Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, it is about a quarter of 5, so we still have a fair amount of time left on today's calendar. There is no Senator in the Chamber, except you and me, Mr. President. So if there are any of our colleagues who want to speak on the asbestos bill, now would be a good time to come over and speak. There is a certain tempo about this Chamber. When there are a lot of Senators who want time, there is very limited time, fighting for the last extension of time, unanimous consent for 2 more minutes here and a little more there. Now is the time for anybody who wants to speak to come to the Senate Chamber. I might comment that we all have a lot of other things to do, beyond any question. I have been spending a lot of my time meeting with Senators in their offices talking about the bill and also working on the issue of electronic surveillance, which is very heavy on the Judiciary Committee calendar. I am now about to go to a meeting on immigration, but I will be available if the action on the floor heats up. Again, I urge any of my colleagues who want to speak, now is a good time. Again, I urge my colleagues to follow up on the request Senator Leahy and I made back on January 25: If you have amendments, let us know so we can manage this bill in an efficient way. In the absence of any Senator on the floor seeking recognition, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, under arrangements worked out between the leaders of the two parties, we will be open for amendments tomorrow. Senator Leahy and I wrote to all Senators back on January 24, urging Senators to let us know what amendments they intended to offer so that we could schedule the business of the Senate. I renew that request at this time. We have a bill where, as previously announced, we are open for modification. During the some 36 negotiating sessions which Judge Becker and I have presided over during the course of the past 2\1/2\ years, we have made many modifications. We accepted many amendments in committee. Some were voted upon and defeated. But we are interested in making this the best bill we can. We have carried the offer beyond amendments. If any companies are having special problems, we are interested to hear of the problems to see if we can find a way to accommodate them. We are dealing here with an enormously complex subject and we have limited time. In order to manage the bills, in order to conserve the time of the Senate, it is our request that Members bring forward to us amendments they want to have offered, which they intend to offer, with suggestions for time limits so we can proceed to manage the bill. There has been extensive debate on the bill. The Washington Post reported today about the success of moving forward with the motion to proceed and, as I say, tomorrow we will be proceeding with the amendment process. The Post noted, as they put it, referring to me, that I had ``a bit of an obsession with the passage of this bill.'' I think that is an erroneous statement. I don't have a bit of an obsession; I have a total obsession with the passage of this bill. I say that because I have been working on this bill for the entire time I have been in the Senate. Shortly after I was elected in 1980, Senator Gary Hart came to me and was with a constituent, Johns Manville, and said there is a terrible asbestos problem. I have been a party to efforts over the course of the past two and one-half decades-plus to try to find an answer. It has been extremely elusive. Finally, Senator Hatch came up with the idea of a trust fund. When we passed the bill out of committee during the 108th Congress in July 2003, I then enlisted the aid of a senior Federal judge, Edward Becker, who had been chief judge of the Third Circuit, and who is very knowledgeable on asbestos matters. Judge Becker had written the opinion which was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States, which said you could not use class actions on asbestos. That might have been an answer on consolidation class action status to handle the issue in the courts. The Supreme Court of the United States said that mode of procedure was not suitable for asbestos. Then the Supreme Court of the United States issued a challenge to the Congress to provide a legislative solution. That challenge has been issued by the Supreme Court on some four occasions, telling us that it was our business to come up with a solution. Judge Becker agreed to mediate and, as I say, we have had some 36 meetings in my conference room, attended by anywhere from 20 to 60 people. Stakeholders were principally involved, and that is defined as labor, AFL-CIO, which was represented ably at those meetings; we invited the trial lawyers and they attended the meetings, even though we knew there would be opposition from them because, realistically, it impacted their livelihoods; we had the manufacturers and we had the insurers. Last week, we saw come forward a very prominent plaintiffs' lawyer in the asbestos field, Dickie Scruggs, Esq., of Mississippi. He is also Senator Lott's brother-in-law. Senator Lott put the two of us in touch and we talked about the matter. He was one of the originators, if not the originator, of the litigation involving asbestos. From what he has seen over the years, he came to the conclusion that it was not a good idea to keep these asbestos cases in the courts; that a better idea was to have the trust fund, and he came in and made public statements. I believe he may even be on a commercial. I don't have a chance to watch too much television, except for C-SPAN. But he pointed out that the victims are simply not being compensated. When we have had a lot of talk on the Senate floor about special interests, this is one interest group which is not a special interest; it is a general interest, and that general interest is the large group of victims who are suffering from deadly diseases--mesothelioma and lung cancer and other ailments from exposure to asbestos--who are not being compensated. It is their interest we are seeking to take care of. When their companies go bankrupt, they don't have anybody to sue and that is why the trust fund has been created--a trust fund where the figure was established jointly by Senator Frist on behalf of the Republicans and then-Senator Daschle on behalf of the Democrats at $140 billion. !1The interested parties, the manufacturers and insurers, agreed to put up that money. The fund had started out with substantially less, but it was calculated that that would be an amount realistically calculated to take care of the problem. It is very hard when making projections to know with certainty what is going to happen. The Congressional Budget Office has made an exhaustive study and concluded it would cost in the range of $120 billion to $135 billion. They outlined one contingency which might be a little higher than $150 billion, but they said it was impossible to make the calculation, as they put it, ``with great certainty.'' !1Well, you cannot function in all cases with great certainty, but