Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Illinois for his courtesy, and I appreciate very much the leadership he has provided. He has said on many occasions that it is imperative we address this issue in a meaningful, comprehensive way. Senators on both sides of the aisle recognize that this situation will not resolve itself; that it must be addressed. But like him, I share the concern that the bill before us just doesn't do that. Last year, the Senate was asked to consider a bill that promised to reduce insurance premiums for doctors by restricting the legal rights of injured patients. That bill was rejected by a strong bipartisan margin in the Senate for one simple reason: It was a sham. It put the profits of insurers ahead of the rights of patients, while offering doctors no real relief whatsoever. Today we are being asked to consider yet another bill that seeks to close the doors of the courthouse to victims of malpractice, this time under the guise of expanding health care access for women and infants. Once again, the Senate should reject this bill for what it is: a maneuver designed to protect nothing but the profits of insurance companies, HMOs, pharmaceutical companies, and medical device manufacturers. Democrats and Republicans agree that skyrocketing malpractice insurance premiums are a serious challenge. Too many doctors, especially obstetricians and gynecologists, are being forced to pay exorbitant premiums because of the arbitrary actuarial formulas of insurance companies. This is a national problem, and it demands our attention. But like last year, this bill actually does nothing to help doctors. Despite the claims of the insurance companies, every piece of available evidence shows that capping damages has absolutely no impact on the cost of malpractice insurance. According to the Medical Liability Monitor in a sampling representative of all States with caps on damages, malpractice insurance premiums for OB/GYNs actually increased by as much as 54 percent in 2003. In States without caps on damages, OB/GYN premiums increased no more than 14 percent in 2003. Many States without caps saw no increases whatsoever. We have a situation, again documented by the Medical Liability Monitor, that States with caps saw increases of as much as 54 percent last year. States with no caps saw increases of no more than 14 percent last year. A recent study by the Weiss rating organization found that caps on noneconomic damages failed to result in lower premiums for doctors, despite the fact they did reduce the amount insurers had to pay out to victims. Insurers merely kept the savings for themselves and left doctors to fend for themselves. In the months since we last discussed this issue, the GAO and the CBO both released reports demonstrating that the primary factor driving insurance premiums higher is not malpractice awards, but the insurance companies' desire to recover their investment losses. After trying to pass on the cost of their bad investments to doctors, they are now trying to do the same thing by limiting the rights of injured patients. Even the insurance industry admits that caps will not protect doctors from higher insurance premiums. A press release published on March 13, 2002, by the American Insurance Association stated: Insurers never promised that tort reform would achieve specific premium savings. . . . Just last year, Bob White, president of the largest medical malpractice insurer in Florida, stated: No responsible insurer can cut its rates after a [medical malpractice tort ``reform''] bill passes. Take it from the insurers themselves, no doctor should expect lower insurance rates as a result of this bill, and no woman should expect greater access to health care for themselves or their babies. What women should expect, on the other hand, is a two-tiered legal system that restricts their rights in the courthouse if they are hurt by the negligence of a doctor, HMO, drug company, or medical device manufacturer. This bill is unjust. It restricts women's access to the legal system while preserving it actually for men. Under this bill, if a man shows signs of lung cancer and his illness is misdiagnosed due to the negligence of his doctor, he can recover damages to compensate him fully for his injuries. But if a woman with cervical cancer suffers the same negligence, her damages will be arbitrarily capped. If a man is prescribed defective blood pressure medication by an internist, he can recover full damages. But if a woman is prescribed blood pressure medication during pregnancy that causes blood clots, her damages will be capped. The real problem with this bill is not merely that it values the injuries of men and women differently, as troubling as that is, the real problem is that it presumes that politicians in Washington are better able to determine how to compensate injured patients. Every year, tens of thousands of women and infants are injured at the hands of OB/GYNs. Nine years ago, Colin Gourely of Nebraska suffered complications at birth due to his doctor's negligence. Today, he has cerebral palsy and is confined to a wheelchair. In his short life, he has needed five surgeries to correct bone problems and sleeps in a cast every night to prevent further orthopedic problems. Shannon Hughes from South Carolina was in the middle of a difficult labor. Despite repeated calls, the doctor wouldn't come until her 35th hour of labor. It turned out that the umbilical cord was wrapped around her baby's neck cutting off oxygen. Today, Shannon's son, Tyler, is severely brain damaged and bedridden. He requires constant medical care and is fed through a tube. When Alexandra Katada was born in McKinney, TX, the doctor stretched her spine, destroying her nerves, leaving her partially paralyzed. The baby's elbow was pulled from its socket and broken. She died 8 months later from her spinal injuries. Let us be clear: No amount of money can compensate a parent for their child's pain, but malpractice awards are not simply about money. They are about offering victims a sense of justice, a way to hold accountable those responsible for their injuries or the death of their loved ones. Some have said that without limits, the legal system looks more like a lottery. But no jury award could ever make the parents of Colin Gourely or Tyler Hughes or Alexandra Katada feel that they were holding a winning ticket. Malpractice awards are decided by juries and approved by judges. This is the same system on which we rely to decide life and death issues in capital cases. Why would we not trust our citizens to fairly evaluate how to deliver justice for the victims of medical malpractice? Democrats are eager to work together with our colleagues to craft a real solution to the problem of rising malpractice premiums. But, once again, rather than working with us to craft a true compromise that would address the problems of increasing insurance premiums, the Republican leadership has decided to bring this bill to the floor with the same level of problems, the same concerns we had 7 months ago. If our colleagues were serious about combating the rising cost of malpractice premiums, they would join us in supporting bipartisan legislation that includes both long-term and short-term solutions that directly address the rising premiums without harming injured Americans--solutions such as individual tax credits to offset costs when premiums rise sharply; reasonable limits to punitive damages; prohibitions against commercial insurers engaging in activities that violate Federal antitrust laws; sensible ways to reduce medical errors; and direct assistance to geographic areas that have a shortage of health care providers due to dramatic increases in malpractice premiums. The Senate faced a similar situation discussing concerns about the rising terrorism insurance rates. Some thought then that the only solution was to undo the jury system. Instead, the Senate worked together and developed a bipartisan solution that fixed the problem and brought down insurance rates dramatically. We should pursue the same model for addressing this problem as well. There is no question that malpractice rates are a serious problem. Doctors and patients deserve a real answer. This bill is not it. I urge my colleagues to reject cloture. