Debbie Stabenow

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask further unanimous consent that Senators Levin, Corzine, Akaka, Dodd, and Lautenberg be added as cosponsors.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I thank the ranking member for his support of this partnership and my colleague for joining me in this colloquy. department of energy--state energy conservation program

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, the senior Senator from Michigan and I would like to engage in a colloquy with the distinguished ranking member of the Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee regarding the partnership between Western Michigan University and Altair on the development of nanosensors for chemical and radiological warfare agents. Senator Reid, is it your understanding that $1 million of the funding provided to Altair Nanosensor in this bill will be utilized for the continued partnership between Altair Nanosensor and Western Michigan University for the development of nanosensors for chemical and radiological warfare agents?

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will help celebrate Michigan's lighthouses and maritime heritage. The Great Lakes are an inseparable part of Michigan's identity and cultural history. One of our symbols of that identity are the over 120 lighthouses that define our shorelines--more lighthouses than any other state in the nation. These beautiful beacons not only serve their purpose as a navigational tool for ships, but they also draw thousands of tourists to Michigan's shores. Our lakeshore communities host visitors from across the country, who travel to view the magnificence of our coastal areas and the lighthouses that illuminate them. Our maritime museums detail the Great Lakes' rich history and unique character. As the economy in Michigan faces numerous challenges, these small communities are more dependant than ever on tourism dollars. We must help them by ensuring that there are coordinated efforts to protect Michigan's lighthouses and promote the Great Lakes' maritime culture. If we don't, we risk losing these symbols of our history and our future for all time. The Michigan Maritime Heritage and Lighthouse Trail Act would help develop Federal, State and local partnerships by requiring the National Park Service to work with the State of Michigan and local communities to study and make recommendations to Congress on the best ways to promote and protect Michigan's lighthouses and maritime resources. These recommendations would include specific legislative proposals for the preservation of lighthouses and maritime history. For example, they may call for the creation of a statewide trail highlighting the historical features of our shorelines and lighthouses. The recommendations would also include the identification of funding sources for Michigan communities, which are critical to this effort. This bill has strong bipartisan support from all of Michigan's members of Congress. I urge my colleagues to join us in expediting passage of the Michigan Maritime Heritage and Lighthouse Trail Act. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I thank my friend and eloquent leader on this issue, the Senator from North Dakota. Mr. President, I rise today, also, to share my great concern about this agreement and to oppose what I view as an unfair trade agreement. We can do much better than this. This country has been in an economic slump since 2001, and since then we have lost more than 2.7 million manufacturing jobs. Certainly, in my State, it has never been more clear as we see the headlines every day regarding job loss, jobs going to Mexico, China, and India--every day, headline after headline. At the same time, we have grown record budget deficits and a record trade deficit. Workers are losing their health care and higher education is becoming even more expensive. What is the response? Well, the administration decides to push through a CAFTA trade agreement that will dig the job holes even deeper. This makes absolutely no sense to me. This agreement will cost us jobs. It will increase our trade deficit. It will hurt our country's middle class, the backbone of our economy, our way of life. What makes us different from other countries is that rather than just having a few very wealthy people and a lot of poor people, we have a vibrant middle class, people who work hard, save, put their kids through college, and they know they can count on having--up until this point--a pension when they retire or they receive health care through their jobs. All of that is at risk right now for the people in Michigan and others around the country. This fight that we are having, this debate, is critically important. I think there is not a more critical debate to have on whether we are going to continue to support American businesses and American jobs and the American middle class. That is really what is at stake. We should pass legislation that will be creating jobs. We should be passing legislation that will lower the trade deficit and will create more access to health care, lowering the cost of care and for college. There is a lot we should be doing. Unfortunately, I have concluded that this trade pact really moves us backward. It will lead us to more offshoring of American jobs. It would be better titled ``NAFTA part II.'' However, so that I am not misunderstood, I do support trade. Obviously, the debate about trade or not to trade is not the right debate anymore. You could not put a wall up around this country if you wanted to. The Internet reaches anywhere. The question is, Are we going to be smart so that we can compete up rather than down, compete in a way that increases the middle class in other countries that will buy our products rather than losing our middle class and exporting our jobs? What is at stake here is really fundamental. I have supported trade agreements in the past. In fact, I voted in favor of six trade agreements in the last 4 years. I will give you an example of one of them. I supported the United States-Australia trade agreement because our economies are similar. Our workers get paid roughly the same amount of money. Our companies can sell their products in Australia because it has a high minimum wage, sound environmental laws, and good labor standards. We can sell and trade back and forth. Unfortunately, the CAFTA agreement does exactly the opposite. This packet will ship jobs overseas and provide fewer export markets for American companies, and it is because in these countries the minimum wage is very low. In Guatemala, the minimum wage is 25 cents an hour. I don't want our workers having to compete with 25 cents an hour. You cannot live on that. Mr. President, how can we expect to export to a market and compete with an economy where workers make 25 cents an hour, and there are no basic environmental laws and labor standards? I want to compete with a country where you can drink their water, where they can live on their wage, where we are competing up, not down. I believe we should try to support agreements that actually lift up workers in other countries as well as our own, as I said, so they can purchase our products. That is not what this does. Tragically, the countries involved in the CAFTA agreement are poor countries. For example, the median GDP in Nicaragua is only $2,300 a year. And 40 percent of all workers covered under the agreement survive on less than $2 per day. It would make sense if we were putting in place an agreement that would raise those wages so they can buy our products. But I fear, from what I have seen in the past, that will not be the case. The entire purchasing power of all six of the CAFTA countries combined is less than the purchasing power of half of the city of Detroit. We are not competing on an equal playing field in this CAFTA agreement. I ask, how many Nicaraguans are going to be able to buy a $20,000 automobile made in Michigan? We want them to buy cars made in Michigan, by the way, Mr. President. We all know those who don't understand history are forced to repeat it. I am afraid that is what is happening. When we look at NAFTA, after Congress passed NAFTA, hundreds of thousands of American jobs were lost to Mexico. It is still happening. Last year, Electrolux, a plant in Greenville, MI, that makes refrigerators, announced they were going to move to Mexico, with 2,700 good-paying jobs gone. Why? So they can pay $1.50 an hour in Mexico, with no health benefits. This is having a devastating effect on a small town community in the middle of Michigan. That is not the only story. There are hundreds of those. Right now, if we use NAFTA as a comparison, we see that over the past 11 years U.S. workers have lost nearly a million jobs due to the growing trade deficits with our NAFTA partners. During the same time period, real wages in Mexico went down. Now, it would be different if it were true that wages went up, as we often hear, because that would make sense economically. But instead, in Mexico, wages have fallen, while the number of people living in poverty in Mexico has actually grown. It makes no sense to follow that line out again with another trade agreement. Since NAFTA took effect in 1994, the U.S. trade deficit with Canada and Mexico has ballooned to 12 times its pre-NAFTA size, reaching $111 billion in 2004. I believe we can expect more of the same from CAFTA, unfortunately. We can do better than this for American farmers, we can do better for American businesses, we can do better for American workers, and for American families. I hope we will reject this proposal and send them back to the drawing board. There are other models, other prototypes that have gotten it right. There are other agreements we have voted for on this floor that do a better job of creating and protecting our middle class and our jobs and businesses in America than this agreement. We can do better than this. We need to do better than this. I urge my colleagues to reject this agreement. We are once again rushing into a trade agreement that doesn't help, and in fact, has the potential to hurt American workers and their families. This country has been in an economic slump since 2001. Since that time, we have lost more than 2.7 million manufacturing jobs. At the same time, we have grown record budget deficits and record trade deficits. Workers are losing their health care and higher education is becoming ever more expensive. And, in Michigan we suffer from the nation's highest state unemployment rate. What is this administration's response? It has decided to push the CAFTA trade treaty that will dig the jobs hole even deeper. And, the administration has stripped out a trade adjustment assistance provision that would have helped workers displaced by CAFTA. This trade pact moves this Nation backwards. It will lead to more offshoring of American jobs. It will cost us jobs, increase our trade deficit and hurt our country's middle class. It will turn the haves into the have-mores and the have-nots into have-nothings. We should be negotiating trade agreements that involve exporting products, not jobs and we should pass legislation that will help create jobs, lower our trade deficit, and help working families get access to health care and college. However, so that I am not misunderstood I support free trade on a level playing field. I have voted in favor of six free-trade agreements over the past 4 years. For example, I voted for the U.S. Australia Free Trade Agreement because when we trade with Australia we trade on a level playing field. That agreement works because our economies are similar and our workers get paid roughly the same wage. Our companies can sell their products in Australia because it has a high minimum wage, sound environmental laws and good labor standards. Unfortunately, the CAFTA agreement goes in exactly the opposite direction. This agreement will ship jobs overseas and provide few export markets for American companies. My State of Michigan certainly will not benefit because this agreement does not provide a meaningful export market for Michigan manufacturers. That is because in order to have an export market you need to be selling to people who can afford your goods. But the typical wage in the CAFTA countries is very low. Tragically, these