Fairness in Asbestos Injury Resolution Act of 2005--Motion to Proceed--Continued

FAIRNESS IN ASBESTOS INJURY RESOLUTION ACT OF 2005--MOTION TO PROCEED--Continued -- (Senate - February 07, 2006)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from California for the comments which she has made. They are thoughtful, they are profound, they go to the heart of the question, and they illustrate the need for legislation. I thank her even more for the great contribution she has made to the bill as it has moved through the committee process. She has devised some of the key sections of the bill, starting with the handling of exigent claims to see to it that people with mesothelioma and other deadly diseases are handled at a very early stage in the proceeding.

We have worked together countless hours in her office, in my office, with many other Senators in the committee process, and she has done a great job in committee generally on many items, including the one identifying victims whose identities are stolen, legislation we are trying to bring to the floor now. But I think the speech she just made was a fine hour, perhaps her finest hour, in identifying their very serious problems.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Senator very much.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the crux of what Senator Feinstein has had to say is proof positive that we ought to proceed. There is no doubting the problem. The only issue is whether we ought to take up the bill and work on it. Anybody who votes against taking up this bill will be casting, in my opinion--it is a tough word, a tough term--an unconscionable vote, considering how many thousands of people have suffered from deadly diseases and how many companies have gone bankrupt--at least to proceed to take it up. I haven't seen any Senator who has addressed the issue on the floor who hasn't at least faced up to the fact that we have a problem that ought to be addressed. Occasionally, we do consider the merits of a pending motion. The merit of a motion to proceed is whether there is a problem which ought to be taken up. If somebody has a better bill, let them come to it.

I am going to speak very briefly because our distinguished colleague from Alabama, Senator Sessions, is on the floor. He, too, has been a major contributor.

First, I wish to thank Senator Carper for his speech in support of the motion to proceed earlier. I think there is Democratic support. Senator Leahy, of course, is a cosponsor, Senator Kohl is a cosponsor, Senator Feinstein has spoken, Senator Carper has spoken, and others have stated their intention to move to take up and consider the bill. Senator Hatch's comments were very important. He is the author of the trust fund concept, and chaired the Judiciary Committee before term limits called for a shift in chairmanship. He did a great job. Senator DeWine has spoken in a very important way.

I want to put into the RECORD a couple of newspaper articles which I think are very germane.

Senator Reid and I had a conversation about the bill yesterday, with Senator Reid making the accusation that lobbyists paved the way for this bill to come to the floor. On the floor, in his presence, I challenged him as violating rule XIX which bars a Senator from making derogatory comments about another Senator.

This morning, in the Hill publication there was the disclosure of a fascinating document which the Hill obtained from a coalition opposing the bill. This document, which is published at some length in the Hill, points out that nearly 20 corporations paid a total of about $3 million to defeat the asbestos legislation.

The document obtained says this bill's ``defeat could bring an end to the trust fund as a viable political option for addressing the asbestos litigation crisis. Therefore, coalition activities leading up to that vote should be commensurate with the opportunity presented to us to defeat the trust fund once and for all.''

This coalition document then specifies how they are laying out $2.78 million for defeating the bill, allocating $1.34 million for coalition operations and $1.44 million for advertising.

Then there is a specification as to the companies that are trying to defeat the bill, such as American International Group, Allstate, American Re, a reinsurance provider, the Chubb Corporation, Hartford Insurance, Liberty Mutual, Nationwide Insurance, and Zurich Financial. Each has received bills, according to this document, for $134,250. ExxonMobil paid $73,000 to the coalition.

I shall not read any further, but I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the RECORD at the conclusion of my comments.

Mr. President, I also think it is relevant to note an editorial in the New York Times today which is solidly in support of this bill. The Times editorial refers to the efforts of Senator Leahy, the distinguished ranking member and principal cosponsor with me, and says:

That makes it a 21st century rarity; a thoughtful, bipartisan compromise on a vexing national problem. It would create a trust fund to pay awards to those who are already sick, using detailed medical criteria to determine eligibility and awards. Under this no-fault system, akin to workers' compensation, those exposed to asbestos at work but not ill would be entitled to free medical screening every three years.

And the Times editorial goes on to point out:

Lobbyists for the trial lawyers, at various companies, insurers and union interests that feel aggrieved by some aspect of the complex package are trying to round up lawmakers to block the bill. A key test is to come today, when the majority leader, Bill Frist, has scheduled a vote to allow the Senate to begin formal consideration of the bill. Mr. Reid is trying to derail the measure even before the debate begins in earnest, and Democrats who want to see asbestos victims treated fairly should not support him.

There are other dangers ahead, including the possibility of a ``poison pill'' amendment that would expand to other communities a special provision that would make residents of Libby, Mont., a town uniquely affected by asbestos contamination, eligible for a guaranteed level of compensation without a need to show occupational exposure. Another worry is that some Republicans will try to amend provisions or medical criteria in ways that would be unfair to victims.

The New York Times editorial concludes, saying:

No one can be sure that $140 billion will cover all current and future claims. But the bill would give victims the option of going to court should the trust fund run out. It would be a vast improvement over the present method of dealing with the claims of asbestos victims, which is to clog the courts and bankrupt companies while depriving many victims a measure of justice.

I ask unanimous consent that the full text of this editorial be printed at the conclusion of my comments.

Mr. President, in order to make other documents available, I ask unanimous consent that a series of letters be printed in the RECORD. I think it important that these be available in the RECORD for Senators and their staffs and for the public to see the kind of support this bill has.

Yesterday, Senator Reid and I had a few words about a number of groups who are for the bill and who are against the bill. This letter is from many veterans groups urging Senator Reid not to filibuster the bill. They say:

We urge you not to stand in the way of full Senate consideration of this vital legislation.

And the number of veterans groups is enormously impressive, including the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Paralyzed Veterans of America, The Retired Enlisted Association, the Blinded American Veterans Foundation, the Jewish War Veterans of the USA, and quite a number of veterans organizations which will appear in the RECORD.

I also have printed letters of support from the NFIB and a letter signed by manufacturers, labor groups, small business, and 25 additional veterans groups.

I ask that these documents be printed in the RECORD so colleagues can see the kind of support this bill has. By doing this, they get into the Congressional Record, and the people note the support.

My distinguished colleague from Alabama has been waiting. In advance, I thank Senator Sessions for his outstanding work on this committee generally but especially on this bill.

http://thomas.loc.gov/