Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the contributions of the more than 8,000 Catholic elementary and secondary schools nationwide. These schools, which serve over 2.6 million students, are a vibrant force in our country's educational and spiritual life.

During the month of February every year, communities throughout Nevada and the Nation celebrate National Catholic Schools Week. Sponsored by the National Catholic Educational Association and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, this annual national celebration provides an opportunity to acknowledge the important work of these schools in helping educate our Nation's children.

One day during this week, National Appreciation Day for Catholic School Teachers, specifically recognizes the hard work and dedication of the more than 163,000 educators who work in Catholic schools. The work of our Nation's educators is too often overlooked, but it could not be more important. I know I would not be where I am today without one of my high school teachers, Mike O'Callaghan. I am glad that National Catholic Schools Week provides an opportunity to acknowledge the work of those individuals who serve as the foundation of our schools.

Nevada's Catholic schools have contributed significantly to the education of my State's students for several decades. I would like to take this opportunity to recognize a few of the schools that will be celebrating special anniversaries this year.

The only Catholic high school in Nevada, Bishop Gorman High School, will celebrate its 50th anniversary this year. The oldest Catholic school in Nevada, however, is St. Joseph School, which will celebrate its 58th anniversary this year. St. Christopher, St. Francis de Sales, and St. Viator Elementary Schools also will all mark their 40th anniversary this year. These and the other Catholic schools in the State have long served Nevada well, and I am sure they will continue to for many years to come.

Mr. President, this week marks the end of the career of a dedicated public servant. David Nexon will be leaving the staff of the HELP Committee after 22 years of remarkable service. He is the minority staff director of the Health Subcommittee, and over the years he has ably served the Senate and the Nation. Senators get the credit for successful legislation, but the public does not see the many thousands of hours of work that staff put in crafting the final legislative work product.

David was instrumental, for example, in the passage of the Children's Health Insurance Program legislation, which brought health care to 6 million children. He was also deeply involved in the passage of legislation which permits workers to maintain health insurance when they change or lose their job. These are just two of the many ways where David's work has enriched the lives of millions of Americans. Indeed, the bill we pass today dealing with genetic nondiscrimination is just one more example of his imprint on this Nation's health care policy.

Mr. President, I spent 6 years on the Senate floor, and I got to know Senate staff really well, because sometimes they spend hours and sometimes days getting ready for legislation that comes to the Senate floor. David is someone whom I got to know. When I saw him, I always knew Senator Kennedy was nearby, or would be here soon. Senator Kennedy, of course, can speak for himself, but this man was invaluable to Senator Kennedy, the committee, and, I believe, the Senate and this country.

As David leaves the Senate, we thank him and his family for all of his sacrifices. He is the epitome of what a public servant should be. I wish him well. I wish him the best of luck in his retirement.

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

Mr. President, I rise today, for myself and Senator Ensign, to introduce legislation to establish a public heliport facility in Clark County, NY.

The purpose of this bill is simple: It would convey about a third of a square mile of public land managed by the Bureau of Land Management to Clark County for dedicated use as a heliport. The land is located just south of the Henderson city limits and east of Interstate 15.

The establishment of this heliport will help eliminate the ongoing conflict between air tour operators whose overflights of the Grand Canyon represent a classic component of the Las Vegas visitor experience and residents in the west-central and southwestern parts of the Las Vegas Valley whose every day lives are adversely affected by helicopter noise.

Local officials are committed to establishing a heliport within the Las Vegas Valley. The county and local municipalities have previously considered a site, currently in use as a go-kart track, near Interstate 15 near Henderson. The drawback of developing this site is that tours originating from this location would fly over the most sensitive parts of the Sloan Canyon National Conservation Area, with no restrictions on routing or elevation. Sloan Canyon itself--one of the richest petroglyph sites in the Mohave Desert--would be subject to regular overflights. That outcome would be entirely legal, entirely predictable and entirely regrettable.

In 2002, I worked closely with Senator Ensign, Congresswoman Berkley, Congressman Gibbons and local advocates to protect the Sloan Canyon area and its unique cultural resources. Through our combined efforts we created the Sloan Canyon National Conservation Area and the McCullough Mountains Wilderness, I am proud of these efforts and today I offer this legislation as a further effort to protect the precious resources that we worked to safeguard in 2002.

The bill I am introducing in the Senate today, and which I offered in the 108th Congress, would not prohibit helicopter overflights of the Sloan Canyon National Conservation Area. But it does ensure that such flights steer clear of the most sensitive and special cultural resources and minimize the impact on the majestic bighorn sheep and other wildlife that live in the McCullough Mountains.

