Health Insurance Rate Authority Act of 2010

Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to create a Health Insurance Rate Authority and rate review process to protect American consumers from unfair health insurance rate increases.

This legislation is based on an amendment I filed during the health reform debate. While it was not included in the reform legislation that passed the Senate, I strongly believe consumers need additional protections from insurance company abuses now.

I am pleased that President Obama has included it in his health reform proposal, and I look forward to continuing to work with the administration to see that this bill becomes law.

This bill ensures that all American consumers are protected by a rate review process, not just those in states with aggressive laws.

This legislation requires companies to submit justifications for unreasonable increases in premiums, using a process that will be established by the Secretary, in conjunction with States.

The bill gives the Secretary of HHS authority to deny or modify premium increases or other rate increases, like deductibles, that are found to be unjustified. State Insurance Commissioners will retain this power in states in which they have sufficient authority and capability.

To help the Secretary with this process, the legislation establishes a Health Insurance Rate Authority as an advisory body for all the Secretary's rate review responsibilities.

Health insurance companies continue to demonstrate their willingness to slap consumers with astronomical increases in their health insurance rates.

Anthem Blue Cross has notified thousands of Californians that they will face rate increases of as much as 39 percent. Meanwhile, WellPoint, the corporate parent of Anthem Blue Cross, earned a $4.7 billion profit in 2009.

I find this unbelievable. Imagine the typical family, or individual, trying to find the money to pay 39 percent more for health care coverage. Especially during these difficult economic times, with so much uncertainty. Meanwhile, the health insurance company is doing better than ever.

I would like to share a few of the letters and comments I have received from Californians that vividly describe what these increases mean to them.

Arthur Hirsch, 63, and his wife Eileen have had Blue Cross for 30 years. They live in Laguna Beach and own a small business. They recently received notice that their monthly premiums would increase from $787 per month to $1,035 per month. Arthur said he was told that he could raise his annual deductible to $5,000 or higher to keep the premium increases down. But he said he fears he is stuck with the policy. He said: ``I can't leave my assets and my family uncovered. If something happens . . . well that's what insurance is about.''

A Monterey, CA couple recently found out their premiums with Anthem

Blue Cross will increase 36 percent--from $734 a month to $998 a month. They own an antique print business. The economy has hurt sales--their 2008 gross household income was $42,000, and they don't expect their income will increase much in 2009 or 2010. More than 25 percent of their household income goes toward premiums--far more than their mortgage. They are wondering if they should go into debt, use the equity in their home or withdraw money from their retirement accounts to pay for the rate hikes. Because of pre-existing conditions, the woman is a breast cancer survivor, they don't believe they can get a more affordable policy elsewhere.

A family of four from Pacific Palisades, California, has a $5,000 per person deductible. They pay $917 per month premiums for the family-- $11,000 per year. Their insurance plus out of pocket expenses were more than 25 percent of the family's gross income for each of the past 2 years and no member of the family ever satisfied the deductible. They just received notice that their premium will go up 38 percent, to $1,263 per month. Anthem offered this family another deal: increase premium payments just 10 percent to $1,011 a month if the family agrees to an increased deductible of $7,500 per person. The father in the family hasn't had a checkup in 6 years. He's 56 years old.

This is not how our system should function.

In some States, insurance commissioners have the authority to review health insurance rates and increases, and block the rates that are found to be unjustified. According to a 2008 Families USA report, 33 States have some form of a prior approval process for premium increases.

The same report describes several notable successes among states that use this process, including: Regulators in North Dakota were able to reduce 37 percent of the proposed rate increases filed by insurers.

Maryland used their State laws to block a 46 percent premium increase after a company charged artificially low rates for 2 years. The decision was upheld in court.

New Hampshire regulators were able to reduce a proposed 100 percent rate increase to 12.5 percent.

But in other States, including California, insurance commissioners do not have this ability. Instead, my State's insurance commissioner has had to ask Anthem/Blue Cross to delay its proposed increase in premiums. He has no authority to order this delay.

Some States have laws like this on the books, but do not have sufficient resources to review all the rate changes that insurance companies propose.

Consumers deserve full protection from unfair rate increases, no matter where they live.

