Floor Statements

Mr. President, Saturday, July 26, marks the 198th anniversary of the birth of Constantino Brumidi, the great artist who has been called the Michelangelo of the Capitol. When, in 2 years, the 200th anniversary of Brumidi's birth is at hand, I believe the President should issue a proclamation commemorating Brumidi's life. Today, I am introducing a resolution authorizing such a proclamation.

Constantino Brumidi was born in Rome in 1805 and immigrated to America in 1852. He began his artistic work in the Capitol in 1855 and, for the next 25 years, he labored to produce some of the most bold and moving frescoes and murals the world has ever seen. His paintings and decorations depict the history, inventions, values and ideals of the United States immeasurably enhancing the dignity and beauty of the Capitol. He designed and decorated on House and Senate committee rooms in the Capitol, as well as the Senate Reception Room, the Office of the Vice President and the President's Room. In 1856, Brumidi began creating designs for Senate corridors based on a loggia by Raphael in the Vatican, carefully integrating American motifs into a classical framework.

He was very proud of becoming an American citizen and is reported to have said: ``I no longer wish for fame and fortune. My one ambition and my daily prayer is that I may live long enough to make beautiful the Capitol of the one country on Earth in which there is liberty.'' He did not live long enough to finish his work; but he lived long enough to make the Capitol incredibly beautiful.

The man who labored a quarter century to make the Halls of Congress so magnificent deserves the recognition of the American people. Through this resolution, I believe we will provide appropriate recognition.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, have the yeas and nays been ordered on this judicial nomination?

I suggest that we move to the vote. Is there a prearranged time?

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Would the chairman yield for me to add further to the

discussion at hand?

Part of any military exercise or experience is an

afteraction review to learn what went right and wrong and how to

improve on things in future situations. It would seem that the MRE

supply issue is just such an issue. Obviously DLA did not have reserve

stocks of food on hand going into this operation. Obviously no one

anticipated the consumption rate we have experienced in the past few

months. But it seems apparent that the reliance upon MREs isn't going

to change in the foreseeable future.

I can think of a number of things that could go wrong during a

military operation, but running out of food has to be one of the worst.

So I can't imagine why DLA is cutting production when we haven't even

started to replenish our reserves. It would seem simple enough that if

anything DLA should be increasing production and increasing reserves so

that we never face this potential disaster again.

I am informed that an adequate reserve based upon the new realities

we have discovered in the past few months would ultimately be 10.5

million cases. Well, we are about 10 million cases away from that goal

so we better get started on meeting that target. I too would certainly

welcome anything the chairman could do to address this problem in

conference and compel DLA to up the reserve stocks of MREs to an

adequate level. I yield back of the chairman.

Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize and honor an outstanding citizen of Mississippi, Mr. James Hollingshead of Waynesboro, who recently displayed extreme heroism and bravery while in Destin, FL.

On Sunday, June 8, 2003, Mr. Doyle Mosley and his wife Linda were enjoying their annual family vacation in Destin, FL. During the day, the waves had become increasingly high and a red flag had been put out by the lifeguards warning of potentially dangerous waves. The Mosleys' two oldest grandsons ventured into the water with their wake boards. Instantly they were caught in a dangerous and deadly riptide.

While one of the boys was able to remain on his board and return safely to shore, the other, Cal Tackett, was in

serious danger. James Hollingshead, a complete stranger to the Mosleys and their grandsons, was walking down the beach with his wife when he saw what was occurring. Although he was a total stranger, he immediately rushed into the water in an effort to save Cal, risking his own life. After much struggle and effort, Mr. Hollingshead and Cal eventually made it safely to shore. Although Mr. Hollingshead was unaware of it at the time, ironically enough, the Mosleys are also Mississippians--residents of Greenwood.

This fortunate and happy outcome to a potentially disastrous situation can only be fully understood and appreciated when put in perspective. I understand nine people lost their lives on this beach on that tragic day. Thanks to the bravery and unselfish act of James Hollingshead, Cal Tackett and the Mosley family were spared this outcome.

It is all too easy for us in the rush of our daily lives to turn a blind eye to the needs of others and forego lending a hand to our fellow citizens in need. On the fateful day of June 8th, James Hollingshead made a different choice, a choice that made all the difference in the lives of the Mosley and Tackett families. He set an example for all of us that should not be ignored or forgotten. That is why I felt compelled to share with you this story of bravery and courage. To quote the Mosleys, ``. . . it is so wonderful to know that there are people like James Hollingshead, who care and act unselfishly for a fellow citizen.'' Mr. Hollingshead, thank you for your courage, bravery and a job well done.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished leader for the information he has just given us about the schedule for the month of July. Obviously, we do have a lot of important work to do. Having dealt with the difficulties of having to put in full days, including votes on Mondays and Fridays, I know it is not always well received. It has to be done in order to achieve these very important pieces of legislation that need to be acted on in July.

I especially thank the leader for going forward with the legislation on medical liability reform, the Patients First Act. In my own State of Mississippi, we have a health care catastrophe on our hands. Doctors are losing their coverage. They are leaving the State. And they are getting out of specialty services such as in the case of an OB/GYN. They are getting out of obstetrics. It is causing a huge problem along the Mississippi gulf coast where we have over 500,000 people. We are down to three neurosurgeons. We did have seven. We have two fully staffed trauma facilities in that area, only two. And with only three doctors now, on weekends we are really stretched very thin. If we lose one more neurosurgeon, we will not be able to keep those two trauma facilities operative.

We also have a problem in getting an adequate number of orthopedic surgeons. As Dr. Frist knows, you have to have an orthopedic surgeon available also for trauma services. We recently attracted a doctor from St. Louis, MO who wanted to raise his family in a smaller community. He is an outstanding doctor. He was paying $70,000 a year for his medical liability insurance when he left St. Louis. He came to our State. Within 6 months his coverage went up to $150,000 a year. This is an African American doctor, highly qualified, desperately needed there in the Pascagoula-Moss Pt., MS area. I am afraid he is not going to be able to stay with that kind of problem.

This is a huge problem. Some of my friends I went to law school with are saying: Let the States handle this problem. Some States have done a pretty good job. California has done an exemplary job. I believe this legislation is pretty closely patterned after the California example.

