Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, today, I am introducing legislation to overhaul the Mine Safety and Health Act to make this Nation's mines the safest in the world. The recent events at the Sago mine in Tallmansville and the Alma Mine in Mellville, WV, and the death of a miner of Pikeville, KY, demonstrates that improvements need to be made in all areas of mine safety. The West Virginia disasters remind us of the one at the Pennsylvania Quecreek mine where on July 24, 2002, a mining machine broke through an abandoned section of the mine, unleashing 60 million gallons of groundwater and trapping 9 miners. Some 78 hours after the accident, all 9 miners were pulled safely from the mine. Unfortunately, the 12 men at the Sago mine were not as lucky. A recent article in the Pittsburgh Post Gazette stated: ``The rest of the world will move on. In the weeks and months to come, there will be other disasters, other wars, other political scandals. But for the families of the 12 men who died inside the mine in Tallmansville, WV, for the one who survived, for their relatives and friends, for the investigators searching for the cause of the mine explosion, for the people of these coal-rich hills 100 miles south of Pittsburgh, Sago will be a daily litany. Some questions about the January 2 accident may never be answered.'' Mining is a dangerous business. There have already been 4 coal mine accidents since the January 2, 2006, Sago disaster. One on January 10, when a miner was killed in Kentucky after a mine roof cave-in, another on January 19, when 2 miners became trapped at the Alma mine in Melville, West Virginia, and two more accidents on February 1, 2006, where a miner was killed at an underground mine when a wall support popped loose, and a second fatality when a bulldozer struck a gas line at a surface mine sparking a fire and killing the operator. Last year, the safest year on record, there were 22 fatalities in underground coal mines, in 20 separate accidents with 4 men killed in my home State of Pennsylvania; 3 in West Virginia; 8 in Kentucky and 7 in other States. The Sago mine had 208 citations, orders and safeguards issued against it in 2005, with nearly half of these violations cited as ``significant and substantial''. Eighteen of the violations were cited as ``withdrawal orders'', which shut down activity in specific areas of the mine until problems were corrected. While the budget for mine safety and health has increased by 42 percent over the past 10 years, these increases barely keep pace with inflationary costs. This has forced the agency to reduce staffing by 183 positions over that same time period. In FY 2006, the final appropriation was $2.8 million below the budget request and $1.4 million below the FY 2005 appropriation due to the 1 percent across- the-board reduction that was required to stay within the budget resolution ceiling. I chaired a hearing on January 23, 2006, that included testimony from Federal mining officials and mine safety experts from labor, business, and academia, which resulted in many of the proposals in my legislation. Specifically, the legislation that I am introducing today amends the Mine Safety and Health Act by requiring: 1. MSHA to release the internal review and accident investigation reports to the House and Senate authorizing and appropriating committees, within 30 days of completing their investigation of a mine disaster. 2. MSHA to publish formal rules for conducting accident investigations and hearing procedures. 3. That fines for a flagrant violation be increased from $60,000 to $500,000; defining that violation as a reckless or repeated failure to make reasonable efforts to eliminate a known violation of a standard that substantially and proximately caused, or reasonably could have been expected to cause death or serious bodily injury; and prohibiting the reduction of penalties by an administrative law judge for any violation termed as ``flagrant or habitual''. 4. That no fine less than $10,000 can be assessed for a safety violation that could cause serious illness or injury, and no less than $20,000 can be assessed to a habitual violator for a violation that could significantly and substantially contribute to a safety or health hazard. 5. MSHA inspectors to follow-up on all violations no later than 24 hours. 6. MSHA to ensure that the ventilation and roof control plans are reviewed on a quarterly basis. 7. That mining companies be subject to a fine of no less than $100,000 if MSHA officials are not informed of a disaster within 15 minutes of an accident. The MSHA Director may waive the penalty if it is found that failure to give notice was caused by circumstances outside the control of the mine operator. 8. That mine representatives not be present during accident investigation interviews with miners. 9. MSHA to train all mine personnel in the proper usage of wireless devices and do refresher training courses during each calendar year. 10. That rescue teams do training exercises twice a year and conduct emergency rescue drills at operating mines--on a surprise, unannounced basis. 11. That communications between rescue teams be strictly confined between the command center and the team members. 12. MSHA to have a central communications Emergency Call Center--which includes manned telephone operation with all calls answered by a live operator, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. This provision will apply to all types of mining operations. To assist in implementing and operating the Emergency Call Center, MSHA shall--on a quarterly basis-- provide the Center with a mine emergency contact list. 13. That wireless Emergency Tracking Devices be made available to each miner by the operator which will enable rescuers to locate miners in case of an accident. 14. That wireless text messaging or other wireless communications devices be made by the operator and shall be worn by underground personnel to enable rescuers or mine operators to communicate with underground personnel. 