Trent Lott

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I know the Senator from Kentucky is presenting his prepared statement, and it really has been quite interesting, and I share his concern. My State is one of those first States to be in red. We have a crisis in health care delivery. We are losing doctors to retirement, leaving the State, or leaving part of their practice, like OB/GYNs getting out of the OB part of their practice. The Senator made a particular point. I think the bill is a good solution, and it is based, as Senator McConnell said, on the California plan that has been successful that does have some limits on punitive damages. The Senator from Kentucky just made a point about the abilities of the States to act differently if they so choose. Will the Senator explain that? I did not understand that was in the bill. I am very interested because one of the complaints I have heard is that we are imposing our will on the States and the State legislatures cannot act, if they want to or if they will, although not many of them have. Will the Senator from Kentucky expand on that point?

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield further, I say to the Senator, just coming back from my State, I had occasion to meet with doctors, hospital administrators, and civilians who are having problems, like some of those the Senator pointed out earlier. I also met with some of the attorneys who raise the point that the States should be allowed to act. My own State legislature tried to deal with this issue and made a little progress, but it is still very weak. Our crisis is getting worse, and we are losing particularly those critical services that we need in our trauma systems, for instance. The point I wish to make or ask the Senator to further expand on is, they say: What is the Federal role in this situation? Why is it necessary for the Federal Government to become involved? My response has been, clearly, there is a Federal application for medical liability that may not exist in other areas because of the impact it is having on Medicare. The additional threat of these lawsuits, the defensive medicine, the additional costs of medical liability insurance are causing all kinds of additional costs to be added to our Medicare system. I have heard billions of dollars, and I am going to find out in the next day or so what is the approximate amount that is being added each year to the cost of Medicare. We are trying to improve Medicare and trying to add prescription drugs, but there are other costs that are being heaped on to the system that are very destructive. I think the answer is, more than in any other area where we tried to get some legal reform, there is a Federal application in medical liability because of the impact it is having on the Medicare system. Does the Senator from Kentucky care to respond?

Mr. LOTT. A similar situation exists in my State. We are right next to Louisiana and not a State one would think would have the type of reforms they have in place. It is very easy to move from Mississippi to Louisiana. They serve different patients in a different State and medical liability costs are probably half of what they are right across the border. What worries me more is we have doctors leaving tremendously underserved areas such as the Delta. One doctor in particular I know moved up to South Dakota and started practicing medicine. Others are retiring when they would not have retired if they believed they could make a decent living. Even worse than that, doctors are getting out of certain practices. It has become a serious problem for health care delivery in my State. We have to act in this area, and soon, because the bleeding is growing in terms of losing doctors in these critical areas.

Mr. LOTT. This shows that in December of 2002 there was an $84,250,000 total award in a case under the current California law; a $21 million in January of 1999; a $25 million award in October of 1997 for a boy with severe brain damage and mental retardation because of the anesthesia. It goes on. Here is one for a $59 million total award. So the inference that all you could get under this legislation would be $250,000 is absolutely not the case. It would depend on the economic damages, the totality of the costs, and the verdict rendered. So I just wanted to make sure people are aware that there is flexibility here and that, depending on the severity and how long it would last, it could be a multimillion-dollar recovery. I am glad to yield to Senator Durbin for a comment or question.

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

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, July 9, 2003, in Room 301 Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing on Senate Resolution 173 proposing changes in Rule XVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate as they relate to unauthorized appropriations. For further information concerning this meeting, please contact Susan Wells at 202-224-6352. committee on energy and natural resources

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 1026, As Modified

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Rules and Administration will meet on Tuesday, June 24, 2003, at 9:30 a.m., in room 301 of the Russell Office Building, to consider the markup of pending legislative and administrative business, including any other items that may be ready for consideration. For further information concerning this meeting, please contact Susan Wells at 202-224-6352. committee on agriculture, nutrition, and forestry

