Trent Lott

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Will the Senator yield briefly?

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I want to commend the Senator for his tenacity. Typically, he wants to work to find a compromise that can satisfy both sides. I think he has done that. I am sure there are those on both sides of the issue and the aisle who may not feel this is perfect, but they will have an opportunity, when we get on the legislation--the substance of it, as this is a vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed--they will be able to offer amendments. I thank the Senator from Arizona for what he has done. I urge my colleagues to certainly support this motion on cloture and allow us to get to the substance of the bill and to be able to reach conclusion on this important issue. So I recognize the Senator's efforts.

Mr. LOTT. I thank the Senator for yielding. Mr. McCAIN. Wider adoption of broadband services could also translate into economic growth and greater job creation for our country. I would suggest then that, as States and localities are shoring up their budgets and increasing their tax revenues after a few years of budget shortfalls, we should not move to stifle economic growth by taxing the Internet. But this debate isn't just about the economic benefits of affordable Internet access. During my presidential candidacy, one of the many rewarding experiences I had was seeing how the Internet served as a medium for political participation. Hundreds of thousands of people logged on to my campaign Web site where they were able to access information and organize. For me, keeping Internet access tax-free is about protecting consumers' wallets and about helping our Nation's economy, but it also is about improving our political process and the right and ability of our citizens to participate fully in that process. Because my amendment is not one-sided, I know that a few of my colleagues who have been firmly on one side of this debate or the other will not join us in this compromise. Some of my colleagues, for example, believe that Internet access should receive little--if any-- protection from taxation. We have heard statements from some on that side that my amendment is not a true compromise, which both boggles the mind and indicates that for some in this debate the attitude is ``my way or the highway.'' Others I'm sure continue to believe that all data transmissions over the Internet--including VoIP services--should be tax-free. But I ask those Members who see merits to both sides of this debate to join me in this effort to break the deadlock that has delayed action on this matter for far too long. Doing so will not only strike a fair balance in this debate, but it will also clarify the confusion that has been hanging over the tax treatment of Internet access for several months. Mr. President, for all of the reasons stated, I urge my colleagues to vote in support of cloture on the motion to proceed to S. 150 and in favor of the Internet tax compromise that I will offer. I trust that we will add this measure to the long line of pro-consumer legislation we have passed during this Congress--including the Do-Not-Call registry legislation. I hope that we will again join together to give American consumers affordable access to the Internet, which we all agree is a crucial medium of communications, education, commerce, and political participation in America. Again, I will summarize. This proposal is a temporary 4-year moratorium, which makes the Internet access 100 percent tax free, but narrows the definition of ``Internet access'' by excluding traditional telephone service, and it further narrows the definition of Internet access by carving out voice and other services provided over the Internet, while ensuring that services incidental to Internet access, such as e-mail and instant messaging, remain free. My amendment grandfathers States that were taxing Internet access in 1998 for a 3-year period. It grandfathers States that currently tax Internet access, including those that tax the last mile that were not protected by the 1998 grandfather clause, for a 2-year period, and it incorporates all other components of the substitute amendment to S. 150 and the Alexander Internet tax bill, the accounting rule to address bundling, and the explicit inclusion of nontransitional taxes from the Internet tax moratorium and savings clauses addressing the regulation of Internet access, universal service, and e-911. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Cloture Motion

Mr. LOTT

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

Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I commend the chairman of the Finance Committee, the Senator from Iowa, for the work he has done on this legislation. It should have been relatively easy to get this done, but it turned out to be a long process and a huge lift. He was persistent, dogged, because he knew we had a problem we could responsibly address before this deadline of April 15 would cost billions of dollars for companies in a way that is not necessary and could affect their solvency. I particularly want to note, since there have been some questions raised about it, if you are going to write a textbook about how a conference should be handled, this is it. The chairman of the committee didn't try to go around the other members. I was not a conferee, but I followed it very closely. The conferees met, House and Senate, Republican, Democrat. Everybody was involved. Everybody had a chance to make their case. Amendments were considered. In fact, the Senator from Iowa even offered a last-minute amendment that would have moved it more toward what Senator Kennedy was advocating, and it was defeated. I am not sure I agreed with that effort, but I make that point to magnify the point this was a full conference. It wasn't short- circuited. Nobody was cut out of the process. You may not like the results, but it was a good conference and it produced a good bill. The criticism we are hearing today, in my opinion, is to threaten the good in pursuit of the perfect from somebody else's point of view. I want to say for the record, to my colleagues and the American people, Senator Grassley did a good job. We should pass this bill. I believe this conference report will pass overwhelmingly, and this is the way conferences should and can be done. I thank the Senator for giving me a chance to commend him on his job on this legislation.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I appreciate the chairman's comments on the need to move this legislation forward. Mr. President, let me just inquire in terms of parliamentary procedure, are we open for general debate?

