Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to the distinguished public service of David L. Crow. After 15 years at the helm of the largest air-pollution control district in the Nation, he will soon retire as the air pollution control officer and executive director of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, SJAPCD. During his tenure, the district grew from a fledgling union of regional air boards into one of the Nation's most active air-pollution control districts.

After completing his undergraduate and graduate studies at California State University, Fullerton, David built a solid resume in public service before he assumed the leadership of the SJAPCD in 1991. He served as the acting city manager for Foster City, CA, budget director and director of policy development for Fresno County, as well as deputy county administrative officer for Fresno County before lending his considerable talents to improving air quality in the Central Valley.

David accepted the challenge to address and solve the air-quality issues in a region that perennially rank among the worst nationwide in summertime smog and wintertime particulate pollution. Under his stewardship, the Valley air basin has made great strides in reducing ozone exceedances, as it has seen a 50-percent reduction in the emissions from statutory sources. The SJAPCD has implemented programs such as the ``Check Before You Burn'' winter wood-burning restriction program; a system to reduce smoke emissions from agricultural burning, and creating cost-effective rules to encourage conservation management practices for farms.

During his tenure as the head of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, David has earned a reputation as a skilled consensus- builder who forged partnerships between interests which seldom agreed. Under his leadership, the air-pollution district has distributed over $100 million to implement a myriad of projects to reduce serious air pollution in the region. David Crow's efforts, and those of the talented staff that he helped build, are helping to improve the air quality in California's Central Valley, one of the fastest growing regions in the Nation.

Throughout his career, David Crow has proven to be a highly effective administrator who was committed to protecting the public's health. As he gets set to spend more time with his wife Vicky and sons, Ryan and Matthew, I wish him continued success and good luck in all his future endeavors.

Mr. President, today I rise to honor the memory of a dedicated public servant, Officer Earl Harwood Scott of the California Highway Patrol. Officer Earl Harwood Scott spent nearly 5 years with the California Highway Patrol, providing the citizens of California with safety and service. On the morning of February 17, 2006, while on motor patrol near the City of Salida, Officer Scott was mercilessly murdered in the line of duty during a traffic stop.

The California Highway Patrol was in Officer Scott's bloodlines. Officer Scott's father, Sergeant William Scott, as well as two uncles, are proud retired California Highway Patrol veterans. Officer Scott was to celebrate his 5-year anniversary with the California Highway Patrol on February 19. Officer Scott dutifully served the citizens and communities of Stanislaus and San Joaquin counties with great dedication and integrity. Officer Scott's commitment to help others, combined with his passion for law enforcement, enabled him to become a model California Highway Patrol officer. Officer Scott's colleagues shall always remember his gregarious nature and commitment to his job.

Officer Scott is survived by his father, William Scott, and his mother, Judith. When he was not on duty, Officer Scott enjoyed spending time with his neighbors, especially the children who would often play darts and watch sporting events in his garage. Officer Earl Harwood Scott served the State of California with honor and distinction and fulfilled his oath as an officer of the law. His contributions and dedication to law enforcement are greatly appreciated and will serve as a shining example of his legacy.

We shall always be grateful for Officer Scott's heroic service and the sacrifices he made while serving the community and protecting the people he loved.

Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to the life of one of the late 20th century's most influential feminists, Betty Friedan. Friedan died on February 4, 2006, at her home in Washington, DC, at the age of 85.

At her Smith College 15-year reunion, she famously prepared a survey of her classmates, the results of which eventually became her landmark book, ``The Feminine Mystique.'' With this book, published in 1963, Friedan helped ignite the second wave of the feminist movement, and the book is now regarded as one of the most influential American books of the 20th century.

Friedan was the cofounder of three groundbreaking women's organizations which have greatly improved women's economic, personal, and political lives. In 1966, Friedan cofounded the National Organization for Women, NOW, and served as its first president until 1970. She also helped found what is now NARAL Pro-Choice America and the National Women's Political Caucus.

Friedan fought tirelessly for equal pay, safe and legal abortion, maternity leave, childcare for working parents, and an end to sex discrimination.

Friedan's survivors include her sons, Daniel Friedan and Jonathan Friedan; daughter Emily Friedan; nine grandchildren; a sister, Amy Adams; and a brother, Harry Goldstein. Her former husband Carl Friedan died in December 2005.

Like other strong, outspoken women, Betty Friedan was widely and loudly criticized in the 1960s and 1970s for being too strong, vocal, and unrealistic. Betty Friedan endured that criticism to make her mark in the world.

Women have made tremendous strides since ``The Feminist Mystique'' was first published. We have a stronger voice in our communities and in our workplaces. I am proud to serve as 1 of 14 women in the Senate, and we now have 68 women in the House of Representatives. We have made progress, but much more needs to be done.

As we remember the life and accomplishments of Betty Friedan, let us rededicate ourselves to achieving full equality for women in America.