countries are poor. For example, the median GDP in Nicaragua is only $2,300 per year. And 40 percent of all workers covered under this agreement survive on less than $2 per day. The entire purchasing power of all six of the CAFTA countries combined is half that of the city of Detroit alone. In Guatemala, the minimum wage is approximately 25 cents an hour. How can we expect to export to a market where workers make 25 cents an hour and lack basic environmental laws and labor standards? We should try to lift up the impoverished workers in these countries so they can purchase American made products. But this agreement will not do that. As we all know, those who do not understand history are forced to repeat it. Let's take a look at what has happened in recent history. After Congress passed NAFTA, hundreds of thousands of American jobs were lost to Mexico. And it is still happening. Just last year, Electrolux closed a plant in Greenville, MI, and put 2,700 high paid workers on the street. Despite the fact that the company was making a profit and its workers were productive, the management closed the plant in Greenville and will soon open a new one in Mexico. If we use NAFTA as a comparison we see that over the past 11 years U.S. workers have lost nearly 1 million jobs due to growing trade deficits with our NAFTA partners. During the same time, real wages in Mexico have fallen while the number of people living in poverty there has grown, according to the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Since NAFTA took effect in 1994, the U.S. trade deficit with Canada and Mexico has ballooned to 12 times its pre-NAFTA size, reaching $111 billion in 2004. Imports from our NAFTA partners outpaced exports to them by more than $100 billion, displacing workers in industries as diverse as autos, aircraft, apparel and consumer electronics. I believe we can expect more of the same under CAFTA. American farmers have also felt the impacts of NAFTA. We quickly discovered that this trade deal was no deal because it accelerated the agricultural products trade deficit. Consider that in the three years before NAFTA our trade surplus with Mexico and Canada increased by $203 million. After NAFTA, our surplus fell by $1.5 billion. The result is that some American crops, like tomatoes, have been pushed to the brink of extinction. Also, in 1994, Congress passed the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade more commonly known as GATT. After we signed that agreement, we began to lose jobs to India, Indonesia and other East Asian countries. Now, workers in India are doing thousands of jobs that Americans used to do. They now staff call centers, provide technical support for our computer networks, and even process our tax forms and read our medical x-rays. To make matters worse, we passed so called most favored trade status for China in 1998. And since then, hundreds of thousands of Americans jobs are now done in China. Mr. President, you would think that after what has happened after previous trade agreements that we would know better than to pass another free trade agreement with countries that don't share our wage structure, labor standards, or environmental standards. Before we pass another free-trade agreement, why don't we first enforce our existing trade agreements. Currently, two of our major trading partners, China and Japan, are violating world trade rules by manipulating their currencies, which has the effect of making their products cheaper here and our products more expensive over there. Additionally, China refuses to seriously combat the rampant counterfeiting of auto parts. This hurts Michigan companies and costs American workers their jobs. This is unacceptable. That is why I, along with Senators Graham and Bayh, have introduced a bill that would create a trade prosecutor. This ambassador-level position within the office of the U.S. Trade Representative would be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, with the authority to ensure compliance with trade agreements to protect our manufacturers against unfair trade practices. In practical terms, this prosecutor will have the authority to investigate and recommend prosecuting cases before the World Trade Organization and under trade agreements to which the United States is a party. Senator Grassley has assured me that this approach would be seriously debated while we continue to move forward on trade reauthorization and I look forward to working with him on this important piece of legislation. In addition to enforcing our current trade laws, we should pass other legislation that would help protect our jobs. First, we should close loopholes in the tax code that actually reward companies for shipping jobs overseas. Senator Dorgan has introduced such legislation to do so. Why aren't we passing that in the Senate? Second, why don't we help our companies deal with the runaway cost of health care so they can be more competitive overseas and keep our jobs here? Third, why aren't we more aggressively moving comprehensive pension reform to help our workers and companies through this very difficult economic time? Fourth, while we are building infrastructure over in Iraq, why can't we do the same here at home? Our roads, bridges, transit systems, and sewer systems are in dire need of repair. Why aren't we setting aside the resources now to repair them? Doing so would create hundreds of thousands of new jobs. Finally, why aren't we doing more to invest in new science and technology so our companies can better compete in the future? With very little federal funding, we are on the verge of producing a commercially viable hydrogen car and being the leader in the world on stem cell research. So, Mr. President, I ask my colleagues, why aren't we using our time to pass job producing legislation? How can we ask our workers to compete against economies that don't allow for collective bargaining, that don't maintain reasonable environmental standards, and don't maintain workplace safety requirements on par with the U.S.? It is not fair to their workers and it is certainly not fair to our workers. Why don't we work with these countries to help lift up their workers? Let's work with them to raise wages, provide health care, protect their environment and then we can enter into a free-trade agreement. This agreement represents a race to the bottom. A race to the bottom makes the world a poorer place--not a richer one. There are many things we can do to increase our trade with the world in a commonsense way. CAFTA is not one of them.

Ms. STABENOW

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

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I appreciate having the opportunity to speak for 5 minutes prior to the vote. I know we have two important votes that will be coming up shortly. But I did want to take this opportunity to indicate that I am very proud to be cosponsoring the Murray amendment concerning the important resources that are needed for veterans health care today. The midyear budget review of the Department of Veterans Affairs confirmed what many of us have known for some time; that the VA is facing at least a $1-billion shortfall in meeting critical health care needs for the current budget, the 2005 budget. As a result, the VA officials say they are forced to take $600 million away from funds to improve VA hospitals and other infrastructure and to borrow $400 million from funds already committed to provide health care during the next fiscal year. The end result is that the quality of health care for our veterans will suffer. Essential services and programs are now at risk. This is not acceptable. We need to act today to do something about it. We are creating more veterans, as brave men and women come home from Iraq and Afghanistan and around the world. Over 360,000 veterans have already returned from Iraq and Afghanistan, and over 86,000 have sought health care from the VA. The VA's patient growth for this year rose by 5.2 percent, an increase of over 3 percent from their original projections. We have men and women coming home every day, changing one hat for another. They come home with the assumption that we will keep our promise to make sure health care is there for them. We know there are an additional 740,000 military personnel also serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. This next generation of veterans will also be eligible for VA health care, putting further demands on the system. Continued funding shortfalls and rising costs have already resulted in unprecedented waiting times for veterans seeking care. In my State of Michigan, I talk with veterans who have to wait 6 months to see a doctor. This is simply not acceptable. The VA's enrolled patient population has increased 134 percent. Funding for the VA has only increased 44 percent. It really isn't about funding. We know this involves dollars. The real issue is whether we are going to keep our promise to our veterans who have kept their promise to each of us in fighting for our freedoms. The President's budget fails to keep this promise. I was proud, as a member of the Budget Committee, to be involved in efforts to turn that around. In the budget process this year, we did offer an amendment that would have increased the dollars for veterans health care. That was not successful at the time. Now is the time that we can make this right. I also mention that in the President's budget this year, instead of adding the dollars needed for our brave men and women who are coming home and putting on the veterans cap, we saw a proposal to double veterans prescription drug copays from $7 to $15 per prescription and an increase of $250 in an enrollment fee for more than 2 million of our veterans. I was pleased as a member of the Budget Committee to lead the effort that took that out of the budget that came before the Senate. Unfortunately, we are seeing proposed cuts with the budget proposed by the President, deep cuts in our VA nursing homes and private homes, State VA nursing homes. We are seeing continued efforts to roll back dollars rather than increase them. I hope what we will do long term is move our veterans health care funding over to be mandatory funding rather than having to go through the budget process every year. We know that our veterans put their lives on the line for us without question. They are not asking will those funds we promised really be there for them. They assume we will keep our promise. Every year, we are debating whether veterans health care is fully funded. Now is the time to make this a mandatory promise that we keep based on the needs of our veterans, not a debate about the budget. We need an emergency supplemental to address this crisis. I am proud to be a cosponsor with Senator Murray. I commend her for the amendment. We also need to take a hard look at this year's budget priorities and ask why we are not putting our veterans at the top of the list. I urge support for the Murray amendment. Then we must get about the business of making sure that we are getting it right for our veterans every year, that we are fully funding their needs, the promises we have made to each veteran who is serving us today, served us yesterday, and will serve us tomorrow. I urge adoption of the Murray amendment and yield the floor.