My legislation stipulates that any helicopter flight originating from and/or landing at this heliport would be required by law to fly within a set path--between 3 and 5 miles north of the southernmost boundary of the Sloan Canyon National Conservation Area--and at a minimum height-- at least 500 to 1000 feet above ground level while in the NCA. Further, it requires that every such flight contribute 3 dollars per passenger to a special fund dedicated to the protection of the cultural, wilderness, and wildlife resources in Nevada.

These provisions justify conveying the land to Clark County at no cost because they provide a stable, long-term source of funding in excess of the market value of the land and because the conveyance and use are in the public interest.

It was my pleasure to introduce this bill during the last Congress. My fellow Senators, particularly the Chairman and Ranking member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, were generous in their support of this measure, allowing us to hold a prompt hearing. I am hopeful that my distinguished colleagues will work with me to complete work on this important legislation during the current session.

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

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

Mr. President, I rise today, for myself and Senator Ensign, to introduce legislation to establish a public heliport facility in Clark County, NY.

The purpose of this bill is simple: It would convey about a third of a square mile of public land managed by the Bureau of Land Management to Clark County for dedicated use as a heliport. The land is located just south of the Henderson city limits and east of Interstate 15.

The establishment of this heliport will help eliminate the ongoing conflict between air tour operators whose overflights of the Grand Canyon represent a classic component of the Las Vegas visitor experience and residents in the west-central and southwestern parts of the Las Vegas Valley whose every day lives are adversely affected by helicopter noise.

Local officials are committed to establishing a heliport within the Las Vegas Valley. The county and local municipalities have previously considered a site, currently in use as a go-kart track, near Interstate 15 near Henderson. The drawback of developing this site is that tours originating from this location would fly over the most sensitive parts of the Sloan Canyon National Conservation Area, with no restrictions on routing or elevation. Sloan Canyon itself--one of the richest petroglyph sites in the Mohave Desert--would be subject to regular overflights. That outcome would be entirely legal, entirely predictable and entirely regrettable.

In 2002, I worked closely with Senator Ensign, Congresswoman Berkley, Congressman Gibbons and local advocates to protect the Sloan Canyon area and its unique cultural resources. Through our combined efforts we created the Sloan Canyon National Conservation Area and the McCullough Mountains Wilderness, I am proud of these efforts and today I offer this legislation as a further effort to protect the precious resources that we worked to safeguard in 2002.

The bill I am introducing in the Senate today, and which I offered in the 108th Congress, would not prohibit helicopter overflights of the Sloan Canyon National Conservation Area. But it does ensure that such flights steer clear of the most sensitive and special cultural resources and minimize the impact on the majestic bighorn sheep and other wildlife that live in the McCullough Mountains.

My legislation stipulates that any helicopter flight originating from and/or landing at this heliport would be required by law to fly within a set path--between 3 and 5 miles north of the southernmost boundary of the Sloan Canyon National Conservation Area--and at a minimum height-- at least 500 to 1000 feet above ground level while in the NCA. Further, it requires that every such flight contribute 3 dollars per passenger to a special fund dedicated to the protection of the cultural, wilderness, and wildlife resources in Nevada.

These provisions justify conveying the land to Clark County at no cost because they provide a stable, long-term source of funding in excess of the market value of the land and because the conveyance and use are in the public interest.

It was my pleasure to introduce this bill during the last Congress. My fellow Senators, particularly the Chairman and Ranking member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, were generous in their support of this measure, allowing us to hold a prompt hearing. I am hopeful that my distinguished colleagues will work with me to complete work on this important legislation during the current session.

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

Reserving the right to object, I want the record spread with my satisfaction with Condoleezza Rice selecting this man to be her deputy. He has a tremendously strong resume where he has worked, and he has done a good job. It would have been easy for the Secretary of State to pick somebody, in my opinion, who was more ideological and not as pragmatic as Robert Zoellick, but I think this selection she made is outstanding. I applaud and commend the Secretary of State for selecting this individual.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, if the distinguished majority leader would allow me to direct a question to him through the Chair. I have received a number of calls dealing with an antilynching bill, primarily from Senator Landrieu. I wonder if the leader has any indication of whether we can take this matter up sometime in the near future.

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

Mr. President, how much time is left on this side?

Mr. President, I, first, want to express my appreciation to someone I believe a star of the Senate and that is Carl Levin. Carl Levin is such a good example to every Senator. When you work on something with Carl Levin, you can rest assured that he has read every word of it. He is someone who I am sure, before he came to the Senate, was an outstanding lawyer. I am so impressed with his ability to do legal analysis, and I am so impressed with his understanding of government generally.

