Floor Statements

Mr. President, these votes would occur on Wednesday. We are still working on the time during Tuesday's session for the vote on the motion to waive. We will announce that when it is locked in.

I ask that there be a period for morning business.

Mr. President, today, I would briefly like to recount the details of a troubling series of events that resulted in the capture of four Americans, one of whom was executed, in the jungles of Colombia. I recently received word of this story from a special operations officer with intimate knowledge of these and subsequent events.

Three years ago today, a contract surveillance plane operated by four American Defense Department contractors and one Colombian military sergeant, was flying in support of our joint counternarcotics efforts in Colombia. Engine troubles forced the crew to crash land the aircraft in the Colombian jungle south of the capital Bogata.

While there was a small window of opportunity to mount a search and rescue effort, the launch of the rescue team was never authorized. All five crew members were captured by the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia.

FARC is a known terrorist organization that has terrorized Colombian civilians and political figures for decades. It has kidnapped and killed numerous American citizens and poses a serious threat to U.S. interests in Colombia. FARC is also very actively involved in drug trafficking and extortion.

FARC immediately executed the lone Colombian serviceman and one of the Americans and moved the other hostages farther south, deeper into the Colombian jungle. In the 3 years since their abduction, there has been only one serious attempt to rescue the three remaining American contractors. This took place in late August and early September of last year.

Their names are Keith Stansell, Thomas Howes, and Marc Gonsalves. These three Americans and their families here at home deserve more.

Our military, in coordination with its Colombian counterparts, needs to take more assertive action to rescue the captive Americans. In order to carry out this mission, American personnel on the ground need access to better, more reliable, and more actionable intelligence.

They have a better chance of uncovering the location and well-being of the hostages by increasing contacts with Colombian troops patrolling the jungles and interrogating captured FARC members.

It is also important to seek tips from the local population that might have information as to the whereabouts of these soldiers. But there must be incentives for these civilians, who must also endure FARC violence and intimidation, to come forward. For example, radio broadcasts in the surrounding areas could inform local civilians of the situation and offer rewards that the locals will truly value. Access to land and livestock could prove to be a great incentive for those with any information on the hostages to come forward.

We also need to increase our coordination with Colombian intelligence personnel. They have the most intimate knowledge of their country and are likely to have more access to contacts with information. Greater coordination and stronger links with these Colombian intelligence units will give our military a better opportunity to act when relevant information becomes available.

For 3 years, three brave American civilian contractors have been held hostage by a ruthless terrorist organization deep in the Colombian jungle. Though rescue attempts can be dangerous and entail numerous risks to both the hostages and the rescuers, the failure to launch more than one serious rescue attempt is a disservice to those men and to their families here at home. We can only imagine the anguish, uncertainty, and doubt they have endured for those 3 long years.

I urge the administration to redouble its efforts to rescue these three Americans. A more assertive response is required. We owe it to these men and to their families to make a more serious effort to rescue them.

Mr. President, I understand there are two bills at the desk due for a second reading.

In order to place the bills on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I object to further proceeding en bloc.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 9:45 on Tuesday, February 14. I further ask that following the prayer and the pledge, the morning hour be deemed to have expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved, and the Senate then resume consideration of the House message to accompany H.R. 4297, as under the previous order.

Mr. President, tomorrow the Senate will complete consideration of the pending motions to instruct the conferees on H.R. 4297, the tax relief bill, and send that bill to conference. We will have multiple votes starting close to 10 a.m. Senators should plan to stay around the floor for a series of up to 16 stacked votes in the morning. I truly hope that some of those will not be pushed to a rollcall vote and we would finish at a reasonable time.

Tomorrow afternoon, we will resume consideration of S. 852, the asbestos bill. There is a pending motion to waive the Budget Act that must be disposed of before we can move forward with the amendment process.

Mr. President, if this is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. President, today, we will have a brief period of morning business before we resume consideration of S. 852, the asbestos bill. Although Members may come down and make statements relative to the bill, there are going to be no rollcall votes today, as I explained last night.

Last night, we vitiated cloture and confirmed a nomination that was scheduled for a vote today; and given that action, it is not necessary to have that vote this morning.

We did hope to consider and vote on amendments during today's session. However, at this time, there is a motion to waive the budget pending, and that will require further debate.

In addition, we are approaching the final week prior to the President's Day recess. We want to use all our time effectively to work through the asbestos bill and other remaining business. I talked with the Democratic leader about a number of issues that we will address over the course of the next 8 or 9 days. There is the tax reconciliation bill that has gone to conference. We have 10 hours on that. There are the issues surrounding the PATRIOT Act that needs to be reauthorized.

Great progress has been made over the last 24 hours in a bipartisan way. At the close of business today, I will outline next week's schedule. Senators should plan on a very busy week prior to the recess, with voting over the course of next week.