Mr. LOTT. Thank you, Mr. President. I did come to the floor last week and speak to the need to move this very important jobs growth, FSC/ETI issue and not have a filibuster and complete our work. If we do not, we are going to see that we are going to be hit by a continuing increase in fines by the European Union because we are not complying with the World Trade Organization ruling of over a year ago. I also said we stand to benefit from the tax proposals in this legislation, and I urged that we complete this work. In fact, I said we have no alternative but to complete this work. I am glad the leadership is going to continue to push this issue because we must get it done. I do want to say now that I understand that perhaps a decision was made to attach tax provisions from the Energy bill to this bill, and I think that was a mistake. I am going to have to review what that means in terms of my own vote. Instead of helping move this legislation, and other legislation, it may have complicated both of them. But I hope we can find a way to get this done. Mr. President, the reason I came to the floor this afternoon, though, was to speak in support of S. 2207, the Pregnancy and Trauma Care Access Protection Act of 2004. We have a health care crisis in America. Health care is becoming more and more difficult to obtain, to afford, and to be assured that it is the quality that you might need. In rural States such as mine and Senator Grassley's State of Iowa, the issues of access and distance, or being able to get trauma care or care from obstetricians and gynecologists, present real problems. I also think we have to acknowledge that the cost is becoming more and more difficult and more and more prohibitive. The cost of health care insurance continues to go up. The cost of medical liability insurance continues to go up. When you talk to trauma emergency care doctors, when you talk to OB/GYNs, they are paying $85,000, $100,000, $125,000 for medical liability coverage. How much will it be? There is no limit? There is no question, in my mind, many of these doctors are now practicing what we would describe as defensive medicine. They are prescribing additional procedures. They are taking extra precautions to make sure they do not get sued. That, by the way, continues to drive up the cost of health care. So it has become a big problem in this country. Escalating jury awards and the high cost of defending lawsuits, even the frivolous ones, are increasing medical liability premiums nationwide, and they are having devastating effects on the health care of millions of Americans. Medical specialists, including neurosurgeons, obstetricians, and emergency physicians, are being forced to cut services, retire early, or move their practices to other States. This past Saturday night, I was in Augusta, GA, for an event for Congressman Norwood, a Congressman who has been very much involved in patients' rights and health care issues. I was informed that one of the neurosurgeons in Augusta recently moved from my State of Mississippi. It is not an isolated incident. It is a pattern. Augusta has several neurosurgeons. Mississippi has a declining number, even in places where they are needed to provide trauma care services in larger metropolitan areas. Nineteen States are in full-blown medical liability crisis now, and 25 States are showing signs of crisis. Only 6 States are considered stable, each of which has instituted reforms. Ninety-eight percent of osteopathic students acknowledged in a recent survey that medical liability issues will influence their future career decisions. Seventy-three percent say medical liability issues will ``significantly'' influence their decisions--in other words, where they practice, whether they practice, and what kind of medicine they practice. Medical liability costs the Federal Government well over $50 billion per year. The source of that information is the Department of Health and Human Services. I have heard the discussions over the years: Well, you guys from Mississippi, and other similar States, have always talked about the States should deal with these issues. This is a States rights issue. It is a State problem. Let me tell you what: When it costs the Federal Treasury $50 billion, this is a national problem. This is not just a problem in Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, or Iowa; it is a nationwide problem. Very few States--even those that have passed medical liability reforms--have been able to stem this tide of abuse and costs that are really causing difficulties in a number of States and in the health care of this country. So we have to do something. Here we are in the Senate with this crisis looming out there that affects children, babies, mothers, elderly, emergency care needs; all of them have been held up while the Senate cannot even proceed to debate the legislation. That is what we have here, the motion to proceed. That is indefensible. How could we not at least take this issue up and have a full discussion about its dire consequences? Let's talk a little bit about what the bill does. This is not something that just popped out of a committee or hasn't been thought through clearly. This issue has been pending for a long time. Some of the legitimate concerns have been addressed. The bill provides reasonable guidelines to govern liability claims related to the provision of obstetrical, gynecological, emergency and trauma care goods and services. I want to emphasize, this is a limited bill. This is not all medical professions. This is targeted to those people who treat us when we are in the greatest need of health care, when we are going into an emergency room or a trauma facility as a result of an automobile accident, or doctors who deliver and look after our children and the mothers of those children. Can we not at least provide some medical liability reform and protection there so we can keep these doctors in the practice? More and more in my State and all across the country doctors who have in the past practiced obstetrical and gynecological work are dropping the obstetrician part because they are being sued. The insurance is becoming prohibitively expensive in terms of the cost it is putting on these doctors. The bill sets a statute of limitation of 3 years after the date of manifestation of an injury or 1 year after the claimant discovers or should have discovered the injury. That is reasonable. You can't say 5 years later: I had a problem back there. It says you have to exercise your right within 3 years or 1 year after you discovered it. It allows recovery of unlimited economic damages, but it limits noneconomic pain and suffering damages to $250,000. This is obviously a place where some restraint needs to be employed. This is where certain juries in certain counties in certain States, mine included, have been rendering multimillion dollar decisions for pain and suffering. I think some reasonable limits there clearly would be appropriate. This bill allows the court to restrict the payment of attorney contingency fees by applying a percentage scale based on the amount of the judgment. These lawsuits should not be about attorneys' fees. The lawsuits should be about medical costs and medical liability. What is a reasonable recovery when you do in fact have some legitimate claims? Don't get me wrong. I do think in the American system of jurisprudence, you have a right to take your grievance to court. I would defend that. I am an attorney. But I do think the system is being abused, and it has become more about attorneys' fees than it has the injuries that were incurred. The bill sets out qualifications for expert witnesses. Again, that is an area where there have been some abuses I am personally familiar with. It permits courts to reduce damages received by the amount of collateral source benefits to which a claimant is entitled; in other words, money paid by another entity such as a health insurance provider. It authorizes the award of punitive damages only where a high standard is met of clear and convincing evidence that a defendant acted with malicious intent to injure or deliberately failed to prevent injury that was certain to occur. This is very good legislation. It is targeted. It is limited in the impact it would have on restricting the coverage, but also it is limited to these particular areas of specialty I have noted. Let me go to my own State of Mississippi, since our State is really being adversely affected by these medical liability cases. It is one of those States which has been described as a judicial hellhole. I don't like to hear that. When various entities identify my State in that sort of way, I resent it. Even if they are right, I don't like to hear it. But there is no question we have had lots of problems in my State of Mississippi. We have had a tremendous explosion of lawsuits in this health care area, very large verdicts. Physicians who are practicing in Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas, and West Virginia can clearly demonstrate how medical lawsuits have hurt our health care system. The doctors will tell you about that. A recent survey that was done by the American Tort Reform Association, in cooperation with other groups such as the Mississippi State Medical Association, points out 84 percent of the physicians surveyed report they are very concerned about the effect of medical litigation on the practice of medicine. Eighty-one percent report they have changed the way they practice medicine because of litigation concerns. That means more cost. That is what I was referring to at the beginning. They have been requiring and prescribing more and more procedures to protect themselves against these lawsuits. And by the way, in many instances, the procedures are not necessary and not required medically. They are required to defend yourself against a frivolous lawsuit. Eighty-six percent of the physicians believe states with a liability crisis like Mississippi increase medical malpractice insurance costs. And the list goes on. There is no question it is creating a real problem. Again, specifics: Half of my State's 82 counties now have fewer physicians to treat patients than were available in 2001. Mississippi has fewer physicians per capita than 48 other States. So when we lose a physician, it really hurts because we already are in dire straits. In 16 Mississippi counties, the numbers of physicians remained unchanged from 2000 to 2002, but the population in those counties increased during the same period. The population growth in 62 percent of Mississippi counties outpaced a stagnant or decreasing base of physicians to treat those patients. The source of this information is the Mississippi State Medical Association. Approximately 100 doctors have left or plan to leave the State of Mississippi. The source of that information is a Time magazine article of June 9, 2003. Mississippi had a net loss of 73 physicians in 2002. The number of physicians licensed in the State in 2001 was 5,710. But in 2002, this number had dropped to 5,637. Since the population is increasing, since we have certain areas of the State that have experienced tremendous growth, you would think we would be increasing the number of physicians per capita. The numbers are going in the wrong direction. I ask unanimous consent that other statistics I have about what is happening in my own State be printed in the Record.

