Floor Statements

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 407.

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

Mr. President, this amendment is a sense of the Senate declaring that there will be no cuts to important domestic nutrition programs in this year's budget. I am very pleased to have letters of support from the American School Food Services Association and a number of other nutrition organizations. This is a bipartisan amendment cosponsored by Senators Fitzgerald, Harkin, Leahy, Johnson, Murray, Dayton, Kohl, Corzine, Jack Reed, Clinton, Bingaman, Dodd, and Wyden.

Our concern is that the House budget resolution will cut child nutrition funding by an estimated $5.9 billion. These cuts would have a devastating impact on important child nutrition programs such as the School Lunch Program, breakfast programs, child and adult care feeding programs, and WIC.

We, in the Senate, have a long tradition of working together in a bipartisan way on nutrition programs. I hope we can adopt this sense of the Senate and, once more, show that we are very supportive that reauthorization of child nutrition programs is one of the Agriculture Committee's top priorities this year.

Frankly, Mr. President, we need more funding for child nutrition, not less. I ask for the Senate's support.

Mr. President, I thank my esteemed colleague and leader, Senator Carl Levin.

With the first shots fired last night, I rise today to talk about the need to support our troops now fighting in the gulf, as well as those on duty around the world.

From that freezing winter in Valley Forge to the baking heat and swirling dust storms of the gulf today, our men and women in uniform have shown over and over the hardships they are ready to endure in service to their country.

They are all in our thoughts and prayers. And we pray this ends quickly and with little loss of life.

I have met with many of these men and women and their commanders and have been impressed with their professionalism, training, and sense of duty and sacrifice.

From my home State of Michigan, the men and women of the 127th Air National Guard Wing in Selfridge, the 110th Fighter Wing in Battle Creek and the Combat Readiness Training Center in Alpena have been mobilized and deployed to bases around the world, including Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, South West Asia, and Turkey.

Army National Guard and Reserve unites from Owosso, Taylor, Grand Ledge, Grayling, Sault Ste. Marie, Midland, Pontiac, Three Rivers, Augusta, Selfridge, and Ypsilanti have all been mobilized and are awaiting their deployment orders.

Many of these men and women leave families and well-paying jobs behind, creating hardships for themselves and their family just so they can serve their Nation.

As the sole remaining superpower, we are asking a tremendous amount of our Armed Forces today. When we look around the globe, the numbers are staggering.

Right now about 225,000 troops are deployed in the Mideast--with more on the way.

But, again, as the sole remaining superpower we still have responsibilities around the globe.

We still have 38,000 Active Duty troops in Korea, nearly 40,000 in Japan, more than 100,00 permanently stationed in Europe, and about 50,000 sailors and soldiers afloat on ships in foreign waters.

In fact, according to the Department of Defense, the U.S. military is operating in more places around the globe than at any time in its history, including World War II, with a military presence in about 140 nations.

These men and women in uniform need to know their Nation will do everything in its power to give them the support they need to do their jobs--and also that gratitude for their sacrifice they will have our support when they come home as well.

General George C. Marshall, who oversaw the movement of forces in Europe and the Pacific in World War II, knew that the morale of the troops is crucial if the Armed Forces are to be effective. He once said:

It is not enough to fight. It is the spirit which we bring

to the fight that decides the issue. It is morale that wins

victories.

I agree.

And I believe one of the things we must do in this Congress to ensure high morale among our 2.3 million men and women in uniform, including Active, Reserve and Guard units, is to show them we are treating the 25 million veterans who came before them, including about 875,000 from Michigan, with the respect a grateful nation owes them.

One thing I would like to see is a change of policy so that our 600,000 disabled men and women who wore their country's uniform could collect both full pensions and disability benefits.

I also want to make sure our veterans have access to the best possible health care by fully funding the Veterans Affairs health care system.

If you cared enough to wear the uniform, you should be guaranteed high-quality, uniform care.

We also need to eliminate bottlenecks at the Veterans Administration for veterans who need prescription drugs.

Finally, we need to pass legislation creating tax fairness for military personnel.

We need to send to the President S. 351 that would address long- overdue tax reforms for National Guard and Reserve personnel.

We also need to remember that in the world after 9-11, our first responders are now also a crucial part of our national security, and they need our full support as well.

They were then, and remain now, on the front lines of hometown defense in this new war against terrorism.

For the past several months I have been traveling throughout Michigan meeting with the public safety officials who have been given the mission of trying to prevent an attack--or be first on the scene to save lives if one occurs.

In nine meetings from Michigan's Upper Peninsula to Detroit, I heard the same message over and over:

Help us get the training, personnel and equipment we need

to protect the people we need to protect, and help us meet

our obligations in the face of these new threats to our

communities.

Mr. President, I hope we will do just that as soon as possible.

This Sunday I will participate in a special ceremony that puts this all in perspective for me. This Sunday I meet with an American hero of World War II to present him a long overdue and richly deserved Bronze Star.

His name is Sergeant Herbert Munford and his story is inspiring.

Sergeant Munford had already earned a Silver Star at the Battle of the Bulge. Of the 385 men in his company when the battle began, only 18 were standing at the end--the rest killed, captured, or wounded.

Months later, SGT Munford's platoon was scouting along the Rhine, looking for a place to cross in advance of General George S. Patton's 3rd Army.

A German machine gun nest opened up on the platoon. SGT Munford made a run for some tall grass, hoping to hide himself while he circled around behind the machine gun.

He was shot in the hip as he was making his run out in the open. But he still managed to make it into the tall grass, circle behind the machine gun nest and take it out.

And what does SGT Munford say today about his heroic act. Well, he jokes about it. He called being shot in the hip his ``million dollar wound.''

Why? Well, in his own words SGT Munford says:

I can't swim. I didn't know how I was going to get across

the Rhine in the first place. I was sent back to be treated

for my wound and when I got back about two days later, Patton

had taken the Rhine and built a bridge so I could just walk

across.

What modesty! And keep in mind, that German bullet is still lodged in his hip today.

And his story doesn't end there. SGT Munford went on to win an Oak Leaf Cluster for his Bronze Star for bravery under fire in Korea.

I tell this story, because I think SGT Munford's story, like the stories of so many of our veterans, shows the great patriotic tradition of our Nation--a tradition that is on display today in the gulf and around the world.

And when I meet with SGT Munford on Sunday--and he's standing there with his family and fellow veterans--I want to be able to look each and every one of them in the eye and tell them in this time of conflict this Nation is doing all it can to support our present military personnel serving in the gulf and other duty stations around the globe. And that we stand behind our veterans of past wars as well.

I want them to know that we are committed to the proposition that those who answered the call to duty will never need to call out for help due to indifference.

I want them to know that those who sacrifice for their country will return to a country ready to sacrifice for them as well.

And I want them to know that those who wear the uniform of this Nation with honor, will themselves be honored long after that uniform has been put away and the guns gone silent.

Mr. President, first, as I begin, I know I share the feelings of all my colleagues, as we are debating this budget resolution and this important amendment, that our thoughts and prayers go to the men and women who are overseas, our troops who are being placed in harm's way. Regardless of our feelings about the policies that have brought us to this point, we all stand united in supporting our troops. It makes these kinds of debates even more important.

I am very proud to be a cosponsor of this amendment. I commend the Senator from California for her steadfast leadership on this issue, along with a number of colleagues of mine who have consistently stood firm about protecting the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

I have been pleased to be a cosponsor of legislation to stop drilling since first coming to the House in 1997. I also am proud to be the author of the ban that we placed on drilling in the Great Lakes, another national treasure. I view this area in Alaska as much of an irreplaceable and fragile natural and national treasure as the Great Lakes. I am very hopeful that today we will, one more time, stop this particular drilling policy from moving forward.

I would like to, once again, speak about some of the same points my colleagues have spoken of because I believe we have to keep repeating them to make it clear what the facts are.

First of all, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is, in fact, one of the wildest and most pristine places in the United States. We have an obligation to protect this area for the future, for those who are counting on us to be able to look beyond the immediate time period and look to the future for our country and for our children.

I believe we also have an obligation to stop back-door approaches to this issue. We are seeing, one more time, the drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge being placed in a bill where it should not be. This is a budget bill. We are focusing on the budget priorities for the next year.

Frankly, we should be debating how much the war is going to cost, and making sure our folks on the front line, and our first responders at home, police and firefighters and emergency workers, have what they need as we enter this very challenging time. Those are the kinds of things we should be debating, not seeing a back-door approach to drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge.

Most importantly, we know that drilling in the wildlife refuge will not result in energy independence. This is talked about all of the time, but it needs to be repeated, that only 2 percent--if we were to drill, we are talking about 2 percent of America's oil demand every year; and it would take at least 10 years to begin to see this brought on to the market.

