country than the Great Lakes. I want to take just a moment to recognize someone else who is equally passionate about Great Lakes protection and restoration. No single person has devoted more time, energy, and personal resources to the Great Lakes than Peter Wege of Grand Rapids, Michigan. Peter Wege has been a leader and visionary for Great Lakes restoration for decades. Through the Wege Foundation, which he founded in 1967, he has made generous gifts to the people of Grand Rapids and communities all over Western Michigan for community development. I believe that part of the reason we are standing here today with a comprehensive bill to restore the Lakes is due to the work of Peter Wege. In 2005, a gift from the Wege Foundation created the Healing Our Waters Coalition, a coalition of grassroots groups dedicated to securing a sustainable restoration plan and Federal and State funding to carry it out. The Healing Our Waters Coalition and Peter Wege have been instrumental in bringing Great Lakes restoration to the forefront of national policy. For the people of Michigan the Great Lakes are more than just one- fifth of the world's fresh water and a unique ecosystem--they are part of our identity. The Lakes are where we spend summers with our families, where we boat and swim, and where we fish and hunt. The Lakes also sustain our State and local economies by providing a major route for intrastate and international commerce. The health and future of Michigan is directly linked to the health and future of the Great Lakes. We in Michigan are blessed with a beautiful State full of lakes, rivers, forests, and streams. We have more public access to waterways than all of the other 49 States combined. We are surrounded by four of the five Great Lakes and more than 40,000 interior lakes, streams, and trails. This rich abundance of natural resources has made the outdoors a critical part of Michigan's economy and our way-of-life. The Great Lakes are key in this. Consider that the total revenue from Michigan's fishing, hunting and wildlife watching is nearly $5 billion every year. Fishing brings $2 billion annually to our State economy. Michigan has the most registered boaters of any State, nearly one million, and recreational boating brings $2 billion annually to the state. It's easy to see what restoring the Great Lakes is so important to us. There are currently between 140 and 200 separate Great Lakes environmental programs administered by 10 Federal agencies. Each of these is important and has helped us significantly improve the health of the Great Lakes over the past 35 years. That said true restoration will take local, regional, and national coordination on projects that address all of the critical challenges facing the health of the Great Lakes. In May 2004, President Bush signed a Presidential Executive Order creating the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration, also called the GLRC. The group is composed of Federal agencies, Great Lakes governors and mayors, local communities, Native American Tribes, and other stakeholders from the Great Lakes Basin. In December of last year the GLRC released a report outlining comprehensive and collaborative restoration of the Great Lakes ecosystem--the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration Strategy. The report calls for $20 billion in Federal, State, and local funding to clean up toxic hot-spots, restore wetlands, prevent the introduction of new invasive species, and modernizing water treatment systems. The GLRC Strategy has been endorsed through the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration Resolution by Great Lakes mayors, governors, tribes, the Congressional delegation, and the Interagency Task Force. The bill that I am introducing today with my colleagues takes the next critical step and turns the strategy document into an on-the- ground reality. Our commitment is strong. We have the will and the way, all we need now is the support of Congress to ensure the future of the Great Lakes--a magnificent natural resource that has been entrusted to our care.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague from Idaho, Senator Craig, in introducing the Specialty Crops Competition Act of 2006. I want to thank Senator Craig for his continued leadership on specialty crop issues. We have worked together for a number of years on legislation to promote American fruit and vegetable production and consumption of high quality, nutritious American-grown produce and this legislation is the next step in that process. Michigan is a State that makes things and grows thing. We are famous for our automobiles, and we are also known for our cherries, apples, blueberries, and asparagus. I am proud to represent a State that is rich in diverse agricultural production. In fact, Michigan is second only to California in the variety of crops that we grow. Furthermore, agriculture is one of the lynchpins of Michigan's economy. Our farms contribute $37 billion annually to the State economy and provide more than half a million good jobs. Our specialty crops alone generate nearly $1.3 billion every year. For far too long, specialty crops have been ignored by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Specialty crops account for 51 percent of total national farm receipts but they do not receive