Floor Statements

Mr. President, today I offer an amendment cosponsored by Senator Levin and Senator Baucus that will require U.S. Customs and Border Patrol to charge inspection fees to Canadian shippers who export municipal solid waste into Michigan in order to pay for truck inspections. My amendment would impose approximately a $420 fee on every trash truck that crosses into Michigan.

In 2003, the city of Toronto started shipping 100 percent of its trash to Michigan. The result? Every day, 350 trucks carrying trash from Toronto enter Michigan on their way to Michigan landfills. But they don't just carry trash. In recent years we have found illegal medical waste, including radioactive materials, and illegal drugs and currency. There is no limit to what could be smuggled in these trucks.

In February, the Department of Homeland Security inspector general released a report that I requested with Senator Levin and Congressman Dingell. The inspector general found that trash trucks are extremely difficult to inspect and carry dangerous waste. The report also points out that trash trucks are difficult to screen with traditional x-ray equipment and must be physically inspected to verify their contents. Finally, the report states that it is virtually impossible to find dangerous items because of limited resources for conducting time- intensive physical inspections.

The people of Michigan know exactly what kinds of dangerous materials are in these trash trucks. Over the past few years, we have seen numerous examples. Customs officials seized nearly 1 ton of illegal drugs hidden inside a Canadian trash truck that entered the U.S. from Toronto over the Blue Water Bridge. A Canadian trash truck arrived in Michigan dripping blood because it contained broken bags of untreated blood and hospital waste in direct violation of Michigan and Ontario law requiring medical waste to be placed in secure containers separate from other waste. A trash truck that was on fire attempted to cross the Blue Water Bridge, requiring 8,000 gallons of water and valuable local, State, and Federal resources before it was finally doused. Most recently, a Canadian trash truck spilled sewage sludge across a main thoroughfare of Huron Township closing the road for hours and diverting valuable local resources for the cleanup.

These outrageous incidents and the inspector general's report led me to offer an amendment to the fiscal year 2007 budget resolution that was unanimously accepted by the Senate. My amendment assumes $45 million a year in Federal funds that would be collected by charging Canadian trash shippers an inspection fee as they enter Michigan. The collected fees will pay for the increased personnel costs associated with increasing the number of physical inspections of trash trucks, ensuring that taxpayers are not on the hook to pay the costs for inspecting these dangerous trash shipments.

Based on information provided by the inspector general, we know that it will take four Customs agents about 4 hours for each trash truck inspection. Based on personnel and administrative costs, we estimate that the fee for each trash truck will be approximately $420.

The next step is to ensure that Customs can actually collect these fees. The amendment I am offering today does exactly that.

On March 30, the Committee on Homeland Security's Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations released a report called ``An Assessment of U.S. Efforts to Secure the Global Supply Chain.'' This report includes a section on Canadian trash shipments.

The subcommittee report states that it is ``inherently difficult and dangerous to physically inspect trash containers.'' Furthermore, the subcommittee recommends that Congress ``enact into law the provisions recently adopted by the U.S. Senate to impose a fee on international shipments of trash to pay for a more rigorous inspection regime to protect U.S. citizens from the security risks currently associated with trash containers.''

This is what the amendment that I am offering today does: establishes the inspection fees that the Senate already approved in the budget resolution.

We need to give Customs the resources to more effectively screen and inspect them.

Mr. President, I also wanted to make some remarks and discuss the two reports I previously mentioned in order to provide some legislative history and intent of my amendment No. 4657, that the Senate just adopted.

The Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations' March report, among other things, analyzed the unique security risks posed by the importation into the United States of cargo containers carrying trash.

The report points out that the importers of consumer products, by contrast, have more control over the specific content and the origin of the imported products, making it easier to

take steps to monitor and ensure the security of the supply chain. There are few, if any, security measures in place to screen trash or ensure that trash does not conceal illegal or harmful materials, such as weapons or nuclear material.

Growing imports of trash present an increasingly serious security problem. For example, according to the Senate report, Canada shipped roughly 100,000 containers of trash across U.S. borders into Michigan in 2004 alone, an 8-percent increase over 2003. Another 10,000 containers of trash come through nine other ports of entry on both the northern and southern borders of the United States each year.

The inspector general's report found that from 2003 to 2004, tons of illegal drugs and millions of dollars in illegal currency have been transported into the United States in trash containers, among other forbidden cargo. The Senate report concluded that the Department of Homeland Security should ban imports of trash into the United States entirely until the Secretary of Homeland Security ``can ensure that the supply chain of a trash importer is secure or develops protocols ensuring adequate inspections of individual trash containers.''

In order to pay for more rigorous inspections to protect people in the United States from the security risks currently associated with trash containers, the Senate report recommended enacting into law a ``fee on international shipments of trash.''

In my amendment, the shipments that would be more rigorously inspected would be in the Customs Territory of the United States, which has the meaning given the term in the general note 2 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States.

Also, the term ``municipal solid waste'' means all waste materials discarded for disposal by households, including single-family and multifamily residences, and hotels and motels; and all waste materials discarded for disposal that were generated by commercial, institutional, municipal, and industrial sources, to the extent such materials are essentially similar to what I just described and were collected and disposed of with other municipal solid waste previously described as part of or normal municipal solid waste collection services, except that this does not apply to hazardous materials other than hazardous materials that, under regulations issued under section 3001(d) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act are not subject to regulation under subtitle C of that act.

The term ``municipal solid waste'' includes food and yard waste, paper, clothing, appliances, consumer product packaging, disposable diapers, office supplies, cosmetics, glass and metal food containers, household hazardous waste, and debris resulting from construction, repair, or demolition of structures.

The term ``municipal solid waste'' does not include any solid waste identified or listed as a hazardous waste under section 3001 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, except for household hazardous waste; any solid waste including contaminated soil and debris resulting from a response action taken under the section 104 or 106 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, a response action taken under a State law with authorities comparable to the authorities of such section 104 or 106 or a corrective action taken under the Solid Waste Disposal Act.

