Saxby Chambliss

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss a very important matter to me, to my home State of Georgia and to our Nation's military. A few years ago this Congress authorized the military housing privatization initiative. This program, which brings to bear private sector experience and financial strength to improve the quality of life for our soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines and their families, has been a resounding success. To date, the U.S. Armed Forces have privatized over 60,000 housing units, leveraging more than $10 for every Government dollar invested. Out-dated, and World War II era, housing is being replaced with modern homes and amenities that our servicemen and women so richly deserve. This process is taking place across the country, from Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Base in California to Fort Bragg in North Carolina to Fort Benning, GA. However, there is an issue which threatens the livelihood and progress of this program and which the Congress must act now to address. The way the Congressional Budget Office is scoring expenditures for this program causes the program to exceed the authorized spending cap. The CBO scoring assumes that the Government guarantees and the management of the housing projects in question have direct budget implications. However, military families sign leases and rent the units and private companies assume the investment risk, so the CBO scoring, incorrectly in my opinion, treats these costs as an obligation on behalf of the Government. I believe we need to either significantly raise the current cost cap for the program or eliminate it entirely in order to make available an adequate funding stream to see this important project through to completion. The Department of Defense has established a master plan which will privatize approximately 160,000-170,000, or over 70 percent, of existing family housing units. Currently, DoD is about half way towards completing that goal. We should allow this well-functioning program to continue for the benefit of our men and women in uniform, and we should follow the traditional scoring guidelines which we have used for the past 5 years in order to accurately determine the actual costs. I thank the Chair for the opportunity to discuss this very important issue, and I look forward to working with my colleagues in the relevant committees to resolve this situation in a positive manner.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. We owe it to the men and women who crew the E-8C JointSTARS to ensure that these aircraft are powered by engines that provide desired safety margins and on-station operating times that accomplish the aircraft's mission without degradation. At the same time we owe it to the taxpayers of this Nation to ensure that these aircraft are powered by engines that are fuel efficient and supportable for our armed forces. competitive sourcing

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from our neighboring State of Alabama for his terrific interest in our brave men and women who serve in every branch of our military. At this time, when we have so many men and women in harm's way, it is very appropriate that leadership come from this body. Senator Sessions has provided the kind of leadership that our men and women have come to expect. Today, I rise in support of the amendment Senator Sessions has proposed. This amendment will provide a much needed revision of the Department of Defense's current policies related to providing benefits to the families of service members who make the ultimate sacrifice for their country. The DOD's current death benefit policies have been in place, without any substantial revision, for some time now. These benefits have not kept pace with the times and, in particular, the needs of military families in the event the primary provider dies in the line of duty. Obviously, these events are extremely difficult for any family. They are painful times for military families. I agree that we need to expand the benefits these families receive under those circumstances. Specifically, this amendment directs the administration to expedite the final death benefits study that is currently working its way through the DOD. This study was due to Congress on March 1 of this year but has still not been delivered. The amendment also indexes increases in the current death gratuity benefit of $12,000 to the same rate as the basic pay increase, which is 3.5 percent, beginning in fiscal year 2005. Beginning in fiscal year 2006, the amendment increases the maximum coverage under the Serviceman's Group Life Insurance program by $100,000, from $250,000 to $350,000, and indexing future indexes in the SGLI at the same rate as the basic pay increase; and it provides that the Government shall pay the premium on the first $100,000 of this life insurance. The amendment creates two new benefits, which I believe are much deserved. First, it allows for the payment of one year's salary and benefits to soldiers who die while on active duty, 2 year's pay in salary and benefits to soldiers killed in action or in a hostile or terrorist event. The amendment, as drafted, does not violate any budget points of order and allows the Department of Defense necessary time to incorporate the costs and implementation of this program in the fiscal year 2006 budget. We have just had a thorough discussion by Senator Reed and Senator Sessions regarding the increase of troop strength. I am so respectful to folks such as Senator Reed, Senator McCain, as well as Senator Sessions on that particular issue. I agree with them on that issue. We do need to increase the size of the force structure. We need to be able to continue to do that under the current all-volunteer system that we have. If we are going to have that all-volunteer system compete with forces in the outside world, we are going to have to continue to look at the benefits we provide to our brave men and women. This amendment does that. It adds an additional benefit to our men and women that they don't have today, and it certainly will be of help to our recruiters from the standpoint of continuing to allow them to recruit our finest men and women in America into the military. Secondly, we will be able to retain the men and women that we invest so much money in, from the standpoint of making sure they have the equipment and training necessary to continue to defend freedom and democracy around the world. So I commend very highly my friend from Alabama, and I thank him for his great leadership. I am pleased to join in this amendment. I ask my colleagues to support it. I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, I rise in support of the confirmation of William S. Duffey to be a district judge for the North District of the State of Georgia. Bill Duffey is a well-respected lawyer in our State, one of the best lawyers in the State of Georgia. He has served in private practice. He served in the Judge Advocates Corps of the United States Air Force. He served in the Office of the Independent Council. For the last 4 years, Bill Duffey has served as the U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Georgia. He comes highly recommended by his peers, by those who have appeared before him, as well as those who have been on the other side in cases. He is a true gentleman in every sense of the word, an outstanding advocate for the judiciary. He will make an excellent judge, and I ask for his confirmation.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, last week the G8 summit was held in my State of Georgia, and I had the honor of serving as one of the hosts, along with our Governor, the senior Senator from Georgia, Congressman Kingston, and Congressman Burns in greeting the other seven members of the G8. Together with President George W. Bush, we received the heads of state and government from Britain, Canada, Germany, France, Italy, Japan, and Russia, along with a number of other leaders of countries from the Middle East who were specially invited to the G8 summit, including the new President of Iraq, Ghazi al-Yawer. I liked what I saw in the new President of Iraq. When I shook his hand, I shook the hand of a true Iraqi patriot who is determined to see his country become secure, stable, prosperous, and free. He insists on full sovereignty for the Iraqi people, and he is already an eloquent and tough defender of their interests. This is why he has publicly stated, not once or twice but at almost every opportunity he gets, that the Iraqi people are grateful for America's sacrifice in freeing them from the tyranny of Saddam Hussein. He also made it absolutely clear that his new government will continue to need the help of America and other coalition forces as it regains its strength and fends off efforts by terrorists, thugs, and foreign enemies to strangle Iraq's democracy in its cradle. President al-Yawer has a vision for Iraq, a nation with a history stretching back beyond the storied walls of Babylon to the mists of prehistory. He sees his nation gaining a position of leadership in the Middle East and forming an example of democracy, peace, progress, and prosperity for the entire region. He made it clear to me that Iraq very much sees the United States, the United Kingdom, and the other nations in the coalition as partners and friends that took risks to free his nation from the tyranny of Saddam Hussein and are now working together to help rebuild Iraq. President al-Yawer is a strong pragmatic leader who wants to put his government on a sound fiscal footing. When it was proposed to destroy the Abu Ghraib prison--and I was one, frankly, who advocated that following the prisoner scandal--and to replace it, he made a poignant observation about the symbols of Saddam's barbaric treatment of his own people. He told ABC's ``This Week'' that Saddam tortured people not just in prisons but in the basements of each and every government building, and it would not be prudent to destroy all government entities because of what happened in them. President al-Yawer said: We are people that need every single dollar we have in order to rebuild our country, instead of demolishing and rebuilding. This shows a practical approach to governance which is a very welcome change to the grandiosity and extravagance which, along with cruelty and aggression, marked the reign of Saddam Hussein. I know there is not one Senator in this Chamber who would begrudge Iraq, its people, and President al-Yawer the assistance