Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I have some remarks I wish to make. I know Senator Dorgan has an important meeting at 10. I will withhold my comments so that he may be recognized first.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from North Dakota for his comments this morning. I share his view about the importance of this highway bill, in particular. I wish to say a few things about both the highway bill as well as the budget this morning. We just received our report again this month about the economy and the jobs created. I think the good news is that we did see the creation of 112,000 new jobs in January. I think that is a positive development. The bad news is that it falls short of what was needed to keep us on a path to ensure that jobs are not lost during the President's first term. Mr. President, 150,000 new jobs in January was the stated goal of the Administration. The figure released today indicates a substantial shortfall; this is nearly 40,000 jobs short of their stated goal. Of course, it is dramatically short--two-thirds short--of what the goal would be to reverse this unemployment debacle we have witnessed for the last 3 years. 300,000 new private sector jobs would have to be created each month to erase the decline we have witnessed the past 36 months. So while we made some progress this month with 112,000 new jobs, we are falling far short of the Administration's stated goal of 150,000 and even further short of the 300,000 jobs necessary to reverse the unfortunate trend. There is another disturbing problem that we have not been able to address, and the administration has not been able to address. This is the 42nd month in a row that we have actually seen a loss of manufacturing jobs. For 42 straight months manufacturing jobs have declined. The jobs issue may be the single most critical issue as we look at the economy. There is a long, long way to go before we can say with any confidence that we have turned this economy around, that people who have jobs will keep them, and people who don't have jobs will get them. I think most of us would receive today's news about jobs this month with that sense of disappointment, but also with the realization that 112,000 jobs is better than what we had in December when only a thousand jobs were added. The Transportation Bill Let me take a moment to talk about the transportation bill again this morning. I will not repeat my concerns about the delay and resulting loss of those jobs. I want to focus on the positive and, once again, compliment the managers of the bill who balanced divergent interests to bring us a finely crafted bill that certainly deserves our support. Chairman Inhofe and Senator Jeffords, Senator Bond and Senator Reid deserve our praise for working in a bipartisan fashion, as do Banking Committee Chairman Shelby and Senator Sarbanes, and Finance Committee Chairman Grassley and Senator Baucus. But I also especially thank the majority leader for scheduling the time it will take to get this bill done. When the leader and I met on Monday, I was impressed with his resolve and desire to bear down and get this critical work done for this country. Our roads, our bridges, our transit system, our rail lines, and our ports all need assistance to ensure that our Nation has the first-class infrastructure needed to reinvigorate our economy and make our country strong and competitive. After having lost 3 million jobs over the last 3 years, there is nothing more important than passing this bill, which will provide hundreds of thousands of jobs. Senator Frist and Senator Inhofe suggested the other day that it might create nearly 2 million good jobs in engineering, construction, and administration. So I know that many of us would like to have made more progress on the bill this week than we have so far. But things really do seem to be coming together. The Banking Committee approved transit provisions for the bill the other day. We had a discussion about those provisions yesterday on the Senate floor. The Finance Committee reported a bipartisan bill earlier in the week, and we have discussed many of these provisions on the floor throughout this week. We also have had several amendments debated and discussed. There is no question about it, there is a lot of work to be done. But the work we are doing to provide jobs and assure first-class infrastructure is among the most important work the Senate could be doing. In fact, I cannot think of anything more important for us to be working on at this time than this bill. To be frank, it is a good feeling to see us working on such an important issue in such a cooperative and bipartisan fashion. I salute Senator Frist and his team for recognizing the importance of this bill. As Senator Frist said on Monday, we need to move swiftly to pass this bill, which he so aptly said has broad support in the Senate, as well as across the country. I also want to be abundantly clear that the firm and steadfast desire of every Democratic Senator I have spoken to is to stay with this bill, to be cooperative, and resolve differences, to complete the bill and move it forward so we can get it to the President's desk as soon as possible. The President's Budget Mr. President, having talked about the highway bill, let me now move to the last matter I want to address this morning. The budget I have here was presented to us by the administration. It is the budget for fiscal years 2005 through 2009, containing 2,365 pages, and literally millions of numbers and figures. This document cannot be taken seriously as a budget. As vast and extensive as this budget seems, the administration has actually omitted essential facts and data that will have enormous consequences for the fiscal future and our economy. There is nothing in this budget--not a dime--to cover the costs of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. What does that tell you? Well, it tells you one of two things: Either the President is going to announce within the next month or so a complete withdrawal of all troops and all American presence in Afghanistan and Iraq to coincide with his current budget proposal or he is hiding those numbers until a later date. In either case, this omission makes this budget totally meaningless when it comes to helping us understand the costs of the commitments we are making in two of the most important parts of the world today. I don't understand how the Administration can leave out the funding for these operations at the same time it acknowledges we have tens of thousands of troops in these countries today and will have troops there for years and years to come. CBO estimated the cost associated with our efforts in Iraq could reach $200 billion, yet there is not one dime in this budget--I am only holding up a piece of the budget--not one dime in this budget, this entire budget, to cover the costs of our ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan for the current fiscal year or the four years after that. The charade, the sham, the misleading character of this budget makes me want to send it right back. Or consider the alternative minimum tax. By 2009, the last year of the administration's 5-year budget plan, 30 million Americans will see their taxes increased as a result of the alternative minimum tax. Most of us agree that we will need to fix this tax to prevent it from falling on middle-class Americans. The CBO estimates that the President would need to request at least $150 billion through 2009 and more than $600 billion through 2014 to prevent this tax increase caused as more Americans fall subject to the alternative minimum tax. Yet, other than a 1-year temporary patch for 2005, this budget does not address that this recognized problem either. Let me make sure people understand. On the spending side, perhaps the largest military operations we expect to carry out over the course of the next several years, expenditures to directly pay for the activities of tens of thousands of troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, there is not one dime in this budget. On the tax side, a collective realization, a bipartisan realization that we are going to have to change the alternative minimum tax before it hits middle-class Americans hard, a problem that is estimated to cost $150 billion over the course of the next 5 years alone, there is a one-year patch, after which the budget acts as if this problem doesn't exist. Most egregiously, the budget stops after 5 years, just before the full cost of the President's tax breaks begins to be felt and just as the full cost of the baby boomer retirement begins to emerge. When you include the 5 years after the budget projections stop, the President's tax breaks will add trillions more to the national debt, an estimated $2 trillion. So the President omits specific and known expenditures, ones to which we know we are going to have to commit resources--$200 billion, perhaps, in the case of our presence in Iraq and Afghanistan; $150 billion for AMT; and $2 trillion over the next 10 years for his tax cuts. Of