Asbestos

I briefly want to comment on the asbestos bill and where we are today and the significance of this underlying bill. We have been on this for a week, in terms of debate. I think my colleagues and the American people realize how important this bill is and why it is the first major piece of legislation we are taking in this current session of Congress and have brought it to the floor.

I want to share briefly what my personal experience is with this disease, and it comes from having spent many months in Southampton, England, working as a surgeon a couple of decades ago. To me, those images apply today, of individuals, patients suffering from cancer from asbestos, asbestosis, and the clinical manifestations of the diseases related to it, such as mesothelioma. As we all know, based on the discussions that have taken place, this asbestos fiber is one that causes a reaction that can be a localized reaction in the lungs or a systemic reaction, and it is particularly prevalent in workers in shipyards; and, of course, Southampton was and has been one of the great shipyards in the world. Therefore, you see a lot of this mesothelioma.

The mesothelioma in those patients starts with a shortness of breath that is uncomfortable, but then it gradually builds to this gasping for every single breath. And then it turns into the agony of not getting enough breath into your lungs. It starts with a little bit of a cough associated with that shortness of breath, and that cough eventually turns into a hacking cough with blood coming forth, a loss of the voice, initially becoming coarse and raspy. The symptoms of the most common type of mesothelioma expand to the point that surgery is, in many cases, tried. It is a difficult surgery because of the encasement of the lung with the reaction to this asbestos fiber. It is malignant cancer.

I say that because the reality is there are many patients, victims of exposure to asbestos, who are not being fully compensated by the system we have, the system that is outdated, that is inefficient and unfair. Everybody agrees with that.

If there is one thing we have been able to accomplish over the last week, it is that it is an unfair process that results in a lot of waste and inefficiency--the fact that patients themselves, the victims--out of the dollars that should be directed to them--only get 42 cents of the dollar that is put on the table to compensate them, and that is simply unfair. Our discussions and debate over the last week have pointed to the fact that 58 cents of the dollar that should be going to the victims is being spread through a system that is inefficient and goes, in large part, to the pockets of trial lawyers--not all trial lawyers, but the few who are taking advantage of this system.

That is why it is so important for us to address this FAIR Act, which we call it, to debate it and not use procedural moves to kill it. Because once we kill this bill or it is moved off the table, we are not going to be able to come back to it, from a realistic standpoint. This year is so short that we have to address it now or never. That is why we have to be very careful, in terms of having procedural moves that are made and people hiding behind those procedural moves and not addressing the real substance of the bill. The bill itself has strong bipartisan support. We talk about all of the partisanship that characterizes so much of this body in Washington, DC, and in Congress. This bill is not partisan. It is not a Republican or Democratic bill. It has strong bipartisan support.

I have to applaud the leadership of Chairman Specter and Senator Leahy on this bill, taking it through the Judiciary Committee. I want to also point out that people say we have only had 1 day on amendments. We were ready to bring the bill up on Friday. We have had it Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and now it is Friday. We have had some slow walking on the bill. We had to file a cloture motion to proceed to the bill. It shows the reluctance by some people to say it is a problem and that it is one that we need to address and fix. But that cloture vote was successful. That postponement was overridden by the will of this body.

About midweek, the other side reversed course and decided to let us debate this bill, and that debate has begun in earnest. We have had a great debate, with a much better understanding among our colleagues and among the American people as to how big this problem is. The fact that the victims, the patients whom physicians are treating, are not being treated fairly by this system, that must be fixed. We have those trial lawyers who are reaping the benefits of this broken system, taking advantage of the system, taking advantage of the funds that are to be used as compensation for those victims or potential victims.

The FAIR Act is a trust fund approach, which is a comprehensive approach. We had good debate yesterday with Senator Cornyn's amendment, in terms of a medical criteria bill. The one item that came out in that discussion is that the trust fund approach in the FAIR Act is the comprehensive approach. Senator Cornyn proposed that we resolve the real problem with a medical criteria proposal, which many of us support in terms of concept, but you have to look at who is left out. The unimpaired claimants are left out of that system. The trust fund addresses those people who may be unimpaired but who are victims and will be victims, from a medical standpoint, in the future.

The bill we talked about yesterday--there is a sort of incompleteness of that bill, but reflecting on the more comprehensive approach of the underlying bill and the fact that it did not address the fact that 40 percent of the awards are going to the victim and 60 percent is going to the system. Wealthy trial lawyers are the real beneficiaries here, which is not addressed in the smaller bills that may be brought forth or the smaller amendments brought to the floor.