these projections are realistically calculated to do the job. If we are wrong, and when you talk about thousands of cases projected over decades, if our projections are not accurate, the claimants have the right to go back to court so that they are no worse off than they would be at the present time. They are limited to either Federal or State courts--but they cannot judge shop for special counties anywhere in the country, which is the practice today. Madison County, IL, was singled out and some counties in some other States. They have to go to the State courts where they live or where they worked. So we have a realistic plan to take care of this issue. !1But if we can have a better bill, we are very anxious to have that better bill. That is why we have invited our colleagues to come forward with any amendments they may have. The three Senators from the other side of the aisle who have spoken in opposition to the bill have conceded the very grave, difficult problem. They say this bill is not right, but they don't deny the transparency of how we have worked, and they don't deny the evidence that has gone into it or the comprehensive analysis. I have said I believe this is the most complicated piece of legislation that has ever confronted a legislative body. That is a very grandiose, sweeping statement, but I believe it to be true. I repeat that I challenge anybody who knows of some legislative activity that is more complicated than the one at hand. There have been extensive hearings, extensive negotiations, extensive analyses, extensive amendments, and we are still open for the amendment process. !1It is my hope we will do what the Democratic leader said yesterday, and that is go to the amendments and take them up, and that we will not face additional procedural challenges. If we do, we are prepared. There has been some talk in the cloakrooms and hallways about challenging them on a budget point of order, and we are prepared for that. The underlying merits are that there is no realistic budget problem, because there is no Federal money involved here. We have made the bill airtight that the Federal Government cannot be involved. It is all private contributions. If the plan does not succeed, we have alternative ways of dealing with the issue, but not to come back to the Federal Government. There are three possibilities of points of order. One is you cannot have legislation before there is a budget resolution. But on that situation, consulting with the experts on procedure, we can have the date of October 1 in the next fiscal year to solve that. !1There is an issue about an allocation that was made at the discretion of the chairman of the Budget Committee, and we believe that will be accomplished with that allocation being released by the chairman. All of this is a bit presumptive, but I think that is how it will work out. There is a third concern, which is that there not be more than $5 billion spent in any 10-year period between 1960 and about 40 years beyond that. So we will see what eventuates. We are working to cap expenditures so that we stay within that $5 billion limit. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that three additional letters from the International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and Asbestos Workers, the United Automobile Workers, and the International Union of Painters and Allied Trades in support of S. 852, the Fairness in Asbestos Injury Resolution Act of 2005, be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I see the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, the senior Member of this body, the former President pro tempore, former chairman of the Appropriations Committee. He has held every title there is around here. We consider Senator Byrd's longevity and stature as phenomenal. He was in Congress when Harry Truman was President, so he has served with a lot of Presidents. Senator Byrd makes a key distinction between serving with and serving under. He says serving with, and I think he is right. And if you are dealing with Senator Byrd, of course, he is right. I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, on Monday, the Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the administration's electronic surveillance program and we dealt solely with the issues of law as to whether the resolution to authorize the use of force on September 14 provided authority in contradistinction to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which flatly prohibits any kind of electronic surveillance without a court order. Then we got into the issue of the President's inherent powers under article II. It is difficult to define those powers without knowing more about the program and we do not know about the program. It was beyond the scope of our hearing, but it is something that may be taken up by the Intelligence Committee. But I made a suggestion to the administration in a letter, in which I wrote to Attorney General Gonzales and put in the Record at our Judiciary Committee hearing, that the administration ought to submit this program to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. They have the expertise and they are trustworthy. It is a regrettable fact of life in Washington that there are leaks from the Congress and there are leaks from the administration, but the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court has been able to maintain its secrecy. The Attorney General said the administration was disinclined to do that. In response to the letter, he wrote, a written response, he said that they would exercise all of their options. I am now in the process of drafting legislation which would call upon the Congress to exercise our article I powers under the Constitution to make it more of a matter for congressional oversight, but respecting the constitutional powers of the President under article I. The Congress has very substantial authority. The President has powers under article II; the Congress has very substantial powers under article I. In section 8, there are a series of provisions which deal with congressional authority on military operations. One which hits it right on the head is to make rules for the Government and regulations of the land and naval forces. That would comprehend what is being done now on the electronic surveillance program. The thrust of the legislative proposal I am drafting and have talked to a number of my colleagues about, with some affirmative responses, is to require the administration to take the program to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. I think that they ought to do it on their own because I think that there are many questions which have been raised by both the Republicans and Democrats. We want to be secure and we want the military, the administration and the President to have all the tools that they need to fight terrorism, but we also want to maintain our civil liberties. If that unease would be solved by having the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court tell the administration that it is constitutional, if