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I want to thank the bill managers, Senator Bingaman and Senator Domenici, for accepting my amendment calling for an investigation by the Federal Trade Commission into gasoline price manipulation and anticompetitive practices by oil companies and refineries. I also want to thank Senator Dorgan and Senator Boxer for their hard work on this issue. We are living in a time when the average American family has no assurance from week to week that they will be able to afford to fill their vehicle with gas. Over the past year, gasoline prices have increased by 23 percent. And since December the average price for oil has climbed 40 cents per gallon. To make matters even worse, prices fluctuate wildly from week to week and month to month, making it impossible for families to budget for the cost of gasoline. In fact, I heard from a constituent in Lansing on Monday that gasoline was $2.10 a gallon at 7:30 in the morning and by 9:30 it had jumped over 12 percent to $2.35 a gallon. Gas prices in the Upper Peninsula range from $2.19 to $2.24 a gallon. People in Detroit are paying the highest prices in the State at $2.40 a gallon. Furthermore, the Energy Information Administration estimates that pump prices for the summer will average about $2.17 per gallon, which is 26 cents per gallon above the price from last year. So what does this mean for the average American family? Using the AAA Trip Calculator I discovered that a family driving their Ford station wagon from Grand Rapids, MI to Washington, DC, would spend $89.82 on gas. These high prices may mean the difference between a family trip to visit grandparents and extended family and staying home. So you see we are talking about real impacts to working families. At the same time that our families are struggling to find room for the cost of gasoline in their household budgets and canceling their summer vacations, oil companies are chalking up record-breaking profits for the first quarter of this year. Families are worried about whether or not they can afford the gas to get to work, while oil companies are raking in billions of dollars. I think my colleagues must agree with me that there is something seriously wrong when American families are struggling to make ends meet and the world's top five petroleum companies are reporting more than $230 billion in profits since 2001. Furthermore, when we consider that the cost of crude oil makes up less than 50 percent of the total cost of gasoline, there can be no doubt that oil companies and refineries are making their profits off the backs of hardworking Americans. In a recent CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll, 78 percent of people surveyed said that gasoline prices are not fair. I agree with them. There are two ways we can start to lower gasoline prices. One way is to release oil from our National Strategic Petroleum Reserves, which will lower prices by increasing supply while sending a clear signal to OPEC that we are not going to sit back and take whatever they decide to deal. The second is to make sure that no anticompetitive practices are taking place among the big oil companies and oil refineries here in our own country. My amendment gets to this second point. I have called for an investigation by the Federal Trade Commission into gasoline price manipulation. We need to make sure that American families are not being unfairly taken advantage of by oil companies and refineries. Should the FTC's investigation find that illegal practices are taking place, they have a couple of options. First, the FTC can pursue a civil action and fine companies breaking the law. Or, if they find evidence of criminal behavior, the FTC can then notify the Department of Justice, which would then pursue criminal action. We have seen the devastating effects that market manipulation can have when energy companies withheld power from California's power grid in 2000 and 2001 in order to drive up the price of electricity. The result was 38 days of blackouts, rolling brownouts, service interruptions, and ultimately over $11 billion from the California State Treasury. A later report by the California Public Utilities Commission stated that the vast majority of the power failures could have been prevented. We need to make sure the same kind of intentional market manipulation and preventable economic losses do not happen to American consumers when they buy gasoline.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will designate the Federal building located at 333 Mt. Elliott Street in Detroit, MI, as the ``Rosa Parks Federal Building.'' I want to thank Senator Levin for joining me on this bill. On December 1, 1955, Mrs. Parks left work in her hometown of Montgomery, AL and boarded a bus headed for home. When the bus became crowded, she was ordered by the bus driver to give up her seat to a white male passenger. She refused. Mrs. Parks was arrested, and 4 days later the Montgomery Bus Boycott began. The Boycott lasted for over a year until the Montgomery buses were officially desegregated in December of 1956. Rosa Parks is simply one courageous woman who did what she believed was fair and right. She is a testament to the power of one individual willing to fight for her beliefs. Her actions set the Civil Rights Movement in motion and set a precedent for protest without violence. I would like to thank Rosa Parks for her contribution to freedom and justice for all men and women in this country. Her actions changed the course of history. Rosa Parks moved to Detroit in 1957. In 1977, she and Elaine Easton Steel founded the Rosa and Raymond Parks Institute for Self-Development in Detroit to offer guidance to young African Americans. She still calls Detroit home and has lived there for nearly 50 years. Nicknamed the ``Mother of Civil Rights,'' Parks was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1996--the highest civilian award this Nation can bestow. Naming the building that currently houses the Federal Homeland Security office in Detroit is but one more way for our Nation to recognize and thank Mrs. Parks for her contribution to our country. It is an honor she richly deserves, and one I urge my colleagues to support. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will designate the Federal building located at 333 Mt. Elliott Street in Detroit, MI, as the ``Rosa Parks Federal Building.'' I want to thank Senator Levin for joining me on this bill. On December 1, 1955, Mrs. Parks left work in her hometown of Montgomery, AL and boarded a bus headed for home. When the bus became crowded, she was ordered by the bus driver to give up her seat to a white male passenger. She refused. Mrs. Parks was arrested, and 4 days later the Montgomery Bus Boycott began. The Boycott lasted for over a year until the Montgomery buses were officially desegregated in December of 1956. Rosa Parks is simply one courageous woman who did what she believed was fair and right. She is a testament to the power of one individual willing to fight for her beliefs. Her actions set the Civil Rights Movement in motion and set a precedent for protest without violence. I would like to thank Rosa Parks for her contribution to freedom and justice for all men and women in this country. Her actions changed the course of history. Rosa Parks moved to Detroit in 1957. In 1977, she and Elaine Easton Steel founded the Rosa and Raymond Parks Institute for Self-Development in Detroit to offer guidance to young African Americans. She still calls Detroit home and has lived there for nearly 50 years. Nicknamed the ``Mother of Civil Rights,'' Parks was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1996--the highest civilian award this Nation can bestow. Naming the building that currently houses the Federal Homeland Security office in Detroit is but one more way for our Nation to recognize and thank Mrs. Parks for her contribution to our country. It is an honor she richly deserves, and one I urge my colleagues to support. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, this year marks the 150th anniversary of one of our Nation's most visionary engineering feats-- the construction of the world famous Soo Locks at Sault Ste. Marie, MI. The Soo Locks shaped the course of our Nation's history and have become a key part of Michigan's cultural heritage. There will be a grand celebration on Engineers Day, June 24, to kick off a summer of special events in commemoration of this significant anniversary. The St. Mary's River is the connection between Lake Superior and the other Great Lakes. The challenge with this natural link is the 21-foot drop in elevation between Lake Superior and the lower lakes which creates the St. Mary's Rapids. Early traders were forced to unload their cargo, haul it around the rapids by land, and then reload it into other boats. And if it wasn't for the vision of three men, Alpheus Felch, Pierre Barbeau, and James P. Pendill, we might still be using the same shipping methods today. The story of the Soo Locks really begins in 1850 when two Senators from Michigan, Lewis Cass and Alpheus Felch, realized the need for a large-scale lock system at the Soo in order to transport iron ore from Michigan Hills to the mills in Pennsylvania and Ohio. As a former governor of Michigan, Senator Felch took charge of the project. He met with Mayor Pierre Barbeau and the two convinced the people of the Soo to vote to build the locks. Now that they had the public's support, they needed the materials for construction. The lumber for this ambitious project was provided by James Pendill, who owned the land that would be later gifted to the American public as Hiawatha National Forest. Construction began in 1853 and a system of two 350-foot locks was designated. The State locks opened in 1855. It soon became clear that the State lock and canal were of national importance for commerce. In 1881, the locks were transferred to the United States Army Corps of Engineers. The Corps operates and maintains the locks to this day. The lock system gives safe passage to a variety of ships and creates the major artery for shipping and trade in the Great Lakes. I hope that my colleagues will join me in honoring and celebrating the Sesquicentennial of the Soo Locks and the vision of the people of Michigan.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I was going to ask a question relating to stem cell research. I had a wonderful group of young people from Michigan in my office as well. I commend the Senator from Louisiana for bringing up this issue. We have families here talking literally about saving lives and about hope for their children. I am hopeful, as I am sure the Senator from Louisiana is, that we will, by July, have the opportunity to bring before this body the very important issue of stem cell research and have a vote by this body. I thank my colleague from Louisiana.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, will my colleague yield for a question?

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I rise today to congratualte the University of Michigan softball team on winning the National Collegiate Athletic Association championship on June 8, 2005. Coach Carol Hutchins's team completed a remarkable season last Wednesday on national television when Michigan took a 4-1 lead after freshman first baseman Samantha Findlay hit a three run homer in the 10th inning. The 2005 University of Michigan softball team had a remarkable and historic season. They were recognized mid-season as the top ranked collegiate softball team in America. They went on to win both the Big Ten regular season championship and Big Ten Tournament title and then advanced to their eighth Women's College World Series to defeat the two-time defending champion UCLA Bruins in the three-game series finals. I am very proud of the women on this University of Michigan team which finished with a school record of 65 wins and 7 losses. Several of Michigan's players received honors during the season for their spectacular play and at the end of the year for their consistent excellence during the season. In fact, the Women's College World Series Most Outstanding Player honors went to Samantha Findlay, the first freshman position player to be so recognized. In addition, three Michigan players were nominated for the USA Softball Collegiate Player of the Year, two of which are finalists for the award. The 2005 University of Michigan softball team was also very exciting to watch because they hit a home run in 57 of 65 games during the 2005 season. They are just one of three schools in NCAA history to hit 100 home runs in a season. Michigan's fans recognized this and came out in support of their team all year, setting a single-season home attendance record and bringing in the top five crowds in program history. Most importantly may be the honor given to six University of Michigan softball players that were named to the spring 2005 Academic All-Big Ten Conference team. I am a strong supporter of women's athletics and believe that through their participation and accomplishments the women of University of Michigan's 2005 national championship softball team, and all the other women involved in collegiate athletics, provide powerful and very positive message to girls and young women in our country.