It was mentioned yesterday that the medical criteria bill itself leaves out veterans. Again, that is addressed in the underlying FAIR Act, which is on the floor. Under the medical criteria bill, they could not sue the Government for their injuries--the veterans of service who are fighting wars all over the globe--because of sovereign immunity. I was also worried about those victims who worked at companies that are now bankrupt. Again, the medical criteria bill does nothing to ensure that attorneys are prevented from taking from those victims that share of compensation that should be going to the victims.

I know there are a lot of businesses, today and yesterday, that are lobbying Senators on both sides of the aisle because they are concerned that the underlying bill will hurt them in some way. I know some of them argue that the medical criteria approach is the better solution because it is less complicated than the trust fund. I respect that position. It is a position that we and the leadership and the leaders on this bill, the sponsors, are addressing. We will make sure that we do all we can to ensure that no company is hurt, no company goes bankrupt because of the trust fund approach.

Senator Kyl's amendment, which is yet to be debated and fully considered, addresses that very important aspect, to make sure companies are not unduly hurt by the trust fund approach.

I firmly believe we should do what is in the interests of the Nation right now, not just what is in the interests of one company or another, and that is addressed in the FAIR Act--again, open for debate and open for amendment. That is our responsibility, to tackle these big issues.

The underlying bill is not perfect. It needs to remain on the floor. It needs to remain on the floor for discussion and debate. It is a comprehensive approach that I strongly support, that the administration strongly supports, and that much of the leadership in the House, in my conversations with them, strongly supports.

If we do not pass this bill, those victims whom I opened with, the people who are being hurt by the cancer, who are struggling for those last breaths, who do need that operation, are simply not being treated fairly and will not be treated fairly in the future.

Meaningful solutions to these tough and challenging problems are what we are debating. Again, I commend the chairman of the Judiciary Committee for his tremendous work on this important issue.

Absolutely.

Very briefly in response, this is an important bill that, again, is not a partisan bill at all. If you look at the votes today, you will see the split is between each caucus. I say that because so many bills come to the floor as partisan bills or bills proposed by one party, and they see such discussion and procedural moves. It is incumbent upon each Senator, looking within themselves and their own conscience, to ask the question: Is this a problem that deserves fixing?

I believe, based on the discussions today--that is the good thing about this last week--that it is a tragedy in terms of the victims, in terms of the jobs lost, in terms of the pensions lost--all due to a broken system. It would be a tragedy if we did not address it. We have a bipartisan bill which has come out of committee. It is open for debate on the floor of this body.

Just to clarify, we do have pending a budget point of order that needs to be discussed. Every Senator must understand what our chairman was saying through conversations because we will have a vote early next week on this point of order. If the point of order is upheld, then the bill itself disappears and we have other legislation onto which we will move. That means we will not have fulfilled our obligation, our responsibility through having a bipartisan bill come out of the Judiciary Committee which is brought to the floor for debate and discussion, recognizing a huge problem faces the American people. That responsibility would be shoved aside.

I encourage my colleagues to look at this point of order, what it means in terms of procedure, and then answer the question, Is there a problem out there? And if the answer is yes, now is the time to fix it.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Friday, February 10, 2006, at 9:30 a.m. for a hearing titled, ``Hurricane Katrina: The Roles of DHS and FEMA Leadership.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 2275, introduced earlier today.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

I understand there are two bills at the desk. I ask for their first reading, en bloc.

I now ask for a second reading, and in order to place the bills on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I object to my own request, en bloc.

I ask unanimous consent the Senate immediately proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination on today's Executive Calendar: No. 437, Thomas O.

Barnett. I further ask unanimous consent that the nomination be confirmed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then return to legislative session.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 12 noon on Monday, February 13; I further ask following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved, and the Chair then lay before the Senate the House message to accompany H.R. 4297, the tax relief bill. I further ask that the Senate then insist upon its amendment and agree to the request of the House for a conference.

Mr. President, on Monday, the Senate will consider H.R. 4297, the Tax Relief Act of 2005 for the third time. Unfortunately, there will be multiple motions to instruct the conferees from the other side of the aisle before we send this bill to conference. Those motions will be offered on Monday. Senators can therefore expect multiple votes on Monday. There are 10 hours available by statute for consideration of these motions. Therefore, these votes will occur later on Monday. I anticipate those votes to begin sometime after 8 p.m.

We will then resume consideration of the asbestos bill next week. Pending is the motion to waive the point of order. We have Senators who would like additional debate. We will be talking to Senators on both sides of the aisle to determine the best time to schedule that vote following their statements. Needless to say, there is much work to be done before our next recess, the Presidents Day recess, at the end of next week. Therefore, I expect we will be voting Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday in order to complete our work.

In addition to the asbestos bill and the Tax Relief Act, we need to address the PATRIOT Act before adjourning. It is going to be a long, arduous week. I thank Members for their patience in advance as we move these vital priorities along.