Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to commemorate March 8, 2006, International Women's Day. It is an undeniable fact that as the world becomes more interconnected, societies which value women's rights and include them in the political, economic, and civic process have a greater chance of prospering and contributing to international peace and stability.

Nowhere is this more evident than in Iraq. We all know that in order for Iraq to succeed as a nation, women must play an integral role in the government and women's rights must be treated as fundamental human rights. While much work remains to be done in Iraq, I am pleased to see that women are playing a prominent and active role in the government.

As such, it is a great honor to not only commemorate, March 8, 2006, International Women's Day but also

welcome a distinguished guest, Dr. Jinan Jasim Ali Al Ubaidi, a newly elected member to Iraq's Council of Representatives, who will be my guest and accompany me throughout the day.

A member of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution party, Dr. Ubaidi is a graduate of Baghdad University and practiced medicine at Najaf Hospital prior to the fall of the Hussein regime.

Dr. Ubaidi and her female colleagues in the Council of Representatives are now confronting issues which will determine the future of women's rights in Iraq.

This is a critical juncture and one key question they face is. What will be the extent of sharia in Iraq and how will it affect women's rights in that country?

Article 14 of Iraq's Constitution states that ``Iraqis are equal before the law without discrimination based on gender.'' Article 2 of the Constitution maintains that ``no law that contradicts the established provisions of Islam may be established.''

Some people believe that it will be difficult to reconcile the two articles and still provide women with fundamental rights in Iraq. I, for one, believe that Islam and women's rights can go hand in hand and there is an opportunity to advance these rights in a new Iraq.

While the women in the Iraqi National Assembly will do their part, the United States and the international community need to play a vital role in advancing the role of women in Iraq.

Specifically, we should continue to promote democracy related training programs, female education programs, and assist with judicial reform and Islamic jurisprudence training so that women will become part of the social, political, and economic fabric of Iraq.

Gains for women's rights have been made in other Muslim countries such as Indonesia and Morocco, and we should look to them as examples.

In Morocco, successful efforts to raise the marriage age for women from 15 to 18, abolish polygamy, and equalize the right to divorce have been made. In Indonesia, Musdah Mulia, the chief researcher at the Ministry of Religious Affairs, has sparked considerable debate within that country by calling for changes in the areas of wearing a hijab and marriage based on Islamic jurisprudence. Although such rules have not been enacted, further debate on the issue is a positive step.

A nongovernmental organization in Indonesia, known as the Indonesian Society for Pesantren and Community Development, has also been using Islamic jurisprudence to promote women's reproductive rights and family planning education within religious schools there. These are all progressive steps toward promoting women's rights in the Islamic world.

In the near future, an Iraqi government will be formed that will make important decisions on the role of women and sharia. The United States must do everything within its power to ensure that women's rights are fully incorporated into every aspect of Iraqi life.

We must continue to support education and leadership initiatives, economic empowerment programs, and specifically judicial reform, all of which will seek to increase the role of women government and assist Iraq's transition to a stable and democratic state.

Let us also not forget about the women in Afghanistan. Under the Taliban regime, women were brutally oppressed and women's rights were virtually nonexistent.

Women in public were forced to cloak themselves head to toe while being accompanied by a male relative. If they failed to do so, they risked being beaten mercilessly.

Furthermore, most Afghan women were restricted by the Taliban from working, receiving an education, visiting doctors, or accepting humanitarian aid.

Now, women in Afghanistan have the opportunity to build a better life for themselves and their families. It is no longer illegal for women to work, and millions of Afghan girls now attend school.

The United States has provided grants to establish the Ministry of Women's Affairs, assisted Afghan nongovernmental organizations, created opportunities for income generation in the private sector, and supported opportunities for women in agriculture and rural environments.

The Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2006, included a $50 million earmark for programs directly addressing the needs of Afghan women and girls.

However, many challenges remain for women in Afghanistan.

Although women may legally work, many still face serious challenges to finding job opportunities. For them, it is extremely difficult to find jobs close to home, with tolerable hours, and reasonable pay.

Additionally, although education is currently on the rise, most Afghan women have had little or no formal job training, which prevents them from gaining meaningful employment.

Finally, women still face conservative attitudes about their political participation in many rural areas of the country.

The United States must not forget about these women. We must continue to advance women's rights in Afghanistan because if we do not, our tireless efforts there will have been in vain.

Therefore, I urge my colleagues to stay the course and support additional assistance for education, health care, and democracy training for women and girls in Afghanistan during the years ahead.

There are a great many challenges that face women today, and there are a great many challenges that faced women in the past. Issues such as the role of women in Iraq and Afghanistan are no less daunting than women's suffrage seemed in 1920. As such, there is cause for optimism on International Women's Day.

Yet we must remain vigilant in our fight for justice and gender equality around the world.

The United States must remain a leader by proactively addressing these women's issues. I am confident that if we tirelessly continue to fight for gender equality, we can find workable solutions to address the problems that women face around the world.

Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to a remarkable woman who has shown Americans what courage is all about. That woman is Dana Reeve.

I knew Dana as a smiling, beautiful woman standing behind Christopher Reeve's wheelchair, accompanying him to DC to testify in support of advancing stem cell research. Since Chris's death, Dana was the face of this fight on behalf of patients across the country with spinal cord injury, Parkinson's, juvenile diabetes and countless other illnesses.

I thought that after everything Dana had gone through with Chris that she would have time to smell the flowers and be in the sun. But apparently that was not meant to be.

My heart goes out to Dana and Chris's son William, Dana's stepchildren Matthew and Alexandra, and the entire Reeve and Morosini families during what is and has been a very difficult time.

Dana was the picture of steadfast loyalty and compassionate care. She and Chris taught us all that life is short and that we should all have the courage and hope to ``go forward.''

Dana carried that spirit with her in her drive to push Congress to expand embryonic stem cell research and to expand access to new treatments and therapies for thousands of Americans with spinal cord injuries.

Dana was an activist, actress, singer, motivational speaker and published author. Dana was a founding board member of the Christopher Reeve Foundation and succeeded her late husband as chairperson in 2004. She created and led the Foundation's Quality of Life initiatives.

She received numerous awards for her work, most notably the Shining Example Award from Proctor & Gamble in 1998, an American Image Award from the AAFA in 2003, and the American Cancer Society named her Mother of the Year in 2005.

Dana, the person, was a tireless advocate for people with spinal cord injuries. For me personally, she and Chris will forever be the shining lights in the great national debate for advancing medical research.

It is with sadness that I stand before this body, more than 9 months after the historic vote in the House to expand Federally funded embryonic stem cell research, and still there has been no vote in the Senate.

With each day that passes the research that could one day lead to cures and treatments for millions of Americans with deadly and debilitating diseases is being held up.

It is incomprehensible to me that we have a bill, which has already passed the House, that may help millions of Americans but instead is just sitting, languishing in the Senate despite some overtures or promises that it would be taken up by this body.

It is time for the Senate to do exactly what the House did. It is time for the Senate to take up and pass the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, the Castle-DeGette bill, with no amendments and no alternatives. I believe we have the votes to pass this bill today and send it to the President.

I want to take a moment to acknowledge Dana's last struggle, her battle against cancer. This terrible disease is a very personal one for me. I have lost many loved ones to it. The elimination of death and suffering due to cancer has been one of my highest priorities since coming to the Senate.

Dana died of lung cancer and, as many of you have read in the papers, Dana was a non-smoker. I believe she had stage one metastatic lung cancer. In fact, over 60 percent of new lung cancers are diagnosed in people who never smoked or who managed to quit smoking even decades ago.

While cigarette smoking is by far the most important risk factor for lung cancer, many other factors play a role.

Lung cancer remains the deadliest form of cancer. In 2006, it will account for more than 162,000 cancer deaths, or about 29 percent of all cancer deaths. Since 1987, more women have died each year of lung cancer than from breast cancer.

Screening for lung cancer is years behind screening for other cancers, which means that when it is diagnosed, the disease is often already in its late stages, which is what I suspect happened to Dana Reeve.

The 5-year survival rate for all stages of lung cancer is only 15 percent. Compare this to the overall 5-year survival rate of 65 percent for all cancers diagnosed between 1995 and 2001.

Clearly we can and must do better. Increased NIH research for lung cancer is essential and we must press for better screening tools for lung cancer. I plan to address both of these issues in comprehensive cancer legislation I plan to introduce shortly.

In closing, it is my sincere hope that the love Dana and Chris shared for each other will reunite them wherever their journeys take them from here. Dana left us far too soon--in her mid-40s--but she left us with her fighting spirit and the will to push forward so that one day we may find treatments and cures for those living with spinal cord injuries and other disabling conditions.

Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, our borders are our Nation's first line of defense. They are the key to our homeland, and ensuring their integrity is vital to our national security.

But there are some who seek to create a means of entering our country illegally. For years, they've tried to go around the border checkpoints. Now they are trying to go under them through sophisticated border tunnels.

In fact, there have been 40 border tunnels financed and constructed since 9/11--to move humans, drugs, and weapons under the border. Twenty-one of these were on the California-Mexico border--eight since January of this year.

This is a serious issue not just for San Diego and California, but for the entire country.

Surprisingly, there is no law on the books now that makes it a crime to construct, finance, build, or use a tunnel into the United States.

Last week, I toured a recently discovered tunnel in San Diego with San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders, Police Chief Bill Lansdowne, Sheriff Bill Kolender and various Federal Government officials from the Department of Homeland Security.

This tunnel is the largest, most sophisticated underground passageway ever discovered; approximately half a mile long (8 football fields); at its deepest point, more than nine stories below ground; equipped with a drainage system, cement flooring for traction, lighting, and a pulley system; disguised as a produce distribution company known as ``V & F Distributors, LLC''; and accessible only through a small office inside this warehouse, covered by four square tiles.

The Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement began investigating the case two years ago, and raided the tunnel last month from the Mexican side not knowing if or where an opening on the U.S. would be found. They discovered over 2,000 pounds of marijuana on the Mexican side of the border and approximately 300 on the U.S. side.

The legislation which I am introducing today--joined by Senator Kyl as the Republican lead, as well as Senators Frist, Cantwell, Boxer, Hutchison, McCain, Bingaman and Domenici--throws the book at those who build these tunnels and subterranean passageways into the United States.

It would: criminalize the construction or financing of an unauthorized tunnel or subterranean passage across an international border into the United States with a term of imprisonment up to 20 years; punish those who recklessly permit others to construct or use an unauthorized tunnel on their land with a term of imprisonment of up to 10 years; punish those who use a tunnel to smuggle aliens, weapons, drugs, terrorists, or illegal goods by doubling the sentence for the underlying offense; in addition to imprisonment, ensure that assets involved in the offense, or any property traceable to the offense, may be subject to forfeiture; and instruct the U.S. Sentencing Commission to promulgate or amend sentencing guidelines to provide for criminal penalties for persons convicted under this bill, and to take into account the gravity of this crime when considering the base offense levels.

The legislation is critical. We must secure every aspect of our borders.

Since 9/11: forty border tunnels have been discovered in the United States; all but one have been on the southern border; twenty-one of the tunnels were along the California-Mexico border; eight of the tunnels were discovered in San Diego since the beginning of the year; these tunnels range in complexity from simple ``gopher holes'' a few feet long at the border to massive drug-cartel built mega-tunnels, costing hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars to construct.

The need for this legislation is urgent. We must secure every aspect of our borders, including those we can't always see. And it is in our national security interest that we find these tunnels and prosecute those who construct, finance or recklessly permit the use of these tunnels on their land or property to the fullest extent of the law.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, our borders are our Nation's first line of defense. They are the key to our homeland, and ensuring their integrity is vital to our national security.

But there are some who seek to create a means of entering our country illegally. For years, they've tried to go around the border checkpoints. Now they are trying to go under them through sophisticated border tunnels.

In fact, there have been 40 border tunnels financed and constructed since 9/11--to move humans, drugs, and weapons under the border. Twenty-one of these were on the California-Mexico border--eight since January of this year.

This is a serious issue not just for San Diego and California, but for the entire country.

Surprisingly, there is no law on the books now that makes it a crime to construct, finance, build, or use a tunnel into the United States.

Last week, I toured a recently discovered tunnel in San Diego with San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders, Police Chief Bill Lansdowne, Sheriff Bill Kolender and various Federal Government officials from the Department of Homeland Security.

This tunnel is the largest, most sophisticated underground passageway ever discovered; approximately half a mile long (8 football fields); at its deepest point, more than nine stories below ground; equipped with a drainage system, cement flooring for traction, lighting, and a pulley system; disguised as a produce distribution company known as ``V & F Distributors, LLC''; and accessible only through a small office inside this warehouse, covered by four square tiles.

The Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement began investigating the case two years ago, and raided the tunnel last month from the Mexican side not knowing if or where an opening on the U.S. would be found. They discovered over 2,000 pounds of marijuana on the Mexican side of the border and approximately 300 on the U.S. side.

The legislation which I am introducing today--joined by Senator Kyl as the Republican lead, as well as Senators Frist, Cantwell, Boxer, Hutchison, McCain, Bingaman and Domenici--throws the book at those who build these tunnels and subterranean passageways into the United States.

It would: criminalize the construction or financing of an unauthorized tunnel or subterranean passage across an international border into the United States with a term of imprisonment up to 20 years; punish those who recklessly permit others to construct or use an unauthorized tunnel on their land with a term of imprisonment of up to 10 years; punish those who use a tunnel to smuggle aliens, weapons, drugs, terrorists, or illegal goods by doubling the sentence for the underlying offense; in addition to imprisonment, ensure that assets involved in the offense, or any property traceable to the offense, may be subject to forfeiture; and instruct the U.S. Sentencing Commission to promulgate or amend sentencing guidelines to provide for criminal penalties for persons convicted under this bill, and to take into account the gravity of this crime when considering the base offense levels.

The legislation is critical. We must secure every aspect of our borders.

Since 9/11: forty border tunnels have been discovered in the United States; all but one have been on the southern border; twenty-one of the tunnels were along the California-Mexico border; eight of the tunnels were discovered in San Diego since the beginning of the year; these tunnels range in complexity from simple ``gopher holes'' a few feet long at the border to massive drug-cartel built mega-tunnels, costing hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars to construct.

The need for this legislation is urgent. We must secure every aspect of our borders, including those we can't always see. And it is in our national security interest that we find these tunnels and prosecute those who construct, finance or recklessly permit the use of these tunnels on their land or property to the fullest extent of the law.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today the Senate will take up the conference report on the USA-PATRIOT Reauthorization and Improvement Act, as modified by an agreement reached last week.

I am the original Democratic cosponsor of the unanimously passed Senate bill, as well as a cosponsor of the Combating Methamphetamine Epidemic

Act and the Reducing Crime and Terrorism at America's Seaports Act, both of which are incorporated into the conference report.

I will vote in favor of cloture on this bill, and will vote in favor of the bill when and if it comes to a vote.

At the end of last year, after careful consideration, I voted against cloture on the conference report. I took this step because of two basic concerns, both of which have been substantially diminished by the agreement which is before us today. These changes, and the fact that a consensus agreement has been reached, are the reason I am changing my position.

My first concern was with some of the provisions of the conference report. Specifically, the conference report did not provide adequate judicial review of so-called gag orders associated with the issuance of national security letters, and required those who wanted to contest these orders before a court to disclose information about their legal counsel to the FBI. This was unnecessary and inappropriate, and it has been changed.

The revised conference report clarifies that a gag order will be reviewed by a Federal court and ensures that this review will include an inquiry into whether the Government is acting in bad faith. The compromise also eliminates the onerous requirement of prior notification to the FBI about legal counsel.

On the other hand, the revised conference report does not go as far as I would have preferred. It does not adopt the original Senate language with respect to the standard to be applied for granting a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant for physical items, including business records. This issue, usually referred to by its PATRIOT Act section number, 215, remains very controversial, and I believe the language could permit inappropriate fishing expeditions if not carefully monitored. However, the agreed-upon language does make clear that libraries performing traditional functions are largely exempt from the more intrusive aspects of the law.

Importantly, the conference report retains and extends sunset provisions on the most controversial provisions, including section 215. This is critical, as these sunset provisions, which expire in 2009, are an important element of the continued vigorous oversight necessary to ensure this law is carried out in an appropriate manner.

The second concern I had was that it appeared that efforts to forge a compromise bill had fallen apart, with acrimony and rancor marking the progress of negotiations. This was, in my view, tragic.

I have long been a supporter of the USA-PATRIOT Act. I believe it is a critical tool in defending the Nation against terrorism. But I believe that it is a tool that is most effective when it is accepted as a bipartisan, nonpolitical, effort. Simply put, if there is one area where partisan debate and petty politics have no place, it is in the area of national defense against terrorism.

So I believed strongly that a compromise bill supported by Members of both parties was essential. I recognize that achieving consensus means, almost by definition, that nobody will be completely happy with the outcome. As I noted, there are changes I would have made to this law, and I am sure most of my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, would like other changes. But compromise and consensus require concessions and flexibility. That is why I will vote today against cloture, and why I plan to vote for the bill itself.

I explained my views in a letter I sent to the Attorney General in December. In that letter I explained, and I quote:

It was clear to me that Senate and House negotiators had

come very close to reaching agreement on the Conference

Report. I believe this was critical, because only through

such a consensus approach can we ensure that the Patriot Act

does not continue to be polluted with partisan rancor. This

law is extremely important to the safety of America, and its

effectiveness depends in large part on ordinary Americans

believing it is a product not of partisan politics, but of

reasoned debate and compromise. Because I believed consensus

was so close at hand, and so important, I voted to provide

Congress additional time to resolve the last points of

disagreement.

Thus I was disheartened to hear that the Administration has

determined not to encourage further discussion on improving

and refining the Conference Report--rather, to stand fast,

and urge Senators to change their votes. I hope that this is

not the case. . . .

With that hope, I ask that you direct your staff to work

with both Republicans and Democrats to address the few

remaining issues. I am confident that good-faith discussion,

honest debate, and careful drafting can reduce, perhaps even

eliminate, some of the points of disagreement. . . .

It is critical that the Congress and the Administration

demonstrate our ability to work towards consensus and

agreement. I hope you will work with me to that end.

The USA-PATRIOT Act has come to be terribly misunderstood. Some think it is related to Guantanamo Bay and the detention of prisoners. Others are convinced that it authorizes torture or the secret arrest of Americans. It does none of these things.

At the same time, some have irresponsibly sought to characterize anyone who seeks to improve, or criticize, the law as somehow ``playing into the hands of the terrorists.'' They have implied that the USA- PATRIOT Act would expire in its entirety, and that we would be left with no defenses against terrorist attacks. This, too, is untrue.

When I spoke on this floor in December, advocating working together, I said, ``Congress has a long, and honorable, tradition of putting aside party politics when it comes to national security . . . it is critical that this approach be carried forward to the end, and that Congress reauthorize the USA-PATRIOT Act in a way that Americans can be confident is not the product of politics.''

I am pleased that we followed that tradition and that we put aside our differences and reached agreement. The fact that the White House and the Attorney General backed down from their intransigence and were willing to discuss and compromise is also a welcome change, and hopefully a sign of a more open approach to these issues in the future.

I expect this bill will pass into law. I believe it will make America safer. It is the responsibility of the Congress to ``provide for the Common Defense,'' and I believe we live up to that duty in this bill.

But our job will not end here. We must immediately turn to our oversight responsibilities. For instance, I understand that Senator Specter will be continuing his inquiry into the NSA Surveillance Program, and tomorrow the Senate Intelligence Committee will hopefully agree to take up their oversight responsibilities with respect to this program. The Judiciary Committee will also soon be holding a hearing designed to look at the FBI's progress in accepting its newly expanded intelligence missions and assess whether these efforts have been successful and whether they conform with the rule of law.

I look forward to expanding on the spirit of compromise that this bill represents.

I ask unanimous consent the letter to the Attorney General dated January 9, 2006, be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the California Ocean and Coastal Protection Act, introduced by Senator Boxer and myself, to permanently protect California's coast from oil and gas drilling.

We simply cannot gamble away California's majestic coastline. An oil spill would scar our coastline, costing billions and destroying ecosystems. We cannot allow this to happen. The time has come to permanently protect this treasure.

California is virtually unified in its opposition to lifting the moratoria on drilling the Outer Continental Shelf.

Governor Schwarzenegger has publicly opposed offshore oil drilling and has called for the Federal Government to buy back the remaining 36 undeveloped Federal offshore oil and gas leases on the Outer Continental Shelf off the coast of central California.

The Governor has said that he ``oppose(s) any efforts to weaken the federal moratorium for oil and gas leasing off the coast of California and I support efforts to make the moratoria and the Presidential deferrals for California permanent.'' Letter to Congressman Pombo, 11/ 3/05.

That is what the bill we are introducing today would do--permanently protect California's coast from oil and gas drilling.

California's Resources Secretary Mike Chrisman, the secretary of California Environmental Protection Agency, Alan Lloyd, and the Lieutenant Governor, Cruz Bustamante, have also been on record opposing any effort to lift the congressional moratorium on offshore oil and gas leasing activities.

Secretary Chrisman, who is also the chairman of the California Ocean Protection Council, has in fact stated ``Any pending federal legislation regarding Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) oil and gas leasing must retain all protections from the Congressional leasing moratorium and should seek to make these protections permanent.'' Letter to Congressman Pombo, 9/27/05.

Californians are all too familiar with the consequences of offshore drilling. An oil spill in 1969 off the coast of Santa Barbara killed thousands of birds, dolphins, seals, and other animals. We know this could happen again.

A healthy coast is vital to California's economy and our quality of life. Ocean-dependent industry is estimated to contribute $17 billion to California each year.

Californians have spoken loud and clear that they do not want drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf. This bill will provide the coast of California with the permanent protection needed.

Mr. President, I'm pleased to introduce this bill today to help California drinking water providers address the growing problem of perchlorate contamination.

The California Perchlorate Contamination Remediation Act authorizes funds for perchlorate remediation of contaminated water sources.

The bill provides: $50 million in grants for cleanup and remediation of perchlorate in water sources, including groundwater wells; and $8 million for research and development of new, cheaper, and more efficient perchlorate cleanup technologies.

The bill also expresses the sense of Congress that the Environmental Protection Agency should promulgate a national drinking water standard for perchlorate as soon as practicable.

The Defense Department and NASA use perchlorate in rocket fuel, missiles, and at least 300 types of munitions.

The Defense Department has used perchlorate since the 1950s. Perchlorate has a short shelf-life, and must be periodically replaced in the country's rocket and missile inventories.

Perchlorate readily permeates through soil and can spread quickly from its source. Over the last half century, improper disposal has allowed perchlorate to seep into surface and groundwater supplies.

Perchlorate contamination of drinking and irrigation water is a serious threat to public health.

Perchlorate interferes with the uptake of iodide into the thyroid gland. Since iodide helps regulate thyroid hormone production, perchlorate disrupts normal thyroid function. In adults, the thyroid helps regulate metabolism.

Infants and children are especially susceptible to the effects of perchlorate because the thyroid plays a critical role in proper development. Even unborn babies can be affected by perchlorate. Insufficient thyroid hormone production can severely retard a child's physical and mental development.

Perchlorate first appeared in drinking water wells in Rancho Cordova, CA in 1964. In 1985, the Environmental Protection Agency discovered perchlorate in several wells in the San Gabriel Valley in Southern California.

By 1997, it was detected in 4 counties in California and in the Colorado River, and by 1999 perchlorate was discovered in the water supplies of 12 States.

According to the California Department of Health Services at least 350 water sources in California, operated by 84 different local water agencies, now have perchlorate contamination.

But perchlorate is not just a California problem. A study by Government Accountability Office found perchlorate in the water supplies of 35 States.

The scope and magnitude of the perchlorate problem is still being defined and we are only beginning to discover the extent to which perchlorate has penetrated the food supply.

Recent sampling by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found perchlorate in people living in States without contaminated drinking water. This suggests people all over the country are exposed to at least trace levels of perchlorate.

In November 2004, the Food and Drug Administration released the results of its recent evaluation of perchlorate in the Nation's food. The FDA detected perchlorate in 90 percent of the lettuce samples taken from 5 different States, including California.

The FDA also found perchlorate in 101 out of 104 milk samples taken from retail stores around the country. Samples labeled as organic also contained perchlorate.

Last February, a study by researchers from Texas Tech University found perchlorate in all 36 samples of breast milk they tested. The milk was collected from women in 18 States, including California.

With such widespread contamination in my State and across the country, I have serious concerns about the health and well-being of the most vulnerable among the population--infants, toddlers, pregnant women, and those with compromised immune systems.

Let me speak for a moment about the challenges our water agencies are facing. As the population grows, so do the

demands on our water supply. During times of drought, these demands are particularly challenging.

States and communities rely upon their local water supplies, but are increasingly finding that these supplies are contaminated with perchlorate and other pollutants.