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, later this afternoon, many of us will have an opportunity to see one another after the recess. I will make a prediction that we will notice a special twinkle in Senator Byrd's eye as we visit with him this afternoon. There is good reason. Actually, there are two very good reasons. In the last month, Senator Byrd became a great-grandfather for the fourth and fifth times. Hannah Byrd Clarkson was born 4 weeks ago today, on January 27, weighing 10 pounds 3 ounces. Hannah is the second child of another member of our Senate family, Mary Anne Clarkson, of the Bill Clerk's Office, and her husband James Clarkson. She joins her older sister Emma. Hannah's cousin, Michael Yew Fatemi, was born on February 11. Michael is Senator Byrd's fifth great-grandchild, and his first great-grandson. He is named in honor of his uncle John Michael Moore, Senator Byrd's beloved grandson, who died in a car accident. Michael is the first child of Senator Byrd's grandson Fredrik Fatemi, and his wife Jinny. Few people live long enough to see and hold even one of their great- grandchildren. To be able to welcome five of them into the world is a rare blessing, indeed. I was deeply touched by Senator Byrd's kind words to me and my family on the births of my grandchildren, Henry and Ava. I am sure I speak for the entire Senate family--and people throughout America--in wishing Senator Byrd and his wife Erma many happy hours with Hannah, Michael, and all of their family members. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I know that time is close to having the vote. I will use my leader time. I want to make a couple of additional remarks about the bill. We have had a great deal of discussion today and comments made by some of our Republican colleagues about the hardships malpractice insurance premiums place on doctors. There is no difference of opinion in that regard. Both Republicans and Democrats agree this is a real challenge and it certainly demands our attention. But I think we have to reject cloture this afternoon for the simple reason this bill does nothing to solve it. As we have heard most of the day, every piece of available evidence shows capping damages has no impact on the cost of malpractice insurance. Reports from the General Accounting Office, the Congressional Budget Office, Weiss Ratings, and the Medical Liability Monitor all confirm malpractice awards are not the primary factor driving the cost of malpractice insurance higher. Even the insurance industry admits caps won't protect doctors from higher insurance premiums. Just last year, Bob White, president of the largest medical malpractice insurer in Florida, stated, ``No responsible insurer can cut its rates after a [medical malpractice tort reform] bill passes.'' Doctors deserve our help. They need our help. They certainly want it. But no doctor should expect lower insurance rates as a result of this bill. It is wrong to take away the women's right in the courtroom merely to protect the profits of the insurance companies. This bill would create, for the first time, an unjust two-tiered legal system, actually restricting the rights of women and infants who are hurt by the negligence of a doctor, HMO, drug company, or even a medical device manufacturer. If a man is prescribed defective blood pressure medication by an internist, he can recover full damages under the bill. If a woman is prescribed blood pressure medication during pregnancy that causes blood clots, her damages will be arbitrarily capped. There may even be a constitutional question involved in this disparity between men and women. The idea that men and women should have unequal access to the legal system offends, if not the Constitution, certainly our sense of justice. But the real problem with this bill isn't merely that it values the injuries of men and women differently, as troubling as that is. The real problem is that it presumes that somehow those of us in this Chamber are better able to determine how to compensate injured patients in a preemptive way, knowing ahead of time all of the circumstances. Knowing exactly how these people are going to be affected by the decisions we make today is something I don't think anyone could acknowledge they have the ability to do. This morning, I spoke with Colin Gourely of Valley, NE. At his birth, he suffered complications due to his doctor's negligence. Today he has cerebral palsy and is confined to a wheelchair. He has had five surgeries to correct his bone problems that have occurred as a result of this serious misjudgment in medical care. Politicians in Washington can't decide what is just compensation for Colin's pain or the pain of any injured patient. We shouldn't apply the one-size-fits-all remedy for the tens of thousands of women and infants who are injured each year. The fact is, no amount of money can ever compensate a parent for their child's pain, but malpractice awards are not simply about money. They are about offering victims a sense of justice, a way of holding accountable those responsible for their injuries or the death of their loved ones. Malpractice awards are decided by juries and approved by judges. This is the same system we rely on to decide life or death issues in capital cases. Why wouldn't we trust our citizens to fairly evaluate how to deliver justice for the victims of medical malpractice? There are real solutions that can bring down the cost of malpractice insurance, and Democrats are eager to work with our Republican colleagues to implement them. We have talked about tax credits to offset the high cost of premiums, prohibitions against commercial insurers engaging in activities that violate Federal antitrust laws, sensible ways to reduce medical errors, direct assistance to geographic areas that have a shortage of health care providers, due especially to malpractice insurance premiums. So if our colleagues are as concerned about the plight of doctors as they have indicated again today, I hope they will work with us to devise a real solution. Let's drop the maneuvers that protect only the profits of insurers and HMOs and pharmaceutical companies, and let's have a serious discussion about how we solve the problem for our Nation. I think we have an obligation to have that conversation and ultimately come to some solution. Doctors and patients deserve it. They deserve an answer. This bill is not it. As a result, once again I urge my colleagues to reject cloture. I yield the floor. Cloture Motion

Mr. DASCHLE

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