needed to continue the transition of Iraq to full sovereignty and democracy. In my State, we know a real friend stays with you the whole way through difficult times and does not abandon you when the going gets tough. You do not lead someone halfway home and then abandon him to the wolves. And we know those wolves are baying at the door. Al-Qaida, the Baathists, and all the enemies of democracy are already stepping up their attacks to drive us from Iraq so they can rip apart this young democracy. Only the cowardly, only those without a vision for a newer, better Middle East would urge us to leave Iraq to its fate. History has left its inscriptions in Iraq from time immemorial, from cuneiform inscriptions on clay tablets to the stone pillar of Hammurabai. These judgments have been read and pondered by men in the centuries following their inscriptions. In the distant future, let no traveler see inscribed in weathered stone the withering judgment of history that the United States had an opportunity to help democracy take root in the Middle East but failed to see it through. Let him read instead: They defeated the forces of darkness so the people of Iraq could live in the light. The Senate will surely debate what our national policies and priorities should be as we seek to provide assistance for Iraq. We will debate the relative merits of the different ways we can help our friends in Iraq. In fact, this is our job, and it is our duty. But I, for one, will not entertain any policy option that would allow the people of Iraq, so recently freed from the horror of despotism, to be submerged again into the darkness by a different set of tyrants. Let me now touch on some international aspects of the Iraqi situation. In addition to the forces from the United States, there are 14 other NATO allies with us in Iraq. Military forces from Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, and the United Kingdom are all there with us. And we have great support from another 17 countries, such as Australia, Japan, New Zealand, South Korea, and the Ukraine. Now the international support helping to secure the future of Iraq is growing even more. At the G8 summit, President Bush gained the unanimous support of the member states to help Iraq. They agreed to form a ``Partnership for Progress and a Common Future with the Region of the Broader Middle East and North Africa'' to support political, social, and economic reform in this region. This builds on President Bush's ``forward strategy of freedom'' that he announced last November. President Bush also secured a U.N. Security Council resolution supporting the plan for handing sovereignty back to the Iraqi people. On June 8, the Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 1546 which supports free elections and authorizes a multinational security force to help stabilize the security situation in Iraq. The U.N. has done exactly the right thing in passing Resolution 1546, and I applaud them for taking this important step. However, I would be remiss if I did not mention a subject which hinders the effectiveness of the United Nations, not only in Iraq but in its dealings around the world, and by this I mean the Oil-for-Food scandal. The Oil-for-Food Program, established in 1995, was designed to alleviate the impact of the economic embargo on the people of Iraq, while continuing restrictions on military and technology sales. It was a humanitarian program that was supported by the United States as a way to help average Iraqi citizens get basic food and medical supplies while Saddam Hussein was still in power. The Oil-for-Food Program was administered by the United Nations Assistant Secretary General Benon V. Sevan who oversaw sales of $111 billion worth of Iraqi oil. While under U.N. auspices, the U.S. Government Accounting Office estimates that over $10 billion of that $111 billion was stolen from the Iraqi people by Saddam's regime. While children were dying for lack of medicine or food, Saddam was importing Mercedes limousines, weapons, and building his grand palaces. Skimming off this vast amount of money involved kickbacks and bribes to a wide variety of foreign officials and businessmen. When the new Iraqi oil ministry recently published a list of foreign officials receiving bribes, kickbacks, and hidden oil allotments from Saddam, U.N. Assistant Secretary Sevan's name was on a list which included 11 French, 46 Russians, and many other names. These recipients of Saddam's largess were vocal opponents of freeing Iraq from Saddam's chokehold and also were bitter critics of the effects of the embargo on Saddam's regime. It is ironic that so many of the businessmen and officials who helped skim off the money designed to buy food and medicine for the Iraqi people came from countries that complained the loudest about the U.S.- led effort to oust Saddam from power. It is imperative that we monitor the U.N. investigation of the Oil- for-Food scandal to make sure it is thorough and transparent. Wrongdoers must be prosecuted, not simply bundled off to retirement. To do any less would greatly compromise the ability of the United Nations to operate future programs with the confidence of the world community. Paul Volcker, who was named by Secretary Kofi Annan to head the investigation into the Oil-for-Food scandal, must receive sufficient personnel, resources, and access to the relevant documents and U.N. officials to carry out his responsibility. A failed investigation will be a bitter indictment of the United Nations and it would put it on a path that would lead to total--total-- obsolescence and irrelevance. The United Nations can be a unifying force in the world, and its resolution on the future of Iraq passed last week is a positive example of this. However, it must also restore its credibility with the people of Iraq who were robbed of over $10 billion in food and medicine while the Oil for Food Program was being administered by the U.N. It is a critical time for both the future of Iraq and the future of the U.N. In Iraq, it is time to pull together to make it a successful, stable, and democratic country. At the U.N., it is time to show the world that it can be a transparent, accountable, and efficient organization worthy of its noble charter. We have the unique opportunity to help democracy take root in the Middle East, and we are fortunate that President Bush, Prime Minister Blair, and others have the vision and the courage to recognize this and to do something about it. Likewise, the United Nations has an opportunity to restore our confidence in its ability to play a meaningful role on the world stage. I hope Secretary General Kofi Annan has the necessary courage to carry his investigation of the Oil for Food scandal to its necessary conclusion, regardless of how difficult it might be. Let future generations see that neither the United States, nor the United Nations, shirked from the challenges that face us today. Mr. President, the Oil for Food scandal cannot be taken lightly. We must take this issue seriously to restore credibility to the United Nations, which is headed down a path of total obsolescence if we do not act appropriately and if we do not get to the bottom of this particular and potentially devastating issue. I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I appreciate the hard work of our chairman and ranking member in working with Senator Kennedy and to approve the fair competition amendment. The amendment addresses a number of issues about which I am very concerned. One of the key issues is the ability of civilian employees to have the opportunity to compete for new work or work currently performed by contractors. This amendment would encourage the Department of Defense to level the playing field in these areas, improve efficiency, and protect government employees' ability to perform critical skills in key areas. And it does so in a way that addresses the concerns expressed by the administration in its Statement of Administration Policy. Federal employees should compete in defense of their work, unless national security dictates otherwise. Direct conversion, giving work performed by Federal employees to contractors without competition, disservices Federal employees and taxpayers. The OMB Circular A-76 allows for direct conversions with OMB's approval. But there is evidence that agencies may be undertaking direct conversions without OMB's approval. This amendment ensures that for DoD, the largest agency and the one that does the most contracting out, there will be no direct conversions of any functions performed by more than ten employees, absent the invocation by the Secretary of Defense of a national security waiver. We have also included strong language in the amendment to close loopholes by which DoD could break up functions so that they involve ten or fewer employees or arbitrarily designate the work as new in order to get around this requirement. Federal employees required to undergo public-private competitions should be able to submit their most competitive bids through the most efficient organization process. This amendment establishes such a requirement for all functions performed by more than ten employees. Due to the significant costs associated with conducting competitions, contractors should be required to demonstrate that they will be marginally more efficient than Federal employees before taking away work performed by Federal employees. This amendment requires a minimum cost differential for all functions performed by more than ten employees of 10 percent of $10 million, whichever is smaller. Privatization reviews should be predicated on agencies' capacity to perform those reviews and then satisfactorily administer any resulting service contracts. Our amendment ensures through its Inspector General reporting requirement that the Congress will know whether DoD has the capacity to conduct the privatization reviews required of it by OMB over the next several years. I am pleased that this amendment has been accepted by the Senate and look forward to working with my colleagues during conference to include it in law.