Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, due to the untimely loss of my beloved sister, Marilyn ``Nubs'' Hatch Kuch, I have been necessarily absent for a portion of the debate and votes on Wednesday, May 3 and Thursday, May 4, 2006. Concerning the votes I missed, if I were present I would have voted as follows: nay for amendment No. 3616, striking funding to States based on their production of certain types of crops, livestock and/or dairy products; nay for amendment No. 3673, providing funds for assessments of critical reservoirs and dams in the State of Hawaii; nay for amendment No. 3601, allocating $1,000,000 for the monitoring of waters off the coast of the State of Hawaii; yea for amendment No. 3704, allocating $20,000,000 from the AmeriCorps program to the Veterans Health Administration for medical facilities; yea for final passage of H.R. 4939, the Fiscal Year 2006 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Hurricane Recovery; yea for Executive Calendar No. 617, the nomination of Brian M. Cogan of New York to be the U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of New York; and yea for Executive Calendar No. 618, the nomination of Thomas M. Golden of Pennsylvania to be the U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. None of these votes would have changed the final outcome.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that would restore balance to a system that disadvantages education funding in the West. The Action Plan for Public Land and Education Act of 2006 would authorize the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to grant Federal land to western States where large proportions of public land hamper the States ability to raise funding for public education. This is a product of the hard work and creativity of Representative Rob Bishop, and I am working with him on this important effort. Many of my colleagues may not know this, but 10 of the top 12 States with the largest student-teacher ratios are in the West. These States also have the lowest growth in per-pupil expenditures, and their enrollment growth is projected to increase dramatically. The West's education funding deficit is not due to lack of commitment or effort by the States. The fact is that Western States allocate as great a percentage of their budgets to public education as the rest of the Nation. Moreover, Western States pay on average 11.1 percent of their personal incomes to State and local taxes, whereas citizens of the remaining States pay 10.9 percent of their incomes to these same State and local taxes. The funding discrepancy for education in the West is due in large part to the lack of a sales tax base, which can only be generated on private land. On average, the Federal Government owns 52 percent of the land located in the 13 Western States, while the remaining States average just 4 percent Federal land. Sales tax is not collected on Federal land, and as we know, public education is funded largely through sales taxes. We all know, the school trust lands that are available to these States are not sufficient to make up the education shortfall in the West. This legislation would remedy that by granting public land States 5 percent of federally-owned land within the State boundaries. The land would be held in trust to be sold or leased, and the proceeds used strictly for the support of public education. Again, I thank Representative Bishop for his excellent work on this bill. My colleagues and I know of the need to address the West's education funding problem. The Action Plan for Public Land and Education Act of 2006 is a solution to this problem, and I urge my colleagues to lend their support for this important proposal.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that would restore balance to a system that disadvantages education funding in the West. The Action Plan for Public Land and Education Act of 2006 would authorize the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to grant Federal land to western States where large proportions of public land hamper the States ability to raise funding for public education. This is a product of the hard work and creativity of Representative Rob Bishop, and I am working with him on this important effort. Many of my colleagues may not know this, but 10 of the top 12 States with the largest student-teacher ratios are in the West. These States also have the lowest growth in per-pupil expenditures, and their enrollment growth is projected to increase dramatically. The West's education funding deficit is not due to lack of commitment or effort by the States. The fact is that Western States allocate as great a percentage of their budgets to public education as the rest of the Nation. Moreover, Western States pay on average 11.1 percent of their personal incomes to State and local taxes, whereas citizens of the remaining States pay 10.9 percent of their incomes to these same State and local taxes. The funding discrepancy for education in the West is due in large part to the lack of a sales tax base, which can only be generated on private land. On average, the Federal Government owns 52 percent of the land located in the 13 Western States, while the remaining States average just 4 percent Federal land. Sales tax is not collected on Federal land, and as we know, public education is funded largely through sales taxes. We all know, the school trust lands that are available to these States are not sufficient to make up the education shortfall in the West. This legislation would remedy that by granting public land States 5 percent of federally-owned land within the State boundaries. The land would be held in trust to be sold or leased, and the proceeds used strictly for the support of public education. Again, I thank Representative Bishop for his excellent work on this bill. My colleagues and I know of the need to address the West's education funding problem. The Action Plan for Public Land and Education Act of 2006 is a solution to this problem, and I urge my colleagues to lend their support for this important proposal.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I would be remiss if I did not make at least a short statement on the budget we just passed. I agree with those who believe that government is simply out of control. We just passed a budget that promises a budget deficit in the vicinity of $400 billion, a truly staggering amount of money. Our Federal Government is borrowing in excess of a billion dollars a day to fund the awesome amount of obligations that we have authorized. While I would have preferred a vastly smaller budget today, I know it is simply not politically feasible to do so at this time. I pledge to work toward creating an environment where we can achieve responsible spending and fiscal sanity while meeting our obligations. The budget we have just passed does represent a step, albeit a small one, toward fiscal responsibility. Getting our entitlement spending under control, reining in earmarks and other wasteful discretionary spending, and maintaining the conditions necessary for strong, stable economic growth are all necessary to achieve a balanced budget, and it will take the concerted efforts of each and every one of us to achieve this in the future.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize and pay tribute to the Mormon Tabernacle Choir in recognition of their 4,000th broadcast of ``Music and the Spoken Word.'' This is the longest continuous broadcast on network radio and television in the history of our country. ``Music and the Spoken Word'' first aired on July 15, 1929, using a single microphone for the organ, choir, and announcer. The first signal was given to the announcer and he began: ``From the crossroads of the West, we welcome you to a program of inspirational music and spoken word.'' Now more than 75 years and 4,000 broadcasts later, those same words are spoken each week to start the broadcast on more than 2,000 radio and television stations and cable systems. ``Music and the Spoken Word'' is the hallmark program of a choir that had very humble beginnings. The choir first began practicing and performing in an adobe building. It was accompanied by an organ that was shipped from Australia to California and then pulled by 12 mules across rugged terrain to Salt Lake City. This choir has definitely come a long way. The list of accomplishments and honors the choir has accumulated is legendary and well deserving including Grammy and Emmy Awards, five gold records and two platinum records, induction into the National Association of Broadcasters Hall of Fame, two Freedom Foundation Awards, and the National Medal of Arts. In addition, the choir has performed in 28 countries and 71 foreign cities for millions of people. The choir is truly ``America's choir'' as so aptly described by President Ronald Reagan. Members have sung for every President of the United States beginning with President William Howard Taft. The choir has also performed at several Presidential inaugurations, including that of our current President George W. Bush, and in arenas and concert halls throughout America. The choir first made history when it participated in an experiment with Dr. Harvey Fletcher of Bell Telephone Laboratories in the first recording of his newly developed stereophonic, or multiple-track process. This was later demonstrated in 1940 at Carnegie Hall. The Mormon Tabernacle Choir is comprised of 360 singers who are accompanied by an orchestra of 110 musicians--all volunteers. Choir members come from all walks of life and range in age from 25 to 60. They practice and perform weekly, and all share a love for music, faith, and service. The perfect blending of magical voices with the accompaniment of supremely talented musicians has provided inspiration and solace to millions and left a lasting imprint on souls throughout the globe. Choir members willingly give of their time and talents each week to brighten the lives of others. Perhaps the most popular and requested song of the choir is its rendition of ``The Battle Hymn of the Republic.'' The choir first recorded this in 1959 with the Philadelphia Orchestra and received a Grammy Award for its performance. You cannot listen to the choir sing this powerful song without feeling to the depth of your soul its majesty and power. It has stirred feelings of patriotism and love for America among audience members in every corner of our nation. As you can see, the Mormon Tabernacle Choir is an extraordinary organization. Its members are wonderful Americans who voluntarily share their talents for the betterment of our society. Sir Thomas Beecham once said, ``Great music is that which penetrates the ear with facility and leaves the memory with difficulty. Magical music never leaves the memory.'' I truly believe this choir has been creating magical music that will leave a lasting imprint on the fabric of America forever. I congratulate all of the staff, directors, and members of the Mormon Tabernacle Choir once again on their 4,000th broadcast and wish them continued success and majesty for many more years. May God bless the Mormon Tabernacle Choir.

Mr. HATCH

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

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may need.