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I wish to speak for a couple of minutes to say I hope we can invoke cloture this morning. I think this debate has been less than many of us had hoped. We hoped we could see more amendments. We hoped we could have a good debate about many of the issues. This is a good bill. It will create the jobs that many of us have talked about on this floor for the last couple of weeks. It will create perhaps 1 million, 2 million jobs. We have an infrastructure deficit that is growing, and this bill, more than any other bill we will take up this year, is going to address that deficit. For a lot of reasons, this represents the commitment and investment to infrastructure and our economic growth that I think warrants support for the bill. I am very concerned about where we go from here. The administration has expressed opposition to this legislation. The House has indicated they do not support the approaches that have been reflected in this bill, the very delicate balance we have achieved in public transit and a commitment to highways. I am disappointed we were not able to deal with the railroad question, as Senator Hollings and others noted yesterday. The business of completing our work is far from finished. I will put my colleagues on notice that we will not be prepared to move forward to conference until we have a better understanding of the degree to which there is some meeting of the minds on these issues, on the commitment and investment to highways themselves, on a commitment to railroads, on a commitment to public transit, on a commitment to a budget that will accommodate the infrastructure deficit we face. We will take conferences one step at a time, and certainly in this case that is all the more imperative. I commend the managers of the bill for the extraordinary bipartisanship that was reflected in coming to this point. Senator Inhofe, Senator Jeffords, Senator Bond, Senator Reid, and others deserve great credit for working as closely together as they have. If we can do that through this whole process, we will have a good result at the end. We will have a result that will generate strong bipartisan support. I think we will win cloture today in large measure because we have been able to demonstrate the bipartisanship that has brought us to this point, even with the misgivings I have just articulated. I look forward to working with our colleagues in that spirit and fashion and I hope that colleagues on both sides of the aisle will recognize the value of this work product and support cloture this morning. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

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

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, 2 days ago I talked about the need to find a way to ensure that every American has access to health insurance and high-quality health care--and to counter the defeatism of some who suggest it isn't possible. As I said, the United States is the only industrialized country that has failed to achieve this goal. It is possible. It is a matter of political will, and we must show that we, as a Nation, have it. Today I want to talk a little about a group of people who are counted among the insured in this country--Native Americans. They are counted among the insured, but the Government has failed utterly to deliver even basic health care to the vast majority of them. Through treaty and statute, the Federal Government has promised health care to all Native Americans through the Indian Health Service. In fact, the Federal Government provides less than half what it would cost to provide basic clinical services to the current IHS user population. Incredibly, the Federal Government spends twice as much per capita on medical treatment for Federal prisoners than it spends on treatment for Native Americans. Twice as much on Federal prisoners as Native American children. Last year, and the year before that, I offered amendments to the budget resolution to make up the difference. During consideration of last year's budget resolution, we were two votes short of passing our amendment to add $2.9 billion in funding for IHS clinical services. Every Democratic Senator voted for the funding; every Republican Senator voted against it. Republican leaders then offered an amendment to provide one-tenth of those funds--$290 million to the IHS. As meager as that increase was, it was welcome. Unfortunately, that amendment never made it through the conference with the House. Furthermore, when the Interior Appropriations bill was considered, the Republican support for that $290 million--their own proposal--had dried up. This year, the President's budget does no better. The President's budget includes a $7 million increase for IHS clinical services--less than the cost of inflation, and about $3.4 billion short of what is needed to meet Native Americans' basic health care needs. I have spoken many times on this floor about the ``life or limb'' test at the Indian Health Service. When funding is low--and that is pretty much all the time--treatment is rationed using the ``life or limb'' test. If a Native American patient isn't at immediate risk of losing his or her life or a limb, then he or she is turned away. Of course, denying early treatment often leads to a worsening condition. Sometimes by the time their condition is bad enough to meet the ``life or limb'' test, the funding is simply gone. People are suffering preventable long-term health effects, and even dying, because we--the U.S. Government--are failing to meet our responsibilities. Sometimes we grow numb to these realities. We do not want to face them. We hear ``life and limb test'' and simply don't believe it. But this is the reality in Indian country. We have the power to fix it. The Indian health care budget and the overall budget for Indian country were the subjects of discussion in several meetings I have had this week. Tuesday afternoon I met with, among others, John Yellow Bird Steele, president of the Oglala Sioux Tribe. President Steele talked about what an affront to Indian country President Bush's fiscal year 2005 budget is. Inadequate funding for Indian health. Inadequate funding for Indian education. Inadequate funding for law enforcement. Inadequate for housing. There is only one area of the budget that was increased--the Department of the Interior's proposed reorganization of the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Office of the Special Trustee that will oversee the Interior Department trust reform efforts. This reorganization plan was given a 50 percent increase in the President's budget. One who hasn't heard much about the trust reform issue might think that should be welcome news. But the truth is that Indian tribes and trust account holders strongly oppose the reorganization plan. This plan has been pursued without proper consultation with Indian tribes and over the vehement objections of Indian tribes. So this administration has dedicated wholly inadequate resources to Indian country and, in distributing those scarce resources, has devoted its only increase to a proposal that Indian people vehemently oppose. In the process, the administration has ignored the needs of Indian health, education, law enforcement, and every other major priority facing Indian tribes and Indian people. Again, Indian country needs are not theoretical. They are real, everyday needs. Tuesday President Steele and other representatives of the Oglala Lakota people talked to me about a few of them. They reminded me that Pine Ridge has four judges and two prosecutors to serve the entire reservation. BIA law enforcement funds cover the salaries of those two prosecutors for only 6 months of the year. Because the tribe's general fund is limited, it cannot make up the entire difference. This year, the prosecutors volunteered their time for 3 months of the year. Pine Ridge has 2 troopers to cover its 1,800 miles of roads. When there is a car accident on one of those