Trent Lott

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, I would like to inquire of the leader, does that mean we would then have five consecutive votes on the five district judges?

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I pay tribute to an outstanding citizen of Mississippi. On June 13, 2003, Clyde Brown of Moss Point, MS was recognized for his long-term efforts to protect the fragile, natural resources of coastal Mississippi by receiving the 2003 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's, NOAA, Environmental Hero Award. Established in 1995 to commemorate the 25th anniversary of Earth Day, the Environmental Hero award honors individuals and organizations for their tireless efforts to preserve and protect our Nation's environment. Mr. Brown is among only 36 winners in the Nation of the 2003 NOAA Environmental Hero Award. A lifelong resident of eastern Jackson County, MS, Clyde Brown recently retired after nearly 40 years of employment at the International Paper Company and is a part-time oysterman and seafood processor. He has been involved in a number of volunteer efforts that range from serving on citizen advisory councils to establishing the Mississippi Department of Marine Resources' Grand Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve, NERR. Mr. Brown has worked with my office and other members of Congress over the years to secure support for a variety of projects including the oyster relay project, establishment of the Grand Bay NERR, expansion of the Grand Bay National Wildlife Refuge, a local Federal Emergency Management Agency buyout, disaster relief, and the Coastal Impact Assistance Program, to name a few. David Ruple, manager of the Mississippi Department of Marine Resources/Grand Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve said, ``Clyde Brown is soft-spoken yet determined in his efforts to conserve and restore the resources of the Mississippi gulf coast. He serves as the pulse of the local community and has been the sounding board for local residents inquiring about Federal and State conservation initiatives over the years. Clyde is a true environmental hero, and I am proud to have had the opportunity to work with him. It is citizens such as Mr. Brown whose dedicated efforts and outstanding accomplishments greatly benefit the environment and make our Nation a better place for all Americans.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. It is good to know that there are other legal avenues that can be followed so that the duties of the Amtrak board are not suspended indefinitely while candidates are nominated, vetted, and confirmed by Congress. As we all know, Presidential appointments can often be a long and arduous process. However, its my hope that the Commerce Committee and the Senate will consider the confirmation of Amtrak board members as promptly as possible once we have received candidates from the President. Of course, I would like to acknowledge the work of Mayor Smith of Meridian, MS. He agreed to offer his knowledge and experience to the board, and has served for years as chairman of Amtrak's board of directors. I am grateful for his dedication to Amtrak and the excellent work he did for the railroad during his term. It is most important that the White House provide names of candidates for the board as quickly as possible so that we can begin moving through the confirmation process and return the Amtrak board to its full composition.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from Missouri, keeping in mind that Senator Bond would have 2 minutes to close at the end of the debate on this section, I believe.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I will speak more later on about the bill itself in general terms. But for 3 years the Senate has been trying to come to an agreement on legislation that could get through the conference and be sent to the President so we will have a national energy policy. I believe this is a very important issue for the future of this country. If we don't have a national energy policy and if we don't deal with these many areas of concern, the day will come when the lack of a national energy policy will cause national security or economic problems for this country. We could see that even this coming winter as we see a declining availability of natural gas. By the way, it is inexcusable that we are having a national gas shortage. It is because of our policies. That led to this shortage. If we don't have an adequate supply, it will affect the economy across the board. It is already affecting the chemical industry in my State, and the fertilizer industry. It is going to affect people's quality of life. This is so important. We need the whole package. We need more production. We need new technology. We need clean coal technology. That is just one example. We need more conservation of a responsible nature. We need to look at alternative fuels. I think a lot of these alternative fuels are, quite frankly, not very legitimate. But it is legitimate to try to find alternative fuels. I urge my colleagues, let us work together. Let us get this done, get it into conference, and let us produce a national energy policy. I think this issue is more important than any issue Congress is considering at this time. It is urgent that we get this work done. I wanted to speak in support of the Bond-Levin amendment. I know very good work has been done on this amendment. I worked last year with Senator Bond and Senator Levin. They have given a lot of thought to how this should be designed. It bases decisions on these CAFE standards on science and solid data. I believe this idea of just plucking a number out of the air and saying that number is achievable is irresponsible. It may not even be achievable. Based on what? It makes somebody feel good? And what about the choices for the American people? What about the sacrifices in safety that we are asking them to make? When you just pick a number, such as 32 miles per gallon or 37 miles per gallon, I don't think that is a wise decision, unless it has been based on thorough study and solid data. Of course, the organization to make that determination is the NHTSA. They have the expertise to analyze the numbers and consider all that should be involved, including the jobs that might be affected, the technology, how this improved fuel efficiency could be obtained, and, yes, safety. There are proposals out there which would adversely affect all these areas, including jobs, employment, consumer choice, and safety. The National Academy of Sciences CAFE report declared there will be more deaths and injuries if fuel economy standards are raised too fast without proper consideration given to how that is being done and what impact it might have. This amendment is supported by a broad coalition: labor, the UAW, the AFL-CIO, the Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, the Farm Bureau, automobile dealers, and over 40 other organizations. That ought to tell you something. That type of broad support indicates that people are concerned about what might be done with this CAFE standard. Yes, we should continue to work to improve fuel efficiency. We should have incentives to move in that direction. But I am very worried we are going to cause some real damage. What about the choice made by Americans? This is still America, isn't it? Is the Federal Government going to mandate that every driver drive an automobile like the one in this picture? Last year, I talked about the ``purple people eater.'' Shown in this picture is a version of the ``purple people eater.'' That might be fine around town in Washington, DC, but I can tell you, on some of the back roads in my State of Mississippi that will get you killed. That is not practical and people will not choose to drive it. They want an SUV or they want a pickup truck. And they don't want to be penalized by the Federal Government saying to them: You have to do this. And, by the way, if you don't do this, we will make you pay some kind of a price. This is ridiculous. In my own case, my family is growing. We have our children and grandchildren. It is a wonderful deal. Then, in August, when we take our annual family vacation, I have a choice. I can have a bigger automobile with the three seats in it, where we can securely carefully fasten our grandchildren in these safety seats. We can take two automobiles, each being an SUV, or we can take three automobiles. Now, how much fuel is saved? And how much safety is given up? Mr. President, this is ridiculous. It continues to be. It was last year. The American people are speaking with their choices. They are voting with their feet and their cash. They can buy these more fuel- efficient automobiles, but they are not doing it. What percent is actually buying these smaller automobiles? I think, any way you slice it, not more than 14 percent. The American people are making other choices. So I think what we are doing is very important. I think there are a lot of very substantive issues involved, and the least of which is not the American people's choices. I do not think we should be forced to drive that automobile shown in the picture. I don't know who makes that automobile. I don't know where it is made, but it is probably reposing somewhere in France or Germany. I like the bigger vehicle shown in the picture behind it. The American people have a need for vans or SUVs or pickup trucks. I understand there is going to be an amendment offered that will pick on particularly light trucks. Goodness gracious, light trucks use less fuel. Why pick on a light truck versus a heavy truck? This makes no sense. I oppose the amendment that is going to be advocated by Senator McCain and, I think, Senator Feinstein. I oppose the Durbin amendment. This amendment by Bond and Levin is bipartisan. It makes common sense. It moves us in the right direction. But it is based on commonsense science and solid data. So I urge that we adopt this amendment, and let's leave the choice in the hands of the American people and not have the ``Grand Poobah Government'' tell us what we have to do in one more area. Don't make the American people drive this little grunt of a car shown here. Mr. President, do I have any time remaining?