What we have here is something that is very typical for Senator Levin. The nomination of Michael Chertoff to be Secretary of Homeland Security is very important. This new Cabinet level office that has been created is so important. I think it has become one of the most important posts that the President has. We know how important the Secretary of Defense is, we know how important the Secretary of State is, but this is so important.

Judge Chertoff will be called upon to manage some 180,000 employees, 22 different agencies, all important to protect this Nation in one way or the other. He will be called upon to bolster the efforts of our State and local law enforcement officers, firefighters, emergency response personnel, and in the process of managing these 180,000 employees, he doesn't have enough people. Many of these 22 different agencies he is responsible to manage are understaffed. So he will have a tremendous burden.

The people who work in these agencies are public servants first in any designation you want to make. They are the frontline protection for communities across the Nation.

Over the course of the last year, I have held in Nevada what I call Frontline Focus roundtables. I am meeting with firefighters, sheriffs, and emergency response personnel. It has been tremendously enlightening to me to talk to them about the problems that we have, from the communication and resource challenges facing urban centers such as Las Vegas and Reno, but also rural communities all over the State of Nevada. They have special needs, special demands.

Of course, I mentioned already Las Vegas with its booming tourist industry. About 20 people an hour are moving into Las Vegas. It is growing and the growth has not stopped. So Nevada's homeland security needs run the gamut. Our State and local officials will need the support and help of Judge Chertoff and the Department of Homeland Security in the work they do. His job is a tough and challenging job, and that is an understatement.

I have confidence in Judge Chertoff. I am confident he will meet these challenges. It was less than 2 years ago that we approved him by an overwhelming vote of 88 to 1 to a lifetime appointment on the Court of Appeals of the Third Circuit. But he was willing to give up this lifetime appointment for a job that will last probably 4 years.

Since his confirmation, the administration has been mired in controversy over its handling of prisoners and detainees. The administration policies have come under great scrutiny and we need to learn, during the course of this confirmation hearing, and we tried to do that, what role he may have played in crafting these policies.

Judge Chertoff has testified before the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee that he was not directly involved in the administration's decision to gut the Geneva Conventions and set out on a new and dangerous path with regard to interrogations. We have to take Judge Chertoff at his word, because the document proof has either been denied to Senators or otherwise has been so heavily redacted that it raises questions about the role of the Criminal Division overseen by Judge Chertoff.

The debate over his nomination, as my colleague, Senator Levin, has brought to the attention of the American people, as he discussed this yesterday on the floor, is a debate over the right of the Senate and the American people to have information about the way our Government does business.

The information sought in the context of his nomination by Senator Levin would help us understand how the administration arrived at those policy decisions and would help prevent similar mistakes in the future.

No one would disagree--I shouldn't say that. Very few people would disagree that the policies undertaken in Guantanamo Bay, Afghanistan, and Iraq dealing with interrogation which led to these brutal acts, the acts of torture, were wrong. These policies were used to justify forced nakedness. Keep in mind we live in a different environment than the people of Iraq. The shaving of the beards was demeaning to these men, but it was done many times. They were placed in stressed positions. They were intimidated with dogs, and on and on. We learned of these torture policies and their impact not from this administration, as is our right, but through leaks and lawsuits. Leaks and lawsuits, unfortunately, is the way we have to learn much of what is going on today.

The shocking abuses--and there is no other way you can describe it-- at Abu Ghraib were revealed when the photographs were released to the news media. I can remember going upstairs to S. 407 with other Senators and looking at the brutality and the pornographic nature of those pictures. Even for someone who has seen other acts of torture and terror in the work that we do, it was overwhelming. I had no idea that is what I would see that day. I waited not too long before I left. I saw enough in about 15 minutes, but I saw a lot.

Major General Taguba's report investigating the abuse at Abu Ghraib was discovered after it, too, was leaked to the press. Judge Gonzales's January 25th, 2002, memo advising the President that the Geneva Conventions were ``quaint and obsolete'' was not known until it was leaked to the press 2 years later. The Senate only learned of the August 1, 2002, Bybee torture memo when it was leaked to the press in June of that year.

I ask my colleagues, if this information had not come to light, would the administration disavow these practices? I regret that in the context of this nomination the administration will again deny the Senate and the American people a full understanding of how we embarked on a policy which has imperiled our soldiers and our Nation.

