Craig Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, a year ago we started the Iraqi freedom activity. I will talk a little bit about what has been accomplished this past year, to recognize all those who have done so much to have a successful operation there. We are moving toward completion--hopefully not too long in the future, but we have accomplished a great deal. We recognize and thank those who have given so much to continue to fight for freedom, in this case in Iraq and, of course, around the world. I am sorry this has become so much of a political issue. The fact is, we are talking about finishing a task we started. It is not something that ought to be constantly talked about as a political issue in a Presidential election. Certainly we ought to be talking about some of the successes that have occurred there. I had the opportunity to visit Iraq and Afghanistan. I was impressed with the things that have been done and are being done by our troops there, by other Americans there seeking to work for a secular government and freedom in that part of the world. I hope we can be more positive about it than we have been, particularly in the media. I was especially interested to read an editorial in the newspaper ``Wingspan'' from Laramie County Community College in Cheyenne, WY. It was partially about a young man named Nathan Span, and written by Ashley Colgan, the co-editor of this college paper. Marine Corporal Nathan Span, at the age of 22, is a two-time war veteran and has only good things to say about the risks he has taken. He was in Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom, and returned home in December of 2003. It was interesting what Ashley had to say. On this one-year anniversary, I remind people that although the war may be somewhat political, it is not so to the men and women who fought and still fight in Iraq. Americans should remember that at one point we fought for our freedom from oppression, and we also had to seek help. All I ask for Americans to remember is what soldiers in Iraq represent: Freedom. Ashley goes on to say: I understand the fear, pain, and confusion but why get angry at what I feel is America's attempt to make the world a better place. Many Americans feel misled and lied to by the administration, but let's keep in mind the greater good for which the soldiers are fighting. Soldiers in Iraq feel they are setting an example of what America will not tolerate from a malicious dictator. Corporal Span is a young man who just returned from spending part of his life in Iraq and Afghanistan. In the editorial, Span says, ``For those who have fought for it, freedom has a taste that the protected will never know.'' I will talk a little bit about where we are. Certainly, most recognize this action in Iraq was necessary for a number of reasons. Saddam Hussein's regime harbored and supported terrorists and was consistently an aggravating factor in the Middle East. He had attacked his neighbors and launched wars of aggression. Saddam had a history of possessing and using chemical and biological weapons, in violation of the terms of the cease-fire agreement in 1991 of the Gulf War, and numerous United Nations resolutions. The best intelligence available at the time showed Saddam Hussein to be a growing threat to the United States. I am pleased the President acted swiftly and decisively before the threat became imminent. The mission in Iraq is critical to winning the global war on terrorism. The war on terrorism remains an aggressive effort to bring not only the perpetrators of September 11 to justice but also those who supported, aided terrorism. This has been policy from day one in Iraq and clearly fits this definition. The conclusion that Saddam Hussein was hiding chemical and biological weapons while conspiring to rebuild the nuclear program was also reached in the Clinton administration, the United Nations, and a number of other western governments, including several that actively opposed the war. In fact, regime change in Iraq has been a U.S. policy since 1998. It is clear that some of the prewar intelligence on which decisions may have been made were not complete, perhaps were flawed, but the fact remains the President acted in good faith based on the best intelligence available at the time. But cynical political efforts, of course, have portrayed the President as deliberately misleading the public and remaining dishonest. Rather than playing the election year politics with this issue, we need to focus on correcting the existing programs, focus on the future and where we are going, and how to complete the task to ensure that our leaders have accurate and reliable information on which to implement policy in the future. I hope the mission of the September 11 Commission that we hear so much about, the talk about it, what should have been done and was not done--what we ought to do is keep this from happening in the future. That is really the issue. This idea of seeking to assess blame in the past is immaterial. The point is, What can we do differently to avoid something of this kind happening in the future? We all know what is going on with respect to those issues. Where are we today? Two weeks ago, the Iraqi Governing Council unanimously signed an interim constitution toward a secular government, an amazing change in that part of the world. It guarantees freedom of religion and expression, the right to assemble, to organize political parties, the right to vote, the right to a fair and speedy and open trial. It prohibits discrimination on gender, nationality, religion, and arbitrary arrests and detention. Of course, what the terrorist enemy fears most is a free and democratic Iraq. Freedom, liberty, and democracy are threats to all that oppose it. They will not see this happen without a fight. Our challenge is to stay there until we have completed our goals. The situation remains dangerous and volatile. The cost of freedom is high. Thanks to the selfless devotion and hard work of our men and women in uniform, we continue to make definite and visible progress toward a goal of returning a free and stable country to the Iraqi people. Iraqis are much better off today than they were under Saddam Hussein. The Middle East is more stable and the United States is safer with Saddam out of power. Operation Iraqi Freedom is the right action. We are winning the war in Iraq and the war on terrorism. I thank those who have participated, those service men and women who have given so much for this kind of freedom to be achieved. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on National Parks of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The purpose of this hearing is to conduct oversight on National Heritage Areas, including findings and recommendations of the General Accounting Office, the definition of a National Heritage Area, the definition of national significance as it relates to National Heritage Areas, recommendations for establishing National Heritage Areas as units of the National Park System, recommendations for prioritizing proposed studies and designations, and options for developing a National Heritage Area Program within the National Park Service. The hearing will take place on Tuesday, March 30, 2004 at 2:30 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, SD-364 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510-6150. For further information, please contact: Tom Lillie at (202) 224-5161 or Sarah Creachbaum at (202) 224-6293.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Until 4 o'clock.

Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, let me say, first, I am pleased we are able to move forward. We are working on a bill that has to do with trade, one in which we are under the pressure from the WTO to get finished in a certain length of time or it is going to be very expensive. So I am glad we are moving forward. I thank the Senator from Connecticut for working to find an agreement to get this moving forward. We all care about lost jobs. Certainly the administration cares deeply about jobs, despite some of the remarks that have been made on the floor. Losing a job is painful. It is an awful experience. Jobs are the foundation of the American dream. Jobs give people dignity and the hope of a better tomorrow. It is true jobs are how people provide for their families and for their children, for education, and the well-being of their loved ones. This President cares deeply about jobs. Economic growth is, of course, the answer. The question is, How do we create more jobs? The answer is clear. We need a growing economy. A growing and expanding economy is the key to more jobs. That is why the President's tax cuts are so important. They have made the American economy much stronger. The economy is now growing and expanding. We have had a GDP growth rate of 8.2 in the third quarter of last year, 4.1 in the fourth quarter, and 3.1 for 2003. Job training and job skills are key. We are living in a dynamic economy, and that is good. It creates higher wages and higher standards of living. But it also requires us to make sure people have the opportunity to learn new skills and upgrade existing skills. The key to a good job is training and skill. The President is focused on that. He understands the linkage between job training, job skills, and jobs of the future. That is why he has proposed his jobs for the 21st century initiative and focused so much attention on community colleges and education in general, because training and skill development are the pathway to jobs in the future. That is also why the President supported the expansion of the Trade Adjustment Assistance in 2002; the trade act tripled the levels of before. Americans can compete with anyone when we have a level playing field. Despite what some of our critics are saying, economic isolation is not the answer. Only 5 percent of the global population lives in the U.S. That means that 95 percent of our potential market is outside the U.S. We need to stay engaged with the rest of the world. We need those markets opened to our farmers, our service industry and our manufacturers. We have the best workforce in the world, the most innovative businesses and the most competitive companies. We can compete with anybody when markets are opened and we have a level playing field. In the service industry alone, more than 108 million Americans have good-paying jobs. The service industry's share of GDP has grown to about 64 percent. The service sector employs 80 percent of Americans, and, over the past two decades, has added almost 40 million employees across the full range of services. On average, these service jobs pay wages on par with those in the manufacturing sector, and wages for service jobs have increased at a faster rate than wages for manufacturing jobs. Many of those services are exported. We have a big services trade surplus. We sell to the world our movies, our music, our software, the products of our architects and our engineers, our consulting services, our insurance products, our teachers and trainers, and our telecommunications services. We will only grow our economy by expanding the opportunities of our world-class service workers to sell their services to the world. We must say ``no'' to economic isolation. What goes around comes around. We should be concerned about retaliation. Foreign investors employed 6.4 million Americans in 2001, including one in eight U.S. manufacturing workers. Thousands of auto workers in Ohio and South Carolina, or financial services workers in New York or California, or the guy repairing your car at the BP Amoco station, have jobs that depend on our market being open to foreign investors. Most of these workers earn considerably above the average U.S. manufacturing wage. We need to be deeply concerned about those Americans who lose a job, any job. But if our answer is to put up walls around America, we run the risk that tens of millions of Americans will be hurt. We are moving forward by strengthening this amendment and strengthening this bill. It is one that we need to finish. We need to understand there is a movement of billions of dollars a day around this world. Sometimes it is difficult, but it is the way it is. We can compete. We have the most effective economy in the world. We have the most efficient workers in the world. I am pleased we can now go forward and get on with this task that is before us so we can begin to do the things we need to do in terms of fair trade. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. THOMAS. On behalf of the leader, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Dodd be recognized to modify his amendment; provided further that the McConnell second-degree amendment be modified further with the changes that are at the desk, and it then be agreed to; provided further that I be recognized in order to call up a further second- degree amendment on behalf of Senator McCain, and that following the reporting of the amendment it be agreed to. I further ask consent that the time until 4 today be equally divided for debate; that at 4 the Senate proceed to a vote on the adoption of the Dodd amendment, as amended, without further intervening action or debate.

