[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 51 (Tuesday, April 20, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4123-S4127]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
FAIRNESS IN ASBESTOS INJURY RESOLUTION ACT OF 2004--MOTION TO PROCEED--
Continued
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business is the motion to proceed
to the consideration of S. 2290.
The Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. Did the distinguished Senator from Delaware have a desire
to speak?
Mr. CARPER. Just for 5 minutes.
Mr. HATCH. I ask I be given the privilege of speaking thereafter.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. What was the unanimous consent request?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The unanimous consent is that Senator Carper
be given 5 minutes, after which Senator Hatch will be given 5 minutes.
The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. CARPER. Before Senator Specter leaves the Chamber, I express my
thanks to him and certainly to Judge Becker for the willingness to
enter into what many people describe as one of the most complex issues
we will face this year or any year in the U.S. Congress to try to see
if there is a way to ensure that people who are sick and dying from
asbestos exposure get the help they need; folks who are not sick, who
become sick, get the help they need, and that the companies which have
a fair amount of exposure, whether they be manufacturers or insurance
companies, get some certainty with respect to their financial
obligations.
I am more encouraged at this moment than I have been for some time
that we may have the beginning of a negotiating process. I realize
these negotiations are going under the sponsorship of Senator Specter
and the leadership of Judge Becker. If we are fortunate enough to get
the buy-in from both leaders, Senator Frist and Senator Daschle, these
negotiations, led by Judge Becker, should be the vehicle.
We do not have to go out and invent a new negotiation process. This
is one that works. Judge Becker is smart as a whip. He got the
involvement of the leadership staff on both sides. Senator Hatch's
staff, Senator Leahy's staff, Senator Dodd, myself, and others have
been actively involved in these negotiations through Judge Becker.
This is a good process. We ought to build on this process. I have
encouraged our leader to take ownership of the process--not to take
away from Judge Becker but to ask him to continue to work. Judge
Becker, for reasons that are beyond my pay grade, enjoys the confidence
of labor. He enjoys the confidence of the insurers. He enjoys the
confidence of the manufacturers, the defendants in these cases, and I
think the respect of the trial bar. What we need to do is take him up
on the offer, on his willingness to stay here and work with us.
My hope is we will end up with a negotiation that will lead not to
further negotiation but a bill, another bill in the Senate, building on
what has come to the Senate already.
I had a chance to talk with Senator Hatch a few minutes ago off the
floor. He expressed a willingness to wait for as much as a month before
we actually take up the bill. That gives this negotiating process
another 4 weeks to bear fruit, further fruit--it has already borne a
lot--and for us to take up at a date certain--I suggest maybe the week
before the Memorial Day recess--to take up the bill, to negotiate, to
debate, to amend it, and to pass it.
I am, again, more encouraged than I have been in some time. I express
my thanks, again, to the Senator from Pennsylvania for his leadership.
I thank Senator Hatch. I know this is near and dear to his heart, and
Senator Leahy and both of our leaders. We can get this done, and we
have to.
I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I thank my colleague. However, I am not as
sure we are going to get this done as he is. I have to say, we have
been working on this for 15 months. We have met innumerable times with
our friends on the other side. We have met with every party involved
here. I have tried to do everything I possibly can to bring everybody
together. This is mired in politics. There is no question about it.
We are talking about a motion to proceed. How often in the Senate
have we had a filibuster against a motion to proceed to a bill, when
you can filibuster the bill, too? So you would have two filibusters on
this bill, assuming we were to invoke cloture on a motion to proceed.
It shows the lengths to which some will go in an election year to play
partisan politics.
Look, we have done everything in our power to accommodate Democrats.
We have made so many changes to accommodate the Democrats on this that
I have gotten excoriated by the Wall Street Journal and others who I do
not think have looked at these negotiations or understand what is going
on.
Keep in mind, there are 8,400 companies that would like to resolve
this problem, many of which are going to go into bankruptcy. Seventy
have already gone into bankruptcy. Those jobs are lost. Those pensions
are lost. The money we could have here to help settle this is lost.