When Federal agencies fail to protect adjacent water supplies from perchlorate contamination, the problem falls to local and regional water agencies to fix.

These agencies already face staggering challenges both in delivering drinking water and managing wastewater services. Compounding these challenges with cleanup responsibilities for Defense Department activities is unfair, unreasonable, and unacceptable.

Perchlorate contamination in California is primarily the result of releases from 12 defense sites and several government contractor sites.

I applaud those contractors that have taken an active role in the cleanup of perchlorate. Unfortunately, clean up has only begun at a handful of contaminated sites.

In many cities and counties around California, wells are being taken out of service because of perchlorate contamination. Sometimes cities and water agencies are forced to bring in water from other sources, often at a much higher price. Other times, they must install costly perchlorate removal equipment.

This bill will provide much needed funds to water agencies for perchlorate remediation projects.

Now that perchlorate has been detected in the water sources of 35 States, it has become a national problem requiring a national solution.

I've approached several of my colleagues with a proposal that would address perchlorate contamination on a national level. My hope is that those representing States facing this problem will work with me on this issue.

Today there is no Federal drinking water standard for perchlorate. In the absence of a Federal standard, States have acted independently to establish health-related guidance or regulatory limits for perchlorate in drinking water.

The result is that each State has adopted a different preliminary guideline for perchlorate.

Let me give you a few examples: California established a Public Health Goal of 6 parts per billion; Texas has a Drinking Water Action Level of 4 part per billion; Nevada has a Public Notice Standard of 18 parts per billion; New York has a Drinking Water Planning Level of 5 parts per billion; Arizona has a Health-Based Guideline of 14 parts per billion; and Massachusetts has an interim public health goal of 1 part per billion.

Each of these States has adopted a different kind of regulatory guideline for perchlorate sending a confusing message to the public about what level is safe. It also frustrates the water agencies that strive to provide safe drinking water to consumers.

Clearly, it is time for the Federal Government to establish a national standard for perchlorate.

This bill would assist California water providers in their efforts to remove perchlorate from contaminated drinking water sources by providing $50 million dollars for 50 percent federally matched grants.

To address the challenge of removing perchlorate from all of our water supplies, we must invest in costeffective and timely remediation solutions. To underwrite this effort, $8 million will be authorized for grants for research and development of new, cheaper, more efficient perchlorate cleanup technologies.

It is time for the EPA to fulfill its obligation to protect public health. This bill expresses the sense of Congress that the EPA should promulgate a national drinking water standard for perchlorate under the timeline of the Safe Drinking Water Act as soon as practicable.

Perchlorate contamination has placed an enormous financial burden on the water agencies who strive to provide high quality, safe drinking water to the citizens of California. Cleaning up contaminated water sources is equivalent to creating new water, a growing need in my state and throughout the West.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the California Ocean and Coastal Protection Act, introduced by Senator Boxer and myself, to permanently protect California's coast from oil and gas drilling.

We simply cannot gamble away California's majestic coastline. An oil spill would scar our coastline, costing billions and destroying ecosystems. We cannot allow this to happen. The time has come to permanently protect this treasure.

California is virtually unified in its opposition to lifting the moratoria on drilling the Outer Continental Shelf.

Governor Schwarzenegger has publicly opposed offshore oil drilling and has called for the Federal Government to buy back the remaining 36 undeveloped Federal offshore oil and gas leases on the Outer Continental Shelf off the coast of central California.

The Governor has said that he ``oppose(s) any efforts to weaken the federal moratorium for oil and gas leasing off the coast of California and I support efforts to make the moratoria and the Presidential deferrals for California permanent.'' Letter to Congressman Pombo, 11/ 3/05.

That is what the bill we are introducing today would do--permanently protect California's coast from oil and gas drilling.

California's Resources Secretary Mike Chrisman, the secretary of California Environmental Protection Agency, Alan Lloyd, and the Lieutenant Governor, Cruz Bustamante, have also been on record opposing any effort to lift the congressional moratorium on offshore oil and gas leasing activities.

Secretary Chrisman, who is also the chairman of the California Ocean Protection Council, has in fact stated ``Any pending federal legislation regarding Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) oil and gas leasing must retain all protections from the Congressional leasing moratorium and should seek to make these protections permanent.'' Letter to Congressman Pombo, 9/27/05.

Californians are all too familiar with the consequences of offshore drilling. An oil spill in 1969 off the coast of Santa Barbara killed thousands of birds, dolphins, seals, and other animals. We know this could happen again.

A healthy coast is vital to California's economy and our quality of life. Ocean-dependent industry is estimated to contribute $17 billion to California each year.

Californians have spoken loud and clear that they do not want drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf. This bill will provide the coast of California with the permanent protection needed.

Mr. President, I'm pleased to introduce this bill today to help California drinking water providers address the growing problem of perchlorate contamination.

The California Perchlorate Contamination Remediation Act authorizes funds for perchlorate remediation of contaminated water sources.

The bill provides: $50 million in grants for cleanup and remediation of perchlorate in water sources, including groundwater wells; and $8 million for research and development of new, cheaper, and more efficient perchlorate cleanup technologies.

The bill also expresses the sense of Congress that the Environmental Protection Agency should promulgate a national drinking water standard for perchlorate as soon as practicable.

The Defense Department and NASA use perchlorate in rocket fuel, missiles, and at least 300 types of munitions.

The Defense Department has used perchlorate since the 1950s. Perchlorate has a short shelf-life, and must be periodically replaced in the country's rocket and missile inventories.

Perchlorate readily permeates through soil and can spread quickly from its source. Over the last half century, improper disposal has allowed perchlorate to seep into surface and groundwater supplies.

Perchlorate contamination of drinking and irrigation water is a serious threat to public health.

Perchlorate interferes with the uptake of iodide into the thyroid gland. Since iodide helps regulate thyroid hormone production, perchlorate disrupts normal thyroid function. In adults, the thyroid helps regulate metabolism.

Infants and children are especially susceptible to the effects of perchlorate because the thyroid plays a critical role in proper development. Even unborn babies can be affected by perchlorate. Insufficient thyroid hormone production can severely retard a child's physical and mental development.

Perchlorate first appeared in drinking water wells in Rancho Cordova, CA in 1964. In 1985, the Environmental Protection Agency discovered perchlorate in several wells in the San Gabriel Valley in Southern California.

By 1997, it was detected in 4 counties in California and in the Colorado River, and by 1999 perchlorate was discovered in the water supplies of 12 States.

According to the California Department of Health Services at least 350 water sources in California, operated by 84 different local water agencies, now have perchlorate contamination.

But perchlorate is not just a California problem. A study by Government Accountability Office found perchlorate in the water supplies of 35 States.

The scope and magnitude of the perchlorate problem is still being defined and we are only beginning to discover the extent to which perchlorate has penetrated the food supply.

Recent sampling by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found perchlorate in people living in States without contaminated drinking water. This suggests people all over the country are exposed to at least trace levels of perchlorate.

In November 2004, the Food and Drug Administration released the results of its recent evaluation of perchlorate in the Nation's food. The FDA detected perchlorate in 90 percent of the lettuce samples taken from 5 different States, including California.

The FDA also found perchlorate in 101 out of 104 milk samples taken from retail stores around the country. Samples labeled as organic also contained perchlorate.

Last February, a study by researchers from Texas Tech University found perchlorate in all 36 samples of breast milk they tested. The milk was collected from women in 18 States, including California.

With such widespread contamination in my State and across the country, I have serious concerns about the health and well-being of the most vulnerable among the population--infants, toddlers, pregnant women, and those with compromised immune systems.

Let me speak for a moment about the challenges our water agencies are facing. As the population grows, so do the

demands on our water supply. During times of drought, these demands are particularly challenging.

States and communities rely upon their local water supplies, but are increasingly finding that these supplies are contaminated with perchlorate and other pollutants.

When Federal agencies fail to protect adjacent water supplies from perchlorate contamination, the problem falls to local and regional water agencies to fix.

These agencies already face staggering challenges both in delivering drinking water and managing wastewater services. Compounding these challenges with cleanup responsibilities for Defense Department activities is unfair, unreasonable, and unacceptable.

Perchlorate contamination in California is primarily the result of releases from 12 defense sites and several government contractor sites.

I applaud those contractors that have taken an active role in the cleanup of perchlorate. Unfortunately, clean up has only begun at a handful of contaminated sites.

In many cities and counties around California, wells are being taken out of service because of perchlorate contamination. Sometimes cities and water agencies are forced to bring in water from other sources, often at a much higher price. Other times, they must install costly perchlorate removal equipment.

This bill will provide much needed funds to water agencies for perchlorate remediation projects.

Now that perchlorate has been detected in the water sources of 35 States, it has become a national problem requiring a national solution.

I've approached several of my colleagues with a proposal that would address perchlorate contamination on a national level. My hope is that those representing States facing this problem will work with me on this issue.

Today there is no Federal drinking water standard for perchlorate. In the absence of a Federal standard, States have acted independently to establish health-related guidance or regulatory limits for perchlorate in drinking water.

The result is that each State has adopted a different preliminary guideline for perchlorate.

Let me give you a few examples: California established a Public Health Goal of 6 parts per billion; Texas has a Drinking Water Action Level of 4 part per billion; Nevada has a Public Notice Standard of 18 parts per billion; New York has a Drinking Water Planning Level of 5 parts per billion; Arizona has a Health-Based Guideline of 14 parts per billion; and Massachusetts has an interim public health goal of 1 part per billion.

Each of these States has adopted a different kind of regulatory guideline for perchlorate sending a confusing message to the public about what level is safe. It also frustrates the water agencies that strive to provide safe drinking water to consumers.

Clearly, it is time for the Federal Government to establish a national standard for perchlorate.

This bill would assist California water providers in their efforts to remove perchlorate from contaminated drinking water sources by providing $50 million dollars for 50 percent federally matched grants.

To address the challenge of removing perchlorate from all of our water supplies, we must invest in costeffective and timely remediation solutions. To underwrite this effort, $8 million will be authorized for grants for research and development of new, cheaper, more efficient perchlorate cleanup technologies.

It is time for the EPA to fulfill its obligation to protect public health. This bill expresses the sense of Congress that the EPA should promulgate a national drinking water standard for perchlorate under the timeline of the Safe Drinking Water Act as soon as practicable.

Perchlorate contamination has placed an enormous financial burden on the water agencies who strive to provide high quality, safe drinking water to the citizens of California. Cleaning up contaminated water sources is equivalent to creating new water, a growing need in my state and throughout the West.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the committee. I note that the ranking member is here also. If he would like to go ahead of me, I have no problem with that.

I thank the Senator very much for that.

Mr. President, let me give you at least my bottom line of this bill. Up to 2004, 74 American companies had been bankrupted. Salaries have been diminished for a large number of people. More people are thrown into the unemployment market as a product of bankruptcy. Victims receive less than 50 percent on the settlement dollar. Those are facts. It is deeply disturbing to me. I deeply believe that a no-fault fund, which has a medical board that evaluates the medical condition of an individual and automatically grants that individual an amount of money, is a much sounder way to go.

Now, clearly, this is complicated legislation and there are difficult and technical issues involved. But a lot of misinformation has plagued the asbestos debate, and it continues to be repeated. I cannot say we have a perfect bill, but we have tried, and tried very hard. This has not been a take-it-or-leave-it bill. The chairman and the ranking member have been open to suggestions. They have been open to requests for amendments. There will be a substitute amendment that further refines the bill.

Today, I want to discuss the concerns raised by those who oppose the bill and provide what I hope are important points.

On Thursday, one Senator argued:

It really comes down to a very basic question--the question

of whether or not this bill has been carefully crafted,

whether or not it contains enough money in the trust fund to

compensate the hundreds of thousands of asbestos victims that

will have to count on it.

Let me address the beginning of that statement, Mr. President. I cannot think of any other bill where more

time, more effort, and more man-hours have been committed to thoroughly understanding and trying to address all of the complex issues, and even to respond to the hypothetical issues that might potentially come up. The drafters of this legislation have worked for literally thousands of hours through the process of dozens of meetings over the past six years. The Judiciary Committee has held at least 8 hearings on the asbestos bill--4 just in the past year--and has heard testimony from 57 witnesses. We have met with experts from all sides who currently evaluate asbestos claims and make statistical projections for companies, for victims, and the courts. We met with doctors, victims, corporate CEOs, and general counsels. We met with trial lawyers, insurance representatives, and individuals who work for asbestos bankruptcy trusts.

