Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to honor a woman who has worked hard to ensure the safety of southern Nevadans, and indeed all Americans, for more than 24 years. Mrs. Ellen Knowlton recently retired from her position as Special Agent in Charge of the FBI's Las Vegas field office. As Special Agent Knowlton brings an end to her long and distinguished career, I join her family and friends in offering our gratitude for her honorable and dedicated service in our community.

Ellen joined the FBI in 1982, and went on to serve in Bureau offices in California, Oklahoma, Louisiana, and Washington, DC. In Washington, she was deputy assistant director of the Bureau's National Security Division Counterintelligence Operations. While in this capacity, Ellen supervised the September 11 terrorist hijacking investigation, for which our Nation is indebted.

In March 2002, Ellen became Special Agent in Charge of the FBI's Las Vegas operations, bringing with her a wealth of knowledge and experience from which Nevada continues to benefit. She refers to this appointment as the ``pinnacle'' of her career. However, I feel it is Nevadans who are truly fortunate for that appointment. Her work in Las Vegas has left a lasting impact on the State and our communities, particularly the relationships Ellen forged with local law enforcement. Her work has set a gold standard of cooperation and goodwill.

Special Agent Knowlton's colleagues within the law enforcement community often express their admiration for her. This speaks not only to her merits as a professional but to her character as an individual as well. Ellen has chosen a life of service and deserves all the praise and accolades she receives.

I am grateful for Ellen's untiring efforts on behalf of our country and leadership in our community. I wish her and her family the best as they embark on this new phase of their lives.

Mr. President, as of this morning, 2,262 American soldiers have died in Iraq and 17,000, 18,000 have been injured, wounded; over 16,000 have been wounded so seriously that they could not return to battle. Each of these deaths and every one of these individuals who have been wounded, many of whom have been maimed, is a national tragedy. Yesterday, I was speaking to one of my friends with whom I came to Washington in 1982. We keep in touch with each other. He now lives in Santa Rosa, CA. He said, ``Harry, you know, we just lost our sixth soldier in this little community.''

I have attended funerals of Nevada servicemen who have been killed. I want to make sure we do everything we can so that fewer of our loyal, patriotic men and women are not killed in Iraq. I want to make sure they have all the equipment--anything they need.

As we speak, there are other tragedies in America, one of which deals with the legislation that is on the floor today. This year, 2006, 10,000 people will die from asbestos-related diseases. That is the case every year. These people did nothing wrong. They were simply exposed to a substance that corporate America knew would make them sick and cause them to die. But because of corporate America's willingness to exchange the lives of these men and women, they went ahead and did this. People were exposed to this at work, at home by hugging their father or husband when he came home from work, or in a schoolyard where asbestos equipment was, in their neighborhoods, in trucks hauling this substance all over America, and people got sick. They die painful, slow, horrible deaths. So there is a debate going on today dealing with asbestos.

This is not a fair bill. Look, I believe we need legislation to compensate the victims, but this is not it. I have said--and I don't have the experience in the legislature of the President pro tempore, but I have been in legislative bodies a long time; more than 30 years I have served in legislatures. This is the worst piece of legislation I have ever seen in the 30-plus years I have been serving in legislatures.

I don't doubt how hard Senator Specter has worked and how badly he wants this done, but that doesn't make the legislation good; it is bad. Perhaps because he has tried so hard, he doesn't see the trees for the forest, as they say.

To show the strength of corporate America, 13 companies that will benefit greatly from this legislation have paid lobbyists, within a 2- year period of time, $144.5 million. That should send a message to everyone. This legislation is not good for asbestos victims. It

strips victims of their legal right to obtain compensation in the court system and puts them in an administrative trust fund that is underfunded and doomed to fail. That is why all the leading asbestos victims organizations oppose this bill.

Here is a letter from the Asbestos Victims Group United, dated February 1, 2006, written to me and to Senator Frist. I will read parts of it:

We represent a diverse group of national asbestos victims'

groups. We are writing this letter as a matter of urgency to

ask Members to vote against S. 852. This legislation is not

primarily intended, nor is it good, for victims. In fact, in

its current form, the legislation would make recovery of

compensation dramatically worse for victims. It would deny

whole classes of cancer-ridden victims, who, today, are able

to recover compensation for their injuries, any ability to be

compensated.

. . . We oppose this legislation. We do not want this

proposed government policy forced upon us. We believe the

program will fail to treat victims fairly, while benefiting

the very companies that caused the problem. We have said it

before and now we say it louder.

. . . We have said it before and now we say it louder: We

believe it would be wholly irresponsible for Congress to

proceed with consideration and passage of this legislation.

Please do not allow the families who already have lost so

much to be victimized once again.

The first signatory on this letter is Susan Vento, the wife of a man I served in Congress with, who never worked around asbestos--or so he thought. But he did work around it as a young man during a summer job while in school, and he got this disease. He was a big, strong man who worked out in the gym every day, and he died within a year, a slow, agonizing death. So the first signatory on this letter is Susan Vento, Chairperson, Committee to Protect Mesothelioma Victims.

I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I had placed in the Record yesterday one of the petitions. We have 150,000 signatures on that--150,000 signatures here in the Capitol in boxes. We debate this bill. There is a lot of technical talk about startups, sunsets, and payment tiers. But let's not lose sight of what this debate is about. It is about whether the Senate will keep faith with the victims of a disease which they had no opportunity to avoid.

The problem in America today, as it relates to what is going on on the Senate floor, is not a crisis created by the legal system; it is a crisis created by the people who expose these people to asbestos. If there were ever a cry for fairness and equity and justice, it is this. We cannot let corporate America do what they are trying to do to these innocent men and women.

Mr. President, will my 10 minutes start running from this time?

Mr. President, we have a crisis facing the American people, a crisis which causes the death of 10,000 people each year. In addition to the 10,000 deaths each year, hundreds of thousands of people are suffering from lung conditions that are most debilitating.

The crisis which confronts us is not an asbestos litigation crisis; it is an asbestos-induced disease crisis. We are told by experts that the problem will get worse, not better. It will peak about 10 years from now. Litigation has not caused the deaths, the pain, the suffering, the lost wages, the medical bills; asbestos has caused the deaths and the suffering.

I have said on a number of occasions--I say it today--that of course I would support a fair and equitable piece of legislation, legislation which would favor the victims, not a few very large corporations.

Senators Leahy and Specter have worked very hard on this legislation and on things they do on the Judiciary Committee. I understand that. But hard work doesn't always lead to good legislation.

I have served in Congress 24 years. There may be an occasion when Senator Leahy and I have voted opposite one another; I just do not remember when that was. We virtually agree on everything we do. So I am sorry that on this piece of legislation we must disagree.

Powerful corporate interests have fought throughout this process to escape responsibility--a paradigm shift from what they should pay to what they are willing to pay. This is not the American way. The bill before us is based on faulty and questionable guesses, not estimates. To make it even worse, little relevant information has been made public.

The legislation before the Senate is unfair to the victims, to the veterans--they would be much better off without this legislation--to the insurance industry, most businesses, the American taxpayer, and, of course, our judicial system. I rise again to express my strong opposition to the asbestos bill before the Senate. As I have just said, it is unfair to victims, veterans, the insurance industry, most businesses, and, of course, the American taxpayers.

I oppose this legislation because it will not buy justice regarding asbestos exposure. It deprives victims of their legal rights and gives them a trust fund that will not work and will not provide adequate compensation. One would have to search long and hard to find a bill, in my opinion, as bad as this.

Asbestos disease kills thousands of Americans every year--10,000 to be exact. The cases of disease and death caused by asbestos exposure are not abstractions. I have received countless letters from victims of asbestos-related diseases and their families. Each shares another story of loss and pain.

All the leading organizations representing asbestos victims oppose this bill--the Committee to Protect Mesothelioma Victims, asbestos disease

awareness organizations, the Asbestos Victims Organization. The White Lung Association wrote a letter February 1 to me and to Senator Frist. It said:

We do not want this proposed government policy forced upon

us. We believe the program will fail to treat victims fairly

while benefitting the very companies that cause the problem.

It was for the sake of these victims that today I introduced a Senate resolution designating April 1 of this year as National Asbestos Awareness Day. Introducing this resolution was one small step in an effort to raise awareness of this dangerous substance and the painful effects that exposure to asbestos has caused throughout the country.

It is my hope that designating another National Asbestos Awareness Day will serve as a reminder that exposure to asbestos remains a very bad problem in this country. Asbestos-induced illnesses continue to kill or disable Americans at alarming rates. Our resolve to adequately protect the rights of these victims must not falter.

One thing we should do for asbestos victims is to defeat the flawed legislation now before the Senate. Approximately 150,000 individual victims of asbestos exposure and their families have petitioned the Senate to communicate their opposition to this legislation. I have a few of the 150,000 names. We have boxes and boxes of these petitions. These petitions say:

We, the undersigned, hereby petition the United States

Senate on behalf of the victims of asbestos poisoning.

We are the victims of asbestos poisoning and families and

friends of the victims who are opposed to Senate bill 852,

the ``FAIR ACT.''

Although the Bill's Senate sponsors intend to help victims,

this bill only helps a few large companies at the expense of

the victims of asbestos poisoning and most businesses.

