Floor Statements

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.

Mr. President, I first thank my friend from California for her usual eloquence. I agree totally with her sense of what our people are feeling in terms of the anxiousness about possible war, the anxiousness about education for our children, about health care, about jobs, about homeland security. I thank Senator Boxer for her comments this morning.

I will follow up talking about an area that is so important to each of our families and is a growing concern to businesses in the country and to workers in the country; that is the whole question of health care.

We know there is a growing sense of anxiousness. When I sit down with small businesses across Michigan, they tell me their fastest growing cost is their health care premiums. In some cases they are doubling. When I talk to the big three automakers and the other manufacturers in Michigan, I hear the same thing. When I hear from Chrysler that they are spending more on health care than on the raw materials for the vehicles--I am concerned. This shows me we have a serious, serious crisis, a health care crisis.

At the same time, we all have spoken about the seniors of our country who are choosing between their food and their medicine. This is real. People are asking us to act. Words are not enough. Rhetoric is not enough. We have to act in a way that provides opportunity for quality, affordable, accessible health care.

On the eve of the State of the Union Address, I rise to ask the President of the United States what he intends to do. Will he, in fact, change his record and work with us on issues of health care in a bipartisan way, to actually get something done? I worry, myself, because of the record I have seen in the last 2 years. We have a record of this administration on health care that, unfortunately, is bad medicine for the American people. We have attempted on several occasions to move forward policies and proposals that are in the best interests of the American people. This administration continues to oppose those.

I am talking about a Medicare benefit for all seniors for prescription drugs under Medicare that is affordable, that is dependable, that is available to all of our seniors--this President has consistently opposed that approach. Whether it is also making prescription drugs affordable for all Americans and lowering the prices for our businesses--the President has opposed efforts to open the doors to Canada to drop prices immediately, and he has opposed efforts to make sure we have more competition in the system by closing the generic drug law loopholes. Generic drugs are made by those companies that do not do research but take the formulas after the patents expire and are able to develop and put on the market lower cost prescription drugs, oftentimes exactly like the brand-name drugs. We know they can drop the prices up to 70 percent by just having the generic drug laws work.

We have business coalitions formed across the country urging us to pass laws to shut down the loopholes so competition can work to bring prices down. Unfortunately, even after we passed a bill in this body, in the Senate, the administration has opposed it.

We have innovative State solutions like what has been done in Maine where the State wants to come in and use its bulk purchasing power and leverage that to negotiate lower prices on behalf of the uninsured who pay the top prices in the world right now for their prescriptions. Our State governments understand that. Our Governors want the flexibility to be able to bulk purchase and lower prices. This administration has opposed it.

We need fair prices for Medicare providers. While we have seen some willingness, and I appreciate that, to focus on the cuts that have been put into place for our physicians--that certainly needs to be done-- what about the home health agencies that are closing? What about our nursing homes? What about our hospitals, our teaching facilities? We have a crisis in health care, and the last thing we need to do is to be making more cuts to Medicare or Medicaid. Yet the administration has, to date, opposed fixing the Medicare problem.

The Patients' Bill of Rights, a real Patients' Bill of Rights so that those who are in HMOs have the opportunity to have the physician of their choice and to have the rights available to them they wish to have to protect their families, a strong Patients' Bill of Rights--this administration has consistently opposed that, as well.

And what about assistance to States for Medicaid? Right now 25 percent of Michigan's State budget is Medicaid. We have a $2 billion deficit in Michigan out of a $9 billion budget. Our new Governor is doing a wonderful job of trying to make the numbers add up, but without Federal support and help they will

not add up and people will be hurt and doctors and health facilities will be hurt. Yet, consistently, when we have tried to put forward plans on this floor, even plans that have passed the Senate have not made it all the way because this administration will not support efforts to help our States and to help Medicaid.

Finally, there was a commitment made to double the National Institutes of Health funding by 2003. The administration supports funding cuts that will not meet that goal.

Unfortunately, the Bush record on health care to date has been bad medicine for the American people. I ask the President today, rather than moving forward with the proposals we are hearing about attempting, essentially, to privatize Medicare, this evening I urge him to reassess and to join us in bipartisan efforts to make sure our citizens have the health care they need and our businesses can afford.

