Judd Gregg

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. I do not have the time.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I was wondering if this does not also flow into the issue of our ability to access other markets. If we are in the business of trade, where 30 percent of the jobs in New Hampshire are tied not to being owned by a foreign country but being able to sell products to a foreign country--30 percent of our jobs; for one in three workers in the State of New Hampshire, their job is directly related to the fact that the product they make is sold overseas--is it not logical that if we begin to close down our borders, we are basically opening a trade war, and that we could potentially close down those jobs, too, because some nation may retaliate in some other way other than not allowing outsourcing?

Mr. GREGG. I think the Senator has made an extraordinarily strong point. I noticed when he got to New Hampshire, he said 45,000 jobs in New Hampshire are tied to businesses which are non-American owned. Is the Senator aware the largest employer in the State of New Hampshire is not an American company?

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator pointing those out in specific terms as to what the potential effect of this language might be. It is using a club to address an issue which is an issue, a concern, which is, obviously, our competitiveness as a society. But isn't the key to our competitiveness not to shut down markets, but to open markets, and to allow products which we make better than other countries to be sold into those countries? Wouldn't this amendment in the end probably lead to a loss of jobs in the United States, not only from nations such as Japan saying they were not going to outsource their jobs, but our people who are employed in selling products overseas potentially losing their jobs? Wouldn't it fundamentally undermine the whole concept of opening barriers for trade, creating more opportunities for trade and, as a result, lead to potentially a chilling environment which would have a huge impact on our economy, the largest in the world?

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a special person, SGT Randy S. Rosenberg of Berlin, NH. Tragically, on January 24, 2004, this courageous young soldier, only 23 years of age, gave his last full measure for our Nation when a vehicle-based explosive device detonated near his military vehicle in Khalidiyah, Iraq, located in the Sunni Triangle, about 70 miles west of Baghdad. Randy and two of his comrades lost their lives in the explosion and six other American soldiers were wounded in the attack near the Euphrates River. At the time of the hostile action SGT Rosenberg was serving as an infantryman in Company B, 1st Squadron, 9th Cavalry, a component of Task Force ``All American'' which was supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom. Randy joined the United States Army in September 1998, after graduating from Berlin High School, where he played hockey and baseball. He completed Basic Training and Advanced Individual Training at Fort Benning, GA, and was assigned to Fort Hood, TX, since March 1999. His awards include the Army Commendation Medal, Good Conduct Medal, National Defense Medal, Noncommissioned Officer Professional Development Ribbon, Army Service Ribbon, Combat Infantry Badge, Purple Heart, posthumous, and Bronze Star, posthumous. This was his second tour of duty in the Middle East, having served previously in Kuwait. His wife, Misty, is from Goffstown, NH. His mother and stepfather are Rick and Sandy Fournier. Sandy works in the Berlin City Hall. His sister, Tanya, 15, is a student at Berlin High School. SGT Rosenberg also leaves his maternal grandfather, Saul Rosenberg, and his maternal grandmother, Shirley Gemitti, and her husband, William Gemitti, a veteran of the Korean war. Patriots from the State of New Hampshire have served our Nation with honor and distinction from Bunker Hill to Iraq--and Randy served in that fine tradition. Daniel Webster said: God grants liberty only to those who love it, and are always ready to guard and defend it. Randy was one of those proud and dedicated volunteers who chose to serve our Nation, and guard our precious liberty, and for that we will always owe our sincere gratitude. The sudden death of a young person is especially difficult for family and friends. In November 1864, President Abraham Lincoln was informed by the War Department of a mother who had lost five sons in the Civil War. He wrote the mother: I feel how weak and fruitless must be any word of mine which should attempt to beguile you from the grief of a loss so overwhelming. But I cannot refrain from tendering you the consolation that may be found in the thanks of the Republic they died to save. I pray that our Heavenly Father may assuage the anguish of your bereavement, and leave you only the cherished memory of the loved and lost, and the solemn pride that must be yours to have laid so costly a sacrifice upon the altar of freedom. Family, friends, and fellow soldiers will no longer be able to enjoy the company of SGT Randy S. Rosenberg. Strangers will never have the opportunity to know his friendship. Yet memories of this young patriot will last forever with those who were fortunate enough to have had the opportunity to know him. May God bless Randy Rosenberg.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to modify my unanimous consent to have the Senator from Missouri proceed for 5 minutes followed by myself for 15.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed as if in morning business for 15 minutes.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, in 1989, a little known thief and thug named Charles Taylor set in motion a series of events which have thrown the impoverished nation of Liberia into chaos and its neighboring nations into genocide. From Ivory Coast he launched a successful coup against Liberia's sitting President, Samuel Doe, plunging Liberia into 15 years of civil war. We are still dealing with the fallout of that war today. The coup, notably, followed after Charles Taylor had escaped from a Massachusetts prison in 1985, where he was about to be extradited for embezzlement. Groups on all sides of the Liberian conflict have committed atrocities, including widespread rape, massacres, mutilation and torture, and forced labor of children. There are literally hundreds of accounts of villagers having been slaughtered as they tried to flee, women being raped, children being brutally raped. Such atrocities have been part of the deliberate policies of Charles Taylor, his government, and the groups that fought for him. In the conflict, it is estimated approximately 60,000 to 200,000 people died in the violence, and many more died from hunger, disease, and lack of medical care. After the end of the civil war in 1996--it really wasn't a civil war; it was more of an attempt by Charles Taylor to use brutality to force his way into Liberia--Charles Taylor became the President of Liberia by winning an election which he won simply by saying if he did not win, he would continue the violence, continue the rape and destruction and plunder of the country. Meanwhile, in 1991, civil war erupted in the neighboring country of Sierra Leone. Sierra Leone is one of the most impoverished nations in the world, which is particularly tragic in light of the fact that it has some tremendous natural resources. The conflict was primarily between the