[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 1 (Tuesday, January 4, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12-S13]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          ASBESTOS LEGISLATION

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to discuss 
briefly the status of efforts to have asbestos tort reform legislation, 
a matter which has been before the Congress of the United States for 
more than two decades.
  I had my first contact with the issue back in 1984 when then-Senator 
Gary Hart of Colorado brought in a constituent to talk about asbestos. 
It has been an issue which we have labored with long and hard, and in 
the last Congress, Senator Hatch, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, 
advanced legislation with the concept of a trust and a schedule of 
payments to avoid the costs and risks of litigation and to treat 
asbestos injuries very much like workers' compensation.
  A bill was passed out of the Judiciary Committee last July, pretty 
much on a party-line vote, as the distinguished Presiding Officer, 
Senator Cornyn of Texas, knows because he was and is on the Judiciary 
Committee and did a prodigious amount of work on this issue. The bill 
was passed out with a number of problems. I voted for it to move it 
along. I then enlisted the assistance of the former Chief Judge of the 
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Edward R. Becker, who was in 
senior status. Judge Becker convened a large group of so-called 
stakeholders in his chamber. For two full days in August, he met in his 
chambers with representatives of the manufacturers, representatives of 
the AFL-CIO, representatives of the insurance industry, the reinsurance 
industry, and trial lawyers to start to work through a large number of 
problems which appeared to be intractable. We have worked through many 
of those problems, but some still remain.
  There had been some talk about a draft bill being offered, but it is 
not appropriate to offer legislation until later this month under the 
procedures established by the majority leader, and the proposed draft 
legislation is not quite ready, although a great deal of work has been 
done on it.
  There have been major issues raised as to what the total amount of 
the trust fund should be. There have been issues raised as to how much 
money should be in the startup fund; how long the trust fund ought to 
function before giving the claimants the right to revert to the 
judicial system because the legislation necessarily takes away their 
right to jury trial in consideration of a certain amount of money to be 
paid under the trust fund; and the problems that many victims are 
having where they are unable to collect from anyone--people with 
mesothelioma, a deadly disease, with cancer, with many ailments from 
the exposure to asbestos.
  This would be the offset to giving up the right to a jury trial.
  We have adopted an approach of reverting back to the right to jury 
trial if the elaborate system does not work. I think the system is 
realistically calculated to be successful.
  Following the meetings in Judge Becker's chambers last August, there 
have been some 32 sessions held in my conference room, presided over by 
Judge Becker with myself in attendance for most of those meetings.
  To repeat, a lot of progress has been made. It is my hope to be able 
to circulate a draft bill as a vehicle for discussion. I call it a 
discussion draft bill. My hope is that it could be circulated before 
the end of the week, but it is not possible to make any firm 
commitments because candidly every time we come upon a sequence of 
negotiations, other problems arise. If there is any way to reconcile 
them and to have a consensus before going into print, we are trying to 
do that.

[[Page S13]]

  It had been my hope last year, as we worked through the process, to 
have a bill by consensus. Senator Frist and the then-Democratic leader, 
Senator Daschle, did a great deal of work and exchanged letters. At one 
point we thought we were on the verge of a consensus, but it did not 
work out.
  In order to pass a bill, as we all know, in the last stages of a 
legislative session, it has to be by consensus because any single 
Senator can hold up a bill in its final stages. That consensus was not 
possible, and although we were very close on many issues, there are 
some issues where there is still some difference of opinion. The 
differences have been narrowed, and we have come a long way.
  It is my hope to circulate a draft discussion bill, and there likely 
will still be some blanks. We will fill in as many of the blanks as we 
can, and then Judge Becker and I will be available to meet with the 
stakeholders in my conference room on Monday to talk about the areas 
where there has been agreement, to talk about the specifics on a draft 
discussion bill, and to talk about the areas where there are still 
differences as to how we might bridge that gap.
  I have worked with Senator Leahy. I commend him for his work with 
Chairman Hatch on this matter. We have talked about having a hearing 
next Tuesday on January 11. I am not unaware of the fact that it is not 
a convenient time, but Senator Leahy will be present and I think there 
will be some other Senators present. We have given several weeks 
notice. We are aware it is a difficult time, but there are many 
hearings held in the Senate with just a few Senators, the chairman, and 
the ranking member present. I think it is important to move ahead.
  At that time, it is the expectation that we will hear testimony from 
Judge Becker to lay out the draft discussion bill and then to hear 
testimony from the stakeholders identifying the parts of the bill which 
they choose to comment about where there are agreements or where there 
are disagreements. We know from experience that the early part of a 
legislative session is necessarily slow, but that early on in February, 
certainly in March, sometimes by mid-February, we begin to move ahead 
and the calendar begins to be crowded.
  There are many items which the President has identified as 
legislative priorities. We will have confirmation hearings starting 
with White House Counsel Gonzales on Thursday and there will be other 
confirmation hearings. So it is my hope to be able to present a bill 
through markup at a very early date. Whether that can be done in late 
January or early February, frankly, remains to be seen.
  When we marked up this bill the last Thursday of July of 2003, it was 
a very long markup. It lasted more than 12 hours, as the distinguished 
Presiding Officer will recollect. In a sense, we had the longest markup 
in the history of the Senate with the sessions in Judge Becker's 
chambers and the 32 sessions in my conference room. I thought it would 
be useful to briefly describe where we have been and in a sense where 
we are going so our colleagues will know what the status is as fully as 
it can be described without actually circulating a draft discussion of 
the bill, which will be done at the earliest possible time.
  I thank the Chair. I commend him for his lonely vigil. This was a 
thriving Chamber three hours ago with standing room only and suddenly 
the business of the Senate is not quite so pressing with only the 
Presiding Officer and this Senator present. So in the absence of any 
other Senator, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Crapo). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed 
to speak for as much time as I consume.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________