It also does not include recycled materials that have been separated, at the source of the waste, from waste otherwise destined for disposal or that have been managed separately from waste destined for disposal; scrap rubber to be used as a fuel source; materials and products returned from a dispenser or distributor to the manufacturer for credit, evaluation, and possible reuse, any solid waste that is generated by an industrial facility and transported for the purpose of treatment, storage, or disposal to a facility or unit thereof that is owned or operated by the generator of the waste, located on property owned by the generator or a company with which the generator is affiliated or the capacity of which is contractually dedicated exclusively to a specific generator, or as long as the disposal area complies with local and State land use and zoning regulations applicable to the disposal site, any medical waste that is segregated from or not mixed with solid waste, combustion ash generated by resource recovery facilities or municipal incinerators, or waste from manufacturing or processing, including pollution control, operations not essentially the same as waste normally generated by households.

Mr. President, I hope this will provide the executive and judicial branches with a fuller explanation of the intent and meaning of this amendment.

amendment no. 4626

Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues in calling for a ``Checklist for Change.'' We need a real jobs agenda in this country--one that stands strong and fights for American workers and American businesses.

This is about our way of life--a way of life based on good-paying, middle class jobs and the promise that--with hard work--every American can aspire to do better tomorrow than they did yesterday.

We need to stop the flow of American jobs overseas. Last year, a new $2 billion tax cut that I authored took effect, rewarding companies that create

manufacturing jobs here in the United States.

We need to level the playing field for American businesses. Currency manipulation and the free flow of counterfeit goods from countries such as China have put American workers at an unfair disadvantage for too long.

It is time we had an international trade prosecutor who can go after countries that cheat and make sure that America is getting a fair deal in the world market.

We need a new direction for American workers.

We challenge the Republican Congress to enact tax policies that stop the outsourcing of American jobs.

We challenge them to stand up and enforce our trade agreements so American businesses can compete on a level playing field and keep good- paying jobs here at home.

Americans want to export our products, not our jobs.

And we challenge the Republican Congress to follow the lead of my State of Michigan and raise the minimum wage

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

Madam President, I rise to speak in support of the Lautenberg-Stabenow amendment. I understand Senator Levin has offered it and Senator Lautenberg will be coming shortly to speak on our amendment.

This is an incredibly important amendment for the men and women who are currently serving us so bravely, courageously around the world. We all know that prescription drug costs are one of the largest drivers of health care costs, rising every year at double or even triple the rate of inflation. This is certainly an area where I have been focused for much of my Senate career--on the high cost of prescription drugs. We all know that is the case.

Like every manufacturer, small business, and State Medicaid Program, the military is facing the same challenges of controlling prescription drug prices. Instead of supporting policies that would lower prescription drug prices, such as reimportation of prescription drugs from other countries like Canada, which is very close to Michigan, or focusing on more generic, lower cost drugs that can be brought to the market and create competition to bring down prices, or allowing Medicare to negotiate pricing, unfortunately, this administration wants to put the costs on the backs of our men and women in uniform and their families. I strongly oppose that policy.

The President's budget proposed increasing the prescription drug copays for our troops and their families, almost doubling copays for both generic and brand-name drugs.

The proposed pharmacy copay increases represent a 70-percent increase for military beneficiaries over the next 5 years--far in excess of the 24-percent increase in military pay, or the 14-percent increase in retiree pay over the same period. These increased copays will affect Active-Duty members of the Armed Forces and their families, members of the Guard and Reserve and their families, and retired members of the Armed Forces and their families, as well as surviving spouses who are enrolled in TRICARE and get their prescription drugs from retail pharmacies.

Unfortunately, the Senate Defense authorization bill only rejects the increases if people use mail order pharmacies for their prescriptions. While

mail order may work for some, many military families cannot wait 2 weeks or more to get the medicine they need right now. The vast majority of our military families purchase their drugs at pharmacies. Of all TRICARE prescriptions filled, about 43 percent are through retail, going to local pharmacists, 51 percent are through military pharmacies, and only 6 percent are through mail order.

Unfortunately, in Michigan, there are no military pharmacies for the 64,000 military men and women and their families who call Michigan home. So this will impact the families in Michigan who are serving us abroad--the troops as well as their families.

Are we going to tell an Active-Duty mother to wait 2 weeks to get the antibiotics that her children need? Are we going to say to our troops that their family should have to pay more for prescriptions while they are serving and protecting us in Iraq?

The Lautenberg-Stabenow amendment makes sense. It would temporarily freeze retail copays at their current rate through the end of next year. I understand there has been a request from the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services to change that to the end of the fiscal year. I don't object to that. The amendment is consistent with the committee's findings that military beneficiaries should be held harmless from TRICARE fee increases until Congress is satisfied that the Defense Department has done all it can to constrain health care costs, without shifting the costs to our military families.

Clearly, Madam President, we have not done all we can to cut health care costs, and we ought not to be shifting this burden to our military families. If we don't pass this important amendment, our soldiers and their families will be asked to pay an additional $200 million next year for their medicine.

I was fortunate enough to spend Memorial Day with our troops in Iraq and saw firsthand, as so many of my colleagues have, their dedication and courage under incredibly difficult circumstances. We have an obligation to support these men and women, and that means not raising their prescription drug copays while they are fighting to protect us.

I hope the Senate will unanimously support this effort that would stop the doubling of copays for our military families for their medicine. I am hopeful that we will be able to do that as soon as possible.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the U.S. Coast Guard cutter Mackinaw--WAGB 83--and her crew for their years of service to the United States, the State of Michigan, and the Great Lakes. Today, after 62 years of service, the Mackinaw's commissioning pennant will be lowered, and the Coast Guard will pass the honor of keeping the Great Lake's shipping lanes open to her namesake and legacy, the new U.S. Coast Guard cutter Mackinaw--WLBB-30.

On March 20, 1943, construction of the Mackinaw began at the Toledo Ship Building Company. When commissioned on December 20, 1944, the Mackinaw was the most powerful icebreaker in the world. The ship measures 269 feet from bow to stern, and it is still the largest cutter in the Great Lakes. The ``Big Mac,'' as it is affectionately known, set the standard for other icebreakers to live up to.

