Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to allow penalty-free withdrawals from retirement plans during the period that a military reservist or a National Guardsman is called to active duty. Specifically, the provision would allow individuals who are called to active duty for at least 179 days between September 11, 2001, and September 15, 2005, to avoid the 10-percent penalty tax that is normally imposed on early distributions. This bill passed the House of Representatives by unanimous consent late last month, and it is my hope that this important and appropriate legislation will receive the same resounding support by my colleagues in the Senate. Nearly 3,000 reservists and Guard members from my home State of Utah have been called to active duty and are currently stationed in the Persian Gulf and Afghanistan. I believe it is safe to say that when many of these brave young men and women were informed by their commanding officers they would be placed on full-time active duty, they were not only concerned with the extended time period they would be called away from their families, but also with the reality that by temporarily leaving behind their full-time civilian jobs, many of them would leave behind a higher paycheck. Many reservists are suddenly faced with the prospect that their income may no longer cover all of the expenses for themselves and their families. Some may say that allowing reservists to make withdrawals from their retirement accounts without incurring a penalty is too small a step and not worthy of our time. But to many reservists and Guard members, these retirement accounts can be a significant resource in helping to alleviate some of their financial stress. Providing our soldiers with an additional option to support their families certainly seems like a worthwhile cause to me. The cost of this bill to the U.S. Treasury is estimated to be only $4 million over 10 years. I think we can all agree this cost is minimal considering the tremendous sacrifices that our reservists, Guard members, and their families are making each day. In addition, there is a provision in this bill that would allow our soldiers to repay any amount withdrawn, without penalty, for 2 years after leaving active duty. There is no doubt that there are many additional much needed improvements to our policies that each of us must work together towards to ensure the financial peace of mind for our Guard and Reserve members and their families. It is imperative for each of us to give our soldiers not only all of the tools, armor, and technology to fight those who seek to destroy peace, but we must also do everything within our power to give our soldiers every appropriate resource to make it easier to care for their loved ones they have left behind. I urge my colleagues to give serious consideration to this bill, and it is my hope that it can be passed by unanimous consent. I am confident that President Bush would have no hesitation in signing this important bill into law, if we can pass it in the Senate and send it to him.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the reauthorization of the Boys and Girls Club of America, legislation that Senator Leahy and I introduced today. Congress first granted the Boys and Girls Club of America a charter in 1991, but the Club existed for over 90 years before that. There are currently 3,500 Clubs across America and around the world on our military bases serving over 3.6 million children, ages 6-18. Over 70 percent of those children who benefit from the Boys and Girls Club of America live in America's inner cities. Almost half of the Club members come from single parent homes. The Club offers young people a positive alternative to roaming the streets as well as a positive adult influence. These children are able to find a safe place to learn and grow in the Boys and Girls Clubs. Most importantly, the Clubs offer hope and opportunity to millions of young people who would otherwise face disadvantaged circumstances. This reauthorization will allow the Boys and Girls Club of America to expand their clubs even more. The bill authorizes the Club to receive funds through 2010 and increases the number of clubs in existence. By 2010, there will be 5,000 Clubs nationwide serving over 5 million young people. I urge my colleagues to support this small but important reauthorization.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the reauthorization of the Boys and Girls Club of America, legislation that Senator Leahy and I introduced today. Congress first granted the Boys and Girls Club of America a charter in 1991, but the Club existed for over 90 years before that. There are currently 3,500 Clubs across America and around the world on our military bases serving over 3.6 million children, ages 6-18. Over 70 percent of those children who benefit from the Boys and Girls Club of America live in America's inner cities. Almost half of the Club members come from single parent homes. The Club offers young people a positive alternative to roaming the streets as well as a positive adult influence. These children are able to find a safe place to learn and grow in the Boys and Girls Clubs. Most importantly, the Clubs offer hope and opportunity to millions of young people who would otherwise face disadvantaged circumstances. This reauthorization will allow the Boys and Girls Club of America to expand their clubs even more. The bill authorizes the Club to receive funds through 2010 and increases the number of clubs in existence. By 2010, there will be 5,000 Clubs nationwide serving over 5 million young people. I urge my colleagues to support this small but important reauthorization.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I would like to pay tribute today to one of the world's greatest poets, whose immortal words have universal appeal. This month marks the 440th anniversary of William Shakespeare's birth on April 23, 1564. His influence has been so great in our country's cultural tradition that from our earliest days as a Nation the two books most often found in American homes were the Bible and the Complete Works of William Shakespeare. Throughout our history up to the present day, Shakespeare plays have delighted audiences and inspired many. I do not have the time to detail all of the universal works and contributions to our culture and language provided by this great writer and poet. I do however, want to highlight today two groups among hundreds across the country that are devoting their time and energy in praise of William Shakespeare. The first group, I am proud to say is in my home state of Utah--the Utah Shakespearean Festival. This festival is held each year in Cedar City, UT; and is one of the premier festivals of its kind in America. The ideals and dreams that were the embodiment of William Shakespeare are recaptured for audiences who have the privilege of attending. It began as a dream of Fred C. Adams, a young actor with a love of Shakespeare and a desire to produce great theater. It has grown tremendously from its inception in 1959 in which 3,276 spectators were entertained watching The Taming of the Shrew, Hamlet and The Merchant of Venice to its present-day success in 2003 in which 150,000 ticket- holders viewed 185 performances in 2 landmark theaters. The economic impact of the festival on Cedar City and the surrounding area is immense. It stands as a monument of success to the traditions of Shakespeare and his plays. In fact, in 2000 the festival was awarded the coveted Tony Award for America's Outstanding Regional Theater, an honor truly deserving and treasured. The second group I have recently become acquainted with is the American Friends of the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust which supports programs to preserve the heritage and properties of Shakespeare in Stratford-Upon-Avon, UK. Many U.S. institutions focus on the theater, but this group, headed by John Chwat in Washington, DC, works with the trustees in Stratford keeping the homes of Shakespeare's birth, Ann Hathaway's Cottage, Mary Arden's house and Hall's croft preserved. With the support of the Newington-Cropsey Foundation, Hastings-on Hudson, they have placed four of eight bronze monuments by Greg Wyatt depicting the text and imagery of Shakespeare's plays--King Lear, Hamlet, Julius Caesar and The Tempest--in the ``Great Garden'' at New Place where Shakespeare spent his last days and wrote The Tempest. They also sponsor summer sessions at Stratford for Columbia, Georgetown, and other American universities. Thank you for this opportunity to salute both the Utah Shakespearean Festival and its officials, sponsors, workers, and visitors as well as the board of directors of the American Friends of the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust and the distinguished trustees in Stratford-Upon-Avon passionately working to preserve Shakespeare's heritage. I want to end with a passage I particularly like from Hamlet, which is displayed in bronze text in one of Greg Wyatt's sculptures. It reads: What a piece of work is a man! How noble in Reason, how infinite in faculty, in form, and moving, how express and admirable, in action how like an angel, in apprehension and how like a god the beauty of the world, the paragon of animals.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I have the privilege today of honoring a unique and extraordinary group of people organ donors. In Utah this week a very special monument is being dedicated to the memories and sacrifices of many Utah families who have given others a new chance at life. The Celebration of Life Monument at Salt Lake City's new Library Square will stand as a testament to the many heroes whose organs have been donated. The monument will also serve as a beautiful, peaceful, and serene place for people to visit and hopefully feel inspired by the gift of organ donation. Visitors to the monument will be surrounded by three glass serpentine Walls of Honor inscribed with the names of organ, eye, and tissue donors; super blood donors; and body research donors. Five life-sized bronze statues of recipients will also grace the grounds of the monument which were sculpted by the very talented Utah artist, Gary Price. These statues represent the impact organ donation has on people of every culture and age who are given a second chance for life by the sacrifice of others. In addition, guests will also be able to enjoy a beautiful water fountain in the center of the monument symbolizing the renewal of life and the ripple effects of donation. It is important to note that one organ donor can save the lives of nine people. In addition, a single eye and tissue donor can restore sight to two people and enhance the lives of up to 50 more. What a wonderful legacy to leave behind. To actually save and enhance the lives of so many others is almost beyond compare. Someone once said, ``If today brings even one choice your way, choose to be a bringer of the light.'' Thousands of families each year across America choose to be ``bringers of the light.'' To the loved ones and family members who are faced with the agonizing decision to share the gift of organ donation at the very same time they are faced with the death of someone they love and cherish, I want to say a very simple and heart-felt ``thank you.'' Thank you for your choice, for your sacrifice, and for your precious gift. Your gift has helped thousands of people live another day to experience the joys of life, people who can now see the face of their child, and people who can now experience the ultimate blessing of good health and strength. Your precious gift is sacred and inspiring. I sincerely hope that the presence of this new monument in Salt Lake City will motivate and educate people across our State and Nation to register as an organ donor and prepare themselves and their loved ones for what may be the ultimate gift of life. Utahns can do this by visiting the web site www.yesutah.org and register; or by call (866)-- YES-UTAH. I truly believe that out of the tears of tragedy; comfort can be found in organ donation. Our lives can be extended through the eyes, skin, blood, and organs of others. I want to sincerely congratulate all of those who have shared their tears and joy through building this wonderful monument. Many people and organizations in Utah have toiled for several years to make this dream a reality. May the people who visit be stirred by the names and memories of those who are named there, and may the peace of this monument inspire many to register to become an organ donor. I have always been touched by the quote, ``To the world you may be one person, but to one person . . . you may be the world.'' Any of us can be ``the world'' for someone special through organ donation.