Some States have done some good work but other States have done nothing or very little. My own State, while the legislature wrestled with it, made some progress but it has not been nearly enough. My friends in the bar say this is a States rights issue, more or less. But in this case there is no question that this is driving up health care costs across the board. Doctors will tell you that they are ordering additional procedures--defensive medicine, if you will--and it is clearly affecting how much Medicare is costing.

I have heard astronomical numbers, and I will verify them before I speak on this issue tomorrow or the next day as to exactly how much the impact of this excessive lawsuit activity against doctors and the medical professions and the hospitals is driving up the cost of Medicare. There is no question--you might say the States have a right to do this and can handle it, or tort reform, or product liability even; but in this case there is no question that it has a Federal ramification that is costing us lots of money.

We are trying to do the right thing for Medicare beneficiaries. We are trying to put prescription drugs in there but we need reform and we have to find some ways to reduce the costs that are being paid out by Medicare. This is one way to do it.

I am excited that we are going forward with this bill. I don't know if we can get enough votes to stop a filibuster but that is not the important thing. The important thing is that we have a crisis developing in America in health care delivery and the medical liability area, and so I think we should take it up and let's have the vote--and we may have to have more than one vote.

Judicial Nominations

The other thing I want to do is pick up on what the leader said about judicial nominations. I continue to be concerned that we are in the process of setting a precedent, where judges can be defeated by filibuster. That has not been the rule. That has not been done--there is maybe one instance that you can point to in 200 years. In that case, I think it is a very fragile argument because the nominee, Abe Fortas, was debated for only 10 days, and there were ethical problems that developed and his name was withdrawn. We didn't do it during the Clinton years.

A lot of delays are involved when you are talking about how Senators react, and sending a blue slip to indicate their preference on judicial nominations, and there were concerns and a lot of problems. But not one time did we defeat a judge by filibuster. I had to file cloture, I think, six or seven times but in each case we either vitiated it or had a vote on cloture and then went straight to the vote. We completed action on those judges.

I don't think we should have a litmus test that involves one issue, or a few issues, because I make the case repeatedly that I voted for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, even though I knew that philosophically I would not agree with her. On a lot of issues I strongly disagreed with her. But she was qualified by education, experience, temperament, and ethics. She had a right, I believe, to have an up-or-down vote. She got one and she was confirmed, and I voted for her.

On two of the other nominees, I believe for the Ninth Circuit, Berzon and Paez, I felt very strongly that they should not be on that circuit court bench. But, again, they came through the committee, we debated them on the floor, there was an attempted filibuster, which I opposed, and we voted on them. I voted against them but they got a vote. They were confirmed and they now serve on the judiciary.

I think the leader has tried very diligently to find a way to get away from these filibusters, even though we still have two. I think we have had five or six votes on cloture on Miguel Estrada, and I think we have had two on Priscilla Owen. But I hear there may be filibusters on other qualified men and women, as well as the minorities that are going to be affected by this--especially in the case of Miguel Estrada.

So we have to find a way to get away from this. There is even talk now that maybe we should have recess appointments. I don't think that is a good precedent either. I spoke against it on the floor when President Clinton did it, so how can I now say it is OK? But if we continue down this trail of filibustering judges, there will be a reaction. There will have to be additional action.

The leader has introduced a bill that has been reported out of the Rules Committee that would be very careful. After 12 days, you could file cloture, and then it would be 60 votes required; the second cloture, 57; the third cloture, 54; and finally, only 51 after basically what would take a full month. I think that is a very long, protracted, and unnecessary process but it, again, shows good faith on the part of the leader to find a way to get ourselves out of this precedent.

I think we will all rue the day if we do this. Yes, we have all ramped up the difficulty in confirming judges on both sides with a number of men and women, perhaps unfairly. But we are taking a huge leap and really undermining the process for confirming Federal judges if we allow filibusters to stand. We must find a way in the next couple of months to work through this. I call on my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, let's let cooler heads prevail and pull back from this precipice that we are standing on and find a way to give these judges an up-or-down vote. I believe we will be better as an institution and the judiciary will be better if we avoid this problem.

I have been thinking about these issues over the past week when I have been at home. I particularly was confronted everywhere I went with the problem of doctors in my State of Mississippi, and to be able to keep the doctors in practice, keep them from retiring and leaving the States, we must act in this area.

With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, will the distinguished Senator from Kentucky yield for a couple questions on these issues?

Mr. President, I know the Senator from Kentucky is presenting his prepared statement, and it really has been quite interesting, and I share his concern. My State is one of those first States to be in red. We have a crisis in health care delivery. We are losing doctors to retirement, leaving the State, or leaving part of their practice, like OB/GYNs getting out of the OB part of their practice. The Senator made a particular point. I think the bill is a good solution, and it is based, as Senator McConnell said, on the California plan that has been successful that does have some limits on punitive damages.

The Senator from Kentucky just made a point about the abilities of the States to act differently if they so choose. Will the Senator explain that? I did not understand that was in the bill. I am very interested because one of the complaints I have heard is that we are imposing our will on the States and the State legislatures cannot act, if they want to or if they will, although not many of them have. Will the Senator from Kentucky expand on that point?

Mr. President, if the Senator will yield further, I say to the Senator, just coming back from my State, I had occasion to meet with doctors, hospital administrators, and civilians who are having problems, like some of those the Senator pointed out earlier. I also met with some of the attorneys who raise the point that the States should be allowed to act.

My own State legislature tried to deal with this issue and made a little progress, but it is still very weak. Our crisis is getting worse, and we are losing particularly those critical services that we need in our trauma systems, for instance.

The point I wish to make or ask the Senator to further expand on is, they say: What is the Federal role in this situation? Why is it necessary for the Federal Government to become involved? My response has been, clearly, there is a Federal application for medical liability that may not exist in other areas because of the impact it is having on Medicare. The additional threat of these lawsuits, the defensive medicine, the additional costs of medical liability insurance are causing all kinds of additional costs to be added to our Medicare system. I have heard billions of dollars, and I am going to find out in the next day or so what is the approximate amount that is being added each year to the cost of Medicare.

We are trying to improve Medicare and trying to add prescription drugs, but there are other costs that are being heaped on to the system that are very destructive.

I think the answer is, more than in any other area where we tried to get some legal reform, there is a Federal application in medical liability because of the impact it is having on the Medicare system.