Mr. HATCH. In more than 4 years since the September 11, 2001, attack on the United States, the PATRIOT Act has helped to protect our homeland from subsequent terrorist attack. Reauthorizing this effective piece of legislation is an important victory in the continued war on terror. The PATRIOT Act safeguards freedoms of American citizens while aggressively curtailing the opportunities terrorists have to strike. We have added many provisions designed to ensure that our civil liberties remain unaffected despite the fact that civil libertarians were completely unable to point to one incident or provide any example of abuses under the original PATRIOT Act. As everybody knows, that act was negotiated in the Judiciary Committee when I was chairman, and I had a lot to do with it, along with Senator Leahy and others. We found that the original PATRIOT Act functioned very well in the protection of our country. The PATRIOT Act has enjoyed robust public support in Utah since its inception. According to Dan Jones and Associates, our leading pollster in Utah, every time the firm has polled Utahns in the last 4 years, 60 percent or more have voiced approval of the antiterrorism measure. A poll of U.S. citizens reported that more than 60 percent of Americans believed that the Government should do more to protect this country from attack. Reauthorizing this act is definitely the right thing to do for our country at a time when we tend to forget that there are people and governments out there and in here that are committed to wiping the United States of America off the face of the Earth. I, for one, will stand up and say: Not on my watch. We have held hearing after hearing listening to all sides' robust debate about how to change the PATRIOT Act. We have had some ridiculous suggestions, we have had some good suggestions, and we have had some that we have had to take on this bill that really are not very good. My prayer is that the terrorists will be foiled by our intelligence and law enforcement agencies before another attack. But we have to give those agencies the tools to do that. I have a lot of faith in the ability of law enforcement men and women to do the job effectively. My hope is that those who have agreed that we can take away some of the tools afforded these men and women are wrong, that we can prevent another attack and reduce the ability of law enforcement to prevent those attacks at the same time. The additional language that has been demanded in this bill does exactly that. It has reduced our ability to be able to protect the Nation under the guise that we had to protect civil liberties that were never infringed upon in the 4 years that the PATRIOT Act has been in existence. I particularly commend Senators Specter and Leahy for the work they have done, Congressman Sensenbrenner in the House, and other members of the Judiciary Committee in the House. They have worked long and hard. There have been some provisions that we had to take in order to get this bill reauthorized to protect the American people that we wish we didn't have to take. I just hope this bill will work as well as the original PATRIOT Act which has done so well in keeping us free of terror ever since 9/11. I don't think anybody can doubt that. We held some 24 hearings over the years when I was chairman on the PATRIOT Act. I demanded that every hearing show us where the act has not acted properly, show us where there has been a violation, show us where there has been a violation of civil liberties, show us where somebody who is a noncriminal has been hurt by the PATRIOT Act. The fact is, not one time in all those hearings have they been able to come up with one illustration that people's civil liberties have been interfered with. We passed a bill that was the Hatch-Dole bill back in, I believe it was 1996. It was the antiterrorism effective death penalty bill. That bill took care of domestic terrorism, but our laws were not up to speed with regard to international terrorism. So the PATRIOT Act was the way that we got our laws up to speed so that we could work against international terrorism. All of these provisions in the original PATRIOT Act we basically have in our anticrime laws. So what we did is, we had these laws that would enable law enforcement to do a lot of things to protect us against the Mafia, against child molesters, against pornographers. We brought the PATRIOT Act up to the level of those law enforcement tools. That is what the original PATRIOT Act did. That wasn't good enough for some of our colleagues. So there has been a lot of screaming and shouting about the PATRIOT Act, even though not one illustration has been given in the last, really, 5 years that would indicate that the original PATRIOT Act had interfered with anybody's just civil liberties. We need to pass this bill such as it is. We need to pass it and enact it into law and give our law enforcement the tools they need to be able to protect us. I just wish we could have reenacted the original PATRIOT Act. But be that as it may, I compliment the chairman of the Judiciary Committee and the distinguished ranking member, Senator Leahy, for the work they have done. I don't think it could have happened without them and without Chairman Sensenbrenner and others in the House. I express my regard for them and my regard for this bill and hope everybody will vote for it. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, it is my solemn duty to rise before the Senate to pay tribute to one of the great sons of Utah, SSG Gregson Gourley. Sergeant Gourley, who grew up in Sandy and Midvale, UT was killed last week with three other members of the 1st Battalion, 327th Infantry Regiment, 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault) near Hawijah, Iraq. As I sat down to learn more about Sergeant Gourley's life, I was struck by his dedication to service. He first served as a missionary in Pennsylvania for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, then spent 16 years as a member of our Armed Forces. His aspiration for the future was to begin a career in law enforcement. According to what his comrades have said, Sergeant Gourley's service surpassed the motto of his battalion: ``Above the Rest.'' Not surprisingly, he had previously been decorated for meritorious service. I believe that his grandmother, Adena Gourley, said it best, when reflecting on the sergeant's life: He was a very gentle person. He has a great desire to be an outstanding soldier and an outstanding man. Mrs. Gourley, I can say that, by all accounts, he achieved those goals. Sergeant Gourley's passing is a further tragedy because he leaves behind a wife, three sons under the age of 10, and a newborn daughter. To his boys, and especially little Alexa, over the years you will learn more about your father and that he was a remarkable man. But you should always remember that your father was a hero, a man anyone would be proud to call father, and our country will forever owe a debt of great gratitude to him for his unselfish service to our country. I hope my colleagues will all join me in saluting the bravery of Sergeant Gourley, and in sending our condolences, prayers, and best wishes to his family during their time of sorrow. Sergeant Rickey E. Jones

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to recognize one of the greatest foreign athletes to play in my home State of Utah-- Kresmir Cosic. My dear friend from Yugoslavia fell victim to cancer in 1995, but this Saturday, Brigham Young University will officially retire Kresmir's No. 11 jersey during a ceremony at BYU's final home game this season. It is a fitting tribute to a four-time Olympian and two-time all-American already enshrined in the Basketball Hall of Fame. Kresmir--or Kresh, as I called him--is a legend at BYU, but he will most likely be remembered for opening the door for foreign athletes in American colleges and the NBA. He truly had a global influence--Drazen Petrovic, Toni Kukoc, Dino Radja, and Vlade Divac are just a few players who owe their success in America to their former coach from Yugoslavia. When I visited Yugoslavia one time, Kresh heard that I would be in Zagreb and drove up from Zadar so he could introduce me to one of his former players, who was a leader of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the area. He arrived in a VW bug, and to see Kresh unwind out of that little car was a humorous experience. I considered Kresh to be a tremendous friend. When he became the deputy ambassador for his country, he went out of his way to see me, and I was more than pleased to be an advisor and help him. He tirelessly walked the halls on Capitol Hill, trying to dispel misunderstandings about Croatia and Bosnia and the Serbian war waging in his native land. The last time I saw Kresh was at Johns Hopkins Medical Center. The doctors thought he was in a coma, but when I spoke to him, tears came to his eyes, and a warm look of caring showed he understood my words of consolation. After his death, when once again I was in his native land, I was pleased to see his wife, the person he loved so much. Mr. President, I have only mentioned just a few highlights from the life of this great man. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a touching article from the Deseret Morning News that summarizes why so many of us in Utah are looking forward to finally seeing his jersey hang from the Marriott Center's rafters this weekend.