Mrs. STABENOW

Mrs. STABENOW. Mr. President, I am very pleased to introduce the ``Health Information Technology Act of 2005'' with my friend and colleague from Maine, Senator Snowe. This legislation will reduce costs for our businesses, improve systems for our providers, and improve quality of care for patients. We know we need to reduce health care costs in this country. In 2004, United States national health expenditures, known as NHEs, amounted to $1.8 trillion, or about $6,300 per person, accounting for 15.8% of our GDP. This is almost twice the average among European Union countries. And costs are expected to continue to skyrocket. The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, estimates that by 2013, NHEs in the United States will reach $3.4 trillion and account for 18.8 percent of our GDP. It is without question that the increasing cost of employer-based health insurance hurts the global competitiveness of U.S. companies. General Motors now spends more than $1,500 per vehicle on health care costs, while their non-U.S. based competitors spend as much as $1,000 less. Our large companies certainly aren't alone in struggling to meet the health care needs of their employees--the average member of the Small Business Association of Michigan, SBAM spends nearly $8,000 per employee per year on health insurance premiums. SBAM explains very clearly one of the reasons for these high costs: ``the way in which health care information is communicated is expensive, inefficient, and many times simply does not happen.'' The members of the Health Information Technology Leadership Panel, convened pursuant to the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology's Framework for Strategic Action, recently agreed that ``increasing health care costs pose a great and growing challenge to their industries and the broader U.S. economy..''. But it's not just the level of health care spending--at the same time that we are spending twice as much as many other countries, 45 million of our citizens lack health insurance, and a recent national study by RAND suggests that U.S. adults receive only 55 percent of recommended care. The answer is not to cut payments or to ask patients to take less care, but to ensure the right information is where it needs to be at the time it needs to be there so that providers can give the best possible treatment and care. That will both reduce costs and improve quality of care. However, most of our Nation's health care providers don't have access to information technology and services because it's hard enough just to keep up with their daily costs, much less to invest in something new. And, there's another reason providers haven't been quick to adopt these systems. The nature of our health care system means that in large part the value of these technologies--through the lower costs they will achieve--accrue to the payers of health care, rather than to the providers. The costs of necessary information not being available are great. Too often, care is duplicated like an x-ray given twice, because an emergency room doctor didn't have the results of an earlier x-ray, or the best and most appropriate care isn't given. Our health care professionals can't possibly provide the best care if they don't have complete and accurate information about the patient sitting in front of them. Multiple studies have found that as much as $300 billion is spent each year on health care that does not improve patient outcomes on treatment that is unnecessary, inappropriate, inefficient, or ineffective. A March 2001 Institute of Medicine, IOM, study concluded that in order to improve quality, there must be a national commitment to building an information infrastructure. An October 2003 Government Accountability Office report found that the benefits of an electronic healthcare information system included improved quality of care, reduced costs associated with medication errors, more accurate and complete medical documentation, more accurate capture of codes and charges, and improved communication among providers enabling them to respond more quickly to patients' needs. By providing the most appropriate care at the most appropriate time, we can reap huge savings. A January 2005 Report by the Center for Information Technology Leadership, CITL, found that moving to standardized health information exchange and interoperability would save nearly $80 billion annually in the United States. The benefits of adoption and use of health care information technologies, systems and services will be widespread: employers will realize cost savings, clinicians will gain new electronic support tools and patient information to help guide medical decisions, and patients will benefit from a more efficient health care system and from a safer health care system with fewer unnecessary treatments and more attention to preventive care. And, taxpayers and our federal programs will benefit. Researchers have suggested that up to 30 percent of annual Medicare health care spending could be saved by eliminating unnecessary and duplicative procedures, and improving quality by eliminating errors. The benefits of health information technologies and services become most compelling on an individual level. I met an extraordinary woman just a month ago. Renae Wallace, a small business owner in Kingsley, MI told me about her son Randall. Randall is just about to turn 8, but because he was born with complex heart and lung defects, he has seen the inside of a surgery room more times than most people see in a lifetime. Renae takes her son to providers in Traverse City, Grand Rapids, and Ann Arbor. But because there is no way for these providers to talk to each other, she has to carry around a file two inches thick of medical records--X-rays, MRI scans, surgical notes--on Randall. Otherwise, the health care professionals who are taking care of Randall wouldn't have the benefit of the results of the treatment that Randall has gotten previously. Because they wouldn't have all the information they need, Randall might not get the most appropriate care. Renae has made sure that all of the providers taking care of her son have as much of the information as possible--but it would make a lot more sense if the doctors and hospitals and nurses were able to have that information without Renae having to carry it around. We need to ensure that our health care professionals have all of the relevant clinical information available to them in whatever setting a patient needs care, at the time the patient needs the care so that they can provide the best and most appropriate treatment possible. We know that adoption of health information technology can play a critical role in improving patient outcomes and at the same time greatly reduce costs. But it can't happen without the federal government playing a role. The members of the Health Information Technology Leadership Panel concurred that without Federal leadership, neither their individual companies nor the industrial sector as a whole can achieve the breadth of HIT adoption that would be required to realize the needed transformation of health care. The bill that Senator Snowe and I are introducing recognizes that both Federal leadership and Federal investment are necessary and appropriate. The focus of the investment provided by the ``Health Information Technology Act of 2005'' is on improving health care for patients with heart disease, cancer, stroke, diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma, and other diseases and conditions by driving transformation of systems in physician offices and other health care settings. Our bill includes a number of funding incentive approaches intended to improve health care through adoption of information technology. First, we create a 5-year, $4 billion competitive grant program for hospitals, physicians, skilled nursing facilities, community health centers and community mental health centers to offset investments in new technologies and information services. Importantly, the grant program is funded by a mandatory appropriation from the Medicare trust funds. This is critical to ensuring that funds will actually be available for the grant program. It also makes sense as the trust funds will see savings through lower outlays due to less duplicative and unnecessary care. The grant program would authorize funding for the: purchase, lease, and installment of computer software and hardware and related services; upgrade of existing computer technology; purchase communications capabilities necessary for clinical data access, storage, and exchange; services associated with acquiring, implementing, operating, or optimizing the use of new or existing computer software and hardware and clinical health care informatics systems; provision of education and training for staff on information systems and technology designed to improve patient safety; and purchase, lease, subscription, integration service of clinical decision support tools that provide ongoing continuous quality improvement functions. Second, we allow accelerated depreciation of qualified health care information system expenditures in 2005-2010. Third, we adjust Medicare payments to providers who use HIT that improves the quality and accuracy of clinical decision-making. We begin by addressing payments for treatment of Medicare beneficiaries with heart disease, cancer, stroke, diabetes, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease because we know these conditions consume a large portion of our Medicare resources. We know that the Medicare program will reap the benefit of providers using health information networks. The Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology said on March 2 of this year that the annual savings attributable to widespread electronic health record adoption are likely to lie between 7.5 percent-30 percent of annual health care spending. It only makes sense to establish new payment codes to account for the costs of purchasing and using health information technology and services with patient-specific applications. Our legislation also will make it much easier for physicians and other health care professionals to treat patients by reducing the communication barriers that currently exist. The ``Health Information Technology Act'' provides that the Secretary shall adopt data standards for interoperability between providers and links funding to the adoption of those standards. We know that electronic health care information systems can reap huge benefits. The GAO found these systems improve quality of care, reduce costs and improve communication among providers. But we also know that we can't expect our health care providers to make this investment alone as they struggle to meet their daily needs. Our country must have a national commitment to building an information infrastructure, and the Federal Government needs to step up to the plate and provide much-needed funds to get the ball rolling. We could only have dreamed about clinical computerized information systems when the Medicare and Medicaid programs began. Today, we have them at our disposal. The sooner we get them into our hospitals, physician offices, nursing homes, community health centers and community mental health centers, the sooner our patients, providers, and pocketbooks will see the rewards. I am very pleased to announce the support of the following organizations: American College of Physicians, Federation of American Hospitals, National Council for Community Behavioral Healthcare, the National Association of Children's Hospitals, American Heart Association, National Rural Health Association, National Business Coalition on Health, American Academy of Family Physicians, National Association of Community Health Centers, American Health Care Association, IBM, Health Vision, Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society, eHealth Initiative, AdvaMed, American Health Information Management Association, Verizon, Altarum, Michigan Health and Hospital Association, Automation Alley, Small Business Association of Michigan, Detroit Chamber, Michigan State Medical Society, Detroit Medical Center, Marquette General Health System, Oakwood Healthcare System, Henry Ford Health System, MPRO, Michigan's Medicare Quality Improvement Organization; Microsoft Corporation, Axolotl Corp, Delmarva Foundation, Dell Inc, DiagnosisOne, Greenway Medical Technologies, HealthInsight, Healthgate, Inland Northwest Health Services, Kyrptiq, Lumetra, Medical Review of North Carolina, Misys Healthcare Systems, National Alliance for Primary Care Informatics, Partners Healthcare System, Siemens Corporation, Philips Medical Systems, WebMD Corporation, and the Virgin Islands Medical Institute. I am also very pleased to have the support of the AFL-CIO, Trinity Health, NextGen, The Society of Thoracic Surgeons, American Association of Homes and Services for the Aging, St. John Health, Michigan Primary Care Association, the American Health Quality Association, and Comtek and look forward to receiving their forthcoming letters. I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the bill and additional material printed in the Record.