roads, more often than not, the troopers will not be able to respond. There are more unattended crashes on Pine Ridge than attended crashes. On Pine Ridge, the ``first responders'' are often the next people who happen to drive by. Waste water systems are inadequate--some underground pipes date back to the 1800s. Housing is inadequate--some homes have no electricity or running water. As Cora Whiting, a tribal council member, said to me, ``How many people in America are still living that way?'' Pine Ridge has an unemployment rate of 85 percent. Tribal leaders like President Steele and Cora Whiting know that the only way to improve that statistic is to bring economic development to the reservation. But it is impossible to attract businesses without the infrastructure necessary to support them. And we have a duty to help build it. Yesterday I met with Chairman Harold Frazier of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe. We discussed many of these same issues. We talked about their unmet needs, and their story is all too close to that of Pine Ridge. Their tribal court system is a perfect example. The Bureau of Indian Affairs' tribal priority allocations fund the Cheyenne River Tribal Court. This year, their funding is about $300,000 short of what they require to deliver the bare minimum of services. In essence, they have enough funds to pay salaries and benefits for an inadequate number of staff. They can pay for nothing else--no attorney fees, no supplies, no juror fees, nothing. The Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe also faces some of the same infrastructure problems that the Oglalas and so many other tribes face. Water systems cannot maintain water pressure or support building upgrades that are essential to the provision of basic tribal services. And, of course, Chairman Frazier and I also talked at length about health care and the system that has failed them. People tend to think of budgets as intellectual exercises--something that isn't binding or real. Even when we say we have balanced the budget--something we actually did in the 1990s--people tend not to believe it. And now that the failed fiscal policy of the last few years has turned projected surpluses into massive deficits, our credibility is even lower. But budgets are not just numbers. They reflect choices about our priorities and our political will. They have real consequences for real people. For several years, I have watched this administration and its allies defend tax cuts for the wealthy while they claim we ``can't afford'' to fund the Indian Health Service. We have borrowed money--from Social Security and other countries--to finance those tax cuts, but we have denied Indian children the health care that federal prisoners take for granted. The fact that we choose to afford huge tax cuts for the wealthiest among us, or the construction of hospitals in Iraq, but choose not to afford health care or education or housing for Indian families is lost on no one in Indian country. This budget isn't Indian country budget. It isn't America's budget. It is time to make our budget reflect America's true priorities, which are fair opportunities for every child in America, for their parents who work so hard to create a better life for them, and for their grandparents who deserve to retire with dignity. That is the budget I'm going to be talking about and fighting for as this year unfolds. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I commend the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island for his powerful words and for sharing his insights with us on this extraordinary demonstration of verbal violence. He has laid out the record very well. I am appalled that anybody could say the things that the Senator from Rhode Island has now reported having been said by Miss Coulter. I thank him for setting the record straight. I would take it one step further. I think Miss Coulter owes Max Cleland an apology, and every other veteran in this country an apology. For anyone to say that somebody could possibly be lucky to experience the explosion of a grenade in Vietnam, that somehow that is lucky, just defies all common sense, all decency, any appreciation for the magnitude of the sacrifice given by any veteran under any circumstances. She ought to apologize. She ought to be ashamed. How low does political discourse in this country have to go before somebody says ``enough''? How could you possibly say things like this for political gain, recognizing that this isn't just an affront to one soldier but to all soldiers? To minimize sacrifice, and to minimize the extraordinary circumstances of one's life as a result of that sacrifice, is just inexplicable. I am grateful to the Senator from Rhode Island for his passion, his words, and for the effort he has made tonight to set the record straight. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize Mr. Arthur Jerry Pontius of Deadwood, SD, with a Congressional Fire Caucus Certificate of Award. Jerry has served the Deadwood Volunteer Fire Department for over 40 years, and has been an exemplary citizen through his selflessness and dedication to community safety and well-being. I am pleased and honored to say that this award could not go to a more qualified or deserving person. Jerry graduated second in his class from the Deadwood Public High School system in 1957, and went on to earn a B.S. in mechanical engineering from the South Dakota School of Mines and Technology. After working for Pratt & Whitney Aircraft, Jerry came home to Deadwood, where he eventually became the mechanical engineer for the Homestake Mining Company. He stayed with Homestake for 25 years, serving in various capacities, most recently as the chief plant engineer. He left Homestake in 1990 and retired in 1998. Over the years, despite his busy work life, Jerry has found time to serve his country and his community in countless ways. He first joined the Deadwood Volunteer Fire Department in 1963, and has been an integral part of the department ever since. In addition to serving in various positions within the department, including fire chief, certified instructor, and member of the Board of Trustees, Jerry has served as the president of the South Dakota Firemen's Association and on the Governor's Commission on Fire Service Training. During his tenure as president of the South Dakota Fireman's Association, the bylaws were changed to admit women, representing the best of American values of social equality. Most recently, Jerry received the ``Outstanding Service Award for Service as assistant chief during the Grizzly Gulch Fire'' in 2002. It is hard to imagine someone doing more for his or her community's safety during their lifetime. As are so many South Dakotans, I am thankful for Jerry's commitment and work to ensure that not only the community of Deadwood, but all South Dakota communities are safe and secure from fires. It is only fitting that Jerry receive this award, as tribute to his incredible contributions to fire safety efforts in South Dakota.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I object.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I commend the majority leader for the efforts we have made in the last 2 weeks to complete our work on the highway bill. This was not an easy task, but I think we can look back with some satisfaction having achieved our goal. Again, I appreciate the cooperation on both sides in an effort to complete our work. I have no other comments at this point.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I would be happy to yield to the Senator from Illinois for a question.