Mr. President, today, with my friend and colleague from California, Dianne Feinstein, I introduce the ``California Ocean and Coastal Protection Act.'' This bill will permanently protect California's coast from the dangers of new offshore drilling.

In California, there is strong and enduring public support for the protection of our oceans and coastlines. Many years ago, my State decided that the potential benefits that might be derived from future offshore oil and gas development were not worth the risk of destroying our priceless coastal treasures. Regular chronic leakage associated with normal oil and gas operations, as well as catastrophic spills such as the horrific Santa Barbara rig blowout in 1969, irreparably contaminate our ocean, beaches, and wetlands.

The beauty of California's coast is so important that California passed legislation permanently prohibiting oil and gas exploration in State waters in 1994. This protection is limited, however, to California's territorial waters--only three nautical miles out from shore.

The Federal waters off the coast of California, which extend beyond State waters to 200 nautical miles out, are increasingly at risk of drilling. Despite years of bipartisan support for the moratoria on new offshore drilling in Federal waters, recent efforts are threatening our coasts. Some recent proposals would immediately lift the moratoria and allow for drilling within 20 miles off our coasts. Last year's energy bill included provisions to conduct

an inventory of oil and gas resources on the outer Continental Shelf (OCS). This inventory would be performed with seismic guns that could have devastating impacts on marine life.

Because of these threats, I am introducing legislation to provide permanent protection for California's coast from future drilling. It would also prohibit the harmful inventory of OCS resources from being conducted off California's coast.

The people of California agree that we must do everything we can to protect our coasts. This bill will finally provide the permanent protection against future drilling that Californians have demanded for a generation.

Mr. President, today, with my friend and colleague from California, Dianne Feinstein, I introduce the ``California Ocean and Coastal Protection Act.'' This bill will permanently protect California's coast from the dangers of new offshore drilling.

In California, there is strong and enduring public support for the protection of our oceans and coastlines. Many years ago, my State decided that the potential benefits that might be derived from future offshore oil and gas development were not worth the risk of destroying our priceless coastal treasures. Regular chronic leakage associated with normal oil and gas operations, as well as catastrophic spills such as the horrific Santa Barbara rig blowout in 1969, irreparably contaminate our ocean, beaches, and wetlands.

The beauty of California's coast is so important that California passed legislation permanently prohibiting oil and gas exploration in State waters in 1994. This protection is limited, however, to California's territorial waters--only three nautical miles out from shore.

The Federal waters off the coast of California, which extend beyond State waters to 200 nautical miles out, are increasingly at risk of drilling. Despite years of bipartisan support for the moratoria on new offshore drilling in Federal waters, recent efforts are threatening our coasts. Some recent proposals would immediately lift the moratoria and allow for drilling within 20 miles off our coasts. Last year's energy bill included provisions to conduct

an inventory of oil and gas resources on the outer Continental Shelf (OCS). This inventory would be performed with seismic guns that could have devastating impacts on marine life.

Because of these threats, I am introducing legislation to provide permanent protection for California's coast from future drilling. It would also prohibit the harmful inventory of OCS resources from being conducted off California's coast.

The people of California agree that we must do everything we can to protect our coasts. This bill will finally provide the permanent protection against future drilling that Californians have demanded for a generation.

Mr. President, what is the rule? Can I speak for up to 15 minutes or 10 minutes?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be yielded 10 minutes of Senator Durbin's time with the hope that I can finish in that time. If not, I will ask for another 5 minutes.

Mr. President, I am going to support the budget point of order on S. 852. I want to explain why I am doing this. First, I want to say if anybody has listened to Senator Kent Conrad talk about what is going to happen in the outyears with this bill, the trust fund, if anyone listened to him, it seems very difficult to me to vote against this budget point of order.

We are on the edge of passing a bill that is masquerading as a solution to a deadly problem, and asbestos victims need to know the truth. Frankly, they were lied to once when companies exposed their workers to asbestos without telling them of the danger, and I don't want to lie to these victims again. The simple truth is there are not sufficient funds in the trust fund to compensate all the current and future asbestos victims. We should not compound the problem of the past by offering false promises and cutting victims off from help.

I know there are many who don't agree with what I have just said, but I think if, again, you listen to Senator Conrad, and you go back to see what has happened to other trust funds, I think it is very clear there are not enough funds in this trust fund. Some estimates are it is perhaps 50 percent of what it ought to be.

Some say that people will go back to court if there are not enough funds. I know that is a very well meaning part of this bill, but it isn't as easy as all that. It is going to be very difficult for people in the future years. I think we are going to see more companies claim they are bankrupt. There will be a lot of lawsuits.

That is not to say there is no problem for asbestos victims today. Providing them with just compensation is something they deserve. If we were able to increase the size of the fund and include all of the victims who deserve to be compensated, that would be a good solution. I know this is what many honorable and hard-working Senators on both sides have tried to do, but the current legislation doesn't get us there.