Mr. THOMAS. I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of Senator McCain.

Mr. THOMAS. The time will be equally divided now, as I understand.

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

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Cathleen West, a fellow on the Finance Committee staff, be granted the privileges of the floor for the remainder of the debate on S. 1637.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the following bills are added to the agenda for the Subcommittee on National Parks hearing for Tuesday, March 9, 2004, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC: S. 1430, to direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study of the Baranov Museum in Kodiak, Alaska, for potential inclusion in the National Park System; and S. 1687, to direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study on the preservation and interpretation of the historic sites of the Manhattan Project for potential inclusion in the National Park System. Because of the limited time available for the hearings, witnesses, may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, SD-364, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510-6150. For further information, please contact Tom Lillie at (202) 224-5161 or Sarah Creachbaum at (202) 224-6293.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President. I express our Nation's deepest thanks and gratitude to a young man and his family from Meeteetse, WY. On February 5, 2004, SPC Billy Jess Watts was killed in the line of duty while preparing to deploy to Iraq to serve his country in the war on terrorism. While traveling in a military convoy to a final training exercise before leaving for duty in Operation Iraqi Freedom, SPC Watts died when the vehicle he was riding in hit ice and rolled over. SPC Watts was a member of the Wyoming Army National Guard's 2-300 Field Artillery Battalion. He enjoyed the outdoors, hunting and camping, and loved watching NASCAR racing and pitching horseshoes. He loved his family and his country. SPC Watts' profound sense of duty led him to join the U.S. Army following his high school graduation, and the National Guard upon his return to Wyoming. He was an American soldier. It is because of people like Billy Watts that we continue to live safe and secure. America's men and women who answer the call of service and wear our Nation's uniform deserve respect and recognition for the enormous burden that they willingly bear. Our people put everything on the line everyday, and because of these folks, our Nation remains free and strong in the face of danger. SPC Watts is survived by his wife Connie and his son Austin John, as well as parents, Bill and Bertha, sisters Bonnie, Betty and Barbara, and his brothers in arms of the 2-300 Field Artillery Battalion. We say goodbye to a husband, a father, a son, a brother, a soldier, and an American. Our Nation pays its deepest respect to SPC Billy Jess Watts for his courage, his love of country and his sacrifice, so that we may remain free. He was a hero in life and he remains a hero in death. All of Wyoming, and indeed the entire Nation are proud of him. 2lt luke s. james

