Trent Lott

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. I acknowledge the fine statement that was made by Senator Thomas and thank him for his efforts today to make sure that Senators are aware of the opportunity to come to the floor of the Senate and pay appropriate tribute and recognition, and express the condolences that are so appropriate for that occasion. I want to make sure he was aware of our appreciation.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, this day, September 11, is its own memorial. A year ago I got a call from my daughter, expressing her horror and her sorrow on this, her birthday--and only 2 weeks after her new daughter was born. She talked about how ``I will just change my birth date. I will celebrate it a day earlier.'' She asked me, ``What exactly is this situation in this world I have brought my daughter into?'' It struck me that she would have those questions and those concerns, and what she had seen that day. She worried about what it means for the future. I talked to her this morning on her birthday. She celebrates her birthday today, as she should--not just because it was the day she was born but because she now realizes that in some ways, in spite of her horror, this is an even more special day--this is Patriots Day. So my special pen from the Pentagon service will go to my daughter on this day because I think in a way how she felt a year ago and how she feels today reflects what we have all gone through and what we have experienced. The truth is that this day doesn't really require any speeches or ceremonies, though we certainly will have them all day long. We really need no monument to remind us of the suffering and sorrow that befell our country 1 year ago today. As we sat there next to the wall of the Pentagon, I kept thinking about the innocent men, women, and children who lost their lives so inexplicably and so mercilessly on that day. But I also think about those who tried so hard that day to save people's lives with danger to themselves. Some of them probably were injured, and some of them maybe were killed--and all that has gone into the work at that building to symbolize the importance of us showing that we are mending our wounds and we are going to be stronger from what we have experienced. The wound that we had last year hasn't healed, nor should we expect it to be healed so quickly, nor many of the scars. The scars will be there. As a nation, we lost a great deal--not only these innocent lives in Virginia, Pennsylvania, and New York, but also that sense of security, and perhaps even naivety that we have experienced thinking that this is America, we are free and we are accessible, and we go and do what we want without being better in any way. Well, that has changed. I believe we have been hurt deeply--not just those who were directly involved, but all of us who watched it--all Americans and all freedom-loving people all over the world. I continue to be so pleased and, frankly, thrilled with the reaction I get when I meet with leaders from countries all over the world--and just average people on the streets of other countries. They come up and express their condolences and their support. Yesterday I met with the President of Bulgaria and the Prime Minister of Portugal. Their comments were so reassuring and satisfying. They have done their part. Bulgaria--yes. Bulgaria has had troops in Afghanistan and, fortunately, has stood with us and will stay with us in the future. We have been hurt deeply. But our observance of this day is about more than grief, it is about more than anger, and it is about more than appreciation. It is about valor and courage beyond words adequate to describe what has happened and how we feel. It is about compassion and it is about a unity of spirit. I have felt that I have seen it as I have gone across this country. I do not know how many States I have been in over the past year--but a lot of them, and there is a different feeling. When people sing ``God Bless America'' and start taking the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag, they sing and speak differently--with a little more gusto. But it is not about a flag, although that is what becomes so much a symbol of what we are experiencing internally. And it is not solely even about individuals. It is about ideas and principles--the values that have made this country what it is. In this body, we don't take an oath to people or an oath to a person. We take an oath to the Constitution. So that unity of spirit has really been so obvious since I have gone into States in New England and the South and the West and the far West. It is about faith that looks through death and a consolation beyond all human assurance. This morning, when we joined President Bush at the Pentagon to formally reopen that section of the building destroyed in the terrorist attack, we all again felt those emotions of a year ago. I was sitting next to Senator Daschle, and we couldn't help but remember a year ago when we flew in a helicopter, along with Senator Reid and Senator Nickles, right over that area. We looked down and saw what was going on--the smoke, the confusion, and the activities in trying to save people's lives, put out the fire, and deal with all that was going on. It is a site that has been burned into my memory forever. Needless to say, there couldn't be a better symbol than the restoration of the Pentagon for the way America's Armed Forces have responded to the assault on our country. God bless them for what they have done and for what they are doing today. But those who were responsible for that horror--and all those who shelter them, finance them, abet them, encourage them, or reward them-- should understand this: America's most important rebuilding is not the shattered wall of the Pentagon, nor the scar in the earth in New York City. For what we have restored in the past year cannot be measured in granite and steel, nor even grassy knolls, as in the case of Pennsylvania. We have rebuilt a wall of resolve, of determination, and of steady purpose. We have renewed trust in our leadership, and in one another, yes. We will disagree on this floor and we will argue about the best way to do the homeland security part and what should be the limitations on terror insurance. That is what democracy is all about. But in the end we have been able to find a way over the past year to come together and get a result. That is through determination and a steady purpose. We have renewed trust in ways that I hope will stay with us for a long time. We have rediscovered in our shared sorrow the power of a truly free society to overcome the enemies of freedom. These are our battlements and these are our armaments, and their might is going to be felt both here at home and in lands far away-- until the hand of terror is crushed and the work of justice is done. Again, we extend our heartfelt condolences to those family members who lost loved ones last year. We remind ourselves of how heroes were born on that date out of that horror, and we rededicate ourselves to the purpose of preserving this great young Republic and all the freedoms for which it stands. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I would like to recognize the professional dedication, vision, and public service of Mr. Paul Schneider, who is leaving his position as the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development and Acquisition. It is an honor for me to recognize the many outstanding achievements he has provided to the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development and Acquisition, the Navy, and our great Nation. Mr. Schneider has spent almost four decades ensuring our Nation and its naval forces are equipped with the technological supremacy to ensure victory over America's enemies. As our Nation enters the 21st century and faces new and unsettling changes, the leadership and technological achievements Mr. Schneider has nurtured will continue to ensure our strength and freedom. Mr. Schneider began his public service career over 37 years ago at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard as a project engineer to the Submarine Propulsion and Auxiliary Machinery Branch and Waterfront Design Liaison Office. Throughout the 1970s Mr. Schneider was a key member of the Navy's Trident submarine program, where he provided leadership, expertise, and vision in design, engineering, program management, and advanced technology development. The Navy, recognizing Mr. Schneider's leadership and engineering expertise, brought him to the Naval Sea Systems Command in 1981 to be a Deputy Director in the Engineering Directorate where he was responsible for design and engineering of ship and submarine mechanical and electrical support systems and auxiliary machinery. In his next assignment, Mr. Schneider became executive director of the Amphibious, Auxiliary, Mine and Sealift Ships Directorate. Throughout the 1990s, Mr. Schneider continued to be one of the Navy's leading engineers, becoming Executive Director of the Surface Ship Directorate. In October 1994, he became Executive Director and Senior Civilian of the Naval Sea Systems Command where he led efforts to revamp the Navy business process by adopting commercial cost processes and practices in the acquisition of major systems. He also implemented training and education programs to retool the Navy's acquisition workforce for the 21st century. In 1998, Mr. Schneider became Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development and Acquisition. Mr. Schneider has earned numerous awards, including the Department of Defense Distinguished Civilian Service Award, the Department of the Navy Distinguished and Superior Civilian Service Awards, and Presidential Distinguished and Meritorious Executive Rank Awards. I could go on and on about the many significant contributions made by Paul Schneider throughout his long and distinguished career. There are almost too many to recount. Despite his many professional, technical, and engineering achievements, perhaps his most noteworthy trait is his genuine concern for those around him. He regards as his family the entire community of military personnel, civilian employees, contractors, and industry who faithfully serve the Navy throughout the world. His memberships in the American Society of Naval Engineers, Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, Association of Scientists and Engineers, Navy League and the Naval Institute attest to his dedication to be a friend, counselor, and mentor to many hundreds of junior personnel who have had the pleasure to serve under him during his tenure. I ask my colleagues to join me today as I wish Mr. Paul Schneider all the best in his future as he continues his successful career as Senior Acquisition Executive for the National Security Agency. On behalf of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, I wish Paul and his loving wife Leslie fair winds and following seas.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume under the leader's time.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I do not want to take an extended period of time because I know the managers of the legislation are here and ready to go forward with the very important consideration of and amendments to the Homeland Security Department, but I must comment on action last week of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Once again, Mr. President, there has been a tremendous miscarriage of justice by the Judiciary Committee. By a vote of 10 to 9, a unanimous, partisan block of Democrats--10 Democrats--voted against the nomination of Priscilla Owen, who had been nominated by the President to a seat on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The way this nomination was handled is a cause for great concern as well as the fact that, once again, the Senate will not have a chance to vote on a eminently qualified and experienced nominee to serve on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. I am convinced that had her nomination been permitted to make it to the floor--as the Republican Majority in the past allowed numerous controversial Democrat nominees to get to the floor--Judge Owen would be approved by the full Senate and she would be confirmed. We always hear the arguments of those who say that there have been actions in the past where nominees who were qualified were not given votes. However, during the time when I was majority leader I remember numerous cases where despite the belief of many Senators on our side that the nominees' views were far, far outside the mainstream, we still permitted their nominations to come to the floor. We did that because while we disagreed with their political and ideological views, it was still hard to argue that they were not professionally qualified. Mr. President, I specifically remember the nominations of Marsha Berzon, Richard Paez and Rosemary Barkett. Certainly, these nominees, while they were qualified, were in my opinion not near as qualified in the legal profession as Priscilla Owen. Berzon had had no judicial experience whatsoever. And a minority of the ABA evaluation committee gave Berzon and Paez only a ``qualified'' rating whereas the ABA committee unanimously--unanimously--gave Priscilla Owen its highest rating of ``well qualified.'' Beyond professional qualifications, numerous Senators on this side of the aisle also had severe concerns that Berzon, Paez, and Barkett were very far out of the mainstream in light of their records which raised questions for many Senators as to whether they should be confirmed. Marsha Berzon had been a prominent ACLU and Labor Union lawyer who opposed parental consent laws for minors' to have abortions and had worked against the rights of individual workers in favor of the rights of unions. She was also a prominent and active member of the Brennan Center for Justice that cranked out initiatives it characterized as ``stand[ing] up to right-wing attacks on the judiciary.'' Richard Paez had written publicly of his belief that whenever judges feel legislatures have failed to act, ``there's no choice but for the courts to resolve the question that perhaps ideally and preferably should be resolved through the legislative process.'' That is exactly the kind of judicial activism that Priscilla Owen's critics have falsely accused her of in order to give themselves an excuse for voting against her. Paez had also ruled as a district judge--prior to his confirmation to the appeals court--that States and cities could not outlaw was aggressive and intimidating panhandling by the homeless because it would infringe on a panhandler's free speech rights. Rosemary Barkett, while a Florida Supreme Court Justice, had argued for overturning the death penalty of a man who had brutally murdered a youth in Jacksonville and then sent a tape to the victim's mother describing the horrible details of the killing. An opinion signed by Barkett opposed the death arguing that the killing was ``a social awareness case . . . effectuated to focus attention on . . . racial discrimination.'' Nevertheless, despite the misgivings and question marks from an ideology standpoint as to whether or not they should be confirmed, the Republican majority permitted all three of these nominations to come to the floor and be voted on by the full Senate and all three were confirmed. Now, in contrast to these three far left nominees, let me speak to Priscilla Owen's qualifications. First of all, I am not one who thinks it is particularly important whether the American Bar Association rates a nominee qualified or not. But, of course, the ABA's judgment has been described