Floor Statements

Mr. President, for the past 2 days the Senate has been debating the so-called Class Action Fairness Act of 2005. I want to spend a few minutes today talking about this bill.

Despite its title, the bill is not about fairness at all, in my opinion. It is about depriving consumers of access to the courts and letting corporate wrongdoers off the hook.

People ask, what are these cases all about? These cases are about things dealing with fairness. Class actions fall in a number of different categories: environmental pollution, insurance practices, wage-and-hour employment disputes, consumer fraud, dangerous drugs, products that kill, and consumer protection. In those categories we have had, in recent years, some very successful pieces of litigation that have made our society a better place. However if this bill had been law, those cases would have been removed to federal court where they would have likely been dismissed. It is important for states to continue to have the opportunity to protect their own citizens in their own courts.

For example, there was a case in New Hampshire dealing with environmental pollution brought by the State of New Hampshire against 22 oil and chemical companies responsible for polluting the State's waterways with methyl tertiary butyl ether. We refer to that as MTBE. These companies were accused of violating state consumer protection and state environmental laws. They were negligent. They produced a defective product and created a public nuisance. In this case, New Hampshire is seeking compensation for the cost of the cleanup as well as penalties, both monetary and punitive in nature. Under this bill, because the named defendant is a citizen of another state, the State of New Hampshire would have to have their case heard in federal court instead of their own state court.

In Louisiana there was a pesticide there that had decimated the crawfish population. At one time, they were bringing in about 41 million pounds of crawfish. After this chemical was put into the waterways, that dropped to about 16 million pounds. Crawfish farmers were going broke. The plaintiffs were all from Louisiana and the harm occurred there. They filed a class action in state court, and a Louisiana state court judge recently granted final approval on a settlement agreement. This case is a clear example of a state court having the opportunity to interpret its own state law, yet if S. 5 were already enacted, it would have had to be removed to federal court.

There was a chemical plant leak that occurred in Richmond, California that caused a dangerous cloud to form over the town. Over 24,000 people sought medical treatment in the days immediately following the leak. The residents sued as a class, and the chemical company had to settle. While only California residents were harmed in California, under S. 5 this case would have been removed to federal court because the defendant is based in New Jersey.

Insurance practices: In one case, a Missouri state judge gave preliminary approval to a settlement agreement in a class action brought by Missouri plaintiffs, where a pharmacist diluted prescriptions for thousands of patients, including chemotherapy patients. Because the defendant is based in Iowa, although they sell policies in Missouri, the case could be removable to federal court under this bill.

Equitable Life Insurance was accused of misleading and cheating customers. This was a situation of the so-called vanishing premium cases in the 1980s. They sold policies when interest rates were high. They told customers as soon as the interest rates went down their premiums would be lower. That was not true. Class action lawsuits were filed in Pennsylvania and Arizona state courts, and Equitable settled the suits for $20 million helping over 130,000 people. However, because the insurance company was based in another state, under this legislation, the case would have been removed to federal court and these people harmed between 1984-1996 would still be waiting for justice.

Wage-and-hour employment disputes: In California, Wal-Mart employees have been denied pay for actual time worked. A California state judge certified a class action brought by California plaintiffs. The harm occurred in California, nonetheless, under the proposed legislation the case would be removed to federal court.

Consumer fraud: Roto-Rooter overcharged approximately two million customers $10 each by adding charges to invoices violating state consumer protection laws. A class action was brought in Ohio where many of the class members live and where Roto-Rooter is based. Under S. 5, the case could be removed to federal court.

AOL, a Virginia based company, charged the credit card of their customers for services even after those customers had canceled their AOL subscriptions. The lead plaintiff in a class action case was a California citizen. AOL wanted to litigate the case in federal court under Virginia law. The California Court of Appeals held that the proper venue was in state court because Virginia law did not allow consumer class actions and the available remedies were more limited than under California law. This would undermine

California's strong consumer protection laws. Under this bill we are considering, California would be powerless to protect their own public policy. What's fair about that?

In Florida a person sold funeral plots that didn't exist and desecrated some of the graves that were there. The issues raised in this case are state issues and the coffins desecrated were only those in Florida, yet under S. 5 the case would be removed to federal court because the parent company of the funeral home is based in another state.

Products that kill: Lead paint has poisoned thousands of children since 1993. Ford sold police cruisers that are prone to fire. This bill would seek to remove these cases to our already overburdened federal courts where they would experience extreme delays and possible dismissal.

Consumer protection: Cases against Monsanto, Jack-in-the-Box, and Nestle would all be removed to federal court possibly denying the members in the class the protection of their own state laws.

I believe it has been good for our country to have these lawsuits because if you didn't have these lawsuits and you had the law that is now sought in this legislation, these cases, most of them, wouldn't have been brought.

I am not saying there is no room to improve the rules governing class action lawsuits. There is. There are abuses. Coupon settlement cases, I believe, are not good. Consumers get no meaningful relief, and the lawyers get everything. That isn't fair. If this bill simply addressed the coupon problem, all 100 Senators would vote for it. But this pending proposal goes much further. It effectively closes the courthouse doors to a wide range of injured plaintiffs. I have mentioned some of them. At the same time, the bill turns federalism on its head. It denies State courts the opportunity to hear State law claims brought by residents of that State.

My friends on the majority side, the Republicans, say they favor States rights. They should be embarrassed to support this bill, which is one of the most profound assaults on States rights to come before Congress in many years. Most disturbingly, this bill limits corporate accountability at a time when corporate scandals have proliferated.