I recognize that there are real concerns from the opponents of the bill. Some people are unsatisfied with some of the compromises that have been incorporated. But to assert that the legislation was not carefully drafted is one argument that has no basis in reality.

Now for the second part of the argument. Again, it is important to remember the history. Through this extensive consultation process, it became clear that there was an expected range of claims that could come into the fund. From this, several different experts, including Goldman Sachs, calculated the amount of funding necessary to cover the claims' values that the bill provided and the number of claims that the fund would pay based on the range of claims.

We learned that the amount necessary to create a national trust was between $90 billion and $155 billion. The legislation now on the floor has funding of $140 billion--clearly, on the high side of the range of what the technical experts expect.

I also think it is important to remember that previous versions of the asbestos bill had significantly less guaranteed contributions. S. 1125 provided $108 billion, with a $45 billion contingent fund. S. 2290 provided $104 billion, with a $10 billion contingent fund. However, each of these bills assumed that part of the money to pay claims would be collected through interest on savings. They did not meet the full funding through guaranteed contributions by businesses and insurers as this bill does. That is a significant difference.

The underlying assumption of the prior two bills was that the amount of money being paid into the trust would be more than sufficient to pay claims and, instead, there would be an excess that the administrator could invest to help build the trust fund's assets. So the amount of money being paid into the fund was much less than $108 billion and $104 billion. In addition, neither of those bills contained provisions to guarantee that the remaining companies would be required to make up any potential shortfall. Yet the bill on the floor of the Senate today is over $30 billion above S. 1125 and S. 2290 in guaranteed contributions, with no contingency funding.

In addition, when the CBO was asked to evaluate how much money the fund would need to pay claims, it projected that ``the proposed fund would be presented with valid claims worth $120 billion to $150 billion.'' This is the CBO language:

CBO expects that the value of valid claims likely to be

submitted to the fund over the next 50 years could be between

$120 billion and $150 billion, not including possible

financing (debt service costs) costs and administrative

expenses.

Again, $140 billion is well within the expected range. I think it is also important to note that throughout the process, the medical criteria has been tightened. I don't believe anybody really speaks to this. One category of claims--individuals who had lung cancer but no underlying asbestos markers--has been eliminated from the bill. An Institute of Medicine study has been added to the legislation that requires an evaluation of the link between asbestos exposure and cancer, other than lung cancer. If that link cannot be established by the IOM, then those claims will not receive compensation. With these modifications, the number of claims coming into the trust will be substantially reduced.

Finally, many protections have been put in place that ensure that if, in the long run, the trust does not have sufficient funding to cover all claims, individuals will be returned to the tort system--the very solution opponents are advocating now. So if the trust were to run out of money, the individual would go back to the tort system.

Some opponents also argue that passage of this act would lead to federalizing the responsibility for asbestos claims. We just heard this in the Democratic Caucus. It is this argument that is being used to make the case for a budget point of order against the bill. Some opponents have argued that the trust creates a new, albeit capped, entitlement for claimants. However, this statement is very misleading.

According to the Congressional Research Service, entitlement programs are a form of mandatory spending which require the payment of benefits to persons if specific criteria established in the authorized law are met. If one only looked at the first part of the definition of entitlement, this concern may be understood. However, CRS further states that entitlements are not subject to discretionary appropriation from Congress. Instead, they are subject to mandatory appropriations. Entitlement payments are legal obligations of the Federal Government, and beneficiaries can sue to compel full payment. This is not the case here.

Let me state that again. This is not the case here. The trust fund created by this legislation will be privately funded. The money collected for the trust comes from businesses and insurance companies. It does not come from the U.S. Treasury. While some opponents acknowledge that the Federal Government must play a role in the trust fund for it to be classified as an entitlement, they inaccurately conclude that if an individual satisfies the medical criteria and filing deadlines, then he or she is entitled to compensation from the Federal Government. This is not true.

Although the program will be housed in the Department of Labor, the bill ensures that all expenses, including administrative expenses, are paid by the moneys collected from businesses and insurers. In addition, as an extra protection, it is expressly stated several times throughout the bill that the United States, or the U.S. Treasury, will in no way be required to satisfy any claim or any costs if the amount in the trust is inadequate.

This bill expressly provides:

Repayment of moneys borrowed by the administrator is

limited solely to amounts available in the fund.

It also states that nothing in this act shall be construed to create any obligation of funding from the U.S. Government, including any borrowing authorized. Read section 406(b). This is what the opponents say is not there. This is the face of the bill. It is there:

Nothing in this act shall be construed to create an

obligation of funding from the United States Government . . .

or obligate the United States Government to pay any award or

part of an award, if amounts in the fund are inadequate.

I don't know what better guarantee there can be. If someone can suggest one, I am sure the chairman and the ranking member, and certainly myself, would agree to add it to the bill. With these explicit statements throughout the bill, it is abundantly clear that this legislation will not be a burden on the U.S. Treasury.

While Congress can obviously pass any law it so chooses in the future, this bill specifically states multiple times in the text that taxpayers and the U.S. Treasury will in no way be required to cover any shortfall, any administrative costs, any debt or interest costs, or any costs incurred by the trust fund. Therefore, the only way taxpayers will be called upon to subsidize this legislation is if a future Congress chooses to pass, and the President signs, new legislation which would create such an obligation. This seems to me very unrealistic and highly unlikely. But even if it were to come to pass, we should not defeat this bill because of what some other Congress and some other President may or may not do at some time in the future.

Opponents also argue that the Federal Government's liability is likely to arise through the debt service. They argue that the administrator could borrow beyond the fund's ability to repay the Treasury.

I wish to respond to that. This statement ignores the plain text of the bill.

The administrator's ability to borrow funds from the Federal Financing Bank is only available for the first 5 years. Section 221 states:

The administrator may borrow from the Federal Financing

Bank in accordance with section 6 of the Federal Financing

Bank Act of 1973 as needed for performance of the

Administrator's duties under this Act for the first 5 years.

So for the first 5 years, there can be some borrowing. How is that borrowing limited and how is the loan paid back? This same section specifically limits the borrowing capacity of the administrator so that he or she may not overextend the fund's assets by borrowing beyond what the trust fund will be able to repay.

Again, section 221 states:

The maximum amount that may be borrowed under this

subsection at any given time is the amount that, taking into

account all payment obligations related to all previous

amounts borrowed in accordance with this subsection and all

committed obligations to the fund at the time of borrowing,

can be repaid in full with interest in a timely fashion from

the available assets of the fund as of the time of borrowing,

and all amounts expected to be paid by participants during

the subsequent 10 years.

So it requires the administrator to look at what he or she could potentially repay and what contributions are still outstanding. It is hard to believe that any private lending institution would risk lending money to the trust fund which it could not clearly repay in the future. However, even if some private institution decided to take that risk, the bill specifically prohibits the administrator from entering into such a financially risky transaction.

As I just read, the explicit language in the bill limits the administrator's borrowing capacity to an amount that can be repaid in full with interest from the available assets of the fund as of the time of borrowing and all amounts expected to be paid by participants during the subsequent 10 years.

Finally, those who support the budget point of order argue that collection of the contributions by the businesses and insurers could fail to materialize, leaving the U.S. taxpayer on the hook to cover the costs, and we should look at that. We should look at it very carefully. But this ignores explicit provisions contained in the legislation.

Senator Leahy and I fought hard to ensure that the payment obligations included in the bill were enforceable and guaranteed.

First, the bill gives the administrator enforcement authority to compel payment by the companies, both defendant businesses and insurers alike.

Let me quote section 223. It provides:

If any participant fails to make any payment in the amount

of, and according to, the schedule under this Act or as

prescribed by the Administrator after demand and a 30-day

opportunity to cure the default, there shall be a lien--

Not there may be a lien; there shall be a lien, mandatory language--

for the amount of the delinquent payment (including interest)

upon all property and rights to property, whether real or

personal, belonging to such participant.

The participants of the fund are liable for the maintenance of the fund. I don't see how it could be any clearer.

The chairman of the committee who is the author of this bill is in the Chamber. If someone has an amendment and comes to the chairman and says: Look, we think there is an oversight here or there, it could be tightened up by doing X or Y, I am sure this chairman will listen. But the language is very specific: If any participant fails to make any payment in the amount in the schedule under this act or as prescribed by the administrator after a demand and 30 days to pony up to cure the default, there shall be a lien for the amount of the payment, including interest, upon all property and rights to property. That includes every big business, every big insurance company, everyone that is in this fund, and it is only within that initial period that the administrator can, in fact, borrow. So how people come to the conclusion that the Government is on the hook for $40 billion I will never understand. If the company refuses to pay or fails to pay, the administrator must get a lien from a court on the company's assets in order to compel payment.

Secondly, the bill ensures that if any one company cannot pay its obligation under the trust fund--and this is important--if any one company can't pay its obligation under the trust fund, the other companies must shoulder the cost.

Specifically, section 204(h)--please read it, opposition--Guaranteed Payment Surcharge, states that if the required contribution does not come in,

The administrator shall assess a guaranteed payment

surcharge.

Here it is, section 204(h)(3):

To the extent it is insufficient to satisfy the required

minimum aggregate annual payment, the administrator--

Not may--

shall assess a guaranteed payment surcharge.

So the administrator shall collect any shortfall in contributions from other defendant companies. This legislation contains specific language to require that companies pay and that if the enforcement mechanism should fail for any reason, the the money still comes into the trust through payments from other companies.

With explicit language protecting the American taxpayer and the U.S. Treasury from ever having to contribute to the fund, with explicit language limiting the administrator's borrowing authority, and with explicit language ensuring that the anticipated contributions are made, this legislation makes it abundantly clear that in no way, shape, or form can the trust harm the Federal budget.

Opponents of the bill argue that those of us who support the bill have ``significantly distort[ed] CBO's conclusions'' and, at the same time, they assert that CBO ``likely understates'' the amount of money needed for the trust. They argue that because CBO uses qualifiers in their estimates such as acknowledging uncertainties in calculating the number of claims and the amounts to be paid, that one must draw the conclusion that CBO actually believes the cost to be much higher than that which is contained in their paper. Yet time and time again, when CBO has been asked to review their estimate and make changes based on new information, including the rather notorious Bates White study, they have declined to make changes. I was in that hearing; I heard the Director of CBO decline to make changes directly after the Bates White testimony. With each request, CBO has refused to alter its estimate of the projected costs. This is what they said in a letter to Chairman Specter dated December 19, 2005:

The Bates White Report contains no new information that

would cause CBO to revise its cost estimate.

The size of the fund is based on the strongest statistical data and economic models available. Now, that is the best that is out there. That is the state of the art. Some can say it isn't enough. I can't counter that. All I know is that the committee sought the best, the committee sought the most responsible.

As I said on the floor previously, a leading actuary with Tillinghast-Towers Perrin, an actuarial firm for the Manville Trust, testified before the committee that ``$108 billion appears to be more than adequate,'' and the RAND Institute estimates the future remaining costs of asbestos-related loss and expense at $130 billion. In addition, the new projections calculated by Tillinghast also confirm that the contributions to the asbestos trust fund should be sufficient.

While opponents argue that the latest Tillinghast studies support their argument that there is inadequate funding, a closer analysis reveals that the new Tillinghast projections are actually in line with the projections used to calculate the money necessary to pay claims under the bill. Let me tell you how that happens.

The new Tillinghast claims projections include claims for foreign exposures as well as Manville's level VI cancers. Both of these categories of claimants are ineligible for compensation under this bill's medical criteria. When these changes are accounted for and the Tillinghast numbers are adjusted, their new projections fall squarely within the range that the asbestos trust fund is based on, and the adjusted Tillinghast numbers are actually less than CBO's projections.

In addition, by using a no-fault administrative system, the fund will significantly reduce the substantial transaction costs of the current tort system, costs which almost all experts agree consume more than half of the total amount paid out for asbestos claims.

Remember at the beginning I said that one of the most startling things to me was to realize what happens with settlements, what happens to the dollars of settlements. The fact is that 61 percent of all of the settlement monies go for defendant costs, go for plaintiff costs, go for court costs, go for legal fees. Sixty-one percent. Sixty-one percent, then, of any tort court sum goes not to the victim but to lawyers and to tort costs.

In addition, by using a no-fault administrative system, the fund significantly reduces the substantial transaction costs of the current tort system: (A) you don't need a lawyer; and (B) if you want to come in with a lawyer, that lawyer is limited to a 5-percent fee--not 30, 40, 50, 60, or 70 percent of a recovery, but 5 percent.