The Mackinaw began her service at the end of 1944 breaking ice and keeping the shipping lanes open to ensure the flow of steel during World War II. The cutter's design was state of the art and gave her the ability to break channels 70 feet wide through 4 feet of ice. The Mackinaw once broke through an astonishing 37 feet of ice. During her first season she made 17 passes through the Straits of Mackinac.

While the Big Mac's primary mission was to keep the shipping lanes open during the winter months, she also conducted search and rescue, aid to navigation, law enforcement, and public relations missions. On a tragic day in 1965, the U.S. Cedarville and Norwegian Topdalsfjord collided in Lake Huron, and the Mackinaw rushed to aid survivors and take on casualties. When performing its primary mission from December to April, the Mackinaw's motto is ``we move ships when no one else will.'' In 1948, the Mackinaw freed 12 ice-locked ships in Buffalo, N.Y., and in 1984 opened a channel through the St. Clair River Ice Jam freeing 13 vessels stuck in the ice and opening a passage for 75 other freighters waiting for passage. For these and other feats, the Mackinaw also became know as the ``Great White Mother.''

Today, I also pay tribute to the men and women, past and present, who have served on the Mackinaw. The Big Mac and its crew spent many months away from home from home in the bitter cold navigating the frigid waters of the Great Lakes. This was often lonely duty for her crew, but the Big Mac's efforts were crucial to keep Great Lakes commerce moving during the winter months.

The ``Big Mac'' is being replaced but not forgotten. I am pleased that the Big Mac will remain in Michigan as an attraction and educational experience so that everyone can enjoy the wonders of this legendary ice breaker. The new Mackinaw will perform as an icebreaker and will also maintain navigational aids. I am sad to see the Big Mac retired but am excited the torch will pass on to such a fine ship.

The U.S. Coast Guard cutter Mackinaw and its crew have done a remarkable job over the years. I thank them for their service to their country, Michigan and the Great Lakes. Finally, I say thank you and goodbye to the Big Mac.

Mr. President, I take a special moment to say thank you to Rev. Tim Tuthill for giving the invocation today. As a lifelong United Methodist, I am very proud of him.

He is associate pastor of the First United Methodist Church in Mason, MI, and one of our brightest and most engaging young leaders in the community. I am so pleased he is here today.

He has been very active in the mid-Michigan community and served in a number of different leadership positions in the Mason area United Way, the Mason Ministerial Association, the Wesley Foundation, the St. Francis Retreat Center, the West Michigan Conference Leadership Team, and a host of other organizations.

After 8 years with the First United Methodist Church, Reverend Tuthill was recently appointed by the Wesley Foundation to lead the campus ministry at Michigan State, my alma mater, as well as Lansing Community College.

I wish him and his family well. We are so pleased he would take time to join us. We appreciate his words of inspiration this morning.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak to the nominations before us. I appreciate my distinguished colleague and friend from Oregon relinquishing the floor. He is very passionate and such a wonderful leader on so many topics. I appreciate his good work.

I rise today to support the nominations of Judge Sean Cox and Judge Thomas Ludington to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. Both nominees will bring distinguished legal careers and judicial experience to the Federal bench.

Judge Sean Cox has served as a Circuit Court Judge for the Third Circuit of Michigan since 1996. He is a graduate of the Detroit College of Law at the University of Michigan and has over 12 years of private practice experience.

Judge Thomas Ludington has served on the 42nd Circuit Court for Midland County since 1995. He has served as chief judge of this court for the past 6 years.

Judge Ludington is a graduate of the University of San Diego School of Law and Albion College. After graduating from law school, Judge Ludington worked at Currie and Kendall law firm for 14 years. He also served as president of the firm before he left to join the Michigan circuit bench.

I thank Senator Specter and Senator Leahy for working with me and Senator Levin to bring these two truly qualified nominees to the floor of the Senate. I look forward to continuing to work with them on issues related to the Michigan District Court and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. I urge my colleagues to join with us in strongly supporting the nominations and confirming Judge Cox and Judge Ludington.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the votes on the confirmation of judges begin at 2 p.m. today; provided further, that all the votes in the sequence after the first be limited to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order to ask for the yeas and nays on all four of the nominees.

I ask for the yeas and nays, Mr. President.

Mr. President, today at a 10 a.m. the U.S. Coast Guard will decommission the Cutter Acacia in a ceremony in Charlevoix, MI.

The Acacia's keel was laid in 1942 in Duluth MN, and was commissioned on September 1, 1944. The cutter is named after the original Acacia, a U.S. Lighthouse Service vessel sunk off the coast of British West Indies by a German U-boat on March 17, 1942. The Acacia is the last of the Coast Guard's 180-foot World War II era buoy tenders still in service and has called Charlevoix, MI, home since 1990.

The Acacia has served as a buoy tender on the Great Lakes for 62 years and its area of responsibility extends from Chicago at the south end of Lake Michigan to Alpena on Lake Huron. The cutter's primary mission is maintaining aids to navigation but has also performed search and rescue missions, as well as providing icebreaking assistance during the winter. The Acacia, also know as ``The Big A'' or ``Ace of the Great Lakes'' has performed an unheralded but vital mission in the Great Lakes for more than six decades.

I commend the Acacia crew both past and present for their tireless service to maintain the Great Lakes navigational aids. Each fall the Acacia and its crew begin a race against the Lakes brutal winter weather when they set out to remove buoys in Lake Michigan and Lake Huron. These buoys can weigh over 18 tons and are covered in ice. Pulling buoys out of the frigid and unpredictable Great Lakes in October, November and December is back breaking work in rough seas and sub zero weather. However, it is crucial to keep these waterways open for commercial shipping as long as possible before the ice closes the shipping lanes and grinds any buoys left behind into scrap metal.

Mr. President, the Acacia and her crew have served the Great Lakes faithfully since the 1940s and we will miss her fondly.

Mr. President, I wish to have included in the Record statements of support for S. 2588, the Health Care Access for Small Businesses Act, from all across the state of Michigan. I am proud to have support from organizations as diverse as providers, insurers, and elected officials.