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I think I have 10 minutes under the reservation. I would like to reserve 2 minutes of that time so Senator Bond can close when the debate is finished on this side.

Mr. LOTT. That would be much appreciated.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, Saturday, July 26, marks the 198th anniversary of the birth of Constantino Brumidi, the great artist who has been called the Michelangelo of the Capitol. When, in 2 years, the 200th anniversary of Brumidi's birth is at hand, I believe the President should issue a proclamation commemorating Brumidi's life. Today, I am introducing a resolution authorizing such a proclamation. Constantino Brumidi was born in Rome in 1805 and immigrated to America in 1852. He began his artistic work in the Capitol in 1855 and, for the next 25 years, he labored to produce some of the most bold and moving frescoes and murals the world has ever seen. His paintings and decorations depict the history, inventions, values and ideals of the United States immeasurably enhancing the dignity and beauty of the Capitol. He designed and decorated on House and Senate committee rooms in the Capitol, as well as the Senate Reception Room, the Office of the Vice President and the President's Room. In 1856, Brumidi began creating designs for Senate corridors based on a loggia by Raphael in the Vatican, carefully integrating American motifs into a classical framework. He was very proud of becoming an American citizen and is reported to have said: ``I no longer wish for fame and fortune. My one ambition and my daily prayer is that I may live long enough to make beautiful the Capitol of the one country on Earth in which there is liberty.'' He did not live long enough to finish his work; but he lived long enough to make the Capitol incredibly beautiful. The man who labored a quarter century to make the Halls of Congress so magnificent deserves the recognition of the American people. Through this resolution, I believe we will provide appropriate recognition.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Would the chairman yield for me to add further to the discussion at hand?

Mr. LOTT. Part of any military exercise or experience is an afteraction review to learn what went right and wrong and how to improve on things in future situations. It would seem that the MRE supply issue is just such an issue. Obviously DLA did not have reserve stocks of food on hand going into this operation. Obviously no one anticipated the consumption rate we have experienced in the past few months. But it seems apparent that the reliance upon MREs isn't going to change in the foreseeable future. I can think of a number of things that could go wrong during a military operation, but running out of food has to be one of the worst. So I can't imagine why DLA is cutting production when we haven't even started to replenish our reserves. It would seem simple enough that if anything DLA should be increasing production and increasing reserves so that we never face this potential disaster again. I am informed that an adequate reserve based upon the new realities we have discovered in the past few months would ultimately be 10.5 million cases. Well, we are about 10 million cases away from that goal so we better get started on meeting that target. I too would certainly welcome anything the chairman could do to address this problem in conference and compel DLA to up the reserve stocks of MREs to an adequate level. I yield back of the chairman.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

