Floor Statements

Madam President, I wish to respond this afternoon to some of the statements that have been said, and also to rise in opposition to the Harkin amendment.

First, I wish to join in what the Senator from Alabama was saying about the outstanding leadership of our Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao. If there has ever been an American success story, she is it. She is a minority woman who has been in several very critical leadership positions, has always done a wonderful job, and she is showing real courage as Secretary of Labor. Anybody who would suggest she would be advocating positions or rules that would be antiwomen, I don't think there is any possibility that would be something she would do. I have a knowledge of her and a faith in the leadership she is providing.

She is trying to change rules that have not been touched in 50 years. Whatever they were 50 years ago, 40 years ago, 30 years ago, one would think they probably need some reconsideration and updating. That is what she is trying to do.

As far as being concerned about the low income and entry level of working Americans, I feel a real concern for that. My dad was a shipyard worker, a pipefitter, a union member. My mother taught school. She subsequently kept books because she could not make enough money teaching school. My son employs a lot of entry level, low-income, unwed mothers, and he worries about his need for insurance coverage.

I do not step aside for anybody as far as coming from a low-income, middle-income background. I want to make sure we do right by the low- income people and the entry level people.

In that connection, in talking about the economy and what is happening, I remind all Americans and my colleagues the economy is not perfect. The economy would never be as good as we would like for it to be. We would like it to be growing at 5, 6, 7, 8, 10 percent GDP and hope we can make that happen. I believe we in America can always make the pie bigger. We do not have to make the slices smaller. We can challenge every American to think about what the opportunities are that are being offered and try to take a part of the American dream. And we are moving in that direction. Productivity is up.

The point was made maybe it is going to the bottom line, the profit. I figured out if Litton Industries did not have a profit, my dad probably would not have had a job doing pipefitting in that shipyard.

Jobless claims are down, housing starts are at an all-time high, and the American dream of owning your own home is doing fantastically. I met last week with homebuilders from my home State. They are doing great. They are providing good quality, affordable housing like never before, probably because interest rates are low, historically low, and have been so. The markets are up.

When I hear, woe is me, the economy is not good--it is not perfect, but there are a lot of indicators going in the right direction.

Then when I hear our workers in America work more than people in France, are we now trying to imitate France? Pretty soon they will be down to working maybe 25 hours a week, and they have huge economic problems because they have not been able to bring themselves to address the difficulties they are getting into with all their pensions and all the stuff they are committed to they are not going to be able to pay for.

I do not want to follow France's example, for Heaven's sake. So what do we have in this particular instance? Again, we are trying to update the rules on overtime. It looks to me as though for low-income workers, they are going to be the beneficiaries. The Department estimates that few, if any, workers between $23,660 and $100,000 would lose their overtime. As a matter of fact, 1.3 million salaried workers who earn less than $23,660 would get the overtime, and they would not need to go to court or to try to deal with the difficulties of the vague language. They are going to clarify when these workers would be eligible for overtime.

Certainly, people who are making $23,000 or $24,000 ought to get overtime when they work extra hours. I think we ought to be commending the Secretary of Labor. She listened to us. She heard our complaints. Where there were weaknesses that were pointed out, they went back and tried to address those. These are not the same rules we were debating a year ago. They went back and raised the level that would be applied. The salaried level was $65,000. In the final version of rules, it is up to $100,000.

There are new provisions in the rules that specify certain classes of employees also, such as police officers and firefighters, as automatically eligible for overtime pay. Do we not want to make that clear? Do we not want to specify that firefighters and police officers would be entitled to get overtime pay?

It also declares that licensed practical nurses and certain veterans would be eligible for overtime pay. So there is a clarification with regard to the nurses. When one looks at what has happened, what they are trying to accomplish is to bring the rules up to date with the realities of employment today, and this is the first time we have done it in 50 years. As a matter of fact, low-income workers have certainty that they are going to get overtime. Specific groups such as firefighters, policemen, veterans, and licensed practical nurses will be guaranteed that they will get this overtime pay.

Now there are certain categories of people I am sure are defined in these rules who are executive or administrative in position. They may make over $100,000, $120,000, or $130,000 a year. They may have to work overtime. How many people in our offices work overtime? How many overtime hours do we work, 50, 60, 70, 80? We understand when we run for the Senate that we are not going to get overtime pay. I am not advocating that. That is my point. I do not expect it, and I work 70, 80 hours a week because of the opportunities, the way of honor and because of the understanding of what we would be paid.

I think these rules are the right thing to do. There is clarity about the fact that more people would be covered. I do not know how many people might actually have some risk of not getting overtime, but it would be in the higher brackets. The number is probably 107,000 workers earning more than this $100,000 might lose their overtime pay.

This effort has shifted the emphasis to the low-income people who have not been certain that they could get overtime. We should be commending the Secretary of Labor, not trying to pass the Harkin amendment that would block these changes.

I fear once again what we have is people wanting more. They are not satisfied that this is good enough. Good, maybe, yes, that maybe it is fine if it applies to first responders, nurses, blue collar workers, cooks, paralegals, public service inspectors, union contracts, and veterans. That is all good, but we want more. We are going to defeat the good in pursuit of the perfect.

It will not happen.

I urge my colleagues to vote against this Harkin amendment. Let us put these rules in place. It will not be the last pass at this. We are going to find that there are some weaknesses, or we should have maybe considered another group. The rules will be changed again.

I had to take a little time to talk about the facts with regard to Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao, to talk about the economy and talk about how these rules have been modified. They have moved in the right direction, and we should allow them to go into place and continue to work to make sure they are applied properly.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3082, which is my amendment to the McCain underlying amendment.

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

Mr. President, in order to explain exactly what is involved, it is quite simple. The amendment would extend the 1998 grandfather coverage in the bill from 3 years to 4 years. I support ending this grandfather provision for States that had already enacted some Internet tax by 1998. I support phasing that out.

I would like to have this issue dealt with in a broad, comprehensive way. I hope the Commerce Committee will do that in the next year or two. I felt that 3 years was enough of an extension of that grandfather clause. But I have talked to a number of Senators on both sides of the aisle who say that in the interest of fairness you have the grandfather clause phased out in 3 years, and this bill is for 4 years. Wouldn't it be fairer, and we would be more supportive of it, if we could get these two provisions in the same position?

For that reason, I filed an amendment yesterday just before 1 o'clock. I have discussed this with Senator Stevens, Senator McCain, and Senator Wyden. Members on both sides are aware of what this amendment is. Senator Sununu had some reservations about it but understands what we have done.

We are prepared to go forward with this amendment now. I am willing to do it because I think it is so important that we have Senators who feel good about this legislation and believe it is fair so we can get a bill, get it now, and deal with this moratorium after these many months of laboring to do the right thing.

That is basically what this is all about. I hope my colleagues will support it and it can be accepted, hopefully, on a voice vote.

Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, this appears to be a moment where we are waiting for other Senators to be contacted to further work on amendments that may or may not be offered. I want to take this opportunity to say something positive about this institution which has been having difficulties lately.

This bill shows what you can do when Senators will work together on a very difficult issue. Senators prefer not to vote on this issue. We have friends on both sides--all of us. We have heard from our Governors, mayors, and from the industry. We have heard from all different points of view. But with the tenacity and persistence of Senator Allen, Senator Wyden, the chairman of the committee, and the manager on the Democratic side--they have some feel for what this institution can do and should do. I think they all deserve a lot of credit. We may actually get something done. This is something that needs to be done and something of which we can all be proud.

I was talking to Senator Daschle earlier today repeating my oft- stated opinion that when you govern and when you produce results, everybody wins regardless of party. That is what we are really here for.

I say to those who are on the other side of this issue--former Governors, of course, led by Senator Alexander, Senator Carper, and Senator Voinovich--they have been eloquent in their presentations. They have made us all uncomfortable with the points they made while submitting their arguments. They have been dogged, but they have also been reasonable.

If we get this bill completed today, the people on all sides can feel good about how it was done. I commend all concerned. It makes me feel good for a change about what we are doing.

I yield the floor.

Amendment No. 3104 to Amendment No. 3048

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I was not aware, and I do not believe the manager of the legislation who is temporarily off the floor was aware, this amendment would be offered at this time. He will return shortly. I am sure there are going to be some discussions about the amendment and the appropriate way for us to deal with it.