The three share model is an innovative community-based concept that has worked across the United States from California to Arkansas, of course, to Michigan. The name, ``three share'' stems from the program's payment structure. Premiums are shared between the employer who pays 30 percent, the employee who pays 30 percent and the community which covers the remaining 40 percent of the cost.

I ask unanimous consent that the support letters be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I thank my colleagues who are managing this very important bill and Senators Kennedy and Salazar as well. We are engaged in an important debate right now, but there is another important debate going on around every kitchen table and in every senior citizen center right now, which is what is going to happen today after they can no longer sign up for the Medicare prescription Part D benefit.

We know that for about 3 million low-income seniors, they are going to be allowed to continue to sign up until the end of the year without penalty. But for the 3 million to 5 million seniors who are not in that category, they are not allowed to continue to sign up, and there will be a penalty between now and November when they can sign up again.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of a bill which I will send to the desk now which extends the enrollment deadline for Medicare Part D, waives the late enrollment penalty, provides the option for a one-time change of plan during 2006, and provides increased funding for State health insurance counseling and assistance programs.

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

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

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

Mr. President, before we proceed to the next vote, I want to acknowledge that this is a historic vote for us in Michigan because our senior Senator Carl Levin will be casting his 10,000th vote. We are so proud of him in Michigan. He stands for all that we believe in and serves with dignity and is respected by everyone here. I want to mention he is the 25th Senator in the history of our Senate to cast 10,000 votes.

I went back to research his very first vote. I thought this was an example of a historic moment. He cast his first vote on February 22, 1979. It was in favor of a Byrd motion to table a Stevens amendment to S. Res. 61 which was a postcloture rules change resolution. It was very profound, and he has been profound ever since.

Congratulations to Senator Levin.

Mr. President, I rise today to acknowledge the brave men and women who lost their lives while serving as law enforcement officers and to thank them for making the ultimate sacrifice.

Today is Peace Officers Memorial Day, a day to honor all the law enforcement officers in our communities who have been killed or disabled in the line of duty. I was proud to join Senator Patrick Leahy on S. Res. 472, a Senate resolution, which passed the Senate last week, commemorating this important day.

This past Saturday, thousands of people from across the country gathered at the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial here in Washington, DC, for a candlelight vigil to honor these fallen officers. And today, there was a Peace Officers Memorial Service in front of the U.S. Capitol for these brave men and women. I am proud that we had a dedicated group of Michigan officers in attendance, representing their fellow officers from around the State.

The names of 466 fallen officers were added to the memorial on Saturday, including 8 officers from Michigan: Lavern Steven Brann, Battle Creek, Michigan; William A. Daniels, Cassopolis, Michigan; Owen David Fisher, Flint, Michigan; Dale Francis Bernock, Dearborn, Michigan; Scot Andrew Beyerstedt, Mattawan, Michigan; Benjamin Lewis Carpenter, Newaygo,

Michigan; Michael Allen Scarbrough, Wayne County, Michigan; and Paul Lee Mickel, Wayne County, Michigan. We honor all of these officers today.

In Michigan, we also remember two officers who recently lost their lives in the line of duty. Less then a month ago, Reserve Officer Matthew Tuttle and Chief Scott Sumner were killed in a helicopter accident in Scio Township while providing aerial support for officers who were involved in a foot pursuit.

Chief Sumner was a 19-year veteran of the Chelsea Police Department, and Officer Tuttle was only 28 years old. Our thoughts and prayers go out to their families and the entire Chelsea Police Department.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Oregon for his incredible leadership on something that makes so much sense, negotiating group prices under Medicare.

Why in the world wouldn't we want to get the best price? Taxpayers want us to get the best price. Seniors want us to get the best price. The disabled want us to get the best price. Why in the world wouldn't we want to do everything possible to have a Medicare prescription drug benefit that offers the very best prices so we can offer as much coverage as possible? One of the things we know, the gap in coverage is partly because we are paying so much for the whole plan. We could give people more coverage and spread it out differently if we were, in fact, negotiating group prices.

I thank my colleague who has come to the Senate floor on so many occasions. He always makes so much sense. I know the people in Oregon are proud of what he has done.

To add to the discussion on Medicare, I am pleased we have Health Week. Even though I will speak at some later time in terms of the concerns I have about the underlying bill, we all chose to vote to proceed to debate on health care because there is nothing more important to the people we represent, whether it is the manufacturers I represent who are having to compete in a global economy and figure how to do that while paying so much of the cost of health care or whether it is small businesses, self-employed people who cannot find coverage at affordable prices, whether it is our seniors or whether it is women and children who need care.

We have a serious issue when we spend twice as much on health care in this country than any other country and still have 46 million people with no insurance, 80 percent of them working.

This is an important debate. Part of that debate, I believe because of the timing, needs to be to address what is happening with Medicare prescription drug coverage. Unfortunately, we are 6 days away from a Medicare prescription drug deadline. Right now, 6 days from now, folks are going to be penalized if they have not signed up for a Medicare prescription drug plan, even though they are having to wade through a lot of information and misinformation in order to be able to figure out what to do, if anything.

I am sure my colleagues have received as many calls as I have received, thousands of calls and letters from people all across Michigan about the trouble they are having related to this Medicare prescription drug program--calls from pharmacists trying to help people figure what to do, spending hours on the phone, being put on hold, unfortunately, receiving inaccurate information too much of the time. We know there are serious issues that have come about because the Government has not gotten its act together, as we should, to be able to present them to people in a way they can understand and make sure it works for seniors and disabled.

We know choosing a plan is extremely challenging and confusing. We have an obligation on our end to do something about that, not wait 6 days and penalize people because they have not signed up for a plan that they may not be able to figure out.

This is not because people are not bright. In Michigan alone there are at least 79 different plans to choose from. Each plan has a different premium, a different copay, covers different medicines. Under the current law, as I indicated before, anyone who does not go through these 79 plans, or whatever number they have in their State, by next Monday will find themselves paying a lifetime penalty, more for prescription drugs than they would if they signed up before then.