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce S. 2349, ``The Playwrights Licensing Antitrust Initiative'' or ``PLAI [play] Act.'' This legislation is designed to ensure the continued vitality of American theater. When the theater is crowded and the curtain rises, it is easy to forget that the entire show began with one person: the lone playwright who put pen to paper. While this artistic independence--and the individual expression it fosters--are absolutely central to the continuing vitality of quality live theater in America, it has resulted in individual playwrights being increasingly forced into a situation where they bargain alone against corporate behemoths and organized labor groups over terms of compensation and artistic control when their works are performed on Broadway. Due to the interaction of Federal labor law, the antitrust laws, and the Copyright Act, playwrights and their voluntary peer membership organization, the Dramatists Guild of America, operate under the shadow of possible antitrust litigation, which has substantially and detrimentally decreased their ability to coordinate their actions in protecting their artistic and financial interests. This has impeded the ability of playwrights to act collectively in dealing with highly- organized and unionized groups--such as actors, directors, and choreographers on the one hand--and the increasingly consolidated producers and investors on the other. Playwrights contribute enduring, thoughtful entertainment and cultural enrichment to our lives. I know that many of my colleagues here in the Senate share my appreciation for the creative work they do. Despite the importance of their work, our current antitrust laws prevent them from negotiating a standard form contract for the production of their works. As a result, playwrights--who are frequently at a substantial bargaining disadvantage--are forced to accept contracts on a take it or leave it basis. If we truly want the American stage to flourish, we must remedy this situation. The PLAI Act is a narrow measure that allows playwrights, composers and lyricists--through either the Dramatists Guild or any other voluntary peer organization--to act collectively in dealing with other industry groups that operate both under and behind the bright lights of the American stage. The PLAI Act enables playwrights to act collectively without violating the antitrust laws. It allows these men and women to sit down with their creative colleagues in the industry to negotiate, adopt and implement a standard form contract for the production of their works. Actors, stagehands, directors, producers and venue owners of live theater--nearly all other theater workers and artists--already have this right. Importantly, this extends only to the adoption and implementation--but not any collective enforcement--of an updated standard form contract. Thus, it would merely allow dramatists to replace the terms of the current standard contract--which I am given to understand has remained virtually unchanged for several decades--with amended terms that reflect the changing business and artistic landscape on Broadway. My hope is that the basic ability to develop a standard form contract as well as provisions ensuring that certain artists' rights are respected in the production of their plays will encourage young, struggling playwrights to continue working in the field. Too often, playwrights with great potential abandon their writing--or choose to write for a different audience or venue--because they are powerless to negotiate even minimum levels of compensation or artistic copyright protection for their work. William Shakespeare himself was paid no more than eight pounds apiece for his plays, and was not able to make his living from writing. This was, of course, back in the late 16th century. We should not allow today's antitrust laws to be used to discourage some of our most creative citizens from pursuing careers in live theater. When talented individuals are pushed away from their craft because of the unintended consequences of legislation, it is incumbent upon those of us in Congress to set things right. As a long time enthusiast of live theater, and a lyricist myself, I am proud to co-sponsor this bill. It is my belief that the PLAI Act will help foster the next Arthur Miller, the next Andrew Lloyd Webber, or the next Wendy Wasserstein. By helping playwrights in this way we encourage the continued vibrancy of American live theater and artistic and literary culture. I commend my co-sponsor Senator Kennedy for his efforts on this bill. His leadership and support represent a significant step forward in preserving the future of live theater in America. I urge my colleagues to join Senator Kennedy and me in supporting the PLAI Act. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce S. 2349, ``The Playwrights Licensing Antitrust Initiative'' or ``PLAI [play] Act.'' This legislation is designed to ensure the continued vitality of American theater. When the theater is crowded and the curtain rises, it is easy to forget that the entire show began with one person: the lone playwright who put pen to paper. While this artistic independence--and the individual expression it fosters--are absolutely central to the continuing vitality of quality live theater in America, it has resulted in individual playwrights being increasingly forced into a situation where they bargain alone against corporate behemoths and organized labor groups over terms of compensation and artistic control when their works are performed on Broadway. Due to the interaction of Federal labor law, the antitrust laws, and the Copyright Act, playwrights and their voluntary peer membership organization, the Dramatists Guild of America, operate under the shadow of possible antitrust litigation, which has substantially and detrimentally decreased their ability to coordinate their actions in protecting their artistic and financial interests. This has impeded the ability of playwrights to act collectively in dealing with highly- organized and unionized groups--such as actors, directors, and choreographers on the one hand--and the increasingly consolidated producers and investors on the other. Playwrights contribute enduring, thoughtful entertainment and cultural enrichment to our lives. I know that many of my colleagues here in the Senate share my appreciation for the creative work they do. Despite the importance of their work, our current antitrust laws prevent them from negotiating a standard form contract for the production of their works. As a result, playwrights--who are frequently at a substantial bargaining disadvantage--are forced to accept contracts on a take it or leave it basis. If we truly want the American stage to flourish, we must remedy this situation. The PLAI Act is a narrow measure that allows playwrights, composers and lyricists--through either the Dramatists Guild or any other voluntary peer organization--to act collectively in dealing with other industry groups that operate both under and behind the bright lights of the American stage. The PLAI Act enables playwrights to act collectively without violating the antitrust laws. It allows these men and women to sit down with their creative colleagues in the industry to negotiate, adopt and implement a standard form contract for the production of their works. Actors, stagehands, directors, producers and venue owners of live theater--nearly all other theater workers and artists--already have this right. Importantly, this extends only to the adoption and implementation--but not any collective enforcement--of an updated standard form contract. Thus, it would merely allow dramatists to replace the terms of the current standard contract--which I am given to understand has remained virtually unchanged for several decades--with amended terms that reflect the changing business and artistic landscape on Broadway. My hope is that the basic ability to develop a standard form contract as well as provisions ensuring that certain artists' rights are respected in the production of their plays will encourage young, struggling playwrights to continue working in the field. Too often, playwrights with great potential abandon their writing--or choose to write for a different audience or venue--because they are powerless to negotiate even minimum levels of compensation or artistic copyright protection for their work. William Shakespeare himself was paid no more than eight pounds apiece for his plays, and was not able to make his living from writing. This was, of course, back in the late 16th century. We should not allow today's antitrust laws to be used to discourage some of our most creative citizens from pursuing careers in live theater. When talented individuals are pushed away from their craft because of the unintended consequences of legislation, it is incumbent upon those of us in Congress to set things right. As a long time enthusiast of live theater, and a lyricist myself, I am proud to co-sponsor this bill. It is my belief that the PLAI Act will help foster the next Arthur Miller, the next Andrew Lloyd Webber, or the next Wendy Wasserstein. By helping playwrights in this way we encourage the continued vibrancy of American live theater and artistic and literary culture. I commend my co-sponsor Senator Kennedy for his efforts on this bill. His leadership and support represent a significant step forward in preserving the future of live theater in America. I urge my colleagues to join Senator Kennedy and me in supporting the PLAI Act. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. What is the parliamentary situation?