I understand the importance of this amendment that has been offered by Senator Daschle to a number of Senators on both sides of the aisle. I agree we should have a national energy policy. We have been talking about it for at least 3 years or longer. Yet here we stand today with no national energy policy. We do not have legislation on the books that gives incentives for more production of oil and gas to relieve some of the regulatory problems that delay or make it almost impossible to have nuclear plants, hydropower, conservation, alternative fuels, ethanol-- the whole package. Yet last year, the Senate passed energy legislation. The House passed it. We had a conference.

Problems developed in the conference, and we have not been able, unfortunately, to move the energy legislation through the Senate because we have not been able to get 60 votes, even though we had, I think, 57 or 58 who voted for the bill.

I still think we should find a way to get this legislation through a conference or through to completion and

send it to the President. If we do not, a pox on all our houses because problems are here. They are going to stay, and they are going to get worse. We are not going to conserve. We are not going to produce. We are not going to do anything. We are at the mercy, then, of countries all over the world to provide the oil for over 50 percent of our energy needs in this country. This is dangerous.

We need a national energy policy because of economic security and national security. So I agree we need to do this. I do not agree with all the features in it. I did not like some of the provisions added at the end in the conference. I have my reservations about some of the renewable fuels. I have reservations about a lot of it, but I voted for it, and I am prepared to vote for it again in its current form with warts or with another problem. We should deal with this problem.

There is one way we will not deal with it comprehensively or deal with it at all, probably, and that is to pick it apart, pick all the meat off the bones of this national energy policy legislation. Piece by piece we will devour this good legislation, for example by putting a piece of it on the FSC/ETI jobs growth bill. If we put tax policies there, put ethanol here, or put it somewhere else, and start picking it apart piece by piece, what will happen is we will probably not get a comprehensive bill, and we probably will not even get the pieces. This is not wise.

I do not have the impression that it has been indicated by our leadership that we are not going to do an energy bill. I think it is on the agenda to be considered further, and it should be considered further.

We should work in a bipartisan and a bicameral way to get this legislation done. For that reason, I think it is a huge mistake to come pull out this one piece a lot of people do like and stick it on this legislation, because it is one of the engines that could possibly pull us to a national energy policy.

We will have discussion over the next few minutes about the way we would like to deal with it. But I personally do not think we should be adding this nongermane amendment, a critical part of the Energy bill, on this bill.

I would also like to say briefly that I think we have a good compromise package which Senator McCain, the chairman of the Commerce Committee, has developed. He has worked over a long period of time with both the proponents and opponents to see if we could find compromise language on this Internet tax issue that was acceptable to get the job done.

It has not been easy because neither side wants to give. The proponents do not want even a 4-year moratorium. They want a permanent moratorium on Internet access taxes. I have in the past been inclined to be in that camp.

However, I have listened to Senator Alexander and Senator Voinovich. I have heard from the Governor of my own State, and there is an argument on the other side, there is no question about this. We need to deal with this whole issue in a comprehensive way. The Commerce Committee needs some time and it will not be easy.

I went through the legislative process for telecommunications reform that we passed in 1996. We worked on it for 2 years. It was very laborious and it had the possibility of just falling apart right up until the end. It will probably take us a couple of years to get further comprehensive telecommunications reform done. In the meantime, we should have in place a moratorium on taxing the Internet. In fact, I believe there is an overwhelming majority that agrees. We saw the vote yesterday. I know that was not a vote on the substance, but anytime around here of late that there is a vote of 74 to 11 to go to the substance of a bill, that is pretty strong.

I believe most Senators want to get this moratorium in place. Could we tinker with it here or there? Surely, and there will be legitimate amendments that we should consider.

We are on the legislation now. We can begin the amendment process. We have had a relevant amendment. Senator Alexander, the opponents, were reasonable and have allowed us to do this. They are going to have some really good and tough amendments that we are going to have to deal with, and that is the way the legislative process is supposed to work, I think. To have voted against proceeding to this bill at all would have been it. The year would have been over if we could not get on the substance of a bill of this nature with such a strong majority being in favor of getting results.

So the 4-year moratorium that is in this proposal that makes Internet access 100-percent tax free, while taking care to narrow the definition of Internet access to ensure that traditional telephone service is not included and while excluding voice over Internet protocol, is the right way to go. The Commerce Committee is already beginning to have hearings on comprehensive telecom legislation, and that will be the appropriate place to address matters such as voice over Internet protocol.

Senator Sununu has introduced legislation on VOIP, or voice over Internet protocol. We should not address that until we know exactly what we are doing. Certainly, we should not be saying that taxes are going to begin to be assessed in this area until we have thought it through. The compromise does grandfather States that taxed Internet access prior to the 1998 Internet Tax Freedom Act, and there are some 10 or 11 States that are in that category. This legislation would extend that grandfather status for 3 more years. For a 2-year period, it grandfathers the States that currently tax Internet access but were not protected under the 1998 grandfather clause.

So that is an oversimplification, but basically the rest of the bill just incorporates the common components between the two bills that were pending, the Alexander bill and the Allen bill. We should go forward with this legislation. We should get the job done.

What is happening once again is that while we have had one amendment that is germane to the substance, we now have an energy amendment being offered to the Internet tax moratorium. We hear there will be other nongermane amendments. This is the Senate. That is the way we do business, but we have work to do. We all agree this is something we want to do in a bipartisan way. My colleagues should take their shot or take their shots but make them count, and let's not get hung up on this legislation and drag it out with nongermane killer or poison amendments, because it will wind up killing or doing great damage to what I think is a reasonable compromise.

Again, I understand the Senate rules very well. My colleagues can offer anything on any subject at any time, unless there is agreement to the contrary. So Senators on both sides can dump their outbasket on this bill, but that would be a mistake. I do not believe the leadership on either side wants that to happen.

The best thing that could happen is for the Senators to get this off of our agenda right now. Let's get it off our backs. My colleagues would like to be able to vote both ways, or not be able to vote at all. We cannot do that because the moratorium has already ended and there are a lot of innovative people out there thinking of ways to tax Internet access.

Before my colleagues vote to allow a tax on the Internet, they should check with their children. If my colleagues have teenagers or kids in college, they will tear their head off. They do not want this interconnection to the Internet to be taxed, and if we were to go around and ask Senators if they want that, no, we do not want that. Let's vote on this issue. Let's deal with the substantive amendments and the germane amendments, if my colleagues want to offer a couple of relevant amendments.

I plead with the Senate, do not make this a punching bag because, if we do, we are going to show once again that we are incompetent to produce anything.

We did a pension bill. We saw we could do it. It still may not be perfect, but we got it done. This is one of those issues that is bipartisan. We need to get it done, and we need to get it done this week. I hope my colleagues will join in finding a way to make that happen.

I yield the floor.

Will the Senator yield briefly?

Mr. President, I want to commend the Senator for his tenacity. Typically, he wants to work to find a compromise that can satisfy both sides. I think he has done that. I am sure there are those on both sides of the issue and the aisle who may not feel this is perfect, but they will have an opportunity, when we get on the legislation--the substance of it, as this is a vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed--they will be able to offer amendments.

I thank the Senator from Arizona for what he has done. I urge my colleagues to certainly support this motion on cloture and allow us to get to the substance of the bill and to be able to reach conclusion on this important issue. So I recognize the Senator's efforts.

I thank the Senator for yielding.

Mr. McCAIN. Wider adoption of broadband services could also translate into economic growth and greater job creation for our country. I would suggest then that, as States and localities are shoring up their budgets and increasing their tax revenues after a few years of budget shortfalls, we should not move to stifle economic growth by taxing the Internet.

But this debate isn't just about the economic benefits of affordable Internet access. During my presidential candidacy, one of the many rewarding experiences I had was seeing how the Internet served as a medium for political participation. Hundreds of thousands of people logged on to my campaign Web site where they were able to access information and organize. For me, keeping Internet access tax-free is about protecting consumers' wallets and about helping our Nation's economy, but it also is about improving our political process and the right and ability of our citizens to participate fully in that process.

