Democracy for Dairy Producers Act of 2005

Mr. President, this day has been a long time in coming, and I am pleased to join the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Feinstein, and others in sponsoring bipartisan legislation to address the serious problem of asbestos-related disease. It is the product of years of difficult and conscientious craftsmanship and negotiation. Building on the Committee's work under Chairman Hatch, we have striven to bring a fair and efficient plan to the Congress, a plan that will ensure adequate compensation to the thousands of victims of asbestos exposure, but that also will give due consideration to the industries and the insurers that should, and will, provide that compensation. Our bipartisan legislation does that. Asbestos exposure has created a maze of arduous problems, and we have worked hard to produce a balanced bill that offers fair solutions.

Senator Specter, with whom I have worked so hard on this legislation, rightly calls this one of the most complex issues we have ever tackled. It is not the bill that I would have written, were I alone responsible for its drafting, nor is it the bill that Senator Specter might have produced. Nor should anyone be surprised to hear that the interested groups--the labor organizations, the industrial participants in the trust fund, their insurers, the trial bar--are each less than pleased with some portion of the bill or another. That is the essence of legislative compromise: We have kept the ultimate goal of fair compensation to victims as the lodestar of our efforts, and we have all had to make sacrifices on a variety of subsidiary issues as we worked together to resolve this emergency. What we have achieved is important and a significant step toward a better, more efficient method to compensate asbestos victims.

Asbestos is among the most lethal substances ever to be widely used in the workplace. Between 1940 and 1980, more than 27.5 million workers were exposed to asbestos on the job, and nearly 19 million of them had high levels of exposure over long periods of time. We even know of family members who have suffered asbestos-related disease from washing the clothes of loved ones. The ravages of disease caused by asbestos have affected tens of thousands of American families. We need better health screening and swifter compensation for those affected. In light of the devastating damage it has wreaked, it is hard to believe that asbestos is still being used today, yet it is. This bill will change that as well, protect against yet another generation of victims.

The economic harm caused by asbestos is also real, and the bankruptcies that have resulted are a different kind of tragedy for everyone--for workers and retirees, for shareholders, and for the families that built these companies. In my home State of Vermont, the Rutland Fire and Clay Company is among the more than 70 companies to have declared bankruptcy.

As Chief Justice Rehnquist noted several years ago, ``the elephantine mass of asbestos cases cries out for a legislative solution.'' Ortiz v. Fibreboard Corp., 527 U.S. 815, 865 1999). In another Supreme Court opinion, Justice Ginsburg declared that ``a nationwide administrative claims processing regime would provide the most secure, fair, and efficient means of compensating victims of asbestos exposure.'' Amchem Products v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 628-29, 1997). I agree, the Chairman agrees, Senator Feinstein agrees, and we hope that many others in the Senate will agree.

Weare encouraged by the favorable reception that this bill has already generated from a wide array of interested parties. In the past week, I have received letters of support from the International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW, the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, VFW, the Asbestos Study Group, and others. The UAW notes in its April 13th letter, ``[The Specter-Leahy Proposal] will provide more equitable, timely and certain compensation to the victims of asbestos-related disease.'' The VFW letter of April 14 declares: ``The national trust fund that you are proposing offers our members who are sick and dying the opportunity to secure timely and fair compensation for the injury they suffered in the course of serving their country.'' The National Association of Manufacturers also released a statement expressing their hope that this legislation will engender broad support.

These statements in many ways tell the story of what we have already accomplished: We have drafted a bill that has garnered a favorable response from labor, manufacturers, and companies with considerable asbestos liabilities. We have worked on this legislation for several years now, and I can assure you that garnering this level of consensus has been no small feat. I ask unanimous consent that the text of these letters be printed in the Record.

The bipartisan efforts of the last 2 years have been productive. With the help of Judge Edward Becker, the primary stakeholders have worked diligently and as a result we have reached a compromise agreement on a national trust fund that will fairly compensate victims of asbestos exposure. With the Chairman's leadership, the disparate interests have reached consensus on many issues such as overall funding of $140 billion and a streamlined administrative process within the Department of Labor. Compensation will be awarded and paid outside of the court system through a simplified administrative claims process. There is no need to prove liability or identify a particular defendant. There is, instead, a claims process wherein all those who exhibit certain medical symptoms and evidence of disease are compensated.