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

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

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize and honor an outstanding citizen of Mississippi, Mr. James Hollingshead of Waynesboro, who recently displayed extreme heroism and bravery while in Destin, FL. On Sunday, June 8, 2003, Mr. Doyle Mosley and his wife Linda were enjoying their annual family vacation in Destin, FL. During the day, the waves had become increasingly high and a red flag had been put out by the lifeguards warning of potentially dangerous waves. The Mosleys' two oldest grandsons ventured into the water with their wake boards. Instantly they were caught in a dangerous and deadly riptide. While one of the boys was able to remain on his board and return safely to shore, the other, Cal Tackett, was in serious danger. James Hollingshead, a complete stranger to the Mosleys and their grandsons, was walking down the beach with his wife when he saw what was occurring. Although he was a total stranger, he immediately rushed into the water in an effort to save Cal, risking his own life. After much struggle and effort, Mr. Hollingshead and Cal eventually made it safely to shore. Although Mr. Hollingshead was unaware of it at the time, ironically enough, the Mosleys are also Mississippians--residents of Greenwood. This fortunate and happy outcome to a potentially disastrous situation can only be fully understood and appreciated when put in perspective. I understand nine people lost their lives on this beach on that tragic day. Thanks to the bravery and unselfish act of James Hollingshead, Cal Tackett and the Mosley family were spared this outcome. It is all too easy for us in the rush of our daily lives to turn a blind eye to the needs of others and forego lending a hand to our fellow citizens in need. On the fateful day of June 8th, James Hollingshead made a different choice, a choice that made all the difference in the lives of the Mosley and Tackett families. He set an example for all of us that should not be ignored or forgotten. That is why I felt compelled to share with you this story of bravery and courage. To quote the Mosleys, ``. . . it is so wonderful to know that there are people like James Hollingshead, who care and act unselfishly for a fellow citizen.'' Mr. Hollingshead, thank you for your courage, bravery and a job well done.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished leader for the information he has just given us about the schedule for the month of July. Obviously, we do have a lot of important work to do. Having dealt with the difficulties of having to put in full days, including votes on Mondays and Fridays, I know it is not always well received. It has to be done in order to achieve these very important pieces of legislation that need to be acted on in July. I especially thank the leader for going forward with the legislation on medical liability reform, the Patients First Act. In my own State of Mississippi, we have a health care catastrophe on our hands. Doctors are losing their coverage. They are leaving the State. And they are getting out of specialty services such as in the case of an OB/GYN. They are getting out of obstetrics. It is causing a huge problem along the Mississippi gulf coast where we have over 500,000 people. We are down to three neurosurgeons. We did have seven. We have two fully staffed trauma facilities in that area, only two. And with only three doctors now, on weekends we are really stretched very thin. If we lose one more neurosurgeon, we will not be able to keep those two trauma facilities operative. We also have a problem in getting an adequate number of orthopedic surgeons. As Dr. Frist knows, you have to have an orthopedic surgeon available also for trauma services. We recently attracted a doctor from St. Louis, MO who wanted to raise his family in a smaller community. He is an outstanding doctor. He was paying $70,000 a year for his medical liability insurance when he left St. Louis. He came to our State. Within 6 months his coverage went up to $150,000 a year. This is an African American doctor, highly qualified, desperately needed there in the Pascagoula-Moss Pt., MS area. I am afraid he is not going to be able to stay with that kind of problem. This is a huge problem. Some of my friends I went to law school with are saying: Let the States handle this problem. Some States have done a pretty good job. California has done an exemplary job. I believe this legislation is pretty closely patterned after the California example. Some States have done some good work but other States have done nothing or very little. My own State, while the legislature wrestled with it, made some progress but it has not been nearly enough. My friends in the bar say this is a States rights issue, more or less. But in this case there is no question that this is driving up health care costs across the board. Doctors will tell you that they are ordering additional procedures--defensive medicine, if you will--and it is clearly affecting how much Medicare is costing. I have heard astronomical numbers, and I will verify them before I speak on this issue tomorrow or the next day as to exactly how much the impact