Does the Senator from Kentucky care to respond?

A similar situation exists in my State. We are right next to Louisiana and not a State one would think would have the type of reforms they have in place. It is very easy to move from Mississippi to Louisiana. They serve different patients in a different State and medical liability costs are probably half of what they are right across the border.

What worries me more is we have doctors leaving tremendously underserved areas such as the Delta. One doctor in particular I know moved up to South Dakota and started practicing medicine. Others are retiring when they would not have retired if they believed they could make a decent living.

Even worse than that, doctors are getting out of certain practices. It has become a serious problem for health care delivery in my State. We have to act in this area, and soon, because the bleeding is growing in terms of losing doctors in these critical areas.

Mr. President, I want to correct some of the perceptions that perhaps have been left about what this legislation would do, or what the situation is.

First, it is very interesting to me that it appears there is an effort to blame the medical profession, the doctors. I ask this question now of most Americans: Who do you have more confidence in, your local doctors, the drugs you have been taking, the medical devices that are keeping many alive, the type of medical care you are getting in home towns, or your local trial lawyer?

Well, that is an easy question to answer. I have had to deal with that myself on both sides of the issue. By the way, I do have a law degree and I do know a lot of lawyers on both sides of the issue for whom I have a great deal of respect. Nobody is saying you should not have an opportunity to bring a lawsuit when you have been wronged or damaged. That is clearly not the case. But the idea that we are going to say no, no, there is not a medical liability crisis, there is a medical malpractice crisis--in fact, when I go around and talk to people who have pacemakers and have drugs that make their lives somewhat acceptable, or they have had strokes but they are controlling their blood pressure, up or down, they feel pretty good about health care in America.

Health care in America is the goose that laid the golden egg. We are the most blessed people in the world when it comes to medical care. Is it perfect? No. Are mistakes made? Yes. Do we need better reporting or to keep records of this sort of thing? I will support that. The AMA may not like it that we keep closer track and deal with some of these mistakes that are made. But I am for that. I think we need to know where the problems are and we need to deal with them.

But to say the problem here is the medical profession or the insurance industry--by the way, I don't want to just dismiss their involvement either. I want to make sure we understand why these medical liability insurance rates are going through the ceiling like they are. It is a variety of issues, I believe. I don't believe it is just the lawsuits but I think that is a big contributor. I think defensive medicine is a big part of it. I think that some of their investments went south on them and that is causing some insurance companies to raise rates.

But to shift the burden over to the medical profession, when I know these men and women practicing medicine--the neurosurgeons, orthopedics, OB/GYNs--these general practitioners in the Mississippi Delta are already so terribly underserved and are just saying: We cannot continue. We are retiring or leaving and going to another State. This is the crisis. Maybe my State is worse than most but this is a huge problem, and it is all over the country now.

One of the things I want to correct is this: Senator Durbin talked about David, referred to David's situation. The inference was that all he would get is $250,000. As a matter of fact, under this legislation, he would get all of his hospital bills paid for, all rehabilitation bills paid for, all physical therapy, all speech therapy, all occupational therapy; and if a home nurse is needed 24 hours a day, he could receive full compensation for that. He could get lost wages up to a lifetime of what he could have earned, which could be, obviously, millions of dollars. It could cover anything David's family would have to spend on his condition. Plus, the punitive damages in this legislation is not $250,000; it is the greater of

$250,000 or two times economic damages. Quite often, economic damages could easily be $10 million.

Then it would be two times that--$20 million--that a victim could receive if the economic damages are $10 million.

So let me give an example, and then I will yield. I want to make this point. Under the California situation, with the $250,000 limit, what has happened? I ask unanimous consent to have this printed in the Record.

This shows that in December of 2002 there was an $84,250,000 total award in a case under the current California law; a $21 million in January of 1999; a $25 million award in October of 1997 for a boy with severe brain damage and mental retardation because of the anesthesia. It goes on. Here is one for a $59 million total award.

So the inference that all you could get under this legislation would be $250,000 is absolutely not the case. It would depend on the economic damages, the totality of the costs, and the verdict rendered. So I just wanted to make sure people are aware that there is flexibility here and that, depending on the severity and how long it would last, it could be a multimillion-dollar recovery.

I am glad to yield to Senator Durbin for a comment or question.

That you would get health insurance and that would be deducted, in effect, from the damage? I was not familiar with that particular provision but I understand that does happen all the time. I am not a cosponsor of the legislation but I am planning on being one. That is why I have been here listening to the debate and reading the legislation. I want to know all of the ramifications of it. There may be the collateral insurance provision that would allow the amount of money received to be reduced by that.

I wasn't aware it doesn't apply to any other States. I would think the States would want to take that into consideration. I don't have a problem with that. You need to look at the totality of a situation--and you have judges and juries who will do that--to see what recovery they might be getting through their insurance, as you decide what the award may be in terms of what their economic needs are.

Absolutely. I have seen it happen. I was involved in a case one time and one of the lawyers accidentally mentioned insurance, and there was a mistrial on the spot. I always thought that was kind of ridiculous. But I also know that some juries, when they think an insurance company is involved and that actually the doctor might not himself be paying, that might affect the amount of the verdict they would give. So that is why that law is on the books.

Are these lawsuits about punishment, or are they about helping the people who have been damaged? Sometimes both. By the way, there could be, I guess, under certain circumstances, a criminal act involved. While I am not an expert in this area--it has been a long time since I practiced law and defended anybody--I have always thought the admission of evidence about where the money would come from or how much should be admissible in court. I have to defer to others who have more experience and more expertise in this area than I do.

Mr. President, does Senator McConnell wish to comment? I yield for a question.

I yield to Senator Durbin for a further question or answer to the comments from Senator McConnell.

To answer the question, I see no problem in a jury being able to consider the totality of the situation. I do not think we should ignore the fact a doctor--first of all, they are human beings. They do make mistakes. There are lawsuits based on very good cases and recoveries of a significant nature because of the extent of the damage or

the longtime life impact on that person.

When a doctor goes through this, don't you think it has an effect on his practice in that community? Do you think he is not adversely affected by it? I remember a case in my home area where a doctor left a sponge in a patient and it affected his career the rest of his life. He was punished. He was punished by the verdict, his insurance company had to pay, obviously--the patient got significant damages, both economic and punitive damages, and he suffered mightily.