15. MSHA to place secondary telephone lines in a separate entry in order to increase the likelihood that communications could be maintained between miners and those on the surface in the event of an emergency. 16. That strategically placed oxygen stations be provided to miners with four days of oxygen--in the section of the mine where miners are working. 17. That fines will be increased from $5,500 to $55,000 for operators who fail to correct a violation. 18. That an operator who knowingly exposes workers to situations likely to cause death or serious bodily injury or willfully violates a mandatory health or safety standard will have fines increased from $25,000 to $250,000. 19. That if any person gives advance notice of the mine inspection the fine will be increased from not more than $1,000 to not more than $20,000. 20. That if any person makes a false statement regarding complying with the MSHA Act the fine will be increased from $10,000 to $100,000. All metal, non-metal and coal mines as defined in section 3 of the Act, shall be subject to a user fee of $100.00 for each penalty assessed, to be collected by MSHA and deposited into its account to augment funding above fiscal year 2006 enacted appropriations, for the following activities: reimburse operators for the costs of training, research and development, rescue teams, safe rooms, and other miner safety supplies and equipment, and supplement MSHA funding of technical support, educational policy and development, and program evaluation and information activities. These amendments that I have proposed to the Mine Safety and Health Act will improve the conditions in this Nation's mines. The provisions set forth in this legislation will provide increased protections for miners; put in place new equipment and technology to locate miners working underground; increase their oxygen supplies and speed up rescue operations so that the tragedy of the last few months will be not be repeated. I ask that you join me in cosponsoring this legislation.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, today, I am introducing legislation to overhaul the Mine Safety and Health Act to make this Nation's mines the safest in the world. The recent events at the Sago mine in Tallmansville and the Alma Mine in Mellville, WV, and the death of a miner of Pikeville, KY, demonstrates that improvements need to be made in all areas of mine safety. The West Virginia disasters remind us of the one at the Pennsylvania Quecreek mine where on July 24, 2002, a mining machine broke through an abandoned section of the mine, unleashing 60 million gallons of groundwater and trapping 9 miners. Some 78 hours after the accident, all 9 miners were pulled safely from the mine. Unfortunately, the 12 men at the Sago mine were not as lucky. A recent article in the Pittsburgh Post Gazette stated: ``The rest of the world will move on. In the weeks and months to come, there will be other disasters, other wars, other political scandals. But for the families of the 12 men who died inside the mine in Tallmansville, WV, for the one who survived, for their relatives and friends, for the investigators searching for the cause of the mine explosion, for the people of these coal-rich hills 100 miles south of Pittsburgh, Sago will be a daily litany. Some questions about the January 2 accident may never be answered.'' Mining is a dangerous business. There have already been 4 coal mine accidents since the January 2, 2006, Sago disaster. One on January 10, when a miner was killed in Kentucky after a mine roof cave-in, another on January 19, when 2 miners became trapped at the Alma mine in Melville, West Virginia, and two more accidents on February 1, 2006, where a miner was killed at an underground mine when a wall support popped loose, and a second fatality when a bulldozer struck a gas line at a surface mine sparking a fire and killing the operator. Last year, the safest year on record, there were 22 fatalities in underground coal mines, in 20 separate accidents with 4 men killed in my home State of Pennsylvania; 3 in West Virginia; 8 in Kentucky and 7 in other States. The Sago mine had 208 citations, orders and safeguards issued against it in 2005, with nearly half of these violations cited as ``significant and substantial''. Eighteen of the violations were cited as ``withdrawal orders'', which shut down activity in specific areas of the mine until problems were corrected. While the budget for mine safety and health has increased by 42 percent over the past 10 years, these increases barely keep pace with inflationary costs. This has forced the agency to reduce staffing by 183 positions over that same time period. In FY 2006, the final appropriation was $2.8 million below the budget request and $1.4 million below the FY 2005 appropriation due to the 1 percent across- the-board reduction that was required to stay within the budget resolution ceiling. I chaired a hearing on January 23, 2006, that included testimony from Federal mining officials and mine safety experts from labor, business, and academia, which resulted in many of the proposals in my legislation. Specifically, the legislation that I am introducing today amends the Mine Safety and Health Act by requiring: 1. MSHA to release the internal review and accident investigation reports to the House and Senate authorizing and appropriating committees, within 30 days of completing their investigation of a mine disaster. 2. MSHA to publish formal rules for conducting accident investigations and hearing procedures. 3. That fines for a flagrant violation be increased from $60,000 to $500,000; defining that violation as a reckless or repeated failure to make reasonable efforts to eliminate a known violation of a standard that substantially and proximately caused, or reasonably could have been expected to cause death or serious bodily injury; and prohibiting the reduction of penalties by an administrative law judge for any violation termed as ``flagrant or habitual''. 4. That no fine less than $10,000 can be assessed for a safety violation that could cause serious illness or injury, and no less than $20,000 can be assessed to a habitual violator for a violation that could significantly and substantially contribute to a safety or health hazard. 