According to the RAND Institute, 58 percent of the money spent on asbestos claims goes toward attorney's fees--31 percent to defense attorneys, and 27 percent to plaintiff attorneys.

I urge everyone to read the RAND Institute's recent study. It is 168 pages. It describes what is happening in the tort system, and it is an independent, very good analysis.

The bottom line: The asbestos bill needs less money to pay victims fair compensation since it eliminates these transaction costs which drain money away from the individual.

This bill as amended obligates defendant and insurer participants to contribute $136 billion--that is a lot of money--$136 billion to the fund, and at least $4 billion more would be contributed from confirmed bankruptcy and other asbestos compensation trust funds. In fact, CBO recently estimated that the amount to be contributed by bankruptcy trusts will likely be around $8 billion. Here is what CBO said:

The value of cash and financial assets of the asbestos

bankruptcy trust funds would be $7.5 billion in 2006 and $8.1

billion when liquidated.

As I stated previously, if the projections are wrong and the amount of money available proves to be insufficient in the long run, victims will be allowed to return to the courts. With this safety net, the legislation ensures that no one is left without an avenue of recourse.

Some people have said there is a lack of certainty. A lack of certainty is not unusual when projecting what might occur in the future for the Federal budget or for future programs. I do not believe that uncertainty or ambiguity necessarily leads to the conclusion that the trust fund will require more funding. But I would hope opponents would view the ambiguities for what they are--an acknowledgment that no one can predict the future with 100 percent certainty, and the best anyone can do is make projections using sound statistical analyses, which this committee's bill has attempted to do.

We don't know how many people have been exposed to asbestos and, of course, who will develop a disease--nor can we possibly know. However, that should not mean that we do nothing, that we let the present system, which we know is not good, prevail. That does not mean that the analyses and projections that have been done are useless, not valuable, or inaccurate. Instead, we have to find the best projections available, the most sound, the ones that are based on sound calculation and real- world experience of other trusts. That is what this legislation does.

Another argument made by opponents is that there will be additional costs related to the debt service that could overwhelm the trust. Some have declared:

Debt service contributes greatly to the trust fund's

insolvency, underlining the severe mismatch between the

timing of payments into the fund.

Opponents have said that this conclusion is based on the argument that there will be a flood of claims at the start of the trust. However, this concern has also been examined and addressed through the process of drafting this bill. The so-called upfront funding has been significantly increased to the point where the trust fund now will have $42 billion in the first 5 years to pay claims. Under S. 2290--the old bill--the administrator would have collected up to $19 billion during the first 3 years and only $29 billion in the first 5 years. The difference is $15 billion has been added to the upfront funding of this bill. That is a 30-percent increase in the startup funding from what was provided in the bill last Congress.

In addition, the Judiciary Committee adopted an amendment to speed up the initial contributions by insurers, defendant companies, and bankruptcy trusts so that the administrator can pay claims quickly.

Section 204 requires the defendant companies to pay their initial payment within 90 days from the date of the enactment, and we are very serious about that. Section 212 requires the insurers to make their first payment within the same time line. And Section 402 requires the bankruptcy trusts to also make their first payment within the first 90 days.

Here is what the bill says:

Each defendant participant shall file, not later than 90

days; insurer participants, not later than 90 days.

This is bill language.

The assets in any trust established to provide compensation

shall be transferred to the fund not later than 90 days after

enactment.

So everything is done in this bill to move a fast start forward. Within 3 months, the administrator will have collected initial payments from all the participants and will have almost $9 billion.

Next, the bill includes a streamlined process to settle claims of terminally ill individuals immediately--immediately--upon enactment of this legislation. That is what is so attractive to me. Someone who has a very short time to live, someone with mesothelioma, has a chance of getting paid upfront, right away--much more than a chance, a commitment. This provision ensures the terminally ill individuals will have their claims processed quickly, and it should resolve some of the most pressing and most expensive claims before the trust is up and running so that there will not be an overwhelming flood of claims filed with the trust on day one.

Senator Specter included language in the statute of limitations to give individuals sufficient time to file their claims--5 years--so there will not be a need to rush to the fund for fear of being cut off and the administrator and the medical board can concentrate on the sickest people first.

Finally, as I mentioned previously, there are tight restrictions on how much the administrator may borrow for the express purpose of ensuring that the trust does not face a shortfall simply because of a debt service problem.

I would like to address the Bates White study in a little more depth. When opponents argue that the projections are too low, many of the arguments made to support this conclusion appear to be based on the Bates White study.

During consideration of this legislation, the Committee held a hearing on the Bates White study and asked CBO to review its conclusions. I was present and listened carefully to the testimony. Several criticisms and concerns were raised about the Bates White study, its assumptions, and its methodology. Witnesses before the Committee made several points that significantly undermined the credibility of the Bates White study.

First, witnesses argued that the Bates White study overestimated occupational exposure. In determining the overall number of individuals who could recover from the bill the Bates White study appears to have counted every employee who ever worked in an industry where there was asbestos exposure. This conclusion was reached by comparing the Bates White study to the Nicholson study.

The Nicholson, Perkel and Selikoff study, conducted in 1982, set the standard on this subject and is considered the most comprehensive asbestos study. It provides a good foundation for estimating the future cases of asbestos disease, and has been utilized in many of the models to develop future asbestos disease claims projections, including claims projections made for the Manville Trust. Yet, Bates White's conclusions are almost triple Nicholson's.

Navigant is a consulting firm that has worked on asbestos claims since the 1980s doing evaluations of claims projections and costs to companies. During the hearing, Navigant's witness explained that this discrepancy seemed to occur because Bates White simply used a straight percentage of the total U.S. workforce, whereas Nicholson conducted an extensive analysis of the industry and occupational exposure to asbestos.

Next, Bates White did not make a distinction in its calculations between exposed populations and eligible populations. This means that in the Bates White study it appears that every person who was ever exposed to asbestos was counted as eligible under the trust fund. However, not all individuals who are exposed to asbestos will become sick, nor will all individuals who are exposed to asbestos be able to meet the medical criteria and the exposure requirements necessary to receive compensation.

While considering asbestos legislation, several witnesses have pointed out that just because someone may have been exposed to asbestos at some point in their lifetime, it does not follow that they will become sick or will qualify for payment. I think this is an important point and is feeding some of the misperceptions around this bill. The science has not determined that every person who is exposed to asbestos will get sick.

This is true not just because each individual is different from one another and has differences in their immune systems, but because developing an asbestos-related disease usually requires prolonged and sustained exposure. Asbestos is a naturally-occurring mineral and most of us have been exposed to asbestos dust simply by walking outdoors. However, the current science concludes that casual contact is rarely sufficient to develop an asbestos disease.

Dr. James Crapo is Professor of Medicine at the National Jewish Medical and Research Center. He has more than 25 years of experience with asbestos-related issues, including medical research and clinical treatment of patients suffering from asbestos-related diseases and has published in the field of environmental toxicology, including the basis of asbestos-induced lung injury.

He testified that:

All of us are exposed to asbestos from the environment and

consequently have asbestos in our lungs. This background

level of exposure does not cause any asbestos-related

disease. Those diseases normally require substantial

occupational exposures or the equivalent.

In addition, the Navigant and the labor witnesses pointed out that the Bates White study did not seem to take into account that exposure rates within certain occupations decreased over time. This means that the Bates White study did not account for the fact that as companies became more aware of the dangers of asbestos they often did more to protect their workers.

The committee also heard from Dr. Laura Stewart Welch, a board- certified physician in internal medicine and occupational medicine. She has an active medical practice and treated many workers with asbestos- related disorders. She is currently medical director for The Center to Protect Workers Rights, a research institute affiliated with the Building and Construction Trades department of the AFL-CIO, and has authored over 50 peer-reviewed publications and technical reports in the field of occupational and environmental medicine, including papers describing the findings of asbestos-related disease in this group of construction workers.

She pointed out that the overall number from which Dr. Bates calculated the claims that will go into the trust is at least ten times too big. She explained that Dr. Bates extrapolated from a study that uses 2-3 fiber years as the basis for what constitutes significant exposure. The reference to fiber years is a way to calculate how much asbestos an individual has been exposed to. However, the legislation requires at least 25-40 fiber years to constitute significant exposure. So the legislation requires a much higher level of exposure to qualify.

Witnesses concluded that by failing to adequately consider each of these factors, the Bates White study provided a significant overestimation of claims.

Next, the committee heard testimony that argued the estimates made by the Bates White study do not reflect current experiences. The Bates White study asserts that by creating a no-fault system there will be a huge increase in filing of other cancer claims because it is no-fault rather than the adversarial system in the courts. However, the Manville Trust has similar, and in some cases exactly the same, medical criteria as the criteria in the FAIR Act, and it does not have litigation costs nor the deterrent of the adversarial system.

The Manville Trust was formed in 1988, and is the first and largest asbestos trust. In fact, it is not just the largest asbestos trust, but it is the largest toxic tort or personal injury trust of any kind. As of mid-2005 the trust had paid about $3.3 billion to settle 655,096 claims. The Manville Trust has gained so much experience in the field of asbestos claims settlements that it plans to begin offering claims- resolution services to other companies. Therefore, the experience of the Manville Trust should be considered a fair starting point for projections.

When comparing the Bates White study to Manville, witnesses from the committee hearing asserted Bates White projections are four times higher for other cancers than Manville. This was viewed as well outside a reasonable difference.

In addition, witnesses pointed out that there are several evidentiary requirements that do not seem to be adequately accounted for. In the two areas where the Bates White study predicts significant growth in claims, it does not account for the role of the physicians panel which is made up of three doctors who will personally review claims.

Lastly, the committee heard from experts who stated that the Bates White study used a methodology that has not been accepted by the unions, businesses, insurers, trial lawyers, CBO, the current bankruptcy trusts, or the courts now hearing asbestos cases.

For all these reasons, many of us concluded that the Bates White analysis fell far outside acceptable ranges for projections. To be clear, throughout this process both the AFL-CIO witness as well as business witnesses disputed the assumptions underlying the Bates White study and rejected its conclusion.

The next argument used by opponents is that the asbestos trust fund is going to fail because other trust funds have failed. This is not a new concern. In fact, throughout the process we looked at previous trust funds and attempted to evaluate the problems that arose.

The Black Lung Disability Fund was established by the Black Lung Benefits Revenue Act to pay black lung benefits to eligible miners whose mine employment ended before 1970 or whose employers were no longer in existence and therefore could not be assigned liability for their benefits. It was funded by excise taxes levied on coal sold by mine operators, but the Act includes language for repayable advances to the fund from the U.S. Treasury. This meant that when the Black Lung Trust Fund's resources were inadequate to meet its obligations the U.S. Treasury could advance the fund money to cover the costs. This provision is intentionally not included in the asbestos bill and instead language stating the opposite is included.

It is true that the number of black lung benefit claims were vastly underestimated and the costs of the black lung program were also underestimated. However, while the Black Lung Fund's costs were to be paid by industry, by 1977, 7 years after enactment, industry had made very few payments to the fund. The fund then sustained a deficit and the U.S. Treasury had to pay claims because of this default by mining companies. We did not ignore the problems created by the Black Lung Fund, rather we included several provisions in the asbestos bill to prevent this situation from taking place.

They are: explicit language prohibiting the Administrator from requiring any costs to be paid by U.S. Treasury; limits on borrowing authority and capacity; strong enforcement provisions if businesses default; requirements that other companies cover any potential shortfall; and reversion to the tort system if the trust runs out of money. I have already discussed the language in the asbestos bill to ensure that the business and insurer contributions are made and enforced, and to limit how much the administrator may borrow.

Finally, I would like to address an overarching concern that has been repeated throughout the debate. Interestingly, opponents keep arguing for 100-percent certainty. I don't know when we are ever provided 100- percent certainty. Congress is supposed to look at all the information available, hold

hearings, raise questions, draft legislation, offer amendments and then try to pass a statute. That is exactly what has been done here.

Senators Specter and Leahy have gone well beyond what is normally done around here to address problems. Every time an issue has been raised, they have tried to address the problem and find a solution. This stands in sharp contrast to the take-it-or-leave-it process that often describes legislative craftsmanship.

To now hear my colleagues express such an intense level of outrage that the bipartisan bill before the Senate does not contain adequate certainty or enough compromises is hard to swallow. To argue that a bill should not move forward because there might be unintended consequences would mean we would almost never pass legislation. And if we can't pass legislation unless we can guarantee there will never be an unintended outcome, then we might as well pack up and go home.