they say that it is unconstitutional, then there ought to be a modification of it so what the administration is doing is constitutional. This comes squarely within the often-cited concurring opinion of Justice Jackson in the Steel Seizure case about the President's authority being at its utmost when Congress backs him, on middle ground when Congress has not spoken, and weakest when Congress has acted oppositely in the field, which I think Congress has done under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act because the President's congressional authority then is whatever he has minus whatever Congress has that is taken away from him. As Justice Jackson said, what is involved is the equilibrium of the constitutional system. That is a very weighty concept--the equilibrium of the constitutional system. The legislation I am preparing will set criteria for what ought to be done to establish what the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court should apply in determining whether the administration's program is constitutional. The standard of probable cause ought to be the one which the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court should apply now--not the criminal standard, but the one for gathering intelligence. Then they ought to weigh and balance the nature of the threat, the scope of the program, how many people are being intercepted, what is being done with the information, what is being done on minimization--which is the phrase that the information is not useful in terms of deleting it or getting rid of it--how successful the program has been, if any projected terrorist threats have been thwarted, and all factors relating to the specifics on the program--its reasons, its rationale for existence and precisely what is being undertaken, its success--and that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court ought to look to this, essentially, prospectively. The court does not have punitive powers, and I do not believe that it is of matter, except to work from this day forward as to what is being done. No one doubts--or at least I do not doubt--the good faith of the President, the Attorney General, and the administration on what they have done here. But as I said in the hearing, I said to Attorney General Gonzales, the administration may be right but, on the other hand, they may be wrong. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court ought to take a look at the program, make a determination from this day forward whether it is constitutional, and if it is constitutional, then they ought to, under the statute, report back to Congress with their determination as to whether it is constitutional. The court ought to further make a determination as to whether it ought to be modified in some way which would be consistent with what the administration wants to accomplish but still be constitutional and not an unreasonable invasion of privacy. The President has represented that his program is reevaluated every 45 days. That is in terms of the evaluation of the continuing threat and what ought to be done. I think a 45-day evaluation period would be in order here as well. This question is one which is not going to go away. We had, yesterday, the comment by a Republican Member of the House of Representatives in the Intelligence Committee who chairs the subcommittee that oversees the National Security Agency. There are quite a number of people on both sides of the aisle who have expressed concerns regarding this program. It is my judgment that having it reviewed by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court would accomplish all of the objectives, would maintain the secrecy of the program, would allow the President to continue it when there has been the determination by a court--that is how we determine probable cause on search warrants, on arrest warrants, on the activities, the traditional way of putting the magistrate, the judicial official between the Government and the individual whose privacy rights are being involved. I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, will the Senator from Illinois yield for a question?

Mr. SPECTER. How can the Senator call it a secret list when it is available for his inspection?

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, with all due respect, the issue isn't whether it has been made public, the issue is whether it is in existence, and the issue beyond being in existence is whether it is available to Members who have to vote on the bill. So when the Senator from Illinois asserts that you don't know who is making contributions, it is simply not so. The issue of confidentiality is true. It has been raised by the companies because they are concerned that if it is disclosed how much they have contributed or are proposing to contribute that they may be targets for more litigation. I don't wish to interrupt the Senator from Illinois further. I simply wish to make the point that he is wrong when he says we don't know who is going to contribute the money, and his own staffer has taken a look at the list.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I am advised by staff, since I posed the question, in a note to the effect that Senator Durbin's staff did come to look at the list. Is the Senator from Illinois aware of that?

Mr. SPECTER. I will be glad to respond. I didn't subpoena any governmental agency. We subpoenaed the companies who were obligated to provide the money.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I am not going to ask for any additional time, Mr. President, because of the interruptions and the disorder--all of which is directed--to finish my sentence--to the companies which sustained financial hardship. I made a repeated offer, yesterday and today, in speaking about the bill, inviting any Senator who has a constituent who has a problem to come talk to us. We will try to work to a solution of the problem. And you do not have to have a Senator if you are a constituent. If anybody is watching these proceedings on C-SPAN2, come to my office. My staff and I, Senator Leahy and his staff, and the Judiciary Committee generally, will try to find an accommodation and an answer. The Senator from Vermont is back on the floor. I am glad he has come back because I wanted to make this comment about the bipartisanship of the Judiciary Committee, what we have accomplished, as a sign for what this body can do. It is an open secret that the rancor and the partisanship and the bickering is at an all-time high in the Senate--an all-time high. And there is much talk about the good old days when there was comity and there was collegiality in the Senate. Well, Senator Leahy and I have restored that to the Judiciary Committee. And we have produced this bipartisan bill on asbestos reform. We do not make any representation that it is a perfect bill or that it is a bill which cannot be improved. We are open for business to improve and change the bill. But that brings me to a New York Times editorial which I think is of note as to what Pat Leahy and Arlen