Mr. THOMAS

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

Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, I join my partner from Wyoming in supporting what is one of most important bills we will have before us; that is, medical liability, the opportunity for us to do something about the cost of health care. As I go about town meetings in my State of Wyoming, the topic I hear the most about is the cost of health insurance. Obviously, health insurance costs are driven by the cost of health care; in this case, of course, some directly as a matter of the kinds of payments that have to be made for protection under medical malpractice liability insurance. I am very pleased to join my colleagues to talk a little about an issue that has had a severe impact on health care. It is not the total answer, but it is a step in the right direction. We are finding ourselves in a situation where we have very good health care, excellent health care, which we all want. We all know it is going to be expensive, but we find ourselves in a position where we are almost cutting off access to health care because of the cost. We have 43 million people who do not carry insurance because of the cost. Obviously, we help take care of those people when they have something without the ability to pay, and the insurance goes up for those who do pay. The insurance goes up for the hospitals and the doctors who don't get paid for all their patients. So it is a broad problem but one we can handle. And one of the issues that is right before us is the idea of doing something on comprehensive medical liability which, by the way, our friends on the other side of the aisle filibustered last year. I hope they will not do it again this year. I come from a small State which also has some impact. We have fewer insurance carriers in our State because there isn't the kind of market to bring people in. We have many communities where there are only one or two practitioners and some where there are none. When we lose a practitioner, it makes it very difficult for that community. Wyoming is one of the 19 crisis States for medical liability designated by the American Medical Association. A recent op-ed by Wendy Curran, executive director of our Wyoming Medical Society, I think described some of the issues regarding the need for liability relief in our State. I think she laid it out quite well: Wyoming is losing OB/GYNs, emergency trauma surgeons and general practitioners because of high malpractice insurance premiums. It is interesting because Cheyenne, WY, is in the corner of our State next to the front range in Colorado and we have physicians living in Cheyenne and practicing in Colorado because they have this kind of protection and this kind of limitation on malpractice suits. Wyoming physicians pay higher malpractice premiums than any of the surrounding States, which have all enacted liability reform. It is kind of interesting that in our small State we are in the process of talking about that now. Whether it will be done in our legislature, which is meeting now, I don't know. The fact is, it is a budget session of 20 days and it takes two-thirds votes to get it in. It is going to be difficult to do. Because of the fear of being sued, money is unnecessarily spent on defensive medicine each year, which we all pay for-- $70 billion to $126 billion a year. I had the real opportunity a while back in one of our rural areas to talk to a physician, who I think was pretty much retired but had been in Africa and had written books, and he had an interesting observation. We think about the lawsuits or the settlements that are very costly. He mentioned another aspect of this that is costly. In years past, when you hurt your arm, you could go in to your family practitioner and he or she would look at it, fix it, and send you home or put a cast on if he had to. Now, because of the possibilities of being sued, they have to send you to a specialist first and take a few more tests. So medical care is much more expensive notwithstanding the idea of the suits. A recent survey indicates that 71 percent of Wyoming voters support liability reforms. So I think most people do believe it is not the full answer to the cost of health care, but it is a movement we can make, a step we can take that will indeed make a difference. So I support, as my friend from Wyoming and the Senator from North Carolina do, the approach taken by Senators Gregg and Ensign in this bill. OB/GYNs have probably been affected the most, and it is impacting access to the care for pregnant women. We have had bills before that went clear across the medical spectrum, and I think that is probably the appropriate way. But this singles out those issues that are so prevalent and difficult. Rural areas are disproportionately impacted, as there is often no other provider available, or where an OB/GYN is forced to close up shop. We have had that very thing happen in small towns, where there is only one OB/GYN. On the other hand, in some towns there are none and the general practitioners are concerned about delivering the babies. We had one physician leave a little town called Wheatland, WY. He delivered babies in three