5. MSHA inspectors to follow-up on all violations no later than 24 hours. 6. MSHA to ensure that the ventilation and roof control plans are reviewed on a quarterly basis. 7. That mining companies be subject to a fine of no less than $100,000 if MSHA officials are not informed of a disaster within 15 minutes of an accident. The MSHA Director may waive the penalty if it is found that failure to give notice was caused by circumstances outside the control of the mine operator. 8. That mine representatives not be present during accident investigation interviews with miners. 9. MSHA to train all mine personnel in the proper usage of wireless devices and do refresher training courses during each calendar year. 10. That rescue teams do training exercises twice a year and conduct emergency rescue drills at operating mines--on a surprise, unannounced basis. 11. That communications between rescue teams be strictly confined between the command center and the team members. 12. MSHA to have a central communications Emergency Call Center--which includes manned telephone operation with all calls answered by a live operator, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. This provision will apply to all types of mining operations. To assist in implementing and operating the Emergency Call Center, MSHA shall--on a quarterly basis-- provide the Center with a mine emergency contact list. 13. That wireless Emergency Tracking Devices be made available to each miner by the operator which will enable rescuers to locate miners in case of an accident. 14. That wireless text messaging or other wireless communications devices be made by the operator and shall be worn by underground personnel to enable rescuers or mine operators to communicate with underground personnel. 15. MSHA to place secondary telephone lines in a separate entry in order to increase the likelihood that communications could be maintained between miners and those on the surface in the event of an emergency. 16. That strategically placed oxygen stations be provided to miners with four days of oxygen--in the section of the mine where miners are working. 17. That fines will be increased from $5,500 to $55,000 for operators who fail to correct a violation. 18. That an operator who knowingly exposes workers to situations likely to cause death or serious bodily injury or willfully violates a mandatory health or safety standard will have fines increased from $25,000 to $250,000. 19. That if any person gives advance notice of the mine inspection the fine will be increased from not more than $1,000 to not more than $20,000. 20. That if any person makes a false statement regarding complying with the MSHA Act the fine will be increased from $10,000 to $100,000. All metal, non-metal and coal mines as defined in section 3 of the Act, shall be subject to a user fee of $100.00 for each penalty assessed, to be collected by MSHA and deposited into its account to augment funding above fiscal year 2006 enacted appropriations, for the following activities: reimburse operators for the costs of training, research and development, rescue teams, safe rooms, and other miner safety supplies and equipment, and supplement MSHA funding of technical support, educational policy and development, and program evaluation and information activities. These amendments that I have proposed to the Mine Safety and Health Act will improve the conditions in this Nation's mines. The provisions set forth in this legislation will provide increased protections for miners; put in place new equipment and technology to locate miners working underground; increase their oxygen supplies and speed up rescue operations so that the tragedy of the last few months will be not be repeated. I ask that you join me in cosponsoring this legislation.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I seek recognition to speak in support of legislation, cosponsored by Senators Leahy, Cornyn, Chambliss, and Feinstein, which I am introducing today to address a major problem affecting the Federal judiciary, specifically excessive rental charges by the General Services Administration for courthouses and other space occupied by the courts across the country. This legislation would prohibit the GSA from charging the Federal judiciary rent in excess of the actual costs incurred by GSA to maintain and operate Federal court buildings and related costs. Unlike many other elements of the Federal Government, the judiciary is required to pay a large and ever-increasing portion of its budget as rent to another branch of government, the GSA. In fiscal terms, since 1986, the Federal courts' rental payments to GSA have increased from $133 million to $926 million in fiscal year 2005. This rental payment represents an increasing slice of the judiciary's relatively small overall budget. The percentage of the judiciary's operating budget devoted to rent payments has escalated from 15.7 percent in fiscal year 1986 to 22 percent in fiscal year 2005. By contrast, only three percent of the Department of Justice budget goes toward GSA rent, and the Executive Branch as a whole spends less than two-tenths of one percent of its budget on GSA rent. In his 2005 Year-End report on the Federal Judiciary, Chief Justice John Roberts cited escalating GSA rents as one of the two serious threats to the independence of the Federal judiciary, the other being judges' pay. The increased rents, coupled with across-the-board cuts imposed during fiscal years 2004 and 2005, resulted in a reduction of approximately 1,500 judicial branch employees as of mid-December when compared to October 2003, and a 24-month moratorium on courthouse construction has been imposed. On May 13, 2005, a bipartisan group of 11 Senators on the Judiciary Committee wrote to Stephen A. Perry, Administrator of GSA, to exercise his statutory authority to exempt the judiciary from rental payments in excess of those required to operating and maintaining Federal court