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today with the intention of calling up amendment No. 3223 to S. 2400, but rather than calling up that amendment, since my intention was to withdraw it, I will make a few comments on it. I preface my comments by stating something to which no Member of the Senate will disagree, and that is that the way our Nation uses the Reserve components of the U.S. military has fundamentally changed over the last 15 years. Reserve components have changed from a ``force in reserve'' to an absolutely essential component of the warfight. Almost every operation the military engages in today, and career field in the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps are represented by our Guard and our Reserve. The Reserve components are now and continue to become a true operational reserve without which our military cannot operate. This is reflected primarily in the rate of deployments and mobilizations of the Reserve components. This rate of utilization, which has increased three or fourfold over the last decade, necessitates that we reexamine the way we manage the Reserve. The Department of Defense has made changes in this area by improving the process of training and equipping the Reserve and supporting changes in personnel policies that improve quality of life for members of our Reserve. I would say with respect to that, last year in the Defense authorization bill we made some changes. Some of them seemed fairly minimal, such as allowing our Guard and Reserve members, while they were not on active duty, to have access to commissaries. This seemingly innocent act on our part was a huge benefit to our Guard and Reserve members who had the availability of commissaries when they were on active duty, but now they have it full time. Particularly, those who are close to military installations have the availability of services they simply did not have before, and it has been a huge morale booster for our Guard and Reserve members. With the possible exception of the TRICARE issue, though, the changes that we have made have been at the margins. I believe we need to reexamine the personnel policies for the Reserve components based on the fact that the way we use them has fundamentally changed. As the chairman of the Armed Services Committee Subcommittee on Personnel and co-chairman of the Senate Reserve Caucus, this is an issue I have wrestled with considerably and want to be sure that we account for as we provide oversight of the personnel policies of the Department of Defense. My amendment follows closely a bill that my colleague from Georgia, Senator Zell Miller, introduced several months ago. I, along with Senators Cochran, DeWine, Murkowski, Collins, and Ben Nelson, joined Senator Miller in cosponsoring this bill. My amendment would lower the age at which members of the Reserve component could collect retirement pay based on the philosophy of a reduced annuity. The amount of retirement pay would be reduced by a small percentage for each year below the age of 60 that a member chose to collect their retirement-- very similar to the way Social Security benefits are reduced if a beneficiary determines they want to retire following the achievement of age 62. According to CBO, this provision would cost approximately $5 billion over 5 years. There are several other bills pending before the Senate that would change the retirement plan for reservists. In fact, I understand the Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Corzine, may introduce an amendment this week that would reduce the age at which members of the Reserve could collect retirement from age 60 to age 55 with no corresponding reduction in the annuity. According to CBO, this amendment would cost more than $8 billion over 5 years. The Senator from Louisiana, Ms. Landrieu, has also introduced a bill that would reduce the age to 55 but require a reservist to stay in the Reserve longer in order to receive pay earlier. All of these bills have merit. All of them deserve to be debated. However, all of them, including my own, carry a significant financial cost. What we have to do is try to balance, particularly in the middle of a war that we are now engaged in, whether we want to utilize our funds to provide weapons systems to our men and women who are now in harm's way or whether we want to provide this kind of benefit which was not anticipated in the budget. As I stand here today, there are three studies currently underway to address the issue of Reserve retirement. As I have already stated, there are many good ideas regarding how the retirement benefit for the Reserve and the Guard should be changed, and they all have merit. However, there are two important things about these various options that we do not know. The first is we do not have a firm idea of how much any of these options will cost. We have estimates from CBO to which I have already alluded. They are significant. Costing these various proposals requires predicting the way people are going to behave, and this is an inexact, difficult science. Secondly, anytime one makes even a small change to something as large and complex as the military personnel process, it changes the entire system. A change in the Reserve retirement system will have effects both on the Reserve and Active-Duty retention, recruiting, and promotion opportunities within the ranks which we cannot foresee without examining the associated impacts very closely. That is why, even though I have introduced an amendment on this issue, I do not believe that now is the best time to act on the issue. I think we should wait until the three reports currently underway are completed and we have additional data upon which to look at this issue and make a better evaluation. With this in mind, as I said earlier, I am simply not going to offer my amendment today. Once we have the necessary data to show how the various proposals will impact the force and the cost implications, I look forward to revisiting this issue and dialoguing with the other Senators who have introduced bills or amendments on this issue and those who are concerned, as I am, about how we manage our Reserve components. There is no more important issue facing the Personnel Subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services Committee than how we treat our men and women in uniform, and their families, because every day this is more a family issue and a family-oriented military. It is my hope that as we proceed with this bill over this week and as the committee entertains the legislation and policy changes in the coming months, that we keep the people at the receiving end of our decisions and deliberations foremost in our minds. We will continue to include the members of the Reserve components in those deliberations and ensure the Senate adopts policies that work to their advantage, that are fiscally responsible, and that recognize the significant changes that have taken place in the Reserve over the past decade and a half. I thank my colleague, the Senator from Nebraska, Mr. Ben Nelson, for his cooperation and his work as we have moved through the Personnel Subcommittee process over the last year in preparation for this bill. Senator Nelson feels the same way I do about our Guard and Reserve and was a cosponsor of a number of the amendments to which I have alluded. I also thank the chairman and the ranking member. We have had dialogues about this issue within our committee, and without their support, guidance, and counsel, we would not be at the point we are with respect to quality-of-life issues that our men and women in both the Guard and the Reserve deserve and ultimately will receive once we enter into the budget process at the appropriate time. I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I thank Chairman Allard for yielding to me at this time. I rise today in opposition to the amendment by the Senator from Washington, but I do so by first saying that this is an extremely complex issue. I happened to be presiding one night when the Senator from Washington stood up and talked about her amendment. I respect very much the issues she has delineated. She has done a very good job of articulating the complexity of this issue and why it needs to be thought through so carefully before we vote, as we are going to do today. After carefully reviewing the facts, I am convinced the language adopted in the Armed Services Committee related to disposal of nuclear waste at the Savannah River Site is prudent and that this language should not be struck. The Savannah River site is located in Aiken, SC, right on the South Carolina-Georgia border. About half the folks who work at the Savannah River site live in my State. Operations and the treatment of waste at the Savannah River Site affect my State, as well as South Carolina, because if there is any polluting, if there is any leakage, it will go into the Savannah River which is on the border of South Carolina and Georgia. Current provisions of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act in the fiscal year 2005 funding for the Savannah River Site restrain and preclude planned risk reduction activities in the treatment and disposition of radioactive waste. Section 3116 is extremely important to the Department of Energy's environmental remediation and cleanup efforts at the Savannah River Site. It will resolve both the nuclear waste policy and funding issues and allow these risk-reduction activities to continue. This provision will allow the cleanup of these materials 23 years earlier and at an estimated cost savings of $16 billion. Regardless of the cost savings, it is imperative that the cleanup of the Savannah River Site be completed at the earliest date possible. The Savannah River Site is currently home to 49 tanks containing 35 million gallons of radioactive material that is divided into three types of waste: liquid, sludge, and sediment. Section 3116 will allow South Carolina and the Department of Energy to execute the agreement that has been reached on how best to treat this tank waste. In 1997, the Savannah River Site became the first site in the Department of Energy complex to close a high-level waste tank. The language in the bill was worked out with great care between the State of South Carolina, State environmental regulators, Senators on both sides of the aisle, and the Department of Energy. I quote from a letter sent to the Secretary of Energy from the Defense Nuclear Facility Safety Board in relation to section 3116 of the Defense bill, the section this amendment will strike. The letter states: The Board believes that disposal of wastes as contemplated in Section 3116 can be accomplished safely and should enable efficient disposition of the radioactive waste. It is true that an Idaho district court struck down the DOE rule which set procedures for nuclear waste disposal across the board. However, the court struck down this rule based not on the content of the