Asbestos kills 10,000 Americans every year. Such a large number of deaths is hard to comprehend, so let me tell my colleagues about just a few of the victims in California and why this bill will hurt them, not help them.

Here is a picture of Rebecca Martinez. Rebecca is the wife of Margarito who lived in Baldwin Park, CA, and she is pictured here on the right. Margarito worked as a plasterer and Rebecca would clean his asbestos-covered clothes when he came home, breathing in the dust as she shook them out and did the laundry. They were never warned about the dangers of asbestos.

Rebecca was diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2002, as we all know, a deadly cancer caused only by asbestos. She died 4 months later, leaving behind her husband and three children.

Her husband has spent more than $50,000 on a pending wrongful death suit. However, if this bill is passed, he will never get to go to court and face the people who are responsible for his wife's death. This bill will force him back to square one, and he will face, potentially, years of delay. And here he is, a widower having to raise his kids.

For those who are about to resolve their court cases, I see no reason to force them into a trust fund process. It is wrong. People have invested time in the court system, and this bill will rip them out of the court system just as they are about to get justice.

This is a picture of Georgina Bryson. She lived in Riverside, CA, when she died of mesothelioma. From 1962 until 1980, Georgina lived downtown from two cement companies that used asbestos to manufacture their products. Georgina was also exposed to asbestos when she lived with her dad who worked with gaskets that contained asbestos.

Georgina was only 40 years old when she died from

mesothelioma. Her family filed a wrongful death action and,

to the credit of the California court system--to the credit

of the California court system--the suit settled. The cement

plants agreed to pay 90 percent of the award, recognizing

that they were primarily responsible for the death.

The problem with the legislation before us is, if Georgina's family didn't have access to the courts, and they filed the claim with the asbestos fund, they could receive possibly no compensation. Because Georgina's asbestos exposure was not work related, she lived downwind from the cement manufacturers, she would not meet the occupational requirements of the bill.

There are many people in California and elsewhere who never worked with asbestos but were exposed to it because they lived near factories, mines, and processing plants with asbestos. This certainly was the case in Libby, MT, and residents of that town are taken care of in the bill. That is a wonderful thing for them. Lord knows there is suffering there. The exposure requirements for anyone who lived or worked for at least 12 months within 20 miles of the mining or milling facility in Libby are waived, so the people in Libby are taken care of, and I am happy for them. But the bill fails to provide the same relief to people in at least 41 other communities across the country who live near a plant that processed vermiculite from Libby. How is that equal justice under the law? It also fails to protect people who lived near other mines or plants that released asbestos into the air.

For example, Santa Ana is one of roughly 23 cities in California that received more than 1 million tons of Libby's vermiculite. Yet this bill would compound the injuries to affected community members by largely barring nonoccupational exposures. As I said, no one can call this justice.

The bill also fails to adequately address another problem important to my State, as well as the Nation--naturally occurring asbestos. I am going to show you a map of California where we show the counties containing naturally occurring asbestos. Forty-four of California's 58 counties are known to have naturally occurring asbestos. The problem, however, is not California specific. Twenty-nine States are known to have naturally occurring asbestos.

This asbestos can threaten public health. This shows in red where the States have this problem with naturally occurring asbestos. In 2005, a University of California-Davis study found that the risk of mesothelioma decreased by 6.4 percent for every 6 miles further away a person lived from a naturally occurring asbestos source.

Under the bill, people who get a terminal illness from naturally occurring asbestos may take their case to the medical exceptions panel, but there are three problems.

First, I want to thank my colleague, Senator Feinstein, for getting that into the bill. At least they can go to this special panel. But there are problems. First, the level of funding established by the bill for the trust fund, as I said before, is insufficient to pay for the claims expected to be filed with the exceptional medical claims panel. It is insufficient. There wouldn't be funding left.

The CBO stated in a letter on February 1 to Senator Specter that:

There is a significant likelihood that the fund's revenues

would fall short of the amount needed to pay valid claims,

debt service, and administrative costs.

This is, in part, because the CBO explicitly stated that it did not include ``the costs of any exceptional medical claims'' in its estimate. What kind of chance do my people have for being exposed to naturally occurring asbestos

and the people who live in all of these States?

This isn't justice. If we want to do justice, we need a bill that is sufficiently funded through the trust fund to take care of all of our people, not just some of our people.

The Democratic staff of the Budget Committee predicts a shortfall in the trust fund of $150 billion or more. That is $150 billion that taxpayers may have to pay to bail out the trust fund. It is easy to say: Oh, you will just go back to the courts. But that is a time period in which we don't know what the situation will look like, more companies will claim bankruptcy, and people will then have to move from the trust fund over to the courts. It is a giant nightmare.