course, if I had a $521 billion deficit already written into this so-called budget, I wouldn't put these costs in either, but I also wouldn't have called the document a budget. I would call it my wish list. I would call it my priorities. But you can't call this a budget. It would be like a man and woman sitting at their kitchen table trying to make ends meet, and they say: You know that mortgage payment we have to make for the coming year, let's just not count that. And, oh, yes, the kids' college, that $500 check each month we have to pay, let's not count that. Oh, and the car payment, we better not count that either. Let's leave off the mortgage, college, and a car payment, and you know what, bingo, the budget balances. But in this case, the budget doesn't even balance with those omissions. In this case, we still have a $521 billion deficit. We cannot predict every challenge our Nation will face in the coming years, but we do not need a crystal ball to know we have to commit resources to support our troops. We do not need a crystal ball to know that Congress will act to spare 30 million Americans from the alternative minimum tax. And we do not need a crystal ball to know that when you ask to make tax cuts permanent, the cost will be with us for a lot more than 5 years. There is a credibility chasm, whether it is weapons of mass destruction, whether it is the budget, whether it is so many things that emanate these days from this administration, its credibility has eroded dramatically. I can't imagine, for the life of me, a more irresponsible document than what we have been sent this week. If anyone--anyone--would do this in real life, they would be in bankruptcy court within a year. That is why we will see our national debt skyrocket from $5.6 trillion when President Bush took office, to $11 trillion by the end of the 5-year budget--just the 5-year budget he has proposed. In the end, budgets are not about numbers, they are about choices. The first observation that is that these glaring omissions, these extraordinary misrepresentations have enormous implications not only for our fiscal future but also for this Administration's credibility. That is just the first piece of this. The second piece is what this budget tells us about the choices the administration made as they were writing these numbers. When we look closely at this so-called budget, we learn something valuable about the administration's priorities and choices. We shouldn't be surprised. They propose that the IRS cut back on enforcement of America's tax laws. Can you imagine, not only are we not going to provide some fairness in our tax system, but those who are given these tax breaks are also being sent the message: Maybe you don't even have to comply as much because we are going to drop enforcement, which means more corporate loopholes will be exploited and more will resort to tax cheating. What does that say? When we also cut back the COPS Program as this budget does, at the same time we cut back funding to enforce our tax laws, what does that say about the desire, the determination on the part of this administration to go after those who break the law, whether it is by failing to pay their fair share of taxes or doing something illegal in our neighborhood? The cutback in enforcement funding also means higher taxes for honest American taxpayers and larger debts passed on to our children and grandchildren. That is the choice the White House has made. The administration proposes that hundreds of billions of dollars be given to the biggest corporations and wealthiest among us. This means a more uncertain future for Social Security because $2 trillion will need to be taken out of the Social Security trust fund. This also was a choice the administration has made. They insist that even in the face of massive deficits, a job crisis, and our ongoing activities in Iraq and Afghanistan, we must continue their failed policies of tax cuts first, last, and always. Another sad illustration of its poor choices, in addition to record deficits and debt, 2.4 million children are going to be left behind because of underfunded education priorities; 210,000 more veterans will not receive the health care they need; 1,200 fewer cops will be on our streets. What an amazing turnaround. Less than 3 years ago, we were praising the cops of New York and Washington for their incredible response to 9/11, and now we tell many of them they are out of a job because we are not going to fund the programs that put them there in the first place. Thousands of firefighters and emergency personnel also praised less than 3 years ago will be fired as a result of the cuts in this so-called budget. These are the choices the White House has made. The President has chosen to provide huge windfalls for millionaires and giant corporations, and huge cutbacks for the programs that matter most to American families. Families who make and follow budgets should look at the administration's budget and be aghast, not just for the sleight-of-hand tricks that hide its true cost, but for the fact that the President has abandoned their priorities and their concerns. If this budget passes, Americans face a future with poorer schools, higher crime, and less secure retirements. We have to do better than this. We must provide Americans with a budget that honors their choices, their priorities, and prepares our Nation to meet challenges of our future. And we must be as forthcoming and responsible with taxpayers' dollars as they are with their own family budgets sitting at that kitchen table.

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

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I appreciate very much the compliments of the distinguished assistant Democratic leader. He has worked diligently with the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, coordinated the efforts, and while this week could have been more productive, I do think at the committee level it was all that we could have hoped for on a bipartisan basis. The Finance Committee did its work. On a bipartisan basis, the Banking Committee has done its work. After the divisive and partisan battles we have had on energy, Medicare, and on so many things as we closed the first session of this Congress, it is somewhat refreshing to see the bipartisan nature of our work on this bill. Senator Frist has made it abundantly clear it is his desire, and I would say I share it just as strongly, that we finish next week. I would love to see this bill completed by this time next week. I think if we work hard, accommodate each other's desire to entertain amendments, debate these amendments, have votes on the amendments, there is no reason we cannot finish this bill a week from today, prior to the Presidents' Day recess. That would certainly be my hope. Again, I appreciate the leadership provided, especially by the Senator from Nevada, in reaching that goal.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I appreciate the most recent report from Nevada with regard to how his constituents are viewing this new Medicare Program. I must say it is perfectly in concert with the sentiments expressed in similar articles in South Dakota. During the last break, when I was home holding meetings regarding this program, we had standing room only crowds in every single meeting, and those crowds were almost universally angered, frustrated, and concerned about their circumstances as a result of this legislation passing. Much of their anger, as the Senator noted in the article, is directed towards the organization AARP, for their failure to stand up for citizens, and I think that is understandable. Their frustration and their anxiety goes deeper than just an organization. They are concerned about their own livelihoods and what it may mean for them and how troubling it is to them that the Government is actually forbidden from negotiating lower drug prices, which is what the goal was in the first place. So it is their inability to get lower drug prices, their concern about having to pay exorbitant premiums and fees for a limited benefit, their concern about being pushed into an HMO, their concern about whether they can access drugs from other countries like Canada where prices are cheaper: all of those and many more concerns were reflected in these discussions. It is again reflected in the article the Senator has just read into the record. So I share his consternation and his resolve to address these issues. We have to find a way to fix it, and the senior citizens of this country are demanding we do it now. 