This legislation ensures that all Americans have some level of basic protection. The bill is based in part on a provision included in the Senate's version of health reform legislation, which required insurance companies to submit justifications and explain increases in premiums. They must submit these justifications to the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and they must make these justifications available on their website.

The bill asks the National Association of Insurance Commissioners to produce a report, detailing the rate review laws and capabilities in all 50 States. The Secretary of HHS will then use these findings to determine which States have the authority and capability to undertake sufficient rate reviews to protect consumers.

In States where Insurance Commissioners have authority to review rates, they will continue to do so.

In States without sufficient authority or resources, the Secretary of HHS will review rates, and take any appropriate action to deny unfair requests.

This could mean blocking unjustified rate increases, or requiring rebates, if an unfair increase is already in effect.

This will provide all American consumers with another layer of protection from an unfair premium increase.

The amendment would also require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to establish a Health Insurance Rate Authority as part of the process in the bill that enables her to monitor premium costs.

The Rate Authority would advise the Secretary on insurance rate review and would be composed of seven officials that represent the full scope of the health care system including: at least two consumers; at least one medical professional; and one representative of the medical insurance industry.

The remaining members would be experts in health economics, actuarial science, or other sectors of the health care system.

The Rate Authority will also issue an annual report, providing American consumers with basic information about how insurance companies are behaving in the market. It will examine premium increases by State, as well as medical loss ratios, reserves and solvency of companies, and other relevant behaviors.

This data will give consumers better information, enabling them to make better choices and avoid purchasing plans from companies that do not provide them the best value for their dollar.

This concern about premium increases stems from the fact that we are the only industrialized nation that relies heavily on a for-profit medical insurance industry to provide basic health care. I believe, fundamentally, that all medical insurance should be not for profit.

The industry is focused on profits, not patients. It is heavily concentrated, leaving consumers with few alternatives when their premiums do increase.

As of 2007, just two carriers--WellPoint and UnitedHealth Group--had gained control of 36 percent of the national market for commercial health insurance.

Since 1998, there have been more than 400 mergers of health insurance companies, as larger carriers have purchased, absorbed, and enveloped smaller competitors.

In 2004 and 2005 alone, this industry had 28 mergers, valued at more than $53 billion. That is more merger activity in health insurance than in the 8 previous years combined.

Today, according to a study by the American Medical Association, more than 94 percent of American health insurance markets are highly concentrated, as characterized by U.S. Department of Justice guidelines. This means these companies could raise premiums or reduce benefits with little fear that consumers will end their contracts and move to a more competitive carrier.

In my State of California just two companies, WellPoint and Kaiser Permanente, control more than 58 percent of the market. In Los Angeles, the top two carriers controlled 62 percent of the market as of 2008.

Record levels of market concentration have helped generate a record level of profit increases.

Between 2000 and 2007, profits at 10 of the largest publicly-traded health insurance companies soared 428 percent--from $2.4 billion in 2000 to $12.9 billion in 2007.

The CEOs at these companies took in record earnings. In 2007, these 10 CEOs made a combined $118.6 million.

The CEO of CIGNA took home $25.8 million.

The CEO of Aetna took home $23 million.

The CEO of UnitedHealth took home $13.2 million and the CEO of WellPoint took home $9.1 million.

Even last year, a time of enormous economic distress for average Americans, was a good year for the health insurance industry. According to Health Care for America Now!, the 5 largest health insurers-- WellPoint, United Health, Humana, Cigna, Aetna--saw profits increase 56 percent from 2008 to 2009, from $7.7 billion to $12.1 billion. Only Aetna saw their profits decrease.

Yet we see insurance companies like Anthem/Blue Cross, owned by Well Point, increasing consumer premiums.

Frankly, I would go further than this legislation if I could: I believe the health insurance industry should be non-profit. There is no reason that any company or shareholder should make a penny off of basic health care coverage for our citizens.

But we do have a system that heavily relies on for-profit insurance companies. Regardless of the outcome of the broader debate on health care reform, that is unlikely to change.

So this bill becomes very necessary. Premiums are increasing every day, and people in many states have no recourse, and no way to know if a particular increase is unfair.