As we began debate on this bill, the majority leader and I received a letter signed by attorneys general of New York, Oklahoma, California, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, Maryland, Minnesota, New Mexico, Oregon, Vermont, and West Virginia. These attorneys general whose sworn duty is to protect the public and enforce State laws oppose the bill now before the Senate. They say that despite improvements since the bill was first introduced a number of years ago, that:

S. 5 still unduly limits the rights of individuals to seek

redress for corporate wrongdoing in their State courts. We

therefore strongly recommend that this legislation not be

enacted in its present form.

They warn us further:

S. 5 would effect a sweeping reordering of our Nation's

system of justice that will disenfranchise individual

citizens from obtaining redress for harm, and thereby impede

efforts against egregious corporate wrongdoing.

This bill would ``reorder'' our justice system, as the attorneys general have warned us.

Several amendments we are going to offer are important.

First, S. 5 will allow corporate defendants to remove many multi- state class actions from State court to Federal court. But under current law and practice, the Federal courts can refuse to certify these cases as class actions on the ground that there are too many State laws involved. Prior to the passage of S. 5, the Federal courts' failure to certify would allow consumers to re-file their cases in State court, but this bill would preclude plaintiffs turned away in Federal court from going back to State court. If this problem isn't corrected, consumers will have lost their only means of redress when they have been cheated by a corporation in a matter too small to file an individual case. Plaintiffs in cases like the Roto-Rooter example would have no remedy, and the corporation could continue to take advantage of them.

Senator Bingaman will offer an amendment. It is my understanding that he and Senator Feinstein are working on a compromise. Senator Feinstein has been an early supporter of S. 5. She understands that this is a problem. I am confident she will work with Senator Bingaman to come up with some way to resolve this important issue.

Second, the bill will literally make a Federal case out of what has always been State personal injury cases. Sometimes such cases are consolidated by State courts for efficiency. They are not ``class actions'' at all. But the pending bill would include them under a newly invented term, ``mass actions,'' and allow them to be removed to Federal court.

For example, when a large number of people are injured by the same dangerous pharmaceutical drug, their claims may be consolidated by State court rules. Now those consolidated individual claims would be removed to Federal court where they will be subject to extensive delays or even dismissal if the laws of more than one State are involved. These mass torts often involve hundreds of plaintiffs who have been physically injured by drugs, medical devices, tobacco, lead paint, or ground water contamination.

S. 5 should be required to have a big label on it: ``Warning: This legislation may be dangerous to the health of all Americans''-- especially healthy American consumers.

Senator Durbin has already offered an amendment to deal with this ``mass torts'' issue. I hope that the chairman of the committee, Senator Specter, will work with him to see if this matter can be resolved.

These two things I have mentioned--the Bingaman amendment and the Durbin amendment--are issues of basic fairness.

Third, the bill would apply to civil rights and wage-and-hour cases that have nothing to do with the coupon settlements the bill sponsors say they want to address. These cases would now be subject to the same delay and potential dismissal as the personal injury cases I just discussed.

Class actions are particularly important for low wage workers. There are now dozens of class action suits in State courts representing tens of thousands of low wage workers who have been forced to work extra hours without pay or who have been denied their wages for other reasons. Also, many States provide greater civil rights protections than are available under Federal law. Senator Kennedy will offer an amendment to carve out these cases from this bill. That is fair.

Fourth, as drafted, this bill even applies to cases brought by State attorneys general enforcing State laws on behalf of State consumers. Federalism has certainly taken a tumble around here when State courts are not permitted to hear cases brought by their own attorneys general to enforce State consumer fraud laws, environmental protection laws, and other vital State interests.

Separate from the letter I described earlier from Attorney General Spitzer and others, we have received a letter from the National Association of State Attorneys, the organization representing all 50 statewide prosecutors, Republicans and Democrats. Forty-six of them have signed it. They uniformly urge that the bill be clarified to include consumer class actions brought by State attorneys general. That is fair. Senator Pryor, one of several former attorneys general we have serving in this body, will offer an amendment to achieve this goal.

This bill is imbalanced in that it establishes a 60-day deadline for Federal appellate courts to decide appeals of a district court's decision to remand a class action lawsuit, but it lacks a parallel mechanism to ensure speedy consideration of the motion to remand in the district court. Senator Feingold will offer an amendment to correct this imbalance. If 60 days is not a good deadline, they can come up with another one. But unless the Feingold amendment is agreed to, these people can bring a case to court which will lay there forever.

None of these amendments we offer are killer amendments. All are modest improvements that would strengthen corporate accountability and ensure that vulnerable citizens get their day in court. I urge my colleagues to accept these amendments.

These amendments I have talked about to the underlying bill will be

helpful. However, even with these amendments, the underlying bill will still be a bad bill, but it would be better. They would certainly improve the bill.

There was a tremendously powerful article in Business Week last week entitled, ``A Phony Cure: Shifting class actions to federal courts is no reform.'' No one can say it is some liberal rag of the Democratic Party. In this article, even Chief Justice Rehnquist criticizes this legislation. The article emphasizes that Federal judges hate this legislation and it is more of a step towards chaos than reform. Justice Rehnquist says: Don't do this to us. Federal judges are too busy. Federal courts are already overburdened and it will make the case backlogs even longer. In addition to that, instead of helping Federal courts, the article states that it will cut back on those resources to our Federal court system, and it is going to leave these Federal judges in a real bind.

This month is Black History month, and this legislation brings to mind for many of us Brown vs. Board of Education. The distinguished majority leader, Senator Frist, talked today about the first sit-ins by these courageous young men and women in the South which brought about a number of things. But one reason that the Brown vs. Board of Education case was able to move forward was because it was a class action. It was a culmination of appeals from four class action cases--three from the Federal court decisions in Kansas, South Carolina, and Virginia, and one by the decision of the Supreme Court of Delaware. Only the state court, the Supreme Court of Delaware, made the correct decision by ruling in favor of the African-American plaintiffs. The State court held that the segregated schools in Delaware violated the 14th amendment, Delaware rejected separate and unequal schools.