Because my amendment is not one-sided, I know that a few of my colleagues who have been firmly on one side of this debate or the other will not join us in this compromise. Some of my colleagues, for example, believe that Internet access should receive little--if any-- protection from taxation. We have heard statements from some on that side that my amendment is not a true compromise, which both boggles the mind and indicates that for some in this debate the attitude is ``my way or

the highway.'' Others I'm sure continue to believe that all data transmissions over the Internet--including VoIP services--should be tax-free. But I ask those Members who see merits to both sides of this debate to join me in this effort to break the deadlock that has delayed action on this matter for far too long. Doing so will not only strike a fair balance in this debate, but it will also clarify the confusion that has been hanging over the tax treatment of Internet access for several months.

Mr. President, for all of the reasons stated, I urge my colleagues to vote in support of cloture on the motion to proceed to S. 150 and in favor of the Internet tax compromise that I will offer. I trust that we will add this measure to the long line of pro-consumer legislation we have passed during this Congress--including the Do-Not-Call registry legislation. I hope that we will again join together to give American consumers affordable access to the Internet, which we all agree is a crucial medium of communications, education, commerce, and political participation in America.

Again, I will summarize. This proposal is a temporary 4-year moratorium, which makes the Internet access 100 percent tax free, but narrows the definition of ``Internet access'' by excluding traditional telephone service, and it further narrows the definition of Internet access by carving out voice and other services provided over the Internet, while ensuring that services incidental to Internet access, such as e-mail and instant messaging, remain free.

My amendment grandfathers States that were taxing Internet access in 1998 for a 3-year period. It grandfathers States that currently tax Internet access, including those that tax the last mile that were not protected by the 1998 grandfather clause, for a 2-year period, and it incorporates all other components of the substitute amendment to S. 150 and the Alexander Internet tax bill, the accounting rule to address bundling, and the explicit inclusion of nontransitional taxes from the Internet tax moratorium and savings clauses addressing the regulation of Internet access, universal service, and e-911.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Cloture Motion

Madam President, will Senator Grassley yield to me for some comments about his efforts in this regard?

Madam President, I commend the chairman of the Finance Committee, the Senator from Iowa, for the work he has done on this legislation. It should have been relatively easy to get this done, but it turned out to be a long process and a huge lift.

He was persistent, dogged, because he knew we had a problem we could responsibly address before this deadline of April 15 would cost billions of dollars for companies in a way that is not necessary and could affect their solvency.

I particularly want to note, since there have been some questions raised about it, if you are going to write a textbook about how a conference should be handled, this is it. The chairman of the committee didn't try to go around the other members. I was not a conferee, but I followed it very closely. The conferees met, House and Senate, Republican, Democrat. Everybody was involved. Everybody had a chance to make their case. Amendments were considered. In fact, the Senator from Iowa even offered a last-minute amendment that would have moved it more toward what Senator Kennedy was advocating, and it was defeated.

I am not sure I agreed with that effort, but I make that point to magnify the point this was a full conference. It wasn't short- circuited. Nobody was cut out of the process. You may not like the results, but it was a good conference and it produced a good bill.

The criticism we are hearing today, in my opinion, is to threaten the good in pursuit of the perfect from somebody else's point of view.

I want to say for the record, to my colleagues and the American people, Senator Grassley did a good job. We should pass this bill. I believe this conference report will pass overwhelmingly, and this is the way conferences should and can be done.

I thank the Senator for giving me a chance to commend him on his job on this legislation.

Mr. President, I appreciate the chairman's comments on the need to move this legislation forward.

Mr. President, let me just inquire in terms of parliamentary procedure, are we open for general debate?

Thank you, Mr. President.

I did come to the floor last week and speak to the need to move this very important jobs growth, FSC/ETI issue and not have a filibuster and complete our work. If we do not, we are going to see that we are going to be hit by a continuing increase in fines by the European Union because we are not complying with the World Trade Organization ruling of over a year ago.

I also said we stand to benefit from the tax proposals in this legislation, and I urged that we complete this work. In fact, I said we have no alternative but to complete this work. I am glad the leadership is going to continue to push this issue because we must get it done.

I do want to say now that I understand that perhaps a decision was made to attach tax provisions from the Energy bill to this bill, and I think that was a mistake. I am going to have to review what that means in terms of my own vote. Instead of helping move this legislation, and other legislation, it may have complicated both of them. But I hope we can find a way to get this done.

Mr. President, the reason I came to the floor this afternoon, though, was to speak in support of S. 2207, the Pregnancy and Trauma Care Access Protection Act of 2004. We have a health care crisis in America. Health care is becoming more and more difficult to obtain, to afford, and to be assured that it is the quality that you might need. In rural States such as mine and Senator Grassley's State of Iowa, the

issues of access and distance, or being able to get trauma care or care from obstetricians and gynecologists, present real problems.

I also think we have to acknowledge that the cost is becoming more and more difficult and more and more prohibitive. The cost of health care insurance continues to go up. The cost of medical liability insurance continues to go up. When you talk to trauma emergency care doctors, when you talk to OB/GYNs, they are paying $85,000, $100,000, $125,000 for medical liability coverage. How much will it be? There is no limit?

There is no question, in my mind, many of these doctors are now practicing what we would describe as defensive medicine. They are prescribing additional procedures. They are taking extra precautions to make sure they do not get sued. That, by the way, continues to drive up the cost of health care. So it has become a big problem in this country.

Escalating jury awards and the high cost of defending lawsuits, even the frivolous ones, are increasing medical liability premiums nationwide, and they are having devastating effects on the health care of millions of Americans. Medical specialists, including neurosurgeons, obstetricians, and emergency physicians, are being forced to cut services, retire early, or move their practices to other States.

This past Saturday night, I was in Augusta, GA, for an event for Congressman Norwood, a Congressman who has been very much involved in patients' rights and health care issues. I was informed that one of the neurosurgeons in Augusta recently moved from my State of Mississippi. It is not an isolated incident. It is a pattern. Augusta has several neurosurgeons. Mississippi has a declining number, even in places where they are needed to provide trauma care services in larger metropolitan areas.

Nineteen States are in full-blown medical liability crisis now, and 25 States are showing signs of crisis. Only 6 States are considered stable, each of which has instituted reforms.

Ninety-eight percent of osteopathic students acknowledged in a recent survey that medical liability issues will influence their future career decisions. Seventy-three percent say medical liability issues will ``significantly'' influence their decisions--in other words, where they practice, whether they practice, and what kind of medicine they practice.

Medical liability costs the Federal Government well over $50 billion per year. The source of that information is the Department of Health and Human Services. I have heard the discussions over the years: Well, you guys from Mississippi, and other similar States, have always talked about the States should deal with these issues. This is a States rights issue. It is a State problem.

Let me tell you what: When it costs the Federal Treasury $50 billion, this is a national problem. This is not just a problem in Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, or Iowa; it is a nationwide problem. Very few States--even those that have passed medical liability reforms--have been able to stem this tide of abuse and costs that are really causing difficulties in a number of States and in the health care of this country. So we have to do something.

Here we are in the Senate with this crisis looming out there that affects children, babies, mothers, elderly, emergency care needs; all of them have been held up while the Senate cannot even proceed to debate the legislation. That is what we have here, the motion to proceed. That is indefensible. How could we not at least take this issue up and have a full discussion about its dire consequences?

Let's talk a little bit about what the bill does. This is not something that just popped out of a committee or hasn't been thought through clearly. This issue has been pending for a long time. Some of the legitimate concerns have been addressed.

The bill provides reasonable guidelines to govern liability claims related to the provision of obstetrical, gynecological, emergency and trauma care goods and services. I want to emphasize, this is a limited bill. This is not all medical professions. This is targeted to those people who treat us when we are in the greatest need of health care, when we are going into an emergency room or a trauma facility as a result of an automobile accident, or doctors who deliver and look after our children and the mothers of those children. Can we not at least provide some medical liability reform and protection there so we can keep these doctors in the practice?

More and more in my State and all across the country doctors who have in the past practiced obstetrical and gynecological work are dropping the obstetrician part because they are being sued. The insurance is becoming prohibitively expensive in terms of the cost it is putting on these doctors.

The bill sets a statute of limitation of 3 years after the date of manifestation of an injury or 1 year after the claimant discovers or should have discovered the injury. That is reasonable. You can't say 5 years later: I had a problem back there. It says you have to exercise your right within 3 years or 1 year after you discovered it.

It allows recovery of unlimited economic damages, but it limits noneconomic pain and suffering damages to $250,000. This is obviously a place where some restraint needs to be employed. This is where certain juries in certain counties in certain States, mine included, have been rendering multimillion dollar decisions for pain and suffering. I think some reasonable limits there clearly would be appropriate.