This cannot continue. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to create a Health Insurance Rate Authority and rate review process to protect American consumers from unfair health insurance rate increases.

This legislation is based on an amendment I filed during the health reform debate. While it was not included in the reform legislation that passed the Senate, I strongly believe consumers need additional protections from insurance company abuses now.

I am pleased that President Obama has included it in his health reform proposal, and I look forward to continuing to work with the administration to see that this bill becomes law.

This bill ensures that all American consumers are protected by a rate review process, not just those in states with aggressive laws.

This legislation requires companies to submit justifications for unreasonable increases in premiums, using a process that will be established by the Secretary, in conjunction with States.

The bill gives the Secretary of HHS authority to deny or modify premium increases or other rate increases, like deductibles, that are found to be unjustified. State Insurance Commissioners will retain this power in states in which they have sufficient authority and capability.

To help the Secretary with this process, the legislation establishes a Health Insurance Rate Authority as an advisory body for all the Secretary's rate review responsibilities.

Health insurance companies continue to demonstrate their willingness to slap consumers with astronomical increases in their health insurance rates.

Anthem Blue Cross has notified thousands of Californians that they will face rate increases of as much as 39 percent. Meanwhile, WellPoint, the corporate parent of Anthem Blue Cross, earned a $4.7 billion profit in 2009.

I find this unbelievable. Imagine the typical family, or individual, trying to find the money to pay 39 percent more for health care coverage. Especially during these difficult economic times, with so much uncertainty. Meanwhile, the health insurance company is doing better than ever.

I would like to share a few of the letters and comments I have received from Californians that vividly describe what these increases mean to them.

Arthur Hirsch, 63, and his wife Eileen have had Blue Cross for 30 years. They live in Laguna Beach and own a small business. They recently received notice that their monthly premiums would increase from $787 per month to $1,035 per month. Arthur said he was told that he could raise his annual deductible to $5,000 or higher to keep the premium increases down. But he said he fears he is stuck with the policy. He said: ``I can't leave my assets and my family uncovered. If something happens . . . well that's what insurance is about.''

A Monterey, CA couple recently found out their premiums with Anthem

Blue Cross will increase 36 percent--from $734 a month to $998 a month. They own an antique print business. The economy has hurt sales--their 2008 gross household income was $42,000, and they don't expect their income will increase much in 2009 or 2010. More than 25 percent of their household income goes toward premiums--far more than their mortgage. They are wondering if they should go into debt, use the equity in their home or withdraw money from their retirement accounts to pay for the rate hikes. Because of pre-existing conditions, the woman is a breast cancer survivor, they don't believe they can get a more affordable policy elsewhere.

A family of four from Pacific Palisades, California, has a $5,000 per person deductible. They pay $917 per month premiums for the family-- $11,000 per year. Their insurance plus out of pocket expenses were more than 25 percent of the family's gross income for each of the past 2 years and no member of the family ever satisfied the deductible. They just received notice that their premium will go up 38 percent, to $1,263 per month. Anthem offered this family another deal: increase premium payments just 10 percent to $1,011 a month if the family agrees to an increased deductible of $7,500 per person. The father in the family hasn't had a checkup in 6 years. He's 56 years old.

This is not how our system should function.

In some States, insurance commissioners have the authority to review health insurance rates and increases, and block the rates that are found to be unjustified. According to a 2008 Families USA report, 33 States have some form of a prior approval process for premium increases.

The same report describes several notable successes among states that use this process, including: Regulators in North Dakota were able to reduce 37 percent of the proposed rate increases filed by insurers.

Maryland used their State laws to block a 46 percent premium increase after a company charged artificially low rates for 2 years. The decision was upheld in court.

New Hampshire regulators were able to reduce a proposed 100 percent rate increase to 12.5 percent.

But in other States, including California, insurance commissioners do not have this ability. Instead, my State's insurance commissioner has had to ask Anthem/Blue Cross to delay its proposed increase in premiums. He has no authority to order this delay.

Some States have laws like this on the books, but do not have sufficient resources to review all the rate changes that insurance companies propose.

Consumers deserve full protection from unfair rate increases, no matter where they live.