A decision about something that is so fundamental to a person's health as their medicine should not be rushed. We should not be scaring seniors into picking a plan that may not work for them because of a penalty they will receive after next Monday. Unfortunately, that is exactly what is happening.

Unfortunately, I continue to believe the ``D'' in Medicare Part D stands for disaster. That does not mean some people are not getting helped. We want people to be helped. We want people who have not otherwise had help to be able to receive it. That is a very important point in this process because the administration has been talking about the 29.7 million seniors who are now covered, seniors and disabled who now have drug coverage under Part D.

But what they are not saying, of the 29 million, 20 million already had coverage. They were covered under Medicaid, they were covered under private insurance, under a Medicare HMO. We are talking about less than 30 percent of those who have not had any help with their medicine, less than 30 percent, have actually signed up so far.

Is it because they do not want help? Of course not. It is because they are having challenges getting through the bureaucracy and trying to figure out what works for them and what does not work for them?

I will share a story of a woman who called me yesterday. This exemplifies the thousands of calls and stories I receive in Michigan. A member of my staff spoke with Shirley Campbell from Midland, MI, yesterday, not far from my hometown. Shirley told my staff about the experience she and her sister had enrolling in Part D. First, they had a terrible time getting through to the so-called ``help'' line.

By the way, the Government Accountability Office says almost 60 percent of the time folks trying to get through to the 1-800 Medicare number are getting incomplete or inaccurate information. That is stunning. We have to get our act together before we penalize people for not signing up for a program.

She kept trying. Shirley kept trying. Once she got through, in response to her question, she was told, ``I can't answer that question because the site is down.'' She did not give up. She called back the next week and she called back the following week. Each time she had the same experience. She could not get an answer to her question because ``the site is down.'' This is the administration's idea of a ``help'' line? It is not much help.

Because Shirley could not get the information she needed from the administration, she called several plans and asked them all to send her their information. Imagine how big that mailbox was. Then she and her sister sat down and spent more than 10 hours sifting through all the information they had received. They narrowed it down to six plans and began a thorough analysis.

What did they find? From the six plans, all of the plans would cost Shirley more than she is currently paying for the medications necessary for her rheumatoid arthritis. Six plans she narrowed it down to, and all of them would cost her more than what she is currently paying. Shirley currently does not have any coverage. Yet she would end up paying more under any of the six plans she studied.

Think of that. We are trying to help people who do not have coverage, and less than 30 percent of the folks who have signed up have been people who did not have help before. Maybe it is because they were like Shirley, when they tried to find someone to help them, they found out they would be paying even more under this privatized scheme that has been set up than they are currently paying.

She also told my staff that most of the plans would have cost her twice as much as she is now paying. But she ended up choosing a plan that would cost her more than what she is currently paying, even though she currently does not have any coverage. She says she signed up because she was worried about the looming May 15 enrollment deadline and the prospect of paying a penalty for the rest of her life.

What sense does this make? Folks are seeing the clock count, 6 days away, until the May 15 deadline and penalty. And Shirley is so worried about what that means down the road, the cost she would be paying and a lifetime penalty, she signs up for a plan that costs her more than she is currently paying. I don't believe Shirley or any senior should be rushed into a premature decision because of an arbitrarily determined deadline. That is all this is. There is nothing magical about May 15, nothing at all.

Shirley worked in middle management all her life. She had the ability to spend hours and hours wading through the plan, the brochures, the paperwork. In the end, she had to make a decision that leaves her worse off than she is today.

Shirley wrapped up her experience of choosing a Part D plan by saying, ``I never in a million years would have done anything like this to my staff.''

She then asked my health legislative assistant to deliver the message to me that the Medicare Part D Program needs to be fixed. Amen. I could not agree more with Shirley.

This is Health Week. This is the time to fix it. The first thing we need to do to fix it is to give folks more time.

I am proud to be joining Senator Bill Nelson on legislation to extend the deadline to the end of the year. If given the opportunity, and I hope we will have the opportunity, we intend to offer that as an amendment, as we proceed with Health Week. People should not be penalized because the Government cannot get its act together. People should not be penalized when almost 60 percent of the time when they call a hotline they cannot get the information they need, it is inaccurate or incomplete. That is not their fault.

The whole point of this was to make sure we were helping people who were choosing between food and medicine, people who were choosing between medicine and paying the rent, the electric bill or gas prices right now. If that is not happening, why are we moving full steam ahead with some arbitrary deadline? Six days from now, folks are going to be penalized because the Government has been slow to get its act together, and they will be permanently penalized by paying more.

Less than 30 percent of the people who do not currently get help paying for their medicines have actually signed up. That should say something. It should either say, it is not a good deal, and they found out they would be paying more, and they said forget it or it says to us that maybe we need to go back to the drawing board and make sure the right information, in the right way, is given out to people so they can make the best decision for themselves.

I am also extremely concerned that in my home State of Michigan only 22 percent of the 256,000 seniors eligible for low-income help, only 22 percent of those whom we said we wanted to help the most by waiving the premium and the copay, only 22 percent have signed up to get that extra help.

Unfortunately, our low-income seniors are caught twice because they have to pick a plan. They have to, similar to Shirley, wade through all kinds of plans. Then they have to sign up separately to be able to get low-income help.

I am pleased the administration has said they will allow low-income seniors to be able to sign up after May 15. I appreciate that. That is a good start. Unfortunately, the penalty is not waived. Our lowest income seniors, even though they may be able to sign up in June, July, and August--and that is a good thing and I appreciate the administration doing that--I urge them to waive that penalty. It makes no sense if you allow people to sign up for extra help and then take it away through a penalty for signing up late.

The final issue is our poorest seniors, our lowest income seniors in Michigan and individuals making less than $14,700 a year, our lowest income seniors or the disabled, in too many instances are actually paying more under this plan than they were before. Why? Because they were on Medicaid before for the low-income health care. In Michigan, that meant paying a $1

copay for a prescription, and that has doubled, tripled or gone higher. This also makes no sense.