Last Congress I was disappointed by the bill reported by the Judiciary Committee and by the partisan bill, S. 2290, that was subsequently introduced as a substitute for that legislation. As compared to those efforts, our bipartisan bill includes significant and necessary improvements: Our bill provides higher compensation awards for victims, with $1.1 million for victims of mesothelioma, $300,000 to $1.1 million for lung cancer victims, $200,000 for victims of other cancers caused by asbestos, $100,000 to $850,000 for asbestosis, and $25,000 for what we call ``mixed disease cases.'' All likely asbestos victims are eligible for medical monitoring, and unlike last year's bills, this bill provides for medical screening for high-risk workers, a relatively low-cost way to help make sure that those most likely to be harmed are diagnosed.

Another essential improvement is the important provision ensuring that victims' awards under the new trust fund will not be subject to subrogation by insurance companies. This means that victims will not have to give up any of their much-deserved compensation just because they received workers' compensation or other insurance benefits in the past. The initial funding of this trust is both more realistic and more substantial than the partisan bill from the last Congress, providing for almost $43 billion of the total $140 billion in the first five years. And unlike the earlier bill, this bill ensures that the contributors into the fund will be a matter of public record, as are their obligations to the fund. Our bill also guarantees that court cases that are well under way, and certainly those that have reached judgment, will not be upset by the new trust fund. Similarly, last year's bill would also have overridden all civil settlements that had any remaining conduct outstanding. Our bipartisan asbestos bill protects those settlements between named defendants and named victims, and also protects settlements that provide for health insurance or health care.

There are other improvements to the trust fund plan over last year's effort. The previous legislation provided no incentive for the fund to start processing claims. The Specter-Leahy-Feinstein bill creates an incentive for the fund to begin processing claims quickly: If it is not operational within 9 months, the sickest victims will be able to return to the tort system. If the fund is not operational within 24 months, all victims can return to the tort system.

In improving the way the asbestos legislation handles exigent claims--those victims who are sickest and may not have long to live-- Senator Feinstein was instrumental in developing a creative solution. I thank the senior Senator from California for her tireless efforts on behalf of sick and dying asbestos victims. These victims should not be forced to wait a year while this new trust fund gets organized and ready to process claims. Under Senator Feinstein's approach, which we adopted, exigent cases would receive an immediate lump-sum payment, and, as I noted earlier, if the fund is not operational in nine months, these sickest victims will be able to continue their cases in court.

As part of this compromise legislation, a particular class of lung cancer sufferers, those who have had significant asbestos exposure but no markings of asbestos-related disease, are not treated as compensable victims for purposes of the asbestos trust fund. Because of the absence of markings, it is not possible to establish asbestos as the cause of their disease. If they develop markings, however, they will become eligible for compensation from the asbestos trust fund. As with many other administrative claims processes, this bill sets a limit on attorneys' fee. In connection with this asbestos fund, the limit is set at 5 percent on victims' awards within the fund. In addition, in order to prevent victims of asbestos exposure from retooling their complaints to circumvent the asbestos trust fund, the bill also imposes a higher burden of proof within the tort system for plaintiffs seeking damages resulting from exposure to silica.

The problems we are addressing are complex, this bill necessarily reflects these complexities, and its drafting was not easy. The compromises we had to make were difficult but necessary to ensure that we created a trust fund that would provide adequate compensation to the thousands of workers who have suffered, and continue to suffer, the devastating health effect of asbestos. The history of asbestos use in our country must come to an end. Under a provision authored by Senator Murray that we have included, which was accepted during the last Congress by the Judiciary Committee, this bill will ban its use. We must halt the harm asbestos creates, and ameliorate the harm it has already caused. The industrial and insurer participants in the trust fund will gain the benefits of financial certainty and relief from the stresses of litigation in the tort system, and the victims will have a quicker and more efficient path to recovery.

I thank Chairman Specter, Senator Feinstein and others for working so hard with me on this bipartisan legislation. I urge Senators to support this compromise legislation to, at long last, help solve the asbestos problem by providing fair compensation to victims of asbestos exposure.

I think of the staffs who have worked so diligently on this. On my staff, I single out Ed Pagano, who was a lead counsel of the Democrats, along with Kristine Lucius on our side. On Senator Specter's side, we were helped so much by Seema Singh.