In addition to our opposition, we observe that the bill is

also opposed by most insurance companies, numerous

businesses, and most labor unions.

The reasons we oppose S. 852 are as follows:

(1) The bill does not provide a reliable mechanism for

providing compensation quickly to the victims of asbestos

poisoning. If anything, the Bill backtracks on protections

already promised by the Senate in an earlier version which

passed in the Judiciary Committee with substantial bipartisan

support.

(2) If the Trust Fund runs out of money, as predicted by

some experts, the Bill does not contain reliable sunset

provisions. Victims will be left in limbo.

(3) In many instances, the compensation for victims is far

less than victims' actual damages and far less than we

currently receive in the judicial system.

(4) The Bill allows companies to renege on settlement

commitments and settlement trust amounts already promised and

set aside for victims and their families.

(5) The Bill does not have reliable, transparent funding

mechanisms. Instead, it sets up a complex system of

administrative challenges and court challenges that will

allow companies to contest their funding obligations.

(6) Contrary to prior Senate commitments contained in

earlier versions of the Bill, this Bill will stop the current

system of compensation before an up and running reliable

system is established to take its place.

(7) This Bill was written to benefit a group of companies

who have spent a fortune lobbying for its passage to the

detriment of other companies and insurers who have promised

to fight the Bill in the courts. This will result in further

delays all to the further detriment of all victims of

asbestos poisoning.

Mr. President, there are 150,000 signatures with their names and addresses. I will not ask it be made part of the record, of course.

I will use leader time now. I mentioned yesterday on the Senate floor that there were some businesses that were not being treated fairly. I mentioned them by name, and I will run over a couple of them again: Foster Wheeler Company, an international engineering and construction company with 4,000 U.S. employees, has stated in recent SEC filings the company does not expect to fund any asbestos-related costs from the company's cash flow. Yet as a Tier II defendant participant would be required to pay at least $19.5 million per annum into the trust fund. This requirement, along with the separation of the company from its insurance assets, jeopardizes its long-term financial viability.

The A.W. Chesterton Company, founded in 1884, would also file bankruptcy. They have 2,000 employees.

Hopeman Brothers, in Waynesboro, VA, is still privately owned by the Hopeman family. It has finished the interiors and outfitted ships since it first worked in Sun Shipyard in Chester, PA, in 1916. Hopeman bought significant liability insurance, much of which remains unused today. Stripping Hopeman of its insurance coverage and then imposing a cash- pay obligation will drive the company into bankruptcy.

Okonite Company, founded in 1876, is the only company in America that makes wire. They will be forced to file bankruptcy if this bill passes.

These are only four of hundreds and hundreds of companies that will be forced into bankruptcy.

Each one of the 150,000 signatories on these petitions are a real concern. Each one of the 10,000 Americans who will die from asbestos exposure this year have tragic stories. Each will leave behind a family which will never be whole again. Each one is counting on us in the Senate to preserve their right to obtain compensation for the harm caused to them and their families by asbestos exposure, just as these companies want fairness.

Opposition to the FAIR Act is not limited to individual victims. Many workers have been exposed to asbestos, as I outlined yesterday, and their unions have been fighting to ensure fair treatment for them. Virtually every major union has concluded that this bill does not meet the needs of their workers: The AFL-CIO, the Change to Win Federation, Steelworkers, International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Laborers International, and on and on.

Beyond unions, most small- and medium-sized businesses oppose this bill, as do the vast majority of insurance companies. They know it will not work.

This bill deprives victims of their legal rights and replaces the tort system with a trust fund that is doomed to failure. Experts who have reviewed the bill conclude that the trust fund will be underfunded and will quickly become insolvent.

This morning, the Bates White Research Firm, a prominent, eminent consulting firm offering services to Fortune 500 companies and government agencies--Dr. Bates developed a computer model of the incidence of asbestos-related diseases. Without going into their resume, I ask unanimous consent it be printed in the Record.

They found that the CBO underestimated the number of cancer victims who will likely file claims with the fund. Based on this and other factors, Bates White concluded that the real cost estimate for the trust fund should be double what it now is.

During floor debate this morning, the distinguished senior Senator from Pennsylvania, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, explained what will

happen if the trust fund runs out of money. He said:

We have within the structure of the bill a vision that the

administrator can make a reevaluation going through certain

preconditions so if it looks like we will exceed the $140

billion we can make modifications in medical standards and

criteria and stay within the $140 billion.

In other words, if the fund runs short, fewer victims are eligible or those who are eligible will get less money. So there are real consequences to this underfunded trust fund. It will hurt victims. The only alternative is that taxpayers will be left to fund the shortfall.

Even if the trust fund was adequately funded, the claim system established by the FAIR Act is fraught with defects that would prevent many victims from recovering what they deserve.

First, startup provisions are unfair. As soon as the bill is enacted, the ability of asbestos victims to claim compensation in the court system is cut off. There is no better example of this than what happens to veterans. Also, the bankruptcy court trust funds that are now compensating victims will be shut down, depriving victims of needed compensation.

Second, the bill is unfair to victims with pending or settled court cases. Rather than permit asbestos claims to continue in court while the fund is being established, the bill imposes an immediate 2-year stay of nearly all asbestos cases. The bill's language is so broad that a trial about to begin would be stopped and an appellate ruling about to be handed down would be barred.

Third, the sunset process under the legislation leaves too much uncertainty. If the fund fails to operate as promised, instead of allowing victims to return to court, this legislation allows the administrator of the fund to allow or recommend any number of measures he feels important to salvage the program. As Senator Specter said this morning, this means that fewer victims may recover.

Fourth, the bill requires some victims to prove that asbestos was a ``substantial contributing factor'' to their disease, a higher burden than victims must meet in court, where it is sufficient to show that asbestos exposure was a contributing factor, no matter how substantial a factor.

I want to make sure Senator Specter has time to complete his statement, so I ask the time for the vote, which is now set for 6 o'clock, not begin at that time so Senator Specter is allowed time to finish his statement.

I want to make sure the Senator from Pennsylvania understood that.

The whole concept of no-fault trust fund is that it is nonadversarial, but the higher burden of proof creates the very likely potential for endless litigation and a high number of rejected cases.

These are a few of the problems that make the FAIR Act--and again, as I said yesterday, the FAIR Act? We should be used to these Orwellian terms after naming legislation ``Leave No Child Behind,'' ``The Clear Skies Initiative,'' ``Healthy Forests,'' ``Budget Deficit Reduction Act,'' all of which do the opposite of what they say. It is my opinion, to which I am entitled, that the FAIR Act is part of that, again.

I have always favored improvements in the way asbestos victims were compensated. This bill does not accomplish that goal.

We have heard a lost talk about the managers' amendment to this bill. Apparently, the sponsors are telling Senators that we will take care of your concerns in the managers' amendment. The problem with this approach is that no one except the sponsors can know how the pieces of the managers' amendment will fit together. Since the sponsors are trying to satisfy Senators with conflicting concerns, there is every reason to believe that different elements of the managers' amendment will move in different directions.

For example, one Senator may want to expand eligibility under the trust fund for compensating asbestos victims. A different Senator may want to limit the amount of money paid into the trust fund. The first part of the managers' amendment may expand the number of victims, but the second part may limit the amount of money available to all victims. Both Senators may have their language included, but the final result may be completely unworkable and unsatisfactory.

This is not the right way to legislate. These amendments should be offered individually so that all Senators can evaluate them on their individual merits, and after all the amendments are offered and voted on, Members can evaluate the total product when they vote on final passage. Certainly, Members should not commit their support to the final bill until they see how the conflicting pieces to the managers' amendment fit together.

I believe it has been good for the Senate to spend time debating the motion to proceed. We focused attention on what some believe are flaws in the process leading to the Senate consideration of the bill and the flaws of the bill itself. Now we are ready to debate the bill on its merits. I welcome that debate.

I offered to vitiate this vote and begin consideration of amendments to the bill on Thursday. This was rejected. I will now support cloture and encourage Senators to do the same.

No objection.

That is together, not individually--not 36 minutes?

No problem.

Mr. President, I rise to submit a resolution to designate April

1, 2006, as ``National Asbestos Awareness Day.'' Submitting this resolution is one small step in an effort to raise awareness of this dangerous substance and the painful effects that exposure to asbestos has caused throughout this country. Last year the Senate unanimously passed a similar resolution. It is my hope that designating another National Asbestos Awareness Day will serve as a reminder that exposure to asbestos remains a significant problem in this country, asbestos- induced illnesses continue to kill or disable Americans at an alarming clip, and our resolve to adequately protect the rights of these victims must not falter.

There is no safe level of exposure to asbestos. Despite this fact, the substance still routinely manifests itself in too many work environments. According to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), 1.3 million Americans still face significant asbestos exposure in their workplaces. Some estimate that more than 27.5 million workers have been exposed to asbestos while on the job.

We know too well that the effect of exposure can be deadly. Diseases caused by asbestos include cancers of the lung, digestive tract, colon, larynx, esophagus, kidney and some types of lymphoma; pleural disease; asbesostis; and, of course, mesothelioma. For many of the more serious, asbestos-related diseases, there is no cure.