Mr. LOTT

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

Mr. LOTT

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

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, while discussions are taking place on other issues or amendments, I wanted to go back and comment briefly on the statement by Senator Dorgan and his amendment. First of all, I appreciate his membership on the committee and his interest in this aviation hearing. Most of the time we agree on how we can be helpful to the aviation industry. I appreciated the fact that he said he thought it was important we have this revolving fund for TSA security. There are those who are going to speak against that fund later today. The appropriators feel as if the fund is not a positive thing, that it is taking funds from their bottom line. My concern is, if we have these fees collected for airport security and there is no specification that it go into that area, then it may be spread all over the place. If you go into port security, Coast Guard, or any number of programs-- which may be very important and may be needed--if fees are collected for a purpose, they should not be spread out into other areas. It is like the highway trust fund. You collect gasoline taxes for highways, and to let it be spent for airports or ports--that is not the intended purpose and what people think they are paying for. This fund is not intended in any way to get into the appropriators' job. They have a tough job. I know my colleague from Mississippi and Senator Stevens will work hard to help our homeland security. We will continue to work to see if we can come up with some compromise agreement that will accommodate all concerned. Our goal is to just make sure we have these fees that are collected for airport security and security for the TSA used for that purpose. With regard to the local share, I have a State that, obviously, is not a wealthy State. We have a limited number of airports. Several of them are relatively small. So any kind of cost share is not easy for them, plus the airline industry will tell you very quickly that in a lot of airports--particularly the bigger ones--any kind of a local cost share, the airlines will wind up having to pick up the cost because airports cannot get money from the local government. So they will say, all right, we have to get it from the airlines and they will pass it on to the airlines. That is a legitimate concern. It is really not fair. I know it is not easy for the local airports sometimes to get a match. But we are talking about a small match here. Even if we can have the match 10 percent, it would still have the principle that the local governments are doing their share. Airports and airline service is a very important part of the economy in these smaller towns. It creates jobs, helps attract industry, and it is a big plus. Yet the cities or counties, even the big cities--Detroit, Chicago, New York--get tremendous benefits from their international airports, but they don't want to participate or pay any of the costs. Of course not. The trend in America is just let the Federal Government do it. Let the Federal Government do it all. Let the Federal Government pay for all of the airport costs, pay for all the housing costs, pay for all of the farming costs--just let the Federal Government do it. That is why we are going to have a $500 billion deficit this year, and probably the same next year, and it may come down some in 2005, but it is still going to be really ugly. Let Uncle Sam do it. All I am saying is, let the local communities do a little bit, participate some, help a little in the cost of this huge benefit. I promote local airports in my State, such as Tupelo, Meridian, Golden Triangle, Biloxi, Pine Belt, and others. We have small airports that mean a lot. For them to help a little bit looks to me like a good idea. So I realize maybe that is not the way to do things around here. I am arguing on principle and some degree of responsibility for everybody to pay a little bit. Why should the Federal Government always have to pay the first and the last dollar? We will work with Senator Dorgan, a very valuable member of the committee. I understand his concerns in these smaller communities. But the problem is not really the smaller communities; it is actually the bigger airports that will be inclined to pass them along to the airlines. I realize they have plenty of burdens of their own. I wanted to respond and make it clear why I feel that some small amount of local participation is a responsible thing to do. It makes good, common sense. We may have a way to work it out. I wanted to get that on the record before we got too far away from Senator Dorgan's remarks. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LOTT. Will the Senator yield?

