Floor Statement of Democratic Leader Tom Daschle on the Problems Facing the Asbestos Bill

Tuesday April 20, 2004

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will address a couple of issues. I am disappointed we have come to debate the asbestos issue under these circumstances. I agree with much of what the majority leader has said about the need for the Senate and our country to constructively address this problem. I agree there has been a negative economic impact on many of our most prestigious businesses throughout the country. I agree in many ways the current system has been deficient. So there is much of what the majority leader said in his description of the situation with which I agree.

He did not mention, but I think it ought to be noted, that as we speak the estimate is 1.3 million Americans are still exposed to asbestos in their places of work; that asbestos is still legal in this country; and that we import 29 million pounds of asbestos each year, a 300 percent increase in the last decade.

He did not mention, but I think it also is noteworthy, the peak death toll for asbestos is not likely to occur for approximately 15 years. The primary asbestos-related illnesses could cause at least 100,000 deaths: mesothelioma, asbestosis. An average of 10,000 victims per year die from asbestos exposure. More Americans die of asbestos-related illness than drownings and fires combined already. Estimates range that current and future victims could be -- and this is a stunning number -- 1.2 million to 2.6 million people.

So we are called upon to write legislation that will become law that projects our best guess on how to address those numbers, not this year but for the next 20 to 30 years. If we are going to do this, I would hope in the deepest sense of what it means to be a Senator we do it right. I must say we are far from that point as we begin this debate this morning. We are not doing this right.

I want to talk a little bit about why I do not believe we are, but it is not just the view expressed by some of us on this side -- I will go into procedures and lost opportunities over the next couple of minutes -- but there was an article in the paper this morning quoting a prestigious and engaged Member of the Senate, Senator Specter, who says the current plan is counterproductive and argues about why this legislation is not ready for the consideration the majority leader insists we give it today. I ask unanimous consent this article be printed in the Record at this time.

It is counterproductive. We are concerned that in many respects the legislation before the Senate actually is a step backward from what was passed out of committee, and that was viewed by people in our country and in the Senate on both sides of the aisle as insufficient. One thing we do know is attempts to address this problem in other cases affecting other diseases has been an absolute fiasco. Ask the black lung victims today whether we did any good when we passed the black lung victims fund. If they are still alive, they will shake their heads in disbelief. Ask those victims of uranium whether we solved the problem, and again they will shake their heads and say how deeply disturbed they are with the outcome.

I can recall how many Senators acclaimed these responses as finally having addressed the issue. Well, now people get sick, they die, and they have no recourse. While we know perhaps 2.6 million people could be affected by this over the next several decades, the bill before us actually reduces the compensation fund from $153 billion -- and I might add parenthetically that the potential range of how much this could cost reaches $300 billion, so we are locking in a bill already that may be deficient -- but we go from $153 billion down to $109 billion in the bill currently pending, which maybe one-third of what will be required to adequately deal with the compensation we already know will be needed.

Then there is the issue of claims. For somebody working on brake linings in an auto mechanics shop, filled with asbestos, 15 years of asbestos exposure, what this bill says is if they have lung cancer after having been exposed to asbestos for 15 years we are going to give them as little as $25,000, and that is it. Who conscientiously could look that victim in the eye and say, I am sorry, $25,000 is the best we could do? I cannot say that.

We also have the problem of pending cases in this bill. I actually know victims who have attempted to do their best under the current system, have gone through approximately 10 years of extraordinarily complicated legal process to get to a verdict, they finally reach a verdict, there is finally some light at the end of the tunnel, they are going to get their award, and this bill says forget it, they have to start over. We are going to use a new system. All those years of waiting, all that pain and that agony, all of that potential for loss of life, it is over. We are going to make them reapply. Sorry about that.

At least the committee bill acknowledged we do not know how much this is going to cost. This could be $300 billion. I know we only have $153 billion in the bill and now $109 billion if we look at this bill. Because of the work of Senator Biden we said, all right, if we run out of money, at least people ought to be able to go back to the courts. This bill says, you can go back to the courts, but only if you meet the strict new limits that we ve added, and only federal court.