We are talking about 2 percent rather than focusing on other areas of energy policy that will net alternatives in terms of conservation: alternative vehicles, alternative fuels, all of those kinds of things we know will allow us to become energy independent sooner and more effectively for the long run.

It is impossible for the United States to drill its way to energy security and independence. What we need to have is a debate about the energy policy of the country and how we are going to move forward. And that needs to be done in the energy bill, not in the middle of the budget resolution.

I am concerned when I hear this particular debate tied to Iraq, the serious debate about war and the oil in Iraq. It is important to say that gas prices are determined by global supply and demand factors, as we all know, not by opening one area to drilling.

In addition, Iraq supplies a very small percentage of our U.S. energy needs. According to the EIA, only 1.5 percent of the Nation's energy supply comes from Iraq. Imports from Iraq were banned in 1990 in the wake of the Persian Gulf war, and we obtained no oil from 1991 to 1995--all with no impact on the greatest economic expansion in U.S. history. The fact is, Canada and Mexico together supply more oil to the U.S. than the entire Persian Gulf.

So I encourage my colleagues to join with us in support of this amendment.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I first commend my friend and colleague from Florida for his ongoing leadership on the issue of Medicare prescription drug coverage. I am very hopeful we will be able to put into place the bill he has described so eloquently that would greatly benefit all older Americans and the disabled. It is my pleasure to join with him and with my distinguished colleague from North Dakota, Mr. Dorgan, as well, who has also been an outspoken leader both on Medicare prescription drugs and also on issues relating to containing costs, opening the borders to Canada, and other issues that would lower prices.

It is my pleasure to join with both of them in what I believe to be one of the most important, if not the most important, amendment we will be addressing to the budget resolution.

As my colleagues have said, the budget resolution is about American priorities and values. We lay out for the year and then project for 10 years what our most important priorities are, just as a family does in their own budget. We on this side of the aisle have argued that, of course, safety and security is critical. Education and the opportunity for young people and adults to have skills and be able to be successful in our society is critically important. Also, health care, the ability to have health care for your family, and the ability for every senior and every disabled person to know that, in fact, Medicare will be strong and will be there for them when they retire when they are eligible, and that it will reflect the way health care is provided today is also important.

We all know today prescription drug coverage is the primary way to provide health care, both for prevention, to be able to stop disease, and be able to monitor and keep us from having to have an operation or be in the hospital. Outpatient prescription drugs are a critical part of the way health care is provided today.

Medicare, which is a great American success story, simply needs to be updated in order to cover prescription drugs. That is what this amendment does. It says that as a value for our families and a priority for Americans, we choose to set aside dollars for a comprehensive, affordable prescription drug benefit for all seniors. We want to do that through Medicare, through strengthening, protecting, and preserving Medicare. It also says when we have to make choices, if we have to choose--as we always have to do in our own budget, in the Federal budget--between another tax cut for those earning millions of dollars a year, or putting dollars in the pockets of our seniors to help pay for their prescription drugs, their medicine, we choose prescription drug coverage for our seniors. We also choose paying down the debt to protect Social Security and Medicare for the future.

This amendment does two very important things: It guarantees that we will have enough resources to do a comprehensive Medicare prescription drug benefit. It also says the debt that is being accumulated by this country is absolutely unacceptable, and we need to be putting money aside to pay down that debt in order to make sure we can keep interest rates low to spur the economy so our families can buy homes and cars and send their children to college and not experience double-digit interest rates. We need to keep that debt down. That also allows us to protect Social Security and Medicare funds for the future for the trust funds. That priority, and a prescription drug coverage priority, is absolutely essential.

We also say something else that is very important. We need to make sure that traditional Medicare that has been there is there regardless of where you live. My great State is a huge State geographically, 9 million people plus. We need to make sure the seniors in Detroit or Marquette or Ironwood or Three Rivers or Benton Harbor or my home in Lansing all have the same ability and the same dependability in terms of Medicare prescription drugs. They will know the premiums are the same, their cost, their ability to choose their own doctor, their ability to choose their own medicines, to go to their own local pharmacy--that should be available regardless of where you live.

One of my great concerns is we have seen, unfortunately, more and more talk about reforming Medicare, which I believe is a code word for privatizing Medicare. All we are seeing leads us to believe that the administration wants to privatize Medicare and require seniors, if they are going to get real health care coverage that includes prescription drugs, to go into private insurance systems; to go into an HMO or another kind of system.

The administration has indicated, if they stay in traditional Medicare where the overwhelming majority of seniors are, they are willing to offer a discount card that the GAO tells us would be about $3.31 savings on a prescription. That is not very much if you are someone who is paying $100 or $150 or $200 for a simple 30-day prescription.

Then they have said: If you accumulate thousands of dollars--we don't know exactly what the number would be, but have catastrophic needs--you would be able to get some kind of help. We don't know at what point they would designate that, but if you want to get real help with prescription drugs, if you want to be covered for prescription drugs, then you would have to go to the private sector to be covered.

That is absolutely unacceptable. Seniors of this country have already chosen between Medicare and going into the private sector. We have that now. We have traditional Medicare and we have something called Medicare+Choice that is a private sector HMO approach. It is your choice as a senior.

In fact, my mother chose to go into an HMO herself in Michigan, and had a good experience, but the Medicare beneficiaries were dropped from that HMO because they decided not to cover them anymore. And that has happened to over 41,000 people just in Michigan.

What we have seen is that when seniors are being given a choice between traditional Medicare and the HMO system, they have already chosen: They have chosen Medicare, traditional Medicare. But for the small percent who chose to go into the private sector, they found it was not dependable. For my own mother, who chose to do that, she found she could not count on it. It was not ultimately available to her. And now, in Michigan, only 2 percent of people who are on Medicare can even qualify, can even find a private insurer that will cover them, and they all are in the eastern part of our State. So if you live in Lansing or Flint or Saginaw or Grand Rapids or on up in Traverse City or on up in the upper peninsula, you don't even have that choice because there is nothing available.

So what we have said in this amendment is that seniors need to know the prescription drug benefit that everybody is talking about should not just be available if you choose a private insurance policy, private insurance model through Medicare; you should have the right to have a choice of traditional Medicare and have the very same prescription drug coverage.

That is what this amendment says. If we want to offer seniors choice, then

we need to make sure we offer them a real choice: the choice of Medicare as they know it, Medicare as they have been able to depend upon, as well as the other private sector models that have been proposed by the President and our colleagues.

This amendment, I believe, is exactly what the seniors of America are asking us to do: simply update Medicare, strengthen the system they count on, and make sure they have affordable prescription drug coverage. I strongly support this amendment. I am proud to be cosponsoring this amendment with my colleagues. The dual goal of having Medicare prescription drug coverage and a major payment on the debt is very important.

When we look at who the beneficiaries of Medicare are--our seniors-- the majority of them are women. So I speak as one of the women of the Senate to say that the women of this country are counting on Medicare as well as Social Security. This is very real for the older women of our country. They are counting on us to fulfill the real promise of Medicare.

Mr. President, our seniors, as well as everyone who is involved with prescription drugs, are counting on us to do one other thing. I wish to speak to that for a moment. It relates to another amendment I will be offering later on in this debate that needs to be coupled with this amendment, and that is the question of lowering the price of prescription drugs.

We need to update Medicare to cover prescriptions. But at the same time, we need to lower the price through more competition, so that we can afford that coverage and be able to make it available to as many people as possible.

Along with my colleagues, Senator Dorgan and Senator Schumer, I am going to be offering an amendment the purpose of which is to reduce prescription drug prices for everyone, with the passage of legislation similar to S. 812, which passed overwhelmingly by the Senate last summer, a bill that contained provisions relating to generic drug reform, reimportation of prescription drugs from Canada--in other words, opening the border to Canada for our citizens--and State authority with respect to Medicaid drug rebate agreements. What that means is supporting our States that are being creative in finding ways to use their authority to lower the prices of prescription drugs for their citizens.

This amendment would take the approximately $7.4 billion minimal of savings through the generic drug reform we passed last summer coupled with any savings--and as yet they have not been able to calculate the savings--that we know would be there from opening the border to Canada, and dropping prices in half. But we would take those dollars and put it into a fund that is already in the budget resolution--a $50 billion fund for the uninsured--and we would add those budget savings to that fund for programs that help individuals and small businesses obtain health insurance.