Mr. President, I have sought recognition to introduce legislation which may be cited as the Fairness In Asbestos Injury Resolution Act of 2005. I do so on behalf of Senator Leahy, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Hatch, the former chairman of the committee, Senator Feinstein, Senator DeWine, Senator Baucus, Senator Voinovich and Senator Grassley. There are others in the wings waiting to cosponsor, but this is a very complex bill, ranging over 300 pages. Quite a number of my colleagues have told me they are supportive of the bill and are making the final check to determine cosponsorship.

Several months ago, a discussion draft was circulated. Last week, after a great many refinements had been added, the current bill was circulated. There have been a couple of relatively minor changes which have been added to this bill, but it is essentially the same as the circulation bill which was submitted a week ago.

I compliment my distinguished colleague, Senator Leahy, the ranking member, for his diligence, hard work and cooperation in structuring a bill with a great many moving parts, which he and I have been able to agree upon on the core principles.

We have adopted a position that we will work jointly to retain these core provisions. We are open to suggestions and amendments and modifications which do not impact on these core provisions. But it is a very difficult matter to structure an asbestos bill which can pass the Senate. There are 55 Republicans. You need at least five Democrats. It has to be a balanced bill, and it is our submission that this is a balanced bill.

A great deal of credit is due to senior Federal Judge Edward R. Becker, who until May 5, his 70th birthday, in the year 2003 was the chief judge of the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit who wrote the opinion on the asbestos litigation which reached the Supreme Court of the United States.

When the Judiciary Committee passed out of committee legislation on asbestos in July of 2003, the distinguished Presiding Officer was on the committee at that time and can attest to the 12-hour marathon session we had. We did so significantly along party lines to move the legislation along, recognizing it had many problems. At my request, Judge Becker then convened the so-called stakeholders in his chambers in Philadelphia for 2 days in August, the stakeholders being identified as the manufacturers, the AFL-CIO, the insurance industry, and the trial lawyers.

To recite the power and diversity and difference of opinion of these groups is to suggest the complication of bringing the stakeholders together on a piece of complex legislation.

Following those 2 days of meetings in Judge Becker's chambers, we have had some 36 sessions in my conference room here in the Hart Senate Office Building where Judge Becker presided and I assisted, and we worked out a great many of the issues to the satisfaction of the stakeholders.

One of the core provisions of the bill is that there is a trust fund of $140 billion. It is always difficult on projections to be absolutely certain, but I believe there is a very high probability that this trust fund will be adequate to pay all of the claims.

In very extensive testimony from Goldman Sachs on very carefully calculated projections, it was projected that the total cost of payments would be $118 billion. There is a considerable cushion between $118 billion and $140 billion. If for some unexpected reason the trust fund is insufficient, then those who have been injured by exposure to asbestos will be able to revert to jury trials.

All of us are mindful of the very substantial factor when a claimant gives up a constitutional right to jury trial, but in a program structured largely along lines of workmen's compensation, it is our conclusion that it is a fair exchange.

When you find that there are many people who are suffering deadly ailments from asbestos, mesothelioma and other deadly injuries, who are not being compensated, this is a way to compensate those individuals whose companies have gone bankrupt. Over 75 companies have gone bankrupt at a tremendous impact to the economy. This will relieve the companies of the onerous threat of bankruptcy--and they are taking additional companies with rapidity.

On one development which candidly surprised me, last week, when we circulated the draft bill a week ago today, there was a 25-point bump in the stock market for asbestos companies. When we had a meeting later in the day and deferred production of the bill, the stock market went down to some extent. There is some consideration that the stock market is wiser even than Congress. Perhaps that would take a whole lot. But the reaction of the stock market is an indication of the importance of resolving this asbestos issue in order to give the economy a start.

The hour is late. There are others who wish to seek recognition. The distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee is waiting through this nongermane part of his business, and the distinguished Democratic leader, I know, wants to seek recognition.

I shall include the remainder of my statement in the Record and ask unanimous consent that it be printed.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent between the comments I have made, which have not been made from a text, and the text of my language which I am currently stating, be included, so that those who read the Congressional Record, if anyone does, will know the repetition in the prepared text is occasioned by the fact that the initial statement was made without reference to a text and there will necessarily be some repetition in the prepared text.

I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the Paycheck Fairness Act, which I am introducing along with my colleagues Senators Reid, Kennedy, Harkin, Durbin, Landrieu, Corzine, Leahy, Schumer, and Stabenow. I also want to acknowledge Senator Daschle for his longstanding support of this critical issue and Congresswoman DeLauro for being a champion in the House of Representatives.