the same subsidies or USDA consideration as program crops. I want to clarify that the Craig-Stabenow bill is in no way designed to take funding away from program crops, but rather to bring specialty crops up to the status of program crops. All of our farmers work hard and take a gamble every year to produce and receive a return on their crops. They gamble against heat, drought, frost, storms, pests, crop diseases, and most recently a flood of foreign produce to our markets. The Specialty Crops Competition Act of 2006 would give specialty crop farmers valuable tools to keep them competitive and productive in a global marketplace. Our bill creates a specialty crop block grant to State departments of agriculture at a level of $200 million annually in grants for fiscal years 2007-2009. The grants will support production-related research, commodity production, nutrition, food safety and inspection and other competitiveness enhancing programs. Each State will receive a minimum of $3 million each year, and a cap of $15 million annually per State is set to ensure funds for a competitive grant program, for which grower associations and others can apply. Our bill also fixes a longstanding misinterpretation of the Tree Assistance Program by ensuring that farmers who have lost trees and vines due to disasters or disease are eligible for assistance of up to $75,000 per year and not $75,000 maximum over the life of the farm bill. Our bill also increases Federal purchases of fruits and vegetables for use on nutrition programs, such as the Commodity Food Supplemental Assistance Program. I have been a longtime supporter of nutrition programs because they are a win for farmers and a win for the most vulnerable of our citizens--children, seniors, and the poor. Specialty crop farmers benefit by having a market to which to sell their fruits and vegetables. And children, seniors, and those with low incomes receive healthy and balanced meals. One of the key provisions of the Craig-Stabenow bill is the correction of USDA's chronic misinterpretation of section 10603 of the 2002 farm bill. This section instructs USDA to purchase at least $200 million of fruits and vegetables annually over and above the purchases they currently make. Unfortunately, USDA is not complying with this provision. Instead of adding the $200 million on top of baseline spending for school lunch and senior programs, USDA has eliminated the baseline spending so there is no guarantee of any new spending on fruits and vegetables for our children. In fact, in 2002 USDA did not even meet the minimum purchase requirement; only $181 million in fresh fruits and vegetables were purchased. The Specialty Crop Competitiveness Act will correct this discrepancy and provide our Nation's children with much needed fruits and vegetables. In addition, the Specialty Crops Competition Act improves growers' access to foreign markets by requiring the Animal Plant Health Inspection Service, APHIS, to create a division to handle industry petitions on sanitary and phytosanitary barriers to specialty crop exports, increase technical assistance funding for specialty crops, and study the effects of recent trade agreements and propose a strategy for specialty crop producers to more effectively benefit from international trade opportunities. I am pleased to offer the Specialty Crops Competition Act of 2006 with Senator Craig. This is just one more step in ensuring the future of specialty crop production in the United States. As the Senate begins work on reauthorization of the farm bill, Senator Craig and I will continue to work with specialty crop farmers and growers' associations to improve and expand this legislation. Supporting American specialty crop growers and providing nutritious fruits and vegetables to American people is vital to ensuring our own health and the health of our economy. I hope that my colleagues will join me and support the Specialty Crops Competition Act of 2006.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague from Idaho, Senator Craig, in introducing the Specialty Crops Competition Act of 2006. I want to thank Senator Craig for his continued leadership on specialty crop issues. We have worked together for a number of years on legislation to promote American fruit and vegetable production and consumption of high quality, nutritious American-grown produce and this legislation is the next step in that process. Michigan is a State that makes things and grows thing. We are famous for our automobiles, and we are also known for our cherries, apples, blueberries, and asparagus. I am proud to represent a State that is rich in diverse agricultural production. In fact, Michigan is second only to California in the variety of crops that we grow. Furthermore, agriculture is one of the lynchpins of Michigan's economy. Our farms contribute $37 billion annually to the State economy and provide more than half a million good jobs. Our specialty crops alone generate nearly $1.3 billion every year. For far too long, specialty crops have been ignored by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Specialty crops account for 51 percent of total national farm receipts but they do not receive the same subsidies or USDA consideration as program crops. I want to clarify that the Craig-Stabenow bill is in no way designed to take