of this excessive lawsuit activity against doctors and the medical professions and the hospitals is driving up the cost of Medicare. There is no question--you might say the States have a right to do this and can handle it, or tort reform, or product liability even; but in this case there is no question that it has a Federal ramification that is costing us lots of money. We are trying to do the right thing for Medicare beneficiaries. We are trying to put prescription drugs in there but we need reform and we have to find some ways to reduce the costs that are being paid out by Medicare. This is one way to do it. I am excited that we are going forward with this bill. I don't know if we can get enough votes to stop a filibuster but that is not the important thing. The important thing is that we have a crisis developing in America in health care delivery and the medical liability area, and so I think we should take it up and let's have the vote--and we may have to have more than one vote. Judicial Nominations The other thing I want to do is pick up on what the leader said about judicial nominations. I continue to be concerned that we are in the process of setting a precedent, where judges can be defeated by filibuster. That has not been the rule. That has not been done--there is maybe one instance that you can point to in 200 years. In that case, I think it is a very fragile argument because the nominee, Abe Fortas, was debated for only 10 days, and there were ethical problems that developed and his name was withdrawn. We didn't do it during the Clinton years. A lot of delays are involved when you are talking about how Senators react, and sending a blue slip to indicate their preference on judicial nominations, and there were concerns and a lot of problems. But not one time did we defeat a judge by filibuster. I had to file cloture, I think, six or seven times but in each case we either vitiated it or had a vote on cloture and then went straight to the vote. We completed action on those judges. I don't think we should have a litmus test that involves one issue, or a few issues, because I make the case repeatedly that I voted for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, even though I knew that philosophically I would not agree with her. On a lot of issues I strongly disagreed with her. But she was qualified by education, experience, temperament, and ethics. She had a right, I believe, to have an up-or-down vote. She got one and she was confirmed, and I voted for her. On two of the other nominees, I believe for the Ninth Circuit, Berzon and Paez, I felt very strongly that they should not be on that circuit court bench. But, again, they came through the committee, we debated them on the floor, there was an attempted filibuster, which I opposed, and we voted on them. I voted against them but they got a vote. They were confirmed and they now serve on the judiciary. I think the leader has tried very diligently to find a way to get away from these filibusters, even though we still have two. I think we have had five or six votes on cloture on Miguel Estrada, and I think we have had two on Priscilla Owen. But I hear there may be filibusters on other qualified men and women, as well as the minorities that are going to be affected by this--especially in the case of Miguel Estrada. So we have to find a way to get away from this. There is even talk now that maybe we should have recess appointments. I don't think that is a good precedent either. I spoke against it on the floor when President Clinton did it, so how can I now say it is OK? But if we continue down this trail of filibustering judges, there will be a reaction. There will have to be additional action. The leader has introduced a bill that has been reported out of the Rules Committee that would be very careful. After 12 days, you could file cloture, and then it would be 60 votes required; the second cloture, 57; the third cloture, 54; and finally, only 51 after basically what would take a full month. I think that is a very long, protracted, and unnecessary process but it, again, shows good faith on the part of the leader to find a way to get ourselves out of this precedent. I think we will all rue the day if we do this. Yes, we have all ramped up the difficulty in confirming judges on both sides with a number of men and women, perhaps unfairly. But we are taking a huge leap and really undermining the process for confirming Federal judges if we allow filibusters to stand. We must find a way in the next couple of months to work through this. I call on my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, let's let cooler heads prevail and pull back from this precipice that we are standing on and find a way to give these judges an up-or-down vote. I believe we will be better as an institution and the judiciary will be better if we avoid this problem. I have been thinking about these issues over the past week when I have been at home. I particularly was confronted everywhere I went with the problem of doctors in my State of Mississippi, and to be able to keep the doctors in practice, keep them from retiring and leaving the States, we must act in this area. With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LOTT