I will be happy to yield.

That is absolutely correct. I thank my friend from Illinois, who is always in the Chamber fighting on behalf of the people of his State and the country.

There is no doubt about it, while the President is talking about increased choices, what he is really saying is, if you want to get help with your exploding prescription drug costs, if you want to stop having to pick between meals and your medicine, then you are going to have to go into a private insurance company, an HMO, where they will decide about your doctor. In fact, he is not willing to support a Patients' Bill of Rights to make sure they get what they need while they are in the HMO.

Unfortunately, no. We have seen a consistent effort to put forward plans that are supported by the brand name pharmaceutical industry itself or by the insurance companies, but not those things that will lower prices and make health care more affordable and more available.

Last summer, with a very rigorous debate on the Senate floor and a strong bipartisan vote, we passed a bill that would create more competition to lower prescription drug prices; it went to the House of Representatives where it did not see the light of day. Unfortunately, without the President's support and leadership, it will continue to be that way. We need the President to step up and say that the fact that prescription drug prices are going up three times the rate of inflation every year and that is too much.

It is too much. Our businesses cannot sustain that. They cannot sustain seeing their health care premiums double. At the same time, if you are an uninsured senior in this country, you are paying top dollar. Isn't it ironic that of all of those who pay for prescription drugs around the world, the people who pay literally the most for their medicine are uninsured people, most of whom are seniors, because they do not have anybody negotiating on their behalf. They do not have Medicare right now coming in and saying: We are going to negotiate a group price. So they pay the highest price.

Why wouldn't it make sense to have Medicare coverage? The brand name companies do not want Medicare negotiating on behalf of 40 million seniors and the disabled to lower prices. So what they have come up with is this scheme that would essentially not allow the clout of buying power because Medicare would not directly be providing the prescription drug coverage. But they want to act as if they would like to have prescription drug coverage for seniors, so they come up with this plan that would say: We will help you with your medicine if you go into a private-sector HMO.

By the way, in Michigan, now we have seen, since the inception of what is really Medicare+Choice--which is the plan that has already been out there for private sector Medicare HMO coverage--more than 51,000 seniors in Michigan have been disenrolled because plans have withdrawn from Michigan. In fact, we do not have any HMOs in the Upper Peninsula. We have very few plans in Michigan.

In fact, my own mother, who was in an HMO and enjoying the coverage under Medicare+Choice, was dropped because the plan withdrew from Michigan. So we only have four private sector HMO plans in Medicare left in Michigan, and they only serve 2 percent of the eligible Medicare beneficiaries in the State--2 percent--and the majority are in nine counties in southeastern Michigan, with the rest of the State not being covered. By the way, none of those plans are accepting new people or new enrollees.

So the President says: Let's take this plan that covers very few people, where it is not working, and let's say if you want Medicare prescription drug coverage, you have to go through this failed plan. I, for the life of me, cannot understand why this approach is being put forward except for the fact that certainly from the prescription drug industry's standpoint, it is better than going under Medicare.

So, Mr. President, I would ask this evening for you to please speak to the anxiety, the anxiousness that we all feel, that Americans feel for our families, for our businesses, that workers feel when they now find their pay being frozen so their employers can afford the explosion in the health care crisis. I would like you to speak to those issues in very real ways. Do not offer failed plans just to be able to speak about this issue. Join with us in bipartisan efforts that we know will work, efforts that have been supported by the private sector as well as the public sector, efforts that are supported by workers, by seniors, by all of those who have a stake in making sure that health care is affordable and available.

We had a plan. We had a bill, S. 812, that passed this Senate last summer. I commend all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who voted for that legislation. We can cut prices that lower premiums for our businesses. We can provide Medicare coverage. And we can do it in a real way.

I urge, tonight, that the President speak to us. And I invite him to join with us in a plan that will work.

That is correct.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk, and I ask unanimous consent that it be considered in lieu of my motion to instruct the conferees that is already at the desk.

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

Mr. President, as I indicated, my amendment is a sense of the Senate that insists that the conference report for the Omnibus Appropriations Act retain the Senate provisions that repeal the special interest vaccine component provisions that were originally included in the Homeland Security Act.