We know the majority of those without insurance--in fact, we are told that 75 percent of the people who do not have health insurance are working, and they are working for small businesses. So this issue of lowering prices is very important for all businesses, but I would say particularly small businesses, that have seen their premiums--at least in Michigan, we know, according to Michigan Blue Cross and Blue Shield, that premiums for small businesses have doubled, at least, in the last 5 years. And we know, when we look behind those prices, as well as the prices for the Big Three automakers, and for other major employers, that the major reason the price of health care is going up is because of the explosion in the price of prescription drugs. The average retail prescription drug increase for brand names is three times the rate of inflation--three times the rate of inflation. So we have seen an explosion.

By the way, this relates back to Medicare coverage because a majority of those who are uninsured who are paying those prices are our senior citizens. In fact, the people who pay the highest prices in the world today are Americans, predominantly our seniors, who do not have insurance and walk into the local pharmacy and need to buy their medicine. So there is an important partnership here of both Medicare prescription drug coverage and lowering prices for everyone.

Last year, on a bipartisan vote, I was very proud of this body, my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, who joined together to, first of all, tighten up the rules and eliminate loopholes in relation to unadvertised brands, what we call generic drugs, that are supposed to be available when a patent runs out on a brand name. The formulas are supposed to be available so they can be manufactured at a much cheaper price, oftentimes 50 percent, sometimes as much as 70 percent less. We know by having more use of unadvertised brands, and they being more available on the market, we can drop insurance rates, we can drop prescription drug prices for our seniors and for everyone.

We also know if we simply open the border to Canada--I find this whole issue so amazing because we trade with Canada on everything except prescription drugs. In fact, in my great State of Michigan, right now we are seeing truckloads of trash coming in from Canada that we are told we cannot stop from going into Michigan landfills because we have open trade laws. So we can't stop the trash, but we can't bring in prescription drugs that would help our seniors and help our families be able to lower their costs, by bringing in American-made, American- subsidized prescriptions, that are sold in Canada at reduced prices.

That was the second part of what we did last summer, to pass a bill that opened the border. And we know that by doing that, licensed pharmacists could develop business relationships. Whether it is a pharmacist at the hospital, a pharmacist at the local pharmacy, a pharmacist working with health clinics or at a university, they could bring these back and make prescription drugs available. We ought to be doing that. It is very perplexing and frustrating that that is not happening.

In fact, to add insult to injury, the FDA has just informed us in the last week based on pressure from the pharmaceutical industry that not only are they not going to open the border, but they are going to begin enforcing the law against those who help our seniors. Whether it is an insurance company paying for reimbursement, whether it is others helping our seniors to go across the border to get their prescriptions at a lower price, working through a Canadian doctor and pharmacy, the FDA now says they will clamp down on that rather than working with us to open the borders in a safe way. This is the second part of how we lower prices.

The third way we lower prices is by supporting States that have been working to use their group purchasing power to negotiate with the pharmaceutical companies that do business with them on Medicaid, to negotiate with them to provide rebates and discounts for the uninsured in their State. A number of States have done that, and they have all been challenged, unfortunately, by the pharmaceutical industry. We want to make it clear that States have the ability on behalf of their citizens to advocate and to negotiate lower prices. That is the second amendment we will be offering.

Again, we will be offering an amendment that says we will reduce prescription drug prices. We will save dollars for the Federal Government, and then those dollars will be redirected into a fund and put aside to support small businesses to provide health care coverage for their employees.

The budget resolution is about priorities. We all know that. It is about values. It is about who we are as Americans. When I talk with people in Michigan, there is not a higher priority now than health care: Families struggling with the cost of medicine; seniors not having access to prescription drug coverage; businesses trying to figure out how to pay the bill; employees being told their pay will be frozen so their employer can pay the health care costs; those who are losing their jobs finding themselves in a situation where they are losing their health care. We even know that our reservists and members of the National Guard currently serving us in the gulf may find themselves not having health insurance for themselves and their families.

This is an issue that touches each and every one of us. Every year we talk about it. Every session we talk about it. It is complicated. It involves setting priorities on funding. Too much of the time, we set it aside to go on to something else. I hope we will not do that

this time, that we will make it clear, through this budget, that Medicare prescription drug coverage, that health care for small businesses and their employees, that lowering the prices of prescription drugs will be a top American priority. We can say, we will wait until next year, we will wait until the next budget resolution, but we can't say, we will wait until next year to get sick, to get cancer, or that a family will wait until next year until grandma or grandpa need a nursing home or their children get sick.

Health care for American families is an urgent matter. It is an urgent matter for everyone. It needs to be an urgent matter for all of us here in the Senate.

I urge my colleagues to support the amendment on Medicare prescription drug coverage, and I urge my colleagues as well to join with us in the amendment to reduce the price of prescription drugs and support our small businesses that are struggling to provide health care for their employees.

I yield back.

Mr. President, I join the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts in congratulating our leader on the Budget Committee, the Senator from North Dakota, for his ongoing leadership and the priorities he set forth. They are so important. He made them so clear on behalf of the American people. I cannot think of a more important amendment than the amendment of Senator Conrad at this time and on this day. I hope we will unanimously support this amendment. I hope we would not have to have a vote, that we could do this by voice vote today.

This amendment says exactly what we ought to be doing at this moment in time in our history. The amendment says, other than funding defense and homeland security and stimulating jobs and the economy, we are going to stop; we are going to wait on the rest of the budget; we are going to wait on additional spending. Certainly there are critical areas we care about. We are going to wait on any kind of a tax cut until we can pay for this war, until we know what the bill is. We know, if we do not do that, exactly how we are going to pay for it. We are going to pay for it by continuing to go into massive debt, depleting the Social Security and Medicare trust funds. That is how we are going to pay for it if we do not agree to this amendment.

This is absolutely critical. I think certainly the people in Michigan look at us in wonderment that we would be bringing up the budget resolution for the coming year, in which are the values and priorities of the American people, and we would not have any money set aside for a war in which we are about to engage.

How would an American family do that? If you were putting together your budget and you had a huge expense coming up in a couple of days, you wouldn't just ignore it. You wouldn't ignore it unless you just planned on putting it on a credit card, maybe. That is essentially what we are doing, is paying for the war through a taxpayers' credit card. That is not good enough and it is also not necessary. It is not necessary to do this outside the budget. This should be brought forward. We should at least put aside a reserve fund. We know at this point we cannot say exactly what it will cost. We certainly do not know what the reconstruction will cost. We do not know how long after the war we will be involved with Iraq, rebuilding Iraq. But we do know it is more than zero. We know that. We know it is more than zero.

We have a pretty good idea you could start somewhere in the $80 billion to $100 billion range and not be too high. So this says: Let's wait on other things. Let's wait and let's make sure we are covering the costs of a war that our President last night indicated most likely we are about to begin.

We also believe part of that is making sure we have dollars for those who are fighting on the front lines here at home. We all care deeply and stand united supporting our troops overseas. We know in this resolution we clearly indicate defense should be our top priority at this time, to make sure both our reservists and National Guard and their families are receiving what they need in terms of health care, and certainly recognizing their sacrifice, leaving their fulltime jobs and going to serve all of us at this time of conflict.

We have another group and that is the group that is serving us on the front lines at home. That is the group that answers the 9-1-1 call, the emergency medical personnel, the sheriff, the fire department. These are the people who have to respond. We, in fact, know the likelihood. Certainly there is increased risk right now they will have to respond.

So part of what we are saying is defense abroad but also defense in our hometowns needs to be the top priority. We need to pay for that, too. We are not yet doing that. We are seeing promises to other countries for their help in this effort, yet no willingness to provide assistance for those who are helping us on the front lines in our own hometowns.

Again, it just doesn't make any common sense. What we are saying through this amendment is we need to stop until we make it clear what the costs are for the war. We will focus on defense, homeland defense, and making sure we are stimulating jobs in the economy so in fact we are having a strong economy for our families and those fighting for us who will be coming home, so they will have that strong economy and jobs. But it is not the priority now to say that, among all the things we could be doing, we are going to give another round of tax cuts to those who make millions of dollars a year.

We look at shared sacrifice and we are being told we all have to sacrifice. I read an article not long ago about our Senate Republican leader going in front of a group of veterans. But while he certainly indicated supporting the veterans, he said: Veterans are going to have to sacrifice.

I would suggest veterans have already sacrificed and, in fact, we are creating war veterans whom we will be asking to sacrifice. But where is the sacrifice? Where is the sacrifice for those here at home who make millions of dollars a year, who already have one home, two homes, three homes, several cars, and are doing well? We welcome that. We would like that for every American. We certainly want an economy where every American can work hard and do well and move up the income scale.