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. President, I wanted to take a minute to come to the floor this afternoon to talk about the report issued yesterday by an international panel of experts that was convened by the Department of Agriculture to look at this whole issue of BSE, otherwise known as mad cow disease. They have, once again, announced--and publicly stated-- what many of us have known for a long time, that there are still many outstanding questions about BSE. I think the unfortunate fact about all of this is that the one question for which there isn't any doubt is the origin of the mad cow problem to date: one Canadian-born cow which cost a tremendous amount of market and value in the agricultural markets today. The one cow has shed an adverse light on American cattle producers in a way that is not only unfair but extraordinarily costly to every producer in the country today. Just yesterday--yesterday--the cost per hundred in the Chicago Mercantile Exchange was $75. A couple of weeks ago, it was $118 per hundred. So we have seen a precipitous drop in the marketplace. Yet we still see a resistance on the part of many with regard to one simple effort that could change a great deal of confidence on the part of the American consumer--a change that has already been adopted by 43 other countries. Forty-three countries currently have country-of-origin labeling. We have been told by some of our exporting partners in some of those markets abroad that unless we implement country-of-origin labeling, we can forget about exporting our products to those countries. So we languish with tens of millions of dollars of product still on the water unable to unload in those markets, and unable to bring the product back to this country because we don't want to further jeopardize what fragile market there is. We have--I do not recall now the exact figure--tens of millions of pounds worth hundreds of millions of dollars out there on ships unable to go anywhere in large measure because we continue to refuse to label the product. It is not just a question of consumer information, as important as that is. I find it intriguing that today we label for content. We can tell you down to the last gram what is in a can or a package. We can tell you what the nutritional value is. We can tell you how many carbohydrates there are. We can tell what the calories are and the fat, but we can't tell you from what country it has come. It is a remarkable omission. What is all the more remarkable is that there are those who actually argue that it would be an impractical requirement. We have already adjusted to content. We have adjusted to nutrition. But somehow it is impractical--and we are told almost impossible--for us to put country- of-origin label. I don't know anybody who honestly believes that, but there are those who profess that. There is a reluctance on the part of the administration and a reluctance on the part of some in the Congress to recognize what I think is inevitable. One day we will have country-of-origin labeling. One day we will have the full advantage--I would say the patriotic advantage--of ensuring that we know we are eating American beef and agricultural products--one day. But that day should have been a year ago when we passed the farm bill. We gave them a year. They had until last September to implement it, and we have now been put on a 2- year delay. But this international export issue, the consumer information issue, and the tremendous advantage in creating greater competence for producers alone ought to be arguments that the time has come for us to pass country-of-origin labeling without incumbrance. For the life of me, I can't understand in this day and age, with all the facts on the side of those who argue in favor that there can still be the intransigence, that there can still be the reluctance and that there can still be the opposition from the administrations, the meatpackers, and some of our Republican colleagues in the House in particular. This is not a partisan issue in the Senate. There have been a number of Republican and Democratic Senators who have worked together to cosponsor legislation. An overwhelming number of Members have voted in favor--not once but twice so far. We have had ample debate. I must say I think the arguments get flimsier and flimsier. The international panel that convened and looked at this situation once again offer us yet another illustration as to why it is important for us to do this now. Let's pass country-of-origin labeling. Let's ensure that consumers have the same information as fellow consumers have in 43 other countries. Let's do for origin what we have already done for nutrition and for content. We will continue to offer amendments. We will continue to make it the policy of this Senate, we will continue to ask for rollcall votes, and we will continue to keep the pressure on until this job is done. I think it is inexcusable and somewhat embarrassing that in this day and age with all the facts presented to us, as they now have been, that there could be any question. We need to get this job done--I think for good reason among producers and consumers alike. Patience is wearing thin.

Mr. DASCHLE. I would be happy to yield to the Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. DASCHLE. That is a very good question, and I must say I know the Senator from North Dakota certainly knows the answer, but for the record it is the packers. There is an amazing coalition on one side, over 160 consumer groups--agriculture groups, good government groups of all kinds, people who have said without equivocation, this is good law, it ought to be done--160-plus groups on one side, the packers on the other side. Guess who has sided with whom? The administration is saying, we have to listen to those packers. The point made by the Senator from North Dakota is absolutely right. We have had a change of heart with regard to downer cattle in this country and it goes to the point the Senator from North Dakota is making. We had the picture of a British downer cow, crippled, sick, unhealthy, and that picture was portrayed over and over and over again. Rarely was it noted that downer cow was not from the United States, that was a British downer cow. But it left the perception there are downer cows in this country that were entering the meat system, sick cattle, diseased cattle entering the meat system. So that steak could have come from a downer cow, a diseased cow. What happened? The administration rightfully said, we are going to ban downer cattle from the market. I applauded it when they did. Now they say, by and large, other countries are beginning to comply, as well. But we do not have any assurance that downer cattle are going to be prevented from entering our meat processing system even now. While we have the safest system in the world, we ought to be able to buy and eat and be confident about our beef products because we have such a safe system, wouldn't it be nice to know whether or not an imported product which potentially could be a product from a downer cow came from Canada or Mexico or some other country? Wouldn't it be nice to know we have that additional confidence that we are eating beef where downer cattle have been expressly prohibited? That is what we are talking about, improving upon an already good meat safety system. That, too, is a good reason why country-of-origin labeling ought to be law today.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I reiterate my thanks to the Senator from North Dakota because he has been right alongside those fighting from the very first. I remember during the debate on the farm bill he was in the room as we began writing country-of-origin labeling. He was extremely helpful in ensuring we did the right thing in terms of the way the legislation initially was drafted. His point is well taken. Today, we see an unusual phenomenon. It is not often producers and consumers merge, coalesce, and form the coalition they have in support of public policy. But in this case, it is one of those occurrences. One hundred and sixty organizations, consumers, producers, virtually every good government organization that cares about nutritional issues and agricultural issues, food and production issues, have joined together to say the time has come for us to do this. We have to do it now in light of BSE, in particular. Let's get this job done. The international experts convened. They, too, said there are a lot of questions out there. We need to make sure we get the right answers to those questions. I am simply saying, as a result of yet another report, we have one more reason why country-of-origin labeling should be law today. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I would like to use a few minutes of my leader time to talk about a remarkable new effort that is being launched today to try to develop a broader national consensus about the kind of future we want in America and how we can achieve it. It is called the Wellstone Civic Dialog Project. It is being organized by Wellstone Action, a progressive advocacy organization created by Paul and Sheila Wellstone's sons Mark and David to keep their parents' work and spirit alive. The first meetings will be held this evening. In what may be the largest book group ever, thousands of ordinary Americans in 40 States will meet in private homes, schools, churches, community centers, bookstores, and hundreds of other places to discuss the direction and the future of our Nation. Those attending the discussion are encouraged to read a book Senator Wellstone wrote which was published the year before he died. It is called ``The Conscience Of A Liberal.'' If the title evokes memories of another book, it is deliberate. In the introduction of his own book, Paul recalled the good-natured ribbing some of his Republican colleagues gave him when he attended Barry Goldwater's funeral service. They gave me Goldwater's ``The Conscience of a Conservative'' to read on the plane. ``Paul,'' they said, ``read this; we read this book at young ages and it set us on the right path. We still have hope for you.'' Paul replied that he, too, had read Senator Goldwater's book at a young age and explained: ``That's why I'm a liberal.'' ``But,'' he said, ``I also told them that I admired Barry Goldwater for his political integrity.'' More than almost anyone else I have ever known, Paul Wellstone had an unshakable faith in the fundamental decency of most people and in the genius of democracy. He believed if we faced our challenges squarely and listened respectfully to each other, we would discover that most of us share the same values, the same concerns, and the same dreams; that we would also discover the solutions and strength to overcome almost any obstacle. The Wellstone Civic Dialogue Project is an attempt to bring ordinary Americans together to develop a consensus to move America in a more humane, more progressive direction. It is what Paul called ``citizen democracy.'' Groups will meet in more than 600 communities throughout America. In a touch that I am sure Paul Wellstone and Barry Goldwater would have appreciated greatly, in several of the groups self-declared Republicans and Democrats have agreed to sit face to face and discuss their ideas and values. The first meetings, as I said, will take place this evening in more than 600 communities throughout America. A topic for tonight's discussion is ``Can we dream again?'' It is a reference to a quote by Eleanor Roosevelt that Paul loved and preached often. The future will belong to those ``who believe in the beauty of their dreams.'' It is expected that groups will meet as many as eight additional times over the next several months to discuss issues ranging from education and health care, to domestic violence, money and politics, and the war in Iraq. Anyone interested in attending a Civic Dialog Project discussion can go to the Wellstone Action Web site, www.wellstone.org, to find a discussion group near them or to download study guides for any of the discussion topics. If there isn't a group in your neighborhood, you might want to consider starting one. The Wellstone Action group has trained hundreds of volunteer facilitators to help people set up and run discussion groups in their own communities. Before Paul came to the Senate, he was a political science professor. But there was nothing the slightest bit academic or abstract about his politics. He used to say: ``People yearn for a `politics of the center'--not the `center' so widely discussed by politicians and pundits in Washington but, rather, a politics that speaks to the center of people's lives: affordable child care, good education for children, health security, living-wage jobs that will support families, respect for the environment and human rights, and clean elections and clean campaigns. You can see that yearning today in the record turnouts in Presidential caucuses in primaries in Iowa, New Hampshire, and so many other States. Instead of questioning each other's character and motives and patriotism, people want politicians to talk honestly about the concerns at the center of people's everyday lives. One of the concerns is the refusal by some insurers to provide fair and equitable treatment for people with mental illness. Nothing made Paul angrier nor offended him more deeply than the stigma attached to mental illness and the discrimination and suffering that people with mental health problems suffer as a result of that stigma. He thought it was cruel that people with mental health problems often received lesser care than those with physical health problems. He was outraged by the terrible toll such discrimination often takes on people with mental illness and their families. He and Senator Domenici introduced a bill-- now called the Paul Wellstone Mental Health Equitable Treatment Act--to end such discrimination. The bill was reintroduced at the beginning of this Congress, but it has been stalled in committee for more than a year now because of opposition from the insurance industry and its allies. Last October, on the first anniversary of the plane crash that killed Paul and Sheila, their daughter Marcia, and four others, I asked unanimous consent that the Senate take up and pass the Wellstone Mental Health and Treatment Act. It would have been the perfect tribute to Paul. The Republican leadership blocked that request. But they gave us their word that the Senate will consider the Wellstone mental health bill early this year. I am here to say, very clearly, that Democrats intend to hold them to that promise. Like tens of millions of Americans, Paul Wellstone knew well the anguish that mental illness can cause families. Nearly 50 years ago, when his older brother Stephen was a freshman in college, he suffered a severe mental breakdown. Stephen Wellstone spent the next 2 years in mental hospitals. Eventually, he recovered and graduated from college--with honors--in 3 years. But it took his immigrant parents 20 years to pay off the bill from those 2 years. In his book, Paul recalled the years that Stephen was hospitalized. ``For two years,'' he wrote, ``the house always seemed dark to me--even when the lights were on. It was such a sad home.'' Fifty years later, there are still far too many sad homes in America; there are still far too many families that are being devastated by the physical and financial consequences of mental health problems. In many cases, they have health insurance. But their insurance companies refuse to pay for the mental health care they or their loved ones need. I hear from such families every week. Three days ago, a woman from Sioux Falls called my office. She is about 50. She and her husband have two children, and they have health insurance through his job. Years ago, she suffered one of the most agonizing losses a person can endure: Her 3-year-old daughter died from spinal meningitis. She now suffers from chronic depression, which she manages with the help of medication and therapy. Recently, the cost of her medication jumped from $100 a month to $500 a month, and her insurance company informed her that she has now hit their lifetime cap on mental health benefits, so they will no longer pay anything for her medications or her therapy. So she and her husband now face a choice: pay the entire cost of her prescriptions and her therapy each month, out of pocket, or pay their mortgage. She was fighting back tears when she called my office. She said, ``If I had a heart ailment, they wouldn't think twice about sending me to a cardiologist. But there's such a stigma associated with mental health.'' She added, ``This isn't something I've chosen any more than people who suffer from diabetes or heart disease chose their conditions.'' What makes her story even more terrible is how many other people in this country are having to fight the same fight, and make the same awful choices. No family is untouched by mental health problems. Fifty- four million Americans suffer from some form of mental illness. They include Republicans, Democrats, and people who don't care at all about party labels. Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici were about as far apart politically as two people could be. But they shared a common bond: They both had people in their families, who they loved, who were affected by mental illness. They were unlikely but great allies. In 1996, thanks in large part to their leadership, Congress passed the Mental Health Parity Act. It says that group health plans sponsored by employers with 50 or more workers cannot place annual or lifetime dollars limits on mental health benefits that are more restrictive than their limits for physical health care. It was an important step forward. But discrimination persists; we know that. Some insurers openly disregard the law. Some have found new ways to restrict mental health benefits. The results can be devastating: unemployment, broken homes, shattered lives, poverty, poor school performance--even suicide. The Paul Wellstone Mental Health Equitable Treatment Act does not force employers to offer mental health coverage. It simply says that if employers offer mental health benefits, insurers cannot provide more restrictive coverage for mental health benefits than they do for other medical and surgical benefits. Some insurers already meet this basic fairness standard. They are to be commended for doing the right thing. But others will not do the right thing unless they are required by law to do so. So Congress needs to act. The insurance industry claims--incorrectly--that requiring insurers to treat mental illness