Second, it is not clear that the companies paying into the fund should be the ones responsible for compensating people who become sick from naturally occurring asbestos. Construction companies disturbing naturally occurring asbestos may expose residents to fibers, but those companies are generally not the ones paying into the fund. So this makes no sense at all for people who live in areas with naturally occurring asbestos. They are different defendants that need to step up and pay compensation.

Third, there is no deadline by which the medical exceptions panel must act on a claim. Given the number of people who may file claims with the panel, it could be years before the panel makes a decision on a particular case. Is this better than the current court system?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for just 2 more minutes.

Mr. President, I don't think it is better than the current court system, certainly not in my State. In California, we have an expedited processing of suits for sick plaintiffs. Roughly 22 States have procedures that ensure mesothelioma victims and those with other very serious cancers have their cases heard in a year or less. In California the courts can hear such cases within 120 days. There are States where the courts work, and they should be allowed to continue their good work without getting taxpayers involved in this trust fund. Where it is working, do no harm. Let it proceed.

Most, if not all, of us could support an asbestos trust fund that is fair to victims, but this proposal is not. I have gone through the ways that it is not. I have shown my colleagues the faces of those who would be harmed or would have been harmed if this trust fund were in place.

We can fix this. We can make the trust fund bigger, that is one solution, or we can say in the 22 States that are dealing with this, let them deal with it. Let's grandfather in the cases that are already in the system.

I am very fearful--very fearful--that a lot of people who are going to depend on this trust fund are going to find out that it isn't what it is cracked up to be. The bill promises the Moon, and I don't even know if it will deliver a sliver of the Moon.

I just want to say to those who are following this debate who are suffering, I honestly believe that everybody thinks, everybody thinks they are working for you, but what I say is this: If the system is already working for you, let it work for you. Let's not promise you the Moon and not be able to deliver it. Let's make sure there is justice for people who live, say, downwind in California from a company that received the product from Libby.

The people in Libby are taken care of. The people in my State and many other States are not taken care of. This isn't fair. What happened to equal justice? What happened to fairness? We can do it. People of goodwill on both sides can do the right thing. This isn't a question of this bill or no bill.

So I honestly think that by supporting this point of order, first of all, we are being honest with the people. We are being honest with the people. We are saying there is not enough money in this trust fund and the taxpayers are going to have to bear the burden and who knows what will happen at that time. With the kind of deficits that are being racked up here, with the kind of national debt that is being racked up here, where is the money going to come from?

Some say: Go back to the court system. That is a very complicated matter. Every State has its own way. In some States it works well, like California. In other States, it doesn't. So I urge my colleagues, yes, to protect asbestos victims who may not be so lucky as the people in Libby. Let's take care of the people in Libby, and let's take care of all of the victims and potential victims and vote against waiving this budget point of order.

A budget point of order lies against this bill. The Parliamentarian has told us; the CBO has told us. Let's do the honest thing. Let's support the budget point of order, go back to the drawing board. Let's take care of these people and do it in the right way.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Feingold, I object.

Mr. President, I rise to honor the memory of the late LCDR Frank Carl Wittwer. Lieutenant Commander Wittwer, a longtime Hanford resident, perished when his F/A-18C Hornet went down during a training mission near Naval Air Facility El Centro on January 18, 2006. He was 35 years old.

A 1994 graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy, Lieutenant Commander Wittwer was fondly remembered as a friendly and active student who participated in a number of activities such as music and youth ministries at his church. Upon receiving his bachelor of science degree in systems engineering, he began his successful active-duty career as a surface warfare officer aboard the USS California and the USS McFaul.

In recognition of his considerable talents, Lieutenant Commander Wittwer was assigned to the Hornet Program with VFA-137 in 2001. Subsequently, he received postings at Strike Fighter Wing Pacific Fleet as safety officer and a follow-on assignment with the VFA-97 Warhawks. Throughout his years of service, Lieutenant Commander Wittwer was known as a dedicated and honorable serviceman who embodied the best qualities and ideals of the U.S. Navy.

In his personal life, Lieutenant Commander Wittwer demonstrated a genuine commitment to improving the lives of others. A popular figure in the community and an elder in the First Presbyterian Church in Hanford, he had a passion in working with kindergartners and grade school students. A man of many talents, Lieutenant Commander Wittwer recently completed the executive MBA program at the California State University, Fresno's Craig School of Business.

Lieutenant Commander Wittwer will be remembered by those whose lives he touched as a devoted family man, a loyal friend and an outstanding member of the U.S. Navy. He is survived by his wife Mendi; daughters Erin and Abbie; son Jack; sister Patti; nephew Josh; and his grandfather Hurdis Harris.

Mr. President, I rise to recognize the 100th anniversary of one of the most significant disasters in California history, San Francisco's Great Earthquake and Fire of 1906.