Government of Sierra Leone and a rebel group known as the Revolutionary United Front. The RUF lacked any discernible political agenda other than violence and plunder. Its main objective was to take control of the Sierra Leone diamond mines. The RUF became notorious for its use of forced amputations to control the civilian population. The conflict between the government and the RUF and other factions has resulted in tens of thousands of deaths and the displacement of more than 2 million people, well over one-third of the population. The situation in Sierra Leone became so bad in 1999 the United Nations established a peacekeeping mission. This mission was called UNAMSIL and has cost the U.S. taxpayers a total of $646 million over a period of 6 years. This mission got off to a rocky start. The British intervention in 2000 helped stabilize the situation, and we should congratulate the British for being willing to step up to this issue. Today, Sierra Leone is a relatively stable country, which is quite a miracle. It is widely known that the then-Liberian President, Charles Taylor, during the time of the violence in Sierra Leone, was essentially the force behind the RUF. He was supplying the weapons, the training, and it was his purpose to use the RUF to control the diamond trade. For his support, he got a great amount of the resources in the diamond trade. This is an important point because herein lies two roots of the cause of Sierra Leone's woes: First Charles Taylor, and second, conflict diamonds. We have addressed the issue of conflict diamonds through the Kimberley Process, which is something that our committee has played a major role in driving forward, where we now have some control over the types of diamonds that are sold into the international market and whether or not they are conflict diamonds. We have also attempted to address Charles Taylor. This is why I come to the floor today, to talk about where we stand in addressing Charles Taylor. Back in Liberia, around the time that the mission to Sierra Leone got underway, the anti-Taylor forces began to mobilize and to actively fight the Taylor government in Liberia. In 1999, an anti- Taylor faction called the Liberians United for Reconciliation and Democracy, LURD, was formed in northern Liberia. In 2003, a second anti-Taylor faction called the Movement for Democracy in Liberia, or MODEL, emerged in the southern Liberia area. Both groups have been accused of atrocities similar to those committed by the Taylor forces. As the situation in Liberia worsened in the summer of 2003, the United States came under intense pressure to intervene. At one point, the U.S. sent marines in to protect U.S. citizens in Monrovia and to conduct an assessment of the situation in Monrovia. On September 19, 2003, with U.S. support, the United Nations established a full-blown peacekeeping mission to Liberia, ordering the deployment of some 15,000 troops. One month later Congress responded by appropriating $245 million to cover the U.S. cost of the UNMIL project, which is the U.N. initiative there--$200 million for humanitarian aid in Liberia. In the fiscal year 2005 budget request, the State Department has requested another $215 million for UNMIL. I am told the amount fell short of what the U.S. believes its share of the cost will actually be. I am unclear what will be required to stabilize Liberia, but it is estimated that 40,000 combatants, including 15,000 children, must be disarmed, demobilized, and reintegrated into society. Hundreds of thousands of civilians who were forced to flee their homes during the wars must be reintegrated into their villages from squalid refugee camps in and outside Liberia. Liberia's infrastructure must be rebuilt. So it is an expensive and long path. In the fall of 2002, the neighboring and equally unstable country of Ivory Coast also collapsed into violence. Charles Taylor is known to have recruited some of his mercenary fighters in Ivory Coast. He is now reported to have supported rebels in west Ivory Coast who were trying to oust the President of Ivory Coast. He is now reported to be supporting the rebels in west Ivory Coast that seek to oust the President of Burkina Faso, a neighboring country that has enjoyed relative stability. The U.N. is expected to take a vote as early as tomorrow, or maybe even today, on the establishment of another U.N. peacekeeping mission to Ivory Coast. The State Department has informed me that the United States will vote for such a mission. The U.S. share of that cost will be about $60 million. Both Sierra Leone and the Liberian missions are attributable in large part to Charles Taylor. It is clear that Taylor is also heavily involved in the Ivory Coast conflict. We know he continues to dabble in other west African countries. The conflicts that plague west Africa have many common denominators, but the one that stands out is Charles Taylor. Another one that stands out is the amount of death, destruction, and loss of economic well- being that has occurred in that region as a result of Charles Taylor's actions. In 2000, with strong U.S. backing, the U.N. and the Government of Sierra Leone began the process of establishing a special court for Sierra Leone. The mission of the Special Court is to try those who bear the greatest responsibility for the genocide which occurred in Sierra Leone and to try them under Sierra Leone law. The Special Court for Sierra Leone indicted Charles Taylor as its first act. As its first act, it indicted the President of Liberia. He is accused of 17 counts of war crimes against humanity, and other serious violations of international humanitarian law. But where is Charles Taylor? Not in prison awaiting trial where he should be. He is living in a luxury villa in the southeastern port city of Calabar, Nigeria. He is able to live in luxury because of the timber he plundered from Liberia and the diamonds he plundered from Sierra Leone, much of which can be tracked to terrorists. He is able to live in luxury because he was allowed to leave Liberia and to go to Nigeria. When the situation in Monrovia last summer became so bad that his safety could no longer be assured, Taylor began looking for an escape route. As pressure mounted in the international community for an intervention in Liberia, key players such as the U.S., U.N., the Economic Community of West African States--ECOWAS--and Nigeria correctly realized that a peace agreement--a necessary precursor to U.N. intervention--could not include Taylor, an indicted war criminal. Further, the parties recognized that even if an agreement could be reached, the rebels would never trust Taylor to abide by it, given his long history of reneging on peace agreements. So Taylor had to go--and fast. The U.S., U.N., ECOWAS, and Nigeria engaged in talks about how to get Taylor out of Liberia. An agreement was reached in which Nigeria would offer Taylor asylum, but would not then be pressured to turn Taylor over. The details of these talks are vague, but finding a way to bring Taylor to the Special Court was reportedly not even discussed. But such a promise to Nigeria--that it would not be pressured to hand over Taylor--should not have been made. The parties involved decided that getting Taylor out of Liberia was the fastest way to ``stop the bloodshed.'' I would argue that, indeed, giving Taylor asylum in Nigeria was the surest way to prolong the bloodshed. Now safely ensconced in Nigeria with a hefty security detail, Taylor is arguably in a