Another example is a case brought last June. The U.S. Supreme Court decided to allow a state class action lawsuit against Daimler Chrysler to continue in Oklahoma. That was an important case because it affects up to 1 million owners of minivans that have front passenger seat air bags that deploy in low speed accidents, very low speeds, with tremendous force, potentially killing children and hurting small adult passengers. Oklahoma's Supreme Court ruled that the case could go forward in state court for this defect. A federal court, relying on the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, would probably find the case unmanageable.

These cases I have mentioned should be allowed to proceed. This legislation would not allow that. That is too bad.

This legislation, especially if we don't get these amendments passed, is disrespectful to States rights and will result in many instances of injustice. I am going to vote against this bill. I hope my colleagues will do the same. But I certainly hope my colleagues will do something to improve this bad bill. We need to be alarmed at what it is doing to States rights. I am going to vote against this bill, but I hope people will work with us.

I apologize to my colleague for taking away from his morning business time. I ask unanimous consent that when the Chair announces morning business the full hour be extended with one-half hour on each side.

Mr. President, I have no objection to the unanimous consent request.

It is my understanding that the distinguished Republican leader has indicated we will finish this bill this week. Is that right?

Mr. President, today I am introducing the ``Reaffirmation of State Regulation of Resident and Nonresident Hunting and Fishing Act of 2005.'' This legislation explicitly reaffirms each State's right to regulate hunting and fishing. I am pleased that Senators Ben Nelson, John Ensign, Max Baucus, and Ted Stevens are joining me in sponsoring this important bill.

This is a Nevada issue, but it also is a national issue, as a recent Federal circuit court ruling undermines traditional hunting and fishing laws. In Conservation Force v. Dennis Manning, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that State laws that distinguish between State residents and non-residents for the purpose of affording hunting and related privileges are constitutionally suspect.

This threatens the conservation of wildlife resources and recreational opportunities. Although the Ninth Circuit found the purposes of such regulation to be sound, the court questioned the validity of tag limits for non-resident hunters.

I respect the authority of States to enact laws to protect their legitimate interests in conserving fish and game, as well as providing opportunities for in-State and out-of-State residents to hunt and fish. That's what this legislation says--we respect that State right.

Sportsmen are ardent conservationists. They support wildlife conservation not only through the payment of State and local taxes and other fees, but also through local non-profit conservation efforts and by volunteering their time.

For example, in Nevada there are great groups such as Nevada Bighorns Unlimited and the Fraternity of Desert Bighorn. These are dedicated sportsmen who spend countless hours and much of their own money building ``guzzlers'' in the desert, which help provide a reliable source of water for bighorn sheep and other wildlife. Without these efforts it would be extremely hard for bighorn sheep to survive in much of their historic range in Nevada because much of their historic range has been fragmented by development. Today, Southern Nevada is in the midst of a very difficult 500-year drought, and the work of the conservation groups has saved thousands of our bighorn sheep.

The deep involvement of local sportsmen in protecting and conserving wildlife is one important justification for the traditional resident/ non-resident distinctions, and provides the motivation for our legislation. The regulation of wildlife is traditionally within a State's purview, and this legislation simply affirms the traditional role of States in the regulation of fish and game.

This bill is time sensitive. The out-of-State hunters that brought the suit in the 9th Circuit are now threatening to get a restraining order from the Federal court to delay the opening of the big game season in Nevada this year. This threat itself is causing great damage to conservation and fish and game management in Nevada.

According to The Las Vegas Sun, Nevada's Wildlife Department has already borrowed $3 million to get through the fiscal year, eliminated three positions, and has plans to eliminate five more. Delaying hunting seasons while the courts resolve this issue could cause the Department to literally shut down.

Uncertainty with regard to hunting and fishing regulations is bad for the conservation of Nevada's resources. This bill needs to pass now. I look forward to working with my colleagues to expedite passage of this important legislation. I ask that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the ``Reaffirmation of State Regulation of Resident and Nonresident Hunting and Fishing Act of 2005.'' This legislation explicitly reaffirms each State's right to regulate hunting and fishing. I am pleased that Senators Ben Nelson, John Ensign, Max Baucus, and Ted Stevens are joining me in sponsoring this important bill.

This is a Nevada issue, but it also is a national issue, as a recent Federal circuit court ruling undermines traditional hunting and fishing laws. In Conservation Force v. Dennis Manning, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that State laws that distinguish between State residents and non-residents for the purpose of affording hunting and related privileges are constitutionally suspect.

This threatens the conservation of wildlife resources and recreational opportunities. Although the Ninth Circuit found the purposes of such regulation to be sound, the court questioned the validity of tag limits for non-resident hunters.

I respect the authority of States to enact laws to protect their legitimate interests in conserving fish and game, as well as providing opportunities for in-State and out-of-State residents to hunt and fish. That's what this legislation says--we respect that State right.

Sportsmen are ardent conservationists. They support wildlife conservation not only through the payment of State and local taxes and other fees, but also through local non-profit conservation efforts and by volunteering their time.

For example, in Nevada there are great groups such as Nevada Bighorns Unlimited and the Fraternity of Desert Bighorn. These are dedicated sportsmen who spend countless hours and much of their own money building ``guzzlers'' in the desert, which help provide a reliable source of water for bighorn sheep and other wildlife. Without these efforts it would be extremely hard for bighorn sheep to survive in much of their historic range in Nevada because much of their historic range has been fragmented by development. Today, Southern Nevada is in the midst of a very difficult 500-year drought, and the work of the conservation groups has saved thousands of our bighorn sheep.