In Judge Chertoff's case, we know during his tenure that torture policies authorized by Justice and given effect by the Department of Defense were hotly debated by DOD, Justice Department, and FBI officials. We know this only because a private group filed a freedom of information request for such information. The request produced a series of redacted FBI emails

that gave voice to the dissenters this administration has tried to muzzle. The redactions prevent us from fully understanding that debate and how Criminal Division lawyers under Judge Chertoff's supervision dealt with the FBI concerns that the torture policies were not only immoral but ineffectual. It prevents us from truly understanding Judge Chertoff's role and whether attorneys under his supervision raised the issue with him directly. He said he does not remember. I accept the judge's statement in that regard. But that does not take away from the necessity of being able to have this information.

In response to Senator Levin's request for an unredacted version of the FBI emails, the administration issued its broadest assault against the Senate's duty to evaluate a nominee to get oversight of this administration. The administration claimed it would not turn over the unredacted emails because to do so would violate the Privacy Act, even though, through Senate security, any classified information would be protected. The Privacy Act is designed to prevent the Government from disclosing personal information about private individuals who have not consented to disclosure. It is not a tool to conceal identities of public officials engaged in this Nation's business.

As my colleague from Michigan, Senator Levin, has so forcefully stated, the administration's penchant for secrecy threatens each and every Senator's ability to do the people's business and undermines our role in providing advice and consent to the President's nominees and undermines our role in conducting oversight into this administration. In the end, what is most troubling is that the administration's culture of secrecy may breed further abuses, abuses we know of today, not because of but in spite of the administration's effort.

We must overcome these roadblocks put up by the administration because the job of protecting the homeland is too important. Judge Chertoff will have enormous challenges if he assumes his new position, which I am confident he will. Border security, immigration, port security, airport screening, protecting America's critical infrastructure, and so much more will now fall under his purview. He has pledged to work with the Congress in crafting the Department's policies. As much as possible, this must be a nonpartisan exercise. Working together, we can and we must put our country in the strongest possible position to defend itself for the many threats we face.

In short, what I am criticizing and complaining about, we have some emails from the FBI to the Justice Department, saying, in effect, how we conduct our interrogations is appropriate. What the Department of Defense is doing with their brutality and their torture is wrong. I am convinced that is true; the FBI was right. I hope somehow we will be able to get the names of these individuals and pursue it more carefully and also find out what the real words were; I am confident it was torture. One thing we know clearly from these memos is that the FBI says using our methods, the normal methods of interrogation, we are getting more information from the enemy than you are while using your acts of violence.

I close by saying, again, I want this record spread with the fact that Senator Levin has done a good thing for this country. He has done good work again in allowing us to look at an issue that should be a simple issue that has been made complicated by this administration by virtue of their hiding what it should not.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the public service of Mark Morse of Las Vegas, NV.

Mark has served as field manager for the Bureau of Land Management's Las Vegas Field Office for the last 5 years. Serving as a field manager for any BLM office is a challenge, but nowhere are the competing demands of recreation and conservation, urban development and species preservation more pronounced than in southern Nevada.

Some might throw up their hands in the face of such challenges, but Mark confronted them head on. He is respected by such diverse groups as local and county government officials, environmental organizations, and recreation advocates for balancing the needs of all who take an interest in our public lands.

He has forged partnerships between the BLM and local organizations, including the Red Rock Canyon Interpretive Association, Friends of Red Rock Canyon, the National Wild Horse Association, Master Gardeners, UNLV, and the Clark County School District. These partnerships have not only included the local community in the stewardship of our public lands; they have ensured that these lands are better cared for than they would be under only BLM supervision. Red Rock enthusiasts are improving the BLM's interpretation of Red Rock Canyon; students from a local high school are discovering the unique history of Tule Springs. It was Mark's vision that made these partnerships happen.

We in Nevada's congressional delegation have also handed Mark his share of challenges. The Nevada BLM oversees an enormously successful program that disposes of Federal land in southern Nevada while using the proceeds to preserve Nevada's natural treasures. This program has made federal land agencies work together in ways that have no precedent in our country. Mark has helped create interagency teams that improve both the care of Federal lands and the efficiency of the agencies charged with that care. Without Mark's leadership, this program would not be such a success story.

Mark has helped the Las Vegas Field Office adapt to the unique nature of managing Federal land in this growing urban setting. He is proud of his team, and he would say it has embraced change and achieved excellence. The BLM is not always a popular entity in Nevada, but Mark's accomplishments have greatly improved its reputation.

Mark's retirement is the culmination of 39 years of service with the BLM in the West, including time in northern California and Colorado as well as Nevada. I wish Mark the best, and I hope I will have the privilege of working with him again in the future.