by a number of leading Democrats as the gold standard in terms of evaluating a nominee's qualifications to serve in the Federal judiciary. Senator Leahy and senator Schumer described it that way in a March 16, 2001 letter to the President insisting that the ABA's role in the judicial confirmation process had to be maintained. However, that did not prevent them from voting against Priscilla Owen after she received a ``well qualified'' rating from the American Bar Association--the highest possible rating they could give and they gave it to her unanimously. This is also the first instance, I believe, that we have had of a nominee rated ``well qualified'' by the American Bar Association being defeated in the Judiciary Committee and the Senate. So, from the standpoint of the American Bar Association, this nominee certainly more than qualified. Also, Mr. President, when you look at Judge Owen's record, it is clear that she has a long record of being outstanding not only academically and intellectually, but also from the standpoint of character, experience, and professionalism as well. This is a nominee who has had a stellar legal career. She graduated with honors from Baylor Law School and its undergraduate program and made the highest score on the Texas bar exam the year she took it. She then had a highly regarded legal practice with a leading law firm in Texas for 17 years. She then gave up her lucrative private sector practice to serve with distinction for the past eight years on the Texas State Supreme Court. She was elected, in a contested race, as I understand it, and then reelected unopposed with over 80 percent of the vote. She still enjoys overwhelming community support. She has been publicly endorsed and supported by Democrats and Republicans, including 15 former presidents of the Texas Bar Association. Every major newspaper in the state also supports her. Mr. President, there is no question this nominee is qualified by experience, by education, and by the time that she spent in the Texas Supreme Court, where she has built up a very fine record of being a fair judge who has worked very hard in understanding the issues that have been before her and in casting her votes on the supreme court. Yet, last week, I was shocked to hear her described by Senator Daschle as not qualified. These are exact quotes: ``We will confirm qualified judges.'' ``Don't send us unqualified people.'' Whatever you may be able to say about might be wrong with this nominee--because maybe she is too conservative, or maybe on she did not meet some litmus test from the liberal outside interest groups or because she didn't meet the test of a particular Senator--in no way could you describe this nominee as not being qualified or as being unqualified. I am very worried when we see this sort of pattern developing. There have probably been very few nominees in the past to serve on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals more qualified than this nominee by every category you might bring to bear. Let me remind my colleagues on this point what the their gold standard ABA's actual standards are. Let me quote what the ABA itself says it looks at when it rates nominees. The [ABA] Committee's evaluation criteria for federal judicial nominations is directed solely to professional qualifications: integrity, professional competence and judicial temperament . . . Integrity is self-defining. The nominee's character and general reputation in the legal community are investigated, as are his or her industry and diligence . . . Professional competence encompasses such qualities as intellectual capacity, judgment, writing and analytical ability, knowledge of the law and breadth of professional experience . . . In investigating judicial temperament, the Committee considers the nominee's compassion, decisiveness, open- mindedness, courtesy, patience, freedom from bias and commitment to equal justice under the law . . . The ABA itself also notes that its standards are even higher for Appellate Court Nominees. [T]he Committee believes that appellate court nominees should possess an especially high degree of scholarship and academic talent and an unusual degree of overall excellence. Again, Mr. President, when the ABA applied these standards to Priscilla Owen they unanimously rated her ``well qualified.'' To merit a rating of ``Well Qualified'' the nominee must be at the top of the legal profession in his or her legal community, have outstanding legal ability, breadth of experience, the highest reputation for integrity and either have demonstrated, or exhibited the capacity for, judicial temperament. So it is a shame to characterize this nominee as somehow being professionally unqualified and it is a shame that the full Senate was denied an opportunity to vote on her because of a partisan, straight party-line vote of 10-9 with all Democrats voting against her. Again, in my opinion, it reflects very poorly on the Senate, and I fear it will make it even more difficult for us to complete our work when we see these types of allegations leveled against such a fine nominee. It also puts even further into question the utility and necessity of bothering to have the ABA evaluate judicial nominations when the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee are going to put ideology first and a nominee's professional qualifications and ABA rating a far second. Mr. President, I could not let that partisan and unwarranted vote in the Judiciary Committee go unnoticed by the leader of the Republicans, and correct the public record regarding a nominee with such outstanding legal credentials as Judge Owen. She is clearly qualified. I would note in closing that the Washington Post in an editorial published this past July 24 agreed with the President and Republicans when it said that: Justice Owen is indisputably well qualified, having served on a state supreme court for seven years and, prior to her election, having had a well-regarded law practice. I hope we will ultimately find a way for this nominee to be confirmed before all is said and done. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Kentucky.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, let me just conclude my remarks with this, a quote from Senator Biden, a member of the Judiciary Committee for a long time. Unfortunately, he was also recorded last week as voting against Judge Owen despite her excellent record and the ABA's highest rating. But when he was chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I am convinced he worked hard at trying to be fair in the way the nominees were considered under the previous President Bush. But while on Judiciary Committee back in 1986 on the issue of judicial nominations he was quoted to this effect: [Judicial confirmation] is not about pro-life or pro- choice, conservative or liberal. It is not about Democrat or Republican. It is about the intellectual and professional competence to serve as a member of the third co-equal branch of the Government. I agree. Priscilla Owen met that criterion. She should have been confirmed. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. I thank the senior Senator from New Hampshire. He has led the charge on the issue of arming pilots. I agree that this should be one of the first items that we consider on the homeland defense bill. It is my intention that this would be one of the first amendments offered from our side on the homeland defense bill.