rule but because they thought the rule exceeded DOE's jurisdiction. I agree DOE should not have unilateral ability to determine nuclear waste disposal policy. However, I believe the procedures DOE has implemented at the Savannah River Site are sound and that these procedures should be allowed to continue while the question of who has the authority to set cleanup standards and policies is resolved. In fact, the procedures which section 3116 would allow have been in place since the early 1980s. I would also like to note, in response to those who believe the low- yield sludge should be removed in the tanks at the Savannah River Site and other facilities, that the process of removing that sludge would increase the risk to workers by sevenfold and significantly increase the risk to the environment based on the risk of extracting the tanks and transporting the additional fuel thousands of miles across country, significantly increasing the exposure to the population at large. Section 3116 in the underlying bill will prevent substantial delays, the accompanying health and safety risks, and increases in the expense of removing and disposing of this material, a delay in expense not driven by public health and safety considerations but, in fact, contrary to public health and safety. Without clarifying the law, the delay would likely create more serious health and safety risks to workers and members of the public by leaving the waste in tanks longer and risking leaks to ground water. Delays in increased costs will require DOE to divert resources from other efforts across the complex in a manner that would significantly distort the Department's cleanup and other priorities. There is less risk to the workers, the environment, and the communities by removing the waste from the tanks, extracting the high-level waste from the other types of waste for appropriate disposal, and stabilizing any small amount of low-level waste residues in place in the tanks using a cement grout. Physicists, not lawyers, should determine if radioactive waste is high- or low-level waste. The physical characteristics, not the source, of radioactive waste should determine if it is high-level or low-level waste. I hope my colleagues will join me in opposing this amendment by supporting an expeditious and safe cleanup of the nuclear waste at the Savannah River site. I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to an exceptional officer in the United States Air Force and a good friend, LTG James E. Sherrard III, upon his retirement after more than 38 years of distinguished service. Throughout his career, General Sherrard has personified the Air Force core values of integrity, selfless service, and excellence across the many missions the Air Force provides in defense of our Nation. As Chief of Air Force Reserve, many of us on Capitol Hill have enjoyed the opportunity to work with General Sherrard on a wide variety of Air Force issue and programs and it is my privilege to recognize his many accomplishments. I commend his superb service to the United States Air Force and this great Nation. General Sherrard is a native of Tutwiler, MS, and graduated from the University of Mississippi's Reserve Officer Training Corps program in 1965. His career has spanned a variety of operational assignments and major command staff functions. The general has commanded the 910th Airlift Wing at Youngstown, OH; the 433rd Airlift Wing at San Antonio, TX; the 4th Air Force, March Air Reserve Base, CA; and 22nd Air Force, Dobbins Air Reserve Base, GA. Currently, General Sherrard serves as both the Chief of Air Force Reserve and Commander, Air Force Reserve Command. He is a command pilot with more than 5,000 hours in the T-41, T-37, T-38, C-130A/B/E/H, AC-130A, C-141B, and C-5A/B. In 1996, he received special recognition from the Air Force enlisted force with the presentation of the Order of the Sword. General Sherrard's exceptional leadership skills have been evident to both supervisors and subordinates throughout his career as he repeatedly led and inspired those around him. He was the Chief of Air Force Reserve during the most demanding period in history for the Reserve Components. Under his tenure, the Air Force Reserve successfully experienced the largest mobilization since the Korean War. Cumulatively, more than 28,000 members of the command have been activated since September 11, 2001, with 5,300 members still on orders in support of the Global War on Terror, OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM, OPERATION NOBLE EAGLE and OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM. During his term as the Chief of Air Force Reserve, General Sherrard has always maintained a ``People First'' philosophy. He has called on each member of his team to advance legislative strategies, readiness, and quality of life issues that are absolutely essential to maintaining both active and reserve components of our all volunteer force. The results of his efforts include a Montgomery GI Bill Kicker for the Selected Reserve and extension of eligibility from 10 to 14 years; command responsibility pay; hostile fire and imminent danger pays for Reservists on inactive duty; expanded TRICARE benefits; lodging reimbursements during leave; and commissary privileges for all reservists. General Sherrard has been the driving force on every major Air Force Reserve issue from rebalancing the force structure between the Reserve and Active components to updating Cold War era laws to more effectively employ Reserve members. On behalf of Congress and the United States of America, I thank General Sherrard, his wife Marsha, and their entire family for the commitment, sacrifices, and contribution that they have made throughout his honorable military career. Congratulations on completing an exceptional and extremely successful career.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise this morning to talk about several issues relative to what is happening in Iraq today. First, the terrible offenses that occurred at the Abu Ghraib prison that came forth a couple of weeks ago have obscured some of the positive things that have been happening relative to the war on the ground in Iraq. We made some great strides over the last couple of weeks and, once again, we have every reason to be extremely proud of our brave men and women who are carrying out this war against terrorism, because we are winning this war. We are seeing more of the bad guys taken out in Iraq today, and a lot of that has been obscured by what happened at Abu Ghraib and the revelations that have been forthcoming relative to those incidents over the past couple of weeks. With respect to Abu Ghraib and to the individuals who were involved in the atrocities that took place there, our Army is doing exactly what it is supposed to do relative to issues such as this. We are doing a complete and thorough investigation of the facts. Those who committed offenses for which they need to be held accountable are going to be held accountable, irrespective of their level of management. I say that because these atrocities may have been carried out by privates or sergeants or any other enlisted or officer personnel up the line. If they were, then they are going to be held accountable. If any of these atrocities were carried out by civilians, they are going to be held accountable likewise. Major General Taguba produced a very professional and comprehensive report on what did take place at Abu Ghraib. He found what happened there was a total lack of discipline and a failure of leadership. Our military forces want to be held accountable because those who are doing the great job over there--and this is 99.99 percent of our military personnel--want us to get to the bottom of this, just as everybody in America and every other individual around the world wants us to do. And we are going to do that. Second, there was an announcement yesterday that the coalition forces discovered sarin gas in an artillery round, and that is a very significant fact. I don't think we can overstate the significance of this, but by the same token we need to be careful as to how far we go. There was a lot of criticism leveled at this administration for conducting this war on the basis that weapons of mass destruction were in Iraq and in the possession of Saddam Hussein and that was the sole reason we went to war with Iraq. That simply was not the case. We debated that and will continue to debate that down the road. But the fact is those of us who kept saying we know the weapons of mass destruction are there because Saddam Hussein admitted he had them--and he never told us what he did with them so we know they are there--that theory has now been validated. But is this the be-all and end-all relative to the issue of weapons of mass destruction? I don't think so. I don't think we need to get overexcited. I think we need to continue to allow the Iraq Survey Team to do their investigation and at the end of the day we will find out what did happen, how many weapons of mass destruction exist today, and where those weapons are. We will proceed with the destruction of those weapons that once belonged to Saddam Hussein. It is important that we find and destroy these weapons of mass destruction so they can't be used by terrorists, as they attempted to do last weekend. Third, I want to mention the killing yesterday of the President of the Iraqi Governing Council, Mr. Izzedine Salim. Mr. Salim was a respected member of the IGC. His leadership will be missed. Our thoughts and prayers go out to his family. However, his successor, Mr. Ajil al-Yawar, will lead the IGC over the next 6 weeks until political sovereignty is turned over to the new Iraqi government on June 30. The terrorists and anarchists fighting to keep Iraq from becoming a free and democratic state are not going to win. We are not going to let the killing of a fine individual such as Mr. Salim keep the people of Iraq from forming a new, free and independent government and obtaining their democracy. The perspective on these events is very important. We will turn over sovereignty to Iraq on 30 June. We have discovered weapons of mass destruction and we need to continue our search for others. We need to let our investigation on Abu Ghraib be completed before making pronouncements on who was responsible. Last, I would like to relate that about 4 weeks ago, I had the pleasure of visiting 14 of our military institutions in Europe within a 4-day period. During that period of time, Senator Sessions, Senator Enzi, and