Specter have accomplished with our committee and what this body can accomplish. This is what the New York Times had to say. In a complimentary line, they refer to the assiduous effort that Pat Leahy and Arlen Specter made, and then say: That makes it a 21st-century rarity: a thoughtful bipartisan compromise on a vexing national problem. I think it is a sad day for the Senate, a very sad day, when it is a 21st century rarity that there is a thoughtful, bipartisan compromise on a vexing national problem. We have a great many vexing national problems. I believe they can be solved on a bipartisan effort so it does not become a 21st century rarity. I am glad to see that however we have gotten there, that the votes were present by mid-afternoon to shut off this filibuster and that we can now go forward to debate on the merits so the American people can see our analysis of the problems and our proposed solutions and our openness to modifications to produce the best possible bill because the system which we have at the present time is an anathema and a travesty and unworthy of the American judicial system. I thank the Chair and yield to my distinguished colleague, the assistant majority leader.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I note the Senator from Nevada has spoken for 18 minutes, taking some leader time, and the 10 minutes allocated under the unanimous consent. I ask unanimous consent Senator McConnell and I may be accorded the same amount of time.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, when I yielded the floor as 5:40 arrived, I was in the middle of commenting about the work which the distinguished ranking member, Senator Leahy, and I had done on this bill and the spirit of collegiality and the spirit of bipartisanship which has characterized the work of the Judiciary Committee the past 13 months. Senator Leahy and I have worked together as ranking member and as chairman. This bill represents very substantial work and analysis as to how we have gotten there. When the Senator from Nevada talks about the debate being useful up to the present time, I tabulate three Senators who spoke in opposition to the bill. And a good bit of what they have had to say is in error factually on the merits. This bill has been subjected to more analysis, more discussions--I was saying before I yielded the floor when time had arrived for the minority leader--than any bill in the history of legislation. I acknowledge that as a very grandiose statement because I do not know all of the legislative bills that have been considered in the history of the legislative process. But I make that assertion based upon what has been done, which I detailed yesterday, with Judge Becker, a senior Federal judge, and I hosting some 36 meetings, attended by 20, 30, 40, sometimes as many as 60 people, and the numerous meetings which Judge Becker has had on a volunteer basis, and the many meetings I have had with individual Senators. I have talked to many Senators, several dozen Senators, perhaps a majority of the Senators, on an individual basis, either visiting in their offices or on the Senate floor or in the corridors, in order to acquaint Senators with what is going on. The assertions which have been made simply are not factual. I am pleased to note the Senator from Nevada has stated his intention to vote for cloture and that we are going to be going on to debate the bill on the merits. Yesterday, the Senator from Nevada was more than firm in his opposition to the bill. And I think it fair to say I was at least equally firm in what I had to say by way of response. But there are the votes present without the vote of the Senator from Nevada to invoke cloture and to proceed to a discussion on the merits. When we do proceed to a discussion on the merits, we will have a chance to answer in detail the misunderstandings which have been articulated in the debate so far. One Senator who spoke in opposition to the bill talked about secrecy, that nobody knew who was going to pay the money. The language--there was a quote--``contained in a secret list known only to the asbestos study group. . . .'' ``None of the relevant information has ever been made public.'' Well, factually that is just not correct. The Judiciary Committee had to issue a subpoena, but we know who is paying how much money. That is a matter that can be looked at by Senators or by their staffs. But it has been retained on a confidential basis because there could be a problem for the companies if these factors were disclosed. Then another comment made by one of the three Senators who spoke in opposition to the bill, that the ``United States Government will be making a commitment to compensate hundreds of thousands of seriously ill asbestos victims. . . .'' Well, that is factually just not correct. This bill is airtight that the Federal Government has no financial obligation, and that if there is an effort to impose a budget point of order, and it is considered on the merits, that it will not impede the movement of this bill forward. The budget point of order will not be sustained because there is no Federal money. Technically, it goes through the Department of Labor, so it is calculated as a Federal expenditure, but there is no Federal money involved. The Senator from Nevada has gone through a list of objections he has, and as we are now moving to debate--after this evening's vote--the bill on the merits, we will have a chance to explore those in detail. When the Senator from Nevada talks about Foster Wheeler, illustratively, I personally have met with Foster Wheeler on a number of occasions, as recently as 10 days ago. And we are still seeing if we can accommodate the concerns of Foster Wheeler. We have gone a long way to see to it that companies will not be adversely affected financially, on exclusion of small business, a matter detailed at some length by Senator Feinstein in her comments on the floor today, and on a hardship fund of some $300 million a year, and by an amendment which we are in the final stages of negotiation to limit the amount of money that companies with lesser gross revenues will have to pay, all of which is directed----