Mr. DASCHLE. I inform the Senator from Illinois, through the Chair, that we still have a half hour of morning business time allocated. We can use that time. I will take such time as may be required to respond to the Senator's question.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, 2 days ago President Bush sent to Congress his annual report on the State of America's economy. Contained in that report is a statement that was quite remarkable. After presiding over the loss of 2.6 million jobs, after claiming for 3 years that stopping the job hemorrhage was one of their top priorities, the Bush administration now says that exporting American jobs to China and India and other low-wage nations is good for the American economy. I read that, and I must have read it two or three times thinking there had to be a catch, thinking there had to be some caveat, there had to be some condition. But there is no condition. The statement from the report could not be more clear. This administration believes that exporting jobs to China and India and other low-wage nations is good for America's economy. They seem to want to turn a jobless recovery into a hopeless recovery. The President's report is proof that there are those in this administration who simply do not understand what is happening to this economy and how deeply concerned people are about their economic future. People who think shipping American jobs overseas is good for the economy need to talk to people such as Myra Bronstein. She is not a statistic. She is not an abstract concept on computer models. Sometimes we focus so much on corporate stock earnings or the Dow Jones Industrial Average, we lose sight of the challenges that real Americans are actually facing. Myra Bronstein knows all about outsourcing. She has a degree in electronic engineering and 15 years of experience in the information technology industry. Four years ago, she left a good job with AT&T in New Jersey to take a new job with a software development company called Watchmark Corporation in Bellevue, WA. She was one of about 20 software testers at Watchmark. One Friday last April, Myra came to work. She and other software testers were called into a meeting. They were told that they were being replaced by workers in India, that their jobs would be gone as they finished training their replacements, and that if they refused to train the new workers they would be ineligible for severance pay, unemployment insurance, or health insurance through COBRA. Then they were told that the new workers were flying in over the weekend and would be there on Monday. Most of her coworkers just had to train one new person. Because Myra Bronstein was working on the highest priority projects, she actually had to train two replacements. The whole while she was trying frantically to figure out where she was going to find a new job in the midst of the ``dot-com'' bust and a jobless recovery. Myra Bronstein is not alone. According to a new national survey that is just being released today, nearly one in four information technology workers said his or her company has offshored jobs. Incredibly, almost one in five reported they themselves had lost a job after training a foreign worker. Ninety-three percent--nearly all--expressed concerns about the impact of offshoring jobs on the IT industry and how it would impact their communities, the economy, and this country. One-third of the workers surveyed said the trend toward outsourcing and offshoring jobs is contributing to layoffs. And more than half said it was pushing down wages and benefits. When textile manufacturing jobs started to move offshore in the 1980s, workers in those industries were told that the change was good for America's economy. They were told that all they had to do was to learn some new skills, train for some ``new economy,'' and they could get better paying jobs in the technology and service industries. Workers held up their end of the deal. They got the training. Many did get jobs in the computer and IT industries, in health care and financial services, and other so-called new industries. Now these new jobs are being shipped overseas. We are offshoring America's future. We are exporting some of our Nation's most promising research and development jobs. These are the jobs that support middle-class families. They are the jobs that enable people to own their own homes and put their kids through college. Sixty-eight percent of IT workers have a college degree or higher. Half have annual salaries between $75,000 and $125,000. Their jobs are being offshored to people who will earn less than $10,000. This is not just happening in Seattle or Silicon Valley. It is happening in Sioux Falls and St. Louis and cities and towns all across America. Now the Bush administration tells us that exporting American jobs is actually good for the economy. Shipping good jobs overseas may boost the quarterly earnings of some companies. It may make some CEOs look smart and make some quick profit for some investors. But how can it be good for the economy to export America's best jobs? How can it be good for the economy to offshore the jobs that support middle-class families and sustain strong communities? How can exporting jobs create opportunities for Americans? It is not just the jobs that get outsourced. When American companies ship jobs offshore, they also send tax returns, medical records, credit card numbers, financial statements, and all kinds of other sensitive and confidential consumer information. America has lost 2.6 million jobs on this administration's watch. That is more jobs than the last 11 administrations put together. Nine million Americans are now out of work. Long-term unemployment is at a 20-year high. Eighty-thousand workers are exhausting their unemployment benefits every week because Republican leaders refuse to support extending the Federal emergency unemployment benefits. The Economic Policy Institute recently found that in 48 States jobs are shifting from higher paying to lower paying industries. In his State of the Union Message, President Bush said he understood, finally, that we have a jobs problem in America. He promised his administration would do more to help people find and train for jobs of the future. A few days later, a professor from the University of Texas wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post about what she said was a model job training program in Austin. Many of the students at the center do not have the advantages that Myra Bronstein and many other IT workers have. They do not have graduate degrees. What they do have is a fierce desire to make a better life for themselves and their children. Many of them have two jobs. They catch a bus to their classes, where they learn about computer programming and spreadsheets and other supposedly marketable skills. The professor wrote that one woman who showed her proudly how she ``uses MapQuest.com to get directions to the houses that she cleans on her hands and knees, 7 days a week, 12 hours a day, for a pittance,'' was just lucky to have a job at all. She wrote: Before they learned these skills, the trainees thought that it was their lack of computer skills that prevented them from getting good information-age jobs. They thought something was wrong with them. Now they know something is wrong with our job market. There is something wrong with the job market, and the Bush administration's cavalier endorsement of shipping American jobs overseas can only make matters worse. The administration owes the American people an explanation and an apology. More than that, they owe this Nation a plan that will actually create jobs, not export them to China, to India, or other low-wage countries but to create jobs here. I ask the President to renounce this report from his economic advisers and assure all Americans that the Federal Government will not be taking steps to export these jobs overseas. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my leader time not be taken from the morning business allocated to the Democratic side.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I would simply say that if you judge how good an economy is by the number of jobs created, this policy has been a failure. If you judge economic policy by the kind of fiscal position we now hold--we have a $600 billion deficit and a $3.5 trillion debt; a $9 trillion swing as a result of the tax cuts--this policy is a failure. If you judge by how one pays and rewards work rather than wealth, by this administration's position on overtime, this position and policy is a failure. I think as we debate the economic circumstances we face in this country these failures ought to be front and center because they are the focus of every American family today.

Mr. DASCHLE. I am happy to yield to the Senator from Michigan.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I respond to the Senator from Michigan by saying she has characterized this situation very accurately. It is a race to the bottom. I had a conversation not long ago with a worker at a grocery store chain who was commenting that they are currently in negotiations with this particular chain. He noted over the last 30 years, as negotiations have been evolving, at every juncture, all through the 30 years, the question was: How can we make improvements; how can we improve wages; how can we improve benefits; how can we continue to stay abreast of the current fiscal and financial challenges every family faces? That was the goal, to advance the benefits, the wages, to take into account the dramatic changes in their own circumstances. He said for the first time in 30 years, their only goal this time is to hold on to what they have so the company doesn't take away benefits, the company doesn't take away wages. He said: Those on the other side are arguing, we are going to take away some of your wages and some of your benefits because that is what is happening with the competition. In order to be competitive, we have to reduce your wages and reduce your benefits. I will not accept that for this country. We can't possibly accept the fact we have to move backward. If we are a progressive society, we have to recognize these families have to continue to move forward with regard to their benefits and wages or, you are absolutely right, we will have a race to the bottom, a disparity between those at the top, who get the tax cuts the Senator from Illinois referenced, and those at the bottom, who get not only no tax cuts but now are losing their jobs, benefits and wages, and their overtime. What is that going to do to this country? We are going to have the biggest chasm in all of our history soon between those at the top and those at the bottom. That is unacceptable. I thank the Senator for her question.