But what happens when we say to people, those making $13,000 a year, serving us in the Army versus somebody at home whose life is not on the line or someone who is not a police officer or a firefighter or EMT worker, what do we say when we are saying we cannot fund homeland security, we cannot make sure you have health care that you need to protect your families if you are in the National Guard or Reserves? We are not going to budget for this war, but we are going to say that if you are blessed and doing well and are at the very top of the income earnings of America, earning millions of dollars a year, then we are going to put you ahead of everybody else; and we are going to say that you ought to be able to get a tax cut, even though it means we cannot pay for the war, that we have to go back into debt, even though it means we have massive debt that is eventually going to raise interest rates and make it harder for people to buy houses and cars and send their kids to college; even though it puts us in a situation where we cannot provide prescription drug help for our seniors, we cannot fully pay our share of the public school bill through the Leave No Child Behind; even though we have to leave veterans standing in line for months to see a doctor at the VA; even though there are all kinds of other issues where we are saying to people that you have to sacrifice right now. Children have to sacrifice, seniors have to sacrifice, veterans have to sacrifice, our families and small businesses that are not getting help with their health care bills have to sacrifice; but a few folks at the top do not. And they are not asking for that, either.

When I talk to folks who are doing very well at home, they say, we can wait. It is alright. We are not asking for this. We want to make sure our kids are safe at home, that hometown security is taken care of, the school systems are strong, and our troops have what they need overseas. They want to make sure that, in fact, those things are in place, which relate to our safety and security, and the economy, and the other issues that are very important for Americans, very important to keep us strong.

This amendment is incredibly important. It basically says stop. Our President says in less than 48 hours we are going to be at war, assuming Saddam Hussein does not leave the country. We believe we have an obligation and a responsibility to pay for that war, to make sure our troops have what they need, to make sure people on the front lines in our communities at home have what they need so we are safe first. We need to do that first. Then we can talk about tax cuts and how to structure it so the majority of Americans benefit.

We can talk about the important issues of health care and education and the environment and other critical needs in the country; but we need to stop now and focus first on the safety and security issues of our country and making sure our economy is strong with a stimulus so there are jobs. We need to start there, as any other family when you have to set priorities. Let's start with the bottom line priorities, given where we are now. Let's make sure we can pay for it, not be adding to the debt, and then we can debate other important issues that we all care about.

Again, I commend Senator Conrad for his leadership and for this very important amendment. I hope all of us can come together and show unity on this floor and send a message across the country that at this time we are going to put our safety and security first, and we are going to make sure we are not putting it on a credit card--we are paying for it--and that we are going to make sure our troops and front line people at home have what they need before other decisions are made about this budget.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Madam President, I am a cosponsor of the amendment, and on behalf of Senator Feinstein, I yield myself 5 minutes.

I appreciate the deeply held views on all sides of this issue. But first I will indicate there is not a more fundamental issue for the women of this country that relates to our privacy, respect for our own decisionmaking, as well as our own religious beliefs, than this fundamental issue we are debating. I also remind my colleagues that the term partial-birth abortion, there is not a procedure called that, but the late-term abortion procedure is in fact one-tenth of 1 percent of all of those procedures, all abortions that are done every year. We are talking about a very small group of procedures done when there are real tragedies.

These are wanted pregnancies, women who have been excited about having babies and find out very late in the term of the pregnancy that there is a serious or fatal problem. And their families grieve. They grieve over the decisions they have to make about how to proceed, given the information.

I believe we need, as a governmental body under the Constitution, to respect their privacy, their religious freedom, for them to be able to struggle with their own decisionmaking, their family's and their faith, to be able to do what is best to protect their own life and their own health.

I rise to support the Feinstein amendment strongly and would be surprised, given the vote on the Harkin amendment, if this amendment did not pass. We just had a vote where 52 Members of this great body voted to uphold Roe v. Wade, voted to uphold the constitutionality, the decision made by the Supreme Court in that case. The Feinstein amendment does nothing more than repeat the language as it relates to the life and health of the mother. It repeats what is current law in terms of Roe v. Wade. So those who support Roe v. Wade, who supported the Harkin amendment, should be supporting this amendment as well.

I would like to share a couple of letters that talk about what we are really doing.

This is a statement by Maureen Britell, given on March 10 of this year. She writes:

In February of 1994, my family was happily awaiting the

birth of Dahlia, our second daughter. My pregnancy was

progressing smoothly and we were getting more excited as the

days and the weeks passed. At the time, my husband, Andrew,

was on active duty in the Air Force and had been unable to

come to any of my routine prenatal checkups. He wanted to

share in the excitement, so when I was 5 months pregnant, we

scheduled an additional ultrasound.

When we went in for our appointment, that joy dissipated.

The technician was unable to locate my daughter's brain.

After my doctor came in, he informed us that Dahlia had a

fatal anomaly . . . where the brain stem develops, but not

the brain.

Madam President, can you imagine how that couple must have felt at that moment? As a mother of two children, I certainly can. She goes on to say:

I went to the New England Medical Center for a high-level

sonogram, which confirmed what my doctor had told me. The

medical experts [there] . . . reviewed our options with

Andrew and me, but they all recommended the same thing: to

protect my health, we should induce labor.

I am a Catholic and the idea of ending my pregnancy was

beyond my imagination. I turned to my parish priest for

guidance. He counseled me for a long time and, in the end, he

agreed that there was nothing more that I could do to help my

daughter.

Madam President, I ask the Senator for 2 additional minutes.

She said:

With the support of our families and our priest, Andrew and

I made the decision to end the pregnancy.

I was scheduled for a routine induction abortion in which

medications are used to induce labor. My doctors anticipated

that it would be a standard delivery and that because Dahlia

had no brain, she would die as soon as the umbilical cord was

cut.

Madam President, again, can you imagine writing this letter and the pain of this woman and her family?

After 13 long hours of labor, I started to deliver Dahlia.

Unexpectedly complications arose and Dahlia lodged in my

birth canal. The placenta would not drop. Our doctors had to

cut the umbilical cord to complete the delivery, and avoid

serious health consequences for me. Dahlia died while still

in my birth canal--the same description used in the so-called

``partial-birth abortion.''

My husband and I still mourn the loss of Dahlia. However,

because of the excellent medical care I received, I was able

to become pregnant again and in June 1995, we welcomed

Nathaniel into our family.

Now I'm sharing my story not only as a mother who would be

banned from having an abortion, but as a military wife. I

find the timing of this bill highly offensive, as we military

families are just days away from sending our loved ones into

armed combat. I resent the administration using families like

mine as a cloak in their effort to ban reproductive

healthcare in this country.

In a perfect world, I would never have to write you this

letter. Every pregnancy would be wanted, healthy and happy--

and no loved ones would be going off to war. Until that time,

however, there will be families like mine. And until

that time, abortion must be kept safe, legal and

accessible.

Madam President, we have thousands of women who have shared similar stories. We have thousands who are asking for us to say no to this extreme legislation, to support the Feinstein amendment, and to join with us--all of us--in efforts to come forward to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

I was so disappointed that Senator Murray's amendment did not pass--a positive effort to focus on prevention, on coming together to focus on stopping the unwanted pregnancies on the front end. I was very disturbed to see even a more restrictive effort to show how extreme this effort is--even Senator Durbin's amendment did not pass this body.

This is an extreme measure, which will take away the ability for women to respond when their life or their health is in jeopardy as a result of a pregnancy. This is not what we should be doing in the Senate. I urge my colleagues, reaffirm the vote on the Harkin amendment to support Roe v. Wade by supporting the language in the Feinstein amendment.

I yield the floor.

Will the Senator yield for a moment?

I wanted to clarify that, in fact, given the situation, they were performing an abortion to do that. That was the intent of the procedure. It was an abortion. Additionally, I say the mother's life was not in jeopardy, but her health and future fertility were in question. There were a number of issues relating to her health as well.

I just indicate, with all due respect, I think the issue here, when we are debating medical procedures on the floor, really gets to the point about whether or not we in the Senate should be debating medical procedures. Earlier, there was a debate about whether a child which was born with a brain outside of its head was in fact to be categorized as a disabled child. All of these issues we are debating here as non- medical personnel, we don't know the facts or what happened in any individual case. So that would be my concern.

Will my colleague yield one more moment?

I interject, we are not asking that this right be given up to the courts; we are asking that these decisions be left up to a woman, her family, and her faith.

Mr. President, I rise to thank my colleague from Illinois for his eloquence regarding the direction of our economy and the Federal budget and the grave concern he has that I share about the looming and massive long-term debt that is accumulating by the policies of this administration.