Mrs. STABENOW

Mrs. STABENOW. Mr. President, I am very pleased to introduce the ``Health Information Technology Act of 2005'' with my friend and colleague from Maine, Senator Snowe. This legislation will reduce costs for our businesses, improve systems for our providers, and improve quality of care for patients. We know we need to reduce health care costs in this country. In 2004, United States national health expenditures, known as NHEs, amounted to $1.8 trillion, or about $6,300 per person, accounting for 15.8% of our GDP. This is almost twice the average among European Union countries. And costs are expected to continue to skyrocket. The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, estimates that by 2013, NHEs in the United States will reach $3.4 trillion and account for 18.8 percent of our GDP. It is without question that the increasing cost of employer-based health insurance hurts the global competitiveness of U.S. companies. General Motors now spends more than $1,500 per vehicle on health care costs, while their non-U.S. based competitors spend as much as $1,000 less. Our large companies certainly aren't alone in struggling to meet the health care needs of their employees--the average member of the Small Business Association of Michigan, SBAM spends nearly $8,000 per employee per year on health insurance premiums. SBAM explains very clearly one of the reasons for these high costs: ``the way in which health care information is communicated is expensive, inefficient, and many times simply does not happen.'' The members of the Health Information Technology Leadership Panel, convened pursuant to the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology's Framework for Strategic Action, recently agreed that ``increasing health care costs pose a great and growing challenge to their industries and the broader U.S. economy..''. But it's not just the level of health care spending--at the same time that we are spending twice as much as many other countries, 45 million of our citizens lack health insurance, and a recent national study by RAND suggests that U.S. adults receive only 55 percent of recommended care. The answer is not to cut payments or to ask patients to take less care, but to ensure the right information is where it needs to be at the time it needs to be there so that providers can give the best possible treatment and care. That will both reduce costs and improve quality of care. However, most of our Nation's health care providers don't have access to information technology and services because it's hard enough just to keep up with their daily costs, much less to invest in something new. And, there's another reason providers haven't been quick to adopt these systems. The nature of our health care system means that in large part the value of these technologies--through the lower costs they will achieve--accrue to the payers of health care, rather than to the providers. The costs of necessary information not being available are great. Too often, care is duplicated like an x-ray given twice, because an emergency room doctor didn't have the results of an earlier x-ray, or the best and most appropriate care isn't given. Our health care professionals can't possibly provide the best care if they don't have complete and accurate information about the patient sitting in front of them. Multiple studies have found that as much as $300 billion is spent each year on health care that does not improve patient outcomes on treatment that is unnecessary, inappropriate, inefficient, or ineffective. A March 2001 Institute of Medicine, IOM, study concluded that in order to improve quality, there must be a national commitment to building an information infrastructure. An October 2003 Government Accountability Office report found that the benefits of an electronic healthcare information system included improved quality of care, reduced costs associated with medication errors, more accurate and complete medical documentation, more accurate capture of codes and charges, and improved communication among providers enabling them to respond more quickly to patients' needs. By providing the most appropriate care at the most appropriate time, we can reap huge savings. A January 2005 Report by the Center for Information Technology Leadership, CITL, found that moving to standardized health information exchange and interoperability would save nearly $80 billion annually in the United States. The benefits of adoption and use of health care information technologies, systems and services will be widespread: employers will realize cost savings, clinicians will gain new electronic support tools and patient information to help guide medical decisions, and patients will benefit from a more efficient health care system and from a safer health care system with fewer unnecessary treatments and more attention to preventive care. And, taxpayers and our federal programs will benefit. Researchers have suggested that up to 30 percent of annual Medicare health care spending could be saved by eliminating unnecessary and duplicative procedures, and improving quality by eliminating errors. The benefits of health information technologies and services become most compelling on an individual level. I met an extraordinary woman just a month ago. Renae Wallace, a small business owner in Kingsley, MI told me about her son Randall. Randall is just about to turn 8, but because he was born with complex heart and lung defects, he has seen the inside of a surgery room more times than most people see in a lifetime. Renae takes her son to providers in Traverse City, Grand Rapids, and Ann Arbor. But because there is no way for these providers to talk to each other, she has to carry around a file two inches thick of medical records--X-rays, MRI scans, surgical notes--on Randall. Otherwise, the health care professionals who are taking care of Randall wouldn't have the benefit of the results of the treatment that Randall has gotten previously. Because they wouldn't have all the information they need, Randall might not get the most appropriate care. Renae has made sure that all of the providers taking care of her son have as much of the information as possible--but it would make a lot more sense if the doctors and hospitals and nurses were able to have that information without Renae having to carry it around. We need to ensure that our health care professionals have all of the relevant clinical information available to them in whatever setting a patient needs care, at the time the patient needs the care so that they can provide the best and most appropriate treatment possible. We know that adoption of health information technology can play a critical role in improving patient outcomes and at the same time greatly reduce costs. But it can't happen without the federal government playing a role. The members of the Health Information Technology Leadership Panel concurred that without Federal leadership, neither their individual companies nor the industrial sector as a whole can achieve the breadth of HIT adoption that would be required to realize the needed transformation of health care. The bill that Senator Snowe and I are introducing recognizes that both Federal leadership and Federal investment are necessary and appropriate. The focus of the investment provided by the ``Health Information Technology Act of 2005'' is on improving health care for patients with heart disease, cancer, stroke, diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma, and other diseases and conditions by driving transformation of systems in physician offices and other health care settings. Our bill includes a number of funding incentive approaches intended to improve health care through adoption of information technology. First, we create a 5-year, $4 billion competitive grant program for hospitals, physicians, skilled nursing facilities, community health centers and community mental health centers to offset investments in new technologies and information services. Importantly, the grant program is funded by a mandatory appropriation from the Medicare trust funds. This is critical to ensuring that funds will actually be available for the grant program. It also makes sense as the trust funds will see savings through lower outlays due to less duplicative and unnecessary care. The grant program would authorize funding for the: purchase, lease, and installment of computer software and hardware and related services; upgrade of existing computer technology; purchase communications capabilities necessary for clinical data access, storage, and exchange; services associated with acquiring, implementing, operating, or optimizing the use of new or existing computer software and hardware and clinical health care informatics systems; provision of education and training for staff on information systems and technology designed to improve patient safety; and purchase, lease, subscription, integration service of clinical decision support tools that provide ongoing continuous quality improvement functions. Second, we allow accelerated depreciation of qualified health care information system expenditures in 2005-2010. Third, we adjust Medicare payments to providers who use HIT that improves the quality and accuracy of clinical decision-making. We begin by addressing payments for treatment of Medicare beneficiaries with heart disease, cancer, stroke, diabetes, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease because we know these conditions consume a large portion of our Medicare resources. We know that the Medicare program will reap the benefit of providers using health information networks. The Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology said on March 2 of this year that the annual savings attributable to widespread electronic health record adoption are likely to lie between 7.5 percent-30 percent of annual health care spending. It only makes sense to establish new payment codes to account for the costs of purchasing and using health information technology and services with patient-specific applications. Our legislation also will make it much easier for physicians and other health care professionals to treat patients by reducing the communication barriers that currently exist. The ``Health Information Technology Act'' provides that the Secretary shall adopt data standards for interoperability between providers and links funding to the adoption of those standards. We know that electronic health care information systems can reap huge benefits. The GAO found these systems improve quality of care, reduce costs and improve communication among providers. But we also know that we can't expect our health care providers to make this investment alone as they struggle to meet their daily needs. Our country must have a national commitment to building an information infrastructure, and the Federal Government needs to step up to the plate and provide much-needed funds to get the ball rolling. We could only have dreamed about clinical computerized information systems when the Medicare and Medicaid programs began. Today, we have them at our disposal. The sooner we get them into our hospitals, physician offices, nursing homes, community health centers and community mental health centers, the sooner our patients, providers, and pocketbooks will see the rewards. I am very pleased to announce the support of the following organizations: American College of Physicians, Federation of American Hospitals, National Council for Community Behavioral Healthcare, the National Association of Children's Hospitals, American Heart Association, National Rural Health Association, National Business Coalition on Health, American Academy of Family Physicians, National Association of Community Health Centers, American Health Care Association, IBM, Health Vision, Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society, eHealth Initiative, AdvaMed, American Health Information Management Association, Verizon, Altarum, Michigan Health and Hospital Association, Automation Alley, Small Business Association of Michigan, Detroit Chamber, Michigan State Medical Society, Detroit Medical Center, Marquette General Health System, Oakwood Healthcare System, Henry Ford Health System, MPRO, Michigan's Medicare Quality Improvement Organization; Microsoft Corporation, Axolotl Corp, Delmarva Foundation, Dell Inc, DiagnosisOne, Greenway Medical Technologies, HealthInsight, Healthgate, Inland Northwest Health Services, Kyrptiq, Lumetra, Medical Review of North Carolina, Misys Healthcare Systems, National Alliance for Primary Care Informatics, Partners Healthcare System, Siemens Corporation, Philips Medical Systems, WebMD Corporation, and the Virgin Islands Medical Institute. I am also very pleased to have the support of the AFL-CIO, Trinity Health, NextGen, The Society of Thoracic Surgeons, American Association of Homes and Services for the Aging, St. John Health, Michigan Primary Care Association, the American Health Quality Association, and Comtek and look forward to receiving their forthcoming letters. I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the bill and additional material printed in the Record.