better position now to destabilize Liberia and other West African nations. I will come back to this point. Taylor, astutely, took Nigeria up on its offer of asylum. And on August 11, 2003, he and his entourage of 100 flew to Nigeria. Taylor used Nigeria's offer to escape both the rebels and prosecution by the Special Court. The Nigerians have been offended by Congress' recent calls for them to hand over Charles Taylor to the Special Court. The Nigerians should be commended for the important leadership role they have played in this and other West African crises. But their past and continued contributions do not justify their refusal to cooperate with the Special Court. If Nigeria is going to play a leadership role in West Africa, it must be committed to seeing those who destabilize that region stopped and held accountable for their actions. It must be committed to promoting the rule of law. But the blame does not rest on Nigeria alone. The blame rests equally on the parties that negotiated for Taylor's transfer to Nigeria instead of his delivery to the Special Court--the U.S. and the U.N. It is inconceivable that the U.S. and the U.N., which have been driving forces behind the Special Court, would cast aside an opportunity to get the Special Court halfway to its goal and would not pursue the first person consequential in their activities of violence in Sierra Leone. Upon his departure from Liberia, Taylor pledged: ``I'll be back.'' Taylor has reneged on at least 13 cease fire agreements and 8 peace agreements, each time using the negotiations to stall and re-arm. It is clear from statements like this and from Taylor's past actions that he intends to use asylum in Nigeria to stall and re-arm, just as he has done in the past. The result of this is that, now, no one believes Liberia has seen the last of Charles Taylor--least of all the Liberians. Very clear conditions were placed upon Mr. Taylor's offer of asylum: he was to completely disengage himself from the day to day affairs-- military or otherwise--of Liberia. Immediately upon his arrival in Nigeria, however, Taylor began breaking--flagrantly--the terms of his asylum agreement. Taylor has maintained contact with his lieutenants and supporters through telephone calls, instant messaging, and intermediaries who act as couriers. It is also said that Taylor maintains control over substantial numbers of combatants. Sources told me that Taylor was ``on a satellite phone every day talking with Liberian officials.'' Even the United Nations Security Council in October, 2003, then under U.S. chairmanship, issued a warning that Taylor should discontinue communications with his supporters in Liberia. In November, 2003, it was reported that Taylor's former chief of staff was recruiting mercenaries in Ivory Coast, Burkina Faso, and Ghana, all small and similarly troubled West African nations. Also in November, it was reported that Charles Taylor's son was in Ukraine negotiating for arms with which to launch a fresh attack from Ivorian territory. It is reported that Taylor lieutenants and loyalists have carved out a piece of western Ivory Coast and have clashed with French peacekeepers there. It has even been reported by highly reliable sources that Taylor engineered the attempted coup in Burkina Faso last October. The reason? The President of Burkina Faso, a former ally of Taylor's, was starting to cooperate with the Special Court. It is also thought that Taylor supported the coup because he believes renewed regional chaos would assist him in his return to power in Liberia. Taylor is reported to be training 400 armed men in the town of Guiglo Ivory Coast. This group, called ``Death Roll M-15'', was reportedly established for the sole purpose of destabilizing Burkina Faso. These are just reports. It will be partly the Special Court's job to confirm or discredit them. But if even one of these reports is true, that is enough. As long as Taylor's former warlords take their orders from the man himself, no one is going to disarm. I am told that Taylor supporters are already, in fact, refusing to disarm because they believe he will return to power. Anti-Taylor rebels also refuse to disarm because they too believe Taylor's exile is temporary. They believe they will need to maintain the ability to defend themselves against reprisals or prevent his return to power. Disarmament, Demobilization, and Reintegration, or DDR, is the backbone of all U.N. peacekeeping missions. U.N. peacekeepers do not have the authority to disarm rebels forcibly. Disarmament is always voluntary. What incentive, I ask you, do combatants have to lay down their arms while their boss is still calling the shots from his mobile command center in Calabar? Similarly, many Taylor subordinates hold key positions in Liberia's transitional government. What incentive do they have to cooperate on necessary reforms when they too believe that Taylor could one day return? The longer Taylor escapes justice, the longer UNMIL will last and the worse its prospects for success. As if all of this weren't bad enough, I am told by well-placed sources that reports of Taylor's link to Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups are ``highly credible''. We have heard public testimony from members of the Liberian media, now living in the U.S., that Taylor ``supports terrorists and encourages the presence of al-Qaeda members in Liberia''. Taylor's reported motive for supporting terrorists is to assure himself access to large amounts of arms. What am I missing here? Why are we so willing to go around cleaning up messes created by Charles Taylor, and yet we seem so content to let him live his life peacefully in his villa? He continues to terrorize and destabilize, and yet now he does so under the protection of a nation that is in danger of becoming an accomplice, though most certainly unwitting, to his crimes. The people of Sierra Leone deserve justice. They deserve the right to have the person who essentially designed and was the brains behind the RUF and the atrocities which it committed brought to justice. It sends a terrible signal to Charles Taylor, an indicted war criminal by an internationally recognized tribunal set up by the United Nations, underwritten by the United Nations and supported with American tax dollars. That tribunal has not been able to bring Charles Taylor before it. The forces which are keeping that from happening are the very forces which set up the tribunal itself. This is not only a bad precedent for the Sierra Leone situation but we know that other special courts are going to be needed to deal with atrocities in other countries, with genocide in other countries. Who is going to take those courts seriously when a court that has been set up by the U.N. and underwritten by the United States finds itself stymied when the person it believes is most responsible for the genocide and the horror, the destruction and the death in Sierra Leone is not allowed to be brought before the court because the intermediaries that allow him to maintain his safe haven in Nigeria are the same people who set up the court? Nobody is going to take the special court seriously if we do not pursue Charles Taylor and bring him to justice before that court. He cannot be tried in absentia under Sierra Leone law; he must be present in Sierra Leone. I have heard that some have the position, maybe we could try him in Nigeria while doing the trial in Sierra Leone. That does not work because Sierra Leone does not allow