[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 17 (Monday, February 13, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1078-S1079]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             SENATE AGENDA

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we do have eight motions to instruct. I 
doubt very seriously there will be any others. I will say this: This is 
the procedure, and if the minority wanted to stall this budget 
reconciliation conference, we could do that. Under the rules of the 
Senate, we could have, instead of the 8 motions to instruct, 80 or 800. 
We are not in any way trying to prevent this legislation from going 
through. As bad as it is, we recognize that we have had a fair shot at 
it on the floor on a number of occasions. But the eight instructions 
are instructions that are well taken, and we hope the conferees will 
follow these instructions. We don't know if any of them will be agreed 
to. We certainly hope so, but it is certainly something that is worth 
debating.
  I was surprised to hear that the distinguished majority leader, when 
he announced we were going to this piece of legislation, this budget 
matter, did not call it what it has been called for more than a year; 
that is, the Budget Deficit Reduction Act of 2005. I guess everyone has 
come to the realization that the Budget Deficit Reduction Act does not 
reduce the deficit; it increases it by $50 billion. And I guess there 
has been a change of name, calling it the Taxpayer Relief Act. I guess 
if you are rich, it is a Taxpayer Relief Act, but for the poor and 
middle class, it increases the deficit and it is not a fair piece of 
legislation.
  On asbestos, I believe there are two groups of people who really need 
to make sure Congress takes care of them: those people who, through no 
fault of their own, get the dreaded mesothelioma and they die, and 
asbestosis, which is aggravating and serious, and they die; one just 
takes longer than the other. The goal of the Senate should be to make 
sure these two groups of victims are compensated for their pain and 
suffering, which came about through no fault of their own. What we want 
to try to avoid are the bad cases, the ones that are taking too much of 
the court's time and taking valuable resources from these people who 
are really sick.
  I made a commitment to the junior Senator from Texas, Mr. Cornyn, 
that I believe we need asbestos legislation. I really do believe that. 
I have told him I would be happy to work with him and Senator Durbin, 
as my designee, to try to come up with legislation that is patterned 
after successful programs in Illinois and Texas, where there is medical 
criteria set up.
  For example, in Illinois, they have a pleural registry where people 
are able to list their names if they work around asbestos, the statute 
of limitations is tolled, and then if something happens to them down 
the road, they are not prevented from going to court as a result of the 
statute of limitations. It would do away with the bad cases.
  As I said, we are committed to coming up with legislation such as 
that. Senator Cornyn offered some, but there wasn't an ample amount of 
time to debate his suggestion, and that is too bad. But we are willing 
to work with him on something similar to what he came up with. I 
believe it is important that we do that, and I am certainly making a 
commitment that we will work to see what we can come up with on medical 
criteria legislation to, in effect, get rid of the bad cases and allow 
these two sets of victims to move forward.
  This FAIR Act we have before the Senate is anything but fair. I have 
explained how this bill will harm victims by trapping them in 
administrative claims systems which are irreparably defective and 
doomed to failure.
  One of the primary reasons the trust fund is doomed to fail is 
because of unrealistic and sloppy calculations that led to the $140 
billion trust fund in the first place. In designing this bill, the bill 
sponsors have not adequately assessed the number of future claims by 
asbestos victims, the borrowing costs necessary for the trust fund to 
function, and the administrative costs associated with operating the 
trust fund and claims system.
  Last August, the Congressional Budget Office estimated the program 
could generate as much as $150 billion in claims, leaving the trust 
fund way short, billions of dollars short. As I have explained, even 
that figure understates the problem because the bill does not 
adequately take into account the trust fund's borrowing costs, further 
depleting the compensation available to victims. The CBO estimates 
approximately $8 billion will be borrowed before the first decade, an 
amount that will saddle the fund with huge debt-