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. LOTT. I thank the distinguished Senator from South Carolina for those comments. He and Senator McCain certainly have been very interested in this important issue. A couple of hearings we had on this legislation were in the full committee because of the importance of the issues involved. I also particularly thank Senator Rockefeller, who is the ranking member on the Aviation Subcommittee, for his work and his cooperation on this legislation. This is truly bipartisan legislation: Senator McCain, Senator Hollings, Senator Rockefeller and I all have worked on it. Where we have had problems we have been able to work out most of them. I think we have a really good product. I want to say at the beginning we are hoping to move this legislation through rapidly. Hopefully we could even complete it today. We have a few issues that have not been resolved yet. Two or three of them may require votes. We ask our colleagues to come to the floor, let's have a debate and, if we have to, we will have a vote. There are not that many amendments that I think would actually require a vote. I also want to emphasize the importance of this legislation. Because we have moved it fast, and because we have been able to get an agreement worked out to bring it to the floor, and because we may be able to handle it in a brief period of time, it should not diminish at all the importance of passing this legislation. Transportation in America is unique. If we are going to have a strong economy, we have to have good transportation systems--not just roads and bridges, which are very important, and not just a good railroad system, freight and passenger, and not just good ports and harbors, but we also need a strong aviation system in America. We all know the industry has been having difficult times for a variety of reasons. In some cases it was bad management decisions. Obviously all of them have been affected by high fuel costs. There have been some difficult management-labor decisions. But also probably no other industry was as dramatically and directly affected by 9/11 as the aviation industry. Aircraft were involved on that infamous day, used as weapons of destruction, as missiles--both in New York and, of course, one plane that hit the Pentagon and the one that went down in Pennsylvania. We saw the industry basically shut down that day--for days. We are still having fallout, the ramifications of that day and those decisions in terms of access to airports, including Washington Reagan National. General aviation is still dealing with the problems as a result. There is no question the industry has had difficulties and some of those difficulties have been related to 9/11. Government decisions were made that needed to be made. We had to deal with security considerations on our airplanes and at our airports. So a lot of costs have been put on the industry that have caused them additional problems. We have taken action immediately after 9/11, of course, to provide some assistance to the aviation industry. We did it again in the supplemental appropriations this year. But this is the third step and in some respects maybe the most important step in helping the airline industry, helping aviation get back to where they can see blue skies and begin to make profits and provide the kind of service the American people are entitled to. I do think it is important we get this bill done, that we get into conference and see if we can come to a reasonable and relatively quick agreement with the House. That will allow this bill to be completed before we get into the time-consuming and very important TEA-21 extension, and the appropriations process. This bill's title is Aviation Investment and Revitalization Vision Act--AIR-V. Our intent is to go all the way from stabilizing the industry, giving them dependability and reliability of what they can expect from FAA, from the Airport Improvement Program, to all the different programs that are involved in aviation including service to small communities. I think we do have the fundamental provisions we need to make sure that happens. We will ensure the Airport Improvement Program will continue uninterrupted for the next 3 years. We also are going to make sure the funds that go into Airport Improvement Programs are actually used for their original purpose, and that is to improve our airports, the runways, the terminals, and the services our constituents need and deserve. On that note, this legislation also no longer allows AIP funds to be used for security mandates. Up to this point approximately $500 million has been skimmed off the top of the AIP fund to pay for security mandates that the Federal government placed on our local airports. The Transportation Security Administration--TSA--predicts that an additional $500 million will be needed to complete these capital improvements that have been deemed necessary for security purposes. This bill proposes that these unfunded mandates be paid for by directing the passenger security fee into a separate fund to cover these costs. The first $500 million of these fees that is collected will be directed to this fund. This legislation also looks at excessiveness at TSA. It will require TSA to do a study to look at the efficiency of their employees and then redeploy them as necessary based on the results of the study. I am pleased that TSA is already reassessing their workforce. While it is not the goal of this Congress to have less than adequate security at any airport, it is important for TSA to recognize the areas in which they have gold-plated security. In another effort to help the industry, this legislation also makes permanent a provision already in the annual appropriations bill that requires TSA to pay fair market value for the space they occupy at airports. The bill also keep AIP funding at the fiscal year 2003 level for FY04, but changes the match requirement from 10 percent to 5 percent for that 1 year. AIP funding will then be increased by $100 million for the out years. This is very important to local communities that are hard pressed to make that local match, because their funds have been depleted due to these unfunded mandates. AIR-V also maintains the budget firewalls that were put in place during the debate over Air- 21. These firewalls require that the trust fund continues to be spent down. Of particular importance to my home state of Mississippi is language in this legislation that continues the authorization of the Small Community Pilot Program. This provision will allow 40 new communities to be eligible to receive one-time money each year. This is a good program that requires innovative thinking on the part of airports and their local communities. Another important issue to rural States such as mine and Senator Rockefeller's is the Essential Air Service Program. The two of us introduced legislation that works to improve this program, while not implementing the drastic change the administration has pushed. In short, it provides incentive to the local communities to get involved in determining the quality and type of air service their community receives. We have included that legislation in this bill. Transportation infrastructure spending is important, and it is one of my top priorities. I want to continue the Republican congressional majority's commitment to transportation infrastructure. Our Nation's growing economy demands attention to this issue. Passage of this bill will be a step in that direction. I say again, in Senator McCain's presence, I appreciate his attention to this and his interest and his desire to move forward. Without his tenacity we would not be here now. I believe we have a good bill that we can complete in short order. I am glad to yield the floor at this time.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I believe Senator McCain will arrive momentarily to manage this legislation. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LOTT. If the Senator will continue to yield, we will continue to work on this. I know Senator McCain will have something to say about it later. Regardless of how it works here, we will continue to work together. I want to make note of the fact for the record that Secretary Mineta has determined that air traffic control is a core function of the FAA and as such the administration would not consider outsourcing beyond the current contract tower program. I note that is a program that is in place, the contract towers, and it has broad general support. Twenty- five percent of all takeoffs and landings, mainly general aviation in the United States, occur at these traffic towers. There is an example of how contracting out has been done and is working. We will continue to work with the Senator. While I have some sympathy with what the Senator is trying to do as the amendment presently exists, it is too broad and I would have to oppose it. I thank the Senator for yielding.