These devastating illnesses take the lives of thirty Americans each day and ten thousand Americans each year. Countless others were exposed in their neighborhoods, in school yards and at home. Hundreds of thousands of men and women have died or become severely ill due to asbestos exposure.

The cases of disease and death caused by asbestos exposure are not abstractions. Real lives are affected and destroyed by this dreadful substance. I have received countless letters from victims of asbestos- related diseases and their families. Each one shares another story of loss and of pain, of sickness and of tragedy.

Adrienne Zapponi of Wellington, NV witnessed firsthand what asbestos does to the human body. Her husband suffers from asbestos exposure. In her letter she wrote, ``[My husband] cannot enjoy a single day of life because he has 40% lung capacity. This means that he can't walk for any distance, he can't do simple jobs around the house such as mow the lawn, he can't remember things such as when to take his medication, he can't drive because he is drowsy and can't concentrate on the road.''

Margy Urnberg from Carson City, NV had a father, Ronald Johnson, who died from asbestos exposure. He worked in a vermiculite mine and second-hand exposure from living in Libby, MT. Alan Reinstein, the Cofounder and Director of Communications of the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization, is suffering from acute mesothelioma. Alan is fighting bravely and has responded to his illness as a call to action.

Yesterday I mentioned our brave veterans who have been exposed to asbestos, and the difficulty they have encountered in seeking compensation for that exposure. Steven Mitchell served ten years in the U.S. Navy as a boiler man. He worked in the engine and boiler rooms on several ships handling asbestos insulation on a daily basis. After leaving the Navy, he returned to work on his family farm raising wheat.

Steven was diagnosed with mesothelioma and spent his last days in a V.A. Nursing Home. Due to the intense pain, he was constantly administered morphine. Just before he died, he no longer even recognized his daughter.

We have seen the case of Philip Schreyer, who began helping his country with the war effort in 1942 at the Ford Motor Company's Willow Run B-24 bomber plant. This plant was producing a bomber an hour during its peak operation, and many asbestos products went into each section of the bombers. Later that year, Mr. Schreyer joined the Navy serving as a radio man aboard the USS Wyoming until 1946. The USS Wyoming shot off more rounds than any other ship during War World II. Every time around was fired dust would come down off the insulated pipes like ``snow''. Little did Mr. Schreyer know that this dust falling on him was deadly asbestos.

Phil survived World War II, an injury aboard a warship that ended his Navy career, and a hunting accident that cost him his leg. He did not survive asbestos exposure. In 2002 he learned he had mesothelioma and was told by his doctors that he would not survive this disease. The doctors were right. On January 20, 2005, Phil Schreyer, who had survived so much, lost his final battle with mesothelioma and died.

Each one of the ten thousand Americans who will die from asbestos exposure this year will have a similar story. Each one will leave behind a family that will never be whole again. Each one is counting on us here in the Senate to ensure they have the means necessary to pursue their rightful claim for the damages asbestos exposure has caused them and their families.

The so-called FAIR Act will not provide these protections and that is why I oppose it. As I have explained, this legislation attempts to set up an alternative system for recovery that is doomed to failure and will unacceptably impair the rights of victims. We in the Senate need to remind ourselves that our best efforts must always be directed toward meeting the needs of victims, and the FAIR Act falls short.

Mr. President, if the American people want to know what is wrong with Washington, they should take a look at what is being debated in the Senate this week--asbestos legislation.

I have said on a number of occasions that Lord Acton, whom I studied when I was in college, is right--power tends to corrupt, and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely. Look what we have on the Senate floor today--asbestos legislation, legislation that, of course, is not ready to be here, but it is being brought here because of tremendous pressure by the folks downtown.

What do I mean by folks downtown? Washington has been run by the lobbyists. The Jack Abramoff scandal is no surprise to people who have been watching this. The K Street Project and other such things came about as a result of too much concentration of power.

Why do I say that this is an example of why we need lobbying reform in Washington today? This legislation is on the floor for one reason: 15 companies that are pushing this legislation. Thousands of companies oppose it.

The 15 companies that support this legislation spent $144.5 million on lobbying in 2 years.

Actually, I am wrong; 13 companies spent $144.5 million in 2 years on lobbying.

Why is this legislation on the floor today? Why are we not doing something about education?

My friend from Tennessee talked about another very important issue-- whether this country should move to nuclear power.

Wouldn't it be nice if we had a debate on the Senate floor about that? Or about wind energy? Or about why we don't have tax credits for wind, for Sun, for geothermal, and for biomass that last more than 2 or 3 years?

Why we are not taking a look at nuclear energy? That would be good. We could have a debate on this floor about these topics and spend a couple days very profitably.

But we are not doing that. Instead we are talking about asbestos because 13 companies spent $144.5 million in 2 years lobbying to get it here. For the 13 companies, I guess that was money well spent because they are going to save billions if this legislation passes.

It would be nice if we spent some time on the Senate floor talking about why this country is going into financial bankruptcy because of its spending these last 5 years.

Remember, during the last years of the Clinton administration we paid down the debt by $.5 trillion. Not this administration. We are going to be asked in a few days to increase the debt ceiling above $8.2 trillion.

As I said, it would be nice if we had a debate on the Senate floor about education.

I know my friend, the Presiding Officer, has been working in conjunction with the distinguished Senator from New Mexico, the junior Senator from New Mexico, Jeff Bingaman, about why this country is falling behind scientifically in this country. It would be nice if we had a debate on that.

However, these folks who Senator Alexander and Senator Bingaman are talking to about increased funding for research cannot afford to spend $144.5 million in 2 years for lobbyists to get the goods. So we will spend time the Senate does not have on this piece of legislation that is flawed, flawed, flawed. Later I will explain what is wrong with it.

We will spend valuable time on the Senate floor because the lobbyists won. Chalk one up for the lobbyists. Do we need lobbying reform? Yes. For example, we do not even know all the companies involved in this so- called asbestos study group. ASG would have to disclose their membership under the lobby-reform legislation we have proposed. They would not be able to do it in secret, then pay their money under the plan.

I bet they are jumping with joy today--some of whom we do not know who they are--because they were able to buy their way into the Senate, paying for a bunch of lobbyists.

These 13 companies employed 168 lobbyists. It is pretty easy to figure out what is going on.

I am going to vote opposing the motion to proceed. Rarely do I do that. It is so important that I do it here. I don't know if we have enough votes to stop it from going forward, but for the good of the American people, I hope so. If we do not, there are a lot of other ways we can fight this very bad piece of legislation.

The Super Bowl was last night. The underdog, Pittsburgh Steelers, won. However, turning from football to lobbying, the lobbyists are not underdogs when they are given $144.5 million to bring a bill to the Senate. They are on the winning side. $144.5 million was paid to lobbyists by 13 companies. That is why we are here today. That is why we need lobbying reform. With reform we would at least know all the companies involved in the so-called ASG, asbestos study group. Talk about a blight on legislative standards, bringing this bill to the Senate and leaving real problems to someone else another day.

This bill is anything but fair. But like a lot of things around here, we still call it the Fairness in Asbestos Injury Resolution Act. This is part of the Orwellian world we live in here, where the Clear Skies Initiative pollutes the skies, where the Healthy Forests Initiative ruins our forests, where the Leave No Child Behind Act leaves children behind, where the Budget Deficit Reduction Act increases the deficit. Now, we are going to be asked to deal with the Fairness in Asbestos Resolution Act, which is anything but fair.

It is unfair to victims of asbestos exposure. It is unfair to small businesses. It is unfair to thousands of businesses in this country. It is unfair to the American taxpayer. If this goes through, they likely will have to bail out the trust fund created under the bill. It is unfair to organized labor. It is unfair to the insurance industry. It is unfair to veterans.

As I said, I don't lightly oppose a motion to proceed. I recognize that generally it is the prerogative of the majority leader to set the agenda. In this case, however, opposing this motion is absolutely justified. This is a terrible piece of legislation to bring before the Senate with the state of the legislative calendar that we have. I wish the Government Operations Committee, led by Senators Lieberman and Collins, would get Congress some lobbying reform. That is what we need to do. That would be more important than this.

This bill is not ready for consideration. It is not even a close call. There are so many unanswered questions raised by the current bill, too many questions about solvency and adequacy of the trust fund, too many questions about the impact of this bill on the lives of countless Americans with asbestos-related illnesses. This alone should disqualify this legislation from being on the Senate floor.

The Senate could debate this bill for the next 60 legislative days, and we still could not fix the structural flaws of this trust fund. The only reasonable approach is to take it back to the Judiciary Committee and find a better approach.

This bill should also be referred to the Senate Committee on the Budget before the Senate debates it. Senator Conrad and Senator Gregg have said it is not ready for the Senate floor. They have written a letter to me and to Senator Frist asking for more time to review the massive fiscal impact of this program.

Asbestos companies, it is estimated--and it is not much of an estimate but pretty certain--will save over $20 billion with this legislation. Fortune 500 companies will have dramatic reductions in their asbestos liability. The sad part about this is that companies who are responsible for exposing victims to asbestos could see the harmful effects coming. Way back in the 1960s, for example, Dow Chemical knew the hazards of asbestos. They had done research and they said ``asbestos has long been known to be capable of causing asbestosis.'' They did not mention mesothelioma.