The deep involvement of local sportsmen in protecting and conserving wildlife is one important justification for the traditional resident/ non-resident distinctions, and provides the motivation for our legislation. The regulation of wildlife is traditionally within a State's purview, and this legislation simply affirms the traditional role of States in the regulation of fish and game.

This bill is time sensitive. The out-of-State hunters that brought the suit in the 9th Circuit are now threatening to get a restraining order from the Federal court to delay the opening of the big game season in Nevada this year. This threat itself is causing great damage to conservation and fish and game management in Nevada.

According to The Las Vegas Sun, Nevada's Wildlife Department has already borrowed $3 million to get through the fiscal year, eliminated three positions, and has plans to eliminate five more. Delaying hunting seasons while the courts resolve this issue could cause the Department to literally shut down.

Uncertainty with regard to hunting and fishing regulations is bad for the conservation of Nevada's resources. This bill needs to pass now. I look forward to working with my colleagues to expedite passage of this important legislation. I ask that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am submitting a resolution today to designate April 1 of this year as ``National Asbestos Awareness Day.''

I submitted this resolution toward the end of the last Congress and the Senate did not have a chance to act on it. I submit it again today because strengthening public awareness about the danger of asbestos exposure could save thousands of lives.

Scientists have shown that inhalation of asbestos fibers can cause several serious diseases that might not show up for years after exposure. These diseases include lung cancer and asbestosis, the progressive scarring of the lungs by asbestos fibers causing respiratory distress, as well as malignant mesothelioma, a form of cancer for which asbestos exposure is the only known cause.

Over the next decade, more than 100,000 U.S. citizens will die of asbestos-related diseases. That is approximately 30 people per day--and it means one person will die in the time it takes us to act on this resolution.

Asbestos not only kills thousands of Americans every year. It also causes pain and suffering, tears families apart, and adds to the costs of our health care system.

I have been touched by the stories of Americans affected by asbestos- related diseases.

Last fall, I received a phone call from my brother, Don, who told me that a long-time family friend, Harold Hansen, had died from mesothelioma. Harold was a wonderful friend and family man. He hadn't worked directly with asbestos in his lifetime, but he had been unwittingly exposed--and that exposure took his life.

Alan Reinstein was diagnosed with mesothelioma on June 16, 2003, and soon after underwent radical surgery to remove his entire lung, pericardium, diaphragm, and other affected parts of his body. He continues to courageously fight this deadly illness, and each day he must face the fear that the cancer might return.

Despite his illness, Alan is a lucky man because he has a loving wife, Linda, and family that give him strength. Linda Reinstein couldn't sit by and watch her husband suffer, knowing that thousands of others had also been afflicted. So she founded the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization to educate the public and the medical community about diseases caused by asbestos exposure.

I have received many letters from Nevadans who have family members with asbestos-related diseases. Eleanor Shook, from my home town of Searchlight, NV, lost her husband Chuck to mesothelioma. He had been repeatedly exposed to asbestos while at work. Two months after his diagnosis, he passed away--no cure, no treatment, no reprieve. There is a hole in that family where Chuck once stood.

I also received a letter from Jack Holmes a former school teacher from Las Vegas, who wrote: ``I am dying. I have malignant mesothelioma . . . I can expect extreme pain and suffering before I die.''

I also heard from Robert Wright of Henderson, NV, who was exposed to asbestos while serving in the United

States Navy. He now suffers from asbestosis.

These are just a few of the hundreds of citizens of Nevada that are suffering with asbestos-related diseases. Every one of their stories is a tragedy and every one of them could have been prevented with greater awareness and education.

Most Americans think asbestos was banned a long time ago. Nothing could be further from the truth. New asbestos is used every day to insulate water pipes, as insulation, in making ceiling tiles and in many other building materials. When the tiny particles are released, they are invisible, and can't be smelled or tasted. Once inhaled, the particles lodge themselves in the lining of the lungs and remain there, causing irreversible damage for up to 50 years before disease sets in.

A single large dose of asbestos can fill your lungs with enough particles to cause disease. Simply walking by a construction site where asbestos particles are at a heavy concentration could be enough to give you a lethal dose.

Perhaps the most frightening thing about asbestos is that a person can be exposed without knowing it. A New York City police officer told me he worked in an undercover sting as a construction worker. The goal of the sting was to catch individuals who would improperly dispose of asbestos that had been removed from buildings. He told of catching men who tried to illegally dump asbestos in a school yard, where children would have been exposed to its dangers for years to come.

This story underscores the importance of raising public awareness about the dangers of asbestos exposure.

Better awareness and education can reduce exposure. For those who have been exposed, early detection and screening can increase treatment options and improve prognosis.

Asbestos kills--but asbestos education can save lives.

Just as victims and their families joined together to raise awareness of asbestos-related disease by forming the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization, the Senate can increase awareness of this silent killer by declaring April 1, 2005 as Asbestos Awareness Day. I hope all senators will join me in this effort.

Mr. President, first, let me express my appreciation to the ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee. Senator Biden is someone who has knowledge of foreign affairs that is astounding. Having served on that committee when I was in the House of Representatives, I know it is a great committee. It is so important to the success or failure of what happens in this country in relation to our foreign neighbors. I feel so relieved, knowing he is there, leading us on this most important committee. I appreciate his statement today.