buildings and related costs. On May 31, 2005, Mr. Perry wrote back and denied this sensible request. Mr. Perry referred to the judiciary as ``one of our largest and most valued tenants,'' but a more apt description would have been one of its most valued profit centers. The judiciary paid $926 million to GSA in fiscal year 2005, but GSA's actual cost of providing space to the judiciary was only $426 million, a difference of $500 million. The judiciary in essence is being used as a profit center by GSA, which accomplishes this by charging for such fictitious costs as real estate tax which GSA does not in fact pay and forcing the judiciary to pay for buildings that have been fully amortized, not only once but several times. This legislation provides a relatively modest and simple fix to this near crisis in the Federal judiciary, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I seek recognition to speak in support of legislation, cosponsored by Senators Leahy, Cornyn, Chambliss, and Feinstein, which I am introducing today to address a major problem affecting the Federal judiciary, specifically excessive rental charges by the General Services Administration for courthouses and other space occupied by the courts across the country. This legislation would prohibit the GSA from charging the Federal judiciary rent in excess of the actual costs incurred by GSA to maintain and operate Federal court buildings and related costs. Unlike many other elements of the Federal Government, the judiciary is required to pay a large and ever-increasing portion of its budget as rent to another branch of government, the GSA. In fiscal terms, since 1986, the Federal courts' rental payments to GSA have increased from $133 million to $926 million in fiscal year 2005. This rental payment represents an increasing slice of the judiciary's relatively small overall budget. The percentage of the judiciary's operating budget devoted to rent payments has escalated from 15.7 percent in fiscal year 1986 to 22 percent in fiscal year 2005. By contrast, only three percent of the Department of Justice budget goes toward GSA rent, and the Executive Branch as a whole spends less than two-tenths of one percent of its budget on GSA rent. In his 2005 Year-End report on the Federal Judiciary, Chief Justice John Roberts cited escalating GSA rents as one of the two serious threats to the independence of the Federal judiciary, the other being judges' pay. The increased rents, coupled with across-the-board cuts imposed during fiscal years 2004 and 2005, resulted in a reduction of approximately 1,500 judicial branch employees as of mid-December when compared to October 2003, and a 24-month moratorium on courthouse construction has been imposed. On May 13, 2005, a bipartisan group of 11 Senators on the Judiciary Committee wrote to Stephen A. Perry, Administrator of GSA, to exercise his statutory authority to exempt the judiciary from rental payments in excess of those required to operating and maintaining Federal court buildings and related costs. On May 31, 2005, Mr. Perry wrote back and denied this sensible request. Mr. Perry referred to the judiciary as ``one of our largest and most valued tenants,'' but a more apt description would have been one of its most valued profit centers. The judiciary paid $926 million to GSA in fiscal year 2005, but GSA's actual cost of providing space to the judiciary was only $426 million, a difference of $500 million. The judiciary in essence is being used as a profit center by GSA, which accomplishes this by charging for such fictitious costs as real estate tax which GSA does not in fact pay and forcing the judiciary to pay for buildings that have been fully amortized, not only once but several times. This legislation provides a relatively modest and simple fix to this near crisis in the Federal judiciary, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I say to Senator Leahy, as the Senator is aware, periodically Congress directs the Sentencing Commission to update the Federal sentencing guidelines upon the periodic directive of Congress to reflect and account for changes in the manner in which intellectual property offenses are committed. The recent amendments to which you refer were promulgated by the Sentencing Commission pursuant to the authorization in the Family Entertainment and Copyright Act of 2005, also known as FECA. These amendments to the Federal sentencing guidelines, which took effect on October 24, 2005, address changes in penalties and definitions for intellectual property rights crimes, particularly those involving copyrighted pre-release works and issues surrounding ``uploading.'' For example, these guidelines provide for a 25 percent increase in sentences for offenses involving pre-release works. In addition, the Commission revised its definition of ``uploading'' to ensure that the guidelines are keeping up with technological advances in this area. I would like to make it clear for the record that the directive to the Sentencing Commission in section 3 of H.R. 32 is not meant as disapproval of the Commission's recent actions in response to FECA. Rather, section 3 covers other intellectual property rights crimes that Congress believes it is time for the Commission to revisit. Specifically, section 3 directs the Commission to review the guidelines, and particularly the definition of ``infringement amount,'' to ensure that offenses involving low-cost items like labels, patches, medallions, or packaging that are used to make counterfeit goods that are much more expensive, are properly punished. It also directs the Commission to ensure that the penalty provisions for offenses involving all counterfeit goods or services, or devices used to facilitate counterfeiting, are properly addressed by the guidelines. As it did in response to the No Electronic Theft Act of 1997 and FECA, I am confident that the Commission will ensure that the Federal sentencing guidelines provide adequate punishment and deterrence for these very serious offenses and I look forward to the Commission's response to this directive.