Three decades before Dow Chemical recognized this, in 1938, a report by the U.S. Public Health Service, which DOW received, described how asbestos textile factory workers were exposed to asbestos fibers, which led to the development of diseases that killed them. In 1951, companies were reporting that exposure to asbestos would kill you. We know from reading--pick any book you want--the book titled ``Libby, Montana,'' W.R. Grace knew that what they were doing was killing their workers. They knew about it. It is documented.

Is it any wonder that some are asking why we are here? When we consider the $144.5 million and 2 years spent for lobbyists, we begin to understand why we are here. If these numbers do not add up, and they don't, wouldn't it be well advised to have the Committee on the Budget involved in crafting this legislation? There is a need for legislation that improves the way victims of asbestos exposure receive compensation, but this is not it.

Since this bill was initiated, there have been reforms at the State level that have been credible and important in advancing the cause of the victims. Our best hope of achieving whatever Federal reforms may be appropriate rests with further deliberation at the committee level, not in the Senate. I hope my colleagues seriously consider joining me in voting no on the motion to proceed. There are just too many problems with this bill.

Let me first focus on people whom this is supposed to be all about, the victims of asbestosis and mesothelioma, diseases that come about as a result of being exposed to asbestos. If you get mesothelioma, you die. Once that disease is diagnosed, no one has ever survived. You die. With asbestosis you might continue to live but likely will have a long, slow, advance toward death. Sometimes it kills quicker than others. People have lived for some time with asbestosis but never mesothelioma. The average life expectancy after discovery is less than a year and a half. Asbestos is one of the most lethal substances ever used in the workplace, and it was unleashed knowingly on communities all over our country. More than 27.5 million workers have been exposed to asbestos. They were exposed while they were working with the stuff. However, countless others were exposed because this work was going on in their neighborhoods. Asbestos was used in schoolyards. And as we have come to learn, a worker coming home and having his wife wash his clothes exposed her and the family to asbestos-related diseases. And these spouses have died. Children who hugged their father, after coming home from work carrying his lunch bucket, have gotten these diseases and have died. Hundreds of thousands are gravely ill as we speak, hundreds of thousands of people.

The diseases caused by asbestos exposure are painful, debilitating, and, as I have indicated, mostly incurable. Every State in America has been touched by this scourge. In the relatively sparsely populated State of Nevada, Margie Urnberg, Carson City, wrote a letter. She lost her father, Ronald. Will Glienke's father died of mesothelioma. Kellie Appleton-Hultz lost her husband due to asbestos poisoning and is still coping with this as I speak.

This problem has affected me on a personal level. My three brothers and I had no place to live when high school started, so we lived with other families or acquaintances. My older brother, Don, lived in Henderson, NV, with the Hansen family, a wonderful family. They took in my brother so he could go to high school. One of the Hansens who played football with my brother, Don, was named Harold. My brother and Harold were both halfbacks on the football team. Harold went away to college and later became a mechanical engineer. He worked for the State of Nevada all of his life. He hung around the State employee workshop. He learned less than a year ago that he had mesothelioma. He is dead now. He never worked with asbestos, but in the workshop where he spent some of his time, they replaced brakes and brake linings containing asbestos. Harold Hansen is dead because of this.

I see in the Chamber the assistant Democratic leader, my friend, the distinguished senior Senator from Illinois. He and I served in the House of Representatives together. I can remember another man who was so helpful to me while I was in the House of Representatives. I had been a Member of the House for just a short period of time, and this man and I were walking down the aisle to vote. He said: You know, I love Nevada. I want to help you get a national park. We did not have a national park in Nevada at the time. He was the subcommittee chair of the then-called Interior Committee of National Parks. His name was Bruce Vento. Oh, what a great guy he was. I worked out at the same time he did in the House gym for many years.

He was probably 6 foot 1 or 2, but really a strong man. He had been in Congress for more than 20 years. He practiced law before that. He never worked with his hands except once, when he was a very young man, around 20 years old. He worked for a while at summer jobs, like we all had. He obviously was exposed to asbestos. And just like that, he was diagnosed with mesothelioma. He died within 6 months.

Bruce Vento--and we have a national park in Nevada now; much of it due to Bruce Vento's advocacy; the Great Basin National Park, a wonderful national park; the only one we have in Nevada--dead because of mesothelioma.

Tomorrow I am going to introduce a resolution designating April 1 of this year as Asbestos Disease Awareness Day. The purpose of this resolution is to raise awareness that asbestos exposure is still prevalent, that asbestos-related diseases continue to kill many Americans each year, and that more needs to be done to protect Americans from this lethal substance.

A truly fair asbestos reform bill should meet the unmet needs of asbestos victims. This bill does not. Every major asbestos victims group opposes this legislation--every one. In an open letter to the Senate, dated February 1 of this year, the Committee to Protect Mesothelioma Victims, the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization, the Asbestos Victims Organization, the White Lung Association, and the White Lung Asbestos Information Center wrote that they oppose this legislation. Specifically, they wrote:

We do not want this proposed government policy forced upon

us. We believe the program will fail to treat victims fairly,

while benefitting the very companies that caused the problem.

And that is what has happened here. But we have these companies that spent $144.5 million for 2 years to get lobbyists down here to push this bill. I forget the number, about 170 or so lobbyists, as indicated in a report by Public Citizen. I will bet they are watching TV right now, in their Gucci shoes, having just piled out of their limousines, bragging about what they did: bringing the asbestos bill to the floor. They have a lot of other important things to do, but what are they doing? Because they are good at what they do, we have this bill on the Senate floor. Lobbying reform is what we really need.

An asbestos bill that faces such widespread opposition from the victims of asbestos disease is obviously the wrong approach to this national problem. The problem seems to be that the so-called FAIR Act-- remember, that is what this is called in this Orwellian world we live in--places the needs of a few large companies with asbestos liability above the needs of those suffering from asbestos-related illnesses. This is the fundamental flaw of this legislation.

But to show what these lobbyists have done, we need only look at what they have done to fool the veterans. These big companies, of course, are paying veterans to come back to Washington. They have convinced a few of the veterans this legislation is good for them. Not true. But if you have this much money to spend, you can pass it around.

This asbestos study group is claiming that victims who are veterans are not recovering under the present system. Unfortunately, the facts do not support their claim. Many veterans will be completely shut out of all means of compensation if this trust fund proposed under this legislation becomes law.

These false claims about veterans seem to be another effort to ensure that corporations receive the more than $20 billion bailout they seek on the backs of veterans. It does not matter because the lobbyists have done their job. They have this bill and they have a few veterans straggling in to talk about what a good thing this is for them.

If this asbestos bill wins, the corporations win and the veterans lose. Today, veterans can and do use the court system every day to get help with the health and financial consequences of the diseases they have.

Tragically, it is true that many veterans are victims of asbestos disease. Much of it came from Navy ships before the 1970s that contained high levels of asbestos. Thirty percent of the mesothelioma victims are veterans. World War II, as I have indicated, is where most of these veterans got exposed to asbestos--World War II. The average age of the World War II veteran is about 80. About 1,500 World War II veterans are dying every day.

This legislation will stop some of them from recovering the compensation they are owed. If they now have pending trial dates or pending settlements, those will be eviscerated if this legislation passes. They immediately have their causes of action stayed and would become part of the queue of over 600,000 claimants waiting for the proposed fund to become operational. Most of them will die before recovering the money owed to them.

Veterans receive no priority status or special protection under this bill. They will be tossed into an untested and underfunded bureaucracy with all other claimants even though every independent analyst says the fund is destined to fail. I repeat, every major asbestos victims organization opposes this bill because it is underfunded and unfair to all victims, including veterans.

Veterans are recovering under the current system but will have a much harder time recovering if this bill becomes law.

Though veterans cannot sue the Government for compensation for asbestos poisoning, they have successfully sued manufacturers of asbestos products, like other claimants have done. This right will be stripped from them under S. 852. Thousands and thousands of veterans have successfully sued asbestos companies. And, frankly, it has been shown that veterans who are dying of mesothelioma and these other serious cancers generally receive greater compensations through the courts than is provided under S. 852.

Under this fund, the awards will be one size fits all. In many cases, veterans' asbestos exposure as civilians is far greater than their exposure in the military. Lester M. Cable, who lives in Bridgeport, CT, is a typical case. He was exposed to asbestos as a boilerman in the Navy in 1950 and 1951, and also in civilian life doing home construction and repair projects working with asbestos-containing household appliances and heating systems.

He suffers from malignant mesothelioma and has a trial date set for this July as an accelerated living mesothelioma case in the Bridgeport Superior Court. If the proposed asbestos legislation is enacted, his case would be wiped out immediately, forcing him to start all over again under the proposed trust fund. He will not live that long.

It is no wonder that asbestos victims oppose a bill that deprives them of their legal rights in the traditional civil justice system and offers them instead a trust fund that is inadequate and will likely become insolvent. Numerous experts have concluded that the cost of the program will exceed the amount allotted for the trust fund. Mr. President, $140 billion sounds like a lot of money, but, remember, 27.5 million American workers have been exposed to asbestos. This does not include, as I have indicated, people living in the neighborhoods, the spouses, children.