The point is, I have watched this issue for pretty close to 34 years, both as a lawyer and then as a Member of Congress, and it has gotten worse and worse. It is leading to a serious problem. It is about the patients, and it is about the doctors' insurance companies. But what about the people now who are losing access to medical care, to expert doctors, to especially the trauma doctors we are about to lose in my own State, the women who have to drive literally hundreds of miles to get to an obstetrician when they are going to have a baby, what about their risks? Maybe they should be able to file a lawsuit against somebody because they do not get sufficient health care.

This is something we are going to talk about over the next 24 to 48 hours. I do think something has to be done.

I want to make this point, too, in terms of working something out: We saw last year prescription drug legislation was brought directly to the Senate floor. It did not go through the Finance Committee. Because of that, we were required to get 60 votes, and that is why we did not get prescription drug legislation last year. A couple of the alternatives that were voted on got over 50 votes, but we had to have 60. So there is nothing extraordinary about taking up a bill that comes over from the House or taking a bill directly to the floor for consideration.

I would prefer we have hearings. I think hearings would be a lot of fun. I would like to see the doctors, the nurses, and patients who are being denied care have a chance to say what this is doing to them. Maybe we could work out some of the disagreements.

I wish to make this point: That effort has been made this year. Senator Frist has been working with Senator Feinstein to come up with a bipartisan bill basically along the lines of what is in this bill with the $250,000 limit on punitive damages or two times economic damages, whichever is greater. Senator McConnell probably was involved in those negotiations, but it fell apart when there was pressure to raise it from $250,000 to $500,000, and they just basically quit working on it, I guess, because they could not get an agreement.

I would hope a committee would act--have hearings, report a bill, and let's make sure it is a good bill, but let's make sure it is not one written by just the plaintiffs' lawyers.

Mr. President, does Senator McConnell wish to comment?

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Rules and Administration will meet at 9:30 a.m., Wednesday, July 9, 2003, in Room 301 Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing on Senate Resolution 173 proposing changes in Rule XVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate as they relate to unauthorized appropriations.

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

committee on energy and natural resources

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 1026, As Modified

Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Rules and Administration will meet on Tuesday, June 24, 2003, at 9:30 a.m., in room 301 of the Russell Office Building, to consider the markup of pending legislative and administrative business, including any other items that may be ready for consideration.

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

committee on agriculture, nutrition, and forestry

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

Mr. President, I believe Senator McCain will arrive momentarily to manage this legislation.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I thank the distinguished Senator from South Carolina for those comments. He and Senator McCain certainly have been very interested in this important issue. A couple of hearings we had on this legislation were in the full committee because of the importance of the issues involved.

I also particularly thank Senator Rockefeller, who is the ranking member on the Aviation Subcommittee, for his work and his cooperation on this legislation. This is truly bipartisan legislation: Senator McCain, Senator Hollings, Senator Rockefeller and I all have worked on it. Where we have had problems we have been able to work out most of them. I think we have a really good product.

I want to say at the beginning we are hoping to move this legislation through rapidly. Hopefully we could even complete it today. We have a few issues that have not been resolved yet. Two or three of them may require votes. We ask our colleagues to come to the floor, let's have a debate and, if we have to, we will have a vote. There are not that many amendments that I think would actually require a vote.

I also want to emphasize the importance of this legislation. Because we have moved it fast, and because we have been able to get an agreement worked out to bring it to the floor, and because we may be able to handle it in a brief period of time, it should not diminish at all the importance of passing this legislation. Transportation in America is unique. If we are going to have a strong economy, we have to have good transportation systems--not just roads and bridges, which are very important, and not just a good railroad system, freight and passenger, and not just good ports and harbors, but we also need a strong aviation system in America.

We all know the industry has been having difficult times for a variety of reasons. In some cases it was bad management decisions. Obviously all of them have been affected by high fuel costs. There have been some difficult management-labor decisions. But also probably no other industry was as dramatically and directly affected by 9/11 as the aviation industry. Aircraft were involved on that infamous day, used as weapons of destruction, as missiles--both in New York and, of course, one plane that hit the Pentagon and the one that went down in Pennsylvania. We saw the industry basically shut down that day--for days. We are still having fallout, the ramifications of that day and those decisions in terms of access to airports, including Washington Reagan National. General aviation is still dealing with the problems as a result.

There is no question the industry has had difficulties and some of those difficulties have been related to 9/11. Government decisions were made that needed to be made. We had to deal with security considerations on our airplanes and at our airports. So a lot of costs have been put on the industry that have caused them additional problems.

We have taken action immediately after 9/11, of course, to provide some assistance to the aviation industry. We did it again in the supplemental appropriations this year. But this is the third step and in some respects maybe the most important step in helping the airline industry, helping aviation get back to where they can see blue skies and begin to make profits and provide the kind of service the American people are entitled to.

I do think it is important we get this bill done, that we get into conference and see if we can come to a reasonable and relatively quick agreement with the House. That will allow this bill to be completed before we get into the time-consuming and very important TEA-21 extension, and the appropriations process.

This bill's title is Aviation Investment and Revitalization Vision Act--AIR-V. Our intent is to go all the way from stabilizing the industry, giving them dependability and reliability of what they can expect from FAA, from the Airport Improvement Program, to all the different programs that are involved in aviation including service to small communities. I think we do have the fundamental provisions we need to make sure that happens. We will ensure the Airport Improvement Program will continue uninterrupted for the next 3 years. We also are going to make sure the funds that go into Airport Improvement Programs are actually used for their original purpose, and that is to improve our airports, the runways, the terminals, and the services our constituents need and deserve.

On that note, this legislation also no longer allows AIP funds to be used for security mandates. Up to this point approximately $500 million has been skimmed off the top of the AIP fund to pay for security mandates that the Federal government placed on our local airports. The Transportation Security Administration--TSA--predicts that an additional $500 million will be needed to complete these capital improvements that have been deemed necessary for security purposes. This bill proposes that these unfunded mandates be paid for by directing the passenger security fee into a separate fund to cover these costs. The first $500 million of these fees that is collected will be directed to this fund.

This legislation also looks at excessiveness at TSA. It will require TSA to do a study to look at the efficiency of their employees and then redeploy them as necessary based on the results of the study. I am pleased that TSA is already reassessing their workforce. While it is not the goal of this Congress to have less than adequate security at any airport, it is important for TSA to recognize the areas in which they have gold-plated security.