Mr. President, I speak today in recognition of Mr. Baltazar Cervantes' 100th birthday.

Mr. Cervantes was born and raised in Mexico, and he came to the United States in 1919, making Nevada his home in 1958.

He worked for the Southern Pacific Railroad for 36 years, then worked part time for the city of Elko, in northeast Nevada, for the next 20 years. He finally retired in 1993 at the age of 88.

Throughout his life, Mr. Cervantes has dedicated himself to his family, a group that has continued to grow over time. Today his extended family include 10 children, 44 grandchildren, 54 great grandchildren, and 1 great-great-grandchild.

Mr. Cervantes has experienced many things during his life, and he has seen some historic figures. When he was a young boy, he saw Pancho Villa in Mexico, and after he moved to the United States he was fortunate enough to see the legendary Babe Ruth play baseball.

Mr. Cervantes has long been an avid baseball fan, and his favorite team is the Atlanta Braves. He tells his children that even though the Braves. didn't enjoy much success during the early years when he watched them, he always knew they would turn it around. I am sure Mr. Cervantes has enjoyed the Braves' 13 consecutive playoff appearances.

Today Mr. Cervantes lives with his daughter Norma and her daughter Kara, and he enjoys watching Braves games in the company of his loving family. It gives me great pleasure to offer my sincerest congratulations to this special man on the occasion of his 100th birthday.

Mr. President, if the distinguished majority leader would yield, I am disappointed but I understand that we are not going to be able to move tomorrow to the genetic nondiscrimination matter. It is my understanding that there is a potential blue-slip problem with the House. I had hoped we could get that done. That is something that is very important to do. We will be happy to cooperate with the majority leader in any way we can to move that along. It passed last time with 90-some-odd votes. I hope we can get that done. Even with a little bump in the road, maybe we can still get that done this week.

Mr. President, if the distinguished leader would yield again, I am sure others have felt this way in the past, but it is interesting to me that anytime there is anything that the distinguished majority leader talks about that deals with medicine, it is almost as if there is a light that comes on. It is just so apparent why he was such a good physician.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Connecticut be allowed 5 more minutes.

Mr. President, yesterday on the Senate floor I expressed serious concerns about this legislation that is pending before the Senate. I explained at that time that this legislation, in my opinion, is one of the most unfair, anti-consumer pieces of legislation to come before the Senate in a long time. It slams the courthouse doors on a wide range of injury plaintiffs, it turns federalism upside down by preventing State courts from hearing State law claims, and it limits corporate accountability at a time of rampant corporate scandals. Instead of turning up

the heat on corporate fraud, this bill lets corporate wrongdoers off the hook.

At the beginning of the debate yesterday, I said this is a bad piece of legislation, but there are going to be some amendments offered, amendments that will improve this bad legislation. They would have made significant improvements. But my hope of these amendments passing was very short lived. It did not happen. Over the last 2 days, the Senate has turned away each and every effort to make this bill less offensive. Every single amendment--each a message of fairness--was debated and turned down. That is a shame. Proponents of this bill explained their opposition to the common sense amendments by describing the current bill as a ``delicate compromise.'' I have heard that so many times. I spoke to Congressman Sensenbrenner, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee in the House, who is supposedly the gatekeeper on this legislation. He said: We are going to accept legislation that is in keeping with what you did last time. Well, when he said, What you did last time, he was talking about the bill that came out of the Senate Judiciary committee and was here on the floor. These changes would not have dramatically altered that.

If you went downtown to see what K Street wanted with these amendments, of course they were against all of them because, in my opinion, this legislation slams the door on most everyone who wants to bring a case and use class action as the tool for coming to court.

The debate yesterday was characterized by two significant misunderstandings about the bill. First, proponents claimed that under this bill, class action lawsuits could stay in State courts as long as two-thirds of the plaintiffs are from a single State. Well, in fact, the bill reverses longstanding Federal court diversity rules by saying that no matter how many plaintiffs are from a single State, the case can still be removed to Federal court if the defendant corporation is incorporated in a different State. Keep in mind, of the Fortune 500 companies, 58 percent of them are incorporated in Delaware, so the majority of class action lawsuits would be removable just on that figure alone.

For example, in the State of Nevada, at the famous Yucca Mountain, the contractors were in such a rush, the Department of Energy was in such a rush to drill a hole in this mountain, they had a huge auger. The size of this auger was halfway to the top of the second story of this Chamber. It was a huge machine. It dug a hole almost as big as this Chamber--a big tool going right through that mountain. They knew they were coming to a formation there and that the toxic mineral dust from drilling the formation would cause people to get really sick with silicosis. They knew that, but they were in such a rush that they would not even wet down this big tool to prevent the dust. They drilled dry, so to speak, and this toxic dust flew all over and the workers inhaled it. And today, as we speak, people are dying as a result of that.