The purpose of this amendment is to send a very strong message to the Senate conferees who will represent our interests in the conference, and to the House, that we stand firmly behind the repeal of the vaccine component provisions that were contained in last year's Homeland Security Act. We need a strong show of support in favor of this amendment to demonstrate our commitment to public interest over special interests. We also need to ensure that the conference report of this bill maintains a full repeal of that language. Anything less is absolutely unacceptable.

Last November, Speaker Hastert and Representative DeLay gave only vague assurances they would strike the special interest provisions from the Homeland Security Act, and since then I have seen signs that their commitment to this process may have continued to slip, and we certainly do not wish that to happen after the hard work of putting this language into the bill.

Again, we need to send a very strong message to all the Members of the House and the Senate that we must have full repeal of this special interest provision, commonly referred to as the ``thimerosal provision.''

I thank my colleagues Senators Snowe, Collins, and Chafee, who worked to incorporate the spirit of the bill, S. 105, that I introduced at the beginning of the year that proposed a full repeal into the final version of this Omnibus Act. I also thank the cosponsors of my bill.

Most importantly, though, I thank the families of children with autism for working so hard to repeal the special interest provisions. They are the ones who have been successful in this effort, and I congratulate them. I joined them in a capital rally a few weeks ago where we praised them for their courage, hard work, and commitment. They traveled of their own accord and paid their own costs, which is very difficult and burdensome for a family of a special needs child. They came to Washington, DC, to fight to repeal this provision.

I promised those parents I would fight to remove it and that we would fight that it be repealed in total in conference and signed by the President. So I thank my colleagues who have been involved in this issue, and I ask that they join in keeping the promise to these very special families by supporting my amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to commend my colleagues on the Senate Interior Appropriations Subcommittee for their continued support and commitment to the Tribal School Construction Demonstration Program administered by the Bureau of Indian affairs. I also rise to engage in a colloquy with the distinguished Chairman of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, Mr. Burns.

My distinguished colleagues, the chairman and ranking member of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, Mr. Burns and Mr. Byrd respectively, worked to make sure that this important program received funding this year. A tribe in my home State of Michigan, the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe of Michigan, met with me and the subcommittee early in this process regarding their intention to utilize the demonstration program. Thank you for all of your cooperation and hard work on this legislation.

Over the last 25 years, the Saginaw Tribe has worked hard to create a tribal economy to provide education, health care, and other governmental services to its members. The tribe has made many constructive steps towards self-sufficiency and is dedicated to providing every educational opportunity to its tribal youth. The dilapidated condition of their current school facility has been a roadblock to further advancement. The temporary, modular housing facility where Saginaw Chippewa children attend classes is inadequate. It is a dismal learning environment, anything but conducive to the positive development and education of young minds.

Although the current language in the Interior appropriation bill only allocates $3 million to the program, a sum nearly $2 million short of what the Tribe is seeking in a Federal match, the Tribe would still like to partner with the Department this funding cycle in order to begin immediate construction of the Saginaw Chippewa Academy. The Tribe is willing to assume a cost-share greater than 50 percent to complete construction. In addition, the Tribe is also willing to forgo any future Federal dollars to fund operation and maintenance costs in order to receive the highest priority for a Federal matching grant as set forth in the authorizing language under the program. Given all of these commitments, don't you think the tribe should be given high consideration from the Department of Interior for this grant during the fiscal year 2003 year?

Mr. Chairman, thank you for clarifying this issue and for your support of this critical project. The Saginaw Tribe is eager to partner with the Department of interior to ensure that the educational needs of its people are met.

Advanced Housing Research Consortium

My good friend and fellow Senator from Michigan is correct; the Emerald Ash Borer has the ability to destroy our nation's urban forests. The threat is so great that the Departments of Agriculture for Indiana and Ohio as well as the Province of Ontario, all of which border Michigan, have published warnings about the Ash Borer even though it is not known to have spread from Michigan, yet.

Currently, an Interagency Invasive Species Task Force including the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Michigan State University, Michigan Technological University, and the Michigan Department of Agriculture is working to analyze this problem. As such the task force has placed a quarantine on 13 counties in southeastern Michigan.

Having APHIS report on these efforts to Congress would greatly assist us as we seek to assist with the eradication of this pest and as we seek funds to help contain and eradicate the Emerald ash borer.