This bill allows the court to restrict the payment of attorney contingency fees by applying a percentage scale based on the amount of the judgment. These lawsuits should not be about attorneys' fees. The lawsuits should be about medical costs and medical liability. What is a reasonable recovery when you do in fact have some legitimate claims?

Don't get me wrong. I do think in the American system of jurisprudence, you have a right to take your grievance to court. I would defend that. I am an attorney. But I do think the system is being abused, and it has become more about attorneys' fees than it has the injuries that were incurred.

The bill sets out qualifications for expert witnesses. Again, that is an area where there have been some abuses I am personally familiar with. It permits courts to reduce damages received by the amount of collateral source benefits to which a claimant is entitled; in other words, money paid by another entity such as a health insurance provider.

It authorizes the award of punitive damages only where a high standard is met of clear and convincing evidence that a defendant acted with malicious intent to injure or deliberately failed to prevent injury that was certain to occur.

This is very good legislation. It is targeted. It is limited in the impact it would have on restricting the coverage, but also it is limited to these particular areas of specialty I have noted.

Let me go to my own State of Mississippi, since our State is really being adversely affected by these medical liability cases. It is one of those States which has been described as a judicial hellhole. I don't like to hear that. When various entities identify my State in that sort of way, I resent it. Even if they are right, I don't like to hear it. But there is no question we have had lots of problems in my State of Mississippi. We have had a tremendous explosion of lawsuits in this health care area, very large verdicts. Physicians who are practicing in Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas, and West Virginia can clearly demonstrate how medical lawsuits have hurt our health care system. The doctors will tell you about that.

A recent survey that was done by the American Tort Reform Association, in cooperation with other groups such as the Mississippi State Medical Association, points out 84 percent of the physicians surveyed report they are very concerned about the effect of medical litigation on the practice of medicine. Eighty-one percent report they have changed the way they practice medicine because of litigation concerns. That means more cost. That is what I was referring to at the beginning. They have been requiring and prescribing more and more procedures to protect themselves against these lawsuits. And by the way, in many instances, the procedures are not necessary and not required medically. They are required to defend yourself against a frivolous lawsuit.

Eighty-six percent of the physicians believe states with a liability crisis like Mississippi increase medical malpractice insurance costs. And the list goes on. There is no question it is creating a real problem.

Again, specifics: Half of my State's 82 counties now have fewer physicians to treat patients than were available in 2001. Mississippi has fewer physicians per capita than 48 other States. So when we lose a physician, it really hurts because we already are in dire straits. In 16 Mississippi counties, the numbers of physicians remained unchanged from 2000 to 2002, but the population in those counties increased during the same period. The population growth in 62 percent of Mississippi counties outpaced a stagnant or decreasing base of physicians to treat those patients. The source of this information is the Mississippi State Medical Association.

Approximately 100 doctors have left or plan to leave the State of Mississippi. The source of that information is a Time magazine article of June 9, 2003.

Mississippi had a net loss of 73 physicians in 2002. The number of physicians licensed in the State in 2001 was 5,710. But in 2002, this number had dropped to 5,637. Since the population is increasing, since we have certain areas of the State that have experienced tremendous growth, you would think we would be increasing the number of physicians per capita. The numbers are going in the wrong direction.

I ask unanimous consent that other statistics I have about what is happening in my own State be printed in the Record.

I want to make this point. We used to have several, then we had three, now we have one insurance company that is providing medical liability insurance in my State of Mississippi. This is a problem that is of great concern to leaders in the State of both parties, in the medical profession, in the business world, and those of us who are trying desperately to advance the State economically and have had some success bringing major industries into the State. While a major industry may want to know, do you have a good interstate system, do you have international airports, good schools, can you provide affordable housing, they don't always immediately ask about the accessibility of hospitals and do you have the doctors who are needed, but that is a question that eventually they come to. It is one that will affect us in the future if we don't do something about it.

Let me tell you what it means when you don't have the doctors you need. I want to give some specific examples.

Tony Dyess of Vicksburg, MS, received serious head injuries in a car accident on July 5, 2002. Since a specialist in brain injuries, or neurosurgery services, was not available in Gulfport, MS, he had to be airlifted to another hospital which led to Tony having permanent brain damage and no longer having the ability to care for himself or to have a job. The source of that is the American Medical News, May 26, 2003.

Fortunately for Elmoe Kee III of Woodville, the withdrawal of insurance coverage by St. Paul malpractice insurance provider from the State of Mississippi did not occur before he was attacked by a bank robber in a small rural county at Wilkinson County Savings Bank where he served as president. He would have most certainly died if he had not been able to get doctors to treat him almost immediately at Catchings Clinic in Woodville, MS. With the withdrawal of St. Paul as a malpractice provider, seven of the eight doctors in the area, including those at Catchings Clinic, Field Clinic in Centreville, and Gloster Clinic were left without a malpractice insurance provider beginning on June 30, 2002. The source of this information is the Jackson Clarion- Ledger of June 27, 2002.

On April 18, 2003, John Fair Lucas IV of Greenwood received a severe head injury due to a one-person car accident. Since the Delta Regional Medical Center no longer has around-the-clock neurosurgery services because of the impact of the medical malpractice insurance crisis and the loss of that coverage, John had to be airlifted to Jackson, losing valuable time because the distance from that area of Greenwood, MS, down to Jackson is about a 2-hour drive, or certainly a 30-minute helicopter ride, and he lost valuable time for the surgical procedure needed to reduce pressure on the brain. Sadly, John passed away on May 28, 2003. The source for that is the Greenwood Commonwealth newspaper, April 25, 2003.

``Jill Mahaffey says she got lucky. She and her husband are here, they live in the Delta, too. She got lucky. She heard she's pregnant. She's getting there, getting ready. She goes to the doctor, he says, I've got to leave--OB/GYN getting ready to leave because of lawsuits, because of the threats. Because even if you're a doctor who practices good medicine, you're going to get sued in this State and in other States. Believe this or not, fortunately, she was getting toxic and the doc induced labor before he quit his practice. She says she was lucky. And she was.'' This is a quote from President Bush's address to Madison High School in Madison, MS August 7, 2002.

Amber Peterson's obstetrician in Cleveland, Mississippi stopped practicing 3 weeks before her due date, and she had to drive out of State, over a hundred miles, to Memphis, Tennessee, to get the care she needed. The source of this information is the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, from a report dated July 24, 2002.

Marine Hawkins, 20, of Boyle, Mississippi, was shocked to hear from her obstetrician that he was closing his practice--just 2 weeks before her due date of July 21. The nearest doctor is 30 minutes away. She doesn't have a car and will have to rely on relatives to get there. ``This isn't what I needed now,'' she said. The source of this information is the Houston Chronicle, July 20, 2002.

In February 2003, Sharkey-Issaquena Community Hospital in Rolling Fork,

MS saw its insurance premiums rise from $163,000 to $223,000. Because of this rise, the hospital was forced to close its doors for 3 weeks while the hospital looked for an alternative insurance policy after being discontinued by its previous insurer. During these 3 weeks, Sharkey-Issaquena had to contract paramedics to treat patients while they were being transported by ambulance to the closest hospital. The source of this information is the American Medical News May 26, 2003.

In 2002, 10 physicians left Greenwood Leflore Hospital because of the State's problems with medical liability insurance. Also during 2002, the hospital's liability insurance premium increased from $150,000 per year to $1.3 million. The source of this information is The Greenwood Commonwealth, June 26, 2003.

On Sept. 30, 2002, officials at Forest General Hospital announced they are eliminating nearly 300 positions--200 of which were already vacant--to save an estimated $7.6 million in the new fiscal budget. Citing causative factors that prompted the cuts, hospital president Bill Oliver stated that Forrest General was hit last year with a dramatic increase--about $4 million--in medical malpractice insurance. The source of this information is the Hattiesburg American Oct. 2, 2002.

Mr. President, let me talk a little about exactly what is happening with the doctors in my State.

In February 2003, 14 doctors in the Oxford area in various medical fields were left without malpractice insurance and were forced to close their doors because their insurer, Doctors Insurance Reciprocal, went into receivership on February 13. Doctors are slowly, surely leaving the area to go to bigger areas, or even to other States.