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, on June 27, the Senate voted 99 to 0 to pass S. 2690 to reaffirm the reference to ``One Nation under God'' in the Pledge of Allegiance and the National Motto ``In God We Trust.'' Today, to be absolutely sure that the Nation's courts abide by the original intent of our Founding Fathers, I am proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the Untied States that would make it clear that the establishment clause in the first amendment was never meant to be construed in a manner that would prevent schools from leading our children in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance simply because it contains the words ``under God.'' The Senate and the House of Representatives--and the vast majority of the American people--have all expressed their outrage at the decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on June 26 that reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in school is unconstitutional because it includes the phrase ``under God.'' People are still understandably stunned and find it not only unbelievable, but indefensible. The fact that two Federal circuit judges were capable of making such an absurd decision points up, once again, how vitally important these Federal judicial appointments are in guiding not only the Nation's present, but its future as well. Judges are important at every level, but particularly at the appellate court--the circuit court--level. And this may not be the end of such shocking decisions. There have been reports that similar court challenges will be made to the use of the National Motto ``In God We Trust'' on our currency and to references to God in our official oaths of office. It is simply incomprehensible that so many Federal judges are so quick to find that the Constitution protects the right of child pornographers to debase society while at the same time requiring the removal of every last vestige of God from the public forum. It is easy for us all to say the Pledge of Allegiance with gusto and mean it, but we need to look behind this latest decision--and examine how and why it came about. And America's voters need to understand that these Federal judgeships, and who fills them, do make a difference in the kind of society that not only will we live in, but our children's children will live in as well.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I believe in short order the Senate will be prepared to dispose of this amendment. I wish to take a minute at this time to express my appreciation and the appreciation of the entire Senate and I think a grateful country for the outstanding work that is done year in and year out by these two Senators managing this legislation. Senator Inouye and Senator Stevens are two unique personalities, first of all. The service they gave to their country and the military during World War II would be enough by itself to cause us to want to express our appreciation to them. But their service in this institution and their leadership in these Defense bills year after year is really outstanding. They have done a tremendous job. They have helped keep America strong. They have helped make sure we have the facilities and the equipment our men and women need to do the job. That is why when we made the decision to go to war against terrorism and put our men and women into a situation in Afghanistan to deal with al-Qaida, the terrorists, we had some incredible equipment. The American people got glimpses of some of the tremendous things that have been done. Once again this year they have done a fantastic job. Unless I am mistaken, this is the largest Defense bill in the history of the country. It was asked for by the President. They have been very careful to be judicious in how they have handled it. But they have brought it to the floor in such a way that Senators on both sides of the aisle agree with their product, and I thought I should take a minute to tell them how much I appreciate it. Obviously, I am prejudiced. In my neck of the woods we build ships. We are very close to the Navy, but we also have Camp Shelby where Senator Inouye got his training at the beginning of World War II. They have made sure that we paid attention to what we needed for the future in ships, even though the Navy actually had a declining request in this area. On a personal basis and one based on knowledge of what would have been in the bill but what is in it, what needed to be done, I express my appreciation to the managers and thank them for what they have done here, in the past for the country, and what I know they will always do in their roles in the Senate. They and their staffs spent many long hours hammering out the details of what amounts to the largest defense budget in the history of our nation and they are to be commended for their hard work. I want to particularly thank Senators Inouye and Stevens for filling a major hole in the defense budget--the distinct lack of ship production for our Navy. During this time of war against terrorism, we need to maintain our ability to strike at the heart of our enemy far from American shores--namely, their training camps, intelligence centers, chemical/biological weapon production facilities, and conventional arms caches. Ships play a central role in our ability to project power and--before the actions of the Senate Appropriations Sub- committee on Defense--it looked like we, as a nation, were close to losing a key pillar in our fight against global terrorism. Mr. President, the military budget as presented to this body earlier this year represented the largest increase in military spending that our country has seen in a long time, and yet the Navy's request for shipbuilding represented a decline in spending from the previous year. It certainly was difficult to understand and even more difficult to understand given that our forces are engaged in combat overseas. This spending profile not only threatened the capability of our Navy, but also threatened to severely dismantle our capability to produce ships in the United States. I don't need to spell out the dire implications of losing what little shipbuilding capacity that we have left in America. Thanks to Senators Inouye and Stevens and their staffs' hard work, we have made great strides in righting our ship that was about to sink. I want to applaud the foresight and efforts of committee staff, particularly Charlie Houy, Steve Cortese, Leslie Kalan, Menda Fife and Kraig Siracuse to correct this problem. They put a lot of hard work into this mark-up and I believe they hit a home run for shipbuilding. This SAC-D mark-up has set the vision for the future and will help the Pentagon as they develop the shipbuilding plan for POM '04. I also want to acknowledge the forward thinking of Pete Aldridge, John Young, and Dov Zakheim for identifying future funds in POM '04 that will be leveraged into the fleet of tomorrow--a fleet that will be fully capable of addressing threats to our nation that we cannot yet envision. An early version of the ship building plan for POM '04 includes laying the keel for a CVN in 2007; ramps up production of Virginia Class submarines from one ship per year in fiscal years 2004 through 2006 to two ships in 2007 through 2009; production of three DDG-51 class ships per year in 2004 and 2005; commencement of DD(X) production in 2005 with continuation of that program well into 2020; steady-state production of LPD-17 class ships through 2009; and a three-year interval between production of LHA(R)/LHD class ships in 2006 and 2009. Again, I thank Senators Inouye and Stevens for putting together a Defense Appropriations bill that makes sense for our Navy, our nation, and our ship building industry. Thank you. I commend you for the great service you have done for our Nation, our military, and our service members.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I do wish to speak in behalf of the McConnell amendment. I realize time has expired, but I yield myself time under leader time.

Mr. LOTT. Recognizing Members may be interested in what the schedule will be in the next hour and maybe even right after lunch, I will be glad to yield to Senator Reid for information.