the same way they treat physical illness will drive premiums up so high that more people will lose their health insurance. Their claims are not true. They are simply scare tactics; we've heard them before. The truth is, two highly respected organizations have analyzed the Paul Wellstone Mental Health Equitable Treatment Act. The private accounting firm of PricewaterhouseCoopers predicts the bill would increase health insurance premiums by one percent. One percent. That works out to $1.32 per month. The Congressional Budget Office predicts an even smaller average increase: nine-tenths of 1 percent. I think most families would consider that was a very good deal. Senators Domenici and Wellstone modeled their bill on the mental health parity provisions on the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program. For 3 years, Senators and the other 8.5 million members of that program have had the protection of genuine mental health parity. According to the Office of Personnel Management, it has increased premiums only 1.3 percent. And that includes parity for substance abuse services, which are not included in the Wellstone mental health bill. Nearly 2 years ago, President Bush said, ``Our country must make a commitment: Americans with mental illness deserve our understanding and they deserve excellent care. They deserve a health care system that treats their illness with the same urgency as physical illness.'' We urge the President to back up his words with leadership. The Paul Wellstone Mental Health Equitable Treatment Act is cosponsored by 68 Senators--more than two-thirds of this Senate. It is also supported by more than 360 national organizations--90 of which have added their support just since October. Groups endorsing the Wellstone bill include the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Alzheimer's Association, the National PTA, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Catholic Charities, the National Association of Counties, the American Medical Association, the American Nurses Association, the American Association of Pastoral Counselors, the Christopher Reeve Paralysis Foundation, the National Rural Health Association, the National Organization on Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, and many other groups. I ask unanimous consent that the complete list be inserted at the close of my remarks in the Congressional Record.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, nearly 50 years after mental illness brought such sadness and financial strain to Paul Wellstone, doctors and scientists have made great strides in understanding and treating many mental health problems. But those advances mean little to those who cannot afford them. In South Dakota and throughout America, there are still too many homes that seem dark even when the lights are on. There are too many people who are being denied essential mental health care because of arbitrary decisions by insurance companies putting profits ahead of people. The Wellstone bill can change that. We have a commitment from the Majority Leader that the Senate will deal with this issue early this year. We are determined to see that that happens. I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 361 organizations supporting the paul wellstone mental health equitable treatment act (domenici/kennedy (s. 486) and kennedy/ramstad (h.r. 953)), january 29, 2004 Advocates for Youth Alaska State Medical Association Alliance for Aging Research Alliance for Children and Families Alliance For Mental Health Consumers Rights Alzheimer's Association American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry American Academy of Cosmetic Surgery American Academy of Family Physicians American Academy of Neurology American Academy of Ophthalmology American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery American Academy of Pediatrics American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation American Academy of Physician Assistants American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law American Academy of Sleep Medicine American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry American Association For Marriage and Family Therapy American Association for Psychological Rehabilitation American Association for Thoracic Surgery American Association of Children's Residential Centers American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists American Association of Pastoral Counselors American Association of Practicing Psychiatrists American Association of School Administrators American Association of Suicidology American Association on Mental Retardation American Board of Examiners in Clinical Social Work American College of Cardiology American College of Chest Physicians American College of Emergency Physicians American College of Medical Genetics American College of Mental Health Administration American College of Nurse-Midwives American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine American College of Osteopathic Family Physicians American College of Osteopathic Surgeons American College of Physicians American College of Preventive Medicine American College of Radiology Association American College of Surgeons American Congress of Community Supports and Employment Services (ACCSES) American Counseling Association American Diabetes Association American Family Foundation American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees American Federation of Teachers American Foundation for Suicide Prevention American Gastroenterological Association American Geriatrics Society American Group Psychotherapy Association American Heart Association American Hospice Foundation American Hospital Association American Humane Association American Jail Association American Managed Behavioral Healthcare Association (AMBHA) American Medical Association American Medical Directors Association American Medical Group Association American Medical Rehabilitation Providers Association American Medical Student Association American Mental Health Counselors Association American Music Therapy Association American Network of Community Options and Resources American Nurses Association American Occupational Therapy Association American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society American Orthopsychiatric Association American Osteopathic Academy of Orthopedics American Osteopathic Association American Pediatric Society American Political Science Association American Psychiatric Association American Psychiatric Nurses Association American Psychoanalytic Association American Psychological Association American Psychotherapy Association American Public Health Association American School Counselor Association American School Health Association American Society for Adolescent Psychiatry American Society for Clinical Pathology American Society of Addiction Medicine American Society of Anesthesiologists American Society of Clinical Oncology American Society of Clinical Pharmacology American Society of Plastic Surgeons American Therapeutic Recreation Association American Thoracic Society America's HealthTogether Anna Westin Foundation Anorexia Nervosa and Related Eating Disorders, Inc. Anxiety Disorders Association of America Arizona Medical Association Arkansas Medical Society Association for the Advancement of Psychology Association for Ambulatory Behavioral Healthcare Association for Clinical Pastoral Education, Inc. Association for Science in Autism Treatment Association of American Medical Colleges Association of Asian Pacific Community Health Organizations Association of Jewish Aging Services of North America Association of Jewish Family & Children's Agencies Association of Material and Child Health Programs Association of Medical School Pediatric Department Chairs Association of Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Surgeons Association of University Centers on Disabilities Association to Benefit Children Attention Deficit Disorders Association Austism Society of America Barbara Schneider Foundation Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law Brain Injury Association of America, Inc. California Medical Association Camp Fire USA The Carter Center Catholic Charities USA Center for the Advancement of Health Center for Women Policy Studies Center for Disability and Health Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice Central Conference of American Rabbis Chicago Public Schools Child & Adolescent Bipolar Foundation Child Neurology Society Children and Adults with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder Children's Defense Fund Children's Healthcare Is a Legal Duty Children's Hospital Boston Child Welfare League of America Crhistopher Reeve Paralysis Foundation Church of the Brethren Washington Office Clinical Social Work Federation Coalition for Juvenile Justice College of Psychiatric and Neurologic Pharmacists Colorado Medical Society Commission on Social Action of Reform Judaism Connecticut State Medical Society Corporation for the Advancement of Psychiatry Council for Exceptional Children