Madam President, following up on what the distinguished Senator from Idaho was talking about--operating costs--in a State such as Michigan, which has great diversity, we have a very large number of fruit and vegetable growers. I remember hearing from Fred Tubbs who has 40 acres of cherries. He says even

though he lost his crop and even though he had been devastated this year, he has to continue to spray. He has to continue to have operational costs as well.

My grave concern about the Cochran amendment is so many of our farmers--particularly family farmers--have been left out of this amendment. People such as Fred Tubbs have--with operating costs whether or not they have a crop.

We have two choices in front of us: The Daschle amendment and the Cochran amendment. The Cochran amendment is not a disaster package. That is very clear. There are farmers who did not have a disaster and may have had a bumper crop who will be helped under this amendment. States that have seen devastation in crops such as soy beans would be helped under this provision. But grape growers, apple growers, cherry growers, asparagus, peaches, plums--all of those fruit and vegetable growers who have been devastated in my State would not receive assistance under this plan.

There is a small provision in the Cochran amendment that would provide $100 million set aside for fruits and vegetables. I will just share with my colleagues that in Michigan alone the fruit and vegetable losses are $180 million. The amount in this bill is $100 million for the entire country. Our farmers deserve better than this. We can do better.

I also indicate that the bill provides a small amount--$250 million in the Cochran amendment--for section 32 as it relates to nutrition and the purchase of fruits and vegetables. Unfortunately, that is far less than the $1 billion that was removed last year for livestock assistance.

Our fruit and vegetable growers were very pleased the first time we passed a farm bill last year that included them--that recognized our fruit and vegetable growers across the country. Yet we are seeing attempts at every turn to eliminate the assistance that was placed into the farm bill.

It is time for the Daschle amendment; it is time to provide needed disaster assistance for both losses in 2001 and 2002.

I urge my colleagues to do the right thing for our farmers.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Levin in reintroducing this 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 unwelcome distinction of being the third largest importer 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 the 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 Michigan landfills. 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 its citizens. 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.

Currently, 110-130 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, 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 agents to inspect than traditional cargo.

Michigan already has protections contained in an international agreement between the United States and Canada, but they are being ignored. Under the Agreement Concerning the Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Waste, which was entered into in 1986, shipments of waste across the Canadian-U.S. border require government-to-government notification. The Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, as the designated authority for the United States would receive the notification 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.

This legislation will give Michigan residents the protection they are entitled to under this bilateral treaty. The bill would give EPA the authority to implement and enforce this treaty, and would create civil penalties for those who ship waste in violation of the treaty. In addition, it would create criteria for the EPA's determination of whether or not to consent to a shipment, such as the State's views on the shipment, and the shipment's impact on landfill capacity, air emissions, public health and the environment. These waste shipments should no longer be accepted without an examination of how it will affect the health and welfare of Michigan families.

Again, I thank my colleague, Senator Levin, for introducing this bill and I look forward to working with him to move it through the Senate.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Levin in reintroducing this 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 unwelcome distinction of being the third largest importer 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 the 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 Michigan landfills. 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 its citizens. 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.

Currently, 110-130 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, 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 agents to inspect than traditional cargo.

Michigan already has protections contained in an international agreement between the United States and Canada, but they are being ignored. Under the Agreement Concerning the Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Waste, which was entered into in 1986, shipments of waste across the Canadian-U.S. border require government-to-government notification. The Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, as the designated authority for the United States would receive the notification 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.

This legislation will give Michigan residents the protection they are entitled to under this bilateral treaty. The bill would give EPA the authority to implement and enforce this treaty, and would create civil penalties for those who ship waste in violation of the treaty. In addition, it would create criteria for the EPA's determination of whether or not to consent to a shipment, such as the State's views on the shipment, and the shipment's impact on landfill capacity, air emissions, public health and the environment. These waste shipments should no longer be accepted without an examination of how it will affect the health and welfare of Michigan families.

Again, I thank my colleague, Senator Levin, for introducing this bill and I look forward to working with him to move it through the Senate.

Mr. President, I move that the conferees on the part of the Senate on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the joint resolution H.J. Res. 2 be instructed to insist that the committee of conference ensure that the joint resolution as reported from the committee includes section 102 of division L relating to Homeland Security Act of 2002 Amendments, as passed by the Senate, (relating to amendments to sections 1714 through 1717 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-296)).