counties. His malpractice premiums rose to over $100,000 a year in a little community, in addition to what he had paid before. Pregnant women in Newcastle and Weston County have to travel 80 miles for babies because high medical malpractice premiums have forced three local physicians to abandon their practices. Dr. Hugh DePalo, a practicing OB/GYN in Casper, WY, indicates that his premiums have increased by 300 percent in the past year. It is amazing. According to the Wyoming Health Care Commission, for every dollar malpractice insurance companies make in premiums in Wyoming, they must pay $1.25 on suits and settlements. Also according to the Wyoming Health Care Commission, some of our hospitals are paying medical malpractice premiums of $1,000 to $3,000 per birth, which makes delivering babies very unprofitable. Of course, they still do it, but somebody else has to pick up the tab. It is interesting that these practitioners in Wyoming pay $20,000 to $30,000 more a year in malpractice insurance than those in Colorado, which has a cap of $250,000. Since all the States around us have passed liability reforms, we have a tough time recruiting all types of practitioners. We have underserved areas. I am chairman of the caucus here on rural health care, and we have been pleased with some of our accomplishments, but rural health care is different. For a long time, we had different fees paid to rural than to urban hospitals. The fact is, because of low volume, it could well be that the cost per case for rural hospitals is even higher. One of the big costs of health care, of course, is the new equipment. We all want to have ``Cadillac'' health service, but when you have small volumes, you cannot do that. In our State, we have to have a system because you are not going to have all practitioners, specialists in every community. Something has to be set up so that it is available. So it is a difficult thing. We make it much more difficult by having these very high premiums. So we need to do something to protect, in this instance, our OB/GYN service for women and their babies and to set a reasonable limit on noneconomic damages. Keep in mind that if somebody has damages that are economic--this is not a limit on that; this is noneconomic damages. We have to provide for a quicker review of liability claims so they don't go on for years. We need to assure that claims are filed within a reasonable time. We need to educate people that frivolous lawsuits only add to the overall costs of health care for everyone. Sometimes we say there haven't been many lawsuits. The fact is there may not be a lawsuit but there is a settlement, which also, because of the predicted outcome of the lawsuit, is a very high settlement and the costs are still there. So I think the Senate should act on this important legislation that contains provisions that allow injured patients to recover economic damages--that is fair and legal--such as future medical expenses and loss of future earnings. Punitive damages are reasonably limited to the greater of two times the amount of the economic damages or $250,000. It authorizes periodic payments to injured parties rather than one lump payment. It preempts State law unless such law imposes greater protections for the health care providers and organizations. So I believe it does allow doctors to practice responsibility without the excessive testing, in reference to specialists, which is part of the growing costs of health care. I think this is a step in the right direction. But we have spent a great deal of time talking about Medicare and Medicaid, and we always talk about VA. We are going to have to look at the broad view of health care now. Again, we all want great health care. That ought to be what we go for. But it becomes so expensive that it precludes lots of families from participating. That is something we don't want to have happen. I urge my colleagues to vote for cloture on S. 2061. I think it could be one of the most important votes in this legislative year. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the following hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on National Parks of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Tuesday, March 9, 2004, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the following bills: H.R. 1446 and S. 1306, to support the efforts of the California Missions Foundation to restore and repair the Spanish colonial and mission-era missions in the State of California and to preserve the artworks and artifacts of these missions, and for other purposes; and H.R. 1521, to provide for additional lands to be included within the boundary of the Johnstown Flood National Memorial in the State of Pennsylvania, and for other purposes. Because of the limited time available for the hearings, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, SD-364 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510- 6150. For further information, please contact Tom Lillie at (202) 224-5161 or Sarah Creachbaum at (202) 224-6293.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. I thank the Senator. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I enjoyed listening to the debate. I do rise to talk some more about the issue that is before us, the issue we have been talking about now for 10 days, and that hopefully we will be able to complete within the next couple of days, and that, of course, is the highway transportation infrastructure bill that is now before us. I thank the chairman of the EPW Committee and the ranking member and the staff for continuing to move forward with this important bill. Sometimes we take for granted what is out there, whether it be electricity--we have been working on the electric bill--whether it is energy. Because it is there, we just sort of forget all that goes into making sure it is there. But our previous transportation infrastructure bill, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, expired on September 30 of the past year. Now we are nearly half a year beyond the bill expiring to take care of our infrastructure needs. For some time, then, the transportation system has been operating under a 5-month extension, which expires at the end of this month, by the way, and which doesn't fund nearly to the present needs because it is a CR from before. So the infrastructure is in great need. All of us recognize that. There is an increasing use of it, increasing numbers of cars on the road, increasing numbers of trucks. Our whole economy depends on this transportation infrastructure. The Interstate Highway system is almost 50 years old. Thirty-two percent of our major roads are in poor or mediocre condition. You can see that, particularly when we have had the rain and the storms, you drive around and bump into the potholes. But more importantly, we don't have the kind of expansion to handle the increased traffic. Twenty-nine percent of our bridges are structurally deficient, functionally obsolete. Thirty-six percent of the Nation's urban rail vehicles and maintenance facilities are in substandard condition. Twenty-nine of the Nation's bus fleet and maintenance facilities are substandard or in poor condition. We really have a challenge with one of the most important aspects of our economy being in poorer shape, certainly, than we would like to see it or even imagine that it is. I am very pleased that we are working on this bill. I happen to be a member of the EPW Committee as well as the Finance Committee. Those are the two main committees involved. I have been involved for some time-- in fact, 6 years ago I was involved in the previous program from the EPW Committee. I feel strongly about this issue, very strongly about it in terms of the infrastructure, very strongly about it in terms of the jobs that it creates. Quite frankly, it creates more jobs more quickly than any other kind of activity we could undertake. We are in the process of seeking to get that resolved, of course. This legislation would result in thousands of jobs. In my State of roughly half a million people, one of the smallest States in the country, 20,000-plus jobs mean a lot. We would have those very quickly. In fact, for every $1 billion in highway construction, we can expect 47,000 new jobs to occur. This means creating opportunities for people to work. In my State, again, we have nearly 20,000 people who are employed as truckers and move more than 31 million tons of manufactured freight and earn more than $674 million in wages. So this is part of the economy that is impacted and affected. Without good, safe roads, of course, these people can't get their jobs done. The highway system is almost 50 years old. You don't think about all the things that are involved in that. It is terribly expensive to have roads fixed. Last year we had 20 or 30 miles of roads being fixed over the mountain into Yellowstone Park. This is a U.S. road. This is an interstate highway that people were using. Of course, it is very expensive. So there are a lot of dollars involved in doing this. But we can't allow these kinds of things to continue to deteriorate. I just came from a meeting for an hour or so with the Director of the National Park Service. I happen to be chairman of the Park Service Subcommittee. One of the issues important to the Park Service is maintenance of highways in national parks. Of course, here again it is very expensive but absolutely necessary to have it done. There is a great deal of discussion about what we ought to do. The expenses are high. We are all concerned about the budget and the deficit, of course. We want to work to change that. But we have had that in mind as we have gone along on this whole program. Of course, the basic source for funds for highway funding is the tax on gasoline that each of us pays, 18.5 cents each time we put in a gallon of gas. That goes into this fund. It goes into the fund for highways, partially for mass transportation as well. The funding actually was done in the Finance Committee, and there has been a considerable amount of talk about the fact that there was some sort of trick being pulled in order to get money in there that didn't belong there. Quite frankly, I followed it as closely as I could. I keep hearing these incorrect allegations. I encourage critics to read the Finance Committee title. Under the committee title, the highway trust fund will