I should say I think this is a very important bill. Let me end with what I started. People who think the tort system is the way to go, who think it is OK that 61 percent of the settlement dollars go to transaction costs, who think that the victims who do not get this money are best served by the tort system--they are going to vote to sustain the point of order against the bill.

For those of us who believe it is the sickest victims who are going to be best taken care of in this trust, that this trust sets up an orderly and medically oriented protocol for a no-fault trust system and that victims are going to benefit from it and businesses will cease going into bankruptcy because of it, if you think that is a worthy thing, then you will vote for us.

I thank the Chair. I particularly thank the chairman and the ranking member of the committee. This has not been an easy bill. I truly believe they have both done a wonderful job, in the finest interests of the Senate, by working together across the aisle.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Fairness in Judicial Salaries Act.

This legislation is needed to prevent a continuing decline in the pay of our Federal judges and prevent damage to the quality of our judiciary.

Impartial, dedicated, and wise judges are critical to our justice system. Nevertheless, in the past three decades, our Federal judges have been neglected.

Since 1969, the salaries of Federal judges have declined by nearly 24 percent in inflation adjusted dollars. By comparison, in the same time period the salary of the average American worker has increased over 15 percent.

Since 1993, when Congress last passed a comprehensive revision of Federal salaries, real judicial pay has declined about 10 percent.

The drop in judicial pay is even more stark when compared to judges' peers in the legal community.

In 1969, the salary of a Federal district court judge was about 20 percent higher than the salary of a top law school dean and about 30 percent higher than that of a senior law professor at a top law school. In contrast, today, top law school deans make twice as much as district court judges, and senior law professors at those schools make nearly 50 percent more.

Today, partners at major law firms routinely make three, four or five times what Federal judges make. Furthermore, first year law school graduates at these law firms make more than experienced Federal judges.

While judges are making less, they are also working more. In the same time period that judges pay has declined by nearly 24 percent, the caseload for district court judges has climbed by 58.4 percent and the caseload of Circuit Court judges has jumped 211.4 percent.

While fairness alone would require a reasonable salary for judges, the growing pay disparity between judges and other members of the legal profession poses a real threat to the quality of our judiciary.

In order to ensure that our judiciary can continue to attract--and-- keep top attorneys, it is imperative that judges' salaries be increased to at least make up for some of the loss in real pay that has taken place in the last 30 years.

In 2003, the National Commission on the Public Service, also known as the Volcker Commission, concluded that ``the lag in judicial salaries has gone on too long, and the potential for the diminished quality in American jurisprudence is now too large.''

In a July 15, 2002 statement to the National Commission on the Public Service, the late Chief Justice Rehnquist said inadequate compensation seriously compromises the judicial independence fostered by life tenure. The prospect that low salaries might force judges to return to the private sector rather than stay on the bench risks affecting judicial performance.

Chief Justice Rehnquist's views were echoed by new Chief Justice Roberts in his State of the Judiciary Address from earlier this year. Chief Justice Roberts said the following:

If judges' salaries are too low, judges effectively serve

for a term dictated by their financial position rather than

for life. Figures gathered by the Administrative Office show

that judges are leaving the bench in greater numbers now than

ever before. In the 1960s, only a handful of district and

appellate court judges retired or resigned; since 1990, 92

judges have left the bench. Of those, 21 left before reaching

retirement age. Fifty-nine of them stepped down to enter the

private practice of law. In the past five years alone, 37

judges have left the federal bench--nine of them in the last

year.

There will always be a substantial difference in pay

between successful government and private sector lawyers. But

if that difference remains too large, as it is today, the

judiciary will over time cease to be made up of a diverse

group of the Nation's very best lawyers. Instead, it will

come to be staffed by a combination of the independently

wealthy and those following a career path before becoming a

judge different from the practicing bar at large. Such a

development would dramatically alter the nature of the

federal judiciary.

Many of the judges that have left the bench in recent years cited financial considerations as a major factor in their decisions to leave the bench.

In my home State of California, several Federal judges have gone on the record to say that they left the Federal bench because of financial pressures. Some of these judges have even taken jobs in the California State judiciary, since the State courts offer better salaries than the Federal bench.

As a result of the linkage of judicial salaries with the salaries of Members of Congress, when Congress has voted to deny itself a cost-of- living adjustment, as it has in 5 of the last 12 years, it has simultaneously denied all Federal judges cost-of-living adjustments, as well. Consequently, the real pay of judges has declined.

I am not suggesting that judges be paid as much as partners at law firms; however, they should receive a fair salary. The legislation that I introduce today, the Federal Judicial Fairness Act, provides a straightforward solution.

First, the act terminates the linkage of congressional pay increase to judicial pay increases, so that Congress's decision to deny itself pay raises will not also place that burden on Federal judges.

Second, the act increases the salaries of all Federal judges by 16.5 percent, in order to at least partially make up for the decline in real pay for judges over the last three decades. In 2003, both President Bush and Chief Justice Rehnquist agreed that a pay adjustment of at least 16.5 percent was needed.

Finally, the act would provide Federal judges with annual cost-of- living adjustments based on the employee cost Index, an index already used by the Federal Government to help Federal salaries keep up with inflation.

The cost of this salary increase would be only $41.3 million, a relatively small sum to safeguard the quality and independence of our judiciary.

Our Federal judges make many sacrifices in serving our Nation and a cut in pay is one of these sacrifices. However, the disparity between judicial salaries and salaries in the rest of the legal profession has grown so wide that the quality of our judicial system may be endangered. It is time to provide these critical public servants with a fair salary that will guarantee the future health of the judiciary.

I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Fairness in Judicial Salaries Act.

This legislation is needed to prevent a continuing decline in the pay of our Federal judges and prevent damage to the quality of our judiciary.

Impartial, dedicated, and wise judges are critical to our justice system. Nevertheless, in the past three decades, our Federal judges have been neglected.

Since 1969, the salaries of Federal judges have declined by nearly 24 percent in inflation adjusted dollars. By comparison, in the same time period the salary of the average American worker has increased over 15 percent.

Since 1993, when Congress last passed a comprehensive revision of Federal salaries, real judicial pay has declined about 10 percent.

The drop in judicial pay is even more stark when compared to judges' peers in the legal community.

In 1969, the salary of a Federal district court judge was about 20 percent higher than the salary of a top law school dean and about 30 percent higher than that of a senior law professor at a top law school. In contrast, today, top law school deans make twice as much as district court judges, and senior law professors at those schools make nearly 50 percent more.

Today, partners at major law firms routinely make three, four or five times what Federal judges make. Furthermore, first year law school graduates at these law firms make more than experienced Federal judges.

While judges are making less, they are also working more. In the same time period that judges pay has declined by nearly 24 percent, the caseload for district court judges has climbed by 58.4 percent and the caseload of Circuit Court judges has jumped 211.4 percent.

While fairness alone would require a reasonable salary for judges, the growing pay disparity between judges and other members of the legal profession poses a real threat to the quality of our judiciary.

In order to ensure that our judiciary can continue to attract--and-- keep top attorneys, it is imperative that judges' salaries be increased to at least make up for some of the loss in real pay that has taken place in the last 30 years.

In 2003, the National Commission on the Public Service, also known as the Volcker Commission, concluded that ``the lag in judicial salaries has gone on too long, and the potential for the diminished quality in American jurisprudence is now too large.''

In a July 15, 2002 statement to the National Commission on the Public Service, the late Chief Justice Rehnquist said inadequate compensation seriously compromises the judicial independence fostered by life tenure. The prospect that low salaries might force judges to return to the private sector rather than stay on the bench risks affecting judicial performance.

Chief Justice Rehnquist's views were echoed by new Chief Justice Roberts in his State of the Judiciary Address from earlier this year. Chief Justice Roberts said the following:

If judges' salaries are too low, judges effectively serve

for a term dictated by their financial position rather than

for life. Figures gathered by the Administrative Office show

that judges are leaving the bench in greater numbers now than

ever before. In the 1960s, only a handful of district and

appellate court judges retired or resigned; since 1990, 92

judges have left the bench. Of those, 21 left before reaching

retirement age. Fifty-nine of them stepped down to enter the

private practice of law. In the past five years alone, 37

judges have left the federal bench--nine of them in the last

year.

There will always be a substantial difference in pay

between successful government and private sector lawyers. But

if that difference remains too large, as it is today, the

judiciary will over time cease to be made up of a diverse

group of the Nation's very best lawyers. Instead, it will

come to be staffed by a combination of the independently

wealthy and those following a career path before becoming a

judge different from the practicing bar at large. Such a

development would dramatically alter the nature of the

federal judiciary.

Many of the judges that have left the bench in recent years cited financial considerations as a major factor in their decisions to leave the bench.

In my home State of California, several Federal judges have gone on the record to say that they left the Federal bench because of financial pressures. Some of these judges have even taken jobs in the California State judiciary, since the State courts offer better salaries than the Federal bench.

As a result of the linkage of judicial salaries with the salaries of Members of Congress, when Congress has voted to deny itself a cost-of- living adjustment, as it has in 5 of the last 12 years, it has simultaneously denied all Federal judges cost-of-living adjustments, as well. Consequently, the real pay of judges has declined.

I am not suggesting that judges be paid as much as partners at law firms; however, they should receive a fair salary. The legislation that I introduce today, the Federal Judicial Fairness Act, provides a straightforward solution.

First, the act terminates the linkage of congressional pay increase to judicial pay increases, so that Congress's decision to deny itself pay raises will not also place that burden on Federal judges.

Second, the act increases the salaries of all Federal judges by 16.5 percent, in order to at least partially make up for the decline in real pay for judges over the last three decades. In 2003, both President Bush and Chief Justice Rehnquist agreed that a pay adjustment of at least 16.5 percent was needed.

Finally, the act would provide Federal judges with annual cost-of- living adjustments based on the employee cost Index, an index already used by the Federal Government to help Federal salaries keep up with inflation.

The cost of this salary increase would be only $41.3 million, a relatively small sum to safeguard the quality and independence of our judiciary.

Our Federal judges make many sacrifices in serving our Nation and a cut in pay is one of these sacrifices. However, the disparity between judicial salaries and salaries in the rest of the legal profession has grown so wide that the quality of our judicial system may be endangered. It is time to provide these critical public servants with a fair salary that will guarantee the future health of the judiciary.

I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the Bay Area Council for Jewish Rescue and Renewal's Climate of Trust Program. The council's work in combating ethnic and religious hatred while strengthening tolerance and moderation in Russian society has made a great difference in the lives of all the program's participants.

In 1998, a wave of anti-Semitic activity terrorized the Jewish population in a provincial town in northwest Russia. In response, the Bay Area Council established the Climate of Trust Program, a collaborative partnership between American and Russian police officers, local officials, human rights activists, and ethnic and religious community representatives dedicated to resolving conflicts peacefully and establishing an atmosphere of tolerance and mutual respect in Russia.

It is fitting that the pilot program for the Climate of Trust began in one of the most diverse cities in the world, my hometown of San Francisco.

In 2000, representatives of the San Francisco Police Department, the District Attorney's Office, the California Superior Court, and the Anti-Defamation League went to Russia to join their counterparts in a seminar on religious tolerance. The participants continued the dialogue when the Russian delegates traveled to San Francisco later that year.

In total, seven of these exchanges have now taken place. During these meetings, attendees discuss a wide variety of issues including hate crime laws in the United States, how hate incidents are investigated, elements of a hate crime and its impact on the community, diversity in the police department, and community policing.

These interactions culminated in the establishment of four permanent regional tolerance centers in Russia. These centers design and implement activities that promote tolerance and effective communication between law enforcement and the community.

Organized and run by Russian police officers and community members alike, the centers sponsor hate crimes courses for police cadets to identify and handle ethnic or religious violence and produce a tolerance textbook for high school students.

From its modest beginning in 1998, the Climate of Trust has grown into a far-reaching and effective program. Thousands of Russians, from small town police officers to federal government officials, have attended Climate of Trust seminars and workshops.

The success of this program is due in no small part to the hard work of the

Bay Area Council, USAID, and, most importantly, the team of American volunteers and their Russian counterparts who have worked together to develop new models for promoting tolerance and diversity.

We have all witnessed the tragic consequences of ethnic hatred and religious intolerance. It is our solemn obligation to work together to ensure that tolerance and understanding prevails. I commend and congratulate the Climate of Trust Program of the Bay Area Council for Jewish Rescue and Renewal for their tireless efforts in these areas, and I look forward to working with them again in the future.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation along with Senators Collins, Dorgan, Snowe, Bingaman, Chafee, Clinton, Schumer, Murray and Boxer to ensure that when a senior signs up for a Medicare prescription drug plan, the drugs covered by their plan cannot be removed or changed throughout that year.