myself had the occasion to visit with individual members of our Armed Forces such as those who belong to the 173rd Airborne Brigade, who are stationed at Caserme Ederly in Vicenza, Italy, who spent a year in Kirkuk, Iraq. They were the original occupying troops in Kirkuk. We had the occasion to visit with spouses of our soldiers who, today, are deployed to Iraq. We also had the opportunity to visit at Landstuhl Hospital at Ramstein, Germany, individuals who have been injured in Iraq. I have to say, every time I am around those men and women, my heart beats a little faster because they are not only the finest young men and women America has to offer, but they are doing a fantastic job of representing America, whether it is doing their duty of being fighting men and women or whether it is doing what they probably do best, and that is being the greatest ambassadors America has right now in that part of the world. The men and women in the 173rd Airborne Brigade, for example, said when they marched into Kirkuk, the Iraqi people viewed them as simply an occupying military force, which was not going to be supportive of the goals that the citizens of Kirkuk wanted to see carried out; that is, to have their children educated, to have hospitals, to have water and sewer and power restored. As the weeks and months went on, however, the members of the 173rd Airborne Brigade did exactly what the local people didn't believe possible: They rebuilt the hospitals, they rebuilt and opened the schools, they fixed the power grid so electricity could be restored to the citizens of that community, as well as increasing the availability of water and sewer, so at the point in time when the 173rd needed to be returned home, there were tears shed on both sides. The bonding between our fighting men and women, these soldiers and goodwill ambassadors, and the people of Kirkuk was exactly as we envisioned it should be; that is, our men and women had done a great job of liberating those people and at the same time had made good friends and had been great ambassadors for the United States in that part of the world. At Landstuhl, I will have to say the attitude of soldiers who had received, in some cases, very serious injuries was unbelievable. One young man who was from the home State of the Presiding Officer, as he and I discussed, who had his right leg shot off below the knee, made a comment to me as I walked in the room--and he had a big smile on his face. He said: Senator, I'm leaving here and I am going to Walter Reed Hospital and I am going to get a new leg and as soon as I get me that new leg I want you to know I am going back to be with my buddies in Iraq. What greater attitude, commitment, and dedication can you have from any individual? That young man is simply a shining light out there today and should far overshadow the stories we see coming out of Abu Ghraib. Also, the spouses of the soldiers who are deployed to Iraq today, the spouses we visited with, about 35 or 40 of them, had, again, an unbelievable attitude. Our military families are truly that. They are families. They stand side by side with their spouses and support their deployment to any part of the world. But particularly now with respect to this very difficult and complex deployment in Iraq, these spouses had the opportunity to engage with us and to come forward to complain about a number of things, but they never did. They were all positive and said they knew their husbands were doing the right thing, they were truly supportive of them, and once again our military families were a shining light of which we can all be very proud. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today to submit legislation designating August 14, 2004, as National Marina Day to honor America's marinas for their many contributions to local communities. This year's celebration will be held in Georgia on Lake Sidney Lanier, one of the largest U.S. Army Corps of Engineer lakes in the nation, and home to 10 marinas. National Marina Day was created by the Marine Operators Association of America to educate civic leaders, government leaders, and the public about the important role that the marina industry plays in cities and towns across America as family-friendly gateways to boating and outdoor recreation. Georgia's Lake Lanier consists of 39,000 acres of water and 692 miles of shoreline. The lake was originally authorized by the United States Congress in 1946 for the purposes of power production, flood control, downstream navigation, and fish and wildlife management. Over the years, recreation has become a major factor in the lake's attraction to 8 million visitors each year. According to a recent study commissioned by the Metro Atlanta Marine Trade Association, Lake Lanier generates nearly $5.5 billion in annual economic impact from jobs created on and around the lake, restaurants, hotels and resorts, camping and recreation, real estate sales, boat and marine dealers, and marinas. National Marina Day will be held for the third year in a row, is set to have its most successful year yet, in no small part by the tireless work of the President of the Marina Operators of Lake Lanier, Kirby Cay Scheimann, State Representative Stacy Reece of Gainesville, Georgia, the President of the Marina Operators Association of America, Bill Anderson, and the President of the International Marina Institute, Gregg Kenney. I am grateful for all the hard work that everyone involved has contributed to making National Marina Day a huge success.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. The forestry industry is important to the State of Georgia. Let's take a look at the facts: Georgia's total land area covers 36.8 million acres of which 66 percent of that is forested; my home State has the sixth largest percentage of forested lands in the country which is twice the national average; and, commercial forest land in Georgia covers approximately 23.8 million acres, more than any other state. Georgia's forest industry generates 177,000 jobs where employees directly or indirectly work in industries supporting forest products manufacturing. This is why I sponsored a resolution in the House of Representatives in 2001 that highlighted the problems associated with the importation of unfairly subsidized Canadian lumber and urged the administration to vigorously enforce U.S. trade laws with regard to the importation of Canadian lumber. One of my highest priorities has been to see this trade issue resolved and limit the injuries caused to the U.S. timber and lumber industries by the importation of unfairly traded lumber. Today, Georgia's forestry industry is in serious jeopardy. That is why I echo the comments of my colleagues regarding the conflict of interest involving a NAFTA Panelist who will be hearing the Canadian Softwood Lumber case. This case is very important to the future of Georgia's forestry industry. This issue and the need to reform the NAFTA panel process must be handled in an expedient manner. I urge my colleagues to address this issue as soon as possible.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, this week Georgians will line the roads to witness the top-ranked bicycle stage race in North America. The Dodge Tour de Georgia promotes tourism, stimulates local industry, and is proud to benefit the Georgia Cancer Coalition. The race serves as a rolling festival to entertain and educate spectators across the Peach State about cycling, fitness, and most importantly about the possibility for a cure for and the prevention of cancer. This second annual event, April 20 to 25, 2004, takes pro cyclists and multitudes of visitors on a scenic 653-mile journey through the great State of Georgia. Athletes from over 23 countries will compete for $100,000 in cash and prizes. With a mix of road races, an individual time trial, and challenging terrain, the 2004 Dodge Tour de Georgia will be an exciting event for both racers and spectators. A great deal of attention will be on cycling this year, since many elite athletes vie to represent their countries in the Olympic games in road, time trial or track disciplines of cycling in August. And, five- time Tour de France champion Lance Armstrong seeks his record sixth consecutive win on the Champs-Elysees in July. Part of the reason for a significant increase in media and spectator interest in the Dodge Tour de Georgia this year is because Armstrong will compete in the event with his United States Postal Service Pro Cycling Team. It will be the only stage race Armstrong is expected to enter in North America, and the only event in the U.S. for him prior to his record attempt in France. Officials with the Dodge Tour de Georgia project a $20 to $30 million boost to the Georgia economy. The promotional and media value provided to its charitable beneficiary, the Georgia Cancer Coalition, is expected to surpass $2.5 million, doubling the number from 2003. The 2004 Dodge Tour de Georgia, the country's premier, professional cycling stage race, will visit 60 of Georgia's 159 counties in 6 days, from Tuesday, April 20 to Sunday, April 25. As a world-class sporting event, the Dodge Tour de Georgia is defined in part by the 120 elite, professional cyclists who will compete in seven stage races, traversing 653 miles across Georgia. As a vehicle to promote tourism and stimulate economic growth, the race is defined by the thousands of visitors and volunteers who plan to visit from across Georgia, the U.S. and abroad. Over 750,000 spectators are expected for the week. From just the impact of media, officials, teams, and support personnel, not including spectators, local communities will see an immediate impact from 3,000 room nights and over 7,000 meals. I commend the sponsors, organizers, and staff of the Dodge Tour de Georgia, for bringing a world-class event of this magnitude to the people of the United States. I also commend the Union Cycliste Internationale, for sanctioning this event. I would like this body to recognize the host communities, Alpharetta, Athens, Carrollton, Columbus, Dalton, Dahlonega, Dawsonville, Hiawassee/Young Harris, Macon, Rome, and Thomaston; as well as their local organizing committees for their contribution to this worthy cause. Cancer is a brutal killer that strikes without regard to age, race, sex, or station in life. I am grateful that there are organizations such as the Georgia Cancer Coalition, which are dedicated to its eradication, and there is support from organizations such as Dodge; GE Energy; The Georgia Department of Industry, Trade, and Tourism; Georgia Power; Southern LINC; and the many others who have bonded together to organize and promote Georgia's Race to Cure Cancer. This event is not only about the 11 communities hosting this event, it is not only about Georgia. It is about bringing the finest cyclists in the world to compete in our Nation. It is about raising awareness to fight a terrible killer so that all of the world may benefit. I am proud that this event will be held in my home State of Georgia and ask that this body commend the Dodge Tour de Georgia for its fine work.