[[Page S1079]]

service costs over the life of the program. The Senate Budget 
Committee, through its own analysis, also concludes that taxpayers will 
have to finance a significant amount of the fund's debt service. 
Contributions to the fund will occur over a 30-year period, but most of 
the claims are expected in the early years of the program. That is what 
the borrowing is all about.
  I have spoken to Karl Rove, one of the President's top men. He is 
talking about setting up some kind of a task force made up of Members 
of Congress and others to look at the huge costs that are out there. 
They are getting higher every day.
  We will have a vote in the next few weeks on increasing the debt 
ceiling from $8.2 trillion to--I don't know how high the administration 
wants it raised. If people are concerned about the deficit, they have 
to look at this bill before the Senate, this asbestos bill. Other 
experts believe it is on even less solid fiscal footing than CBO. For 
instance, the Bates White economic consulting firm has concluded the 
program will cost as much as $600 billion or more. This is not some 
front by the asbestos lawyers. It amended its analysis and found 
another $90 billion error in CBO's analysis because the CBO 
underestimated the number of cancer victims who will likely file 
claims.
  The pending question on this bill is a long-term spending budget 
point of order by Senator Ensign, my colleague from Nevada. The 2006 
budget resolution prohibits any net increase in direct spending in 
excess of $5 billion in any of the four 10-year periods from 2016 
through 2055. Based on its own estimates, which are inadequate, the CBO 
concluded that enacting the asbestos bill would violate that spending 
prohibition.
  In the substitute bill, the bill's sponsors attempted to cure these 
budgetary concerns and assured this body that there will be no Federal 
borrowing. Their efforts failed. First, the substitute contained new 
language that the bill: is not intended to increase the deficit or 
impose any burden on the taxpayer.
  Stating the intention, however, cannot erase the effects of this 
bill. The bill will increase an entitlement for asbestos victims and 
has obligated the Federal Government to provide compensation to those 
victims. Throughout the fund's existence, the Federal Government is 
obligated to pay regardless of the actual amounts raised for the fund 
through company contributions, and this contributions remains so long 
as the fund is operational.
  Last week I gave the example of 4 companies, each an American company 
over 100 years old. They will all go bankrupt if this bill passes. One 
is an engineering/consulting firm. One makes wire. They will go out of 
business. Right now, they have taken care of their asbestos claims. 
They, like a lot of businesses, purchased insurance. One of the 
companies pays nothing, zero, for asbestos claims. If this bill passes, 
they will pay $19.5 million a year. They cannot do it. They will go 
broke. It is unfair. Based on the timing issues and expected shortfalls 
discussed above, taxpayers most certainly will shoulder some of the 
costs related to this fund.
  The managers' substitute bill provides that in assessing whether 
there are sufficient moneys in the trust fund to continue paying out 
the claims, the administrator of the fund can only consider nontaxpayer 
resources, but these funds include funds borrowed from the taxpayer. If 
anything, this language increases the likelihood that the trust fund 
administrator will be forced to use taxpayer dollars to finance the 
fund.
  Let's be realistic about this. Black lung was supposed to cost $3 
billion; it is now up to $41 billion. Once these programs start, these 
entitlement programs, Congress does not cut them off. Despite the 
bill's sponsors' best efforts, the bill continues to have enormous 
financial implications for the Federal Government and the American 
taxpayers. Federal spending on asbestos claims facilitated by this bill 
will violate the 2006 budget resolution and require borrowing of 
taxpayer dollars in order to function.
  Again, the budget point of order is valid and should be sustained. 
But if the point of order is sustained, that will not be the end of the 
asbestos debate. We need to do something. I have stated now, today, for 
the third time, I am committed to work with Senator Cornyn, and Senator 
Durbin is my designee to work with him to come up with an approach that 
will allow these asbestos cases that are bad to get out of the system. 
We can move forward on this issue. But the pending bill is not the way 
to do it. It is a bad bill, and in light of the serious budget problems 
we are having in the country, with an $8.2 trillion debt ceiling about 
to be violated, it is important that we get this bill off the floor and 
do other things. One of the things we will continue to do is, this 
year, work on the asbestos litigation problem.

                          ____________________