The Congressional Budget Office has estimated the program could generate at least $10 billion more in claims than the trust fund is designed for. But even that figure understates the problem because the bill does not adequately take into account the trust fund's borrowing costs, further depleting the compensation available to victims. And that is what they are, victims. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that approximately $8 billion would be required in the first decade, an amount that will saddle the fund with a huge debt over the life of the program.

Other experts, though, say the bill is on even less solid fiscal footing. For instance, the Bates White economic consulting firm has concluded that the program will cost at least $300 billion, and with certain contingencies could cost as much as $600 billion. The General Accounting Office has recently issued a report describing how at least four other Federal trust fund compensation systems that were smaller in scope than this had trouble funding the shortfalls.

But even if the $140 billion were adequate--and it is not--there is no guarantee the fund would raise that amount of revenue. The actual amount of revenue available to victims depends on the number of companies that actually contribute. Yet there is no definitive information available to Senators on the number or identity of the participating companies. We have talked about that before. Supporters of this legislation have asserted that there will be between 8,000 and 10,000 such companies, but the Congressional Budget Office could identify only 1,700 participants. As a result, less than $140 billion will be available for this fund. If revenues from the private sector are insufficient to fully fund the program, the only options for maintaining solvency of the fund will be to reduce compensation to injured victims or supplement the privately raised funds with tax dollars.

There is a long list of companies that have contacted Senators saying: Please, don't do this. But let me just give an example of a few. These are companies that are really old, some of them more than 100 years old. For example, there is a company called Okonite. They are the only company that makes wire in the country anymore. They have a few manufacturing plants around the country. The chief executive officer said: We'll go bankrupt. If you pass that legislation, there won't be an American company making wire anymore.

Hopeman Brothers, they are ship joiners. They work on big ships. They do finishing work on big ships. They said: We'll drop out. We'll go bankrupt.

Foster Wheeler is an engineering and construction firm: If you sign this into law, we go out of business. They have asbestos claims. They can handle them. One of the companies said: We budget every year what we are going to spend on asbestos claims. We can handle that. But we cannot handle this legislation. We'll go bankrupt.

There is a good argument that the Federal Government should contribute to the fund, since a large number of U.S. servicemen were exposed to asbestos. But that has not happened here. This bill does not tap Federal tax dollars in an honest, straightforward way. But that is what is going to happen if the trust fund is not sufficient. It establishes a private trust fund that will almost certainly become insolvent. As a practical matter, the Federal Government will be left holding the bag when things go wrong. A Federal bailout of a program of this magnitude would have enormous adverse consequences to the Federal budget. But with President Bush holding the records for the highest deficits in the history of the country, maybe we should not be concerned about this.

The structural problems with the trust fund relate to one of the bill's most fundamental flaws: its lack of transparency. From the outset, members of the Judiciary Committee and others asked for full disclosure of the names of companies that will be required to pay into the fund. According to press reports, the major lobbying firms that helped draft the bill possess documents listing the contributing companies and how much each would be required to pay. But this information remains unavailable to Senators and, of course, to the general public.

The Senate is entitled to such relevant information before debate begins, but we are not going to get it. There is no reason to waste the time of

the full Senate debating a bill with so many loose ends and so many unanswered questions and, I am frank to admit, a lot of answered questions. The budgetary concerns are reason enough to defeat the motion to proceed.

I have been contacted by five courageous members of the majority who are going to vote against the motion to proceed because they know this is a budget buster. And maybe others will come along. I have only been contacted by five. First, let me say this: Even if the trust funds were adequately funded, the system set up here is flawed for a number of reasons in compensating the poor, unfortunate individuals who get these diseases. Let me talk about a few of them.

The startup provisions provide that as soon as the bill is enacted, the ability of asbestos victims to obtain compensation in the court system is cut off. It also requires that bankruptcy trusts established to pay victims' claims be shut down, even before the fund is operational. The bill attempts to provide a mechanism through which terminally ill claimants will obtain payments in this interim period, but all other claimants, no matter how serious their illness or disability, would be left without a remedy for an indefinite period of time.

Second, the bill is unfair to victims with pending or settled court cases. I talked a little bit about that. Rather than permit asbestos claims to continue in court while the fund is being established, the bill imposes an immediate 2-year stay on nearly all asbestos cases. This is unfair. Exigent cases are no exception to a stay. They will be automatically stayed for 9 months from the date of enactment. The bill's language is so broad that a trial about to begin would be stopped, and an appellate ruling about to be handed down would be barred.

Third, the sunset process under the legislation leaves too much uncertainty for victims. If the fund fails to operate as promised, instead of allowing victims to return to court, S. 852 allows the administrator of the fund to recommend any number of measures to salvage the program. This means that victims may receive even less compensation or become subject to more stringent medical criteria to have their claims successfully approved.

Fourth, the bill requires some victims to prove that asbestos was a substantial contributing factor to their disease--a higher burden than victims must meet in court, where it is sufficient to show that asbestos exposure was a contributing factor, no matter how substantial a factor. The whole concept of a no-fault trust fund is that it is nonadversarial, but this higher burden of proof creates the potential for endless litigation and a high number of rejected claims.

Finally, I have serious concerns about the manner in which the FAIR Act treats lung cancer and silica diseases victims. Under this bill, an entire category of lung cancer victims who were exposed to asbestos for 15 years or more cannot bring a claim. This bill would deny these victims their right to recover damages in court for their exposure and deny them benefits under the fund as well. This is an unacceptable affront to the rights of an entire class of asbestos victims.

As for the suffering from silica disease, this act limits recovery by individuals who have both asbestos disease and silica-related diseases. I know something about silicosis. My dad had it. He worked in the mines. I thought all kids' dads coughed the way my dad did, but they didn't. My dad was exposed to what we called at the time quartz silica. It is well known in Nevada, at the Tonopah mining camp, they would only hire, as they referred to it at the time, ``foreigners'' because they knew if they hired people who were nonforeigners in Tonopah, they would die. It was the worst of any place in the country. It was bad all over Nevada, so I know something about silica.

This legislation prevents someone who has both silica and asbestos exposure from going forward with their claim. The only recourse for victims of both diseases will be to seek compensation for their asbestos disease from the asbestos fund, but victims of silica-related disease, including those who have asbestos disease, should also have a right to seek redress in the courts. They should be able to do it because of their silica disease, silicosis. This is a particular problem in Nevada where many miners have contracted both silicosis and asbestosis.

In this and so many other ways, this bill does not meet the needs of my constituents or of the American people in general. I predict the bill's sponsors will attempt to answer my concerns and those of other Senators, as I have heard, by telling us there is going to be a managers' amendment to cure all of the problems of the bill. There will be so many problems with this bill that this managers' amendment will effectively be a substitute bill. I am reminded of the old English proverb--I don't know if it is an old English proverb--don't buy a pig in a poke. The sponsors of the bill should make the text of that managers' amendment available before we vote on the motion to proceed. The Senate should not vote to proceed on this asbestos bill and find itself debating a different asbestos bill.

Let's move the process along, some have said. We will fix the problems in conference with the House. Boy, we have heard that a lot of times. Some of us have been around here long enough to know that doesn't work. That gambit should be rejected. If the Senate decides to debate this bill, it should be one where we confront the tough questions now and get them right before the bill leaves the Senate.

I am convinced, unfortunately, that we are not ready to face these tough questions at this time. The committee-reported bill is too deeply flawed. We don't have sufficient information to address these flaws through the amendment process. We owe asbestos victims and their families a better bill and a better process. The only proper course at this time is to defeat the motion to proceed.

I would say this: Again, the winners today are the 13 companies that paid $144.5 million to take the much needed time of the Senate to debate these issues. But we are going to be wasting time on this very flawed piece of legislation.

Mr. President----

I thought you were finished.

Mr. President, I want to make sure the record reflects that I have the highest regard for Pat Leahy and Arlen Specter. If I in any way embarrassed them or hurt their feelings, I am sorry I did that. Certainly, it was nothing I said that indicated they did anything that was unbecoming regarding this legislation. That is how I feel. But that doesn't take away from the fact that I think it is outrageous that these 13 companies spent $144.5 million lobbying this legislation. I will not get away from that.

We need lobby reform in this country. We need to start on that right now. I want to make sure the record reflects this also. The week before last, my communications center put out a piece of mail I didn't see. It went out--and that is not much of an excuse, but it is true. The minute I learned about it, I wrote a letter. It was as close as anything I could do from my heart. What I did in not reading that letter before it went out from my office is wrong. I take full blame for that. But anything in that letter--I mean, to show you, Mr. President, there was a derogatory statement about my friend from Nevada, Senator Ensign. As everyone knows here, I would never say anything negative about him. We may disagree on legislation, but I would never say anything in a negative way about him. He was one of the 33 mentioned in that letter. So I apologized to him and to all 32 others. I meant that. It was wrong what I did, but I have said that.

I am sorry my friend from Pennsylvania raised that. I did the best I could in resolving that as an issue, putting that to each of those Senators, saying I am sorry. I received phone calls from a number of Senators and I have had personal meetings with them. They accepted my apology.