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from West Virginia for yielding 5 minutes to me. I also share his great respect and admiration for the Senator and the processes in which he is involved and the bipartisan way the Appropriations Committee has moved forward in working together with our two leaders.

I thank Senator Byrd for his leadership on the issue of homeland-- many of us are saying ``hometown''--security, because that is really what it is. I come with thanks and gratitude from law enforcement, firefighters, EMS workers, hospital emergency room workers, all across the great State of Michigan.

I have held six different community meetings around Michigan in the last month asking our local first responders how they are doing, what do they need, do they feel prepared, what can we do to be of assistance. I have scheduled three more meetings in Michigan to listen, and I am hearing the same thing over and over again, and that is our first responders, our firefighters and police officers on the front line, emergency personnel, health departments, local emergency rooms, desperately need us to partner with them to give them the resources they need to take the necessary steps to be prepared in the case of terrorism in their communities.

I heard concern about training, not only the need to have a trainer but the costs that it takes to remove that police officer. In a small police department, when an officer goes to training for a week, there is the additional cost to replace that person, with overtime involved, and all kinds of concerns about training relating to the cost. They very much want this training. They need the training. But they need our help to be able to continue to provide law enforcement safety services, fire services, and other services in the community while their personnel are being training.

I heard great concern about the lack of resources for equipment and communications, one county not being able to speak to the next county, large departments in one city not being able to speak to a township, very small fire departments that are not yet on e-mail. We have information coming out from the Federal level, many of them saying they appreciate the information coming from the FBI or the Department of Justice, but small departments are not receiving that in a timely manner. There are great concerns about lack of coordination and communication, all of those things involving resources.

We have also heard great concerns about additional personnel who are needed in this time when the States are cutting back. In my own State of Michigan, because of tremendous budget crises, we have seen cuts in revenue sharing to our local governments. Police officers are being laid off. Firefighters and other front responders are coming to us and asking us to partner with them. We have a new Homeland Security Department. We have new responsibilities that have been given to our local hometown security leaders. We need to provide them the resources to be able to get the job done.

Michigan is a border State. In Senator Byrd's amendment, the resources for border security are absolutely critical. We have three of the top five busiest borders, the busiest being in Detroit.

I rise today to support Senator Byrd's amendment and to urge that we pass it as he has provided. We are in a situation that I believe is absolutely critical. We are hearing this from Republican sheriffs and Democratic sheriffs, from Republican police chiefs and Democratic police chiefs. This is not a partisan issue. This is about the local law enforcement and emergency management personnel desperately needing our help to be able to get the job done to keep families safe and secure in their homes and in their neighborhoods.

I urge colleagues to support this effort. Once last year we came together to pass emergency dollars in the supplemental. The dollars that are being proposed are absolutely critical. It is a small amount to pay in order to give the assurance to our families that they will in fact have the resources given to first responders in their community so they know they can respond in a crisis. I cannot think of anything more important today than making sure we are funding hometown security efforts. Senator Byrd's amendment is critical to that effort. I hope we will join and have 100-percent support to send a message to our police, firefighters, emergency health personnel, and medical personnel that we stand with them in partnership, the Federal Government with our local communities, and we will be there and make them a priority for the resources they need in order to keep us safe.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I first thank my colleague from Washington State for her eloquence, standing up for those working Americans, middle class Americans, those on the front lines who are being asked to put their lives on the line in defense of our country and our freedoms. I appreciate very much her comments and would like to associate myself with her comments today.

Madam President, I rise to express my deep disappointment at news reports today that indicate the Bush administration will try to overturn the admissions policy at the University of Michigan, in my great State. As many people know, the Supreme Court will soon hear a case that will decide the future of racial diversity in all institutions of higher education. The University of Michigan's admissions policy so far has been upheld by the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals as constitutional. Unfortunately, those who want to dismantle all admissions programs that consider race have taken this all the way to the Supreme Court.

It is important to note this case is not about racial quotas. Let me say that again. It is important to note this case is not about racial quotas. The University of Michigan does not have racial quotas for admission. I am opposed to racial quotas and this, in fact, has been the law of the land since the Supreme Court's decision in the Bakke case in 1978.