One hundred years ago, the city of San Francisco experienced this horrific tragedy when the city shook for almost 60 seconds and communities from as far away as Oregon, Los Angeles, and Nevada felt the tremors. The Richter scale was not yet in existence in 1906, but seismologists today estimate this earthquake had a magnitude of 7.7 to 8.0.

Following the earthquake, fires broke out across the city and raged for 3 days. In fact, the fires did more damage than the earthquake. As a result of this disaster, over 3,000 people were killed, 300,000 people became homeless, and the city suffered about $500 million worth of damage. Telegraph and telephone services were destroyed as well as the municipal railway and all government buildings.

The 100th anniversary of this historic tragedy provides an opportunity to reflect on what we have learned and how to better prepare for a similar event. We now know that residents must be prepared to be self-sufficient for 72 hours following a disaster. And the city of San Francisco has done a great deal to make the community safer.

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom has spearheaded an updated citywide emergency plan--the first time it has been done in 10 years. The San Francisco Fire Department offers training in disaster and emergency response for residents. Over 11,000 San Francisco residents have completed the course in the past 15 years. San Francisco has also invested $2.5 million in leading the development of a regional response plan with seven other bay area counties. This is one of the first regional response plans in the country. I commend the city and county of San Francisco on its efforts to ensure the city is ready to respond to a disaster.

Having witnessed the slow response to Hurricane Katrina in the Gulf States, I wrote to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, in September asking for a copy of their disaster response plan for a serious earthquake in California. I am still waiting to receive their plan. Without the plan in hand, I remain very concerned that FEMA is not prepared should a major earthquake or natural disaster occur in California.

It is very important that the State of California and its residents are working to prepare themselves for a major disaster. I have created a ``Getting Ready'' guide on my Senate Web site to help my constituents prepare their homes and families for a disaster. This guide is organized in easy-to-follow steps and provides links to other preparedness sites--www.boxer.senate.gov/equake.cfm.

On the 100th anniversary of the Great San Francisco Earthquake and Fire, I rise to honor the memory of those who lost their lives during this disaster. I also pause to reflect on the tragedy that befell this great city and its citizens. The community came together to repair and restore the city, and today, San Francisco is one of the United States' top tourist destinations and a dynamic urban center.

I also commemorate this anniversary by encouraging all of us to look forward and ensure our families are prepared for a major earthquake or similar disaster. I will continue fighting to ensure the Federal Government is taking the steps necessary to help our local communities in disaster response.

Mr. President, I rise to recognize the important work and accomplishments of the California Teamsters Hispanic Caucus. I am also pleased to commend International Brotherhood of Teamsters, IBT, General President James P. Hoffa, and General Secretary-Treasurer C. Thomas Keegel for their continued support of the California Teamsters Hispanic Caucus's efforts in awarding educational scholarships and conducting community improvement and community education programs.

The California Teamsters Hispanic Caucus, formed in 1989 as a nonprofit organization, has experienced phenomenal growth and success. Since the Hispanic Caucus' early beginnings, membership has grown to include more than 250 active members. The support that the caucus has provided to its members has also grown throughout the years. In nearly two decades of service, the Hispanic Caucus has increased the number of its educational scholarships from 3 to nearly 20 and has distributed more than $200,000.

Both General President Hoffa and General Secretary-Treasurer Keegel have shown tremendous support for the California Teamsters Hispanic Caucus through their involvement in increasing the availability of educational scholarship funding and participation in annual Hispanic Caucus events. Their work, in combination with the fine work of the Hispanic Caucus, has allowed the children of Teamsters to continue their education and pursue their dreams.

I invite all of my colleagues to join me in commending the California Teamsters Hispanic Caucus, International Brotherhood of Teamsters General President James P. Hoffa and General Secretary-Treasurer C. Thomas Keegel for their continued support for education, for strong communities, and for all working people.

If I can have 20 minutes following Senator Byrd, which we think will be used by other Senators on the same topic.

If I can be in that line.

I ask my colleague to make sure Senator Lautenberg knows my colleagues are willing to yield him 10 minutes upon my completion; is that correct?

Yes.

Oh, that is so nice.

I thank my friend and colleague, and really, in so many ways, our leader in the Senate, and say to him before he leaves the floor how much we stand with him on these mine safety questions.

We Americans are just facing so many tragedies. My colleague reports on yet more deaths in the mines, deaths that are preventable if we do the right thing by our workers. We are mourning together today five more American soldiers killed in Iraq. We had an incident, a workplace killing in Santa Barbara where five or six people lay dead. It is tough times. But I want my good friend to know that we will stand with him on this mine safety question.

Madam President, I rise now to discuss an amendment on behalf of myself and Senators Kerry and Lautenberg, which expresses the sense of the Senate that the White House should provide the public with a thorough account of the meetings that the President, his staff, and senior executive branch officials held with Jack Abramoff. The public's confidence in the Government has been rocked, rocked by the widespread reports of public corruption involving Jack Abramoff.