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

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I want to correct some of the perceptions that perhaps have been left about what this legislation would do, or what the situation is. First, it is very interesting to me that it appears there is an effort to blame the medical profession, the doctors. I ask this question now of most Americans: Who do you have more confidence in, your local doctors, the drugs you have been taking, the medical devices that are keeping many alive, the type of medical care you are getting in home towns, or your local trial lawyer? Well, that is an easy question to answer. I have had to deal with that myself on both sides of the issue. By the way, I do have a law degree and I do know a lot of lawyers on both sides of the issue for whom I have a great deal of respect. Nobody is saying you should not have an opportunity to bring a lawsuit when you have been wronged or damaged. That is clearly not the case. But the idea that we are going to say no, no, there is not a medical liability crisis, there is a medical malpractice crisis--in fact, when I go around and talk to people who have pacemakers and have drugs that make their lives somewhat acceptable, or they have had strokes but they are controlling their blood pressure, up or down, they feel pretty good about health care in America. Health care in America is the goose that laid the golden egg. We are the most blessed people in the world when it comes to medical care. Is it perfect? No. Are mistakes made? Yes. Do we need better reporting or to keep records of this sort of thing? I will support that. The AMA may not like it that we keep closer track and deal with some of these mistakes that are made. But I am for that. I think we need to know where the problems are and we need to deal with them. But to say the problem here is the medical profession or the insurance industry--by the way, I don't want to just dismiss their involvement either. I want to make sure we understand why these medical liability insurance rates are going through the ceiling like they are. It is a variety of issues, I believe. I don't believe it is just the lawsuits but I think that is a big contributor. I think defensive medicine is a big part of it. I think that some of their investments went south on them and that is causing some insurance companies to raise rates. But to shift the burden over to the medical profession, when I know these men and women practicing medicine--the neurosurgeons, orthopedics, OB/GYNs--these general practitioners in the Mississippi Delta are already so terribly underserved and are just saying: We cannot continue. We are retiring or leaving and going to another State. This is the crisis. Maybe my State is worse than most but this is a huge problem, and it is all over the country now. One of the things I want to correct is this: Senator Durbin talked about David, referred to David's situation. The inference was that all he would get is $250,000. As a matter of fact, under this legislation, he would get all of his hospital bills paid for, all rehabilitation bills paid for, all physical therapy, all speech therapy, all occupational therapy; and if a home nurse is needed 24 hours a day, he could receive full compensation for that. He could get lost wages up to a lifetime of what he could have earned, which could be, obviously, millions of dollars. It could cover anything David's family would have to spend on his condition. Plus, the punitive damages in this legislation is not $250,000; it is the greater of $250,000 or two times economic damages. Quite often, economic damages could easily be $10 million.