When we look at where we are going and the fact that the entire Medicare and Social Security trust funds are currently being used to fund tax cuts geared to the very top, the very wealthiest 1 percent, and when we look at the discussions we are having in the Budget Committee, we begin to see a picture that is disturbing. Because when we ask what will happen, when we are using all of these funds for other purposes, and we know that in just a matter of a few years, the baby boomers will begin to retire en masse and they have the expectation, as they should, that Social Security and Medicare will be there for them, they have paid into the system, and we are told, when we ask, how will we afford that, how will we be able to keep that commitment, well, that assumes that Medicare and Social Security will be structured the way they are today. That assumes there will be no reform.

What is becoming clear is that reform is a code word for privatizing; that there is a real interest, a commitment and movement to privatize or eliminate Medicare and Social Security, as we know it, in the long term.

Today I wish to speak again very specifically about Medicare because I believe that is the most imminent threat because the debate that has occurred since 1965, when Medicare passed, in various forms is occurring yet again today. That is the question of whether Medicare is a big American success story, which I believe it is, or just a big Government program, which I believe this administration feels it is.

I wish to speak specifically about special interest politics versus the needs of the public, the willingness to provide tax policy that benefits only a few, rather than the middle class, and small businesses that drive our economy, as well as the fact that in Medicare, we are seeing a willingness to move the system in a way that benefits, again, special interests over the needs of all of our seniors and the disabled in our country.

On page A6 of the Washington Post this morning, there is a very disturbing article. It says: ``Bush Plan a Boon to Drug Companies.'' The President went before the American Medical Association yesterday and spoke about his plans for Medicare, again using the word ``reform,'' which we know now is a code word for ``privatization.'' Reform equals privatize when we talk about this issue of Medicare. We now find that it also directly relates, once again, to special interest politics, which is very disturbing.

The second headline is: ``Medicare Prescription Proposal Would Also Benefit Insurers, Analysts Say.'' Not the insured, not the seniors about whom we all talk, not the disabled people about whom we all talk, but the insurance industry.

It begins:

Health care economists said the drug benefit President Bush

proposed for Medicare yesterday would be a bonanza for the

pharmaceutical and managed-care industries, both of which are

huge donors to Republicans.

It went on to say:

Marilyn Moon, a health economist at the Urban Institute,

said Bush's plan would hand tremendous negotiating power to

health insurance companies.

``By making the private plans such a central part of the

future of Medicare, the government is going to have to meet

their demands for greater contributions to the cost of care,

over and above the subsidy for prescription drugs,'' Moon

said.

Bush's proposal is vague on many points, including the

terms for insurers. Tricia Neuman, a vice president of the

Kaiser Family Foundation, said the plan would have to provide

a windfall for the companies--

``Would have to provide a windfall for the companies.''

or too few would participate for the plan to work.

The analysts said drug companies also could be expected to

reap huge profits under Bush's approach.

Huge profits under Bush's approach. We have to ask ourselves: Is that the purpose of Medicare? Is that the purpose of health care? Is it the same as purchasing a pair of tennis shoes, purchasing soup, purchasing a new shirt so that we are talking about what profit margin we have off our Medicare recipients, or is the goal to make sure we have quality health care for every senior citizen?

I believe it is our responsibility to make sure this is a streamline system with as few dollars as possible going into administration and that the dollars should go directly to health care for our seniors, not into huge profits. We welcome profits in many areas. We need profits in our economy. We want businesses to be successful. But when we are talking about Medicare, we have a different priority in what we need to do to help our seniors make sure they have care.

To continue with the article:

Bruce C. Vladeck, who was President Clinton's head of the

federal agency that runs Medicare, said Bush's plan ``strikes

me as the kind of proposal that pharmaceutical companies

would write if they were writing their own bill.''

These are the kind of comments we heard last year when we were debating prescription drug coverage and were told--in fact, we heard comments coming from staff in the House quoted in the paper as to how they were running their proposals by the pharmaceutical industry to make sure they were OK. It is clear this one is OK, and we should all be very concerned about who we are trying to help.

Continuing to quote:

``A slew of private health plans would have nowhere near

the negotiating power that Medicare would have if there was

national drugs benefit,'' said Vladeck, now a health

policy professor at Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New

York City.

If Bush's proposal were enacted, it could provide a high-

profile benefit for industries that are reliable donors to

Republican candidates and committees. The Center for

Responsive Politics said that for the past two elections

combined, pharmaceutical manufacturers gave $30 million to

Republicans and $8 million to Democrats.

Health service companies and HMOs, a leading form of

managed care, donated $10 million to Republicans and $5

million to Democrats over the past two elections, according

to the center's figures.

This should be a deep concern of every American, as well as my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and on the other side of this building about how this issue is being framed because of the realities it points out what is really going on with this issue.

I will make one more point. The article continues, quoting President Bush yesterday:

Bush, promising to bring more free enterprise to medicine,

denounced ``government-run health care ideas.''

I have been saying for a long time that those who want to privatize Medicare believe that Medicare is a big Government-run program, and there is a major philosophical difference that has gone on since 1965 when only 12 colleagues from the other side of the aisle joined in passing Medicare. There is a huge chasm of difference as to whether we ought to even have Medicare.

Fundamentally, that is what this debate is about. It is not about what the premiums should be, what the copay should be. It is about who runs the system as to whether there should be a guarantee so that every person who turns 65 and gets that Medicare card knows they can choose their doctor, that they can get the medicine they need, that they know what the copay is, what the premium is, regardless of where they live in the country.

In a State such as Michigan, where we have the major metropolitan area of Detroit all the way up to Ironwood, MI, in the western part of the UP, people today know that under Medicare they can get the health care they need. That was a promise made by the United States of America in 1965, and now under a lot of different pretty words, a lot of different connotations of reform, we see an effort clearly outlined-- and even in the President's own words--to put more free enterprise into the health care system. That is privatizing the health care system. That is privatizing Medicare.

In general, I do believe there is an important partnership between the public and the private sector. We have an employer model of health care in this country that has worked for workers and their families. I appreciate there is a benefit in having partnerships.

We have said as a country that once an American citizen reaches the age of 65 or they are disabled, we think it is important that whether one has private plans in their community, whether they can find them and/or whether they can afford them, they should be able to have health care. The reason Medicare came into being was that over half the seniors could not find or afford private insurance. That is why Medicare was created.

I, for one, will not quietly stand by to see a promise of some 38 years eroded by this administration or in this Congress. I know there are colleagues of mine on both sides of the aisle who have concerns. I am hopeful we can come together under Medicare.

What is very clear is--and in this article the outside analysts, independent voices, are saying--the fight is about how we administer the prescription drug benefit. The companies want to keep it disbursed in the private sector because they know if the some 40 million beneficiaries of Medicare today are in one insurance plan, they will be able to negotiate a group discount for the first time. They will not be paying retail. They will not be paying the highest prices in the world in order to get their medicine. They will be able to get a group discount.

The fight is on to make sure that seniors in this country do not have the collective power to be able to get that discount through Medicare. That is what this is about. It is one of the most fundamental fights we will have in this Congress and on the floor of the Senate, and I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will come together and be willing to stand up and say Medicare works, Medicare is a great American success story, and we continue to promise that the Medicare plan will be there for every single senior and the disabled in our country.

This is a fundamental fight, and I hope my colleagues will join me in making sure this plan that is passed is not a boon for the drug companies or for the HMOs but is a boon for the seniors of America.

I move now to another very important topic, and that is the question of stimulating this economy. We know that to get out of the massive debt that is being accumulated, we have got to stimulate the economy. We have to reverse the trend right now. We have seen over 2 million private sector jobs lost in the last 2 years. We have to go back to the Eisenhower Presidency to find those kinds of numbers, those kinds of huge private sector losses and this massive debt. We know that has to be turned around.

Part of what needs to happen to begin to get us back to the balanced budget and out of this massive debt, so we can protect Social Security and Medicare, is to stimulate the economy and create jobs. I am very proud to be a part of an effort to do that.

We have in front of us a Democratic plan that has been introduced by our leader and Members in our caucus. It will provide immediate relief for families through a broad-based tax cut that is on the front end, a tax cut to the middle class and to those in our country who we know will turn around and buy those school clothes or a new car--and coming from Michigan, I am always hopeful it is a new American-made car--and purchasing that new home and all of those things that stimulate the economy, rather than giving the tax relief to somebody who has three homes or has five cars and is not likely to buy another one.

What we want is to put that tax cut in the hands of middle-class people, working people, who will spend it now, so that our businesses will see the demand. Right now, newspaper headlines this week in Michigan relate to the auto industry cutting back on the building of new cars because the demand is not there.

We have a proposal that relates to demand, not trickle-down economics from the top but demand, to put money in the pockets of people who will spend it. That is exactly what our proposal would do. It would provide about a $1,200 tax cut this year for a family of four. It would also provide tax incentives to encourage businesses to invest and create jobs, and it would increase the current multiyear bonus depreciation so if one invested now, they would get a bonus depreciation, which is very important.