maintain more of the excise taxes that were intended to go into that fund originally but have not been there. This accomplishes partial elimination for the ethanol blend of fuels. These fuel users now pay the full excise tax, and the trust fund under this plan will receive the money. It has not in the past. The benefits will be taken as a tax credit against the general fund as are all other energy production incentives. Likewise, the trust fund will retain excise taxes collected from certain users such as State and local governments using the highways and paying into that fund. Currently, these users get a refund. Under the committee amendment, the refund is not charged to the highway trust fund. What we have done is made some changes in the funding that should have been going into the trust fund but has not been going into the trust fund, and then finding some others to replace these so that there is not a reduction in the general fund but that the highway trust fund has more body to it. The committee changes have been called gimmicks. We hear the allegation that the Finance Committee used accounting gimmicks. This is unfair and incorrect. What the Finance Committee did do was ensure that the trust fund keeps more of the excise tax, which is what it was designed to do in the first place. Then, for instance, the Finance Committee recognized that the trust fund should earn interest on the balance. It is a huge amount of money, and the interest is a significant amount. It has not gone into the trust fund in the past. It would do that. So there are a number of aspects that have been changed here. We find a good deal of complaint on the floor that these were gimmicks and criticisms of the Finance Committee. Unfortunately, interestingly enough, the Commerce Committee is also a part of this. They have been able to spend $7 billion in their programs, but they don't ever mention that. All they do is complain about what the Finance Committee is doing. I can't emphasize enough the need to move this bill and to move it now. This idea that we would have a CR for a year simply doesn't deal with the issues we have, the problems we have, keeping up this infrastructure in the way it needs to be kept up. We have solved these issues. What we need to do is pass this bill this week and go into conference committee. Get the House to do what they are going to do with it, go into the conference committee, work with the House and the White House and with the Senate and come up with a bill that is appropriate for everyone and will be accepted by others. That is the system we have. Increasingly, if someone disagrees with the system, instead of debating and discussing their differences, they just look for ways to hold up the bill. Quite frankly, that is a high price to pay for all Americans to not have these jobs, to not have this infrastructure kept up, to not be able to do what is needed on one of the most important aspects of our economy. We have the opportunity to do that. I am certainly hopeful that we can come to some agreement. No one in this Senate is more concerned than I am about the spending level. I think you have to take a look at what we are seeking to do to balance the budget, to reduce the deficit, and to help increase the economy. These are the issues we have been dealing with. Of course, in addition to that, as a cause of the deficit, we had September 11. So it is not easy. But we can do it. I certainly hope we do and that we move forward as quickly as possible to be able to do this. I yield to my friend from Missouri.

Mr. THOMAS. Absolutely.

Mr. THOMAS. The Senator is absolutely right. These are large projects. They are contracts. They take a while. If you are going on a 1-year extension, our highway department, for example, couldn't put the contracts out on some of the most important jobs because they wouldn't be finished in that length of time and they don't have the dough. It is that simple. That is a very important aspect to continuing to resolve this question now.

Mr. THOMAS. Well, of course, in order to have summer construction, it is necessary that now the Transportation Department be able to know what their funds are going to be, what their ability to contract will be, so that they can do it very soon, so that these contractors can get in place in April and begin to work for a longer summer. If they have not gotten the contract until late in the summer, they are all faced with a couple of months of work, and they go into winter, which they cannot do. Seasonal is very important. We have a chance to take advantage of the summer construction system now.

Mr. THOMAS. Absolutely. We have heard a great deal from our transportation people before Christmas, wanting this. This was supposed to have been done in September, when the fiscal year began. They wanted to be in to make the contracts then so that these contractors could get ready. It is going to be quite close now. Still, if we can move in February, it will give us a pretty good shot.

Mr. THOMAS. Certainly.

Mr. THOMAS

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

Mr. THOMAS. I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10 minutes as in morning business.