I was in my hometown area, Pascagoula and Moss Point, MS, on the Gulf Coast, and met a new impressive doctor in the community. He was also involved in the trauma unit because he was an orthopedic surgeon. He moved to Mississippi from the State of Missouri. He is an African- American doctor. He was doing a great job. He told me because of the insurance coverage situation, even though his family wanted to stay on the Mississippi Gulf Coast, it looked as if they might have to return to Missouri. Other doctors have been either leaving the State or getting out of the practice of obstetrics.

In the case of Dr. Don Gaddy, as well as four other obstetricians and three nurse-midwives, they filed notice to take a 1-year leave of absence from Memorial Hospital at Gulfport, MS, because of extreme increases in medical malpractice insurance coverage. The source of this information is the Biloxi Sun-Herald, April 18, 2003.

Dr. Gregory Patton, an OB-GYN with the Oxford Obstetrics and Gynecology Associates PA in Oxford MS, reports that his malpractice insurance premiums have gone up 60 percent--with each doctor paying $67,000. The source of this information is The Daily Mississippian June 10, 2003.

Drs. Blackwood and Baugh's temporary departure left no OBs in Cleveland for about 10 days. Only one family physician continues to deliver babies at the local hospital. But the malpractice insurance providers that are protecting them are only ``Band-Aid insurance.'' The source of this information is American Medical News Sept. 9, 2002.

Dr. Kurt Kooyer left the small town of Rolling Fork after getting fed up with lawyers filing suit against him without even the patients' knowledge that they were filing suit against their physician. Dr. Kooyer was the only pediatrician among three physicians in town who lowered the infant mortality rate from an average of 10 deaths per 1,000 live births to 3.34 deaths per 1,000. Dr. Kooyer now lives in North Dakota. The source of this information is The Clarion-Ledger Aug. 23, 2002.

``Dr. Frothingham, you talk about a man with heart. You think Kooyer has a heart? Wait until you hear Frothingham. He's a great Mississippian; grew up here; thought he might try to live in South Carolina, realized what he was missing, came back to Mississippi. He's a neurosurgeon. He talked with deep compassion about a man who suffered a trauma, a fellow he was with--Johnny was with us today. He's a guy who understands that practicing medicine is more than just technology. It's concern and care. They're running him out of business. There's too many frivolous lawsuits. And that hurts the state and it hurts the country. It hurts the people.'' This quote is from President Bush's address to Madison High School in Madison, MS, August 7, 2002.

On July 15, 2003, Drs. Derveloy and Gilmore, the only two heart surgeons in Oxford, are closing their practice. They contribute their relocation to a shortage of key elements: facilities, cardiologists, affordable medical malpractice insurance and regional referrals. Dr. Derverloy is joining an existing group off heart surgeons who are practicing in Tupelo, and Dr. Gilmore recently accepted an offer to set up a heart surgery program in Decatur, Ala. The source of this information is The Oxford Eagle June 8, 2003.

Also in Oxford, the two cardiologists with the Oxford Heart Clinic, Dr. Nelson Little and Dr. Timothy Wright, are merging their practices with a Tupelo office, but will keep their local office open, which followed the loss of Oxford's only two heart surgeons, Drs. Derveloy and Gilmore. The source of my information is The Oxford Eagle, June 8, 2003.

Five doctors at the Family Practice/After Hours Clinic on U.S. 98 West have posted a sign on their doors informing patients that no appointments are being scheduled for 2003. The physicians are also filling out applications for licensing in Alabama and Louisiana. The doctors explain the possible departure from Mississippi by the clinic's malpractice insurer informing them recently that their premiums will increase 45 percent on Jan. 1, 2003. The source of my information is the Hattiesburg American, Oct. 2, 2003.

OB/GYN Mark Blackwood of Cleveland has seen his practice load nearly double since three physicians quit delivering babies in the area. His insurance lapsed in July, forcing him to close his clinic for ten days leaving dozens of patients without a physician to deliver their babies. He and his partner have seen an increase in the number of suits filed against them since the new legislation passed. The source of this information is the Mississippi State Medical Association Dec. 1, 2002.

Radiologist Ken Duff was able to get coverage less than twenty-four hours before his old policy expired. He and his eleven partners cover two hospitals in Hattiesburg, facilities ion Columbia, Collins and Tylertown, as well as two large outpatient facilities. Without diagnostic radiology services patients have to wait longer to get test results, and other physicians will have to find new specialists to consult. The group desperately needs new recruits to cover demand. The source of this information is the Mississippi State Medical Association, Dec. 1, 2002.

General Surgeon Brian Anthony of Bay St. Louis practices more defensive medicine and no longer does vascular work. He plans to retire 10 years early because of the litigious environment. He says other physicians often consult him in order to document their cases and to reduce their exposure. He and the remaining surgeon in the area are considering whether they will continue to provide trauma services. The source of this information is the Mississippi State Medical Association Dec. 1, 2002.

Neurosurgeon Terry Smith has not had a vacation in five years because there is not enough neurosurgery coverage to take care of his patients. He is one of only three neurosurgeons covering trauma cases for seven hospitals on the Gulf Coast. When he lost his insurance in August 2002 he had to go on staff with a hospital in order to continue to practice in the area. The source of this information is the Mississippi State Medical Association, Dec. 1, 2002.

Otolaryngologist Gene Hesdorffer of Hinds County had to close his practice on December 31 and was forced into full-retirement because he could no longer afford insurance. His insurance carrier informed him they were doubling his rates despite the fact that he has never been sued. The source of this information is the Mississippi State Medical Association, Dec. 1, 2002.

OB/GYN Al Diaz of Ocean Springs has insurance until December 2002. He has lived on the Coast for 20 years but is now looking at practice in Mobile, Alabama, and Slidell, Louisiana. Both his son and daughter-in- law are training in Louisiana but will not return to practice in Mississippi. The entire group of

four OB/GYNs just renovated their clinic in Ocean Springs and opened an office in Biloxi when they were told their insurance carrier would no longer be doing business in the State. The source of this information is the Mississippi State Medical Association, Dec. 1, 2002.

Surgeon Cecil Johnson of Lauderdale County plans to retire soon. Until then he will continue to order more tests, x-rays and consultations in order to back up diagnoses. He also plans to drop vascular surgery in hopes that he will be able to find more affordable insurance. The source of this information is the Mississippi State Medical Association, Dec. 1, 2002.

Internist Bob Lewis of Wilkinson County spent a week treating patients at the local emergency room while his clinic was closed. The group could not find coverage and the only quote they could get was $355,000. The four-man group paid $67,000 last year. Family Practice physician Jennings Owens and his group serve nearly 40,000 patients. He is upset that the hospital had to hire physicians in order to insure them. The source of this information is the Mississippi State Medical Association, Dec. 1, 2002.

ER physician Bob Corken had to find insurance from Lloyd's of London for this ER group which services a hospital in Washington County and three others in the Delta and Central Mississippi. Corken found insurance at the eleventh hour in order to avoid work stoppages and temporary closure of at least one emergency room. The source of this information is the Mississippi State Medical Association, Dec. 1, 2002.

Orthopaedic Surgeon Alan Swayze, MD of McComb took on more patients last year than ever before--partly because there are few orthopaedic surgeons in the area. Now he is leaving Mississippi and opening a practice in Georgia because his liability insurance to practice in Mississippi skyrocketed to $125,000 per year. His premium in Georgia will be $14,000 annually. The hospital administrator in McComb said the prospects of recruiting replacement physicians to McComb is ``bleak.'' The source of this information is the Enterprise Journal, June 12, 2003.

In April 2002, State Commissioner George Dale said, ``It's just a matter of time until insurance companies will say they're not going to cover medical providers in Mississippi.'' That time has arrived. Dozens of insurers have either discontinued writing medical malpractice in Mississippi or raised their premiums to such a level that doctors--like those at the Family Practice/After Hour Clinic--are being forced to consider relocating out of state. According to a survey conducted recently by the Rating Division at the Mississippi Insurance Department, 36 companies offered medical malpractice insurance in all categories in 2000. As of Sept. 10, there are only two licensed regulated, companies still providing medical malpractice insurance to physicians and surgeons in Mississippi. The main reason insurance companies give for hiking premiums and/or leaving the state is their concern about Mississippi's civil justice system, which has generated over 100 verdicts of $1 million in the last 6 years. The source of this information is the Hattiesburg American, Oct. 2, 2002.