The University of Michigan's undergraduate admissions policy simply takes into account student diversity as one of many factors that are considered for admission. Incidentally, the most important factors for admission are the applicant's grade point average and test scores. Race is one factor of diversity, but it is not the only factor. I think this oftentimes is missed in the discussion about the university's policies and what affirmative action means. There are several other factors the university considers, including if the applicant comes from a socially or economically disadvantaged background, if the applicant is a white student from a majority minority high school, if the applicant comes from an underrepresented community, such as one of Michigan's many rural communities throughout northern Michigan, southern Michigan, up in the Upper Peninsula, or if the applicant is an athlete.

I think it is important to emphasize there is a category where there are certain points that are given and you can either be given points as an athlete or points for racial diversity or points for other kinds of categories--not all of them but one. Certainly, there are a number of factors that are considered in this process to create a balanced student body for the university.

The university considers a long list of factors, including if the applicant is a child of an alumni or if he or she has written a terrific essay. So there are many factors.

All of these factors help the University of Michigan select a diverse, well-rounded student body that is not just racially diverse but economically and geographically diverse as well.

Do we not believe that students from our small towns and rural communities add a unique and valuable perspective to our academic institutions? What about our students who come from economically disadvantaged backgrounds?

I know many Michigan families in the Upper Peninsula who lost their jobs because of the iron mines closing. Don't their children deserve an equal opportunity to attend one of the State's best academic institutions, and in fact I would argue one of the best in the Nation?

I might add that my son, Todd, is also an alumni of the great University of Michigan.

This debate is much greater than the admissions policy of one university. This is about whether we are going to have equal opportunity for all Americans. This is about whether we support policies that help provide the opportunity for Americans of all backgrounds to have a chance at the American dream regardless of where they live, regardless of their ethnic background and their religious background, or whether they are male or female, whether they are an athlete or not a good athlete--a wide variety of factors that go into making those decisions. And shouldn't all young people have the opportunity?

We already have policies called veterans preferences to help our veterans. I certainly am very supportive of doing that. We have set aside programs for women-owned and minority-owned small businesses and some categories for small businesses in general. There are certainly preferences that make good sense in public policy.

Shouldn't we also give a helping hand to all young people who want to go to college to be able to create the brainpower to drive the economic engine of this country with new innovations and new opportunities to continue forward an American economy that is as strong as it can be?

President Bush's decision to try to dismantle the University of Michigan's admissions policy comes at a very tough time for our Nation's minority community. Over the past month, the Republican Party has undergone a makeover--a change in leadership. But it would be very unfortunate if it is a change in style and not of substance.

Despite the White House's recent proclamation of issues that impact our minority community, I was very disheartened to see that they immediately renominated Charles Pickering to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals despite his controversial record on civil rights and his defense of someone convicted of burning a cross on the lawn of an interracial family.

There has been no commitment by this administration to support hate crimes legislation or legislation to prevent racial profiling. There has not been a commitment to fully fund election reform measures to ensure that minority voters are not disenfranchised as they were in the 2000 election.

Unfortunately, this administration seems to be all talk and no action. We

need to come together in a bipartisan way to act and not just to talk. On the one hand, the President talks about the importance of expanding opportunities to all Americans. And we all talk of that, and that certainly is something with which I agree, but the administration's policies do not back up this rhetoric.

There is still time for the President to file a brief in the Supreme Court case--one that supports the University of Michigan's admissions policy. I urge him to do so. Now is the time for us to come together and work together to make sure there is opportunity and access to our great institutions of higher learning in this country and that educational opportunities are available to every young person and to every American. I urge the President to reconsider the course that he appears to be taking and to join with us who understand the policy of the University of Michigan and to understand the importance of every young person having the opportunity to go to college.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the time during further quorum calls be evenly divided on both sides.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the need to truly stimulate our economy and create jobs and how we can do that in a way that is fair for everyone, that puts dollars back in the pockets of middle-class Americans who we know literally drive the economic engine by buying cars, homes, clothes for their children, groceries, and all of the other purchases that keep our economy going.

I have grave concerns about the so-called economic proposal that has come from the President. In fact, it does not meet the definition of that term, and I have great concern because it does not put the majority of money back in the pockets of people who drive the economic engine.