On January 3, Mr. Abramoff pleaded guilty to conspiracy, fraud, tax evasion charges, charges that carry up to a 30-year sentence. He agreed to cooperate with prosecutors in their investigation of a number of public officials, and we don't know where all this will lead. I urge the Justice Department to continue its investigation into any bribery and corruption.

The damage to the public trust from the Abramoff scandal, combined with the recent prosecution of Congressman Randy Cunningham, and the indictment of Congressman Tom Delay is massive. The investigation by the Department of Justice has really just begun. But right now, sadly, there is a very low opinion of politicians, and trust must be restored with the American people. We cannot govern effectively without the support and confidence of the people. We are supposed to be their representatives. We owe them everything, and we must start with honesty, with ethics, so we can regain their trust.

If the people have lost confidence, we have to win it back. Every Senator I know has searched his or her records for contributions from Jack Abramoff, from his associates and the tribes he represented. Each of us has responded in our own way. But to my knowledge, we have all made our actions public. We have told our constituents what the situation is and whether we plan to do something about it.

In the State of the Union Address the President said:

Each of us has made a pledge to be worthy of public

responsibility--and that is a pledge we must never forget,

never dismiss, and never betray.

Those are noble sentiments, very noble sentiments, and I challenge the President to live up to them. Where there is an appearance of impropriety, it is the responsibility of public officials to be open with the public and to clear up any questions that might exist. I know in my long career in elected life, and it is now more than 30 years of elected life, I have had to return contributions from time to time. I have tried to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest. I have even recused myself on three occasions because I believed that was the right thing to do. But no matter what each of us does there will still be those who doubt us. It is the system. It is a system that is based on private financing, so it is very difficult, with that system, to gain the trust of the people.

But it starts with openness. It starts with transparency. We should each try to be as open as we can and make sure that, whatever we decide to do, the public is informed. It doesn't help to be secretive. It doesn't help to say: I don't have to do this; it is my right not to tell the public anything. It may be your right, but it does not make it right.

According to the press secretary of the President, Scott McClellan, the President does not know and doesn't remember ever meeting Jack Abramoff, and despite repeated requests the White House has failed to provide details of meetings between Jack Abramoff and the President and his staff. The problem is, more and more details keep coming out about the relationship between Mr. Abramoff and the President.

Starting in 1997, Mr. Abramoff claimed credit for procuring a letter

from then-Governor Bush that praised the then-Northern Marianas Island Education Plan. In 2000, Jack Abramoff joined the Bush-Cheney transition team. Several colleagues of Mr. Abramoff ended up being appointed to key positions in the Department of Interior, the agency that regulates Indian gaming issues, central to Mr. Abramoff's lobbying business.

According to the Associated Press, Jack Abramoff and his lobbying team had nearly 200 contacts with the Bush administration in the first 10 months they were in office--200 contacts in less than a year, and nobody remembers anything? I mean it doesn't pass the smell test, to be crude about it.

By 2001, Mr. Abramoff appears to have been selling his clients access to the President. On May 9, 2001, the White House arranged an event on behalf of the group Americans for Tax Reform. That group is a very strong ally of President Bush. The event was attended by the President and a number of legislators. There is a trail of documents that shows that Mr. Abramoff asked some of his clients for $25,000 to go to that event, with the funds going to this Americans for Tax Reform.

I want to show you some e-mails because I think that tells the story better than anything. So here is what Mr. Abramoff asked in an e-mail to a representative of one of his tribal clients. These are Mr. Abramoff's words from an e-mail.

Americans for Tax Reform is bringing together the speakers

of all Republican-led legislatures for a meeting with Bush

and the congressional leadership. They have requested

sponsorship ($25 K) from only four groups. Two of them will

be major corporations and one will be Choctaw. Chief Martin

will be coming to the event I expect. I told them that I

would ask you guys to participate. The exposure would be

incredible and would be very helpful. One of the things we

need to do is get the leaders of the tribe (ideally the

chief) in front of the President as much as possible. Please

let me know as soon as you can. Thanks.

That is Mr. Abramoff to the representative of one of the tribes.

Let us see what that particular individual wrote to her tribe after she received Mr. Abramoff's e-mail. She wrote:

Attached is an e-mail from Jack Abramoff with the firm of

Greenberg & Traurig. The chairman has agreed for the tribe to

be one of the four sponsors of and participate in a White

House event on behalf of the Americans for Tax Reform which

is being held on May, 9, 2001 in D.C. Please immediately

prepare a check made payable to Americans for Tax Reform in

the amount of $25,000 and forward it to my office by Federal

Express. Then Fed/Ex the check to Mr. Abramoff.

Just to finish this story, here we have a copy of the check Mr. Abramoff received from the Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana in the amount of $25,000--selling the President of the United States and using Federal property.