Mr. HATCH

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

Mr. HATCH. I yield myself time from the time of the Senator from Pennsylvania.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, every couple of years, this august chamber is given a chance to make good on its billing as the greatest deliberative body in the world, to set aside the predictable partisanship that today passes for deliberation and, instead, work together to solve a real problem besetting our Nation. We face such a moment today. Later this afternoon, each of us will have a choice. Either we will vote to address a litigation crisis that has made a mockery of our judicial system--and demonstrate that we, as a body, can still function when absolutely necessary--or we will use a clever, parliamentary maneuver to avoid having to face a problem that is too inconvenient and confounding to fix without political cost. We have been here before, and we have failed miserably. Why? Because, unfortunately, the most effective legislative solution is also the most politically impracticable. To solve the asbestos crisis, conservatives are being asked to turn a deaf ear to many of our traditional supporters and endorse the very kind of Federal structure against which we battle daily--a cumbersome, unwieldy program that seems to teeter on the brink of obsolescence before it even begins. And liberals are being asked to say enough is enough to one of their most important and influential constituencies and to set aside the one governmental institution over which they feel they can still exert some control--the courts. It is a legislative formula that seems designed for failure. And then there is the greed. Oh, yes, the greed. For years, Members from both sides have waxed eloquent condemning the pecuniary gluttony of one side or the other but, in truth, there is so much greed among so many that it has obliterated any chance for an accurate debate of the realities we should be confronting. What are those realities? Let us be honest. By this time, we all understand that asbestos litigation has swallowed companies whole, driving them into bankruptcy, wiping out jobs, careers, pensions, health care, and hope. All of us know that those who mined asbestos and used it to manufacture products are long gone, demolished in the first wave of lawsuits. All of us appreciate that today, far too many businesses are being targeted more because of their perceived wealth than their presumed culpability. All of us realize that under the current system, tens of thousands of Americans who are the most sick, the most deserving, have no place to seek compensation. Veterans exposed by their government and hard working men and women left sick by their now bankrupt employers have become the jetsam of this litigation--cast aside by the new potentates of asbestos--a small, infamous gaggle of personal injury lawyers who have manipulated victims, companies, and the courts to divert billions and billions of dollars to their own pockets. Amazingly, not even such a massive transfer of wealth from so many to so few is enough. Even as we speak today, their lobbyists stand literally feet away, pandering advice, counsel, and contributions to those who will prevent their despicable avarice from being stopped. But the greed can not be laid just at the feet of some lawyers. There are also companies who have grown weary of paying, not just the wrong people, but paying for their real and technical complicity. There are corporations who want to be free of mistakes they made during the merger and acquisition madness of the late 1990's. And there are businesses that believe they can game the current system, relying upon insurance and the inherent lethargy of litigation to delay paying what they owe. Then there are insurance companies, some of which fear having to make good on the policies they sold. Even after nearly a decade of debate on this issue, no one is certain exactly who is responsible, especially with the tangled web of insurance and reinsurance and domestic insurance and foreign reinsurance. Of course, all of us know there is also an unacknowledged giant in the room. For nearly half a century, the Federal Government of the United States was one of the biggest consumers and promoters of asbestos. Today, people are dying from mesothelioma, not because of corporate misdeed but because they worked in the boiler room of a naval ship or in a military shipyard or in the furnace room of an Army base. The Government required asbestos to be used in buildings and workplaces, in factories, homes, and schools. Yet today, as we discuss how best to solve the asbestos epidemic, the Government's own responsibility is not to be mentioned. Finally, all of us know the current tragedy will not abate on its own. Over the last 6 years, we have proven conclusively, beyond any shadow of doubt, that while we have stood frozen, incapable of any, even the slightest remedial act, the avarice of asbestos has become an industry unto itself. These are the realities we face today. What are our options? Some on my side of the aisle have suggested the adoption of a medical criteria bill, legislation that would make changes in the applicable litigation rules in State courts. I understand their motivation, but they have to appreciate that it falls short with respect to the most compelling players in this tragic tale--veterans and employees of bankrupt companies who have no place to seek relief. It does nothing to address the manipulation of liability and responsibility which has become commonplace at the State court level. Such a solution was inadequate 4 years ago, it is inadequate today, and it will still be inadequate 2 years from now. Then again, at least it represents an attempt to solve this crisis. For the past decade, there has been a thundering silence from too many on the other side of the aisle. They are quick to criticize what has been suggested, but not once in more than a decade have they proposed their own solution. Not once have they come up with one idea that might possibly help solve this crisis, for a very good reason: their top hard-money contributors happen to be the people who bring these suits. This year, they have raised the canard of lost days in court. They are like people who, when they find a man dying of thirst in the desert, give him an empty glass. Now, if by some miracle you find water, they proclaim, you can quench your thirst with the dignity and decorum you deserve. As the man slowly dies from dehydration, they marvel at their own benevolence. They know that a day in court is meaningless to a veteran who cannot sue his government or an employee who cannot sue a bankrupt company. They know a day in court is worthless to those who currently are being paid only pennies for every dollar of their settlements. For nearly a decade, their objections have been endless and their solutions nonexistent. So, Mr. President, we arrive today at a critical juncture. We have rejected the suggestion of a medical criteria bill. Our choice is simple: We can act or we can hide. We can vote to keep working on the Specter-Leahy legislation, or we can vote for the budget point of order and stop the legislation dead in its tracks. It is a clever tactic, using the mantle of fiscal responsibility as an excuse not to legislate. Of course, leaving the asbestos crisis unresolved is the ultimate act of fiscal irresponsibility. And, since the Specter-Leahy bill does not require 1 cent of Federal money--this budget point of order is a sham. And we all know it. Or we can hide behind a cloture vote, knowing that without cloture, the bill will be pulled from the floor and the status quo--the ridiculous and irresponsible status quo--will be preserved. In today's world of relentless stalemate and partisanship, it is a vote easy to explain and justify. But each of us also knows these measures are nothing more than procedural subterfuges--some parliamentary arcanum designed to confuse the public about what is really happening. The Senate has failed the country on this issue before. The time really has come to act. The Specter-Leahy bill before us is by no means without flaws. All of us admit that. All of us understand that the legislation is--like major pieces of legislation at a similar juncture--a work in progress, the inevitable product of a political process that to date has been as dysfunctional as it has been prolonged. Yet even with its shortcomings, the legislation represents the best hope, the most salient chance for an effective legislative solution. And we will not even have a chance to get that far if we do not pass it on the floor of the Senate. We know this is step one--actually step two in at least a four-act play. The committee passed it out of the committee. If we can succeed in passing it out of the Senate, the House has to pass its bill, and then we have to go to conference, and then the final play will be a vote in both Houses of Congress. In all of those steps, I have seen our chairman and ranking member willing to compromise and resolve problems as they come up, as colleagues have brought them up. They cannot blame the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania or the distinguished Senator from Vermont in this matter. I beseech my colleagues, do not let this bill die today. Do not end what could very well be the last chance we have to solve a crisis we all have universally condemned. Let's stop the debilitating games and tactics. For once, let's give to the bill the same energy and creativity that to date have been invested in its downfall and destruction. There are thousands of veterans throughout our Nation who are watching us today. When the Nation asked for their service, their blood, they gave it willingly, without complaint. They did their part. Now it is time for us to do ours. There are thousands and thousands of sick working men and women with no place to turn but us. They, too, are watching. They ask for our assistance, not excuses. They have asked for candor, not cold calculation. They ask for compassion, not clever procedural ploys. If there is any justice, we will be remembered long after we have left elected office, not for the unfulfilled promises we have made or the good intentions we have so readily proclaimed but for the votes like the ones we will soon cast. For, in truth, this vote is about more than asbestos. It may well signal the last chance this body will have to be productive, to break free from our respective orthodoxies and legislate for the public good. Did any of us really seek public office so that in the face of a crisis, we could hide behind a budget point of order or a cloture vote? The time has come to reveal who we are, who we have become. Can the Senate legislate in an area in which the Supreme Court has said we need legislation--three times? The real frustration with this institution is not a lack of ethics or the unseemly tangle of lobbyists, Members, and campaigns. No. Our real failing is our collective trepidation, our fear of stepping free of the pack to work together to solve real problems without concern for political advantage or personal benefit. If we cannot find a common will to address something as pernicious as the asbestos litigation crisis, then one has to ask what real purpose this legislature serves. Too often, we find it convenient to act like mice. Today, our country needs lions. Let us not give it mice. Vote against the budget point of order. Vote to invoke cloture. And, for once, let us consider fixing the asbestos crisis with the honesty, candor, and ingenuity the American people deserve. Mr. President, I compliment the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania and the ranking member from Vermont. This has been a monumentally difficult bill to bring to the floor. As I say, this is step one in probably a five- or six-act play. We do not have to make it perfect here; we just have to do the best we can. The House then, if we pass this bill, will have to do its work. Then conference committees will have to meet together, and we will have to do the final work on this bill after listening, during all of that time, to complaints, suggestions, good ideas, bad ideas, but at least--at least--we will be doing the people's business, the people's work in helping people who really have no other place to turn. Above all, we will help our country because we all know what has been going on in asbestos litigation around the country has been horrendously wrong. I would like to see us do what is right today. So I hope we will vote against this budget point of order. And I hope we will vote to invoke cloture, so we can proceed with this bill and hopefully get it into conference. Ultimately, that is where we will continue to work on it and see if we can make it more perfect and resolve some of the conflicts and problems people feel they have with this bill today. I have every confidence in the chairman and ranking member that they will work to do exactly that. They have been doing it every day I have worked with them, and I am very proud of both of them. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I share some of my dear colleague's frustrations about how this body runs and I wish we would work better together. I think it would do a lot of good for our country. I would like to see that happen. I rise today to offer a motion to instruct the conferees to extend the research credit permanently. I understand one of the motions to instruct filed by one of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle says we should extend the research credit.