Mr. DASCHLE

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

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will use my leader time for the day. I want to talk about health care today for a few minutes. Health expenditures in this country are at the highest levels now that they have been in our Nation's history. Not only are they at the highest levels in our history, they exceed, by some magnitude, the health expenditures in other countries. The World Health Organization, in its most recent calculation of what we spend, lists the United States at $4,500 in total expenditures per capita; Canada, $2,058; United Kingdom, $1,774; Japan, $2,009; France, $2,335; and Sweden, $2,097. So we spend more than twice what other countries are currently spending for health care. One would hope that if we spent twice as much, we would get twice the result. But just the opposite is true. We have the lowest life expectancy of any of the countries I have listed. Our life expectancy is 77 years. That is over 4 years less than Japan. I would hope that at least when it comes to infant mortality, we would get twice the result. But, again, it is just the opposite. We have the highest rate of child mortality of any country I have mentioned--eight deaths per thousand. In Sweden, it is three and a half per thousand. So one could only conclude from these numbers that we are not getting what we are paying for; that we are not getting a bang for the buck. We will not have the opportunity to address infant mortality, life expectancy, and all of the other challenges we face in our health care system without making some fundamental changes in the system itself. There are those who have argued it is now impossible for us to achieve universal insurance coverage. Some have even suggested that we would go bankrupt if we were to do that. What I find ironic is that these countries I have listed all have guaranteed health care. That has been the essence of their success, the secret to their success--this ability to cover everybody and, in so doing, reduce child mortality, increase life expectancy, and find ways in which to keep people healthy throughout their lives. So we are paying more and not only do we have unacceptable results-- at least measured by child mortality and life expectancy--we also have unacceptable levels of health coverage. Mr. President, 43.6 million Americans last year had no coverage. That is an increase of 2 million people over the year before. About 75,000--12 percent--of the people in my State have no health insurance. But statistics don't speak to the anguish that is felt by so many people in our country regarding an issue as personal as their health care. Last summer, I spent a good deal of time on the road, dedicating virtually the entire month of August to talking with people as to how they feel about health care. The anguish, the stories of financial ruin, the extraordinary dilemmas and life-threatening circumstances that so many of these people face are still indelibly printed in my mind. Yet there are those who say it is impossible to get everybody covered; it is impossible to get to 100 percent. It may be impossible to get to 100 percent, but I am told virtually every country I have listed--and I will list them again: Canada, Britain, Japan, France, and Sweden--virtually every industrialized country has guaranteed coverage today, near 100-percent coverage. The Bush administration's chief architect on health issues, Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson, was quoted that he does not think that administratively or legislatively it is feasible to cover everyone. I find this a remarkable statement because we have always prided ourselves as Americans on having a can-do spirit. We have always said if we can go to the Moon, if we can set out challenges for our Nation, we will achieve them because of good leadership, and because of our values, and because of our attitude. What does it say about our leadership, our values, and our attitude if we say we can't do what every other industrialized country has done? What does it say about our commitment? What does it say about this spirit of America about which we hear so much? We can't? Or we won't? I don't think it is impossible to ensure coverage for all Americans. I think it is imperative we do it. The United States, as I have said, is the only industrialized country that has not. In each of these countries, one does not need to be a brain surgeon to see the connection between universal coverage and better life expectancy; universal coverage and higher rates of infant survivability, lower infant mortality. That is the key, that is the essence of our need, of our success, and of finding a way to do what we have said from the very beginning: We will always attempt to do our very best. If we say we can't, if we think we can't, we are right. If we say we can, if we think we can, we are right. It is up to us. It is a question of our leadership, our commitment, our willingness to excite and ignite an interest and a commitment and an enthusiasm about this issue as we have done on so many other issues. Last month, the Institute for Medicine called for universal health coverage by 2010. They think we can do it. Bob Dole, the former Republican leader, could have spoken for all of us when he said: The bottom line is, I think we have what it takes to get it done. I think we have what it takes. I think we have what it takes as well, but we have to demonstrate what it takes is a commitment, not an ``I can't.'' What it takes is bipartisan support for a goal shared by millions of Americans today. Let's provide universal coverage. Let's begin to address this embarrassment for our country. Let's recognize if Britain, Canada, Japan, France, and Sweden can do it, so can we, and we can do it better. Let's accept the fact that $4,500 for every man, woman, and child with less results in infant mortality and life expectancy than other countries is unacceptable in this country. We can, and we must. I hope it starts this year. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DASCHLE

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

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I have a couple of issues I will address as in morning business. I ask consent.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, yesterday the Bush administration called to end the short-term investigation into the recent mad cow scare. While many of us believe Secretary Veneman and her staff have done a good job on many fronts, the decision to suspend the investigation is extremely premature. Despite the high safety standards met by cattle producers, consumers still have questions about the safety of America's meat supply. By curtailing its investigation, the Bush administration has chosen not to do all it can to settle the questions raised by the discovery of a single Canadian-born cow infected with BSE. In 2001, a herd of 81 cattle came into the United States from Canada. One of those animals turned out to have BSE. USDA, through its investigation, has managed to locate 28 of the remaining 80 Canadian- born animals. We are grateful for these efforts, but there is a lot more work to do. Twenty-eight is not 80. Last year, USDA Chief Veterinarian Ron DeHaven said: We feel confident that we are going to be able to determine the whereabouts of most if not all of these animals within the next several days. Six weeks later, those early hopes have been disappointed. Consumers have a right to know why those other cattle were not found and what more, if anything, can be done. If we assume the Canadian index herd were all fed the same bovine byproduct known to cause BSE, it is possible the other animals currently in the United States may also have the disease. An international panel convened by USDA announced last week they believe some cattle in the U.S. may actually have BSE. While the likelihood an American consumer would come into