The meeting was held in the Old Executive Office Building. In all, it appears that four or more of Abramoff's clients attended the event, and at least two claimed they paid the $25,000 requested. They paid that to get close to the President on Federal property. Jack Abramoff, as I said, delivered the President of the United States in exchange for his clients' contribution to the President's supporters. How many more Abramoff clients attended is not clear, and who paid money to attend the White House event is not clear. The White House claims it has no record of Mr. Abramoff attending, but Time magazine claims there is a photo of the President standing with Abramoff and one of Abramoff's clients.

This event alone warrants the President providing full disclosure of meetings with White House officials and Jack Abramoff.

But this was not a one-time event. The following year, Mr. Abramoff solicited money from his clients for another White House event in behalf of Americans for Tax Reform.

The public has more and more questions about the relationship between Jack Abramoff, the President, and his staff, but no answers are forthcoming. The President's refusal to provide additional information about these meetings has increased the public's distrust in the administration and our Government at large.

The President said some very noble words at the State of the Union Address. He said it was important for us to bring trust back. Yet we see no movement for transparency and openness.

The public has a right to know whom Mr. Abramoff met with, what they discussed, and whether improprieties existed. According to a Washington Post/ABC News poll, 76 percent said Bush should disclose his contacts with his aides and Mr. Abramoff. Two of three Republicans favored disclosure. Let me say that again. In the poll, two of three Republicans favored disclosure.

In fact, members of the President's own party in the Senate and in the House have urged the President to provide information to the public about this administration's dealings with Mr. Abramoff. I agree with them. All Government officials who serve the public must take all steps necessary to maintain their trust and confidence.

I hope my colleagues will support this important amendment which I plan to offer on behalf of Senator Kerry and Senator Lautenberg. It simply calls on the White House to immediately and publicly disclose each visit and meeting between Jack Abramoff and the President, White House staff, or senior executive branch officials.

Much is made about how Senators get an opportunity to fight for funds for their State. Senator McCain has derided this action. Senator McCain said earmarks right on their face are wrong. If you look at the number of earmarks Members of the Senate are involved in for our States--I know my colleague and I sit on the Public Works Committee. I don't need any lobbyist to tell me that I need a road in my urban area when one is broken down. I don't need a lobbyist to tell me that I need an HOV lane or a new water system or a new sewer system or a new school or a new senior center. It is my job to know that. Senator McCain thinks that is all terrible. But the bottom line is the number of earmarks pales in comparison with the amount of funds that are distributed by this administration and any subsequent or prior administration. They distribute most of the funds.

It is very important, as we all look at our campaign contributions, to sort out in any of them which are in any way tainted by Mr. Abramoff and that the White House comes to the table and is as open as we have been. I believe it is very important. This isn't a partisan issue. Republicans have been calling for the White House to come clean on this, and Democrats are doing the same.

If we are going to restore confidence in our Government, it starts with simple openness, not saying: Oh, this is privileged, this is secret. I will tell you right now, we all learned it from our moms and dads. When somebody says, this is secret, watch out. Our Government is supposed to be open, not secret.

I hope there will be strong support for this particular amendment. I believe its timing is crucial. We can't let any more time elapse.

There are calls for--and I am joining them--a special prosecutor in this particular case. But even before that debate begins, let us have everyone come clean on these meetings, contributions, and the like.

I thank my colleague from Montana, the ranking member of the Finance Committee, for his generosity of spirit in allowing me to discuss this issue. Technically, of course, it isn't a matter of the Finance Committee jurisdiction, but I believe the timing is so important that we should have a vote on this.

Thank you very much. I yield back whatever time remains.

Mr. President, today I rise to pay tribute to 15 young Americans who have been killed in Iraq since December 9. This brings to 523 the number of soldiers who were either from California or based in California that have been killed while serving our country in Iraq. This represents 23 percent of all U.S. deaths in Iraq.

LCpl Samuel Tapia, age 20, died December 18 from small-arms fire while conducting combat operations in Ar Ramadi. He was assigned to the 3rd Battalion, 7th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, Twentynine Palms, CA. During Operation Iraqi Freedom, his unit was attached to the 2nd Marine Division.

SGT Regina C. Reali, age 25, died December 23 in Baghdad when an improvised explosive device detonated near her humvee. She was assigned to the Army Reserve's 351st Civil Affairs Command, Mountain View, CA. She was from Fresno, CA.

SGT Cheyenne C. Willey, age 36, died December 23 in Baghdad when an improvised explosive device detonated near his humvee. He was assigned to the Army Reserve's 351st Civil Affairs Command, Mountain View, CA. He was from Fremont, CA.

SPC Sergio Gudino, age 22, died December 25 in Baghdad when an improvised explosive device detonated near his M1A1 tank during combat operations. He was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 64th Armor Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Division, Fort Stewart, GA. He was from Pomona, CA.