Those were the main
[[Page S4124]]
companies that handled asbestos. The remaining companies are those that
have some peripheral experience with asbestos but really did not do the
wrongs. But under this system, which is out of whack according to the
Supreme Court of the United States of America, and any reasonable
person who looks at it, we have unjust litigation going on all over
this country for people who are not even sick. A high percentage of the
cases brought are for people who have never had a sick day in their
lives--certainly not from asbestos. It is another scam, in many
respects. Not all of them; some of these cases are valid. That is why
we want to come up with $114 billion, that we have had to force the
companies to come up with, to try to solve these problems.
This has not been easy, and it has not been fun for me or anybody
else in this process. The fact of the matter is, there is a high
percentage of these lawsuits that are unjustified that are costing us
an arm and a leg. Let's be honest about it, 60 percent of all the money
we are talking about here--assuming we cannot get this bill passed--
will go for attorneys' fees and transaction costs, not to the people
who need help. Mesothelioma victims are getting 5 cents on the dollar,
if that, about $17,000 for an absolute cancer that has destroyed their
lives and has caused them death.
I do have some comments to make about the comments my good friend,
the distinguished minority leader, made this morning. I would like to
make some comments with regard to Senator Daschle's statements this
morning. He stated a lung cancer victim with 15 years of exposure would
receive only $25,000 in compensation. That is painting a very
incomplete picture, which I would like to finish. If we are going to
paint the picture, let's paint the whole picture.
First, that picture is the bottom range of compensation. Under the
claims values in the FAIR Act we have come up with, claimants who were
exposed to asbestos and still smoking will receive between $25,000 to
$75,000 in compensation. And for the record, Senators Leahy and Kennedy
have stated they want $50,000 for claimants falling into this category.
But it is between $25,000 and $75,000.
Mr. President, I have come here to discuss the FAIR Act. We have a
chance to help those who have suffered from asbestos-related injuries
for far too long. Many people have spent months getting us to this
point. I want to assure we have a complete picture of the bill for the
record. We owe at least that much to the victims.
By the way, these are people who do not have any markers, do not have
any evidence through X-rays or any other reason to show asbestos has
caused their cancer. Yet we are willing to give $25,000 to $75,000 to
them. If they get mesothelioma, they have a right to go and get the
million dollars under the schedule we have agreed to in the Judiciary
Committee. It does not stop them from getting fair compensation. But it
certainly is a misrepresentation to say they are only getting $25,000.
These are heavy-duty smokers. Almost everybody knows their cancers come
from smoking, but we bent over backwards to give consideration that
possibly there may be some connection to asbestos, even though there is
no evidence.
Senator Sarbanes, the distinguished Senator from Maryland, stated we,
and I quote, ``sprung'' the bill on the Democratic Senators and their
staff. Come on. Senator Daschle called attention to the total fund
value. I want to state for the record Senator Daschle's staff was
informed of the new numbers last October. That was 6 months ago. Since
October, there have been repeated and continuing discussions of these
numbers over the ensuing months, and we had many months of discussion
prior to that. We have been on this for 15 solid months on a daily
basis, and we have worked with Democrats on the other side. We have
worked with everybody involved, including the personal injury lawyers
who do not want to lose this bird in the cage.
Now we repeatedly asked the Democrats for a response to the numbers.
Repeatedly we have asked. We have received none. We repeatedly asked
the Democrats for a legislative proposal they would like to make, a
concept of a structure, something, anything. We have received nothing.
As Senator Daschle knows, this so-called new bill we allegedly
``sprung'' on him includes the very numbers we released months ago, the
changes demanded by the Democrats and the changes demanded by the
unions. We have all kinds of changes we have made for these parties in
this matter. This is not some little sprung deal. The Democrats have
had every right to participate in these processes, and some have. Some
have been kept from these processes by their own party members.