contact with the meat from one of the infected cows is low, Government has the responsibility to do all it can to instill consumer confidence in the safety and quality of our food system and the food we feed our families. That work has not been completed because the investigation has not been adequately ended. While the risk to human health may be remote, the Bush administration is doing a disservice to consumers by short- circuiting the good work USDA has done to locate the Canadian-born animals in question. In the face of so many doubts and questions, it makes no sense to cut this investigation short. Some suggest pressure from the hugely concentrated meatpacking industry is responsible. A small handful of meatpackers controls 80 percent of the beef in the United States. In fact, this is such a significant problem that the Senate approved legislation as part of its last farm bill to address problematic concentration in the meatpacking industry. Unfortunately, that provision was stripped during the conference and was not included in the final farm bill. Along with this growing concentration comes greater influence within the administration itself. I am not suggesting the packers did something unlawful, but the fact remains they wanted to end this investigation because it cast a cloud over their products. Evidently, these are the interests the Bush administration has chosen to advance above others. Others have suggested the Bush administration took this step in its zeal for a single American trading continent--no borders with the Canadians or the Mexicans whatsoever. In fact, after the farm bill was passed, the Secretary suggested we should have a continent-of-origin label for certain agricultural products. If that had been pursued, we would never be able to differentiate between our highest quality products and those from Canada and Mexico. As it is, Americans today, still, do not have the option of knowing where our food comes from. This is particularly important with regard to beef in light of the BSE scare. American consumers are simply asking for a label with basic information about the food they eat. In fact, 80 percent of Americans have said they would like to know where their meat comes from. That is why Senators on both sides of the aisle fought for and won approval of the country-of-origin labeling law. It is why many of us have charged those opposed to COOL with acting irresponsibly. In a backroom deal before the BSE scare, Republicans met in private and delayed the COOL law for 2 years. The Senate has shown time and time again that we support this important consumer law and that we want to see it back in law, to ensure implementation this fall. In fact, the law still requires USDA to develop the regulations by this fall. So, when we change the date of implementation back to September of this year, there should be no delay whatsoever in USDA implementing it on time as the law originally required. But we should not even have to wait for that. USDA has the authority to immediately provide this information to consumers, to tell them where their food and, in particular, where their meat originated. If we have that, consumers can stay away from Canadian-born cattle, at least until the animals in question that have not been located in the United States are actually found. But to date the administration will have none of it. They will not help inform U.S. consumers, even though our major export markets have requested we certify that our exports are born and raised and processed in our country. I don't understand why the administration will not provide U.S. consumers the information they want and our foreign trading partners the information they now demand. The only answer that keeps coming back to many of us is while COOL is good for average Americans, it is inconvenient for the large meatpacking cartel since they would be required to affix a simple label to their products and track the meat from the stockyard to the store shelf. So, despite the support of 167 consumer groups representing over 50 million Americans, the administration denies Americans this basic information. USDA should reopen the investigation and try to locate all of the cattle from the Canadian index herd. They should also assist American consumers and American farmers and ranchers by immediately implementing a ``Product of the USA'' labeling program under emergency regulations. Instead of bowing to pressure and cutting short a valuable investigation, the administration should take a step back and rethink its priorities. The BSE scare is now hurting all of our ranchers, as over 40 countries have banned imports from the United States. The American livestock industry is being tarnished and ranchers are suffering because of one Canadian cow. The industry should not be further tarnished by inappropriate Government action. The administration should reopen the investigation, drop its opposition to labeling, and implement COOL immediately. For the sake of America's farmers and ranchers, for consumer confidence in the safety of our food supply, the administration needs to do the right thing. Though it might upset a few special interests, the American people will overwhelmingly support such an action because it is in their interest. I, for one, will commend the President for his thoughtful reversal of this misplaced policy priority. White House Says Exporting U.S. Jobs Is ``Good for the Economy'' Mr. President, the other issue I wanted to discuss briefly is a new position taken by the administration, reflected in this newspaper. The article appeared this morning in the Los Angeles Times. The headline reads, ``Bush Supports Shift of Jobs Overseas.'' I ask unanimous consent the article be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE. When I saw the headline, I had to read it twice. I actually could not believe what I was reading. Again the quote is from the headline, ``Bush Supports Shift of Jobs Overseas.'' Our economy has already lost 2.6 million jobs in the last 3 years. We have 9 million Americans who are unemployed. Long-term unemployment is at a 20-year high, and 80,000 workers are exhausting their unemployment benefits every week because our Republican colleagues refuse to extend temporary Federal unemployment benefits. What does the White House say? The President's top economic advisers tell us not to worry. They say shipping American jobs to China, India, and other countries is actually good for the economy. Those comments are actually in this article. It is a direct quote, that these American jobs shipped abroad are good for the economy. They say exporting computer programming jobs and other white-collar jobs is actually good for the economy. The White House acknowledges some workers will be hurt. But then they say the ``benefits'' of exporting American jobs ``eventually will outweigh the costs as Americans are able to buy cheaper goods and services and new jobs are created in growing sectors of the economy.'' How are people without jobs supposed to buy all of these goods and services? How do you keep a consumer economy going when you export the jobs? What are they thinking? The chairman of the President's Council of Economic Advisers, the office that wrote the report, says the ``government should try to salve the short-term disruption by helping displaced workers obtain the training they need to enter new fields, such as health care.'' That sounds like a cruel joke. The President's proposed budget for next year cuts money for Federal job training. You have on the one hand the President's council arguing we ought to train displaced workers but then have the budget presented to Congress as one which actually cuts the very training the administration is advocating. How do people know what fields to train for? How do they know the jobs they are training for won't be the next jobs targeted to be shipped overseas with the encouragement of the White House? Maybe exporting American jobs sounds