This legislation ensures that all Americans have some level of basic protection. The bill is based in part on a provision included in the Senate's version of health reform legislation, which required insurance companies to submit justifications and explain increases in premiums. They must submit these justifications to the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and they must make these justifications available on their website.

The bill asks the National Association of Insurance Commissioners to produce a report, detailing the rate review laws and capabilities in all 50 States. The Secretary of HHS will then use these findings to determine which States have the authority and capability to undertake sufficient rate reviews to protect consumers.

In States where Insurance Commissioners have authority to review rates, they will continue to do so.

In States without sufficient authority or resources, the Secretary of HHS will review rates, and take any appropriate action to deny unfair requests.

This could mean blocking unjustified rate increases, or requiring rebates, if an unfair increase is already in effect.

This will provide all American consumers with another layer of protection from an unfair premium increase.

The amendment would also require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to establish a Health Insurance Rate Authority as part of the process in the bill that enables her to monitor premium costs.

The Rate Authority would advise the Secretary on insurance rate review and would be composed of seven officials that represent the full scope of the health care system including: at least two consumers; at least one medical professional; and one representative of the medical insurance industry.

The remaining members would be experts in health economics, actuarial science, or other sectors of the health care system.

The Rate Authority will also issue an annual report, providing American consumers with basic information about how insurance companies are behaving in the market. It will examine premium increases by State, as well as medical loss ratios, reserves and solvency of companies, and other relevant behaviors.

This data will give consumers better information, enabling them to make better choices and avoid purchasing plans from companies that do not provide them the best value for their dollar.

This concern about premium increases stems from the fact that we are the only industrialized nation that relies heavily on a for-profit medical insurance industry to provide basic health care. I believe, fundamentally, that all medical insurance should be not for profit.

The industry is focused on profits, not patients. It is heavily concentrated, leaving consumers with few alternatives when their premiums do increase.

As of 2007, just two carriers--WellPoint and UnitedHealth Group--had gained control of 36 percent of the national market for commercial health insurance.

Since 1998, there have been more than 400 mergers of health insurance companies, as larger carriers have purchased, absorbed, and enveloped smaller competitors.

In 2004 and 2005 alone, this industry had 28 mergers, valued at more than $53 billion. That is more merger activity in health insurance than in the 8 previous years combined.

Today, according to a study by the American Medical Association, more than 94 percent of American health insurance markets are highly concentrated, as characterized by U.S. Department of Justice guidelines. This means these companies could raise premiums or reduce benefits with little fear that consumers will end their contracts and move to a more competitive carrier.

In my State of California just two companies, WellPoint and Kaiser Permanente, control more than 58 percent of the market. In Los Angeles, the top two carriers controlled 62 percent of the market as of 2008.

Record levels of market concentration have helped generate a record level of profit increases.

Between 2000 and 2007, profits at 10 of the largest publicly-traded health insurance companies soared 428 percent--from $2.4 billion in 2000 to $12.9 billion in 2007.

The CEOs at these companies took in record earnings. In 2007, these 10 CEOs made a combined $118.6 million.

The CEO of CIGNA took home $25.8 million.

The CEO of Aetna took home $23 million.

The CEO of UnitedHealth took home $13.2 million and the CEO of WellPoint took home $9.1 million.

Even last year, a time of enormous economic distress for average Americans, was a good year for the health insurance industry. According to Health Care for America Now!, the 5 largest health insurers-- WellPoint, United Health, Humana, Cigna, Aetna--saw profits increase 56 percent from 2008 to 2009, from $7.7 billion to $12.1 billion. Only Aetna saw their profits decrease.

Yet we see insurance companies like Anthem/Blue Cross, owned by Well Point, increasing consumer premiums.

Frankly, I would go further than this legislation if I could: I believe the health insurance industry should be non-profit. There is no reason that any company or shareholder should make a penny off of basic health care coverage for our citizens.

But we do have a system that heavily relies on for-profit insurance companies. Regardless of the outcome of the broader debate on health care reform, that is unlikely to change.

So this bill becomes very necessary. Premiums are increasing every day, and people in many states have no recourse, and no way to know if a particular increase is unfair.