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will convey the United States Coast Guard Cutter Mackinaw to the City and County of Cheboygan for use as a museum. The United States Coast Guard Cutter Mackinaw, or the ``Big Mac'' as she is affectionately called, was commissioned on December 20, 1944. Congress commissioned her construction during World War II to keep the shipping lanes open during winter months to maintain the production of steel. The Mackinaw has provided 60 years of outstanding service to the communities and commercial enterprises of the Great Lakes. The Mackinaw was a state of the art ice breaker ideally suited for the Great Lakes because of her shallower draft, wider beam, and longer length than the polar ice breakers that her design was based on. These attributes enable the Mackinaw to break a 70 foot wide channel through 4 feet of solid blue ice to accommodate the largest of the Great Lakes ore carriers. She has also plowed through a remarkable 37 feet of broken ice. The Mackinaw breaks ice for 12 of the 42 weeks of the Great Lakes shipping season. Typically, the Mackinaw begins her ice breaking season in the first week of March in the Straights of Mackinac and works her way up through the Soo Locks, to Whitefish Bay and areas of the St. Mary's River before heading to Lake Superior. During her lifetime, the Mackinaw has enabled the shipping season to start sooner and last longer to enable the annual delivery of 15 tons of iron ore and other materials. Later in the year the Mackinaw works in the lower Lakes' areas where she serves as a buoy tender, carries fuel and supplies to light stations, serves as a training ship, and assists vessels in distress when necessary. The Mackinaw has been stationed in Cheboygan since she began operations in the end of December 1944. She will serve through the winter of 2005 and 2006 and then be decommissioned by the Coast Guard. The Mackinaw will be a great local attraction, encourage tourism, build jobs and aid the local economy. The City of Cheboygan and the surrounding community are committed to transforming this historic landmark into a museum after she has been decommissioned. I am hopeful that she will be maintained for the public for years to come. While her age has made her expensive to maintain, the Mackinaw can still teach our children and visitors of Michigan's Great Lakes heritage. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will convey the United States Coast Guard Cutter Mackinaw to the City and County of Cheboygan for use as a museum. The United States Coast Guard Cutter Mackinaw, or the ``Big Mac'' as she is affectionately called, was commissioned on December 20, 1944. Congress commissioned her construction during World War II to keep the shipping lanes open during winter months to maintain the production of steel. The Mackinaw has provided 60 years of outstanding service to the communities and commercial enterprises of the Great Lakes. The Mackinaw was a state of the art ice breaker ideally suited for the Great Lakes because of her shallower draft, wider beam, and longer length than the polar ice breakers that her design was based on. These attributes enable the Mackinaw to break a 70 foot wide channel through 4 feet of solid blue ice to accommodate the largest of the Great Lakes ore carriers. She has also plowed through a remarkable 37 feet of broken ice. The Mackinaw breaks ice for 12 of the 42 weeks of the Great Lakes shipping season. Typically, the Mackinaw begins her ice breaking season in the first week of March in the Straights of Mackinac and works her way up through the Soo Locks, to Whitefish Bay and areas of the St. Mary's River before heading to Lake Superior. During her lifetime, the Mackinaw has enabled the shipping season to start sooner and last longer to enable the annual delivery of 15 tons of iron ore and other materials. Later in the year the Mackinaw works in the lower Lakes' areas where she serves as a buoy tender, carries fuel and supplies to light stations, serves as a training ship, and assists vessels in distress when necessary. The Mackinaw has been stationed in Cheboygan since she began operations in the end of December 1944. She will serve through the winter of 2005 and 2006 and then be decommissioned by the Coast Guard. The Mackinaw will be a great local attraction, encourage tourism, build jobs and aid the local economy. The City of Cheboygan and the surrounding community are committed to transforming this historic landmark into a museum after she has been decommissioned. I am hopeful that she will be maintained for the public for years to come. While her age has made her expensive to maintain, the Mackinaw can still teach our children and visitors of Michigan's Great Lakes heritage. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I believe ``home'' is one of the warmest words in the English language. At the end of a long day, I think the favorite phrase of every hardworking man and woman in this country is: ``Well, I'll see you tomorrow. I'm going home now.'' And, that is why I rise today to introduce the First Time Homebuyers' Tax Credit Act of 2005. The bill I am introducing will spread that warmth by opening the door to homeownership to millions of hardworking families, helping them cover the initial down payment and closing costs. This initiative is in keeping with our longstanding national policy of encouraging homeownership. Owning a home has always been a fundamental part of the American dream. We, in Congress, have long recognized the social and economic value in high rates of homeownership through laws that we have enacted, such as the mortgage interest tax deduction and the capital gains exclusion on the sale of a home. Over the life of a loan, the mortgage interest tax deduction can save homeowners thousands of dollars that they could use for other necessary family expenses such as education or health care. These benefits, however, are only available to individuals who own their own home. It is important also to note that owning a home is a principle and reliable source of savings as homeowners build equity over the years and their homes appreciate. For many people, it is home equity--not stocks--that help them through the retirement years. In addition, owning a home insulates people from spikes in housing costs. Indeed, while rents may go up, the costs of a fixed monthly mortgage payment, in relative terms, will go down over the course of the mortgage. Clearly, one of the biggest barriers to homeownership for working families is the cost of a down payment and the costs associated with closing a mortgage. According to the Mortgage Bankers Association, typical closing costs on an average sized loan of $200,000 can approach approximately $6,000. Even with mortgage products that allow a down payment of 3 percent of the value of a home, total costs can quickly approach $9,000. This is an impossible amount to save for those who are working hard to make ends meet. The problem is only getting worse as home values climb faster than families can save for a down payment. To address this problem, I am introducing the First Time Homebuyers' Tax Credit Act of 2005. My bill authorizes a one-time tax credit of up to $3,000 for individuals and $6,000 for married couples. This credit is similar to the existing mortgage interest tax deduction in that it creates incentives for people to buy a home. To be eligible for the credit, taxpayers must be first-time homebuyers who were within the 25 percent bracket or lower in the year before they purchase their home. That is $71,950 for single filers, $102,800 for heads of household, and $119,950 for joint returns. There is a dollar-for-dollar phase-out beyond the cap. Normally, tax credits like this are an after-the-fact benefit. They do little to get people actually into a home. What is particularly innovative and beneficial about the tax credit in this bill, however, is that, for the first time, the taxpayer can either claim the credit in the year after he or she buys a first home or the taxpayer can transfer the credit directly to a lender at closing. The transferred credit would go toward helping with the down payment or closing costs. This is cash at the table. As mandated in the bill, the eligible homebuyer would have the money for the lender from the Treasury within 30 days of application. I am happy to say that this legislation has had strong support. When this bill was first introduced in 2003 it garnered the support of: The American Bankers Association, America's Community Bankers, the Housing Partnership Network, the National Housing Conference, the National Congress for Community Economic Development, the National Council of La Raza, the National Association of Affordable Housing Lenders, the Manufactured Housing Institute, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, National Community Reinvestment Coalition, Standard Federal Bank, Habitat for Humanity, and, the National American Indian Housing Council. Clearly, the breadth and diversity of support is strong for this legislation. This is a bold and aggressive effort to reach out to a large number of working families to help them get into this first home. The Joint Committee on Taxation has estimated that more than fifteen million working people would get into their first home over the next seven years because of this new tax credit. We are working to send a message to people all over the country that if you are working hard to save up enough to get into that first home, the Federal government will make a strategic investment in your family--it will offer a hand up. This is not unlike what we already do through the mortgage interest tax deduction for millions of people who are fortunate enough to already own their own home. We certainly won't do all the hard work for you. You must be frugal and save and do most of the work yourself, but we, in Congress, understand that it is good for America to enhance homeownership. We also understand that this sort of investment in working families stimulates the economy. No one can deny that when the First Time Homebuyers' Tax Credit is enacted and used by millions of people, every single time the credit is used, it will be stimulative. Why? Because it means someone bought a house. And that generates economic activity for multiple small business people. House appraisers and Inspectors. Realtors. Lenders. Title insurers. And so on. And there is a ripple of economic activity by the new homeowners as they fix up their new homes and get settled in. Housing has been such a bright light in the sluggish economy we've faced for the last several years. My bill is designed to ensure that the housing sector remains a strong component of our economy. Finally, let me close by emphasizing how happy and proud I am that this tax legislation is bipartisan. In a closely divided Senate, and a closely divided Congress, it is so important to work across the aisle and Senator Smith, who is a real champion for good housing policy, is someone I want to work closely with on this bill and other important housing legislation. He understands how housing tax benefits help build strong communities and provide economic security for millions of families. I am committed to seeing this legislation passed. And, I welcome the chance to work with all of my colleagues to see the dream of homeownership expanded to all people. Home. Sentimentally, it is one of the warmest words in the English language. Economically, it's the key word in bringing millions of families in from the cold and letting them begin building wealth for themselves and their family. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation be printed in the Record.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon in support of the nominations of Judge David McKeague and Judge Richard Griffin to the Sixth Circuit Court. For some time now, Senator Levin and I have been proposing the Senate move forward on these nominees as part of a good-faith effort for us to be working together in a bipartisan way in the Senate. I am pleased we are now to vote on the nomination of Judge Griffin and Judge McKeague as a result of the bipartisan agreement to move forward and stop what was called the nuclear option, which would have eliminated the checks and balances in the Senate. It is my hope this bipartisan agreement will help restore comity and civility in our very important Chamber. I will say a few words about these two nominees. Judge Richard Griffin is a lifelong resident of Michigan. He would be the first nominee to the Sixth Circuit from Traverse City, MI. He has had a distinguished career both as an attorney and as a State appeals judge. He has served on the Michigan Court of Appeals for over 16 years and has been rated as ``well-qualified'' by the American Bar Association. Judge David McKeague is also a lifelong resident of Michigan. He would be the first nominee from my home of Lansing, MI, to the Sixth Circuit. Judge McKeague has also had a distinguished career as an attorney, a law professor, and a Federal judge. He served on the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan for over 12 years and has been rated ``well-qualified'' by the American Bar Association. I urge my colleagues to join me and Senator Levin in supporting the nomination of Judge Griffin and Judge McKeague. It is important for us to move forward. I hope confirming the Sixth Circuit nominees before the Senate will help restore comity and civility to the judicial nominations process. We have a constitutional obligation to advise and consent on Federal judicial nominees. This is a responsibility I take extremely seriously, as I know my colleagues do on both sides of the aisle. These are not decisions that will affect our courts for three or four years, but for 30 or 40 years, making it even more important for the Senate not to act as a rubberstamp. This is the third branch of government and it is important we move forward in a positive way and be able to work with the White House on nominees who will reflect balance and reflect a mainstream approach for our independent judiciary. I hope the White House will begin working with the Senate in a more bipartisan and inclusive manner on judicial nominations. I look forward to working with the White House on any future Michigan nominees since it is absolutely critical we work together in filling these positions. I yield the floor.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I believe ``home'' is one of the warmest words in the English language. At the end of a long day, I think the favorite phrase of every hardworking man and woman in this country is: ``Well, I'll see you tomorrow. I'm going home now.'' And, that is why I rise today to introduce the First Time Homebuyers' Tax Credit Act of 2005. The bill I am introducing will spread that warmth by opening the door to homeownership to millions of hardworking families, helping them cover the initial down payment and closing costs. This initiative is in keeping with our longstanding national policy of encouraging homeownership. Owning a home has always been a fundamental part of the American dream. We, in Congress, have long recognized the social and economic value in high rates of homeownership through laws that we have enacted, such as the mortgage interest tax deduction and the capital gains exclusion on the sale of a home. Over the life of a loan, the mortgage interest tax deduction can save homeowners thousands of dollars that they could use for other necessary family expenses such as education or health care. These benefits, however, are only available to individuals who own their own home. It is important also to note that owning a home is a principle and reliable source of savings as homeowners build equity over the years and their homes appreciate. For many people, it is home equity--not stocks--that help them through the retirement years. In addition, owning a home insulates people from spikes in housing costs. Indeed, while rents may go up, the costs of a fixed monthly mortgage payment, in relative terms, will go down over the course of the mortgage. Clearly, one of the biggest barriers to homeownership for working families is the cost of a down payment and the costs associated with closing a mortgage. According to the Mortgage Bankers Association, typical closing costs on an average sized loan of $200,000 can approach approximately $6,000. Even with mortgage products that allow a down payment of 3 percent of the value of a home, total costs can quickly approach $9,000. This is an impossible amount to save for those who are working hard to make ends meet. The problem is only getting worse as home values climb faster than families can save for a down payment. To address this problem, I am introducing the First Time Homebuyers' Tax Credit Act of 2005. My bill authorizes a one-time tax credit of up to $3,000 for individuals and $6,000 for married couples. This credit is similar to the existing mortgage interest tax deduction in that it creates incentives for people to buy a home. To be eligible for the credit, taxpayers must be first-time homebuyers who were within the 25 percent bracket or lower in the year before they purchase their home. That is $71,950 for single filers, $102,800 for heads of household, and $119,950 for joint returns. There is a dollar-for-dollar phase-out beyond the cap. Normally, tax credits like this are an after-the-fact benefit. They do little to get people actually into a home. What is particularly innovative and beneficial about the tax credit in this bill, however, is that, for the first time, the taxpayer can either claim the credit in the year after he or she buys a first home or the taxpayer can transfer the credit directly to a lender at closing. The transferred credit would go toward helping with the down payment or closing costs. This is cash at the table. As mandated in the bill, the eligible homebuyer would have the money for the lender from the Treasury within 30 days of application. I am happy to say that this legislation has had strong support. When this bill was first introduced in 2003 it garnered the support of: The American Bankers Association, America's Community Bankers, the Housing Partnership Network, the National Housing Conference, the National Congress for Community Economic Development, the National Council of La Raza, the National Association of Affordable Housing Lenders, the Manufactured Housing Institute, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, National Community Reinvestment Coalition, Standard Federal Bank, Habitat for Humanity, and, the National American Indian Housing Council. Clearly, the breadth and diversity of support is strong for this legislation. This is a bold and aggressive effort to reach out to a large number of working families to help them get into this first home. The Joint Committee on Taxation has estimated that more than fifteen million working people would get into their first home over the next seven years because of this new tax credit. We are working to send a message to people all over the country that if you are working hard to save up enough to get into that first home, the Federal government will make a strategic investment in your family--it will offer a hand up. This is not unlike what we already do through the mortgage interest tax deduction for millions of people who are fortunate enough to already own their own home. We certainly won't do all the hard work for you. You must be frugal and save and do most of the work yourself, but we, in Congress, understand that it is good for America to enhance homeownership. We also understand that this sort of investment in working families stimulates the economy. No one can deny that when the First Time Homebuyers' Tax Credit is enacted and used by millions of people, every single time the credit is used, it will be stimulative. Why? Because it means someone bought a house. And that generates economic activity for multiple small business people. House appraisers and Inspectors. Realtors. Lenders. Title insurers. And so on. And there is a ripple of economic activity by the new homeowners as they fix up their new homes and get settled in. Housing has been such a bright light in the sluggish economy we've faced for the last several years. My bill is designed to ensure that the housing sector remains a strong component of our economy. Finally, let me close by emphasizing how happy and proud I am that this tax legislation is bipartisan. In a closely divided Senate, and a closely divided Congress, it is so important to work across the aisle and Senator Smith, who is a real champion for good housing policy, is someone I want to work closely with on this bill and other important housing legislation. He understands how housing tax benefits help build strong communities and provide economic security for millions of families. I am committed to seeing this legislation passed. And, I welcome the chance to work with all of my colleagues to see the dream of homeownership expanded to all people. Home. Sentimentally, it is one of the warmest words in the English language. Economically, it's the key word in bringing millions of families in from the cold and letting them begin building wealth for themselves and their family. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation be printed in the Record.