that to happen. Nigeria tried to be a positive and constructive player in this effort. I congratulate them for their purpose of being constructive and positive. But it is now time to hand over Mr. Taylor. We should support Nigeria in that effort. The United States should support Nigeria in that effort. We are not pursuing the handover of Charles Taylor to the special court for what I believe are selfish reasons. That we are pursuing the Taylor handover is critical to peace and stability in west Africa and because the people of Sierra Leone deserve justice. I commend the men and women of Sierra Leone. They have gone through extraordinary pain and trauma. They have made the difficult decision to support the special court. They are trying to run a democratic government. They have done this with the expectation that the international community will support the commitments we have made. Clearly, one of the fundamental commitments we have made is that the special court, when it indicts an individual, will have the ability to bring that person before it. The prosecutor of the special court is a man named David Crane. He is an American, a very competent and dedicated former Defense Department official. Each day, he and his team demonstrate that justice can be effectively and efficiently delivered in a war-torn region of the world. We should be proud of what they have done. What they have done is incomplete and will continue to be incomplete as long as they are not allowed to bring Charles Taylor before the bar of justice in Sierra Leone. It is time for the international community, the U.N., the United States, to put an end to this extraordinarily destructive chapter in west African history. The only way we can put an end to it is if we allow the court to try Charles Taylor and bring him to justice. It is time to support that effort. I yield the floor.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I congratulate the Senator from Ohio for an excellent statement outlining the gravity of the problem we face, which is that women in this country are losing access to OB/GYN doctors, especially if they want to have babies. As a result, we are putting a lot of pressure on a lot of people--women, specifically, in their birthing years--and making it difficult, especially in rural areas, to get the type of health care we want them to get. We are a society that is built around the concept of babies and children, and that is one of the more exciting things that happens in everybody's lifetime. Yet we are a society making it extraordinarily difficult now for doctors who practice the delivery of children and babies to practice their trade. As I have said before, lawyers don't deliver children. Doctors deliver children. Unfortunately, the doctors are being driven out of the business by attorneys, and the cost of their malpractice premiums are going up radically. As a result, many doctors in my State are not delivering children anymore. I went through the specifics of that yesterday. I want to read a compelling letter I received from Debbie Risteen. She lives in Derry, NH. She has six children. She wrote: I regret I could not be here with you in person today to tell you my story myself, as it would have been quite an honor for me. Let me tell you a little about myself. I am a mother of 6 whose ages range from 12 to 8 months. I love children and I homeschool. One of my favorite things of our married life has been being pregnant and delivering our babies. What an incredible time all 6 have been! I would like to describe to you a word picture for a moment. . . . It was a very difficult decision for me to decline coming to speak to you all today. One that took a lot thought. I need to weigh the cost at such a short notice. As much as I wanted to be here today, my family needed me more. If anything happened especially with the baby . . . I would be so far away to be able to meet the need and it would take me awhile to get to NH. In this picture, I now want you to see the importance of a pregnant woman needing the care of her OB. Someone she can depend on, trust in the decisions that lie ahead and most of all close in case of an emergency just like my family is depending on me. You see, my heart was broken this Christmas when I learned of our dear friend, Dr. Pat Miller, would not be doing what was closest to her heart . . . delivering babies. I could not believe it, you are so wonderful at this, people need you, I would tell her. 12\1/2\ years ago we made one of the biggest decisions of our lives . . . to begin a family. When we got the exciting news, we were busy looking for the best care, a doctor who was up on the latest, one who could handle complications, a hospital close by, and the list went on. We learned of a new OB in the area . . . Pat Miller. We heard she was all the things we were looking for and more. We were thrilled to be in the care of someone as wonderful as her. Through all of our visits we became very close friends and I knew she truly cared about me, the child, and my husband. Being our first and not knowing what to expect, I knew she was right there if anything was to happen and I trusted her wisdom to do what was best for the both of us. As a matter of fact, 3 of our children were born on her day off and she spent the day at the hospital in case we needed her for any emergencies. It was a tremendous comfort not only to me through these 9 months, but also for my husband to know we were in the best care and it was close. We knew that no matter what lied ahead she was there and would make the best choices. As our family began to grow it was a huge help to have her close by, especially when bringing 1 then 2 and so on with me. I have been so fortunate through 6 pregnancies to not have any complications, but as we all know, there are no guarantees to this. Other women are not as fortunate as me, but I would love for them to be able to have the same comfort and trust that I have experienced with our OB. I love our children dearly, and I love babies, and my hearts desire in sharing my story with you, is for legislators to hear 1st hand the importance of people, like Pat Miller, to be able to continue what she loves and does best. To be able to provide an environment in which OB's can continue to deliver babies. To allow other mothers the same opportunity of trust and friendship that we still have today with our OB. Please listen to my heart . . . we need people like Pat Miller back in OB where she does what she knows best. Thank you for listening. Sincerely, Debbie Risteen. That is a pretty compelling letter. It is anecdotal, but it is an anecdote happening across this country. Stories are being retold. Women are losing their OBs because these physicians are getting out of the practice of delivering babies because of the cost of their malpractice insurance. This bill will help alleviate that problem, and it is absolutely critical to give women this access and to not do things extremely discriminatory against women, and especially women who wish to become pregnant and have children. I yield the floor.

Mr. GREGG. The Senator from Florida wanted 20 minutes. I ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to proceed after I speak for 20 minutes, but to the extent his time exceeds 12 minutes, it be debited against the time of the Democratic membership after we come back from the policy lunches.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, what is the present situation relative to time?