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, my colleagues and I have been talking all week about the long overdue reforms that the Hatch-Frist-Miller bill will deliver. I think it is clear to anybody that asbestos litigation has been spinning out of control with no end in sight for far too long. The shortcomings of the current system are crippling businesses, and, at the same time, depriving asbestos victims of prompt and adequate compensation for their injuries. One of the most outrageous aspects of the current asbestos litigation system is that it allows--indeed, encourages--some lawyers of questionable ethics to find and bring claims that may be of questionable merit. In some egregious and hopefully rare instances, an entire plan of action has apparently evolved to track down potential claimants based more upon whether they can be properly coached to present a colorable claim than whether their claim has actual merit. For example, I am told that several years ago, a first-year associate attorney at the law firm of Baron & Budd apparently inadvertently disclosed to defense counsel a memorandum that provides a sad but startling insight into how asbestos claims are created and spun into recoveries. The memorandum, titled ``Preparing for Your Deposition,'' offers clients detailed instructions. They are shown how to sound credible when giving testimony that they worked with particular asbestos products. The memorandum seems to make every effort to instruct clients to assert particular points that will act to increase the value of their claim, without regard to whether those assertions are actually true. The memorandum even goes so far as to inform clients that a defense attorney will have no way of knowing whether they are lying about their exposure to particular asbestos products. One excerpt from the memorandum appears to help claimants identify defendant companies and prepares them for a cross-examination that could reveal how flimsy their claim might be. It reads as follows. This is from the Baron & Budd memo ``Preparing for Your Deposition'': You may be asked how you are able to recall so many product names. The best answer is to say that you recall seeing the names on the containers or on the product itself. The more you thought about it, the more you remembered! If the defense attorney asks you if you were shown pictures of products, wait for your attorney to advise you to answer, then say a girl from Baron & Budd showed you pictures of MANY products, and you picked out the ones you remembered. Well, as you can see, that is pretty serious. Another excerpt from the memorandum steers claimants away from admissions that would undermine their claims. On this point, the memorandum equips witnesses with the following admonition. Again, from the Baron & Budd memo--one of the leading firms in these asbestos plaintiffs cases, to which more than $20 billion in fees--that is with a ``B''--have been given. Here is this counseling or coaching. Here is what this law firm memorandum said: You will be asked if you ever saw any WARNING labels on containers of asbestos. It is important to maintain that you NEVER saw any labels on asbestos products that said WARNING or DANGER. Finally, apparently to drive home the point that cross-examination may be of little value in certain circumstances, the memorandum advises claimants as follows--again, the same law firm: Keep in mind that these [defense] attorneys are very young and WERE NOT PRESENT at the jobsites you worked at. They have NO RECORDS to tell them what products were used on a particular job, even if they act like they do. Law Professor Lester Brickman has studied the asbestos litigation process extensively and has written detailed analyses of that process. Professor Brickman reviewed the law firm's memorandum and said: In my opinion . . . this is subornation of perjury. Now, after the memorandum was discovered, the Dallas Observer conducted an investigation of the Baron law firm's asbestos practices. That investigation appeared to uncover an extensive process geared toward manipulating the asbestos litigation system. As the Dallas Observer wrote: Two former paralegals . . . both say that a client-coaching system was in place at the firm. Workers were routinely encouraged to remember seeing asbestos products on their jobs that they didn't truly recall. Still another aspect of the Dallas Observer investigation into the Baron firm's handling of asbestos cases revealed a process that put a premium on schooling claimants by planting the right bits of information in their heads. As the Dallas Observer reported: A paralegal says that in many cases, the client had no specific recollection of some products before she interviewed them. ``My original caseload was a thousand, but I didn't interview that many people. It was in the hundreds. I'd say that probably in 75 percent of those cases I had people identify at least one product they couldn't recall originally.'' Now, manipulation of claimant memories and stories appear to have gone beyond implanting valuable facts to improve their claims. The Dallas Observer found that the Baron law firm also conveniently helped claimants eliminate facts from their stories where that would suit their purpose. The Observer reported the following: According to the paralegals, their job didn't stop with implanting memories; there were also the asbestos products they had to encourage clients not to recall. Two lawyers told her to discourage identification of Johns-Manville products because the Manville Trust was not paying claims rendered against it at the time. ... Thus, when a client would say he saw, for instance, a Johns-Manville pipe covering, the paralegal says, she would hand them a line. ``You'd say, `You know, we've talked to some other people, other witnesses, and they recall working with Owens-Corning Kaylo. Don't you think you saw that?' And they'd say, `Yeah, maybe you're right.' '' Finally, another document obtained by the Observer consisted of handwritten notes apparently taken by a Baron & Budd attorney during an internal training session. I will just say these are the things that are wrong with asbestos litigation. Is this counseling or coaching? The memorandum states: ``Warn plaintiffs not to say you were around it-- even if you were--after you knew it was dangerous.'' These practices, if they indeed took place--and I hope they did not take place in the way the Dallas Observer described them in its investigative report--distort a system that is already struggling to provide fairness. If lawyers for purported asbestos victims coach clients to lie in this manner, they may win some big fees for themselves along with some unjustified awards for clients who aren't actually sick, such practices have a sinister effect: They deprive seriously injured asbestos victims of the swift and fair recoveries that they deserve for their injuries and they cheat the payer firm out of money, they cheat employees of these firms out of their jobs, and they cheat investors and individual retirees of these firms out of their investments. The time to act is now. I urge my colleagues to vote to invoke cloture against the minority's obstructive tactics. We owe it to these victims to put a halt to these abusive practices that enrich the few at the expense of many and enrich those who are not sick at the expense of those who are. We owe it to hardworking Americans who stand to lose their jobs and pensions because of this asbestos mess. And we owe it to everyday Americans to provide them a civil justice systems that works. Ray Klappert lives in Ft. Lauderdale, FL, and is actively supporting passage of legislation establishing an asbestos trust fund. His support is not surprising given the serious asbestos health problems he may be facing in the future. Here is Ray's story: Ray's father, Fred Klappert, was a Korean War veteran and self- employed in the construction business. In 1973, Fred contracted to work on the renovation of the interior of a commercial building in Miami Beach. During the renovation, which lasted several months and involved a partial demolition of the old building, Fred was exposed to asbestos. Twenty-five years later, Fred Klappert developed a severe cough and doctors eventually diagnosed him with asbestosis. Fred has since passed away. Unfortunately, the Klapperts had nowhere to turn for help and no source from which to be compensated for their loss. Ray has since learned about the dangers of asbestos and has grown quite concerned for his own health. Ray worked with his father on that same building in 1973. Ray fears he may also acquire an asbestos- related disease and, like his father, have nowhere to turn for help. An asbestos trust fund ensures a potential asbestos victim like Ray Klappert that there will still be adequate compensation in the future-- that will not be the case if asbestos litigation remains our method in the tort system. If a trust is established, Ray will not have to worry whether the defendant companies come insolvent, and thus the prospect of collecting pennies on the dollar from some bankruptcy trust. He also knows that the legislation will ensure that if he needs it, he will have access to medical monitoring as soon as the bill is enacted. This kind of security is essential for the peace of mind of all future asbestos victims. What is wrong with asbestos litigation? It is running out of control and ruining our legal system. Compensation for victims such as Fred and Ray Klappert, under the current system, nothing. Under the FAIR Act, they get compensated. Passage of S. 2290 will give Ray confidence that help is available should he need it in the future. If the legislation fails, Ray Klappert, like his father, will become just another victim of a tort system that has failed and will continue to fail thousands of Americans who have been exposed to asbestos. As the asbestos litigation crisis continues unabated, nearly all of the major asbestos manufacturers are bankrupt. Consequently, more and more small businesses are forced to defend these costly lawsuits--some of which are without merit. A compelling illustration of this epidemic is the case of Monroe Rubber and Gasket, a small Monroe, Louisiana business with only 15 remaining employees--a number down 33 percent since asbestos litigation began against the company just 4 years ago. Prior to 1986, Monroe Rubber and Gasket used a compressed asbestos sheet in manufacturing its gaskets. Mike Carter, one of its owners, called for a thorough examination of the company's gasket manufacturing process in order to determine whether any asbestos was actually released into the air when this sheet was cut. The results were negative. Additionally, not a single Monroe Rubber and Gasket employee, including Mr. Carter, who has worked around his company's products for decades, has acquired an asbestos-related disease. In 2000, despite its decision to end the practice of using any products containing asbestos in its gasket manufacturing process nearly fourteen years earlier, Monroe Rubber and Gasket began to be named in lawsuits on behalf of individuals who worked at chemical plants and paper mills that used the company's gaskets in their own machinery. There are approximately 75 lawsuits currently pending against the company. In some cases, Monroe Rubber and Gasket is the only defendant. In others, Monroe Rubber and Gasket is simply one of dozens. I must point out that not one such lawsuit against Monroe Rubber and Gasket involves a current or former employee of the company. Needless to say, that reeks of irony. Fighting these kinds of lawsuits is cost-prohibitive, especially for a small business that is at best a peripheral defendant. According to Mr. Carter, asbestos litigation costs his company more than $250,000 a year, and, if you can believe it, not one such claim against Monroe Rubber and Gasket has actually gone to trial. In addition to not including a case that has reached final disposition, this cost also fails to include the loss of productivity resulting from the thousands of hours spent on the litigation by Mr. Carter himself. What is wrong with asbestos litigation? Take the case of Monroe Rubber and Gasket: The cost of litigation so far, $250,000 a year; the lawsuits filed against the company, 75; the workforce loss, 33 percent; the number of company employees who are sick throughout eternity has been zero; the number of company employees who have sued, zero. Yet this company is being torn apart by litigation that it should not have to face. The impact of these considerable losses is felt not only by Mr. Carter and his fellow small business owners, but also by the employees. Moreover, Monroe Rubber and Gasket has been forced to cancel plans to open a new facility in Arkansas. The money that was going to be used to underwrite the expansion has gone instead to the lawyers. Some of them were not so voracious. They are defense lawyers who had to be retained under these circumstances. For Mike Carter and the employees at Monroe Rubber and Gasket, the issue is simple--unless we choose to act, they will be out of work. At the moment, most of the costs of the litigation are covered by insurance, but it is uncertain how long that will last. In fact, the employees don't know who will go bankrupt first--the company or its insurance carrier. What they do know, however, is that if we fail to act, they will soon join thousands and thousands of other American workers who are out of work or who lost their pensions or their health plans because of the nightmare of asbestos litigation. This is not a fair and just result, and Congress should act to rectify the situation. Mr. President, how much time do we have remaining on our side?