Mr. HATCH. I wasn't offering it, but I will be happy to move to put it aside when the time comes. I understand one of the motions to instruct, as I was saying, filed by one of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, says we should extend the research credit for an additional 2 years. In concept, I certainly agree with this idea. The research credit is vital to America keeping its lead in world innovation. But if we are instructing the conferees as to better tax policy, why should we stop at a 2-year extension? If the research credit is worthy of an extension of an additional 2 years, why is it not worthy of a permanent extension? Along with the distinguished Senator from Montana, Senator Baucus, I have been for many years an advocate of making the research credit permanent. As the lead Republican sponsor of legislation to provide for a permanent research credit, it seems I have come to the floor nearly every year for the past dozen years to either introduce a bill to make the research credit permanent or to offer an amendment to do the same. I might add that Senator Baucus, the distinguished Senator from Montana, has been my partner in this matter--or should I say I have been his partner in this body. We have worked together to try and do this, along with a whole raft of other Senators, usually almost 100 percent. In 2001, the Senate overwhelmingly passed an amendment to the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act to make the research credit permanent. Unfortunately, the permanent credit was dropped in conference in favor of yet another temporary extension. That amendment in 2001, however, was not the only time the Senate voted for a permanent extension of the credit. It has happened several times. A very large majority of Senators has voted in favor of a permanent tax credit. My point is that practically every Senator supports the research credit being made permanent. Despite this wide support, permanence has not yet happened. Instead, we keep extending the credit for a year or two at a time. Why do we do this? The answer is simple. The artificial budget rules under which we operate prevent us from making the credit permanent because the cost of the permanent extension is determined to be far in excess of the cost of an extension for a year or two. Another reason that we extend the research credit for a year or two, rather than permanently, is that we all seem to be stuck in the mind-set that perpetual temporary extensions represent de facto permanence. Why worry about making the credit permanent when there is little or no doubt about it getting extended again? Doing so represents poor tax policy, but it seems to be the way Congress likes to handle this problem. I will never forget the gap that once occurred between the expiration of the tax credit and our ability in the Congress to get it restarted. Let's be realistic. We all know that the cost of these temporary extensions is no less than the cost of a permanent extension. If we think we are saving revenue to the Treasury by our current practice of extending the credit a year or two at a time, we are only fooling ourselves. However, by not making the credit permanent, we are driving down the amount companies are willing to spend on innovative research. Even though we all know that the next extension for a year or two is practically a sure thing, the private sector does not see it that way. They do not, and can not, plan for the credit on a long-term basis if we only extend it for a temporary period. Thus, we continually engage in a kind of self-defeating behavior-- trying to fool ourselves into thinking we are saving taxpayer money by passing these temporary extensions while we tell ourselves it does not matter anyway because we are always going to extend the credit again for a year or two when it comes due. All the while, though, companies are keeping down their R&D spending because of the uncertainty provided by this practice. Now, we see a Democratic motion to instruct the conferees to insist on another two years of the research credit, but to be paid for by not extending the lower rate on capital gains and dividends, which is in the House bill. That seems not only extreme, it knocks out a very important set of tax principles that have kept the economy going. I think we ought to have all of these. Let's face the facts. This motion is nothing more than a weak attempt to embarrass Republicans by forcing us to choose between the research credit and the capital gains and dividends provisions. However, it does not work for all the reasons I have indicated. The motion presents us with a false choice. Another temporary extension of the research credit in this body, whether for 1 year or for 2 years, is practically a foregone conclusion. Virtually all of us are in favor of it. It is going to happen regardless of this motion to instruct. My point, and the point of my own motion to instruct, is to ask, if we really believe the research credit is good policy, why not instruct the conferees to push for a permanent credit? It does not cost any more than a series of temporary extensions. The motion from the other side is not really about the research credit, and everyone knows it. It is about the lower rates for dividends and capital gains. I continue to hear claims that Republicans are interested only in giving tax breaks to the rich. This mantra is false and insulting. We do not advocate continuing the lower rates on dividends and capital gains because we want to do a favor for the rich. We believe that people respond to incentives, and that higher net benefits of investment leads to more saving. There is ample evidence for this, and this concept is not controversial among economists--they might argue how sensitive saving is to the returns on saving, but no one disputes that higher returns affects saving. Higher saving leads to more investment by firms, which increases productivity and with it, wages and economic growth. Every worker benefits from an increase in saving. Nobel Laureates Robert Lucas and Ed Prescott have stated that reducing the tax on investment income is the closest we can come to a free lunch. Some of my colleagues would have the American people believe that by supporting an extension of the lower tax rate on capital gains and dividends, Republicans are hurting those with lower incomes. I submit that by increasing saving and investment, we are helping lower income people more than we could in any other way. Besides, if you look at how many people are now invested in the market, either through pensions or otherwise, or through mutual funds or otherwise, a good 50 percent of all taxpayers in America are now in the stock market. Frankly, they all benefit from having these lower rates that we have been talking about. Incentives lead to more saving. More saving leads to more investment. More investment leads to higher productivity and higher economic growth. Productivity and economic growth lead to more and better jobs for everyone. It is time for us to stop playing political games and get to work helping Americans realize their highest potential. We can start by appointing the conferees to the tax bill. That is something that in the past we never had difficulties with, but in the last few years we have. I send this motion to instruct conferees to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I understand that will be placed in the proper order and to be considered in the next few days.

Mr. HATCH. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. I wish to close by taking a brief moment to address the budgetary issues. Earlier I spoke to the private versus public funding issue. Some of my colleagues believe the taxpayer is on the hook for this bill and I wish to help explain how that is not the case. These are serious concerns, but the FAIR Act does not use Federal funds. It is privately funded--lock, stock, and barrel. Those of you who might be watching at home might be wondering why some people are worrying about the FAIR Act, if it is privately funded, and in the spirit that underlies this bill I will try to explain it. To my knowledge, there is only one way by which the FAIR Act may touch Federal funds and that is through the borrowing mechanism. The administrator created by this act may borrow such funds as are necessary to maintain the liquidity of the fund, but--and this is a big ``but''--the administrator may not borrow amounts which exceed the fund's ability to repay. So the bottom line is that American taxpayers do not pay for this fund. The defendant companies and insurer participants do. At the end of the day, asbestos victims cannot wait any longer. Veterans cannot wait any longer. The overburdened legal system cannot wait any longer. The only group that does not mind waiting consists mainly of 12 law firms filled with asbestos lawyers who do not mind exploiting a broken system because of the billions of dollars that are in it for them. You can hardly blame them. It is a plum tree waiting to be picked. They are slow walking this bill. I have to implore my colleagues to resist these efforts. Before I conclude my remarks, I wish to speak briefly to Senator Cornyn's medical criteria amendment. I agree with my colleague from Texas that the FAIR Act is not a perfect bill. I think Senator Specter has made that clear. Others have made it clear. We have done the best we can through the Judiciary Committee. This is the first step in a number of steps that simply have to be taken. I have several concerns of my own about this bill, and I suppose most everybody does. But I have to say, as much as I agree in principle with Senator Cornyn, I am not sure his approach does the trick. I might add, my colleague from Utah raises the point that there are some companies that will go bankrupt if we pass this bill. That may be the case. I will do everything in my power through the whole process here to make sure that doesn't happen, and I believe Senator Specter is dedicated to doing everything in his power to make sure that doesn't happen. I personally believe Senator Leahy will do everything in his power to make sure that doesn't happen. I believe there are 435 Members of the House who will do everything in their power to make sure that doesn't happen. I believe any conference committee that comes up is going to make sure that doesn't happen. I wouldn't tolerate that, in the end. But we have to have a vehicle. We have to have a bill. If we do not have a bill, we have nothing. And, we have a future prospect of a number of very fine companies--with the loss of hundreds of thousands of more jobs--going into bankruptcy at a cost to our economy that may be overwhelming after a while--all because of a runaway tort system that basically is out of whack. In my opinion, the medical criteria approach fails to help too many sick and injured people. It does nothing for the mesothelioma victims. These are the ones who deserve compensation. First and foremost, the reason we basically started this bill, was to help those who are going to die because they have mesothelioma. They are going to die. Once they are diagnosed, it is just a matter of months, and their families are left with nothing. They didn't cause this problem and they are the ones who deserve compensation. Yet they are the ones who, if we do nothing, are left out while others--hundreds of thousands--who are not sick at all are going to get rewards. This is wrong. In my opinion, as I say, the medical criteria approach fails to help too many sick and injured people. Let me give another illustration. The veterans, for example, have very few places to turn under a medical criteria bill. We just had 10 veterans organizations on Capitol Hill holding a press conference this week--I was there with them--making it clear that of all people who deserve to be compensated, they do. This medical criteria approach does nothing for them. This is the main reason why we switched to the trust fund approach; so we can take care of the truly sick--those who really have difficulties. But, as I do with every amendment, I am going to give the medical criteria approach a very hard look as we go through this process. In an ideal world we could run with my colleague's idea. But, unfortunately, the realities of the asbestos crisis