Mr. LOTT. I want to make this point. We used to have several, then we had three, now we have one insurance company that is providing medical liability insurance in my State of Mississippi. This is a problem that is of great concern to leaders in the State of both parties, in the medical profession, in the business world, and those of us who are trying desperately to advance the State economically and have had some success bringing major industries into the State. While a major industry may want to know, do you have a good interstate system, do you have international airports, good schools, can you provide affordable housing, they don't always immediately ask about the accessibility of hospitals and do you have the doctors who are needed, but that is a question that eventually they come to. It is one that will affect us in the future if we don't do something about it. Let me tell you what it means when you don't have the doctors you need. I want to give some specific examples. Tony Dyess of Vicksburg, MS, received serious head injuries in a car accident on July 5, 2002. Since a specialist in brain injuries, or neurosurgery services, was not available in Gulfport, MS, he had to be airlifted to another hospital which led to Tony having permanent brain damage and no longer having the ability to care for himself or to have a job. The source of that is the American Medical News, May 26, 2003. Fortunately for Elmoe Kee III of Woodville, the withdrawal of insurance coverage by St. Paul malpractice insurance provider from the State of Mississippi did not occur before he was attacked by a bank robber in a small rural county at Wilkinson County Savings Bank where he served as president. He would have most certainly died if he had not been able to get doctors to treat him almost immediately at Catchings Clinic in Woodville, MS. With the withdrawal of St. Paul as a malpractice provider, seven of the eight doctors in the area, including those at Catchings Clinic, Field Clinic in Centreville, and Gloster Clinic were left without a malpractice insurance provider beginning on June 30, 2002. The source of this information is the Jackson Clarion- Ledger of June 27, 2002. On April 18, 2003, John Fair Lucas IV of Greenwood received a severe head injury due to a one-person car accident. Since the Delta Regional Medical Center no longer has around-the-clock neurosurgery services because of the impact of the medical malpractice insurance crisis and the loss of that coverage, John had to be airlifted to Jackson, losing valuable time because the distance from that area of Greenwood, MS, down to Jackson is about a 2-hour drive, or certainly a 30-minute helicopter ride, and he lost valuable time for the surgical procedure needed to reduce pressure on the brain. Sadly, John passed away on May 28, 2003. The source for that is the Greenwood Commonwealth newspaper, April 25, 2003. ``Jill Mahaffey says she got lucky. She and her husband are here, they live in the Delta, too. She got lucky. She heard she's pregnant. She's getting there, getting ready. She goes to the doctor, he says, I've got to leave--OB/GYN getting ready to leave because of lawsuits, because of the threats. Because even if you're a doctor who practices good medicine, you're going to get sued in this State and in other States. Believe this or not, fortunately, she was getting toxic and the doc induced labor before he quit his practice. She says she was lucky. And she was.'' This is a quote from President Bush's address to Madison High School in Madison, MS August 7, 2002. Amber Peterson's obstetrician in Cleveland, Mississippi stopped practicing 3 weeks before her due date, and she had to drive out of State, over a hundred miles, to Memphis, Tennessee, to get the care she needed. The source of this information is the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, from a report dated July 24, 2002. Marine Hawkins, 20, of Boyle, Mississippi, was shocked to hear from her obstetrician that he was closing his practice--just 2 weeks before her due date of July 21. The nearest doctor is 30 minutes away. She doesn't have a car and will have to rely on relatives to get there. ``This isn't what I needed now,'' she said. The source of this information is the Houston Chronicle, July 20, 2002. In February 2003, Sharkey-Issaquena Community Hospital in Rolling Fork, MS saw its insurance premiums rise from $163,000 to $223,000. Because of this rise, the hospital was forced to close its doors for 3 weeks while the hospital looked for an alternative insurance policy after being discontinued by its previous insurer. During these 3 weeks, Sharkey-Issaquena had to contract paramedics to treat patients while they were being transported by ambulance to the closest hospital. The source of this information is the American Medical News May 26, 2003. In 2002, 10 physicians left Greenwood Leflore Hospital because of the State's problems with medical liability insurance. Also during 2002, the hospital's liability insurance premium increased from $150,000 per year to $1.3 million. The source of this information is The Greenwood Commonwealth, June 26, 2003. On Sept. 30, 2002, officials at Forest General Hospital announced they are eliminating nearly 300 positions--200 of which were already vacant--to save an estimated $7.6 million in the new fiscal budget. Citing causative factors that prompted the cuts, hospital president Bill Oliver stated that Forrest General was hit last year with a dramatic increase--about $4 million--in medical malpractice insurance. The source of this information is the Hattiesburg American Oct. 2, 2002. Mr. President, let me talk a little about exactly what is happening with the doctors in my State. In February 2003, 14 doctors in the Oxford area in various medical fields were left without malpractice insurance and were forced to close their doors because their insurer, Doctors Insurance Reciprocal, went into receivership on February 13. Doctors are slowly, surely leaving the area to go to bigger areas, or even to other States. I was in my hometown area, Pascagoula and Moss Point, MS, on the Gulf Coast, and met a new impressive doctor in the community. He was also involved in the trauma unit because he was an orthopedic surgeon. He moved to Mississippi from the State of Missouri. He is an African- American doctor. He was doing a great job. He told me because of the insurance coverage situation, even though his family wanted to stay on the Mississippi Gulf Coast, it looked as if they might have to return to Missouri. Other doctors have been either leaving the State or getting out of the practice of obstetrics. In the case of Dr. Don Gaddy, as well as four other obstetricians and three nurse-midwives, they filed notice to take a 1-year leave of absence from Memorial Hospital at Gulfport, MS, because of extreme increases in medical malpractice insurance coverage. The source of this information is the Biloxi Sun-Herald, April 18, 2003. Dr. Gregory Patton, an OB-GYN with the Oxford Obstetrics and Gynecology Associates PA in Oxford MS, reports that his malpractice insurance premiums have gone up 60 percent--with each doctor paying $67,000. The source of this information is The Daily Mississippian June 10, 2003. Drs. Blackwood and Baugh's temporary departure left no OBs in Cleveland for about 10 days. Only one family physician continues to deliver babies at the local hospital. But the malpractice insurance providers that are protecting them are only ``Band-Aid insurance.'' The source of this information is American Medical News Sept. 9, 2002. Dr. Kurt Kooyer left the small town of Rolling Fork after getting fed up with lawyers filing suit against him without even the patients' knowledge that they were filing suit against their physician. Dr. Kooyer was the only pediatrician among three physicians in town who lowered the infant mortality rate from an average of 10 deaths per 1,000 live births to 3.34 deaths per 1,000. Dr. Kooyer now lives in North Dakota. The source of this information is The Clarion-Ledger Aug. 23, 2002. ``Dr. Frothingham, you talk about a man with heart. You think Kooyer has a heart? Wait until you hear Frothingham. He's a great Mississippian; grew up here; thought he might try to live in South Carolina, realized what he was missing, came back to Mississippi. He's a neurosurgeon. He talked with deep compassion about a man who suffered a trauma, a fellow he was with--Johnny was with us today. He's a guy who understands that practicing medicine is more than just technology. It's concern and care. They're running him out of business. There's too many frivolous lawsuits. And that hurts the state and it hurts the country. It hurts the people.'' This quote is from President Bush's address to Madison High School in Madison, MS, August 7, 2002. On July 15, 2003, Drs. Derveloy and Gilmore, the only two heart surgeons in Oxford, are closing their practice. They contribute their relocation to a shortage of key elements: facilities, cardiologists, affordable medical malpractice insurance and regional referrals. Dr. Derverloy is joining an existing group off heart surgeons who are practicing in Tupelo, and Dr. Gilmore recently accepted an offer to set up a heart surgery program in Decatur, Ala. The source of this information is The Oxford Eagle June 8, 2003. Also