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I join with my colleague from Alaska in congratulating Senator John Glenn on the honor he received. I am rising today, however, to speak about the bill which is hopefully going to come before the Senate and on which the majority leader has been so eloquent, as he often is. Especially when there are issues concerning the care for other people, the majority leader has truly established a record that is unique, certainly in the Senate, with the hands-on experience of physically saving lives as a result of his skills as a surgeon and a doctor. He has decided to bring to the Senate the issue of how we make sure women in this country have adequate access to doctors, especially during that period in their lives when they are delivering children. I personally cannot think of anything more important to our culture than babies. If we were to pick one event in the life of a citizen of this country--or I suspect anywhere in the world--that really is an event of great wonder and alters a person's view of the world and how they work with the world, it is when one has a child. Certainly they want to make sure their children are delivered in a safe way and with the best medical help that can be obtained. This is why this bill is so important, because trial lawyers do not deliver babies. Doctors deliver babies. If we do not have enough good doctors dealing with women who are about to deliver or who are becoming pregnant or who believe they wish to have a child, and to deal with them in a manner which allows women to have ready access so that they do not have to drive miles in order to see their doctor or they do not have to wait days in order to see a doctor because there are not any available, if we do not have that structure in our society then we put at risk our ability as a society to have healthy children and to have mothers who are comfortable and feel safe about the experience of childbirth. That is something that is serious. Regrettably, that is where we have arrived as a society. Whether we like it or not, we have arrived at a time where women in this country are at significant risk of not being able to see a baby doctor because the baby doctors in this country are being driven out of the business by the cost of their errors and omissions insurance. That insurance has skyrocketed dramatically in the last few years as a result of lawsuits, and further in my statement I will get into some specific statistics that will show why these lawsuits are occurring and what their impact has been on the actual ability of doctors to practice, in a statistical term. All of us who work in this area of trying to address the concerns of getting women decent access to doctors so they can have children safely have heard stories and anecdotes which are so regrettably consistent in the sadness of the tales that there has to be a great deal of truth to them. It is also supported by the numbers and statistics. Last week I had the chance to meet with four obstetricians in New Hampshire. Two of them had to get out of the business of delivering babies. It was the favorite part of their practice. They were OB/GYNs. The cost of their insurance had increased so dramatically they could no longer afford to go into the operating room and deliver a child. Neither of those two doctors had ever had a claim against them relative to the children they had delivered before they gave up the practice, and they delivered quite a few. Two of the other doctors were still delivering babies, but they had significantly curtailed their practice or their practice had been dramatically impacted by the cost of their insurance. One doctor told us everything he earned in the first 5 months of his practice every year went to pay his insurance premiums relative to a potential claim against him, and he never had a claim against him personally. There had never been a claim. Yet his premiums had jumped over 100 percent in the last 3 years. He was finding it very difficult to stay in the business of delivering children, but because he was the only doctor in that part of our State who was really doing that, he felt a social obligation to continue delivering babies, as well as the fact that he personally loved the practice of delivering babies. It was getting to a point where he was not sure how much longer he could do this. Also at this meeting there were two doctors who should have been there but were not because they had left the practice. They were two doctors from northern New Hampshire, which is a rural part of our State. They are no longer practicing and delivering our children. As a result, there is no doctor in northern New Hampshire today who delivers babies. There is no OB/GYN because they have been driven out of the practice of medicine. Those two doctors have left the practice in that area. One moved to another State and the other simply dropped the business of delivering babies. The stories go on. They are real and they impact real people. In order to see a doctor, a woman in northern New Hampshire today who is pregnant has to now drive from Colebrook, NH, probably down to Hanover, NH, or at least down to Littleton at the closest, which is a long drive. It is a curvy road and in the winter it is a difficult drive. Even though people are comfortable driving in the winter in New England and in New Hampshire, we can get some serious snow and ice and it can be very testy and sometimes one cannot even get through because the snow cannot get removed in time or it is too heavy. So that woman is at risk, and it is not just in New Hampshire. This is a photograph of a woman from Arizona named Melinda Sallard. She was forced to drive about 45 miles in order to deliver her child. In the first 2 blocks, they drove by the hospital that was next door to their house, but there was no OB/GYN doctor there because they had given up the practice, so she had to drive 45 miles to the hospital. On the way, she had the baby in Arizona. The baby's heartbeat had actually stopped while she delivered it in the car, and while her husband kept driving to the hospital, she was able to start the baby's heartbeat again and the baby survived. Now we see the photograph, but it was risky and it was traumatic. She should have had a doctor in the hospital that was almost next door to her house, but she did not. She did not because the doctors in that hospital had to give up the practice. We have Dr. Schmitt, one of the best doctors in North Carolina, according to the patients who saw him deliver babies, who loved the practice, but because the cost of his insurance went up so much as a result of the potential of a suit, of which I understand he had never had any, he had to give up the practice. This is a picture of the doctor and I think just about the last child he delivered. The child is not very happy about being the last child he delivered. He does not have a smile on his face. He wanted the doctor to deliver other children. Dr. Schmitt had to give up the practice. He actually moved because he could not maintain the premiums that were driving up costs so extraordinarily. What is causing this? Essentially, it is being caused by lawsuits, many of them frivolous. In fact, there is a statistic that says only 4 percent of the lawsuits against OB/GYNs have a recovery. The rest are frivolous--not all frivolous, maybe, but the majority are. The rest don't lead to any recovery at all. But as a result of those 4 percent of lawsuits getting astronomical recoveries, the whole pool of coverage costs for all baby doctors has increased so dramatically that they have been driven out of the business or they have been put in a position where they can no longer deliver children in a manner which is either fair or accessible for many women. We are at serious risk of having this discipline so contracted that we will end up rationing care in this area, which could be very serious and