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise in support of the motion to invoke cloture on the asbestos bill. I say to my good friend from Nebraska, with whom I agree on so many issues, and work so very closely with, I think this bill is ready because it is a bill we have been negotiating for months and months and months, and a bill on which great compromises have been made on both sides of the issue. I do think it is time we invoke cloture, that we bring this bill to the floor, and that it be open for whatever amendments may be necessary by those who disagree with it, but let's have a vote on it. Asbestos-related bankruptcies have inflicted a staggering toll on the American workforce. Companies that have declared bankruptcy because of asbestos-related litigation employed more than 200,000 workers before their bankruptcies. So far, asbestos-related bankruptcies have led to the direct loss of as many as 60,000 jobs, while each displaced worker will lose an average of $25,000 to $50,000 in wages over his or her career. For example, when Federal Mogul declared bankruptcy in 2001, employees reportedly lost more than $800 million in their 401(k) plans. The AFL-CIO has testified before Congress that: Uncertainty for workers and their families is growing as they lose health insurance and see their companies file for bankruptcy protection. There is no question that the escalating claims and costs are a threat to workers' jobs and retirement savings. The AFL-CIO further testified that ``the tort system is damaging business far more than it is compensating victims'' when it comes to asbestos-related cases. One economic study found that, considering the multiplying effect of private investment, failure to enact asbestos legislation could reduce economic growth by $2.4 billion per year, costing more than 30,000 jobs annually. Extended over a 27-year timeframe--which is the timeframe of this bill--this would translate into the loss of more than 800,000 jobs and $64 billion in economic growth. Another study concluded that 423,000 new jobs will not be created due to asbestos litigation, and $33 billion in capital investment will not now be made, unless we bring this bill to the floor and pass this asbestos litigation bill. Asbestos-related bankruptcies threaten American workers' jobs, incomes, job-related benefits, and retirement savings. To date, approximately 70 or more companies--35 since the year 2000--have been driven into bankruptcy as a result of asbestos litigation. Forty-seven States have had at least one asbestos-related bankruptcy. How does this translate into lost jobs? As I have already said, these bankruptcies have led to the direct loss of at least 60,000 jobs. Many of the affected companies are highly unionized. If this direct impact is not bad enough, we have plenty of additional collateral damage from these lost jobs. It is estimated that for every 10 jobs lost as a direct result of an asbestos-related bankruptcy, an additional 8 jobs are lost. Each worker who has lost a job as a result of bankruptcy will lose an estimated $25,000 to $50,000 in wages because of periods of unemployment and/or lower wages in subsequent employment. Moreover, each worker loses, on average, at least 25 percent of the value of their 401(k) retirement account as a result of their company's bankruptcy. While we are on the subject of retirement savings, asbestos-related bankruptcies have an adverse impact on the retirement savings of millions of Americans. We have already seen how badly these bankruptcies impact the retirement savings of individual investors. We have seen the devastation to employees of bankrupt companies whose 401(k) retirement accounts hold their employers' stock. And we have seen the damage to those whose pension funds have invested in companies driven into bankruptcy as a result of asbestos-related cases. All one has to do is look at a couple of examples to get a sense of the dramatic negative impact that asbestos-related bankruptcies have had and will continue to have on retirement savings. Owens Corning stock, 14 percent of which was owned by its employees in their 401(k) accounts, lost 96 percent of its value, dropping from $1.8 billion to $75 million in the 2 years before its bankruptcy filing in October of 2000. Then there is the example of Federal Mogul. At the time of Federal Mogul's bankruptcy in October 2001, 22,000 of its employees owned 16 percent of the company's stock, stock that lost 99 percent of its value or more than $70 million. Between January 1999 and the time of its bankruptcy, Federal Mogul's market capitalization dropped from $4 billion to only $49 million. And by the way, Federal Mogul never, ever produced asbestos. It simply acquired a company with asbestos liability. Federal Mogul's stock, which once traded for more than $70 a share, now sells for pennies. Company retirees who once had secure retirement nest eggs must now work minimum wage jobs to survive. One Federal Mogul retiree told the Detroit News he managed to salvage most of his retirement savings by selling the company's shares before the bottom fell out. But unfortunately, his 82-year-old former colleague was not as fortunate. Because he held on to his Federal Mogul stock, his $1 million retirement plan evaporated to $22,000. As a result, this individual now works as a greeter at a Wal-Mart store--a very credible job, but he didn't take the job because he wanted to meet people. He simply needed to eat. The runaway asbestos litigation crisis must be brought to an end. The economic data we have seen is troubling because it shows that asbestos litigation creates job losses. American workers and retirees cannot afford to continue shouldering the weight of Congress's failure to act. In fact, we create a class of economic victims by our inaction as companies go into bankruptcy and people lose their jobs. What I find truly ironic is my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who have repeatedly stressed the importance of protecting American jobs want to block us from considering a bill that squarely addresses this very objective. If protecting American jobs is a priority, then I strongly urge my Democratic colleagues to rethink their position on the Frist-Hatch-Miller asbestos bill or at least vote for cloture on Thursday so we can get an up-or-down vote on the merits of the bill and in the process we can consider what amendments they think might be proper. I have not been one to pound on my former colleagues in the trial bar. During my 26 years of practicing law, I engaged in plaintiffs' work as well as defense work, and they are very noble parts of our great legal profession. This bill is not directed at trial lawyers, as some have indicated. This bill is directed at two different segments of our society and our economy. First of all, at those companies who are now struggling because of the asbestos-related cases facing them; they are facing bankruptcy if we don't act. We are going to continue to see the loss of jobs directly attributable to the failure on the part of this body to act. The second class of folks this bill is directed to are the victims. Under this bill, the way it is crafted, these victims don't have to file a lawsuit. They don't have to go through the long, drawn-out discovery process that is a necessary part of every lawsuit. They don't have to go through a trial by jury and let a jury of their peers determine what their compensation ought to be. They are compensated directly and immediately when their injury is brought forward. The fund we establish is a fund that is going to be here forever and ever. We started out with a demand, as the Presiding Officer knows, since he is also a member of the Judiciary Committee, from the folks on the other side of this bill, that we have a trust fund that has $107 billion in it. We resisted that early on. We started out with about an $86 billion proposal. That $86 billion steadily grew until we not only got to $107 billion, we exceeded $107 billion. The trust fund that is set forth in this bill before the Senate today is set at $114 billion. In addition, we have a 10-percent overage fund that can come into play if need be, if that $114 billion is exhausted. Beyond that, even if all of that money is exhausted in asbestos- related claims, anyone who has a true asbestos-related injury can then go back to the process that is now in force, the legal system we have. So nobody stands to lose in the process. The American worker stands to gain. The injured asbestos victims stand to gain by the passage of this bill. I urge my colleagues on Thursday to join those of us who are strong supporters of the legislation and vote to invoke cloture. Let's bring the bill to the floor. Let's debate it. And then let's have an up-or- down vote on the bill. Let's compensate those victims who so badly need it. I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, along with Senator Kennedy, a bill to extend the biometric deadline that is currently set for October 26, 2004 in accordance with the Enhanced Border Security Act. Our bill will extend the deadline to November 30, 2006 in an overall effort to improve our homeland security. The biometric passport requirement applies to the 27 visa-waiver countries. Millions of these foreign citizens travel to the United States each year for tourism or business and currently these citizens are not required to obtain a visa to enter the United States. All other countries must obtain a visa which includes an interview and background check at the overseas consulate. There are a number of significant reasons for extending the deadline. I have heard from many businesses very concerned about the adverse impact of the current deadline on travel and tourism to the United States and negative effect on our economy as a result. I have heard from the State Department and Department of Homeland Security about the lack of manpower to conduct interviews and issue visas