Mr. LOTT. Fifty.

Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I thank Senator Reid for that clarification so we can get some further time for debate on this important issue and so that Senator McConnell can talk more about the specifics. I believe in this country we have a medical malpractice crisis. There is a huge problem with frivolous lawsuits being filed and large verdicts being rendered. Let me read some of what is happening in my own State where within a few days the legislature is going to have a special session to try to deal with this crisis because doctors are getting out of obstetrics; they are getting out of the business of delivering babies. And they are getting out because the doctors cannot get medical malpractice insurance coverage. As they lose their coverage they are also leaving the State. We now have huge areas of the State where there are few, if any, doctors available to deliver babies. In Mississippi we are expected to lose an estimated 400 doctors this year because they are retiring, getting out of practice, or moving to other States, including Louisiana. Why Louisiana? Because in Louisiana they have some caps on punitive damages that help limit the size of the verdicts against doctors. Madam President, last year, in Bolivar County, there were six doctors providing obstetrical care. Today there are three. In neighboring Sunflower County, all four doctors who delivered babies quit private practice. So there is a large area where the citizens of my state cannot get medical care for pregnant mothers and for delivering babies because their doctors cannot get or cannot afford malpractice insurance. Some expectant mothers now have to drive 100 miles just to get to a doctor, let alone a regional hospital. In the northern half of the State last year, there were nine practicing neurosurgeons; now there are just three on emergency call. And it does not appear that the situation is going to get any better soon. The North Mississippi Medical Center, a hospital that serves 22 counties and 600,000 people, is finding it impossible to recruit new doctors. But not only is the next generation of doctors being scared away from the State by Mississippi's tort friendly medical malpractice environment, soaring insurance premiums, and word of multi-million dollar jury awards, so are the insurance companies themselves. There used to be 14 companies underwriting liability in my State, now there's one willing to write new policies. And those companies that are staying in Mississippi are being forced to charge exorbitant rates to cover their liability exposure to frivolous lawsuits and large verdicts. For instance, maternity care used to make up about 30 percent of family practitioner Scott Nelson's practice in his hometown of Cleveland, MS. But Nelson got out of the business October 1 when his annual malpractice premium jumped from $30,000 to $105,000. Had he had continued his practice, Nelson would have had to pay that even more exorbitant premiums in the future, and in these small communities, the amount of money doctors make is not so great that they can afford to pay over $100,000 in medical malpractice insurance year in and year out. Madam President, the Clarion Ledger in my home state a couple of days ago quoted a report from the National Law Journal which found that of the 50 firms in America that had the largest verdicts from juries, 9 of them are in my State of Mississippi, with one firm getting 5 verdicts totaling $177.5 million, the largest of which was against Janssen Pharmceutica for $100 million. Another firm got $171.27 million, $150 million of which was from a single verdict against AC&S Manufacturing. I ask unanimous consent that the article I am about to refer to from the Clarion-Ledger on July 28, 2002, be printed in the Record.

Mr. LOTT. The ability to have verdicts reach companies--even when companies are not directly involved in the alleged wrongdoing--through the use of joint and several liability is also causing huge problems in the medical malpractice and other fields. Despite the fact that they often have only tangential relationships to alleged wrongdoers, the plaintiffs' lawyers often include companies in lawsuits simply because they have the deep pockets and the companies all too often end up getting stuck having to pay the lion's share of multi-million dollar verdicts even though they actually did very little wrong. I often wonder what government officials and responsible citizens in my State think is going to happen over the long term to companies that are faced with this kind of threat from juries in my State? What do they think is going to happen as the verdicts against doctors continue to go up and the insurance premiums to cover medical malpractice insurance costs continue to go up. They are finding out very quickly as many doctors and other medical providers are literally closing up shop and leaving town. Madam President, this is a very important issue that is affecting health care in America, that is driving up the costs of health care all across America, that is making medical malpractice insurance unaffordable even for doctors, and which is limiting Americans' access to health care. What is the solution? Senator McConnell has the solution in his amendment. It would put reasonable limits on punitive damages. It would provide for proportional liability so one company with marginal involvement is not held responsible for the entire costs of a verdict handed down by a jury. There are also limits on attorney's fees. That provision when you think about it is really about the patients, the people who are hurt, and not about the attorneys who get 40, 50, 60 percent of a judgment in many cases. Senator McConnell's amendment also has collateral source reform, to stop lawyer's double dipping from both their client's insurance companies and the defendants they drag into court. The amendment also has alternative dispute resolution. Is that not a better way to go, to find a solution without having to go through the expense of trials, litigation and jackpot verdicts. Would it not be much better to first try to get a quick resolution of the matter outside of the courtroom? Senator McConnell's amendment should be included as part of this debate we are having about health care accessibility and the cost of prescription drugs. I should note that nearly identical language passed the Senate in 1995 by a vote of 53 to 47, but it was later vetoed by President Clinton. Senator McConnell's amendment is an important one. I understand that Democrats will perhaps move to try to table it, but this is a critical issue in America that has to be addressed. The American Medical Association announced last month that because of astronomical malpractice premium increases, 12 States are in a health care crisis mode, with 30 other States on the brink of crisis. I ask unanimous consent that a compendium of news accounts about the medical malpractice crisis affecting the Nation, which was written by the Republican Policy Committee and titled ``Overzealous Trial Lawyers Are Denying Medical Care to Expectant Mothers,'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. LOTT. Madam President, if we do not get some control of these outlandish lawsuits and the verdicts that are being handed down both in the field of medical malpractice and in the broader area of tort reform, the never-ending stream of lawsuits that are being filed in this country is going to continue putting good men and women out of the practice of medicine, good companies out of business, and good men and women out of work. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, for a couple of clarifications, first of all, with regard to the trade promotion authority, from what I believe the majority leader was saying, it would be his intent to call it up tonight and, if there is objection, you would file cloture on the trade promotion authority bill; is that correct?