Under the legislation, if you sign up for a plan in January, the drugs covered by your plan will continue to be covered the rest of that year.

If you become eligible for Medicare during the year, for instance you turn 65 in May, and you sign up for a plan, the drugs covered by your plan when you enroll in it will continue to be covered the rest of that year.

At the end of the year, if a plan wants to change its coverage, it can do that. The bill does nothing to prevent plans from changing their drug coverage for the coming year. However, that can only happen at the end of the year, at the time all Medicare beneficiaries have the option to switch plans.

Seniors deserve the peace of mind to know that the drug plan they enroll in will cover the drugs it says it will all year.

Under current law, a prescription drug plan can change its formulary as many times as it wants throughout the year so long as it gives notice to its enrollees.

However, seniors have no recourse other than going through a lengthy appeals process if their drug plan suddenly drops their medicines. At the end of that appeals process, there is still no guarantee that seniors will get their drugs.

Under current law, they have to wait until the next open enrollment period which may be as much as nine months away. That is unacceptable.

Seniors can't and shouldn't have to wait all year to obtain lifesaving and life sustaining drugs they thought would be covered by their drug plan.

The bill allows a prescription drug plan to add drugs to its formulary--for instance in cases where a new drug is approved by the FDA or a generic alternative to a brand name drug becomes available.

The bill also allows a prescription drug plan to remove a drug from its formulary if the FDA issues a clinical warning about the drug, if the FDA pulls a drug from the market like in the case of Vioxx, or if the drug has been determined to be ineffective.

But, in those instances, the prescription drug plan must notify the HHS Secretary, affected enrollees, physicians, and pharmacies of the change.

Seniors in California have an overwhelming array of prescription drug plan options. There are at least 110 drug plan options for Californians.

It can take days, if not weeks to determine which plan is best based on your drug needs and health status.

Unless this bill is approved, seniors have no guarantee that their drugs will be covered throughout the year.

I think that is wrong. This legislation will change that.

Some might argue why this bill is necessary now. We are one month into the new Medicare drug benefit and what we have witnessed throughout the Nation is widespread confusion. Seniors are being turned away at the pharmacy counters and they are being incorrectly asked to pay hundreds of dollars for their drugs.

States are absorbing the costs to provide drugs for a Federal program. So far, California has spent more than $18 million of its own money. I support efforts to reimburse States fully for the drug costs they've absorbed as a result of implementation errors by this Administration and I support transitional relief for the so-called ``dual eligible'' Medicare beneficiaries whose transition from Medicaid to Medicare has been disastrous.

The Administration contends that this legislation isn't necessary because plans can't change their formularies without notifying the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and enrollees first and that CMS won't allow plans to make changes to their formularies that hurt seniors.

This ``just trust us'' argument being used by the Administration is anything but reassuring, especially given all the major program implementation problems it has caused due to poor planning and inadequate foresight.

I believe seniors deserve more and they deserve the protections guaranteed under this legislation.

We must act now to protect all Medicare beneficiaries from the type of ``bait and switch'' tactics like signing up for a plan thinking you were getting certain drugs only to find out down the road that those drugs were no longer covered.

The bill is about parity for seniors. If seniors are prohibited from changing drug plans except during the annual open enrollment period, then they deserve to know that the plan they are locked in to is also locked in to covering the drugs it said it would.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation along with Senators Collins, Dorgan, Snowe, Bingaman, Chafee, Clinton, Schumer, Murray and Boxer to ensure that when a senior signs up for a Medicare prescription drug plan, the drugs covered by their plan cannot be removed or changed throughout that year.

Under the legislation, if you sign up for a plan in January, the drugs covered by your plan will continue to be covered the rest of that year.

If you become eligible for Medicare during the year, for instance you turn 65 in May, and you sign up for a plan, the drugs covered by your plan when you enroll in it will continue to be covered the rest of that year.

At the end of the year, if a plan wants to change its coverage, it can do that. The bill does nothing to prevent plans from changing their drug coverage for the coming year. However, that can only happen at the end of the year, at the time all Medicare beneficiaries have the option to switch plans.

Seniors deserve the peace of mind to know that the drug plan they enroll in will cover the drugs it says it will all year.

Under current law, a prescription drug plan can change its formulary as many times as it wants throughout the year so long as it gives notice to its enrollees.

However, seniors have no recourse other than going through a lengthy appeals process if their drug plan suddenly drops their medicines. At the end of that appeals process, there is still no guarantee that seniors will get their drugs.

Under current law, they have to wait until the next open enrollment period which may be as much as nine months away. That is unacceptable.

Seniors can't and shouldn't have to wait all year to obtain lifesaving and life sustaining drugs they thought would be covered by their drug plan.

The bill allows a prescription drug plan to add drugs to its formulary--for instance in cases where a new drug is approved by the FDA or a generic alternative to a brand name drug becomes available.

The bill also allows a prescription drug plan to remove a drug from its formulary if the FDA issues a clinical warning about the drug, if the FDA pulls a drug from the market like in the case of Vioxx, or if the drug has been determined to be ineffective.

But, in those instances, the prescription drug plan must notify the HHS Secretary, affected enrollees, physicians, and pharmacies of the change.

Seniors in California have an overwhelming array of prescription drug plan options. There are at least 110 drug plan options for Californians.

It can take days, if not weeks to determine which plan is best based on your drug needs and health status.

Unless this bill is approved, seniors have no guarantee that their drugs will be covered throughout the year.

I think that is wrong. This legislation will change that.

Some might argue why this bill is necessary now. We are one month into the new Medicare drug benefit and what we have witnessed throughout the Nation is widespread confusion. Seniors are being turned away at the pharmacy counters and they are being incorrectly asked to pay hundreds of dollars for their drugs.

States are absorbing the costs to provide drugs for a Federal program. So far, California has spent more than $18 million of its own money. I support efforts to reimburse States fully for the drug costs they've absorbed as a result of implementation errors by this Administration and I support transitional relief for the so-called ``dual eligible'' Medicare beneficiaries whose transition from Medicaid to Medicare has been disastrous.

The Administration contends that this legislation isn't necessary because plans can't change their formularies without notifying the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and enrollees first and that CMS won't allow plans to make changes to their formularies that hurt seniors.

This ``just trust us'' argument being used by the Administration is anything but reassuring, especially given all the major program implementation problems it has caused due to poor planning and inadequate foresight.

I believe seniors deserve more and they deserve the protections guaranteed under this legislation.

We must act now to protect all Medicare beneficiaries from the type of ``bait and switch'' tactics like signing up for a plan thinking you were getting certain drugs only to find out down the road that those drugs were no longer covered.

The bill is about parity for seniors. If seniors are prohibited from changing drug plans except during the annual open enrollment period, then they deserve to know that the plan they are locked in to is also locked in to covering the drugs it said it would.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. President, I rise to speak on the asbestos bill and to indicate my support for the cloture motion which will be voted on at 6 o'clock this afternoon.

For over 15 years now, believe it or not, the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly urged Congress to create a solution to this asbestos crisis. In 1997, in a case called Amchen Products v. Windsor, Justice Ginsburg wrote this:

The argument is sensibly made that a nationwide

administrative claims processing regime would provide the

most secure, fair, and efficient means of compensating

victims of asbestos exposure.

This is exactly what we are trying to do in this effort. It is true it is not easy to do. It is true it has taken many years of hearings in the Judiciary Committee, and it is true efforts to draft this legislation have been ongoing for many years, but I would like to take this opportunity to commend the chairman and ranking member of our committee, Senator Specter and Senator Leahy, for their tireless efforts to develop a true bipartisan compromise, and I know it hasn't been easy.

Before discussing the specifics of this legislation, I think it is important to remember what has brought us here and why so many of us have spent hundreds of hours working through the complex issues in trying to develop a

no-fault administrative solution. As has been stated, the pivotal question before this body is, Will a victim be better off in a trust fund, or will they be better off in the tort system? I believe that overall a victim will be better off in this trust fund.

Up to this point, more than 70 American companies have filed for bankruptcy caused by asbestos liability. This has cost the American economy up to 60,000 jobs. Each displaced worker from a bankrupt company will lose on average an estimated $25,000 to $50,000 in wages over his or her career because of periods of unemployment and the likelihood of having to take a new job paying a lower salary.

This impact is not limited to workers who lose their jobs. For the workers who are able to keep their jobs at these companies, they can expect an average 25-percent reduction in the value of their pensions. And for every 10 jobs lost to an asbestos bankruptcy, a community will lose 8 additional jobs.

At least four companies headquartered in my home State of California have been bankrupted from asbestos lawsuits. Additionally, 41 companies with current or former operations in California have been sued or are currently facing lawsuits. They include: Allwood Door Company; Ashland; Atlas Corporation; Bechtel; Bethlehem Steel; California Portland Cement Company; Celotex; Dow Chemical; Exxon Mobil; Federal Mogul; Flintkote; Gencorp; Georgia Pacific; Goodrich Aerospace; Hill Brothers Chemical Company; Honeywell; Jacuzzi Brands; JM A/C Pipe Corporation; Kaiser Cement; Kelly Moore Paint; Metalclad Insulation; National Gypsum; National Steel and Shipbuilding Company; Norton and Sons of California; Occidental Petroleum; Owens-Illinois California Container; Owens Corning Fiberglas; Pacific Gas and Electric; Pittsburgh Corning; Plant Insulation Company; Polyone; Raymark Industries; Reinhold Industries; RPM; The Scotts Company; Southern California Edison Company; Todd Shipyards; Tyler Pipe Industries; Walter Industries; Unocal; U.S. Gypsum; and Viacom.

One of those companies, Celotex, had three plants and two regional sales offices in California. In 1987, Celotex employed 325 people there, with a payroll of $7 million. They were forced into bankruptcy and today they operate in the United Kingdom. This is one impact of what has been happening.

According to a study done by the RAND Institute for Civil Justice, in 1980, 300 companies were being sued for asbestos claims. This grew so much that by 2002, 8,400 companies had been named as defendants.

RAND also concluded that litigation has spread beyond the asbestos and building products industries to the point that companies now being sued cover 75 out of 83 different types of industries in the United States. And, just through 2002, $70 billion had been paid out to 730,000 personal injury claims.

So again, the question is whether a victim is better off in a no- fault trust where they automatically recover if they meet the criteria or in the tort system with high transaction costs that often eat up 50 to 60 percent of a judgment.

It is true that bankruptcies have tragic consequences, not just for the businesses, but also for their employees who lose their jobs, lose their savings, and for the victims whose settlements are frequently reduced even more by bankruptcy trusts until they are receiving pennies on the dollar.

I think the most startling and most egregious example of the asbestos tragedy is what occurred in Libby, MT. Candidly, this is what put it on my radar screen big time. This small community has been devastated because of the callous and potentially criminal actions of one company, W.R. Grace.

The asbestos found in Libby, MT, tremolite asbestos, has demonstrated an unusually high level of toxicity, as compared with chrysotile asbestos. Diseases contracted from tremolite asbestos are unique and they are highly progressive, which means they move quickly. So far 192 residents from this small community have died and 1,400 are suffering from asbestos-related diseases.

In addition, W.R. Grace not only sent its workers into the earth to mine asbestos without proper protection, it also pumped asbestos out of its factory and into the community of Libby. W.R. Grace provided asbestos materials to high schools and parks. It even put out piles for children to play in. For decades, there was an unprecedented 24-hour- per-day contamination of this community.

Based on this and other actions, a Federal grand jury in February of last year indicted W.R. Grace on multiple criminal counts. The indictment charges that W.R. Grace was aware of several studies that demonstrated the dangers of asbestos exposure and concealed this information from the people of Libby and from the Environmental Protection Agency. The prosecutor is quoted in the press as saying W.R. Grace's treatment of workers and residents is ``a human and environmental tragedy.''

Sadly, while the situation in Libby is extraordinarily unique and our legislation recognizes this, the harm caused by asbestos is far reaching.

In California, we have had shipments of asbestos from Libby in 35 locations. Our shipyards became hotspots for asbestos-related diseases because the shipping industry used asbestos to insulate boilers, steam pipes, hot water pipes, and incinerators. In fact, according to the data compiled from the National Center for Health Statistics, between 1979 and 2002, 4,618 Californians died because of asbestos-related diseases.