The resolution now before the Senate commends the Iraqi people for their courage during the election on January 30. I think it is important that we express our admiration for the Iraqi citizens. That is what this resolution does. Millions cast their votes on that day. They turned out at the polls in spite of threats to voters, candidates, election workers, and in spite of acts of violence by those seeking to undermine the election process. The acts of violence took place. Approximately 40 Iraqis were killed that day, and a number of American soldiers.

I think we should express our gratitude to our troops in Iraq. They are the ones who have allowed this election to go forward. The U.S. military was central to the success of the election on election day. Without them and the overwhelming security they provided, there would not have been an election.

The Iraqi Independent Election Commission and the United Nations also did a good job. They also should be commended. They took the daunting task of trying to hold a free and fair election in the most dangerous conditions.

But no one should underestimate the challenges that lie ahead, as outlined

by Senator Biden. The election was only one step in Iraq's long march toward peace and stability. With the violence unending and the insurgency showing no signs of weakness, the President needs to spell out a clear and understandable plan for success in Iraq. In his State of the Union Address, the President said only that U.S. troops will remain until Iraq becomes a representative democracy that can defend itself and is at peace with its neighbors. This is not a strategy for success; it is an open-ended commitment with no end or plan in sight. Our troops and the American people deserve better than that.

It was only yesterday that the Pentagon, through its Secretary, Mr. Rumsfeld, when pressed for details about the insurgency and about the plan for going forward in Iraq, said only that there is an assessment taking place. This is not leadership.

The President needs to level with the American people. Once and for all he needs to spell out his plan, No. 1, to crush the insurgency, No. 2, to build Iraq's capacity to defend itself and deliver basic services to its people, No. 3, to get the reconstruction process back on track, and, No. 4, to increase political participation by all parties, especially the moderates, and finally, No. 5, to increase international involvement. These are five concrete steps that must take place. Much more is being done, for example, to enlist the international community's help in the training of Iraqi security forces and in the development of the Iraqi political and economic systems.

Will the President finally reach out to the other nations to take some of the burden off our forces and off the U.S. taxpayers? The proof will be in the President's actions, not in his rhetoric. As the administration continues on month by month, without a firm course or direction, the situation in Iraq grows more complex and more dangerous. The President's own National Intelligence Council concluded that Iraq is now a magnet for international terrorism. We have to do better--for our troops, for the American people, and for success in Iraq.

I, again, compliment the people of Iraq for a successful election.

Mr. President, when President Bush was elected, he said that he wanted to be a uniter and not a divider. We took him at his word. The last 4 years have not worked out well. There has not been much unity in Washington, but a lot of divisive matters come before us and the tone has not been good.

The day after this last election when the President was reelected he called

me when I was in Las Vegas and we had a very pleasant meeting on the telephone. He said he wanted to get along. He wanted to set a better tone in Washington.

This past Wednesday, the State of the Union Message was given. The President said the same thing there--he wanted to get along, to cooperate.

Today, the newspaper of Capitol Hill, ``Rollcall,'' has a front page story: ``RNC Turns Up Heat on Reid.'' It is a big story. It says among other things that they are sending out a 13-page research document, the RNC, the Republican National Committee, ``a 13-page research document today to roughly 1 million people . . . detailing Reid's . . .''--what they don't like about me, saying what they want to do is just like they did to Daschle.

I don't think the President of the United States can say one thing and then do something else and get away with it. Is this how he wants to be a uniter, not divider? He cannot distance himself from the Republican National Committee. The Republican National Committee is his committee. He picks the chairman. He picks everybody there. He raises the money for it. It is the President's organization. He can't say one thing to the American people and to the Democratic leader of the Senate and then send out scurrilous letters saying that I am a bad guy, in great detail. I mean, is President George Bush a man of his word? Is what he is telling the American people just a charade?

Last Wednesday, just a few days ago, as I have mentioned, he said that he was going to reach out to the Democrats. This is a strange way to reach out.

Mr. President, I call upon you to repudiate this document, to tell the Republican National Committee don't mail it. Tell them not to send it. We haven't dealt with one piece of legislation here on the Senate floor, yet they are sending out, to a million people, what they think is to have Reid roughed up a little bit.

What politics is all about, what government is all about, is honesty, integrity--not phoniness. Why didn't he stand and tell the American people last Wednesday that one of the first items of business we were going to do in Washington is send out a hit piece on the Democratic leader? If he is honest with the American people, why doesn't he just call it the way it is? It is going to be politics as usual, directed from 16th and Pennsylvania Avenue. Honesty, integrity and truth--if those are the watch words of this President, he will repudiate what his Republican National Committee is doing.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the hour that I have be given to the Senator from Maryland for distribution in morning business.

Mr. President, I ask the Chair how much time is remaining on both sides for the Gonzales nomination?

Is it equally divided?

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

Mr. President, our great Nation was founded on the idea of human rights. From the very beginning, we were designed to be a place where men and women could live free, a place where no man was above the law, a place where the state would never trample on the rights of individuals.

We did not always live up to our ideals. Along the way, we stumbled. We have made mistakes. But we always worked to correct our mistakes. We worked to uphold the core values that formed our national soul.

Because of our unshakable belief in human rights, we became a ray of light, a beacon for people in other parts of the world. America has been that beacon because we are a nation governed by laws, not by men.

We are a nation where no one, not even the President of the United States, is above the law. We are a nation where our military is bound by the uniform Code of Military Justice and the laws of war. And we are a nation that even at war stands for and upholds the rule of law.

There is no question gathering intelligence from suspects in our war on terror is critical to protecting this great Nation. No one in this Chamber would argue otherwise, I would think. These are very bad people with whom we are dealing. But when interrogation turns to torture, it puts our own soldiers at risk. It undermines the very freedoms Americans are fighting to protect.