Mr. LOTT. Then it would be two times that--$20 million--that a victim could receive if the economic damages are $10 million. So let me give an example, and then I will yield. I want to make this point. Under the California situation, with the $250,000 limit, what has happened? I ask unanimous consent to have this printed in the Record.

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

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

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

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

Mr. LOTT. To answer the question, I see no problem in a jury being able to consider the totality of the situation. I do not think we should ignore the fact a doctor--first of all, they are human beings. They do make mistakes. There are lawsuits based on very good cases and recoveries of a significant nature because of the extent of the damage or the longtime life impact on that person. When a doctor goes through this, don't you think it has an effect on his practice in that community? Do you think he is not adversely affected by it? I remember a case in my home area where a doctor left a sponge in a patient and it affected his career the rest of his life. He was punished. He was punished by the verdict, his insurance company had to pay, obviously--the patient got significant damages, both economic and punitive damages, and he suffered mightily. The point is, I have watched this issue for pretty close to 34 years, both as a lawyer and then as a Member of Congress, and it has gotten worse and worse. It is leading to a serious problem. It is about the patients, and it is about the doctors' insurance companies. But what about the people now who are losing access to medical care, to expert doctors, to especially the trauma doctors we are about to lose in my own State, the women who have to drive literally hundreds of miles to get to an obstetrician when they are going to have a baby, what about their risks? Maybe they should be able to file a lawsuit against somebody because they do not get sufficient health care. This is something we are going to talk about over the next 24 to 48 hours. I do think something has to be done. I want to make this point, too, in terms of working something out: We saw last year prescription drug legislation was brought directly to the Senate floor. It did not go through the Finance Committee. Because of that, we were required to get 60 votes, and that is why we did not get prescription drug legislation last year. A couple of the alternatives that were voted on got over 50 votes, but we had to have 60. So there is nothing extraordinary about taking up a bill that comes over from the House or taking a bill directly to the floor for consideration. I would prefer we have hearings. I think hearings would be a lot of fun. I would like to see the doctors, the nurses, and patients who are being denied care have a chance to say what this is doing to them. Maybe we could work out some of the disagreements. I wish to make this point: That effort has been made this year. Senator Frist has been working with Senator Feinstein to come up with a bipartisan bill basically along the lines of what is in this bill with the $250,000 limit on punitive damages or two times economic damages, whichever is greater. Senator McConnell probably was involved in those negotiations, but it fell apart when there was pressure to raise it from $250,000 to $500,000, and they just basically quit working on it, I guess, because they could not get an agreement. I would hope a committee would act--have hearings, report a bill, and let's make sure it is a good bill, but let's make sure it is not one written by just the plaintiffs' lawyers. Mr. President, does Senator McConnell wish to comment?