Mr. SPECTER. At this point, I would like to take this opportunity to thank Representative Jim Sensenbrenner, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, and Representative Joe Knollenberg for their leadership in the House with regard to H.R. 32. In January of 2005, Representative Knollenberg introduced H.R. 32 in the House. When the bill was in committee, he fostered negotiations between the Department of Justice, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the International Trademark Association to ensure that it passed the House. I would also like to thank my colleague Senator Leahy, ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Senators Alexander, Bayh, Brownback, Coburn, Cornyn, DeWine, Durbin, Feingold, Feinstein, Hatch, Kyl, Levin, Reed, Stabenow, and Voinovich for their cosponsorship of S. 1699, the companion legislation to H.R. 32. It is through the hard work of all of these Members that we were able to achieve truly bipartisan support for language that will ensure the protection of American-held trademarks.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I want to take a moment to speak about H.R. 32, the Stop Counterfeiting in Manufactured Goods Act of 2005, sponsored by Representative Knollenberg and 59 House cosponsors. The counterfeiting of goods bearing American held trademarks is an important problem that I am committed to fighting, as reflected by my sponsoring S. 1699, the Senate companion bill to H.R. 32, earlier this year with Senator Leahy and Senators Alexander, Bayh, Brownback, Coburn, Cornyn, DeWine, Durbin, Feingold, Feinstein, Hatch, Kyl, Levin, Reed, Stabenow, and Voinovich. H.R. 32, the Stop Counterfeiting in Manufactured Goods Act of 2005 addresses a problem that has reached epidemic proportions as a result of a loophole in our criminal code: the trafficking in counterfeit labels. Criminal law currently prohibits the trafficking in counterfeit trademarks ``on or in connection with goods or services.'' However, it does not prohibit the trafficking in the counterfeit marks themselves. As such, there is nothing in current law to prohibit an individual from selling counterfeit labels bearing otherwise protected trademarks within the United States. This loophole was exposed by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in United States v. Giles, 213 F.3d 1247 (10th Cir. 2000). In this case, the United States prosecuted the defendant for manufacturing and selling counterfeit Dooney & Bourke labels that third parties could later affix to generic purses. Examining title 18, section 2320, of the United States Code, the Tenth Circuit held that persons who sell counterfeit trademarks that are not actually attached to any ``goods or services'' do not violate the Federal criminal trademark infringement statute. Since the defendant did not attach counterfeit marks to ``goods or services,'' the court found that the defendant did not run afoul of the criminal statute as a matter of law. Thus, someone caught redhanded with counterfeit trademarks walked free. H.R. 32 closes this loophole by amending title 18, section 2320 of the United States Code to criminally prohibit the trafficking, or attempt to traffic, in ``labels, patches, stickers'' and generally any item to which a counterfeit mark has been applied. In so doing, H.R. 32 provides U.S. Department of Justice prosecutors with the means not only to prosecute individuals trafficking in counterfeit goods or services, but also individuals trafficking in labels, patches, and the like that are later applied to goods. Congress must act expeditiously to protect U.S. held trademarks to the fullest extent of the law. The recent 10-count indictment of four Massachusetts residents of conspiracy to traffic in approximately $1.4 million of counterfeit luxury goods in the case of U.S. v. Luong et al., 2005 D. Mass. underscores the need for this legislation. According to the indictment, law enforcement officers raided self-storage units earlier this year and found the units to hold approximately 12,231 counterfeit handbags; 7,651 counterfeit wallets; more than 17,000 generic handbags and wallets; and enough counterfeit labels and medallions to turn more than 50,000 generic handbags and wallets into counterfeits. Although the U.S. Attorneys Office was able to pursue charges of trafficking and attempting to traffic in counterfeit handbags and wallets, they were not able to bring charges for trafficking and attempting to traffic in the more than 50,000 counterfeit labels and medallions. As such, these defendants will escape prosecution that would have otherwise been illegal if they had only been attached to an otherwise generic bag. This simply does not make sense. Had the Stop Counterfeiting in Manufactured Goods Act of 2005 been in effect at the time of indictment, U.S. prosecutors would have been able to bring charges against the defendants for trafficking and attempting to traffic in not only counterfeit goods, but also counterfeit labels. As Assistant Attorney General Alice Fisher said: Those who manufacture and sell counterfeit goods steal business from honest merchants, confuse or defraud honest consumers, and illegally profit on the backs of honest American workers and entrepreneurs. This point is underscored by the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection estimate that trafficking in counterfeit goods costs the United States approximately $200 to $250 million annually. With each passing year, the United States loses millions of dollars in tax revenues to the sale of counterfeit goods. Further, each counterfeit item that is manufactured overseas and distributed in the United States costs American workers tens of thousands of jobs. With counterfeit goods making up a growing 5 to 7 percent of world trade, this is a problem that we can no longer ignore. To be sure, counterfeiting is not limited to the popular designer goods that we have all seen sold on corners of just about every major metropolitan city in the United States. Counterfeiting has a devastating impact on a broad range of industries. In fact, for almost every legitimate product manufactured and sold within the United States, there is a parallel counterfeit product being sold for no more than half the price. These counterfeit products range from children's toys to clothing to Christmas tree lights. More frightening