prevent a medical-criteria-only solution. There may be, down the line, a way of doing a medical criteria bill that will take care of people who truly deserve to be taken care of. This amendment is not that. But I am willing to work with my colleague from Texas and see what we can do to come up with something that will work as well, if not better, than what we have here. But right now this is it. This is a bill that is well thought out in spite of the difficulties with it. But I submit that any bill this size is going to have some difficulties. As I say, this is step No. 1 in what always has been a legislative process that does not end here. It starts here. If we do not start it, we don't have a chance of correcting these tremendous ills to our society that could swamp us. So it is very important that we support Senator Specter and Senator Leahy and get this bill out of the Senate. If we don't, I have to say I believe this is probably the last chance to resolve issues that deserve to be resolved, and to do justice instead of continue the injustices that are currently resulting from the current out-of-control asbestos tort system. I commend my colleagues for their steadfastness in working on this very difficult, complex set of issues. It is a difficult problem for us. There are very sincere and good people on both sides of this issue. There are very sincere and good people on both sides of this aisle. I have tremendous respect for my colleagues. On the other hand, for those who are voting against the bill because the trial lawyers are their largest hard-money supporters, I don't think that is a good enough reason. I admit it is a powerful reason, but not if you are interested in the country, not if you are interested in our economy, not if you are interested in the people who have suffered from asbestosis and from all of the derivatives of asbestosis, not if you are interested in helping these mesothelioma victims who deserve help, helping the veterans who did nothing to cause these problems but are left high and dry. This is an effort by the leadership of the Judiciary Committee, led by Senator Specter and Senator Leahy, to do justice. It is an effort to comply with at least three requests by the U.S. Supreme Court: Congress, please do something about this awful issue because we can't. They can't legislate from the bench to resolve this issue. Some people think individual States can resolve this issue. That might be so, if you had absolutely honest judges and absolutely nonpartisan judges down the line, and if they were willing to work hard, and if every State would do it. But only a few are going to. Only a few are going to pass laws that possibly will help in this area. It is up to us to get this done. I hope our colleagues who want to do something right here will realize this is step one. You have to go ahead with it. Good people of good values, well-intentioned people are going to be able, hopefully, in the end to get this so it works; so no company is going to be hurt by it, but the economy as a whole will be helped by it. But above all, people who deserve compensation will receive compensation with a minimum of charges that reduce that compensation, compared to the almost 60 percent attorneys' fees and transaction costs it is costing us today. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise in support of S. 852, the bipartisan Fairness in Asbestos Injury Resolution Act of 2005. Over the last several days, several of the opponents of this legislation have made serious, misleading claims, and I would like to take a moment to respond. Opponents of this bill have claimed that it amounts to a bailout of big business generally, and asbestos manufacturers specifically. Guess what. They are, as usual, almost right. Webster's Dictionary defines ``bailout'' as a rescue from financial distress. It is true that we are trying to save 90 percent of this country's industry from financial distress. It is also true that we are trying to rescue literally hundreds of thousands of asbestos victims from the plague of uncertainty that advances from the efforts of asbestos attorneys and the cruelty of asbestos bankruptcies. So using the word ``bailout'' is not a complete mischaracterization of what this bill does. This bill saves an overburdened legal system. We have been asked by no less than the Supreme Court of the United States of America three times to do something about this mess. If we don't do something about this mess, we are going to have a severe economic crises in this country, driven by this approach that is literally bankrupting some very innocent companies. This bill saves asbestos victims from unfair and untimely compensation. This bill saves ordinary Americans from the tremendous strain on our national economy. And this bill saves veterans who have nowhere else to turn. I ask my colleagues if they know that once vibrant companies, now bankrupt due to asbestos liability, employed over 200,000 workers--200,000. The asbestos crisis affects over 85 percent of the U.S. economy. Over $200 million in lost wages--$200 million--gone. Almost no one has been spared. Mr. President, 75 out of 83 industrial sectors in this country are affected. Has not this body been working for several years now to save domestic jobs and help our industries? Not a single Senator questions the fact that this Nation faces an immediate crisis. Not a single Senator disputes the fact that our legal system cannot handle the thousands upon thousands of asbestos claims. And, hopefully, not a single Senator questions that we must do something, and do it now, and this is the only vehicle we have. Too much time has passed, too many people have died, too many people have lost their jobs, too many people have gone uncompensated, and too many asbestos lawyers have private jets and luxurious yachts as a result. Some colleagues claim this bill lets defendant companies off the hook. I believe the distinguished senior Senator from Massachusetts said yesterday that S. 852 would shift more of the financial burden onto the backs of injured workers. I share my colleague's concern for injured workers. I disagree with his assessment of how this bill works. The FAIR Act does not add to the burden on injured workers; it lessens it. This bill will ensure that asbestos victims are compensated over a 3- to 4-year period. Individuals with exigent claims will receive their compensation within 1 year. Moreover, asbestos victims under this bill will receive the entire award themselves instead of giving enormous percentages to attorneys in transaction costs. Of course, claimants may elect to utilize an attorney, in which case attorney's fees are capped at 5 percent, rather than 40 percent. That is a far cry from some of the exorbitant attorney's fees that are being charged today. I wholeheartedly believe attorneys should be compensated for their efforts, but I also believe that such compensation should be reasonable. Under the FAIR Act, defendant companies are not let off the hook. Defendant companies, along with insurers and reinsurers, do not get a free ride under S. 852--unless one thinks a combined $136 billion obligation constitutes a free ride. Defendant companies are responsible for payments up to $90 billion over the life of the fund. Insurer participants are responsible for payments up to $46 billion. That is not pocket change. Indeed, as some of my colleagues have pointed out, there are companies and insurers who oppose this bill because of this obligation. I ask my colleagues: Why would some of these companies oppose this legislation if it amounted to a free ride? This brings me to my next subject. Some of my colleagues have alleged that taxpayers will be footing the bill for the FAIR Act--$140 billion, they claim. That would be a truly frightening allegation if it were true. Fortunately for us, if you read this bill, it is not true. The FAIR Act is entirely funded by private means. American taxpayers do not pay one dime. Although an argument could be made that during the war our Government used asbestos in shipbuilding and so many other ways. And I am just talking about the war. You can extrapolate way beyond that. But we haven't asked the Federal Government to pay anything. This bill does not require any payments by the Federal Government--not one nickel, not one penny. The truth is, as I mentioned before, private entities provide the funds for this bill--$140 billion--and none of it comes from the coffers of the United States of America. Defendant companies pay $90 billion, participant insurers pay $46 billion, and the remaining $4 billion? Bankruptcy trusts: At present, there is somewhere in the range of $4 billion to $7 billion that sits in bankruptcy trust. This bill would consolidate those moneys and fold them into the trust it creates. It is true that some of those trusts do not relish this idea. I don't blame them. I do not like living in the shadow of this problem either. But the fact is, Congress can and should consolidate the existing bankruptcy trusts as part of the comprehensive solution to a critical national problem. Let me also say this: If we don't do something about this--and this is just step 1. We have to get the House to do something. I doubt seriously they are going to do this bill. If they don't do this bill, they have to come up with one of their own. When they do, that means we have to go to conference and hopefully work out any of the problems we uncover between now and then. If we don't do this bill, then I personally believe the economy is going to be very badly damaged and ultimately hurt. I hate to be a doomsayer, but I really believe that is what is going to happen. I think virtually everybody in this body knows we need to do something. This is the vehicle that we have to get through the Senate, and then we are going to have to, hopefully, get the House to come up with a similar vehicle, or at least whatever they think is the best way of doing this. Then we have to go to conference, and people working with goodwill have to try to solve these problems, hopefully using the best things in this bill and the best things in a House bill so we can solve this problem for our country, for our economy, for our workers, and for companies so that in the future they aren't going to go bankrupt. When I first started working on this, there were only 30 companies in bankruptcy. Today there are almost 80. That is just a few years. It is going to get worse. As I understand it, the problem is going to get worse because of superficialities and a tort system run amok, and because we are unwilling to stand together and do something about it, and because of special interests. No, not special interests down at K Street, special interests that are the largest hard-money supporters of our friends on the other side today. As I understand the situation, there are two primary claims against including the existing bankruptcy trusts in this legislation. The first argument amounts to a finality claim. Some argue that Congress should let sleeping dogs lie. Critics in this camp believe we should not undo what has been done in the bankruptcy court since victims in those circumstances have been compensated to a degree and the channeling injunction that accompanies a 524(g) trust effectively terminates residual liability. There are problems here. In many instances the sleeping dog here is, in fact, a very sick puppy. It cannot take care of itself. The Manville Trust, for example, pays only pennies on the dollar and it does not address the global problem. In fact, the Supreme Court has, on more than one occasion as I have said, struck down attempted global settlements while simultaneously calling upon Congress to act. The fact is, the Supreme Court is right. The asbestos problem is a horrific mess and it is time for Congress to intervene. I understand why companies on the receiving end of a channeling injunction would not want to upset the balance they have struck. But they will have the protections of this bill while simultaneously providing much needed funding that will be used to compensate the true victims of the asbestos crisis. One further point on existing asbestos bankruptcy trusts. For reasons I will explain in a moment, most bankruptcy trusts in this context were established by the