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the International Solid Waste Importation and Management Act. I want to thank Senator Levin for cosponsoring this bill and for his tireless work to stop Canadian trash imports into our State. The purpose of our bill is to finally put an end to the river of garbage flowing from Canada into Michigan's landfills. Our legislation is a companion bill to H.R. 2491 which is being voted on in the Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Material of the House Energy and Commerce Committee today. I am extremely pleased that Congress is starting to take action on this critical bill. I cannot overstate the importance of this legislation to Michigan. The number of trash trucks entering our State has continually increased. In fact, since the summer of 2003 the number of trash trucks coming from Canada has jumped from 180 per day to about 415 per day. The result is that Michigan is the third largest importer of trash out of all of the States in the Nation. Not only does this waste dramatically decrease Michigan's own landfill capacity, but it has a tremendous negative impact on Michigan's environment and on the public health of its citizens. Canadian waste also hampers the effectiveness of Michigan's state and local recycling efforts, since Ontario does not have a bottle law requiring recycling. Trash trucks also present a security risk at our Michigan-Canadian border, since, by their nature, trucks full of garbage are harder for Customs agents to inspect then traditional cargo. Michigan already has protections contained in an international agreement between the United States and Canada, but they are being ignored. Under the Agreement Concerning the Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Waste, which was entered into in 1986, shipments of waste across the Canadian-U.S. border require government-to-government notification. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as the designated authority for the United States would receive notification of a trash shipment and then consent or object to the shipment within 30 days. Unfortunately, these notification provisions have never been enforced by the EPA. This legislation will give Michigan residents the protection they are entitled to under this bilateral treaty. The bill would allow the State of Michigan to pass laws to stop the Canadian trash shipments until the EPA finally enforces this treaty. Once the EPA begins enforcing the treaty, they would have to consider certain criteria when deciding whether to consent or object to a shipment, such as the State's views on the shipment, and the shipment's impact on landfill capacity, air emissions, public health, and the environment. These waste shipments should no longer be accepted without an examination of the impacts on the health and welfare of Michigan families. Michiganians and the Michigan Congressional delegation are united in our opposition to Canadian trash shipments. We have waged a continuous battle to end trash importation and we will continue to fight until we succeed. I urge my colleagues on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee to take action on this crucial legislation as quickly as they can. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the International Solid Waste Importation and Management Act. I want to thank Senator Levin for cosponsoring this bill and for his tireless work to stop Canadian trash imports into our State. The purpose of our bill is to finally put an end to the river of garbage flowing from Canada into Michigan's landfills. Our legislation is a companion bill to H.R. 2491 which is being voted on in the Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Material of the House Energy and Commerce Committee today. I am extremely pleased that Congress is starting to take action on this critical bill. I cannot overstate the importance of this legislation to Michigan. The number of trash trucks entering our State has continually increased. In fact, since the summer of 2003 the number of trash trucks coming from Canada has jumped from 180 per day to about 415 per day. The result is that Michigan is the third largest importer of trash out of all of the States in the Nation. Not only does this waste dramatically decrease Michigan's own landfill capacity, but it has a tremendous negative impact on Michigan's environment and on the public health of its citizens. Canadian waste also hampers the effectiveness of Michigan's state and local recycling efforts, since Ontario does not have a bottle law requiring recycling. Trash trucks also present a security risk at our Michigan-Canadian border, since, by their nature, trucks full of garbage are harder for Customs agents to inspect then traditional cargo. Michigan already has protections contained in an international agreement between the United States and Canada, but they are being ignored. Under the Agreement Concerning the Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Waste, which was entered into in 1986, shipments of waste across the Canadian-U.S. border require government-to-government notification. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as the designated authority for the United States would receive notification of a trash shipment and then consent or object to the shipment within 30 days. Unfortunately, these notification provisions have never been enforced by the EPA. This legislation will give Michigan residents the protection they are entitled to under this bilateral treaty. The bill would allow the State of Michigan to pass laws to stop the Canadian trash shipments until the EPA finally enforces this treaty. Once the EPA begins enforcing the treaty, they would have to consider certain criteria when deciding whether to consent or object to a shipment, such as the State's views on the shipment, and the shipment's impact on landfill capacity, air emissions, public health, and the environment. These waste shipments should no longer be accepted without an examination of the impacts on the health and welfare of Michigan families. Michiganians and the Michigan Congressional delegation are united in our opposition to Canadian trash shipments. We have waged a continuous battle to end trash importation and we will continue to fight until we succeed. I urge my colleagues on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee to take action on this crucial legislation as quickly as they can. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today to reflect on this year's Memorial Day and the importance of this holiday in American life. As I attend Memorial Day parades and commemorations, I am struck by the spirit of national unity because I know that across Michigan and across our Nation our fellow Americans are taking part in similar gatherings where we take the time to reflect on our history and the sacrifice that brought us to where we are today. Memorial Day is unique among American holidays. On Memorial Day we do not honor a particular date or event, a battle or the end of a war. On Memorial Day we do not honor an individual leader--a President or a general. On Memorial Day we do not even honor ourselves at least not in the present tense. On Memorial Day we pay homage to the thousands and thousands of individual acts of bravery and sacrifice that stretch back to the battlefields of our revolution and to those taking place today in the deserts of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan. This year, Memorial Day has a special significance as the 60th anniversary of the battle of Iwo Jima. This past February marks the dates in history that cost nearly 26,000 lives. The service members involved in that battle responded with courage and bravery. Iwo Jima is one of the most important battles of World War II. On behalf of a grateful Nation, we pay respect to the veterans of Iwo Jima and those who made the ultimate sacrifice. This Memorial Day we also honor the men and women currently serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. We must honor our commitment to them by making sure they have everything they need to complete their mission and come home safely. We must also keep our promises to those who proudly served our country by making sure they receive the benefits they deserve. So, as we observe this holiday we call Memorial Day, let us remember the centuries of sacrifice by the many men and women that this day represents. And let's make sure that all who served with honor are honored in return.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I am very pleased to introduce the ``Preserving Patient Access to Physicians Act'' with my friend and colleague from Arizona, Senator Kyl. This legislation is critical to ensuring that our Nation's 42 million Medicare beneficiaries continue to have access to high quality physician care. The Medicare program is one of the most successful Federal programs of all time. It has lifted countless seniors out of poverty, and it has ensured access to necessary, affordable, quality medical care for our most vulnerable citizens for the last 40 years. However, that success is threatened because the Medicare physician payment formula is fundamentally flawed. At a time when the doctors who treat our seniors are facing increasing practice costs, they are looking at a payment cut of 4.3 percent in 2006 for the Medicare services they provide that simply doesn't make sense. And the cuts don't stop in 2006: if Congress doesn't act, physicians will be hit with devastating cuts totaling 22 percent over the next 5 years. Those cuts represent over $44 billion dollars nationwide, and a staggering $126 billion over the next 10 years. Currently, over 20,000 MDs and DOs in Michigan treat over 1.4 million Medicare-eligible Michiganians with very high quality care. But if the doctors in my State receive their scheduled cut of $109 million next year, and over $5 billion over the next ten years, it's not hard to imagine that they may be forced to limit the number of Medicare patients they serve. Numbers in the billions are indeed staggering--but the critical need for this legislation is even better demonstrated by getting down to the specifics: a Detroit physician currently is reimbursed $56.88 for an office visit. But while we all know medical inflation will continue to increase, under current law, that same physician will receive only $41.86 in 2011 for that same visit. And while an orthopedic surgeon in Detroit is now reimbursed $1,813.10 for performing a knee arthroplasty--a knee repair necessary to ensure full mobility--she is scheduled to receive $478.66 less for performing that same procedure in 2011! The examples go on and on: a cardiologist inserting a stent in a Medicare patient to prevent heart problems receives $873.85 today. The same surgeon inserting a stent in 2011 will be reimbursed only $643.15. The ``Preserving Patient Access to Physicians Act of 2005'' provides physicians with a minimum update in 2006 and 2007. Specifically, the legislation overrides the Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR) formula in these years: the update to the single conversion factor in 2006 would be 2.7 percent, and a formula based on input prices and a productivity adjustment is used for 2007--the likely update for 2007 will be 2.6 percent. Kevin Kelly, Executive Director of the Michigan State Medical Society, tells me that the minimum updates provided in this legislation are essential to both physicians and patients in Michigan in terms of assuring access to Medicare services. And Robert Stomel, D.O., President of the Michigan Osteopathic Association, said that introduction of this legislation ``is an important step in efforts to protect the availability and access to physician services for millions of Medicare beneficiaries.'' Dr. Stomel went on to say, ``This bipartisan legislation represents a continued recognition that physician payment under Medicare must keep pace with the increasing cost of providing care.'' Yet I know that this is just the beginning. We cannot continue to use stop-gap measures but must replace the SGR with a payment system that actually makes sense and reflects the costs of providing physician care to Medicare beneficiaries. Through the bipartisan partnership Senator Kyl and I have begun today, we can--and must--fix the physician payment formula and continue to provide access to high-quality Medicare services for all of our seniors and people with disabilities. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the record letters of support from the American Medical Association and the American Osteopathic Association. I urge my Colleagues to join us in this effort, and I thank the Chair.