Your recourse is limited. Oh, yes, we put a $10 billion contingency in there, but its not available until year 24. How cynical is that.

Democrats want a bill. I want very much to resolve this matter, as Senator Frist has noted. I wanted to do it so badly that I asked my staff to meet with Senator Frist last fall, right after the August recess. They did meet five times at the staff level. Then Senators Dodd and Leahy and I met with a number of Republicans in November.

My staff has participated in virtually all, if not all, of the meetings hosted by Senator Specter since the new year -- and I must say what admiration I have for Senator Specter and the work he has done on this bill. He has been diligent, he has been studious, he has been thoughtful, and he has been inclusive. It is too bad it took a Senator from Pennsylvania to create that kind of environment for real work and progress, but he deserves a lot of credit, and I hope I am not getting him in more trouble for praising him this morning on the floor. But he deserves credit.

Senator Dodd and Senator Leahy and I met with the manufacturers and insurers on several occasions through September, October, November, December, January, February, and March. We have met with advocates of the victims. I went to Senator Frist last year and I said: Could we meet? Could we resolve these issues, you and I? Let's see if we can put a draft together.

That was impossible in December. I was told we just couldn't do it in January or in February or in March. I was hoping, at least at the staff level, that might afford us an opportunity to begin work together, but even at the staff level our efforts were repelled until mid-February.

Finally, I was told I had a meeting on the 31st of March. I was very pleased, at long last, having waited 4 or 5 months to get one, we had one. I got there, to Senator Frist's office, and was told I had 10 minutes -- 10 minutes -- to discuss this issue that we know will last decades.

We stand ready to work out this legislation in a bipartisan way. There are many on both sides of the aisle who truly and deeply want a resolution. I am puzzled, mystified that without any warning, without any consultation this bill was laid down, put on the calendar, and is now called before us. It makes a mockery of the system and of any real serious and sincere effort to resolve this matter in a truly bipartisan way.

I think those of us who are truly interested in a resolution ought to continue to meet with Senator Specter as should those who believe a solution can be negotiated. But this is not the way to do it. This is nothing more than a -- well, it is nothing more than a lost opportunity. I could say more but I don't think incendiary language helps this process and I will forgo that.

But I must say I am troubled that yet again, on an issue of this importance, there are those who will put politics and political posturing ahead of finding a real solution.

At this point Senator Sarbanes joined Senator Daschle in discussion on the Senate Floor.

Mr. SARBANES. Will the distinguished leader yield?

Mr. DASCHLE. I am happy to yield to the Senator from Maryland.

Mr. SARBANES. Do I understand after repeated efforts to hold, I take it, a thorough and comprehensive meeting with Senator Frist, which was to discuss this matter, when the time for the meeting had arrived -- which had been delayed, I gather, repeatedly -- it was scheduled then for only 10 minutes?

Mr. DASCHLE. It was actually scheduled for a longer period of time, but once the meeting began, I was told the majority leader had about 10 minutes, correct.

Mr. SARBANES. Hardly enough time to say hello and goodbye, I might observe.

Mr. DASCHLE. That is just about all that happened at that particular meeting. The Senator is correct.

Mr. SARBANES. The other question I wanted to put, do I understand the proposal that has now been brought -- sprung to the floor, so to speak, because I don't know that it represents the culmination of any consultative process -- for people who have been working their way through the existing system towards getting some recovery for the illness and the harm they suffered, they would be required to go back and start all over again under this? Is that correct? I find that very difficult to accept. I just wanted to be clear on that particular point.

Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator is correct. Under this new proposal, those who have already been given a judgment, have done everything within their power to resolve this matter using the current system, will be told that effort is now nullified and they will have to restart under this new system for whatever compensation they might be awarded.

I would say again -- I don't know if the Senator was in the Chamber when I illustrated or described one particular case, a case involving someone who had been exposed to asbestos for 15 years -- under this bill, that person, who has lung cancer, who smoked, who was exposed to asbestos for 15 years, is entitled to as little as $25,000.