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the crux of what Senator Feinstein has had to say is proof positive that we ought to proceed. There is no doubting the problem. The only issue is whether we ought to take up the bill and work on it. Anybody who votes against taking up this bill will be casting, in my opinion--it is a tough word, a tough term--an unconscionable vote, considering how many thousands of people have suffered from deadly diseases and how many companies have gone bankrupt--at least to proceed to take it up. I haven't seen any Senator who has addressed the issue on the floor who hasn't at least faced up to the fact that we have a problem that ought to be addressed. Occasionally, we do consider the merits of a pending motion. The merit of a motion to proceed is whether there is a problem which ought to be taken up. If somebody has a better bill, let them come to it. I am going to speak very briefly because our distinguished colleague from Alabama, Senator Sessions, is on the floor. He, too, has been a major contributor. First, I wish to thank Senator Carper for his speech in support of the motion to proceed earlier. I think there is Democratic support. Senator Leahy, of course, is a cosponsor, Senator Kohl is a cosponsor, Senator Feinstein has spoken, Senator Carper has spoken, and others have stated their intention to move to take up and consider the bill. Senator Hatch's comments were very important. He is the author of the trust fund concept, and chaired the Judiciary Committee before term limits called for a shift in chairmanship. He did a great job. Senator DeWine has spoken in a very important way. I want to put into the Record a couple of newspaper articles which I think are very germane. Senator Reid and I had a conversation about the bill yesterday, with Senator Reid making the accusation that lobbyists paved the way for this bill to come to the floor. On the floor, in his presence, I challenged him as violating rule XIX which bars a Senator from making derogatory comments about another Senator. This morning, in the Hill publication there was the disclosure of a fascinating document which the Hill obtained from a coalition opposing the bill. This document, which is published at some length in the Hill, points out that nearly 20 corporations paid a total of about $3 million to defeat the asbestos legislation. The document obtained says this bill's ``defeat could bring an end to the trust fund as a viable political option for addressing the asbestos litigation crisis. Therefore, coalition activities leading up to that vote should be commensurate with the opportunity presented to us to defeat the trust fund once and for all.'' This coalition document then specifies how they are laying out $2.78 million for defeating the bill, allocating $1.34 million for coalition operations and $1.44 million for advertising. Then there is a specification as to the companies that are trying to defeat the bill, such as American International Group, Allstate, American Re, a reinsurance provider, the Chubb Corporation, Hartford Insurance, Liberty Mutual, Nationwide Insurance, and Zurich Financial. Each has received bills, according to this document, for $134,250. ExxonMobil paid $73,000 to the coalition. I shall not read any further, but I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my comments.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from California for the comments which she has made. They are thoughtful, they are profound, they go to the heart of the question, and they illustrate the need for legislation. I thank her even more for the great contribution she has made to the bill as it has moved through the committee process. She has devised some of the key sections of the bill, starting with the handling of exigent claims to see to it that people with mesothelioma and other deadly diseases are handled at a very early stage in the proceeding. We have worked together countless hours in her office, in my office, with many other Senators in the committee process, and she has done a great job in committee generally on many items, including the one identifying victims whose identities are stolen, legislation we are trying to bring to the floor now. But I think the speech she just made was a fine hour, perhaps her finest hour, in identifying their very serious problems.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I also think it is relevant to note an editorial in the New York Times today which is solidly in support of this bill. The Times editorial refers to the efforts of Senator Leahy, the distinguished ranking member and principal cosponsor with me, and says: That makes it a 21st century rarity; a thoughtful, bipartisan compromise on a vexing national problem. It would create a trust fund to pay awards to those who are already sick, using detailed medical criteria to determine eligibility and awards. Under this no-fault system, akin to workers' compensation, those exposed to asbestos at work but not ill would be entitled to free medical screening every three years. And the Times editorial goes on to point out: Lobbyists for the trial lawyers, at various companies, insurers and union interests that feel aggrieved by some aspect of the complex package are trying to round up lawmakers to block the bill. A key test is to come today, when the majority leader, Bill Frist, has scheduled a vote to allow the Senate to begin formal consideration of the bill. Mr. Reid is trying to derail the measure even before the debate begins in earnest, and Democrats who want to see asbestos victims treated fairly should not support him. There are other dangers ahead, including the possibility of a ``poison pill'' amendment that would expand to other communities a special provision that would make residents of Libby, Mont., a town uniquely affected by asbestos contamination, eligible for a guaranteed level of compensation without a need to show occupational exposure. Another worry is that some Republicans will try to amend provisions or medical criteria in ways that would be unfair to victims. The New York Times editorial concludes, saying: No one can be sure that $140 billion will cover all current and future claims. But the bill would give victims the option of going to court should the trust fund run out. It would be a vast improvement over the present method of dealing with the claims of asbestos victims, which is to clog the courts and bankrupt companies while depriving many victims a measure of justice. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of this editorial be printed at the conclusion of my comments.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, in order to make other documents available, I ask unanimous consent that a series of letters be printed in the Record. I think it important that these be available in the Record for Senators and their staffs and for the public to see the kind of support this bill has. Yesterday, Senator Reid and I had a few words about a number of groups who are for the bill and who are against the bill. This letter is from many veterans groups urging Senator Reid not to filibuster the bill. They say: We urge you not to stand in the way of full Senate consideration of this vital legislation. And the number of veterans groups is enormously impressive, including the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Paralyzed Veterans of America, The Retired Enlisted Association, the Blinded American Veterans Foundation, the Jewish War Veterans of the USA, and quite a number of veterans organizations which will appear in the Record. I also have printed letters of support from the NFIB and a letter signed by manufacturers, labor groups, small business, and 25 additional veterans groups. I ask that these documents be printed in the Record so colleagues can see the kind of support this bill has. By doing this, they get into the Congressional Record, and the people note the support.