SPC Marcelino R. Corniel, age 23, died December 31 in Baghdad when an enemy mortar attack occurred in the vicinity of his observation post. He was assigned to the Army National Guard's 1st Battalion, 184th Infantry Regiment, Fullerton, CA. He was from La Puente, CA.

PVT Robbie M. Mariano, age 21, died January 5 in An Najaf when an improvised explosive device detonated near his humvee during convoy operations. He was assigned to the 3rd Battalion, 16th Field Artillery, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division, Fort Hood, TX. He was from Stockton, CA.

SGT Adam L. Cann, age 23, was killed in action on January 5 by a suicide bomb attack on an Iraqi police recruitment center in Ar Ramadi. He was assigned to Security Battalion, Camp Pendleton, CA. During Operation Iraqi Freedom, his unit was attached to the 2nd Marine Division.

MAJ Douglas A. La Bouff, age 36, died January 7 near Tal Afar when his UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter crashed. He was assigned to the Army's 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment, Fort Carson, CO. He was from La Puente,

Mr. President, I am deeply saddened to inform you of the passing of Bill Robertson, former secretary treasurer for the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor, AFL-CIO. I would like to take a few moments to recognize Bill Robertson's many important accomplishments and the tremendous impact he made on the labor movement.

Born in St. Paul, MN, Bill Robertson was a man with humble beginnings. He lost both his parents when he was a child and lived in an orphanage for a brief period. Growing up in difficult circumstances in the middle of the Great Depression shaped Bill's social and personal beliefs. He intimately understood the struggle that working men and women faced to achieve dignity in the United States.

Bill led the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor for nearly two decades. During his tenure, he fought for the rights of working people with passion and great success. In 1975, Bill

Robertson became secretary-treasurer for the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor, AFL-CIO. Under his leadership, The Los Angeles County Federation of Labor saw phenomenal growth. He coordinated many successful labor rights victories and spent a great deal of time building the labor movement and fighting for fairness and equality. In addition to his efforts to further the labor movement, Bill Robertson took steps to assist the city of Los Angeles' homeless population. In the winter of 1985, the city of Los Angeles had authorized a temporary tent shelter to be erected for the city's homeless population. Bill Robertson found this solution to be inadequate and successfully persuaded then Mayor Tom Bradley to authorize construction of a temporary structure to house the 138-bed shelter. Bill Robertson rallied volunteer laborers and secured union funds to buy the construction materials.

Bill also played a major role in bringing prominence and recognition to the city of Los Angeles. In addition to assisting city officials with securing the rights to host the 1984 Olympic Games, Bill also played a pivotal role in establishing a home for a professional football team in Los Angeles. It was through his role as chief negotiator in the $6.7-million deal in 1980 that brought the Raiders football team from Oakland to the Los Angeles Coliseum. Bill Robertson considered this achievement as one of the proudest of his career.

I invite all of my colleagues to join me and the many members of the labor community in recognizing and honoring Bill Robertson for his guidance and lifelong effort in fighting to improve the lives of working people. He is survived by his wife, Dresden Graham Robertson; his two sons, William and Robert; three grandchildren; and four great- grandchildren.

Mr. President, I am deeply saddened to inform you of the passing of Judge William Matthew Byrne, Jr. I would like to take a few moments to recognize Judge Byrne's many important accomplishments and the tremendous impact he made on the judicial system.

William Byrne was born in East Los Angeles in 1930 and attended Loyola High School and the University of Southern California. Before becoming a Federal prosecutor in Los Angeles, he served as a judge advocate from 1956 to 1958 in the U.S. Air Force. In 1967, he was appointed as U.S. attorney by President Lyndon B. Johnson. In 1970, when President Richard Nixon created the President's Commission on Campus Unrest, he chose William Byrne as its executive director.

Byrne became the youngest judge ever appointed to the Federal bench when he was confirmed in 1971 at age 40, and he served as the Central District's chief judge from 1994 to 1998. In more than 30 years of service on the Federal bench, Judge Byrne had the opportunity to handle many cases. He is, however, best known for presiding over the Pentagon Papers case, which was assigned to him just 2 years after his confirmation as a Federal judge. The Pentagon Papers case involved military analyst Daniel Ellsberg and co-defendant Anthony J. Russo, Jr. who were indicted on 12 Federal counts, including conspiracy, theft of Government property, and espionage after an unauthorized release of a secret study of U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War. Judge Byrne dismissed the case in 1973 after ruling that it was the Government that was guilty of misconduct.

I invite all of my colleagues to join me in recognizing and honoring Judge William Matthew Byrne, Jr., for his long and distinguished service to our country.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will not object, would my friend extend his unanimous consent request to include the following Democratic Members: Senator Boxer for 20 minutes, Senator Baucus for 20 minutes, Senator Dodd for 20 minutes, and Senator Biden for 5 minutes.