Mr. SARBANES. It is pretty brutal treatment, it seems to me, to people who have suffered real harm. But for people to have worked their way through the system with all of the stress and strain involved in doing that, and to have either come up to the point of judgment or, as I understand it, perhaps even achieved judgment, then to be required to go back and begin all over again it seems to me is just a completely unacceptable procedure. I am very concerned to hear that.

I thank the leader.

Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the Senator from Maryland.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.

Mr. DASCHLE. I am pleased the majority leader came back to the floor to reiterate his desire to find a solution. It will take more than just reasserting over and over that we want to find that answer, that compromise, that legislative approach that will generate the kind of support in the Senate that is possible. It takes what he just said. It will take a willingness to meet, a willingness to work through these issues. That is my frustration. I truly believe the majority leader is sincere when he says he wants to find a way to solve the problem.

What I don't feel has been done, except in the offices of the good Senator from Pennsylvania, is that concerted effort to try to address these issues in an inclusive way. That has been done, but it has been done in large measure by Senator Specter, not by the leadership.

We are prepared today, tomorrow, tonight. We will be happy to meet, as I have offered to do on many occasions. The sooner we do it, the sooner that opportunity for resolution can be achieved.

I yield the floor.

Mr. FRIST. If the Democratic leader will yield for a question, if we start right now and we work through today, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday on issues we debated and talked about -- a lot of people are a lot more expert than me -- why can't we do that? Why can't we resolve this huge problem? If we send it off to never-never land for an unlimited period of time, this will not come back. I know that. This is the fourth date I have set as a final date that we will come in for this, just for consideration, so we can get on the bill. Even if we were on the bill, talking about the merits of the bill, debating it, we can be having discussions with Democrats and Republicans. I ask that Senator Leahy and Senator Hatch also be in the room as well.

Now is the time. Now is the time for action. Would that be possible?

Mr. DASCHLE. If the Senator is asking me a question, I respond by saying, absolutely. But let me give him one illustration of my skepticism about his question. There must have been now, as he said, 20 -- maybe more -- staff meetings over the course of the last 6 or 8 months. As he and I discussed this matter and as our staffs discussed this matter, attention has turned to the compensation trust fund. We were absolutely startled, surprised, deeply troubled by this remarkable movement away from the overall fund number the committee had included: $153 billion. The pending bill has $109 billion.

My staff and I have both asked staff of the majority leader on several occasions, Is there a way to find a reasonable number? We have been stonewalled every single time when that issue has been discussed. It is not even discussable on the other side.

It does not do any good to sit and look across each other at the table if we cannot have a meaningful discussion about some of the differences we have. If all we do over the course of the next week is to say this is our number, with some expectation that maybe by saying it 100 times we will concede that then has to be the number, this will be one of the most fruitless experiences he and I will have had in our time in the Senate.

So yes, there has to be a willingness to meet; but for those meetings to have meaning, there also has to be willingness to negotiate and compromise. Frankly, we have not seen much of that except in the Specter meetings. Again, I am hopeful we can finally move off these hard positions and find some common ground. If that can be achieved, then, yes, I think this week could be a productive week.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I think we need to get on to our morning business as we go forward. Hopefully, our colleagues have seen this play out. Both the Democratic leader and I are committed to this. We will have to have a process to get through it. I am absolutely convinced we can do it this week if we get the appropriate process. He and I will talk, the leadership will talk, and talk to the relative parties over the course of the day. I hope by the end of the day we will figure out what the process will be that would be fair and appropriate negotiation, to come to a resolution for the American people.

MORNING BUSINESS

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the period of the transaction of morning business for up to 60 minutes, with the first 30 minutes of time under the control of the Democratic leader or his designee, and the final 30 minutes of time under the control of the majority leader or his designee.

The Senator from Iowa.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I understand I am recognized for up to 10 minutes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Fifteen minutes.