plaintiffs' trial bar. The provisions of 11 United States Code 524(g) do not permit a channeling injunction unless 75 percent of the claimants approve of the measure. That means that plaintiffs' attorneys in these cases--and there are about 12 major law firms, that is what it comes down to--have a very big say in how the trust is set up and, more troubling, how they, the asbestos lawyers in these 12 firms, basically are compensated. I can see why the asbestos plaintiffs' bar would not like to see this change. Can you blame them? This is a cow they want to milk. It is high quality milk at that. The second problem is a little more complicated. Certain asbestos bankruptcy trustees have argued that the inclusion of their assets in the larger trust established under the FAIR Act constitutes an unlawful taking in violation of the fifth amendment to the Constitution. I admit I was surprised when I discovered that my friend Professor Laurence Tribe and I actually agree on a point of constitutional law. But it is true. He was correct to say: It is a well-settled rule that legislatures may act rationally to modify or abolish causes of action, impose assessments, and create new compensation programs without violating due process or triggering the right to just compensation under the Takings Clause. I also agree with Professor Tribe's assessment: The bankruptcy process, and in particular the confirmation of a plan of organization, does not provide a debtor or a resulting trust with ongoing immunity from the operation of federal law as it might evolve over time. In a nutshell, there is not a final property interest at issue in this context. I agree with Mr. Carter G. Phillips: Any property rights arising from the trusts are contractual in nature and the law is well established that contracts, however expressed, cannot fetter the constitutional authority of the Congress. I do not believe a valid takings claim can exist in a vacuum of property rights. In the interest of time, I will not bore my colleagues with a more detailed legal explanation on the takings issue, but I wish to submit two letters for the Record, the first dated February 6, 2006, from Professor Laurence H. Tribe, and the second dated February 7, 2006, from Mr. Carter G. Phillips. I ask unanimous consent they be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in favor of S. 852, the bipartisan Fairness in Asbestos Injury Resolution Act of 2005. I commend the majority leader and Chairman Specter and Senator Leahy for seizing the bull by the horns and proceeding with this vitally important litigation. And it is bipartisan legislation. Make no mistake about this--this bill is not perfect. There are some things in the act that I wish were different, but that is the nature of the legislative process. It is about compromise and negotiation. In a moment, I will speak to specific aspects of this bill. But before I do, I would like to take a moment to respond to some of the allegations that my colleagues made on the floor yesterday. Some of them spoke of corruption. They spoke of undue influence wielded by lobbyists. And they spoke of fairness. The truth is, this legislation is badly needed. Personal injury lawyers--some personal injury lawyers--are profiting at the expense of asbestos victims and manufacturers alike. This bill is about fairness, justice, and certainty. It has become a bill that has tried to do away with fraud because this situation is fraught with fraud--fraud on American businesses, fraud on American consumers, and, more importantly, fraud on asbestos victims. Let me tell you what this bill does. This bill provides real compensation to real victims with real injuries. This bill stops a rampaging personal injury trial bar. This bill fixes a broken legal system that benefits personal injury lawyers at the expense of asbestos victims. And this bill provides certainty to everyone involved. Some of my colleagues on the other side have called S. 852 special interest legislation. If helping sick people and preventing fraud constitutes special interest action, then maybe they could get away with that charge. But I am very proud--and I think anybody who supports this bill would be proud--to support legislation that assists those special interests. I ask my colleagues: Do you know who opposes this bill? It is the personal injury lawyers involved. They are a small cadre of the total number of American Trial Lawyers Association members. These trial lawyers have fought this legislation the same way the old gunslingers fought the law in the Wild West. Some of my colleagues have spoken of bragging lobbyists. The only people I have ever heard bragging about the scams that are going on are some of these personal injury lawyers. Do you know when I heard them bragging? Last Congress, when we failed to invoke cloture on this bill's predecessor. It was not lobbyists or manufacturers or asbestos victims who were having some celebratory steak and champagne dinners in 2004; it was the personal injury lawyers. Why would they celebrate? They were celebrating because they successfully preserved their 40-percent payout on massive class action lawsuits and the exorbitant transaction costs that raise the amounts taken from victims to almost 60 percent, with only about 40 percent given to the victims. They were celebrating because their meal ticket was not taken away from them. Not this time. Before I continue, I wish to point out not all personal injury lawyers are bad, certainly not all trial lawyers. I was a trial lawyer in my younger days. I know most of them are good people with good intentions. However, as they say, it only takes one bad apple to spoil the whole bushel. We face an asbestos litigation crisis of unparalleled magnitude. Real asbestos victims with horrific injuries are receiving pennies on the dollar, while people who are not sick, or at least their lawyers, are receiving millions of dollars. American companies, businesses both large and small, many of which never produced or used asbestos fibers, are being forced into bankruptcy by fraudulent lawsuits. These bankruptcies hurt all Americans. Pensions are destroyed, jobs are lost, and all because our current legal system is vulnerable to unscrupulous trial lawyers. We have had the Supreme Court ask the Congress three times to weigh in on this and stop this mess from continuing. That is what we are trying to do with this bill. According to the RAND Institute for Civil Justice, the asbestos crisis has been called the worst occupational health disaster in U.S. history. The personal injury bar has compounded that disaster by filing countless meritless claims that deprive the truly injured of their just and deserved compensation. The RAND Institute has found that approximately 730,000 people have filed asbestos claims through 2002. Despite the fact that asbestos claims should decrease each year due to OSHA and, to some extent, EPA actions in the 1970s and 1980s which severely curtailed national asbestos exposure, we have seen a significant increase in the number of claims, particularly nonmalignant claims, during the last 15 years. It is a gravy train for some of these lawyers. That does not dismiss the fact that there are people who are hurt by this, many of whom are not going to get a dime because a large number of their companies are bankrupt. The large number of claims--expected to burgeon to the million-plus mark in the not-so-distant future--has resulted in 77 bankruptcies, the loss of some 60,000 jobs, or workers' privileges, and the depletion of countless pension programs. Moreover, due to the nature and number of these claims, compensation for the truly ill is often arbitrary and inequitable. According to the RAND Institute study, only 42 cents of every dollar spent on asbestos litigation actually goes to the asbestos victims; 31 cents goes to defense costs, and 27 cents goes to plaintiffs' attorneys. The situation becomes all the more deplorable when one factors in the ghastly specter of fraud. One study has shown that 41 percent of audited claims of alleged asbestosis or pleural disease were found to have either no disease or a less severe disease than alleged by the personal injury experts. That is simply unacceptable. We are trying to solve that problem. At present there are more than 300,000 asbestos-related claims pending before this Nation's courts. Company after company has plunged into bankruptcy with disastrous results. Some victims have gone without compensation and many have nowhere to turn. Thousands have lost their jobs. The only winners in most cases are the personal injury lawyers. Asbestos trial lawyers have pulled in over $20 billion in attorney's fees. One actuarial firm estimates that personal injury lawyers are expected to filch another $40 billion before they run out of victims. I don't have any problem with lawyers getting contingent fees for legitimate cases. I don't have any problem with that. But the fact is, many of these cases are not legitimate. It is time to make a choice. That choice is between private jets for trial lawyers and meaningful compensation for asbestos victims. Before I move on to the operational aspects of this legislation, I wish to take a moment to talk about the victims of asbestos exposure. Unfortunately, veterans comprise a large percentage of this group. I wish to make a plea on their behalf. This may be the last chance to help the men and women who served this country with such distinction and who, as a result of that service, were exposed to asbestos fibers. Time is rapidly running out for this group and many, if not most, of the companies they could turn to are now bankrupt, mainly because of these lawsuits. Even if they are not bankrupt, lawsuits take so much time and the verdicts are so uncertain that many will be cheated out of their just compensation. Even if some of these fine men and women manage to obtain a verdict against a company with sufficient assets to make good on the obligation, about 58 percent of the award would be consumed not by the victim but by trial lawyers. That is plain wrong. Let me tell you how this bill works. S. 852 will compensate legitimate asbestos victims in a timely fashion on a no-fault basis. They are not going to have to go to court to prove their case. Claimants must demonstrate they meet certain medical criteria--and those criteria were agreed on in a bipartisan agreement--but once that threshold showing has been made, thereby assuring that only the truly sick are compensated, the claimants will receive timely compensation based upon the nature of the injury. Some of my colleagues asserted that all claimants under this bill obtain a one-size-fits-all settlement if they meet the medical criteria requirements. As Chairman Specter has pointed out, that is plain wrong. There are nine tiers and corresponding awards under this bill, and it allows for further compensation if the condition worsens, meaning if a claimant had a level 2 injury that later developed into a level 8 injury or more serious injury, that individual can obtain compensation up to the level 8 or more serious tier. That makes sense to me. It is worth pointing out that in addition to providing a no-fault and timely compensation system, the FAIR Act provides certainty to asbestos victims by taking away the whims of juries and the avarice of some of these personal injury lawyers. Under this bill, if you are sick, you will be compensated. Furthermore, this bill promotes economic stability and preserves jobs by taking the uncertain burden of direct and residual asbestos liability away from manufacturers, insurers, and others, and levying a measurable, known, and beneficial sum that will help those truly in need. In other words, they will have to pay, but it will be done on a reasonable, decent basis, so that those who are suffering will get paid in the end, where many of them will not under the current system. For the victims, it provides meaningful compensation in a relatively short order. It is no-fault compensation for them. For the manufacturers and other defendant entities, it removes the parasitic personal injury bar from the picture and assures that asbestos dollars reach asbestos victims. Finally, this bill contains an asbestos ban that will help lower asbestos exposure beyond what OSHA