We can come together on issues such as eliminating the marriage tax penalty, increasing the child credit, and helping small businesses, which by the way are the majority of new jobs being created today. The majority of new jobs is coming from small businesses. We need to be focusing on ways to help small businesses pay for their health care and to have the kinds of incentives they need to invest back in their companies so they will grow.

When we look at the proposal the President has brought forward, if we were to come together, we could easily pass relief as it relates to the marriage tax penalty, with bipartisan support. We could easily pass increases in the child tax credit on a bipartisan basis. We could easily support small business in ways that we can provide tax relief and other kinds of support.

The problem is two-thirds of the President's plan, the vast majority, does not do any of that. Two-thirds of the plan is focused on the very top income earners in the United States who already have one, two, or three homes, multiple cars, and who are not necessarily going to be spending these dollars back into the economy, at the expense of everyone else.

When we look at what this proposal from the White House means to Americans, taxpayers with incomes of over $1 million would get back an average of $88,873, almost $89,000 coming back to them. The majority of taxpayers, the typical middle-class taxpayer in the United States of America, would get $265. That is a huge disparity.

Some say, well, if we talk about the differences, if we talk about the fact that the majority goes to those at the very top, we are engaged in class warfare. With all due respect, that is a bunch of baloney. We are talking about how we can fairly put money into people's pockets. We want to make sure the majority of the middle-income taxpayers, the ones who are keeping the engine going, have tax relief and get dollars back in their pockets. Of course, that happens in a variety of ways. Tax relief is one. This kind of a difference is not fair. It is simply not fair.

There is another way to make sure we have money in people's pockets. That is to make sure we are not exploding the national debt and causing interest rates to rise. There is another kind of tax on people we went through in the 1980s and the 1990s. That is high interest rates. When citizens buy an automobile--coming from Michigan, I am very interested in people buying a lot of automobiles, a lot of domestically made, American-made automobiles; we want people to be able to afford that-- high interest rates affect your ability to buy that new car. High interest rates affect your ability to buy your new home, or to be able to afford to send your children to college. Interest rates which directly relate to the national debt affect how much money goes in people's pockets.

This proposal of the President is not fair on its face. We are looking at the top .2 percent, 226,000 millionaires, receive more than half, almost two-thirds of all of the tax cuts being imposed; 68 percent of the people receive $15 billion; and .2 percent of the taxpayers get $20 billion. It is not fair on its face. If you add in the fact this is a proposal that will greatly increase the national debt on the back end, what we are doing is saddling these middle-class taxpayers and our baby boomers--of which I am one--and our children and grandchildren with more debt. We will increase interest rates and take more money out of people's pockets.

Mr. President, there is no question that today is a day for family, a day for congratulations. I congratulate all my colleagues who were just sworn in. I know it is a very exciting day. I remember being in this position 2 years ago. It is a very special day.

But in addition to celebrating family in the Senate today, we are very concerned about those families who find themselves in the difficult position of having no income coming in because of unemployment, through no cause of their own.

They want to work. But because of the changing economy, the structure of the economy, or because of a variety of other reasons, they have found themselves unemployed. Certainly in Michigan we find that the changing economic structure has occurred for many people. Many of us have been asking that we remember them. We asked during the holidays that we remember those whose unemployment benefits would be ending during the holidays and that we take action before we left last year. That did not happen. We are back today.

I commend the new leadership for their willingness to come forward with this issue of unemployment compensation. However, what we have seen today is a willingness to only do half the job. How can we say to a million people, and to their families, on a day when we celebrate families, that they don't count? We are told that the House of Representatives would not support solving this problem completely or addressing it completely--that they would only support addressing half of it.

We have said let us support solving the problem. And we did in fact pass a resolution to move forward solving half the problem.

But our leader, Senator Daschle, also proposed that we add a separate resolution to complete the job to help those 1 million individuals who also find themselves in a situation of needing to extend their unemployment benefits. Yet we were told no again. We have been told no so many times on this floor as it relates to helping unemployed workers. It is very regrettable that today, one more time, we were told no. I think, more specifically, families were told no. Those who have lost their jobs were told no. One million people were told no.