On top of that, those who were in Medicaid, our lowest income seniors, many in nursing homes, were automatically enrolled sometime in the last few months, into a plan, regardless of whether it covered the medicines. We have said to the lowest income seniors, many of them in nursing homes, you are signed up for a plan, and you have to go figure out whether it even helps you and how you are going to get out of it if it doesn't help you. And, by the way, you are going to pay more.

We can do better than this. I believe No. 1 is to stop the 6-day count. No. 1, we have to give folks more time to wade through all of this, to figure out what is going on, and we have to give some more time to the Government to get its act together. The administration is doing a disservice to people by the way this has been handled. Giving more time will allow that to happen.

I am also very hopeful we are going to come back and come together and give people the one choice they really want. People do not want 70 plans. They are not saying: Oh, please, give me a whole bunch of insurance papers to wade through. Give me increased premiums. Give me all kinds of deadlines to deal with. What they said was: I need help with my medicine.

We are blessed in this country to have more medicine available as a part of the way we allow ourselves to live healthier lives, longer lives, to be able to treat cancers, to be able to treat other chronic illnesses. Medicines are available now. But they are not available if they are not affordable. We can do better.

Mr. President, I am hopeful at some point we are going to come back to this floor and give people the choice they want: A real Medicare benefit through Medicare, with a reasonable copay and premium, where you sign up and you can go to your local pharmacy, and Medicare negotiates good prices. That is what we ought to be doing.

In the meantime, let's stop the countdown to May 15.

Thank you, Mr. President.

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

Mr. President, today as I stand here, back in Michigan the gas prices have risen to $3.10 a gallon. At $3.10 a gallon, that is the highest price at the pump that folks are paying than ever before as they get up to go to work, take the kids to school, as our farmers are preparing the fields, and as our business people are on the road. Folks are feeling the squeeze--one more squeeze.

We already have in Michigan a situation where we are seeing job loss or wages being reduced, health care costs going up, pensions that may not be there for people; things that are squeezing people on all sides--the higher cost of college. Part of that is due to actions taken in the Congress and at the White House. To add insult to injury, we are seeing now over $3 a gallon for gasoline, and I know in other States we have seen as much as $4 for folks who are just trying to make it, just trying to get to work, just trying to take care of their families.

When they look at this picture, they see several things. They see the highest

possible profits ever recorded in the history of the country by our oil companies, particularly ExxonMobile, which recorded the highest profits ever. They see incredible salaries. They see the former CEO of ExxonMobile making about $110,000 a day, when most Michiganians don't make $110,000 a year. And now we were told about a $400 million retirement package, and we hear when you count everything, it could be $700 million. Unbelievable. People have had enough. People have had enough of a set of policies that are squeezing them on all sides.

Then, today, we read that the conference committee is dealing with a series of tax cuts and tax proposals and have decided to delay repealing accounting procedures known as ``last and first out'' that were included in the bill that we passed, including loopholes that we closed for oil companies that would equal about $4.3 billion in tax breaks that we said didn't make sense and we need to close them. Instead, those tax breaks are going to keep rolling on. I know there are going to be hearings in the Finance Committee. But the reality is that when the priorities are set, when the values are reflected about what will be done, the oil companies' tax breaks continue. High prices continue. These outrageous CEO salaries continue. The people in Michigan have said: Enough is enough.

On top of that, we see foreign tax credit loopholes that may be continued so that we as taxpayers will subsidize the oil companies doing business in other countries. We see royalty relief that Senator Wyden spoke about last week which comes to the tune of anywhere from $20 billion to $80 billion in tax breaks to the oil companies that they said they didn't even need anymore. Yet this royalty relief and the tax breaks continue. We see the Energy bill that was passed last August and had a lot of positive things in it, that I supported, but in that were $2.6 billion in tax subsidies by American taxpayers for the oil companies, and that continues.

In total, we are looking at somewhere between $28 billion and $88 billion in taxpayer dollars being used to subsidize an industry with the highest profits and arguably the highest salaries, or certainly some of the highest salaries in the world. At the same time, folks are trying to make it every day.

I believe, and my colleagues on the Democratic side of the aisle believe, that we need to shut down those tax breaks to oil companies and put money directly back into the pockets of taxpayers. We also believe and, in fact, I was proud to lead an effort that resulted in a required investigation by the Federal Trade Commission. I was proud to author that in the Energy bill last August and they are finally doing it and they will have an investigation done and recommendations by May 21. They are doing a law enforcement investigation.

I call on the President and all of our colleagues to do everything possible to support the FTC to get the right conclusion. We know price gouging is going on. It is not rocket science. People see what is going on. We don't need to call for an investigation. We already have one going on. Let's make sure they have the tools and the resources and the support to do what is right for the American consumer.

Americans are subsidizing one of the wealthiest industries in the country and in the world, with the highest CEO salaries, at the same time they are trying to figure out how to get 2 or 3 gallons in the tank of their car so they can get to work. This is the wrong set of values. These are the wrong priorities for our country.

I say, along with many others, enough is enough. We know we have long-term issues to address, and we have worked together in the Energy bill on new support and tax incentives for renewable fuels. We are seeing in Michigan the outgrowth of that: five new ethanol plants by the end of the year, biodiesel plants, and we are seeing wonderful efforts going on with our American auto companies. I am very proud of what General Motors is doing with E-85 ethanol and Ford moving ahead with their hybrids and Daimler Chrysler with biodiesel B-20 and all of the efforts that are moving forward to get us off of foreign oil dependence. And I am hopeful that all of those policies together will result not only in more jobs in my State, because I believe Michigan will be the leader in this area, but more support for our farmers, better policies for our environment, and the opportunity to give big oil the competition they ought to be having, which is by using home- grown fuels.

I believe our goal ought to be to make sure the people of this country have the opportunity to buy their fuel from Middle America instead of the Middle East. I am committed to that, as many of my colleagues are, and I believe we need to get about the business of getting that done. In the process, we ought to close some tax loopholes with the oil companies. We ought to go back on this tax bill and get it right and worry more about putting money back in the pockets of the folks who are paying the bill at the gas pump. Folks have said enough is enough, and I agree with them.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague, Senator Menendez, for his eloquent statement and for sponsoring this incredibly important amendment. I am proud to be a cosponsor with him and a number of my colleagues. It is incredibly important that we act and that we act now.