It would triple the amount of investments small businesses can write off immediately, and this is very important because the majority of new jobs are coming from small business. We need to be focusing on tax policies that will help and support job creation in small business.

It would provide a 50-percent tax credit in 2003 to help small businesses pay for their share of health insurance premiums. This relates very much to the broader question of health care and where we are going.

Later today, we are going to be introducing legislation to cut the price on prescription drugs so we can bring that health insurance premium down for small businesses. It would provide a 20-percent tax credit in 2003 for businesses investing in broadband, high-speed Internet infrastructure, focusing on rural areas, underserved areas. This is very important. We are in a high-tech new economy, and broadband access is critical as we move forward to be able to compete in the new world of high technology and helping small businesses invest, particularly in our rural areas, the hard-to-reach areas. It is an important part of our economic development structure.

Another important piece we believe must be addressed now is to provide $5 billion for hometown security that would make sure that as we are investing in the economy, we are also making sure we are safe at home. When people have an emergency, they call 9-1-1. We want to make sure people on the other end of that line have the communications equipment, the technology, the training, and the personnel

to respond in a way that will keep us safe.

We also know that part of what is happening economically across the country now is that we are seeing a ripple effect because the majority of States are in a financial crisis because of the downturn in the economy and other factors, so that as they lay off, and people are spending less because they are laid off from State or local governments, there is this ripple effect throughout the economy.

In addition to putting money directly into people's pockets, we also propose putting money into the pockets of the small business owner. We propose providing dollars in immediate aid to State and local governments so that we are not seeing that ripple effect in terms of people losing their jobs, losing purchase power in the economy. We all know common sense says if we can provide money to State, local, and municipal governments and they can focus on immediate infrastructure such as rebuilding roads, water systems, sewer systems, we create good- paying jobs by doing that, such as construction jobs. We take burdens off local property taxes, which helps individuals and businesses, and we can again stop the bleeding that is occurring right now in the States with more and more people losing their jobs and thus losing purchasing power in the economy. This is of great urgency.

We come to the floor each day to ask that we immediately go to an economic stimulus package that will get America back to work, will put money in the pockets of individuals and businesses that can get the job done, that can stimulate this economy, to help our hometown security, and to make sure that we are helping to rebuild America, which also rebuilds jobs.

With all sense of great urgency, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 21, S. 414, a bill to provide an economic stimulus package.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I would like to express my strong support for the National Aquatic Invasive Species Act of 2003, NAISA.

During the 107th Congress, I introduced S. 1034, the Great Lakes Ecology Protection Act which sought to curb the influx of invasive species into the Great Lakes. This is an immense task, as more then 87 nonindigenous aquatic species have been accidentally introduced into the Great Lakes in the past century. I am proud to say that this bill had strong bipartisan support with 12 Great Lakes Senators as original cosponsors.

Today, I am proud to join Senator Levin as an original cosponsor of NIASA which will provide a national strategy for preventing invasive species from being introduced in the Great Lakes and our Nation's waters. I am pleased that NIASA incorporates many of the ideas from the Great Lakes Ecology Protection Act in formulating a national standard.

Invasive species have had a devastating economic and ecological impact on the United States. They have already damaged the Great Lakes in a number of ways. They have destroyed thousands of fish and threatened our clean drinking water.

For example, Lake Michigan once housed the largest self-producing lake trout fishery in the entire world. The invasive sea lamprey, which was introduced from ballast water almost 80 years ago, has contributed greatly to the decline of trout and whitefish in the Great Lakes by feeding on and killing native trout species.

Today, lake trout must be stocked because they cannot naturally reproduce in the lake. Many Great Lakes States have had to place severe restrictions on catching yellow perch because invasive species such as the zebra mussel disrupt the Great Lakes' ecosystem and compete with yellow perch for food. The zebra mussel's filtration also increases water clarity, which may be making is easier for predators to prey upon the yellow perch. Moreover, tiny organisms like zooplankton that help form the base of the Great Lakes food chain, have declined due to consumption by exploding populations of zebra mussels.

We have made progress on preventing the spread of invasive species, but we have not yet solved this problem. NIASA will create a mandatory national ballast water management program to prevent the introduction of invasive species into our waters, as well as, encourage the development of new ballast treatment technology to eliminate invasive species. NIASA also will greatly increase research funding for these treatment and prevention technologies, and provide necessary funding and resources for invasive species rapid response plans. In addition, the bill will increase outreach and education to recreational boaters and the general public on how to prevent the spread of invasive species.

As Members of the U.S. Congress, we have a responsibility to share in the stewardship of our Nation's natural resources. As a Great Lakes Senator, I feel a particularly strong responsibility to protect a resource that is not only a source of clean drinking water for more than 30 million people in the Great Lakes, but is vital to Michigan's economy and environment. I am proud to support a bill that will provide innovative solutions and necessary resources to this longstanding environmental problem, and will also protect our precious water resources for the enjoyment and benefit of future generation of Americans.

Mr. President, I would like to express my strong support for the National Aquatic Invasive Species Act of 2003, NAISA.

During the 107th Congress, I introduced S. 1034, the Great Lakes Ecology Protection Act which sought to curb the influx of invasive species into the Great Lakes. This is an immense task, as more then 87 nonindigenous aquatic species have been accidentally introduced into the Great Lakes in the past century. I am proud to say that this bill had strong bipartisan support with 12 Great Lakes Senators as original cosponsors.

Today, I am proud to join Senator Levin as an original cosponsor of NIASA which will provide a national strategy for preventing invasive species from being introduced in the Great Lakes and our Nation's waters. I am pleased that NIASA incorporates many of the ideas from the Great Lakes Ecology Protection Act in formulating a national standard.

Invasive species have had a devastating economic and ecological impact on the United States. They have already damaged the Great Lakes in a number of ways. They have destroyed thousands of fish and threatened our clean drinking water.

For example, Lake Michigan once housed the largest self-producing lake trout fishery in the entire world. The invasive sea lamprey, which was introduced from ballast water almost 80 years ago, has contributed greatly to the decline of trout and whitefish in the Great Lakes by feeding on and killing native trout species.

Today, lake trout must be stocked because they cannot naturally reproduce in the lake. Many Great Lakes States have had to place severe restrictions on catching yellow perch because invasive species such as the zebra mussel disrupt the Great Lakes' ecosystem and compete with yellow perch for food. The zebra mussel's filtration also increases water clarity, which may be making is easier for predators to prey upon the yellow perch. Moreover, tiny organisms like zooplankton that help form the base of the Great Lakes food chain, have declined due to consumption by exploding populations of zebra mussels.

We have made progress on preventing the spread of invasive species, but we have not yet solved this problem. NIASA will create a mandatory national ballast water management program to prevent the introduction of invasive species into our waters, as well as, encourage the development of new ballast treatment technology to eliminate invasive species. NIASA also will greatly increase research funding for these treatment and prevention technologies, and provide necessary funding and resources for invasive species rapid response plans. In addition, the bill will increase outreach and education to recreational boaters and the general public on how to prevent the spread of invasive species.

As Members of the U.S. Congress, we have a responsibility to share in the stewardship of our Nation's natural resources. As a Great Lakes Senator, I feel a particularly strong responsibility to protect a resource that is not only a source of clean drinking water for more than 30 million people in the Great Lakes, but is vital to Michigan's economy and environment. I am proud to support a bill that will provide innovative solutions and necessary resources to this longstanding environmental problem, and will also protect our precious water resources for the enjoyment and benefit of future generation of Americans.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the plan the White House is unveiling today concerning Medicare and prescription drugs. I am surprised and dismayed to see we have basically the same old thing being proposed once again by the administration. While we hear the right words about wanting to make sure every senior has access to prescription drugs, one more time we are seeing the President say one thing and do another.

In January after the State of the Union, many were dismayed to hear that the President's proposal for Medicare prescription drug coverage would basically be one that would say to a senior, if you stay in traditional Medicare, Medicare that has worked for you every day, every year, guaranteed access to your doctor, guarantee that you had health care available to you--if you chose to stay in Medicare, which has been working since 1965, you would not get any assistance with your critical prescription drug costs; you would have to go into a private sector

Mr. President, I rise today to speak, once again, about the urgent needs in our local communities for hometown security-- efforts for us to support local police and firefighters and emergency medical workers, including those in our local emergency rooms at our hospitals. These people are on the front lines of any terrorist attack that our citizens may face in the days or weeks or months ahead.

Many of us have been talking, since just after 9/11, about the importance of partnering with local communities, and that it is not enough to ask our local sheriffs, firefighters, police officers, and others in the communities, to assume this additional set of duties relating to national security without having the support and assistance of the Federal Government.