Mr. SPECTER. My distinguished colleague from Alabama has been waiting. In advance, I thank Senator Sessions for his outstanding work on this committee generally but especially on this bill. Exhibit No. 1 [From the Hill, Feb. 7, 2006] Aiming at Asbestos Bill (By Alexander Bolton) Nearly 20 corporations have paid a total of about $3 million to defeat the asbestos trust-fund bill, which Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) has designated his first priority in 2006, according to a coalition planning document obtained by The Hill. The Senate will consider the bill, which establishes a $140 billion trust fund to compensate the victims of asbestos exposure, over the next two weeks, leading up to the Presidents Day recess. Strategists leading the opposition view the debate as an opportunity to defeat the creation of such a trust fund permanently. ``Majority Leader Frist's agreement with Chairman [Arlen] Specter [R-Pa.] to put S. 852 on the Senate floor for a vote, in the face of opposition from the Judiciary Committee conservatives and Budget Committee leadership, has increased the stakes of that vote beyond its important role in the legislative process,'' Kieran Mahoney, a strategist with Mercury Public Affairs, wrote in a private memo to the Coalition for Asbestos Reform. The firm Fleishman-Hillard is also coordinating the lobbying effort. ``This has become a do-or-die opposition for the advocates of the Trust Fund, and its defeat could bring an end to the Trust Fund as a viable political option for addressing the asbestos litigation crisis,'' Mahoney wrote. ``Therefore coalition activities leading up to that vote should be commensurate with the opportunity presented to us--to defeat the Trust Fund once and for all.'' The memo was contained in a 22-page internal planning document detailing the Coalition for Asbestos Reform's strategy. The bill is sponsored by Specter and cosponsored by Sen. Pat Leahy (Vt.), the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee. The document, crafted at the end of last year, is available on The Hill's website, http://img.thehill.com/img/ news/020706/asbestos.pdf It lays out a $2.78 million budget for defeating the bill, allocating $1.34 million for coalition operations and $1.44 million for advertising. Fleishman-Hillard and Mercury Public Affairs are charging $510,000 in fees and $80,000 in expenses for their work over the first four months of the year, according to the document. In his memo, Mahoney writes that the advertising campaign will be built around "creating political will inside three audiences--moderate/conservative Democrat Senators who are deemed persuadable, conservative Democrat Senators who are deemed persuadable, conservative Republican senators whose current opposition needs to be turned into a ``no'' vote, and DC opinion leaders who collectively make up conventional wisdom. Opinion leaders are being targeted by advertising through national cable networks, D.C. broadcast stations and Capitol Hill print outlets. Senators are being targeted through TV and print ads in select markets in key states. The business groups are leaving the persuasion of liberal- leaning senators to trial lawyers and unions. ``Separately, the Coalition needs to ensure that the trial bar and related advocacy groups are preparing a similar strategy that targets liberal Democratic Senators,'' the Mercury Public Affairs memorandum stated. The campaign appears to have gained traction, as Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) has vowed to filibuster it and conservative Republicans on the Judiciary Committee such as Sens. John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) have voiced concerns over the bill. It passed out of the Judiciary Committee with the support of all Republican members and Sens. Leahy, Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Herb Kohl (D-Wis.). Manufacturing and insurance companies have long sought a trust fund to pay asbestos-related medical claims and to avoid costly lawsuits. Partisan wrangling over the best way to pay asbestos-related claims and to settle a blizzard of ongoing and potential lawsuits that has dragged on for years. The bipartisan proposal has garnered opposition from groups of labor unions, trial attorneys, midsize manufacturing companies and insurance companies. Unions have pushed for more money in the trust fund and trial attorneys oppose the concept because it curbs litigation. Midsize companies have balked at how much they must pay into the fund, and insurance companies are worried about their liability if it runs out of money. But a significant portion of the business community supports Specter and Leahy's efforts. ``There are numerous supporters of the trust fund,'' said Matt Webb, vice president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Institute for Legal Reform, which has not taken a position on the bill. ``It's impossible to say how many are in each camp, it depends on each individual company's financial situation and legal situation.'' The coalition's document includes a list of member companies and how much they've been asked to contribute to the opposition effort. Donors such as American International Group; Allstate; American Re, a reinsurance provider; Chubb Corp.; Hartford Insurance; Liberty Mutual; Nationwide Insurance; and Zurich Financial have each received bills for $134,250 to pay for operating and advertising costs, according to the document. Oglebay Norton, an industrial-minerals company, and Okonite Co., an electrical-wire manufacturer, have received bills for $55,000. Bills for varying amounts have been sent to other member companies. Exxon Mobil paid $73,000 to the coalition but is not a member, said Thomas O'Brien, chairman of the coalition, who will receive $100,000 for his work over January, February, March and April, according to the document O'Brien declined in a phone interview to discuss what other companies have joined the coalition or if the billing records accurately represent the contributions of coalition members to date. ``Things change every day,'' he said during the interview in which Bill Fay of Fleishman-Hillard also participated. ``That was a planning document. As Bill said, that document was not for public dissemination, I wouldn't comment on it.'' O'Brien and Fay said that the time for Congress to act was several years ago but that states such as Texas have now taken steps to deal with the slew of medical claims. They said that the Senate bill would wreck those efforts.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Vermont, the ranking member on the Judiciary Committee, for his comments. I compliment him on his comments and on his work on the asbestos bill--on his entire career in the U.S. Senate, 31 years, but especially in the past year and 1 month, 13 months, where he and I have been ranking member and chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and the cooperation which we have had. We have had some disagreements, but very few, and when there have been disagreements, they have been on matters of policy as opposed to anything to undercut the collegiality of the work of the Judiciary Committee. I can think of some votes--there are bound to be differences on votes--but I think we have carried the committee a long way with class action, bankruptcy, and moving through the disagreements and filibuster versus the nuclear option on the circuit judges and Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito not all agreements but in large measure--and then coming to the asbestos bill, which has been as tough as any legislation I have ever seen. I made a statement yesterday which may have been a little excessively sweeping, but the asbestos bill is a complicated bill.