Mr. HATCH. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I have been listening to the arguments of my colleagues from the other side of the aisle. I thank Senators Carper, Nelson, Miller, and Baucus, who indicated they will vote for this bill in the end if we can resolve some of the problems. These Senators in every sense have worked extraordinarily hard on this bill, especially Senator Miller. I believe we can accommodate Senator Baucus so he can literally vote for this bill. I do not want to see people from Montana be mistreated. Frankly, I believe we can make the appropriate change. We have talked about what it will be. It is what he has told me he would accept. I think we can make that change. But that is what you do on the floor of the Senate. Having said that about these colleagues who have worked so hard with us, including Senator Feinstein, who has worked with us on these matters, all of them are going to vote against cloture today, at least as far as I know. Having said that, I was interested in the comments of the distinguished ranking member on the Judiciary Committee, that we have to get into reality here; reality the way the Senate is supposed to work, the way the legislative process works. After 15 months of meeting with everybody from one end of this country to the other, everybody in the Senate Judiciary Committee, and virtually everybody in the Senate, 15 months of intensive negotiations, where are we? In reality, they are filibustering even a motion to proceed which I think shows where this is all going. They are not filibustering the bill which would be next. They are filibustering the motion to even proceed to the bill. The reality is if we want to be legislators and we want to legislate, then we bring the bill up and we fight it out on the floor. We have a filibuster here on the motion to proceed. We have had 15 months of negotiations. We have bent over backward to try to accommodate our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. There is virtually only one thing many of them want more of; that is, more money. That is after putting in the original $108 billion, which nobody thought we could get done; that almost everybody said if you get that we will go--virtually everybody involved, including the unions. We are now up to $114 billion, and it is still not enough. If that is not enough, then bring an amendment to the bill on the floor. Make it more, if you can. The problem is I think they know the vast majority of Senators in this body know it is enough. They know it is probably too much and know what a burden it is going to be on these companies that are basically near bankruptcy to pay for this. But we have done that. I heard the distinguished ranking member of the Judiciary Committee say we should be legislators. If the funds are enough, they would go. Bring amendments. Let us fight out. That is what we do. That is what this floor is for--not just filibustering a motion to proceed so we can't fight it out, so we can't have amendments. I think they should quit hiding behind outrageous figures everybody around here knows can't be done. I believe my friend said one of the problems is solvency protection. How can you protect from insolvency, if these companies start going into bankruptcy? We have had 70 so far. We will have more loss of health benefits, loss of pensions, and loss of jobs. By the way, on the award values, it is interesting to me that I am hearing it is not enough in award values to individual people and the individual categories, and yet the award values were approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee 14-3. Only two Democrats did not vote. All the other Democrats voted for the award values we have in this bill-- every one of them. The only three members on our side who didn't vote for the award values said they felt they were too high. The Democrats all agreed they were decent award values. If we are going to be legislators, let us be legislators. Let us not hide behind a filibuster of a motion to proceed. There have been a lot of comments by my friend on the other side about the fairness and adequacy of the claim values. He said they are low. What he failed to mention today in his remarks is the Feinstein bipartisan claims values amendment was adopted by the committee 14-3. It was a bipartisan vote. The only three who voted against it were Republicans who thought the claims values we had were too high. All of the votes from the other side of the aisle were 100 percent for the claims values. I am not sure why my friend from Vermont is now saying the claims values we have adopted in a bipartisan fashion--he was there last July--are now too low. It is amazing to me. It is typical of what we have gone through for 15 months trying to work this out. I think they may figure as long as they can keep this going, there will be more and more demands on these few companies that are now stuck after the main companies that caused the problem are all bankrupt. These companies, such as Monroe, which I mentioned earlier, are stuck having to try to win but the defense costs alone would eat them alive and put them into bankruptcy. We can talk about this forever. We can negotiate forever. But if it means more and more money, bring amendments to the floor. Maybe they will win on it. I don't know. All I can do is show how exorbitant they are under the circumstances. We still have a hedge factor in this matter. If for some reason there are not enough funds at the end of this process to pay off claims--and we believe not only there will be, but there will be more than enough funds--then this will revert back to the tort system again. Nobody will want that to happen. Nobody will let that happen. But even if it does, then these voracious claims lawyers, these personal injury lawyers--about 10 percent or even less of the American Association of Trial Lawyers--will be able to do the same things we have just mentioned they have been doing in this matter. I think everybody is protected. There is no question about it. Why are we not going to invoke cloture here and kill this bill? Why aren't we going to have amendments to make this bill more pure, if we can? Why don't we have amendments to increase the funding, if that is what they think should occur? The fact is they don't want to do it because they know darned well if they did, they probably couldn't win on these outrageous claims. But if they did, then the Senate will have worked its will. That is what legislators do. They don't hide behind filibustering every bill. They do not have obstruction tactics on every bill. Around here, we have to get 60 votes for virtually any bill that means anything. That is pretty pathetic. Sooner or later, we are going to have to address that. That includes judges for the first time in history. But this bill is important. I acknowledge cloture will not be invoked today. I have known that for a long time. The fact of the matter is at least everybody is going to know where everybody stands on this matter. Does that mean we are going to quit negotiating and quit trying to bring people together? No. We will. But if we don't get that down in another week, it seems to me this bill is going to be dead. If it is dead, then I pity those 8,400 companies plus all the insurance companies--about 16 of those--because they are all headed toward bankruptcy and this country is going to suffer a tremendous problem while the truly sick are not going to get compensated. The truly sick are not going to get compensated. We have seen the sleazy approach of at least one of the personal injury law firms toward manipulating the process so those who aren't getting sick get a recovery which they should never have gotten. That takes money away from those who are sick. Guess who the beneficiaries of this whole process are. These personal injury lawyers, some of whom are honest, but probably some who are not. This chart shows it all. The word ``filibuster'' comes from the Spanish word ``filibustero,'' meaning pirating and hijacking. I shudder to think we will consign all of these people who have asbestos-related illnesses to oblivion and not do the best we can to help them when we have a system that is broken. I am prepared to yield back the remainder of my time and proceed to the vote.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, April 22, 2004, at 1:30 p.m. to hold a hearing on Nominations.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, April 22, 2004, at 2:30 p.m. to hold a Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs hearing on U.S.-China Relations: Status of Reforms in China.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, April 22, 2004, at 4 p.m. to hold a hearing on Nominations.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, April 22, 2004, at 9:30 a.m. to hold a hearing on Iraq Transition: Obstacles and Opportunities.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Thursday, April 22, 2004, at 9:30 a.m. on the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a markup on Thursday, April 22, 2004, at 11 a.m. in Senate Dirksen Building Room 226. Agenda I. Nominations: Henry W. Saad to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit; William Duane Benton to be United States Circuit Judge for the Eighth Circuit; Robert Bryan Harwell to be United States District of South Carolina; George P. Schiavelli to be United States District Judge for the Central District of California; and Curtis V. Gomez to be Judge for the District Court of the Virgin Islands. II. Legislation: S. 1735. Gang Prevention and Effective Deterrence Act of 2003 [Hatch, Chambliss, Cornyn, Feinstein, Graham, Grassley, Schumer]; S. Res. 310. A resolution commemorating and acknowledging the dedication and sacrifice made by the men and women who have lost their lives while serving as law enforcement officers [Campbell, Hatch, Leahy]; H. Con. Res. 328. Recognizing and honoring the United States Armed Forces and supporting the goals and objectives of a National Military Appreciation Month; S. 2270. No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels (NOPEC) Act of 2004 [DeWine, Durbin, Feingold, Grassley, Kohl, Leahy, Schumer, Specter]; S. 2107. A bill to authorize an annual appropriations of $10,000,000 for mental health courts through fiscal year 2009 [DeWine, Leahy]; S. 2192. Cooperative Research and Technology Enhancement (CREATE) Act of 2004 [Hatch, Feingold, Leahy]; H.R. 1561. United States Patent and Trademark Fee Modernization Act of 2004; S. 1933. Enhancing Federal Obscenity Reporting and Copyright Enforcement (ENFORCE) Act of 2003 [Hatch, Cornyn, Feinstein]; S. 2237. Protecting Intellectual Rights Against Theft and Expropriation (PIRATE) Act of 2004 [Leahy, Hatch]; and S. 1932. Artists' Rights and Theft Prevention (ART) Act of 2003 [Cornyn, Feinstein, Graham, Hatch].