unfortunate for women. It is a function of the fact that our legal system has run amok relative to baby doctors and the women who need to see those baby doctors. I have heard our candidates from the other side of the aisle, both of whom are Members of this body--I have heard Senator Kerry say: I have spent my career fighting against special interests. I think he has said that almost every day, but that is a direct quote from the newspaper where he said it in Boston. ``I spent my career fighting against special interests.'' Where is he fighting for these women? Where is he when these women want to see a OB/GYN and they can't? I suggest maybe he is fighting for the special interests on the other side of the coin, those who are the trial lawyers. For some reason the trial lawyers appear to have the ear of the majority--not the majority but of enough so we cannot even hear about this bill on the floor much less vote on it. We should at least be able to take up the bill. But, no, no, the trial lawyers aren't going to let us take up this bill. We are not even going to be allowed to debate it on the floor and have votes on amendments. Maybe some who spent their career fighting special interests could come down to this floor and explain that one to me. Explain to me why Dr. Schmitt isn't practicing medicine anymore. There is somebody who needs someone to fight for him. Explain to me why Mrs. Sallard had to drive 45 miles and have her baby in the car. Explain to me why we don't have a doctor in Colebrook, NH, who will deliver babies or see people when they want to have babies. Explain that to me if you want to talk about fighting special interests or maybe come down and explain to me why trial lawyers are right. Then you say you fight against special interests. There is an irony there. I have heard Senator Edwards say: ``I want to make health care a birthright for every single child born in this country.'' That is Senator Edwards in the Des Moines Register--``every single child born in this country.'' Senator, come down and explain to us how children are going to be born if their mother cannot see a doctor. What type of risk is that child going to be at when they are born if the mother cannot see a doctor in Colebrook? This bill is being held up because there are interests out there that do not want to bring this issue to the floor of the Senate even for debate. They just want to stiff-arm it on behalf of an interest in this country which believes that it should have the right to bring these suits but has, as I said, 96 percent of them thrown out of court and in the same manner throws out of the delivery room the doctors, throws out the women to be on their own to look for a doctor miles away, at great inconvenience. This is a battle of special interests. My special interest in this one happens to be babies and mothers. Somebody else's special interest happens to be the trial bar. I am happy to defend this special interest, babies and mothers, on the Senate floor today. I would like to know why the other side is not willing to let us have this bill come forward. Let's get into some specifics about the size of the problem. The next chart we have shows the cover of Newsweek, which ran a very good piece on ``Lawsuit Hell, How Fear of Litigation is Paralyzing Our Professionals.'' Right in the middle is a doctor. It could be a midwife. Remember, midwives are as much affected by this as doctors. But essentially it is those people you see when you most need them, and especially if you are a woman and you want to have children. That person's career is paralyzed, and as a result of their career being paralyzed, our ability to get adequate health care is paralyzed. It is a good story. I recommend it to everybody. I want to make the point this is about women and it is about women's right to access decent health care. So speaking on behalf of that special interest--I know Senator Kerry is fighting against special interests, and he is probably fighting against this special interest, but I want to put something on the record. I don't want to put it in the Record because we will ruin the Record, but I want to mention that we have 85,000 petitions. Eighty-five thousand women have signed petitions asking that we at least consider this bill, where we at least get a vote on whether or not their doctors can have some protection. Eighty-five thousand women want to see a doctor, want to be safe when they get into those child-bearing years. They want to have the opportunity to have safe medical care. So we have brought those petitions here today. I am obviously not going to put them in the Record. I don't want the American taxpayer to have the expense of printing this. But I want to make it clear this is about real people, women who need health care, and especially need it when they are about to have children. The extent of this crisis is significant. It is not limited to New Hampshire, although New Hampshire has a very definite problem. The American Medical Association has developed this chart which basically color-codes States on the effect of the medical liability crisis on the availability of doctors. There are a number of States in this country where it is getting to be critical, where you are in a crisis mode if you want to see a doctor because you may not be able to see one. Those are the States in red. If you recall, in West Virginia the doctors actually weren't available for some time because of that issue. In Pennsylvania the same problem arose. It arose in State after State, large States with large populations: Florida, Texas, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Missouri, and smaller States, too, such as Wyoming. Every one of those red States is in crisis. That means there is a real problem, that you may not be able to see a doctor when you want to have a child or getting to see that doctor will be difficult. The yellow States are the ones moving toward crisis. This is not an abating problem; it is a growing problem. Only the white States, and there are very few of them, have been able to get their acts together, and we will find out why in a few minutes when we start talking about what States have passed limitations on liability insurance, and that being the issue. I want to take a specific look at a specific State which is in crisis: New York. New York State--I just picked New York out arbitrarily--is in crisis. This is for baby doctors. There are seven counties in New York where there are no obstetricians, where, if you are an expectant mother and you want to go see a doctor, you cannot stay in the county you are in. Some of those counties have a fairly high delivery rate: 200 in this county, 289, 215, 322 children. This is on an annual basis. Then there are a number of other counties which only have one obstetrician, and some of those counties have even larger numbers of delivery rates. So you are dealing with some people who are having to drive a heck of a long way in order to see a doctor. And New York State can get pretty cold and snowy, especially around Buffalo and Syracuse, where, as far as I can tell, it always snows except for in June and July. In any event, it can be hard to drive if you are an expectant mother. You can be under a lot of pressure to get to those doctors. It is not that they can't practice in those counties; it is that they cannot afford to practice in those counties. Why can't they? This problem is a uniquely rural problem in some ways. In order to pay that insurance premium, which is so high and has gotten so extraordinarily high over the last few years--in order to pay that premium you basically have to deliver a lot of babies. If a doctor has a practice in a rural area, not generating a huge amount of births, then you cannot work hard enough or deliver enough births to pay your premium. The doctor I mentioned from Laconia, NH--by our standards a fairly populous area of our State; not overly populated