Council of State Administrators of Vocational Rehabilitation Council on Social Work Education County of Santa Clara, CA Cure Autism Now Dads and Daughters Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, Inc. Disability Service Providers of America Division for Learning Disabilities (DLD) of the Council for Exceptional Children Easter Seals Eating Disorders Coalition for Research, Policy & Action Employee Assistance Professionals Association Epilepsy Foundation Families For Depression Awareness Families USA Family Violence Prevention Fund Family Voices Federation of American Hospitals Federation of Behavioral, Psychological & Cognitive Sciences Federation of Families for Children's Mental Health Florida Medical Association Freedom From Fear Friends Committee on National Legislation (Quaker) Harvard Eating Disorders Center Hawaii Medical Association Human Rights Campaign Idaho Medical Association Illinois State Medical Society Inclusion Research Institute Indiana State Medical Association Institute for the Advancement of Social Work Research International Association of Jewish Vocational Services International Association of Psychosocial Rehabilitation Services International Community Corrections Association International Dyslexia Association International Society of Psychiatric-Mental Health Nurses International Spinal Injection Society Iowa Medical Society Iris Alliance Fund Jewish Federation of Metropolitan Chicago Johnson Institute Joint Council of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology Kentucky Medical Association Kids Project Kristen Watt Foundation for Eating Disorder Awareness Latino Behavioral Health Association Learning Disabilities Association of America Legal Action Center Louisiana State Medical Society Lutheran Ofc. for Governmental Affairs, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America Lutheran Services in America Maine Medical Association Massachusetts Medical Society MedChi, the Maryland State Medical Society Medical Association of Georgia Medical Association of the State of Alabama Medical Group Management Association Medical Society of Delaware Medical Society of the District of Columbia Medical Society of New Jersey Medical Society of the State of New York Medical Society of Virginia Medicare Rights Center MentalHealth AMERICA, Inc. Michigan State Medical Society Minnesota Medical Association Mississippi State Medical Association Missouri State Medical Association Montana Medical Association NAADAC, The Association for Addiction Professionals National Advocacy Center of the Sisters of the Good Shepherd National Alliance for Autism Research National Alliance for the Mentally Ill National Alliance for Research on Schizophrenia and Affective Disorders National Alliance to End Homelessness National Asian American Pacific Islander Mental Health Association National Asian Women's Health Organization National Assembly of Health and Human Services Organizations National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) National Association for the Advancement of Orthotics & Prosthetics National Association for Children's Behavioral Health National Association for the Dually Diagnosed National Association for Medical Direction of Respiratory Care National Association for Rural Mental Health National Association of Anorexia Nervosa and Associated Disorders--ANAD National Association of Case Management National Association of Children's Hospitals National Association of Community Health Centers National Association of Counties National Association of County Behavioral Health Directors National Association of County and City Health Officials National Association of Developmental Disabilities Councils National Association of Mental Health Planning & Advisory Councils National Association of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners National Association of Protection and Advocacy Systems National Association of Psychiatric Health Systems National Association of School Nurses National Association of School Psychological National Association of Social Workers National Association of State Directors of Special Education National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors National Center for Policy Research for Women & Families National Center on Institutions and Alternatives National Coalition Against Domestic Violence National Coalition for the Homeless National Coalition of Mental Health Consumers and Professionals National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare National Council for Community Behavioral Healthcare National Council of Jewish Women National Council of La Raza National Council on the Aging National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence National Council on Family Relations National Council on Problem Gambling National Council on Suicide Prevention National Down Syndrome Congress National Down Syndrome Society National Eating Disorders Association National Educational Alliance for Borderline Personality Disorder National Education Association National Exchange Club Foundation National Foundation for Depressive Illness National Health Council National Health Law Program National Hispanic Medical Association National Hopeline Network National Housing Conference National Latino Behavioral Health Association National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty National Leadership on African American Behavioral Health National League of Cities National Medical Association National Mental Health Association National Mental Health Awareness Campaign National Multiple Sclerosis Society National Network for Youth National Organization for Rare Disorders National Organization of People of Color Against Suicide National Organization on Fetal Alcohol Syndrome National Osteoporosis Foundation National Partnership for Women and Families National PTA National Recreation and Park Association National Rural Health Association National Schizophrenia Foundation National Senior Citizens Law Center National Therapeutic Recreation Society National Treatment and Research Advancements Association for Personality Disorder Native American Counseling, Inc. Nebraska Medical Association NETWORK, a Catholic Social Justice Lobby Nevada State Medical Association New Hampshire Medical Society New Mexico Medical Society NISH (National Industries for the Severely Handicapped) Northamerican Association of Masters in Psychology North Carolina Medical Society North Dakota Medical Association Obsessive Compulsive Foundation Office & Professional Employees International Union Ohio State Medical Association Oklahoma State Medical Association Older Adult Consumer Mental Health Alliance Oregon Medical Association Organization of Student Social Workers Partnership for Recovery People For the American Way Pennsylvania Medical Society Presbyterian Church (USA), Washington Office Prevent Child Abuse America Rebecca Project for Human Rights Renfrew Center Foundation Rhode Island Medical Society Samaritans Suicide Prevention Center School Social Work Association of America Service Employees International Union Shaken Baby Alliance Sjogren's Syndrome Foundation Society for Adolescent Medicine Society for Pediatric Research Society for Personality Assessment Society for Public Health Education Society for Research on Child Development Society for Social Work Research Society for Women's Health Research Society of American Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Surgeons Society of Medical Consultants to Armed Forces Society of Professors of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Society of Thoracic Surgeons South Carolina Medical Association South Dakota State Medical Association

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I intend to use my leader time this morning. I ask unanimous consent that morning business not be reduced as a result of my use of leader time.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, if we have an impasse about scheduling this afternoon, I wonder if it would be appropriate to ask consent that we have morning business tomorrow immediately after we commence Senate business to accommodate the request made by the distinguished Senator from Florida and the Senator from California. Could we do that?

Mr. DASCHLE. That is a matter to be determined by the majority leader, but I would suggest that normally we have Senate business in the morning. We could either come in a little bit earlier or figure out our schedule. But it would not then interfere with the understandable desire on the part of the manager to stay on the bill once we are on the bill. Technically we are on the highway bill right now. Tomorrow morning we could certainly accommodate the Senator's request with the time allotted for his comments and those of the Senator from California.

Mr. DASCHLE. That would be up to the majority leader.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I would say to the Senator from Florida that I will talk to the majority leader. I would be surprised if he would have any difficulty coming in prior to 9:30.