As Senator Menendez described his amendment, it would add $60 million to address the shortfall in the U.S. contribution to the United Nations for international peacekeeping and to fund a U.N. peacekeeping force in Darfur.

The situation in Darfur is alarming, and it is a true emergency. In fact, words can't describe how much of an emergency this is. Approximately 3.5 million men, women, and children in the western Darfur region of the Sudan are in a fight for their lives against the Sudanese Government-sponsored campaign of violence and forced starvation. Since the conflict began in February of 2003, recent estimates are that there are as many as 400,000--400,000--Sudanese people who have died, and more than 2 million who have been displaced. By some estimates, 500 people perish every day in Darfur. Five hundred people perished today, if those estimates are correct, 500 more will die tomorrow, and 500 more will die the next day. If this is not genocide, I don't know what is, and we must act to stop it as soon as possible.

The United States has taken the lead in the international community to provide humanitarian aid and to support the African Union peacekeeping mission in Darfur. However, we must do more. Clearly we have not done what we should and we have not done it fast enough if 500 people are dying every day.

We must ensure that our contribution to the United Nations Contributions for International Peacekeeping Activities account is paid in full so that we are credible when we support a U.N. peacekeeping mission in Darfur. This amendment helps make that possible. We must also apply pressure to the Sudanese Government so that they take action to stop the killing or face the consequences of their actions. We must not sit idly by any longer as people die from a coordinated government- sponsored campaign of violence and forced starvation.

I am also proud to be a cosponsor of the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act which calls for assistance to the African Union peacekeepers and urges the President to press for NATO support of the peacekeeping mission. I am hopeful that the House and Senate will soon--very soon--resolve the differences between the versions of the bill and send it to the President for his signature as soon as possible. Millions of men, women, and children are waiting and praying for us to act and to act now.

I am proud to join with Senator Menendez and with colleagues on both sides of the aisle in this critical funding amendment regarding the U.N. peacekeeping mission to put an end to the genocide and bring peace to the people of Darfur. This is an opportunity for all of us together to do something that will address literally the lives of people who have no one else to turn to but those of us who understand what is going on and have the ability to act.

So on behalf of the human race, I urge this amendment and other actions be taken as soon as possible. We must act, and we must act now.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Biometrics

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

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

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about what is on everybody's mind in my State, and that is what is happening as it relates to gas prices.

First, we all know there are multiple ways in which we need to address this issue. I was in an Agriculture hearing this morning on biofuels. It is very exciting to see colleagues on both sides of the aisle talking about what we can do in the way of policy to build on what was in the Energy bill that was passed last August in terms of ethanol and biobased fuels.

I know in my home State, we will have five ethanol plants by the end of the year. We already have biobased diesel being used. There are many exciting opportunities to create jobs, to help our farmers create new markets, to address our environmental issues in a sound way that deal with protecting our environment, protecting the Earth and, at the same time, getting us off foreign oil. I believe very strongly, if we work together--and we need to do this boldly and quickly--we can start buying our fuel from Middle America instead of the Middle East. That should be a goal for all of us. I know colleagues on both sides of the aisle share the excitement about moving forward in this way. We have things happening in all of our States.

From my perspective, not only corn but sugar beets can be used for ethanol. Soybeans are part of what we grow in our multitude of different crops in Michigan, and there are a lot of opportunities, not just for fuel but for us to replace oil-based plastic with corn- byproduct-based plastic, and to do a number of other things that will move us off foreign oil, which needs to be one of our major goals as a Congress, and certainly working here in the Senate.

We have some short-term issues we have to deal with as well. While we move boldly--and I believe we need to move very quickly on the question of real competition--we also have to address what is happening right now without competition. We have an oil industry that has been consolidated down to five major companies. There is no real competition. It is not a regulated utility such as electricity and other basic necessities. Yet it is a necessity. Gasoline is not a luxury, it is a necessity. And the fact is, price increases for this necessity are making it harder and harder for people to be able to afford the product they need to get them to work, to get the kids to school, to be able to till the fields, to be able to do business, or to be able to take that trip up north in beautiful northern Michigan on vacation where tourism is so critical for us.

We also know it directly relates to jobs. GM executives have indicated, for example, that for every $1 increase in the cost of a barrel of oil, it costs them $4 million more to operate. So this is a question of jobs. From every angle, this is something that needs our immediate attention while we address where we go long term. Nothing would please me more than to be able to drive my American-made automobile into a service station--and by the way, they use flex fuels and E-85 ethanol and a number of products right now--right now--for our automobiles, and we see GM and Ford and Daimler Chrysler doing wonderfully bold things and advertising alternative fuels, flex fuels right now. But nothing would please me more than to see a pump with E- 85 in it that is giving competition to the other pumps where the prices are going through the roof.

It would be one thing if this was just about supply and demand, but it is not. We know there are multiple factors. It is not about an industry hard hit, an oil industry barely being able to make it because of international factors or because of the hurricanes. No, we are talking about an industry that had over $111 billion in combined profits last year. We are talking about ExxonMobile with the highest profits recorded in the history of the country. And to add insult to injury for people, that same company pays their top executive, we understand, the equivalent of $110,000 a day in salary--a day. That is more than the average person in Michigan makes in a year, $110,000 a day. Then, when he announced his retirement, he gets a combined package of $400 million.

No wonder people are outraged. No wonder they look at us and say: What are you doing? What is going on here? You have the industry with the highest profits ever paying their executives more than the revenue of some cities in my State. Yet, at the same time, the policies continue to support tax break after tax break subsidized by American taxpayers to continue to increase the profits of the oil companies. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. It is outrageous that the oil companies are bringing in billions of dollars in profits each year, while families are now paying over $40 every time they fill up their gas tank, and certainly it could be $50 or it could be $60. On average in Michigan right now, it is about $42. That is up $4 from last month and $10 from last year, and we know it is going to be going up and up as the summer goes on.