I would like to respond to a few of the statements made by my
colleague from South Dakota, Senator Daschle, earlier this morning
regarding S. 2290, the Fairness in Asbestos Injury Resolution Act of
2004. If I recall it correctly--and I was watching as Senator Daschle
stated there was no reversion to the tort system should the moneys not
be there--and the moneys are there. Virtually everybody who has
effectively studied this says this amount of money we have in this bill
will take care of the problem. In fact, though, there is a reversion to
the tort system should it not. Should the fund become insolvent, then
claimants with asbestos injuries who have not received compensation
under the fund may pursue their claims in the courts at that time. So
that statement there is no reversion is simply wrong. Again, we have
worked closely with our colleagues on the other side. That was their
idea, and we accepted it.
Naturally one of the problems in this matter is some of these
personal injury lawyers, who really know better, have been forum
shopping to special jurisdictions that are out of whack that literally
do not care what the law says and literally do not care about justice
or doing what is right. Some say--I hope this is not true--but some say
they are bought and paid for by the personal injury lawyers in their
respective jurisdictions.
There are at least four or five jurisdictions in this country where
you can go in and get whopping verdicts for no injuries, like one
verdict in one of these counties in one of these preferred
jurisdictions by, I think, dishonest personal injury lawyers, or at
least those who are exploiting the system, where there was $150 million
granted for five plaintiffs, not one of whom had been sick a day from
asbestos. That money is not going to those who really are sick, which
this bill does. Even the Supreme Court has said this system is broken.
I am not against further negotiations. We are happy to do it. That is
one reason why this bill is on the floor right now, because we are
going to have a vote on this. It might be a cloture vote on a motion to
proceed, of all things, but at least we are going to have a vote so
people know where some of these folks stand. Some people have used this
bill to raise money for their campaigns, saying they are going to be
for it, and yet when push comes to shove, they are never for it, it is
never good enough, there is never enough money. Yet, as I have said, we
have not had a proposal, we have not had a dollar figure, except
outrageous figures nobody can meet, off the top of the head.
We can talk about 15 months of very heavy-duty slogging here. Now
they want more time?
I would like to take a couple minutes to talk briefly about some of
the improvements in the Fairness in Asbestos Injury Resolution Act. We
worked our guts out to get a bill out of committee. It was a very tough
thing. I remember staying into the, I think it was the wee hours of the
morning or at least pretty close to midnight that night debating this
bill. There were some amendments added that I have to admit I didn't
like and that would have made it impossible for this bill to pass on
the floor. But we have worked very hard. Since then, we have had
countless meetings with unions, with personal injury lawyers, with
victims, with companies, with insurance companies, trying to bring
everybody together.
This bill was reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee after a
lengthy committee markup spanning four separate meetings. S. 1125, the
bill reported out of committee, included, among other unprecedented
achievements, a major bipartisan solution with respect to medical
criteria where all of the committee members--and this committee is
ideologically divided, very tough--agreed on eligibility requirements
for determining asbestos-related injuries compensable under the act and
[[Page S4125]]
over 50 other consensus-building provisions. It and other bipartisan
agreements remain in S. 2290, the bill we are discussing today.
S. 2290, as many have noted, makes additional significant
improvements over the committee bill from a lot of hard work. I praise
Senator Leahy, Senator Specter, the majority leader, and others who
have worked so hard. Of course, their staffs have worked so hard on a
day-in-day-out basis to try to solve these problems. These improvements
reflect agreements reached in continuing negotiation among
representatives of organized labor and industry that were mediated by
our colleague from Pennsylvania, Senator Specter. I praise our mutual
friend, chief judge emeritus of the Federal Third Circuit Court of
Appeals, Judge Edward Becker, who has played a pivotal significant role
here.
First, let me briefly highlight some of the key provisions of this
important legislation. S. 2290 ends the broken asbestos litigation
system and replaces it with a privately funded asbestos victims
compensation program for the payment of asbestos claims.
The key elements of the asbestos victims compensation program include
an office of asbestos disease compensation headed by an administrator
for processing and paying claims; a no-fault system based on sound and
fair eligibility requirements. That no-fault system will not require
attorneys in most instances and will save the attorney's fees. Sixty
percent of the moneys here go to the people who are really sick. That
no-fault system is a very important step. It includes a nonadversarial,
streamlined, and less burdensome claims process with only two levels of
review. In most cases, the claimant probably will not need an attorney
or if the claimant has an attorney, we provide for attorney's fees
under the bill, but on a scaled down basis.