in Oxford, the two cardiologists with the Oxford Heart Clinic, Dr. Nelson Little and Dr. Timothy Wright, are merging their practices with a Tupelo office, but will keep their local office open, which followed the loss of Oxford's only two heart surgeons, Drs. Derveloy and Gilmore. The source of my information is The Oxford Eagle, June 8, 2003. Five doctors at the Family Practice/After Hours Clinic on U.S. 98 West have posted a sign on their doors informing patients that no appointments are being scheduled for 2003. The physicians are also filling out applications for licensing in Alabama and Louisiana. The doctors explain the possible departure from Mississippi by the clinic's malpractice insurer informing them recently that their premiums will increase 45 percent on Jan. 1, 2003. The source of my information is the Hattiesburg American, Oct. 2, 2003. OB/GYN Mark Blackwood of Cleveland has seen his practice load nearly double since three physicians quit delivering babies in the area. His insurance lapsed in July, forcing him to close his clinic for ten days leaving dozens of patients without a physician to deliver their babies. He and his partner have seen an increase in the number of suits filed against them since the new legislation passed. The source of this information is the Mississippi State Medical Association Dec. 1, 2002. Radiologist Ken Duff was able to get coverage less than twenty-four hours before his old policy expired. He and his eleven partners cover two hospitals in Hattiesburg, facilities ion Columbia, Collins and Tylertown, as well as two large outpatient facilities. Without diagnostic radiology services patients have to wait longer to get test results, and other physicians will have to find new specialists to consult. The group desperately needs new recruits to cover demand. The source of this information is the Mississippi State Medical Association, Dec. 1, 2002. General Surgeon Brian Anthony of Bay St. Louis practices more defensive medicine and no longer does vascular work. He plans to retire 10 years early because of the litigious environment. He says other physicians often consult him in order to document their cases and to reduce their exposure. He and the remaining surgeon in the area are considering whether they will continue to provide trauma services. The source of this information is the Mississippi State Medical Association Dec. 1, 2002. Neurosurgeon Terry Smith has not had a vacation in five years because there is not enough neurosurgery coverage to take care of his patients. He is one of only three neurosurgeons covering trauma cases for seven hospitals on the Gulf Coast. When he lost his insurance in August 2002 he had to go on staff with a hospital in order to continue to practice in the area. The source of this information is the Mississippi State Medical Association, Dec. 1, 2002. Otolaryngologist Gene Hesdorffer of Hinds County had to close his practice on December 31 and was forced into full-retirement because he could no longer afford insurance. His insurance carrier informed him they were doubling his rates despite the fact that he has never been sued. The source of this information is the Mississippi State Medical Association, Dec. 1, 2002. OB/GYN Al Diaz of Ocean Springs has insurance until December 2002. He has lived on the Coast for 20 years but is now looking at practice in Mobile, Alabama, and Slidell, Louisiana. Both his son and daughter-in- law are training in Louisiana but will not return to practice in Mississippi. The entire group of four OB/GYNs just renovated their clinic in Ocean Springs and opened an office in Biloxi when they were told their insurance carrier would no longer be doing business in the State. The source of this information is the Mississippi State Medical Association, Dec. 1, 2002. Surgeon Cecil Johnson of Lauderdale County plans to retire soon. Until then he will continue to order more tests, x-rays and consultations in order to back up diagnoses. He also plans to drop vascular surgery in hopes that he will be able to find more affordable insurance. The source of this information is the Mississippi State Medical Association, Dec. 1, 2002. Internist Bob Lewis of Wilkinson County spent a week treating patients at the local emergency room while his clinic was closed. The group could not find coverage and the only quote they could get was $355,000. The four-man group paid $67,000 last year. Family Practice physician Jennings Owens and his group serve nearly 40,000 patients. He is upset that the hospital had to hire physicians in order to insure them. The source of this information is the Mississippi State Medical Association, Dec. 1, 2002. ER physician Bob Corken had to find insurance from Lloyd's of London for this ER group which services a hospital in Washington County and three others in the Delta and Central Mississippi. Corken found insurance at the eleventh hour in order to avoid work stoppages and temporary closure of at least one emergency room. The source of this information is the Mississippi State Medical Association, Dec. 1, 2002. Orthopaedic Surgeon Alan Swayze, MD of McComb took on more patients last year than ever before--partly because there are few orthopaedic surgeons in the area. Now he is leaving Mississippi and opening a practice in Georgia because his liability insurance to practice in Mississippi skyrocketed to $125,000 per year. His premium in Georgia will be $14,000 annually. The hospital administrator in McComb said the prospects of recruiting replacement physicians to McComb is ``bleak.'' The source of this information is the Enterprise Journal, June 12, 2003. In April 2002, State Commissioner George Dale said, ``It's just a matter of time until insurance companies will say they're not going to cover medical providers in Mississippi.'' That time has arrived. Dozens of insurers have either discontinued writing medical malpractice in Mississippi or raised their premiums to such a level that doctors--like those at the Family Practice/After Hour Clinic--are being forced to consider relocating out of state. According to a survey conducted recently by the Rating Division at the Mississippi Insurance Department, 36 companies offered medical malpractice insurance in all categories in 2000. As of Sept. 10, there are only two licensed regulated, companies still providing medical malpractice insurance to physicians and surgeons in Mississippi. The main reason insurance companies give for hiking premiums and/or leaving the state is their concern about Mississippi's civil justice system, which has generated over 100 verdicts of $1 million in the last 6 years. The source of this information is the Hattiesburg American, Oct. 2, 2002. Fifteen medical malpractice insurers have withdrawn from offering coverage in Mississippi in the past five years. The source of this information is an HHS medical litigation report, March 3, 2003. ``We've had trouble recruiting and had physicians say they are not interested in coming to Mississippi because of the malpractice insurance rates,'' according to Dean Griffin, executive officer of Baptist Memorial-Golden Triangle Hospital. The source of this information is The Associated Press, March 20, 2003. A poster on the large wooden doors leading into Delta OB/GYN explains it all: ``It is with much regret that we must inform you that our office will be closed effective 7/14/02 until further notice. Due to the current malpractice crisis in the State of Mississippi, our liability insurance has been canceled.'' The source of this information is the American Medical News, Sept. 9, 2002. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the entire list of physicians who are no longer delivering babies in Mississippi be printed in the Record.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, this is not a short list. This is a lengthy list, with probably as many as 40 counties listed. In Adams County, they lost three physicians who had been delivering babies. Attala County, in the center of the State, lost four family practice physicians who had been doing deliveries; they got out of the practice. In Harrison County, one of our more metropolitan areas on the Gulf Coast, three doctors got out of delivering babies. The list goes on and on. Pretty soon it is going to be hard to have a baby delivered in my State. That causes me a great deal of concern. Mr. President, I hope we can get the votes tomorrow to proceed on this issue and have a full debate and a vote. This is not some massive tort reform, although I think we need it. I hope we will later visit the issue of class action reform. This is very targeted legislation that will address a serious problem in many States--the majority of States across this country, where we are losing the services of these physicians in these critical areas. I would hate to have to explain to my State how I would not even vote to proceed, let alone not vote to have some limits on medical liability for doctors who deliver babies and treat their mothers and who care for us when we have accidents and go to the emergency room. I think this is very carefully drafted legislation, very thoughtful. I certainly hope the Senate will see fit to proceed to a full debate and vote on this critical legislation. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT

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

Mr. LOTT. I see Senator Allard may wish to speak, too.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I stood in this general area a couple years ago and spoke out against the need for the 9/11 Commission. I am not generally an advocate of commissions. I think it is an abdication of our responsibility when we do it repeatedly. As a matter of fact, we in the Senate should do the job of investigating what happened or what didn't happen that perhaps should have been leading up to the events of 9/11 and in the aftermath, as we went into Iraq. That is why we have the Armed Services Committee. That is what Senator Warner, the chairman, is working on. That is why we have the Intelligence Committee. I serve on that committee. We work assiduously to take a good look at the intelligence, to see where the problems have been and see what the solutions are. Having said that, I think this Commission has shown a great deal of calm and maturity. The leadership of the two senior members, former Governor Kean and former Congressman Hamilton, has been thoughtful. Members on both sides of the Commission have asked good and tough questions. I may regret saying this when their final report comes out, but I think they have been doing a good job. It is not an easy job because you are trying to deal with hundreds of witnesses and thousands of pages of evidence. That leads me to the real point. I have had occasion to watch a number of national security advisers to Presidents over my 32 years in Congress, seven different Presidents and their national security advisers. There have been some good ones of both parties but none better than Condoleezza Rice. This is an outstanding individual with a brilliant mind, tremendous insight into what is going on in the world. I could give some anecdotes of why I believe that. For that reason, I am pleased she is going to come before the Commission. She is going to take every question on and give a thoughtful, complete, thorough, and convincing argument. She will do fine. I think it is unnecessary. Maybe this whole process of whether she would testify has been unnecessary. From a public relations standpoint, yes, she should have gone from the very beginning. But there are some important separation-of-powers principles involved. Executive privilege is not insignificant. It is something that is woven in the very fabric of this country. We cannot have a process where slowly but surely, in President after President after President, executive privilege and separation of powers have been eroded. I have watched it. Yes, former national security advisers have waived their executive privilege and gone before Congress. I thought it was a mistake, regardless of party. I have always spoken out against that. So I do think it is important we say this is not a precedent. It should not and cannot be a precedent, or you are not going to have men and women willing to give in confidence the best advice to the President or to give him the information he needs to hear without concern that some day some congressional person will have that person before them testifying. This is not an insignificant matter. It is very significant. Under these extraordinary circumstances, we need to have everybody we can testify in full, not so we can blame somebody but so we can plan for the future and do a better job next time. Condoleezza Rice will be the key to that effort. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. I ask unanimous consent that that be so.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, how much time remains?