This cannot continue. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to introduce the Unfair Foreign Competition Act of 2010. This legislation provides a private right of action for domestic manufacturers injured by illegal subsidization and dumping of foreign products into U.S. markets. These anticompetitive, predatory trade practices steal jobs from our workers, profits from our companies, and growth from our economy.

Job creation and job retention in this country depend in large part on our ability to enforce existing trade laws. At a time when unemployment remains at nearly 10 percent and our economic future is at stake, it becomes even more important that we focus on trade priorities which too long have been sacrificed for foreign policy and defense interests.

The latest trade numbers demonstrate that the U.S. trade deficit with China in November 2009 was $20.2 billion. Over the years, imports from China have exceeded our imports by a staggering $208.6 billion. This is not evidence that American manufacturers cannot produce goods efficiently or compete with foreign markets; rather, it is evidence of unlawful behavior on the part of China. Such behavior is tantamount to international banditry, and it must not be tolerated.

In the current environment, I believe it is necessary for an injured industry to have an opportunity to go into Federal court and seek enforcement of our country's trade laws.

My legislation addresses two specific types of illegal trade practices: dumping, which occurs when a foreign producer sells a product in the United States at a price that is below the producer's sales price in its home market or at a price which is lower than its cost of production, and subsidizing, which occurs when a foreign government provides financial assistance to benefit the production, manufacture, or exportation of a good.

Under current law, the International Trade Commission and the Department of Commerce conduct antidumping and countervailing duty investigations and 5-year reviews under title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930. U.S. industries may petition the ITC and Commerce for relief from dumped and subsidized imports. If Commerce finds that an imported product is dumped or subsidized and the ITC finds that the petitioning industry is materially injured or threatened with material injury, an antidumping duty order or countervailing duty order will be imposed to offset the dumping or subsidies.

Because current administrative remedies have not been consistently and effectively enforced, I am introducing private right of action legislation to enforce the law. My legislation would allow petitioners to choose between the ITC and their local U.S. district court for the injury determination phase of their investigation. Doing so gives injured domestic producers the opportunity as private plaintiffs to control the litigation in seeking enforcement of our trade laws. If injury is found, U.S. Customs and Border Protection would then assess duties on future importation of the article in question. The legal standard for determining dumping margins, established by the Commerce Department, would remain unchanged.

This legislation is similar to legislation I have introduced as far back as 1982 when I originally sought injunctive relief. But this bill has been modified to comply with World Trade Organization rules.

In December 2004, the United States took action to comply with WTO rulings on the Antidumping Act of 1916 which provided a private cause of action and criminal penalties for dumping by prospectively repealing the act. The United States also took action in February 2006 to comply with WTO rulings on the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act which requires the distribution of collected antidumping and countervailing duties to petitioners and interested parties in the underlying trade proceedings. In both cases, the WTO panel found that U.S. law allowed an impermissible specific action against dumping and subsidization.

The legislation I introduce today has been adapted to these changes in law and allows for a determination of injury in accordance with our international obligations. Aggressive policy measures, such as this legislation, are necessary to prevent foreign producers--China in particular--from causing a major crisis for our domestic producers.

In testimony before the ITC earlier this year, I noted that we have a complicated relationship with China. I was one of 15 Senators who opposed China's entrance into the WTO in 2000. With China's economy still widely under state direction and characterized by dubious trade practices, I believed Chinese membership in the WTO would present a likelihood of trade distortion and market disruption. And that is why I voted against it in 2000.

Congress heeded some of the concerns which I and others expressed and inserted a China-specific safeguard provision under section 421 of the Trade Act. But such a safeguard is only as effective as the President's willingness to enforce it. Seven petitions have been filed under section 421 since its inception. Of these, the ITC has made an affirmative determination of injury in five cases. Yet only one determination, handed down in the most recent Chinese tires case, has been upheld by the President. Despite overwhelming evidence to support the ITC's findings of

injury, President Bush rejected all four previous petitions for relief on the ground that providing import relief was not in the economic interest of the United States. Since President Bush's decision, countless jobs in my State and across the country have been lost and the trade deficit has widened. It is difficult to understand how providing import relief was not in our economic interest.