Also, we should not do things on a personal basis here, and I didn't do that. I complained bitterly about this legislation. I cannot stand this legislation, and contrary to what my friend from Pennsylvania says, I pretty well understand it. Maybe I don't understand it as well as he does, but I understand it. Everything I said about this legislation in my remarks is meant by me. I meant every word I said.

For the Senator to disparage me because I didn't attend the Judiciary Committee hearing, I am not a member of the committee. If I spent my time, or the Presiding Officer did, going to committees we don't belong on, it would make for a very difficult scene around here.

I disagree with my friend, the Senator from Vermont, Senator Leahy, on this legislation. I think it is misguided legislation. But he did it and I have talked to him personally about how I think it is bad. He told me where he thinks it is good. We disagree. I asked the assistant Democratic leader, Senator Durbin, to be the floor manager on this because he and I and the vast majority of the Democrats oppose this legislation.

I am sorry the Senator from Pennsylvania thought my remarks were rambling and disconnected. I guess it is up to the people who watch this--not my friend from Pennsylvania--to determine whether it is rambling and disconnected. If the Senator thinks I was in some way disparaging him, I certainly didn't mean it. I am disparaging this legislation. I think it is bad legislation, and I think the people it hurts more than anybody else are the victims.

The distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania said I have no interest in this legislation. Why would I be here if I have no interest in the legislation? I have an interest. It is different than his. He says I fake concern about this. I am sorry he feels that way. I am concerned about this legislation.

For the reasons I have enumerated in my opening statement, I think this is a bad piece of legislation that is not good for the American people.

The bankrupt companies--of course, I am concerned these companies went bankrupt. For example, U.S. Gypsum is

out of bankruptcy. It has made a settlement. It has settled with all the claimants for under $1 billion. But it is interesting. They have said, coming out of bankruptcy and their settlement, if this legislation passes, they will have to contribute $3 billion to this fund. I would rather U.S. Gypsum contributed money to any trust fund than all these many companies I talked about, three of whom have been in business for many years and have said they are going to go into bankruptcy.

I believe, as far as saying some unions favor this legislation, there are a few--very few, such as the United Auto Workers. I have a letter, which I ask unanimous consent be printed in the Record, from the AFL- CIO. They oppose this legislation.

Mr. President, the final point I would like to say, through the Chair to the senior Senator from Pennsylvania, is I didn't mention LIHEAP in my statement. I didn't mention it at all, although it is something we need to take up, but for reasons I was discussing with Senator Frist, I decided not to do that.

The other issues I meant to bring up but I didn't mention LIHEAP. That

didn't come from my mouth. LIHEAP is something we are obligated to do and do it as soon as we can. There has been a commitment made by the majority leader and me to a Senator from the majority that we would do something about that. But I didn't mention LIHEAP.

I know the Senator spent a lot of time on this. One of his friends, a classmate--I don't know what the relationship is, but it goes back many decades--Judge Becker, they spent a lot of time on this. I know this legislation means a lot to the Senator from Pennsylvania.

But just because this legislation means a lot to him doesn't mean I have to support it.

As much as I think of the Senator from Pennsylvania, which is a lot-- I have had admiration for him and told him on many occasions. I am one of the few people who read his book, and I enjoyed reading his book. If I hurt the Senator's feelings--maybe that is the wrong word--I apologize.

Certainly, the Senator from Vermont and I know each other very well. I would never, ever intentionally do anything to embarrass or hurt his feelings. I say, through the Chair to my friend from Vermont, I don't like this legislation. It is bad, and I am going to do everything I can to stop this bill from going through. If I can't do it, then I am a big guy, and I understand a lot of times you don't win around here. But that doesn't take away my obligation of doing the very best I can to talk about this legislation. I am going to continue doing that. I don't like this legislation for the reasons set forth.

A final thing I would like to say is that I have given these estimates as to what is wrong with the bill from a dollar perspective. There are parts that I have read. I think I am right, and I think time will prove, without question, that $140 billion is wrong, no matter if Senator Frist or Senator Daschle, or whoever, agreed to this amount. Where the number came from, I don't know, but it certainly is not enough. Looking back a couple years ago when Senator Daschle was involved in this issue, maybe he at that time thought it was the right amount. I have disagreed, and I disagree now.

Again, so the record is clear, I don't mean to violate rule XIX, but I am going to continue pushing for reform. When legislation such as this requires 13 companies to spend $144.5 million on lobbying activities, that is too much.

Madam President, through the Chair to the distinguished Senator from Kentucky, and to anyone within the sound of my voice, if there were ever a grating of nerves, it is the nerves of the American people by what this piece of legislation does to them. This legislation was named by the majority in conjunction with the President. It is called the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005. If there were ever Orwellian doublespeak, it is that.

Using the numbers the majority placed in this bill, the budget Deficit Reduction Act of 2005--we are in 2006, but it was named and completed in 2005--it increases the deficit by $50 billion. The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 increases the deficit by $50 billion using their numbers. So let's not talk about grating the nerves. If there were ever a grating of nerves, it should be the American people who are so concerned about what has happened to the economy of this country.

In just a few days we are going to be asked to increase the debt ceiling from $8.2 trillion to whatever figure they pick, $9 trillion; ``they'' meaning the majority. Talk about grating the nerves. We, the minority, need not be lectured on common courtesies as expressed by the distinguished Senator from Kentucky. There is no one in the Senate who is more bipartisan than the distinguished senior Senator from Montana who is the floor manager of this legislation. We are doing nothing but following procedure.

Frankly, what happened yesterday didn't extend common courtesy. We were not allowed to offer a single amendment. If this is how we want to start the year, by pointing fingers, we can point fingers just as well as the majority. We chose not to do that yesterday. There wasn't a speech given yesterday about how we had been prevented from offering amendments, but the Senator from Kentucky comes out here this morning and lectures us on common courtesy and grating nerves. Any time that debate needs to take place, we will be involved.

Mr. President, I am sorry to have been late. Are we going to finish these votes today, tonight?

Mr. President, I appreciate the positive tone of voice of my distinguished friend from Montana, but if we have 20 votes--and that is on our side--and there are second-degree amendments to those, and amendments offered on the other side, we are talking about a long night. The best we can do, no matter how hard we try, is three, three and a half amendments an hour. So we are talking about, if we start at 2 o'clock, a lot of hours.

I appreciate everyone being confident we will do this. And we will certainly cooperate any way we can. And, as happens, there may be Members who decide not to offer their amendments. That is always a possibility. We will do the best we can. It may be necessary to alert Senators that there may be work tomorrow. The distinguished majority leader is in the Senate, but it is very likely we may not be able to finish all these votes--well, maybe not ``very likely''--but it is certainly possible we may not be able to finish the votes tonight.

Mr. President, we had a meeting and thought the votes would start immediately, and Members were advised that.

It is my understanding, Senator Baucus, the voting will not start for at least a half hour. Everyone should understand the votes will not start now but within the next half hour, 45 minutes probably.

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

Mr. President, we have half an hour remaining. If there are Senators who wish to speak on their amendments, they should get over here immediately. If they do not come within a reasonable period of time, I am confident Senator Baucus will yield back the time on this side, as he should. If there is no one here who desires to speak, we can move to the votes more quickly. That is left up to Senator Baucus. If Members want to talk, now is the time.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I think what we have here is a case being made for how bad this reconciliation plan is that we have. We have a number of amendments that Senators in good faith have tried to offer. There will be votes on these amendments. Ours doesn't break the bank, as indicated by the Senator from North Dakota. All the amendments he is talking about that are going to cost all this money come from the other side. With rare exception, our amendments are offset. We don't expect to ask to waive points of order through conference on our amendments. That is why Members should not vote to waive through conference.

Also, I hope the country is watching what is going on here today. First of all, as I said earlier today, we are working on something that has been named by the majority the ``Deficit Reduction Act of 2005.'' Using the numbers given us by the majority, it increases the deficit by $50 billion. Today, as I was walking to lunch, a reporter says: Are you aware that we are going to get a supplemental next week for $90 billion? The budget gimmicks of this administration are unbelievable. Everyone knows the cost of the war is ongoing. We are in our fourth year of war. The President doesn't include it in his budget because it would show the American people how deeply in the red we are. Rather than do that, he comes back later with all these supplementals. But I understand, having managed a few bills in my day, how the distinguished Senator from Montana and I will feel about it.

We want to get the bill out of here and move on to other things with as little damage as possible. But, Mr. President, damage has been done by having this reconciliation bill in the manner that we got it in the first place. Having been given this bill, we are $50 billion in the hole to begin with, using the numbers of the majority.

Now, people in good faith on our side offered amendments, or soon will offer them. Some have been debated. Our amendments take, for example, the amendment of the Senator from New York. She wants to have this Senate on record as to whether the Senate will stand for an independent bipartisan commission to study what went wrong with Katrina. We have been stymied every step of the way to do that. Rather than have a 9/11-type commission to find out what went wrong in the most significant natural disaster in the history of this country, we are being stonewalled. That is an amendment the majority doesn't want to vote on.