In another effort to help the industry, this legislation also makes permanent a provision already in the annual appropriations bill that requires TSA to pay fair market value for the space they occupy at airports. The bill also keep AIP funding at the fiscal year 2003 level for FY04, but changes the match requirement from 10 percent to 5 percent for that 1 year. AIP funding will then be increased by $100 million for the out years. This is very important to local communities that are hard pressed to make that local match, because their funds have been depleted due to these unfunded mandates. AIR-V also maintains the budget firewalls that were put in place during the debate over Air- 21. These firewalls require that the trust fund continues to be spent down.

Of particular importance to my home state of Mississippi is language in this legislation that continues the authorization of the Small Community Pilot Program. This provision will allow 40 new communities to be eligible to receive one-time money each year. This is a good program that requires innovative thinking on the part of airports and their local communities.

Another important issue to rural States such as mine and Senator Rockefeller's is the Essential Air Service Program. The two of us introduced legislation that works to improve this program, while not implementing the drastic change the administration has pushed. In short, it provides incentive to the local communities to get involved in determining the quality and type of air service their community receives. We have included that legislation in this bill.

Transportation infrastructure spending is important, and it is one of my top priorities. I want to continue the Republican congressional majority's commitment to transportation infrastructure. Our Nation's growing economy demands attention to this issue. Passage of this bill will be a step in that direction.

I say again, in Senator McCain's presence, I appreciate his attention to this and his interest and his desire to move forward. Without his tenacity we would not be here now. I believe we have a good bill that we can complete in short order.

I am glad to yield the floor at this time.

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

Mr. President, while discussions are taking place on other issues or amendments, I wanted to go back and comment briefly on the statement by Senator Dorgan and his amendment.

First of all, I appreciate his membership on the committee and his interest in this aviation hearing. Most of the time we agree on how we can be helpful to the aviation industry. I appreciated the fact that he said he thought it was important we have this revolving fund for TSA security. There are those who are going to speak against that fund later today.

The appropriators feel as if the fund is not a positive thing, that it is taking funds from their bottom line. My concern is, if we have these fees collected for airport security and there is no specification that it go into that area, then it may be spread all over the place. If you go into port security, Coast Guard, or any number of programs-- which may be very important and may be needed--if fees are collected for a purpose, they should not be spread out into other areas. It is like the highway trust fund. You collect gasoline taxes for highways, and to let it be spent for airports or ports--that is not the intended purpose and what people think they are paying for.

This fund is not intended in any way to get into the appropriators' job. They have a tough job. I know my colleague from Mississippi and Senator Stevens will work hard to help our homeland security. We will continue to work to see if we can come up with some compromise agreement that will accommodate all concerned. Our goal is to just make sure we have these fees that are collected for airport security and security for the TSA used for that purpose.

With regard to the local share, I have a State that, obviously, is not a wealthy State. We have a limited number of airports. Several of them are relatively small. So any kind of cost share is not easy for them, plus the airline industry will tell you very quickly that in a lot of airports--particularly the bigger ones--any kind of a local cost share, the airlines will wind up having to pick up the cost because airports cannot get money from the local government. So they will say, all right, we have to get it from the airlines and they will pass it on to the airlines. That is a legitimate concern. It is really not fair.

I know it is not easy for the local airports sometimes to get a match. But we are talking about a small match here. Even if we can have the match 10 percent, it would still have the principle that the local governments are doing their share. Airports and airline service is a very important part of the economy in these smaller towns. It creates jobs, helps attract industry, and it is a big plus. Yet the cities or counties, even the big cities--Detroit, Chicago, New York--get tremendous benefits from their international airports, but they don't want to participate or pay any of the costs. Of course not. The trend in America is just let the Federal Government do it. Let the Federal Government do it all. Let the Federal Government pay for all of the airport costs, pay for all the housing costs, pay for all of the farming costs--just let the Federal Government do it. That is why we are going to have a $500 billion deficit this year, and probably the same next year, and it may come down some in 2005, but it is still going to be really ugly. Let Uncle Sam do it.

All I am saying is, let the local communities do a little bit, participate some, help a little in the cost of this huge benefit. I promote local airports in my State, such as Tupelo, Meridian, Golden Triangle, Biloxi, Pine Belt, and others. We have small airports that mean a lot. For them to help a little bit looks to me like a good idea. So I realize maybe that is not the way to do things around here. I am arguing on principle and some degree of responsibility for everybody to pay a little bit. Why should the Federal Government always have to pay the first and the last dollar?

We will work with Senator Dorgan, a very valuable member of the committee. I understand his concerns in these smaller communities. But the problem is not really the smaller communities; it is actually the bigger airports that will be inclined to pass them along to the airlines. I realize they have plenty of burdens of their own.

I wanted to respond and make it clear why I feel that some small amount of local participation is a responsible thing to do. It makes good, common sense. We may have a way to work it out. I wanted to get that on the record before we got too far away from Senator Dorgan's remarks.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Will the Senator yield?

My questions and my comments are related to your subject.

First of all, I appreciate Senator Lautenburg and what he is doing here. I understand his point. I indicated to him on the committee we would work with him and see if we could come up with compromise language that we could agree to. Unfortunately, we could not get that done. However, the Senator knows I have tried to act in good faith. I know he has, too. I appreciate that.

My concern is, I, like you, have concern about privatizing the air traffic controllers themselves. I also have sympathy for the flight weather service people because, in effect, in some areas I am familiar with, they are the air traffic controllers. But the amendment, as I understand it, and I think the Senator admitted, goes beyond demanding the tower or demanding the actual person looking at the screen and the flight weather service, it does expand to the other employees who are employed in the area--the service people, the repairmen, and perhaps even further than that.

My question is, is that a fact? Would your amendment expand beyond the professional air traffic controller or even the FWS employee and other employees? Could you perhaps specify some of the areas that might be covered, just for the edification of myself and the other Senators.

If the Senator will continue to yield, we will continue to work on this. I know Senator McCain will have something to say about it later. Regardless of how it works here, we will continue to work together.