President Obama's decision to uphold the ITC rulings in the Chinese tires case last year is a step in the right direction, but much more needs to be done to ensure that domestic industries enjoy the protection afforded to them by existing trade laws.

While it is my hope that this administration and future administrations will evaluate trade remedies objectively in terms of economic consequences, this act will provide a valuable tool for the domestic industry. I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in supporting this legislation.

The enforcement of trade laws should not be a partisan issue. To those who decry our enforcement mechanisms as unabashedly protectionist, let me be clear. I believe in free trade. International trade and open markets are crucial to the economic prosperity of this country. But the essence of free trade is selling goods at a price equal to the cost of production and a reasonable profit. When one country engages in dumping or subsidization at the expense of other countries, it is the antithesis of free trade.

Let me remind those who criticize our domestic safeguards that President Ronald Reagan, a staunch advocate of open markets, signed into law agreements limiting the imports of autos and steel and pushed for the Plaza Accord in 1985 which raised the value of the yen and made Japanese imports more expensive. President Reagan understood that free trade did not mean wholly unfettered, unregulated trade. Free trade does not mean turning a blind eye to illegal and unsavory practices committed by our trading partners.

I have argued that enforcement of our trade laws is critical to ensuring that our domestic manufacturers have a fair opportunity of competing with foreign producers. But even the most stringent enforcement will be insufficient to fully counter the effects of substandard labor, trade, and environmental practices, particularly those practiced by China. The safeguard measures the United States negotiated in advance of China's entry into the WTO were designed to limit the destructive effects of surging Chinese imports on domestic producers. As a result, China's succession to the WTO accelerated a ``race to the bottom'' in wages and environmental quality.

Given these factors, in addition to China's mixed record on providing market access to the United States and its failure to provide protection of U.S. intellectual property rights, I urge that the Congress reexamine our trade agreement the United States signed with China and, if necessary, seek to withdraw permanent normal trade relations status from China. Such a withdrawal would be a serious measure, but we must be willing to demonstrate that we are serious about holding China to its international commitments.

When the United States granted most-favored-nation status to China in 2000, we lost our ability to demand that China play by the rules. We may have to regain this leverage if we are to maintain an equitable trading relationship with China and keep our domestic industry strong.

As President Obama recently noted in his remarks at the Senate Democratic Conference, the United States is home to some of the most innovative, skilled, and efficient workers in the world. But advances in efficiency and innovation by our producers cannot make up for the unfair advantage held by countries that engage in illegal trade practices. Our industries can compete if the playing field is level, but if foreign exporters are not held accountable, and can freely undercut American producers with dumped goods and government subsidies, this country's economic future will be at risk. We must take a stand and we must do it now.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that sets forth a clear, comprehensive policy for the detention, interrogation and trial of enemy belligerents who are suspected of engaging in hostilities against the U.S. This legislation seeks to ensure that the mistakes made during the apprehension of the Christmas Day bomber, such as reading him a Miranda warning, will never happen again and put Americans' security at risk.

Specifically, this bill would require unprivileged enemy belligerents suspected of engaging in hostilities against the U.S. to be held in military custody and interrogated for their intelligence value by a ``high value detainee'' interagency team established by the President. This interagency team of experts in national security, terrorism, intelligence, interrogation and law enforcement will have the protection of U.S. civilians and civilian facilities as their paramount responsibility and experience in gaining actionable intelligence from high value detainees.

These experts must, to the extent it is possible to do so, make a preliminary determination whether the detainee is an unprivileged enemy belligerent within 48 hours of a detainee being taken into custody. The experts then must submit their determination to the Secretary of Defense and the Attorney General after consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. The Secretary of Defense and the Attorney General make a final determination and report it to the President and the appropriate committees of Congress. In the case of any disagreement between the Secretary of Defense and the Attorney General, the President will make the final call.

A key provision of this bill is that it would prohibit a suspected enemy belligerent from being provided with a Miranda warning and being told he has a right to a lawyer and a right to refuse to cooperate. I believe that an overwhelming majority of Americans agree that when we capture a terrorist who is suspected of carrying out or planning an attack intended to kill hundreds if not thousands of innocent civilians, our focus must be on gaining all the information possible to prevent that attack or any that may follow from occurring. Under these circumstances, actionable intelligence must be our highest priority and criminal prosecution must be secondary.