I commend all of my colleagues and the President for coming together to make sure our men and women in the armed services have what they need at this critical time. We have come forward with substantial increases in the Department of Defense, and I am sure we will continue to do so.

But when it comes to the home front, we have not yet done what needs to be done. There is a growing sense of urgency and bewilderment in our communities here at home about why this has not occurred and why the President is not supporting the efforts that we have put forward.

I have been holding meetings around Michigan--I believe eight different meetings now--from Detroit to Macomb County, Oakland County; I was in Port Huron, MI, on Monday; on over to Lansing and Kalamazoo, and all the way up to Marquette in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan--and I hear the same thing over and over: We need help purchasing updated radio equipment; we can't talk to one another; the city versus the county or county to county. In some cases, in smaller communities, the fire department cannot talk to the police department. We need a better dispatch system. We need better communications systems. We need, frankly, to be doing this on a statewide and national basis. But the communities do not have the resources to do it alone.

We hear about training, not only having a trainer come in--whether it is for bioterrorism, whether it is other types of training that is needed--but we are hearing from local law enforcement and others that when you have a training certification, and you take 10 police officers away from their normal duties of patrolling our streets and keeping the citizens safe, and they sit in training, no matter how important it is, the police chief still has to replace those 10 officers so the citizens remain safe while that is happening, while the training is occurring. That takes additional dollars.

There are multiple costs to training that we need to be supporting in order to be able to get this done as quickly as possible and as thoroughly as possible. And certainly we need additional personnel, different kinds of personnel, in our local communities.

I am sure my colleagues have received many letters. I have received many letters in addition to the personal conversations that I have had with people across Michigan. Let me share parts of a couple letters from mayors in Michigan.

The mayor from the city of Birmingham wrote to the President and sent me a copy:

Mr. President, I am writing to express my deep concern that

funding for first responders promised nearly a year ago has

still not been provided to America's cities, towns and

villages. As you know, the nation's local municipalities have

carried the burden for homeland security during the 15 months

since the September 11 attacks, with only the promise of

federal support.

This was written back in December.

The absence of federal funding for police, firefighters and

emergency response staff has been a disappointment for many

city leaders across the country as their concerns were voiced

at the recent National League of Cities conference held

earlier this year.

I have a similar letter that has come from the mayor of Cadillac, in northern Michigan, again expressing grave concerns and saying:

At the recent National League of Cities conference in Salt

Lake City, city leaders from across the country voiced their

deep disappointment regarding the absence of federal funding

for police, firefighters and emergency response staff.

The city of Fenton, in Michigan, the city of East Lansing, in my own home county--mayors, county officials, police chiefs, sheriffs--and of both parties; this is not Republican and Democrat; this is not urban and rural; this is not a question of one part of the country against another--everyone, every community is saying this same thing.

I am deeply concerned not only about past actions but what is occurring right now in this current budget bill that we will have in front of us tomorrow.

Let me, first, indicate and remind us that last summer we passed an emergency supplemental that included $2.5 billion, passed by the Senate with bipartisan support, passed by the House with bipartisan support, and sent to the President, an emergency supplemental including $2.5 billion for local communities. It was on the President's desk. All he had to do was sign it. And he would not declare it as an emergency and would not sign it and release the funds.

We have come back again and again. Twice this last month, in January, Senator Byrd stood in this Chamber and eloquently spoke about the needs of communities and first responders. Again, we could not get the support.

And now in the omnibus budget bill that will be coming before us, despite a unanimous Senate appropriations vote back last July on a series of items that deal with transportation security, border security, community policing, Federal emergency management, firefighter grants, equipment and communications, emergency operations, port container security--and on and on and on--we now have in front of us a bill that, in fact, will cut from that amount supported unanimously by the Senate Appropriations Committee $4.4 billion from homeland security from what we passed, what the Appropriations Committee passed and recommended to us last summer based on the needs presented to them from communities.

We could go down the list. I am deeply concerned when I see the cuts in community policing, the firefighter grants, the inoperable communications equipment grants, which I am hearing so much concern about, emergency operations, et cetera.

It is time for us to act. It is time for us to hear what our communities are saying. I urge my colleagues to join with us in making sure we truly keep our communities safe.

Mr. President, I rise this evening to discuss the nomination of Miguel Estrada to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, and to express grave concerns that we are being asked to vote on a lifetime appointment with very little information on this nominee. There are many who have raised concerns about that very point. Let me share one letter that has been written, from the American Association of University Women.

We believe the information available regarding Mr.

Estrada's record raises serious concerns about whether he

should be given the enormous honor and responsibility of a

lifetime appointment to this Nation's second most powerful

Federal court. We strongly urge the members of the Judiciary

Committee to conduct a thorough investigation of his record,

including the areas of concern we have outlined, and to

refrain from passing judgment on his nomination until that

inquiry and the record is complete.

Let me begin by saying the DC Circuit Court of Appeals is, in fact, an extremely important court in our Nation. It is very important to the people I represent in Michigan and to the people that we all represent. It is, in fact, considered the Nation's second most important court, second only to the U.S. Supreme Court. This court has exclusive jurisdiction over a broad array of important Federal regulations that affect people in their lives every single day--environmental protection, our civil rights, human rights, consumer protections, workplace statutes--items that touch our lives. We have the right to know what someone's views are in general, and philosophy in general, as that person is being considered for this high court.

In addition, its judges are often nominated to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court, which is another reason why this is a particularly important nomination, and a particularly important decision for all of us in the Senate. Three of the current members of the Supreme Court, Justice Scalia, Justice Thomas, and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, all previously served on the DC Circuit. So that is why this is particularly important and we should take the time necessary to make sure that the right decisions are made.

Despite the importance of the DC Circuit Court, the administration is trying very hard to prevent the Senate from making an informed decision--an informed decision on Mr. Estrada. Mr. Estrada has no judicial experience, nor is he a distinguished scholar or professor, which means he lacks any real public record. That is not disparaging in terms of a comment as to his intellect, but it is a question of public record which we can review as to his views and philosophies.

He has spent the bulk of his career in the Solicitor General's Office and in private practice. This makes it extraordinarily difficult for us to fairly evaluate him, and it makes his legal memos and other work product absolutely critical for this evaluation.

The Senate has a constitutional obligation to advise and consent on a Federal judicial nominee. This is a responsibility I take very seriously, as do my Senate colleagues, I know, from both sides of the aisle. I might just remind us that as we read in our U.S. history books, there was a major debate as to how to decide the nominees and the members who would sit on the U.S. Supreme Court. At one point, our Framers said the President should decide alone. At another point they said the Senate should be the one that has the absolute right to decide who should be on this all powerful, important court that affects our lives so much. In the end they compromised, as they did in much of the discussions and the final decisions as to the framing of our Government. They said we believe this is so important there needs to be a check and balance, so we need to have both the Senate and the President involved. The President will nominate but the Senate will have the responsibility of reviewing and consenting to the nomination. That is the process that we are involved in right now.

I might also say that we have confirmed over 100 judges since President Bush has come into his Presidency, and just on Monday night we had three votes. One was a Hispanic judge. We moved forward in this process. But when we find someone comes to the Judiciary Committee and when he is asked to provide copies of his memos and information, when he basically says no, or I'll just think about it, that makes it very difficult for an informed decision to be made.

Unlike other nominations that come before the Senate, such as ambassadorships or executive nominees, Federal judicial nominations, again, are lifetime appointments. I think it is so important to repeat that over and over again. I have, in fact, supported the confirmation of individuals, other nominees of the President for his Cabinet who certainly would not have been my personal first choice. But the President has the right to select his Cabinet--certainly within reason; has the right to select his Cabinet, the people who will work with him during the 4 years that he is in office.

That is not what this is about. This is about someone who will, in fact, make decisions that will affect us, not for 3 or 4 years, but for 30 or 40 years, through numerous Presidents, making it even more important that we are not a rubberstamp. The U.S. Senate has a very important role to play.

As a part of this important responsibility, my Democratic colleagues on the Judiciary Committee have tried to obtain information, legal memos Mr. Estrada wrote while serving in the Justice Department. The Justice Department has refused to provide these documents which presumably would show Mr. Estrada's constitutional analysis of cases. This is very important. The constitutional analysis of statutes-- whatever his philosophies and beliefs--would give us insight into his judicial reasoning, not on a particular case but his reasoning. Unfortunately, as I indicated before, he has not been forthcoming to the committee. In fact, he has refused to answer the most basic questions before the committee.