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, continuing, I would like to get a clarification because I believe the Senator indicated that after the Dorgan amendment was agreed to, then the Senate would vote immediately on cloture on the underlying generic drug bill, and only if cloture is invoked would you then go to final passage. If cloture is defeated, of course, then that issue would still be pending.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, for those who are following this, I emphasize that nobody has given up any position here or lost any rights. We are trying to set up a process so Senators would know what is going to be the business for the rest of the evening and what would be the sequence of votes tomorrow. Tonight, we will have the debate on the nomination of D. Brooks Smith for the Sixth Circuit. I thank Senator Daschle for going forward with it. Time is required for the debate, and that can occur tonight. The vote will be tomorrow in the stacked sequence along with votes on the Graham-Smith alternative and then on cloture on the underlying bill. Depending what happens, we would go to the Department of Defense appropriations bill, which we have made a commitment to complete this week. We will try to get a reasonable time agreement on that. We would have the trade bill following, too. This is a large agenda to accomplish. This agreement is to try to put into place when the votes will occur.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I rise today to pay proper tribute to Mr. John M. McGee, a devoted husband, father, and grandfather as well as a memorable American patriot. John was born in Brookhaven, MS on September 16, 1933, and in February 23, 2002, John passed away as a result of a sudden heart attack. In his high-school years, John was blessed with speed and athleticism that contributed to his becoming an extraordinary football player and an excellent athlete. John's athleticism led him to set the state record in the 100-yard dash. John attended my alma mater, the University of Mississippi, where he played football for the Ole Miss Rebels. John's patriotism towards his country convinced him to interrupt his education at Ole Miss and enlist with the U.S. Navy where he served on the destroyer tender Shenandoah and the destroyer Willard Keith. During his duty in active service, John took part in the decisive Inchon invasion commanded by General Douglas McArthur. John went on to earn his bachelor's degree in engineering from the Armed Forces Institute. After an honorable discharge, he pursued his career in engineering until 1966 when he accepted a job with the Department of Defense where he conducted operations in Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, and Thailand until 1969. During John's service in Vietnam, he discovered and exposed extensive corruption in American military operations. The Governmental Accounting Office confirmed these allegations, and John's discovery revealed the theft of 5.5 million gallons of fuel that had been originally intended for U.S. Military forces but had been penetrated and used by the enemy. John's inquiry helped save the lives of many Americans. His discovery ultimately led to a Senate Sub-Committee chaired by the Honorable Senator William Proxmire of Wisconsin to investigate the scandal. This incident is memorialized in the U.S. Congressional Record and in the books Report from Wasteland- America's Military Industrial Complex, by Senator William Proxmire and The Pentagonists, by A. Earnest Fitzgerald. Our hearts are saddened with the loss of such a precious man, but at the same time we are grateful for his contributions to our country, the state of Mississippi, and his family. I know my colleagues will join me in honoring and appreciating the remarkable life of Mr. John M. McGee.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I rise today in remembrance of a fellow Mississippian, Fred C. Cutrer Jr. and his navigator Leonard L. Kaster, who died serving their country during the Vietnam War. Captain Fred C. Cutrer Jr. was a pilot on a B57 Canberra Bomber, and during his service for his country, he became instantly known around his base as a loving husband and an immensely proud father of two sons. He would often be found showing pictures of his family to his friends and squadron. Fred was also courteous and friendly, exemplifying the character of a true southern gentleman. Jimmy Speed, a child-hood buddy described his charming character by stating, I use to call him good-humor man. He was a very smart man, and people liked him immediately. I always felt that if he had gotten to the ground alive, those people wouldn't have hurt him because he was so likeable and friendly that he would have fit into any crowd. On August 6, 1964 Cutrer and 1Lt. Leonard L. Kaster, unknowingly flew the skies for their last time. They were flying over South Vietnam, North East of Tan Son Nhut, and according to Defense Intelligence data, their airplane came under heavy fire from Viet Cong forces, causing them to crash and explode near the Sang Dong Nai River in Long Khan Province. Both men were classified ``Killed in Action, Body Not Recovered,'' and Cutrer was promoted to the rank of Major. In the spring of 1997, the Department of Defense, with the help of a Vietnamese native, helped bring closure to Cutrer's family by finding Cutrer's dog tag and aircraft identification plate that had been buried one meter beneath the surface of a jungle bog. This discovery led to the declaration of these men's ceremonial burial for June 6, 2002, with full military honors. I am thankful to say that both of these men, nearly forty years following their patriotic death for their country, now lay buried in Arlington National Cemetery. Both the Cutrer and Kaster families flew from Mississippi to attend the ceremony, and Air Force General Frank Faykes presented flags to the families of both men. Buried alongside Cutrer is his wife, Shirley, who was killed in an automobile accident four years ago. The children were pleased to see their father properly honored as a hero and their mother rightfully buried beside him. American troops have a slogan stating, ``We leave no man behind.'' I believe this manifests the pride and patriotism of our troops. Cutrer's sister, Lillie Cutrer Gould, promised her younger brother that if anything were to happen to him in Vietnam, then she would bring him back home. Not too many days ago, Mrs. Gould successfully achieved her promise to her brother, and America again exercised its duty and commitment to its soldiers. I salute John C. Cutrer Jr. and Leonard L. Kaster for serving their country and helping make America a better and safer place to live. I am thankful that I reside in a country where we take pride in our soldiers, and we carry a strong commitment never to forget their courageous acts nor to leave anyone behind. I want to thank God for allowing John and Shirley Cutrer to eternally lay side-by-side in Arlington's National Cemetery, and I want to thank America for again making me proud of our citizens. I know my colleagues will join me in memorializing and commending the lives of John C. Cutrer Jr. and Leonard L. Kaster, two American heroes.