Well, there has been a request for the case to be considered a class action--under the old law in existence before this passes--that would allow all those workers to join together in a class action and have it certified. Even though well over two-thirds of the plaintiffs are residents of Nevada, the harm was caused in Nevada, and the defendants were obviously doing business in Nevada, a defendant incorporated in a State other than Nevada could remove the case from Nevada State court. That is how this bill works. It is just unfair.

The second mischaracterization of this legislation is that supporters make it sound as though all we are talking about is venue: These cases will simply move from State court to Federal court and proceed just the same. That is simply not true. Under Supreme Court precedents that this bill does nothing to change, Federal judges routinely dismiss class action lawsuits based on State law. Those cases that are not dismissed go to the back of a very long line in the overburdened Federal court system.

One of the foremost experts on class actions is a man who is also an expert in antitrust law. He is a professor at Harvard Law School. His name is Arthur Miller. Here is what he said:

Federal courts have consistently denied class certification

in multi-state lawsuits based on consumer as well as other

state laws. . . . not a single Federal Circuit Court has

granted class certification for such a lawsuit, and six

Circuit Courts have expressly denied certification.

The rejection of the Feinstein-Bingaman amendment shows this bill's true colors. And I admire greatly Senator Feinstein for having the courage to do the right thing and say: I have been one of the original pushers of this legislation, but what we are trying to do is unfair, and the Bingaman amendment should be adopted. She joined with him for the Feinstein-Bingaman amendment.

So, if the sponsors merely wanted federal court review of lawsuits with national implications, they would not object to an amendment making clear that federal judges may not dismiss these cases.

But without that change, the truth is plain to see: This bill is designed to bury class action lawsuits, to cut off the one means by which individual Americans ripped off by fraudulent or deceptive practices can band together to demand justice from corporate America.

What does this change mean in the real world? It means, for example, that cases like the one brought by Shaneen Wahl will not be able to go forward. Shaneen is a 55 year old woman, and she was diagnosed with breast cancer. Her health insurance company raised the rates on her insurance premiums from $194 a month to $1,800 a month--a little jump in price. She found out that her insurance company was improperly doing this for tens of thousands of other chronically ill patients. She got a lawyer, they banded together in a class action lawsuit, and they prevailed in state court. Under this legislation, the case would be dismissed.

Another breast cancer survivor also a Florida woman, is 40-year-old Susan Friedman. Susan's insurance company removed her case to federal court, where it was dismissed. She is an unlucky example of what will happen to more people under this legislation. This is the fate of many other class action lawsuits under the bill the Senate will soon pass.

Unfortunately, insurance companies are ripping people off all the time, and this legislation will give the biggest, best businesses in the world, the insurance companies, more money.

In the real world, this legislation means that when a phone company systematically bills customers for services they had cancelled or a plumbing company routinely overcharges customers by $10, those practices will not be brought to light. The dollar amounts would be too small. Why should the plumbing company get an extra $10 from everyone? I guess what this legislation means is if you cheat a lot, you can take them to court, but if you cheat just a little bit, lots and lots of times, have at it, because no one can do anything about it. This is the ``cheat a little bit'' legislation.

This legislation is not good. It will help the tobacco industry avoid accountability. It virtually guarantees that tobacco-related cases will end up in federal court where they won't be able to proceed. I had a person, Fritz Hahn, who lived on my property in Nevada to keep an eye on things. He was there for many years. He started smoking when he was a teenager. He is now dead as a result of tobacco. He smoked too much. He got throat cancer. He died a slow, terrible death. But for class action lawyers, tobacco companies would have a free rein, and they would be able to kill a lot more people like Fritz Hahn.

That is what class action is all about, joining together and going after those companies who do bad things to people. However, this legislation will make it so much more difficult. That is why numerous consumer groups, including the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the Consumers Union, the AFL- CIO, Public Citizen, and many others have urged the Senate to reject the bill.

I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record scores and scores of companies that support my statement against this legislation.

Organizations are against it. State court judges, Federal judges, many state Attorneys General, and the National Conference of State Legislators are against it. Officials in our home States are telling us not to do this. The only groups that want us to pass this bill are those representing defendants in these lawsuits. Sure, they want to be relieved of the burden of accountability. We shouldn't let them. This is not just a battle between big business and lawyers. It is more. It is certainly more anti-lawyer than I would like to think. But that is what we hear coming from the White House.