I want to make note of the fact for the record that Secretary Mineta has determined that air traffic control is a core function of the FAA and as such the administration would not consider outsourcing beyond the current contract tower program. I note that is a program that is in place, the contract towers, and it has broad general support. Twenty- five percent of all takeoffs and landings, mainly general aviation in the United States, occur at these traffic towers. There is an example of how contracting out has been done and is working.

We will continue to work with the Senator. While I have some sympathy with what the Senator is trying to do as the amendment presently exists, it is too broad and I would have to oppose it.

I thank the Senator for yielding.

Mr. President, how much time remains?

I don't believe I will need the entire time. I will take a few minutes to say that, in this case, I do feel the need to oppose this amendment by Senator Inhofe. Our Commerce Committee has discussed this issue several times in the past and at various times we have gone different ways on it. In this case, I think you need to look at how we got where we are.

The Federal Aviation Administration has the responsibility that is mandated to ensure aviation safety. In 1959, they concluded, after concerns developed of potential detrimental effects of aging and the risk of acute and incapacitating medical conditions, that commercial pilots need to be required to retire at age 60. Today I believe there is sufficient evidence to keep that rule. There is not enough evidence to reverse that. There is a case here where I believe most of the airlines, although not all, support keeping it at 60. There is no question that the representatives of the pilots prefer to keep it at 60. So you have an agreement.

Also, I do feel as if, particularly in the aviation area, there is a need right now to have some opportunity for retirement at 60, to bring in newer, young pilots or, as a matter of fact, to decide they don't need all those pilots. This is a unique time in the aftermath of 9/11, where at this time I am inclined not to think we should raise the age to 65, whereas sometime down the road I might be so inclined.

I do worry about age discrimination. As I get older, I worry about it more than I used to. I think in this case, with medical science and the acknowledgement of the current situation in the industry, we should keep it at 60.

I don't like to be on the other side of my good friend, the Senator from Oklahoma, but I think, all things considered, we should stick with what the rule has been.

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

Reserving the right to object, I want to clarify there were no time agreements included, just the order that they would discuss the amendments briefly.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Has Senator Dorgan completed his remarks?

I think the order was for Senator Inhofe to be next, but since he is not here, I ask unanimous consent I be permitted to speak at this time, despite the previous agreement.

Mr. President, certainly I always enjoy working with Senator Dorgan on these issues. I think he has a legitimate point.

He does note that we need a fund to make sure these security fees go for the purpose they were intended. But he does think, at least in this instance because of the security aspect, we should waive the local requirement.

It should also be noted that, in fact, local communities, particularly with bigger airports, are probably not going to get or could not get a cost share, and, even if they did in some ways, it would be passed on to the airlines, therefore undermining a lot of what we are trying to do now.

We are trying to get the priorities set where the people who are getting certain parts of the security should be the ones who pay for it, and we shouldn't always try to find a way to pass it off to the airlines. Sometimes it is a Federal responsibility. In other instances, other people--I think also local governments--should have some part of this pie. But we agreed for a variety of reasons to accept Senator Dorgan's amendment.

But I want colleagues to know and the American people to know the Bingaman amendment does the same thing but in a different category. I think, in fact, it is even worse. In the essential air service area, where special help goes to small airports and a lot of rural airports-- that affects airports in West Virginia, North Dakota, and probably in my State of Mississippi--with this additional Federal assistance to keep airports functioning, there would be some small local match. The administration recommended, by the way, that we eliminate the EAS problem; or, if we had EAS, you have the local match required for all of the airports.

The language in the bill specifies that there would be 10 airports where we would have this local match to see how it would work, and if it would work.

We now are agreeing to accept the Bingaman amendment because right now, I think out of concern for local communities and trying to have this essential air service, the amendment would probably pass.

But I want to say, again, I think for us to set the precedent and require not even a dollar from local communities when they are getting additional security, particularly where they are getting essential air service which is vital to their communities and which is important from an economic standpoint for the local cities and counties to put up no money--and in the case of the Dorgan amendment--at least in the bigger airports, it could create definite problems in terms of costs being passed on to the airlines. In this case, it is

just a question of these local communities not wanting to have to share at all.

I think we should continue to look at some small amount--10 percent or 5 percent, some amount of local share.

But for now, we will accept it. We will continue to work on these issues. It is important for us to get this important legislation completed so that the airlines, the airports, general aviation, and the American people will know what they can count on in terms of the Federal Aviation Administration and their programs over the next 3 years. I thank my colleagues for allowing me to interject my remarks at this point.

I believe Senator Inhofe is next in order to speak.

I yield the floor, unless Senator Dorgan would like me to yield to him. Does he want to get action on his amendment?

Mr. President, we have considered these amendments and we find no problem with them at this point. They have been cleared on both sides.

Mr. President, are we going to dispose of that amendment now?

It has been cleared. It may save some time if we could go ahead and agree to it.

Has this been approved on both sides?

Mr. President, I wanted to make sure I understood what this amendment is. I had not had a chance to look at it. It is not specific to a particular airport or a particular State.

It does change the formula on how these funds will be spent. Is that correct?

We have no objection.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Will the Senator yield to me at this point?

I note that I have looked at this situation and I am going to support what this amendment is trying to do. I think, in this case, this area he is referring to has been disadvantaged. We do not want to and do not intend to start down the line of making an exception here and there. This is a case where, clearly, you have been disadvantaged by the way it has been interpreted.

I appreciate the Senator being willing to work out a fair solution.

Mr. President, I send a second-degree amendment to the desk and ask it be read in its entirety.

Mr. President, let me explain why I offered this amendment. Senator Specter raises some very legitimate concerns, and we need to know what the situation is with regard to safety standards and the conditions of the workers in these foreign repair stations.

First, I was not aware of this amendment or the committee was not aware of this amendment until about an hour ago. We have not had a chance to find out more about what the ramifications are, the need for it, or what we need to do. We have had no hearings on this matter.

There is no question we need to make sure these foreign repair stations for airlines are good ones and the workers at these stations meet certain qualifications. They are doing good work basically.

I am offering this amendment on behalf of Senator Inhofe who has some experience in this area, has been to some of these foreign repair stations and has some concerns. Being a pilot himself, having served on the committee of jurisdiction in the House, this is something we would like to know his feelings about and make sure of what the situation is today.