Mr. DASCHLE. I will use my leader time prior to the time we move to the bill itself. I wish to comment on a couple of things this afternoon.

Mr. DASCHLE. The majority leader had made a unanimous consent request. On his behalf, I make it again. I don't think there will be an objection.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I was criticized by some Members of the House yesterday or today with regard to the pension bill. Their criticism was that I was holding the bill. Let me make sure people understand: I have not held the bill. I have no desire to hold the pension bill. I would like to get on with it. I would like to complete our work on the pension bill. It is, of course, the prerogative of the majority leader and the majority to send the bill to the House once we have completed our work. That has not been done. They are certainly within their rights to make decisions with regard to the disposition of the bill, but it would be in error to say that in any way I am holding the bill. I am withholding our consent to go to conference on the bill, which is a different matter. I will talk about that in a moment. Obviously, Senator Frist and I have had some conversations about how we proceed with regard to conferences this year. We are unwilling to commit to a process that brought about the unacceptable circumstances in conference last year, especially on the energy bill as well as the Medicare bill. But there are three approaches. First, of course, on any bill, we are certainly within our rights to ask for a conference with the House. What we have simply asked is that if there is a conference, all the conferees be present when deliberations take place. That isn't too much to ask. That is all we are asking--our presence at conference meetings once those conference meetings have been called. We don't think a conference can truly be a conference if only one party is represented. That is my simple request. Until I have the assurance that that request is be granted, we are unable to provide consent to go to conference. We are not asking for any predetermined outcome. We are not asking for a certain set of expectations with regard to the legislation itself. We are simply saying: If you are going to have a conference, don't call it a conference unless you have the conferees present. There are two other approaches. I have just alluded to the second approach, which is to send the bill to the House. We have done that on a number of occasions. There is nothing that precludes us from sending the pension bill to the House, allowing them to work their will. Perhaps they will accept the changes made by the Senate. That certainly is within their right. There is a third option. This is a tested, tried and true option that I can say with some authority has happened on countless occasions in past years and conferences. Last year we preconferenced the forest health bill. And once successfully preconferenced, we agreed in conference to the provisions and the bill passed almost unanimously. In the 108th Congress, we passed 19 bills by preconferencing them first, including the AIDS Assistance Act, the Military Family Relief Act, the Veterans Benefits Act. And in the 107th Congress, we passed 51 bills by preconferencing the agreements: Railroad Retirement Survivors Improvement Act, the Veterans Benefit Act, Nurses Reinvestment Act, the Homeland Security Act, the Native American Settlements and Indian Financing Act Amendments. Those and 40- plus more bills were preconferenced. I ask unanimous consent that the list of bills preconferenced and agreed to successfully in the 108th Congress to date and the 107th Congress be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, we have three options. First, whether it is the pension bill or any bill, we can go to conference and do what the institution requires, and that is have Members of the Senate and House, Republicans and Democrats, present at conferences and resolve our differences in the traditional manner. Second, we can certainly pass the bill over to the House, send it over to the House at any time. We can do that on the pension bill this afternoon. The third thing we can do is what I have just suggested has been done successfully on 19 occasions so far in the 108th Congress and 51 occasions in the 107th Congress; that is, to preconference and ultimately then to confirm our agreements in a formal conference once the negotiations have been completed. We stand ready, once again, to do whatever it takes to pass the pension bill and ultimately put it on the President's desk. There is an urgency to this legislation. We will not, on any legislation this year, tolerate the unacceptable experience we had on several occasions in the first session of this Congress. Mr. President, I wish to take a moment to talk further about the transportation bill. As I said yesterday, getting this bill to the floor has been too long a process. I won't dwell on that other than to say the Congress and the administration have not been successful in bringing this bill to conclusion, and because of that we have already lost 90,000 jobs. For too long our economy has been slowed by outdated and inadequate transportation infrastructure. Nothing expresses the urgency of this bill better than the fact that we have lost 3 million private sector jobs over the last 3 years. It is time to get this bill done. Make no mistake, not only will this bill create jobs all across the country but it will address our Nation's infrastructure deficit as well. If passed, this bill will improve the more than 30 percent of our roads and highways that are in poor and substandard condition today. It will help improve the more than 30 percent of our Nation's bridges that are functionally obsolete or structurally deficient. As I said yesterday, the managers of the bill, Chairman Inhofe and Senators Jeffords, Bond, and Reid, have done a remarkable job in bringing us a fine product to the Senate floor. This is a difficult, complicated issue, with an extraordinary number of different interests to balance. The Finance Committee, led by Chairman Grassley and Senator Baucus, has also done a fine job of ensuring that there is symmetry in how we deal with highways and transit. Senator Frist and I met on Monday to discuss the bill and we had a very productive conversation. In essence, we both agreed that now the Senate has begun debate on the transportation bill, we need to ensure it goes forward in a cooperative, bipartisan fashion. That is how the Environment and Public Works Committee has approached this bill, and we have a fine work product because of that bipartisan, cooperative approach. That is how the Finance Committee has approached this bill, and we have a fine work product because of the bipartisan, cooperative approach there as well. That is how the Banking Committee has approached the bill as it relates to transit issues, and this morning the Banking Committee reported, by a voice vote, a fine work product because of the work Chairman Shelby and Senator Sarbanes have demonstrated in their cooperative approach. That is why I find it so troubling that the administration appears to be lagging behind--why they seem to be putting up roadblocks to the highway bill instead of paving the way for improved infrastructure and more jobs. As I said, the Finance Committee reported a bill on Monday. Then Tuesday, yesterday, Transportation Secretary Mineta and Treasury Secretary Snow sent a letter about those very same financing provisions. First of all, it would have been helpful to have had such a letter before the Finance Committee met, not a day after. Second, based on the letter, many have claimed the Finance Committee does not meet the administration's test with regard to the financing provision and have suggested the President may even veto the bill. Now some of my colleagues disagree. They say the Finance Committee bill does meet the administration's test, and I hope they are correct. But at this point, we simply don't know the administration's position on the bill we are now considering on the floor. It is important that the administration make its position clear. This bill deserves their unequivocal support. Chairman Grassley and Senator Baucus and the other committee members put together an excellent and balanced package and showed courage in taking on corporate tax loopholes. Most importantly, this bill makes real investments in our future in a fiscally responsible way. Every dollar in this bill is paid for with a crackdown on corporate tax shelters, which has been a bipartisan priority in the Senate for years. The package is a rare accomplishment--a bipartisan, fiscally responsible one that invests in our future and creates jobs today. It is a win for highways, a win for transit, a win for fiscal responsibility, and a win for honest taxpayers. The only losers are tax cheaters. It is inexplicable to me why there is even discussion about the administration threatening to veto this