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I rise to compliment the Pittsburgh Steelers on a phenomenal season and a great Super Bowl victory. I regret I could not go to Detroit to see the game. But a session had been scheduled many weeks ago to bring in Attorney General Gonzales on the electronic surveillance issue at 9:30 yesterday morning. I checked it out, and the earliest I could have gotten back to Washington would have been the middle of the night. I thought it more sensible to attend to those important duties for the hearing with the Attorney General and to watch the game on television. I was very heartened to see that game, to see that 75-yard run, the longest in Super Bowl history, to see that phenomenal catch, practically a ``hail Mary,'' on the 3-yard line, to see the young quarterback Ben Roethlisberger carry it over on the replay and the great dispute about whether there was a touchdown, and it was a touchdown. The earlier touchdown was nullified when a Seattle receiver had pushed off and been called with an infraction. And then when the Steelers were driving at 14 to 3 toward a putaway touchdown, the intercepted pass and long runback, and the Seahawks came within 14 to 10. Then the Seahawks mounted a drive and were closing in on a touchdown which would have put them ahead 17 to 14, and then came the Steelers' interception. So, it was phenomenal and thrilling game. To have the Steelers, from a wild-card position, go on the road and beat Cincinnati and then go on the road and beat Denver and Indianapolis and that phenomenal tackle made by Roethlisberger, which may be as important in Steelers' lore as the ``immaculate reception'' by Franco Harris many years ago--as you can tell, I am a diehard football fan. The Steelers have brought great credit to Pennsylvania with their victory, great credit to America with their sportsmanship and accomplishments. A special tribute to the Rooney family which owns the Pittsburgh Steelers. I had the privilege of knowing Mr. Art Rooney, who bought the Steelers in about 1933 for reputedly $2,500. I have had occasion to work with his son Dan Rooney, who is now the family patriarch, and his grandson Art Rooney. They are a wonderful family. Bill Cowher is the coach. I know him, to some extent. It is a great tribute. I have taken these few moments to comment about the great victory and to offer congratulations. I am sorry that I couldn't be in Pittsburgh today to attend the parade. But we have a parade on the Senate floor which takes my attention. I don't think I will be missed in that crowd.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Montana for those important comments. I commend him for his diligence in looking after his constituents with special reference to what has gone on in Libby, MT. He has outlined the problem, walking through the cemeteries, seeing the people who have been smitten since the 1920s. He underscores and emphasizes, in graphic and forceful terms, the problem. I hear him when he talks about Libby, MT. We have been addressing it with a special provision. We will do more if we possibly can. I have talked to Senator Burns off the floor on many occasions and heard the serious problems the people of Montana face in Libby. And I have heard the problem that these hotspots create around the country. We will do everything we can. I compliment the Senator from Montana for his thoughtful statement and thank him for his support on the motion to proceed. Again, anybody who has listened to Senator Burns, who doesn't think we ought to proceed and take up this problem, simply has his or her head in the sand. It would be unconscionable to vote against the motion to proceed. Senator Santorum was in the Chamber a few moments ago. He proposes to speak on the Steelers' great victory. I am due at the swearing in of the Ambassador to Finland so I will have to leave the floor in a few moments. (The remarks of Mr. Specter and Mr. Santorum are printed in today's Record under ``Morning Business.'')

Mr. SPECTER. In the absence of any other Senator in the Chamber, let me say I again invite any Senator or any constituent who has a problem with this bill to come see me. I know Senator Leahy feels the same way. With all the outstanding work he has done, and our staffs, we want to do what we can to answer all of the problems. As we get ready for the vote on the motion to proceed this afternoon, we have certainly outlined the seriousness of the issue. Since I spoke earlier, I have been reviewing the testimony or the argument yesterday of Senator Durbin who spoke about the problem. No doubt there is a problem that has to be addressed. That is the issue on the motion to proceed. Senator Durbin made a comment that he didn't know how the $140 billion was arrived at. It was arrived at by his leader, then-Senator Daschle, in collaboration with Senator Frist. He said he hadn't been able to find out where the money is coming from. He could if he would make an inquiry. We had to subpoena the records, but there is transparency. We know where the money is coming from. I haven't had a chance to read his statement in full, but I will no doubt have more to say about it. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, in addressing the motion to proceed where we are scheduled to have a vote at 6 o'clock this evening, the question is whether the problem of asbestos, causing thousands of people to have deadly diseases and forcing many companies into bankruptcy and resulting in a situation where people with the deadly diseases have no one to claim against, the issue is whether we have a problem which is worthy of the attention of the Senate. That is an easy question to answer; it is yes. That has been authenticated by the Supreme Court of the United States on several occasions where the Court has said the matter should be addressed by the Congress. That came up in a context where there were class action suits attempting to find the modality for dealing with the issue, and the Federal courts--ultimately, the Supreme Court--said class actions were not appropriate and it was a matter for the Congress of the United States. This problem has been intractable. It has been studied. There have been proposals for more than three decades. I first saw this issue soon after I came to the Senate after the 1980 election when Senator Gary Hart came to see me as a junior member of the Judiciary Committee on behalf of his constituent, Johns Manville. We have wrestled with this problem for decades. Finally, on an idea conceived by Senator Hatch to have a trust fund, the bill was reported out of the Judiciary Committee in July of 2003. But the bill had many problems. I then solicited the assistance of Federal Judge Edward Becker, a senior judge who had been the Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, and in August of 2003, Judge Becker convened a meeting in his chambers in Philadelphia attended by stakeholders. That is the name we gave to the various groups which had key interests in the asbestos bill. One stakeholder was the AFL-CIO, representing labor; another stakeholder was the manufacturers; another, the insurers; another, the trial lawyers. Even though the trial lawyers have been opposed to the bill because it has a major impact on their financial status--and I understand that--we included the trial lawyers in every step of the