He thought, though, we needed to look into it and understand what is happening. For instance, we may, by doing this, be imposing more requirements on these foreign repair stations that do not need certain laws or regulations in the various countries. We may be taking actions that would drive up costs. We may be taking actions that would have a dramatic impact on our own domestic airlines, which, by the way, some of the most profitable routes are overseas routes. This is a reason Northwest was Northwest Orient. There is no question American, Delta-- the big airlines--do have very important overseas routes.

I would like to know if they think they are getting good service. What problems and what costs are going to be the result of this action?

That is what I say to Senator Specter. It is a legitimate concern. We may need to do something more in this area, but I would like to know what the ramifications are before we actually put this requirement in place.

This amendment, as I understand it and as it has been read, says the Administrator has to have a study of the need to establish this program to ensure that foreign repair stations meet the conditions of standards described in other sections of the law, that they report the results of that study, together with the Administrator's recommendations and conclusions, to the Congress within a specified period of time. This is not just an open-ended generic thing. That would also give us

time on the committee to ask questions of all those impacted by the requirement.

I think this is a good solution to a problem we should not ignore, but before we act we need to know what the impact is going to be.

I yield the floor.

Parliamentary inquiry. This is a request to have the yeas and nays on the second-degree amendment?

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 907

Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Rules and Administration will meet at 9:30 a.m., Tuesday, June 17, 2003, in Room 301 Russell Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing on Senate Resolution 151, requiring public disclosure of notices of objections (``holds'') to proceedings to motions or measures in the Senate.

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

committee on agriculture, nutrition, and forestry

I ask unanimous consent that staff member William Hunt in my office be granted the privilege of the floor during the consideration of S. 824.

I yield myself 5 minutes of the time reserved for the Senator from Kansas, Mr. Brownback.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues today in cosponsoring and supporting the introduction of legislation to create the National Museum of African American History and Culture. I particularly want to commend Senator Brownback, the Presiding Officer this morning, for his leadership on this issue. This legislation could not be introduced today in a way that it can be considered and acted upon without his willingness to stay behind it, to work through some of the problems that did exist and to work with the Rules Committee and our staff to make sure we had legislation that could have broad-based support and could actually be passed by the Senate.

I am pleased to see my colleague from the Rules Committee, the ranking member, Senator Dodd, as a cosponsor, as well as Senator Frist, Senator Stevens, Senator Santorum, Senator Smith, and Senator Daschle. Obviously, leadership on both sides of the aisle has decided to join in sponsoring this truly historic legislation.

The National Museum of African American History and Culture will be built and operated within the Smithsonian Institution and be a full- fledged Smithsonian Museum. That is a critical point to be made. It gives additional stature, credibility, and supervision that will be very helpful in the years ahead as we try to make sure this museum exhibits the way it should and is fully utilized by the American people and supported by the Congress.

I rise to express my support for the legislation because this museum will showcase not only the history and the culture of African American experience, but it will serve as a vivid display of the countless contributions that African Americans have made to the United States and in fact to the world.

Back in 2001, I had an unusual experience. It was one of those rare weekends when I stayed in Washington and my family, including my wife, were all back home in Mississippi. So I took a bicycle ride down the Mall and I wound up at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. I parked my bicycle across the way kind of in the edge of the bushes and just watched people. I do not know what really started me to doing that, but I guess I was struck, as I pulled up, at the number of people there and how they were relating to this memorial. They touched it. They shed tears there. They stood there. It was obviously a moving and spiritual experience, a connecting experience, maybe an experience of closure for some people. It struck me what an important monument and memorial that site is.

Later on that same week, I was meeting with a group of African American business leaders and we ended up talking about how to properly and adequately recognize the contributions of African Americans and their role in shaping American history. I conveyed to them the story of my experience at the Vietnam Memorial and how it seemed to positively affect the people that came there, and that it caused me to recognize that every American needs a monument, a memorial, that is sort of theirs that reflects their heritage. It could be of all kinds of backgrounds in America. We have talked about the need for the Native American monument somewhere in this city to honor what they have contributed to this country. So I believe the creation of this museum will go a long way toward a similar type healing process for African Americans, and I am honored to be a part of it.

The Smithsonian is no doubt one of the world's leaders in preserving, displaying, and telling the story of the American experience. Often called the ``Nation's Attic,'' the Smithsonian houses the great collections of the United States and educates the public on our rich history and the importance of ensuring that knowledge passes from one generation to the next.

However, our national attic currently has some voids and we should work to fill those voids in a very careful, thoughtful, and responsible way. Having this museum is one of those voids that needs to be addressed.

Last year, a Presidential commission was appointed to study the possibility of creating a museum dedicated to African American history and culture. The commission spent thousands of hours researching the possibilities of bringing this museum to light. The commission held dozens of forums and meetings across America and received feedback from a broad spectrum of citizens and leaders within the African American and other communities. These forums and discussions were thoughtful, calculated, and complete. The feedback was resoundingly clear--a national museum is the proper vehicle for showcasing and telling the world about the African American experience. I could not agree more.

I am delighted to join in sponsoring this legislation. The history and culture of African-American life in this country is a very important part of the history of our culture and all that is America. Its story needs to be included in the sacred places in this city.

I commend Senator Brownback for his leadership. I am glad to join in a bipartisan effort to get this legislation approved.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I appreciate very much the generous effort put forward by the Senator from Virginia, Mr. Warner, and his ranking member on the Armed Services Committee, Mr. Levin, to make sure we had an opportunity to offer this amendment. He could have been so disposed to try to block it or stiff us or in some other way undermine the effort to have a full debate and a vote on this issue but he chose not to do that. I do appreciate it very much. He is always generous and kind, and he has proven that is the way he is proceeding on this amendment and this bill also. So I thank him.

I have worked very closely on Defense authorization bills ever since I came to the Senate some 15 years ago. I served on the Armed Services Committee for a number of years, I think almost 7 years. I worked there with Senator Warner, Senator McCain, and others in a bipartisan way. I can remember struggling as leader to find the time to carve out for the Defense authorization bill to be passed so the appropriators did not have to just move forward without an authorization bill, which I think is not a good way to proceed. Quite often, it took a couple of weeks to get it done. This year, this bill, which is I think one of the best Defense authorization bills I have seen in a long time, got through in almost record time, at least in recent history.