are the thousands of counterfeit automobile parts, batteries, and electrical equipment that are being manufactured and placed into the stream of commerce with each passing day. I am told that the level of sophistication in counterfeiting has reached the point that you can no longer distinguish between the real and the counterfeit good or label with the naked eye. However, just because these products look the same does not mean that they have the same quality characteristics. The counterfeit products are not subject to the same quality controls of legitimate products, resulting in items that are lower in quality and likely to fall apart. In fact, counterfeit products could potentially kill unsuspecting American consumers. In addition to closing the ``counterfeit label loophole,'' the Stop Counterfeiting in Manufactured Goods Act strengthens the criminal code and provides heightened penalties for those trafficking in counterfeit marks. Current law does not provide for the seizure and forfeiture of counterfeit trademarks, whether they are attached to goods or not. Therefore, many times such counterfeit goods are seized one day, only to be returned and sold to an unsuspecting public. To ensure that individuals engaging in the practice of trafficking in counterfeit marks cannot reopen their doors, H.R. 32 establishes procedures for the mandatory seizure, forfeiture, and destruction of counterfeit marks prior to a conviction. Further, it provides for procedures for the mandatory forfeiture and destruction of property derived from or used to engage in the trafficking of counterfeit marks. When this legislation was sent over to the Senate from the House, concerns were raised to Senator Leahy and myself about the language in Section 2(bbb)(1)(B) of this bill pertaining to the forfeiture authority of the U.S. Department of Justice. In focusing our attention to this section, we discussed the scope of the facilitation language, which parallels the drug and money laundering forfeiture language in 21 U.S.C. 853 and 18 U.S.C. 982, respectively, and how it might relate to Internet marketplace companies, search engines, and ISPs. Specifically, we were aware of concerns regarding the potential misapplication of the facilitation language in Section 2(b)(1)(B) to pursue forfeiture and seizure proceedings against responsible Internet marketplace companies that serve as third-party intermediaries to online transactions.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. And if the Senator from Illinois declines, that is fine with me.

Mr. SPECTER. Would the Senator from Illinois accept my characterization of his position as ridiculous?

Mr. SPECTER. Would the Senator from Illinois be willing to accept, in open court, the list?

Mr. SPECTER. The Senator from Illinois would be bound by the denomination on the list, which is law and Senate rules. It is not something Arlen Specter has made up. But this is a list which you can have in your hand. It is not a secret list, but there are rules of confidentiality established by law and by Senate rule.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I would like to comment briefly on the disagreement I had with the Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin. He has made the false representation that there is a secret list of who is going to provide the money. It is not a secret list. It has been made available, and I offered it to him on the floor. But under the law, when it contains confidential information, it is available for the Senators and their staffs and those preparing the legislation, but it is not available for the general public on trade secrets. When the bill is certified, then it goes into the public record and the public domain. But to say that it is a secret list is the purest form of demagoguery and a specious argument. On to the essential point of this budget point of order, it does not have any substantive merit because there is no Federal money involved. The Federal Government is implicated only because the Department of Labor is a conduit. That is the only reason the Federal Government is involved. The Congressional Budget Office has said flatly in the letter to me dated yesterday: CBO concludes that the legislation would be deficit-neutral over the life of the fund. CBO, in their letter today to Senator Conrad, repeated: CBO concluded in its February 13 letter to Senators Gregg and Specter that the proposed amendment would be deficit- neutral over the life of the fund. So there is no Federal money involved, pure and simple, and there is no basis to say that the budget would be impacted, so that on the merits, there is no basis for this point of order. The practical application is that if this point of order is sustained, this bill will die. This is an issue which has been before the Judiciary Committee for the better part of three decades, and it has been before the committee in the past 3 years on a very intense basis. The majority leader has set aside 2 weeks for the consideration of this bill. If this point of order is overruled, we will proceed to a cloture vote tomorrow, and we will proceed to take up amendments, and we have a realistic chance of concluding this bill yet this week. It is backed up against a recess period, and we have a chance to finish this bill. If this point of order is sustained, then the work which Judge Becker has done in presiding over some 36 meetings, attended by 20 to 50 to 60 representatives, countless meetings, will be in vain. If the point of order is upheld, the bill is gone. If it is rejected, there will be ample opportunity for amendments to be presented and for the bill to be improved. There are those who wish to offer an alternative of a medical criteria bill. I do not think a medical criteria bill is as good as the current bill because the medical criteria bill would not cover employees whose companies are bankrupt or veterans who have no one to sue. But at least that would be an alternative which would be preferable to the current system. I believe it is fair to say that the Presiding Officer might be attracted to a medical criteria bill, and certainly many who oppose the trust fund would prefer to have something such as a medical criteria bill rather than have nothing. If the point of order is upheld and the bill is dropped, you can't do anything. There is a question as to whether