There is still $2.5 billion in this bill for attorneys, even under
this system. It provides for over $100 billion in funding assured over
a period of 27 years, actually $114 billion with a $10 billion
contingent fund added on. So you could look at it as $124 billion that
we are forcing these companies, including the insurance companies,
which have limited liability by the way, we are forcing them to pay
into this fund upwards of $124 billion, if it is needed. But $114
billion will be made available, and it does have that $10 billion in
contingent funding for defendants.
S. 2290 bans future asbestos use to eliminate the dangers caused by
asbestos exposure. It provides grants for mesothelioma research and
treatment centers, hopefully to find a way to resolve some of the
problems.
This represents a good-faith effort to improve this fine legislation.
That is just some of the changes. No piece of legislation is perfect,
but I am certain that with these changes a very good piece of
legislation got better.
Let's go to the improvements over S. 1125. We had to get a bill out
of committee. It was a hard-fought battle. It took us four markups and
a major all-day session. Let me list some of the improvements.
This is less adversarial. It provides for a less adversarial, more
streamlined administrative process, including less levels of review
than the original bill. This bill has a more user-friendly application
process and expanded claimant assistance program, where you might not
even need lawyers to eat up the funds, although you could have a lawyer
if you want one.
This provides interim authority, interim regulations, upfront
funding, and increases borrowing to facilitate the prompt startup of
paying these folks who have suffered--the real claimants, not these
people who haven't suffered who are getting moneys from these false
jurisdictions.
This bill increases claims values. Mesothelioma victims are now
getting, in many cases, 5 cents on the dollar. This bill resolves that
problem, just to mention one thing.
This has more secure funding because it guarantees mandatory funding
from funding participants. It gives audit authority and civil penalties
for false statements and fraud. It has stronger enforcement authority,
and it has additional safeguards to ensure priority of payments to the
fund.
It also increases liquidity and provides more flexibility to address
short-term funding problems. It has a more orderly wind-up of the fund
and transition back to the tort system in the event of a sunset, with
payment in full for all resolved claims. It also provides grants for
mesothelioma research and treatment centers that are also required to
participate in a mesothelioma disease registry. All of these would be
wonderful.
This new bill increases compensation going to victims over what they
are getting today. The attorneys do real well, but the victims aren't
doing quite as well. It revises the funding provisions to help
guarantee funding and to protect the solvency of the fund, while
ensuring that any risk or shortfall rests on defendants and insurers,
not on claimants. It establishes a more streamlined, less adversarial
and less burdensome administrative system than provided in our original
bill, S. 1125, that will be up and running more quickly. It provides
grants for mesothelioma research and treatment to help find a cure for
this deadly disease.
I emphasize that S. 2290 puts even more money in the hands of victims
than provided in S. 1125 as reported by the committee, which was
already estimated to put over one and one and a half times more money
into the pockets of victims than they would have received under the
current tort system where more than half of the resources now go into
the pockets of the plaintiffs' and defendants' lawyers.
I am pleased to say, with the leadership of our majority leader,
Senator Frist, S. 2290 raises award values in certain categories,
focusing those diseases that are most clearly caused by exposure to
asbestos.
I might add that as a thoracic surgeon Senator Frist brings a unique
perspective on this legislation. I think it is fair to say that he is
the only Member of this body who has performed surgery on mesothelioma
patients. The values from the negotiations conducted by Senator Frist
led to an increase of $100,000 for severe and disabling asbestosis,
among other increases.
Values for smokers and ex-smokers with lung cancer under levels 8 and
9 were also notably increased, although most likely their cancers came
from their heavy-duty smoking. That involves a lot of union members who
probably would get nothing if it weren't for this bill. For the life of
me, I don't understand why the union leaders have not been totally for
this. I have heard them privately say this is a good bill. I commend
Senator Frist for his insight and efforts in this process.