to over 5 million new entrants per year. But the strongest reason to move the deadline is that it is in our best interests for homeland security. This bill will allow visa-waiver countries to implement the most effective biometric technology to deter terrorists from entering the United States. Although the United States is not requires by law to meet the same standards, today we are still a ways off from implementing biometric features in our passports. Passage of this bill will encourage our allies in the war on terror to continue in their cooperation with us and our security efforts both at home and abroad. In conjunction with extending the deadline, the US VISIT entry-exit system will apply to all visa-waiver country entrants. Under US VISIT, these foreign visitors will undergo the same security measures, including fingerprinting, which other visitors must meet. A couple of weeks ago I held a hearing in my Immigration and Border Security Subcommittee on the topic of border security. Several Senators asked questions concerning the biometric deadline, and Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Stewart Verdery made the case. Secretary Verdery said: ``We have gone to Congress and asked for this extension, and we believe that within 2 years those countries will be able to meet the deadline, The technology will be more mature. It will make sense to have it in place at that time. . . . If we force people to rapidly try to meet the deadline, we are going to get inferior technology that is going to be much more difficult for us to make useful at the ports of entry.'' Since September 11, the administration has taken significant and effective steps to strengthen our homeland security. The entry-exit system, US VISIT, is up-and-running and now collecting information on aliens traveling to the U.S. through air and sea ports. The Department of Homeland Security has the SEVIS foreign student tracking system in place and doing its job. The President has created the Terrorist Screening Center to improve information-sharing and coordinate our efforts. The extension of the biometric deadline is another step in the right direction as we fight the war on terror.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, along with Senator Kennedy, a bill to extend the biometric deadline that is currently set for October 26, 2004 in accordance with the Enhanced Border Security Act. Our bill will extend the deadline to November 30, 2006 in an overall effort to improve our homeland security. The biometric passport requirement applies to the 27 visa-waiver countries. Millions of these foreign citizens travel to the United States each year for tourism or business and currently these citizens are not required to obtain a visa to enter the United States. All other countries must obtain a visa which includes an interview and background check at the overseas consulate. There are a number of significant reasons for extending the deadline. I have heard from many businesses very concerned about the adverse impact of the current deadline on travel and tourism to the United States and negative effect on our economy as a result. I have heard from the State Department and Department of Homeland Security about the lack of manpower to conduct interviews and issue visas to over 5 million new entrants per year. But the strongest reason to move the deadline is that it is in our best interests for homeland security. This bill will allow visa-waiver countries to implement the most effective biometric technology to deter terrorists from entering the United States. Although the United States is not requires by law to meet the same standards, today we are still a ways off from implementing biometric features in our passports. Passage of this bill will encourage our allies in the war on terror to continue in their cooperation with us and our security efforts both at home and abroad. In conjunction with extending the deadline, the US VISIT entry-exit system will apply to all visa-waiver country entrants. Under US VISIT, these foreign visitors will undergo the same security measures, including fingerprinting, which other visitors must meet. A couple of weeks ago I held a hearing in my Immigration and Border Security Subcommittee on the topic of border security. Several Senators asked questions concerning the biometric deadline, and Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Stewart Verdery made the case. Secretary Verdery said: ``We have gone to Congress and asked for this extension, and we believe that within 2 years those countries will be able to meet the deadline, The technology will be more mature. It will make sense to have it in place at that time. . . . If we force people to rapidly try to meet the deadline, we are going to get inferior technology that is going to be much more difficult for us to make useful at the ports of entry.'' Since September 11, the administration has taken significant and effective steps to strengthen our homeland security. The entry-exit system, US VISIT, is up-and-running and now collecting information on aliens traveling to the U.S. through air and sea ports. The Department of Homeland Security has the SEVIS foreign student tracking system in place and doing its job. The President has created the Terrorist Screening Center to improve information-sharing and coordinate our efforts. The extension of the biometric deadline is another step in the right direction as we fight the war on terror.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, I rise today to speak on the need to resolve the crisis in the asbestos litigation. S. 2290, the Hatch-Frist-Miller FAIR Act of 2004--FAIR, of course, stands for Fairness in Asbestos Injury Resolution Act--is a bill that would solve many of these problems in an expedited fashion. S. 2290 will secure fair and equitable compensation for asbestos victims who, right now, face uncertainty, delay, and risk in the court system. As things stand today, compensation for asbestos-related injuries is more likely to be determined by where and when your claim is filed and who your lawyer or judge is than by how sick you are. Under the current system where companies can declare bankruptcy and substantially avoid paying damages, a truly injured victim might recover absolutely nothing for their actual harm, while a claimant with no physical impairment can recover his or her whole claim. That is simply not right. The FAIR Act would cut down on delays in compensation to asbestos victims. Today, courts are being overwhelmed by a flood of asbestos cases, with some truly ill victims actually dying before they see their day in court. An estimated 300,000 claims are pending; 730,000 individuals have already brought claims; and 60,000 to 100,000 new claims are filed each and every year. However, at least three-quarters or more of current claims are from the unimpaired. Bankruptcies which often result from massive court filings by unimpaired claimants further delay and diminish compensation to truly injured victims. S. 2290 would save American jobs and preserve pensions. American jobs are being lost because of this broken system. Asbestos-related bankruptcies have led to the direct loss of as many as 60,000 jobs, with each displaced worker losing up to $50,000 in average wages and an average of 25 percent of the value of their 401(k) accounts. Moreover, an estimated 423,000 new jobs will not be created because asbestos defendants will have to reduce capital investments by as much as $33 billion. The FAIR Act would revive the economy, as asbestos litigation costs are currently wreaking havoc on American business. As approximately 8,400 companies in all industries have been targeted, the cost of capital for American businesses has increased by as much as 14 percent, annual capital investment has gone down $1.6 billion, and annual economic growth has been slowed by $2.4 billion. More than 70 American businesses have filed for asbestos-related bankruptcies, 35 of these just since the year 2000. In sum, S. 2290 will provide fair and timely compensation to asbestos victims and certainly to American workers, retirees, shareholders, and the U.S. economy. Congress has never been more close to resolving the asbestos litigation crisis than it now is with S. 2290. This bill provides for a privately funded, no-fault national asbestos victims' compensation fund that will step into the shoes of the Federal court system and ensure that individuals who are truly sick receive compensation quickly, fairly, and efficiently. The FAIR Act retains the bipartisan agreement on medical criteria that the Judiciary Committee approved last year. These criteria form the basis of a no-fault victims' compensation fund that will stop the flow of resources to the unimpaired and ensure that the truly ill will be paid quickly and fairly. S. 2290 contains many improvements made to its predecessor, S. 1125. The new bill reflects several months of intensive negotiations by the stakeholders in this important debate and affirmatively addresses the major issues of concern identified by the stakeholders following the Judiciary Committee approval of the original bill S. 1125. Let me take a minute to say that as a member of the Judiciary Committee, I have been a party to a lot of the negotiations--certainly not all of them. Chairman Hatch has done a great job of steering the negotiations, but this has been a bipartisan effort. I take a minute to commend Senators on the other side of the aisle, some who are on the Judiciary Committee and some who are not, including Senator Feinstein, Senator Biden, Senator Dodd, Senator Kohl, and others, who have been strong proponents of trying to reach a conclusion of this asbestos litigation issue. I don't know how they will vote on the final bill. That is not important to me right now. But it is important they have negotiated in good faith and been a party to the negotiations in a fair and reasonable manner. I commend them for taking part and for their cooperative spirit as we have gone through these negotiations. S. 2290 includes revised funding provisions. The new bill establishes a fund that can pay $114 billion in claims, with an additional $10 billion in contingent funding available from defendant companies. Money required to go to the fund from defendants and insurers is assured over a period of 27 years. Defendant participants, for example, guarantee their funding obligations through a grant of authority to the administrator of the fund to impose a surcharge in any year where