At a meeting in Las Vegas, the President said: The most hurtful thing in the American economy today is lawyers. I don't believe that, as indicated by the instances I gave about tobacco. Sure there are bad lawyers who bring meritless cases, and there should be something we do to crack down on them. But this bill is not about punishing bad lawyers. More fundamentally this bill is about limiting access to civil courts and hurting consumers.

One of the grievances that inspired our Founding Fathers to revolt against King George was they couldn't bring their grievances to a body.

What time is that? I will use leader time.

I thank the Chair.

As I was saying, one of the grievances that inspired our Founding Fathers to revolt against King George was limited access to the civil courts. That was based on the rights secured in the year 1215, when King John signed the Magna Carta. King John couldn't sign his name, so he put an X. From that day forward, one of the things that was brought over the ocean and is now in our common law, when the Founding Fathers developed our country, is that you bring to court your grievances. They had a jury that could sit down and talk about what was good and bad about your case. Access to the courts is a basic right in our democracy, and after today it will be a diminished right.

These rights are being denigrated, taken away from us with this legislation. It is too bad. A basic right that has been in existence since we have been a country, they are chipping away at.

I am going to vote against this ill-considered bill. I recognize it is going to pass. I think that is too bad. I can say this without any question: Downtown beat us. There is no question about that.

Mr. President, we have long recognized that our country has an obligation to take care of the brave men and women who wear the uniform of the United States--and their families.

Sixty years ago we passed the GI Bill of Rights for the 16 million veterans who served in WorId War II. By providing new opportunities in housing and education, we helped them return to civilian life.

Our military forces have changed dramatically since then--but the benefits we offer to military families haven't kept pace with the changes.

Today our military relies on volunteers, and our security depends on recruiting and retaining good troops--including members of the National Guard and Reserves.

The Guard and Reserves serve at the command of State governors, but members are also available to be called to active duty by the President. And over the last 10 years, the role of the National Guard and Reserves in our military has steadily increased.

Today, reports indicate that almost half of the forces deployed in support of Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom come from the National Guard and the Reserves.

These Guardsmen and Reservists are not only providing much-needed ``boots on the ground.'' They bring specific skills that our regular active military cannot duplicate.

For example, in my home state of Nevada, half of the pilots in the Nevada Air National Guard are civilian pilots.

A majority of the Nevada National Guard military police, who are in the 72nd MP Company that just returned from Iraq, work as law enforcement officers in Las Vegas.

And the Nevada Army Guard's 126th Medical Company an air ambulance

unit, which flew more than 174 traumatic medical evacuations in Afghanistan, is made up entirely of men and women who work as civilian paramedics.

So the National Guard and Reserves are strengthened by the fact that members hold civilian jobs as pilots, police officers and paramedics.

The Guard and Reserves also provide the primary service--or the only service--in several crucial areas of national security, including: port security; airport security; civil support teams; and reconnaissance and Drug Air Interdiction.

Since we rely more than ever on members of our National Guard and Reserves, we need to modernize the benefits that are available to them--especially in the areas of retirement and health care.

Let's start with health care.

It's true that service in the Guard and Reserve is a part time obligation--but it is unlike any other part-time job that a person might hold.

When the Guard and Reserves call, members must put their duty above their regular jobs and even their families. That means taking time off from their regular jobs . . . and forgoing many family activities because they are busy fulfilling their Guard or reserve duties.

And it means being ready for deployment at any time.

In short, we expect members to make the Guard and Reserves a top priority in their lives.

In return for that commitment . . . for the sacrifices they make at their regular jobs . . . we owe them the peace of mind of knowing that their families will receive quality medical care.

We need to offer medical care that leverages the existing military health care system. That is why TRICARE should be an option for all members of the National Guard and Reserves.

The lack of health care benefits for Guard and Reserve members is a serious problem. Currently, about 40 percent of the enlisted members don't have any health care coverage.

This affects troop readiness. In recent mobilizations, 10 to 15 percent of the Guard and Reserve members could not be deployed due to health-related issues.

It also affects the state of mind of those who are training for dangerous deployments. A Reservist in training on the weekend shouldn't be worried about whether his or her sick child will be able to see a doctor.

Providing better health care benefits to members of the Guard and Reserve is not only the right thing to do--it's a matter of national security.

We just also upgrade the retirement benefits available to those who choose to serve for long periods of time.

A person who serves in the Guard or Reserve for 20 years is subject to being called up to active duty numerous times, disrupting his or her civilian career and retirement planning.

We must take this into account, and improve the retirement benefits for Guard and Reserve members.