We celebrate today people coming into new commissions, new jobs, and with great pride, as they should. We know the ability to work and to be able to provide an income and care for your family is one of the basics of our society and our economy. We know that there are Americans today who find themselves in a difficult situation of searching for work, of being unemployed, and asking that their Government support their families as they move forward to find new employment so that they can care for their families in the way they would like to provide for them. Unfortunately, I believe today a tone was set by choosing not to address this problem completely at a time when we are seeing, unfortunately, one more time, an economic plan rolled out to help those who have been helped so many times who are at the very top of the income bracket in our country.

As a member of the Budget Committee, I have heard many economists, including Alan Greenspan, say that by extending unemployment benefits-- and by putting dollars into people's pockets so they can pay their bills, buy the shoes for their children, and be able to continue providing groceries for their families and paying other bills which they have--we actually stimulate the economy. We create demand. When there is money in people's pockets, they are spending it. We know someone who is unemployed is going to be spending it because they have to. The money coming in is not being saved. It is being spent on clothes, food, the electric bills, the car payment, the mortgage payment, and so on.

We know that is a short-term economic stimulus--certainly at a time when we are debating economic stimulus.

What we have been asking for today is something that is not only fair and right to address--all of those who find themselves in a situation of being unemployed, not leave 1 million people out of the solution-- but we are also asking, as we talk about economic stimulus, that we in fact provide the kind of stimulus that puts money back into the economy and helping those who need to spend it to care for their families, to pay their bills, to be able to remain independent in their homes, and to be able to know that they are a part of the economic equation, and when we talk economic stimulus, that they are not left out.

While I am pleased we were able to pass the resolution, I am very disappointed that this very first time we were not able to address or even bring forward in a separate resolution the ability to address 1 million people today who are looking to us, at a time of celebration, and asking us to remember them; to ask on their behalf so they, too, can have the ability to care for their families. I hope we will, as quickly as possible, finish the job.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I rise to keep a promise I made in November. On this, the very first day of the 108th Congress, I am introducing a bill that will remove the controversial vaccine component liability provisions from the Homeland Security bill.

I am joined by a long list of original cosponsors: Senators Daschle, Boxer, Levin, Leahy, Landrieu, Dodd, Dayton, Sarbanes, Dorgan, Durbin, Lautenberg, and Feinstein. The Homeland Security bill, signed into law by President Bush in December, contains a provision that protects that financial security of pharmaceutical companies, not the homeland security of our Nation.

The newly minted law contains a provision that expands the liability projections that currently exist for vaccines to include other vaccine components, such as vaccine preservates like Thimerosal. This provision was included in the bill, at the last minute, with no debate and no committee hearings

Thimerosal; was the subject of several class action lawsuits based on increasing research connecting this preservative, which contains mercury, to the rising incidence of autism in children.

Now that the vaccine component provision has been signed into law, all of these cases are expected to be dismissed. I urge my colleagues to join me and to remove the component provision from the law before it is too late. If these cases are dismissed with prejudice, then many families will have nowhere to go to see justice for the harm their children suffered.

While the research is not conclusive on the connection between Thimerosal and autism, was this narrowly written, unrelated provision in the Homeland Security law the way to respond to these concerns? Don't these children and their families merit the full protection under the law? Certainly, they deserve their day in court. The Homeland Security provision includes vaccine components in the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, VICP, in which awards are limited to money available through its special trust fund.

In 1988, Congress enacted the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program as a no-fault alternative to the tort system for resolving claims resulting from adverse reactions to mandated childhood vaccines. This Federal no fault system is designed to compensate individuals, or families of individuals, who have been injured by childhood vaccines.

Damages are awarded out of a trust fund that is financed by excise taxes of 75 cents per dose imposed on each vaccine covered under the program. There is a three year statute of limitations on bringing cases to the VICP. It is very likely that many families who joined the Thimerosal class action suits, now under the treat of dismissal, have exceeded the three year time limit. Therefore, these families will have no recourse whatsoever.

An issue as serious as revising the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program certainly merits due Congressional process. Amending this program by including a provision in the Homeland Security bill was inappropriate and this serious mistake should be corrected. I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this bill and working to see it signed into law as soon as possible. We must remove the vaccine component liability provisions from the Homeland Security law.

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