During his nomination hearing, Mr. Estrada refused to answer questions regarding his judicial philosophy or his views on important Supreme Court cases, including Roe v. Wade. He even refused to name any Supreme Court case with which he disagreed. This refusal to provide necessary information is absolutely unprecedented. Past administrations and the current administration have disclosed legal memos and other information in connection with both judicial and executive nominees.

For example, in previous administrations the Senate has requested and the

Justice Department has provided similar memos, written by Justice Department attorneys, including the writings of Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist, the Ninth Circuit Nominee Stephen Trott, Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork, Assistant Attorney General nominee William Bradford Reynolds, and Attorney General nominee Benjamin Civiletti, among others.

This breaks with a longstanding practice of cooperation between the Justice Department and the Senate in providing access to necessary materials for nominations.

The administration also has provided such memos for another nominee. The Bush administration has provided the Senate with legal memos written by Jeffrey Holmstead, an attorney with the White House Counsel's Office, during the consideration of his nomination as Assistant Administrator at the EPA. This was for a term appointment, in contrast to a lifetime appointment, which is certainly much more significant.

I am also concerned that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are applying a different standard for nominees who are nominated by a Republican President than by a Democratic President. During the Clinton administration, and under Chairman Hatch, nominees were required to produce volumes of information. For example, Judge Richard Paez was asked to provide documentation of every instance during his tenure as a judge where he deviated downward from a sentencing guideline--every instance.

Marsha Berzon, a Tenth Circuit nominee, was required to provide the minutes from every California ACLU meeting that occurred while she was a member of that organization, regardless of whether she even attended the meeting.

Why was the bar placed so high for these Clinton nominees but there is such a hard push by my colleagues to confirm a nominee from whom we have no information? Why is there such a strong resistance by the administration to allow the Senate the opportunity to learn more about this nominee's writings and opinions? That is what this debate is all about.

I might just say that when I am asked what is the philosophy, what is the judicial reasoning of this particular nominee, I would have to say this--these are the answers to the questions that Miguel Estrada gave to the Judiciary Committee: An absolute blank slate. Not one answer to one question. How can that give us the opportunity to determine whether or not this is a nominee we wish to support?

Finally, I am extremely disappointed by how some of my colleagues across the aisle have tried to make this an issue of race. I believe racial diversity in our judicial system is extremely important. I wish my Republican colleagues had made the same impassioned speeches during the Clinton administration when 10 of more than 30 Hispanic nominees were delayed or blocked from receiving hearings or votes by members of their caucus. I wish my colleagues had been outraged when Ronnie White's nomination languished for 2\1/2\ years and then was rejected on the Senate floor on a party-line vote. I wish my colleagues had stood up for racial diversity when the President filed their brief opposing the University of Michigan's admissions policy to help create racial diversity in our law schools and our other colleges and schools at the university.

The Senate needs to apply the same level of scrutiny and the same standards regardless of a nominee's race or the politics of the administrations that nominated them.

Until we are given these memos that are a part of Mr. Estrada's record, we are not going to hold judicial nominees to the same standards and the same basic principles of fairness. It is time to do that--to give us a true opportunity.

I might also add that 100 percent of the Hispanic Caucus of the House of Representatives have joined with us asking that we oppose or withhold judgment--that we not proceed with this vote until we have the information. These are individuals who have expressed grave concerns. They do not support moving forward. One-hundred percent of the Hispanic Caucus of the House from all around the country joined with more than 30 different organizations expressing grave concern.

I think that says to us we need to take the time that is necessary and we need to receive information so that we can make an appropriate judgment.

I will take just a moment to change topics.

I ask while moving from one important topic to another to take just a moment to speak to a bill I have introduced today regarding the growing importation of waste problem.

Mr. President, I have been given the floor, as I understand it, for 30 minutes. And I appreciate the fact that we have a topic in front of us. At this point, it is my understanding that it is not the Senator's prerogative to object to my being on the floor and to be able to speak for a moment, along with this important topic, to a bill I introduced about waste coming into the United States and taking a moment to do that. It is my understanding that under the normal processes of the Senate, I would have the opportunity to take a moment to do that.

I thank the Senator.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I rise today in both sadness and celebration because my longtime staff person friend JoAnne Huls has decided to leave the Senate.

I am sad because I am losing my trusted and valued deputy chief of staff who has been with me for a decade.

I celebrate because I am happy to see a dear friend move on to new challenges and I wish her the best of luck.

JoAnne--a native Michiganian--joined me as a college intern in 1993 when I was in the Michigan Senate.

She has been with me in a number of capacities, including during my tenure in the House of Representatives.

Then JoAnne came with me to the Senate, serving as my scheduler and my deputy chief of staff. She has also been with me through four campaigns, with the usual long hours, tense days and junk food.

All of us appreciate the work our staff does for us. They become like family. We often ask them to work long into the night and into the weekend for salaries far less than they could command in the private sector.

Why do they do it? I think that people like JoAnne Huls come to this institution and work hard every day out of a sense of dedication to their State and country.

And JoAnne also came here out of a sense of loyalty and dedication to me and to the issues we care deeply about.

I will forever be grateful to her for her hard work, commitment and friendship.

So thank you, JoAnne, good luck. I know you will make a difference wherever you are and I know you will continue to care deeply about our democratic process.

We are fortunate that people such as JoAnne Huls are willing to be in public service.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to address the growing problem of Canadian waste shipments to Michigan.

In 2001, Michigan imported almost 3.6 million tons of municipal solid waste, more than double the amount that was imported in 1999. This gives Michigan the unduly distinction of being the third largest dumping ground of waste in the United States.

My colleagues may be surprised to know that the biggest source of this waste was not another State, but our neighbor to north, Canada. More than half the waste that was shipped to Michigan in 2001 was from Ontario, Canada, and these imports are growing rapidly. On January 1, 2003, as another Ontario landfill closed its doors, the City of Toronto switched from shipping two-thirds of its trash, to shipping all of its trash--1.1 million tons--to a Michigan landfill. And this deal could last 20 years! Experts predict that soon there will be virtually no local disposal capacity in Ontario, which could mean even more waste being shipped across the border to Michigan.

Not only does this waste dramatically decrease Michigan's own landfill capacity, but it has a tremendous negative impact on Michigan's environment and the public health of citizens. Currently, Canadian municipal solid waste is sent to landfills in seven different Michigan counties--Genesee, Huron, Macomb, Monroe, Oakland, Washtenaw, and Wayne counties. Based on current usage statistics, the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, DEQ, estimates that Michigan has capacity for 15-17 years of disposal in landfills. However, with the proposed dramatic increase in importation of waste, this capacity is less than 10 years. The Michigan DEQ estimates that for every five years of disposal of Canadian waste at the current usage volume, Michigan is losing a full year of landfill capacity. The Canadian waste also hampers the effectiveness of Michigan's State and local recycling efforts, since Ontario does not have a bottle law requiring recycling.

These Canadian waste shipments also present a threat to homeland security. Currently, 130 truckloads of waste come into Michigan each day from Canada. These trucks cross the Ambassador Bridge and Blue Water Bridge and travel through the busiest parts of Metro Detroit. In addition to causing traffic delays, and filling our air with the stench of exhaust and garbage, these trucks also present a security risk at our Michigan-Canadian border, since by their nature trucks full of garbage are harder for Customs agent to inspects then traditional cargo.

Last year, I joined with Senator Levin and Congressman Dingell to introduce legislation to enforce the protections that Michigan is already entitled to which are contained in an international agreement between the United States and Canada. I continue to be supportive of this bill and I was proud to join as an original co-sponsor when it was reintroduced last month. However, with the recent landfill closings in Ontario, this problem has spiraled out of control.

That is why today I am introducing ``the Canadian Waste Import Ban Act of 2003.'' This bill would stop these shipments by placing an immediate federal ban on the importation of Canadian municipal solid waste. The ban will be in place until the EPA enforces ``the Agreement Concerning the Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Waste.'' Under this existing agreement, the EPA is supposed to receive notification of Canadian waste shipments, and then would have 30 days to consent or object to the shipment. Not only have these notification provisions not been enforced, but the EPA has indicated that they would not object to the municipal waste shipments.

In addition, the bill requires the EPA to Michigan's or any State's consent before receiving any shipment of Canadian municipal solid waste. In enforcing the agreement, the EPA must obtain the consent of the receiving State, before consenting to a Canadian municipal solid waste shipment. The EPA must also consider the impact of the shipment on homeland security, the environment, and public health.

This legislation will stop the importation of Canadian trash until Michigan residents are given the voice they deserve in deciding whether or not this waste should be sent to their landfills. We need to give the states a real voice in these decisions and my bill guarantees that the states through the EPA will get to decide whether or not they want to receive this Canadian waste. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.