bipartisan package. Opposing the financing provisions would raise troubling questions about the administration's priorities. Would they rather protect corporate tax cheaters than repair our roads and bridges and provide jobs? Would they rather help wealthy people renounce their citizenship and avoid paying their fair share of taxes than cut down on the traffic and congestion that puts a drag on our economy and inconveniences our citizens? Would they rather protect corporations that engage in shady manipulations than create a modern transportation system for America's future? I hope those who say yesterday's administration letter is a veto threat are wrong. The Finance Committee has done an exceptional job of providing for the needs of our economy, while cracking down on tax cheats. With a $521 billion deficit this year, we cannot afford to let corporate tax cheaters continue to pass along their bills to the rest of us. We have an opportunity to bring new life to our economy, and old-fashioned accountability to our Tax Code. I urge the President to make their position clear on this bill soon. If we do what the Environment and Public Works Committee has done, if we do what the Finance Committee has done, if we do what the Banking Committee has done, if we do what Leader Frist and I have agreed to do and go forward in a bipartisan, cooperative fashion, if we go forward as soon as possible to get this long overdue bill done, we will make progress not only for our Nation's infrastructure, but for our Nation as a whole. This legislation will impact people all across our country every day. It will provide jobs. It will make us more competitive in the world. Let's get on with passing the bill, and let's do it as thoroughly, as completely, but as much in keeping with the bipartisan spirit already established in three committees, as has been demonstrated thus far. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I thank the majority leader for his report and for the announcement regarding the opening of offices. He also ought to be commended for his work and leadership in expediting the opening of the offices themselves. This has been a difficult matter because his office has been directly affected, but this is a very good piece of news that we should be back and up and running with all cylinders by the early part of next week. I share, as well, his expressions of gratitude for all of those who have been involved in this effort to date, having recalled very vividly the nightmares of 2 years ago. It is fair to say we have come a long way in our ability to deal effectively with matters such as these. While this one is different, it is also indicative of the progress we have made in allowing the institution to respond more quickly and successfully and, hopefully, that will be in evidence as we continue our work. Again, I thank the majority leader for his report. I know this will be good news for all Members. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma. I am happy to accommodate the order at whatever time someone may come to the floor. I have a few comments to make as we begin this debate. Let me express our gratitude to the two managers of the bill and other Members of the Senate who have put so much effort into this legislation. We have come a long way. I am grateful to them for producing a bill that merits strong bipartisan support. The debate on this bill is long overdue. We have already lost 90,000 jobs by our inability to pass the bill last October. At a time when we have lost 3 million jobs over the last several years, we cannot afford to keep losing jobs. We had the first meager job increase just last month with 1,000 jobs across the entire Nation. The importance we can put on job creation with this legislation should not be underestimated. Now that the Senate has begun the debate on the bill, we need to ensure it goes forward in a bipartisan fashion--the way this institution has worked on legislation similar to this over its long history. If we ultimately pass a transportation bill into law, it is expected to create 830,000 jobs over the next 6 years. These would be good jobs for Americans, jobs in engineering, in the environment, in construction--good jobs in all States. In addition to jobs, there is another critical reason to be moving forward on this bill. Yesterday, there was a lot of talk about the $520 billion Federal budget deficit, a very troubling figure. But there is another deficit we have not talked much about yet and that is in our Nation's infrastructure. Our Nation's transportation infrastructure-- our roads, highways, transit, ports, and rail lines--is a thread that holds our Nation together to make it possible to have a free and open society, which is suffering a remarkable deficit, one that can be addressed with the passage of this legislation. Our transportation infrastructure impacts what we do every single day, and most of the time it is simply taken for granted and unrecognized. Over 30 percent of our roads and highways are now considered in poor or in substandard condition. Over 30,000 of our Nation's bridges are functionally obsolete or structurally deficient. The transportation bill reported out of the Environment and Public Works Committee will address this infrastructure deficit. Likewise, we need to ensure this transportation bill is intermodal and includes provisions to improve the conditions of rails and ports. Rail lines in the United States alone require $7 billion each and every year just to maintain them. Our Nation's transit programs are a critical and interconnected portion of our transportation infrastructure. I am particularly pleased Finance Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Baucus included as a part of the financing provisions reported from the committee yesterday a provision which treats transit in a similar manner to highways. It was the right decision to go forward with some symmetry on transit and highways. Both receive funds from the highway trust funds. I applaud Senators Grassley and Baucus for doing so. I am pleased we are finally working on this bill in the Senate. As I said, Senators Inhofe and Jeffords need to be complimented, along with Senators Bond and Reid, for the hard work and leadership they have shown in getting us to this point. I look forward to moving ahead in a bipartisan fashion to do not only what is needed but what is required to address our transportation infrastructure deficit. If we go forward in that fashion with that goal, we will not only improve the condition of our infrastructure but create hundreds of thousands of needed jobs and improve the condition of our country, as well. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me first express the sentiment that I know is shared by the entire Senate family in expressing our concern and our admiration for Senator Frist and his staff. Having been through this ordeal in another form a couple of years ago, I know the difficulty it presents personally to staff and to families of staff, and I know we are probably in a better position to confront these challenges today than we were 2 years ago. But we speak with one voice in expressing our concern for those staff and our optimism about our ability to successfully confront this challenge as we did 2 years ago. I know this has been a long 24 hours for the majority leader. He had a late night the night before, and then last night it would not surprise me if he got no sleep at all. So he is working on little sleep, and I appreciate his report this morning. Obviously, we have a number of decisions to make over the course of the day, and I will consult with him. I do hope, to the extent it is practicable, that we use this opportunity to continue the debate on highways. We do not have a lot of time, and I know each day is valuable from that perspective. But we also want to be practical, recognizing if the offices are closed, it will be hard for Senators and their staff to do work related to the highway bill. I look forward to consulting and working with the distinguished majority leader as we deal with the necessity this situation has presented to us. Mr. President, I know colleagues on both sides of the aisle are interested in the schedule. I know the majority leader had announced that there will be caucus lunches. I want to make sure people understand, we will have our normally scheduled caucus lunch today. Both the Democrats and Republicans will be meeting. They will be held in the same location. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Florida for his extraordinarily enlightening and very helpful discussion in this series of speeches he is giving this week. I think we would all do well not only to listen but to read and to thoughtfully consider much of what he has shared with us. He speaks with experience and extraordinary credibility, and I applaud him for taking the time and making the effort that he has to bring this important issue before us in a meaningful way.