Fifteen medical malpractice insurers have withdrawn from offering coverage in Mississippi in the past five years. The source of this information is an HHS medical litigation report, March 3, 2003.

``We've had trouble recruiting and had physicians say they are not interested in coming to Mississippi because of the malpractice insurance rates,'' according to Dean Griffin, executive officer of Baptist Memorial-Golden Triangle Hospital. The source of this information is The Associated Press, March 20, 2003.

A poster on the large wooden doors leading into Delta OB/GYN explains it all: ``It is with much regret that we must inform you that our office will be closed effective 7/14/02 until further notice. Due to the current malpractice crisis in the State of Mississippi, our liability insurance has been canceled.'' The source of this information is the American Medical News, Sept. 9, 2002.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the entire list of physicians who are no longer delivering babies in Mississippi be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, this is not a short list. This is a lengthy list, with probably as many as 40 counties listed. In Adams County, they lost three physicians who had been delivering babies. Attala County, in the center of the State, lost four family practice physicians who had been doing deliveries; they got out of the practice. In Harrison County, one of our more metropolitan areas on the Gulf Coast, three doctors got out of delivering babies. The list goes on and on.

Pretty soon it is going to be hard to have a baby delivered in my State. That causes me a great deal of concern.

Mr. President, I hope we can get the votes tomorrow to proceed on this issue and have a full debate and a vote. This is not some massive tort reform, although I think we need it. I hope we will later visit the issue of class action reform.

This is very targeted legislation that will address a serious problem in many States--the majority of States across this country, where we are losing the services of these physicians in these critical areas. I would hate to have to explain to my State how I would not even vote to proceed, let alone not vote to have some limits on medical liability for doctors who deliver babies and treat their mothers and who care for us when we have accidents and go to the emergency room.

I think this is very carefully drafted legislation, very thoughtful. I certainly hope the Senate will see fit to proceed to a full debate and vote on this critical legislation.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, if the Senator will yield for a moment. How much time do we have on the majority side?

I see Senator Allard may wish to speak, too.

Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. President, I ask Senator Allard if I could proceed for 3 minutes and then he could finish the balance of the time.

I ask unanimous consent that that be so.

Mr. President, I stood in this general area a couple years ago and spoke out against the need for the 9/11 Commission. I am not generally an advocate of commissions. I think it is an abdication of our responsibility when we do it repeatedly. As a matter of fact, we in the Senate should do the job of investigating what happened or what didn't happen that perhaps should have been leading up to the events of

9/11 and in the aftermath, as we went into Iraq. That is why we have the Armed Services Committee. That is what Senator Warner, the chairman, is working on. That is why we have the Intelligence Committee. I serve on that committee. We work assiduously to take a good look at the intelligence, to see where the problems have been and see what the solutions are.

Having said that, I think this Commission has shown a great deal of calm and maturity. The leadership of the two senior members, former Governor Kean and former Congressman Hamilton, has been thoughtful. Members on both sides of the Commission have asked good and tough questions. I may regret saying this when their final report comes out, but I think they have been doing a good job. It is not an easy job because you are trying to deal with hundreds of witnesses and thousands of pages of evidence.

That leads me to the real point. I have had occasion to watch a number of national security advisers to Presidents over my 32 years in Congress, seven different Presidents and their national security advisers. There have been some good ones of both parties but none better than Condoleezza Rice. This is an outstanding individual with a brilliant mind, tremendous insight into what is going on in the world. I could give some anecdotes of why I believe that. For that reason, I am pleased she is going to come before the Commission. She is going to take every question on and give a thoughtful, complete, thorough, and convincing argument. She will do fine. I think it is unnecessary. Maybe this whole process of whether she would testify has been unnecessary.

From a public relations standpoint, yes, she should have gone from the very beginning. But there are some important separation-of-powers principles involved. Executive privilege is not insignificant. It is something that is woven in the very fabric of this country. We cannot have a process where slowly but surely, in President after President after President, executive privilege and separation of powers have been eroded.

I have watched it. Yes, former national security advisers have waived their executive privilege and gone before Congress. I thought it was a mistake, regardless of party. I have always spoken out against that. So I do think it is important we say this is not a precedent. It should not and cannot be a precedent, or you are not going to have men and women willing to give in confidence the best advice to the President or to give him the information he needs to hear without concern that some day some congressional person will have that person before them testifying.

This is not an insignificant matter. It is very significant. Under these extraordinary circumstances, we need to have everybody we can testify in full, not so we can blame somebody but so we can plan for the future and do a better job next time.

Condoleezza Rice will be the key to that effort.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, I believe under the procedure we are in now I can speak on the pending legislation? There is no time limit?

Madam President, I am very much concerned about the vote that just occurred in the Senate. We had a cloture vote so we could get beyond irrelevant amendments on this very important legislation. You could still have relevant amendments offered postcloture. We could still have debate and we could move to conclusion on this very important legislation. But we did not get the necessary 60 votes. This is a very irresponsible act by the U.S. Senate because we cannot afford to set this legislation aside and not get it completed.

Just for those who may have just tuned in, this is the Jumpstart Our Business Strength (JOBS) Act. It is very critical for two important reasons.

First, this is legislation we are going to have to pass in order to comply with the World Trade Organization rulings on the FSC/ETI benefit in a manner that preserves jobs and production activities. This is a tax activity. The World Trade Organization has ruled the U.S. policies, our laws, do not comply with the World Trade Organization's rules in areas of tax incentives or subsidies for our companies in this world trade area, and if we do not comply with them we are going to be hit with fines from the World Trade Organization, from the European Union. It is going to go up 1 percent a month until--I think these duties could reach as much as 17 percent.

This is a very negative impact. It is a case where we have said to the World Trade Organization, Give us fair rulings. Yet when there is a ruling against us and we are given not weeks but months--years to comply with the WTO ruling and have not done so, now we are faced with these penalties against our products all over the country. These are critical products we need to export into this world market. In order to avoid that, we have to pass this legislation. I don't think any Senator wants to be on record voting in such a way that would block legislation to put us in compliance with the WTO ruling.

The second part of this is, because of the tax policy changes in this legislation, it will create jobs in the manufacturing sector. We need that. There are not many things we can do this year that will have an immediate effect on job creation, but this is one of those bills that will. A highway bill, an energy bill, and this Jumpstart Our Business Strength would make a huge difference.

If we do not pass this legislation, we get hit two ways. No. 1, if we don't comply with WTO, it means our goods will be hit with additional import duties, whether it is citrus in Florida or textiles in North Carolina, and it will spread all across the country; and No. 2, we don't get the benefit of the jobs that come from this.

I say to my colleagues, it is one thing to argue over some amendments you want voted on. I assume our leadership will work this out, but they need to do it quickly because this is already in overtime. We are already being penalized because we have not acted as a result of this World Trade Organization ruling. The very idea we would have to vote on 5, 10, 15, 20--who knows how many irrelevant amendments also because somebody wants to make their political statement in this election year I think is going to be pretty hard to defend. The American people may not understand all the nuances of this very complicated legislation, but they will understand when our products wind up being hit with what are basically fines from the World Trade Organization.

This is very serious legislation. We should not be playing political games. I am not accusing anybody of doing that, but the fact is if we don't find a way to get an agreement to bring it to a conclusion, somebody is going to get the blame for not doing so.

I still believe the best way to win an election is governance, not politics. If you produce results, the people know it. If you don't, they know it. And they know right now this Senate is not producing very much.

Again, I don't want to presume to blame one side or the other, but I can tell you in this case if we don't pass this legislation, if our colleagues on the Democrat side of the aisle don't come to some reasonable agreement to have some limited number of amendments and get to final passage, the country is going to pay a price. I think that is a huge mistake.

I don't usually come to the floor and make this kind of a statement, but the very idea that we would not complete action on this legislation is totally unacceptable. I urge our colleagues on the other side of the Capitol to get going, get it out of the Ways and Means Committee, bring it to a vote, let's get this into conference, and let's get this legislation completed. If we don't do any other bill this year, this is one we must do because we are going to be penalized if we don't and we don't get the benefit of the jobs it would create.