Additionally, the legislation would authorize detention of enemy belligerents without criminal charges for the duration of the hostilities consistent with standards under the law of war which have been recognized by the Supreme Court. Importantly, if a decision is made to hold a criminal trial after the necessary intelligence information is obtained, the bill mandates trial by military commission where we are best able to protect U.S. national security interests, including sensitive classified sources and methods, as well as the place and the people involved in the trial itself.

It should come as no comfort to any American that nearly 8\1/2\ years after the attacks of 9/11 we still don't have a clear mechanism, legal structure, and implementing policy for dealing with terrorists who we capture in the act of trying to bring about attacks on the U.S. and our national security interests at home and abroad. What we saw with the Christmas Day bomber was a series of missteps and staggering failures in coordination among the most senior members of the administration's national security officials that have continued to be compounded by administration apologists who still don't seem to understand that repeating the same mistakes that were made in 2001 and 2002 is going to lead to the deaths of many more Americans.

The vast majority of Americans understand that what happened with the Christmas Day bomber was a near catastrophe that was only prevented by

sheer luck and the courage of a few of the passengers and crew. A wide majority of Americans also realize that allowing a terrorist to be interrogated for only 50 minutes before he is given a Miranda warning and told he can obtain a lawyer and stop cooperating is not sufficient.

Let me be clear about where I think the fault lies with our current policy. I believe that the local FBI agents who were involved with investigating the Detroit attack are patriotic Americans who are experts in the field of law enforcement. I hold the FBI in the highest regard and believe they set the standard for law enforcement professionalism not only in the U.S., but internationally. But it is impossible for FBI field agents to know all the information that is available to the U.S. intelligence community worldwide during the first 50 minutes of interrogation of a suspected terrorist. We must ensure that the broad range of expertise that is available within our government is brought to bear on such high-value detainees. This bill mandates such coordination and places the proper focus on getting intelligence to stop an attack, rather than allowing law enforcement and preparing a case for a civilian criminal trial to drive our response.

Deliberate mass attacks that intentionally target hundreds of innocent civilians is an act of war and should not be dealt with in the same manner as a robbery. We must recognize the difference. If we don't, our response will be hopelessly inadequate. We should not be providing suspected terrorists with Miranda warnings and defense lawyers. Instead, the priority and focus must be on isolating and neutralizing the immediate threat and collecting intelligence to prevent another attack.

In closing, let me say that I hope that Congress and the administration support this legislation as part of a comprehensive solution for detaining, interrogating and prosecuting suspected enemy belligerents. However, there is a lot more work that must be done. I am continuing to work with Senator Graham, Senator Lieberman, and others to address other crucial aspects of detainee policy.

As part of that effort, I believe we must establish a system for long-term detention of terrorists who are too dangerous to release, but who cannot be tried in a civilian court. While the law of war authorizes detention until the end of hostilities--something the Supreme Court has recognized and which is reinforced in this bill--I believe that a review system for the long-term detention of detainees should be set out in law. Additionally, both the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and the D.C. Circuit Court have urged Congress to provide uniform guidelines to apply in the habeas corpus cases that have been brought by detainees. Currently, the outcomes in the Guantanamo detainee habeas cases are inconsistent because of different interpretations of novel questions of law the judges face in applying habeas to wartime prisoners for the first time in our history. I will continue to work on a bipartisan basis to improve this process to obtain better, more uniform results. I do not believe that we will have addressed all the necessary detainee policy challenges until we do so, and my efforts will not stop until we have addressed all the detainee issues in a comprehensive fashion.

While other detainee policy challenges remain, I believe the handling of the Christmas Day bomber--including the law enforcement focus and the decision to read a Miranda warning after only 50 minutes of interrogation--demand that Congress and the administration first address the issue which is most crucial to our national security. For that reason, we must have a clear policy, legal foundation, and mechanism for the detention, interrogation and trial of enemy belligerents who are suspected of engaging in hostilities against the U.S. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this important legislation.