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 22, 2004, at 2:30 p.m. to hold a closed business meeting.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, Subcommittee on Children and Families, be authorized to meet for a hearing on Parents Raising Children: The Workplace during the session of the Senate on April 22, 2004, at 10 a.m.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security be authorized to meet conduct a hearing on ``State and Local Authority To Enforce Immigration Law: Evaluating a unified approach for stopping terrorists'' on Thursday, April 22, 2004, at 2:30 p.m. in SD226 Witness List: Panel I: Professor Kris W. Kobach, Former Counsel to the Attorney General, Professor of Law, University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law, Kansas City, MO; E.J. Picolo, Regional Director, Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Ft. Myers, FL; Michelle Malkin, Journalist and Author of Invasion, Bethesda, MD; and David A. Harris, Balk Professor of Law and Values, University of Toledo College of Law, Toledo, OH.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, Mary McGrory was not always easy on me. In fact, sometimes I thought she was a little tough on me. On the other hand, I have to acknowledge she was a great writer. I enjoyed her personally. We had a number of conversations where we had very pleasant exchanges. There is no question she was truly one of the most important journalists in this town. She was critical to the Washington Post. She believed what she did, she believed what she wrote, and she wrote well and set journalistic standards for many young journalists to follow. I personally respected her and am grieved at her death. It was not unexpected. We know she had some difficulties over the last few years. But I, for one, will grieve at her death.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I do not know how anybody can walk on the Senate floor and say Republicans--any Republicans or Democrats--are not for the environment. Now, I have to say we from the West understand the importance of balancing the environment with jobs and families and opportunities. I think we do a pretty good job. We have to continue to be vigilant about the environment. But I think to try to make the case that this administration is anti-environment is not only a stretch, it is false. This administration is pro-environment, but it is also pro-jobs, pro- family, pro-geographical areas, pro-West, and pro-proper utilization of Federal lands--almost all of which the environmental extremists decry. To accuse the administration of putting arsenic in the water or being part of something that puts arsenic in the water is, I think, beyond the pale. The fact is, in many municipalities and towns the small bits of arsenic in the water are not dangerous, according to the EPA and others, but the costs of trying to change their water systems are so exorbitant they could not exist as towns. Nobody wants any dilatory substance in our water. In fact, for years this town has been run by people from both parties, and, of course, we know the water in this town has all kinds of problems. Yet this is the greatest city in the world. So I think it is basically a stretch and an exaggeration and, of course, a seizure of political opportunity to criticize this administration environmentally in the way some of my colleagues have chosen to do.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from California for her excellent work, and also the distinguished Senator from Arizona for his excellent work on this. They have worked on this year after year until we have finally reached this point where I believe we can get a bill through the Congress even though it is almost impossible to get a constitutional amendment through the Congress on this very important subject. I rise today in support of S. 2329, The Crime Victims' Rights Act. The issue addressed by this legislation--protecting the rights of victims of crime--is one of utmost importance to the American people. At the outset, let me commend the efforts of Senators Kyl and Feinstein, who have worked tirelessly since 1996 to try to get the crime victims' rights constitutional amendment passed. No one has worked harder than these two Senators in trying to protect victims' rights. Over the last 8 years, they have met with countless victims, listened to their tragic stories, held hearings, drafted and redrafted constitutional language, and consulted with academics, outside experts and governmental officials to make sure they got it just right. While I know their preference is to pass a constitutional amendment-- and that would have been my preference as well--they have now prudently opted to pursue a statutory remedy. I am especially pleased that the ranking minority member of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Leahy, is joining us in this initiative. When we last debated victims' rights, it was in April of 2000. There can be no question that the world has irrevocably changed since then. Four years ago, many could not truly appreciate what it means to be a victim of violence. Today, in the post-9/11 era, it is impossible not to empathize with victims. I am sure that none of us will forget the image of planes crashing into the World Trade Center. None of us will forget the image of victims jumping out of windows to avoid the flames that were creeping up the buildings. None of us will forget the images of two of the tallest buildings in the world crumbling to the ground like a house of cards with the victims trapped underneath the rubble. And none of us will forget the gaping hole in the side of the Pentagon and the grief of the families of those that died that day. In that single day, nearly 3,000 victims died in New York City and Washington, D.C. Yet as horrific as that statistic is, it cannot be compared to the more than five million violent crimes that are committed in the United States every year. Yet the victims of these violent crimes, as well as their families and loved ones, continue to suffer in silence. Some of them are not able to obtain notice of criminal proceedings; they are not permitted to remain in the courtroom while the trial is ongoing regardless of whether they are expected to be called as a potential government witness. That is why I am an original cosponsor of S. 2329. Let me give a couple of examples of why we need this legislation. On December 2, 1998, Jeffrey Weller, who was only 23 years old, was murdered by his childhood friend. The friend showed up at Jeff's home, where he lived with his new wife of 2 months. While the two men were sitting in a car, the murderer attacked Jeff with a knife. Jeff managed to get out of the car and run, but was shot once in the back. The man then shot Jeff again at point-blank range in the head. Although the defendant was arrested, convicted and sentenced to 10 years in prison, he was released after serving only 4 years. Jeff's family was denied a restraining order against the killer and was told to contact local law enforcement if he comes on the property. In January 2002, the killer kidnapped and murdered Jeff's 5- year old son and committed suicide. It is for families like the Wellers that we need to pass this bill--and there are so many. Yet, S. 2329 gives victims the right to be reasonably protected from the accused. In my home state of Utah, Pam Kouris lost her 11-year old son, Michael, when he was hit by a car while riding his bicycle. The negligent driver was a police officer who was under the influence of pain killers, muscle relaxers and Valium. He ultimately pled guilty but he was not sentenced until 5\1/2\ years after Michael's death and he received probation. It is for people like Pam that we are passing this legislation to protect her right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay. In addition to those rights, the bill also establishes other fundamental rights for victims, including the right to reasonable notice of public criminal proceedings, the right not to be excluded from those proceedings, and the right to be heard reasonably when a court is considering a criminal's release, plea or sentence. The bill also guarantees victims the right to confer with a Government attorney, the right to full and timely restitution, the right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay, and importantly, the right to be treated with fairness and with respect for the victim's dignity and privacy. The bill also directs the Department of Justice to promulgate regulations to enforce these rights and to create an administrative authority to receive and investigate complaints relating to the violation of the rights of crime victims. This administrative remedy creates a framework to quickly enforce victims' rights. Moreover, the bill provides that victims will have standing to sue in Federal court if they are wrongly denied these rights. For those who may be concerned that this bill might lead to new tort causes of action, let me assure you, that victims are not seeking to sue the government and get rich. All the victims want is a chance to participate in the criminal justice process. Accordingly, the bill states that there will be no cause of action for damages. Public support for victims' rights protection is very strong. All 50 states have some form of victims' rights measures at a statutory or court-based level and 33 states have passed state constitutional amendments to protect victims' rights. In sum, this bill has strong bipartisan support and I strongly urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote for this important legislation. It is time to quit playing around and get this done. It is time to do what is right. The constitutional amendment itself, had we been able to bring that up, has been criticized because people around here say we should never amend the Constitution, it is perfect as it is. One reason some members want to amend the Constitution is to get it back to where it really was. In other words, we have courts that have gone way beyond the pale and have amended the Constitution by judicial fiat. Most of these constitutional amendments, I have found through the years, have been to get the Constitution back where it really belongs, away from rogue judges just deciding on their own to amend the Constitution because they are in a position that some believe, as Federal judges, is the closest thing to God in this life. Frankly, some of them take advantage of that. In the process, we wish we could get back to where the people rule and where the Constitution was before they changed it by judicial fiat. There are a number of reasons why judicial fiat has changed the laws with regard to victims' rights. Frankly, this bill will get us back to a point where we will be making headway on victims' rights and protecting the rights of those who have been suffering far too long. I compliment my two dear friends and colleagues on the Judiciary Committee and others in this Congress who have worked so hard to see this come to fruition. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, this is one of the most important bills in many decades because this bill will determine whether or not 8,400- plus companies go into bankruptcy, with a loss of jobs, pensions, and opportunities for people all over this country--and all because of an out-of-whack tort system that has been manipulated by some veracious lawyers who should know better but who are too addicted to being able to milk the system for billions and billions of dollars, $20 billion thus far in legal fees and transaction costs. Opponents of this bill continue to assert that the fund is nothing more than a bailout of corporate America because it is not big enough. There is one word for that: baloney. This charge, which the personal injury lawyers keep repeating in television and print ads, completely baffles me. Let me explain why. Currently, estimates of what the existing tort system will pay to plaintiffs in the future range from $61 billion to $92 billion. That is currently. This is what the independent actuaries say is the amount of money the victims will actually receive under the current system. Let me just point to this chart: the asbestos victims' compensation in billions of dollars. Under the tort system--the current out-of-whack tort system--you have three colors on the chart: dark blue, kind of light blue, and yellow. The light blue illustrates the fees we pay to the defense lawyers in these cases. The dark blue happens to consist of the fees we pay to the trial lawyers--in other words, the plaintiffs' lawyer. Between them, as you can see on that Tillinghast account, shown at the top, you have $69 billion. How much goes to the victims? It is $61 billion--if it is there, if these companies do not go bankrupt. Take the Milliman one, shown down below: $61 billion to the personal injury lawyers, $42 billion to the defense lawyers. That is $103 billion. Only $92 billion goes to the victims. That is assuming these 8,400 companies have not gone into bankruptcy. We have already had 70 companies go into bankruptcy. But look what happens under the FAIR Act. The attorneys would still get a whopping $2.5 billion for what really amounts to rolling-off-a- log type of a lawsuit because it would not take all the efforts they would have to put in to make cases otherwise in court. They would get $2.5 billion. But $111.5 billion would go to the victims. It is pretty hard to say that is not a fair deal or that it is a bailout of corporate America. Now, our bill, in comparison to the $61 billion to $92 billion of those two actuary accounts that will go to the plaintiffs, gets them $111.5 billion, which is a lot more than either of those estimates were. This goes to the pockets of the injured persons. So where does the rest of the expected cost of the tort system go? Under the current system, it is going to lawyers. It is going to lawyers' fees and other litigation costs, with personal injury lawyers alone expected to garner $40 billion of these future expenses. In addition, 80 percent or more of claims filed in recent years are from individuals who do not have a medically cognizable injury and are not impaired in their daily routine. Let me put that in lay terms. They do not have any injury that can be shown by the current medical analysis we have in existence today, and it is the best in the history of the world. Indeed, one scholar estimated that meritless claims--claims without any merit at all--based on questionable ``diagnoses'' for mass screenings have accounted for $28.5 billion in costs already. As a result, the truly ill get even less than the $61 billion to $92 billion estimate that is suggested by these two studies. Measured against the existing system, with all of its inequities and high transaction costs, the FAIR Act will deliver far more directly to victims. Up to $124 billion will be available to compensate those who are sick from asbestos while still providing medical monitoring for those at risk but not yet impaired--in other words, not yet sick, and who may never get sick. This is a simplified, no-fault, nonadversarial system which will not require forking over 40 percent to 60 percent to any professional. No matter how you look at it, victims get far more compensation under this bill--and in a far more timely manner--than in the current system. This alone indicates that the fund is big enough. But let's look at it from another angle. Are the aggregate fund contributions by companies and insurers expected to be less than they are paying in the current system? According to the Congressional Budget Office, the answer is no. CBO estimates that defendants will have about the same expenses in the current system for the next 5 years. This is on page 20 of the CBO's October 2, 2003, cost estimate for this fund. On the same page, CBO estimates, for the bill as reported from committee, that insurers would actually pay more to the fund in this same period than they would under the current system. Keep in mind, the current system is gouging billions of dollars for nonsick claimants. Look, this fund, No. 1, calls for about as much money as companies are paying now; No. 2, shifts this money to the truly sick; and No. 3, reduces the transaction costs so more funds are available to compensate injured parties. In other words, we help those who deserve to be helped, where under the current system there are a lot of people sopping up the funds that are there who are not even sick, who have not suffered from sickness, and may never suffer from sickness. This is a bailout? Give me a break. The chief benefit contributors get out of this deal is one thing, and that is predictability. They know what their payments will be from year to year, and that is it. I was told if I was able to get $108 billion a number of Democrats would gladly sponsor and support this bill. I had indications from the union movement: But, boy, if you got $108 billion on the table, we will be there. They did not think we could get it done. But we did. Now, despite all of these things I have been talking about, we have heard the argument that the money is not enough since S. 1125 was first introduced in May of 2003 when industry agreed to a $94 billion fund. Before introducing S. 1125, I had heard from the other side of the aisle that $94 billion was not sufficient but that $108 billion might be enough, as I have just said. I worked hard to get the business community to commit to this funding, and, in the end, the Judiciary Committee added a provision that would simply require $14 billion in additional funds in order to reach this goal. The funds, however, were not guaranteed in the committee-reported bill, as are those under S. 2290. During the committee process, this $14 billion was added to the substantial contributions required from both defendants and insurers. When S. 1125 was reported out of committee, therefore, it provided for $104 billion in mandatory funding from defendant companies and insurers, plus an estimated $4 billion from bankruptcy trusts. The $108 billion was there. The committee voted by a 14-3 margin that the claim values which added up to $108 billion--those values--were fair--14 to 3, with a number of Democrats voting with us. Not a single Democrat voted against these claim values. The only ones who did were 3 Republicans, and they thought it was too much. Now we are hearing that the total just is not high enough. If the values were good enough for every Democrat before, why not now? I just do not get it. By the way, let's go back just a step or two here. As shown on this chart, we are getting far more money to the sick and needy than the two expert actuarial firms say will go to the sick and needy--far more money. Those who make arguments to the contrary are not being fair. Later in the committee markup, to ensure the risk of insufficient funding would not fall on claimants, an amendment was offered by Senators Kohl and Feinstein to provide a huge amount of open-ended, contingent funding that could be available to pay claims, up to an additional $31 billion over a nearly 20-year period. The number $31 billion was not in the amendment, nor was the number $45 billion, which some claim it was. The amendment simply called for maintaining the contributions at the same level if such funds were needed to maintain solvency, and this flat line happened to add up to $31 billion, since we had already added $14 billion to the base funding. This meant when the contingent funding was added to the $108 billion of mandatory funding, up to $139 billion could come into the fund and ultimately out to the people. Democrats and labor unions falsely continue to cite the $153 billion number whenever they can. I challenge any of them to show me that number in S. 1125, the committee-reported bill. Moreover, the $139 billion was not hard money that would be going to claimants. That is a fact. It was not hard money that would be going to claimants. The fund under S. 2290 would reach this same and substantial level of funding. Further rendering this $139 billion obsolete is the fact a sunset provision was added later in the markup. This provided an ultimate safeguard, in the eyes of those who filed it, for fund solvency. Still further, we added in S. 2290 a measure which renders the contingent funding amendment from the markup totally unnecessary--the ability for the fund to borrow against 7 years of future revenue. With this provision, the Feinstein-Kohl