Mr. LOTT. My questions and my comments are related to your subject. First of all, I appreciate Senator Lautenburg and what he is doing here. I understand his point. I indicated to him on the committee we would work with him and see if we could come up with compromise language that we could agree to. Unfortunately, we could not get that done. However, the Senator knows I have tried to act in good faith. I know he has, too. I appreciate that. My concern is, I, like you, have concern about privatizing the air traffic controllers themselves. I also have sympathy for the flight weather service people because, in effect, in some areas I am familiar with, they are the air traffic controllers. But the amendment, as I understand it, and I think the Senator admitted, goes beyond demanding the tower or demanding the actual person looking at the screen and the flight weather service, it does expand to the other employees who are employed in the area--the service people, the repairmen, and perhaps even further than that. My question is, is that a fact? Would your amendment expand beyond the professional air traffic controller or even the FWS employee and other employees? Could you perhaps specify some of the areas that might be covered, just for the edification of myself and the other Senators.

Mr. LOTT. I don't believe I will need the entire time. I will take a few minutes to say that, in this case, I do feel the need to oppose this amendment by Senator Inhofe. Our Commerce Committee has discussed this issue several times in the past and at various times we have gone different ways on it. In this case, I think you need to look at how we got where we are. The Federal Aviation Administration has the responsibility that is mandated to ensure aviation safety. In 1959, they concluded, after concerns developed of potential detrimental effects of aging and the risk of acute and incapacitating medical conditions, that commercial pilots need to be required to retire at age 60. Today I believe there is sufficient evidence to keep that rule. There is not enough evidence to reverse that. There is a case here where I believe most of the airlines, although not all, support keeping it at 60. There is no question that the representatives of the pilots prefer to keep it at 60. So you have an agreement. Also, I do feel as if, particularly in the aviation area, there is a need right now to have some opportunity for retirement at 60, to bring in newer, young pilots or, as a matter of fact, to decide they don't need all those pilots. This is a unique time in the aftermath of 9/11, where at this time I am inclined not to think we should raise the age to 65, whereas sometime down the road I might be so inclined. I do worry about age discrimination. As I get older, I worry about it more than I used to. I think in this case, with medical science and the acknowledgement of the current situation in the industry, we should keep it at 60. I don't like to be on the other side of my good friend, the Senator from Oklahoma, but I think, all things considered, we should stick with what the rule has been.

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

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