but a fairly decent community--has to work 5 months to pay just his insurance premium. If he were working in Colebrook, obviously, he would have had to work all year to pay the insurance premium and then he would not have earned enough to pay the premium. That is why we have no OB/GYN in Colebrook, NH. There are not enough babies being delivered. The premiums have gone up so radically they cannot afford to continue to practice. I am sure there are a lot of places in the Presiding Officer's State of Kansas which have the exact problem. I know parts of Kansas are reasonably rural. Those folks probably have to drive a long way to see a doctor. Kansas is a big State compared to New Hampshire. It is flat, so it is an easy drive, but still it is a long drive. Let's talk about some of the statistics so this is not just anecdotal: 72 percent of the OB/GYN doctors in Pennsylvania surveyed have changed their practice to reduce their liability--that means they have stopped delivering babies; 75 percent of the OB/GYN doctors in West Virginia, as well; 71 percent in Kentucky. There are dramatic drops in doctors willing to deliver babies or do any high-risk procedures at all. OB/GYN doctors in New Hampshire experienced a 100-percent increase in premiums within 3 years. That is a staggering number. As I mentioned earlier, only 4 percent of the lawsuits brought relative to OB/GYN practices actually lead to recovery. That is staggering because it shows there are a lot of frivolous lawsuits. What is the way to resolve this? There are a lot of moving parts in the health care question. I am not saying the only issue that affects costs that the OB/GYN doctor incurs during their practice is the liability issue, the insurance issue, the issue driven by lawsuits which have no relationship to a doctor's practice because the doctor has never been sued. There are other factors. There is technology, hospital associations, all sorts of factors. Obviously, the insurance industry has gone through some significant adjustments, especially in the rate of return on investments as a result. But we know the single most significant factor by far is the increase in costs of the insurance policy. That is the item that is most affecting the ability of the doctors to continue to practice. We also know those States which have taken action in this area have actually been able to control the costs so the doctors are no longer feeling pressure at that level. The best example is California. Liability reform occurred in California, with caps, in 1977. As a result, in the California cost increase experience, premiums have gone up 182 percent compared with the rest of the United States, which has gone up 573 percent. The chart shows the difference. It reflects the fact that if you put in a responsible approach to premiums to liability insurance, you can control the rate of growth of the cost and, as a result, you can create more availability of doctors and more affordable health care. This chart shows that reform works. The bottom line reflects obstetrics. The first two areas, Los Angeles and Denver, have in place laws which limit recovery in the area of pain and suffering. Their basic premium for a policy of $1 million/$3 million is $54,000 and $33,000. The next four jurisdictions do not have those laws: New York, Las Vegas, Chicago, and Miami. Premiums in Miami are almost four times higher than Los Angeles, which would be a comparable city, and about seven times higher than Colorado; Chicago, two times higher; Las Vegas, two times higher; New York, 1\1/2\ times higher than Los Angeles; two times higher than Denver. That reflects the fact that if you put in responsible reform in the area of liability insurance you can control those premium costs. What is responsible reform? It is reform that addresses the primary concerns of a person who is injured but also addresses the fact that we have a large number of frivolous lawsuits being brought and a large number of lawsuits leading to extraordinary recoveries, which costs are being passed on to all the OB/GYN baby doctors in this country. As a result, baby doctors who have absolutely no history of malpractice are forced out of practice and mothers are not able to see their doctors and are being limited in access. This bill tries to address that. First, it says right off the top that a State has the right to make a decision on what the cap will be. We have essentially addressed this issue of States rights. We put in a cap that if a State wants to go above it they can go above it; if they want to go below it, they can go below. We also say there is no limitation on recovery for medical costs. There was a recent decision where, unfortunately, there was a severe injury and the child would need medical care for years. The bill came to something like $18 million. That would be an award that could occur if that was the child's medical costs; that could be recovered--whether $18 million, $10 million, $5 million, even more, $20 million. Hopefully, that will not happen too often but if it does the parents have a right to that recovery. As to lost compensation, if the mother is injured and there is a loss of compensation, if she has a job that she can no longer go back to or is limited in her ability to get a job, there is absolutely no limit as to what the recovery is relative to her compensation. If she is going to have a lifetime expectancy earning of $10 million, discounted to whatever that is, she gets that recovery. What we do not have in this bill, or what we try to cap because this is where the costs have gone out of control, this is what is driving the premium rates, is a limit on pain and suffering, which is basically the money that is thrown on top. Pain and suffering is what a jury feels when they hear a sad story that they think deserves an extra bonus award. That is limited to $250,000 under this bill. That is a reasonable limit. Most States are at that number that have acted in this area. But if a State wants to go above that area, it can step out of that and pass a higher amount. The practical effect of this bill, should it pass, is that the 85,000 women who have written to us, the literally hundreds of thousands of women who are worried whether they will have a good doctor to see or even whether they will be able to see a doctor or whether they will have to drive many, many miles to see a doctor, putting themselves at risk, those women's concerns will be addressed to some degree because we will make practicing medicine in the area of delivering babies affordable again. We can get a doctor back in Colebrook. A doctor will not have to work 4 or 5 months of the year just to pay his or her premium. Doctors who love to deliver babies in Dover, NH, will be able to get back into the business of delivering babies because they will be able to afford the premium. That is what this is all about. It is about giving women the opportunity to have access to good doctors who can deliver babies and have those babies be healthy. Why we are not even going to be allowed to vote on going to this bill is beyond me, but that, I understand, is a position the Democratic leadership has taken. It seems ironic in the face of Senator Edwards' statement, which I will read again, as the potential standard bearer of his party: ``I want to make health care a birthright for every single child born in the country.'' It is going to be hard for children to be born if they cannot see baby doctors. I do not understand why we cannot at least debate this issue on the Senate floor and have a vote on it. Senator Kerry would appear to want to do this because he wants to fight special interests. Well, I want to promote this special interest--which is children, mothers, expectant mothers, and doctors who deliver babies. So if the other side wishes to oppose those three constituencies, that is their choice. But I think they need to explain to us why it is good for a mother, good for a baby, or good for a baby doctor that the practice of medicine is being curtailed in this country in the very critical discipline of obstetrics. Mr. President, I understand the Senator from Vermont wants the floor so I yield.