has achieved. I was surprised to hear some opponents of this bill say S. 852 is not ready, that any action on this measure would be premature. Frankly, I am somewhat shocked by this. I will not go into the full history of the bill. In fact, I will limit my discussion of its development to the 107th Congress and beyond. But I must note that efforts in this area predate my efforts and the efforts of then-Chairman Leahy in the 107th Congress. Now with tremendous effort, Chairman Specter and Ranking Member Leahy have worked this through in a way that has greatly improved what we were trying to do back then. The Judiciary Committee has held at least a half dozen hearings on asbestos issues, and we have held several exhaustive markups over the years. In addition, I note that Chief Judge Emeritus of the Third Circuit, Edward R. Becker, and now-Chairman Specter held at least 36 meetings with stakeholders to reach the compromise before us. This was a monumental effort by Senator Specter and Former Chief Judge Edward R. Becker. I just saw Chief Judge Becker over in the Dirksen Building. I know the sacrifices he has made to try and help us on this matter. And to have this bill called special interest legislation, when we have had people such as Judge Becker work out these details by meeting with all concerned, including the trial lawyers, including businesses and individuals and groups and so forth, I don't know when anybody has made such an effort as both Chairman Specter and Judge Becker. We are currently on the third asbestos bill since the beginning of the 108th Congress. We have moved from S. 1125, which was the subject of a 4-day markup over 2 months, to S. 2290, to S. 852. Finally, after a 6-day markup, which also spanned 2 full months, the Judiciary Committee reported the current bill with a bipartisan 13-to-5 vote. That doesn't sound like special interest legislation to me. And it isn't. With that in mind, it is hard to understand how opponents of this bill can claim with a straight face that this bill is not ready for consideration by the full Senate. That is ridiculous. Can it be amended? Surely. That is why we debate. Can we change aspects of it? Surely. That is why we debate. That is why we have this debate on the floor, if we are ever allowed to debate it. This brings me to some of the outstanding criticisms of this legislation. First, we have heard it hurts small businesses. Since it is unclear to me what the deleterious effects on small business may be, I find it difficult to even spend time trying to refute those types of baseless charges. I would ask my colleagues who hold this belief to expound upon the allegation so we can better understand their concerns. However, before they do so, I ask my colleagues to look at the small business exception contained within S. 852, specifically section 204(b) of this act. Small businesses do not have to contribute to the fund while at the same time they receive its benefits. I have a hard time understanding why this is bad for small businesses. After all, they do get something for nothing. The next major objection focuses on the removal of pending cases from court. Such action is unfair, they say. Well, I am puzzled by this assertion as well. First, cases that have proceeded to the evidentiary stage of the trial are not touched by this act. Secondly, the underlying premise of this bill focuses on two things: one, the uncertainty of jury trials and the ability of defendants to pay; two, the parasitical impact some of these voracious trial lawyers have on the process. This bill will provide certainty to the process, ensure those who have been injured will receive compensation, and make sure compensation so awarded goes to the victims and not to the trial bar in such dimensions as we have had so far. In fact, the trial bar will be entitled to fees under this bill; they just won't be as high because the proof is a no-fault proof. It is like rolling off a log. I ask my colleagues, how is that unfair? The next assertion focuses on the amount of the trust fund. It is not enough to say it is not enough. That is what they say. To that I say, the CBO seems to think the amount falls within the estimated range of claims and, further, that this amount was agreed upon by Majority Leader Frist and then-Minority Leader Daschle after extensive negotiation. Overall, it would seem some Members on the other side of the aisle want to prevent us from proceeding to this bill. While I am not surprised by obstructive tactics--we have seen them before; I saw a good deal of them during the last Congress and I know enough to be able to say with confidence that what looks like a duck and quacks like a duck is, in fact, a duck--it is obstruction. Why can't we debate this bill up and down? Why don't we get into it? If we have legitimate objections, I am sure the distinguished chairman and ranking member will consider them. That is why we debate these things. I am nonetheless disturbed by the tactics of some on the other side, given the tremendous importance of this legislation to our country. As I say, the Supreme Court no less than three times asked us to do this--or at least to find some solution to this massive litigation crisis that is clogging our courts, hurting the country, and costing everybody an arm and a leg, without doing the justice to victims that this bill will do. It is troubling when we consider that without the FAIR Act, more and more Americans are certain to lose their jobs, and more and more victims of asbestos exposure will go without compensation. This all goes to show that personal injury lawyers are a powerful force, and some on the other side of the aisle are willing to hear the voice of the personal injury bar over the voices of hard-working Americans who want to keep their jobs and pensions. Don't tell me about special interest legislation. We all know what special interest is driving the opponents of this bill. The fact is that this bill continues to create a fair and efficient alternative compensation system to resolve the claims for injury caused by asbestos exposure. The fund is capitalized through private contributions from defendants and insurers, not the Government, and compensates victims under medical criteria that we reached on a bipartisan basis. I thought once we got the medical criteria, this bill should go forward. We had a lot of people on both sides saying they want to support it. Now we are here, and this is the chance to do it. If you don't like it, file amendments. I am sure the distinguished chairman and ranking member will give consideration to the amendments. The bill brings uniformity and rationality to a broken system so that resources are more effectively directed toward those who are truly sick. I know the last asbestos bill contained no fewer than 53 compromise measures demanded by the Democrats last year. Moreover, I know this bill contains many more. Chairman Specter and Ranking Minority Member Leahy are still working with the labor unions and others to improve the bill. This bill did not sneak up on anybody. It is not the instrument of a wayward group of influential lobbyists. The bipartisan FAIR Act is the product of years of negotiation and hard work--bipartisan people who are interested in solving problems, not creating them. Not only does this bill guarantee fair compensation to victims, it guarantees faster and more certain compensation at that. We anticipate that claimants will not have to endure years of discovery battles and endless litigation before they get paid. Currently, whether some victims get paid depends on the solvency of businesses. But under the FAIR Act, these victims will no longer have to go without payment. It is time to end the current system of jackpot justice, where only some win and many lose. Let me mention one group--the mesothelioma victims. Most of them have no chance at being fairly compensated because they work for companies that are now bankrupt. This bill takes care of them and helps them with their problem. Given that this bill is a clear net monetary gain for legitimate victims and provides payments faster and with more certainty, I am at a loss as to why anybody would object to this bill or object to a full and fair debate and a vote up or down. Quite frankly, the only entities that stands to lose under this bill are a handful of personal injury lawyers who have guzzled more than $20 billion of the costs incurred on this issue as of the end of last year. If the improved FAIR Act is passed, they will not be able to leverage unimpaired claims to squeeze a projected $40 billion more for themselves from remotely connected companies by abusing a broken system. I support compensating attorneys for the value of their work, no question. Honest lawyers deserve to be paid. But when the lawyers get rich while diverting valuable resources away from sick victims and to people who are not victims, people who don't deserve compensation, which is going on here, something is wrong with the system. But you don't need me to tell you this; the Supreme Court, think tanks, and other nonpartisan commentators have been saying it for years. We have a serious problem on our hands which demands this body's full attention. I applaud our majority leader, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Specter, and his ranking member, Senator Leahy, for bringing this bill to the floor. The time to act is now. I would like to see us go forward in a legitimate, honest way to try to solve these problems. If people on either side have objections to the bill or have a reason to try to change it, they can bring amendments forward, and let's battle it out. The chairman has been very open to accepting good ideas. He has consistently done that throughout this process. I don't think anybody can find fault with our chairman for the way he has operated on this bill and how hard he has worked. We have studied this asbestos problem at length, for decades. We have held numerous hearings, considered legislative proposals, and even underwent several marathon markups in the Judiciary Committee over the years. To the extent there are issues that remain unresolved, we can openly debate them on the floor of the Senate. The time has come to stop talking about doing something and take decisive action. Every day that passes is a day we withhold meaningful recovery to truly sick victims. Every day that passes is a day in which hard-working Americans at companies that had little or nothing to do with asbestos face decreased pensions and an uncertain employment future. Every day that passes is a day that we deny consideration of a comprehensive solution to one of the most plaguing civil justice issues of our time. This is step one. If we can get a bill out of the Senate, this would move forward so fast. The House would have to come up with its legislation, and we would then go to conference. I have no doubt, having watched the chairman and ranking member, that they would be working in good faith to try to accommodate and please all legitimate points of view on these very profound and difficult issues. I compliment them one more time. These folks deserve that we debate this bill fully, that we have a vote up or down on the bill in the end, and that we go through this process and hopefully continue to improve the legislation so that we can do justice in our society. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. I thank my colleague for his remarks on this bill, for his comments on Senators Specter and Leahy, and for his willingness to invoke cloture this afternoon. We need to proceed to this bill and debate it in on the Senate floor. It is that important. Before proceeding with my remarks, I would like to reserve 15 minutes for my colleague from Ohio, Senator DeWine.