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

Mr. LOTT

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

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

Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I am very much concerned about the vote that just occurred in the Senate. We had a cloture vote so we could get beyond irrelevant amendments on this very important legislation. You could still have relevant amendments offered postcloture. We could still have debate and we could move to conclusion on this very important legislation. But we did not get the necessary 60 votes. This is a very irresponsible act by the U.S. Senate because we cannot afford to set this legislation aside and not get it completed. Just for those who may have just tuned in, this is the Jumpstart Our Business Strength (JOBS) Act. It is very critical for two important reasons. First, this is legislation we are going to have to pass in order to comply with the World Trade Organization rulings on the FSC/ETI benefit in a manner that preserves jobs and production activities. This is a tax activity. The World Trade Organization has ruled the U.S. policies, our laws, do not comply with the World Trade Organization's rules in areas of tax incentives or subsidies for our companies in this world trade area, and if we do not comply with them we are going to be hit with fines from the World Trade Organization, from the European Union. It is going to go up 1 percent a month until--I think these duties could reach as much as 17 percent. This is a very negative impact. It is a case where we have said to the World Trade Organization, Give us fair rulings. Yet when there is a ruling against us and we are given not weeks but months--years to comply with the WTO ruling and have not done so, now we are faced with these penalties against our products all over the country. These are critical products we need to export into this world market. In order to avoid that, we have to pass this legislation. I don't think any Senator wants to be on record voting in such a way that would block legislation to put us in compliance with the WTO ruling. The second part of this is, because of the tax policy changes in this legislation, it will create jobs in the manufacturing sector. We need that. There are not many things we can do this year that will have an immediate effect on job creation, but this is one of those bills that will. A highway bill, an energy bill, and this Jumpstart Our Business Strength would make a huge difference. If we do not pass this legislation, we get hit two ways. No. 1, if we don't comply with WTO, it means our goods will be hit with additional import duties, whether it is citrus in Florida or textiles in North Carolina, and it will spread all across the country; and No. 2, we don't get the benefit of the jobs that come from this. I say to my colleagues, it is one thing to argue over some amendments you want voted on. I assume our leadership will work this out, but they need to do it quickly because this is already in overtime. We are already being penalized because we have not acted as a result of this World Trade Organization ruling. The very idea we would have to vote on 5, 10, 15, 20--who knows how many irrelevant amendments also because somebody wants to make their political statement in this election year I think is going to be pretty hard to defend. The American people may not understand all the nuances of this very complicated legislation, but they will understand when our products wind up being hit with what are basically fines from the World Trade Organization. This is very serious legislation. We should not be playing political games. I am not accusing anybody of doing that, but the fact is if we don't find a way to get an agreement to bring it to a conclusion, somebody is going to get the blame for not doing so. I still believe the best way to win an election is governance, not politics. If you produce results, the people know it. If you don't, they know it. And they know right now this Senate is not producing very much. Again, I don't want to presume to blame one side or the other, but I can tell you in this case if we don't pass this legislation, if our colleagues on the Democrat side of the aisle don't come to some reasonable agreement to have some limited number of amendments and get to final passage, the country is going to pay a price. I think that is a huge mistake. I don't usually come to the floor and make this kind of a statement, but the very idea that we would not complete action on this legislation is totally unacceptable. I urge our colleagues on the other side of the Capitol to get going, get it out of the Ways and Means Committee, bring it to a vote, let's get this into conference, and let's get this legislation completed. If we don't do any other bill this year, this is one we must do because we are going to be penalized if we don't and we don't get the benefit of the jobs it would create. I wanted to come to the floor and say if we don't get an agreement pretty quickly on limiting amendments, I think we should get another cloture vote. If we don't get cloture to cut off irrelevant amendments and get to completion of this amendment, we are going to have to move on and the blame will fall somewhere. Unfortunately, the American people will pay the price. We need to find a way to get it done and it needs to get done quickly. This legislation has to be completed within the next week and we should just find a way to get it done. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a departing staff member who has worked with me in my Washington office for the last 5 years. Richard Brian Wilson, who has served as my legislative assistant, is departing my staff this week to return home to Mississippi. I wanted to take this opportunity to thank him for his dedicated serve and to wish him the very best as he pursues new career opportunities. Those who know Brian know of his keen interest in State and local politics. A native of Macon, MS, he has been involved in politics since high school. In fact, his fellow staff members have jokingly referred to him as a ``walking encyclopedia of Mississippi politics.'' I have no doubt this expertise will serve him well as he returns home to Mississippi. Brian graduated from the University of Mississippi in 1998 with a Bachelor of Arts degree in Political Science and History. Throughout his tenure at Ole Miss he was involved in numerous extracurricular activities where his leadership abilities became apparent. For instance, he served as Vice President of Pi Kappa Alpha fraternity, Student Body Vice President, and Student Body Senator. In recognition of his contributions to the university, I understand Brian was once named Student Body Senator of the Year. He also spent a great deal of time during his college years volunteering on political campaigns throughout the State. During the fall of 1998, Brian served as an intern in the district office of Congressman Chip Pickering. Immediately following his internship, in January 1999, Brian came to work for me in my Washington office. Throughout his service on my staff, Brian has grown in his ability to help me service my constituents and address a wide variety of needs and issues for Mississippians. He has handled issues ranging from appropriations to homeland defense, as well as environment and public works, agriculture, natural resources and interior, small business, rural development, and Indian affairs. Through his work on appropriations bills, such as Energy and Water Development, Agriculture, Interior, and VA-HUD, Brian has helped me steer millions of dollars in Federal funding to large and small communities all across Mississippi. In the process, we have improved infrastructure, created hope and opportunity in communities where none existed before, and provided a better quality of life for Mississippians throughout the State. For example, Brian has helped me secure Federal funds to improve water and wastewater systems in areas of Mississippi, such as DeSoto County, Jackson County, Fayette County, the city of Gulfport, Hancock County, and Madison County. He has worked to improve the infrastructure at our State's ports including the Port of Pascagoula and the State port at Gulfport. He was instrumental in helping me secure the initial funding for an environmental infrastructure pilot program in Mississippi which has since helped fund numerous environmental infrastructure projects around the State. Brian also worked to help me secure the final funding necessary to complete construction of a new Federal courthouse in Gulfport. Of course, one of the things of which I know he is most proud is our work to help his hometown, the city of Macon. Through expansion of their water and sewer systems and a new multi-purpose facility to be constructed, we have begun to bring hope to this poverty-stricken area of our State. Brian is truly one of those unique individuals who has a thirst for knowledge about the issue areas he is assigned. He has spend countless hours over the past 5 years reading news articles, books, papers, academic journals, and industry publications to keep himself apprised of the latest events, issues and concerns relative to his assigned issues. In fact, I would venture to guess that he knows as much as just about anyone with regard to the many historic properties and places in Mississippi that he has worked hard to help me protect and provide resources for. Properties such as the Battle of Corinth Interpretive Center in northeast Mississippi, L.Q.C. Lamar's home in Oxford, and General Pemberton's headquarters at Vicksburg are just as few of those. Although Brian is leaving Washington, I have no doubt the knowledge he has gained through his work here will serve him well in his new capacity as Special Assistant to the Executive Director of the Mississippi Department of Marine Resources. In this position, Brian will serve as liaison for the Department with the Federal and State legislatures, as well as local governments throughout Mississippi and particularly along our Gulf Coast. While we all certainly will miss Brian, I know he is looking forward to returning to our home State and particularly to the warm climate of the Mississippi Gulf Coast. And although fresh seafood, the warm gulf climate, and unlimited fishing opportunities certainly justify Brian's move home, I know this move was compelled by his desire to be closer to family and friends, particularly his younger sister in whom he has expressed enormous pride throughout his stay in Washington. I wish to thank Brian for 5 years of dedicated service to me and to the people of Mississippi. I wish him the absolute best in this transition and in all of his future endeavors.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I am delighted that the Senate unanimously confirmed Judge Louis Guirola by a vote of 92-0 to be a United States District Court Judge for the Southern District of Mississippi. Judge Guirola has been serving our country and the State of Mississippi as U.S. magistrate judge for the Southern District of Mississippi. I have known Judge Guirola for well over 20 years and was pleased when the President nominated him to fill the U.S. District Court judgeship that is being vacated by Judge Walter J. Gex, who is taking senior status. I am pleased that the Senate was able to efficiently do its work of advising and consenting on this nomination in order to guarantee the smooth operation of our Federal justice system. Judge Guirola is a 1979 graduate of the University of Mississippi Law School, and he received his undergraduate degree from William Carey College in 1973. He has had a distinguished career in the law over the past quarter of a century and has gained broad experience from the various positions he has held. He has served as an assistant district attorney, an attorney in private practice, an attorney for the Jackson County Board of Supervisors, and an attorney for the Mississippi Highway Department. Judge Guirola began his Federal service as an assistant U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Texas in 1990, and he was named as a U.S. magistrate judge for the Western District of Texas in 1993. He served in this position until 1996, when he returned to Mississippi to become a U.S. magistrate judge for the Southern District of Mississippi, the position he currently holds. He clearly has an extensive knowledge of the Federal court system, and his experience will be a tremendous asset for the country. It is no surprise that the ABA's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary has unanimously found Judge Guirola to be ``well qualified'' to serve as a Federal district court judge. Judge Guirola has also demonstrated a commitment to education and instruction. He has been an adjunct professor at William Carey College and the University of Southern Mississippi. He also has given lectures and conducted seminars for the U.S. Attorney General's Advocacy Institute, the Federal Bar Association, the Mississippi Bar Association, the Mississippi Law Enforcement Officers Academy, the Texas Department of Public Safety, and the U.S. Probation Office. In addition, he has authored a number of legal articles and scholarly pieces. Judge Guirola is well-known and respected in his community, State and profession. His nomination has received widespread support in the State of Mississippi because of his reputation for fairness and hard work. I know that Judge Guirola will make an excellent district court judge, and I congratulate him on his confirmation by the Senate.