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I believe I have the floor and I am happy to yield for a question to the Senator.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I appreciate that question from the Senator from Arizona and that answer, both of which were excellent, by the way. I am glad somebody around here--who is not necessarily a member of the committee bringing the bill to the floor--knows the number by which the bill exceeds the budget. I do think that is sort of an elementary item you might want to know when you bring a bill to the floor of the Senate, by what amount do you exceed the budget, especially when you ask to waive the budget. The Senator from Arizona has answered that question. The bill exceeds the budget by somewhere in the vicinity of $24 billion, I believe was the Senator's statement, on the EPW side, and $2-something billion on the Commerce side. I am not quite sure why we should be waiving the budget on that size number. That is a big number: $24 billion.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I just want to speak briefly because there has been some talk and discussion floating around the Chamber that one of the proposals that is being considered is to use customs fees to try to fill the failure of this bill to meet its budget obligations. As we have discussed earlier, the bill is about $24 billion over budget, minimum. I think that is a conservative figure, but that is the number that is being accepted as the number that is given. Unfortunately, a lot of the additional spending in the bill, rather than coming from the highway trust fund, which is where it logically should come from because the highways should be paid for by the highway trust fund, comes from a variety of movements of dollars, which essentially ends up with the general fund funding the highway trust fund from between about $226 billion up to about $255 billion, I believe. Off the top of my head, I think those are the numbers that are picked up by general fund activity that is now alleged to be highway fund activity, which is inappropriate. We should pay for roads with highway fund activity. But I just want to put a marker down that if we--on top of all this other gamesmanship as to how this is being paid for, and the deficit, which is being added to by this bill--move to try to use customs fees to give a figleaf of financial correctness to this bill, we would be making a serious and inappropriate error. First off, the use of customs fees would be a direct raid on the general fund because it would mean that fees, which are dedicated and which go into the general fund and would support the Customs Service, and anything else the general fund needs to spend them on, would then be moved over to the highway fund. That would be inappropriate because that would mean, yes, it might fill up the highway fund with more money, but it would take money out of the general fund, and you would have to borrow to cover that and you would end up aggravating the deficit to the extent you did that. So it would not accomplish anything other than to give you a figleaf approach to fiscal responsibility. But even more importantly, this whole issue of customs fees has been around the track so many times. It has been used so many times here that I would think people would start feeling a little reticent about trying to use it again. Literally, customs fees have gone around the track probably more times than Seabiscuit. I just want to list a few times we have used customs fees--the same customs fees, by the way. We used customs fees to pay for H.R. 7 in the 107th Congress, which was the Community Solutions Act. We used customs fees to justify--we never used them. We use them to justify that the bills are within the budget. That is what this whole exercise is about. We used them again in the 107th Congress on the Bipartisan Patient Protection Act. We used them again in the 107th Congress for the Personal Responsibility, Work, and Family Promotion Act. We used them again in the 107th Congress for the American Competitiveness and Corporate Accountability Act. We used them again in the 107th Congress for the Trade Adjustment Assistance Improvement Act. We used them again in the 107th Congress for the Servicemembers' Tax Assistance for Noteworthy Duty Act. That was the 107th Congress. We used the same custom fees six times in the 107th Congress. That is amazing, gamesmanship at a new level. Then we move to the 108th Congress. How many times have we used custom fees so far in the 108th Congress? Well, it was used for the Prescription Drug and Medicare Improvement Act; the jobs and growth tax relief reconciliation bill. It was used for the Relief for Working Families Tax Act. It was used for the Relief for Working Families Tax Act twice, in fact. It was used for the Rebuild America Act by the House. It was used for the Health Care Coverage Expansion and Quality Improvement Act. And, of course, we are considering using it for this act. At some point we have to have some modicum of fairness and forthrightness about what we are doing around here. I will strongly resist using custom fees as a vehicle for giving a figleaf of fiscal accountability to this bill because that is all it is. It is not legitimate to use it. We know it won't be used. Its only purpose would be so that people could come to the floor and argue that they somehow paid for this bill when, in fact, the practical effect of it is that it will never be used. It has not been used yet in the prior 13 instances I have cited. And if it were used, it would mean a direct shift of funds out of the general fund into the highway fund, creating a deficit situation in the general fund, aggravating the deficit to the extent that it was scored as being used in the highway fund. It is bad policy. I wanted to lay down an early marker that this should not be a manner in which we proceed on this bill. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I think that answers the question. It is not I who has not asked for votes. It is not I who has been dilatory. I have been aggressively pursuing a desire to vote on that very reasonable amendment for a considerable amount of time. I do not wish to waive my rights to maybe raise that issue at some point in the future.

Mr. GREGG. I would be interested in getting an answer first from the Senator from Missouri, who refused to answer my prior questions with any specificity, before I yield for a question. I will complete my statement and then yield.

Mr. GREGG. If the Senator will yield further for a question, that was not necessarily my question. My question was fairly specific. If you accept the number $255 billion as the number you are working from as the budget number that would be defensible, by what amount does this bill exceed the $255 billion number? What is the specific amount? I presume as one of the managers of the bill that the manager must know that number.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I erred on a matter of decorum. I said I would yield to the Senator from Missouri for a question. Unfortunately, I failed to do that. If the Senator from Missouri did have a question, I apologize. He has probably forgotten his question by now. It was a long time ago. I am sure it was going to be a telling question, so it was best that I wait anyway.

Mr. GREGG. I object.

Mr. GREGG. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. GREGG. If the Senator could state--since he is moving to waive the Budget Act because the bill exceeds the budget--in his opinion, what dollar amount does this bill exceed the budget?

Mr. GREGG. Will the Senator yield for a question before he yields the floor?