it is germane, but that is a matter for the Parliamentarian and that is a matter for ingenuity and that may be worked out. If you do not go to a medical criteria bill, there are germane amendments which could be offered to change the medical criteria. Here again, I am opposed to the modifications, but they could be made and the bill could be altered. The whole beauty about the Senate is that--when we have these complex issues and we have the synergism of 100 Senators and our staffs--with our experience, with our analysis of what we have done, we have a chance to establish public policy in the interests of Americans. Everybody agrees. Not one person who has taken the floor has disagreed with the enormity of the problem. Everybody agrees that it is horrible that people are dying of deadly diseases from exposure to asbestos and have no one from whom to collect. There is disagreement about how to handle it. There is no disagreement about the tremendous amount of work which has been done in this bill. On a strictly personal level, the committee, the staffs, and I have put in countless hours that ought not to go down the drain on a technicality. If we have this bill on the floor for 3 more days this week and if at the end of that time, or whatever time the bill is on the floor, there is a decision made that no bill is better than the bill we come to, then so be it. It is rejected. But to have it rejected on a technicality is a terrible waste of so much time and effort which has gone into bringing this bill to this position. I have made a statement which I believe to be true--although I can't prove it--that there has never been a bill subjected to more analysis and scrutiny than this bill. Or in the alternative of accepting that assertion--I know it is a grandiose assertion--can anybody point to any bill which has had more analysis or more scrutiny? What a waste it would be to have it dismissed on a technicality when the consequences are that thousands of victims of asbestos will continue to die without compensation, the 77 companies now in bankruptcy will be multiplied, and the economy will withstand a $300 billion loss. Let us take 3 more days, as we have taken the past 3 years, to see if we can produce a bill which will satisfy the critics of the present measure. We have done a count as to how the Senators are going to vote. It is impossible to say with certainty exactly what is going to happen. There are too many people who are still undecided. So as I talk to my 99 colleagues, I ask you to weigh very heavily this vote because this is a measure, as many are, which might be decided by a single vote. Why let it all go down the drain on a technicality when we might be able, in the course of 3 more days, to produce something which would be satisfactory to a majority of this body? Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

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

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the point of order which has been raised has no substance on the merits. The point of order has no substance on the merits because there is no Federal funding involved in the legislation which creates a $140 billion trust fund. All of the money comes from private sources, from manufacturers, and from the insurance companies under the agreement reached by Senator Frist, the Republican majority leader, and then-Senator Daschle, the Democratic minority leader, establishing this trust fund. The Congressional Budget Office filed a letter yesterday, February 13, on the substitute which was offered. Instead of having a managers' package of some 47 amendments, which could have been considered one by one, they were added to the original text of S. 852 as a substitute bill. The Congressional Budget Office letter made the essential conclusion that the substitute is budget neutral. The key paragraph reads as follows: CBO also estimates that, so long as the fund's administrator does not borrow amounts beyond the means of the fund to repay (as the bill would require), the government's general funds would not be used to pay asbestos claims. Furthermore, section 406 of the bill states that the legislation would not obligate the federal government to pay any part of an award under the bill if the amounts in the asbestos fund are inadequate. This is the crucial line: Thus, CBO concludes that the legislation would be deficit- neutral over the life of the fund. So as a matter of the merits, the point of order has no substance because there is no Federal funding involved. The argument which was made last Thursday by the Senator from Nevada, Mr. Ensign, was that some future Congress might obligate the Government to pay money. The obvious response to that, which I made on Thursday and repeat now, is that this Congress should not try to bind what some future Congress may do. It is difficult enough for us to decide what is the appropriate course of action in the year 2006, without trying to look ahead, as this budget point of order contemplates, for a 10-year period, from the year 2016 to the year 2055, on payments in excess of some $5 billion over a 10-year period. The underlying merits of the bill, I think, have been established. You have a chaotic situation today where litigation costs on asbestos claims eat up 58 cents on the dollar, so that claimants only get 42 cents on the dollar. This has resulted in some 77 companies going bankrupt. Some $70 billion has been expended. The courts are overburdened, leading the Supreme Court of the United States to ask the Congress, on several occasions, to deal with this problem. This legislation has been drafted and analyzed and amended and modified, I think, more than any bill in the history of legislative action. I know that is a grandiose statement. I made it last week, and I repeat it today. I would challenge anybody who knows of any bill which is as complicated to step forward. Shortly after the bill was reported out of the Judiciary Committee in July of 2003, I asked a distinguished senior Federal judge, Edward R. Becker, who had been chief judge of the Third Circuit, to undertake the mediation of the great many complex issues involved. For 2 days in August of 2003, Judge Becker and I met with about 20 so-called stakeholders in his chambers in Philadelphia, the stakeholders being the manufacturers, the insurers, the trial lawyers, and