funding away from program crops, but rather to bring specialty crops up to the status of program crops. All of our farmers work hard and take a gamble every year to produce and receive a return on their crops. They gamble against heat, drought, frost, storms, pests, crop diseases, and most recently a flood of foreign produce to our markets. The Specialty Crops Competition Act of 2006 would give specialty crop farmers valuable tools to keep them competitive and productive in a global marketplace. Our bill creates a specialty crop block grant to State departments of agriculture at a level of $200 million annually in grants for fiscal years 2007-2009. The grants will support production-related research, commodity production, nutrition, food safety and inspection and other competitiveness enhancing programs. Each State will receive a minimum of $3 million each year, and a cap of $15 million annually per State is set to ensure funds for a competitive grant program, for which grower associations and others can apply. Our bill also fixes a longstanding misinterpretation of the Tree Assistance Program by ensuring that farmers who have lost trees and vines due to disasters or disease are eligible for assistance of up to $75,000 per year and not $75,000 maximum over the life of the farm bill. Our bill also increases Federal purchases of fruits and vegetables for use on nutrition programs, such as the Commodity Food Supplemental Assistance Program. I have been a longtime supporter of nutrition programs because they are a win for farmers and a win for the most vulnerable of our citizens--children, seniors, and the poor. Specialty crop farmers benefit by having a market to which to sell their fruits and vegetables. And children, seniors, and those with low incomes receive healthy and balanced meals. One of the key provisions of the Craig-Stabenow bill is the correction of USDA's chronic misinterpretation of section 10603 of the 2002 farm bill. This section instructs USDA to purchase at least $200 million of fruits and vegetables annually over and above the purchases they currently make. Unfortunately, USDA is not complying with this provision. Instead of adding the $200 million on top of baseline spending for school lunch and senior programs, USDA has eliminated the baseline spending so there is no guarantee of any new spending on fruits and vegetables for our children. In fact, in 2002 USDA did not even meet the minimum purchase requirement; only $181 million in fresh fruits and vegetables were purchased. The Specialty Crop Competitiveness Act will correct this discrepancy and provide our Nation's children with much needed fruits and vegetables. In addition, the Specialty Crops Competition Act improves growers' access to foreign markets by requiring the Animal Plant Health Inspection Service, APHIS, to create a division to handle industry petitions on sanitary and phytosanitary barriers to specialty crop exports, increase technical assistance funding for specialty crops, and study the effects of recent trade agreements and propose a strategy for specialty crop producers to more effectively benefit from international trade opportunities. I am pleased to offer the Specialty Crops Competition Act of 2006 with Senator Craig. This is just one more step in ensuring the future of specialty crop production in the United States. As the Senate begins work on reauthorization of the farm bill, Senator Craig and I will continue to work with specialty crop farmers and growers' associations to improve and expand this legislation. Supporting American specialty crop growers and providing nutritious fruits and vegetables to American people is vital to ensuring our own health and the health of our economy. I hope that my colleagues will join me and support the Specialty Crops Competition Act of 2006.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, today is a day of great celebration for Jill Carroll, and her friends and family. The Christian Science Monitor reporter and Ann Arbor native was set free today in Baghdad nearly 3 months after being kidnapped in an ambush that killed her translator. The U.S. Embassy is now working hard to reunite Jill with her family as soon as possible. In Michigan, we all anxiously watched and prayed for the release of this young woman, and I want to express my gratitude to everyone who worked hard for her release. I want to thank the Arab-American and Muslim-American leaders in Michigan and across the country for their hard work. The Islamic Shura Council of Michigan which represents more than two dozen mosques and Islamic organizations in Southeast Michigan held a press conference publicly calling for her release. The Council on American-Islamic Relations sent a delegation to Baghdad to lobby for her release. The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, The Arab American News and the Congress of Arab American Organizations also issued public statements calling for Jill Carroll's release. These groups spoke out not just because of Jill Carroll's ties to Michigan or because this was a humanitarian issue, but because kidnapping and killing are an affront to the principles and values of Islam and Arab-American culture. I want to wish Jill Carroll and her family the very best. She is safe, she is free, and very soon she will be home with her family.