Although some Democrats and some affected parties assert that values
in S. 2290 are not enough, they generally only focus on the values for
exposure-only lung cancers. Most experts believe these claimants have
no clearly established link that the lung cancer was caused by asbestos
exposure, such as underlying asbestosis, and may have been heavy
smokers all their lives. There is no evidence in these cases that their
cancer or lung problems have come from asbestos exposure, but we give
them the benefit of the doubt in this bill. Some conservatives think
that goes way too far. Even though these people have been heavy smokers
all their lives and we know that leads to cancer, we have been willing
to go this far in the bill. Some of these experts provided testimony to
the Judiciary Committee that an exposure-only lung cancer disease
category runs an extremely high risk that lung cancer falling within
this category are, in fact, not conclusively attributable to asbestos
exposure. That is putting it mildly. Providing increased compensation
for these smoking-related claimants could frustrate the purpose of the
fund and put the fund at risk. In fact, lung cancer claimants with no
markers or impairment from asbestos currently receive nothing from
today's bankruptcy trusts--zero. This bill gives them the benefit of
the doubt. These claims with no markers and no impairment--meaning no
indications at all that asbestos was involved--almost always result in
defense verdicts in today's tort system.
Here we provide the benefit of the doubt to them in the bill. Some
have criticized that, but that is how far we have gone to try to get
the other side to do something and debate this bill. If they don't like
provisions of it, file amendments and bring them up. We are willing to
debate them. They may win on some of these amendments. I can live with
that. But to just continue to
[[Page S4126]]
filibuster everything that can help this country immeasurably at this
time seems to me to be hitting below the belt.
Upon close consultation with organized labor, S. 2290 contains
additional changes to ensure that more money is put into the hands of
victims more quickly. Specifically, this entailed locating the program
at the Department of Labor. The Wall Street Journal doesn't like that
idea and neither do some of my fellow Republicans. But that is how far
we have gone to accommodate them and try to bring this to closure. This
is a major change from the bill as reported by the committee--which
assigned the claims processing function to the Court of Claims. I have
to admit, I don't particularly like that provision. I thought the Court
of Claims would do a better job. I think any court would probably do a
better job. On the other hand, these people are expert in some of these
things. The Government is not making these payments. Payments have to
come from the companies. So it is not something like black lung that
goes off the charts year after year. It is no secret that the
administration has serious reservations about this change. In fact, I
have questions about these provisions myself, but in the spirit of good
faith and compromise, we decided to include this new administrative
mechanism in order to attempt to put more funds into the hands of the
families suffering from asbestos-related illness. We did this in an
attempt to accommodate our friends on the other side--attempt after
attempt after attempt--and here we are with a filibuster on the motion
to proceed. We have acted in good faith. I think a filibuster is in bad
faith.
Reimbursement of costs for physical examinations are now provided as
part of the medical monitoring program, and structured payments are now
required to be made in a 40/30/30 split over a 3-year period, unless a
stretch out to 4 years is required to protect the solvency of the fund.
The Hatch-Frist-Miller FAIR Act also improves the committee bill by
providing more secure funding and additional protections in the fund's
solvency, while maintaining that the risk of insolvency falls onto the
various industries involved. Most of them should not be here. Most of
them are companies that hardly ever did anything with asbestos, but
because they have either acquired a smaller company, or had some
contact with asbestos, although not significant, they are hauled into
all these cases, and they are going to have to come up with moneys they
should never have had to come up with. The mandatory funding for
defendants is guaranteed, and moneys from insurers are infused into the
fund in the early years where the most claims are anticipated. The
increased enforcement authority of the Attorney General to compel
payment and other additional safeguards, such as requiring a priority
for payment obligations to the fund in State insurance receivership
proceedings, further bolsters the fund's solvency. Also, increased
borrowing authority provides more liquidity and will help with the
short-term funding problems.
Let me talk about some of the safeguards: We have over $100 billion
in guaranteed mandatory funding; $114 billion plus $10 billion
contingency; a strong enforcement measure for underpayment and
nonpayment; borrowing authority of 7 years future revenue ensures
liquidity; regular program reviews, including claims and funding
analysis with recommendations for improvements; annual reports to
Congress on the status of the fund, with recommendations for
improvements--Congress can make changes if it has to; and $10 billion
in contingent funding; a risk of insolvency placed on companies with a
sunset provision.