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate my dear friend Roy Estess on his well deserved retirement, to thank him for his many years of dedicated service to our nation, and to wish him the very best as he pursues other interests and enjoys what I hope will be many fine years of health and happiness with his family. Roy S. Estess, a native of Tylertown, MS, is retiring as director of NASA's John C. Stennis Space Center in south Mississippi. As director of Stennis Space Center for more than 13 years, Roy has been responsible for accomplishing the center's current NASA missions, rocket propulsion testing and remote sensing applications. Other responsibilities have included managing the Space Shuttle Main Engine test program; planning and accomplishing advanced propulsion test activities for NASA, some Department of Defense projects, and certain industry propulsion development and launch vehicle development programs; conducting research and technology development in earth and environmental sciences; commercializing remote sensing technology in cooperation with industry and government; developing technology for use in propulsion test and launch operations; and managing the overall center. Roy's vision and leadership have directly lead to Stennis Space Center becoming a unique Federal city that is home to more than 30 Federal, State, academic and private organizations. Roy Estess graduated from Mississippi State University with a degree in aerospace engineering. He also has accomplished various graduate level studies, including completion of the advanced management program at the Harvard Graduate Business School. He is a registered professional engineer in the State of Mississippi and is a member and past chairman of the advisory committee to the College of Engineering at Mississippi State University. Roy is also a member of several professional societies, some of which include Tau Beta Pi; the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics; the Mississippi Academy of Sciences; and the National Space Club. Roy has held various engineering and management positions during his 42 years of service in the United States government. He began his career as a civilian employee in the United States Air Force at Brookley Field in Alabama, and later at Robbins Air Force Base in Georgia. Roy came to the NASA Stennis Space Center in 1966 as a propulsion test engineer, working on perhaps the greatest technological achievement of all time, the Apollo missions to the moon. Roy worked on testing the second stage of the Saturn V moon vehicle during those exciting times. Working his way up through the ranks, he later served as head of the Applications Engineering Office, deputy of the Earth Resources Laboratory and director of the Regional Applications Program. From 1980 through 1988, Roy served as deputy director of Stennis Space Center and was named director in January, 1989. From 1992 to 1993, he was temporarily assigned to NASA Headquarters in Washington, D.C. as a special assistant to two consecutive NASA Administrators. From February, 2001 to April, 2002, Roy was temporarily assigned as acting director of the Johnson Space Center in Houston, TX. Roy Estess has been named the recipient of numerous awards and honors, some of which include: the Presidential Distinguished Service, twice, and Meritorious Senior Executive Awards; NASA's Distinguished Exceptional Service, Equal Opportunity and Outstanding Leadership Medals; the National Distinguished Executive Service Award for Public Service; and the Alumni Fellow of Mississippi State University; as well as Citizen of the Year in his home town. Roy has served Mississippi and the nation in numerous ways outside of his professional career. In 1969, when south Mississippi was hit by the devastating hurricane Camille, Roy served on the Gulf coast disaster recovery team, making extraordinary efforts to help save lives and property in our state. An Eagle Scout himself, Roy has long been an active supporter of the Boy Scouts of America, including serving as Scout Master of Troop 87 of Picayune from 1966 to 1978. Roy has also served as a Deacon at his church, the First Baptist Church in Picayune. Roy and his wife, Zann, reside in Pearl River County, MS. They have two children, Andy and Mauri, and two grandchildren, Conner and Drew. I know my colleagues will join me in appreciation of Roy Estess for his extraordinary career of service to the nation and his community and in wishing him and his family the very best in all of their plans for the future. I am proud to call Roy Estess my friend. God bless you, Roy.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished majority leader for his comments and for the effort that he has put into a number of these issues this week. For every small agreement that is entered into on the floor it quite often represents hours of effort on our part, many times having had to go to Members repeatedly and work through concerns and legitimate disagreements. Then we finally get an agreement on the floor, and it moves quickly and it looks like it was a piece of cake, but it was not that way at all, as the distinguished Senator in the chair knows because he is here on the floor working these issues day in and day out. As is always the case, this next week has the potential to be a very productive week. One of the two busiest weeks and most productive weeks each year is the one right before the August recess and the one right before we go out at the end of the year. I remember one day, the last day of a session, we moved over 50 bills at the last half of the day when most Members had gone. But we had worked through a number of agreements. Next week we have a chance to do a lot. I want to look back, though, just a moment, to this week because there were some significant achievements this week. It looked as if at times we were not reaching agreement--we weren't. But sometimes before you reach an agreement you have to be clearly in disagreement. Maybe that is where we were this week. But we did finally start to break the deadlock and had a thaw on nominations. We had reached almost a record high of 90-something nominations pending on the calendar. But efforts were made to work through that. Senator Daschle and I had worked through it twice, only to be met with a different hold. But the White House worked out concerns with Senator McCain and we started moving nominations, including, I think, some 15 last night. We are beginning to make a little progress on the judges. We have some 204 nominations still pending in committees, but if everything goes according to normal practice around here, a lot of those nominations will be coming out next week and we will be moving them, hopefully, as fast as we can once we get them cleared. We are doing some judges. It is difficult, but we are going to get action on one more circuit judge completed on Monday. We moved one other district judge last night and voted on that, I believe--this morning, actually. We are going to do two more, I believe Senator Daschle said. So we are beginning to thaw that issue, and that is good. On the accounting reform, I want to emphasize once again we not only got an agreement on the conference, we got the conference done and sent to the President, and I believe that was a positive factor in beginning to restore confidence in our corporate world and accounting procedures. The House is in the process, or has by now completed homeland security legislation. The Senate committee completed markup and we are ready to go forward. That was a very big achievement by the committee. Even though you disagree with some of what was done, they did get their work completed