the AFL-CIO, to try to work through the problems. Since that time, there have been some 36 meetings held in my office. We reported a bill out of the Judiciary Committee last May 26. We have accepted a great many amendments and are here today to move ahead with the amendment process. I have urged my colleagues and have talked to most of the Senators on an individual basis, and visited many of my colleagues in their offices, talked to many more on the floor when we have had a break in between votes. When I have talked to people and explained to them the intricacies of this complex legislation, the responses have been good. There is a proposal for a medical criteria bill. I think that is not a preferable solution because it would not provide a fund for the employees of companies which have gone bankrupt, nor would it provide funds for the veterans who have sustained their damages at shipyards or in military service. But that is something which could be debated and voted upon before cloture is invoked, or perhaps a germane amendment can be drafted which would survive cloture, which is scheduled for tomorrow. But, in any event, it is my expectation that we ought to be ready to vote some time this afternoon. So I urge any of my colleagues who have anything to say about this budget point of order to come to the floor so we may debate the issue and be prepared to vote. In the absence of any Senator seeking recognition, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SPECTER. I am willing to yield back the remaining time if the Senator from Nevada is.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield----

Mr. SPECTER. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, whatever arguments are advanced by skillful advocates and skillful Senators, the underlying question of this budget point of order is whether the budget will be impacted and hurt. The fact is, there is no Federal money. So there is no substantive merit to the point of order. The Federal Government is implicated only because the Department of Labor is involved as a conduit. That is fact No. 1. Fact No. 2 is if this budget point of order is upheld, this bill is killed after 3 intense years of work, with hundreds of meetings, with numerous conferences, and 36 meetings presided over by Judge Becker and myself. And there will be no opportunity to have amendments to improve it. We may yet be able to pass a bill which will satisfy the critics. So let us have 3 more days as we have worked 3 years. It has been a process by the committee for three decades. But let us have 3 more days with all the work that has been done to bring it to this point. Everyone agrees with the need for a bill. Everyone agrees there are tens of thousands of asbestos victims who are dying without compensation because their companies are bankrupt, or because they are veterans who sustained their injuries in the service and have no one to sue. Everyone agrees it has a tremendous impact on the economy. So let us take 3 more days. This vote is razor thin. Nobody knows how it is going to come out. It may well be decided by a single vote, as so many votes are in this body. I ask each of my colleagues to ponder carefully--there are many, as last reported, undecided--and give us the benefit of the doubt. Give me the benefit of the doubt as chairman of the committee who has brought this forward. Give the Judiciary Committee the benefit of the doubt, and give the benefit of the doubt to substantially more than 50 Senators. We are at least in the high fifties--maybe higher. But give us the benefit of the doubt with 3 more days of the time of the Senate. I thank the Chair. I thank the Senator from Nevada for yielding.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: The pending motion is my motion to waive?

Mr. SPECTER. Will the Senator from Illinois yield for a question?

Mr. SPECTER. I have no time.

Mr. SPECTER. When you refer to the so-called secret list, as I pointed out to you on several occasions over the past several days, isn't it true you have seen the list?

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from California is preparing to take the floor. I wish to present a chart. I am not big on charts, but I think this is one which has some special significance; and that is, there were some projections which were made by the Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Conrad, last week about asbestos claims going up, which is simply not factual. The fact is--as this chart shows--these are findings from the Congressional Budget Office, which show the projection of asbestos claims in a sharp decline. This is based upon the fact that the latency period for asbestos to produce damage is some 30 years. They are going to be on a sharp decline, which is one of the reasons the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that $140 billion is more than sufficient. The other chart I want to put up is the key paragraph which comes from the Congressional Budget Office report. This is the critical paragraph in which CBO concludes definitively that the FAIR Act is deficit neutral: CBO also estimates that, so long as the fund's administrator does not borrow amounts beyond the means of the fund to repay (as the bill would require), the government's general funds would not be used to pay asbestos claims. Furthermore, section 406 of the bill states that the legislation would not obligate the federal government to pay any part of an award under the bill if the amounts in the asbestos fund are inadequate. Thus, CBO concludes that the legislation would be deficit-neutral over the life of the fund. The line in red is the conclusion, which is the most emphatic: ``Thus, CBO concludes that the legislation would be deficit-neutral over the life of the fund.'' So what you have here is a private trust fund taking care of people who have asbestos-related injuries, where the companies have gone bankrupt and they have no one to collect from, where you would be stopping the tremendous clogging of the Federal courts, where the Supreme Court has asked Congress to act, and where you have a situation where people can collect for their damages. I note the Senator from California is on the floor of the Senate. So at this time, I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the pending business is the motion to waive the budget point of order, is it not?