Those are all safeguards we put into the bill, much to the credit of
our friends on the other side, who now appear to be filibustering this
bill--even the motion to proceed. Of course, they are now asking for
even more time for discussion.
Look, I have been told by people who know--or at least think they
know--some who have speculated that we are never going to get a bill
this year because it is an election year, and there is a lot of money
involved from the personal injury lawyers. By the way, like the
bankruptcy bill, a lot of money is involved by the companies who tend
to pour it into people objecting to the bill, hoping they will somehow
or other do what is right and support the bill. I hope that is not the
case, but the more this drags out and the more we have filibusters on
motions to proceed; and on this bill, after all the concessions we have
made and the negotiations we have had, the more I come to the
conclusion maybe these rumors are true. In fact, I know a lot of people
who believe they are true.
Because of these new financial safeguards I have discussed, the
Hatch-Frist-Miller bill was able to modify the amendment proposed by
Senator Biden and adopted in committee, which allowed for a reversion
to the tort system in the event the fund becomes insolvent. Many
members of the committee--and I thought Senator Biden himself--
recognized that the provisions in his amendment, voted on late with
little discussion with the committee, needed further review. We are
pleased our new language satisfies the problem the Biden amendment
addressed in the first place, but do so in a more flexible and
deliberative fashion.
Simply stated, the Hatch-Frist-Miller bill replaces these provisions
with an alternative program review that will give the administrator
more time and more flexibility to address any unanticipated short-term
funding problems. Under the new bill, full payment of all resolved
claims is required. To create a smoother transition and to avoid
recreating the current manifest shortcomings in a handful of State
courts, the fund will revert to the Federal court system. We must not
lose sight of the fact that it is the aberrational result in the courts
of a few States--especially Mississippi, Illinois, and West Virginia--
that has triggered this national crisis.
Let me emphasize that under the new language, any risk that the
funding is insufficient would still fall on defendants with claimants
able to get their day in court.
Members and other interested parties need not worry that any risk of
insolvency will fall on the claimants.
I can give you cases that are 20 years long without any resolution to
the people who have been injured. This solves those problems almost
instantly.
Another significant change I would like to discuss further is the new
administrative structure and claims handling procedures provided in the
Hatch-Frist-Miller bill. While the committee bill created a more
accessible and simpler claims processing system for claimants than
found in the tort system, organized labor continued to express concerns
that the administrative structure under S. 1125 was too adversarial and
cumbersome.
The agreement mediated by Senator Specter and Judge Becker to move
claims processing from the Court of Federal Claims to an executive
office situated in the Department of Labor included numerous
refinements made in consultation with labor union representatives. They
were brought in in every way, and they are the ones who demanded this.
Senator Specter and Judge Becker have negotiated it.
In addition to placing the office within the Department of Labor--
against the preference of the Department of Labor, I might add--or an
independent executive agency, as requested by industry who lost on this
issue, the new language also includes simplifying the claims
application process, expanding the claimant assistance program, and
requiring the creation of exposure presumptions to reduce the burden of
proof for claimants in high-risk employments.
We made further refinements addressing concerns raised by Senator
Feinstein and others that there may be an undue delay in starting up a
new claims system, forcing mesothelioma victims and victims whose
claims have been sitting in court for years to wait even longer to
receive compensation. Senator Feinstein's amendment could have
unintentionally threatened the fund itself by diverting resources away
from the fund and to unimpaired claimants.
Instead, the Hatch-Frist-Miller bill provides interim regulations for
the processing of claims, including exigent claims, interim authority,
upfront funding, and increased borrowing authority, which all go toward
ensuring the system is up and running as soon as possible after the
date of enactment.
[[Page S4127]]
Good public policy demands expedited termination of the broken tort
system and preservation of funds so that payments can go to the most
worthy claimants, as defined by the consensus medical criteria.