and they reported it to the Senate, and we did the legislative appropriations bill and we got an agreement to do the Department of Defense appropriations bill. For our colleagues on my side of the aisle, they have been calling for this. In fact, we are going to get it done, we are going to call it up next Wednesday, and we will complete it if it takes 2 hours a day or 2 days, as Senator Daschle said. So those things we did, after a lot of work, seeing some agreement reached. On prescription drugs, we don't have agreement. It is obvious we had concerns about the way it was brought to the floor and about some of the legislation that was offered. But efforts are still underway to see if we can find common ground. We will continue to try to do that. There is pending an amendment on medical malpractice. That is an issue that is very important to a lot of people of my State. There has developed a real problem with tort reform and with doctors losing their insurance coverage or leaving the State because there is no limit on punitive damages. No matter how this turns out in this debate, this is a debate that we and the States of America are going to have to deal with in some way. We will have an opportunity late Monday afternoon and Tuesday to see what can be done on prescription drugs. I know there are conversations going on today between Members of the Senate and House, Republican and Democrat, and also with the administration to see maybe what can be done there. Senator Daschle has indicated that he would begin action to get a vote on at least cloture on a motion to proceed on homeland security. I had hoped and he had hoped, and had stated, that we would do our best to get homeland security completed before the August recess. But there is a physical limit to what we can do in a limited period of time, especially if we have Senators who are going to exercise to their fullest their rights to have debate. The trade conference report, I think the whole city was shocked this morning when they got up and found out that there had basically been an agreement on the trade conference report. As I look at it, it sounds as if they have done a good job. I would probably change parts of it, and so would Senator Daschle, but I do think they probably have made a very wise move. Instead of subjecting themselves to 6 weeks of pressures and counterpressures, they went ahead and addressed the issue and had the bill ready. We are going to work together next week to take the early action necessary to get cloture on fast track and complete action on that bill. This is a very important bill for the economy of our country and for our ability to be involved in trade promotion and trade, fair trade and open trade, all over the world. We have kind of fallen behind in that area with some other countries. The bankruptcy conference report finally worked out, too. I would like to see us even try to deal with that. If we cannot get that done next week, we will be ready to go to it shortly after we return. I do want to say to Senator Daschle and to others, I am working to try--I discussed concerns about getting agreement to go ahead with the energy and water appropriations bill. If we could add that to our list next week, that would be very big. I don't find a lot of resistance to it, but we have had to clear it with some people who did have some potential amendments. There is one other concern related to that bill that I am trying to work through. We have just given a litany of bills. It will not be easy to get all that done. We may not get it all done next week. But by working together and by asking our colleagues to cooperate with us, I think we can produce an awful lot of good legislation next week. I would like to be able to have a press conference next week as we go home and say: The Senate has done well. I haven't said that a lot lately, but I am prepared to do so when it is merited. I think there is a chance for that to occur next week. We could have a really important legislative achievement next week with a little extra work and a little extra input from all of our colleagues. I thank Senator Daschle for working with us to move these nominations. There are a lot of people who try to view every bill, every nomination, as leverage on some other issue. At some point we have to stop that and move them forward in order to do what the American people expect us to do. I am going to be involved next week to try to help in every way I can. Quite often, Senator Daschle and I get accused of being on both sides of the same issue, by many different forces. It amazes me sometimes what I am supposed to have done. In fact, I saw yesterday where somebody had put out that there was a Daschle-Lott agreement on prescription drugs. It came as a shock to Senator Daschle and me, but it was actually something in writing. Somebody downtown had a brilliant idea. Maybe we ought to look at it. I am thankful for the comments of Senator Daschle, and I will work with him next week to do everything we can to produce a good result. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT

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

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, Senator Daschle and I and other members of the leadership of the Senate have joined the House of Representatives at the memorial entrance to have a moment of silence in memory of Officer Chestnut and Detective Gibson. I know that moment of silence was honored in the Senate. We do not want this moment to go by without making some specific remarks. We remember today with fondness and in prayer and everlasting gratitude the sacrifice of two great men of peace who lost their lives in the line of duty in our Capitol 4 years ago at precisely 3:40 p.m. Officer J.J. Chestnut and Detective John Gibson were part of our congressional family, a family whose security was their life and for whose safety they died. On July 24, 1998, our gift of freedom was challenged every bit as determinedly as it was on September 11. And just as the Nation witnessed on September 11, we saw on July 24, selfless protectors and guardians rise to the defense of the liberty of all Americans. No one who was in the Capitol that day 4 years ago or who revels in the triumph of democracy that this great dome symbolizes could help but be affected by the profound heroism of these fallen comrades, Officer Chestnut and Detective Gibson, and also of the courage and the dedication and the loving of their families. We cherish their memory and gratefully accept responsibility every day of proving ourselves worthy of their example and the cherished gift of freedom they left us. Our thoughts and prayers and gratitude are with the Chestnut and Gibson families today and every day. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, with the unanimous consent agreement, I do want to get one clarification as to my understanding with Senator Daschle. First, I appreciate the work that has been done on this matter. I think it will help us move the legislative process forward, get some appropriations bills done, get the legislative appropriations done, but not too far down this pike without doing the Department of Defense appropriations bill. This is a way to get both of them done and hopefully maybe even some other action before we leave. I want to make sure we understand that the intent is to complete the Department of Defense appropriations bill prior to the recess; is that correct?