monies received fall short of the annual requirements. S. 2290 also provides up to $300 million annually in hardship and inequity adjustments that may be granted by the administrator among defendant participants. Money from insurers is front loaded for the early years of the fund where the most stress on the system is expected. Enforcement provisions have been strengthened to help the administrator go after recalcitrant participants. The new FAIR Act increases compensation going to claimants. Based on the funding now available under S. 2290, claims values have been increased in several disease categories. S. 2290 also now provides for reimbursement for out-of-pocket costs of physical examinations by claimants' physicians as well as costs for x-rays and pulmonary function testing at the lowest level of diseased-inflicted claimants or Level I claimants. S. 2290 establishes a new streamlined administrative structure. Rather than administering claims in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, as was the case when S. 1125 came out of the Judiciary Committee, the new bill creates a new executive Office of Asbestos Disease Compensation within the Department of Labor, which has 90 years of experience in administering similar compensation programs, to process claims as well as manage the fund. The new administrative structure will be more streamlined, more efficient, less adversarial, and less burdensome on claimants. The program can be effectively run at a fraction of the cost. The application process is faster, is more user friendly, and is fairer to claimants. To further ease the burden on claimants, S. 2290 also establishes a claimant-assistance program. The administrator of the new office will be appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. S. 2290 ensures a quick start to processing and paying claims. S. 2290 includes a number of new provisions that ensure the fund will be set up and that processing and payment of claims occurs as quickly as possible. Placement of the claims-handling office within the Department of Labor will utilize DOL's existing infrastructure and experienced personnel to facilitate startup. S. 2290 requires implementation of interim regulations and procedures within 90 days after the bill is enacted to allow the office to begin accepting and processing claims in short order. Our new bill grants interim authority to an existing Assistant Secretary of the Department of Labor until the new administrator is appointed to avoid potential delays associated with the appointment process. Lastly, S. 2290 provides for upfront funding, as early as 90 days after date of enactment, from fund participants, as well as increased borrowing authority, to ensure adequate initial funding will be available to fully meet demand. These new provisions are meant to insure that claimants will have speedy access to the fund while stopping any court actions in their tracks; this is to prevent any further, scarce resources from being siphoned away from the truly sick to the unimpaired claimants. The new FAIR Act ensures that any risk of insufficient funds does not fall on claimants. S. 2290 establishes a fund that can pay $114 billion in claims, with an additional $10 billion in contingent funding available from defendant participants. It also provides the administrator with more management flexibility and increased borrowing authority to be able to address any short-term funding issues. Under the terms of the new bill, if after 7 years it is determined that the fund will have insufficient resources to pay off 100 percent of all claims, the administrator is empowered to take actions to sunset the fund. In this event, S. 2290 fully protects the rights of claimants by creating a federal cause of action, so claimants will be able to pursue their claims in the U.S. District Court where they live or where they were exposed to asbestos. In closing, it is important to note that asbestos victims, American businesses, workers, retirees, shareholders, and the U.S. economy cannot afford to wait any longer for asbestos litigation reform. Consideration of the FAIR Act on the floor will allow what I'm sure will be a spirited debate and consideration of any reasonable amendments to our new proposal. That being said, we need move forward with the debate on the FAIR Act and enact S. 2290 now. I ask that my colleagues join me in voting to move forward on this important bill.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Tomorrow, following morning business, the majority leader will seek consent to begin consideration of calendar No. 472, S. 2290, the asbestos litigation bill. If we are unable to begin consideration of that measure, the majority leader is expected to move to proceed to the bill. Additional Senators have indicated their desire to speak on the bill during tomorrow's session. Unfortunately, if we are unable to begin consideration of the asbestos bill, we will be unable to begin the amendment process. Therefore, it appears unlikely that any rollcall votes will occur tomorrow. Members will be notified when the first vote is scheduled.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:45 a.m., on Tuesday, April 20. I further ask that 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 for their use later in the day, and the Senate then begin a period of morning business for up to 60 minutes, with the Democratic leader or his designee in control of the first 30 minutes and the majority leader or his designee in control of the final 30 minutes. I further ask consent that the Senate recess from 12:30 p.m. to 2:15 p.m. for the weekly party luncheons.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, as in executive session, I ask unanimous consent that the injunction of secrecy be removed from the following treaty transmitted to the Senate on April 19, 2004, by the President of the United States: Extradition Treaty with Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Treaty Document No. 108-23. I further ask consent that the treaty be considered as having been read the first time; that it be referred, with accompanying papers, to the Committee on Foreign Relations and ordered to be printed; and that the President's message be printed in the Record.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, I overheard my good friend from east Tennessee as he spoke about life in the Great Smoky Mountains and the bill that he is presenting today. Knowing his passion for east Tennessee--not just east Tennessee but the whole State of Tennessee and that whole region--gives all of us great reason to examine exactly what he is proposing because I know what he is doing is not just right for that part of the country but for the country as a whole from a preservation and protection standpoint. It is kind of interesting as I sat there and listened to him talk about the number of agencies and entities he has brought together in this one proposal and has everybody in the core. The Senator, obviously, has done an awful lot of work over the last year and a half that he served in the Senate to bring this coalition together in support of that project. I wish to take the opportunity as somebody who spent a large part of my life in the mountains of east Tennessee to commend the Senator. I appreciate all of his hard work, his dedication, and the proposal he came up with relative to the Alcoa project. I told him I feel better now about buying all of that aluminum foil over the years because I know it went to send him to Vanderbilt. What a great asset he is to Vanderbilt and to the University of Tennessee and now to the Senate.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, I overheard my good friend from east Tennessee as he spoke about life in the Great Smoky Mountains and the bill that he is presenting today. Knowing his passion for east Tennessee--not just east Tennessee but the whole State of Tennessee and that whole region--gives all of us great reason to examine exactly what he is proposing because I know what he is doing is not just right for that part of the country but for the country as a whole from a preservation and protection standpoint. It is kind of interesting as I sat there and listened to him talk about the number of agencies and entities he has brought together in this one proposal and has everybody in the core. The Senator, obviously, has done an awful lot of work over the last year and a half that he served in the Senate to bring this coalition together in support of that project. I wish to take the opportunity as somebody who spent a large part of my life in the mountains of east Tennessee to commend the Senator. I appreciate all of his hard work, his dedication, and the proposal he came up with relative to the Alcoa project. I told him I feel better now about buying all of that aluminum foil over the years because I know it went to send him to Vanderbilt. What a great asset he is to Vanderbilt and to the University of Tennessee and now to the Senate.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

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

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I commend the Kennesaw State University Owls basketball team for winning its first NCAA Division II national championship title. In the 84-59 victory over Southern Indiana, the Owls showed great poise. After the Screaming Eagles sprinted to an eight-point lead, the Owls settled down, regained the lead and never lost it. The team, which moved up to the NCAA Division II Peach Belt Conference in 1994, took the championship in only their second appearance at the NCAA Division II national tournament. The title capped a 35-4 season record, which had ended with a 26-game winning streak and the Peach Belt championship. I commend Coach Tommy Ingle, his assistant coaches Jeff Jones and Stace Tedford, for developing and leading this strong team of student athletes. Coach Ingle was able to take the team to a national title in only his second year at the helm. That is extremely impressive. I also want to praise the players themselves, including seniors Reggie McCoy, Terrence Hill, and Justin Thompson for displaying leadership, determination, skill and sportsmanship. This young basketball squad has already made its mark in college basketball. In addition to their basketball performance, the Fighting Owls have demonstrated the personal qualities that make them a credit to one of Georgia's great institutes of higher learning, and a credit to the great State of Georgia as well.