I wanted to come to the floor and say if we don't get an agreement pretty quickly on limiting amendments, I think we should get another cloture vote. If we don't get cloture to cut off irrelevant amendments and get to completion of this amendment, we are going to have to move on and the blame will fall somewhere. Unfortunately, the American people will pay the price. We need to find a way to get it done and it needs to get done quickly. This legislation has to be completed within the next week and we should just find a way to get it done.

I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a departing staff member who has worked with me in my Washington office for the last 5 years. Richard Brian Wilson, who has served as my legislative assistant, is departing my staff this week to return home to Mississippi. I wanted to take this opportunity to thank him for his dedicated serve and to wish him the very best as he pursues new career opportunities.

Those who know Brian know of his keen interest in State and local politics. A native of Macon, MS, he has been involved in politics since high school. In fact, his fellow staff members have jokingly referred to him as a ``walking encyclopedia of Mississippi politics.'' I have no doubt this expertise will serve him well as he returns home to Mississippi.

Brian graduated from the University of Mississippi in 1998 with a Bachelor of Arts degree in Political Science and History. Throughout his tenure at Ole Miss he was involved in numerous extracurricular activities where his leadership abilities became apparent. For instance, he served as Vice President of Pi Kappa Alpha fraternity, Student Body Vice President, and Student Body Senator. In recognition of his contributions to the university, I understand Brian was once named Student Body Senator of the Year. He also spent a great deal of time during his college years volunteering on political campaigns throughout the State.

During the fall of 1998, Brian served as an intern in the district office of Congressman Chip Pickering. Immediately following his internship, in January 1999, Brian came to work for me in my Washington office. Throughout his service on my staff, Brian has grown in his ability to help me service my constituents and address a wide variety of needs and issues for Mississippians. He has handled issues ranging from appropriations to homeland defense, as well as environment and public works, agriculture, natural resources and interior, small business, rural development, and Indian affairs. Through his work on appropriations bills, such as Energy and Water Development, Agriculture, Interior, and VA-HUD, Brian has helped me steer millions of dollars in Federal funding to large and small communities all across Mississippi. In the process, we have improved infrastructure, created hope and opportunity in communities where none existed before, and provided a better quality of life for Mississippians throughout the State.

For example, Brian has helped me secure Federal funds to improve water and wastewater systems in areas of Mississippi, such as DeSoto County, Jackson County, Fayette County, the city of Gulfport, Hancock County, and Madison County. He has worked to improve the infrastructure at our State's ports including the Port of Pascagoula and the State port at Gulfport. He was instrumental in helping me secure the initial funding for an environmental

infrastructure pilot program in Mississippi which has since helped fund numerous environmental infrastructure projects around the State. Brian also worked to help me secure the final funding necessary to complete construction of a new Federal courthouse in Gulfport. Of course, one of the things of which I know he is most proud is our work to help his hometown, the city of Macon. Through expansion of their water and sewer systems and a new multi-purpose facility to be constructed, we have begun to bring hope to this poverty-stricken area of our State.

Brian is truly one of those unique individuals who has a thirst for knowledge about the issue areas he is assigned. He has spend countless hours over the past 5 years reading news articles, books, papers, academic journals, and industry publications to keep himself apprised of the latest events, issues and concerns relative to his assigned issues. In fact, I would venture to guess that he knows as much as just about anyone with regard to the many historic properties and places in Mississippi that he has worked hard to help me protect and provide resources for. Properties such as the Battle of Corinth Interpretive Center in northeast Mississippi, L.Q.C. Lamar's home in Oxford, and General Pemberton's headquarters at Vicksburg are just as few of those.

Although Brian is leaving Washington, I have no doubt the knowledge he has gained through his work here will serve him well in his new capacity as Special Assistant to the Executive Director of the Mississippi Department of Marine Resources. In this position, Brian will serve as liaison for the Department with the Federal and State legislatures, as well as local governments throughout Mississippi and particularly along our Gulf Coast.

While we all certainly will miss Brian, I know he is looking forward to returning to our home State and particularly to the warm climate of the Mississippi Gulf Coast. And although fresh seafood, the warm gulf climate, and unlimited fishing opportunities certainly justify Brian's move home, I know this move was compelled by his desire to be closer to family and friends, particularly his younger sister in whom he has expressed enormous pride throughout his stay in Washington.

I wish to thank Brian for 5 years of dedicated service to me and to the people of Mississippi. I wish him the absolute best in this transition and in all of his future endeavors.

Mr. President, I am delighted that the Senate unanimously confirmed Judge Louis Guirola by a vote of 92-0 to be a United States District Court Judge for the Southern District of Mississippi. Judge Guirola has been serving our country and the State of Mississippi as U.S. magistrate judge for the Southern District of Mississippi. I have known Judge Guirola for well over 20 years and was pleased when the President nominated him to fill the U.S. District Court judgeship that is being vacated by Judge Walter J. Gex, who is taking senior status. I am pleased that the Senate was able to efficiently do its work of advising and consenting on this nomination in order

to guarantee the smooth operation of our Federal justice system.

Judge Guirola is a 1979 graduate of the University of Mississippi Law School, and he received his undergraduate degree from William Carey College in 1973. He has had a distinguished career in the law over the past quarter of a century and has gained broad experience from the various positions he has held. He has served as an assistant district attorney, an attorney in private practice, an attorney for the Jackson County Board of Supervisors, and an attorney for the Mississippi Highway Department.

Judge Guirola began his Federal service as an assistant U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Texas in 1990, and he was named as a U.S. magistrate judge for the Western District of Texas in 1993. He served in this position until 1996, when he returned to Mississippi to become a U.S. magistrate judge for the Southern District of Mississippi, the position he currently holds. He clearly has an extensive knowledge of the Federal court system, and his experience will be a tremendous asset for the country. It is no surprise that the ABA's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary has unanimously found Judge Guirola to be ``well qualified'' to serve as a Federal district court judge.

Judge Guirola has also demonstrated a commitment to education and instruction. He has been an adjunct professor at William Carey College and the University of Southern Mississippi. He also has given lectures and conducted seminars for the U.S. Attorney General's Advocacy Institute, the Federal Bar Association, the Mississippi Bar Association, the Mississippi Law Enforcement Officers Academy, the Texas Department of Public Safety, and the U.S. Probation Office. In addition, he has authored a number of legal articles and scholarly pieces.

Judge Guirola is well-known and respected in his community, State and profession. His nomination has received widespread support in the State of Mississippi because of his reputation for fairness and hard work. I know that Judge Guirola will make an excellent district court judge, and I congratulate him on his confirmation by the Senate.

Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Rules and Administration will meet at 9:30 a.m., Wednesday, March 10, 2004, to examine the scope and operation of organizations registered under Section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code.

For further information concerning this meeting, please contact Susan Wells at 202-224-6352.

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

Madam President, I appreciate the comments of the Senator from Ohio and his interest in safety issues. I share his concerns. When you have lost a loved one in an automobile accident--in the case of my father, because of a narrow, two-lane road--and you know that such a tragic accident could have been avoided and lives saved through things such as safety striping, laws, or additional safety devices at railroad crossings, you can fully appreciate the need for the attention the Senator has given to this important issue.

I also thank Senator Inhofe from Oklahoma, chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, for his leadership. Producing a highway bill is not an easy process. I have dealt with transportation issues closely as a Member of the Senate for several years now. I can remember when TEA-21 was on the floor how difficult it was to pull together the bill with the divergent committees--the Finance Committee, the Appropriations Committee, the Budget Committee, and the Banking Committee all had a say in the outcome of the bill. All the Members of the Senate had their oars in the water and we had to have bipartisan meetings in the various committees to produce a bill that could get through the process and be signed into law.

It is not easy to get the reauthorization bill to this point. I commend Senator Inhofe for the work he has already done on SAFETEA, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2003. Coming up with that good title alone deserves commendation.

I also thank the Senator from Vermont for his efforts. As a member of the Finance Committee, as well as the Environment and Public Works Committee, he has worked with Senator Inhofe to try to get this bill done. He has made it a point in the Finance Committee that we need to complete action on this legislation because it is important for our country.

We do need to come up with an acceptable financing plan for the costs of this bill. It will take cooperation and teamwork to get it done. I know Members of the Democratic leadership support this legislation and I believe we are getting off on the right foot. But we spent a week positioning and making speeches. I hope now the Senate will begin to have some votes and conclude action on the bill as soon as possible so that we are not faced with another extension. We need to move this legislation through the Senate, show leadership, and be prepared to go to conference with the House of Representatives.