proceeding, trying to accommodate as many interests as we could. Even though someone was going to be opposed to the bill, we wanted to consider what they had to say. We wanted to produce a bill which was as good as we could possibly produce. Following those initial meetings in August of 2003 in Judge Becker's chambers, there have been meetings in my conference room--totaling 36-- attended by varying groups, from 20 to as many as 60, pouring out into the boundaries of the office from the conference room. What we have done has been to seek to accommodate every issue which has come up. We are still talking to Senators and still talking to companies and interested parties to find answers to their problems. One of the major issues has been the impact on small companies. That has been addressed by a number of Senators. Senator Kyl has taken the lead, and a proposal has been worked out to cap the contribution by smaller companies which have gross revenues below a certain figure. In addition, there is a fund of some $300 million annually for the administrator to take care of hardship cases so that no one, for example, should be driven into bankruptcy by what they have to pay. We have taken that into account. The figure of $140 billion was worked out by Senator Frist and Senator Daschle about a year and a half ago. It is a figure that grows from that originally put into the trust fund to that figure where CBO has given us the assurance that the range of cost will be somewhere between $120 billion and $135 billion. Under one contingency, it could go to $150 billion, but that is unlikely. We have within the structure of the bill a provision that the administrator can make a reevaluation, going through certain preconditions, so that if it looks as if we are going to exceed $140 billion, we can make modifications in the medical standards and criteria to stay within the $140 billion. One factor is emphatically plain, and that is that there is no obligation by the Federal Government to spend a dime. There were three amendments directed during the committee process to make sure of that. There are possible technical points of order which may be raised, and we are in the process of trying to restructure the bill to eliminate them. At this point, I am not sure whether we can, but we are trying to do that, and we may be successful. But if a point of order is raised on the merits, it ought to be examined by Senators because there is no impact on the Federal budget. Technically, the expenditures are made by the Federal Government because the funds go through the Department of Labor, but they are only a conduit. There is no Federal money. So if you want to use 60 votes to defeat the bill, the point of order may be available, as I say, or may not be. But substantively there is nothing to the point of order because this bill does not have any impact on the Federal budget because there is no Federal money. The Department of Labor is just, plain and simple, a conduit. Similarly, if you want to defeat the bill on an obstructionist tactic, which is what is being undertaken now on a filibuster on the motion to proceed, the 60 votes can be used. Senator Reid was on the floor yesterday, and we had a disagreement. You might call it a disagreement. But the one thing that he did talk about involved the problems of people suffering from mesothelioma and other asbestos problems. So there is no doubt that the leader of the opposition, obstructionist No. 1, the Senator from Nevada, concedes the problem, concedes that we have a major problem. Now, that ought to be sufficient to proceed to see if we can solve the problem. Occasionally around here we ought to deal with a pending matter, whether it is a point of order or a motion to proceed, on the merits. What is involved in a motion to proceed is a decision by the Senate that we ought to consider legislation on this issue. If somebody has amendments, we are open. We have accepted more than 70 amendments in the committee. If somebody has a problem with constituents, I invite them to come to see me, my staff, or Senator Leahy. We have bipartisan support for this bill. Senator Leahy, Senator Kohl, and Senator Feinstein voted the bill out of committee. We have other support among Democrats. And I am talking to Senators on an individual basis and have visited with many of them in their offices and am available to do more. But the issue on a motion to proceed is whether you have problem, which we certainly do, and whether legislation ought to be considered. And if somebody has amendments, if somebody has a constituent who thinks the constituent company is being asked to pay more than a fair share which is jeopardizing the company, come to us. We have been considering individual cases, and we have been solving them in many instances. We are open for business. The distinguished Senator from Montana is going to address a problem in Libby, MT, where they have had environmental problems. Asbestos was used in a reckless, disgraceful, criminal manner by W.R. Grace & Company, and we are working to accommodate Libby, MT. There may be more that we can do for that issue. There are other so-called hot spots around the country, and we are taking them up. There have been issues raised about our medical criteria. We have studies by the Institute of Medicine. If you have a problem, we want to solve it. We want this bill to go forward. But on the narrow issue we are voting on at 6 o'clock this evening, any Senator who votes not to proceed is saying to his constituents, is saying to people suffering from mesothelioma, people suffering from asbestos exposure--anybody who votes no on the motion to proceed is saying there is no problem. Well, I think that is a pretty tough vote to explain, a pretty tough vote to explain that there is no problem, and it ought not to be considered by the Senate. Yesterday, in the discussions--you might call them that--with Senator Reid, I said this was certainly the most complex bill I have seen in the time I have been in the Senate. And I think it is fair and accurate to say it is the most complex piece of legislation ever considered by a legislative body. I know that is a pretty grandiose statement, and I do not know all the legislation considered by legislative bodies, but I think it is accurate. I challenge anybody to bring to my attention, to the attention of the Senate, any legislative proposal which has ever been undertaken and analyzed that is more complicated than this one, that has received more attention than we had in 36 meetings in my conference room, in dozens-- dozens--literally hundreds of meetings involving Judge Becker and myself and Senators. Enormous work has been done by Senator Leahy. I owe him a debt of gratitude for his cooperation and his leadership. Senator Feinstein has had innovative proposals on startup. As I say, Senator Leahy, Senator Feinstein, and Senator Kohl are cosponsors. So if anybody has an issue, I invite them to come forward. But I think it is an unconscionable vote to vote no on the motion to proceed. I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have been asked by representatives of leadership to ask unanimous consent that the time be charged equally to both sides. I am reluctant to make that request in the absence of any Senators representing the Democrats so I will not make it, but I would ask--I have heard from the leader of the Democrats saying it is OK. So I ask unanimous consent that the time under the quorum call be charged equally to both sides.

Mr. SPECTER. I suggest the absence of a quorum.