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Rules and Administration will meet at 9:30 a.m., Wednesday, March 10, 2004, to examine the scope and operation of organizations registered under Section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code. For further information concerning this meeting, please contact Susan Wells at 202-224-6352. Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I appreciate the comments of the Senator from Ohio and his interest in safety issues. I share his concerns. When you have lost a loved one in an automobile accident--in the case of my father, because of a narrow, two-lane road--and you know that such a tragic accident could have been avoided and lives saved through things such as safety striping, laws, or additional safety devices at railroad crossings, you can fully appreciate the need for the attention the Senator has given to this important issue. I also thank Senator Inhofe from Oklahoma, chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, for his leadership. Producing a highway bill is not an easy process. I have dealt with transportation issues closely as a Member of the Senate for several years now. I can remember when TEA-21 was on the floor how difficult it was to pull together the bill with the divergent committees--the Finance Committee, the Appropriations Committee, the Budget Committee, and the Banking Committee all had a say in the outcome of the bill. All the Members of the Senate had their oars in the water and we had to have bipartisan meetings in the various committees to produce a bill that could get through the process and be signed into law. It is not easy to get the reauthorization bill to this point. I commend Senator Inhofe for the work he has already done on SAFETEA, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2003. Coming up with that good title alone deserves commendation. I also thank the Senator from Vermont for his efforts. As a member of the Finance Committee, as well as the Environment and Public Works Committee, he has worked with Senator Inhofe to try to get this bill done. He has made it a point in the Finance Committee that we need to complete action on this legislation because it is important for our country. We do need to come up with an acceptable financing plan for the costs of this bill. It will take cooperation and teamwork to get it done. I know Members of the Democratic leadership support this legislation and I believe we are getting off on the right foot. But we spent a week positioning and making speeches. I hope now the Senate will begin to have some votes and conclude action on the bill as soon as possible so that we are not faced with another extension. We need to move this legislation through the Senate, show leadership, and be prepared to go to conference with the House of Representatives. In my opinion, there may not be a more important bill we can pass this year. This is not going to be a prolific year in terms of monumental legislation. Frankly, that is not all bad. Some of what we passed last year we should have left unpassed. Sometimes we should get credit for what we do not do. But this bill is one we need to complete this year for a variety of reasons. First of all, SAFETEA is about jobs. Very few bills we pass in the Senate actually produce something. This is a bill that is actually going to produce jobs, not just next year but year after year. There are projects in North Carolina, Oklahoma, Vermont, Mississippi, and all over this Nation, ready to go right now. We need to get this legislation passed as soon as possible so that the funding it provides can be fully utilized during the construction season. If we wait too long and let this drag out, if we get stuck in the Senate or get stuck in conference, we will lose another construction season. This bill will create jobs. Not all of the jobs will be high-paying, but they will be jobs just the same. There are very few Federal programs that create more jobs, from engineers down to the guy shoveling the gravel or moving around the dirt, all of which are very important. We need to pass this legislation for its job creation impetus. We talk about how we need more jobs in this recovery; this is one way to get them. SAFETEA is also about infrastructure. When you get through, you have something you can see--an interstate highway, a bridge, a safety device. Maybe even mass transit facilities in some of the larger cities. But we have a product we can look at. I found out through my 31 years in Congress, there are few things we do for our constituents that are more important than highways and infrastructure. If you do not have roads, if people cannot get there, they will not come. That is a brilliant statement when you think about it, but if companies do not have access to good roads and bridges, railroads, airports, ports and harbors, they will not locate a plant and create jobs anywhere in this country. When you are dealing with a major international corporation, they want to know: Are we going to be on an interstate highway? Are we going to be close to an international airport? Do you have good schools? It starts there. Then you work from there to questions such as: Is the geology good? Will we have water and sewer systems? Do we have access roads or existing buildings? My poor State of Mississippi has been making some progress. Why is that? Because we finally figured out that we were trying to fix everything and we were actually fixing nothing. We were shooting shotgun blasts and trying to do good things up and down the economic spectrum to help our State. It was not working because the money was disappearing. People were not getting better off. So we decided to focus. And we focused on education, particularly higher education and community colleges, to create workforce training programs for local communities. And we worked to improve our elementary and secondary education systems, as well. Second was highways. Highways is a code word for infrastructure. It is the whole package: The industrial site, water, sewer, railroad spur. If a community does not have good highways, economic development will not happen. We have a major industry right now in my State, Viking Range Corporation, that makes the best ranges and some of the best kitchen equipment in the world. But to get to their manufacturing plant, visitors actually have to travel on a dirt road. This is severely hampering the company's growth. The third thing we focused on in my State is economic development. We decided to aggressively go out and pursue jobs. This bill is an important component of that effort. SAFETEA is about jobs, it is about infrastructure, it is about quality of life, and it is about safety. I don't want to demean this title. We talk about safety on the highways, safety on the roads, safety on our bridges. We have bridges all over America crumbling and being shut down. I admit, some of them are local or county bridges, which, in an ideal world, should be maintained by the counties. But at a minimum, shouldn't we continue the policies that started way back in the 1950s--actually back in the 1800s, with Henry Clay, to develop and federally maintain an Interstate Highway System. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and to give the leaders of this committee the support to which they are entitled. Someone asked last week: We have all these problems, what do we do? I said, support the chairman and ranking member. They have a tough job, an important job. We should help and support them and try to shape the legislation with them, not just because we want projects in our State. Yes, we all do. But if we did not get one earmarked project in our States, we ought to support this legislation because of what it means for our country. Now, there is a lot of pontification developing, as often happens with the highway bill, but even more so this time. People are showing up, all of a sudden, worried about the costs of this bill. Lots of people are saying: Wait a minute, this may add to the deficit. Where have they been over the last 2 or 3 years? Where were they on the prescription drug bill when we were developing a bill that would cost $600 billion or $800 billion or who knows how many billions of dollars? They were not worried about the deficit until the highway bill came up. And they said, wait a minute, the highway bill may cost too much. The Finance Committee has struggled with how to pay for this bill. Is it perfect? No. But it was a major effort and we are within a close enough range where we can continue to make some adjustments as we go through the legislative process. Some people say: Once it goes through the process, we may have to vote. That is exactly right. And we will have to look at the final product. Is it something the Republicans, Democrats, Senate, House, labor unions, the White House can live with? We will never know until we move forward on it. So we have people now saying that after ignoring the amount of spending last year--in bill after bill after bill--we are going to plant our flag on this hill, and we are going to fight excessive spending on the highway bill. They picked the wrong bill. This is a positive bill, and we will make it work as the process goes forward. People will say: Well, wait a minute. There may be some earmarking in some of these bills before it is over. Yes, there may be. Fine. And I am going to fight for my own State to get its share because I do not necessarily believe that all wisdom reposes in the Department of Transportation in Washington, DC. I happen to know a little bit about some of the real crises, projects, and problems in my own State, and I trust Senators--men and women--from their own States to identify some of the needs that must be addressed in their home states. Then there will be those who will say: This bill doesn't put enough funding into mass transportation or it doesn't put enough funding into one project or another. Let me point out a couple of things we are dealing with. Our Interstate Highway System is nearly 50 years old. Thirty-two percent of our major roads are in poor or mediocre condition. Twenty- nine percent of our Nation's bridges are structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. If we do not complete action on this legislation, we will wind up with a 1-year extension and we will be back next year. Some people would say, maybe we could do a better job in a nonelection year. But I believe we need a carefully thought out, multiyear, multifaceted federal highway and transportation program, and we need it now. We are having difficulty on other bills, such as the energy bill. We are trying to decide, what bills can we get done this year? Well, there is one thing we should not leave undone this year, and it is this highway bill. I urge my colleagues to work together to try to come to a conclusion this week. If we have to have a cloture motion filed in order to make progress, let's do that. I believe it will pass with a bipartisan vote. It should. And then we can make progress on this bill and be ready to go to conference with the House of Representatives where we can get the job done. I know we are going to be getting calls with suggestions of delays. Some people do not like the formula. It is tough to come up with a formula that is fair to everybody, especially if you have been a big donee State. If you are a small State or a big State that has been getting back $1.21 for every $1 you pay into the highway trust fund, you don't want to lose any funding. But if you are from a poor State that has been getting only 50 or 75 cents on the dollar that your constituents pay into the Highway Trust Fund, you want a fairer deal. But it is not easy to try to come up with a formula that is fair to Texas and New York and Rhode Island and Oklahoma all at the same time. It is really a balancing act. I looked at the formula. I don't think the formula is as good as it ought to be for Mississippi. We are just kind of in the middle. And when your state has been neglected for 138 years it needs to do a little better than being in the middle. But I prefer the progress we make on this bill, to nothing. It is progress. So I do not think I have any more room to complain than anybody else. But, again, we have some people who do not want to move toward a fairer formula for everyone. They do not want to give up anything they have. But I think the formula Chairman Inhofe and Senator Jeffords have come up with is good enough. Can they still tweak it a little bit as the bill moves forward through the process? Yes, they can; and I am sure they will. So I hope my colleagues will not start blocking this bill with procedural motions because they do not like the formula. I hope they will keep working with the chairman and ranking member, as I will. I am going to curry favor with the chairman of the committee until the last dog dies to try to complete action on this bill in a way that will be fair to my constituents and good for the country. But I hope my colleagues will not use the formula as an excuse to block the bill. I hope they will not use this newfound fiscal responsibility to hammer out the worst possible bill. If we will proceed together, working with the chairman and ranking member, we will complete action on this bill, and it will be one of the best things we can do this year. I thank the Senate for the opportunity to comment on this bill. I thank the leadership for what they are doing. I was growing concerned that too many people were possibly trying to conjure up some way to block this legislation. So let's keep the process moving. It is not just for the sake of the process, no. It is for better and safer infrastructure in this country. It is for jobs. I wish the leadership of the committee the best, and I am going to be here trying to help them every step of the way. I yield the floor, Madam President.