In my opinion, there may not be a more important bill we can pass this year. This is not going to be a prolific year in terms of monumental legislation. Frankly, that is not all bad. Some of what we passed last year we should have left unpassed. Sometimes we should get credit for what we do not do. But this bill is one we need to complete this year for a variety of reasons.

First of all, SAFETEA is about jobs. Very few bills we pass in the Senate actually produce something. This is a bill that is actually going to produce jobs, not just next year but year after year. There are projects in North Carolina, Oklahoma, Vermont, Mississippi, and all over this Nation, ready to go right now. We need to get this legislation passed as soon as possible so that the funding it provides can be fully utilized during the construction season. If we wait too long and let this drag out, if we get stuck in the Senate or get stuck in conference, we will lose another construction season.

This bill will create jobs. Not all of the jobs will be high-paying, but they will be jobs just the same. There are very few Federal programs that create more jobs, from engineers down to the guy shoveling the gravel or moving around the dirt, all of which are very important.

We need to pass this legislation for its job creation impetus. We talk about how we need more jobs in this recovery; this is one way to get them.

SAFETEA is also about infrastructure. When you get through, you have something you can see--an interstate highway, a bridge, a safety device. Maybe even mass transit facilities in some of the larger cities. But we have a product we can look at.

I found out through my 31 years in Congress, there are few things we do for our constituents that are more important than highways and infrastructure. If you do not have roads, if people cannot get there, they will not come. That is a brilliant statement when you think about it, but if companies do not have access to good roads and bridges, railroads, airports, ports and harbors, they will not locate a plant and create jobs anywhere in this country. When you are dealing with a major international corporation, they want to know: Are we going to be on an interstate highway? Are we going to be close to an international airport? Do you have good schools? It starts there. Then you work from there to questions such as: Is the geology good? Will we have water and sewer systems? Do we have access roads or existing buildings?

My poor State of Mississippi has been making some progress. Why is that? Because we finally figured out that we were trying to fix everything and we were actually fixing nothing. We were shooting shotgun blasts and trying to do good things up and down the economic spectrum to help our State. It was not working because the money was disappearing. People were not getting better off. So we decided to focus. And we focused on education, particularly higher education and community colleges, to create workforce training programs for local communities. And we worked to improve our elementary and secondary education systems, as well.

Second was highways. Highways is a code word for infrastructure. It is the whole package: The industrial site, water, sewer, railroad spur. If a community does not have good highways, economic development will not happen. We have a major industry right now in my State, Viking Range Corporation, that makes the best ranges and some of the best kitchen equipment in the world. But to get to their manufacturing plant, visitors actually have to travel on a dirt road. This is severely hampering the company's growth.

The third thing we focused on in my State is economic development. We decided to aggressively go out and pursue jobs. This bill is an important component of that effort. SAFETEA is about jobs, it is about infrastructure, it is about quality of life, and it is about safety.

I don't want to demean this title. We talk about safety on the highways, safety on the roads, safety on our bridges. We have bridges all over America crumbling and being shut down. I admit, some of them are local or county bridges, which, in an ideal world, should be maintained by the counties. But at a minimum, shouldn't we continue the policies that started way

back in the 1950s--actually back in the 1800s, with Henry Clay, to develop and federally maintain an Interstate Highway System.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and to give the leaders of this committee the support to which they are entitled. Someone asked last week: We have all these problems, what do we do? I said, support the chairman and ranking member. They have a tough job, an important job. We should help and support them and try to shape the legislation with them, not just because we want projects in our State. Yes, we all do. But if we did not get one earmarked project in our States, we ought to support this legislation because of what it means for our country.

Now, there is a lot of pontification developing, as often happens with the highway bill, but even more so this time. People are showing up, all of a sudden, worried about the costs of this bill. Lots of people are saying: Wait a minute, this may add to the deficit. Where have they been over the last 2 or 3 years? Where were they on the prescription drug bill when we were developing a bill that would cost $600 billion or $800 billion or who knows how many billions of dollars? They were not worried about the deficit until the highway bill came up. And they said, wait a minute, the highway bill may cost too much.

The Finance Committee has struggled with how to pay for this bill. Is it perfect? No. But it was a major effort and we are within a close enough range where we can continue to make some adjustments as we go through the legislative process. Some people say: Once it goes through the process, we may have to vote. That is exactly right. And we will have to look at the final product. Is it something the Republicans, Democrats, Senate, House, labor unions, the White House can live with? We will never know until we move forward on it.

So we have people now saying that after ignoring the amount of spending last year--in bill after bill after bill--we are going to plant our flag on this hill, and we are going to fight excessive spending on the highway bill. They picked the wrong bill. This is a positive bill, and we will make it work as the process goes forward.

People will say: Well, wait a minute. There may be some earmarking in some of these bills before it is over. Yes, there may be. Fine. And I am going to fight for my own State to get its share because I do not necessarily believe that all wisdom reposes in the Department of Transportation in Washington, DC. I happen to know a little bit about some of the real crises, projects, and problems in my own State, and I trust Senators--men and women--from their own States to identify some of the needs that must be addressed in their home states.

Then there will be those who will say: This bill doesn't put enough funding into mass transportation or it doesn't put enough funding into one project or another. Let me point out a couple of things we are dealing with.

Our Interstate Highway System is nearly 50 years old. Thirty-two percent of our major roads are in poor or mediocre condition. Twenty- nine percent of our Nation's bridges are structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. If we do not complete action on this legislation, we will wind up with a 1-year extension and we will be back next year. Some people would say, maybe we could do a better job in a nonelection year.

But I believe we need a carefully thought out, multiyear, multifaceted federal highway and transportation program, and we need it now. We are having difficulty on other bills, such as the energy bill. We are trying to decide, what bills can we get done this year? Well, there is one thing we should not leave undone this year, and it is this highway bill.

I urge my colleagues to work together to try to come to a conclusion this week. If we have to have a cloture motion filed in order to make progress, let's do that. I believe it will pass with a bipartisan vote. It should. And then we can make progress on this bill and be ready to go to conference with the House of Representatives where we can get the job done.

I know we are going to be getting calls with suggestions of delays. Some people do not like the formula. It is tough to come up with a formula that is fair to everybody, especially if you have been a big donee State. If you are a small State or a big State that has been getting back $1.21 for every $1 you pay into the highway trust fund, you don't want to lose any funding. But if you are from a poor State that has been getting only 50 or 75 cents on the dollar that your constituents pay into the Highway Trust Fund, you want a fairer deal. But it is not easy to try to come up with a formula that is fair to Texas and New York and Rhode Island and Oklahoma all at the same time. It is really a balancing act.

I looked at the formula. I don't think the formula is as good as it ought to be for Mississippi. We are just kind of in the middle. And when your state has been neglected for 138 years it needs to do a little better than being in the middle. But I prefer the progress we make on this bill, to nothing. It is progress. So I do not think I have any more room to complain than anybody else.

But, again, we have some people who do not want to move toward a fairer formula for everyone. They do not want to give up anything they have. But I think the formula Chairman Inhofe and Senator Jeffords have come up with is good enough. Can they still tweak it a little bit as the bill moves forward through the process? Yes, they can; and I am sure they will.

So I hope my colleagues will not start blocking this bill with procedural motions because they do not like the formula. I hope they will keep working with the chairman and ranking member, as I will. I am going to curry favor with the chairman of the committee until the last dog dies to try to complete action on this bill in a way that will be fair to my constituents and good for the country. But I hope my colleagues will not use the formula as an excuse to block the bill. I hope they will not use this newfound fiscal responsibility to hammer out the worst possible bill. If we will proceed together, working with the chairman and ranking member, we will complete action on this bill, and it will be one of the best things we can do this year.

I thank the Senate for the opportunity to comment on this bill. I thank the leadership for what they are doing. I was growing concerned that too many people were possibly trying to conjure up some way to block this legislation.

So let's keep the process moving. It is not just for the sake of the process, no. It is for better and safer infrastructure in this country. It is for jobs. I wish the leadership of the committee the best, and I am going to be here trying to help them every step of the way.

I yield the floor, Madam President.

Mr. President, with the Senator's agreement I will go ahead and proceed since we did have, I think, about 27 or so minutes.