We also know that, unfortunately, there appears to be no relief in sight. On average, I am told that Michigan families will be paying at least $500 more in the next year for their gasoline

based on what is happening. Five hundred dollars may not sound like a lot to a lot of people. In fact, Exxon CEO Lee Raymond indicated in an interview with CNN that a single quarter or a single year of profits is ``not all that significant,'' and that what is happening evidently in the oil industry is not all that significant.

Well, it is significant when it comes to what is happening to people who are working hard every day trying to make it. Five hundred dollars is a house payment. It is the rent. It is a car payment. It is paying for food. It is making sure your kids have the opportunity to go to college, maybe pay for the books that are needed for them to be able to go to college for a year. So it is a lot of money for the average person.

I think it is outrageous that somebody who has been earning the equivalent of $110,000 a day would act like what is happening to average families and the profits that are going to the oil companies is somehow insignificant. People in my State don't know if they are going to have a job tomorrow. There are policies, unfortunately, that have caused manufacturers in our country to believe, I am concerned to say, that maybe we don't need to make things anymore in this country, which of course is what has built our middle class. And those folks who have built our middle class and created our way of life and are the consumers who buy goods so that we can be successful in this country are now feeling that they are getting hit on all sides. They may not have a job.

Health care is going up. They may not have their pension. The cost of college certainly has gone up, based on things that have been happening here, such as taking away $12 billion as it relates to student loans and other proposals, to have the cost of college go up.

Now, to add insult to injury, we have an industry that is more profitable than it has ever been, with the highest recorded profits by ExxonMobile, the highest of any publicly held company ever, and now the American consumer is being told: You are going to pay again. You are going to pay for all of the excesses that are going on right now by making it harder for you to get to work, to take the kids to school, to be able to do your job, and maybe to take a little vacation this summer. It is absolutely outrageous.

I want to also make the point that this is not about our gas station owners. I met with some terrific people on Monday who talked to me about how they are helping people literally piece together pennies, helping people who have been longtime customers of theirs, a single mom coming in with kids and the gas station owners trying to help her piece together a few dollars so they can put enough gas in the tank so she can go to work, so she can take care of her kids. I was told by one gas station owner that a gentleman came in with 69 cents trying to figure out how he could get a gallon of gas into his tank. Sixty-nine cents buys a quarter of a gallon. We are now hearing stories about pawn brokers doing great guns right now, their business is going great because people are pawning their watches, their jewelry, their cars, whatever they have, in order to get enough money to be able to drive to work.

This is in America. We can do better than this in our country. People expect us to stand up and fight for them, not an industry that is gouging the American consumer and raking in billions of profits in the meantime.

I am putting forward an amendment that will address this very thing. People say: What can we do about it right now? We need to look long term. When I began speaking, I said I know we need to look long term. This morning, in the Agriculture Committee, we had a wonderful bipartisan discussion, and there is a lot of excitement about a number of things that we can do together to look long term. We know there are ways for us to move off of foreign oil and to move off of oil period, and we can do that. There is the old saying that the first way to get out of a hole is to stop digging. We need to stop digging. Part of that right now is to stop the continuation of tax breaks that Americans, working hard every day and paying their taxes, are subsidizing for the oil companies which then turn around and are so grateful that they raise their price at the pump.

In the conference committee right now there is work being done relating to tax cuts. There is an additional $5 billion in new tax breaks for the oil companies. Some of it relates to how we subsidize their foreign activity. They do business with the Middle East and somehow we are going to give them favorable treatment through our tax policy. It makes absolutely no sense. It is an insult to the American people. That is on top of $2 billion that was put into the Energy bill that was passed last year in subsidies. It is unexplainable and unacceptable at a time when there are so many other areas where we need to provide tax relief, when we need to address middle-income people bumping up against the alternative minimum tax or small businesses that are trying to make it, businesses large and small, when we need to deal with health care costs that need a tax credit--and I am more than happy to support that. But instead of that, we have $5 billion in the conference committee report that subsidizes an industry that is raking in billions and billions of dollars in profits at the expense of the American consumer. I think that is wrong.

My amendment would take that $5 billion and instead put it right back in the pockets of the folks paying the bill. We know on average there is going to be about $500 in additional cost for the average family for the next year as a result of these high gas prices. My amendment will give an immediate $500 rebate to every individual or family, just as we did with the $300 rebate. It is the very same process that was done then, where people were given the $300 rebate when the tax cut was done. We can use that very same mechanism. It is very simple and straightforward. In fact, we can do this if we act quickly, before Labor Day, to help people pay their bills.

My amendment would give $500 back to each family or each individual filer so that they are able to help pay the price of this outrageously high-price gas. That is a short-term fix while we get our act together on what needs to be happening to create more competition and more alternatives, which I believe we can do, working together in the Senate. But I believe it is an outrageous situation when we are continuing to add $5 billion in tax breaks to an industry that is causing so much pain for American families.

My amendment is based on a bill of mine called the Oil Company Accountability Act. In total, it would repeal both the $5 billion in committee plus the $2.6 billion that was passed in the Energy bill, for a total of $7.6 billion in tax breaks for oil companies, and provide an immediate $500 tax rebate to families to offset their energy costs.

I send the amendment to the desk.

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

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

Mr. President, the people of Michigan and the people of the country deserve better than what we are doing right now. There is a sense of urgency. We can make this in order if we want it to be in order. There is no question about it.

If we come together and we want to act today, if we want to put in place the opportunity for people to have a $500 rebate before Labor Day to help pay for the high gas prices they are paying right this minute, we can do that. The choice of the majority is not to do that, but we could be doing that if there were agreement. That is very unfortunate because there is a sense of urgency on behalf of every individual, every family right now, trying to figure out what they are going to do, with gas prices that are over $3, $3.20, $3.50--in some parts of the country $4 a gallon. It is the difference between whether people will be able to pay their bills, go to work, do what they have to do for their families. The American people, certainly the people of my great State, deserve better than inaction.