contingent funding measure is no longer needed. Thus the whole premise for arguing more money is needed because the committee bill had more money is literally destroyed. The Feinstein-Kohl amendment created what amounts to a rhetorical problem on the total value of claims for some Democrats and some labor unions. But it is only that, a rhetorical problem. Claims values adding to $108 billion were good enough for almost all the Democrats at the markup, and there is no reason the current $114 billion now should be inadequate. Finally, I will give another indication of why those who now argue $114 billion is not enough are being unfair, if not somewhat disingenuous. Back on April 24, 2003, the AFL-CIO asked an investment banking firm to run a financial model with certain claims values. How much did this model, which they shared with Republicans during negotiations, add up to? Believe it or not, under the base case, it added to $121 billion. You heard that correctly, $121 billion. We offer a fund with a base of $114 billion in guaranteed money with a $10 billion contingency, 7 times the borrowing authority, and a sunset back to the tort system, and there is no deal yet? I said earlier, I don't get it. But I suspect the reason we are seeing retrenchment and revisionism is that--and there is simply no delicate way to say this so I will be blunt--when personal injury lawyers put the screws on Democrats and labor unions, they are trying to stop this good bill at all costs. It is pretty apparent if you look at the flagrantly misleading ads they put on television, all paid for by the victims, by the way, through these exorbitant fees and transaction costs. I will tell you one thing, they don't want to kill the golden goose that asbestos litigation is for them. They are only too happy to collect the golden eggs, even though the people who are truly sick, truly injured, will not get the money in many cases. In the end imposing financial obligations on the business community that are much more than they would have to pay under the broken litigation system to compensate victims would only risk bankrupting even more businesses and losing more jobs and pensions. Already, as I have mentioned, more than 70 companies have gone bankrupt due to asbestos litigation, and as many as 60,000 American jobs have been lost. It is estimated if this keeps going and we don't do what we should do here on this floor, there could be as many as a half million jobs lost. I believe that is a low, conservative figure. If most of these companies go into bankruptcy, I can't begin to tell you what a detriment it will be to our country, let alone the sick and needy who really deserve the moneys. Rather than rely on their own numbers or provide a reasonable alternative, opponents of the bill falsely contend S. 1125 had provided $153 billion and, therefore, S. 2290 does not provide enough funding. Of course, litigating these cases in Federal court may be a big risk to some personal injury lawyers who have successfully manipulated some outlier State courts to create a system of jackpot justice. In reality, the Feinstein-Kohl amendment in committee, which introduced the open-ended contingency funding, was designed to ensure the fund established under the act did not become another Manville trust, placing the risk of insufficient funding on future victims and leaving them with only pennies on the dollar. That is a risk which victims will not face under S. 2290. If, despite paying significantly more money than the current tort system, the fund is unable at any point to pay full value; that is, 100 percent on eligible claims, then the fund will sunset and the tort system will reopen in Federal courts to compensate for future victims. There will be no risk to the victims. We can't forget this bill is about the victims, not overinflated estimates of a broken tort system that diverts much-needed resources to unimpaired claimants and reduces awards significantly to pay attorney's fees and other transaction costs that do not directly benefit claimants. By any objective standard, this fund is more than adequately funded. Although we are being met with obstacles in getting to the substance of the legislation, I am heartened by something. There has been significant bipartisan support for passage of a legislative solution to the asbestos litigation crisis throughout the session. In fact, calls for Senate action have been occurring for several years. For example, when the esteemed ranking member was chairman of the Judiciary Committee, my good friend Senator Leahy stated: . . . Congress can provide a secure, fair and efficient means of compensating victims. I believe it is in the national interest to encourage fair and expeditious settlement between companies and asbestos victims. Those were Senator Leahy's remarks in the September 25, 2002, U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on asbestos litigation. Senator Leahy echoed his sentiments last year during a hearing I chaired, when he said: These bankruptcies create a lose-lose situation. Asbestos victims deserving fair compensation do not receive it and bankrupt companies cannot create new jobs nor invest in our economy . . . If we work in good faith toward a bipartisan asbestos solution, we can meet the challenge created by [asbestos] litigation. I agree with the Supreme Court's conclusion that the number of claims defies ``customary judicial administration and calls for national legislation.'' That was Senator Leahy's statement on March 5, 2003 in the committee hearing which was entitled, ``It is time for Congress to act.'' Other Members have made clear they share his opinions. For example, last May, nearly a year ago, Senator Dodd made the following observation: [W]e are working very hard to come up with a compromise proposal on the asbestos issue. And we've taken major steps in that direction, working with organized labor, with the insurance industry, with the insured, and many others who have a stakeholding in the outcome of this particular avenue. It's a critically important effort. That statement was made on May 3, 2003. The distinguished Senator from Connecticut, Senator Dodd, reinforced those statements later when he noted on March 4, 2004, when referring to the asbestos problem: This is a matter that does cry out for a solution. As work progressed on bipartisan legislation establishing a privately funded national trust fund, support for the concept grew. In a July 2003 letter to Senators Frist and Daschle, Senators Dorgan, Breaux, Nelson, Baucus, Kohl, Miller, Lincoln, Levin, Stabenow, and Carper stated: The asbestos litigation crisis is real and urgently requires a legislative solution. . . . An administrative trust fund is the right approach and represents a good foundation for a solid legislative solution. . . . A legislative solution to the asbestos crisis is a crucial goal. . . . We believe that the groundwork has been laid by the Committee leadership to provide a real solution to this ongoing problem. That was a July 11, 2003, letter to Senators Frist and Daschle. In fact, when the legislation was originally introduced, Senator Nelson stated: This will protect victims, save jobs, and force companies to pay their fair share. This is a good start to solving a big problem. That was a press release on May 23, 2003. I have appreciated Senator Nelson's support over the last year. I don't know whether they can pull him back on this cloture vote on Thursday. But if they do, it would show this is becoming a political exercise to the detriment of these workers, to the detriment of these unions, to the detriment of the insurance companies, and to the detriment of these companies. As last year progressed and fears grew that the legislative effort might fall victim to election year politics, calls for action intensified. For example, Senator Dorgan wrote the following in another letter to Senators Frist and Daschle: We must complete asbestos reform before this session. I think it would be a serious mistake--for victims, for the economy, and for the Senate--if we adjourned without enacting asbestos legislation. Certainly, a compromise must meet the needs of all the stakeholders. . . . We must seize this opportunity to solve a major public policy challenge for our Nation. That was written on October 29, 2003, in a letter to Senators Frist and Daschle. Yet, as you know, we were unable to get this up and get it passed last year. I agree with the Senator; it needed to be passed last year. To allow us to go past this year would be almost criminal. His opinions were echoed by Senator Baucus, who wrote: After all the hard work that has been put into this bill over the past several years, particularly this year, it would be a shame to let it go to waste. It would also have serious implications for the economy and for victims if we let this historic opportunity pass us by. . . . From what I understand, we are very close. . . . I urge you both to do everything in your power to bring both sides together for a swift resolution of this longstanding debate. That was before we have gone way beyond last year's bill, and we have given well over 50 amendments to Democrats to achieve this bill. That was a November 5, 2003 letter. On the same day, Senator Levin also sent a letter to Senators Frist and Daschle expressing his own concerns about the importance of the Senate taking action: I would like to again stress the importance of addressing the issue of asbestos reform before we adjourn this session of Congress. . . . [T]he Senate is in jeopardy of missing a historic opportunity to pass asbestos legislation with strong bipartisan support. It is obvious to anyone . . . that the system is broken and needs to be repaired. That letter was dated November 5, 2003. These were all written during the last year's session of Congress. A week later, Senator Stabenow gave the following advice to Senators Frist and Daschle in a letter: I believe that we have an historic opportunity right now to pass asbestos reform legislation with strong bipartisan support. . . . The current system has a devastating impact on victims and their families, who have to continue to wait while the judicial system wades through their claims, and on companies, many