I wish there were an easy way out of this, but there is not. I say to my friends who are offering this amendment on the child tax credit, if it is offered, a lot of Senators over here on this side are going to vote for it. Someday maybe this administration will recognize what they have done to this country economically. We are going to be asked in a few days to increase the debt ceiling from $8.2 trillion to whatever the majority wants--$8.2 trillion is not enough. So my suggestion is, let's just start voting.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I object.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, Senator Menendez told Members he wants a rollcall vote.

Amendment No. 2705

Mr. President, what we would be willing to do, if we are not in session tomorrow, we would be willing to allow the----

Either no votes or not in session.

We would be willing to agree procedurally on a motion to proceed to the asbestos bill. You could file whatever papers necessary tonight to do that so we could have a Tuesday cloture vote.

Reserving the right to object, I haven't talked specifically to either one of the Republican leaders about this, but I would like that to be amended. We did not clear time for Senator Durbin to speak as in morning business. I ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to speak in morning business for 15 minutes, and another 15 minutes would be added to the time of the majority, and that the only thing that would be out of the ordinary is that Senator Durbin would be recognized. The Republicans are to have the first half hour. I ask that Senator Durbin be recognized for 15 minutes. He has to give a speech. He could be recognized to use his additional 15 minutes when we start morning business.

We understand that additional half hour would come out of the time on the resolution.

I am trying to get to Senator Durbin so he can go downtown and give a speech. How long will the Senator from Missouri be talking?

Through the Chair to the Senator from Missouri, how long will you be speaking?

I am wondering if after you complete your speech, could he go ahead and do his?

That is OK. I didn't want to use leader time, but we will work it out. We have an extra 15 minutes on each side.

That is correct.

And the Republicans' 45 minutes is first.

Has the Senator from West Virginia yielded the floor?

I had the opportunity to listen to the remarks of Senators Byrd and Rockefeller. I wanted to add my remarks about mine safety.

As I have told the Senator from West Virginia, my father was a miner. When I was less than a week old, my father was working in a mine at Chloride, AZ. It was a gold mine. It was a vertical. There were two men in the hole. That was standard operating procedure at the time. There was only one person present to light the holes for obvious reasons. So my dad's working companion, a man named Carl Myers, had gone up to the next level so he would be away from the dynamite. In those days, they didn't have product liability protection, and so my dad had lit 12 holes. One of them went off early. The fuse ran and blew my dad in the air, blew the soles off his shoes, blew his carbide light out. In those days, you would take a sinking ladder down in the hole with you, and when you would go out, when the holes were burning, you would take it up with you. My dad was in a state of shock and didn't know that it had blown one of the legs off the ladder. So every time he would try to put the ladder down to climb out, he would fall. And he kept falling.

The man in the next level who heard the 1 hole go off knew there were 11 others that were supposed to go off and knew my dad hadn't come out. This man, Carl Myers, climbed down the hole and, even though he was a smaller man than my father, helped my dad out of the hole, drug him up to the next level. The other holes went off. My dad went to the hospital and spent some time there. But as a result of the heroic feat of Carl Myers, who received a medal for heroism for doing what he did, my father was able to raise his four boys.

The reason I mention that to the distinguished Senator from West Virginia is mine safety means saving people's lives. Growing up in Nevada, my dad worked many times down in the mines alone. That was against the law, but he did it all the time. It was against the law, but there were no mine inspectors. He was down there alone all the time.

I have watched with interest the rash of mining accidents in West Virginia and Kentucky in the last few weeks. I want the Senators from West Virginia to know that I will do anything I can legislatively to make sure these mines are safe. I speak from experience. Mining is a terribly difficult job. That is why there are so many songs written about the dangers of mining.

As I indicated, when I was growing up, my dad didn't have much protection from the State. They abandoned Searchlight. There wasn't a lot going on, so they didn't watch it very much. A rock fell on the head of my dad's best friend. They carried him out of the mine. It killed him. He wasn't as fortunate as my dad because his widow raised the three Hudgens children alone. There are lots of accidents. These things happen.

Without proper protection, there is no occupation more dangerous than being down in a hole.

I applaud the Senator from West Virginia for protecting his State as he always does. But understand also that in faraway Nevada, 2,500 miles away, you have a Senator who will do anything possible to make sure that in the State of West Virginia and in all places where mining takes place, there are Federal regulations in place to protect people like my dad.

Has the Senator from West Virginia yielded the floor?

I had the opportunity to listen to the remarks of Senators Byrd and Rockefeller. I wanted to add my remarks about mine safety.

As I have told the Senator from West Virginia, my father was a miner. When I was less than a week old, my father was working in a mine at Chloride, AZ. It was a gold mine. It was a vertical. There were two men in the hole. That was standard operating procedure at the time. There was only one person present to light the holes for obvious reasons. So my dad's working companion, a man named Carl Myers, had gone up to the next level so he would be away from the dynamite. In those days, they didn't have product liability protection, and so my dad had lit 12 holes. One of them went off early. The fuse ran and blew my dad in the air, blew the soles off his shoes, blew his carbide light out. In those days, you would take a sinking ladder down in the hole with you, and when you would go out, when the holes were burning, you would take it up with you. My dad was in a state of shock and didn't know that it had blown one of the legs off the ladder. So every time he would try to put the ladder down to climb out, he would fall. And he kept falling.

The man in the next level who heard the 1 hole go off knew there were 11 others that were supposed to go off and knew my dad hadn't come out. This man, Carl Myers, climbed down the hole and, even though he was a smaller man than my father, helped my dad out of the hole, drug him up to the next level. The other holes went off. My dad went to the hospital and spent some time there. But as a result of the heroic feat of Carl Myers, who received a medal for heroism for doing what he did, my father was able to raise his four boys.

The reason I mention that to the distinguished Senator from West Virginia is mine safety means saving people's lives. Growing up in Nevada, my dad worked many times down in the mines alone. That was against the law, but he did it all the time. It was against the law, but there were no mine inspectors. He was down there alone all the time.

I have watched with interest the rash of mining accidents in West Virginia and Kentucky in the last few weeks. I want the Senators from West Virginia to know that I will do anything I can legislatively to make sure these mines are safe. I speak from experience. Mining is a terribly difficult job. That is why there are so many songs written about the dangers of mining.

As I indicated, when I was growing up, my dad didn't have much protection from the State. They abandoned Searchlight. There wasn't a lot going on, so they didn't watch it very much. A rock fell on the head of my dad's best friend. They carried him out of the mine. It killed him. He wasn't as fortunate as my dad because his widow raised the three Hudgens children alone. There are lots of accidents. These things happen.

Without proper protection, there is no occupation more dangerous than being down in a hole.

I applaud the Senator from West Virginia for protecting his State as he always does. But understand also that in faraway Nevada, 2,500 miles away, you have a Senator who will do anything possible to make sure that in the State of West Virginia and in all places where mining takes place, there are Federal regulations in place to protect people like my dad.

Mr. President, before the majority leader leaves the floor, we have an hour of time divided before the 11 o'clock vote. I know the short amount of time we have is allocated to the very second. I am wondering if it would be appropriate to have a full hour prior to the vote. I guess my question is, How much time do you need on your side?

Mr. President, a small number of provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act are due to expire. Senate Democrats stand ready to provide law enforcement with all necessary tools to keep Americans safe from terrorism. Democrats supported the original PATRIOT Act that was passed in 2001. We supported the reauthorization bill that passed the Senate unanimously this past summer. And we support reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act now with modest improvements.

A reauthorization bill should continue to provide the Government with the tools it needs to fight terrorism but must also include sufficient checks to protect against potential governmental abuse of these expansive powers. There is widespread bipartisan support for a reauthorization bill that will protect both national security and the rights of innocent Americans.

I applaud Senators Sununu, Craig, Murkowski, and Hagel for their principled stand on this issue. I urge the White House to work with these Senators and with Senators Leahy and Specter to craft a bill that all Senators can support. If a compromise cannot be reached before the end of this week, we are willing to enact another short-term extension of the current law. There has already been discussion of a 6-week extension of the act to give negotiators time to finalize a long-term reauthorization bill. That approach will be satisfactory to this side of the aisle. We do not want the PATRIOT Act to expire. There is no reason it should.

Mr. President, in his opening statement to the Judiciary Committee, Judge Samuel Alito asked, ``How in the world did I get here?'' That rhetorical question raises a serious concern about him, and it has shadowed his nomination from the very beginning. The fact is, Judge Alito became President Bush's candidate to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor only after the radical rightwing torpedoed the nomination of White House counsel Harriet Miers and insisted that someone with Sam Alito's ideology be put in her place. That is how Judge Alito ``got here.''

I continue to believe that Harriet Miers received a raw deal. She is an accomplished lawyer, a trailblazer for women, and a strong advocate of legal services for the poor. Not only was she denied the up-or-down vote that my Republican colleagues say every nominee deserves, but she was never even

afforded the chance to make her case to the Judiciary Committee.

I believe radical elements in the President's own party demanded that Miers withdraw not because of her lack of judicial experience as some exclaimed but because they were insufficiently confident she would support their extreme agenda. Remember, approximately 40 percent of all people who have ever served on the Supreme Court had no judicial experience.