The current reserve retirement system is 50 years old, and it doesn't reflect the extent to which our nation now depends on the National Guard and Reserves.

This outdated system doesn't allow members to receive retired pay or retiree health benefits until they are 60 years old. We must update the system so those who serve can receive benefits at age 55, if they meet all the other requirements.

This change would recognize the importance of the Guard and Reserves in today's military . . . and it would recognize the sacrifices that members make in their civilian careers in order to serve their country.

Once again, this is not only the right thing to do--it will make our country stronger and safer by encouraging and rewarding service in the National Guard and Reserves.

Mr. President, we have long recognized that our country has an obligation to take care of the brave men and women who wear the uniform of the United States--and their families.

Sixty years ago we passed the GI Bill of Rights for the 16 million veterans who served in WorId War II. By providing new opportunities in housing and education, we helped them return to civilian life.

Our military forces have changed dramatically since then--but the benefits we offer to military families haven't kept pace with the changes.

Today our military relies on volunteers, and our security depends on recruiting and retaining good troops--including members of the National Guard and Reserves.

The Guard and Reserves serve at the command of State governors, but members are also available to be called to active duty by the President. And over the last 10 years, the role of the National Guard and Reserves in our military has steadily increased.

Today, reports indicate that almost half of the forces deployed in support of Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom come from the National Guard and the Reserves.

These Guardsmen and Reservists are not only providing much-needed ``boots on the ground.'' They bring specific skills that our regular active military cannot duplicate.

For example, in my home state of Nevada, half of the pilots in the Nevada Air National Guard are civilian pilots.

A majority of the Nevada National Guard military police, who are in the 72nd MP Company that just returned from Iraq, work as law enforcement officers in Las Vegas.

And the Nevada Army Guard's 126th Medical Company an air ambulance

unit, which flew more than 174 traumatic medical evacuations in Afghanistan, is made up entirely of men and women who work as civilian paramedics.

So the National Guard and Reserves are strengthened by the fact that members hold civilian jobs as pilots, police officers and paramedics.

The Guard and Reserves also provide the primary service--or the only service--in several crucial areas of national security, including: port security; airport security; civil support teams; and reconnaissance and Drug Air Interdiction.

Since we rely more than ever on members of our National Guard and Reserves, we need to modernize the benefits that are available to them--especially in the areas of retirement and health care.

Let's start with health care.

It's true that service in the Guard and Reserve is a part time obligation--but it is unlike any other part-time job that a person might hold.

When the Guard and Reserves call, members must put their duty above their regular jobs and even their families. That means taking time off from their regular jobs . . . and forgoing many family activities because they are busy fulfilling their Guard or reserve duties.

And it means being ready for deployment at any time.

In short, we expect members to make the Guard and Reserves a top priority in their lives.

In return for that commitment . . . for the sacrifices they make at their regular jobs . . . we owe them the peace of mind of knowing that their families will receive quality medical care.

We need to offer medical care that leverages the existing military health care system. That is why TRICARE should be an option for all members of the National Guard and Reserves.

The lack of health care benefits for Guard and Reserve members is a serious problem. Currently, about 40 percent of the enlisted members don't have any health care coverage.

This affects troop readiness. In recent mobilizations, 10 to 15 percent of the Guard and Reserve members could not be deployed due to health-related issues.

It also affects the state of mind of those who are training for dangerous deployments. A Reservist in training on the weekend shouldn't be worried about whether his or her sick child will be able to see a doctor.

Providing better health care benefits to members of the Guard and Reserve is not only the right thing to do--it's a matter of national security.

We just also upgrade the retirement benefits available to those who choose to serve for long periods of time.

A person who serves in the Guard or Reserve for 20 years is subject to being called up to active duty numerous times, disrupting his or her civilian career and retirement planning.

We must take this into account, and improve the retirement benefits for Guard and Reserve members.

The current reserve retirement system is 50 years old, and it doesn't reflect the extent to which our nation now depends on the National Guard and Reserves.

This outdated system doesn't allow members to receive retired pay or retiree health benefits until they are 60 years old. We must update the system so those who serve can receive benefits at age 55, if they meet all the other requirements.

This change would recognize the importance of the Guard and Reserves in today's military . . . and it would recognize the sacrifices that members make in their civilian careers in order to serve their country.

Once again, this is not only the right thing to do--it will make our country stronger and safer by encouraging and rewarding service in the National Guard and Reserves.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time in relation to the statement I will give which pertains to the class action bill be charged to the class action bill. There is no time agreement, but rather than take up my leader time or morning business, that the time be charged against the time on the bill.