Today, I introduced the Great Lakes Ecosystem Protection Act as co-chair of the Great Lakes Task Force with Senator George Voinovich and several of our colleagues here in the Senate and in the House. This bill is important for our efforts to protect and restore the Great Lakes now and for future generations. The Great Lakes are vital not only to Michigan but to the nation. Roughly \1/10\ of the U.S. population lives in the Great Lakes basin and depends daily on the lakes. The Great Lakes provide drinking water to 40 million people in the U.S. and Canada. They provide the largest recreational resource for their 8 neighboring States. They form the largest body of freshwater in the world, containing roughly 18 percent of the world's total. Only the polar ice caps contain more freshwater. They are critical for our economy by helping move natural resources to the factory and to move products to market.

While the environmental protections that were put in place in the early 1970s have helped the Great Lakes make strides toward recovery, a 2003 GAO report made clear that there is much work still to do. That report stated: ``Despite early success in improving conditions in the Great Lakes Basin, significant environmental challenges remain, including increased threats from invasive species and cleanup of areas contaminated with toxic substances that pose human health threats.'' More recently, many scientists reported that the Great Lakes are exhibiting signs of stress due to a combination of sources, including toxic contaminants, invasive species, nutrient loading, shoreline and upland land use changes, and hydrologic modifications. A 2005 report from a group of Great Lakes scientific experts states that ``historical sources of stress have combined with new ones to reach a tipping point, the point at which ecosystem-level changes occur rapidly and unexpectedly, confounding the traditional relationships between sources of stress and the expected ecosystem response.''

Asian carp represents a massive threat and a number of important actions are required to deal with it. The zebra mussel, an aquatic invasive species, caused $3 billion in economic damage to the Great Lakes from 1993 to 2003. In 2000, 7 people died after pathogens entered the Walkerton, Ontario drinking water supply from the lakes. In May of 2004, more than 10 billion gallons of raw sewage and storm water were dumped into the Great Lakes. In that same year, more than 1,850 beach closures in the Great Lakes. Each summer, Lake Erie develops a 6,300 square mile dead zone. There is no appreciable natural reproduction of lake trout in the lower four lakes. More than half of the Great Lakes region's original wetlands have been lost, along with 60 percent of the native forests. Wildlife habitat has been destroyed, diminishing opportunities necessary for fishing, hunting and other forms of outdoor recreation.

These problems have been well known for several years, and this bill is an effort to address those problems. First, the bill authorizes the President's Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, a multi-agency effort, which provides the needed federal funds to federal programs as well as non-federal partners through grants.

Building on past success, there are a number of programs that need to be authorized and reauthorized in federal law. For instance, the bill authorizes the Great Lakes Interagency Task Force, established by Executive Order in 2004, so that the many federal agencies operating in the Great Lakes will coordinate with each other. Restoring the Great Lakes involves many stakeholders including the Federal Government, states, cities, tribes and others, and Congress needs to be sure that the Federal agency efforts are in order.

The bill also reauthorizes and expands the Great Lakes Legacy program which has been extremely successful and has cleaned up about 900,000 cubic yards of contaminated sediments at Areas of Concern throughout the Great Lakes. This is a partnership program which requires a non- federal cost-share to address the legacy of contaminated sediment in our region. The Legacy program expires at the end of 2010.

The bill reauthorizes the EPA's Great Lakes National Program Office which has been and will continue to be a key to moving forward with Great Lakes protection and restoration. This office has been the lead in renegotiating the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, implementing the Great Lakes Legacy program, and implementing its own grant program.

Finally, the Great Lakes region needs a process for advising the EPA and other Federal agencies on Great Lakes matters. While there have been various advisory groups that have been pulled together over the years, there has never been a standing advisory entity, and that has been a gap in the governance and management of the Great Lakes. This bill authorizes a new advisory group to provide expertise to the EPA on goals and priorities for Great Lakes restoration and protection.

The Great Lakes are a unique American treasure. We are but their temporary stewards. We must be good stewards by doing all we can to ensure that the Federal Government meets its ongoing obligation to protect and restore the Great Lakes.