We are a nation at war--a war in Iraq and a war against terrorism-- but this war does not give our civilian leaders the authority to cast aside the laws of armed conflict, nor does it allow our Commander in Chief to decide which laws apply and which laws do not apply. To do so puts, I repeat, our own soldiers and our Nation at risk.

But that is what has occurred under the direction and coordination of the man seeking to be Attorney General of the United States, Alberto Gonzales, a man I personally like, but whose judgment on these very serious matters was flawed and is flawed.

I have heard a great deal on this Senate floor about Judge Gonzales's background over the last few days, how his parents were migrant farm workers, and how he worked his way up from poverty. It is an inspiring story, and it is one that resonates with me.

I met with Judge Gonzales after the President sent his nomination to the Senate. We talked about our childhoods, about coming from small rural towns, some would say without many advantages. The fact that someone from a place called Humble, TX, and someone from a place called Searchlight, NV, have had an opportunity to achieve their dream is what America is all about.

But, embodying the American dream is not a sufficient qualification to be Attorney General of the United States.

The Attorney General is the people's lawyer, not the President's lawyer. He is charged with upholding the Constitution and the rule of law. The Attorney General must be independent, and he must be clear that abuses by our Government will not be tolerated.

Judge Gonzales's appearance before the Judiciary Committee raised serious questions about his ability to be that force in the Justice Department. That is why I am going to vote against him.

In 2002, Judge Gonzales provided legal advice to the President of the United States calling parts of the Geneva Conventions obsolete and quaint--that is what he said, they were obsolete and quaint--opening the door for confusion and a range of harsh interrogation techniques.

What are the Geneva Conventions? At the end of the Civil War, people from around the world decided there should be some semblance of order in how war is conducted. Starting in 1864, there was a convention adopted, and there have been four revisions to the Geneva Convention. That is why it is referred to as the Geneva Conventions because it is, in effect, four treaties.

This is basically an agreement concerning the treatment of prisoners of war, of the sick, wounded, and dead in battle. These are treaties that relate to what happens to human beings in war. These conventions have been accepted by virtually every nation in the world.

A former Navy judge advocate general, RADM John Hutson, said:

When you say something down the chain of command, like `the

Geneva Conventions don't apply,' that sets the stage for the

kind of chaos we have seen.

The President signed an order accepting the reasoning of the Gonzales memo. The Presidential order was the legal basis for the interrogation techniques and other actions, including torture, which simply took as fact that the Geneva Conventions did not apply.

Can you imagine that, the United States saying the Geneva Conventions do not apply? But that is what took place.

Our military lawyers, not people who are retired acting as Monday- morning quarterbacks, but our military lawyers who are working today, who are experts in the field, have said the interrogation techniques authorized as a result of the Presidential order and allowed under the Gonzales reasoning were in violation of the U.S. military law, the U.S. criminal law, and international law.

According to RADM Don Guter, a former Navy judge advocate general:

If we--we being the uniformed lawyers--that is, the lawyers

who are in the U.S. military--had been listened to and what

we said put into practice, then these abuses would not have

occurred.

So the people who serve in our military who gave legal advice said this should never have happened.

After the scandal at Abu Ghraib and the recent allegations of abuse at Guantanamo, I expected at this hearing before the Judiciary Committee to hear Judge Gonzales discuss the error of the administration's policies and the legal advice he provided the President.

When he came before the committee, Judge Gonzales stood by his legal reasoning and the policy of his reasoning. Judge Gonzales called the President's Geneva determination ``absolutely the right decision.''

With regard to the legal opinion Judge Gonzales solicited in the Justice Department so-called ``torture memo,'' he stated at his hearing, ``I don't have a disagreement with the conclusions then reached by the Department,'' even though the Department itself has now disavowed this legal reasoning.

I heard Senator Kennedy state that the dean of Yale Law School, probably the No. 1 law school in the entire country, has said he has never seen legal reasoning as bad as the Gonzales memo. That is pretty bad.

For example, military lawyers who are experts in the field have said without the order issued by the President, at Mr. Gonzales's behest, they would take the position that the interrogation techniques used against Taliban prisoners and later in Iraq would be violations of U.S. military law, U.S. criminal law, and international law.

So who are we to believe? These people who are dedicated to making sure that they, as the legal officers of the U.S. military, do what is right? They say we should follow the Geneva Conventions. Gonzales said--not necessary.

I will say a word about the interrogation techniques that were authorized. They included forced nakedness, forced shaving of beards, and the use of dogs, just to name a few. Many are specifically designed to attack the prisoner's cultural and religious taboos.

In describing them, the similarities to what eventually happened at Abu Ghraib are obvious. Once you order an 18-year-old, a young man or woman, to strip prisoners naked, to force them into painful positions, to shave their beards in violation of their religious beliefs, to lock them alone in the dark and cold, how do you tell him to stop? You cannot.

We have seen the pictures of naked men stacked on top of each other in the so-called pyramid; rapes of men, rapes of women, leading in some cases to death. How does one tell an American soldier that torture is a valid treatment as long as the Government says the prisoner is not covered by the Geneva Conventions?

Any student of history would know that the North Vietnamese said captured U.S. pilots were not protected as prisoners of war because there was no declared war. That is what happened in the Vietnam war. They kept our men in solitary confinement for months, sometimes years at a time.

I will tell my colleagues about one of our men and what that man said about his treatment by the Vietnamese:

It's an awful thing, solitary. It crushes your spirit and

weakens your resistance more effectively than any other form

of mistreatment. . . .