We were told that it might actually get through in 2 days. Well, I did not believe that, but I think when all of it is added up it may be 5 days, which with a bill of this importance and this magnitude, it is still warp time, and it is because the committee did a good job. They have a good bill, and I commend them for that. So my support of this amendment in no way should be an indication that I do not appreciate the work that has been done and the considerations that have been given of the issues that I really do care about and that are in this bill.

I think the record will also show that I have been consistent on this BRAC idea. Just a little history that maybe I should offer today, going back to when I was in the House of Representatives and I was the Republican whip in the House and on the Rules Committee. One day I was ambling up the center aisle and I met up with this young Congressman, maybe on his first or second term, named Dick Armey from Texas. He had this brilliant idea called BRAC, the Base Realignment and Closure Act. He wanted to know how he could get that done. I look back on it and question my judgment, but I told him as a member of the Rules Committee and the Republican leadership, well, this is probably how you would need to do that and how you would need to proceed, and explained what happened in the Rules Committee.

At that point, I said I do not agree with what you are trying to do. I think this is an abdication of responsibility. We should not be doing this, and if you think this is going to take politics out of it or make it easier, you have not been around long enough.

Well, dang if he did not go out and do it. So I am partially to blame, I guess, for the process that was put in place by that young Congressman who went on, of course, to be the majority leader.

The reason why I think it is an abdication of responsibility is, look, we have closed bases before. We did it after World War II. We did it after the Korean war. We did it after the Vietnam war. How do I know? I know of bases all around my region of the country: Brookley Air Force Base in Mobile, AL, the Greenville base, the Grenada base, the Greenwood base in my own State, lots of bases. How was that done? The Pentagon, particularly the military service personnel, looked at these bases, at what the requirements were and where the redundancy was. They made recommendations to Congress of what bases needed to be closed. In many instances, I do not know exactly how it worked, they either had to affirmatively approve it or, if they did not disapprove it, they could be closed. We could work that process out but, no, no, we want a process where we can say, no, I do not see it; I do not hear it; I am not involved, do not tell me about it; I do not want it.

What is the responsibility of the executive branch and the legislative branch? That is to do our job. I think this process takes out the considerations that can be given by a Congressman or by a Senator who knows about a base in Virginia or Montana or wherever it may be. They know all the ramifications, what the needs are, what the problems would be if it is closed.

I have never liked this process. The process has not been that unfair to me or to my State. We fared pretty well but then we do not have a whole lot of bases as compared to other States. But we were on the lists. Oh, yes, we were on the lists. There were bases that really should not have even been on the list. It does affect the economy and it does affect the people.

The cities and the States go out and hire Washington people who used to work on the Hill or worked at the Pentagon to be lobbyists.

Millions of dollars will be spent across America in fearful anticipation of this next round of BRAC, even in places where they are not going to be closed.

I have urged those responsible, if you are going to do this, target it where there is redundancy and there needs to be closure; specify those areas, and do not say, well, it could be every base. If you don't, hundreds of bases will be on the list. If they have been on the list before, they may be again. Everyone will run out and start trying to deal with this problem.

Some say people are not really worried about it. Once a month, I do a satellite feed to television stations in my State. Almost every month I get a question: What is happening on BRAC? Are we going to be on the list? They are in fearful anticipation. One in particular I refer to probably will not be on the list, but they are scared to death.

I question it on that basis. If you think this takes politics out of the process, take a look at the last process during the 1990s. There was a lot of concern about some on the list or taken off the list. Human beings are involved. They will use every tool they can to affect it or protect themselves. We should not think this is some pure process. It is not.

Also, the timing. We have been through 2\1/2\ rounds. We still are dealing with some of the aftermath of that, the cleanup. Could we reacquire them? Have they been transferred to the cities and States? When will we know the full benefit or the detriment of that? Sometime later on. The timing now is what bothers me.

We have troops all over the world, thousands in Asia and Europe and Afghanistan and Iraq, fighting a war--not a battle, a war on terrorism. Then we will say, well, we are going to start closing bases. What about some bases in Europe? We have been talking about that for 20 years. Before I came to the Senate, we were talking how we needed to take a look at our basing requirements in Europe. The Soviet Union is gone. Didn't anybody notice? Yet we are still positioned in Europe as if we were going to go with tanks and heavy equipment into the Soviet Union. When are we going to get around to this?

In defense of the Pentagon, they are busy, they have a lot going on, and they have done a great job. They have not had the time, perhaps, to decide what we are going to do in Okinawa and South Korea and the rest of Asia and Europe and what the future will hold. That is my point. Why should we do this?

Before we start closing bases in America, we need a full assessment of what our needs are around the world. Will we bring the troops back? What will our efforts be to protect forces and be mobile? What do we need here?

I could have maybe gone along with a deal and said we will go forward with this once we have done the assessment and have identified what we will change in Europe.

I have learned around this place, never say never. I could conceive of a time and a circumstance where maybe this would need to be done. At this particular time, we have not properly assessed our needs. We are at war. It sends a terrible signal, and it is bad for the economy. We are trying to get the economy going, and it has a negative impact on the economy.

Colleagues, look at what has been identified here. The criteria for this round include military value. Does it have value as a military asset? Should it be eliminated or outsourced? Read that language carefully. Does it have value as a military asset? Is that a way of saying, Do we need the Corps of Engineers? Should it be eliminated or outsourced? Outsourced, is that what is behind all of this?

Jointness: Does the base possess multiservice functionability? What does that mean, we are going to combine Air Force and Navy pilot training? Have we thought that through?

Preservation of training areas: Does the base have unique training areas hindered by encroachment or environmental issues? That is a good thing to consider.

Homeland defense: Does it play a vital role in homeland defense? That is interesting. We should consider that. And cost and its economic impact.

One of the areas that worries me, my impression is a lot of attention will be given to health-related installations. Look down the list. We are talking about Army health clinics, a clinic in Alaska, talking about medical groups in Alabama. I am not sure that is the place we need to focus either. It will have an effect on military personnel and on our veterans at a time when we are making a commitment to them under TRICARE and telling our military personnel they will have good health care service. Are we going to be looking at closing the facilities around the country? Beware.

I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment. This would knock it out of the 2005 round. Maybe 2006 would be considered. Maybe something could be worked out in conference. I invite my colleagues to pay attention to this. This will wind up being a huge problem is my prediction.