like a good idea if you are sitting in some think tank, or behind a desk at the White House, or here on the Hill. But out in the real world, it is creating real hardship and anxiety. I have seen what happens when plants ship their jobs overseas. It happened in my hometown 2 years ago. Midcom, Incorporated makes electronic transformers for high-tech companies. They used to employ 200 people in Aberdeen. One Tuesday morning in March of 2001, those workers showed up for work and were told their jobs were going to be gone in 3 months, many of them to Mexico and China. I have met with many of those workers. A lot of them are women in their 40s and 50s, and their families depended on their incomes to make ends meet. They don't see how exporting their jobs was a good idea for the economy, and neither do most Americans. The chairman of the President's Council of Economic Advisers is quoted as saying, ``Out-sourcing is just a new way of doing international trade.'' ``More things are tradable than were tradable in the past. `` Not everything is tradable. The dignity that comes from earning an honest dollar and providing for your family is not tradable. The security that comes from knowing you can pay the bills and you are not going to lose your home is not tradable. The sense of patriotism and community that says we are all in this together is not a tradable commodity. The White House report predicts a miraculous economic recovery this year. They say we could see the creation of 3.8 million jobs. The White House has said the economy will create millions of jobs every year now for the last 3 years. And they have been wrong. They are wrong now when they say exporting American jobs is good for the economy. The White House has lost more jobs on President Bush's watch than the last 11 administrations put together. They have cut job training in education. They are blocking Federal unemployment benefits. And now, incredibly, they are saying that exporting middle-class, white-collar jobs is good for the economy. Instead of policies that reward companies for shifting jobs overseas, instead of letting companies open a post office box in some island nation and call it their corporate headquarters so they skip out on paying taxes, America needs a real plan to keep the good jobs we have here and create many more of them. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will comment briefly on the current status of the highway bill and the related debate about the budgetary implications of it and the budget proposal made by the administration over the course of the last week. This is our second week of debate on the highway bill. I find myself expressing the hope, as the majority leader just did, that we can finish our work on the bill this week. This bill is long overdue. Many of us hoped we could have passed it last fall. We are told that the result of not having passed it means a loss of over 90,000 jobs so far. We are also told that if we pass this bill soon, we could create nearly a million new jobs. So the economic implications could not be more consequential. We also understand the difficulties our country faces with regard to its own infrastructure. We are told we have an infrastructure deficit of hundreds of billions of dollars, which is causing more congestion, more pile-ups, more time en route, more commuting, than at any other time in our Nation's history. So with the infrastructure deficit, and with the need to create jobs, I cannot think of a more important bill than this one. I hope we can continue to demonstrate some real movement as we work to complete this debate sometime soon. The bill's managers are in the Chamber and we are prepared to entertain amendments. I hope we can get on with the substantive discussion and consideration of whatever amendments could be offered. I am troubled by those who argue that this bill is too expensive. I did not hear that debate when we were discussing how much to commit to Iraq over the course of this fiscal year. This country has now spent $167 billion in Iraq, with no offsets. I did not hear one comment from people on either side of the aisle about how expensive that bill was. There are proposals in the President's budget to make the tax cuts for those at the top of our income scales permanent. CBO estimates that will double the size of our deficit over the course of the next 10 years. We now expect a deficit of $600 billion and we are told we are going to be ringing up a debt of a million dollars a minute. According to the Budget Committee, the debt will increase at $1 million a minute. So there is legitimate concern for how much we are spending and how much we are not taking in. I find it amazing, this selective process of deciding which ought to be pared back and which ought to be provided without any offsets whatsoever. There are tax cuts of $2 trillion over 10 years with no offsets. Iraq, as important as it is, a commitment to this country and to our efforts abroad, has no offsets. Highway construction, creating a million new jobs, has to be pared back. We are told all of the discretionary spending in this year's budget could be eliminated, every single dollar, with no money for education, health care, highways, or infrastructure of any kind, and we would still have a $150 billion deficit in this year's budget. As I look at the decisions and the choices made by this administration, there is a $140 million loss in the funding for conservation efforts, which, in a State with fragile lands such as South Dakota, is a big deal. We lose thousands of acres every year to wind erosion. Conservation is vital, and to cut back $140 million in 1 year alone means we are going to lose a lot more. This budget the President proposed a week ago represents a $3.9 billion cut in aid to small towns and rural communities, $3.9 billion in losses that would otherwise go to improving the economic circumstances of small town main street. That, too, in the interest of balancing a budget that is lopsidedly in favor of foreign policy, tax policy, and against the priorities of policies at home. Even the basic programs to provide water and sewer services have been cut in the President's budget. About two hundred million dollars in grants, to small cities and towns, that provide water and sewer assistance were cut in this budget. So I simply say that the priorities represented by some during the debate on the highway bill, as well as the priorities reflected in this budget, are not the priorities I hear when I go home to South Dakota, not the priorities I hear when I talk to those who are concerned, as I am, about the implications of the extraordinary deficit created over the course of the last 3 years. The debt, and the incredible debt service we are paying, will be something my children and grandchildren will pay. We had a projected surplus of over $5.5 trillion 3 years ago. Now we have a projected debt of over $3.9 trillion, a shift of about $9 trillion in 3 years. We are told that to pay it back requires $3 for every $1 we have borrowed. What is amazing is we have gone to the Social Security bank and we have taken all of that, we have gone to the Medicare bank and we have taken all of that, so now we are going to the banks of the Chinese and the Japanese and the Taiwanese and South Koreans and we are borrowing at rates unprecedented to make up for the debt that we are accruing at $1 million a minute. We ought to have a good debate about the budget. We ought to get this job done, this highway bill, so we can move on to other important matters. But I must say, I can't think of anything more important than finishing this bill, than committing the resources to create those jobs, to deal with at least one of the deficits we have in this country, the infrastructure deficit. If we do that well, we can turn, hopefully in a bipartisan way, to address these other challenges before the end of this session. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.