As a final note, proposals for research moneys for mesothelioma were
circulated in committee. Mesothelioma victims generally live only a
year or so after diagnosis of this horrible disease. More research is
needed on mesothelioma to find better treatments and even a cure, and I
am pleased this bill addresses this problem.
Our bill now provides up to $50 million--and I am willing to consider
increasing that amount--in grants to mesothelioma research and
treatment centers. In addition, these centers must be associated with
the Department of Veterans Affairs medical centers to provide research
benefits and care to veterans who have suffered excessively from
mesothelioma. These, along with the asbestos ban, are important and
vital pieces of legislation that must not be overlooked.
Again, I tried to highlight here some of the major changes from S.
1125 as reported, many of which were made to address the concerns
raised by various members in committee, especially on the Democratic
side. These revisions are aimed at ensuring that the program
established under the FAIR Act is fair to victims.
In short, the Hatch-Frist-Miller bill represents a reasonable and
fair solution to the asbestos litigation crisis and may be the only
solution to it. Members from both sides of the aisle recognize that an
equitable compensation program is necessary.
I believe S. 2290, the Hatch-Frist-Miller bill, meets the test. I
urge all of my colleagues to support this bill and at least support
debate on this bill and bring up amendments so we can see what further
changes the Senate, in working its will, will require. We should
certainly see that this bill is fully considered by the Senate.
Having said all of that, I am very concerned that this bill is being
treated only politically; that there are those who are afraid to vote
on this matter; that there are those who do not want to be involved in
this matter right now; that there are those who want to stop this
matter because of political pressure by special interest groups.
We now have 8,400 companies that are being sued, and it may go as
high as 15,000. I might add that we have about 16 major insurance
companies that are being sued, some of which should not have the
liabilities we are imposing upon them. Nevertheless, the more companies
that go into bankruptcy, the more jobs are lost, the more pensions are
lost, the more this economy will suffer, and the more all of us will be
worse off.
I might also add that the courts have not proven to be effective here
and that the tort system has failed. Even the Supreme Court of the
United States says this requires a legislative solution. This is the
only legislative solution that is available, and if we want to get
something done, we are going to have to work on this bill.
Personally, rather than have a filibuster on the motion to proceed, I
think we should go to the bill. I personally would be willing to grant
more time if we would have a definite date. I cannot speak for the
majority leader, naturally, but I would personally be willing to grant
more time, as Senator Specter was, to have further negotiations outside
the context of debate on the bill where usually those negotiations help
bring about a bill. But I would be willing to go another 2 weeks to a
month in intensive 9 to 6 negotiations every day, which we have been
doing now for 8 months, if we had a definite time to bring up
amendments and a definite time for final passage of the bill or a final
vote on the bill. Maybe we will vote it down in the end. I doubt it. In
fact, I am sure we will not.
The fact is, in other words, if we do not have to face another
filibuster and if everybody in good faith works to try to bring this
about and we have a debate on the floor and people have amendments they
want to bring up, they can do it. I cannot speak for the majority
leader, but I certainly would be willing to recommend that, again
bending over backwards to try to accommodate our colleagues on the
other side.
If that is not acceptable, then I have to conclude that the
statements made by some of the folks outside of the Senate who are
knowledgeable about this that politics is more important than solving
this problem, that money is more important than solving this problem,
that the personal injury lawyers are more important than solving this
problem happens to be true. I hope that is not true. I hope we can get
our colleagues to work together. I would like to work with them, as we
have. We have not rejected or failed to consider any idea that has come
up, and we will continue to do so. But if not, then let's go to cloture
on this bill and let's let everybody know who wants to stop even a
reasonable debate, even a reasonable time to file amendments, even the
reasonable position the Senate ought to always take, and that is the
Senate should work its will and we should vote on the amendments one
way or the other, vote on this bill one way or the other, and let the
chips fall where they may.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, will the Senator withhold?
Mr. HATCH. I will be happy to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, is the parliamentary situation that we are
going to recess for the party caucuses at 12:30 p.m.?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct, until the hour of 2:15
p.m.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be
recognized at 2:15 p.m. to speak on the asbestos legislation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEAHY. I thank the Chair.
____________________