who have had to file for bankruptcy because of asbestos lawsuits. I urge you both to continue to work on a bipartisan solution to this national problem. That was in a November 13, 2003, letter. Senator Leahy made the following statement on the floor a few days later: . . . [W]e have come to a complete accord on the idea that the fairest, most efficient way to provide compensation for asbestos victims is through the creation of a national fund that will apply agreed-upon medical criteria in evaluating patients' injuries . . . an effective and efficient means to end the asbestos litigation crisis within reach, and we must grasp it. That was a floor statement made on November 22 of last year. Unfortunately, time ran out before consensus could be reached. At the urging of members on both sides of the aisle, Senator Frist announced in December his intention to accommodate Democratic requests for more time, and he announced he would delay floor consideration until this spring. This year, as negotiations continued in various settings, a call for action has continued. For example, on March 4, Senator Dodd noted the crisis in asbestos litigation is ``a matter that does cry out for a solution.'' That was on March 4 in the Congressional Record. A few days later, Senator Reid acknowledged ``we have to do something about asbestos litigation.'' That was in the March 9 Congressional Record. It would be impossible to argue there is an absence of bipartisan interest in fixing the asbestos litigation crisis. Nothing has changed since the Democratic leadership council made the following observation in 2002: This is one issue where the fight is not simply a part of the age-old struggle between companies seeking to avoid financial responsibilities for misdeeds and trial attorneys seeking to punish them while rewarding their clients and themselves. We agree with Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who argued in an earlier case that the goal should be to provide secure, fair, and efficient means of compensating victims of asbestos exposure. We concur with the view of the AFL-CIO that the current system is unfair and unpredictable. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Pat Leahy's decision to hold a fair and balanced hearing on the asbestos litigation crisis should signal the beginning of a bipartisan effort to create certainty in the system and get help to victims without spurring new waves of bankruptcies. That was in the New Democratic Daily on September 18, 2002, a year and a half ago. These are some of the Democratic calls for reforms on this chart. I have on this particular chart quotes by Senators Dorgan, Breaux, Nelson, Baucus, Kohl, Miller, Lincoln, Levin, Stabenow, and Carper. In a letter, they said: The asbestos litigation crisis is real and urgently requires a legislative solution. On March 4, Senator Dodd said: This is a matter that does cry out for a solution. Senator Dorgan wrote on October 29 a letter to the leaders: We must complete asbestos reform before this session. Senator Stabenow wrote on November 13: I believe that we have an historic opportunity right now to pass asbestos reform legislation with strong bipartisan support. Senator Leahy, on November 22, 2003, said: An effective and efficient means to end the asbestos litigation crisis is within reach, and we must grasp it. Some of the statements I have quoted from my Democratic colleagues are listed on that chart. When viewing just a segment of these quotes, I think it is clear the need for reform is universally understood. The issues that must be addressed are clear. The time has come to act. We have worked our guts out to try to accommodate our friends on the other side. All we hear is: more money, more money, more money. It is as though these 8,400 companies have an unlimited supply of money to be given. In many cases, those companies are dramatically mistreated by this whole system. In many cases, they should never have had to pay a dime. I will cite one of the larger insurance companies in this country. They never, ever insured for asbestos or asbestosis, or any problem or malady that comes from asbestos; they never had anything to do with asbestos, other than they had their medical team do a medical analysis and concluded mesothelioma probably comes from exposure to asbestos. That was a service to society, not anything that should cause liability. Because of that, this company has been joined in over 60,000 cases, every one of which they can win and should win. The last one they tried, they did win, but it cost them $2 million for attorneys' fees alone. That is money that could have gone to the victims, and just to get some finality to this situation, just to solve this problem, that company is willing to pay out what amounts to millions of dollars that they do not owe just to get this over with. There is a raft of companies that are in the lawsuits that fit that category. Where is the justice on the other side? I admit, you want to fight for your constituencies--the personal injury lawyers and the unions-- but you also have constituencies, my friends on the other side, in these businesses that are going to go bankrupt and insurance companies that also are going to go bankrupt and the economy that is going to be tremendously hurt by this situation if we do not resolve this problem. We have a whopping amount of money to resolve these problems. The issues that must be addressed are clear. The time has come to act. The asbestos litigation crisis is a national nightmare, and the failure of Congress to fix it would be a legislative disgrace. I would like to show some charts with other calls for reform from labor unions and the media. Let me go into some of those. Organized labor calls for reform. This is a statement of Jonathan Hiatt, general counsel with the AFL-CIO. This was made before the Judiciary Committee on January 25, 2002: Uncertainty for workers and their families is growing as they lose health insurance and see their companies file for bankruptcy protection. Mr. Hiatt is a very bright and noble attorney in many respects, and I have a lot of respect for him. What has the AFL-CIO done? We reached $108 billion which I had indications they would accept, but now we are as high as $124 billion. Where are they? Take AFL-CIO Principles on Asbestos Compensation which was stated on August 7, 2002: [U]nder current law and legal processes, many asbestos victims are not being treated fairly. In other words, the system is broken. Here we have a chance of changing the system. This is the art of the doable. And where are the trade unions? They are the ones that are losing the jobs. They are the ones that are primarily losing health care benefits. They are the ones that are losing their pensions from these companies that are going bankrupt. Where are they? Why aren't they demanding that our friends on the other side do something about this, other than scream for more money all the time. Stones can only give so much blood, and, of course, there is a certain irony in that statement. Let's take the United Steelworkers of America, local 12773: We really believe this needs to be resolved now. Or take the Paper, Allied-Industrial Chemical, Energy Workers International Union, local 2-0891: . . . we might not have another chance for some time. They might not have jobs in the future because of this dragging of the feet we are getting from the other side on this matter. Or take the United Steelworkers of America, local 7110: It is too important to let pass by. These sum it up. Let's take media calls for reform just so people understand. The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, September 25, 2003: There is an elephant to be moved, and this is the best chance in years. The time for Congress to act is now. The Detroit News, April 4, 2004: The bill makes economic sense for companies and would ensure significant payments to employees who develop serious illness. It's a humane solution and ought to be adopted. That is the Detroit News, a heavily industrialized city. They understand this. Why the slowdown? Take the Chicago Times, on June 16, 2004: It is ludicrous to keep litigating for the benefit of the litigators, when what is needed is a claims system for the benefit of the victims. That is what this bill does. It is a claims system for the benefit of the victims. There is a whopping amount of money that will go to the victims, not to attorneys, although the attorneys still will get $2.5 billion of it, which is a lot of money. Take the Washington Times on September 24, 2003: . . . current legislation to control asbestos-related lawsuits is one of the best ways Congress can protect jobs. The current legislation. Or take the Capital Times & Wisconsin State Journal on May 13, 2003: An asbestos trust fund is a good idea. It should become law. Fund Could End Asbestos Legal Battles. That is what this bill can do. Why don't we have more help from the other side? None of these papers, with the possible exception of Washington Times, one would call moderate to conservative. Most are more liberal papers. The Chicago Times, June 16, 2003: The proposal . . . would get compensation to genuine victims and get hundreds of thousands of cases out of the regular court system. That is one of the points I have not emphasized up to now. As a former trial lawyer, I have to tell you, our courts are clogged with all kinds of frivolous suits, all kinds of frivolous cases. I am not talking about these cases necessarily, but all kinds of them. Then you add these hundreds of thousands of cases, and one can see why justice is not being obtained, especially for those who are sick and needy. I notice that my colleague from Washington is in the Chamber. I thank her and her staff for their good-faith efforts in working with us to reach consensus on an appropriate asbestos ban. I am pleased that we, including Senators Feinstein and Kohl, were able to reach bipartisan consensus on this very important issue. It is important. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that immediately following the remarks of the distinguished Senator from Washington, the distinguished Senator from Ohio, Mr. Voinovich, be recognized to give his remarks.

Mr. HATCH. I yield the floor.