Mr. LOTT

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

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, let me first commend and congratulate Senator Roberts, the chairman of our Select Committee on Intelligence, for the leadership he is giving on that very important committee. It is a very important and difficult assignment. I thought his statement today was a very good one. I jokingly said, but I meant it sincerely, I could not quite tell when he went from quoting Churchill to speaking for himself because the eloquence was very close. He makes a plea that is so important, and that is: Do not prejudge what the subcommittee is going to do. Members of the Intelligence Committee should not prejudge the information we are going to receive in the staff report. We should work together to see what we have and what conclusions we reach and what should be done. That is our job. I acknowledge that this is another in a series of what has been described in many different ways but I just refer to it as ``oops'' hearings--oops, we missed something here. But it has been going on for years. There was not a clear indication of what was happening in the Soviet Union, that they were imploding economically and they did not have the strength we thought they did in the defense area. We had Khobar Towers. We have had a series of events that our intelligence did not pick up. Once again, we find ourselves now, with the 9/11 Commission, working to see what we missed perhaps in our intelligence and law enforcement community before 9/11. It should not be approached, though, with the idea of condemning some particular individual but finding out what happened: Why did we not do a better job? What did we not know? And more importantly, what are we going to do about it? I am tired of oops hearings that happen after the fact and nothing really changes. Are we going to make a real change this time? Can we do a better job with our intelligence, and our intelligence community? I think we can. By the way, when we start pointing a finger of blame, we better look in the mirror first. We have had these intelligence committees since the 1970s. We have known that their budget has not been adequate through much of the 1990s. We have known that we lost our ability to have human intelligence, people on the ground. It became politically incorrect in the 1970s to have the head of, say, a financial institution in Buenos Aires to be headed by an American who was an agent, or a journalist who was working for a newspaper but was an agent. We have made it extremely difficult. We have become too caught up in sophistication, thinking we could get enough with satellites or with technology. It is not enough. I think what we need to do is lower the rhetoric. I know this is a political year, an election year. Everything is going to be somewhat political on both sides, but can we spare one thing, just one thing, from the political agenda? Can we not separate out intelligence and how we support it? Can that not be bipartisan? Now there is a call for an independent commission. We have even dropped ``bipartisan.'' Now it is ``independent.'' Who decides that it is independent? Some people are indicating if the President calls for an independent commission, one to which he appoints good men and women, that is not independent, but if it is one established by the Congress where we name Republicans and Democrats; that is independent. Quit the blame game. Ask legitimate questions. Work together. Draw conclusions and, more importantly, take action. Intelligence is so critical. In some respects it is even more critical than defense spending, because if we do not have good intelligence and if we do not have a reliable intelligence apparatus that works with our defense, our men and women are exposed to uncertainty, unknown difficulty, and death. We are talking about the lives of young men and women. Is it good that we are condemning and revealing information about the quality of our intelligence community while our men and women are today in Iraq, Afghanistan, and all over the world, who are relying on the ability of our agents, the CIA, the DIA, the different organizations we have doing intelligence? Even doing that is dangerous, in my opinion. We should do our work. I am not happy with the intelligence. I do not think the intelligence was what it should have been. It was inadequate, maybe even inaccurate. But why? There was large agreement not only within our community but also with agencies from around the world. Has my time expired?

Mr. LOTT. I believe the Senator from Kansas yielded to me some more of his time, if I could inquire about using an additional 2 minutes.