The rightwing distrust of Harriet Miers and their immediate elation when Judge Alito was named raised my suspicions on the day that he was nominated. Those suspicions were heightened when Alito's 1985 application for a job in the Reagan administration came to light. In it, Alito stated, ``I am and always have been a conservative.'' He spoke proudly of his work on behalf of the extreme agenda of the Reagan Justice Department, his disagreement with landmark rulings of the Warren Court in favor of equal rights, and his membership in rightwing organizations. In effect, the 1985 document amounted to Judge Alito's pledge of allegiance to conservative, radical Republican ideology.

I don't propose the Alito nomination is on the basis of a 20-year-old job application. Instead, I view that document as a roadmap to Judge Alito's subsequent judicial opinions and speeches.

Judge Alito's judicial opinions have been largely consistent with his ideological signals; that is, the signals he sent in the 1985 job application. One of the most prominent and eminent legal scholars in all of America, Professor Cass Sunstein of the University of Chicago Law School, who generally supported the nomination of Chief Justice John Roberts, analyzed Alito's opinions and found ``a remarkable pattern'' of ``almost uniformly conservative'' dissents. Professor Sunstein concluded that ``the real question about Alito involves the disturbingly close link between his political convictions and his legal conclusions.''

My concern about Judge Alito falls into three broad categories. First, I fear he will not vindicate the role of the judiciary as a check on executive branch power. Second, he is a leader in the so- called federalism movement which would limit congressional power to pass environmental laws and remedy other national problems. Third, in disputes between ordinary American citizens and the powerful corporations and government, Judge Alito is often--and too often--on the side of the powerful and against the interests of the individual.

First, I am disturbed by Judge Alito's overall bowing to Executive pressure, bowing to Executive power. At a time when President Bush asserted unprecedented authority over the lives of American citizens and the Republican-controlled Congress seems too willing to cede those powers to him, I cannot support the nomination of a judge predisposed to giving the President the benefit of every doubt.

In matters ranging from domestic spying to the use of torture, the current President has effectively declared himself above the law. Meanwhile, a Congress controlled by the President's party has stripped the courts of jurisdiction to hear habeas corpus cases brought by Guantanamo detainees, some of whom have absolutely nothing to do with terrorism. In the face of such profound threats to the separation of powers in our Constitution, we need a Supreme Court comprised of independent and impartial judges willing to stand up to imperial Presidencies.

Rather than serving as a check on President Bush's abuses of power, I worry that Judge Alito will instead serve as a rubberstamp. Both on and off the bench, Alito's writings and opinions show a record of extreme deference to Executive power, whether exercised by the President or by Federal and local law enforcement officials.

Even before he was a judge, Alito made a name for himself arguing for expansive Executive power. As a Justice Department attorney, he wrote that the Attorney General should have absolute immunity from lawsuits arising from illegal wiretaps. He also argued on the side of a Tennessee police officer who shot and killed an unarmed 15-year-old boy not because the officer believed the boy was armed, but to prevent escape from a petty crime.

Alito's judicial rulings on executive power heighten my concerns in this area. In the recent decision of United States v. Lee, he found that an FBI undercover probe that included audio and video surveillance of the defendant's hotel suite without a warrant did not violate the Fourth Amendment.

The government wins, you lose.

In an earlier case in which Judge Alito voted to uphold the strip- search of a 10-year-old girl, then-Judge Michael Chertoff, now President Bush's Secretary of Homeland Security, criticized Alito's views as threatening to ``transform the judicial officer into little more than the cliche `rubber stamp.' ''

Again, government wins, you lose.

Judge Alito's unshakable deference to police officers conducting intrusive searches seems to extend to his view at the power of the President to act unilaterally when setting national policies.

In a speech to the Federalist Society in November 2000, he professed his strong belief in the so-called ``unitary executive'' theory of constitutional law, a theory embraced by those who advocate for expanding executive powers at the expense of the judicial and legislative branches of government.

Judge Alito's disturbing views on the constitutional separation of powers is also reflected in his refusal to condemn laws in which Congress strips courts of jurisdiction to hear certain disputes. For example, Senator Leahy asked the nominee if Congress could strip the Supreme Court of jurisdiction over all cases arising under the First Amendment. Alito declined to respond directly, saying the matter was the subject of academic dispute.

These comments lead me to doubt that Judge Alito fully appreciates that the role of the courts is to protect constitutional rights and liberties in the face of an overreaching majority.

Second, I am concerned that Judge Alito would limit the authority of Congress to address environmental protection and other national needs. I fear that Alito would join Justices Scalia and Thomas in their activist campaign to narrow congressional power under the Commerce Clause, a movement that threatens important public health and welfare laws in the name of ``federalism.''

Once again, the roots of Judge Alito's ideology can be found in his work during the Reagan Administration. As Deputy Attorney General in 1986, Judge Alito recommended that President Reagan veto the Truth in Mileage Act, a law designed to prevent odometer tampering, because ``it violates the principles of federalism.''

And again, Judge Alito seems to have carried his Reagan-era ideology with him when he joined the Third Circuit. In the Chittester case, for example, he held that Congress lacks authority to allow State employees to enforce aspects of the Family and Medical Leave Act. His logic would cripple the ability of Congress to help people with real problems, such as those who are disabled. Again, government wins, you lose.

There is every reason to fear that Judge Alito will work to continue the Court's unwarranted restriction of Congressional power in these areas.

Third and finally, Judge Alito's nomination troubles me because in his 15 years on the bench he has repeatedly and consistently favored the power of government and corporations over the rights of individual American citizens. As many commentators have observed, Judge Alito hardly ever sides with the proverbial ``little guy.''

The government wins, you lose.

A Knight-Ridder review of Alito's 311 published opinions on the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals found that Judge Alito very rarely supports individual rights claims. In a separate study, Professor Sunstein found that Judge Alito ruled against the individual in 84 percent of his dissent--84 percent of the time.

Again, government wins, you lose.

In civil rights cases, Judge Alito has often voted to impose higher barriers for people with claims of discrimination.

In Bray v. Marriott Hotels--a case dealing with race discrimination-- his colleagues said Title VII of the Civil Rights Act ``would be eviscerated'' if Alito's approach were followed. Again, big business would win, and you would lose. And in Nathanson v. Medical College of Pennsylvania, he dissented in a

disability rights case where the majority said: ``few if any Rehabilitation Act cases would survive'' if Judge Alito's view were the law.

Again, big business and government wins, you lose.

Perhaps the most important instance when the rights of an individual conflict with the interests of the government are when the state seeks to carry out the death penalty.

How anyone could come up with the conclusion of Judge Alito's is really hard to understand.

Senators Leahy and Feingold asked Judge Alito whether it would be unconstitutional to execute an ``unquestionably innocent man.''

The obvious answer from anyone would be quite clear. It would be plainly unconstitutional. But Judge Alito refused to say so. Instead, he spoke in bland bureaucratic terms about the need for the innocent person to file the proper petitions under proper Federal rule.

Remember, the question was, ``Would it be unconstitutional to execute an unquestionably innocent man?'' Of course, it would.

That was a chilling moment. If the Constitution means anything it means that the state cannot put to death an ``unquestionably innocent'' person. If Judge Alito cannot say that without equivocation, he is not the kind of judge I want on the Supreme Court of the United States.

These three broad concerns about Judge Alito's record on the bench are all the more troubling in light of the fact that Judge Alito has been nominated to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, a national icon who has been a voice of moderation and reason on the Court for the last quarter of a century.

President Bush was not obligated to nominate a clone of Justice O'Connor. But this President has no mandate to move the Supreme Court and American law in a radical rightward direction. That is precisely what replacing Justice O'Connor with Judge Alito will accomplish.

That Judge Alito has been nominated to replace Justice O'Connor is relevant in another sense. Justice O'Connor was the first of only two women ever to sit on the Supreme Court. It remains disturbing to me that she would be replaced by a man, leaving only one woman on the nine-member Court.

Today, more than half of the nation's law students are women. There are countless qualified women on the bench, in elective office, in law firms, and serving as law school deans. I can't believe the President searched the country and was unable to find a qualified female nominee. But maybe he was unable to find a qualified female nominee who satisfied the radical far right wing of the Republican Party.

Meanwhile, for the third time, this President has turned down the opportunity to make history by nominating the first Hispanic to the Court. How much longer must Hispanics across America wait before they see someone on the nation's highest court who shares their ethnic heritage and their shared experiences?

I have no doubt that Sam Alito is a decent man.

But a confirmation debate is not a popularity contest. The rights and liberties of the American people are at stake. This particular nomination raises profound questions about our system of checks and balances.

We need to ask whether a Justice Alito will serve as an effective check on a swaggering President and his reckless policies.

At this critical moment in our Nation's history, I cannot support the confirmation of this nominee to fill this vacancy on the Supreme Court of the United States.

Mr. President, we were all awakened this morning to the news of the passing of one of our Nation's true heroes in the struggle for civil rights, Coretta Scott King. Together, Americans all mourn her passing. We offer our deepest thanks for her dedication to keeping the dream of racial equality and national harmony alive even after losing her husband, the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. I join all Americans in extending our thoughts and prayers to her extended family.