This morning I met Brenda Wholey, a plaintiff in the Wal-Mart class action sex discrimination lawsuit. Brenda came all the way to Washington from Philadelphia to share her story with us. She worked hard, put in her time, and watched as time in and time out, men were promoted above her and compensated with higher salaries.

Too often when we talk about equal pay we talk about numbers--the 76 cents on the dollar that women earn, the 54 cents that Hispanic women earn. We talk about GAO reports and violations and litigation. But what this is really about is women like Brenda. Women who get up every day and go to work so they can provide for their families. Women who work hard and play by the rules and want to build a better life for their children. Women like Brenda who just want to be treated fairly.

The Equal Pay Act was an important step forward for women. It gave women a real chance to be full, equal participants in the workforce and to earn equal pay for equal work.

In the 42 years since the Equal Pay Act was enacted, women have shattered so many barriers. And for young women entering the workforce today, the sky is the limit. But we still have work to do to truly level the playing field.

That means making sure that employers treat men and women equally in the workplace. It also means giving women the tools they need to acquire the pay and recognition they deserve.

That is why I am pleased to be introducing the Paycheck Fairness Act--a bill that will build on the promise of the Equal Pay Act and help close the pay gap.

The Paycheck Fairness Act has three main components.

First, it prevents pay discrimination before it starts. By helping women strengthen their negotiation skills and providing outreach and technical assistance to employers to ensure they fairly evaluate and pay their employees, the Paycheck Fairness Act gives employers the tools they need to level the playing field between men and women.

Second, the Paycheck Fairness Act creates strong penalties to punish those who do violate the act. By strengthening the penalties for employers who violate the Equal Pay Act, this bill sends a strong message--Equal Pay is a matter to be taken seriously.

And finally, the Paycheck Fairness Act ensures that the Federal Government, which should be a model employer when it comes to enforcing Federal employment laws, uses every tool in its toolbox to ensure that women are paid the same amount as men for doing the same jobs.

From ending the Clinton administration's Equal Pay Matters Initiative, to halting the collection of data on women workers, to removing important information about the wage gap from the Department of Labor's website, to tying its own hands in enforcing the Equal Pay Act among Federal contractors, the Bush administration has taken this country backwards in the fight for equal pay. You might say the Bush administration has taken one giant step backwards for womenkind.

The Paycheck Fairness Act would stop the Bush administration's rollbacks and make sure, once again, that our Federal Government sets a standard of excellence for making sure women are paid the same as men.

There is no question that we've come a long way since the Equal Pay Act became law 42 years ago. And women have earned every step they have gained in the journey toward equality.

But what has made this country great is that we have never accepted that ``less discrimination'' is ``good enough.'' The history of our country is one of constant striving to live up to the ideal of our founding. And the most basic element of our American character is the belief that all of us deserve to be treated as equals.

Our country in its history has faced lots of difficult questions, questions on which reasonable people could disagree. Equal pay is not one of those hard questions. It is common sense, it is basic fairness. It is simply right.

And frankly, when it comes to equal pay, we still have a lot of work to do. Women's compensation still lags behind men's in nearly every occupation and every field. As the American Association of University Women study being unveiled today shows us, this fact is not lost on most Americans. Young, old, Democrat, Republican, male, female--there is universal recognition that a wage gap exists. Well, the Paycheck Fairness Act will do something about it.

This issue is about our mothers, our sisters, our daughters. It's about women being able to earn an equal wage for equal work. It is in all of our interests to allow women to support their families and to live with the dignity and respect accorded to fully engaged members of the workforce.

Equality works for all of us. Now is the time to make sure that we all work towards equality.

Mr. President, on behalf of myself and Senators Murray, Kennedy, Mikulski, Durbin, Leahy, Akaka, Feingold, Lincoln, Corzine and Kerry, I am introducing the Fair Pay Act.

April 19th is Equal Pay Day. Even though the Equal Pay Act was passed more than 40 years ago, women working full time, year-round, still make only 76 cents for every dollar that a man makes. On April 19th, four days after tax returns for 2004 are due, U.S. women will finally reach the earnings mark that their male counterparts achieved by December 31st of last year. April 19th reminds us that the 60 million working women in this country are suffering economically because equal pay is still not a reality.