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to speak in favor of S. 862, the bipartisan Fairness in Asbestos Injury Resolution Act. More specifically, I rise in favor of debating S. 852. It is a bill worth our time. The crisis of asbestos exposure impacts not only the lives of sick and dying workers and retirees, but also the lives of workers in every corner of the American economy. The litigation that these workplace injuries spawned now threatens to deprive the workers who need compensation for their injuries of their due rewards, while crushing businesses large and small in every State. I find it surprising that there are those in those body who do not wish to address our Nation's asbestos crisis. They do not even want to have this debate. So they are filibustering even a motion to proceed to the bill. It is funny how things change. This summer, when some of the Members of this body were filibustering judicial nominations, we were told that the filibuster was a privilege central to the Senate's deliberative character. The right to speak and debate had to be preserved. But through this filibuster, they do not seek to promote debate. They are seeking to prevent it. For the life of me, I do not fully understand this type of reasoning. The public health calamity caused by occupational exposure to asbestos is something that we should be debating. It is precisely the type of situation that cries out for comprehensive bipartisan legislation. For what it is worth, it is precisely the type of well- documented crisis that I would expect my colleagues to want to talk about. Instead this filibuster shows that they would rather close their eyes to this crisis. The consequences of asbestos exposure are tragic and well-documented. It has devastated the families of hard-working American men and women. And it is not an equal opportunity hazard. It frequently targets veterans. It targets those who took their lunch to work, who gave a full day's work for a full day's pay, and who came home with dirt under their fingernails. Each and every year 10,000 individuals will die from mesothelioma, a cancer closely linked to asbestos exposure. Ten thousand moms and dads and grandparents. Think about it. And because of the asbestos fibers they would bring home from work, sometimes even the spouses and children of these workers become sick. Thousands and thousands more will be afflicted with debilitating lung conditions that make it hard to breathe, sapping the joy from what should be a person's golden years. This is a public health crisis of the highest magnitude. And this public health crisis is made more pressing by a related litigation crisis. Nobody in this body believes, especially those of us who support this bill, that individuals who become sick as a result of asbestos exposure should be denied compensation. Let me be clear about this. They are owed compensation. Here is the problem: Who is supposed to pay? Most of the companies that originally produced this stuff have long since gone out of business or have been put out of business. They now exist in bankruptcy merely to pay out claims to the extent that they can, which amounts to a very small number of pennies on a dollar. What are the victims actually getting from their settlement? Pennies on the dollar. The actual damage done by exposure to these fibers might be worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, but most people will never see that money, money that could go to pay medical bills or take care of loved ones, because the companies do not have the money to pay the number of claims. Of course, this has not proven to be an obstacle to the innovative trial bar. These attorneys are going after corporations, not surprisingly ones with very deep pockets that have inherited their asbestos liabilities by acquiring companies that once produced or used asbestos. I remember one company in particular that acquired another company for $10 million. They have paid well over $100 million out in asbestos-related claims because of that acquisition. So not content with a public health crisis, a group of committed attorneys have set out to bankrupt some of our Nation's greatest companies, creating an economic crisis as well. And many of them have only had some collateral relationship with asbestos. Playing fast and loose with the actual exposure of their clients, there has been an explosion of litigation in recent years. As a result, at least 73 companies have had to declare bankruptcy due to their asbestos-related liabilities. Do those who have actually been harmed by asbestos benefit by this litigation? No. They wind up in years of litigation only to find that they get a mere 42 cents out of every dollar. By the time the attorneys take their fees and add on transaction costs, the poor person who has been injured gets only 42 cents out of every dollar recovered. The status quo does not do justice to those injured by asbestos exposure. I am a conservative. I do not believe the Federal Government should attempt to fix every social or economic problem faced by the country. However, there are certain crises, because of their size, because of the number of persons impacted, and because of their detrimental impact on the American economy, that call out for national legislation. This is just such a bill. Asbestos exposure has cause a far-reaching public health disaster of the highest order, one that is now compounded by an unprecedented litigation crisis. I am hardly alone in thinking this. The Supreme Court of the United States has called on Congress on three separate occasions to address this particular problem. In 1999, the Justices told the Nation that ``the elephantine mass of asbestos cases . . . defies customary judicial adminstration and calls for national legislation.'' So we answered the call. We are hardly springing this bill on the Senate. We have been debating a solution to the asbestos crisis since the 107th Congress. This is the 109th Congress. When I was chairman of the Judiciary Committee, we held hearing after hearing. We had weeks of markups. We did our best to achieve some sort of compromise. Yet when it came time to debate this bill on the floor, it was filibustered. The Senate was prevented from giving its final up-or-down vote. That was April of 2004. Then we heard the bill was not ready for prime time. We were rushing the issue, jamming the opposition. We have not considered the issues carefully enough, they said. If only we had more time. Not it is almost 2 years later. The chairman of the Judiciary Committee, my colleague from Pennsylvania, Senator Specter, has again held hearing after hearing. Again, we have had week after week of markups. He and his staff have been tireless and fair in their negotiations. Judge Becker, a federal judge on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, has worked to craft a solution. Over the last 3 years, there have been 36 meetings hosted by the chairman where any group, including labor unions, trial lawyers, and any other interested parties, was welcome. And those efforts have borne fruit. Most notably my colleague from Vermont, ranking member of the committee, came to support this bill. We work a good deal on intellectual property issues together, but this bill is a different animal. This is a bill that impacts the rights of workers and the rights of the sick. On those types of issues, there is, unfortunately, not enough bipartisanship around here. The fact that the distinguished Senator from Vermont, Mr. Leahy, is a cosponsor of this bill is very important. It is a testament to both the scope of the problem it addresses and the depth of good faith compromises that have been made along the way. There are many criticisms made about this bill. Some have suggested that even debating it demonstrates the triumph of corruption. I wonder what their colleagues from Vermont, California, and Montana think about that? All this time they thought they were working to make this a better bill. As it turns out, they were just tools of the special interests. Give me a break. I will tell you who the special interests are in this debate. They are the law firms that specialize in much of the bogus asbestos litigation that is driving this crisis. They are the lawyers who file suits for people who are not sick, just hoping that some company will decide to settle rather than go to court. They are the lawyers who promise the truly sick a jackpot but give them instead years of litigation and then take for themselves fully 60 percent of any settlement. I would call it ``jackpot justice.'' But for the workers impacted by asbestos exposure, there is no jackpot, and this sure is not justice. These lawyers have gotten rich litigating these cases. They do not like the prospect for reform. Why not? Because it is going to turn off the golden spigot. It will create an easy, no-fault, and quick administrative process that will enable those made sick by asbestos to obtain compensation without the middle man. In other words, if this bill becomes law, these lawyers are going to have to find some other industry to bilk. The other side of this debate should take a good, long look in the mirror before going down the road of accusing the bill's supporters of promoting special interest legislation. In addition, it is beyond ridiculous to suggest, as we heard yesterday from opponents, that this bill is being rushed. That is absolutely ridiculous. How is it that a bill that was debated on the floor nearly 2 years ago, reported favorably out of the Judiciary Committee twice--on a bipartisan basis this time--and was subject to countless amendments is somehow not even ready for debate today? We have been at this for years. This bill addresses a recognized public health tragedy. Yet it is not even worthy of debate on the Senate floor? For those not steeped in Senate procedure, it is worth noting what is being suggested by this objection to the motion to proceed. When a bill is filibustered after hours and even days of debate in order to prevent a vote on final passage, the message sent is that there has not been enough debate. The issues are so difficult and complex that more debate is required before this body could responsibly move to final passage. Filibusters are not always justified, but they are sometimes understandable. When you filibuster a motion to proceed, you are saying this bill is not even worthy of a debate on the floor. This is an insult. I know this is not a perfect bill. Few bills are. The FAIR Act, however, is most certainly a bill worthy of debate. We have a limited number of days in any given year to do the people's business. We only take up bills on the floor when there is a pressing public need. And in the opinion of not only the majority leader but the Republican caucus and even some Democrats, this is a bill worthy of our attention and time. Frankly, it is ludicrous to suggest otherwise. Nineteen members of the Senate have cosponsored this legislation. It is supported by the chairman and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee. It has bipartisan support. I do not think there is a person in this body who doubts the severity of the problems it is designed to address. So something must be done. This bill is a sound and reasonable attempt to do something to help these sick workers get the compensation they deserve. The asbestos trust fund created through this legislation deserves a debate. I urge my colleagues to vote for cloture on the motion to proceed and to give this bill the attention it is owed. Mr. President, this is an important bill. I pay tribute to Senators Specter and Leahy for the work they have done in committee and in bringing this bill to the floor. They deserve accolades from everybody in this body. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:45 a.m. on Tuesday, February 7. I further ask that following the prayer and the pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved, and the Senate proceed to a period of morning business for up to 60 minutes, with the first 30 minutes under the control of the Democratic leader or his designee and the second 30 minutes under the control of the majority leader or his designee, and that the Senate then resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 852, the asbestos bill. I further ask that the Senate stand in recess from 12:30 until 2:15 p.m. to accommodate the weekly party luncheon.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, tomorrow the Senate will continue to debate the motion to proceed to S. 852, the asbestos bill. A few minutes ago we filed cloture on the motion to proceed, and that vote will occur at 6 p.m. tomorrow. There will be no rollcall votes until 6 p.m. tomorrow to accommodate those Senators traveling to Georgia for the funeral service of Coretta Scott King.