Here, I would make an editorial comment that this man knows about any other kind of treatment. He was brutally beaten, limbs broken, limbs already broken rebroken. So he knows what he is talking about. So I repeat, a direct quote:

It's an awful thing, solitary. It crushes your spirit and

weakens your resistance more effectively than any other form

of mistreatment. Having no one else to rely on, to share

confidences with, to seek counsel from, you begin to doubt

your judgment and your courage.

The man who said these words was a Navy pilot, LCDR John McCain. For John McCain and all our soldiers serving across the globe, we need to stand against torture because of what it does to us as a country, to those serving now, to the future servicemen of our country, and what it does to us as a nation.

If we fail to oppose an evil as obvious as torture--it is an evil and it is obvious it is wrong--then as President Thomas Jefferson said, I will ``tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just.''

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Our friend and colleague, Senator Ernest Hollings of South Carolina, left us last year to enjoy a well-earned retirement. However, he still has a few words of wisdom, and just a little vitriol, that he would like to share.

Senator Hollings was one of the most fascinating speakers ever to take the Senate floor. His comments were sometimes controversial, but always thought-provoking and delivered in a way only Fritz Hollings could orate. We miss him.

I ask unanimous consent that the statement of Senator Hollings be printed in the Congressional Record. I may not agree with all his statements, but as usual I thoroughly enjoyed reading it. I hope all Americans will enjoy it as well.

Mr. President, I rise today, to honor the memory of a great Nevadan, Tony Armstrong, who passed away last Saturday morning.

Tony was the mayor of the town of Sparks, NV, and I had the privilege of working with him in that capacity.

But I rise today not to praise Tony Armstrong the mayor, even though he was a great mayor.

I want to praise Tony Armstrong the husband, the father, the friend, the neighbor.

I rise to praise Tony Armstrong the man who made a positive impression on everyone he met, through the force of an engaging personality that reflected his basic love of people.

Tony spent most of his life in Sparks. He was born in Philadelphia, but his family moved to northern California when he was a toddler, and settled in Sparks when Tony was 4 years old.

Tony attended school in Sparks, and when he graduated high school he joined the Nevada Air National Guard. After serving on active duty for several years, he returned to Washoe County in 1973 and got a job as a building inspector.

In 1983 he married Debbie Rimby, and a couple of years later he started his own contracting company, which later became a private inspection firm.

He first ran for public office in 1987, when he failed to win election to the Sparks City Council. But like many of us who have lost elections, he learned from that experience and it strengthened his determinaton. He came back 2 years later and won a seat on the city council. Ten years after that, in 1999, the people of Sparks elected him as their mayor.

He was a popular mayor, guided always by his love of Sparks, his appreciation of the city's history, and his vision for the future.

Tony worked to preserve the best aspects of Sparks, the friendly atmosphere that make it such a wonderful place to raise a family, and at the same time, improve the services and amenities.

He realized that the great quality of life in northern Nevada meant that Sparks would continue to grow, and he worked to manage that growth so it would benefit the citizens of the city.

During the 14 years that he served as a city councilman and mayor, Sparks grew from a sleepy little railroad town to a city that is home to about 80,000 people.

He oversaw the development of a project called Victorian Square, which preserves and revitalizes a historic area, and the Sparks Marina. I had the privilege of working with him on that marina project.

He was a tireless champion for his city. Sparks and Reno share a convention center and airport, and Tony Armstrong was constantly working to make sure Sparks wasn't overshadowed by its larger neighbor.

Tony also spearheaded the Sparks Centennial Commission, which is celebrating the city's 100th birthday this year.

There is no question that the city will miss his leadership. And the people of Sparks will miss Tony's warm smile and his friendly conversation.

The man who preceded him as mayor, Bruce Breslow, put it simply. ``He made everyone around him feel important,'' he said of Tony.

Another friend, Mary Henderson, said, ``His smile was as bright as a northern Nevada sunrise.''

Mary Humphries met Tony last spring, when they both welcomed attendees to a Sertoma convention in Sparks. After sitting with him for half an hour, she felt as if they had been friends for years.

Tony's daughter has multiple sclerosis, and 2 years ago at an MS walk, he struck up a conversation with Steve Mattos, a Reno man whose wife also has the disease. Tony told Steve that he was taking his daughter to Stanford Medical Center for some experimental tests, and Steve asked him to pass along any information that might be helpful. From that day forward, Tony regularly sent e-mail updates to a man he had met in person only that one time.

Another person who will never forget Tony is Tina Cline. Her husband, Marine LCpl Donald Cline, was killed in Iraq in 2003. At his memorial service, a tearful Tony introduced himself to Tina, hugged her and gave her his home phone number. After Tony's death last weekend, Mrs. Cline posted a message on the web site of the Reno Gazette Journal. ``He has been one of the most helpful men I have ever known,'' she said.

Those are just some of the ways the people of Sparks will remember Tony Armstrong. He was only 59, and his death from complications after surgery was a blow to everyone who knew him.

Tony is survived by Debby, his wife of 21 years; his sons Richard and Keith; his daughter Misti Franco; four grandchildren, and three brothers. Please join me in offering condolences to them on the loss of their loved one.

Tony Armstrong will be missed by many people in many ways, but our memories of him will never be extinguished.

Every 10 years, the President convenes a White House Conference on Aging--WHCoA. It conducts extensive work to understand and develop policy recommendations on issues of critical importance to our seniors.

The WHCoA is made up of a Policy Committee recommended by Congress and the President from the public and private sector. The work of the committee culminates in the October WHCoA which will be attended by 12,000 delegates and other officials. The theme of this year's conference, ``The Booming Dynamics of Aging: From Awareness to Action'' will deal with a broad range of issues from workplace opportunities for older workers to health care and access to affordable prescription drugs.