We've got millions of families struggling to make ends meet. The White House and the Republican House leadership believes a $750 billion tax cut for the rich is the solution, a permanent one.

I disagree. One way we can put more money in the pockets of working families is to pay women what they're worth. Nearly 40 years after the Equal Pay Act became law, women are still paid only 76 cents for every dollar a man earns.

Working women at all income and education levels are affected by the wage gap. In 2003, the GAO found that the pay gap continues to affect women in management and that, for these women, the pay gap has actually widened since 1995.

Regardless of education, the impact is the same. These women work as hard as men, but have less money to pay the bills, to put food on the table, or to save for their retirement or their child's education. That is simply wrong and it must end. We must close the wage gap once and for all.

First, we need to do a better job by enforcing and strengthening the penalties for the law that demands equal pay for equal work. That's why I support the Paycheck Fairness Act, sponsored by Senator Clinton and Congresswoman DeLauro.

However, an even more important part of discrimination against women in the work place is the historic pattern of undervaluing and underpaying so-called ``women's jobs.''

Millions of women today working in female-dominated jobs--as social workers, teachers, child care workers and nurses--are ``equivalent'' in skills, effort, responsibility and working conditions to similar jobs dominated by men, but these women aren't paid the same as men.

That's what the Fair Pay Act--that Congresswoman Norton and I are reintroducing today--would address. Unfairly low pay in jobs dominated by women is un-American, it is discriminatory and our bill would make it illegal.

Twenty States have ``fair pay'' laws and policies in place for their employees, including my State of Iowa. And Iowa had a Republican legislature and Governor when this bill passed into law, so ending wage discrimination against women is a nonpartisan issue.

Some say we don't need any more laws; market forces will take care of the wage gap. If we had relied on market forces we would have never passed the Equal Pay Act, the Civil Rights Act, the Family Medical Leave Act or the Americans with Disabilities Act.

I first introduced the Fair Pay Act in 1996 after the Iowa Business and Professional Women alerted me to this problem. And as long as I'm in the U.S. Senate, I will continue to fight to pass this important legislation so we can end wage discrimination against women once and for all.

Mr. President, in recognition of our country's longstanding commitment to basic fairness for the Nation's hard-working men and women, I am introducing the Employee Free Choice Act. I want to thank my distinguished colleague, Senator Arlen Specter, for also supporting this important legislation to protect workers' right to free association.

The essence of the American dream is the ability to provide a better life for yourself and your family. At the very heart of that dream are a good job, a good workplace, good health care, and a good retirement. Unfortunately, too many families today find that dream increasingly beyond their reach in today's global economy. Vast numbers of citizens suddenly find themselves in a race to the bottom against workers in other countries. Whoever is willing to work for the lowest pay gets the work.

That is why the labor movement is more important today than ever. It's not the profits of business that are being shipped overseas. They're higher than ever. It is the jobs of American workers that are being outsourced, and they're being outsourced in droves. Hardworking Americans are paying a high price for this intense new era of worldwide competition. Our economy is growing, but workers are not benefiting. Business profits are up 70 percent since 2001, but wages have been stagnant.

Labor unions have always led the fight for working families--for the 8-hour day and the 40-hour week--for overtime protections--for a fair minimum wage--for a safe and healthy workplace--for decent health insurance and a decent pension. Every working American deserves these protections. But when they try to organize, employers typically respond with threats and intimidation. They hire union-busting firms and force employees to listen to anti-union speeches. Companies close down departments--or even entire operations--to avoid negotiating a union contract.

These are not isolated abuses. Every year, over 20,000 workers are illegally fired or discriminated against for exercising their labor rights. In at least one quarter of all organizing efforts, an employer illegally fires a worker for supporting the union. For these anti-union employers, union-busting is just another cost of doing business. America's workers deserve better, and our democracy deserves better.

That is why I am introducing the Employee Free Choice Act, to protect the right of workers to choose a union. This bill seeks to level the playing field for employees attempting to organize a union or negotiate their first contract. It requires employers to come to the table to talk. And it puts real teeth in existing protections by strengthening the penalties for discriminating against workers who support a union.

These protections are long overdue. For too long, Congress has failed to act against the anti-labor, anti-worker, anti-union tactics now far too prevalent in the workplace. This bill is an important step towards ensuring that millions of American workers and their families can do better in today's economy. I urge my colleagues to join me in this fight to support the Employee Free Choice Act.