Statistics do not adequately tell the full story of this tragedy. The day after Father's Day in 2003, Alan Reinstein of Redondo Beach, CA, first learned about the devastating effect asbestos can have. After months of ineffective and inaccurate testing to diagnose his health problems that Mr. Reinstein was experiencing in his lungs, doctors finally determined that he was suffering from mesothelioma. Mesothelioma is a debilitating and aggressive form of cancer that has been directly linked to asbestos exposure.

After learning the correct diagnosis, Mr. Reinstein had to have major surgery to remove his left lung, his diaphragm, and the lining around his heart. The surgery to save his life was so extensive it nearly killed him. He and his wife Linda today face his continued health problems from mesothelioma. As a matter of fact, he is a very rare case and the only person I know of who has survived for more than 1 year with mesothelioma.

Billy Speicher from Ontario, CA, spoke of his experience with mesothelioma before the Judiciary Committee around this time last year. He discussed how he was exposed to asbestos while serving as an aircraft mechanic for the Marine Corps in the late 1950s and again as a pipefitter from 1965 to 1999. He stated that in his jobs:

Asbestos was everywhere. It was all over me and all over

everyone who worked near me . . . At first the doctors I was

seeing for two years kept telling me I had asthma--even

though I had CAT scans that showed my lungs were scarred. But

finally the fluid built up so much in my lungs they realized

I had mesothelioma.

Now I'm living with a lot of pain--and I can barely get my

breath. [I] can't hardly sleep at night either. You know that

mesothelioma is a death sentence.

These stories illustrate the personal tragedies asbestos has caused. Unfortunately, these two men are not alone. So the question is what to do, and many people think: Just leave it up to the tort system. I looked at that. But then you also hear cases of people who receive pennies on their judgment, and the question arises, Is it not possible to protect victims and not bankrupt companies and have a no-fault system whereby medical people can make the judgments and people can be paid a fair sum? That is what this legislation is all about.

Compromises have been made. What I have tried to do, on the Judiciary Committee, is ensure that there are strong provisions in place to protect individuals who were struck with terminal asbestos-related diseases.

There are some important provisions that I would like to highlight. The bill we are now considering contains higher awards values for victims than the version that was before the Senate in the 108th Congress. A broader definition of asbestos has been included to address the potential threat of naturally occurring asbestos that has been discovered in California and other parts of the country.

During the startup period, the bill incorporates a process so mesothelioma victims and other terminally ill victims will have their claims resolved

and paid within 9 months or else they will be allowed to take their case to court. So either they get prompt payment or they can go to court. I have insisted on that. Thanks to Senator Specter and Senator Leahy, that is in the bill.

The committee also adopted an amendment that provides accelerated payments for terminally ill victims so they can get their awards quickly, once the fund becomes operational. The bill protects cases that have a verdict, final judgment, or final order issued by a trial court and cases in trial or those that have an enforceable settlement so that victims who have had their claims resolved are not suddenly uprooted.

And this legislation prevents subrogation of awards, ensuring that victims' awards cannot be reduced.

As everybody has said, this bill is not perfect. However, given the current state, I think it is an important solution to help provide relief to both victims and businesses. My understanding is that the chairman will have a managers' package that will further clarify and make improvements to the bill as well. I urge my colleagues to look carefully at that managers' package because many improvements have in fact been made.

During this huge undertaking, there have been many concerns raised and criticisms levied against the bill. At every step, Senators Specter and Leahy have attempted to address any flaws or ambiguities. This has not been a ``take it or leave it'' piece of legislation. I know of no chairman or ranking member who have been more receptive to looking at changes and evaluating them.

Several concerns have been expressed regarding how quickly money will come into the fund and whether the trust fund will be able to process the immediate flood of claims that are currently pending in court. The so-called upfront funding has been increased throughout the process, so now the fund will have $42 billion in the first 5 years to pay claims. In addition, the committee adopted an amendment to speed up the initial contributions by insurers, defendant companies, and bankruptcy trusts so that the administrator can pay claims quickly.

The bill also provides the administrator of the trust fund with borrowing authority, so if the upfront funding of $42 billion proves to be inadequate, he or she may borrow funds to cover any shortfall.

Next, the bill includes a streamlined process to settle claims of terminally ill individuals immediately upon enactment of the legislation. This provision ensures that terminally ill individuals will have their claims processed quickly, and it should resolve some of the most pressing claims before the trust is up and running so there would not be an overwhelming flood of claims filed with the trust on day one.

Finally, Senator Specter included language in the statute of limitations to give individuals sufficient time to file their claims--5 years--so there will not be a need to rush to the fund for fear of being cut off.

Another concern that has been expressed, and I want to address it, is that the legislation will harm small businesses by requiring payments to the fund that are well beyond the means of these small businesses. Under this bill, small businesses, as defined under section 3 of the Small Business Act, are explicitly exempt from having to contribute to the fund.

Let me repeat that. Under this bill, small businesses, as defined under section 3 of the Small Business Act, are explicitly exempt from having to contribute to the fund. At the same time, these companies will receive the protections provided under the legislation. They don't have to contribute, and they will receive the protections provided under the legislation--meaning they cannot be sued.

For example, manufacturing companies that have fewer than 500 employees will qualify as a small business. Some categories of manufacturing, including chemical manufacturing, will qualify if they have fewer than 750 employees.

It is also important to remember that companies are only required to pay if they have already expended money on asbestos claims. They only pay if they have already expended money on asbestos claims. Smaller companies that had not incurred asbestos liability-related costs of $1 million or more before December 31, 2002, are exempt from having to contribute to the fund.

In addition, for those companies which are not exempt from having to contribute to the fund, the bill tiers companies by size and amount of liability. The current tort system provides no protections for small businesses and allows any company of any size, no matter how small, to be sued into bankruptcy.

Another argument made against the bill is that there is inadequate funding to cover all future asbestos claims. Trying to project how many individuals will make claims is clearly an inexact science--if you can each call it a ``science.'' Even the Manville Trust, an almost 20-year- old trust that was created after the bankruptcy filing of the Johns- Manville Corporation, has had to alter its projections time and time again. Since we do not know how many people have been exposed to asbestos and, of those, who will develop a disease, we must rely on protections based on sound calculations and real-world experiences of other trust funds. The size of the fund is based on the strongest statistical data and economic models available. A leading actuary with Tillinghast-Towers Perrin testified before the committee on June 4, 2003, that ``$108 billion appears to be more than adequate,'' while RAND Corporation estimates the remaining future cost of asbestos- related loss and expense at $130 billion.

By using a no-fault administrative system, the fund will significantly reduce the substantial transaction costs of the current tort system, costs that most experts agree consume more than half of the total amount being expended. Of the $130 billion of future asbestos-related costs, it is estimated--and listen to this carefully-- it is estimated that approximately $28 billion, or 21.5 percent, is attributable to defendant costs and approximately $41 billion, or 40 percent, will go to plaintiffs' attorneys. So there you have 61.5 percent going to lawyers.

I understand how lawyers feel, but 61.5 percent of the total amount going to lawyers means that amount of money is not going to victims. Because of these transaction costs, if we continue in the current system, less than 40 percent of the $130 billion estimate of future asbestos-related loss and expense--less than 40 percent will be paid to asbestos victims.

This legislation provides for $140 billion to come into the fund over 30 years without the transaction costs of the legal system, allowing for more money to go to victims. The bill, as amended, obligates defendant and insurer participants to contribute $136 billion to the fund, and at least $4 billion more would be contributed from confirmed bankruptcy and other asbestos compensation trust funds.

As an added protection against the risk of insufficient funding, the legislation gives the administrator of the fund the authority to borrow from commercial and government lending institutions.

Finally, if the projections are wrong and the amount of money available proves to be insufficient in the long run, victims will be allowed to return to the courts.

With this safety net, carefully thought out and eagerly debated, this legislation ensures that no one is left without an avenue for recourse.

Another argument opponents of the bill make is that victims will be forced to wait years before they receive compensation.

While California has a system to provide expedited trials when a victim is terminally ill, victims in most States across the country are forced to wait years before they can have their cases brought before a judge or a jury. And often, even after the case is heard and decided, or a settlement is reached, payments can still be stretched out for several months or even years.

Due to the long delays in other States, I have fought throughout this process to ensure that the fund follows California's example and resolves claims of terminal individuals as quickly as possible.

An amendment was adopted in committee that ensures once the trust fund becomes operational, individuals who have mesothelioma are paid in one lump sum within 30 days after their claims are approved, or within 6 months after their claims are filed, whichever is shorter.

Let me repeat that because that is important.

Mesothelioma victims are paid in one lump sum within 30 days after their claims are approved, or within 6 months after their claims are filed, whichever is shorter. What we are trying to do is prevent the delay in payment to someone who is terminally ill.

Other terminally ill claimants, individuals who have been diagnosed with less than a year to live, must be paid within 6 months after their claims are approved, or 1 year after their claims are filed, whichever is shorter.

During the committee consideration of the bill, we also adopted an amendment to speed up payments to terminally ill individuals while the administrator is attempting to get the fund up and running. This amendment provides for a process whereby terminally ill victims can receive a settlement directly from the administrator or claims facility even before the fund is operational. So the first people to be served before the fund is operational are terminally ill victims.

If, for whatever reason, the administrator or claims facility is unable to process or pay these claims during the startup period, the companies or the insurers will be required to make a settlement offer directly to the individual.

We cover that possibility as well.

If the offer is rejected because it is less than the individual would have received under the fund--in other words, the company makes an offer but it is a low offer--the companies have 20 days to make a new offer or else they are penalized.

Under these settlement agreements, claims are to be paid to mesothelioma victims, with 50 percent of the claim to be paid within 30 days after the settlement is accepted, and the other 50 percent within 6 months after the settlement is accepted.

Other terminal victims are to be paid 50 percent of the claim to be paid within 6 months after settlement is accepted, and 50 percent within 1 year after settlement is accepted.

If after 9 months, as I said, the terminally ill individual has still not had their claim processed or fully paid, then they may return to the court.

This has been hard fought for, and this is the fail-safe in this legislation. I think it is fair to say that the companies would like to avoid this. I don't know if Senator Specter would agree with that, but I found that to be true. And, therefore, this ability to go back into court if you are terminally ill and you are not paid right away is an added protection that you will get paid.

Finally, I want to address the argument that this bill creates a new entitlement program and will cost the people millions of dollars. This is simply untrue.

According to the Congressional Research Service, entitlement programs are a form of mandatory spending, which ``require the payment of benefits to persons . . . if specific criteria established in the authorizing law are met,'' and they are not subject to discretionary appropriations from Congress. Entitlement payments are legal obligations of the Federal Government, and beneficiaries can sue to compel full payment.

That is not the case here. The fund created by this legislation will be privately funded. The money collected for the fund comes from businesses and insurance companies--not from the U.S. Treasury.

Although the program will be housed in the Department of Labor, the bill ensures that all expenses, including administrative expenses, are paid by the moneys collected from businesses and insurers.

In addition, as an extra protection, it is expressly stated several times throughout the bill that nothing in the act shall be construed to create any obligation of funding from the United States or to require the United States to satisfy any claims if the amounts in the fund are inadequate. If anyone doubts that, they can look up section 406(b) of the bill.

Some have argued that the Government's liability is derived from the provision that allows borrowing from the Federal financing bank.

In response to an inquiry from former Senator Don Nickles on a previous version of this bill, the GAO stated that ``[t]o ensure that the government incurs no liability for repayment of borrowing under the act, Congress may wish to explicitly state that repayment of borrowing is limited solely to amounts available in the fund.''

That is what Senator Specter did.

The bill expressly provides that ``[r]epayment of moneys borrowed by the administrator . . . is limited solely to amounts available in the [Fund].''

It also states that ``Nothing in this Act shall be construed to create any obligation of funding from the United States Government, including any borrowing authorized . . . ''

With these explicit statements throughout the bill, it is abundantly clear that this legislation would not be a burden on the U.S. Treasury.

In conclusion, from the beginning it has been clear that creating a national asbestos trust fund is an extraordinarily complex undertaking. This has been a compromise effort and there are numerous issues where competing interest groups have come together, such as the creation of a no-fault administrative system, the equitable allocation of contributions, the establishment of reasonable medical standards, the resolution of pending claims and settlements, fair compensation values, and transparency of the system to both victim and corporate stakeholders alike. That is very important.

However, I must say it often seemed that with every solution and compromise, more concerns and problems would arise. In the end, there are some provisions I think all sides would like to change, but compared to the shortfalls in the current system, this is a strong solution and a good compromise.

I hope Members will vote to close off debate and that we will be able to pass this important piece of legislation.

I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

I thank the Senator very much.