Following the October meeting, WHCoA formulates a series of policy recommendations for Congress and the President.

Senator Daschle was gracious enough to place me on the policy committee because of my strong interest in the topics it would consider. Many of those issues are of critical importance to Nevadans. In particular, I assumed a position on the Health and Long Living Subcommittee because its work will focus on access to care and affordable prescription drugs, disease prevention and quality of care.

Today, I have decided to pass the torch of this important post to my friend and colleague, Thomas E. Gallagher. These issues are near to his heart. Tom will be an important voice on the WHCoA for Nevadans and all Americans.

Tom's extensive private sector experience will be a great asset to the conference as it works to formulate recommendations to Congress. Through his work as chief executive officer--CEO--chief administrative officer and general counsel of several Fortune 500 Companies, Tom became intimately familiar with the health care challenges facing the business community.

For example, as President and CEO of Park Place Entertainment--now Caesars Entertainment--Mr. Gallagher reached a historic contract with Nevada's Culinary Union resulting in fully paid health care and free prescription drugs for employees, as well as retiree benefits for seniors.

Prior to his corporate management work, Tom was a partner in Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, specializing in corporate finance, mergers and acquisitions. He graduated magna cum laude from the College of Holy Cross in Worchester, MA in 1966. He graduated from Harvard Law School with honors in 1969 and was the Editor-in-Chief of the Harvard Journal on Legislation.

I plan to work closely with Tom as he works on the WHCoA on meetings to help ensure that the issues and view of Nevadans are explored in the listening sessions, solution meetings and other WHCoA events.

Madam President, as the distinguished majority leader and I stood in the aisle, as soon as Reverend Ogilvie finished his prayer, the Republican leader leaned over to me and said, how about that voice, or words to that effect. Those were the exact memories I have of Dr. Ogilvie. I spent 5 years listening to his prayers every morning. As a result of that, I felt it was a good way to start the day. It brought back so many memories of our time together.

It seems that one of the requirements, at least with the last two chaplains we have had, is the voice. Dr.

Black and Dr. Ogilvie have two of the finest voices I have ever heard and each time I hear them say something I become so envious that I have my voice and they have theirs.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the important work of the Nathan Adelson Hospice in Las Vegas.

For more than 25 years, the Nathan Adelson Hospice has been the only nonprofit provider of hospice care in southern Nevada. When the Nathan Adelson Hospice was established in 1978, it was one of the first hospices in the country. Its mission is to provide dignified and compassionate care for the terminally ill and their loved ones. In keeping with this mission, no one is turned away from the Nathan Adelson Hospice due to lack of funds.

As great as it is, the Nathan Adelson Hospice is always trying to improve the care it offers to patients. Last year, the hospice began construction on a 16-bed, inpatient facility in Henderson, NV. This facility will provide respite services for families, pain and symptom management for patients, and day care for adults in the community. It is a state-of-the-art facility, and I am pleased to say that I was able to secure funds to help with its construction.

Finally, my recognition of the Nathan Adelson Hospice would be incomplete without mentioning its efforts on behalf of minorities. Studies indicate that minorities and members of traditionally underserved populations do not take advantage of hospice care as much as they should. In fact, while minorities make up almost 30 percent of the U.S. population, they account for fewer than 20 percent of hospice patients nationwide. Some experts have suggested that inequities in access to health care, cultural differences, and language barriers are responsible for this situation.

No matter the reasons, it is clear that members of minority communities could benefit from greater access to hospice care. That is why I was so pleased to hear of the Nathan Adelson Hospice's new efforts to expand care to Nevada's underserved minority communities.

Last week, the Nathan Adelson Hospice hosted a multicultural luncheon and concert in an effort to connect with minority businesses that want to sponsor outreach and educational efforts for minority communities in Las Vegas. This event was a creative way to build business and community partnerships while raising the profile of an important program.

I know you will join me in applauding the Nathan Adelson Hospice, and its efforts to increase minority participation in hospice care.

Mr. President, I rise today to acknowledge and honor the work of my good friend, Don Wilson, who will be retiring after 22 years of service to the people of Nevada in the House of Representatives and the United States Senate.

Don was born in Carl Junction, MO, in 1939. His father, like my own, was a miner, and the search for work led the Wilson family to move around the West for much of Don's early years. The Wilsons spent time in Oklahoma, South Dakota, Idaho, New Mexico and Washington State and finally settled in Henderson, NV in June 1952.

I first met Don at Basic High School in Henderson in 1957, and we quickly became friends. He and I both played on the football and baseball teams together, but Don was the star. He set many records, some of which stand to this day, and he led our high school teams to several championships. One year, he even batted over .500. With that type of talent, it is hardly surprising that Don earned a full athletic scholarship at Arizona State University in Tempe, where he graduated with a degree in marketing in 1961.

After graduation, Don worked for a few months for IBM Corporation. He was drafted, however, in 1962 and served his country honorably for 2 years in the Army. He worked in the Clark County Juvenile Justice System for over 15 years, trying to make a difference in the lives of troubled young Nevadans. During his time at the Juvenile Court, he served in various leadership positions, including director of the Spring Mountain Youth Camp.

Since then, Don has worked hard on behalf of Nevada on my staff--both in the House of Representatives and in the United States Senate. He filled many roles in my office over the years--legislative assistant, business manager, and currently deputy regional manager for my Las Vegas office--but, first and foremost, he has remained my trusted friend.

Abraham Lincoln once said, ``The better part of one's life consists of his friendships.'' Don Wilson has been my friend for the better part of my life, and I thank him for this friendship and look forward to our continued relationship in the years to come.